2021-12-01 Architectural Design Board MinutesCITY OF EDMONDS
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD
Minutes of Webinar Meeting
December 1, 2021
Chair Strauss called the meeting of the Architectural Design Board to order at 7:02 p.m. via Zoom.
Board Members Present Board Members Absent
Lauri Strauss, Chair None
Kim Bayer
Joe Herr
Alexa Brooks
Maurine Jeude
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Staff Present
Eric Engmann, Senior Planner
MOTION TO APPROVE THE AGENDA MADE BY BOARD MEMBER BAYER AND SECONDED
BY BOARD MEMBER JEUDE. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. September 1, 2021 Minutes
B. October 6, 2021 Minutes
C. November 3, 2021 Minutes
MOTION TO APPROVE ALL THREE SETS OF MINUTES AS PRESENTED MADE BY BOARD
MEMBER JEUDE AND SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER HERR. MOTION PASSED
UNANIMOUSLY.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
None
BOARD REVIEW ITEMS
None
BOARD DISCUSSION ITEMS
Multifamily Design Standards Discussion
Architectural Design Board Meeting
Minutes of Virtual Meeting
December 1, 2021
Pagel of 5
Recap of October ADB Meeting:
Mr. Engmann reviewed what was discussed at the October meeting and the Multifamily Design Standard
Process planned for the rest of 2021 and 2022. He summarized what staff heard at the last meeting including
prioritizing flexibility in standards, ensuring public engagement in the process, ADB involvement in specific
standards, protection of the character and charm of Edmonds, possibly allowing the ADB to adjust standards,
consideration of housing affordability, theme by type of housing, challenges with public concerns about zoning
standards, how they like the criteria shown in staff report, and how downtown standards differentiate between
portions of the building.
Scoping/Framework Discussion on Zoning:
Mr. Engmann explained that Multifamily Design Standards would apply in the RM zones which are generally
located just outside of the downtown (BD) districts, near 196th Street close to Lynnwood, near Edmonds
Woodway High School, and along Edmonds Way/Firdale Village. There are four multifamily categories with
zoning standards which are based on the densities allowed. Compared to single-family zones, the multifamily
zones have reduced street setbacks, greater side setbacks, similar rear setbacks, similar height allowances with
some exceptions, and greater lot coverage. In addition to RM zones, the Multifamily Design Standards could
also apply to subdivision/unit lots that allow for "fee simple" ownership of lots. Community Business (BC)
which allows multifamily as part of mixed -use development already has its own design standards so it remains
to be decided if that would be included as part of this discussion. Downtown (BD) zones allow multifamily as
a mixed -use development and have extensive design guidelines. Westgate Mixed Use (WMU) and General
Commercial (CG) zones allow multifamily as part of mixed -use development but also have their own extensive
guidelines. Mr. Engmann solicited feedback on what would be included in the discussion on Multifamily Design
Standards. Staff s recommendation is to focus almost exclusively on the Multifamily Zones (RM) which would
also take into effect the Subdivision/Unit Lots.
Board Member Jeude asked if they would be including mixed -use zones. Mr. Engmann discussed challenges
with doing this since those areas already have their own design standards. Chair Strauss liked the idea of just
focusing on the Multifamily Zones. She agreed that the Westgate and Highway 99 codes were just recently
done. The Downtown zone seems to be working well. Board Member Bayer agreed that the Multifamily Zone
is where they should focus. The Unit Lot Subdivision is a big topic from a public standpoint, and she isn't sure
they want to get involved in that right now. Board Member Brooks agreed and thought this would be the
preference of the public as well. Board Member Bayer commented that one of the biggest concerns she has
heard from citizens moving forward is lack of open space and green space. Mr. Engmann concurred and noted
Council made it clear this needs to be considered. Board Member Herr also agreed with the proposed focus.
Scoping/Framework Discussion on Development Components:
The Multifamily Zones existing criteria contains some general guidance for Design Review. The Comp Plan
design criteria are very broad, citywide goals, but don't specifically address the context or needs of this housing
types.
Massing and Articulation: Mr. Engmann reviewed the difference between massing and articulation. Articulation
includes things added to the larger mass like extensions, balconies, and rooflines. These are generally easier to
adjust or add than the massing.
Architectural Design Board Meeting
Minutes of Virtual Meeting
December 1, 2021
Page 2 of 5
• Board Member Herr spoke to the importance of focusing on flexibility with articulation because
developers are limited on lot sizes and struggle to make the project feasible. The more the code can
include something that allows for exceptions or variations the better.
• Chair Strauss agreed and discussed how this played out in a project she worked on. Allowing
articulations project into setbacks could make a big difference for the project.
• Board Member Bayer commented that it needs to be a balance so there is not repetitiveness and big
bulky structures.
• Board Member Jeude agreed. She noted that pedestrian circulation is so much more interesting when
the buildings have character.
Mr. Engmann reviewed current Comp Plan policies related to massing and building form.
Building Fagade: Building fagade treatment relates to how buildings are seen from the street and includes: the
use of color and textures; window size, location, and placement; the use of eaves and cornices; and use of
balconies and overhangs. Mr. Engmann reviewed Comp Plan policies related to building fagade.
Entryways and Porches: Another aspect to consider is entryways and porches which are major components to
provide a sense of place, pedestrian -level connection and neighborhood feel. Unless they are addressed in
standards, doors and entries are often an afterthought. He commented on how this would play out with long,
deep lots. For longer, inset developments there could be a requirement to have one entryway along the first unit
which faces the street. This could change the character of the whole thing without affecting the massing.
