Loading...
2019-08-21 Architectural Design Board MinutesCITY OF EDMONDS ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD Minutes of Regular Meeting August 21, 2019 Chair Herr called the meeting of the Architectural Design Board to order at 7:00 p.m., at the City Council Chambers, 250 - 51 Avenue North, Edmonds, Washington. Board Members Present Board Members Absent Staff Present Joe Herr, Chair Tom Walker Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager Lauri Strauss, Vice Chair Mike Clugston, Senior Planner Kim Bayer Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Cary Guenther Maureen Jeude Bruce Owensby APPROVAL OF MINUTES BOARD MEMBER OWENSBY MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF AUGUST 7, 2019 BE APPROVED AS SUBMITTED. VICE CHAIR STRAUSS SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was approved as submitted. REQUESTS FROM THE AUDIENCE There were no audience comments during this part of the agenda. INTRODUCTION OF BOARD MEMBERS Mr. Clugston invited each of the Board Members to introduce themselves and share information about their background and training. • Board Member Guenther said he has served on the ADB for several years. Prior to that, he served on the Planning Board for 9 years. He lives in Edmonds and is an architect by training. He has served as chair on both boards. • Board Member Bayer said she is the newest member of the Board, but has lived in Edmonds since 1979. Her background is corporate, but she is now retired and works as a business coach. She joined the ADB because she is passionate about preserving the beautiful aesthetic value of Edmonds as growth occurs. • Board Member Herr said he has been involved in residential construction and design for 46 years and has always been a designer/facilitator of residential construction of all types. • Board Member Strauss said she is an architect, doing primarily industrial and commercial development. For the last 20+ years, her focus has been on sustainable design and construction. She lives in Edmonds and owns her Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting August 21, 2019 Page 1 of 8 own firm with an office on Main Street in Edmonds. She loves the eclectic downtown and wants to retain that character. • Board Member Jeude said she grew up in Richmond Beach and moved to Edmonds about 30 years ago. She recently retired from the Seattle Times, but while there, she watched the area change from warehouses to a place that attempts to build community. She joined the ADB because she wants to be part of the changes that are happening in the City. • Board Member Owensby said he is also an architect by trade, and his love is urban design. He shared how he has been influenced by the experiences and the environments he has lived in throughout his life. He joined the ADB because he wanted to get involved as the City evolves. MINOR PROJECTS No minor projects were scheduled on the agenda. PUBLIC HEARING There were no public hearings. CONSOLIDATED PERMIT APPLICATIONS (No Public Participation) There were no consolidated permit applications. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS/ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION: CONTINUED DISCUSSION ON ROLES OF ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD (ADB) Mr. Chave advised that when he was hired by the City 29 years ago, the ADB typically reviewed about 20 projects each meeting, but most of them were small projects such as signs. That changed in 1993 when the Washington Court of Appeals issued a decision in Anderson vs. Issaquah, which held that the city's generalized standards or guidelines were unconstitutionally vague. Since Issaquah's design code was patterned after Edmonds, it was clear that the City had to change its approach to design review. He explained that prior to 1993, the City's code contained flowery language and applicants didn't have a clear understanding of what was expected at the outset of a project design. There was no predictability as to how long the design review process would take and which projects would eventually get approved. Mr. Chave explained that Edmonds followed the court ruling with a steady effort to provide more specificity and predictability in both the City's design standards and its design review process. As the design standards and codes became more specific, many of the small projects that used to go to the ADB for design review became staff decisions that were routinely approved as part of a building permit. This sped up the design review process a lot. Mr. Chave reviewed that Ordinance 3636 established the City's current district -based design review process, and the intent was that it would be used as a model for development once specific design standards had been drafted for all areas of the City. The district -based design review model also included a two -phased design review process, wherein the first stage was intended to occur early, with the ADB looking at conceptual designs. The proponents would then work out the details and present the designs to the ADB a second time for final approval. The problem with this process is that proponents have typically already settled on most of their design solutions before the first phase review is accomplished. Mr. Chave further explained that both the City Council and the ADB have come to realize that the code now provides specific design standards, and developers are generally designing projects according to the codes and standards in place. Because of that, by the time the ADB is presented with a project, it is fait accompli and the Board doesn't have a lot of discretion to require modifications. In order to influence design, the ADB has expressed a desire to participate much earlier in the project review cycle. In addition, the City Council has stated a desire to remove volunteer boards from the quasi-judicial role. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting August 21, 2019 Page 2 of 8 Mr. Chave presented a flow chart, outlining a potential design review process that would allow the ADB to provide early input. As proposed, the proponent would be required to participate in a preapplication meeting with the ADB prior to submitting a building permit application. The intent would be for the ADB to review conceptual designs that illustrate how is the site situated, what the code parameters are, what is the context, what design decisions need to be made, etc. No design plans would be reviewed at that time. If the Board wants to retain its review role without being the quasi- judicial decision maker, the City could require proponents to meet again with the ADB after a design is in hand and permit applications have been submitted. This would not be a public hearing, but it would allow the ADB to review the design and provide comments or a recommendation to the Hearing Examiner. Rather than simply running through the checklist of code requirements, the Board would be able to look more holistically at the design solutions. The Hearing Examiner would review staff reports, ADB recommendations, etc. to make the final quasi-judicial decision. Mr. Chave advised that while the Hearing Examiner would not be required to accept the ADB's recommendation, the Board would have more freedom to share comments and suggestions. It would also help them better identify disconnections between what the Board wanted to see and what was actually developed as code compliant design. He said staff would like the ADB to be the body that clearly understands the design standards and their relationship to what actually gets built. The Board's main job could be to review the design standards and codes against projects that occur and recommend potential code amendments that would have a meaningful impact on what actually gets built in the future. Mr. Chave referred to the Board's recent 10-year review of projects that have occurred in Edmonds and suggested that the review should take place on an annual or semi-annual basis. It will be important for the Board to compare approved building plans to what actually gets built. It will also be important to take note of what a project looks like five to ten years after construction, since maturing landscaping and how the building weathers over time can significantly change the community's view of a project over time. These annual reviews would allow the Board to apply a time element when identifying potential amendments to the landscape standards and other codes. The Board could also use the annual reviews as an educational piece when meeting jointly with the City Council and Planning Board in a public setting. Mr. Chave summarized that there would be some value to the ADB holding a preapplication meeting with proponents, followed by another review later in the process. However, the Board's bigger value will come from reviewing the codes and standards and their overall impact on design and proposing changes over time. City Attorney Taraday said he was invited to the meeting to guide the Board's discussion about the design review process and the ADB's role in land use permitting. He was also asked to talk about the legal context that creates the Board's role. Vice Chair Strauss asked if City Attorney Taraday's firm, Lighthouse Law Group, represents other cities, and City Attorney Taraday answered that his firm represents two other cities in a city attorney capacity. Vice Chair Strauss asked if he lives in Edmonds, and he answered that he lives in Seattle. He said he has represented the City of Edmonds since 2011, City Attorney Taraday explained that code adoption is a legislative activity, but land use permitting is not. Because of that, the discretion a decisionmaker has when deciding a permit application is constrained. The City's code that defines the Board's role is a mixture of legislative, quasi -legislative, and quasi-judicial functions. The Board's capacity to recommend design code changes is a legislative function that has broad discretion. However, that is not the case when reviewing a specific application. He explained that a court has to measure against something in order to review a decision and determine whether it was fairly decided, and that's why having objective decision criteria is important. Not only does it provide guidance to decisionmakers, but it also gives someone reviewing the decision down the road (the court) the ability to determine whether the decision was fairly made or not. However, if the Board's role is changed from decisionmaker to meeting with applicants in preapplication conferences, the decision criteria would not be so limited. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting August 21, 2019 Page 3 of 8 City Attorney Taraday reviewed that the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine applies to land use decisions that determine the legal rights of parties in a public hearing and requires decision makers to act as impartial and fair judges, without any preconceived ideas. Because no public hearing is required for administrative decisions, the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine would not apply. It also doesn't apply to legislative actions. When policies are being adopted, the City Council has extremely broad legislative discretion to determine what policies it wants to adopt. City Attorney Taraday explained that one limitation that applies in a quasi-judicial setting is a prohibition against ex parte communication. As soon as an application is filed there is a pending proceeding, during which members of a decision -making body cannot engage in ex parte communications with either proponents or opponents of the project. The doctrine also limits a decisionmaker's consideration of evidence to what is in the record. A judge can only review a decision if all of the factors that went into the decision are in the record. For example, a Board Member might make a site visit and absorb information about the neighborhood setting, traffic, etc. While that information may affect the decision, it is not part of the record. In addition, he explained that the doctrine prevents decisionmakers from participating in a decision if they have outright bias in favor or against a pending application. Vice Chair Strauss pointed out that she often walks by the sites the Board is reviewing. If she happens to mention something that she saw when she walked by, it would be on the record. City Attorney Taraday agreed and explained that this knowledge could be disclosed as ex parte information by putting what you know on the record and letting the parties to the proceeding respond. In addition, any discussions that occur outside of the hearing should also be disclosed as ex parte communications, regardless of whether or not they will have an impact on the final decision. City Attorney Taraday explained that, if the Board ends up retaining its quasi-judicial role, he could provide more in-depth training. City Attorney Taraday advised that State Law requires that any city can have no more than one open -record hearing and one closed -record appeal on any given application. Based on this law, it would be illegal for the ADB to conduct a public hearing and make a recommendation or decision on a component of an application and then send it off to the Hearing Examiner or City Council for another public hearing. The one -hearing rule would be violated if people were allowed to provide evidence in support or opposition to an application at each of those stages. Because of this law, the City must decide where it makes the most sense to have the open -record hearing and which body is best situated to be the primary recipient of evidence in support of or opposition to an application. The trend seems to be that the Hearing Examiner is the most appropriate body to hear most applications. Vice Chair Strauss asked if the Hearing Examiner is just one person. Mr. Taraday answered affirmatively and added that it is generally the same person unless there is a conflict of interest. The City retains its Hearing Examiner by contract, and the current Hearing Examiner is a lawyer by training and has the expertise to perform the task he is assigned. However, because he is not an architect or builder, he benefits from the ADB's recommendations with respect to design features. He also benefits from the Board's assistance in drafting an objective design code that gives fellow architects sufficient guidance to design buildings without having to guess at what the City wants. Board Member Owenby requested clarification on the Design Guidelines, and Mr. Clugston advised that they have not been adopted as code. City Attorney Taraday suggested that it will be important for the Board to keep the design guidelines in mind as they review the design standards in the code. However, they are not enforceable or mandatory. It is extremely important to understand where the code mandates something and where it merely suggests something. Board Members with architectural backgrounds can utilize their professional experience to provide guidance on whether or not the design standards go too far. Feedback from the Board will help the City find the right balance between what is mandatory and what is simply a suggestion or guideline. Mr. Chave reviewed that the City hired a consultant in 2001 to come up with Design Guidelines, which contained a number of higher -level objectives, as well as a lot of specificity. The City Council conducted hearings to potentially adopt the Design Guidelines into the code, but there was some push back that they contained too much detail. Ultimately, the high-level design objectives were adopted into the design chapter of the Comprehensive Plan, and all of the detailed guidelines were eliminated. The Design Guidelines provide vague guidance, but they are not mandatory. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting August 21, 2019 Page 4 of 8 This sets up frustration by the review body. He suggested it would be valuable for the ADB to review the Design Guidelines in the Comprehensive Plan and translate them into code as appropriate. He reviewed that the City's overall approach has been to regulate what is important, but figuring out what is important and how to provide guidance and specificity is a challenge. If you go too far in specifying detail, development ends up looking the same. On the other hand, you must regulate what is important to provide overall context within the community. It seems that the ADB would be the best body to accomplish that task. Board Member Owenby asked staff to provide the Board Members with a complete package of everything they need to understand which of the guidelines have been codified, which ones are mandatory, etc. Mr. Chave suggested it would also be helpful for the Board