Loading...
2023-03-08 Architectural Design Board MinutesCITY OF EDMONDS ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD Minutes of Special Meeting March 8, 2023 Chair Bayer called the special meeting of the Architectural Design Board to order at 5:35 p.m. in the Brackett Room at City Hall, 121— 5�' Avenue North, Edmonds, Washington. Board Members Present Kim Bayer, Chair Alexa Brooks, Vice Chair Joe Herr (online) Maurine Jeude Corbitt Loch Steve Schmitz Lauri Strauss Board Members Absent None APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was approved as presented. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Staff Present David Levitan, Planning Manager Susan McLaughlin, Planning & Devt. Director Mike Clugston, Senior Planner Teressa Hollis, Edmonds resident, urged the Board to get the most complete information available to make a decision on the interim ordinance. She cautioned against listening to the developers' perspective when they say that step backs call the economic viability of a project into question. She discussed other projects this developer has done and noted that it's not possible to make any accurate predictions about the future of a specific project in light of this ordinance. She referred to a question from the Board about the why the City Council created the interim ordinance and referred to Resolution 1512 which was created to answer that question and explain why the debate from 2017 is being reopened. She asked if the Board had considered the implications of Edmonds adopting a one-off approach when staff suggested that right-of-way width is a criterion for defining step back. She couldn't find this criterion in the codes of any other city in the region when she checked. She stated that mandating step backs with a sensitive boundary is a judgement call. She noted that in 2022 staff presented background information to the City Council and concluded that step backs across the street were consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and supported by policies in the Planned Action report. She played a recording of Director McLaughlin from a previous meeting related to this topic. She recommended code language that describes the step back dimensions on those CG parcels that have a boundary with single family but no other criteria. She recommended adding verbiage to the itemized list about design review in the code which invites Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Special Meeting March. 8, 2023 Page 1 of 6 the applicant to submit departures that provide equal or better moderation of the bulk and mass than would result from strict application of the code. Natalie Seitz said she had sent some information to the ADB previously about this topic. She asked that they give this area the same due consideration that they gave to the folks who live near the BD2. She expressed concern about the heights and stated that the development being permitted for residential apartments is already two stories more than was envisioned for this Planned Action. She hopes for fair and equal treatment for all Edmonds residents. Deborah Arthur said she agreed with Natalie Seitz that height is the issue. She hopes they can figure out a way to build these places without creating a tunnel view for residents and a vacuum of heat with no breeze or sky. BOARD REVIEW ITEMS Continued Discussion of Potential Permanent Ordinance Related to the CG Zone Planning Manager Levitan gave an overview of this topic related to step back requirements for projects 35 feet and above in the CG-zoned properties with single-family residential (RS) zoned properties across the street. The ADB is being asked to make a recommendation to the Planning Board on potential permanent language. The Planning Board will hold a public hearing and make a recommendation to the City Council to consider adoption of that permanent ordinance. At the February 23 ADB meeting there was consensus and a motion approved that recommended that these types of projects be required to go through a Type II quasi-judicial review process meaning there would be a two-phase public hearing before the ADB when projects are adjacent or across the street from RS-zoned properties. As part of that same motion the Board recommended that the City implement a Type II review process for all other CG projects. This requires public notice and public comment but does not require a public hearing. Projects below 35 feet in height would continue to be reviewed through a Type I review process. There was a consensus from the ADB on the step back requirement. Staff was provided direction to provide better graphics to illustrate the potential impacts of step backs as it relates to massing and scale and potential shadow impacts. He emphasized that tonight they are not focusing on the height of the buildings but only on the impacts of the step back requirements. The interim ordinance, as currently written, requires an initial step back of an additional 10 feet at a 25-foot building height. Once you get to 55 feet you are required to have an additional 10-foot step back. There was discussion from the ADB at previous meetings and general consensus that Board members were comfortable with having that second step back be elevated from 55 feet to 65 feet. This also should be clarified as part of the motion tonight. Director McLaughlin clarified the context and background of the quote by her referred to by Teresa Hollis from a previous Council meeting. She stressed that staff supports the design tools that the ADB has access to and recommends they are used on all projects. Step backs may very well be the answer for projects that are across the street from single family residences, but staff wants the ADB to be able to make that decision with all the tools that are available based on the contextual nature of the site. Clarification questions were asked and answered. Director McLaughlin made a presentation showing illustrations of the impacts of potential step back requirements for CG properties across the street from RS zones with various scenarios. She showed examples Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Special Meeting March. 