Loading...
2021-03-03 Architectural Design Board MinutesCITY OF EDMONDS ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD Minutes of Virtual Meeting March 3, 2021 Chair Strauss called the meeting of the Architectural Design Board to order at 7:00 p.m. Board Members Present Board Members Absent Staff Present Lauri Strauss, Chair Kim Bayer Mike Clugston, Senior Planner Bruce Owensby, Vice Chair Joe Herr Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Maurine Jeude PUBLIC HEARING: PINE PARK 614 — PHASE 1 DESIGN REVIEW (FILE NUMBER PLN2020-0053 Chair Strauss reviewed the rules and procedures for the public hearing and then opened the hearing. She asked if any Board Member had engaged in communications with opponents or proponents regarding the design review of File Number PLN2020-0053 outside of the public hearing process, and all Board Members answered no. Next, she asked if any Board Members had a conflict of interest or believed that he/she could not hear and consider the application in a fair and objective manner, and all answered no. Lastly, she asked if anyone in the audience objected to a Board Member's participation as a decision maker in the hearing, and there were no objections. Chair Strauss invited all those who wanted to testify in the hearing to affirm that their testimony would be the truth. She then invited staff to present the application. Mr. Clugston explained that the subject site is zoned Downtown Convenience Commercial (BD3). Because the proposal triggers a threshold determination under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), design review by the Architectural Design Board is required through a two -phased public hearing. At the Phase 1 hearing, the applicant will present a conceptual design and a description of the property to be developed, noting all significant characteristics. The Board will use this information to make factual findings regarding the particular characteristics of the property and prioritize the Design Guideline Checklist (Attachment 4). Following public testimony and completion of the checklist, the Board will continue the public hearing to a date certain not to exceed 120 days from the Phase 1 hearing. At the Phase 2 hearing, the applicant will respond to the guidance from the Phase 1 hearing, and the Board will review the proposal again and issue a Type III Decision. Mr. Clugston advised that the packet that was provided for the meeting included the Staff Report and 13 attachments. An additional attachment (narrative from the applicant) was received on March 3'd and will be included in the packet that is prepared for the Phase 2 Hearing. Mr. Clugston provided an aerial photograph looking west at the project site at 614 and 616 — 5' Avenue South, just south of Ace Hardware. The site was previously occupied by Curves and Baskin Robbins. He noted the location of the alley to the south and existing parking lot between the two buildings. The applicant is proposing to replace the existing development with three new buildings containing six live/work units and eight residential units. The live/work units will be contained in two buildings adjacent to 5' Avenue (Buildings A and B) and the 8-unit residential building will be behind the live/work buildings and face west (Building Q. Drive aisles west of the buildings will load from the private alley south of the site. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting March 3, 2020 Page 1 of 10 Mr. Clugston reviewed that multifamily, live/work, parking and loading are all allowed uses in the BD3 zone, and no setback would be required from the street (5' Avenue) or on the sides (north/south). A 15-foot setback from the west property line would be required because the property to the west is zoned Multifamily Residential (RM). The maximum height limit in the BD3 zone is 30 feet. One off-street parking space would be required for each of the multifamily units in Building C, and each of the live/work units would require 2 off-street parking spaces. Mr. Clugston shared a site plan, noting the location of the two live/work buildings (Buildings A and B), which would sit at the property line on 5t' Avenue. The multifamily building (Building C) would be located behind, with a 15-foot setback along the western property line. Again, he said no setback would be required on the north, south or east sides. Mr. Clugston said the applicant has not provided height calculations, but the building sections provided in the packet gives a general feeling for the height. Buildings A and B will be likely be right at 30 feet in height, and Building C will be a little less than 30 feet in height. He said the applicant will be required to provide specific height calculations for the Phase 2 hearing, and setbacks, height, etc. will be verified via the Building Permit process. Mr. Clugston advised that the Designated Street Front Requirements apply in all of the Downtown Business (BD) zones. Ground floor ceiling heights must be at least 12 feet and commercial uses are required to a depth of 45 feet from the street front. Parking is not considered a commercial use. However, there is an exception in the BD2 and BD3 zones for properties that have less than 90 feet of depth measured from the street front. In that instance, parking may be located in the rearmost 45 feet of the property, even if a portion of the parking extends into the first 45 feet of the building. In no case, can the commercial space be less than 30 feet deep. As proposed, Buildings A and B would utilize the exception, with commercial spaces that are 30-feet deep and parking located immediately behind. The proposed floor -to -floor height is 12 feet for each of the two buildings. Mr. Clugston said the project site (Parcel A) is approximately 130 feet deep and 132 feet wide. When applying