2023-01-26 Architectural Design Board MinutesCITY OF EDMONDS
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD
Minutes of Regular Meeting
January 26, 2023
Acting Chair Lauri Strauss called the meeting of the Architectural Design Board to order at 6:02 p.m. in the
Brackett Room of City Hall, 121— 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, Washington.
Board Members Present
Joe Herr (on Zoom)
Maurine Jeude (on Zoom)
Lauri Strauss (Acting Chair) (on Zoom)
Steve Schmitz' (on Zoom)
Board Members Absent
Kim Bayer, Chair (Excused)
Alexa Brooks, Vice Chair (Excused)
Corbitt Loch (Excused)
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
The agenda was approved as presented.
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Staff Present
Mike Clugston, Senior Planner
Other
Councilmember Dave Teitzel
Councilmember Teitzel expressed appreciation for the work that the Board does on behalf of the City. He
referred to the Highway 99 subarea and the CG zone. He stated he was on City Council when they approved
the CG rezone which allowed buildings up to 70 feet to be built in the subarea. A project is under consideration
up there on 84th which is immediately across the street from single family houses. The community has come
forward with some concerns that a very tall building would loom over those properties and undermine the
traditional character of those 1950's/1960's era ramblers. One thing that could be considered as a mitigation for
the massing of the building would be step backs. He is in support of this idea which the Board will be considering
tonight. The way that the ordinance reads, step backs would be required in a development of that nature unless
the Board determines they are not necessary. He thinks it is appropriate to have the Board involved in this type
of design review decision because they understand the neighborhoods and the transition between very large
structures and single-family homes.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
December 8, 2022 ADB Meeting Minutes
' Board Member Schmitz arrived on the meeting at 6:08 p.m.
Architectural Design Board Meeting
Minutes of Regular Meeting
January 26, 2023
Pagel of 5
The minutes were approved with corrections as indicated in the packet.
NEW BUSINESS
Design Review Process and Step Back Standard for Certain CG-Zoned Projects (AMD2022-0008)
Mr. Clugston made a presentation on this item noting that it would be coming back in February for additional
code refinement and a recommendation to the Planning Board. Council adopted Emergency Interim Ordinance
4282 on December 10 which will expire on June 10, 2023. He stated they would be looking at two code changes
— one regarding the addition of an additional building step back when across the street from an RS parcel, and
the other would be an additional design review process the ADB would be involved in. Per Interim Ordinance
4283 the design review process would be a two-phase public hearing process and quasi-judicial decision by
ADB for buildings in the CG zone greater than 35 feet tall. There would be an opportunity for public input.
Staff would continue doing all other CG design reviews with no public input. He reviewed details of the
proposed additional across the street step back and solicited feedback from the ADB.
Board Member Jeude was in favor of being involved in the review process, and noted they need to be sensitive
to the transitional nature of these neighborhoods.
Board Member Schmitz commented that this is a gateway sort of neighborhood. He noted in other areas where
there are CG zones, they typically have RN 2.4 adjacent or across the street. He asked why the mixed -use zone
isn't implemented in this area. As an architect he understands how buildings affect the neighbors. He sees a
need for step backs with the adjacent properties. He wondered if the additional step back for properties across
the street makes sense when there is already almost an 85-foot separation because of the street and the setbacks.
He expressed concern about developments still being viable if additional step backs are required. Rather than
saying just "across the street' he wondered if the distance across the street should be considered.
Board Member Herr added that when you try to build units that don't stack you have just increased the cost for
everyone. He agreed that when you have a really wide street and a front yard setback, he wasn't sure a step back
was necessary. He noted that in Shoreline they are building tall buildings really close to the street. They are
tackling their middle housing needs aggressively. It doesn't seem that they have as many restrictions. Mr.
Clugston pointed out that there are only 10-foot setbacks for CG parcels when they are adjacent to Highway 99.
Acting Chair Strauss commented that this ordinance would still allow the ADB to have some discretion. For
her, access to daylight is very important. She doesn't think it is that big of a deal to design step backs into a
property. She spoke in favor of the two-step review because it would give them the opportunity to let the
developer know what they are thinking.
