2017-12-13 Planning Board MinutesCITY OF EDMONDS
MINUTES OF JOINT
PLANNING BOARD/ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD
MEETING
December 13, 2017
Chair Rubenkonig called the meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public
Safety Complex, 250 — 5t" Avenue North.
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT
Carreen Rubenkonig, Chair Tom Walker, Chair
Nathan Monroe, Vice Chair Lauri Strauss, Vice Chair
Matthew Cheung Cary Guenther
Phil Lovell Joe Herr
Mike Rosen Athene Tarrant
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT
Alicia Crank
Todd Cloutier (excused)
Daniel Robles (excused)
STAFF PRESENT
Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager
Jerrie Bevington, Video Recorder
Karin Noyes, Recorder
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT
Brian Borofka
Lois Broadway
READING/APPROVAL OF PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
BOARD MEMBER LOVELL MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 8, 2017 BE APPROVED AS
PRESENTED. VICE CHAIR MONROE SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA
The agenda was accepted as presented.
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
No one in the audience indicated a desire to comment during this portion of the meeting.
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR REPORT TO PLANNING BOARD
Chair Rubenkonig referred the Board to the written report that was provided by the Development Services Director. Board
Member Lovell asked if the Housing Strategy Task Force would report its progress and findings to the Planning Board. Mr.
Chave answered that the Board would receive regular reports from the task force. Chair Rubenkonig requested more
information about the work of the Snohomish County Tomorrow Steering Committee as it relates to amendments to the
Countywide Planning Polices to allow land in different urban growth areas to be "swapped" with each other. Mr. Chave said
he is not directly involved in this arena, but he assumes there are some areas where it makes sense to expand the urban
growth area, but reductions would be made somewhere else. Lastly, Board Member Rosen asked if the Board would receive
a report of the findings from the Economic Impact of Arts and Culture Study. Mr. Chave said he would submit that request
to the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Director.
ELECTION OF 2018 OFFICERS
BOARD MEMBER ROSEN MOVED THAT THE BOARD ELECT BOARD MEMBER MONROE TO SERVE A
CHAIR OF THE BOARD IN 2018. BOARD MEMBER CHEUNG SECONDED THE MOTION.
Board Member Rosen explained that he recommended Board Member Monroe because he is smart, has significant
experience, is passionate about the work, and has demonstrated his abilities on numerous occasions.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
BOARD MEMBER RUBENKONIG MOVED THAT THE BOARD ELECT BOARD MEMBER CHEUNG TO
SERVE AS VICE CHAIR OF THE BOARD IN 2018. BOARD MEMBER LOVELL SECONDED THE MOTION.
Board Member Rubenkonig commented that Board Member Monroe has shown faith in Board Member Cheung's ability to
serve as vice chair to administer meetings in his absence, and Board Member Cheung has also proven to be a person with
great reasoning powers.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
VOTE ON RECOMMENDATION FOR STUDENT REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE PLANNING BOARD
Chair Rubenkonig and Board Member Lovell reported that they interviewed three candidates for the student representative
position. All are students at Edmonds Woodway High School (2 are juniors and 1 is a senior). They were particularly
interested in selecting a junior to fill the position, hoping that the person could serve for a two-year period, including the
summer months between his/her junior and senior years.
Board Member Lovell advised that he and Chair Rubenkonig are recommending that the Board appoint Megan Livingston to
serve as the student representative. He explained that Ms. Livingston is a junior and currently participates in the International
Baccalaureate Program and also plays soccer. Ms. Livingston has indicated her desire to serve for a two-year period,
including the summer months. Her interests are in leadership, and she is particularly interested and committed to the City of
Edmonds. She was born and raised in Edmonds and indicated her desire to one day have a business of her own in Edmonds.
BOARD MEMBER LOVELL MOVED THAT THE BOARD APPOINT MEGAN LIVINGSTON TO SERVE AS
THE STUDENT REPRESENTATIVE ON THE PLANNING BOARD. VICE CHAIR MONROE SECONDED THE
MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Chair Rubenkonig commented that it was a pleasure to meet with all of the candidates and learn of their love for Edmonds.
JOINT MEETING WITH THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD (ADB)
Chair Rubenkonig welcomed the ADB members to the meeting and invited each of the Planning Board and ADB Members
to introduce themselves. She then invited Mr. Chave to explain the roles of the City Council, Planning Board, ADB, and the
public in design review.
