Loading...
2023-02-23 Architectural Design Board MinutesCITY OF EDMONDS ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD Minutes of Regular Meeting February 23, 2023 Chair Bayer called the hybrid meeting of the Architectural Design Board to order at 6:00 p.m. in the Brackett Room at City Hall, 121— 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, Washington. Board Members Present Kim Bayer, Chair Alexa Brooks, Vice Chair (online) Joe Herr (online) Maurine Jeude Corbitt Loch Lauri Strauss Board Members Absent Steve Schmitz APPROVAL OF AGENDA Staff Present David Levitan, Planning Manager Susan McLaughlin, Planning Director Other: Councilmember Dave Teitzel The Approval of Minutes was moved up before Audience Comments. MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER LOCH, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER JEUDE, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS AMENDED. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. APPROVAL OF MINUTES January 26, 2023 ADB Meeting Minutes MOTION MADE BY VICE CHAIR BROOKS, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER STRAUSS, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS PRESENTED. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Brian Bergstrom, Woodinville, stated his company is representing the proposed multifamily development on 84th and 236th. He reviewed background on this project which was planned because of work the City had done to develop the Highway 99 subarea plan. The Emergency Ordinance requiring step backs was passed while the applicant was responding to comments on their application in the City's design review process. He expressed concern about the loss of months of time as well as new structural requirements and associated costs. At the same time, they are facing a decrease in residential units. As a result, the economic viability of the project has been called into question. They understand the concerns but do not feel that requiring step backs when a single - Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting February 23, 2023 Page 1 of 9 family residence is across the street from a project in the CG zone with 80-90 feet of separation is an appropriate response. He asked the Board to consider if it was really necessary to change from the streamlined administrative process provided by the subarea plan to a two-step process involving the ADB so each individual project can argue whether this 80-90-foot separation needs to be more. Their belief is that the subarea plan already took this into account. They believe the current emergency ordinance should be vacated along with its requirements for these step backs, and they should return to the subarea plan. Natalie Seitz spoke in support of the step backs identified in the existing State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the SR 99 Planned Action until a Supplemental EIS can be completed. Interim Ordinance 4283, regarding CG zone step backs seeks to keep some of the commitments made to the SR 99 community in 2017. She urged the City to challenge its perception of why residential density is being maximized here above the Planned Action. Although excess housing here would seek to address some of the housing shortage, it eliminates middle housing and does not seek to address equity issues that the state laws are seeking to address. She stated that the impacts of rental housing (poverty, displacement) are being concentrated in this racially and economically diverse area for the benefit of wealthier and white areas. Based on the issued permits and pending applications, this area is being used for residential development far in excess of the commercial redevelopment and densities in the Planned Action. She stated she was in support of low- income housing but urged the City not to cause undue harm to a community that is already overburdened. She spoked in support of requiring step backs to require the CG to function with the densities envisioned by the Planned Action, or, at a minimum, keep the city's promises to this area as identified in the existing EIS until a Supplemental EIS can be completed. She expressed sympathy for developers impacted by the interim ordinance but stated that this would simply be keeping promises from the Planned Action to the community. Deborah Arthur did not think step backs would make a huge difference to single family homes when the buildings are as tall as they are. She stated she would like to see that kind of structure in the Highway 99 area where views aren't really an issue and where trees aren't being taken out. She acknowledged she does not live in the area. She had a question about whether the proposed building would have parking for the people that live in the building. In other areas, she recommended using imagination and coming up with other ways to design housing such as keeping buildings lower, having duplex type developments connected with green space behind them. Becki Chandler stated she lives in the Gateway District of the Highway 99 corridor. She works in the design build industry as a construction project manager. She is also a volunteer leader who does public policy work for a national non-profit organization advocating for cancer patients and survivors. She thinks it is important to understand who lives in this neighborhood and who is advocating for their neighbors. She asked the ADB to provide thoughtful consideration for implementation of design that supports the Highway 99 Subarea Plan in the same spirit it has considered development in other parts of the city. The proposed subarea plan was for three and four-story apartment buildings and five and six -story mixed use buildings. Mixed use buildings on the Highway 99 corridor would provide housing resources and equity for community members. It has been alarming to hear the City and citizens boards question whether or not the Gateway Corridor neighbors should be given an opportunity to advocate for their own