2019-08-21 Architectural Design Board Packet1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
ti3 f!}:qr
Agenda
Edmonds Architectural Design Board
't j4yx COUNCIL CHAMBERS
250 5TH AVE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020
AUGUST 21, 2019, 7:00 PM
CALL TO ORDER
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1. Approval of Draft Minutes of August 7, 2019
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
MINOR PROJECTS
PUBLIC HEARINGS
CONSOLIDATED PERMIT APPLICATIONS
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS / ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION
1. Continued Discussion on Roles of ADB
ADB MEMBER COMMENTS
ADJOURNMENT
Edmonds Architectural Design Board Agenda
August 21, 2019
Page 1
2.1
Architectural Design Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 08/21/2019
Approval of Draft Minutes of August 7, 2019
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:
ADB190807d
Packet Pg. 2
2.1.a
CITY OF EDMONDS
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD
Minutes of Regular Meeting
August 7, 2019
Chair Herr called the meeting of the Architectural Design Board to order at 7:00 p.m., in the City Council Chambers,
250 - 5' Avenue North, Edmonds, Washington.
Board Members Present Board Members Absent Staff Present
Joe Herr, Chair Maureen Jeude Kemen Lien, Environmental Program Manager
Lauri Strauss, Vice Chair Mike Clugston, Senior Planner
Kim Bayer (arrived at 8:00)
Cary Guenther (arrived at 7:10)
Bruce Owensby
Tom Walker
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
VICE CHAIR STRAUSS MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF JULY 3, 2019 BE APPROVED AS
SUBMITTED. BOARD MEMBER OWENSBY SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
VICE CHAIR STRAUSS MOVED THAT THE AGENDA BE ACCEPTED AS PRESENTED. BOARD
MEMBER OWENSBY SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
REQUESTS FROM THE AUDIENCE:
There were no audience comments during this part of the agenda.
MINOR PROJECTS
No minor projects were scheduled on the agenda.
PUBLIC HEARING: Phase 2 District -Based Design Review for Grauhite Arts Studios #1 and #2 Located at 202
Main Street and 117 2"d Avenue S (PLN20190009
Chair Herr explained that tonight is Phase 2 of the design review hearing for the Graphite Arts Studio Project that began
on June 5, 2019. He reviewed that, at the June meeting the Board took a first look at the project, received initial
testimony and prioritized the Design Guidelines Checklist for the applicant to take and make improvements to the
proposal. At the Phase 2 hearing, the Board will review the applicant's revisions and take additional testimony from the
staff, applicant and the public. If the Board requires additional information to make a decision, a specific request will be
made to the applicant, and the public hearing will again be continued to a date certain. However, if the Board finds that
the record is complete, it will close the public hearing, deliberate and make a decision on the proposal. If members of the
Architectural Design Board Meeting
Minutes of Regular Meeting
August 7, 2019
Page 1 of 13
Packet Pg. 3
2.1.a
public want the opportunity to speak at any fixture appeal of the matter and did not testify on June 5d' or did not submit
written comments, they will need to testify at this hearing. At his invitation, all those who wanted to participated in the
hearing (excluding those who testified at the Phase 1 hearing on June 5d') were asked to stand and be sworn in. No one
stood. Chair Herr briefly reviewed the rules and procedures for the hearing and invited Mr. Clugston to present the Staff
Report.
Mr. Clugston advised that the proposed project would be located at the southwest corner of Main Street and 2nd Avenue
S. The Marvel Marble building has been removed, and both lots are gravel at this time. He provided an aerial
photograph to illustrate the location of the subject parcels, as well as adjacent properties. He also provided a picture
looking east towards the site. The site is generally level, with a slight slope from east to west. He noted that most or all
of the utility lines shown in the picture would be removed as part of the project.
Mr. Clugston explained that Graphite I will be a 1-story, 11,000-square-foot structure at the corner of Main Street and
2' Avenue S. It will house art studios, a gallery, a cafe and parking behind the building. Graphite 2 will be a 2-story,
17,000-square-foot structure at 117 — 2nd Avenue S. It will house 8 apartments over flex space and parking.
Mr. Clugston referred to the criteria the Board must consider when reviewing the application. In order to approve the
application, the Board must find that it is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance, the Design Objectives in the
Comprehensive Plan and the Design Standards in ECDC 22.43. He reviewed that, on June 5', the Board talked about
how the proposal was consistent with the Zoning Ordinance as far as height, setbacks, ground -floor depth requirements,
parking, open space, etc. During his presentation, he will explain how the proposal would meet the Design Objectives
and Design Standards.
Mr. Clugston explained that there are a host of objectives in the Comprehensive Plan that guide design in the downtown
area. The objectives are more aspirational, and the intent is that proposals should address the objectives as best possible.
He provided a site plan for Graphite 1 and reviewed how it would meet the Design Objectives as follows:
• Vehicular Access and Parking. The goal is to move parking off the street front and eliminate curb cuts. The
applicant is proposing to locate parking at the southeast corner of the building off the two alleyways. There will
be no curb cuts on either Main Street or 2' Avenue S, and one existing curb cut will be removed. The building
will be located right at the street front, and vehicles access and parking will be minimized to the extent possible.
• Pedestrian Access and Connections. Because the building will front the street, its primary entry will be on
Main Street. The entryway will be level with the sidewalk and recessed just a bit.
• Building Entry Location. Because Main Street is a Designated Street Front, the entry must be at the sidewalk
level.
• Building Setbacks. The intent is for buildings to appear to frame the street, and the proposed building
accomplishes that goal. There will be some recessed areas, such as the terraces on the northeast and northwest
corners. The pedestrian entrance at the center off of Main Street will also be slightly recessed.
• Art and Public Spaces. This objective indicates that, to the extent possible, art, street furniture, etc. should be
located within the sidewalk area to activate the street front. The applicant is proposing street trees in grates, but
no art, benches, flower baskets, etc. are shown. Staff is recommending a condition that will require the
applicant to include street furniture, hanging baskets, etc. to the extent possible.
• Building/Site Identity. This objective has to do with whether or not the building contributes to the identify of
the site and the area. He provided an illustration of the northwest corner of the proposed building (Main Street
and 2' Avenue S) and said he believes the proposal accomplishes this objective. He pointed out that the new
Post Office Building and the Harbor Building are located on the corner, too, and the proposed new building will
be an interesting addition.
• Signage. No signage has been proposed as part of the project.
• Building Height. Building height should be minimized and broken up, which the proposed building will do.
The zoning standards limit height to a maximum of 30 feet, and the building will be approximately 28 feet tall.
Architectural Design Board Meeting
Minutes of Regular Meeting
August 7, 2019
Page 2 of 13
Packet Pg. 4
2.1.a
• Window Variety and Articulation. Rather than using the same stock windows over and over, the objective
encourages the use of different window forms and shapes. The proposed building accomplishes this objective.
Because it has a 75% transparency requirement on both Main Street and 2" d Avenue S, a lot of glass is required.
• Massing. The intent is to reduce massing by discouraging large, blank walls. The building will be set back a
little way from the sidewalk, and it will be broken up both vertically and horizontally.
• Building Fagade. Proposed building materials include exposed wood, with masonry plinths on the bottom.
Corten siding will be used on both buildings.
• Weather Protection. The goal is to protect pedestrians on the sidewalks and at the entries. The applicant is
proposing a series of roof forms and projections over the entries to provide some weather protection for people
on the sidewalk.
Next, Mr. Clugston explained how the Design Objectives in the Comprehensive Plan dovetail with the Downtown
Business (BD) Design Standards. He described how the project is consistent with the following standards:
• Massing and Articulation. The intent is to avoid blank walls, flat roofs, etc. Graphite 1 will be single story,
with a few vertical projections. There will also be articulation coming out to the sidewalk and then falling back
to the entries.
• Orientation to Street. All three entrances (cafe, terrace and primary) will be at street level.
