Loading...
2019-10-02 Architectural Design Board MinutesCITY OF EDMONDS ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD Minutes of Regular Meeting October 2, 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 Joe Herr, Chair Kim Bayer Cary Guenther Maureen Jeude Bruce Owensby ,�1]i�1 �I1`11yY11;1 Board Members Absent Lauri Strauss, Vice Chair (excused) Tom Walker (excused) Staff Present Mike Clugston, Senior Planner Karin Noyes, Recorder BOARD MEMBER GUENTHER MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 2, 2019 BE APPROVED AS AMENDED. BOARD MEMBER JEUDE SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. APPROVAL OF AGENDA BOARD MEMBER GUENTHER MOVED THAT THE AGENDA BE ACCEPTED AS PRESENTED. BOARD MEMBER BAYER SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. REQUESTS FROM THE AUDIENCE: There were no audience comments during this part of the agenda. MINOR PROJECTS: No minor projects were scheduled on the agenda. PUBLIC HEARING: Phase 2 District -Based Design Review for Main Street Commons Located at 550 Main Street (File Number PLN20190024) Chair Herr explained that this is a public hearing for the Main Street Commons Project located at 550 Main Street. After accepting public testimony, the Board will deliberate and make a decision on the project. He reviewed the rules and procedures for the hearing and invited all who wanted to participate in the hearing to stand and be sworn in. Mr. Clugston explained that this is Phase 2 of the public hearing for the Main Street Commons Project. Phase 1 of the hearing was held on July 3'd, at which time the applicant provided conceptual designs and the Board prioritized the Design Guidelines Checklist and continued the hearing to September 4'. On September 0, the Board continued the hearing to October 2" d to allow the applicant additional time to resubmit updated project materials. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting October 2, 2019 Page 1 of 10 Mr. Clugston reminded the Board that projects in the Downtown Business (BD) zones are subject to district -based design review under the regulations of Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 20.12. Applications that trigger State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review are Type III-B decisions that require a two-phase public hearing and design decision by the Architectural Design Board (ADB). He explained that the purpose of the Phase 2 hearing is for the applicant to present revised plans that address the input provided by the public and the ADB at the Phase 1 hearing. At the conclusion of the Phase 2 portion of the hearing process, the ADB will complete its review of the project design and make a final decision. Mr. Clugston reviewed the Staff Report, which contains 15 exhibits. He provided an aerial photograph of the subject property, noting that the site is currently developed with an existing building (west) and a parking lot (east). He explained that Part lof the project includes extensive renovation and alteration (not new construction) of the existing building on the west side of the site for commercial uses. The building height will remain at roughly 23 feet. He provided a photograph of the Main Street fagade of the existing building, with its 1950's design. He pointed out that the design presented at the Phase 1 hearing provided some additional window treatments and siding changes. The updated design that is currently before the Board responds to input from the Board and staff by adding a pedestrian entrance onto Main Street and providing additional windows. He explained that because the building is a remodel, it does not have to meet and cannot meet all of the BD Design Standards, but the current proposal changes the building from addressing the parking lot to the east to addressing the street front at Main Street. Mr. Clugston advised that Part 2 of the project will replace the existing parking lot on the east side of the site with a new 2-story building at the corner of Main Street and 6' Avenue South. At the Phase 1 hearing, the Board requested that the ground floor of the building be opened up. Because the building is new construction, it must meet all of the BD Design Standards. The design presented at the Phase 1 hearing did not appear to meet the 75% transparency requirement. In the current design, the building between 2 and 10 feet is almost entirely windows. The rest of the design is similar to the previous submittal, but it provides some different claddings. He summarized that staff believes the proposed design meets the design standards. Mr. Clugston provided a rendering to show how the entire site will fit together. He also provided a plan drawing of the entire site, noting the canopy -covered pedestrian entry on the west building and the canopy covering and outdoor seating between the east building and the sidewalk. The primary entry to the new building would be located at the corner of 6'' Avenue South and Main Street. He pointed out that an interior plaza would be created on a portion of the existing surface parking lot, and would extend south of the new building to connect to 6' Avenue South. Although no parking is required for the project, the applicant is proposing 8 surface