neighborhood. Neighbors have expressed concerns over the past several months about shortcomings in the city's proposed budget and timeline that don't align with the growth of the Gateway neighborhood. As a result of raising these concerns they saw changes implemented immediately. This is an example of why a democratic process is so important. Single family homeowners and taxpayers should have the same rights regardless of where they live in Edmonds. A two-step process should be adopted throughout the entire city, not just downtown. If not, this will further divide the community. She spoke Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting February 23, 2023 Page 2 of 9 to the importance of developers designing buildings which encourage people to live, work, and own businesses in Edmonds. Washington needs more housing, but the city's leadership needs to reinforce this space to serve the people in the community and strategically do business with developers who align with the community goals. Stanley stated he is one of the owners of the vacant parcel of land located at 236ffi and 80 West which has been the subject of discussions over the last several months. They have been under a Purchase and Sale Agreement to sell the land to a builder who planned to construct a transit -oriented development on the site in accordance with the CG zone of the Highway 99 Sub Area. No deviations or exceptions to the code were requested. Since a July 22 presentation to the Planning Board of pending projects to the City, a firestorm of misinformation by a handful of residents raged to stop this project. Without notice to any affected property owner of the Highway 99 Sub Area, an emergency ordinance was put into place by the City Council requiring step backs for projects in the CG zone in the subarea that were across the street from single-family zoned properties. According to the complaints, step backs across the street from single-family zoned properties were not discussed in 2017 when the subarea plan was adopted. After Planning Director McLaughlin presented irrefutable evidence that indeed, step backs for single-family zoned properties across the street from CG zones were presented, the emergency ordinance was vacated; however, it was replaced with the present emergency ordinance they will be discussing this evening. He cautioned that the next move by the opponents to development in the corridor will be to question the adequacy of the EIS issued when the subarea plan was adopted in 2017. He stated that the subarea plan was adopted to streamline the processing of permits by administrative review. Unfortunately, the City Council has signaled a vote of no confidence in its own planning department and its director by removing the streamlined administrative review from their oversight. He stated that transit -oriented development and adding housing should be a significant focus of this board and the Planning Board as it is by the State. He urged the ADB to reject the task it is being tasked with by the Council and send a message that the Planning Department is more than capable to administratively review projects in the corridor. The intersection of 238th and Highway 99 is one of the most, if not the most significant, transit - oriented hubs in the city. Access to both bus rapid transit and light rail via a Community Transit shuttle are and will be in place. There is an opportunity here to build housing with exceptional access to public transportation and within walking distance to a major grocery store with a pharmacy. This would benefit those most in need of transit -oriented development attributes. Theresa Hollis, Edmonds resident, reviewed background on how they got to the lack of transition zoning between CG and single-family zoning although transition zoning is common in other areas of the city. She summarized the current debate going on before the Council and citizen boards as neighbors' needs against the developers' needs. She discussed setback and step back requirements for nearby jurisdictions of Kirkland, Bellevue, Redmond, and Bothell. She urged the ADB to do research on this which she believes will show that Edmonds' current interim ordinance is not a radical approach. Step backs are a typical approach to mitigating the impact of mass on single-family homes. She encouraged the ADB to continue the interim ordinance and to use future work sessions to develop criteria for transitions to residential around the boundary of the CG zone. Written Comments: Planning Manager Levitan stated that they also received written comments which were distributed by email to ADB members and made available as hard copies at the meeting: • Stanley Piha - 1/17 Memorandum • Theresa Hollis — 2 emails • Natalie Seitz — 2/20 email Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting February 23, 2023 Page 3 of 9 NEW BUSINESS Design Review Process and Step Back Standard for Certain CG-Zoned Projects (AMD2022-0008) Planning Director Susan McLaughlin presented on the CG Zone Step Back and ADB Design Review Process for developing permanent standards. She referred to the discussion about larger issues and content associated with the subarea plan, the Planned Action, and the corresponding EIS. She attested that the process in 2017 was robust, followed protocol, and actually won an award through the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC). She asked the ADB to focus tonight on the emergency ordinance and requested that the decision regarding the proposed step back be based on architectural justifications. She reviewed the history of Interim Ordinance 4283. She stated that the fact that there was no transition zone was not a mistake. It was intentional when the subarea plan for Highway 99 was adopted in 2017 to make this zone capable of higher density and transit -oriented development given the proximity to the high -capacity transit corridor. Concerns were later raised in 2022 that CG zone did not reflect subarea plan language