Mr. Chave explained that the ADB represents citizens, architects and design professionals. Their role is to review projects in
a quasi-judicial forum, which carries a certain level of liability. The ADB meets periodically with the City Attorney to
review the rules for quasi-judicial hearings. The Planning Board, on the other hand, is more of an advisory body to the City
Planning Board Minutes
December 13, 2017 Page 2
Council. Their role is much broader in scope, and much of their work involves Development Code and Comprehensive Plan
development. The Planning Board also serves as a Parks Board, meeting periodically with the Parks, Recreation and Cultural
Service staff to discuss issues related to parks. The only time the Planning Board acts in a quasi-judicial capacity is to
consider rezone applications and forward a recommendation to the City Council.
Mr. Chave explained that the ADB uses the criteria and regulations contained in the Development Code when reviewing
projects. As long as a project meets all of the code requirements, including those related to design, the ADB is obligated to
approve the project, and there is very little it can do to require an applicant to change the design. In recent months, the ADB
has had discussions about potentially increasing their involvement in the code development process. In addition, the ADB
has had discussions with the City Attorney that included the court case, Anderson vs. Issaquah, which represented a shift in
Washington State for how design review takes place. The importance of this court case is that Issaquah's design review
process and criteria was patterned after the City of Edmonds. Before the Anderson vs. Issaquah case, design review in a
public hearing setting had relatively broad guidelines. Because there was not a lot of specificity in the design standards, the
guidance given to applicants and the processes used for design review were a cause of frustration for applicants. Applicants
basically had to guess what a city wanted for design. Following the court ruling, cities, including Edmonds, have adopted
more specific guidelines and codes relative to design. However, these more stringent design guidelines and codes can result
in projects that all look the same. The goal should be to allow enough flexibility for developers to design unique and creative
projects that fit their circumstances and surroundings. At the same time, cities should provide enough specificity so
developers have a clear understanding of what is required.
Mr. Chave summarized that it is important to regulate what is important to the City, but not every little minutia or they will
end up with the same thing over and over again. Over the years, the City of Edmonds has incorporated more specific
standards and guidelines into the code, but they are not finished. As new planned areas have come about, such as Westgate
and Highway 99, they have tried to include design standards. However, there is not much in the way of design standards for
the multi -family residential zones, and they do not differentiate between the different parts of downtown. There is a lot of
language in the Comprehensive Plan and in the Development Code that supports the idea of introducing more design
guidelines than what currently exist.
Mr. Chave said the City does not do a good job of analyzing completed projects to determine whether or not the end results
are consistent with what was anticipated when projects were reviewed from a design standpoint. Sometimes, the ADB
becomes frustrated when they don't necessarily like a design, but they do not have the design standards needed to require a
change. He recalled that, prior to the court case, the ADB tended to wing design review and require the applicant to change a
design without having any code to support the required change. Today, if there is nothing in the code, the ADB cannot insist
on a particularly idea. The intent is to come up with design standards to lead to the outcome the Board wants without
dictating how it will happen in every given case.
Mr. Chave said the ADB has expressed an interest in having more input when the design standards are being developed, but
this raises issues about how much time the volunteer ADB members have to focus on this effort. There is an opportunity in
the coming year to think about how the ADB's role could be expanded. He referred to Resolution 1367, which was
supported by the majority of the City Council. The resolution called for code revisions to remove quasi-judicial decision -
making responsibility from the City Council and other volunteer citizen boards to the extent allowed by State law. It further
requested that that the City staff and Planning Board prepare and forward to the City Council revisions to the code that are
consistent with this resolution. Having the City Council act on appeals to quasi-judicial decisions puts them in a bind
because of the strict Appearance of Fairness rules that apply. Constituents and project proponents can become frustrated
when they are unable to discuss their concerns about a particular project with their local representative. If the City Council
does not like the outcome of a particular project, they can amend the design standards to address the problems. The City
Council and the Planning Board have an important role to play in the process of amending the code, but the ADB has more
expertise than the Planning Board and City Council.
Mr. Chave explained that projects typically look different three to five years after they are constructed compared to when
they are initially completed. When a project is initially completed, none of the landscaping is mature enough to soften the
streetscape, etc. A lot of the design aspects will happen over time. He emphasized that the ADB can have a lot to say about
design codes, such as the type of landscaping that is important, what features make the fagade integrate with the streetscape,
and how this can change over time. That is something the City has not done a good job of to this point. Moving forward, he
Planning Board Minutes
December 13, 2017 Page 3
suggested it would be appropriate for the Planning Board to solicit input from the professionals (ADB) when making code
changes so that the end result is better design. He suggested that improving existing design standards and creating new
design standards could be included in the Planning Board's recommendation to the City Council relative to the design review
process.