for design review, the applicant thought there was a property line dividing the parcel into two separate lots, and the intent was to do a lot -line adjustment. However, the line was later determined to be a tax parcel line rather than an actual lot line. Because a lot -line adjustment is no longer an option, the applicant could request a 2-lot short plat to yield two lots. Both of the new lots would be about 8,500 square feet in size and approximately 65 feet deep. While the project is not currently code -compliant, it would become compliant if and when a 2-lot short plat is approved. The applicant intends to submit an application in the next few days, and a decision should be relatively close at the Phase 2 hearing. If it is not available at the Phase 2 hearing, staff will recommend a condition that short plat approval must be obtained. With short plat approval, the commercial space could be 30-feet deep, with parking behind. Mr. Clugston reviewed that for lots over 12,000 square feet or where buildings are longer than 120 feet at the street front, 5% of the lot area of the project area must be devoted to open space. With short plat approval, no open space would be required since the east and west lots would each be less than 12,000 square feet and Buildings A and B would be less than 60 feet wide at the street front. He noted that the applicant is proposing a small courtyard between Buildings A and B, and with the ground floor commercial requirement, there will be more activation of the street front along 5' Avenue. Mr. Clugston referred to the Design Review Checklist that was attached to the Staff Report. He advised that, following the applicant's presentation and public testimony, the Board should work through the checklist and provide feedback to the applicant. Lastly, the Board will be asked to schedule the Phase 2 portion of the hearing, considering May 5' or June 2" d as potential options. Isaac Greenetz, Citizen Design Collaborative, said a lot of work has been done to fit the buildings onto the site, activate the street, create pedestrian activity, and design facades that present well to the street. The conceptual design that is being presented to the Board is an attempt to meet all elements of the Design Guideline Checklist, as well as the City's Development Code requirements. The goal is to enliven the street as much as possible. He said he didn't have anything to add to Mr. Clugston's thorough presentation, but he was available to answer any questions the Board might have regarding the proposed project. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting March 3, 2020 Page 2 of 10 Jacob Young, Citizen Design Collaborative, agreed that Mr. Clugston's presentation was thorough. He commented that the property owners are long-time Edmonds residents, and they have identified a concern that there are very few townhomes in the Edmonds downtown area. In addition to the project being profitable to them, they are interested in doing a project that is in the best interest of the community. Chair Strauss opened the hearing to public testimony. Ed Lorah, Edmonds, said he was speaking on behalf of residents of the Park View Twin Condominium Homeowner's Association, which is located just west of the subject parcel. He asked if the questions he raised in an email submitted prior to the meeting (Attachment 11 of the Staff Report) would be addressed during the hearing. Mr. Clugston advised that the Phase 1 hearing is a high-level analysis of the proposed project, and specific details about design would be addressed at the Phase 2 hearing. No other members of the public indicated a desire to participate in the hearing. Vice Chair Owensby said he likes the initial site design and believes the project will benefit the area. He said he likes the applicant's creative proposal to do a short plat so that all three buildings can be accommodated on the property. Board Member Jeude said she understands that, as proposed, no open space would be required for the project if the short plat application is approved. However, she asked how the applicant intends to enliven at the street level. Mr. Greenetz explained that the street front portions of the ground floor of the buildings on 5' Avenue (Buildings A and B) will be reserved for commercial space, and the intent is that they function as facilities for people to engage at the street level. Vice Chair Owensby asked if the commercial spaces in Buildings A and B would be limited in terms of the types of uses allowed. Mr. Clugston responded that all of the uses allowed in the BD3 zone would be allowed in the commercial spaces associated with the proposed development, including retail, offices, coffee shops, etc. Chair Strauss said she walks by the site daily, and it has been an eyesore for some time. She believes the proposed project will help to activate the street. However, she is concerned about some elements of the design. It appears that the amount of impervious surface would increase significantly, which raises stormwater concerns. She asked if the applicant is proposing to use permeable pavement to mitigate stormwater runoff on the site. Craig Pontius, Citizen Design Collaborative, referred to the drawings provided by the Civil Engineer and said permeable pavement is proposed for both the parking areas and the plaza between the two front buildings. Chair Strauss commented that there is some information in the Design Guidelines about how the project can meet the open space criteria. While she recognized that no open space would be required if the short plat is approved, she is concerned there won't be a lot of inviting space around the proposed residential units. She suggested that a landscape architect should be consulted to add planter boxes or other elements to the design. Mr. Greenetz