Loading...
2023-05-25 Architectural Design Board MinutesCITY OF EDMONDS ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD Minutes of Regular Meeting May 25, 2023 Chair Bayer called the 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 (online) Alexa Brooks, Vice Chair (online) Joe Herr Corbitt Loch Steve Schmitz Board Members Absent Maurine Jeude (excused) Lauri Strauss APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was approved as presented. Staff Present David Levitan, Planning Manager Mike Clugston, Senior Planner Michele Szafran, Planner AUDIENCE COMMENTS (on items not on the agenda) None APPROVAL OF MINUTES February 23, 2023 ADB Meeting Minutes and March 8, 2023 ADB Special Meeting Minutes MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER SCHMITZ, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER HERR, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS PRESENTED. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. NEW BUSINESS None PUBLIC HEARINGS • Phase 1 Design Review of 627 Dayton Apartments (PLN2022-0089) Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting May 25, 2023 Page 1 of 12 Chair Bayer introduced the Phase 1 design review meeting for a proposed 17-unit multifamily residential building at 627 Dayton Street and reviewed the purpose and the process of the hearing. She asked if any member of the Board had engaged with communication with proponents or opponents regarding the design review of this project outside of the public hearing process. All members stated they had not. She asked if any members of the Board had a conflict of interest or believed that they could not hear and consider this application in a fair and objective manner. All members stated they did not. She asked if there was anyone in the audience who objected to her or any other board member's participation as a decision maker in the hearing. No one indicated that they did. All participants affirmed that they would tell the truth. Staff Presentation: Senior Planner Clugston made the staff presentation. He reviewed the two-phase hearing process; the packet, 19 attachments and review context; site context; BD2 zoning requirements, and design standards. Staff recommended that the Board consider: • Design Guidelines and Standards • Public Comments • Revisions to private amenity space to make it more usable. • Additional variety in materials • Additional trim around windows • Additional sidewalk amenities along Dayton if power lines are buried. • Screening of openings in west garage wall Staff is recommending that the Board work through the design guideline checklist and continue the hearing to a date certain. July 27 was suggested by staff. Applicant Testimony: Phil Frisk with PAT Architecture stated they went to great lengths to conform to the new codes that the City has for modulation, articulation, variety of materials, etc. For the most part, they are in compliance. They appreciate the work the City has done over the past several years to have a really nice pedestrian environment. They like to think they are contributing by introducing a lot of more pedestrians/residents to the downtown core because this is within walking distance of downtown. He noted that it is not unusual to have objections when there is change in an area. The City has done a good job of mitigating impacts of bigger buildings and has also given a lot more opportunity for more people to enjoy living in downtown Edmonds. Public Testimony: Ann Christianson stated she had submitted a letter and asked how that would be addressed. Senior Planner Clugston stated that written comments would be addressed in Phase 2 in the next staff report. Ms. Christianson commented that there are five huge trees along Durbin Drive that are not mentioned and not shown in any of the drawings. The smallest tree is 20 inches around and the other ones are three times that size. What is going to happen with those trees? She also had a question about how vehicular trips are being calculated. The City said that because an office building is being taken down that there would be four less peak evening car trips although they're netting 13 parking spaces. She also asked how high the parapet is. She would like a definition of private amenity space. If they are counting people's decks and porches as private amenity space then the little Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting May 25, 2023 Page 2 of 12 strip of grass along the west side isn't private amenity space; that is amenity space for the entire building. She asked about the placement of the electric meters. Are these in the garage or the private amenity space? Greg Brewer, Edmonds resident, asked why they are jamming these two projects together in one meeting? Why would there be a 100% multifamily building in the BD2? Whey did it take six months to have the first public hearing? He expressed frustration with the process. He contended that the Dayton Street project was not properly vested in time for consideration as a 100% multifamily building and that it should be denied until it complies with Ordinance 4282. The fact that there were no plans available to the public on the posting date of December 5 leads him to believe that this application did not have completeness on the date of November 18. An inquiry to the Planning Department on January 19 still yielded no access to Dayton Street plans. Since Ordinance 4282 was officially adopted on November 23, and no plans for public comment were available until sometime after January 19, 2023, this project does not appear to have property public notice. The project is not properly vested under the old code and needs to be resubmitted under Ordinance 4282 with business on the ground floor. Will Magnuson noted that the first attempt to permit these two