Mr. Chave explained that, currently, there are two different processes for design review. The idea behind the two-part public
hearing, which was patterned after the City of Seattle, was to get design feedback from the ADB early in the process.
Historically, the ADB was presented with finished designs that applicants had already invested a lot of time and money to
create. The last thing the applicant wanted to do was redesign a project. From staffs perspective, the two-part public
hearing has not really worked because the ADB is still getting projects that are basically designed when presented for design
review. The two-part hearing is also awkward. He suggested that the two boards consider changing the process. One idea is
to have staff do the preliminary meeting with the applicant. At this meeting, staff could explain how the guidelines and
standards have been applied historically and provide examples of projects that have been approved in the City. This
approach would eliminate the need for a two-part hearing. In order for this to work going forward, it will be critical for the
ADB to be heavily involved in developing design standards. Ultimately, given the court's decision, the ADB will not have a
lot of discretion when reviewing applications. A project is either consistent with the design standards or not. That means
there must be strong guidelines in place to get the type of design the ADB desires for the City.
Rather than a two-part hearing, Mr. Chave suggested it would be more beneficial for the ADB to focus its efforts on the
design guidelines. He recalled that most of the time, people who testify before the ADB are concerned about zoning
requirements, which the ADB does not have any control over. Staffs experience is that the ADB gets relatively little
meaningful input related to the design of a project.
Chair Rubenkonig explained that the purpose of tonight's discussion is to develop a platform for moving forward. The
Planning Board is interested in learning about the ADB's concerns and ideas. She anticipates that additional meetings will be
needed to implement change. She noted that concern about having design review early enough in the process for it to be
meaningful was a topic of discussion when she served on the ADB in 2000, so the topic is not new.
Chair Walker said the ADB's biggest concern is how it can have the most influence and provide direction on design
standards. By the time projects come before the ADB, the ADB does not have the power to influence the projects as much as
they would like. He referred to the Point Edwards Building 10 project. The people who participated in the design review
hearing were mostly concerned about the large scale of the units, which is more of a zoning code issue that is outside of the
ADB's purview. The ADB could only influence very minor cosmetic changes because the project was found to be consistent
with the Development Code. The ADB members have raised concern about whether the design guidelines are working and if
their talents and expertise are being used effectively to influence projects for the better. It seems that, most times, the Board
is left with making minor tweaks to a project near the end of the process. He suggested that having the ADB involved earlier
in the process would allow them to have more influence over a project's design. He also felt it would be appropriate for the
ADB to have more input into the design guidelines.
Vice Chair Strauss voiced frustration with the design standards that apply in the downtown zones and proposed that they be
tightened up. When she joined the ADB, she was excited to have some influence over design in Edmonds. However, over
the past two years, the ADB's focus has tended to be on windows, bump outs, blank walls, etc. She finds herself approving
projects that are low -quality design. They have lost some really nice buildings in the downtown area because the design
review standards currently in place focus on color, awnings, etc. rather than how a project impacts the character of the
downtown. She asked if it would be possible to have a separate set of design guidelines for the downtown zones that
recognize the historic character of the buildings. Totally demolishing the historic buildings changes the context of the
surrounding neighborhood. She is concerned that downtown Edmonds will end up being a lot of tall condominiums and the
quaint character will be lost. It is really important to talk about design review in the contest of the whole area rather than just
the design of a proposed new building.
Board Member Herr cautioned against moving in a similar direction as the City of Redmond, where the design standards and
codes have been tightened so much that the concept of "affordable housing" is no longer possible. There is no economy of
scale or reusing the same design, and this has resulted in $1 million homes because developers have to invest so much money
into each individual unit. He cautioned against implementing regulations that are too strict. At the same time, they must
Planning Board Minutes
December 13, 2017 Page 4
keep in mind that a property owner has invested in a piece of land and expects to receive a return on his/her investment. The
City should not legislate everything they want to have or they will stymy redevelopment, which would be equally bad.
Property owners could eventually choose to stop maintenance efforts, and the buildings could become dilapidated. The City
must have effective design standards without tying the hands of developers. If the design standards are too strict, all
development will start to look the same.
Vice Chair Strauss said she is not suggesting that the City regulate all aspects of design. However, it may be appropriate to
have specific design standards that apply to certain areas, such as the downtown. She questioned how many large
developments are really desirable in the downtown.
Board Member Guenther recalled that the Planning Board was working on design standards when he first joined several years
ago. Since that time, the design standards have been amended three or four times. During the initial process of creating
design standards, some people wanted everything to be spelled out. On the other hand, there were some who wanted to allow
developers to be creative. He expressed his belief that there needs to be a balance. While he supports the idea of having
specific guidelines that apply to certain areas, he also wants to allow enough flexibility for developers to be creative.