noted that there would be some room for landscape elements along the front of the building behind the sidewalk. The intent is to landscape, where possible, at the entrances to each unit and in the courtyard between the two buildings. He summarized that there will be opportunities on the site to create these small areas, but they will be more urban in nature. Chair Strauss asked if the alley would be used to provide access to the residents in Building C. Mr. Greenetz answered affirmatively. Chair Strauss advised the applicant to keep the property well -lit and inviting, as the building layout appears to create a tunnel effect. Chair Strauss asked how deep the canopies on the front of the building would extend over the sidewalk. Mr. Greenetz said they are currently drawn at 3-feet deep. Chair Strauss suggested the applicant consider extending them further out over the sidewalk, which would provide opportunities for outdoor uses associated with the commercial spaces. She recalled that concern has been raised with other projects in the downtown area that the canopies should extend out Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting March 3, 2020 Page 3 of 10 further to provide additional cover. Mr. Greenetz asked if the City allows canopies to project out over the sidewalk, and Mr. Clugston answered affirmatively. However, he would need to check on the distance that canopies can extend out into the right-of-way. Chair Strauss asked if the applicant has considered pursuing Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Certification. Mr. Greenetz responded that it has been discussed as an option by the ownership group, but no decision has been made at this point. He noted that 4-star Greenbuild is standard for development in Washington State and tends to be just as good as LEED Certification. LEED Certification can become more of a paperwork process than an actual environmentally -friendly process. The builder is conscientious about the environment and is doing everything possible within budget. Chair Strauss said sustainable design is the focus of her career, and she would really like to see projects in downtown Edmonds pursue LEED Certification. Chair Strauss advised that the Design Guidelines talk about bulk and scale and compatibility and suggested that the design is missing a middle. Because the top is darker than the bottom, it feels really heavy and enormous. She voiced concern that when compared to the one-story buildings on each of the adjacent lots, the proposed project will feel big and heavy. She suggested that the top layer be lightened and that a middle be added to provide more variation and reduce the bulky appearance of the building. Chair Strauss asked if the memorial bench in the right-of-way adjacent to the subject property would be relocated. Mr. Greenetz said he isn't sure at this time. The idea is to add more benches, if possible, along the entire property. W. Clugston said staff would seek direction from the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Department about whether the bench should remain in its current location or be moved somewhere else. Chair Strauss reminded the applicant that the commercial spaces on the ground floor of Buildings A and B must be fully compliant with the Americans with Disabilities (ADA) Act requirements. For example, the restrooms must be large enough for ADA accessibility. Mr. Clugston advised that would be confirmed as part of the Building Permit review. Chair Strauss noted that the applicant is proposing to provide roof access for occupants of one of the building, and she asked if adding a vegetative roof was considered as an option. Mr. Greenetz responded that, as proposed, only Building C would provide roof access. He agreed that a vegetative roof would be one option for making the space useable. Chair Strauss pointed out that the western sun, when setting in Edmonds, will hit the side of the building from 5 p.m. to 9 p.m. The dark color that is proposed for the top of the buildings will make the western fagade that much hotter. Ed Lorah, Edmonds, voiced concern that Building C will look like a monolithic wall from the western point of view. As currently proposed, it will fill the entire lot from one end to the other, and the design doesn't provide a lot of variation. In addition to this concern, the Park View Twin Condominium Homeowner's Association is concerned about how the exterior lights on the proposed new buildings will impact their properties. From an aesthetic point of view, he pointed out that every part of the lot would be full of concrete, with 14 residential units and 20 parking spaces. On behalf of the Park View Twin Condominium Homeowner's Association, he asked the project designers to consider the project's impact on neighboring properties. Mr. Greenetz agreed to work on being sensitive to the adjacent neighbors in terms of light, the monolithic massing, and the size of the development, in general. He said it is challenging to develop projects that are sensitive to existing development, as well as any future development that might occur on adjacent properties. Chair Strauss commented that placing the buildings the long way, north to south, is the best option to avoid blocking sunlight to the condominium development behind. However, she agreed with Mr. Lorah that, as proposed, the site will be crowded with very little open space. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting March 3, 2020 Page 4 of 10 Chair Strauss reviewed that the Design Guideline Checklist is intended as a summary of the issues addressed by the guidelines, and it is not meant to be a regulatory device or a substitute for the language and examples found in the guidelines, themselves. Rather, it is a tool for assisting the determination about which guidelines are the most applicable on a particular site. The Board worked through the Design Guideline Checklist as follows: A. Site Planning Lower Higher N/A Priority Priority 1. Reinforce existing site characteristics. The site is currently X developed with two dilapidated buildings, which should not be replicated. 