2023-09-28 Architectural Design Board PacketOF EDA'
v ti Agenda
Edmonds Architectural Design Board
REGULAR MEETING
BRACKETT ROOM
121 5TH AVE N, CITY HALL- 3RD FLOOR, EDMONDS, WA 98020
SEPTEMBER 28, 2023, 6:00 PM
REGULAR MEETING INFORMATION
This is a Hybrid meeting. Attendees may appear in person or on-line via the zoom link provided.
Physical Meeting Location: Brackett Room, 3rd Floor Edmonds City Hall 121 5th Avenue N.
Zoom Link: https://edmondswa-
gov.zoom.us/j/88959586932?pwd=RzdPWUIwM09PZ1k1MHN2eWM1YXphZz09 Passcode:591531
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
4. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Statement: This is an opportunity to comment regarding any matter not listed on the agenda as
public hearing. Speakers are limited to five minutes. Please clearly state your name and city of
residence.
S. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. August 24 and August 31 Draft Meeting Minutes
6. NEW BUSINESS
7. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Lapse of Application for Design Review of 627 Dayton Apartments (PLN2022-0089)
8. BOARD REVIEW ITEMS
Items requiring review and recommendation from the ADB.
9. BOARD DISCUSSION ITEMS
10. ADB MEMBER COMMENTS
11. ADJOURNMENT
Edmonds Architectural Design Board Agenda
September 28, 2023
Page 1
Architectural Design Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 09/28/2023
August 24 and August 31 Draft Meeting Minutes
Staff Lead: Mike Clugston
Department: Planning Division
Prepared By: Michael Clugston
Staff Recommendation
Review and approve the attached meeting minutes from the ADB's August 24, 2023 regular meeting and
the August 31, 2023 special meeting.
Narrative
Attachments:
August 24, 2023 draft minutes
August 31, 2023 Special meeting draft minutes
Packet Pg. 2
CITY OF EDMONDS
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD
Minutes of Regular Meeting
August 24, 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
Joe Herr
Maurine Jeude
Corbitt Loch
Steve Schmitz
Lauri Strauss
Board Members Absent
None
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
The agenda was approved as presented.
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
None
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
July 27, 2023 ADB Meeting Minutes
Staff Present
David Levitan, Planning Manager
Michele Szafran, Planner
a
MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER LOCH, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER HERR, TO
APPROVE THE MINUTES AS PRESENTED. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
611 Main Mixed -Use Phase 1 Hearing (Continued from May 25, 2023; Amended August 23, 2023)
Chair Bayer opened the hearing and introduced this item. She discussed the procedure and swore in those
testifying.
Architectural Design Board Meeting
Minutes of Regular Meeting
August 24, 2023
Pagel of 8
Packet Pg. 3
r�
Q
Packet Pg. 4
r�
Q
Packet Pg. 5
r�
Q
Packet Pg. 6
r�
Q
Packet Pg. 7
r�
Q
Packet Pg. 8
r�
Q
Packet Pg. 9
r�
Q
Packet Pg. 10
CITY OF EDMONDS
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD
Minutes of Special Meeting
August 31, 2023
Chair Bayer called the special 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
Joe Herr
Maurine Jeude
Steve Schmitz
Lauri Strauss
Board Members Absent
Corbitt Loch (excused)
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
The agenda was approved as presented.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Staff Present
David Levitan, Planning Manager
Michele Szafran, Planner
Continued Phase II Public Hearing for 611 Main St (PLN2022-0085)
Planning Manager Levitan gave an overview of the process to date. Chair Bayer swore in all those intending to
testify that had not already been sworn in.
Applicant Testimony: None
Public Testimony:
Ann Christiansen said she spent hours combing through the ADB handbook and the ECDC regulations that are
available online, and she sent the ADB a lengthy document. She highlighted several issues:
• A-7, Residential Open Space — Residential projects should be sited to maximize opportunities for creating
usable, attractive, well -integrated open spaces. Residential buildings are encouraged to consider these site
planning elements: courtyard which organizes architectural elements while providing common garden or
other uses, entry enhancements such as landscaping along the common pathway ... Does the seating area
on the east side of the building maximize this opportunity? This building has none of the features listed as
examples.
