2019-02-06 Architectural Design Board Packet1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
o Agenda
Edmonds Architectural Design Board
snl. ynyo COUNCIL CHAMBERS
250 5TH AVE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020
FEBRUARY 6, 2019, 7:00 PM
CALL TO ORDER
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1. Approval of Draft Minutes of October 3, 2018
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
1. Election of Officers for 2019
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
MINOR PROJECTS
PUBLIC HEARINGS
CONSOLIDATED PERMIT APPLICATIONS
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS / ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION
1. Update on ADB Roles
ADB MEMBER COMMENTS
ADJOURNMENT
Edmonds Architectural Design Board Agenda
February 6, 2019
Page 1
2.1
Architectural Design Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 02/6/2019
Approval of Draft Minutes of October 3, 2018
Staff Lead: N/A
Department: Planning Division
Prepared By: Diane Cunningham
Background/History
N/A
Staff Recommendation
Approve the draft minutes
Narrative
The draft minutes are attached.
Attachments:
ADB181003d
Packet Pg. 2
2.1.a
CITY OF EDMONDS
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD
Minutes of Regular Meeting
OCTOBER 3, 2018
Chair Strauss called the meeting of the Architectural Design Board to order at 7:02 p.m., at the City Council Chambers,
250 - 5' Avenue North, Edmonds, Washington.
Board Members Present Board Members Absent Staff Present
Lauri Strauss, Chair Rob Chave, Development Services Director
Joe Herr, Vice Chair Mike Clugston, Senior Planner
Lois Broadway Karin Noyes, Recorder
Cary Guenther
Joshua Shope
Athene Tarrant
Tom Walker
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
VICE CHAIR HERR MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF AUGUST 1, 2018 BE APPROVED AS
CORRECTED. BOARD MEMBER GUENTHER SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
BOARD MEMBER GUENTHER MOVED THAT THE AGENDA BE ACCEPTED AS PRESENTED. BOARD
MEMBER WALKER SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
REQUESTS FROM THE AUDIENCE:
There was no one in the audience.
MINOR PROJECTS:
No minor projects were scheduled on the agenda.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
There were no public hearings.
CONSOLIDATED PERMIT APPLICATIONS (No Public Participation):
There were no consolidated permit applications.
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS/ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION:
Architectural Design Board Meeting
Minutes of Regular Meeting
October 3, 2018
Pagel of 8
Packet Pg. 3
2.1.a
Process. Scone and Roles of the Architectural Design Board (ADB
Mr. Clugston reviewed that last winter, the ADB met with the Planning Board to talk about the ADB's role in design
review. At that time, it was noted that the ADB's design review was less meaningful at the project -review level. Projects
are often completely designed by the time they come to them for review, and the ADB only has the ability to offer input
on minor details. At the same time, the City Council has indicated a desire to see code changes that remove volunteer
boards, such as the ADB, from the quasi-judicial decision -making process (Resolution 1367). Lastly, the Board indicated
an interest in doing post -project reviews to see if the existing design guidance and standards are resulting in the type of
development envisioned for Edmonds and, if not, propose refinements to the guidelines and standards that would result in
better projects in the future.
Mr. Clugston advised that the ADB's Powers and Duties were first incorporated into the code in about 1972 and have not
been updated for almost 50 years. What was envisioned 50 years ago may not be the same as today. Perhaps the process
for design review could be changed or streamlined, as well. The intent of tonight's discussion is to obtain feedback and
direction from the Board about potential changes to their power, scope and role in the design review process.
Mr. Chave provided a brief history of the ADB, noting that when he arrived at the City in the 1990's, the Supreme Court
case Anderson Vs. Issaquah presented a watershed moment for design review. The Supreme Court found that Issaquah's
design guidance was too vague. It was clear that jurisdictions needed to have very specific standards in place so that an
applicant coming into the design review process has a clear understanding of what is expected. Even though the City of
Issaquah was the defendant in the court case, it is important to understand that Issaquah's design guidance was mirrored
after the City of Edmonds' Urban Design Guidance. Although the City of Edmonds was not on trial, the Court's decision
was really applicable to the City's codes. At that time, the City had a reputation for having a very difficult design review
process because it was unpredictable and applicants did not have a clear understanding of the features needed in project
and it was difficult to predict the outcome of design review.
Mr. Chave advised that the City hired a consultant in 2001 to help produce a set of pretty thorough design guidelines that
went through the ADB, the Planning Board and the City Council for review. However, because of big push back from the
development community who felt they were too specific, the guidelines were never adopted. Instead, the City incorporated
the objectives outlined in the draft design guidelines into the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Chave continued that the City hired Mark Hinshaw, a well-known urban designer in the region, in 2004 to help the
City incorporate more specific design guidance in the Comprehensive Plan. In 2006, the design review process was
adjusted to incorporate a district -based design review process. The idea was that the district -based process would provide
very specific standards for each area of the City. However, because the City only had specific design standards in place
for the Downtown Business (BD) zones and some portions of Highway 99, design review for the remainder of the City
was based on generalized standards and process. Since that time, the City has implemented design standards for Westgate
and Highway 99, and the intent is to do the same for other parts of the City. However, until this occurs, the City continues
to use the generalized process for design review.
Mr. Chave explained that the City heard feedback that the design review process for the BD zones was convoluted and not
producing good results. They hired another consultant to review the process rather than the standards. Because the
consultant had experience with the City of Seattle, he used Seattle's multi -phased design review process as a model. In
retrospect, staff is very skeptical about the process, which is intended to bring applicants in early to look at the parameters
of the project and provide guideposts as they continue to design the project. However, the multi -phased process has not
been very effective for the City because they don't see the projects early enough and even in this early -stage review,
applicants tend to present projects that are nearly finished designs. Staff believes the only way to make the review early
enough in the process is to use a process similar to Seattle's, which can take years to complete. He expressed his belief
that this approach would not be feasible for Edmonds and not something that applicants would be willing to go through.
He voiced concern that the two -phased design review process used in the downtown is extremely awkward because it
Architectural Design Board Meeting
Minutes of Regular Meeting
October 3, 2018
Page 2 of 8
Packet Pg. 4
2.1.a
requires the ADB to conduct one hearing and then hold it open for the second part of the review. This makes it difficult
for applicants, citizens and staff.
Mr. Chave summarized that the City is still working to get design standards in place throughout Edmonds. They now have
them for Westgate and design standards for Five Corners and multi -family zones will be coming in the next year. That
means that with just a few small exceptions, all areas of the City will be covered. Another goal for the coming year is to
get a single design review process rather than a district -based versus generalized process. The intent is to nail down the
design standards they have wanted for quite some time, and the ADB could play a really important role in this process.
For example, the ADB could review projects that have been built according to the existing standards and code and identify
potential changes. They could also provide input as the City wrestles with the issue of specificity versus flexibility and
creativity.
Mr. Chave recalled that in the 80s and 90s everything related to design review went before the ADB, and their agendas
often included upwards of 20 projects, both large and small. Anderson Vs. Issaquah pointed out the need for really strong
design standards and more specificity in the code and cautioned against making arbitrary decisions. It became fairly
obvious that staff could or should approve a lot of the minor applications. Over the years, the ADB's agendas have gotten
smaller because more design decision making has been standard -driven and made by staff rather than in a public hearing
situation.