Board Member Schmitz spoke to the significant impact to the developers of this. He stressed that this absolutely
is a big deal, especially for architects and those trying to provide affordable housing. In the example project
there is already essentially an 85-foot space between the residential lot across the street and the new building.
Acting Chair Strauss commented that this is the Board's opportunity to say what kind of development they want
in the city. If they want to have a bunch of tall, straight buildings like Shoreline they can put that in the code,
Architectural Design Board Meeting
Minutes of Regular Meeting
January26, 2023
Page 2 of 5
but it seems to her that they are trying to keep some character in the neighborhoods and some daylight with
these developments.
Board Member Herr concurred but noted that Edmonds keeps talking about affordable housing and the need to
provide missing middle housing. He agrees that they should not build monster buildings that look out of scale.
At the same time, they have to get people to back off with the push for affordable housing. He agreed with
Board Member Schmitz that the more they carve out of these buildings with restrictions, the more the cost goes
up which means that they either sell for more or the rents are higher.
Board Member Jeude commented that there are already a lot of tall buildings along Highway 99. There doesn't
need to be affordable housing with every single development. She asked if developers' needs should take
precedence over the people in these existing single-family homes. There is a huge opportunity for affordable
housing along Highway 99 where there are no single-family homes.
Board Member Schmitz commented that the City's zoning codes don't say anything about preserving the
existing character of neighborhoods. He discussed a project he is working on which is funded by grants received
for affordable housing development. The grants expire after one year and adding extra steps for design review
increases timelines for development. He stated they are treating property that already has a very large space
between itself and adjacent property almost as a pariah. He also noted that any development that comes in will
provide benefits for existing neighborhoods that aren't often considered such as sidewalks, open space,
underground power lines, and other infrastructure.
Acting Chair Strauss thought that step backs were a reasonable request for certain situations where this might
happen. She doesn't think it will be a huge disturbance since it won't affect every project on the Highway 99
corridor. She stated that developers would need to be more creative in instances when they are right up against
single family homes.
Board Member Schmitz disagreed again and stated this is a very large portion of the work he does as an architect.
It is a high burden for anyone to have to come to a design review with two potential options. By putting up
barriers, developers are going to have less of a building than they could have had. He pointed out that they are
requiring less of a step back for adjacent properties than they are for the ones across the street. This did not make
sense to him. Board Member Herr concurred.
Board Member Schmitz shared that what a lot of cities do in this situation is require setbacks at 65 feet building
height, not 55 feet, because of construction techniques. At 65 feet you would have a I0-foot setback. He agreed
that bulk is a huge issue with large construction. He noted that there is a limited amount of land in Edmonds
that can be built up this way. By putting additional artificial limits on what can be built in those zones they are
hamstringing themselves for affordable housing and any kind of housing. There was discussion about the need
for a transition area but disagreement over how this should happen. Mr. Clugston reviewed some of the
background of this area. He agreed that the significantly higher step back for properties across the street also
seemed odd to him. There are some bills being discussed in the state legislature right now that would mandate
zoning changes to allow higher density in single family zones. It would also get rid of design review for
multifamily projects.
Councilmember Teitzel stated he was on City Council back in 2017 when they passed the new CG zoning
standards. Part of the thinking then was to consolidate a patchwork of zoning into one consistent CG zone. He
Architectural Design Board Meeting
Minutes of Regular Meeting
January 26, 2023
Page 3 of 5
acknowledged that there was more of a transition between highly intensive development and single-family
neighborhoods with the previous zoning than they have now with the CG zone. He stressed that even without
the step back ordinance they are discussing here, there is already an element of step backs for adjacent properties
in the existing code whereby the planning department could mandate step backs if they felt it was appropriate.