• Ground Level Details. The project includes a variety of detail at the ground level, including masonry, Corten
siding, and exposed wood. The storefront windows will present well to pedestrians.
• Awnings/Canopies and Signage. No signage is being proposed at this time. The roof forms in this particular
project (larger than typical eaves and angled roof projections over the entries) will provide weather protection.
• Transparency at Street Level. The building is required to provide 75% transparency on the Main Street and
2' Avenue S facades. The applicant provided a calculation for the Main Street fagade that meets this
requirement, but no calculation has been provided for the 2' Avenue S side. A condition has been proposed to
address this requirement as part of the Building Permit process.
• Treating Blank Walls. There will be no blank walls facing the streets. At the last meeting, there was some
discussion that the blank wall at the left edge of the building is a possible place for art. The Board may want to
add a condition requiring the applicant to include art or something else to dress up the wall a bit.
• HVAC. The HVAC equipment will be located on top of the building rather than at street level. It will be
hidden behind the vertical projections on the roof at the southeast corner of the building.
Mr. Clugston provided a site plan for Graphite 2. He explained that because the buildings are fairly similar in their
design and location, they address the Design Objectives and Design Standards in a similar fashion. The main difference
is that there is no ground -floor, street -front requirement. He reviewed how Graphite 2 would meet the Design Objectives
as follows:
• Vehicular Access and Parking. The applicant is proposing to provide access to the building via the alleyway,
and the existing curb cut at the southwest corner will be eliminated.
• Pedestrian Access and Connections. The entry on the left edge of the building will be slightly recessed from
the sidewalk.
• Building Entry Location. The building entry will be up a couple of steps.
• Building Setbacks. Both of the proposed new buildings, as well as the existing building to the south are at the
property line, creating a visual cue.
• Art and Public Spaces. Tree grates are shown in the sidewalk, but a proposed condition would require that
hanging baskets or street furniture should be added if there is available space to activate the sidewalk area.
• Building/Site Identity. The Graphite 2 design is very similar to Graphite 1. However, the ground floor will not
necessarily be commercial, and there will be residential above.
• Signage. No signage has been proposed as part of the project.
Architectural Design Board Meeting
Minutes of Regular Meeting
August 7, 2019
Page 3 of 13
Packet Pg. 5
2.1.a
• Building Height. The building height will be between 28 and 29 feet, which is below the 30-foot maximum
height for the BD2 zone.
• Window Variety and Articulation. The same theme is used throughout, including recessed entries, heavy
roof forms, punched -up forms on the north and south ends of the building, etc.
• Massing. Massing is reduced by the proposed design, which provides articulation, as well.
• Building FaVade. The same types of materials will be used for both buildings.
• Weather Protection. Again, the series of roof forms and projections over the entries will provide some
weather protection for people on the sidewalk.
Next, Mr. Clugston explained how the Design Objectives in the Comprehensive Plan dovetail with the Downtown
Business (BD) Design Standards. He described how the project is consistent with the following standards:
• Massing and Articulation. The design of Graphite 2 is consistent with the design for Graphite 1 and both
adequately address massing and articulation.
• Orientation to Street. Graphite 2 will be oriented towards the street, and the pedestrian area will be right on 2'
Avenue S. Vehicular access will come from the alleyway.
• Ground Level Details. The ground level details will be similar to Graphite 1, which uses a base, with a band in
the middle and strong roof forms on the top.
• Awnings/Canopies and Signage. No signage is being proposed at this time. The roof forms in this particular
project (larger than typical eaves and angled roof projections over the entries) will provide weather protection.
• Transparency at Street Level. This requirement is not applicable to Graphite 2. However, the applicant is
proposing a lot of windows, using the same forms as Graphite 1.
• Treating Blank Walls. This requirement is not applicable to Graphite 2.
• HVAC. The HVAC equipment will be located on top of the building rather than at street level. It will be
hidden behind the south vertical element on the roof behind the elevator penthouse.
Mr. Clugston recommended the Board approve the project as proposed with the following conditions:
1. The hazardous materials plan in Exhibit 11 must be implemented with the building permit and
construction of Graphite 1 at 202 Main Street. The first iteration of the project included some underground
parking, which would have required a lot more digging. The current proposal does not have that. However, the
Department of Ecology still wants to see the plan implemented because some work may need to be done on the
underground storage tanks during the development process.
2. Hanging baskets and street furniture must be provided on Main Street and 21 Avenue if there is
sufficient room between other required frontage improvements and utilities. This condition is intended to
provide more interest on the street front.
3. Provide a 75% transparency window calculation for the 2" d Avenue S facade of Graphite 1 consistent
with ECDC 22.43.050.B. This is a code requirement, and staff included it as a condition to provide clarity to
the applicant.
4. Staff will verify compliance with the proposal with all relevant codes and land use permit conditions
through review of building and engineering permits. Minor changes to the approved design may be
approved by staff at the time of building permit without further design review by the Board as long as
the design is substantially similar to that originally approved. This condition will allow staff to approve
small design changes. Significant changes will be brought back to the Board for review and approval.
Bob Gregg, Project Manager and the Applicant's Representative, said the applicant agrees with information
provided in the Staff Report, including the recommended conditions. He advised that he and Dave Pelletier, Pelletier +
Architectural Design Board Meeting
Minutes of Regular Meeting
August 7, 2019
Page 4 of 13
Packet Pg. 6
2.1.a
Schaar Architects, were prepared to respond to the comments and questions that were raised by the Board at the last
meeting:
The Board asked if the Corten material would drip and leave stains. Mr. Gregg explained that, in most
places, the bottom edge of the Corten panels is over landscaping or planter boxes, which will prevent rust stains
from occurring. However, there are a few areas where it could be an issue, so changes were made to prevent
this from happening. The design has been updated so there is a drip strip along the sidewalk abutting the
building. He pointed out that the portion of the sidewalk next to the building will actually be owned by the
applicant and not the City.
A question was raised about whether or not Corten an appropriate material given the climate. Mr.
Gregg explained that there are two conditions where Corten can have problems. One is in corrosive
atmospheres (acid rain) and the International Standards Organization (ISO) has conducted a worldwide
atmospheric exposure program that created a classification system for the effective atmosphere corrosivity on
various metals, including steel and weathering steel, which Corten is. He provided a map that was produced by
ISO to illustrate the corrosive categories that were created. Per the map, Edmonds is in the second lowest
corrosive category, and the corrosive weight of weathering steel in this zone is less than 1 mm per 100 years.
The proposed panels will be between 4 and 5 mm thick, and will be held on with fasteners. The panels will be
accessible and removal, so defective ones can be pulled and replaced.
Mr. Gregg explained that salinity is another concern for Corten. According to the ISO, there are three different
categories of solidity, and Edmonds is in a combination of S-1 and S-2, and Corten is only not recommended in
subtropical climates and S-3 categories, which Edmonds is not. He said he also sought feedback from the
developer of the new Waterfront Center, who has installed nearly 1 million square feet of Corten, and learned
that it works well in the Seattle area. In addition, he spoke with a homeowner about ten houses down from the
ferry terminal on the beach in Clinton. His home uses a lot of Corten and is holding up very well right on the
beach.
Vice Chair Strauss and Board Member Owenby thanked Mr. Gregg for his research. However, Board
Member Owensby said he was still concerned about the drip edge. From his personal experience, drip edges
work well when there is no breeze. But if there is any breeze, the rust may end up staining whatever is below it.
He asked if there is a treatment that would keep the rust from penetrating into the concrete or slate. Mr. Gregg
responded that where the Corten comes straight down to the sidewalk and will create a stain, the design team
has recommended cleaning procedures to stay ahead of it so the stains do not become permanent.
• There were comments that the window tops were uneven. Mr. Pelletier said the design has been changed to
align all of the windows on both buildings.