Mr. Clugston reviewed that the City currently uses a district -based, two -phased public hearing process for design review
in the BD zones and a general design review process elsewhere. Currently, staff does design review for smaller permits,
but projects that require State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review still come to the ADB, with the exception of the
General Commercial Zone where all projects come before the ADB for review. One option for the Board to consider is
removing the ADB from quasi-judicial decisions and eliminating the two -phased hearing process. Design review would
become a Type I staff decision (with no notice) if SEPA is not required and a Type H staff decision (with notice) if SEPA
is required. Design review could be a Type III -A Hearing Examiner decision if the applicant is requesting exceptions to
the standards. In these situations, the ADB could make a recommendation and the Hearing Examiner would make the
final decision.
Mr. Clugston pointed out that if the design standards and guidance are done well, staff decisions should be doable for most
projects, and the Hearing Examiner should be able to take on the judicial role of projects requesting exceptions to the
standards. He noted that a similar process was adopted into the Highway 99 code last year, but there haven't been any
projects come through the process yet.
Mr. Clugston reviewed the current Design Review Scope. Whether design review is done by the ADB or staff, the design
scope applies to all development, including both public and private. He said the proposed new Design Review Scope
would be very similar, but worded a bit differently. It would look at the same exterior features of a project, but would also
explain the design review process so developers have a clear understanding of the steps involved.
Mr. Clugston advised that, currently, certain types of development are exempt from design review, including parks
developed under a master plan, permitted primary and secondary uses in single-family residential zones, detached single-
family homes or duplexes in multi -residential zones, additions or modifications to structures or sites on the Edmonds
Register of Historic Places, fences, signs, and underground utilities. While it makes sense to continue to exempt projects
in the single-family residential and multi -residential zones, the exemptions could also include public projects whose design
has been reviewed by the ADB and approved by the City Council. To date, the ADB hasn't reviewed public projects at
all, and the intent would be to emphasize that as an advisory role the Board should have. hi addition, an exemption could
be added for minor changes to previously -approved plans that the Director determines do not alter the intent of the
approved design.
Mr. Clugston reviewed that the Board was established in 1973 and was originally called the Amenities Design Board. Its
powers and duties included four responsibilities that talk about recommendations for a Comprehensive Architectural
Architectural Design Board Meeting
Minutes of Regular Meeting
October 3, 2018
Page 3 of 8
Packet Pg. 5
2.1.a
Design Plan, and the fifth responsibility talks about reviewing other matters referred to them by the Mayor, City Council,
Planning Commission or Planning Department. However, over the last 20 to 30 years, the Board has become more of a
project review board. They used to review projects with fewer standards, but now they have more standards and review
fewer projects. He suggested the Board's powers and duties could be changed to include: reviewing public projects and
providing recommendations to the City Council, providing design support to staff, establishing guidelines and standards
citywide and for design districts, reviewing selected built -out projects to evaluate whether what was constructed reflects
the intent of what was approved and recommending refinement of design guidelines and standards to ensure Edmonds is
getting the designs it wants, and providing review and recommendation on projects as assigned. Possible future projects
could include: reviewing Board and staff -approved and constructed projects since 2007 when existing standard and
processes were adopted, reviewing existing Comprehensive Plan guidelines and code standards and recommending
updates as necessary, providing input on next rounds of public projects, creating multi -family guidelines and standards,
and creating Five Corners District guidelines and standards. He summarized that, as proposed, rather than having a
decision -making role, the Board's role would be recommendations, guidance, and input.
Mr. Chave pointed out that the Board's current powers and duties do not actually include reviewing building projects. It
talks about having a role in creating policies, objectives, and design plan goals, which is something the Board has expressed
a desire to do. Board Member Guenther recalled that when the City Attorney made a presentation about the Board's
responsibilities, he was excited about the prospect of actually getting to do what the Board Members are trained to do. For
example, the ADB should have been involved in the process of developing design standards for Westgate. At the very
least, they should have been invited to provide input to the Planning Board and City Council. However, they were left out
of the discussion, and their only responsibility has been to interpret and apply the guidelines that have been adopted. He
expressed his hope that the ADB could be more useful in future projects such as developing design guidelines for Five
Corners and the multi -residential zones. He felt it would also be useful for the Board to review developed projects to
determine how the existing design standards and guidance works and what changes are needed in the future. He would
also like the Board to have an opportunity to review and provide input on public projects.
Mr. Clugston advised that, based on feedback from the Board, staff could update the decision -making processes, the Scope
of Design Review and the ADB's Powers and Duties and bring draft language back for the Board's continued discussion
in a few months. Staff is not yet sure how to organize a post project review, and they welcome input and suggestions from
the Board. Another issue that warrants further discussion is the Board's future meeting schedule.
Board Member Tarrant suggested that the design guidance and standards should be based on the district and not by building
type. Vice Chair Herr agreed that a district -based approach makes more sense. For example, he cautioned against
blanketing the entire City with a 25-foot height limit that is intended to protect the views in a very few areas of the City.
He said he likes the idea of not applying a comprehensive code the same throughout the entire City. Certain areas have
more priority than other areas for certain standards.
Board Member Broadway also expressed support for a district -based approach. She pointed out the different way that
Mountlake Terrace is being redeveloped, which clearly indicates that code changes have occurred in certain areas. This
has not yet happened in Edmonds to encourage growth to come. She would like the Board to step back and look at what
their role should be in making appropriate changes happen. She said she is less concerned about the color of a building,
how large a window is, or where the door is placed. Instead, the Board's focus should be on the proposed size, scale,
massing, location and circulation. She said she works with the Department of Health on a daily basis, using a process
called Early Technical Assistance where a developer presents a very preliminary design and the discussion focuses on
design guidance about circulation, building size and location, life safety, etc. The applicants then move forward to design
their projects based on the feedback provided. If the City wants to have a multi -phased design review, it would be helpful
for the applicant to present early conceptual site plans (one sheet drawings) for the Board's review. The Board could then
provide one or two pages of written notes that outline things for the applicant to think about when designing the project.
Board Member Walker asked how the approach outlined above by Board Member Broadway would be different than the
standards already called out in the zoning and building codes that address scale, height, fagade, massing, etc. Board
Architectural Design Board Meeting
Minutes of Regular Meeting
October 3, 2018
Page 4 of 8
Packet Pg. 6
2.1.a
Member Broadway commented that the ADB may have expectations that are not specifically called out in the zoning code.
In these situations, the Board could provide code interpretation to let the applicants know what they mean.
Board Member Tarrant said it would be helpful to have a digital version of the City showing all of the important elements
of the Comprehensive Plan and zoning code. This would allow a developer to present conceptual drawings that address
all of the critical elements that will be required and would be more valuable than the current process of the ADB conducting
design review when the design work has all be done.
Board Member Shope said that in his experience in Seattle, projects are presented at the preliminary stage to the design
review board, and the submittal package must include a 9-block radius around the building. These packages almost always
include 3d drawings, and usually a client has already purchased the property at that point. Board Member Tarrant asked
if it would be possible to see an example of an application package that has been submitted to the City of Seattle, and
Board Member Shope answered that all application files are available on line.
