2023-03-08 Architectural Design Board PacketA.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
o Agenda
Edmonds Architectural Design Board
V
SPECIAL MEETING
BRACKETT ROOM
121 5TH AVE N, CITY HALL - 3RD FLOOR, EDMONDS, WA 98020
MARCH 8, 2023, 5:30 PM
SPECIAL MEETING INFORMATION
This is a Hybrid special meeting. The physical meeting location is at Edmonds City Hall 121 5th
Avenue N., 3rd floor Bracket Room
Join Zoom Meeting at: https://edmondswa-
gov.zoom.us/j/88076011387?pwd=ajRMVURkbzAvQ2d4QmdDT3AOM DhgZz09
Meeting ID: 8807 6011387 Password: 422123
Call into the meeting by dialing: 253-215-8782
CALL TO ORDER
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
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.
BOARD REVIEW ITEMS
Items requiring review and recommendation from the ADB.
1. Continued Discussion of Potential Permanent Step Back Requirements in CG Zone (AMD2022-
0008)
ADB MEMBER COMMENTS
ADJOURNMENT
Edmonds Architectural Design Board Agenda
March 8, 2023
Page 1
D.1
Architectural Design Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 03/8/2023
Continued Discussion of Potential Permanent Step Back Requirements in CG Zone (AMD2022-0008)
Staff Lead: Mike Clugston
Department: Planning Division
Prepared By: Michael Clugston
Background/History
The City Council adopted emergency interim ordinance 4283 on December 10, 2022. That ordinance
added an ADB design review process for certain projects in the General Commercial (CG) zone as well as
additional building step back requirements in certain situations. The interim ordinance amends the
development standards for the CG zone that were originally adopted in August 2017 via Ordinance
4078. Per RCW 36.70A.390, interim ordinances may remain in effect for up to six months. As such, a
permanent ordinance would need to be adopted by June 10, 2023 in order to maintain any of the
provisions of the interim ordinance.
The interim code language requires a two-phase design review process by the ADB, like 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 continue to be reviewed administratively by staff.
Ordinance 4078 established a step back requirement in ECDC Section 16.60.020 for buildings within the
CG zone that are adjacent to RS (single-family) zones. Interim Ordinance 4283 added code language
requiring the same step back when the proposed building in the CG zone is located across the street
from an RS zone, "unless deemed not to be necessary pursuant to a design review by the Architectural
Design Board."
Prior to Ordinance 4283, Council had adopted a separate interim ordinance (4278) in October 2022 that
contained required step back language. That interim ordinance was ultimately repealed but the concept
to require building step backs for buildings across the street from RS zones was carried forward as part
of Ordinance 4283, which also added the ADB review process.
The ADB discussed interim ordinance 4283 on January 26, 2023 (minutes and presentation attached).
The Planning Board held a work session on the topic on February 15, 2023 (draft minutes attached).
Planning Board members had a variety of thoughts and opinions related to both the design review
process and the step back requirements. Some members expressed support for a permanent ordinance
requiring a two-phase public hearing before the ADB while others inquired about the possibility for a
Type II review process that would provide opportunities for public notice and comments while not
requiring a quasi-judicial review by the ADB. Members also discussed the pros and cons of requiring a
step back for buildings across the street from an RS zone.
Packet Pg. 2
D.1
The ADB discussed options for a permanent ordinance on February 23, 2023; the presentation is
attached and the video of the Board's discussion can be viewed through the weblink in the attachments.
Regarding design review processes, the Board approved a motion recommending 1) a two-phase public
hearing process (before the ADB) for buildings in the CG zone greater than 35 feet in height when across
from or adjacent to RS zone properties, and 2) a Type II staff review process for all other projects in the
CG zone with buildings greater than 35 feet in height, which would provide an opportunity for public
comment on those projects (such as properties along Highway 99) without a public hearing. All projects
35 feet and less in height in the CG zone would continue to be reviewed administratively by staff using
the Type I process (no public notice).
The Board also discussed options for building step backs, with a focus on buildings across the street from
an RS zone. There was general agreement in support of the Board having discretion about when to apply
building step backs in the CG zone, which has been the case since the adoption of Ordinance 4078 in
2017. There was less consensus about what the appropriate step back should be and whether that
should be applied uniformly when projects are across the street from an RS zone, with the applicant
required to demonstrate why the step back should not be required.
Staff noted that factoring in the width of the right-of-way and required building setbacks might be
appropriate when considering whether a step back should be required for buildings across the street
from an RS zone. In response, Board members approved a motion to continue the discussion of step
back requirements at a March 8 special meeting, and instructed staff to prepare generalized sketches of
buildings with a variety of street widths and (directional) orientations to be able to better visualize the
interaction of building heights, step backs, and right-of-way widths. Those drawings are being finalized
and will be presented at the March 8 special meeting.
Staff Recommendation
ADB members are asked to review the new sketches on March 8 and make a recommendation to the
Planning Board about building step back requirements in the CG zone. If members recommend that the
permanent ordinance should require step backs when RS properties are located across the street, they
should discuss: 1) is there a certain ROW width, building height, or other factors that make step backs
mandatory and 2) whether the second (higher) step back should apply at 55 feet (as currently written in
the interim ordinance) or at 65 feet (as discussed at the board's January 26 and February 23 meetings).
The design review process recommendation the ADB made on February 23 will also be forwarded to the
Planning Board, which will hold a public hearing (as early as March 22) before making a
recommendation to City Council on a potential permanent ordinance.
Narrative
As Ordinance 4283 is interim, potential permanent code language needs to be adopted by Council by
June 10, 2023 after review by other boards. Because design -related language is involved, it is within the
ADB's purview to review the interim ordinance and make a recommendation to the Planning Board on a
permanent ordinance. The Planning Board will then hold a public hearing to discuss the ADB's
recommendation and take public testimony, before making their recommendation to the City Council,
who would then hold a separate public hearing before taking action on any potential ordinance.
The interim language alters the building step back requirements in the general site development
standards in ECDC 16.60.020.D. Existing step back language in that subsection applies when a single
family (RS) 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 (RS)
zone. The intent is the new step back would reduce the bulk of the new building and provide additional
Packet Pg. 3
D.1
transition from the CG zone to the RS zone.
The proposed language indicates that step backs are required in both situations (adjacent and across the
street) unless the ADB find one or both of them not to be necessary. The Board discussed alternative
language at the January 26 meeting that would change the upper step back from starting at 55 feet to
65 feet. It should be noted that the existing language for the step back above 55 feet only applies to a
step back to adjacent RS-zone property, not across the street; the second sentence in ECDC 16.60.020.D
would also need be revised to apply across the street.
The attachments include recent public comments on the topic sent to the ADB (Attachments 5 and 6) as
well as a hyperlink to public comments that were sent to the Planning Board and included in their
February 15 meeting packet. Additional public comments were forwarded to ADB members in advance
of their February 23 meeting.