Otherwise, they will end up with cookie -cutter development.
Board Member Guenther observed that the current design guidelines represent a broad brush that applies everywhere in
Edmonds. He supports the idea of having a different set of design guidelines for the downtown and Westgate zones.
Perhaps this could be accomplished via an overlay. The design standards should not be complicated, but need to identify
what is important for that particular area. However, they still need to maintain a separate set of design standards that apply to
the other zones in the City.
Board Member Herr referred to the City's 30-foot height limit for all residential development. He said he understands the
need to limit height in areas with a view, but he never has understood the need for a blanket requirement for homes
throughout the City. He suggested that perhaps the height limit should be different, depending on the zone.
Chair Walker said he would favor establishing separate design guidelines for certain areas of the City. He also agreed that
there needs to be a balance so that developers still have the ability to do creative design. He noted that, currently, the ADB is
the last layer of design review before a project is approved, and it is the Board's responsibility to make sure that the design
fits within the context of the surrounding area. Having good zoning in place, with appropriate and effective design guidelines
that define this balance, is needed, and the ADB could play a significant role in this process. The ADB could also maintain
the ability to make final tweaks to a design before it is approved.
Chair Rubenkonig suggested that the Five Corners Subarea Plan would be a good place to start implementing more detailed
design standards, and the ADB could play a significant role in that process. Mr. Chave agreed and noted that the intent of the
Five Corners Subarea Plan is to create a separate district with unique design guidelines. He reviewed that, currently, there are
no design standards specific to Five Corners. Only the vague general design guidelines in the code are applied. However,
the plan that was prepared by the University of Washington students included some design recommendations, and that would
be a natural place to start.
Board Member Lovell recalled that a few years ago, the Planning Board forwarded a set of design standards to the City
Council related to the BD1 zone. The City Council adopted the Planning Board's recommendation, which resulted in more
stringent requirements for step backs, setbacks, awnings, windows, etc. He asked if this is the type of design standards the
ADB is interested in implementing. Mr. Chave responded that the design standards in place for the BD zones are mostly
related to the streetscape, and have very little to do with actual building design. He agreed that it would be possible to have
different design standards that apply to specific areas of the City. For example, the design standards for the properties near
the fountain in downtown Edmonds could be different than those for the surrounding properties. The standards could be
tailored to meet the needs of the various zoning districts.
Vice Chair Strauss referred to a recent proposal that met the City's requirements for windows, but their placement and size
did not make sense from the standpoint of design and/or the Washington Energy Code. Rather than calling out a specific
requirement for the percentage of windows, they need to also consider how the windows will impact the overall design of a
building. There must be a way to adjust a guideline to improve a building's design.
Planning Board Minutes
December 13, 2017 Page 5
Board Member Tarrant liked the idea of creating unique design guidelines for specific districts within the City. She voiced
concern that the ADB has not had the ability to significantly influence the design of any recent projects in Edmonds. It does
not do any good to have ADB review if a project is complete before it is presented to them. The ADB has a duty to
applicants to follow the City's code requirements, and it is particularly important that the ADB has an opportunity review
projects early in the design process. If the Board is to do its job, it needs to give recommendations before a project gets too
far along in the design.
Board Member Herr commented that design professionals are required to meet all of the City's design standards. By the time
a project comes before the ADB for review, it has already been reviewed by City staff for compliance with the code and the
design is nearly completed. The applicant has already made critical decisions about whether or not a project will pencil out
and meet the required conditions. The ADB's job is to ensure that all of the code requirements have been met and that all of
the Board's concerns have been addressed. He cautioned that the ADB should focus more of its efforts on creating
meaningful design guidelines. They cannot become a defacto judge and deny a project just because they do not like it. The
ADB's job is to recommend approval once it has been determined that a project meets all of the design standards.
Chair Walker said he is not sure that the current process represents the best use of the ADB's time and talents. He would like
the Board to have more influence over the design guidelines so that the outcome is better. However, this must be coupled
with the Board's ability to review projects earlier in the design process where their input can have a greater level of influence.
Board Member Tarrant agreed and noted that this early involvement could be as informal as a pre -application meeting where
an applicant shares a conceptual proposal with the Board. She suggested that if all of the responsibility for design is placed
on the design standards, they must be written to be very specific. However, she is concerned that this might result in
development that all looks the same.