• It was suggested that the northwest corner of Graphite I (corner of Main Street and 21 Avenue S)
should be made more open and transparent. Mr. Pelletier said the design has been updated to change the
solid planter to an open steel railing that will be painted.
Board Members wanted to know what the buildings would look like together. Mr. Pelletier advised that
an additional elevation was provided to show how the two buildings will appear together.
Larry Luke, Edmonds, said he was present to represent the owners of the 3rd Avenue Condominiums, which is the
building directly across the alley on the west side of proposed Graphite 1. He also represents Betty Luke. He said he
attended the June 51 meeting, where the height of Graphite 2 was stated as 26 feet. He asked why the building height
was increased to 29.5 feet. He voiced concern that his view would be impaired by the proposed new building.
Architectural Design Board Meeting
Minutes of Regular Meeting
August 7, 2019
Page 5 of 13
Packet Pg. 7
2.1.a
Mr. Gregg responded that the building height has not physically changed since the last meeting. He suggested that
perhaps the 26 feet referenced by Mr. Luke is the absolute height, which is measured above the average elevation of the
native ground. The 29.5-foot height would just be to the highest peaks (shed roofs), so the entire middle part of the
building will be significantly lower. He reminded the Board that the allowed height limit is 30 feet. He answered a
question raised by Mr. Luke at the Phase 1 hearing by saying that there would be no air conditioning for the apartments.
The only HVAC unit on Graphite 2 will be for the commercial space in the front of the building, and it will be hidden
between the elevator shaft and the back of the front projection. Mr. Luke will not be able to see or hear this small
14VAC unit.
At the request of Vice Chair Strauss, Mr. Gregg confirmed that the middle portion of the building, which is directly
across the alley from Mr. Luke's property, would be 6 to 7 feet lower. Vice Chair Strauss summarized that the middle
portion of the building would be between 22 and 23 feet high. Mr. Clugston referred to Sheet GO.10 (Page 41 of the
Staff Report), which shows the height calculations for the building. He said he misspoke earlier, and the actual building
height will be just a bit over 27 feet. He emphasized that the building height has not changed since the Phase I hearing.
Lauren Ruskauff, Pelletier + Schaar, explained that they recalculated the average grade and that which changed the
absolute height.
Mr. Luke voiced concern about the gutter system proposed for containing the stormwater runoff. Mr. Gregg responded
that the current proposal required extensive engineering, including addressing stonnwater. The stormwater report for the
project is several hundred pages long and meets all of the state code requirements. The water must go into the detention
vault on site and will then be released at a certain rate.
Mr. Luke asked if the roof would be accessible via the interior for maintenance, and Mr. Gregg answered yes. Mr. Luke
asked if the roof would be accessible to the renters, and Mr. Gregg answered no. He said the access to the roof would be
locked and the renters would not have an access key. He said they could add to the lease agreement that tenants are not
allowed on the roof of the building. Mr. Luke observed that there is a problem in Edmonds with seagulls and crows
leaving fecal matter and food on roofs. Mr. Gregg explained that the roof has to be kept clean to maintain its reflectivity
so it can meet energy goals and targets.
Mr. Luke said he is concerned about the accumulation of debris and dust on decks during construction. He asked what
could be done to mitigate construction impacts. Mr. Gregg said the applicant has not signed a contract with the builder
yet, but they have worked with the company before. They are very sensitive to issues such as noise, dust, etc. Mr. Luke
commented that access to the existing parking garage via the alley needs to be maintained. Mr. Gregg explained that,
typically with property -line -to -property -line development, the sidewalk and parking strip are closed during construction,
and the applicant's builder can work with the adjacent property owners to find a workable solution for the alley access.
Mr. Luke asked if the applicant would provide any security measures to ensure safety around the proposed development
and within the new parking garage. Mr. Gregg answered yes. He explained that the garage door would have solid
ground rails that will allow air to get through, but it won't be possible to cut through them with a bolt cutter. Mr. Luke
asked for clarification about the HVAC equipment that would be located on the rooftop of Graphite 2, and Mr. Gregg
explained that there would be an HVAC unit for the commercial space located west of the elevator tower and east of the
shed. There will be no HVAC units for the apartment units.
Mr. Luke asked how the applicant would prevent trash and graffiti and homeless people from camping out between the
Graphite 2 Building and the existing adjacent building. Mr. Gregg answered that a CMU wall would be constructed
right on the property line, and the adjacent building is very close to the property line, as well. There would be very little
space for access, and a fence could be provided to keep people out.
Board Member Owensby asked if the building construction would be slab on grade or if there would be a crawl space.
Mr. Gregg answered that both buildings would be slab on grade.
Architectural Design Board Meeting
Minutes of Regular Meeting
August 7, 2019
Page 6 of 13
Packet Pg. 8
2.1.a
Chair Herr closed the public testimony portion of the hearing and invited the Board to begin deliberations.
Vice Chair Strauss asked about the grey material that would be used on the back portion of the building. Mr. Gregg
answered that it would be hardy plank. He recalled the Board's earlier suggestion that the wall would be a great place
for a mural. He noted that there is already a mural across the alleyway closer to Main Street. Vice Chair Strauss asked
what color the hardy plank would be painted, and Mr. Gregg answered a brownish color to compliment the Corten.
VICE CHAIR STRAUSS MOVED THAT THE BOARD ADOPT THE FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND
ANALYSIS OF THE STAFF REPORT; FIND THAT THE GRAHITE ART STUDIOS PROPOSAL IS
CONSISTENT WITH THE ZONING ORDINANCE, THE DESIGN OBJECTIVES OF THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, THE DESIGN CRITERIA IDENTIFIED DURING PHASE 1 OF THE PUBLIC
HEARING, AND THE DESIGN STANDARDS OF ECDC 22.43; AND APPROVE THE PROPOSAL WITH
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. THE HAZARDOUS MATERIALS PLAN IN EXHIBIT 11 MUST BE IMPLEMENTED WITH THE
BUILDING PERMIT AND CONSTRUCTION OF GRAPHITE 1 AT 202 MAIN STREET.
2. HANGING BASKETS AND STREET FURNITURE MUST BE PROVIDED ON MAIN STREET
AND 2ND AVENUE SOUTH IF THERE IS SUFFICIENT ROOM BETWEEN OTHER REQUIRED
FRONTAGE IMPROVEMENTS AND UTILITIES.
3. PROVIDE A 75% TRANSPARENCY WINDOW CALCULATION FOR THE 2ND AVENUE SOUTH
FACADE OF GRAPHITE 1 CONSISTENT WITH ECDC 22.43.050.B.
4. STAFF WILL VERIFY COMPLIANCE OF THE PROPOSAL WITH ALL RELEVANT CODES
AND LAND USE PERMIT CONDITIONS THROUGH REVIEW OF BUILDING AND
ENGINEERING PERMITS. MINOR CHANGES TO THE APPROVED DESIGN MAY BE
APPROVED BY STAFF AT THE TIME OF BUILDING PERMIT WITHOUT FURTHER DESIGN
REVIEW BY THE BOARD AS LONG AS THE DESIGN IS SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR TO THAT
ORIGINALLY APPROVED.
BOARD MEMBER GUENTHER SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Chair Herr commended the applicant's representatives for doing a great job addressing the Board's concerns and
questions. He commented that the elevation looks better without the staggered windows.
CONSOLIDATED PERMIT APPLICATIONS (No Public Participation):
There were no consolidated permit applications.
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTSATEMS FOR DISCUSSION
Ouasi-Judicial Decision Presentation by the City Attorney
Mr. Clugston invited the Board Members to attend a meeting on August 21' where the City Attorney would talk to them
about quasi-judicial decisions. They could also continue their discussion regarding the ADB's role in design review and
the design review process, itself. The Board is scheduled to meet jointly with the Planning Board on September I I`
This will enable the Planning Board to present the Architectural Design Board's recommendations to the City Council at
their joint meeting on September 24'. Mr. Lien noted that the Board also has a regularly scheduled meeting on
September 4.