Attachments:
Attachment 1 - Ordinance 4283 emergency interim
Attachment 2 - Council Minutes 12.10.2022
Attachment 3 - 1.26.23 ADB slides
Attachment 4 - ADB 1.26.23 draft minutes
Attachment 5 - Seitz comment
Attachment 6 - Hollis comment
Attachment 7 - ADB draft for discussion - Design Review for Certain Projects in the CG Zone
Attachment 8 - ECDC 20.10 - 20.12 Design Review Chapters
Attachment 9 - February 15, 2023 PB draft minutes excerpt
Attachment 10 - February 23 ADB Presentation
Public Comments submitted to Edmonds Planning Board
Video of the February 23, 2023 ADB meeting
Packet Pg. 4
DocuSign Envelope ID: DFDEBA8D-OAF6-4B48-A9A5-11069A98287D
D.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. 5
DocuSign Envelope ID: DFDEBA8D-OAF6-4B48-A9A5-11069A98287D
D.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. 6
DocuSign Envelope ID: DFDEBA8D-OAF6-4B48-A9A5-11069A98287D
D.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. 7
DocuSign Envelope ID: DFDEBA8D-OAF6-4B48-A9A5-11069A98287D
D.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. 8
DocuSign Envelope ID: DFDEBA8D-OAF6-4B48-A9A5-11069A98287D
D.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. 9
DocuSign Envelope ID: DFDEBA8D-OAF6-4B48-A9A5-11069A98287D
D.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. 10
DocuSign Envelope ID: DFDEBA8D-OAF6-4B48-A9A5-11069A98287D
ATTACHMENT A
D.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. 11
DocuSign Envelope ID: DFDEBA8D-OAF6-4B48-A9A5-11069A98287D
ATTACHMENT A
D.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. 12
DocuSign Envelope ID: DFDEBA8D-OAF6-4B48-A9A5-11069A98287D
ATTACHMENT A
D.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. 13
DocuSign Envelope ID: DFDEBA8D-OAF6-4B48-A9A5-11069A98287D
D.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. 14
DocuSign Envelope ID: DFDEBA8D-OAF6-4B48-A9A5-11069A98287D
D.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. 15
DocuSign Envelope ID: DFDEBA8D-OAF6-4B48-A9A5-11069A98287D
D.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. 16
DocuSign Envelope ID: DFDEBA8D-OAF6-4B48-A9A5-11069A98287D
ATTACHMENT A
D.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. 17
DocuSign Envelope ID: DFDEBA8D-OAF6-4B48-A9A5-11069A98287D
D.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. 18
DocuSign Envelope ID: DFDEBA8D-OAF6-4B48-A9A5-11069A98287D
ATTACHMENT A
D.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. 19
DocuSign Envelope ID: DFDEBA8D-OAF6-4B48-A9A5-11069A98287D
ATTACHMENT A
D.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. 20
DocuSign Envelope ID: DFDEBA8D-OAF6-4B48-A9A5-11069A98287D
ATTACHMENT A
D.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. 21
D.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 Q
December 10, 2022
Page 27
Packet Pg. 22
D.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 Q
December 10, 2022
Page 28
Packet Pg. 23
D.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 Q
December 10, 2022
Page 29
Packet Pg. 24
D.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 Q
December 10, 2022
Page 30
Packet Pg. 25
D.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 Q
December 10, 2022
Page 31
Packet Pg. 26
D.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 Q
December 10, 2022
Page 32
Packet Pg. 27
D.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 Q
December 10, 2022
Page 33
Packet Pg. 28
D.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 Q
December 10, 2022
Page 34
Packet Pg. 29
,-%F EDA t
<1 C
CUR RENT ZONING
■
CG2 - General Commercial 2
■
CG - Cameral Crommerdal
■
BN - Neigbborhood Business
■
BC - Community Business
RS-8 - Single Family, 8.004 sq. ft.
RM-3 - MulhfarniFy, 3,000 sq. ft.
■
RM-2.4 - Multifamily, 2,400 sq. ft.
■
RM-1.5 - Multifamily, 1,500 sq. ft.
■
MU - Medical use
■
P- Public Use
I D.1.c I
1
�s
M..r
ING-
k
�4-
RECOMMENDED ZONING
■
CG - General Cammerdal
■
RN - NeighbarhOad Business
■
K - Communky Business
RS-B - Single Family. B4O00 sq. it.
RM-3 - Multifamiiy. 3.000 seq. ft.
■
RM-2.4 - Multifamily, 2,400 sq. ft.
■
RM-1.5- Multifarn1yr,1,500 sq. ft.
■
MV - Medfoal Use
■
P - Public Use
Packet Pg. 30
Attachment: Attachment 3 - 1.26.23 ADB slides (Continued Discussion of Potential
0
X
M
c�
W
N
Attachment: Attachment 3 - 1.26.23 ADB slides (Continued Discussion of Potential
0
X
M
c�
W
w
Attachment: Attachment 3 - 1.26.23 ADB slides (Continued Discussion of Potential
0
X
M
c�
W
Attachment: Attachment 3 - 1.26.23 ADB slides (Continued Discussion of Potential
D.1.c
1. The portion of the buildings above
25 feet in height shall step back no
less than 10 feet from the required
setback to an adjacent IRS zone. That
portion of the building over 55 feet in
height shall be step back no less thon
R20 feet from the required setback to
an adjacent IRS zone.
_�L
Packet Pg. 35
�`�-- I - ; �-=�, 'ram
�� rlo �
I
__-'!. �
�p -rn
��
��-_ ----�. r� J
D.1.c
1. The portion of the buildings above 25 feet in height shall step back no less than 10 feet from
the required setback te-a 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 IRS zone. These requirements shall apply unless deemed not
to be necessary pursuant to a design review by the Architectural Design Board as referenced in
ECDC 16.60.030.
a+
a
Packet Pg. 37
0
X
M
c�
w
00
Attachment: Attachment 3 - 1.26.23 ADB slides (Continued Discussion of Potential
?ntial
0
X
M
c�
A
O
Attachment: Attachment 3 - 1.26.23 ADB slides (Continued Discussion of Potential
D.1.d
CITY OF EDMONDS
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD
Minutes of Regular Meeting
January 26, 2023
Acting Chair Lauri Strauss called the meeting of the Architectural Design Board to order at 6:02 p.m. in the
Brackett Room of City Hall, 121— 5t' Avenue North, Edmonds, Washington.
Board Members Present Staff Present
Joe Herr (on Zoom) Mike Clugston, Senior Planner
Maurine Jeude (on Zoom)
Lauri Strauss (Acting Chair) (on Zoom) Other
Steve Schmitz' (on Zoom) Councilmember Dave Teitzel
Board Members Absent
Kim Bayer, Chair (Excused)
Alexa Brooks, Vice Chair (Excused)
Corbitt Loch (Excused)
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
The agenda was approved as presented.
AUDIENCE COMMENTS v
U)
Councilmember Teitzel expressed appreciation for the work that the Board does on behalf of the City. He
referred to the Highway 99 subarea and the CG zone. He stated he was on City Council when they approved
the CG rezone which allowed buildings up to 70 feet to be built in the subarea. A project is under consideration
up there on 80 which is immediately across the street from single family houses. The community has come
forward with some concerns that a very tall building would loom over those properties and undermine the M
traditional character of those 1950's/1960's era ramblers. One thing that could be considered as a mitigation for to
the massing of the building would be step backs. He is in support of this idea which the Board will be considering
tonight. The way that the ordinance reads, step backs would be required in a development of that nature unless o
the Board determines they are not necessary. He thinks it is appropriate to have the Board involved in this type a
of design review decision because they understand the neighborhoods and the transition between very large
structures and single-family homes.
E
APPROVAL OF MINUTES v
r
a
December 8, 2022 ADB Meeting Minutes
m
E
1 Board Member Schmitz arrived on the meeting at 6:08 p.m. cc
Architectural Design Board Meeting
Minutes of Regular Meeting Q
January 26, 2023
Page 1 of 5
Packet Pg. 41
D.1.d
The minutes were approved with corrections as indicated in the packet.
NEW BUSINESS
Design Review Process and Step Back Standard for Certain CG-Zoned Projects (AMD2022-0008)
Mr. Clugston made a presentation on this item noting that it would be coming back in February for additional
code refinement and a recommendation to the Planning Board. Council adopted Emergency Interim Ordinance
4282 on December 10 which will expire on June 10, 2023. He stated they would be looking at two code changes
— one regarding the addition of an additional building step back when across the street from an RS parcel, and
the other would be an additional design review process the ADB would be involved in. Per Interim Ordinance
4283 the design review process would be a two-phase public hearing process and quasi-judicial decision by
ADB for buildings in the CG zone greater than 35 feet tall. There would be an opportunity for public input.
Staff would continue doing all other CG design reviews with no public input. He reviewed details of the
proposed additional across the street step back and solicited feedback from the ADB.
Board Member Jeude was in favor of being involved in the review process, and noted they need to be sensitive
to the transitional nature of these neighborhoods.
Board Member Schmitz commented that this is a gateway sort of neighborhood. He noted in other areas where
there are CG zones, they typically have RN 2.4 adjacent or across the street. He asked why the mixed -use zone
isn't implemented in this area. As an architect he understands how buildings affect the neighbors. He sees a
need for step backs with the adjacent properties. He wondered if the additional step back for properties across
the street makes sense when there is already almost an 85-foot separation because of the street and the setbacks.