The benefit of having the ADB involved in the design review process is it allows step backs to be foregone if
the developer can say they have other mitigation design proposals that would do as much or more as step backs
in mitigating the effects of massing of a large building. As proposed, step backs are not mandated; there would
be discretion for the ADB to look at the neighborhood and determine whether the design that is proposed is
appropriate. He noted that there is an element of equity here also because the ADB is involved in quasi-judicial
issues with the BD zone downtown.
Board Member Schmitz spoke to the equity issues. He agreed that these buildings can be large and there should
be some developer givebacks/tradeoffs. If they are going to require step backs, he recommended requiring them
at 65 feet as opposed to the current 55 feet. This would still provide an opportunity to have an efficient building
with the greatest number of multiple bedroom/family-sized units because with step backs the top two or more
floors typically end up being studios or single -bedroom units.
Acting Chair Strauss said she could live with that as long as it was 65 feet only for the side that faces a street,
and 55 feet adjacent to a single-family home. Board Member Schmitz concurred.
Mr. Clugston wondered if there are other ways to reduce bulk such as using certain materials. Board Member
Schmitz did not think materials were sufficient to make a difference with the bulk issue.
Board Member Jeude thought 65 feet for street -facing buildings sounded reasonable but commented that the
two -tiered public input provides more equity and opportunity for feedback for the people in this area. It is
important to take the comments from people who live in this area into consideration and give them as much
weight as they give those in the downtown area.
Acting Chair Strauss expressed concern about losing the opportunity to weigh in and require step backs in
certain circumstances if they go to 65 feet for street -facing buildings. If they stay at 55 feet the ADB has more
discretion.
Board Member Schmitz reiterated that when a developer is asked to do more step backs it will cost more and
rents will go up. He believes that when it required for taller buildings it looks better than on shorter buildings.
Acting Chair Strauss pointed out that the ADB's purpose is to protect what the City looks like and not the
developers' pocketbooks. If the developer must go through more of a process to achieve the City's design
guidelines and code standards then that is what they should do. Board Member Schmitz commented that some
properties have more setbacks simply because they are across the street than a property that is right next door
to the same type of zoning.
Mr. Clugston summarized that he would change the height from 55 to 65 feet for those buildings across the
street and bring it back for discussion in February. He added that this process would still give the ADB discretion
but asked about the decision criteria for deciding whether step backs would be required. Acting Chair Strauss
noted that she would not be worried about step backs in the example where the church and church parking lot
are across the street. She thought that in instances where the property is developed, but not currently developed
Architectural Design Board Meeting
Minutes of Regular Meeting
January26, 2023
Page 4 of 5
as a single-family residence, the step back would not be required. Board Member Jeude agreed. In situations
where there is single-family home or a vacant lot with the possibility of a single-family home the board might
require step backs. Board members expressed a need to have discretion about these decisions but acknowledged
they would have to justify their decisions.
Councilmember Teitzel expressed appreciation for the discussion. He commented that the City Council had a
similar discussion and also did not have a common viewpoint. He explained that there are two bills circulating
in Olympia to basically upzone all the cities above a population of 6,000. This would get rid of RS zoning
completely if the bills pass. Over time this could mean that the RS- I zone would no longer exist, and the single-
family homes along 84th could be replaced with six-plexes up to 35-feet tall. If that happened it would change
the character of the neighborhood and could reduce the need for step backs. If that happens, Council could re -
look at the ordinance and adopt something different. He noted that Council passed a resolution in opposition of
those bills in Olympia because they don't think the State should pre-empt their zoning decisions.
BOARD DISCUSSION ITEMS
1. Review ADB Handbook
Mr. Clugston noted that some details such as meeting time and place still needed to be updated but asked if
there were any other suggestions for changes or other information they would like included. There were no
suggestions at this time, but board members thanked Mr. Clugston for working on the handbook noting that it
would be very helpful.
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS:
Board Member Schmitz said he appreciated the discussions and the input on the Board.
Acting Chair Strauss thanked Councilmember Teitzel for his input. Councilmember Teitzel again thanked the
Board for their good work.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned at 7:43 p.m.
Architectural Design Board Meeting
Minutes of Regular Meeting
January26, 2023
Page 5 of 5