Architectural Design Board Meeting
Minutes of Regular Meeting
August 7, 2019
Page 7 of 13
Packet Pg. 9
2.1.a
Ten -Year Review of ADB Projects
Mr. Clugston reviewed that the Board has had recent discussions about how projects have changed between design
review and project completion. The purpose of this discussion is to review past projects and consider how well they
stack up against what the Board felt it approved. The intent is to apply the lessons learned in this exercise to new codes
and standards going forward.
Mr. Lien advised that, including the projects currently under review, the Board has reviewed 38 major projects over the
past 10 years. Major projects are those that require State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review. For each of the
projects, he pulled the design drawings that were presented to the Board and took pictures of what was actually built.
Given the City's intent to adopt design standards specific to multifamily projects, he suggested the Board pay particular
attention to the multifamily developments included in the presentation. He reviewed the following projects:
• File Number PLN20090021 is an Olympic View Water and Sewer District Project on Edmonds Way
• File Number PLN 0100044 is a cover on a crosswalk for the Interurban Trail. The Board reviewed the
overall design, including the crosswalk, park area and signage.
File Number PLN20100054 was a Columbia Bank Project that was never constructed. The bank was to be
located on the gravel parking lot next to the gas station on Edmonds Way. The bank abandoned the project due
to a utility easement in the parking lot and stormwater from the subdivision on top running down through the
site. At the time of application, the site was zoned Community Business — Edmonds Way (BC-EW) but was
later rezoned to Westgate Mixed Use (WMU). A number of developers attempted to develop the site under the
WMU zoning, but found it was too restrictive. For example, there is a certain elevation in the WMU zone that
you can't build past, and that was way down on the flat part of the property. This restriction meant a developer
couldn't count anything above that line to meet the open space/amenity space requirements. The property was
rezoned back to BC-EW but remains a gravel parking lot.
• File Number PLN20100075 is the Woodhaven Veterinary Building on Edmonds Way.
File Number PLN20110007 is the GRE multifamily development on Edmonds Way. The project generated
a lot of public comment. When the project was constructed, the setbacks were 10 feet from the property line.
Some people felt the building was too close to Edmonds Way and the zoning was changed to require a deeper
setback. The height limit was also adjusted. The GRE project was one of the first with a landscape strip
between the building and the sidewalk along Edmonds. When the project was completed, the trees in the
landscape strip were much smaller and the building seemed imposing on Edmonds Way. However, as the
landscaping has matured, the building blends in well and doesn't feel quite as imposing. Moving forward, staff
plans to take pictures right after a project is constructed, and then follow up with additional pictures a few years
later after the landscaping has matured.
Board Member Owensby asked for additional information behind the feeling that the building needed to be 10
feet further back from street. Was the intent to create a greater landscape strip between the sidewalk and street
or between the sidewalk and the building? Mr. Lien answered that the concern was less about a landscape strip
and more about the building, itself, being too close to the street. Some people felt it was too imposing. Mr.
Clugston added that the code, then and now, included incentives for an extra level of height. The developer
took advantage of this incentive to get another floor, and many were concerned about such a tall building being
located so close to Westgate.
Architectural Design Board Meeting
Minutes of Regular Meeting
August 7, 2019
Page 8 of 13
Packet Pg. 10
2.1.a
• File Number PLN20110044 is the Swedish Cancer Institute on Highway 99 in front of the hospital. The
project was changed slightly from what was approved during design review. While the horizontal bands were
included in the project, they are a different color than what was shown on the image.
File Number PLN20119961 is the Key Bank on the corner of Edmonds Way and 100' Avenue, which was
constructed under an interim zoning ordinance. The City was in the process of adopting the Westgate Subarea
Plan, and the interim zoning ordinance allowed projects to be constructed within 8 feet of the property line,
which is closer than what the current WMU zone allows. The building has received a lot of comments due to its
orientation to the corner rather than either Edmonds Way or 100'' Avenue. However, the final product is
consistent with the design that was approved by the ADB and the code standards in place at the time.
• File Number PLN20110076 is the Walgreens that was also constructed under the interim zoning ordinance.
The project was controversial because it required demolition of the bowling alley. There has been some talk
about potential redevelopment on the parking lot that is shared by both Walgreens and the PCC Market.
Board Member Bayer asked who is responsible for reviewing and approving the ingress and egress for each
project. Mr. Lien answered that internal circulation is within the Board's purview when reviewing applications,
and there are design standards that talk about circulation between properties. When the Walgreens Project was
reviewed, the City requested a wider access around the back of the building to accommodate two lanes, provide
better circulation, and be consistent with the City's vision for the Westgate area. Although not required by the
interim zoning, the developer accepted this revision.
• File Number PLN20110076 was originally intended to be a bank building. The bank was never constructed,
and the project ended up being a Starbucks. The project did not come back to the Board for additional design
review because the project was underneath the SEPA threshold. However, the applicant had to obtain a
Conditional Use Permit to change the drive thru circulation.
File Number PLN20130002 is the McDonalds on State Route 104. For the most part, the building is
consistent with what the Board approved. However, the back piece by the drive thru might not be as tall as
depicted in the plan. This was likely a result of a zoning height issue.
File Number PLN20130022 is Building 10 of the Point Edwards Development. The plan that was originally
approved by the Board was never constructed. Prior to this project, the staff report provided a general overview
of how a project met the design standards. When this project was appealed, the attorney representing the City
Council pointed out that the Board's decision was not based on any criteria. The project was remanded back to
the Board for additional review and a decision based on specific criteria. The project was ultimately appealed to
Superior Court, which resulted in a number of settlement agreements between the existing Point Edwards
Development, Woodway and residential property owners behind, and a revised project was presented to the
Board for design review.
Board Members Guenther and Walker indicated that they both participated in this design review, which was
controversial. Mr. Lien recalled that the original design for Building 10 was different than the other nine
buildings that had already been constructed, and there was concern that it included too many units. The
residents in the other nine buildings voiced concern that the design was inconsistent with what was depicted at
the time they purchased their properties. Board Member Guenther added that the entire Point Edwards
Development was master planned, with a specific number of units allowed. Building 10 was redesigned to
accommodate all of the remaining units allowed on the site. Instead of the large, townhouse condominiums, the
applicant proposed apartment units for Building 10. Mr. Lien clarified that Building 10 was constructed by a
different developer, is separate from the rest of the Point Edwards Development and is governed by a separate
homeowner's association.
Architectural Design Board Meeting
Minutes of Regular Meeting
August 7, 2019
Page 9 of 13
Packet Pg. 11
2.1.a
Mr. Lien said the final project includes 68 condominium units as opposed to the originally proposed 85.
Consistent with the settlement agreement, additional on -street parking was provided and the overall height was
adjusted to protect the view of an uphill property owner in Woodway. The building design is also more
consistent with the other nine buildings.
Mr. Lien summarized that, as a result of this project and its associated appeals, the Board Chair now reads a
script to ensure that the public hearing procedures are carefully followed. In addition, staff now prepares more
detailed staff reports that outline the specific findings and conclusions. If the Board disagrees with any of the
findings, they must clearly state that when making a motion.
• File Number PLN20130027 is the Animal Hospital on 5t' Avenue.
• File Number PLN20130046 is the Post Office Phase I project at 2nd Avenue Sand Bell Street.
• File Number PLN20130062 is the Swedish Hospital Parking Garage. Two sides of the project are
landscaped well, and the parking garage is hidden. Although consistent with the plan, one side doesn't have as
much landscaping.