8, 2023 Page 2 of 6 of differences in modulation which is another tool available to the ADB in their toolkit. She reviewed the effects of heights and various step backs on shadows. She reiterated that this is not a conversation about building heights but only the step back. She also pointed out that these images are worst -case scenarios which would only happen for a portion of the day in the spring. From noon on there would not be any shadow impacts from across the street. Board Member Strauss commented that the graphics help to really see the impact. She notices a bigger visual difference with the step backs at 55 feet rather than 65 feet. Board Member Schmitz commented that when the ADB reviews buildings taller than 35 feet things like modulation will be strong tools for them. Board Member Herr said he didn't see a big difference with the shadows. By the time summer comes around those shadows don't even exist. There would be more in the winter, but there's also not much sun in the winter so there is no shadow. He pointed out that the illustration also shows a sunny day with a clear sky which is not very common until summer. He stated it is important to keep in mind where they live. He also stressed that the number of available lots where this shadow impact is going to apply is limited. Chair Bayer pointed out that if a house is sitting west of a 75-foot building they aren't going to see morning sun regardless of step backs. Vice Chair Brooks commented that considering that they live in the Pacific Northwest, they need to optimize what little sun they have in the wintertime. Planning Manager Levitan clarified that the major issue is specifically in the way that the step back requirements are phrased. The ADB already has existing discretion to recommend a whole host of design principles and standards when something comes before them as part of the Phase 1 public hearing. The interim ordinance says that step backs are required unless the ADB says they are not. The options available to the ADB are: • To not carry forward the language related to step backs in the interim ordinance and use the authority they already have with in the two-phase public hearing to require step backs on a case -by -case basis. This would effectively strike the applicability of the section that previously applied only to adjacent properties, but Ordinance 4283 amended it to apply to properties across the street as well. • To keep the language the way it is written now which requires step backs at 25 feet and 55 feet for properties across the street from RS-zoned properties unless the ADB deems they are not warranted in the Phase 1 public hearing. An applicant would have likely have to come forward with two proposals. They could present without step backs and state their case why they don't think they should be required for their project, but they would be taking a risk in doing all that work without any input from the ADB. • To modify criteria such as right-of-way width or other situations where step backs shouldn't be required. Director McLaughlin emphasized that with regard to light, the difference between the step backs is very small. Chair Bayer stated that the issue for her is still the mass. What are significant issues with requiring step backs? Is it financial? Director McLaughlin noted there are a lot of expenses that go into the first design review. The developer's team makes their own design judgements based on their interpretation of the codes and policies that are in place on that particular site. With the current code the design team would be forced to put the step backs in or make two sets of designs which is double the expense. Also, with the design justification the discussion Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Special Meeting March. 8, 2023 Page 3 of 6 at the first meeting is going to be solely about step backs and not about all the other tools the ADB has at their disposal to mitigate massing. Staff s preference has always been to mitigate massing and use all the design tools available in the existing development standards. This allows the ADB to use their full discretion to optimize design to make a building effective and fit into a site. She believes that when it is done in a prescriptive way it hyper focuses the conversation and puts the design team on the defense when it may not be the best tool for mitigating massing. Board Member Strauss asked if staff is available to architects/developers to come in with some sketches of the site and proposing ideas. Planning Manager Mike Clugston said there are two types of meetings where that could happen — a pre -application meeting which is a paid meeting and a Development Review Committee which is a free meeting. Anybody who is going to build a building like this is going to come and talk to staff beforehand. Board Member Strauss noted that the developers have plenty of opportunity to come in and discuss with staff what the requirements are. Board Member Loch asked what the City has in terms of policies or guidelines regarding shadow impacts. He also referred to the tree code and noted that many single-family homes could be shadowing themselves with trees. He wondered about the difference between shadows from buildings and shadows from trees. To him they seemed the same. He also asked if a 75-foot building would be allowed on a street that only has 60 feet of right- of-way or would there be a dedication requirement so that ultimately the setback is more like 80 feet. Mr. Clugston said that 60 feet is the right amount to be looking at. The setback is taken from the property line. Whether the whole area is developed doesn't matter. 