projects early last year was met with huge public outcry. The City Council issued a moratorium to provide a measure of time to refine standards and the extent of the BD2 zone with the focus on true mixed -use development. A great deal of effort reviewing building details, public space, and downtown storefronts was expended. Additionally, a good amount of time and effort was focused on public private space so that future development would enhance the downtown experience for residents, visitors, and community alike while providing for diversity, opportunity, and inclusion within a walkable downtown core. They need development that provides an adequate amount of public private space to gather and socialize with the community and provide a vibrant place to live and visit. Both of these projects fail to meet these goals. The Dayton Street project should include commercial space. Neither project even attempts to provide adequate public or private amenity space. Locating the ADA units within the lower level without an elevator to move about the building sends a message to the community that these projects are not interested in diversity, inclusion, or community. Visiting your fellow residents in a multifamily building should be a primary amenity, and ADA access is required to all amenities. Public space is essentially a non-existent corridor. Private space amenity for Dayton is primarily located between buildings in the buffer zone so units don't face into the adjacent building. The buffer space is minimal, creating an amenity space with little benefit. The building exteriors reflect the efficiency of design and an attempt to minimally meet standards and maximize profit. Mr. Magnuson stated that he wants mixed use development in the downtown core, but he wants it to be good for the residents and the community alike. The projects need to provide public and private space with commercial that activates the street front and enhances the downtown experience. Neither of these projects meets the goals. Marta Card, Edmonds resident, asked how many people live in the downtown Edmonds area. She has lived right next door to 627 Dayton for 17 years. Her neighbor has lived there for 36 years. There is a lot of green space there with rabbits and vegetable gardens. The way this building is going to be built there will be no space between the buildings. The entrance to the garage will be right next to her neighbor's apartment. He is worried about fumes, noise, and access. She expressed concern about adequate parking for the residents of the new buildings. She commented that the idea of bringing more business downtown is nuts because they already have a lot and have challenges getting dinner reservations. She knows every business owner downtown and loves this city. She feels they are turning it into Ballard, and they didn't sign up for that. She expressed concern about the rents for the new units and the impacts on housing prices in the city. Who is going to pay for burying the cable? She again expressed concern about the lack of adequate parking being provided for these new buildings. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting May 25, 2023 Page 3 of 12 Lothar Biermanski, Edmonds resident, agreed with Ms. Card's comments. He does not think what is being presented is in keeping with what he has seen in his 40-some years in Edmonds. It's a great big structure that doesn't fit in Edmonds. They need to cater to people who would come to enjoy a walk in Edmonds. They don't need more people. They have people here that really enjoy the city the way it was. He had questions about structures that will be taken out. He wishes they could retain what they have in Edmonds. Karen Biermanski, Edmonds resident, stated she lives on Bell Street between 6th and 7th. There frequently is not parking on the street so it is necessary to park in the alley. What is the square footage of the units? What is the height of the trees? She hopes they will not be taller than 25 feet. How many parking spaces will there be? There should be at least one per unit and a lot of people have two cars. Parking is a problem in Edmonds, and we don't need to add to it. Kathy Brewer, Edmonds resident, lives really close to this building. She stated that they have already have parking problems. They have a historical home with no driveway. Residents' parking is going to flood onto the already crowded streets. She loves the building that is going to be torn down and is upset that it will be replaced with this building which doesn't fit Edmonds. It is very inappropriate and looks like it could be anywhere. She can't believe they say they took the time to carefully consider things. She agrees with all the previous comments. If there is going to be a building there, a lot more thought should be put into the design for the quality of life for the tenants there and for all of the neighbors who will be looking at it and dealing with its impacts. She very much opposes this building. Abraham Mathew, Edmonds resident, lives across the street from the current beautiful building on Dayton. He asked for clarity on the improvements that are going to be made on Durbin Drive. He expressed concern about increased traffic. The left turn from Durbin to Dayton is a dangerous one. Are there any safety measures or other improvement plan to manage the flow better? He would also like to know details of the plan for burying power lines on Dayton. Will this require tearing up the newly paved Dayton Street? The renderings are quite an eyesore. It looks like the cheapest possible finishes are going to go on this building. That is not what we want in Edmonds. He hopes the ADB is going to make some suggestions to make it fit in with the rest of the neighborhood because right now it does not. Linda Fireman, 