• File Number PLN20130066 is the Brackett Court Development on 212' Street. The Board could refer to
this project when considering potential multifamily design standards and how a project presents to the street. In
this situation, the street presence could be significantly improved. Board Member Guenther recalled that when
the project was first presented for design review, the elevations facing the street were even plainer. Board
Member Owenby asked if there has been any discussion about having a maximum plate height that allows
more leeway for roof design. Mr. Lien responded that, with this particular project, height led to some other
issues that were unrelated to design review. The project is located in the Multifamily Residential (RM) zone,
which has a 30-foot height limit. Structures greater than 25 feet must have a 4:12 roof pitch. The developer
really wanted an overall height of 33 to 35 feet to accommodate taller ceiling heights. Because the City
measures height from the average existing grade, the developer was able to get this additional height by grading
down 3 to 4 feet. However, some tree roots were severed during the grading process, and that led to some other
issues with an adjacent property owner who didn't receive notice because he purchased his property after the
project had gone through the design review and building permit processes. His concern about how the grading
would impact his trees led to some court cases. At this time, the trees are still standing and appear to be healthy.
Board Member Owensby said he understands the need for height restrictions to protect views. However, the
City's 25-foot height requirement places limitations on roof design and results in extraordinarily boring
consistency throughout the City. Again, he asked if the City has considered the option of having a maximum
plate height, but allowing a little bit taller rooves. Mr. Lien said the Downtown Business (BD) zones have had
the same overall height limit for a long time, but what can be done above 25 feet has changed over the years.
The Planning Manager has a good presentation that illustrates development in Edmonds throughout the years
given the changing building and design standards. He cautioned that there is not a lot of public support for
increasing the height limits at this time. Board Member Guenther said that, when he served on the Planning
Board, there was a recommendation to increase the height in the BD zones by three feet, and there was a lot of
opposition. The current building height limitation create situations where building entries have to be pushed
below grade in order to accommodate three floors, and that is not really an optimal situation. He summarized
that building heights is a very touchy issue in the City of Edmonds.
Board Member Owenby asked if adjusting building heights outside of the downtown bowl would receive less
push back because views would not be impacted. Mr. Clugston said the same 25-foot height limit has existed
across the entire City since 1980, and it is right to talk about it. Oftentimes, the concern are less about height
Architectural Design Board Meeting
Minutes of Regular Meeting
August 7, 2019
Page 10 of 13
Packet Pg. 12
2.1.a
and more about appearance. No one wants a 30-foot blank wall, and it makes sense to use modulation and
different rooflines to make the buildings interact better with the street front. Staff would like to review the
design standards for multifamily zones with the Board to identify changes that would result in better
development.
Mr. Lien advised that the City Council is in the process of forming a Housing Task Force, and increasing the
height limit in some areas of the City where views are not an issue could be one option for increasing density.
He pointed out that the maximum height limit is 75 feet along Highway 99, and there is also a high-rise node
along Highway 99 that allows development above 75 feet. Mr. Clugston commented that it would be nice to
have better design standards for the small infill development that is typical in Edmonds.
• File Number PLN20130070 is the Jacobsen's Marine Building at the Port of Edmonds. Board Member
Guenther recalled that the Board requested that the applicant use a different material to create a base, middle and
top. The brick that was added at the bottom improved the appearance of the overall building.
• File Number PLN20130070 is the Prestige Care Building on 76' Avenue W near the high school.
• File Number PLN 20140002 is the Swedish Edmonds Hospital Addition. The materials in this project
provided a lot of texture to the design, which adds to the pedestrian scale of the building.
• File Number PLN 20140009 is Jenna Lane, a multifamily development on 240' Street. Mr. Clugston pointed
out that this project is a good example of why the City needs to adopt better design standards for multifamily
projects. He recalled that the developer was not really interested in working with the Board during design
review. He presented a super vanilla plan, and they were only able to convince him to make some very minor
changes. Board Member Guenther pointed out that the applicant's drawing did not show the stepped -down
garage doors.
• File Number PLN20140065 is the Old Woodway High School Playfields. Two fields were proposed in
phases, and the ADB approved Phase I. The project required a number of permits, including design review,
conditional use and variance.
File Number PLN20150016 is the Post Office Phase 2 Development at the corner of Main Street and 2"d
Avenue S. This project is nearing completion. Board Member Bayer asked if the Board provided any pushback
on this project. Mr. Clugston answered that the project uses a similar design as Phase 1, and he doesn't
remember a great deal of back and forth between the applicant and the Board. Board Member Guenther said the
Board spoke to the applicant about the need to create a more inviting pedestrian/outdoor space that will be part
of the connection from the roundabout to the ferry dock. The grade difference is unfortunate because it requires
people to walk to the corner before entering the site. Board Member Bayer said it seems there is a lot of
congestion and confusion with the Post Office down the street, and she would have liked to see more
pedestrian -friendly spaces. Mr. Lien explained that on -site circulation is within the Board's purview to address,
but the Board has a lesser role in addressing off -site circulation on public streets and sidewalks. Mr. Clugston
agreed that it is difficult to locate the parking access and people are still trying to get used to the changes.
Vice Chair Strauss commented that there is a significant difference between what was approved by the Board
and what is actually being constructed. For example, the Board -approved design included pop -ups on the roofs,
but the actual building has flat rooflines. The balconies were also changed from glass to metal, and building
modulation changed, too. Mr. Clugston pointed out that the railings were metal in the Board -approved design,
too. Board Member Owensby asked if the high-level of modulation was required by the code, and Mr. Clugston
answered affirmatively. He explained that buildings are supposed to respect the historical building widths by
providing 30 to 60-foot breakups as you go along the street. The applicant tried to achieve that. With the
Architectural Design Board Meeting
Minutes of Regular Meeting
August 7, 2019
Page 11 of 13
Packet Pg. 13
2.1.a
exception of the 2" d Avenue S and Main Street corner where an additional 5 feet was allowed, the applicant ran
into height issues with the roof pop ups.
Board Member Owensby commented on the simplicity of the texture in downtown Edmonds where buildings
basically touch each other. While one may be different than the next, most do not have a lot of modulation
between them. He voiced his opinion that the required modulation creates too much visual chaos. He suggested
the Board consider whether changing textures and materials would be better than a lot of modulation. Mr. Lien
agreed this is something the Board could consider when reviewing potential design standards.
Mr. Lien recalled that one of the conditions for the Graphite 1 and 2 Project allows staff to approve some
alterations, as long as they are consistent with design review. He asked the Board Members to share their
thoughts about whether the Post Office Project is consistent with what was approved by the Board during design
review. He acknowledged that the building doesn't have quite the same modulation, but the applicant ran into
some zoning issues that required changes. He asked if the Board would want changes of this type to come back
for more design review before a Building Permit is issued. Vice Chair Strauss and Board Member Guenther
commented that the actual building is a lot different than what the Board approved, and the project should have
come back for additional design review. On the other hand, Board Member Walker felt the changes did not
warrant additional design review. Mr. Clugston suggested that perhaps projects should come back for more
design review if the modulation of a building is changed significantly.
Board Member Guenther commented that the Board reviews projects that are in varying stages of design, and
this may be a situation where the Board reviewed and granted design approval earlier in the design process
before the final drawings were available. Board Member Owensby suggested that, if the Board wants to be
involved earlier in the design process, it would be helpful for applicants to provide photographs of the adjacent
buildings so the Board can get a clear understanding of the street texture and scale. He recalled that, with the
project they reviewed earlier in the meeting, the applicant originally submitted separate drawings for each of the
buildings, and the Board requested a drawing showing the two buildings together. This helped the Board realize
that the buildings do not really relate to each other.
File Number PLN20150036 is the Beach Place Apartments on 3'd Avenue S and Edmonds Street. With this
project, the applicant requested multiple changes, and staff brought the project back to the Board for additional
design review. At the time of project approval, no parking was required for buildings in the BD zones with a
footprint of less than 4,800 square feet. No parking was required for this project, and a number of citizens raised
concerns. The code has since been changed to require 1 parking space per residential unit in the BD zones. No
parking is required for commercial development in the BD zones.