parking stalls that load from the alley to the south. The parking space would be separated from the plaza by a low wall and mural system. Mr. Clugston reported that the existing landscaping on Main Street, including the street trees, will be protected and retained, and new street trees will be planted on 6' Avenue South. Small planters and a few specimen trees will be provided throughout the site, but the code does not require a lot of landscaping. However, Type V landscaping will be required at the southeast corner for the parking lot. Mr. Clugston said staff is recommending approval of the proposed design with several conditions, some of which simply highlight code requirements. There appears to be a utility pad at the southeast corner of the site by the sidewalk on 6' Avenue. A condition is proposed to relocate, bury or screen any utility cabinets to deemphasize them as much as possible. In this same area, a 2" d condition would emphasize that Type V landscaping would be required. Staff is proposing a condition that recommends additional interest along the 6' Avenue South sidewalk. While street trees are shown, hanging baskets, planters, and street furniture, similar to those on Main Street, would be nice to have on 6' Avenue South if there is room. Lastly, the wall between the parking area and the plaza looks very plain in the renderings, and a condition was added to require additional interest via different materials, vegetation, etc. Chair Herr pointed out that a split face and different textures can be used on block walls to enhance their visual interest. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting October 2, 2019 Page 2 of 10 Mike McMurray, Seattle -Snohomish Mill Company, advised that he is the applicant and owner of the subject property. He said he is planning a large green wall on the east side of 6' Avenue South that wraps around to the alley. This will soften and provide interest to the building, and he is open to recommendations on the types of planting material. Mr. McMurray commented that his project architects did a great job implementing the recommendations made by the Board and staff at the Phase 1 hearing. He expressed his belief that the glazing and seismic update requirements in the code can conflict with each other and there needs to be a process that allows the requirements to be reduced to some degree. He said his structural engineer was able to beef up some of the beams and do other things to meet the seismic code and still provide the glazing that is required, but it was difficult. The awnings on Main Street were also structurally difficult and expensive to do, given the significant window requirement. He acknowledged that the changes made the building design better, but they also increased his costs. Mr. McMurray agreed that the proposed mural walls could appear too corporate looking, and he solicited input from Francis Chapin and Patrick Doherty on how to make them look better. The goal of the proposed mural walls is to interact not only with pedestrians, but also with the patrons of the boutique event space on the second floor. One option is to break up the mural board into three sections, with space in between each one. This would give the mural more texture and make it look more like a piece of art. He is open to suggestions as this portion of the project evolves over time. He noted that particular attention needs to be paid to the scale of the mural wall. Mr. McMurray said there is currently a flower bed at the corner of the existing building, and the current design calls for an installation art piece. He spoke with Ms. Chapin about the City of Langley's installation art program, which rotates every 12 to 18 months. They have three spots throughout the city, and they have competitions. He suggested that Edmonds could embrace a similar concept, and this corner location could be an ideal place. Mr. McMurray said the site plan hasn't changed a lot since the Phase 1 hearing, except more awnings were added in the plaza and on Main Street. While he isn't required to provide parking, the proposed plan would accommodate 8 spaces. He said he finds it ironic that he is developing parking space for his project when, two lots away, the City is designing an 8.5-acre park without a designated parking lot or American's with Disabilities Act (ADA) parking. Development in the BD 1 zone depends on street parking, and he has made some recommendations to the City's leadership about the need for a better balance. He explained that he has allowed people to park on his property for free for the past two years, and some people have voiced concern that the proposed project will take the parking away. He said he would like to provide more parking for his project, but it is extremely costly to provide underground parking. He noted that a few additional parking spaces could be created along 6' Avenue South when the existing curb cut is eliminated. Mr. McMurray advised that the tax on the two parcels increased by 60% over the past year, and retaining the parking lot and renovating the existing building with seismic updates, windows, etc. is not feasible in any scenario. He said he has received offers to sell the property for a nice gain for