600 Bell, expressed concern about proper access to the disabled units. The building is way too big. The outside amenity space looks like a little strip of land you would take your dog to pee. There is nothing else for people at this building or at 611. These two buildings need to be done again with more outdoor space, more compliance. They are the worst design. She can't believe they would have something like this in Edmonds. She also expressed concern about more people and more parking challenges in Edmonds. Board Questions: Board Member Loch asked if there is a requirement for onsite landscaping. Senior Planner Clugston replied that the street side amenity space along Dayton and Durbin are required. That is 5% of the project plat area. hi this case those areas are landscaped. No other landscaping is required. Board Member Loch asked if that counted as private amenity space. Mr. Clugston replied that it does not. It is street side amenity space. Board Member Herr addressed the ADA question. He stated that one unit has a ramp. The other unit has another entrance from the lobby that does not have stairs. Both of those units are in compliance with the code. He commented that when the City of Edmonds has a design code and someone designs something to that code, it Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting May 25, 2023 Page 4 of 12 is very difficult to say you don't like the building. If you don't like the building, you have to address the code issues. He commented that he had spent a lot of time looking at the various multifamily buildings in Edmonds. He noticed that condominiums tend to have more architectural features because you have to sell them. A developer who is building market rate apartment tends to not have as pretty a building as could be had if it were a condo. There is adequate parking in this building per the code — one space per unit. Additionally, the State has passed regulations allowing a fourplex or triplex on single family lots all over Edmonds. Edmonds didn't want it but the State ignored that and said it will be allowed. Also, with the new Energy Code coming up there is going to be some significant building detailing that is going to be difficult to implement. Board Member Schmitz asked if the code gives a minimum width for the private and public amenity areas. Senior Planner Clugston replied that there are no dimensional requirements. It's just a percentage of lot area. Board Member Schmitz asked if the code spells out the type of activities the private or public amenities should foster. Senior Planner Clugston replied that it does not. Board Member Schmitz asked if there are regulations regarding the types or number of trees on the site. Senior Planner Clugston replied that there are not. Board Member Schmitz asked for clarification about staff recommendation for additional screening of the parking area. Senior Planner Clugston referred to the three openings on the west side of the building adjacent to the private amenity space. Typically, they see screening of those areas with landscaping. Since there is no landscaping here, staff suggests some grating or grill work that could take the place of that. Board Member Schmitz asked about the building height. Senior Planner Clugston explained that as shown in preliminary drawings it would be at 30 feet. They have also shown an architectural element to be an additional two feet which is an allowed exception for height. Board Member Schmitz asked if there is anything other than building height and ceiling height that limits the architect from maximizing the amount of building on the site. Mr. Clugston replied that there is not. Vice Chair Brooks asked if the garage is the only designated spot for parking. Senior Planner Clugston replied that it is. There are 17 stalls in the garage — one per dwelling unit as per code. Vice Chair Brooks asked if the trees on the site currently have to be taken down for construction. Senior Planner Clugston replied that they do. There are trees along Durbin and Dayton. The power lines that are along Dayton are going to have to be buried, so the sidewalk along Dayton will certainly have to be replaced along with those trees. There are five trees along Durbin. Four of those have been identified by the Parks arborist as being in poor condition and will be removed. There is one additional tree that is younger and in better health but they are all sweet gum trees which are not recommended as street trees. The intent is to remove all five trees and replace with new frontage and new street trees as determined by the Street Tree Plan and the Parks Department. Chair Bayer referred to a concern raised about Durbin and traffic safety issues. She asked staff about the traffic study that was done. Senior Planner Clugston explained that the traffic engineer and the fire district did not mention any needed improvements in their comments. Planning Manager Levitan added that those items would be addressed as part of the review. He pointed out that the intent of this public hearing is to focus on the design guidelines which is within the purview of the ADB. Although there have been public comments about ADA and traffic those are things that will be addressed primarily through the building code, through traffic impact fees or things that are outside the purview of the ADB's review. Chair Bayer asked staff to review their recommendation for revisions to private amenity space. Senior Planner Clugston explained there are a couple balconies on the northwest units and then some private amenity space along the ground level along the west side of the building which is not very accessible for residents of the building. He recommended another way to access that space or possibly additional balconies. Chair