He expressed concern about developments still being viable if additional step backs are required. Rather than
saying just "across the street" he wondered if the distance across the street should be considered.
Board Member Herr added that when you try to build units that don't stack you have just increased the cost for U
everyone. He agreed that when you have a really wide street and a front yard setback, he wasn't sure a step back
was necessary. He noted that in Shoreline they are building tall buildings really close to the street. They are
tackling their middle housing needs aggressively. It doesn't seem that they have as many restrictions. Mr. E
Clugston pointed out that there are only 10-foot setbacks for CG parcels when they are adjacent to Highway 99.
L
Acting Chair Strauss commented that this ordinance would still allow the ADB to have some discretion. For N
her, access to daylight is very important. She doesn't think it is that big of a deal to design step backs into a N
property. She spoke in favor of the two-step review because it would give them the opportunity to let the m
developer know what they are thinking.
Board Member Schmitz spoke to the significant impact to the developers of this. He stressed that this absolutely
is a big deal, especially for architects and those trying to provide affordable housing. In the example project
there is already essentially an 85-foot space between the residential lot across the street and the new building.
Acting Chair Strauss commented that this is the Board's opportunity to say what kind of development they want
in the city. If they want to have a bunch of tall, straight buildings like Shoreline they can put that in the code,
Architectural Design Board Meeting Q
Minutes of Regular Meeting
January 26, 2023
Page 2 of 5
Packet Pg. 42
D.1.d
but it seems to her that they are trying to keep some character in the neighborhoods and some daylight with
these developments.
Board Member Herr concurred but noted that Edmonds keeps talking about affordable housing and the need to
provide missing middle housing. He agrees that they should not build monster buildings that look out of scale.
At the same time, they have to get people to back off with the push for affordable housing. He agreed with
Board Member Schmitz that the more they carve out of these buildings with restrictions, the more the cost goes
up which means that they either sell for more or the rents are higher.
Board Member Jeude commented that there are already a lot of tall buildings along Highway 99. There doesn't
need to be affordable housing with every single development. She asked if developers' needs should take
precedence over the people in these existing single-family homes. There is a huge opportunity for affordable
housing along Highway 99 where there are no single-family homes.
Board Member Schmitz commented that the City's zoning codes don't say anything about preserving the
existing character of neighborhoods. He discussed a project he is working on which is funded by grants received
for affordable housing development. The grants expire after one year and adding extra steps for design review
increases timelines for development. He stated they are treating property that already has a very large space
between itself and adjacent property almost as a pariah. He also noted that any development that comes in will
provide benefits for existing neighborhoods that aren't often considered such as sidewalks, open space,
underground power lines, and other infrastructure.
Acting Chair Strauss thought that step backs were a reasonable request for certain situations where this might
happen. She doesn't think it will be a huge disturbance since it won't affect every project on the Highway 99
corridor. She stated that developers would need to be more creative in instances when they are right up against
single family homes.
Board Member Schmitz disagreed again and stated this is a very large portion of the work he does as an architect. c
It is a high burden for anyone to have to come to a design review with two potential options. By putting up �?
barriers, developers are going to have less of a building than they could have had. He pointed out that they are
requiring less of a step back for adjacent properties than they are for the ones across the street. This did not make
sense to him. Board Member Herr concurred. E
M
Board Member Schmitz shared that what a lot of cities do in this situation is require setbacks at 65 feet building
height, not 55 feet, because of construction techniques. At 65 feet you would have a 10-foot setback. He agreed N
that bulk is a huge issue with large construction. He noted that there is a limited amount of land in Edmonds to
that can be built up this way. By putting additional artificial limits on what can be built in those zones they are CO
hamstringing themselves for affordable housing and any kind of housing. There was discussion about the need a
for a transition area but disagreement over how this should happen. Mr. Clugston reviewed some of the
background of this area. He agreed that the significantly higher step back for properties across the street also
seemed odd to him. There are some bills being discussed in the state legislature right now that would mandate
zoning changes to allow higher density in single family zones. It would also get rid of design review for
multifamily projects. r
Councilmember Teitzel stated he was on City Council back in 2017 when they passed the new CG zoning
standards. Part of the thinking then was to consolidate a patchwork of zoning into one consistent CG zone. He
Architectural Design Board Meeting Q
Minutes of Regular Meeting
January 26, 2023
Page 3 of 5
Packet Pg. 43
D.1.d
acknowledged that there was more of a transition between highly intensive development and single-family
neighborhoods with the previous zoning than they have now with the CG zone. He stressed that even without
the step back ordinance they are discussing here, there is already an element of step backs for adjacent properties
in the existing code whereby the planning department could mandate step backs if they felt it was appropriate.
The benefit of having the ADB involved in the design review process is it allows step backs to be foregone if
the developer can say they have other mitigation design proposals that would do as much or more as step backs
in mitigating the effects of massing of a large building. As proposed, step backs are not mandated; there would
be discretion for the ADB to look at the neighborhood and determine whether the design that is proposed is
appropriate. He noted that there is an element of equity here also because the ADB is involved in quasi-judicial
issues with the BD zone downtown.
Board Member Schmitz spoke to the equity issues. He agreed that these buildings can be large and there should
be some developer givebacks/tradeoffs. If they are going to require step backs, he recommended requiring them
at 65 feet as opposed to the current 55 feet. This would still provide an opportunity to have an efficient building
with the greatest number of multiple bedroom/family-sized units because with step backs the top two or more
floors typically end up being studios or single -bedroom units.
Acting Chair Strauss said she could live with that as long as it was 65 feet only for the side that faces a street,
and 55 feet adjacent to a single-family home. Board Member Schmitz concurred.
Mr. Clugston wondered if there are other ways to reduce bulk such as using certain materials. Board Member
Schmitz did not think materials were sufficient to make a difference with the bulk issue.
Board Member Jeude thought 65 feet for street -facing buildings sounded reasonable but commented that the
two -tiered public input provides more equity and opportunity for feedback for the people in this area. It is
important to take the comments from people who live in this area into consideration and give them as much
weight as they give those in the downtown area.
Acting Chair Strauss expressed concern about losing the opportunity to weigh in and require step backs in U
certain circumstances if they go to 65 feet for street -facing buildings. If they stay at 55 feet the ADB has more
discretion. 3
c
E
Board Member Schmitz reiterated that when a developer is asked to do more step backs it will cost more and
rents will go up. He believes that when it required for taller buildings it looks better than on shorter buildings.
M
N
Acting Chair Strauss pointed out that the ADB's purpose is to protect what the City looks like and not the N
developers' pocketbooks. If the developer must go through more of a process to achieve the City's design m
guidelines and code standards then that is what they should do. Board Member Schmitz commented that some a
properties have more setbacks simply because they are across the street than a property that is right next door
to the same type of zoning.
Mr. Clugston summarized that he would change the height from 55 to 65 feet for those buildings across the
street and bring it back for discussion in February. He added that this process would still give the ADB discretion
but asked about the decision criteria for deciding whether step backs would be required. Acting Chair Strauss
noted that she would not be worried about step backs in the example where the church and church parking lot
are across the street. She thought that in instances where the property is developed, but not currently developed
Architectural Design Board Meeting Q
Minutes of Regular Meeting
January 26, 2023
Page 4 of 5
Packet Pg. 44
D.1.d
as a single-family residence, the step back would not be required. Board Member Jeude agreed. In situations
where there is single-family home or a vacant lot with the possibility of a single-family home the board might
require step backs. Board members expressed a need to have discretion about these decisions but acknowledged
they would have to justify their decisions.
Councilmember Teitzel expressed appreciation for the discussion. He commented that the City Council had a
similar discussion and also did not have a common viewpoint. He explained that there are two bills circulating
in Olympia to basically upzone all the cities above a population of 6,000. This would get rid of RS zoning
completely if the bills pass. Over time this could mean that the RS-I zone would no longer exist, and the single-
family homes along 80 could be replaced with six-plexes up to 35-feet tall. If that happened it would change
the character of the neighborhood and could reduce the need for step backs. If that happens, Council could re -
look at the ordinance and adopt something different. He noted that Council passed a resolution in opposition of
those bills in Olympia because they don't think the State should pre-empt their zoning decisions.
