Loading...
2019-11-06 Architectural Design Board MinutesCITY OF EDMONDS ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD Minutes of Regular Meeting November 6, 2019 Chair Herr called the meeting of the Architectural Design Board to order at 7:00 p.m., at the City Council Chambers, 250 - 5' Avenue North, Edmonds, Washington. Board Members Present Board Members Absent Joe Herr, Chair Lauri Strauss, Vice Chair Kim Bayer Cary Guenther Maurine Jeude Bruce Owenby Tom Walker APPROVAL OF MINUTES Staff Present Mike Clugston, Senior Planner Karin Noyes, Recorder VICE CHAIR STRAUSS MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF OCTOBER 2, 2019 BE APPROVED AS AMENDED. BOARD MEMBER OWENSBY SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. REQUESTS FROM THE AUDIENCE: There was no one in the audience. DISCUSSION ABOUT ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD MEMBER TERMS Mr. Clugston recalled that Board Members Owenby, Bayer, and Jeude were appointed to the Board for partial terms, which expire at the end of 2019. The terms of Board Members Strauss and Herr also expire at the end of 2019. All five Board Members indicated a desire to be reappointed, and Mr. Clugston agreed to get the reappointment process started. Board Member Bayer requested clarification about the required make up of the Board. Mr. Clugston answered that, as per the enabling ordinance, the Board consists of the following position: 2 laymen, an architect, a builder, a landscape architect, an at -large professional, and a planner. Edmonds residency is only required for the layman position. The Board Members voiced some concern that there is no residency requirement for the majority of the Board Members. They agreed that Board Members should have some familiarity with Edmonds. Vice Chair Strauss said she would be surprised if someone without a connection to Edmonds would even be interested in serving on the Board. ELECTION OF OFFICERS FOR 2020 BOARD MEMBER GUENTHER MOVED THAT THE BOARD APPOINT BOARD MEMBER STRAUSS TO BE CHAIR AND BOARD MEMBER OWENSBY TO BE VICE CHAIR EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 2020. BOARD MEMBER HERR SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting November 6, 2019 Page 1 of 5 ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTSATEMS FOR DISCUSSION: Continued Discussion of ADB Roles and Design Review Process Mr. Clugston briefly reviewed that the Architectural Design Board (ADB) met jointly with the Planning Board on October 9d' to discuss potential changes to the ADB's specific role in the project design review process and allowing the ADB greater involvement in developing the guidelines and standards necessary to influence design in Edmonds. He recalled that the Planning Board indicated support for the proposed changes, and the purpose of this discussion is to fine- tune the proposal and prepare a recommendation for the City Council's consideration. Mr. Clugston advised that the Board has a few months to work on the proposal before presenting it to the City Council. Because the City will have a new mayor and three new City Council Members in January, it would behoove the Board to allow them time to become comfortable in their new roles before presenting their proposed changes. He suggested the Board could continue its discussions on December 0 and finalize its recommendation on February 5d'. He noted that January 1 st (the Board's regularly scheduled meeting) would be cancelled for the holiday. Board Member Guenther suggested that the Board present its recommendation to the City Council prior to its annual retreat in March. The remainder of the Board concurred, and Mr. Clugston agreed to request that a joint meeting with the City Council be scheduled for February 18d', February 25d' or March 3rd. Vice Chair Strauss asked if another joint meeting with the Planning Board would be appropriate prior to presenting the ADB's recommendation to the City Council. It was discussed that the Planning Board has already indicated support for the proposed changes, but it might be helpful for a representative from the Planning Board to be present at the ADB's joint meeting with the City Council to represent their viewpoint. He specifically asked the Board to provide direction on the following: • Changing the ADB's Name. Mr. Clugston suggested it may be appropriate to alter the name to better reflect the Board's changed role. Altering Meeting Dates, Times and Venues. Mr. Clugston reviewed that, traditionally, the ADB has met on the Pt Wednesday of each month. The 3'd Wednesday of each month has been set aside for additional meetings as needed. Staff is recommending the Board consider having two regular meetings each month, and changing the meeting dates to the 1' and 3'd Thursdays. He explained that staff holds pre -application meetings with applicants on Thursday afternoons. The idea is that applicants could meet with staff in the afternoon, followed by a meeting with the ADB in the early evening. Changing the ADB meetings to Thursday would make it more convenient for applicants to meet with the Board. The Board Members offered general support for the proposed date and time change. Mr. Clugston suggested that the Board could change the location of its meetings from the Council Chambers to a less formal setting in the Brackett Room at City Hall. The Board Members voiced support for this change, as well. Content of ADB Meetings. Mr. Clugston explained that, if the Board is amenable to having two regular meetings each month (on Thursday), the 1st meeting of each month could be reserved for pre -application meetings and follow- up design review meetings that result in a recommendation from the ADB to the Hearing Examiner. The 2nd meeting could be dedicated to post hoc reviews, consideration of potential code amendments related to design, etc. He observed that it is easier to schedule both meetings each month and then cancel one or the other if there are no items on the agenda. Mr. Clugston provided a sample meeting agenda, which is similar to the agenda used by the Planning Board. In addition to the meeting agenda, there is also an extended agenda that lists issues the Board would like to address moving forward. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting November 6, 2019 Page 2 of 5 Vice Chair Strauss recalled that the Board has discussed the idea of having more influence over policy and making recommendations for code changes, and more than one meeting a month will be required for the Board to formulate recommendations. She observed that meeting with applicants in pre -application meetings will give the Board some insight about code changes that are needed. Board Member Owenby said he supports having two meetings each month, but he is concerned that the Board's second review of a project would come too late in the process for applicants to change their design. They may end up in the same situation they are in now. Vice Chair Strauss clarified that the 2nd review would be a follow up to see how the applicant has incorporated the Board's comments from the pre -application meeting. Board Member Owenby said he is concerned that the pre -application s will be too generic and most applicants will already have submitted building permit application by the time the projects come before the Board for the 2nd review. Vice Chair Strauss commented that projects will still have to meet all of the code requirements. The intent of the pre -application meeting is to allow the ADB to influence design earlier in the process. However, she recognized that applicants are not required to incorporate the Board's recommendation, and the Board would have to approve an application anyway if it meets all of the code requirements. Board Member Bayer asked what true influence the ADB would have at pre -application meetings. Chair Herr reminded them that, as proposed, the ADB would be an advisory board. Mr. Clugston agreed that applicants would not be required to implement the ADB's recommendation. However, the proposed new process would allow the Board a greater role in developing the guidelines and standards that will result in better design. During pre - application meetings, the Board will gain insight on potential changes that need to be made. Board Member Owenby observed that, currently, pre -application meetings in Edmonds are more exploratory to talk about what an applicant wants to do and identify issues that need to be addressed. They do not typically get into specific design details. Vice Chair Strauss suggested that more detailed information could be required at the pre, application meetings for projects that require State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review. Mr. Clugston explained that the City currently offers two types of pre -application meetings. One is the development review meeting, which is a higher -level review of a proposed project, and the other is a paid pre -application meeting where more specific design elements can be discussed. Staff is suggesting that the pre -application meeting before the ADB would be part of the paid pre -application meeting, and would be mandatory for all projects that require SEPA. The information required for that meeting could be similar to what is currently required for the Phase I public hearing: vicinity plan, conceptual design plan, and conceptual building model. He summarized that, as proposed, applicants would meet with staff first to discuss zoning and building requirements and then transition to the ADB to address the design elements of a project. For the 2nd review meeting, applicants could be required to provide information similar to what is currently required for the Phase H public hearing. It will be important for the Board to clearly identify what information applicants must provide at the pre -application meetings. Vice Chair Strauss said it would also be helpful for the Board to talk to applicants about the types of issues they are running up against when trying to meet all of the code requirements. This could inform the Board as to the types of code changes that might be needed going forward. Code Departures. Board Member Guenther commented that, as proposed, the Board could review the design guidelines and standards and stress those that are of particular importance to applicants at the pre -application meetings. However, there may be instances where a particular design standard needs to be modified to accommodate a better design, and the Board has discussed the need to have a process in place for approving departures from code requirements when appropriate. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting November 6, 2019 Page 3 of 5 Vice Chair Strauss referred to the City's current requirement for 75% transparency on the street -facing facade and commented that it might not be appropriate for west -facing facades. She suggested that the Board could recommend a code change that would reduce the requirement for west -facing facades. Another option would be to allow the Board discretion to approve a departure from the requirement when deemed appropriate, as long as the departure meets the intent of the code. The Board Members indicated support for a process that allows them to grant departures from code requirements for projects that are well designed and meet the intent of the code but do not meet all of the code requirements. It was pointed out that, sometimes, departures can result in better design. Board Member Guenther cautioned that the process for departures must be available to all applicants. Board Member Walker asked about the process for moving code amendments forward. Mr. Clugston advised that changing the role of the ADB will require code changes, which will be the first step in the process. Currently, code changes must be reviewed by the Planning Board. The Planning Board conducts a public hearing and makes a recommendation to the City Council. The intent is to change the code so that the ADB can present recommendations for code changes directly to the City Council without having to go through the Planning Board. Board Member Bayer commented that it would be helpful, when reviewing potential code amendments, to have a clear understanding of why the existing codes were originally adopted. Board Member Guenther suggested this might be difficult. He explained that, oftentimes, cities borrow code language from other jurisdictions and massage it to fit their specific needs. They also hire consultants to make recommendations. Chair Herr announced that a new energy code will be implemented in July 2020 that will result