Bayer Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting May 25, 2023 Page 5 of 12 commented that they need more open space, and she hopes that will be corrected with the process they are currently going through. She also asked about the recommendation for additional variety in materials. Board Member Clugston commented that the Board should consider requiring some additional materials. The code specifies a preferred set of materials- natural stone, metal, those sorts of things. It is not a requirement that only those are used but it needs to be a balance of materials. He recommended additional materials that could look like the preferred products. Board Member Schmitz asked Mr. Frisk if there is anything else he could see doing with regard to materials, maybe at the entrance to the building. Mr. Frisk replied that there are opportunities to introduce more variety to the exterior wall services. They will continue to work with the City on this. Board Member Schmitz asked if there is anything staff is recommending with the canopy at the front entrance. Senior Planner Clugston replied that there is nothing extra that they would require. Board Member Schmitz commented that the building materials are very monolithic. He thought they could do more perhaps up under the eaves to maybe break that down one last step or put bands in some places to somehow break up the lap siding. He suggested more detailing or design thought be put into this. He also wondered if there is more they could do with the window treatments. Mr. Frisk agreed that they could add some more details but stated that they don't want it to get too busy. He stated that there are all kinds of opportunities with the exterior design. Board Member Schmitz commented that he goes to the market every weekend. He parks at the library and there are often not many spaces. He has noticed and complained about not being able to walk on the Durbin sidewalk; you have to walk in the road. He asked if the setback here increased public right of way or just expands on what was already public right of way by taking out the obstructions. Senior Planner Clugston explained that as envisioned the area from the sidewalk to the face of the building would be updated. There would be a new 5-foot sidewalk and street trees along there. The whole length would be pedestrian friendly with appropriate street trees along that side of the building. Board Member Schmitz suggested that street trees would be required to replace the ones that are removed. There was some discussion about the rendering not displaying correctly. Senior Planner Clugston commented that the engineering division had additional corrections as well dealing with that Durbin street front, street trees, sidewalk, and all the other requirements they would need. Those will be part of the Phase 2 materials. Chair Bayer asked if staff made recommendations to add modulation to the north wall. Senior Planner Clugston replied they did not, but the Board could if desired. Chair Bayer commented that it looks like it needs something more to address the scale and mass on the north side, especially on the corners that wrap around. It looks very boxy. She hopes the Board would want to address that. Board Member Schmitz recommended that the north base of the building be further developed by continuing it and turning in at the garage entrance a little bit. By further defining that entrance with the brick veneer, it would allow it to be a more cohesive part of the building. He also asked Chair Bayer if her recommendation would be to add a secondary panel or other natural material that meets the Board's recommended materials suggestion. Chair Bayer confirmed that it would. Chair Bayer asked for clarification about the process concerns raised by Greg Brewer about the legality of the vesting of the application under the interim ordinance. Senior Planner Clugston stated he could address that in the Phase 2 staff report. Planning Manager Levitan added that there is another legal avenue to challenge that. It isn't something that would be handled through the ADB decision process since it is not directly related to the design guidelines and the role of the ADB. Mr. Brewer explained that it has everything to do with the design because if it turns out that this is not legally vested it will have to have business on the ground floor. He believes this has to be considered along with what they are doing today. He agreed that this is not the avenue to address those concerns legally, but it is important to address it here because it affects the project. Planning Manager Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting May 25, 2023 Page 6 of 12 Levitan agreed but noted that it shouldn't factor into the ADB's decision making until there has been a legal challenge to the vesting status. That is a risk the applicant is taking. Design Guidelines Checklist Site Planning.• 1. Reinforce site characteristics • Bayer - High priority. • Brooks - High priority. She added that aside from the trees that need to be taken down, the existing building is mainly surrounded by concrete and not much landscaping. She sees this as an opportunity to improve on that. • Schmitz — He echoed the comment about improving what is there currently. The existing site characteristics don't lend themselves well to the pedestrian environment. He feels like that should be a priority for this project. It appears that there is an effort being made to connect the site to the street and that should continue to be prioritized. • Herr - High priority. • Loch — Low priority. He doesn't see the project as reinforcing anything that is there now because it is basically stripping the site clean and starting over. For him it is a lower priority because the new development doesn't look anything like the existing site. In