condominium development, which is considered the property's highest and best use. However, it is his belief that the spirit of the BDl zone is to create a more vibrant, interactive downtown. The downtown is a large part of Edmonds' central identity. It is special and his proposed project tries to take that to heart. Mr. McMurray said the proposed stage area would be used for performances. When no one is performing, the public could utilize the space for seating and protection from the weather. He advised that groups like Sea Jazz need a place to perform, and he is hoping that local groups will perform in the plaza on a regular basis. He emphasized that he doesn't plan to have music there every day. Mr. McMurray pointed out that a signature tree would be planted at the corner of 6'' Avenue South and Main Street (northeast corner). The idea is to plant a dwarf variety of evergreen tree that will only grow to a height of about 20 feet. The tree could make a statement and soften the building's appearance. He thanked the Board for this recommendation. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting October 2, 2019 Page 3 of 10 Mr. McMurray said the project's landscape architect also did the landscaping plan for Salish Crossing, and a similar style was used. The paver system used in the main plaza will be a commercial grade that is strong and durable. It will have altering patterns and shapes to provide more texture to the courtyard. The City recommended some bike amenities, which were added. Mr. McMurray said the new building would be open beamed. When it is lit up at night, people walking down the hill will be able to see the soft wood of the ceiling. In addition, the sliding doors on the 6'' Avenue South side of the existing building can be opened up during the summer. Three more trees would be added along 6'' Avenue South and one would be added on Main Street to make the site more inviting. Mr. McMurray said he recently read the book, CREATING A MORE VIBRANT COMMUNITY, which talks about marque intersections in towns. While 6' Avenue South and Main Street may not be a marque intersection now, once Civic Park is developed and the town evolves, it could become more of a destination. The book talks about how programming at intersections can help contribute to a town's vibrancy. It also talks about having parking in close proximity but not on the main drag. With the community's help, he is trying to procure the right tenants. He has had the good fortune to do that with an ice cream shop and pizzeria that are family -oriented. In addition, a gentleman is looking to open a yoga/cycle studio. There seems to be a real demand for the type of space that would be offered in the proposed boutique event space, too. The goal is to have tenants and patrons that create synergy on the property throughout the entire day. David DiMarco, DiMarco Architecture, said he is the project architect. He summarized the character of the exterior spaces, emphasizing that the focus was more on the spaces between the buildings than the buildings, themselves. They felt the downtown area really needed a place where informal interaction was encouraged. The goal was to create a community space that is attractive, comfortable and natural for uses in a distinctly Edmonds type of way. The mural panels on the southern side of the property are intended to draw people from 6' Avenue South and Main Street, they don't want them to looking through the plaza area to the less attractive backsides of the buildings across the alley. There is a long history of large-scale murals in Edmonds, and the thought was instead of creating a blank wall on a building and trying to make it look good with a mural, a better approach would be elevated murals that are the focal point of the exterior space. They can be flexible as far as the number and scale of the murals, but the idea is to draw people in a way that is uniquely Edmonds and create a focal point. Mr. DiMarco said the nature of the space behind the east building, which is dubbed the "art alley," is to screen the parking spaces and activate the adjacent space without feeling like you are partying in a parking space. The concrete block half wall is intended to partially screen the view of the cars from the plaza. He noted that concrete block, masonry walls with high reflective glazing are often used at public food markets to provide a sanitary, market feel. The thought was to create walls under colorful art panels to screen the parking, and perhaps even have an art program where students create custom blocks that could be placed intermittently within the wall. The goal is to engage the community in an artful and playful way. Mr. DiMarco advised that the retractable awnings underneath each of the art panels are intended to invoke an open -stall, market -type environment. The idea is to accommodate vendors seasonally to share their art wares. The specific details are born from a much bigger idea of trying to create a community -minded outdoor space. Mr. DiMarco said the code requires new projects to create a distinctive base, middle and top. He pointed out that, on the west building, the scale of the siding panels could be altered to create a base and middle, and the awnings will create the top. Using the recessed entryways, they tried to make the fagade of the building as pedestrian -friendly as possible. With the east building, the pattern of the brick fagade will be changed to create a base and middle. The top will be created with a large, steel cornice piece. Mr. DiMarco provided pictures of the project that summarized how the proposed designs for new east building and the renovated west building address all of the concerns raised by the Board and staff during the Phase 1 hearing. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting October 2, 2019 Page 4 of 10 Najib Azar, Edmonds, said he is a long-time resident of Edmonds and has watched the community grow and thrive over the past 40 years. He and his wife always thought of the community as a dormant, retirement community, but that has changed. The City is waking up, and it is time to see changes that benefit the future generations. He commented that the applicant and his design team have done a tremendous job on the proposed project. It is a beautiful project that will add a great value to the City. He said he plans to open a health and fitness club on the subject site, which he believes will help Edmonds become a healthy and vibrant place. There is now a mix of residents living in Edmonds, and it is time to create a place where all generations can meet. He believes the proposed project will help fill that need. He summarized that the applicant has done a good job of addressing the design details. As a prospective tenant, he asked that the Board expedite the process by approving the project design. Jack Christiansen, Edmonds, asked if the applicant has plans to remove the utility poles that are currently located near the proposed parking spaces. Mr. DiMarco explained that when the electrical engineers put feelers out concerning where to pull power for the project, it became very clear very quickly that their hands were tied as to where poles and transformers were already established and what was available for the project. The pole that is west of the subject property down the alley is the only option, according to the Public Utility District, where they will be able to have transformers to pull the power from. There was talk of getting power from the opposite side of the 6' Avenue South/Main Street intersection or the east side of 6' Avenue South, but these alternatives were determined to be untenable. Mr. McMurray added that the code requires underground power for the project. The existing significant power supply that comes across the parking lot will be removed. Transformers will be added on the pole near the alley, and the lines will go down the pole and underground to the vault at the corner of the subject property. Mr. Christiansen complimented the applicant on the traditional design of the existing building renovation. He also likes the traditional windows that have been proposed. He noted there is no dimension provided for the height of the building at the corner of 6'' Avenue South and Main Street. He asked how high the building would rise above the existing sidewalk. Mr. DiMarco answered that on the far side of the east building, the height would be about 29 feet, but the floor level at the corner is about 4 feet higher than the plaza level. The resulting height on the 2-story corner at 6' and main will be approximately 25 feet. The covered entrance has a balcony across the top that is 15 feet floor -to -floor as mandated by code, with a 3.5 foot -railing. The overall height would be about 19.5 feet. Mr. Christiansen asked if there would be any personnel access or use of the roof. Mr. DiMarco said the elevator tower would be there, as required by the elevator manufacturer. During Phase 1, the HVAC was placed on the rooftop, but they were quickly told that is not permissible. As currently proposed, the southeast corner of the east building now has a recessed roof section to house all of the HVAC equipment, so it won't be any higher than the brick parapet. The code allows the elevator tower to extend three feet above the roof, and it would have a simple stucco face. Anne Christiansen, Edmonds, asked if the existing flower beds at the corner of 6' Avenue South and Main Street would be preserved, and Mr. DiMarco answered affirmatively. Chair Herr expressed his belief that the applicant and his team did a great job of responding to the Board's direction and comments. He understands that adding more windows and relocating the entrance was structurally difficult, but they did a tremendous job. Board Member Bayer agreed with the comments made by Mr. Azar. She said she has lived in Edmonds for decades and has witnessed the vibrancy, growth and positive changes that have occurred. When the application was first presented in July, she was lukewarm with the proposed design for the existing building. She agreed with Chair Herr that the applicant did a great job updating the design for the benefit of the community. Board Member Bayer said she is a proponent of bringing more art into the community, but she is still trying to understanding the billboard concept. During the Phase 1 hearing, they discussed that perhaps the proposed mural walls were too large and