2. Reinforce existing streetscape characteristics. There are larger buildings and commercial uses to the north and south on 5th Avenue. X The design should build on the existing activity at street level that is created by existing commercial uses on either side. This guideline has been addressed by the ground floor commercial space on 51h Avenue. 3. Entry clearly identifiable from the street. X 4. Encourage human activity on street. X 5. Minimize intrusion into privacy on adjacent sites. X 6. Use space between building and sidewalk to provide security, privacy and interaction (residential projects). Because no front or X side setbacks are required, this guideline is not applicable. 7. Maximize open space opportunity on site (residential projects). While no open space is required for the project, the Board asked the X applicant to consider possibilities to add landscape elements, etc. 8. Minimize parking and auto impacts on pedestrians and adjoining property, X 9. Discourage parking in street front. There is already on -street parking along 5:h Avenue. The applicant is not proposing any X parking infiront of the building. 10. Orient building to corner and parking away from corner on public street fronts (corner lots). X Ed Lorah, Edmonds, commented that the Board appears to be focusing more on Buildings A and B that will face 5'' Avenue. He encouraged them to think about the proposal as a total project and consider how it will impact adjacent properties to the west. Chair Strauss agreed, but noted that many of the guidelines are specifically related to the street front and sidewalk. She noted that minimizing intrusion into privacy on adjacent sites was identified as a high priority that applies specifically to Building C. Vice Chair Owensby commented that many of the issues related to compatibility with adjacent properties will be addressed via the zoning regulations. As an example, Mr. Clugston pointed out that there are no setback requirements in the BD zones, except when adjacent to residential zones. In this particular case, a 15-foot rear setback would be required to reduce the project's impact on residential development to the west. B. Bulk and Scale Lower Higher N/A Priority Priority 1. Provide sensitive transitions to nearby, less -intensive zones. This will be particularly important to protect the residential development X to the west from potential impacts Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting March 3, 2020 Page 5 of 10 C. Architectural Elements and Materials Lower Higher N/A Priority Priority 1. Complement positive existing character and/or respond to nearby historic structures. X 2. Unified architectural concept. X 3. Use human scale and human activity. X 4. Use durable, attractive and well -detailed finish materials. X 5. Minimize garage entrances. In addition to minimizing garage entrances on Sth Avenue, it is also important to minimize garage X entrances from the alley to serve the residential units in Building C. D. Pedestrian Environment Lower Higher N/A Priority Priority 1. Provide convenient, attractive and protected pedestrian entry. Protected entries should be provided on all buildings, including X Building C. 2. Avoid blank walls. It was noted that the fire code requires a blank wall on the south side. However, windows could be added on the X north side to break up the blank wall. 3. Minimize height of retaining walls. The applicant's current plan is to address the slope of the site with the building rather than retaining X walls. 4. Minimize visual and physical intrusion of parking lots on pedestrian areas. The applicant is doing this by locating the X buildings at the street, with parking behind. 5. Minimize visual impact of parking structures. X 6. Screen dumpsters, utility and service areas. The applicant hasn't addressed this issue yet. X 7. Consider personal safety, X E. Landscaping Lower Higher N/A Priority Priority 1. Reinforce existing landscape character of neighborhood. It was noted that there isn't a lot of landscaping along the street front in this neighborhood. However, there are some existing street trees. The X applicant was encouraged to add landscaping elements where ever possible. 2. Landscape to enhance the building or site. Green spaces for the residents should be encouraged, X 3. Landscape to take advantage of special site conditions. The Board X wanted to see more landscaping included in the design, perhaps a vegetated roof on the lower building so that people in the upper building could see some green vegetation and people in the upper building could enjoy the space. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting March 3, 2020 Page 6 of 10 The applicant indicated the ability to provided a resubmittal for the Phase 2 hearing by the beginning of April, allowing staff sufficient time to review the proposal again and prepare a Staff Report for a Phase 2 hearing on May 5'. If the resubmittal is not completed by the beginning of April, the Board could continue the Phase 2 hearing to June. The Board continued the Phase 2 portion of the hearing to May 5, 2021. The Board approved the February 3, 2021 minutes as submitted. PRESENTATION: CITY ATTORNEY TRAINING AND DISCUSSION Mr. Taraday noted that he last presented training to the Architectural Design Board in 2019, and all three of the Board Members present participated at that time. His current presentation is intended to be a refresher course. He agreed to email his PowerPoint presentation to the Board Members