Board Member Walker commented that if the Board wants to provide input to an applicant early in the process, having
application submittal requirements would be helpful. He recalled Mr. Chave's earlier caution that involving the Board
earlier in the process could significantly lengthen the review process. He asked if this would still be true if the ADB were
to substitute what they do now with an earlier reading. Mr. Chave said people who do design review in Seattle have
advised that it is a fairly lengthy process and the scale of the review is much different. Most of the City of Edmonds'
projects are small, and the developers are simply not accustomed to the degree of sophistication required by Seattle's
process. When the consultant proposed a process similar to Seattle's, there as a lot of pushback from developers who were
particularly concerned about how the proposed process would lengthen the design review timeline.
Board Member Broadway said her office is currently working with unincorporated Pierce County, which has a very small
code that is difficult to interpret. They know they want a 50,000 square foot building, but there are currently three proposals
for how the building will fit onto the site. While all three options would meet the code requirements, they are interested
in hearing from Pierce County as to what they want to see. Providing feedback at this point is much more valuable to the
client and allows cities and counties to address issues such as steep slopes, trees, street view, etc. before design work
progresses too far. The City has gone from a vague code to a much more specific code that has reduced the number of
projects the ADB reviews. The specific code has also resulted in projects that are more designed before they come before
the ADB. Now she is hearing that perhaps the ADB's review should be done as a pre -application meeting before the
design gets too far along. She summarized that, with the more prescriptive codes, the ADB has not had a lot of opportunity
to influence a project if it has been determined to meet the code.
Mr. Clugston explained that the City does offer a pre -application meeting, but it is not a requirement. People with larger
projects typically take advantage of the opportunity. They also have a tree development meeting at the conceptual level.
During these early meetings, staff points to the design standards in the Development Code and design guidance in the
Comprehensive Plan. Although projects are often well into the design by that point, staff can help them decide what to
focus on.
Mr. Clugston said he understands the Board's frustrations about its ability to provide input on projects. However, the City
Council has expressed a desire for the ADB to move away from the quasi-judicial decision -making process. That means
they need to work on the guidance and standards to make sure they are clear and meet the intent of the Comprehensive
Plan and Development Code. There are numerous provisions in the zoning code that influence the design of buildings,
and the Board can provide overarching guidance and create standards for districts that enable them to affect every project
that comes in and not just those that meet the threshold that requires ADB review.
Board Member Walker summarized that, as proposed by staff, all of the districts would have their own set of standards,
and some would be more stringent than others. In addition, different design processes could be required based on the
district. The design standards would apply to both public and private projects.
Architectural Design Board Meeting
Minutes of Regular Meeting
October 3, 2018
Page 5 of 8
Packet Pg. 7
2.1.a
Vice Chair Herr explained that one reason for zoning codes and guidance is to help a developer determine whether or not
a project will be feasible. If the City's standards and guidance are too vague and arbitrary decision are made during design
review, the City will be open to potential lawsuits and they are likely to receive pushback from developers. Someone
looking at the site from an aesthetic standpoint will not realize the amount of work that went into getting a proforma
together for a piece of property.
Board Member Broadway said she is not suggesting that the City not have specific design guidance and standards. She is
suggesting that the Board could provide early technical assistance before a project gets to the point where they simply
follow the guidelines. For example, when the Key Bank project was presented to the Board for design review, the main
entrance was facing the parking lot rather than the street. Following Board feedback, the applicant did more to accentuate
the pedestrian entrance. She is not proposing that the Board provide input on the types of uses allowed, height, etc.
Applicants must meet all of the code requirements, which address these issues. However, there may be opportunities for
the Board to comment on how the building is situated on the site, pedestrian circulation, etc.
Mr. Chave pointed out that these issues should also be addressed by the code. For example, the Downtown and Westgate
Design Standards both talk about building orientation. Staff would like the Board to become more involved in helping
develop good design guidance and standards for different areas. They do not want design standards that apply citywide.
Staff would also like the Board to conduct retrospective reviews of projects that have been developed consistent with the
current code. He pointed out, for example, that landscaping can change the appearance of a building tremendously over
time. He referred to the Compass Development on SR-104 and the PCC Market, which look entirely different now with
mature landscaping than they did just after construction. He summarized that it would be educational for the Board and
staff to review projects and come up with potential design standards and guidance changes. Perhaps the Board could
present an annual report to the City Council with a list of recommended changes. It would also be educational for the City
Council and citizens to understand the relationship between projects, codes and time.
Board Member Tarrant commented that just because a project satisfies all of the design standards and guidance doesn't
mean it will be the most wonderful project. She felt it would still be appropriate for the Board to review projects at the
conceptual stage and provide input.
Mr. Chave explained that when a project is submitted to the City, staff must evaluate it against the codes to decide whether
or not to approve it. The Board is discussing the idea of influencing a project at the outset of the design review process.
One way to accomplish this is to have the ADB function as the pre -application board so they are no longer the quasi-
judicial decision maker. A developer could present an idea for a project, and the Board's role would be to point to the
codes or specific issues that an applicant should consider rather than the big picture design and site issues. This process
would be quite different but might be more valuable.
Board Member Broadway said she would like the Board to spend its time reviewing projects early on, serving as a pre -
application board. As a Board member, she is interested in making the fabric of neighborhoods better and influencing
how projects impact neighborhoods. Board Member Walker cautioned that the Board would not have the ability to require
an applicant to do something that is outside of the code. As long as a project meets all of the code requirements, an
applicant would not be bound to implement recommendation made by the ADB during the pre -application meeting.
Chair Strauss emphasized that when reviewing applications during pre -application meetings, the Board may identify
potential code changes that are needed. Mr. Chave agreed and commented that the Board's role could include the ability
to introduce potential code amendments for the City Council's consideration.
Board Member Guenther asked what the process would be for presenting potential code amendments. Mr. Chave
answered that, currently, all zoning code amendments are presented to the Planning Board for review, a public hearing,
and a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council makes the final decision. The ADB could initiate a proposed
amendment and perhaps meet jointly with the Planning Board to discuss the change. Another option would be for the
Architectural Design Board Meeting
Minutes of Regular Meeting
October 3, 2018
Page 6 of 8
Packet Pg. 8
2.1.a
ADB to work directly with the City Council. The Board could be the initiator of design standard changes and code
changes, and they could be presented as often as necessary.
Mr. Chave said that, with the new scheme, he could see the Board spending all its time on pre -application meetings,
reviewing projects related to code, and coming up with new standards based on districts. The would be well within the
realm of what was envisioned by the Board's existing powers and duties.
Chair Strauss asked if the Board should provide a recommendation relative to the proposal to remove it from quasi-judicial
decision making. Mr. Chave said this decision will ultimately be made by the City Council. If the Board is proposing to
no longer do project review, they will no longer have to worry about the quasi-judicial rules. He said staff would report
the Board's discussion to the City Council and provide a copy of their minutes.
Board Member Broadway suggested that perhaps the Board's name should be changed to Design Guidance Board. Board
Member Tarrant asked if the Board's current meeting format is conducive to a pre -application meeting or would it be
better to have a working format around a table. Mr. Chave said both the meeting format and the Board's name are open
to discussion.
Board Member Shope agreed with Vice Chair Herr that most developers know at the outset of a project whether or not it
will meet all of the code requirements and be feasible. He cautioned against changing the process to make it more difficult
for developers to build in Edmonds. However, he agreed that it would be useful for the Board to provide guidance to
developers to look at the standards more closely.