Board Member Owensby observed that the roof texture shown in the design drawings is not present on the
actual building. The fence texture changed, as well. Mr. Lien agreed but reminded the Board that they
conducted a second design review and approved the changes. He recalled that the project retained the existing
cinderblock building and tried to match the design to it.
• File Number PLN20150050 is the Brackett's Corner Project on 80' Avenue and 212' Street. While the
overall shape of the building is the same as what the Board approved, the fagade was changed significantly and
the middle window was eliminated. Chair Herr expressed his opinion that stone materials must be anchored to
the ground and should not be used higher up on buildings. The remainder of the Board concurred.
• File Number PLN20160027 is the Madrona School Project.
• File Number PLN20160053 was supposed to be the Edmonds Vista Apartments located behind the Denny's
Restaurant on Highway 99, but it was never built.
Architectural Design Board Meeting
Minutes of Regular Meeting
August 7, 2019
Page 12 of 13
Packet Pg. 14
2.1.a
• File Number PLN20160054 is the Westgate Village Development, a large multifamily complex. Removing
the orange wrapping from the building, as suggested by the Board, significantly reduced the massing of the
building and allowed it to blend better into the hillside.
• File Number PLN20160061 was supposed to be the Westgate Woods Development on Edmonds Way, but it
was never constructed.
• File Number PLN20170016 is the first version of the Graphite Project, but it was never constructed.
• File Number PLN20170017 is the Metzner Project on 2441 Street and is currently under construction.
• File Number PLN20170024 is the HomeStreet Bank Building on 5'' Avenue. The property changed
ownership, and the new owner has requested an extension.
• File Number PLN20170030 is a Marine Retail Building at the Port of Edmonds. The Port completed design
review for this project and obtained the required Shoreline Permit with the hope of enticing someone to
construct the building. So far, no one has come forward and the Port has asked for an extension.
• File Number PLN20180014 is the Edmonds Woodway High School Playfield Project is currently under
construction. They will be using a cork infill material on the field instead of crumb rubber.
• File Number PLN20180025 is the Paradise Lane Development, which is a multifamily residential project
that is currently under Building Permit review.
• File Number PLN20180040 is the Waterfront Center Project, which is currently under construction.
• File Number PLN20180069 is the Edmonds Crossing Apartments on Edmonds Way and is currently under
Building Permit review.
Mr. Lien advised that there are currently three projects undergoing design review at this time: Graphite 1 and 2, Main
Street Commons, and an 18-unit multifamily development on Edmonds Way. Board Member Guenther said there is
also a project on Highway 99 near 220' Street, but Mr. Lien advised that the Board does not review projects in the
General Commercial (CG) zone. Mr. Clugston said the project was originally intended to be a tear down and new
construction, but the developer ran into problems and decided to do an extensive remodel of the existing building.
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
Board Member Guenther commented that, at the joint meeting with the Planning Board, the discussion focused primarily
on the review process. While they came up with a lot of good ideas, they should also discuss opportunities to expand the
ADB's role in future updates to the design -related elements of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan. He would
also like the Board to be involved in discussions related to district -based zoning. Mr. Clugston agreed that this should be
part of the ADB's discussion with the Planning Board on September 11'h.
The meeting was adjourned at 8:57 p.m.
Architectural Design Board Meeting
Minutes of Regular Meeting
August 7, 2019
Page 13 of 13
Packet Pg. 15
8.1
Architectural Design Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 08/21/2019
Continued Discussion on Roles of ADB
Staff Lead: Rob Chave
Department: Planning Division
Prepared By: Rob Chave
Background/History
Most recently, on July 24th the ADB had a joint meeting with the Planning Board on this subject. See
Attachment 3.
Staff Recommendation
Develop a recommendation for presentation to the Planning Board (potentially on September 11, 2019).
Narrative
This is a continued discussion by the ADB regarding its specific role in design review and its broader role
in developing the guidance and standards necessary to guide building design in Edmonds. The goal is to
develop a consensus proposal to present to the Planning Board at a future joint meeting, tentatively
scheduled for September 11, 2019.
The City Attorney, Jeff Taraday, will be present at this work session to provide some additional context
on the limitations imposed by quasi-judicial decision making on design review and the Board's current
role in the process.
The City of Edmonds has had a design review process for decades. However, in 1993 a Washington
Appeals Court issued a decision in Anderson v. Issaquah (70 Wn. App. 64, 851 P.2d 744) which held that
generalized standards or guidelines were unconstitutionally vague. Since Issaquah's design code was
patterned after Edmonds', it was clear that the City had to change its approach to design review.
What followed has been a steady effort to provide more specificity and predictability in both the City's
design standards and in its design review process. A significant step in this process occurred on April 3,
2007, with the adoption of Ordinance #3636. This established the District -Based Design Review process
currently in Edmonds development code, with the intent that this would be the design review model
used for all development once specific design standards had been drafted for all areas of the city
(General Design Review would remain in effect for areas not covered by district -based design
standards).
Beyond the specificity envisioned for district -based design review, that process also included a two-
phase design review process, wherein the first stage was intended to occur early in the design of a new
project before its specific design solution was realized. The second phase would be a decision on the
"final" project design. In practice, this has not been happening; proponents have typically already
Packet Pg. 16
8.1
settled on most of their design solution before the first phase review is accomplished.
The ADB has consistently indicated a desire to provide design guidance earlier in the project review
cycle rather than making quasi-judicial decisions at the end of a project after it is fully designed. This is a
consequence of Anderson v. Issaquah, since discretion is clearly limited when making a quasi-judicial
design decision. As a board consisting mostly of design professionals, the best way of making use of that
expertise in the design of a project is to provide that advise and input early in the design process, not at
the end.
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 would also like to do post -hoc 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
development projects, both for individual projects and those located in specific districts. Attachment 1
is a presentation document outlining discussion by the ADB thus far, including potential roles the ADB
could focus on. Attachment 2 contains a flowchart depicting one option for how an updated design
review process could be structured, moving the ADB up in the process as well as removing it from the
quasi-judicial role (which is best fulfilled by the City's Hearing Examiner).
Attachments:
Attachment 1: Design review and the ADB - Aug 212019
Attachment 2: New Design Review Process Flowchart
Attachment 3: Minutes of July 24, 2019 Joint Meeting with Planning Board
Attachment 4: Previous ADB minutes
Packet Pg. 17
* 0V EDO
Design Review and the ADB
AUGUST 21, 1UIY
8.1.a
► To encourage the realization and conservation of a desirable and
aesthetic environment in the city of Edmonds;
► To encourage and promote development which features amenities and
excellence in the form of variations of siting, types of structures and
adaptation to and conservation of topography and other natural features;
► To encourage creative approaches to the use of land and related
physical developments;
► To encourage the enhancement and preservation of land or building of
unique or outstanding scenic or historical significance;
► To minimize incompatible and unsightly surroundings and visual blight
which prevent orderly community development and reduce community
property values.
[ECDC 20.10.000 — Purposes]
Packet Pg. 19
8.1.a
"...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 - Scope]
Packet Pg. 20
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 - Scope]
Packet Pg. 21
8.1.a
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
architectural design plan and the goals,
established design district.
the implementation of the comprehensive
objectives and policies for each
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.
[ECC 10.05.040, Ord. 1683 § 1, 1973]
Packet Pg. 22
8.1.a
► District -based design review in BD & CG zones (ECDC 20.12)
► General design review in all other zones (ECDC 20.11)
► ADB quasi-judicial decisions
► Projects where Environmental Determination (SEPA) is required (except Hwy 99)
► Public hearing w/notice (Type III -A)
► Staff decisions
► All other projects (including Hwy 99 buildings under 75 feet in height)
► No notice (Type 1)
Packet Pg. 23
8.1.a
The ADB has basically functioned as a strictly quasi-judicial decision making
body.
The
ADB
has very rarely
dealt with design standards and how design has - or
has
not -
worked within
the community.