Chair Strauss agreed that this makes developments more inviting. Board Member Herr commented on
development challenges with the missing middle housing. He spoke to the importance of thinking about the end
user's experience in this process.
Garage Placement: Garage, parking and driveway placement can be a design obstacle for wide, short lots along
a street. Wider shorter lots can work to minimize garage clutter.
Board Member Brooks commented that another downside to that is there is more pavement and less greenspace
with the long driveway.
Parking: The RM Zone already prohibits parking in the front setback. The location and layout of parking is a
key factor.
Driveway Placement: Narrow, longer lots can work to minimize the impact of a shared driveway. Another goal
is to create a safe environment for pedestrians, cyclists, and cars.
Chair Strauss commented on the fact that there are projects that meet the code, but still end up looking
unattractive. Board Member Herr commented that the code is what they must work with even though it may
not end up pleasing everyone aesthetically. The developers are trying to work with a budget and still meet the
code. He stressed that they should not let too much of their personal opinions get in the way when they are
writing a code. Board Member Bayer agreed with Chair Strauss that design standards should be written to be
aesthetically pleasing to the public. Chair Strauss commented that the whole idea of the ADB is to make sure
that projects look good. She suggested that taking all the elements of articulation together would result in a
Architectural Design Board Meeting
Minutes of virtual Meeting
December 1, 2021
Page 3 of 5
better aesthetic. She does not want to be overly prescriptive, but she wants to bring out the best designs they can
get for the community. Board Member Herr agreed but added that they can't make it so prescriptive that it can't
be done and that they may not always like the outcome. Board Member Brooks commented that the ADB's
responsibility is to provide form and function. An example of form and functionality is using different
hardscapes so that a pedestrian knows where it is safe to walk, and it also provides a lot of character to the
hardscaping.
Mr. Engmann commented that the stakeholders for the projects are the government (staff, Council, the ADB),
residents, and the developer. It is important to get opinions and feedback from all of them. As the code gets
drafted, they can start to go through scenario testing to see how it will work out. He commented that one thing
they might want to look at is allowing tandem parking. Chair Strauss commented that this recently came up
with a project and because it wasn't allowed, they ended up with more paving and a weird design. She agreed
they should discuss this more in the future.
Open Space and Green Space: The amount of open and green space on a property adds to the feel of a specific
neighborhood. Mr. Engmann commented on the difference between a standard versus a guideline when it comes
to this. Protection of existing natural resources such as trees, watersheds, wetlands, and slopes should be
considered. They can also discuss how to maximize street side landscaping treatment.
• Chair Strauss suggested requiring a distribution of the greenspace so it's not all off to one area while
everything else is paved.
• Board Member Bayer commented that this is where the issue with Unit Lot Subdivisions came about
because there was no requirement for green space or open space; it's just cement.
• Board Member Herr asked if they would be differentiating between low-income housing and market
rate housing. If not, it will be very difficult to get low-income housing. Chair Strauss commented that
if they are targeting low-income people, it would be unfair to say they don't need landscaping. Board
Member Herr agreed but stressed that overburdening a project with requirements for facades and
landscaping and whatnot might result in market rate rentals instead of low-income rentals. Chair Strauss
stated that a good architect could design a project that looks good but is still affordable.
• Board Member Brooks commented that the courtyard style of multifamily homes makes sense because
they can have a greenspace in the center that can be common ground for everyone.
• Chair Strauss suggested using open space and green space as an incentive for allowing an extra story
on a building. Mr. Engmann noted that this is done in the RMEW district.
• Board Member Brooks said she has seen great examples of green space parking with pavers and
plantings. Mr. Engmann noted that there is always a question of whether that would count for green
space. Chair Strauss commented that maybe it could count for 50%.
Mr. Engmann reviewed existing Comp Plan policies related to open space and green space.
Setbacks and Stepbacks: Setbacks involve the distance (usually from a property line) that something can be
built. Stepbacks usually involve further recessing or pushing back an addition portion or feature. Stepbacks are
usually done for larger buildings or to break up the massing of a building. Based on the limited height and
similar setbacks to RS (Single -Family Zones), additional setbacks or stepbacks may not be needed.
Architectural Design Board Meeting
Minutes of virtual Meeting
December 1, 2021
Page 4 of 5
Chair Strauss commented that this might come into play if they use open space as an incentive for allowing
another floor. She thought there was also something like this in the Westgate zone that related to access to the
sun. However, if they are only talking about two and three-story buildings it might not be an issue.
Other Components: These elements focus on how the buildings interact with the public realm (street) to create
a welcoming, visually pleasant, and safe environment. These can include walkways and pathways, utility, and
mechanical equipment placement, fencing (limits) along street in front setbacks, and lighting elements.
Next steps include a meeting with the Planning Board on December 8. Staff will then finalize the outreach and
engagement plan. After that the scope will be narrowed and discuss assessing community preferences. Mr.
Engmann reminded everyone to check out and share the news about the code updates page on the website at
www.edmondswa.gov/codeiMdates.
ELECTION OF OFFICERS FOR 2022
Chair Strauss stated she would like to step down and nominated Board Member Bayer as Chair. Board Member
Bayer accepted the nomination.
Board Member Herr noted that he would be moving at some point in 2022 so a replacement would be needed
for his position.
Board Member Jeude nominated Board Member Brooks who accepted the nomination.
THERE WAS UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO ELECT HIM BAYER AS CHAIR AND ALEXA
BROOKS AS VICE CHAIR.
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS:
None
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned at 8:42 p.m.
Architectural Design Board Meeting
Minutes of virtual Meeting
December 1, 2021
Page 5 of 5