Board Member Broadway said she is particularly concerned about pedestrian and vehicular access, and Chair Strauss said
she is interested in what a developer is doing for. Mr. Clugston commented that these issues need to be addressed
adequately in the design standards and guidance. Perhaps the City could provide a list of options to meet the standards
and guidance without being too specific.
Board Member Walker asked how the Board would introduce public project design review. Would that be an additional
role for the Board? Mr. Clugston answered that there have not traditionally been good design standards for public projects,
and he is not quite sure how it will work moving forward. However, staff believes that the Board should have an
opportunity to review these projects and provide feedback.
Chair Strauss asked what would trigger the pre -application meeting requirement. Mr. Clugston answered that the pre -
application process can be written into the code. At this time, pre -application meetings are not mandatory, but they could
be made mandatory. The requirement could be based on location, size, etc.
Board Member Shope cautioned that when it comes time for the Board to consider potential code amendments, they must
be cognizant of the type of place Edmonds is. For example, Redmond required two bike stalls for each unit in a project
he was working on. While this sounds like a great amenity, it is too much. They must be realistic about what Edmonds is
and needs and what they are trying to achieve.
Regarding future meeting schedules, Vice Chair Herr cautioned that the Board would need to be available on a regular
basis if they are going to require pre -application meetings. They don't want to stall an application for two or three months
while the applicant waits for the next ADB meeting. He suggested that the Board may need to conduct pre -application
meetings on an on -demand basis. Mr. Chave agreed and commented that retrospective project review, as well as review
of potential code amendments, could be scheduled on a quarterly or bi-monthly basis. He pointed out that it would not be
necessary for all Board Members to attend the pre -application meetings, and perhaps they could come up with a schedule
to ensure that there are at least three members present. A quorum would be preferable when considering potential code
amendments. However, the Board could assign subcommittees to conduct retrospective project review and report back to
the Board.
Architectural Design Board Meeting
Minutes of Regular Meeting
October 3, 2018
Page 7 of 8
Packet Pg. 9
2.1.a
Again, Mr. Clugston said staff will bring back ideas and a proposal for the Board's consideration in a few months.
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS:
None of the Board Members made additional comments.
The meeting was adjourned at 8:37 p.m.
Architectural Design Board Meeting
Minutes of Regular Meeting
October 3, 2018
Page 8 of 8
Packet Pg. 10
0
0
N
M
L
d
ra
0
0
d
Cam_
C
L
0
0
L
Q
Q
Q
M
O
O
0
m
Q
C
E
t
C�
r
r+
Q
3.1
Architectural Design Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 02/6/2019
Election of Officers for 2019
Staff Lead: N/A
Department: Planning Division
Prepared By: Diane Cunningham
Background/History
Staff Recommendation
Elect Chair and Vice Chair
Narrative
At the beginning of each year the ADB elects a Chair and a Vice Chair.
Packet Pg. 11
8.1
Architectural Design Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 02/6/2019
Update on ADB Roles
Staff Lead: {enter Staff Lead or "N/A" here}
Department: Planning Division
Prepared By: Michael Clugston
Background/History
The Board had a discussion about this topic on October 3, 2018.
Staff Recommendation
This is potentially a final discussion on this subject prior to approaching the Planning Board with the
ADB's ideas on how it sees its role changing.
Narrative
The ADB has indicated a desire to provide design guidance earlier during the project review cycle rather
than making quasi-judicial decisions at the end of projects when they are typically fully designed. The
City Council has also stated their desire to remove volunteer boards like the ADB from the quasi-judicial
role (Resolution 1367).
In addition to working on projects earlier in the design cycle and removing themselves from the
decision -making role, the Board also would like to do post -project reviews to analyze completed
projects. The intent would be to see whether the design language in the code and comprehensive plan is
resulting in well -designed projects that fit with the character of Edmonds, providing the Board with an
opportunity to propose changes to the appropriate design guidance and standards. This would enable
the Board to provide greater input into the development of design guidance and standards for
multifamily development projects, for future design districts such as Five Corners, and the like.
Attachment 3 is a chart summarizing the Board's current roles (identified in ECC 10.05) and the possible
roles described above. You'll note that the current roles identified in ECC 10.05 are actually pretty
similar to what the Board has discussed; it appears to be in line with how the ADB would like its role to
change in the future.
While the ADB no longer wants to make quasi-judicial decisions on projects, the Board would still
provide its expertise during the project review cycle. Attachment 4 is a flow chart showing a sample
review process concept where the Board could provide input before project reviews rather than making
the final decision.
Attachments:
Attachment 1 - 10 03 2018 powerpoint
Attachment 2 - draft ADB minutes 10 03 2018
Attachment 3 - Roles table
Attachment 4 - Possible review process flowchart
Packet Pg. 12
OV EDft��
�
Design Review -Processes,
Scope and Roles
OCTOBER 3, 2018
ADB has noticed less meaningful input at project -review level
Council Resolution 1367 - update codes to remove quasi-judicial decision
making
Have not done post -project reviews to see if what was approved was
what was intended or desired
Packet Pg. 14
8.1.a
A brief history...
Processes
Scope
ADB powers and duties
Discuss possible code changes to bring back for future review
Packet Pg. 15
District -based, two -phased public hearing process in BD zones
General process everywhere else
ADB quasi-judicial decisions - projects where SEPA is required (except CG
zone)
Public hearing w/notice
Staff decisions - everything else
No notice
a�
0
W
m
0
Q
c
0
a�
r
a
0
L
0
0.
00
O
N
Cr)
O
0
C
0
E
a
w
a
Packet Pg. 16
Remove ADB from quasi-judicial decisions
Eliminate two -phased hearing process
Staff decisions
Type I, if no SEPA (no notice)
Type II, if SEPA is required (with notice)
HE decision if exceptions to standards are requested
ADB makes recommendations to staff, HE makes final decision
Type III -A
a�
0
W
m
0
Q
c
0
a�
r
a
0
L
0
0.
00
O
N
Cr)
O
0
C
0
E
a
r
w
a
Packet Pg. 17
8.1.a
Design review is intended to apply to all development, except for
those developments specifically exempted from review under
subsection (B) of this section. "Development" includes any
improvement to real property open to exterior view, including but not
limited to buildings, structures, fixtures, landscaping, site screening,
signs, parking lots, lighting, pedestrian facilities, street furniture, use of
open areas (including parks, junk yards, riding academies, kennels
and recreational facilities), mobile home and trailer parks, whether all
or any are publicly or privately sponsored.
[ECDC 20.10.020.A]
a�
0
W
m
0
Q
c
0
a�
r
a
r
0
0.
00
O
N
Cr)
O
O
0
E
a
w
a
Packet Pg. 18
8.1.a
Design review is intended to promote development that enhances the
environmental and aesthetic quality of the City. Design review applies to all
types of public and private development open to exterior view, including but
not limited to buildings, structures, fixtures, landscaping, screening, parking
lots, lighting, pedestrian facilities, street furniture, and amenity spaces. When
required, design review must be completed before any building permits can
be issued or construction begins. If design approval is granted, compliance
with all applicable site development and engineering standards is
subsequently verified through building and engineering permit review, as
appropriate.
a�
0
W
m
0
Q
c
0
a�
r
a
0
0
0.