BOARD DISCUSSION ITEMS
1. Review ADB Handbook
Mr. Clugston noted that some details such as meeting time and place still needed to be updated but asked if
there were any other suggestions for changes or other information they would like included. There were no
suggestions at this time, but board members thanked Mr. Clugston for working on the handbook noting that it
would be very helpful.
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS:
Board Member Schmitz said he appreciated the discussions and the input on the Board.
Acting Chair Strauss thanked Councilmember Teitzel for his input. Councilmember Teitzel again thanked the
Board for their good work.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned at 7:43 p.m.
Architectural Design Board Meeting Q
Minutes of Regular Meeting
January 26, 2023
Page 5 of 5
Packet Pg. 45
D.1.e
From:
Bayer, Kim (Arch Design Bd)
Sent:
Monday, February 13, 2023 9:42 AM
To:
Natalie Seitz; Citizens Arch Design Board
Cc:
Clugston, Michael; Council; Citizens Planning Board
Subject:
Re: Board review of CG zone step backs
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Natalie,
Thank you for sending your concerns and additional information regarding the planned action
for the CG Zone. I was unable to attend the last meeting; however, I'm more up to speed now
regarding the discussion that took place. You are correct in stating that the ADB meeting on
1/26 was the first review the board had on this matter. It's my understanding that we will
finalize recommended language to move through the process of the Planning Board and City
Council. Additionally, we will discuss the environmental review issue at our next meeting on
2/23 before our recommendation is finalized.
I'll defer to Mike Clugston regarding the timeline acceptable for a resident drafted memo to be
included in our deliberations. Mike, can you answer Natalie's questions?
Sincerely,
Kim
From: Natalie Seitz <natalie.seitz@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 7, 2023 6:14 AM
To: Citizens Arch Design Board <citizens-arch@edmondswa.gov>
Cc: Clugston, Michael <Michael.Clugston@edmondswa.gov>; Council <council@edmondswa.gov>;
Citizens Planning Board <citizens-planning@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Board review of CG zone step backs
Hello,
Good morning. I wanted to reach out because I finally had the opportunity to watch the ADB meeting
last night. I am incredibly concerned about how the stepback issue was presented to the board and the
resulting discussion. I would like to develop a memo that will explain my concerns with:
• How growth management act elements are being considered to evaluate bulk and massing,
• The SR99 planned action, process and environmental review, and
• Equity.
I want to thank CM Titsel for bringing up the process equity issue for ongoing reviews. However, I feel
substantive issues were left unaddressed in the way the issue was presented to the board and I
would like the board to immediately begin to consider the following while I draft the memo:
Packet Pg. 46
D.1.e
It is my understanding that the ADB did not review the setbacks when the planned action was
adopted, so this is the first policy level review of the upzone step backs and whether it meets
the vision of the planned action, and
The current step back code did not undergo environmental review prior to adoption. The
environmental review for the planned action included across the street step backs. The upzone
of this area without across the street step backs did not undergo environmental review.
I wanted to make these two pieces of information immediately clear because I think the review by the
ADB should take into account the bulk and mass that was visioned through public process with this
community and underwent environmental review as critical pieces of missing context to consider these
changes. To continue with or use the current code as a baseline is to continue with code that did not
receive these regulatory checks.
In light of these concerns, and since board members identified that they are less familiar with this area,
I would like to encourage you to review the type of development visioned by the planned action and
design specifications that underwent environmental review in the FEIS. I think you will find it
enlightening as to the type of smaller scale development that the Community visioned and the City
identified it could achieve in the CG zone which is what allowed this area to be rezoned.
I have a lot on my plate so please reach out to me immediately if you are unable to use a resident -
drafted memo in your deliberations. Would you please also let me know the latest acceptable
timeline to include a resident drafted memo in your deliberations?
Thank you,
Natalie Seitz
Packet Pg. 47
D.1.f
From: Bayer, Kim (Arch Design Bd)
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2023 9:50 AM
To: Theresa Hollis
Cc: Clugston, Michael; Citizens Arch Design Board
Subject: Re: comments on a 2 phase design review process
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Theresa,
Thank you for your comments and further information regarding the site maps. We will discuss
opportunities for public input on CG Zone projects at our upcoming meeting on 2/23. If
possible, I recommend you participate in Audience Comments which is upfront in our agenda.
Sincerely,
Kim
From: Theresa Hollis <theresahollis218@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, February 10, 2023 3:12 PM
To: Planning <planning@edmondswa.gov>; Citizens Arch Design Board <citizens-
arch@edmondswa.gov>
Cc: Clugston, Michael<michael.clugston@edmondswa.gov>; Levitan, David
<David.Levitan(@edmondswa.aov>
Subject: comments on a 2 phase design review process
To the Planning Board and the Architecture Design Board,
Re: interim ordinance 4283
I am providing input for your consideration of why a two phase design review process is appropriate for
tall projects in the CG zone.
The design priorities are established in the first meeting, and that is when neighbors will provide their
perspective. Here's some examples of possible neighbor concerns/priorities for different locations in the
Hwy 99 CG zone:
- a 6 story apartment building that is across the street from an RS zone on 236/84th needs to
mitigate the bulk and mass. One neighbor will want the building roofline and siding materials/color to
vary and to have a change in plane so that one long building appears to be multiple side -by -side
buildings. Another neighbor will want part of the required amenity space to be at the corner and have
public access and have power hookups for food trucks so that the Uptown Market can continue to be
held on 236th street in the summer time. A third neighbor may want the building face to have
residential characteristics at each ground floor apartment entry such as two steps up from the sidewalk
to the entry, with a planter or small porch, such as was built at the north end of a senior affordable
housing building at 12740 30th Ave NE, Seattle
- a development on the large vacant parcels behind Burlington Coat Factory will abut a single family
zone on the east side of the project. Neighbors will have opinions on driveway location and whether the
project's outbound trips will dump onto 240th or 242nd.
Packet Pg. 48
D.1.f
- a multi -family development bordering 77th PI West sits at a higher grade than the single family homes
across the street on 77th PI. From looking at a map it appears that the SF homeowners will have privacy
issues when redevelopment occurs. But the apartment building was built 10 years before the SF homes
were built, and the residents' HOA have built and maintained an attractive fence, shrubs, and tall trees
on the property line. There might not be any neighbor concerns when redevelopment occurs on the CG
parcels.
A related topic to the design review process that allows public input is simply public notification.The
current administrative review does not require any public notification. And when multiple projects are
happening in just the Gateway district in a short period of time, infrastructure issues get compounded.
There are few streets laid out in a grid on the east side of the Hwy 99 subarea and neighbors will have
new requests for city infrastructure to manage lighting, traffic and pedestrian safety when they are
notified of a new project. In these cases, the neighbors may be more concerned with site design than
building design. And the 'ask' may be of the City Council in the CIP/CFP process and not the building
developer.
As you probably know, some streets in this area are less than 60 feet wide, and some homes have less
than a 20 feet setback because it wasn't required when they were built. I have attached a plat map of
the southern part of the Hwy 99 subarea so you can observe how non -uniform the buildings and right of
ways are. An example is 234th street, east of Hwy 99.
More plat maps can be found here: https://www.snoco.org/v1/sas/asrmaps/AsrMap02-
CheckTRS.asp?EnteredTRS=270431&Qtr=SE
Each project will have unique constraints, and the neighbor stakeholders need to be heard. The
Edmonds comprehensive plan states that development in the Hwy 99 corridor "is sensitive to
surrounding neighborhoods" (Land Use section, Hwy 99 Corridor Goal C). The best way to execute on
that goal is to listen to the neighbors early in the design review process, and then let the developer
respond.