intrusive and could take away the focus from Main Street and 6' Avenue South. The applicant has Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting October 2, 2019 Page 5 of 10 indicated there is flexibility as far as the murals are concerned. She questioned how much flexibility the applicant would have, how big the murals could be, and who would make the decision as to what art or mural is installed. Mr. DiMarco explained that the three panels are hopeful placeholders at this time. Mr. McMurray hasn't engaged enough in how specifically the panels could be used to best benefit the local arts community. For example, they need to explore whether they should be permanent art installations or if they are intended to rotate. If they are permanent, artists may not be excited about working within a specific triangle, and if they are rotated, there is significant cost involved with changing out art at that scale. The pieces could almost be a framework right now, without any solid planes. You could then add specific pieces to them that are sponsored for however long the community or the artist chooses. The important elements are the half walls, the columns and the retractable awnings that create a sheltered space for the temporary stage area and the two market stall areas. Whatever happens above those is really up for grabs. By the time the permit application is finished and before a final decision has to been made, the applicant will have done the necessary research to get a feel for what would be the most engaging and enjoyable contribution he could make in large-scale art for the downtown area. It was never the applicant's intent to install large, suburban billboards in the downtown. The idea was to make a space that has art as a destination. That goal will remain consistent no matter how it morphs and changes. Mr. McMurray explained that the two mural panels on the east side near 6' Avenue South will be part of Part 2, so there will be time to consider a variety of options. He wants to focus on the mural in the courtyard first. The goal is to make it more interactive and look less like a billboard. Anything that can be done to interact with the pedestrians at the ground level in an artistic way will be important. He likes the idea of wall murals, but there are other options to shield the project from the parking and adjacent buildings. He said he is not 100% set on the murals and is open to suggestions. Board Member Bayer said she is more concerned about the murals in the plaza area, but is satisfied as long as the applicant remains open to suggestions. Chair Herr reminded the Board that the murals would require a separate permit, and there are stipulations relative to size, height, etc. Board Member Owensby recalled that he commended the applicant on the design at the Phase 1 hearing, and he extended that commendation to the Phase 2 proposal. The project will be great for the City. He likes that they are trying to create a community space rather than just designing facades. Quite often people come in with big ideas, which work sometimes, but if something falls the entire project fails. He likes that the applicant has created so many different elements that the project would still be successful even if some were eliminated. He likes all of the applicant's ideas for activating the space. He said he likes the signature tree at the corner, and making the windows bigger creates a nice loft feel. He also likes the art screens, but they might be too high. He asked if the applicant has done studies to identify the appropriate level. He appreciates that the applicant is open to suggestions for the art screens, and there are a number of options that could be considered. He said he likes the proposed design of the existing building renovation, and he likes the idea that the proposed project will create an anchor that will cause people to come further down the street. Board Member Guenther agreed with Board Member Owenby. He likes how the project will create a center for the community at the next corner moving up the hill. The proposed open spaces and buildings will create important synergy. He commented that Edmonds is a great community and the proposed project will make it even better. Board Member Jeude said it is very obvious that the applicant's heart is in the project and in the community. She likes the family orientation and the idea of incorporating the arts. The applicant could have tweaked a few things from the Phase 1 design and probably made the Board happy, but he responded to absolutely everything. Edmonds really needs more retail options, and the project will contribute to the local economy. Chair Herr closed the public testimony portion of the hearing. Chair Herr observed that the applicant has gone beyond what the Board asked at the Phase 1 hearing. They were able to overcome some significant obstacles and come back with a project that is even better than the one that was initially presented to the Board. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting October 2, 2019 Page 6 of 10 BOARD MEMBER GUENTHER MOVED THAT THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD ADOPT THE FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ANALYSIS OF THE STAFF REPORT; FIND THAT THE PROPOSAL IS CONSISTENT WITH THE ZONING ORDINANCE, THE DESIGN CRITERIA IDENTIFIED DURING PHASE 1 OF THE PUBLIC HEARING, AND THE DESIGN STANDARDS OF ECDC 22.43; AND APPROVE THE PROPOSAL WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: f �.`y II 7119111511 ��/ 11 I��i%I-IZI),�i�f.'�1]� � 1 � I1 I /I 1] I�[!�'.'�\_ �CI�[!!►\ /_\ h f.`y Y .7111111■►I 111. TRANSPARENT AND UNOBSTRUCTED CONSISTENT WITH ECDC 22.43.050.B. 2. ALL UTILITY CABINETS MUST BE RELOCATED, BURIED, SCREENED WITH VEGETATION, OR CAMOUFLAGED WITH ART TO REDUCE THEIR VISUAL IMPACT AT THE SIDEWALK LEVEL. 3. LANDSCAPING CONSISTENT WITH THE TYPE V REQUIREMENTS IN ECDC 20.13.030.E MUST BE PROVIDED IN THE LANDSCAPED AREA AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE SITE BY 6'H AVENUE SOUTH AND THE ALLEY (HATCHED AREA ON EXHIBIT 5). 4. ADDITIONAL HANGING BASKETS AND STREET FURNITURE MUST BE PROVIDED WITHIN THE PUBLIC SIDEWALK IF THERE IS SUFFICIENT ROOM BETWEEN OTHER REQUIRED FRONTAGE IMPROVEMENTS AND UTILITIES. 5. ADDITIONAL INTEREST MUST BE ADDED TO THE LOW WALL BETWEEN THE PARKING STALLS AND PLAZA. THIS COULD TAKE THE FORM OF LANDSCAPING, VARIED MATERIALS, OR THE LIKE. 6. MURALS WILL REQUIRE A SIGN PERMIT PER ECDC 20.60.015.C. 7. STAFF WILL VERIFY COMPLIANCE OF THE PROPOSAL WITH ALL RELEVANT CODES AND LAND USE PERMIT CONDITIONS THROUGH REVIEW OF BUILDING AND ENGINEERING PERMITS. MINOR CHANGES TO THE APPROVED DESIGN MAY BE APPROVED BY STAFF AT THE TIME OF BUILDING PERMIT WITHOUT FURTHER DESIGN REVIEW BY THE BOARD AS LONG AS THE DESIGN IS SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR TO THAT ORIGINALLY APPROVED. BOARD MEMBER OWENSBY SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. CONSOLIDATED PERMIT APPLICATIONS (No Public Participation): There were no consolidated permit applications. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTSATEMS FOR DISCUSSION: Continued Discussion of ADB Roles and Review Process Mr. Clugston reviewed that the Architectural Design Board (ADB) met jointly with the Planning Board on July 24' to discuss the Board's potential roles and the design review process. He advised that the goal of this meeting is to develop a consensus proposal to present to the Planning Board at a joint meeting on October 9'. He recalled that when the Board last discussed the issue, they directed staff to come back with a recommendation that would allow the Board to be involved earlier in the design review process and allow the Board to have a role in reviewing and developing design standards that are principal drivers of general design and development in the City. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting October 2, 2019 Page 7 of 10 Mr. Clugston explained that, as envisioned, there are two possible opportunities for the Board to review a project during the design review cycle. The first would be at the pre -application phase when an applicant is still in the early stages of project development. The second would be if the Board wants to remain within the project decision cycle by reviewing submitted projects that require non -staff design review (projects that require a SEPA determination and tall projects in the General Commercial zones) and making recommendations on their design to the final decision maker (likely the Hearing Examiner). He pointed out that doing the recommendation will require more project review work, but it would also allow the Board to take another look at a project to see if it addresses the Board's design vision as discussed at the pre -application meeting. He noted that there was discussion on both options, but the Board has not yet indicated its preferred option. Mr. Clugston summarized that, as discussed previously by the Board, their desired roles include: • Developing and recommending city-wide design guidelines and standards (e.g. for landscape treatments, multifamily development), as well as context -sensitive standards for special design districts (e.g. Downtown, Westgate, Five Corners, Highway 99). • Reviewing projects post -hoc to evaluate whether what was constructed reflects the intent of what was approved and, if not, recommending refinements to adopted design guidelines and standards. • Doing pre -application meetings for certain "significant" projects and providing recommendations to the Hearing Examiner when quasi-judicial decision -making is required (similar to how consolidated permit reviews operate now). • Reviewing public projects and providing recommendations to the City Council. • Providing decision support to staff, which may relate to various design -related topics. Next, Mr. Clugston asked the Board to review the staff's proposed recommendations for implementing the Board's desired roles and provide feedback. Specifically, he asked the Board to provide feedback on whether or not they want to have two opportunities for project review and the ability to make a recommendation to the Hearing Examiner for large projects in the CG zone and projects that require SEPA review. Staff s Recommendations for Implementing the Board's Desired Goals: 1. Mandatory pre -application meetings with prospective applicants, before designs are completed and applications submitted (see separate flow chart for an example). 