Vice Chair Strauss commented that the ADB's responsibility is to the Citizens of Edmonds and not the developers. She does
not want to feel guilty for requiring design changes to meet the guidelines. Board Member Tarrant agreed, but added that
they should also avoid creating undue hardship for developers.
Chair Rubenkonig asked the ADB Members to share specific examples of what is broken in the current design guidelines.
Vice Chair Strauss commented that the design guidelines could better address the historical context of buildings in the
downtown. Even buildings that are not listed on the Register have an impact to the character of the downtown. Specific
guidelines could apply to historic buildings in the downtown, requiring developers to spend more time addressing design.
They must do something to require building design to be in character with the culture of the area. If a building cannot be
reused, perhaps the new design could include a nod to some aspect of the historic structure.
Board Member Herr recalled that Redmond used to look like downtown Edmonds, but most of the historic buildings have
been removed and every new development looks the same because the design guidelines are so strict. He cautioned that the
City must be careful not to tighten the guidelines too much.
Board Member Tarrant commented that if everyone wants to maintain the current character of the downtown, then there must
be a historic preservation provision as part of the design guidelines. While the City cannot require a developer to retain a
building, it can require them to incorporate at least some aspects of the historic building into the new design.
Mr. Chave explained that many of the design standards were put in place with an eye towards specificity, but this does not
necessarily produce good design. He suggested that one option would be to create a basic set of design standards for staff to
implement as projects come forward. Projects that meet all of the design standards would not need additional ADB review.
The design guidelines process could include collaboration between the two boards. They could also establish a provision that
allows developers to propose a departure from the design guidelines to meet unique circumstances. Departure requests could
be reviewed and approved by the ADB, and it would be the applicant's responsibility to demonstrate why the departure
makes sense from a design standpoint. This type of provision would give the ADB an opportunity to use its expertise and
experience to address unique situations. He emphasized that this approach would hinge on having a good set of design
guidelines that result in the kinds of projects the Board wants. If the guidelines do not work for a specific site, developers
would be allowed an opportunity to approach the ADB with a departure request.
Planning Board Minutes
December 13, 2017 Page 6
Chair Walker commented that, in addition to the process outlined above by Mr. Chave, the ADB could also be a pre -
application body, which would allow them to be involved in the design at the conceptual stage where valuable input could be
incorporated into the final design. Mr. Chave said pre -application meetings work well for public projects, but would difficult
to implement for private projects. Typically, the City does not hear about a project until an application has been submitted,
and most of the design work has already been done. The concept of design departures would allow the ADB to work with an
applicant to come up with a design solution to address a particular problem.
Again, Chair Rubenkonig suggested the two Boards consider an incremental approach to implementing the ideas discussed,
starting with the Five Corners Subarea Plan.
Board Member Tarrant commented that, given the design tools and technology currently available, it would not be difficult to
prepare a conceptual design to share with the ADB. This conceptual design could be presented as an overlay without
spending a lot of money.
Chair Rubenkonig summarized that the two Board would wait to hear from staff as to what the next steps will be.
REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA
Chair Rubenkonig briefly reviewed the extended agenda, noting that the topics of discussion on January loth will be select
vegetation removal in critical areas and an update on the Housing Strategy. The final report on the Five Corners Feasibility
Analysis will be presented on January 24th, and the Board will review the draft Urban Forest Management Plan on February
14th in preparation for a public hearing on February 28th.
PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS
Chair Rubenkonig announced that she and Vice Chair Monroe are prepared to present the Planning Board Update to the City
Council at their first meeting in January. She also noted that the Board may want to assign another Board Member to be their
liaison to the Economic Development Commission since Vice Chair Monroe has been elected to serve as Chair of the Board
in 2018.
Chair Rubenkonig said she was asked a while back how the Board got along. Her reply was the Board got along amazingly
well considering how little time they have to visit with each other and then being precluded from gathering in a group larger
than three people. She expressed her belief that camaraderie has happened as the Board Members have practiced respect and
tolerance for each other's opinions. This has been noticed, and the Board is recognized for providing a voice for issues
concerning the community. She thanked the Board Members for allowing her to lead in the way she is most capable.
Encouraging participation, actively listening to the public, appreciating the support and input from staff, and accepting
direction from the City Council were all priorities for her, and she values the Board's help in achieving so much in 2017. She
said she welcomed Vice Chair Monroe's backing and is confident in his ability to lead the Board in 2018. The Board is also
fortunate that Board Member Cheung has agreed to assist him as Vice Chair.
PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
Vice Chair Monroe thanked Chair Rubenkonig for her service as Chair throughout 2017.
ADJOURNMENT
The Board meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m.
Planning Board Minutes
December 13, 2017 Page 7