Regards,
Theresa Hollis
Edmonds resident
Packet Pg. 49
D.1.g
ATTACHMENT A
I 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
Area
Width
Street Setback
Setback
Height
Floor Area
CG
None
None
57102
0'/15"
75'3
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
Packet Pg. 50
D.1.g
ATTACHMENT A
an ADA-accessible manner. Stairs, stoops and raised decks or porches may be
constructed in a portion of the activity zone.
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.
Note. Numerfcaf Ranges forthe Redestnon Zone and the Activity Zone are
typical but do natcontra7over other requirements of thls chapter.
(Illustration: Pedestrian area)
D. Building Step -Back When Adjacent to or directly across the street from IRS 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 aR adjacent to or directly across the street from an IRS zone.
Packet Pg. 51
D.1.g
c
m
0
a
4-
0
ATTACHMENT A
p
.y
N
That portion of the building over 55 feet in height shall be step back no less than 20 feet
v
from the required setback to an adjacent RS zone.l These requirements shall apply unless
- Commented [CM7]: on 1.26.23, ADB discussed c Q ig
deemed not to be necessary pursuant to a design review by the Architectural Design
the upper step back from 55 feet to 65 feet. Note
written, this standard only applies to 'adjacent' site., lot
Board as referenced in ECDC 16.60.030.
'across the street' sites. M
C
2. Balconies, railings, parapets and similar features that do not enclose an interior space
c
may extend into the step -back area in order to encourage more human activity and
�j
architectural features.
(Illustration: Setback and "step -back" of building adjacent to IRS zones)
[Ord. 4078 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2017; Ord. 3981 § 1 (Att. A), 2014; Ord. 3635 § 1, 2007].
I 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.
Packet Pg. 52
D.1.g
ATTACHMENT A
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.
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 RS
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:
Packet Pg. 53
D.1.g
ATTACHMENT A
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.
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.
I 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 staffs
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.
Packet Pg. 54
D.1.g
ATTACHMENT A
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 36.70B.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 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 staffs 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 staffs 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
Cmwpl"
D*W
•
I I
I I
-----------------==
or+.a
[Ord. 3636 § 3, 2007].
Packet Pg. 55
D.1.g
ATTACHMENT A
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. Odesign review bythe architectural design board is
required for any project that includes buildings exceeding 7535 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 20.12.020. 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 rocess is
required, all projects proposed in the CG zone must meet the design standards contained in
thig c;p *' ECDC 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:
Packet Pg. 56
D.1.g
ATTACHMENT A
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. 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
Packet Pg. 57
D.1.g
ATTACHMENT A
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.
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.
Packet Pg. 58
D.1.g
ATTACHMENT A
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 36.70B.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
staffs 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 parry of record (as developed in
Phases 1 and 2 of the public hearing) who formally requests notice as to:
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, 2007].
I 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.
Packet Pg. 59
D.1.g
ATTACHMENT A
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.
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, 2007].
20.12.080 Appeals.
Packet Pg. 60
D.1.g
ATTACHMENT A
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].
120.12.090 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
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, 2007].
Packet Pg. 61
D
n
CD
n
� v
c�
N
Attachment: Attachment 7 - ADB draft for discussion - Design Review for Certain Projects in the CG Zone (Continued Discussion of Potential
D.1.h
Edmonds Chapter 20.10 DESIGN REVIEW
Page 1 of 16
Chapter 20.10
DESIGN REVIEW
Sections:
20.10.000 Purposes.
20.10.010 Types of design review.
20.10.020 Scope.
20.10.030 Approval required.
20.10.040 Optional pre -application.
20.10.045 Augmented architectural design review applications.
20.10.000 Purposes.
In addition to the general purposes of the comprehensive plan and the zoning ordinance, this chapter is included
in the community development code for the following purposes:
A. To encourage the realization and conservation of a desirable and aesthetic environment in the city of
Edmonds;
B. To encourage and promote development which features amenities and excellence in the form of variations of
siting, types of structures and adaptation to and conservation of topography and other natural features;
C. To encourage creative approaches to the use of land and related physical developments;
D. To encourage the enhancement and preservation of land or building of unique or outstanding scenic or
historical significance;
E. To minimize incompatible and unsightly surroundings and visual blight which prevent orderly community
development and reduce community property values. [Ord. 3636 § 1, 2007].
20.10.010 Types of design review.
A. There are two types of design review: (1) general design review subject to the provisions of Chapter 20.11
ECDC, and (2) district -based design review subject to the provisions of Chapter 20.12 ECDC. District -based
design review is applicable when an area or district has adopted design guidelines or design standards that apply
specifically within that area or district. General design review applies to areas or properties that do not have
specifically adopted design guidelines or standards. Projects may undergo either district -based design review or
general design review, but not both.
Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4274, passed September 6, 2(
Packet Pg. 63
D.1.h
Edmonds Chapter 20.10 DESIGN REVIEW
Page 2 of 16
B. District -based design review applies to the following areas or districts:
1. The downtown Edmonds business districts (BD zones) located within the downtown/waterfront activity
center as shown on the city of Edmonds comprehensive plan map.
2. 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.
C. General design review applies to all areas of the city not specifically designated for district -based design
review under subsection (B) of this section.
D. The exemptions established pursuant to subsection (B) of this section shall apply to all types and phases of
design review under this chapter and Chapters 20.11 and 20.12 ECDC. [Ord. 3636 § 1, 2007].
20.10.020 Scope.
A. Design review is intended to apply to all development, except for those developments specifically exempted
from review under subsection (B) of this section. "Development' includes 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.
B. Exempt Development. The following types of development are exempt from design review:
1. Parks developed under a master plan approved by the Edmonds city council.
2. Permitted primary and secondary uses in IRS — 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 contained in Chapter 20.60 ECDC.
7. Underground utilities. [Ord. 3636 § 1, 2007].
20.10.030 Approval required.
A. Development. Unless exempted under ECDC 20.10.020(B), no city permit or approval shall be issued for, and
Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4274, passed September 6, 2(
Packet Pg. 64
D.1.h
Edmonds Chapter 20.10 DESIGN REVIEW
Page 3 of 16
no person shall start, any development, or substantially change any development, until the development has
received design review approval.
B. Bond. The city may require that a bond be posted under Chapter 17.10 ECDC to ensure the satisfactory
installation of site improvements. [Ord. 3636 § 1, 2007].
20.10.040 Optional pre -application.
The applicant may submit plans required under ECDC 20.02.002 as part of the complete application in
preliminary or sketch form, so that the comments and advice of the architectural design board may be
incorporated into the final plans submitted for application. [Ord. 3736 § 38, 2009; Ord. 3636 § 1, 2007].
20.10.045 Augmented architectural design review applications.
At the option of the applicant, an augmented ADB application to vest rights under the provisions of ECDC
19.00.025 may be submitted. Such applications may not be submitted in conjunction with the concept review
provided for by ECDC 20.10.040. The application shall be processed in all respects as a regular application for
review, but vesting rights shall be determined under the provisions of ECDC 19.00.025. The architectural design
board shall not be required to, and shall not, consider the application of vesting rights or the interpretation of
ECDC 19.00.025 and any appeal with respect thereto shall be taken only as provided in that section. [Ord. 3636
§ 1, 2007].
Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4274, passed September 6, 2(
Packet Pg. 65
D.1.h
Edmonds Chapter 20.11 GENERAL DESIGN REVIEW
Page 4 of 16
Chapter 20.11
GENERAL DESIGN REVIEW
Sections:
20.11.010 Review procedure —General design review.
20.11.020 Findings.
20.11.030 Criteria.
20.11.040 Appeals.
20.11.050 Lapse of approval.
20.11.010 Review procedure — General design review.
A. Review. The architectural design board (ADB) shall review all proposed developments that require a threshold
determination under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). All other developments may be approved by
staff as a Type I decision. When design review is required by the ADB, proposed development shall be
processed as a Type III -A decision. The role of the ADB shall be dependent upon the nature of the application as
follows:
1. The ADB shall conduct a public hearing for the following types of applications:
a. Applications that are not consolidated as set forth in ECDC 20.01.002(B).
b. Applications that are consolidated as set forth in ECDC 20.01.002(B) but in which the ADB serves
as the sole decision -making authority.
c. Applications that are consolidated as set forth in ECDC 20.01.002(B) but in which all decision -
making authority is exercised both by staff, pursuant to this chapter and Chapter 20.13 ECDC, and by
the ADB. The ADB shall act in the place of the staff for these types of applications.