regarding to step backs. Interim Emergency Ordinance 4278 was adopted in 2022 but later repealed following additional Council research and discussion. She pointed out that the step back across the street from residential was part of the design analysis that happened and was a point of discussion in the EIS. It was determined at that time that given the distance and then the subsequent setbacks of the land use requirements, that the distance would be so great that it would mitigate the massing. She mentioned that shadow studies were conducted on the project under discussion and found that the shadow did not even reach the street; however, she stressed that this is not about one project. The discussion tonight needs to be about the entire CG zone and the impacts or the benefits of requiring the step back. Even so, staff recommended that the Council consider public notice and even a public meeting to start to socialize design projects before they were approved. Interim Emergency Ordinance 4283 (2022) incorporated language from Ordinance 4278 and added a public (ADB) design review process in the CG zone. It requires public notice, removes administrative review, requires ADB review, and requires step backs as an initial requirement unless the ADB does not determine them necessary. Chair Bayer asked who conducts the shadow studies. Director McLaughlin replied that the design team does the studies. Chair Bayer asked how the studies are conducted. Board Member Strauss commented she has asked for those studies for other projects. She noted that it is a product of the programs that the architects use. Vice Chair Brooks asked if the shadows on both sides of the street are considered. Director McLaughlin replied that they are; it is project specific. Director McLaughlin explained that Ordinance 4283: • Requires a two-phase public hearing and decision by the ADB for projects above 35 feet. This replaced the administrative review process that had been in effect since 2007. • Requires an additional building step back when across the street from an RS zone, unless deemed unnecessary by the ADB. • Is valid for six months from adoption date (June 10, 2023), with a permanent ordinance required beyond that date. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting February 23, 2023 Page 4 of 9 Considerations on the design review process: • Based on recent trends, the ADB would see 1-2 more projects per year. o Projects maybe controversial. • Should ADB have additional quasi-judicial decision -making responsibilities? o ADB is a volunteer board; do they want the extra responsibilities? • If so, is two-phase public hearing a better process than a single -meeting hearing? o Phase 1 hearing is for "ADB to identify the relative importance of design criteria that will apply ... during subsequent design review". o Phase 2 hearing involves review of how project meets criteria identified during Phase 1; must occur within 120 days of Phase 1 public hearing. o As noted in previous meetings, a two-phase hearing is required within downtown zones. Director McLaughlin reviewed the existing CG step back adjacent to the RS zone and the interim step back across the street from the RS zone. Both standards would apply unless ADB finds step backs aren't needed. How should that determination be made? With a shadow study? There was general discussion and clarification about the setback and step back requirements. Director McLaughlin added that there are other mitigating factors for massing that are currently included in the development standards in Chapter 16. That toolkit that is already available for administrative review. It goes beyond setbacks and step backs and includes articulation, modulation, materiality, etc. She solicited feedback from the ADB on potential permanent ordinance language. The Planning Board will further refine, hold a public hearing in March, and make a recommendation to Council. Ultimately the ADB will be making recommendations on what the permanent ordinance should look like. Board Member Herr referred to previous actions on this topic and expressed concern that they are opening an avenue for every project to be contested by someone. He noted there is already zoning in place that has worked for a long time. How long are they going to keep doing emergency ordinances that keep killing projects? Director McLaughlin encouraged the ADB to stay narrowly focused. Board Member Strauss said they cannot be focused on one particular project. It is not the ADB's duty to worry about one particular developer. It is their duty to think about the citizens and City of Edmonds as a whole. She likes the part that says it is at the ADB's discretion. Board Member Herr expressed concern that the discretion would be subjective while developers will spend a lot of money tying up property and doing design work. Director McLaughlin noted that one of staff s concerns is that this step back language results in a hyper focus on step backs instead of looking at the project holistically. Board Member Strauss commented there is a precedent for the ADB using discretion when it comes to landscaping requirements. Vice Chair Brooks cautioned against putting heavier weight to non -citizens' comments over comments of Edmonds' citizens. Several citizens of Edmonds have expressed concerns tonight that she believes are very real. She also wondered if the landscape requirements are subject to change as well. Director McLaughlin stated that is not the purpose of the emergency ordinance. Chair Bayer spoke to the importance of balancing the needs of the developer and all the stakeholders including the residents. To her, the important parts of this ordinance are the transition area, that the ADB has discretion and flexibility, and that they maintain a focus on design review and not housing issues. She realizes that step backs are just one tool in the arsenal, but she thinks the community needs them as building heights increase in the CG zone. She spoke