via Planning Division staff. Mr. Taraday explained that Washington State has a rule that there can only be one open record hearing on an application. That means that, for quasi-judicial applications, the Architecture Design Board may be the only body to ever decide on the application that has opportunity to ask the applicant a question. None of the subsequent bodies that review the application will have an opportunity to ask an applicant a factual question about the project, and they cannot seek any new information about the project. The Board has a tremendous responsibility to develop a factual record for its decisions. A lot of the factual record will be developed via the applicant's interaction with staff, but it is very important for Board Members to ask questions of clarification and request additional details and/or information as necessary to unearth the critical facts relating to the project as thoroughly as possible. He encouraged the Board to pause and ask questions. They can even continue the hearing to a future date, if necessary, to allow time for applicants, staff and members of the public who participate in the hearing to answer questions or provide the additional information the Board is seeking. Vice Chair Owensby questioned if the Board's 2-phase public hearing process is consistent with the State's rule that there can only be one open record hearing. Mr. Taraday explained that the Board has two different processes. With one process, the Board serves as the recommending body. They meet with the applicant (not a public hearing) and provide guidance to the Hearing Examiner, but the Hearing Examiner is responsible for conducting the public hearing, establishing the factual record and making the final decision. With the other process, the Board serves as the decision - making body. They conduct the public hearing, establish the factual record and make the final decision. It is much more important that the Board is as thorough as possible when they are acting as the deciding body. Mr. Clugston added that, typically, the Board holds just one public hearing on a project. With the 2-phased approach, the Board still only holds one public hearing. However, following the Phase 1 portion of the hearing, the Board continues the hearing to a future date for the Phase 2 portion. Mr. Taraday summarized that the one -hearing rule doesn't require that the hearing must start and finish on the same day. Hearings can be continued, as needed. Mr. Taraday advised that the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine requires that quasi-judicial hearings must be fair in fact and appear to be fair to those who aren't the decision makers. Quasi-judicial hearings are hearings in which the Board Members act as judges as opposed to policy makers. While the Planning Board's primary role is policy maker, the Architectural Design Board primarily serves in a quasi-judicial capacity. The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine applies anytime the rights of an applicant are being determined, or Type III -A Decisions in the Architectural Design Board's case. Mr. Taraday said the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine is highly concerned about ex parte communications. In order to have an ex parte communication, there must be a pending quasi-judicial decision. At the very least, someone needs to have submitted an application. No member of a decision -making body may engage in ex party communications with opponents or proponents with respect to a proposal that is the subject of a public hearing before them. If an ex parte Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting March 3, 2020 Page 7 of 10 communication occurs, the Board Member involved should make a public announcement disclosing the communication and placing on the record the substance of any written or oral ex parte communications concerning the decision of action. Anyone at the hearing would then be given an opportunity to rebut the substance. Mr. Taraday cautioned that a decision maker may be challenged for prejudgment concerning issues of fact about parties or for partially evidencing a personal bias or prejudice towards an applicant or project. Board Members will always be asked to disclose any biases, which are different than policy leanings. Board Members who are concerned about a potential bias should contact staff prior to the hearing for clarification. Board Members who feel they are biased should recuse themselves from participating in the hearing. However, they should let the chair know in advance, as it could result in quorum issues. As a general rule, challengers to a Board Member's participation must present evidence of actual or potential bias to support their claim. Vice Chair Owenby commented that, as architects, some of the Board Members are biased about what they like and don't like, what fits within the community, etc. He asked if this would qualify as bias. Mr. Taraday answered no and said he would describe architectural preferences as similar to policy leanings, which are not considered biases. While an applicant could challenge a member's participation, he wouldn't encourage the Board Member to step down for that reason. Chair Strauss referred to the application the Board reviewed earlier in the meeting. She noted this is the second time she has participated in a design review for that site. She walks by it every day and she definitely has some ideas of what she would like the architecture to look like. Mr. Taraday said there are scenarios where having intimate knowledge of a site can influence your decision in a way that would be hard to see in the record. While he isn't suggesting a Board Member should step down, the Board Member should disclose any personal thoughts and observations at the public hearing that might