2. The ADB shall review proposed developments at public meetings without a public hearing and make
recommendations to the hearing examiner to approve, conditionally approve, or deny proposals for
developments that, although consolidated as set forth in ECDC 20.01.002(B), are not subject to a public
hearing by the ADB under subsection (A)(1) of this section. The hearing examiner shall subsequently hold a
public hearing on the proposal.
3. The ADB under subsection (A)(1) of this section and the hearing examiner under subsection (A)(2) of
this section shall approve, conditionally approve, or deny the proposal. The ADB or hearing examiner may
continue its public hearing on the proposal to allow changes to the proposal, or to obtain information needed
to properly review the proposal. See ECC 3.13.090 regarding exemptions from review required by this
Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4274, passed September 6, 2(
Packet Pg. 66
D.1.h
Edmonds Chapter 20.11 GENERAL DESIGN REVIEW
Page 5 of 16
chapter.
4. Notwithstanding any contrary requirement, for a development in which the city is the applicant, the action
of the ADB under subsection (A)(1) of this section and the hearing examiner under subsection (A)(2) of this
section shall be a recommendation to the city council.
B. Notice. Public notice by mail, posting or newspaper publication shall only be required for applications that are
subject to environmental review under Chapter 43.21C RCW, in which case notice of the hearing shall be
provided in accordance with Chapter 20.03 ECDC. [Ord. 4154 § 14 (Att. D), 2019; Ord. 3736 § 39, 2009; Ord.
3636 § 2, 2007].
20.11.020 Findings.
The board shall make the following findings before approving the proposed development:
A. 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. The city has the obligation to provide specific direction and
guidance to applicants. The urban design chapter has been adopted to fulfill the city's obligations under
Washington State case law. The urban design chapter shall be used to determine if an application meets the
general criteria set forth in this chapter. In the event of ambiguity or conflict, the specific provisions of the urban
design chapter shall control.
B. 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 only by clear and convincing evidence. [Ord. 3636 § 2, 2007].
20.11.030 Criteria.
A. Building Design. No one architectural style is required. The building shall be designed to comply with the
purposes of this chapter and to avoid conflict with the existing and planned character of the nearby area. All
elements of building design shall form an integrated development, harmonious in scale, line and mass. The
following are included as elements of building design:
1. All exterior building components, including windows, doors, eaves, and parapets;
2. Colors, which should avoid excessive brilliance or brightness except where that would enhance the
character of the area;
3. Mechanical equipment or other utility hardware on the roof, grounds or buildings should be screened from
view from the street level;
Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4274, passed September 6, 2(
Packet Pg. 67
D.1.h
Edmonds Chapter 20.11 GENERAL DESIGN REVIEW
Page 6 of 16
4. Long, massive, unbroken or monotonous buildings shall be avoided in order to comply with the purposes
of this chapter and the design objectives of the comprehensive plan. This criterion is meant to describe the
entire building. All elements of the design of a building including the massing, building forms, architectural
details and finish materials contribute to whether or not a building is found to be long, massive, unbroken or
monotonous.
a. In multifamily (RM) or commercial zones, selections from among the following or similar features
are appropriate for dealing with this criterion:
i. Windows with architectural fenestration;
ii. Multiple rooflines or forms;
iii. Architecturally detailed entries;
iv. Appropriate landscaping;
v. The use of multiple materials;
5. All signs should conform to the general design theme of the development.
B. Site Treatment. The existing character of the site and the nearby area should be the starting point for the
design of the building and all site treatment. The following are elements of site treatment:
1. Grading, vegetation removal and other changes to the site shall be minimized to protect natural
resources, limit disturbance of native soils, and encourage low impact development.
2. Landscape treatment shall be provided to enhance the building design and other site improvements
3. Landscape treatment shall be provided to buffer the development from surrounding property where
conflict may result, such as parking facilities near yard spaces, streets or residential units, and different
building heights, design or color.
4. Landscaping that could be damaged by pedestrians or vehicles should be protected by curbing or similar
devices.
5. Service yards, and other areas where trash or litter may accumulate, shall be screened with planting or
fences or walls which are compatible with natural materials.
6. All screening should be effective in the winter as well as the summer.
7. Materials such as wood, brick, stone and gravel (as opposed to asphalt or concrete) may be substituted
Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4274, passed September 6, 2(
Packet Pg. 68
D.1.h
Edmonds Chapter 20.11 GENERAL DESIGN REVIEW
Page 7 of 16
for planting in areas unsuitable for plant growth.
8. Exterior lighting shall be the minimum necessary for safety and security. Excessive brightness shall be
avoided. All lighting shall be low-rise and directed downward onto the site. Lighting standards and patterns
shall be compatible with the overall design theme.
C. Other Criteria.
1. Community facilities and public or quasi -public improvements should not conflict with the existing and
planned character of the nearby area.
2. Street furniture (including but not limited to benches, light standards, utility poles, newspaper stands, bus
shelters, planters, traffic signs and signals, guardrails, rockeries, walls, mail boxes, fire hydrants and
garbage cans) should be compatible with the existing and planned character of the nearby area. [Ord. 4085
§ 9 (Exh. A), 2017; Ord. 3636 § 2, 2007].
20.11.040 Appeals.
All design review decisions of the hearing examiner or the ADB are appealable to superior court in accordance
with Chapter 36.70C RCW. [Ord. 4154 § 16 (Att. D), 2019; Ord. 3736 § 40, 2009; Ord. 3636 § 2, 2007].
20.11.050 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.
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.
Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4274, passed September 6, 2(
Packet Pg. 69
D.1.h
Edmonds Chapter 20.11 GENERAL DESIGN REVIEW
Page 8 of 16
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 § 41, 2009; Ord. 3636 § 2,
2007].
Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4274, passed September 6, 2(
Packet Pg. 70
D.1.h
Edmonds Chapter 20.12 DISTRICT -BASED DESIGN REVIEW Page 9 of 16
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.
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 36.70B.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.
Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4274, passed September 6, 2(
Packet Pg. 71
D.1.h
Edmonds Chapter 20.12 DISTRICT -BASED DESIGN REVIEW
Page 10 of 16
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 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:
[Ord. 3636 § 3, 2007].
20.12.010 Applicability.
The architectural design board (ADB) shall review all proposed developments 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 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. [Ord. 4154 § 15 (Att. D), 2019; Ord. 3736 § 42, 2009; Ord. 3636 § 3, 2007].
20.12.020 Design review by the architectural design board.
Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4274, passed September 6, 2(
Packet Pg. 72
D.1.h
Edmonds Chapter 20.12 DISTRICT -BASED DESIGN REVIEW
Page 11 of 16
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. 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
Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4274, passed September 6, 2(
Packet Pg. 73
D.1.h
Edmonds Chapter 20.12 DISTRICT -BASED DESIGN REVIEW
Page 12 of 16
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.
f. An annotated checklist demonstrating how the project complies with the specific criteria identified by
the ADB.
Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4274, passed September 6, 2(
Packet Pg. 74
D.1.h
Edmonds Chapter 20.12 DISTRICT -BASED DESIGN REVIEW
Page 13 of 16
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 36.70B.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:
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.
Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4274, passed September 6, 2(
Packet Pg. 75
D.1.h
Edmonds Chapter 20.12 DISTRICT -BASED DESIGN REVIEW
Page 14 of 16
3817 § 10, 2010; Ord. 3736 §§ 43, 44, 2009; Ord. 3636 § 3, 2007].
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].
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
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:
Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4274, passed September 6, 2(
Packet Pg. 76
D.1.h
Edmonds Chapter 20.12 DISTRICT -BASED DESIGN REVIEW
Page 15 of 16
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, 2007].
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.
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
Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4274, passed September 6, 2(
Packet Pg. 77
D.1.h
Edmonds Chapter 20.12 DISTRICT -BASED DESIGN REVIEW
Page 16 of 16
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,
2007].
Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code are current through Ordinance 4274, passed September 6, 2(
Packet Pg. 78
D.1.i
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
A. Written Public Comments related to February 8 Meeting
Planning Manager Levitan noted that the City had received several emails related to Item 8B in advance of and
following the February 8 meeting, which are attached to the agenda packet.
• Stanley Piha February 7 Email and Attachment
• Theresa Hollis February 8 Email and Attachment
• Theresa Hollis February 10 Email and Attachment Part 1
• Theresa Hollis February 10 Email #2 with Plat Map
Additional Public Comments:
David Cohanim, SytjgW Construction, Inc. stated he was representing developers of the project at 2365 80
Avenue West. They have been working with the City of Edmonds on this project for quite a while. Plans were
submitted for design review that met all relevant criteria under the municipal code. Now the project has been
stopped by the actions of the City Council. They are unable to move forward, and there has been substantial
financial impact due to this. The Emergency Ordinance that was enacted by the City Council calls for
substantive changes to the nature of the proposed structure that were not present in the zoning code at the time
they submitted for review. This project has been called out repeatedly by city staff as the impetus for these
moves. He expressed concern that Judy Gladstone is a neighboring resident of the project under discussion and
has spoken out about her position regarding the project and the zoning issues associated with it. Since the
Planning Board serves as an advisory board to the City Council on which Ms. Gladstone serves as Chair, he
expressed concern about a conflict of interest. He recommended that Chair Gladstone recuse herself from any
matters pertaining in any way to the project under discussion as well as zoning and related legislation associated
with the project, particularly with regard to CG zoning.
Stanley Piha spoke regarding transit -oriented development which he believes should be as significant a focus
of the Planning Board as it is at the current state legislative session. As defined in part by Senate Bill 5466, an
act related to promoting transit -oriented development, a station hub means all parcels that are fully or partially
within a quarter -mile radius of a major transit station. Further defined in the senate bill, a major transit stop
means a site that has been funded for development or a site on a bus rapid transit route or a route that runs on
high -occupancy vehicle lanes. Mr. Piha stated that governance creating transit -oriented development activities
should be a priority of the Planning Board. Community Transit recently announced the proposed shuttle service
from the Edmonds Kingston ferry terminal and terminating at the Mountlake Terrace Light Rail Station with
stops along the way. As a result, the Bus Rapid Transit platform at 238th and Highway 99 will be one of the
most transit -concentrated hubs in the city of Edmonds. It is the only intersection that will have both north and
south Bus Rapid Transit platforms on each side of the highway. This creates an opportunity to create a transit -
oriented development radius as defined by the senate bill allowing the most accessible access to public
transportation. He noted that multifamily properties already exist across the street from single-family zoned
properties on 80 Avenue between 236th and 238ffi. He spoke in support of a suggestion at a recent Architectural
Design Review Board meeting to create a transition between the CG zone and the single-family zone by
changing the single-family zones along 80 to RM 2.4 or RM 1.5. He stated that the quarter -mile radius from
238th and Highway 99 should be viewed by the Planning Board as a transit -oriented development opportunity.
Promoting density here will provide a means of addressing the housing crisis and promoting easy access to all
Planning Board Special Meeting Minutes
February 15, 2023 Page 2 of 6
Packet Pg. 79
D.1.i
forms of public transportation for those who would benefit most. He thinks all properties within this radius
should be excepted from the conditions outlined in the Emergency Ordinance to allow needed housing to be
built.
Finis Tupper online), Edmonds resident, expressed concern about where Edmonds is headed and the way that
the current government is operating. He expressed frustration that he was unable to attend the February 8
meeting because of technical difficulties. He is concerned about open and transparent government and stated
there are consequences for violating the Open and Public Meetings Act.
Glenn Douglas (online), Gateway community, stated he is getting ready to put together another citizens' petition
regarding persistent speeding on 80 Avenue West. He thinks adding a 261-unit apartment building at 236th and
84t' will only exacerbate this. He thanked anyone on the Board who helped get the new stop signs put in at that
intersection, but it is not enough. He is frustrated that the southbound radar feedback sign has not been
reinstalled, and the northbound radar feedback sign has not been activated. He suggested relocating both radar
feedback signs to more effective locations. He commented that asphalt speed bumps have been recommended
by neighbors. He would appreciate some feedback or some kind of response.
Deborah Arthur said she also tried to get on for the last Planning Board meeting and had technical difficulties.
She requested clarification about the area along 84th they are talking about developing. She expressed concern
about speeding traffic along the side streets in this area and pedestrian safety issues she has witnessed.
NEW BUSINESS
B. Design Review Process and Step Back Standard for Certain CG-Zoned Projects (AMD2022-0008)
Chair Gladstone stated that she has been involved as a private citizen on this issue. It is her intent to continue to
serve impartially and take in information as she would on any other issue coming before the Planning Board.
Planning Manager David Levitan reviewed a PowerPoint presentation that was presented on February 8. He
explained that due to a lack of recording and other technical difficulties, that meeting was being repeated. He
reviewed some of the history and provisions of Interim Emergency Ordinance 4283. It requires a two-phase
public hearing and decision by Architectural Design Board (ADB) for projects above 35 feet in height; requires
an additional building step back when across the street from an RS zone, unless deemed unnecessary by the
ADB, and is valid for six months from adoption (June 10, 2023) with a permanent ordinance required beyond
that date. He reviewed considerations regarding the design review process. Right now, they are seeing about
one new project per year. He asked for feedback on whether the ADB should have additional quasi-judicial
decision -making responsibilities. If so, is the two-phase public hearing a better process than a single -meeting
hearing? He discussed existing and interim step back requirements including factors to be considered regarding
across -the -street step backs. He reviewed design tools and requested feedback on additional design tools to be
considered. He requested feedback and stated this would go back to the ADB on February 23 for additional
code refinement and recommendations to the Planning Board. The Planning Board will further refine, hold a
public hearing, and make a recommendation to Council. The Council must adopt permanent standards by June
10, 2023. He summarized some of the previous discussion.
Board Member Mitchell asked how the Supplemental EIS plays into this. Planning Manager Levitan explained
that was added as part of the Council budget package as part of the 2023 project to analyze some of the
Planning Board Special Meeting Minutes
February 15, 2023 Page 3 of 6
Packet Pg. 80
D.1.i
development assumptions within the Planned Action EIS related to trip generation and the ability to handle
stormwater. He pointed out that the Planned Action EIS went through all the required processes and was subject
to public comment and potential appeals which did not happen. Staff is working on ways to integrate this
analysis with the needed environmental review for the Comprehensive Plan update as a whole.
Board Member Golembiewski asked if the projects in the CG zone are not required to go through the ADB, are
there any other opportunities for public comment in the permit process to get feedback on the design or the
proposed development? Planning Manager Levitan thought there would be an opportunity for a Type 2 public
process even though it would be reviewed administratively. Board Member Golembiewski stated that the
process of going through the ADB seems counterintuitive to the subarea plan which was designed to streamline
development in this area. She thinks public input is important, and she is comfortable as long as the public has
the opportunity to provide comment for staff to review. She spoke to the importance of believing that staff will
be working in the best interest of the community.
Board Member Campbell spoke to challenges with public comment opportunities as has been heard tonight. If
they are not going through the ADB process, what else can the City do to make sure people's comments are
heard? Planning Manager Levitan stated that a Type 2 process would require public notification be sent to
neighbors within 300 feet of the boundaries of the project property. If someone comments on that they become
a party of record and would be notified of any notice of decision and would have the opportunity to appeal the
project if they wished to. Board Member Campbell asked about the possibility of expanding the notification
radius to reach out to a greater number of people. Planning Manager Levitan thought it could be discussed.
Chair Gladstone asked about the vision of the Planned Action EIS. Planning Manager Levitan replied that a
Planned Action was done recognizing the role of high -capacity transit coming down Highway 99 and that the
area has the potential to meet a lot of the City's identified housing needs, especially multifamily residential.
