2023-09-28 Architectural Design Board MinutesCITY OF EDMONDS
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD
Minutes of Regular Meeting
September 28, 2023
Chair Bayer called the hybrid meeting of the Architectural Design Board to order at 6:00 p.m. in the Brackett
Room at City Hall, 121— 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, Washington.
Board Members Present
Kim Bayer, Chair
Joe Herr
Corbitt Loch (online)
Steve Schmitz (online)
Lauri Strauss (online)
Board Members Absent
Alexa Brooks, Vice Chair (excused)
Maurine Jeude (excused)
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
The agenda was approved as presented.
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
None
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Staff Present
Mike Clugston, Senior Planner
August 24 and 31, 2023 ADB Meeting Minutes
MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER HERR, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER STRAUSS,
TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS PRESENTED.
Board Member Loch recommended any action on the minutes be deferred to a future ADB meeting since the
public had not had a chance to review them due to technological issues.
Chair Bayer agreed with moving those to a later date since she also had some issues with looking at the August
31 meeting minutes.
Architectural Design Board Meeting
Minutes of Regular Meeting
September 28, 2023
Page 1 of 4
BOARD MEMBER STRAUSS MOVED, BOARD MEMBER LOCH SECONDED, TO AMEND THE
MOTION TO TABLE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES UNTIL THE NEXT MEETING. MOTION
PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
THE MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED WAS APPROVED.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Lapse of Application for Design Review of 627 Dayton Apartments (PLN2022-0089)
Senior Planner Mike Clugston reviewed details of this item. He explained that the application had lapsed and
the Board needed to formally close the hearing.
Board Member Herr expressed concern that they had inadvertently killed this project because they didn't want
to hear both projects on the same night when the applicant was ready to them both. Mr. Clugston explained that
ultimately, the applicant wasn't going to be able to get both permits done by November 14, 2023.
Chair Bayer asked when the applicant would have had to put their application in to be vested. Mr. Clugston
thought that the applicant submitted their application a couple weeks before the code was changed. Chair Bayer
summarized that if they would have put their application in after the City Council changed the code, they would
have been required to have the commercial on the first floor similar to 6d' and Main. Mr. Clugston agreed.
Board Member Schmitz asked if there are any mechanisms in place to allow the applicant to extend their
application window further than 12 months. Is it typical for permits to lapse after one year? Mr. Clugston
explained this is a special kind of permit related to the design review. It is good for 180 days with a 180-day
extension. The applicant took advantage of but it still didn't allow them enough time to get both processes done.
Board Member Schmitz asked about communication with the applicant about the deadlines. Mr. Clugston
reviewed the timeline.
Chair Bayer recalled that the ADB was originally supposed to review both projects on the same night, but it
was staff that decided to move one to September. Mr. Clugston was not sure but noted there had been a general
desire to stagger them.
Board Member Strauss commented that it is not the ADB's responsibility to make sure that everything gets
done within the timeframe. They are working as hard as they can with the amount of time that they have. She
wants to make sure they are making good decisions and giving the community time to respond on projects that
they want to look at. She recalled that there were issues with the projects. She feels bad for the applicant, but it
is not the ADBs responsibility to keep the application going.
Chair Bayer clarified that she just learned that it was the applicant who requested the extension to September
28.
MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER STRAUSS, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER LOCH,
TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON 627 DAYTON STREET. MOTION PASSED
UNANIMOUSLY.
Architectural Design Board Meeting
Minutes of Regular Meeting
September 28, 2023
Page 2 of 4
BOARD REVIEW ITEMS
None
BOARD DISCUSSION ITEMS
Chair Bayer said she would like to have some discussion on the design standards process. She noted that the
Planning Department has indicated that all this is coming down from the State. Mr. Clugston commented that
they have known for a long time that the two-phase design review process needs to be changed. The State has
subsequently come in and said through BB 1293 that cities can only have one meeting, and all standards must
be clear and objective. Some of the standards are clear and objective, but not all are. By June 2025 cities have
to adjust their codes accordingly. In early 2024, the Department of Commerce is supposed to come out with
some guidance on all the recent house bills that were passed for middle housing, ADUs, and that sort of thing.
Supposedly they will have model ordinances as part of that guidance. He has heard that if the City does not
adopt its own standards by mid-2025, the model ordinance put out by Department of Commerce will take effect.
Right now, staff is ramping up quickly to focus on the Comprehensive Plan over the next 15-16 months. He
thinks staff will be able to also address some of these other things like the design code while the rest of the
comprehensive planning process goes on. Due to staffing levels, he can't take on anything else until they get a
few more employees hired. He thinks the first quarter of 2024 will be a better time to have this discussion.
Chair Bayer asked what they have control over on the ADB board. She expressed concern about just sitting idle
until the State dictates to them what they are supposed to be doing.
Board Member Strauss commented that they have been talking for several years about changing how the ADB
reviews projects. She is not sure where to go with the state mandates that are changing all of the thought that
they have put into this. She noted she will be terming out at the end of the year so she won't be able to be a part
of the process after that. She was hopeful they could get to a point where they could define something better for
the ADB that would actually have more impact at the beginning of the design process.
Board Member Herr noted he was also close to terming out. He wondered if Board Member Strauss would stay
on if there was a way for that to happen. Board Member Strauss was not sure because she didn't feel like it
would make a difference. She expressed frustration that they have been talking about this for years and nothing
has happened. There was some discussion about terms being limited to two terms but also having a hard time
finding replacements and getting a quorum. Board Member Herr asked if they should bring this up to City
Council.
Board Member Schmitz reiterated the frustration that things have not been moving very quickly. While they are
waiting for state guidance, he wondered about having some workshops to discuss their thoughts on how to
improve the process as members who have served on the Board. Board Member Strauss concurred. If they are
only going to have one meeting, how can they make that work better and provide valuable information for the
applicant. Board Member Schmitz also suggested looking at things like how they do introductions, how many
projects they review in a night, and how long they give the applicant to speak versus the audience.
Board Member Loch said it is a bit of a conundrum without staff support. There are limits to what they can
achieve and still have it be of value long-term. He pointed out that if there is a loss of staff temporarily at the
City, that also means salary saving. That could potentially mean there is money available to hire a consultant to
Architectural Design Board Meeting
Minutes of Regular Meeting
September 28, 2023
Page 3 of 4
help the Board through these various steps with no additional budget impact. He encouraged staff to look into
that. He has written design guidelines and processes and is happy to volunteer with that but he also doesn't want
to waste any time at all.
Mr. Clugston said he does not have any bandwidth to deal with it through the end of the year but he does like
the workshop idea if they can squeeze it in with the upcoming holidays. He noted that it is a moving target with
the State right now. He thinks the design checklist will go away but it could be useful to look at how that
language could be incorporated into a standalone policy document. He will try to get a workshop type meeting
together by the end of the year to revisit the ideas discussed.
Chair Bayer wondered if it would be valuable for the ADB to have a joint meeting the Planning Board as they
are reviewing the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Clugston said it might make sense, but they will have to wait until
they get closer to reviewing that element to see.
Board Member Herr commented that it is not the cities that are the problem. The issue is with Snohomish
County and King County. There is no reason it should take four years to get a short plat approved in the county.
The City is getting caught up in these unintended consequences.
Board Member Strauss said she would love to be a part of a workshop if they can get that scheduled before she
leaves at the end of December. Board Member Herr will also be leaving at the end of the year, and he would be
a valuable person to have there as well.
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
None
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 6:46 p.m.
Architectural Design Board Meeting
Minutes of Regular Meeting
September 28, 2023
Page 4 of 4