influence their thinking. This would give the applicant and others at the hearing an opportunity to respond to and understand the basis for the Board Member's decision. He explained that anyone seeking to disqualify a member of a decision -making body must raise the challenge as soon as the basis for the disqualification is made known to the individual. In this situation, he suggested the Board Member should read a prepared statement, after the ex-parte communication and bias disclosures, that summarizes his/her observations about the site that might influence the decision. This would force people to make their objection known early in the hearing. He added that he could attend a public hearing and provide direction if the Board feels an application could be controversial. Mr. Taraday explained that, no matter how onerous the Appearance of Fairness violation, bias, or ex parte communication, if a Board Member's disqualification would cause a lack of a quorum or result in a failure to obtain a majority vote, any challenged member would be permitted to fully participate in the proceeding and vote as though the challenge had not occurred. If this situation occurs, the Board should do whatever it can to appear as fair as possible. Chair Strauss asked if a member's disqualification would apply to a specific hearing or to all business that is scheduled on the Board's agenda for that meeting. Mr. Taraday answered that the disqualification would only pertain to the specific quasi-judicial public hearing. If there are two separate applications on the same agenda, a challenge for one would not disqualify a Board Member from participating in the review of the second application. Mr. Taraday requested feedback and questions on the script that is provided for the Chair to read when conducting quasi- judicial public hearings. Chair Strauss responded that the script is straightforward and helpful to her. Mr. Taraday invited question about the process, as outlined by the script. Vice Chair Owenby asked if the script outlines the specific proposal or if it is generic in nature. Mr. Clugston said the script outlines the process for quasi-judicial public hearings and specifically addresses issues related to Appearance of Fairness. Vice Chair Owensby asked that he also receive a copy of the script, in case Chair Strauss is unexpectedly absent and he is required to lead the hearing. Mr. Taraday referred to Part 3 of the script, where the Chair asks if there is anyone in the audience who objects to his/her participation or to any other Board Member's participation as a decision maker in the hearing. He asked how this is working in the Zoom meeting format. Mr. Clugston said staff tries to have everyone in the room during the entire Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting March 3, 2020 Page 8 of 10 hearing because there are usually only a few members of the public in attendance. Chair Strauss said she tries to give the public plenty of time to speak up. Mr. Taraday agreed the current process provides an adequate opportunity for public comment. However, they should watch for people who might be having technical problems and attempt to address them early in the hearing. If there is large attendance at a hearing and not everyone can remain in the room, they should provide clear instructions about how to raise hands, etc. This will provide procedural protection to the City. It will be easy for the City to defend a future challenge if it can be shown that the challenger had an opportunity to object during a hearing but didn't take it. When considering whether or not to disqualify themselves, Mr. Taraday suggested that Board Members should ask the following: "Would a disinterested person, with knowledge of the totality of my personal interest or involvement, be reasonably justified in thinking my involvement might affect my judgment? " He clarified that it is one thing to walk by a property on the way to and from work, but an arguably different thing if you are an adjacent property owner who might be financially impact by the outcome of a hearing. Again, Mr. Taraday advised that the Board is responsible for ensuring there is a complete record when conducting quasi- judicial hearings. All evidence must be introduced during the open record hearing, as the City Council is relying on the Board to ask all relevant questions. All comments must be made into the microphone. They should request supplemental information for questions that cannot be resolved at the hearing. All exhibits that are submitted during the hearing should be made part of the public record. This might be more difficult using the Zoom meeting format. Mr. Clugston advised that, if this situation comes up, he would ask that the exhibits be forwarded to him via email. Mr. Taraday explained that it is not enough to just vote to recommend. The Board must make clear findings of fact and expressly adopt, amend or reject staff findings as appropriate. This is easier when the Board unanimously agrees with Staff s recommendation, as well as the rationale behind it. They can simply agree with the Staff recommendation for the reasons stated in the Staff Report because staff does a good job of evaluating the criteria and how they apply to the application. However, there will be times when the Board disagrees with the staff s recommendation on certain elements of an application. When this occurs, the Board needs to be detailed when setting forth its recommendation and the rationale behind it. For example, they should point to specific design criteria to support a recommendation. In some situations, it might be appropriate to continue the hearing to allow more time for the Board to work with staff to carefully articulate the details of their recommendation and make findings of fact that are