Architectural Design Board Meeting
Minutes of Special Meeting
August 31, 2023
Page 1 of 7
Packet Pg. 11
C
Q
Packet Pg. 12
C
Q
Packet Pg. 13
C
Q
Packet Pg. 14
C
Q
Packet Pg. 15
C
Q
Packet Pg. 16
C
Q
Packet Pg. 17
Architectural Design Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 09/28/2023
Lapse of Application for Design Review of 627 Dayton Apartments (PLN2022-0089)
Staff Lead: Mike Clugston
Department: Planning Division
Prepared By: Michael Clugston
Background/History
On November 14, 2022, Phil Frisk, representing Glenn Safadago and GBH Holdings, submitted an
augmented design review application for design review of a 17-unit multifamily residential building and
site improvements at 627 Dayton Street. The augmented design application was submitted in accordance
with to Section 20.10.045 of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) to vest to the
development standards in effect at the time of application:
At the option of the applicant, an augmented ADB application to vest rights under the provisions
of ECDC 19.00.025 may be submitted. Such applications may not be submitted in conjunction
with the concept review provided for by ECDC 20.10.040. The application shall be processed in all
respects as a regular application for review, but vesting rights shall be determined under the
provisions of ECDC 19.00.025. The architectural design board shall not be required to, and shall
not, consider the application of vesting rights or the interpretation of ECDC 19.00.025 and any
appeal with respect thereto shall be taken only as provided in that section. [This section is
codified as ECDC 19.00.030.]
According to ECDC 19.00.030.B, the building permit application (BLD2022-1540) associated with the
augmented design review application (PLN2022-0089) is valid for up to one year. During that one-year
period, the design review must be reviewed and approved. During that same period, the building permit
application must also be reviewed, approved, and issued. Because the augmented application was
vested on November 14, 2022, the design review and building permit reviews had to completed by
November 14, 2023.
According to ECDC 20.12.010, proposals for design review in the Downtown Business (BD) zones that
require a SEPA threshold determination such as PLN2022-0089 are reviewed by the ADB in a two-phase
public hearing process leading to a Type III -A decision by the Board. The ADB held Phase 1 of the
hearing at their May 25 meeting (see minutes in Attachment 1) and kept the hearing open until July 27
for Phase 2 of the hearing. The applicant was not able to resubmit to make the July 27 meeting, so the
ADB further continued the hearing on July 27 until September 28, 2023 (see minutes in Attachment 2).
The applicant was again not able to resubmit for Phase 2 of the hearing in time to make the September
28 meeting. Because there is less than two months left for the life of the vested building permit
application in BLD2022-1540, there is insufficient time to complete both the design review and the
building permit application review at this time. Without a resubmittal for design review, the application
Packet Pg. 18
in PLN2022-0089 is considered to have lapsed and cannot be revived.
Staff Recommendation
Since there was no resubmittal for Phase 2 of the public hearing on September 28, the Board should
motion to close the public hearing for PLN2022-0089 and note that the application has lapsed. No
further action is required by the ADB.
Narrative
Any new design review application for a project at 627 Dayton Street will have to meet all codes that are
current at the time of the new application. This means that a multifamily -only building will not be
possible at 627 Dayton because the Designated Street Front line now extends in front of the site as
shown on Map 16.43-1 in Chapter 16.43 ECDC.
Attachments:
Attachment 1 - May 25, 2023 ADB meeting minutes
Attachment 2 - July 27, 2023 ADB meeting minutes
Packet Pg. 19
CITY 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 w
Minutes of Regular Meeting Q
May 25, 2023
Page 1 of 12
Packet Pg. 20
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 PWF 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 (9
Minutes of Regular Meeting Q
May 25, 2023
Page 2 of 12
Packet Pg. 21
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 w
Minutes of Regular Meeting Q
May 25, 2023
Page 3 of 12
Packet Pg. 22
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 7`h. 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. In 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 (9
Minutes of Regular Meeting Q
May 25, 2023
Page 4 of 12
Packet Pg. 23
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 s 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 (9
Minutes of Regular Meeting Q
May 25, 2023
Page 5 of 12
Packet Pg. 24
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 w
Minutes of Regular Meeting Q
May 25, 2023
Page 6 of 12
Packet Pg. 25
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 (9
Minutes of Regular Meeting Q
May 25, 2023
Page 7 of 12
Packet Pg. 26
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.