There was a public process in establishing the subarea plan as well as doing the environmental review through
the State Environmental Policy Act. The general intent of the Planned Action was to evaluate transportation and
stormwater impacts in that area so it would streamline development. Chair Gladstone requested more
information about the history of the CG area and the EIS so they can get a better accounting of this. She also
suggested that a joint meeting with the ADB might be helpful to get their perspective before making a
recommendation.
Chair Gladstone asked about differences in street widths in the CG zone. Planning Manager Levitan thought
street widths vary in that area from about 40 to 80 feet; however, this would apply only to CG-zoned properties
that are directly across from RS zones so it would be very limited.
Board Member Campbell said she would like to see additional information and more detail about the equity
piece related to whether step backs would be required. She is concerned about the language in the proposed
ordinance that says that step backs would be required unless the ADB determined that they weren't needed. If
that condition is left in there, it is important to set out clearly what those requirements are. She can see the
benefits to having the flexibility in there but expressed concern about potential inequities between developers.
Chair Gladstone asked about the reason for the shift in the emergency ordinance to add review by the ADB
regarding step back requirements. Planning Manager Levitan thought the emergency ordinance reanalyzed the
ability for the ADB to have discretion about whether step backs are needed and implemented the two-phase
design review process.
Planning Board Special Meeting Minutes
February 15, 2023 Page 4 of 6
Packet Pg. 81
D.1.i
Board Member Mitchell asked if there is still an ability by the developer to prove to the ADB that step backs
aren't needed. Mr. Levitan explained that the applicant can state why they don't think they are needed when
they present their design. He offered to bring back more information about this. Board Member Mitchell agreed
with Board Member Campbell's concerns about consistency. He noted that in his experience step backs are the
first thing to go.
Board Member Golembiewski asked about the possibility that a developer would propose no step backs on
either adjacent properties or across the street the way the code is written. Mr. Levitan explained that in the
interim ordinance the discretion for the ADB applies to both adjacent and across the street. The language could
be changed if desired. There was some discussion about how the code language development process happens
with the Planning Board.
ADNIINISTRATIVE REPORTS
None
PUBLIC HEARINGS
None
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A. Everyone's Edmonds Vision Statement and Comprehensive Plan Update
Planning Manager Levitan explained that at the last meeting he had reviewed the visioning process and
the vision statement: "Edmonds is a welcoming city offering outstanding quality of life for all. We value
environmental stewardship, vibrant and diverse neighborhoods, safe and healthy streets, and a thriving
arts scene. We are engaged residents who take pride in shaping our resilient future. " The next step in
the process will be to do a citywide mailing with a QR code and other opportunities for people to log on
to a survey to provide their feedback. He had also asked for general feedback from Planning Board
members on the vision statement. The general consensus was that this isn't necessarily a vision
statement, but it is just stating what we are. There was a general thought that a vision statement should
be more aspirational and forward looking.
Board Member Maxwell commented as long as they have the time it would be great to have an
additional mail out survey. He stressed that there should be opportunities for people who aren't
comfortable with technology, don't have access to smart phones, or have other accessibility issues to be
able to respond as well. Board Member Martina agreed that they really need to remember accessibility
for the disabled and aging community. She wonders how much feedback they would get from them if
they had to go online versus having a survey mailed to them or an opportunity to call a phone number.
Planning Manager Levitan thanked them for the feedback.
NEW BUSINESS
A. Planning Board Retreat Preparation
Planning Board Special Meeting Minutes
February 15, 2023 Page 5 of 6
Packet Pg. 82
D.1.j
CURRENTZONING
CG2 - General Commercial 2
CG - General Commercial
BN - Neighborhood Business
■ BC - Community Business
■ RS-8 - Single Family, 8,000 sq. ft.
■ RM-3 - Multifamily, 3,000 sq. ft.
■ RM-2.4- Multifamily, 2,400sq. ft.
■ RM-1.5- Multifamily, 1,500sq. ft.
■ MU - Medical Use
■ P - Public Use
c
aD
r
0
a
4-
0
c
0
t,
0
0
c
c
0
...
U
c
0
r
r
to
y
L
a
Mr.
Q
N�
M
N
RECOMMENDED ZONING
i
CG -General Commercial
3
L
BN - Neighborhood Business
y
BC - Community Business
LL
0
L_
RS-8 - Single Family, 8.000 sq h-
Z
RM-3 - Multifamily, 3.000 sq. ft
y
■
RM-2.4 - Multifamily, 2,400 sq. `t
t
RM-1.5 - Multifamity,1,500 sq. `t
r
■
MU - Medical Use
Q
■
P - Public Use
C
d
E
t
V
to
r
a
Packet Pg. 83
History of Interim Ordinance 4283
■ In August 2017, the city adopted a subarea plan for Highway 99
(Ordinance 4077), amended standards/regulations in the General
Commercial (CG) zone (Ordinance 4078), and established a
Planned Action for the Highway 99 subarea (Ordinance 4079)
■ Concerns were raised in 2022 that Ordinance 4078 did not properly
reflect subarea plan language related to step backs
■ Interim emergency ordinance 4278 was adopted on October 4, 2022
but later repealed following additional Council research/discussion
■ Interim emergency ordinance 4283 incorporated language from
ordinance 4278 and added a public (ADB) design review process in
the CG zone, and was adopted on December 10, 2022
CD 0 0 0
I'Dc ,__..
bd C CD
o CD
CD
C CD
�`�•� CD
O CD CD '
n
O
o
CD CP CP
n �' N �' n .
CD
cP
uj
CD '
■ ■ ■ �-t CD
CD
O U�4 CD '�' . CD C/1 • C/1 �' Q CAD
all
CD
N� n'CD CD ADO ~•�j n 0-+
0 CD
CD
CD CD
CD �•
CA CAD CD
P � O
0
CD
CD
CD
c_.. CD
P CD
CD CD
CD
C-D CD
0 CD
U�40 CDCD
CD
n CD M--v
CD
CD
CD
CD
• CDCD
`fir
CD
CD
�.qQ CD
CD
I u
1. The portion of the buildings above
25 feet in height shall step back no
less than 10 feet from the required
setback to an adjacent IRS zone. That
ru 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 IRS zone.
�A
m
0
IL
4-
0
0
.y
N
7
t�
0
Q
Packet Pg. 87
D.1.j
m
0
IL
4-
0
.y
N
7
t�
N
G
The portion of the buildings above 25 feet in height shall step back no less than 10 feet from
the required
setback to aR adjacent to or directly across the street from an RS zone. That
_
0
e building over 55 feet in height shall be step back no less than 20 feet from the
required
setback to an adjacent IRS
zone. These requirements shall apply
unless deemed not
to be necessary pursuant to a design
review by the Architectural Design
Board as referenced in
WISDOM@
Packet Pg. 88
Across the Street Stepback
■ Useful to reduce bulk/scale across the street?
■ The street adds significant separation which
reduces the potential impacts to the property
across the street
■ Coupled with the setback requirements, the
distance between structures would be > 95'
■ Other mitigating factors for massing across
from SF include:
■ High quality streetscape, especially street
trees (required in streetscape zone)
■ High quality fagade (glazing requirements)
■ Strong design guidelines to provide variety
and interest in architectural details, fagade
articulation, site features and building
materials
Attachment: Attachment 10 - February 23 ADB Presentation (Continued Discussion of Potential
■
CD �
CD �O
r--r
CD
CD CD
r--r
CA
crcr
CD
■
■
■
W
CD
CD
C/1
CD
Cl)
CD
CL
e--r
CD
CD
O
O
C •
C/1
r--r
O
C/1
1a
2�
CD
V 1
�.CD
V
cr
CD
O
CD
D
^
CL
O
CD
CD
CD
CD
C_
CD
r
to
O
C�
CD
C—D CDCD
oho cr
O CD
� C-DCD C-D
�`� �• CrG CAD ,�• n
CD
rD
UP CD
C cD ~• N
O �
��
UP IrD cD
• otj
0 CD
O ^ n
,�� ►� cn
�3CD
A' CD
n CD
n P7 �
CD
W
a
d
CD
c
CD
c
CD
\�CL