00
0
N
M
0
0
E
a
w
a
Packet Pg. 19
8.1.a
1. Parks developed under a master plan approved by the Edmonds city council.
2. Permitted primary and secondary uses in IRS - single-family residential districts.
3. Detached single-family homes or duplexes in RM - multiple residential districts.
4. Additions or modifications to structures or sites on the Edmonds register of
historic places which require a certificate of appropriateness from the Edmonds
historic preservation commission.
5. Fences that do not require a separate development permit.
6. Signs that meet all of the standards contained in Chapter 20.60 ECDC.
7. Underground utilities.
[ECDC 20.10.020.13]
a�
0
W
m
0
Q
c
0
a�
r
a
0
L
0
0.
00
0
N
M
O
0
E
0
a
a
Packet Pg. 20
8.1.a
1. Public projects whose design has been reviewed by the Architectural
Design Board and approved by City Council including but not limited to
public art in ECC 3.13, parks developed under an approved master plan,
and public improvements identified in the Comprehensive Plan.
2. Single family dwelling units and permitted secondary uses in IRS - single-
family residential districts.
3. One or two dwelling units and permitted secondary uses in RM - multiple
residential districts.
4. Additions or modifications to structures or sites on the Edmonds register of
historic places which require a certificate of appropriateness from the
Edmonds historic preservation commission.
5. Minor changes to previously approved plans which the Director
determines do not alter the intent of the approved design.
Packet Pg. 21
A. To study and prepare a recommendation for a comprehensive
architectural design plan including the recommendation of establishment
of specific design districts which shall be a part of the comprehensive plan.
B. To review and study land use within the city of Edmonds from a design
standpoint.
C. To establish goals, objectives and policies for design districts.
D. To recommend legislation to effectuate the implementation of the
comprehensive architectural design plan and the goals, objectives and
policies for each established design district.
E. And for such other matters as shall be referred to the board for review
and recommendation by the mayor, city council, planning commission or
the planning department. [Ord. 1683 § 1, 1973]. Packet Pg. 22
a�
0
W
m
0
Q
C
0
a�
r
0
0
0.
00
N
Cr)
O
O
C
0
E
a
w
a
8.1.a
Review public projects and provide recommendations to City
Council.
Provide decision support to staff.
Establish guidelines and standards city-wide and for design
districts.
Review selected built -out projects to evaluate whether what was
constructed reflects the intent of what was approved and
recommend refinement of design guidelines and standards to
ensure Edmonds is getting the designs it wants.
Provide review and recommendation on projects as assigned.
Packet Pg. 23
a�
0
W
m
0
Q
c
0
a�
r
L
0
0.
00
N
M
O
E
a
a
8.1.a
Review Board- and staff -approved and constructed projects since 2007
when the existing standards and processes were adopted
Review existing guidelines (in Comprehensive Plan) and standards (ECDC)
and update as necessary
Provide input on next rounds of public projects
Create multifamily guidelines and standards
Create Five Corners district guidelines and standards
a�
0
W
m
0
Q
c
0
a�
r
a
0
0
0.
00
0
N
M
O
O
a
w
a
Packet Pg. 24
8.1.a
Update decision making processes - ECDC 20.01, 20.10, 20.11 & 20.12
Update ADB's `powers and duties'- ECC 10.05.040
How to organize post -project reviews?
Meeting schedule... monthly, quarterly?
a�
0
W
m
0
Q
c
0
a�
r
a
0
L
0
0.
00
0
N
Cr)
O
0
C
0
E
a
w
a
Packet Pg. 25
8.1.b
CITY OF EDMONDS
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD
Minutes of Regular Meeting
OCTOBER 3, 2018
Chair Strauss called the meeting of the Architectural Design Board to order at 7:02 p.m., at the City Council Chambers, d
250 - 5' Avenue North, Edmonds, Washington. c
W
Board Members Present Board Members Absent Staff Present o
Lauri Strauss, Chair Rob Chave, Development Services Director Q
c
Joe Herr, Vice Chair Mike Clugston, Senior Planner G
Lois Broadway Karin Noyes, Recordercc
a)
13
Cary Guenther a
Joshua Shope
Athene Tarrant 00
T
Tom Walker c
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
VICE CHAIR HERR MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF AUGUST 1, 2018 BE APPROVED AS
CORRECTED. BOARD MEMBER GUENTHER SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
BOARD MEMBER GUENTHER MOVED THAT THE AGENDA BE ACCEPTED AS PRESENTED.
BOARD MEMBER WALKER SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
REQUESTS FROM THE AUDIENCE:
There was no one in the audience.
MINOR PROJECTS:
No minor projects were scheduled on the agenda.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
There were no public hearings.
CONSOLIDATED PERMIT APPLICATIONS (No Public Participation):
There were no consolidated permit applications.
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS/ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION:
Architectural Design Board Meeting
Minutes of Regular Meeting
October 3, 2018
Pagel of 8
Packet Pg. 26
8.1.b
Process, Scope and Roles of the Architectural Design Board (ADB)
Mr. Clugston reviewed that last winter, the ADB met with the Planning Board to talk about the ADB's role in design
review. At that time, it was noted that the ADB's design review was less meaningful at the project -review level.
Projects are often completely designed by the time they come to them for review, and the ADB only has the ability to
offer input on minor details. At the same time, the City Council has indicated a desire to see code changes that remove
volunteer boards, such as the ADB, from the quasi-judicial decision -making process (Resolution 1367). Lastly, the
Board indicated an interest in doing post -project reviews to see if the existing design guidance and standards are
resulting in the type of development envisioned for Edmonds and, if not, propose refinements to the guidelines and
standards that would result in better projects in the future.
Mr. Clugston advised that the ADB's Powers and Duties were first incorporated into the code in about 1972 and have
not been updated for almost 50 years. What was envisioned 50 years ago may not be the same as today. Perhaps the
W
process for design review could be changed or streamlined, as well. The intent of tonight's discussion is to obtain
M
feedback and direction from the Board about potential changes to their power, scope and role in the design review
Q
process.
r-
0
d
Mr. Chave provided a brief history of the ADB, noting that when he arrived at the City in the 1990's, the Supreme Court
case Anderson Vs. Issaquah presented a watershed moment for design review. The Supreme Court found that
Issaquah's design guidance was too vague. It was clear that jurisdictions needed to have very specific standards in place
00
so that an applicant coming into the design review process has a clear understanding of what is expected. Even though
c
the City of Issaquah was the defendant in the court case, it is important to understand that Issaquah's design guidance
M
was mirrored after the City of Edmonds' Urban Design Guidance. Although the City of Edmonds was not on trial, the
c
Court's decision was really applicable to the City's codes. At that time, the City had a reputation for having a very
difficult design review process because it was unpredictable and applicants did not have a clear understanding of the
features needed in project and it was difficult to predict the outcome of design review.
E
Mr. Chave advised that the City hired a consultant in 2001 to help produce a set of pretty thorough design guidelines that
o
went through the ADB, the Planning Board and the City Council for review. However, because of big push back from
a
the development community who felt they were too specific, the guidelines were never adopted. Instead, the City
incorporated the objectives outlined in the draft design guidelines into the Comprehensive Plan.