response to a request from the public, public testimony was reopened. Public Testimony (continued): Ann Christianson said she lives directly across the alley from this building so she has the view of the north side of the building. She appreciates them bringing up the flat scape that is the north view. She thinks something needs to happen about that. She is interested in the comment that the height is 30 feet plus the two -foot parapet. She would like to know where the 30 feet is measured from because according to the renderings it is measured at the lowest part of the alley. Board Member Schmitz noted that it is measured by the average grade of the site. Mr. Frisk added that where it says "30 feet' on the rendering is just where it is visually shown. It doesn't mean it is measured there. Ms. Christianson noted that Durbin is not a street. It is part of the exit of the parking lot. She is upset about the sick trees that she watches leaf out and bloom each year. She wonders when the City would take them out and when they would put a new sidewalk in. She doesn't think it would be in the near future with the Tree Code going on right now. Senior Clugston replied they would come down with the project. Chair Bayer asked if the ADB has the latitude to ask or strongly recommend that they keep those trees. Senior Planner Clugston replied they could make that recommendation, but due to the health of the trees he does not think they will be retained. Ms. Christianson asked if they could ask that larger trees be put in. Senior Planner Clugston replied that the Street Tree Code requires a certain size but he wasn't sure what that was. Greg Brewer referred to comments about the corner where the stairwell is and pointed out how basic and plain that is. He thinks they would want a treatment on that corner to break it up. Also, the pole going into the parking garage looks like a real hazard and a liability for the owner. He would like to see them pull back a little bit from the sidewalk to give more livability, walkability and interplay between the sidewalks, the pedestrians, and the building. Even if it was two feet, it would be a huge difference. He agreed that Durbin is part of the parking lot Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting May 25, 2023 Page 7 of 12 which people back out onto. Technically, it's a street but the use of Durbin is not a normal use. To say it is a normal street is not accurate. Suzanne James, resident, asked why there isn't an elevator in the building. How would disabled residents go visit other residents in the building? Mr. Frisk replied that they would come down to the ADA units. Ms. James replied that is not equitable. She asked if there is a certain percentage of the apartments that will be set aside for affordable housing. Mr. Frisk was not sure. They will be market rate apartments. They are building these units for teachers, first responders, professionals, retired people ... Ms. James commented that that average teacher can't afford a market rate apartment. Mr. Frisk disagreed and noted that they have other buildings they rent to these groups. It was noted that the International Building Code does not require users to build an elevator simply so someone can get to a top level if it's not required. The City is not allowed to require that either. Karen Biermanski stated that one of her concerns is that this is a multifamily high -density building. What is the possibility that this is going to happen again? Board Member Schmitz replied that they are not allowed to disallow development in the City. If a developer comes to the City with a development goal that meets all of the requirements, they can't stop them. Lothar Biermanski commented that common sense should be used. Design Guidelines Checklist/Site Planning (continued from above) 2. Reinforce existing streetscape characteristics • Schmitz - Low priority because the existing streetscape doesn't lend itself well to a walkable downtown. He thinks that reinforcing the existing streetscape characteristic would go against the number 1 point which was reinforcing site characteristics and enhancing those as a higher priority. • Herr, Loch, and Brooks - Low priority • Bayer - High priority 3. Entry clearly identifiable from the street • Consensus was high priority. 4. Encourage human activity on street • Bayer — High priority. This is a high visibility street with a lot of walkers. The lack of open space does not encourage a lot of human activity. The design should encourage human activity. Senior Planner Clugston had recommended adding benches, hanging flowers, etc. when they replace the sidewalk. • Schmitz —High priority if they are talking about walking and enjoying the public realm. • Herr — There is already a sidewalk and landscaping. He feels this is already addressed. Notice how much human activity is happening anywhere in Edmonds. He doesn't see people congregating out on the sidewalk. • Brooks — High priority S. Minimize intrusion into privacy on adjacent sites • Schmitz — High priority • Herr — Low priority or not applicable • Bayer — Low priority Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting May 25, 2023 Page 8 of 12 Board Member Loch stated he didn't find this process useful. He thinks all of the criteria are important so he doesn't want to minimize any of them, although some may not be applicable. He thinks it would be more beneficial for the audience and architect to hear from the ADB things that should be changed in the design to achieve the criteria in a better way. Senior Planner Clugston stated that the code requires the ADB to go through this checklist; however, with the passage of House Bill 1293 they are going to have to go back through and look through the Design Board's review processes and the standards and guidance themselves. He noted that as they go through it, they can offer design -related points related to the concept. 