60 feet is the right of way for most of Edmonds; there are only a few that are different widths. It includes the street and sidewalk. Regarding shadows in the code, he stated he was not aware of any code that had any sort of numerical values that they would measure. There may be some language in the Comp Plan but it would be very general. Director McLaughlin thought that this is something that could be included in the submittal packet. Board Member Jeude noted there is language around light. Director McLaughlin agreed but said it is very subjective. Regarding the question about trees and shadowing, Director McLaughlin was not aware of any language preventing trees from shadowing houses. Board Member Brooks commented that a building is solid, and a tree has branches so you will get some filtering. You can see through a tree, and they blow in the wind so it's a shifting shadow. Board Member Schmitz agreed with addressing the bulk and scale of buildings but expressed concern about focusing solely on property line step back height because they may lose the nuance of the developer and architect being able to address other concerns. There may be better techniques to make those units valuable to people who will ultimately be living in them such as balconies, shadow box windows, and other techniques that will address privacy concerns. In his experience if there are very strict requirements it limits how you can design a building and makes a lot of buildings look very similar. If there's very little flexibility a lot of developers won't approach the City with options, and Edmonds will end up with a lot of similar looking "wedding cake" buildings. By using the toolkit the ADB already has, they would still have the ability to address privacy issues, especially these across the street shadowing issues, with simpler mitigations than broad brush requirements. Board Member Strauss argued that it is really hard for the ADB to tell developers who come in and present their designs that they can't do what they want. If it's not in the code she thinks the developers won't agree to it. Board Member Schmitz replied that the ADB already has the authority to tell developers what the City would like to see. Director McLaughlin agreed. Board Member Strauss noted that step backs are a big suggestion. Also, the ADB does not end up seeing the developer again so they don't even know if they comply. Director McLaughlin noted this would be a quasi-judicial decision; the developer would have to abide by it. Planning Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Special Meeting March. 8, 2023 Page 4 of 6 Manager Levitan noted that the first phase of the two-phase public hearing is where the developer would introduce the concept. If they introduce a concept, is within the ADB's purview to say what they want to see before the applicant comes back for the Phase 2 public hearing. This is something that the ADB is already able to do. Director McLaughlin noted that staff ensures the ADB's decision is adhered to all the way to the certificate of occupancy. Board Member Jeude asked about a previous project the ADB had reviewed which the applicant had later parceled off. She wondered if this was a way they had gotten around the ADB's recommendation. Senior Planner Clugston explained that it was not. The buildings will end up looking exactly like the ADB recommended; they are just parceling it in a different way. Board Member Strauss commented on difficulties with that decision because the Board was mixed in their opinions. She thought it would have been easier if it had been clear in the code. Board Member Loch recommended bifurcating the question into the topic of step back above 25 feet and then any other step back issues. Board Member Strauss asked Board Member Schmitz to explain his reasoning for recommending the step back at 65 feet instead of 55 feet. Board Member Schmitz explained how this makes it less complicated and more affordable for developers. This has a big impact for those trying to provide affordable housing. He asserted that from the street the average person would never notice the difference between a 55- foot step back and a 65-foot step back. Board Member Strauss referred to the graphics provided by staff and said there appeared to be a big difference between the 55 and 65-foot step backs. Chair Bayer agreed. Board Member Schmitz thought that the lower -level step back would make the most difference. Board Member Brooks asked if modulation causes similar complications for developers. Board Member Schmitz explained that modulating creates depths in the facade. Vertical modulation provides the most relief in a building because you can break the mass up into what looks like several smaller buildings. Horizontal step backs reduce the bulk of the building by pulling the building back further. Director McLaughlin noted that they don't have prescription around modulation. She thought if there is prescription in the step back, the developers might spend their money there in lieu of modulation or other techniques that could be used to mitigate massing. There was discussion about the ADB's ability to require modulation on projects they review. MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER LOCH, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER SCHMITZ, THAT THE PERMANENT REGULATIONS NOT INCLUDE A 10-FOOT SETBACK FOR THE PORTION OF THE BUILDING ABOVE 25 FEET WHEN ACROSS FROM SINGLE FAMILY (RS) ZONE. Upon request, Board Member Loch clarified his motion. He explained that he hasn't been shown that it makes a material difference in the impacts to the area. He also doesn't think it's good for the City to put an optional regulation that the applicant won't know how to satisfy. This is not fair to the applicant or the neighborhood. THE MOTION FAILED 34. MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER STRAUSS, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER BROOKS, THAT THE ORDINANCE REMAIN AS WRITTEN IN THE EMERGENCY ORDINANCE WITH THE 25-FOOT STEP BACK AND THE 55-FOOT STEP BACK. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Special Meeting March. 8, 2023 Page 5 of 6 Board Member Schmitz commented that if they push the step backs higher it won't make a difference with shadows, and they have other tools that can be used to address bulk and scale better than step back in an arbitrary way. Board Member Strauss agreed that it would not make a difference with shadows, but from a bulk standpoint it will make a difference. MOTION PASSED 4-3. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 6:53 p.m. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Special Meeting March. 8, 2023 Page 6 of 6