Packet Pg. 24
8.1.a
► ADB has noticed that it has less meaningful input at the decision -making
level; there is a desire to participate much earlier in the project review
cycle where it can have more influence on building design. The board
would also like to review and influence the development of design
guidance and standards that are the primary drivers of how buildings are
designed
► Council Resolution 1367 (2016): update codes with the general goal to
remove quasi-judicial decision making from city council and other
volunteer boards
► Council revised their quasi-judicial participation in July 2019
Packet Pg. 25
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 special design districts.
► Review selected projects post -hoc 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. 26
8.1.a
► Review existing policy guidelines (in Comprehensive Plan) and standards
(ECDC) and update as necessary
► Create multifamily guidelines and standards
► Develop or modify special district design standards as needed
Packet Pg. 27
Projects that
Require SEPA Projects > 75' Projects that
(Outside HWY 991 0
in Height Within Do Not Require
Planned Area) HWY 99 Planned Area SEPA
Review Meeting
With ADB
(Not a Public
Hearing)
' Preapplication '
Meeting With ADB
(Not a Public
Hearing)
Development
Application to City
(May include Building
Permit)
Staff Report
SEPA /
Public
Hearing
Notice
Public Hearing
Type III -A
Hearing Examiner
Hearing Examiner
Decision
Optional
Preapplication
Meeting With City
Staff
Development
Application to City
(May include Building
Permit)
Type I
Design review by
Staff
Staff Decision
esign Review may
coincide with
Building Permit
Approval
Building Permit
Approval
8.1.c
CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD
Minutes of Meeting
July 24, 2019
Chair Cheung called the meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public
Safety Complex, 250 — 5' Avenue North.
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS
PRESENT
Matthew Cheung, Chair
Daniel Robles, Vice Chair
Nathan Monroe
Carreen Nordling Rubenkonig
Mike Rosen
Conner Bryan, Student Representative
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS
ABSENT
Todd Cloutier (excused)
Alicia Crank (excused)
ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA
The agenda was accepted as presented.
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT
Maureen Jeude
Cary Guenther
Joe Herr
Bruce Owensby
Kim Bayer
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT
Tom Walker
Lauri Strauss
STAFF PRESENT
Rob Chave, Development Services Manager
Mike Clugston, Planner
Jerrie Bevington, Video Recorder
Karin Noyes, Recorder
Ken Reidy, Edmonds, said he was present to follow up on the comments he made at the July loth meeting. He observed
there seemed to be some confusion between a term he used (unopened easements) and a term the City used (unopened
alleys). As per Page 63 of the July loth Planning Board Packet, the term subject property means the "street, alley, easement
or portion thereof sought to be vacated." It is important for the Board to understand that the photograph staff displayed that
evening as an "unopened alley" is the same thing he was referring to as an "unopened easement."
Mr. Reidy reported that there have been three street vacations over the last 3 years. The I't easement started in 2016 and
involved the vacation of an easement that was used by the City to open a street. The City Council required the reservation of
multiple easements and maximum compensation of $92,610. One of the easements that was required was to Olympic View
Water and Sewer District despite the fact that the franchise contract had expired in 2014. The 2nd easement was a vacation of
another easement the City had used to open a street and involved no payment in compensation but multiple easements. The
31 easement was vacation of an easement the City had never used. In that case, the City Council required the property owner
to grant an easement to the Edmonds School District, who had put a pipe in the easement area with a permit. They also made
the property owner pay $28,800 in compensation.
Mr. Reidy pointed out that, in the great majority of cases, title to the property underlying a street or alley belongs to the
abutting property owner. The City has an easement right to use that property. While there are times when the City does own
the property that a street or alley is on, these instances are rare. It is even rarer for those types of streets to be vacated
Packet Pg. 29
8.1.c
because the City owns title to the property. The law in Washington State is well settled that the fee title to the streets and
alleys rests in the possession of the abutting property owners. City staff mentioned title transferring back to the abutting
property owners, but this is not what happens when an easement is vacated because the property owners already own the title.
A question was raised about what an appraisal was used for, and staff indicated the compensation was paid to have the right-
of-way transferred over to the adjacent private property owner. Again, there is no transfer, the City is simply releasing its
easement interest in the property. Staff also said that if an appraiser determined that the property had value, the City would
not be able to gift public land to an adjacent property owner. That is not an issue because the adjacent property owner already
owns the title and there is nothing to gift.
Mr. Reidy said City staff also represented that it is not the property owner's property if there is an unopened alley behind
your home. Staff stated this is not property you are able to use because it is under the City's jurisdiction. However, if the
City is not using its easement rights, the owner of the property can use the property. For example, the Washington State
Supreme Court stated in Nystrand vs. O'Malley that the use by the fee title owner in extending his garage into the area,
planting trees and hedge and constructing a bulkhead was not inconsistent with the public's easement since the right to open a
street for the public's use had not been asserted by the City of Seattle.
Mr. Reidy encouraged the Planning Board to ask staff to provide an overhead photograph at the August 14' public hearing of
the same unopened alleyway that they showed last time, but just one block to the east. The Board will see multiple uses of
that unopened easement, including buildings, in that photograph. In conclusion, he asked that the Board consider having staff
correct the information that was presented to them on July loth. This code section is very important, and the citizens should
have an opportunity to be involved in the rewrite.
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR REPORT TO PLANNING BOARD
Chair Cheung referred the Board to the Development Services Director's Report that was provided in the packet. There were
no comments or questions from the Board.
JOINT MEETING WITH THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD (ADB): DISCUSSION ON ADB ROLES
AND DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS
Mr. Chave recalled that the Planning Board met with the ADB in December of 2017 to discuss design review and how the
ADB process works. As a result of this discussion, the ADB had a few discussions at subsequent meetings about design
review, what they saw their role being going forward, and how the design review process could be adjusted to reflect some of
their ideas. He referred to the materials provided in the packet, which included information that was presented during the
ADB's discussions.
Mr. Chave reviewed that design review has occurred in Edmonds for at least four decades. At one time, it was pretty open
ended. There were guidelines, but there were no standards in the code to guide design. At that time, the ADB felt it had a lot
of discretion on how to approach project approval. That changed in 1993 with the Washington State Court of Appeals Case
Anderson vs. Issaquah. Issaquah was using a design review process based on the Edmonds model and the problem the court
saw was that applicants really didn't know how their projects would be approved. They had no certainty or predictability,
and they often ended up going back and forth before a project could be approved because the language used in the codes was
quite vague and subject to multiple interpretations. The court saw that as arbitrary and capricious decision making, which
was not something a City was able to do.
Mr. Chave said that, once that case was decided, Edmonds realized it needed to change its approach to design review. Going
forward, the City first adopted a set of design guidance as a stop gap, but the ultimate solution was to put more specificity
into the codes, including clearer design standards and information about how a project would be measured and decided. Over
the years, design standards have been adopted for specific zones and/or areas. Before Anderson Vs. Issaquah, the ADB
design professionals talked to project proponents and there was a fair amount of give and take. The ADB felt it had some
control over the ultimate design that resulted. Because of Anderson vs. Issaquah, that control eroded for the reasons stated by
the court and came back in the form of standards in the code. The product of that, however, has been that when the ADB
sees a project proposal, the applicant has already done due diligence to review the codes and standards and arrived at a design
Planning Board Minutes
July 24, 2019 Page 2
Packet Pg. 30
8.1.c
solution. When the design is presented to the ADB, the ADB ends up simply doing a checklist review and there is very little
give and take in the process at that point.
Mr. Chave advised that, based on ADB discussions, the ADB really wants to influence design in a few ways. First, they
would like to have input at the beginning of the process before the applicant has settled on a design, and the place to do that is
at the pre -application process before an applicant has applied for project approval. That's the point where an applicant is still
trying to figure out what codes and standards apply and their design hasn't been solidified yet. The City has two different
pre -application processes, and both are typically manned by staff from different departments. One idea is that perhaps a few
ADB members could sit in on the pre -application meetings, particularly the ones where design is significant enough to have
an impact on a block or location.