2. Periodic reviews of completed projects, comparing approved designs to completed projects (both at completion and 3-5 years after the project has been built. 3. Review City codes and policies related to design, making recommendations to the City Council on adjustments, or when appropriate, new standards or design guidance. To implement this role effective, the code should be clarified so that the sections of the code relevant to design are identified and the ADB's role made clear. Board Member Bayer asked how the periodic reviews (Recommendation 2) would happen, and what recourse the Board would have if a completed project is found to be inconsistent with the approved design. Mr. Clugston said he is not sure exactly how the periodic reviews would play out. Perhaps they could look back one year to recently completed projects, as well as a review of projects that were completed five to ten years ago. The idea is to review projects to see how they age over time and whether or not they are consistent with the design guidelines. If they aren't, the Board could recommend policy and code changes. For example, during its review of a recent multifamily project, the Board expressed concern that the current code does not require guest parking, nor does it require that projects be oriented towards the street. The thought is that the proposed changes would allow the Board to recommend code and policy changes as appropriate to improve the design of buildings going forward. If the Board wants to retain its role in providing recommendations to the Hearing Examiner, perhaps one meeting a month could be devoted to post -hoc reviews and the other meeting could be reserved for recommendations on projects. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting October 2, 2019 Page 8 of 10 Board Member Jeude observed that if the Board were to do periodic post -hoc review of projects going forward, someone would have to record what the expectations of the approved design were so they could be referred to five years down the road to identify potential changes. Mr. Clugston said the post -hoc reviews would include reviewing the approved plans and the minutes from the Board's meetings to identify any divergence between what the Board recommended and what was actually constructed. He pointed out that there are already solid design standards for the BD zones, but the City's general design standards apply to projects in other multifamily and commercial zones in the City. Chair Herr observed that, when Mr. Lien presented a review of projects completed over the past 10 years, he didn't see anything that was radically different from what the Board approved. Board Member Guenther recalled that this issue first came up five or six years ago when some members of the Board felt that projects were not being built consistent with what the Board approved. However, Mr. Lien's recent presentation indicated that was not the case. With the notable exception of the post office project, all of the projects were fairly consistent with the design that was approved by the Board. The post office project design was changed enough that it should have been brought back to the Board for additional review. Board Member Guenther voiced concern that the pre -application meeting may be too early to discuss design, as the information provided is quite basic. While he likes the idea of the Board participating earlier in the process, perhaps there needs to be a separate meeting to deal with design. Board Member Owensby agreed. The Board's participation should come at a time when schematic designs are available to review issues such as massing, how a project addresses the street, etc. Mr. Clugston explained that there are two types of pre -application meetings. There's a free development review committee meeting, which provides a very high-level look at a project. But the pre -application meetings are paid for by the applicant and reasonably -detailed site plans and building elevations are submitted for review. He suggested they could ask for a higher level of detail at the pre -application stage for projects that trigger SEPA. Board Member Guenther agreed it would be appropriate to have a minimum requirement for site plans, elevations, massing studies, etc. Board Member Jeude commented that the requirement for awnings and 75% transparency seemed to surprise the applicant for the Main Street Commons Project. She suggested there should be some way to make all of the requirements clear before applicants get too far into their design. Mr. Clugston said he cannot think of another time, other than a pre -application meeting, for the Board to provide input early enough to where they can have a general discussion about the project and its context. However, they must make sure to require useful renderings, massing information, etc. He suggested that the development review committee meeting could be the fact-finding meeting, but for projects that require SEPA, they could ask for more information upfront so the Board has more solid plans to look at. Board Member Owenby said it will be important for the City to provide clear information about exactly what will be required for the pre -application