Members to review the 2001 study to learn more about the approach that was considered at that time. Board Member Owenby voiced concern that the Design Guidelines in the Comprehensive Plan appear to be a one -size -fits -all approach that doesn't really fit Edmonds. If the ADB wants to undertake this work, City Attorney Taraday cautioned against them getting too hung up on what the current code makes mandatory versus what is not mandatory. He suggested it would be more productive to focus on the future. Board Member Owensby commented that setback requirements are extremely important. A lot of design can be controlled by controlling how much setback is required and/or allowed. Traditionally, setbacks in cities were used to create public spaces in front of court houses, post offices, libraries, etc. He expressed his belief that setting buildings back too far from the street can destroy the urban character of a city. He would like a better understanding of all of the zoning standards before he can make any recommendations for change. City Attorney Taraday commented that, as a body that recommends policy change, no changes would be off limits to the Board's consideration, regardless of whether or not they are mandatory at this time. Board Member Bayer commented that, as a lay member of the Board, it would be very helpful to have additional information that outlines the current code requirements that relate to design. She referred to the scenario where the Hearing Examiner was the decisionmaker and asked how the ADB would provide feedback for the Hearing Examiner to consider. City Attorney Taraday answered that it depends on whether or not the Board wants to include the review meeting component that is shown on the flow chart as an optional part of the process. He noted that this is an optional part of the process, which gives the Board Members an opportunity to convey their opinions about a project's design and ask the Hearing Examiner to impose certain conditions on a development. However, the Board's recommendation would be nonbinding and the Hearing Examiner may decide that the code does not support such a condition. On the downside, this additional review could be time consuming and limit the Board's ability to provide policy guidance. He said he doesn't have a recommendation one way or the other. Mr. Chave summarized that staff s intent was to sketch out a process that would take the ADB out of their quasi-judicial decision -making role, but still keep them involved in design review. However, by retaining their role in design review, the ADB will continue to function similar to the current process. He said he is not sure the ADB will benefit from continuing with design review if they want to devote their time to the codes, standards and design guidance, which is where they can have the greatest impact. He explained that, in addition to general design standards that apply throughout the City, the City is also trying to do more subtle nuanced design standards based on districts (i.e. Westgate, Five Corners, Downtown, Highway 99, etc.). Creating district design standards will require a lot of the Board's time. The Board must decide what their most important role is and then allocate their time accordingly. City Attorney Taraday said that if the Board decides not to continue in their design review function, staff would review applications and submit a recommendation to the Hearing Examiner with respect to whether or not the project meets the adopted design criteria. However, some may feel that staff would not perform with the same expertise as the ADB. Vice Chair Strauss expressed her belief that staff has been doing a great job of reviewing applications and providing detailed staff reports. She said she supports a process that requires applicants to meet with the ADB in a preapplication meeting. She asked if the Board would favor making the preapplication meeting mandatory or optional. She also asked if the City currently charges a fee for preapplication meetings. Mr. Clugston explained that there are two types of Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting August 21, 2019 Page 5 of 8 preapplication meetings. One is a higher -level meeting that is free, and the other is a paid preapplication meeting where applicants receive notes, etc. He said staff s initial thought is that preapplication meetings with the ADB would occur during their regular evening meetings. Mr. Chave added that the preapplication meeting could be mandatory for projects that meet a certain threshold, but the format could be less formal. It would be up to the Board to establish the thresholds and decide the meeting format. When considering the option of moving design review earlier in the process, Vice Chair Strauss cautioned that the ADB needs to understand that their role is not to design projects and they must be careful with their suggestions. Vice Chair Strauss said she likes the idea of reviewing the current Design Guidelines in the Comprehensive Plan and identifying potential changes, as well as opportunities to codify them as standards where appropriate. If the Board's goal is to affect what Edmonds looks like, this will be the best approach. With the current process, the Board does not really have a chance to change anything as long as a project meets all of the design standards. Board Member Guenther agreed that the ADB should still be involved with project review, but the best approach has yet to be determined. He suggested that before working on design guidelines and district -based design standards, it would be helpful for