13
Mr. Chave continued that the City hired Mark Hinshaw, a well-known urban designer in the region, in 2004 to help the
N
=
City incorporate more specific design guidance in the Comprehensive Plan. In 2006, the design review process was
E
adjusted to incorporate a district -based design review process. The idea was that the district -based process would
provide very specific standards for each area of the City. However, because the City only had specific design standards
Q
in place for the Downtown Business (BD) zones and some portions of Highway 99, design review for the remainder of
the City was based on generalized standards and process. Since that time, the City has implemented design standards for
Westgate and Highway 99, and the intent is to do the same for other parts of the City. However, until this occurs, the
E
City continues to use the generalized process for design review.
Mr. Chave explained that the City heard feedback that the design review process for the BD zones was convoluted and
r
a
not producing good results. They hired another consultant to review the process rather than the standards. Because the
consultant had experience with the City of Seattle, he used Seattle's multi -phased design review process as a model. In
retrospect, staff is very skeptical about the process, which is intended to bring applicants in early to look at the
parameters of the project and provide guideposts as they continue to design the project. However, the multi -phased
process has not been very effective for the City because they don't see the projects early enough and even in this early -
stage review, applicants tend to present projects that are nearly finished designs. Staff believes the only way to make the
review early enough in the process is to use a process similar to Seattle's, which can take years to complete. He
expressed his belief that this approach would not be feasible for Edmonds and not something that applicants would be
willing to go through. He voiced concern that the two -phased design review process used in the downtown is extremely
Architectural Design Board Meeting
Minutes of Regular Meeting
October 3, 2018
Page 2 of 8
Packet Pg. 27
8.1.b
awkward because it requires the ADB to conduct one hearing and then hold it open for the second part of the review.
This makes it difficult for applicants, citizens and staff.
Mr. Chave summarized that the City is still working to get design standards in place throughout Edmonds. They now
have them for Westgate and design standards for Five Corners and multi -family zones will be coming in the next year.
That means that with just a few small exceptions, all areas of the City will be covered. Another goal for the coming year
is to get a single design review process rather than a district -based versus generalized process. The intent is to nail down
the design standards they have wanted for quite some time, and the ADB could play a really important role in this
process. For example, the ADB could review projects that have been built according to the existing standards and code
and identify potential changes. They could also provide input as the City wrestles with the issue of specificity versus
flexibility and creativity.
Mr. Chave recalled that in the 80s and 90s everything related to design review went before the ADB, and their agendas
often included upwards of 20 projects, both large and small. Anderson Vs. Issaquah pointed out the need for really
strong design standards and more specificity in the code and cautioned against making arbitrary decisions. It became
fairly obvious that staff could or should approve a lot of the minor applications. Over the years, the ADB's agendas have
gotten smaller because more design decision making has been standard -driven and made by staff rather than in a public
hearing situation.
Mr. Clugston reviewed that the City currently uses a district -based, two -phased public hearing process for design review
in the BD zones and a general design review process elsewhere. Currently, staff does design review for smaller permits,
but projects that require State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review still come to the ADB, with the exception of the
General Commercial Zone where all projects come before the ADB for review. One option for the Board to consider is
removing the ADB from quasi-judicial decisions and eliminating the two -phased hearing process. Design review would
become a Type I staff decision (with no notice) if SEPA is not required and a Type II staff decision (with notice) if
SEPA is required. Design review could be a Type III -A Hearing Examiner decision if the applicant is requesting
exceptions to the standards. In these situations, the ADB could make a recommendation and the Hearing Examiner
would make the final decision.
Mr. Clugston pointed out that if the design standards and guidance are done well, staff decisions should be doable for
most projects, and the Hearing Examiner should be able to take on the judicial role of projects requesting exceptions to
the standards. He noted that a similar process was adopted into the Highway 99 code last year, but there haven't been
any projects come through the process yet.
Mr. Clugston reviewed the current Design Review Scope. Whether design review is done by the ADB or staff, the
design scope applies to all development, including both public and private. He said the proposed new Design Review
Scope would be very similar, but worded a bit differently. It would look at the same exterior features of a project, but
would also explain the design review process so developers have a clear understanding of the steps involved.
Mr. Clugston advised that, currently, certain types of development are exempt from design review, including parks
developed under a master plan, permitted primary and secondary uses in single-family residential zones, detached single-
family homes or duplexes in multi -residential zones, additions or modifications to structures or sites on the Edmonds
Register of Historic Places, fences, signs, and underground utilities. While it makes sense to continue to exempt projects
in the single-family residential and multi -residential zones, the exemptions could also include public projects whose
design has been reviewed by the ADB and approved by the City Council. To date, the ADB hasn't reviewed public
projects at all, and the intent would be to emphasize that as an advisory role the Board should have. In addition, an
exemption could be added for minor changes to previously -approved plans that the Director determines do not alter the
intent of the approved design.
Mr. Clugston reviewed that the Board was established in 1973 and was originally called the Amenities Design Board.
Its powers and duties included four responsibilities that talk about recommendations for a Comprehensive Architectural
Architectural Design Board Meeting
Minutes of Regular Meeting
October 3, 2018
Page 3 of 8
Packet Pg. 28
8.1.b
Design Plan, and the fifth responsibility talks about reviewing other matters referred to them by the Mayor, City Council,
Planning Commission or Planning Department. However, over the last 20 to 30 years, the Board has become more of a
project review board. They used to review projects with fewer standards, but now they have more standards and review
fewer projects. He suggested the Board's powers and duties could be changed to include: reviewing public projects and
providing recommendations to the City Council, providing design support to staff, establishing guidelines and standards
citywide and for design districts, reviewing selected built -out projects to evaluate whether what was constructed reflects
the intent of what was approved and recommending refinement of design guidelines and standards to ensure Edmonds is
getting the designs it wants, and providing review and recommendation on projects as assigned. Possible future projects
could include: reviewing Board and staff -approved and constructed projects since 2007 when existing standard and
processes were adopted, reviewing existing Comprehensive Plan guidelines and code standards and recommending
updates as necessary, providing input on next rounds of public projects, creating multi -family guidelines and standards,
and creating Five Corners District guidelines and standards. He summarized that, as proposed, rather than having a
decision -malting role, the Board's role would be recommendations, guidance, and input.
�°.
Mr. Chave pointed out that the Board's current powers and duties do not actually include reviewing building projects. It
m
Q
talks about having a role in creating policies, objectives, and design plan goals, which is something the Board has
r_
0
expressed a desire to do. Board Member Guenther recalled that when the City Attorney made a presentation about the
+;
Board's responsibilities, he was excited about the prospect of actually getting to do what the Board Members are trained
to do. For example, the ADB should have been involved in the process of developing design standards for Westgate. At
the very least, they should have been invited to provide input to the Planning Board and City Council. However, they
00
were left out of the discussion, and their only responsibility has been to interpret and apply the guidelines that have been
c
adopted. He expressed his hope that the ADB could be more useful in future projects such as developing design
M
guidelines for Five Corners and the multi -residential zones. He felt it would also be useful for the Board to review
c
developed projects to determine how the existing design standards and guidance works and what changes are needed in
the future. He would also like the Board to have an opportunity to review and provide input on public projects.
y
Mr. Clugston advised that, based on feedback from the Board, staff could update the decision -making processes, the
Scope of Design Review and the ADB's Powers and Duties and bring draft language back for the Board's continued
discussion in a few months. Staff is not yet sure how to organize a post project review, and they welcome input and
suggestions from the Board. Another issue that warrants further discussion is the Board's future meeting schedule.