to the importance of the ADB having some discretion on projects that fall in this zoning Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting February 23, 2023 Page 5 of 9 ordinance. She stated that the ADB's mission is not for providing affordable housing, providing a certain profit margin for developers, or for blindly accepting staff or elected officials' recommendations. Their role is to review design standards and recommend language for code changes to ensure good design for the community. She was in support of the two-phase process to receive public input and for the developer to hear that feedback and respond. As far as this being a burden on the ADB, she noted they only had six meetings in 2022 and didn't review a whole lot so she doesn't see this as being an added burden. Although it could be a concern for some stakeholders that the ADB is making decisions, she stressed that it is quasi-judicial. It goes through the Planning Board, and the City Council has the ultimate say. Director McLaughlin clarified that when ADB approves decisions they would not go to City Council. They would be appealable to the Hearing Examiner. Board Member Jeude commented the original zoning was three to four-story buildings and now they are talking about going up to 75 feet across the street from single family zoning. She asked how many instances there would be of this kind of building going in across from single-family residences. She was in support of having the step backs as protection in transition areas which could potentially have a lot of impact. She noted that the area has changed considerably from what they were looking at in 2017. Director McLaughlin replied that it hasn't changed since the adoption of the Planned Action. Her understanding is that the height allowances in the CG zone were already quite high. The difference is the edges that were converted to CG may have previously been lower density but then were added to the CG zone. The land use changes were very intentional to foster transit -oriented development given the high -capacity transit corridor. She questioned the logic of having the adjacent property step backs should be the same as step backs across the street. Board Member Jeude referred to Board Member Schmitz's suggestion at the last meeting about having the step backs begin at 65 feet instead of 55 feet because of construction stacking techniques and in order to maximize efficiency of units. She thought the ADB had been somewhat in agreement with that idea. Planning Manager Levitan concurred and summarized options for the ADB. He encouraged them to come up with clear and objective standards. For example, he asked if there is some number for distance between buildings where they can provide a clear and objective standard that could provide more predictability and reliability to the development community while still considering community concerns. Board Member Strauss referred to the two-phase process and noted it is not about if the staff is capable of doing it; it is about giving the public the opportunity to have some input. Director McLaughlin noted that one of staff s early proposals was to have design review but not recommend the step back. That is an option available to the ADB. Planning Manager Levitan explained there are ways to allow for public comment without requiring a public hearing before the ADB such as a Type II process. Chair Bayer spoke to the importance of allowing citizens the ability to provide input on huge projects. She thinks it should be a two-step process. Issue 1: Design Review Process • Option 1: Leave interim ordinance language as -is; all buildings in CG zone require ADB review via two-phase public hearing, even those not adjacent or across the street from RS zone • Option 2: Require ADB review for projects above 35 feet that are adjacent or across the street from RS zone Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting February 23, 2023 Page 6 of 9 Option 3: Require a Type II administrative (staff) review which includes public notice but no public hearing Option 4: some combination of the above, such as only requiring ADB review when adjacent or across the street from RS zone Board Member Loch said he is hearing that previous decisions regarding having no transition area were well debated, part of a public process, and intentional. It seems like those previous decisions deserve some deference. He is not supportive of step backs from the street side in this location because the design standards and design review process already provide adequate authority for mitigation. He agrees that this is where maximum development should occur since it is on a transit corridor. He commented that this appears to be a zoning map issue. He encouraged staff to come up with better graphics for upcoming meetings in order to evaluate cross sections of the streets with the scenarios. In terms of the process, he is supportive of the ADB being more involved and having more projects come through the ADB. He noted that hearings are very formal and one- sided. He thinks it would be more useful to have a workshop or open house for the initial meeting. He is also okay if the Board only makes a recommendation after its hearing, and the staff makes the final decision. Board Member Strauss spoke in support of the two-phase public hearing. She commented that when they have the two-phase public hearing the ADB has a discussion afterwards. In the past they have even gone back and asked questions of people who made comments. She reiterated that this is not going to be a big burden for the ADB since there will only be one or two projects a year. She doesn't have a problem with doing it for all the buildings in the CG zone as opposed to just the ones across the street from residential. Her recommendation would be to accept the interim emergency ordinance with the understanding that it needs to be massaged. She thinks further studies need to be done. What is the smallest street