the Board to review the design element of the Comprehensive Plan. It is frequently cited in the Staff Reports and contains all of the policy statements related to design in the City. Board Member Owenby asked staff to describe the process the ADB would follow when recommending changes to the design standards and other code requirements. City Attorney Taraday answered that the way the code is currently written, changes to certain section of the code automatically go before the Planning Board. However, they may want to revisit this provision to try and eliminate some of the redundancy of one recommending board reviewing another recommending board's work. Mr. Chave added that, currently, the Planning Board makes recommendations on certain code chapters to the City Council, and that includes everything related to design standards and zoning. However, he agreed it might be appropriate to change the code so that design -related issues are the purview of the ADB, which means the ADB would make recommendations directly to the City Council. City Attorney Taraday pointed out that streamlining the process so the ADB could make recommendations directly to the City Council on design related issues would certainly speed up the process. However, he emphasized that the City Council would still be responsible for making the final decision. Board Member Owensby asked if the ADB would be required to conduct public hearings on proposed code changes before sending a recommendation to the City Council, and City Attorney Taraday answered that a public hearing would likely be required. He explained that the Growth Management Act (GMA) requires that there be a public participation process for land -use related code changes. Board Member Owensby pointed out that some of the Board's design -related amendments might also involve zoning amendments. For example, creating a walkable community will require less setback. He referred to Highway 99 and observed that the further buildings are set back from the street, the further people will have to walk to get from one business to another. Mr. Chave advised that the setback requirements along Highway 99 were recently revised, and future development will be much closer to the sidewalks. City Attorney Taraday commented that setbacks have historically been within the reahn of the Planning Board. He advised that some code amendments can be under the purview of the ADB, but others might require a joint recommendation from both boards. Board Member Bayer said she supports streamlining the amendment process so that the ADB's recommendation can go directly to the City Council. However, she is curious about how the ADB would work with the Planning Board when joint recommendations are required. Mr. Chave explained that the current code requires that the ADB's recommendations go to the City Council via the Planning Board. City Attorney Taraday said his thought is that the process could be changed to allow the ADB to forward recommendation related to design directly to the City Council. Mr. Chave suggested that they focus on the most basic changes first (i.e. the Board's role in design review and recommendations to the City Council related to design policy changes). Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting August 21, 2019 Page 6 of 8 Board Member Guenther suggested that, until the code is changed to allow the ADB to make recommendations directly to the City Council, it will be important for the Board to follow its recommendations through the Planning Board and City Council public hearings. Recommendations are often changed as they make their way through the process. Mr. Chave advised that the Planning Board is scheduled to meet jointly with the City Council on September 24', and they would like to meet jointly with the ADB prior to that meeting. This would be an opportunity for the ADB members to voice their thoughts on potential changes that the Planning Board could share with the City Council. The idea is to obtain direction from the City Council before taking the proposed changes any further. He suggested it might be appropriate for a few ADB members to be present at the j oint meeting of the City Council and Planning Board. Board Member Bayer asked if it would be appropriate to draft some ADB Bylaws that outline their processes. This might be particularly important as the Board takes on a different role. City Attorney Taraday responded that the ADB is governed by ECDC 10.05, which creates the ADB and establishes its powers and duties. He recommended they each review this chapter and identify potential amendments. He explained that, in general, whenever the Board is unable to reach a consensus, the majority would rule. City Attorney Taraday advised that the Attorney General's Office has an on-line training video that explains the Open Public Meetings Act and how it applies to bodies such as the ADB. He recommended that all Board Members should view the video as soon as possible. As the Board becomes more involved in policy issues, there will be a temptation to discuss issues with fellow Board members outside of the regular meetings. These discussions can accidently result in illegal meetings. He agreed to email the Board Members a link to the video. He said he can return to a future ADB meeting to discuss any questions the Board Members might have after watching the video. Board Member Owenby commented that some of the ADB's work appears to overlap with work being done by the Economic Development Commission. He commented that urban design and architecture can influence economic development and