Board Member Tarrant suggested that the design guidance and standards should be based on the district and not by
building type. Vice Chair Herr agreed that a district -based approach makes more sense. For example, he cautioned
against blanketing the entire City with a 25-foot height limit that is intended to protect the views in a very few areas of
the City. He said he likes the idea of not applying a comprehensive code the same throughout the entire City. Certain
areas have more priority than other areas for certain standards.
Board Member Broadway also expressed support for a district -based approach. She pointed out the different way that
Mountlake Terrace is being redeveloped, which clearly indicates that code changes have occurred in certain areas. This
has not yet happened in Edmonds to encourage growth to come. She would like the Board to step back and look at what
their role should be in making appropriate changes happen. She said she is less concerned about the color of a building,
how large a window is, or where the door is placed. Instead, the Board's focus should be on the proposed size, scale,
massing, location and circulation. She said she works with the Department of Health on a daily basis, using a process
called Early Technical Assistance where a developer presents a very preliminary design and the discussion focuses on
design guidance about circulation, building size and location, life safety, etc. The applicants then move forward to
design their projects based on the feedback provided. If the City wants to have a multi -phased design review, it would
be helpful for the applicant to present early conceptual site plans (one sheet drawings) for the Board's review. The
Board could then provide one or two pages of written notes that outline things for the applicant to think about when
designing the project.
Architectural Design Board Meeting
Minutes of Regular Meeting
October 3, 2018
Page 4 of 8
Packet Pg. 29
8.1.b
Board Member Walker asked how the approach outlined above by Board Member Broadway would be different than
the standards already called out in the zoning and building codes that address scale, height, fagade, massing, etc. Board
Member Broadway commented that the ADB may have expectations that are not specifically called out in the zoning
code. In these situations, the Board could provide code interpretation to let the applicants know what they mean.
Board Member Tarrant said it would be helpful to have a digital version of the City showing all of the important
elements of the Comprehensive Plan and zoning code. This would allow a developer to present conceptual drawings
that address all of the critical elements that will be required and would be more valuable than the current process of the
ADB conducting design review when the design work has all be done.
Board Member Shope said that in his experience in Seattle, projects are presented at the preliminary stage to the design
review board, and the submittal package must include a 9-block radius around the building. These packages almost aa)
always include 3d drawings, and usually a client has already purchased the property at that point. Board Member W
Tarrant asked if it would be possible to see an example of an application package that has been submitted to the City of M
Seattle, and Board Member Shope answered that all application files are available on line. Q
c
0
Board Member Walker commented that if the Board wants to provide input to an applicant early in the process, having +;
application submittal requirements would be helpful. He recalled Mr. Chave's earlier caution that involving the Board
earlier in the process could significantly lengthen the review process. He asked if this would still be true if the ADB
were to substitute what they do now with an earlier reading. Mr. Chave said people who do design review in Seattle 00
have advised that it is a fairly lengthy process and the scale of the review is much different. Most of the City of c
Edmonds' projects are small, and the developers are simply not accustomed to the degree of sophistication required by M
Seattle's process. When the consultant proposed a process similar to Seattle's, there as a lot of pushback from c
0
developers who were particularly concerned about how the proposed process would lengthen the design review timeline.
Board Member Broadway said her office is currently working with unincorporated Pierce County, which has a very
small code that is difficult to interpret. They know they want a 50,000 square foot building, but there are currently three
proposals for how the building will fit onto the site. While all three options would meet the code requirements, they are
interested in hearing from Pierce County as to what they want to see. Providing feedback at this point is much more
valuable to the client and allows cities and counties to address issues such as steep slopes, trees, street view, etc. before
design work progresses too far. The City has gone from a vague code to a much more specific code that has reduced the
number of projects the ADB reviews. The specific code has also resulted in projects that are more designed before they
come before the ADB. Now she is hearing that perhaps the ADB's review should be done as a pre -application meeting
before the design gets too far along. She summarized that, with the more prescriptive codes, the ADB has not had a lot
of opportunity to influence a project if it has been determined to meet the code.
Mr. Clugston explained that the City does offer a pre -application meeting, but it is not a requirement. People with larger
projects typically take advantage of the opportunity. They also have a tree development meeting at the conceptual level.
During these early meetings, staff points to the design standards in the Development Code and design guidance in the
Comprehensive Plan. Although projects are often well into the design by that point, staff can help them decide what to
focus on.
Mr. Clugston said he understands the Board's frustrations about its ability to provide input on projects. However, the
City Council has expressed a desire for the ADB to move away from the quasi-judicial decision -making process. That
means they need to work on the guidance and standards to make sure they are clear and meet the intent of the
Comprehensive Plan and Development Code. There are numerous provisions in the zoning code that influence the
design of buildings, and the Board can provide overarching guidance and create standards for districts that enable them
to affect every project that comes in and not just those that meet the threshold that requires ADB review.
Architectural Design Board Meeting
Minutes of Regular Meeting
October 3, 2018
Page 5 of 8
Packet Pg. 30
8.1.b
Board Member Walker summarized that, as proposed by staff, all of the districts would have their own set of standards,
and some would be more stringent than others. In addition, different design processes could be required based on the
district. The design standards would apply to both public and private projects.
Vice Chair Herr explained that one reason for zoning codes and guidance is to help a developer determine whether or not
a project will be feasible. If the City's standards and guidance are too vague and arbitrary decision are made during
design review, the City will be open to potential lawsuits and they are likely to receive pushback from developers.
Someone looking at the site from an aesthetic standpoint will not realize the amount of work that went into getting a
proforma together for a piece of property.
Board Member Broadway said she is not suggesting that the City not have specific design guidance and standards. She
is suggesting that the Board could provide early technical assistance before a project gets to the point where they simply aa)
follow the guidelines. For example, when the Key Bank project was presented to the Board for design review, the main W
entrance was facing the parking lot rather than the street. Following Board feedback, the applicant did more to mo
accentuate the pedestrian entrance. She is not proposing that the Board provide input on the types of uses allowed, Q
height, etc. Applicants must meet all of the code requirements, which address these issues. However, there may be c
opportunities for the Board to comment on how the building is situated on the site, pedestrian circulation, etc. +;
13
91
Mr. Chave pointed out that these issues should also be addressed by the code. For example, the Downtown and
Westgate Design Standards both talk about building orientation. Staff would like the Board to become more involved in 00
helping develop good design guidance and standards for different areas. They do not want design standards that apply c
citywide. Staff would also like the Board to conduct retrospective reviews of projects that have been developed M
consistent with the current code. He pointed out, for example, that landscaping can change the appearance of a building c
tremendously over time. He referred to the Compass Development on SR-104 and the PCC Market, which look entirely
different now with mature landscaping than they did just after construction. He summarized that it would be educational
for the Board and staff to review projects and come up with potential design standards and guidance changes. Perhaps
the Board could present an annual report to the City Council with a list of recommended changes. It would also be
educational for the City Council and citizens to understand the relationship between projects, codes and time. m
Board Member Tarrant commented that just because a project satisfies all of the design standards and guidance doesn't
mean it will be the most wonderful project. She felt it would still be appropriate for the Board to review projects at the
conceptual stage and provide input.