consistent with the Board's decision. Chair Strauss commented that, in the past, the Board has added conditions to the staff recommendation, and it was difficult to come up with the right wording. It is good to know that the Board can continue the hearing to allow more time to draft the right language before taking final action. Mr. Taraday emphasized that the Board can also ask for drafting help, as necessary. Mr. Taraday briefly summarized the court case, Anderson vs. Issaquah as follows: During the ensuing discussion amongst the commissioners, Commissioner Larson stated that the revisions to the front fagade had not satisfied his concerns from the last meeting. In response to his request for more specific design guidelines, Commissioner McGinnis stated that the Development Commission had been giving directions/suggestions and it was the applicant's responsibility to incorporate them into a revised plan that reflects the changes. Commissioner Larsen then suggested that the fagade could be broken up with sculptures, benches, fountains, etc. Commissioner Nash suggested that Anderson drive up and down Gilman Boulevard and look at both good and bad examples of what has been done with flat facades. Commissioner Nash agreed, stating, "There is a certain feeling you get when you drive along Gilman Boulevard, and this building does not give this same feeling. " Commissioner Steinwachs wondered if the applicant had any option but to start from scratch. Anderson responded that he would be willing to change from stucco to wood facing but that, after working on the project for nine months and experiencing total frustration, he was not willing to make additional design changes. At thatpoint, the Development Commission denied Anderson's application. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting March 3, 2020 Page 9 of 10 Mr. Taraday explained that the City is not allowed to make applicants guess about the meaning of the design criteria. Hopefully, the design criteria are written clearly enough to avoid this type of situation, and the Board should keep this case in mind when remarking on a particular design. He advised them to focus on the criteria. If the criteria are causing a problem because they are not specific enough, the Board should be even more specific about their interpretation. The problem with the Anderson vs Issaquah case wasn't just about how the criteria were written; it was also ambiguous statements like "drive up the boulevard looking at good and bad examples and figure it out." He emphasized that the vagueness test doesn't require a statute to meet impossible standards of specificity, and the Board is allowed to fill in some of the gray area, but there should be something in the actual code that provides rational for the decision. Mr. Taraday advised that the Board should let staff know if there is a particular criterion that is causing problems so it can be revised to be easier to work with. Vice Chair Owenby recalled that earlier in 2020, the Board had discussed revising its role to allow them an opportunity to work with the staff and Planning Board to clarify and improve the Design Guidelines. He noted that some of the criteria are too prescriptive and there isn't enough flexibility for the Board to make site -by -site decisions on different aspects of an application. He questioned the Board's ability, at this time, to recommend approval of any project that deviates from the Design Guidelines. Mr. Clugston agreed that there should be some flexibility for the Board to make site -specific decisions, as long as the intent of a criterion can be met. He said the Board doesn't currently have the leeway to make site -specific decision that depart from the Design Guidelines; but hopefully, this flexibility can be addressed at some point in the near future. Mr. Taraday agreed to work with staff to see if a temporary fix could be made to give the Board more latitude. However, it is also important to remember that the opposite of arbitrary is the ability to express rationale for a particular decision. A great foundation for decision making is the ability to explain rationale. If this is not possible, a decision is considered arbitrary. He suggested the Board is more interested in having the ability to deviate from the code in certain situations, which is a different question than the issue of vagueness. However, the more authority given to the Board, the greater potential for a vagueness problem. He summarized that if the code is too prescriptive, it is difficult to make it work in the real world. If it is not prescriptive enough, there are potential legal problems with vagueness. Mr. Taraday encouraged the Board Members, particularly those with design backgrounds, to provide feedback to staff regarding the Design Guidelines. Referring back to the Anderson vs. Issaquah case, Mr. Taraday said the court concluded that `Design professionals need to know in advance what standards will be acceptable in a given community. It is unreasonable to expect applicants to pay for repetitive revisions of plans in an effort to comply with the unarticulated, unpublished statements a given community may wish to make on or of its signature street. It is equally unreasonable, and a deprivation of due process, to expect or allow a design review board, such as the Issaquah Development Commission, to create standards on an ad hoc basis, during the design review process. " Mr. Taraday advised that he could also provide training on the Open Public Meetings Act and Public Records Act at the request of the Board. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS: There were no Board Member comments. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 9:34 p.m. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting March 3, 2020 Page 10 of 10