suggested that a joint meeting might be appropriate. City Attorney Taraday agreed there is some overlap between the various boards and commissions. In the ADB's case, there is some overlap with the Planning Board, Economic Development Commission and Tree Board. Nothing prevents two boards from meeting jointly. Mr. Clugston pointed out that the ADB's existing Powers and Duties are listed on Page 22 of the Staff Report, and potential Powers and Duties, as well as possible Future Projects are listed on Pages 26 and 27 of the Staff Report. He encouraged the Board Members to review the list of existing Powers and Duties and see how they have morphed into what the Board currently does. He also recommended that they review the lists of potential Powers and Duties and Future Projects and identify additional items. Mr. Chave requested feedback from the Board on whether or not they were ready to meet jointly with the Planning Board on September 11' to share their thoughts on how the ADB's role might change or if more discussion is needed. He summarized that it appears the Board is interested in taking on the role of working on design standards and codes that will determine what kind of design happens in the future. They are also interested in pursuing a preapplication role in design review rather than the current quasi-judicial role. Explaining their thoughts on these two subjects would be valuable to the Planning Board so they can, in turn, highlight the proposed changes and gauge City Council support. If the City Council offers general support, the ADB can work on more specific changes. The Board agreed to place this issue on the September 4' agenda. They asked staff to distill their discussions thus far into a one -page list for them to review. The Board could the discuss any changes and agree upon a proposal to present to the Planning Board on September 11'. They discussed whether groups of Board Members could meet together to discuss ideas, but City Attorney Taraday cautioned that any meeting of four or more Board Members would have to be noticed as a special meeting. The rule applies to email chains, as well. Mr. Chave invited the Board Members to email their questions to staff, and staff could forward their responses to all of the Board members. Staff could also meet individually or with two or three Board Members. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting August 21, 2019 Page 7 of 8 BoaBrd Member Guenther said he is not sure he supports taking the ADB out of the quasi-judicial decision -making process. While he understands the advantages of this change, he felt more discussion was warranted before making this recommendation to the City Council. Board Member Owensby concurred. The Board agreed to discuss the pros and cons of this particular change at their September 4' meeting. Board Member Owensby said he would like staff to provide links to all of the plans and codes that the ADB would be responsible for based on the proposed changes. He also requested a link to ECDC 10.05. Mr. Chave commented that the design standards are scattered throughout the code, but staff could provide links to the main policy documents. Board Member Bayer asked staff to share their perspective on the proposed changes. Mr. Chave said staff supports all of the proposed changes discussed by the Board. Staff supports the ADB taking on a much stronger role as design standard policymakers and in reviewing the relationship of projects to codes and design standards to gain an understanding of how they work together and what changes need to be made. The biggest problem with the ADB's role as quasi-judicial decision makers is that the makeup of the Board changes frequently, and Board Members are often not well trained in quasi-judicial decision making and the rules are hard to understand. He said he would really like to see a board of design professionals and interested lay people actually devote their expertise to what they are good at, which is design, rather than quasi-judicial positioning, which is the Hearing Examiner's job. Board Member Juede asked City Attorney Taraday to explain which of the Board's decisions were quasi-judicial.. City Attorney Taraday answered that there are certain types of design review applications that only go before the ADB for approval. Mr. Clugston added that the last two applications that came before the Board are examples of projects in which the ADB makes the decision on design. Mr. Chave advised that, until recently, certain ADB decisions could be appealed to the City Council. However, the City Council decided to retain appeals on variances and conditional uses, but not on design issues. Board Member Owensby recalled that at the ADB's last joint meeting with the Planning Board, there was some discussion about affordable housing and housing variety and types. He asked if it would be appropriate for one or two ADB members to meet with the Planning Board to share their experiences and knowledge. City Attorney Taraday answered that Board Members can approach the Planning Board as individual citizens, but they cannot provide input to the Planning Board as representatives of the ADB. Mr. Chave added that ADB members can submit written commentary to staff related to items on the Planning Board's agenda. Another option is to provide oral comments at their meetings. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS There were no additional Board Member comments. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 8:52 p.m. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting August 21, 2019 Page 8 of 8