Mr. Chave explained that when a project is submitted to the City, staff must evaluate it against the codes to decide
whether or not to approve it. The Board is discussing the idea of influencing a project at the outset of the design review
process. One way to accomplish this is to have the ADB function as the pre -application board so they are no longer the
quasi-judicial decision maker. A developer could present an idea for a project, and the Board's role would be to point to
the codes or specific issues that an applicant should consider rather than the big picture design and site issues. This
process would be quite different but might be more valuable.
Board Member Broadway said she would like the Board to spend its time reviewing projects early on, serving as a pre -
application board. As a Board member, she is interested in making the fabric of neighborhoods better and influencing
how projects impact neighborhoods. Board Member Walker cautioned that the Board would not have the ability to
require an applicant to do something that is outside of the code. As long as a project meets all of the code requirements,
an applicant would not be bound to implement recommendation made by the ADB during the pre -application meeting.
Chair Strauss emphasized that when reviewing applications during pre -application meetings, the Board may identify
potential code changes that are needed. Mr. Chave agreed and commented that the Board's role could include the ability
to introduce potential code amendments for the City Council's consideration.
Architectural Design Board Meeting
Minutes of Regular Meeting
October 3, 2018
Page 6 of 8
Packet Pg. 31
Board Member Guenther asked what the process would be for presenting potential code amendments. Mr. Chave
answered that, currently, all zoning code amendments are presented to the Planning Board for review, a public hearing,
and a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council makes the final decision. The ADB could initiate a
proposed amendment and perhaps meet jointly with the Planning Board to discuss the change. Another option would be
for the ADB to work directly with the City Council. The Board could be the initiator of design standard changes and
code changes, and they could be presented as often as necessary.
Mr. Chave said that, with the new scheme, he could see the Board spending all its time on pre -application meetings,
reviewing projects related to code, and coming up with new standards based on districts. The would be well within the
realm of what was envisioned by the Board's existing powers and duties.
Chair Strauss asked if the Board should provide a recommendation relative to the proposal to remove it from quasi-
judicial decision making. Mr. Chave said this decision will ultimately be made by the City Council. If the Board is
W
proposing to no longer do project review, they will no longer have to worry about the quasi-judicial rules. He said staff
ca
would report the Board's discussion to the City Council and provide a copy of their minutes.
Q
c
0
Board Member Broadway suggested that perhaps the Board's name should be changed to Design Guidance Board.
+;
Board Member Tarrant asked if the Board's current meeting format is conducive to a pre -application meeting or would it
-a
be better to have a working format around a table. Mr. Chave said both the meeting format and the Board's name are
0.
open to discussion.
T_
Board Member Shope agreed with Vice Chair Herr that most developers know at the outset of a project whether or not it
T
0
c"
M
will meet all of the code requirements and be feasible. He cautioned against changing the process to make it more
c
difficult for developers to build in Edmonds. However, he agreed that it would be useful for the Board to provide
guidance to developers to look at the standards more closely.
0
c
Board Member Broadway said she is particularly concerned about pedestrian and vehicular access, and Chair Strauss
E
said she is interested in what a developer is doing for. Mr. Clugston commented that these issues need to be addressed
o
adequately in the design standards and guidance. Perhaps the City could provide a list of options to meet the standards
a
and guidance without being too specific.
L
13
Board Member Walker asked how the Board would introduce public project design review. Would that be an additional
N
role for the Board? Mr. Clugston answered that there have not traditionally been good design standards for public
=
projects, and he is not quite sure how it will work moving forward. However, staff believes that the Board should have
E
an opportunity to review these projects and provide feedback.
0
Chair Strauss asked what would trigger the pre -application meeting requirement. Mr. Clugston answered that the pre-
Q
application process can be written into the code. At this time, pre -application meetings are not mandatory, but they
could be made mandatory. The requirement could be based on location, size, etc.
E
z
Board Member Shope cautioned that when it comes time for the Board to consider potential code amendments, they
a
must be cognizant of the type of place Edmonds is. For example, Redmond required two bike stalls for each unit in a
project he was working on. While this sounds like a great amenity, it is too much. They must be realistic about what
Edmonds is and needs and what they are trying to achieve.
Regarding future meeting schedules, Vice Chair Herr cautioned that the Board would need to be available on a regular
basis if they are going to require pre -application meetings. They don't want to stall an application for two or three
months while the applicant waits for the next ADB meeting. He suggested that the Board may need to conduct pre -
application meetings on an on -demand basis. Mr. Chave agreed and commented that retrospective project review, as
well as review of potential code amendments, could be scheduled on a quarterly or bi-monthly basis. He pointed out that
it would not be necessary for all Board Members to attend the pre -application meetings, and perhaps they could come up
Architectural Design Board Meeting
Minutes of Regular Meeting
October 3, 2018
Page 7 of 8
Packet Pg. 32
8.1.b
with a schedule to ensure that there are at least three members present. A quorum would be preferable when considering
potential code amendments. However, the Board could assign subcommittees to conduct retrospective project review
and report back to the Board.
Again, Mr. Clugston said staff will bring back ideas and a proposal for the Board's consideration in a few months.
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS:
None of the Board Members made additional comments.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjoumed at 8:37 p.m.
Architectural Design Board Meeting
Minutes of Regular Meeting
October 3, 2018
Page 8 of 8
Packet Pg. 33
8.1.c
Current ADB Powers and Duties (ECC 10.05)
The board is empowered to advise and make recommendations to the
mayor, city council, planning commission and the planning department
on matters hereinafter enumerated and on such matters as may be
specifically referred to the board by the mayor, city council, planning
commission or the planning department:
A. To study and prepare a recommendation for a comprehensive
architectural design plan including the recommendation of
establishment of specific design districts which shall be a part of the
comprehensive plan.
B. To review and study land use within the city of Edmonds from a design
standpoint.
C. To establish goals, objectives and policies for design districts.
D. To recommend legislation to effectuate the implementation of the
comprehensive architectural design plan and the goals, objectives and
policies for each established design district.
E. And for such other matters as shall be referred to the board for review
and recommendation by the mayor, city council, planning commission or
the planning department. [Ord. 1683 § 1, 1973].
THIS MORPHED OVER TIME INTO STRICTLY PROJECT REVIEW AND QUASI-
JUDICIAL DECISION MAKING
1
Work preferences expressed by ADB
• Get out of quasi-judicial decision making —they don't
feel like they have useful input at that stage of project
development
• Review projects prior to submittal to provide more
meaningful input and context
• Contribute to establishing design districts and
standards (e.g. RM zones, 5 Corners)
• Review built projects to see if what was approved and
constructed fits the character of the area — if not,
suggest new or modified standards to improve future
projects
• Annual report to Council about recent work and
analysis of built projects to show how they've `aged'
into their surroundings
Packet Pg. 34
Ir_
do Review PrecQ
Pre -Application meeting
required for all projects
that require SEPA
(ADB participates
with staff)
Type II
Design review by
Staff
SEPA notice
Application Submitted
Is SEPA required?
(or project > 75' in CG zone)
Type III -A
Design review by
Hearing Examiner
SEPA/public
hearing notice
Type I
Design review by
staff
Staff Decision Hearing Examiner Decision w/ Building
Decision Permit