6. Use space between building and sidewalk to provide security, privacy, and interaction (residential projects) • Consensus was low priority. 7. Maximize open space opportunity on site • Consensus was high priority. 8. Minimize parking and auto impacts on pedestrians and adjoining property • Schmitz — Low priority because they have done this for the most part. • Herr — Low priority because the requirements have been met. • Brooks, Bayer, and Loch — High priority 9. Discourage parking in street front • Not applicable 10. Orient building to corner and parking away from corner on public street fronts • Consensus that it is a high priority, but they have done it. Bulk and Scale: Provide sensitive transitions to nearby, less -intensive zones • Consensus that this is a low priority for this location. Architectural Elements and Materials: Complement positive existing character and/or responds to nearby historic structures • Brooks — High priority • Bayer — High priority • Senior Planner Clugston noted that the parcel to the north is on the Edmonds Historic Register and then there's another historic site two parcels down on Dayton Street. • Schmitz — High priority to complement nearby historic structures but not to match them. • Herr — Low priority 2. Unified architectural concept • High priority 3. Use human scale and human activity Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting May 25, 2023 Page 9 of 12 • High priority 4. Use durable, attractive, and well -detailed finish materials • High priority — recommendations have already been made. S. Minimize garage entrances • Low priority based on the design. Pedestrian Environment: 1. Provide convenient, attractive, and protected pedestrian entry • High priority but they have done this. 2. Avoid blank walls • Bayer - High priority — She still has an issue with the north side. • Schmitz — Low priority because they have already done this. They already talked about this when they talked about the lap siding and additional treatments the architect could potentially take. High priority to address that portion. • Brooks — High priority • Herr — They could make the corner with the little windows in the stairwell much more attractive. 3. Minimize height of retaining walls • Not applicable 4. Minimize visual and physical intrusion of parking lots on pedestrian areas • Not applicable S. Minimize visual impact of parking structures • Schmitz - High priority — The City has already recommended some screening potential. • Herr — High priority — He agreed with screening the garage openings. 6. Screen dumpsters, utility, and service areas • Low priority 7. Consider personal safety • High priority • Loch — He said he didn't see a gate or door on the garage. Landscaping: 1. Reinforce existing landscape character of neighborhood • High priority — Improve what is existing. Follow city standards and do even better if you can. 2. Landscape to enhance the building or site • High priority — This seems similar to item 1. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting May 25, 2023 Page 10 of 12 3. Landscape to take advantage of special site conditions • Not applicable MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER SCHMITZ, SECONDED BY VICE CHAIR BROOKS, TO CONTINUE THE HEARING TO JULY 27. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. • 611 on Main Mixed -Use Phase 1 Hearing (PLN2022-0085) Chair Bayer recommended moving this item to the June 22 meeting due to the late hour. Board Member Schmitz disagreed because he thought the applicant needed to get the answers as soon as possible so they are provided the best opportunity to have their Phase 2 in a similarly timely fashion. Planning Manager Levitan commented that they also had the option of scheduling a special meeting prior to June 22. Chair Bayer said she did not want to rush through this big project and preferred to postpone it. MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER SCHMITZ, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER HERR, TO CONTINUE WITH THE 611 PHASE 1 HEARING. MOTION TIED (2-2 WITH BOARD MEMBER LOCH ABSTAINING). There was significant discussion about whether to conduct the hearing tonight and to find a future date that would work for the participants. MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER SCHMITZ, SECONDED BY VICE CHAIR BROOKS, TO RESCHEDULE THE PHASE 1 HEARING OF 611 MAIN TO JUNE 15. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER LOCH, THAT THE MEETING BEGIN AT 5:00 P.M. Board Member Schmitz thought that 5:00 might not work for the members of the public and might give the impression that the Board is trying to avoid additional public comment even though they aren't. He thinks that 6 p.m. should work. Others agreed. THE MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER SCHMITZ, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER HERR, TO AMEND THE MOTION TO REFLECT THE STARTING TIME OF 6:00 P.M. MOTION PASSED. BOARD REVIEW ITEMS Items requiring review and recommendation from the ADB None BOARD DISCUSSION ITEMS Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting May 25, 2023 Page 11 of 12 Design Review after House Bill 1293 Senior Planner Clugston explained that changes will be coming the Board's way regarding process. The two- phase public hearings will go away, and design standards need to be clear and objective. The City has until June 2025 to complete this. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS: Board members congratulated Vice Chair Brooks on her new baby. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 7:47 p.m. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting May 25, 2023 Page 12 of 12