they have where there might be an issue with the 75-foot height? What's the biggest one? Once they know this they can come up with some clear and objective standards; however, there will still be some subjectivity. Board Member Jeude agreed that they should accept the interim ordinance as it has been presented. She also noted that it needs to be massaged. Director McLaughlin noted that this is the time to do the massaging. She stressed that the ADB always has the power to require step backs through the discretionary design review process. It's just that step backs are not required by default at this very specific dimension. Chapter 16 allows for administrative staff review to mitigate building size and massing by using architectural design tools such as step backs, setbacks, modulation, articulation, materiality, and other design tools. It is the job of the ADB and staff to interpret policy and code and shape architecture and design in keeping with that. Staff feels that defaulting to a required dimension puts a lot of onerous on that first meeting for the design team to spend their money on design consultants fighting that requirement. Instead, their opinion is that they should be able to look at the design as a whole, have a discussion with the ADB, and let the ADB use the design tools that are already regulated at their discretion. Chair Bayer said she was leaning toward Option 2 because she doesn't feel they need to do design review for all the CG-zoned projects. She believes it is very important to have the two-phase process for the review of developments adjacent or across the street to residential. For step backs across the street from single family, she thought they should put some parameters on minimum distance. Board Member Herr also spoke in support of Option 2 for the design review process (requiring ADB review for projects above 35 feet that are adjacent or across the street from RS zone). For the step back issue, he spoke Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting February 23, 2023 Page 7 of 9 in support of factoring in width of right-of-way and required setbacks for CG and RS properties; if minimum distance is a above a certain threshold, no step backs would be required (Option 2). Planning Manager Levitan asked about a distance the Board was comfortable with for not requiring step backs across the street. Board members indicated they needed more information to make an informed decision. Director McLaughlin stated that staff could provide a visual to depict various distances in scale with 75-foot building heights. Vice Chair Brooks agreed with Option 2 for Issue 1 (leaving the interim ordinance as -is). This would best benefit the residents of Edmonds and consider multiple options. Board Member Jeude was also in support of Option 2 for the design review process. MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER STRAUSS, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER JEUDE TO REQUIRE THE ADB TO REVIEW PROJECTS ABOVE 35 FEET THAT ARE ADJACENT OR ACROSS THE STREET FROM AN RS ZONE, AND TO REQUIRE A TYPE II PROCESS FOR ALL OTHER PROJECTS THAT ARE GREATER THAN 35 FEET BUT ARE NOT ADJACENT TO OR ACROSS THE STREET FROM AN RS ZONE. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Issue 2: Step backs when RS property across the street • Option 1: Leave interim ordinance language as -is; step backs required unless deemed unnecessary by ADB (would be evaluated during Phase 1 public hearing) • Option 2: Factor in width of right-of-way and required setbacks for CG and RS properties; if minimum distance is above a certain threshold (50 feet? 60 feet? 80 feet?), no step backs required • Option 3: Don't require any step backs at all; leave it to the code Chair Bayer spoke in support of Option 1. She stated she was not comfortable with making a determination about distance in Option 2 without more information. Director McLaughlin agreed and stated that if that was the preferred option this could come back to the ADB with better visuals in order to make an informed decision. There was discussion about how this might impact the timing of Planning Board hearings. Board Member Strauss agreed that they need more information about sizes of streets, directional information, and better graphics. She was in favor Option 2 and letting the Planning Board decide the details if staff feels they can provide the necessary information. If not, she was in favor of Option 1. Chair Bayer asked about the City Council's justification for requiring step backs outright in the interim ordinance. Director McLaughlin thought some of the comments just wanted to respect the community members' comments about concerns around step backs. Vice Chair Brooks spoke in support of Option 1, leaving the interim ordinance language as it is. Board Member Herr was in support of Option 2. Board Member Loch commented that he couldn't support Option 1 because there was no criterion for knowing when you were going to waive the step back requirement. This isn't fair to the developer, the property owner, or the community. However, he could see Option 2 being combined with Option 1. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting February 23, 2023 Page 8 of 9 There was discussion about the best way to handle working out the remaining details with the time constraints they have. Director McLaughlin noted they could have a special meeting, and staff could bring back more information. MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER STRAUSS, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER JEUDE, TO HOLD A SPECIAL MEETING ON MARCH 8 AT 5:30 P.M. TO DISCUSS ISSUE 2, STEP BACK SCENARIOS. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. BOARD REVIEW ITEMS None BOARD DISCUSSION ITEMS None ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS None ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 8:17 p.m. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting February 23, 2023 Page 9 of 9