meetings. Mr. Clugston said that, hopefully, the Board's work will eventually be reflected in the design standards and guidelines contained in the code, but they aren't quite there yet. The intent is for the Board to spend more time working on policies and codes that result in better design. There will be a transition period, but the pre -application meeting concept is a good place to start. As they get further down the road, the standards and guidelines can be tightened up, and perhaps the pre - application meetings will no longer be necessary. The pre -application meetings will get applicants thinking more closely about design, even if the Board's input is only a recommendation. Board Member Bayer commented that, overall, the proposed recommendations represent a great new direction for the Board's role. She asked if there would be an opportunity for Board Members to provide further feedback at a future meeting. Mr. Clugston said it would be useful for the Board to indicate support for the general recommendations, which will be presented at the joint meeting with the Planning Board. Additional details can be discussed and fleshed out at the joint meeting. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting October 2, 2019 Page 9 of 10 Chair Herr commented that the staff recommendation provides a good starting point. They won't know how the changes will play out until they are implemented. He anticipates that other ideas will come up later and the Board will have some additional recommendations. He supports moving the recommendations forward to the Planning Board to get the process rolling. Mr. Clugston asked the Board to provide specific direction about whether they want to participate in just the pre - application review, or if they want to reserve the ability to review projects after an application comes in and make a recommendation to the Hearing Examiner. He emphasized that the second review would be followed by a recommendation to the Hearing Examiner, and not final approval by the Board. Board Member Owensby said it is important for the Board to have an additional meeting to review significant projects. The Main Street Commons Project is a good example of a project being significantly improved for the second hearing. It would be good to have the ability to provide continuing feedback, but it would be even better if the Board's feedback had some teeth behind it. Mr. Clugston said the Board's recommendation could include conditions of approval, and it would be up to the Hearing Examiner whether to adopt the conditions or not. Chair Herr pointed out that projects on Highway 99 will be significantly larger and have a greater impact from the standpoint of design. As the Housing Commission moves forward, it will be important for the Board to provide input as to how development along Highway 99 will look. The entire corridor will change dramatically as the City starts to address housing issues. It is the only place in the City where there is the height and land available for large housing projects. Mr. Clugston reminded the Board that the City Council recently adopted new design standards for the General Commercial (CG) zones that are far reaching. They also completed a project SEPA for the entire Highway 99 area. The Board should have been involved in the development of the design standards, using their expertise as designers and architects, but that didn't happen. The Board Members indicated they would be able to meet jointly with the Planning Board on October 9'. Mr. Clugston agreed to prepare an agenda memo that outlines the ADB's recommendation. Board Member Owensby asked if the Planning Board has discussed the concepts related to design review. Mr. Clugston recalled that the ADB met jointly with the Planning Board in July to discuss the concepts, and they are aware that the Board would like to change its focus. They have requested that the ADB prepare a set of recommendations. He advised that, because the proposed changes will require code changes, the Planning Board will need to be involved in the process and make a recommendation to the City Council. He summarized that the Planning Board is aware that the ADB wants to do something different, and they advised the City Council of the proposed changes at their joint meeting in September. They know that changes are coming, but it is up to the ADB to provide input on the best way to make them happen. Board Member Guenther stressed the need for the ADB to work closely with the Planning Board to make sure they understand exactly what the Board is recommending. They will need to support the proposed changes as they move through the process, including final approval by the City Council. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS: Mr. Clugston announced that he is not aware of any projects that will be coming before the Board for review in the near future. Board Member Owensby asked if the Board's work on proposed policy and code amendments would have to be done in a public setting, and Mr. Clugston answered affirmatively. However, he agreed that the meeting room could be set up differently in a conference -style setting. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting October 2, 2019 Page 10 of 10