Desian 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
5. Minimize intrusion into privacy on adjacent sites
• Schmitz — High priority
• Herr — Low priority or not applicable
• Bayer — Low priority
Architectural Design Board Meeting w
Minutes of Regular Meeting Q
May 25, 2023
Page 8 of 12
Packet Pg. 27
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:
1. Provide sensitive transitions to nearby, less -intensive zones
• Consensus that this is a low priority for this location.
Architectural Elements and Materials:
1. 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 w
Minutes of Regular Meeting Q
May 25, 2023
Page 9 of 12
Packet Pg. 28
• High priority
4. Use durable, attractive, and well -detailed finish materials
• High priority — recommendations have already been made.
5. 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 ofparking lots on pedestrian areas
• Not applicable
5. 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 w
Minutes of Regular Meeting Q
May 25, 2023
Page 10 of 12
Packet Pg. 29
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 HERB,
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
100M011u 011111 �1•w
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 HERB,
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 w
Minutes of Regular Meeting Q
May 25, 2023
Page 11 of 12
Packet Pg. 30
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 w
Minutes of Regular Meeting Q
May 25, 2023
Page 12 of 12
Packet Pg. 31
C
CITY OF EDMONDS
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD
Minutes of Regular Meeting
July 27, 2023
Vice Chair Brooks 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
Alexa Brooks, Vice Chair
Joe Herr
Maurine Jeude
Corbitt Loch
Lauri Strauss
Board Members Absent
Kim Bayer, Chair (excused)
Steve Schmitz
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
The agenda was approved as presented.
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
None
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Staff Present
Mike Clugston, Senior Planner
May 25, 2023 and June 15, 2023 ADB Meeting Minutes
MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER STRAUSS, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER JEUDE,
TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS PRESENTED. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
NEW BUSINESS
Site and Building Design Review of the Greenwalk Park Planned Residential Development
Senior Planner Mike Clugston made the presentation on the Greenwalk Park Planned Residential Development
(PRD). He explained what a PRD is and discussed the PRD review process. This is currently at the preliminary
review where the ADB reviews and makes a recommendation to the Hearing Examiner on design at a public
Architectural Design Board Meeting r
Minutes of Regular Meeting Q
July 27, 2023
Pagel of 5
Packet Pg. 32
C
MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER STRAUSS, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER LOCH,
TO ALLOW TYPE III LANDSCAPING WITH THE CONDITION THAT THEY DON'T TAKE OUT
ANY TREES THEY ALREADY SAID THEY ARE GOING TO PROVIDE. MOTION PASSED
UNANIMOUSLY.
MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER HERR, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER STRAUSS,
THAT THE ADB RECOMMEND THAT THE HEARING EXAMINER APPROVE THE DESIGN
FOR THE PROPOSED GREENWALK PARK PROJECT IN PLN2022-0049, SUBJECT TO THE
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS ON PAGE 34 AS AMENDED ABOVE. MOTION PASSED
UNANIMOUSLY.
Board Member Strauss commented that she was also impressed with the design.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Request for continuance of public hearing for 627 Dayton Apartments
Mr. Clugston explained that the hearing had previously been continued to July 27, 2023. The applicant was not
able to resubmit during that window and is requesting additional time to prepare updated plans. The request is
to extend the public hearing until the Board's September 28 meeting, since a separate hearing is already
scheduled for the Board's August 24 meeting.
MOTION MADE BY VICE CHAIR BROOKS, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER JEUDE, TO
CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR 627 DAYTON APARTMENTS TO SEPTEMBER 28,
2023. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
BOARD REVIEWS ITEMS
None
BOARD DISCUSSION ITEMS
None
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS:
Board Member Strauss said she would be out of town for the September 28 meeting and on east coast time, but
she will try to join in remotely.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned at 7:06 p.m.
Architectural Design Board Meeting r
Minutes of Regular Meeting Q
July 27, 2023
Page 5 of 5
Packet Pg. 33