in significant changes related to greenhouse gas emissions, energy loads, etc. The requirements of this new energy code will likely run counter to some of the City's code requirements, such as the requirement for 75% transparency on front facades, particularly as it applies to west -facing facades. It is estimated that the new requirements will add an additional $65,000 to the cost of each house, and the cost will be even greater for commercial development. He suggested that the City will need to talk about how these new requirements will influence the zoning code. Board Member Jeude asked if the Board could consider potential code amendments that require artwork, trees, etc. as part of development to maintain the status that seems important to the community. Board Member Owenby cautioned that all of the rules and regulation being imposed by the state and local governments are adding about 35% to the total cost of development. Adding additional requirements for artwork, parks, trees, etc. will make it even more difficult for developers. In addition, it is important to understand that these additional costs will be passed on to future tenants and owners. He cautioned that they need to carefully consider how new code requirements will impact the cost of future development. Purpose and Scope of the ADB. Mr. Clugston referred to the current scope and purpose of the ADB, which is contained in the enabling ordinance. He asked the Board Members to review both and be prepared to recommend updated language at the next meeting that is consistent with the Board's new direction. Board Member Guenther observed that this is an opportunity for the Board Members to write their job description. The existing language is a good start, but they should carefully consider what they want to focus on in the future and make sure that the scope and purpose are consistent. Vice Chair Strauss said she would like the scope and purpose to contain language related to sustainable design and energy efficiency. Board Member Guenther suggested that Board Members could review codes from other cities to get ideas for changes. Mr. Clugston pointed out that the language hasn't been updated for 12 years, which was just prior to the City adopting a Sustainability Element into its Comprehensive Plan. Perhaps changes are warranted as part of the Board's current effort. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting November 6, 2019 Page 4 of 5 The Proposed Review Process. Board Member Walker referred to the draft flowchart for the new design review process and observed that, as proposed, the Board's work would be focused on pre -application meetings, 2nd review meetings and recommendations to the Hearing Examiner for projects that require SEPA, and recommendations to the City Council of potential code amendments related to design. Mr. Clugston added that neither the pre - application meetings nor the 2" review meetings would be public hearings. Public hearings on projects that require SEPA would be conducted by the Hearing Examiner, who will make the final decision. There would be no 2nd review meeting for projects that do not require SEPA. Board Member Walker commented that applicants have generally been responsive to what the Board has requested, even when not required by code. He questioned how much impact the proposed changes would have over the current 2-phase design review process. He suggested that the current process implies that the Board has some power to require the changes. Because a public hearing before the Board is required, applicants tend to respect the Board's recommendations more. He is concerned that this respect will be diminished by the proposed new review process. As proposed, the Board would make a recommendation to the Hearing Examiner but would no longer be responsible for approving and denying applications. Board Member Guenther pointed out that the public would still have an opportunity to be involved in the review process at the Hearing Examiner level, which would be later in the process. Vice Chair Strauss stressed that it is very important that the Board retain the ability to conduct a second review meeting for projects that require SEPA to discuss how applicants have responded to their original comments and recommendations. However, she supports the Board's involvement in pre -application meetings where they can give input before a project gets too far into the design. The 2nd review meeting will give the Board an opportunity to determine whether or not their input was considered valuable. Board Member Bayer asked if the Board would be able to give additional direction to an applicant at a 2nd review meeting or if it would simply be an opportunity for the Board to review how well an applicant implemented the direction provided by the Board at the pre -application meeting. Board Member Guenther felt that both could be accomplished at the 2nd review meeting. Board Member Bayer asked if the Board has any recourse if an applicant doesn't implement any of the Board's direction but the project still meets all of the code standards. Board Member Walker commented that if applicants know that the Board can influence the Hearing Examiner's final decision, they will be more likely to implement the Board's recommendations. He further commented that the City is responsible to help developers design better projects and code changes may be needed to result in a better outcome. Mr. Clugston responded that the City does well with large commercial projects, but the smaller multi -family projects often have problems related to design. They need to look at the entire City when considering potential code amendments. For example, a greater height limit might make sense in some areas of the City, particularly in areas adjacent to the Highway 99 Corridor where the building height was recently set at 75 feet. The Board Members agreed to continue their discussion on December 4d'. They further agreed that the goal was to finalize their recommendation to the City Council at their February 5d' meeting. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS: There were no additional Board Member comments. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 8:20 p.m. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting November 6, 2019 Page 5 of 5