Mr. Chave said the ADB also talked about being the design standards board. The City needs to have more standards in the
code, particularly related to multifamily projects, and there are a few districts that do not have design guidelines, either.
Going along with that is the ADB's desire to have a post review of projects to test whether or not the design standards in
place result in good projects. This review would allow the ADB to gauge whether or not the design standards do what they
are intended to do. Perhaps the ADB could propose changes to make the standards better. It would be great to do an initial
review post development, but also five years out. When a project is first built, the landscaping is immature and the project
will look entirely different five years later after the landscaping has grown up and the site has matured. From staff s
perspective, there are a number of examples where a project looked stark when first developed, but blended into the
environment over time. It is helpful, at that point, to not only look at the building design, but also the site work to determine
if the landscaping was appropriate. Perhaps the landscaping standards need to be changed to improve the site setting of
buildings. This kind of review would be a very valuable role for the ADB to take on.
Mr. Chave advised that the Planning Board is scheduled to meet jointly with the City Council on September 241 to talk about
items they are working on. This would be the golden opportunity to seek Council feedback on the design review process and
the recommended improvements.
Mr. Chave explained that the City currently has two different design review processes, one for district -based review and
another that is general. The City implemented a 2-phase design approach as a way to improve its design review process and
move design review earlier in the project development phase. The 2-phase approach involves a 2-part hearing. Phase I is
supposed to occur when an applicant is scoping out a project, and Phase 2 is the final design review. However, this approach
hasn't really worked because the proponents usually have their designs settled during the Phase I review and design review
simply doesn't come early enough in the process. He advised that the City never intended to have two different design
processes long term. Once there were adequate standards in the code, everything was supposed to fold into the 2-phase
review, and that was supposed to become the standard process. However, the City has not yet established design review
standards for all of the City, notably, multifamily projects, Five Corners and other small commercial areas. A single design
review process would be less complicated and more consistent.
Mr. Chave reemphasized that staff does not believe the 2-part design review process works, and he believes the ADB
concurs. It doesn't do what it was intended to do and it doesn't make sense to continue.
Board Member Herr reviewed that the ADB discussed this issue a few meetings ago, and that is when it became clear that
projects are usually too far along by the time the Board gets involved in the review. While the ADB wants to offer
constructive criticism and feedback to a design, the current review process stymies this opportunity. Typically, a design is
already set by the time a project is presented to the ADB for design review. While the Board can offer comments, they are
not often able to change the outcome of a project that meets all of the code requirements and design standards. The ADB
would like the ability to offer design feedback earlier in the process when an applicant is still just thinking about a vision for
development. Usually, by the time a project comes before them for review, it is ready for approval and the ADB is simply
checking boxes.
Board Member Monroe commented that it seems that the ADB's skills and expertise are being misused with the current
process. He asked the ADB to share ideas for how to allow them more discretion and leeway. He questioned if the City
might have overreacted to the Anderson vs. Issaquah decision. He also asked what the consequence of the court ruling was
to the City. Mr. Chave emphasized that the City was unable to enforce its codes and had to make changes to be consistent
Planning Board Minutes
July 24, 2019 Page 3
Packet Pg. 31
8.1.c
with the court ruling. The end result was the adoption of standards and codes that were significantly more specific. Board
Member Monroe asked if it would be possible for the City to find some middle ground between the vague codes that were in
place before the court decision and the very specific codes that are in place now. Mr. Chave said it extremely difficult to be
specific with language yet allow flexibility. However, there are ways to allow some discretion or degree of choice. For
example, the code could require an applicant to choose a certain number of design solutions from a list. Another option
would be to allow design departures. This would allow the ADB to approve alternative designs as long as they achieve the
intent of the standard. However, the code would have to provide guidance and criteria for evaluating the departures. The
design standards would be undermined if the departure provision was too open ended.
Board Member Monroe said he assumes that other jurisdictions are dealing with this same challenge. Mr. Chave said most
City's have chosen to put more standards in their codes, and the City of Edmonds has not gone to the degree of specificity
that some jurisdictions have done. The City has tried to create specificity for the things that are most important rather than
specify everything about a building. Board Member Monroe said that makes sense. The City doesn't want to become a
Redmond or Ballard where every building looks the same. Mr. Chave said the trick is to figure out which things the City
wants to regulate and which things it wants to leave to the discretion of the professional.
Board Member Monroe invited the ADB members to share their thoughts on what defines the character of Edmonds that
needs to be protected and where the codes can allow for more creativity. Board Member Guenther responded that it is
difficult to describe the character of Edmonds because it is a hodgepodge of different styles. It is hard for the ADB to assign
a specific type of architecture to a project that comes before them. Creating design standards requires a balance between
making them real specific so that anyone can follow them and making them more vague to allow flexibility in design.
Experience has shown that the standards cannot be too vague. Some specificity is needed for consistency and predictability.
The more specific the standards, the less likely the City's decisions will be disputed. The City has good design standards in
place and when projects come before them, the Board simply checks off the boxes. Staff could do this same thing as an
administrative approval.
Board Member Herr recalled a recent project that came before the Board and voiced concern that there was no chance for
creative thinking. While the standards were clear, they didn't really work for the intended new purpose of the building. One
simple idea to move a door to make the project work better could have been approved if the ADB was allowed some
discretion, but that option was not available. The hands of both the developer and the ADB were tied, and the applicant now
has to come up with a solution that will not benefit anyone in the end. He summarized that, although the design standards are
good, there needs to be a way by which the ADB can utilize the expertise of its members and compromise with an applicant
to get a better design. Currently, there is no departure provision built into the design review process.
Board Member Monroe asked if the ADB supports amending the code to allow for variations or code departures.
Board Member Becker said she is new on the ADB and attended her first meeting in July. She was surprised that by the time
the ADB had a chance to provide input, the project was too far along.
Board Member Owensby commented that the proposal that came before the ADB at their last meeting was a really good one,
and the applicant was trying to do some nice things that you don't normally see in little communities like Edmonds.
However, the applicant was being tied down by certain restrictions he couldn't get past. For example, his engineers indicated
that more than 30% of the wall must be sheer in order for the building to stand up, but the City's code requires that 70% of
the fagade must be transparent (window). A lot of urban design standards in place now are too specific. Just because a
project provides a base, middle and top doesn't mean it is a good building design. A building might be well designed even if
it doesn't have those elements. There needs to be a certain amount of leeway.
Board Member Owensby suggested it would be good for the ADB to become involved in design review in the diagrammatic
phase of a project where an architect could come in with little more than a general plan for massing, etc. Edmonds is defined
by building facades along the street, and what goes on behind is less important. The character of Edmonds is basically a
consistency of inconsistencies. Allowing for this inconsistency is important. What they need to focus on is how the building
addresses the street and sidewalk. Some of the rules and regulations related to modulation have resulted in step backs that
create too much push/pull going down the street. This takes away from the street feel that you have when store windows are
placed along the sidewalks. Mr. Chave agreed and commented that he can date buildings based on modulation.
Planning Board Minutes
July 24, 2019 Page 4
Packet Pg. 32
8.1.c
Again, Board Member Owensby suggested that the ADB should have two opportunities to meet with applicants. Once before
they get into their working drawings and again when they are preparing schematic designs to see that they are incorporating
the ADB's recommendations from the first meeting. When design review happens early, it is much easier and less costly for
developers to change their designs, if needed. The first meeting could be a brainstorming meeting between the applicant,
staff and ADB.
Board Member Owensby said it would also be good for the ADB to review all of the code requirements and design standards.
Some seem to be blanket requirements that limit the ability for creative design. Blanket standards do not work for every
situation. For example, a restaurant will need a different storefront than a museum. There must be some leeway that allows
for flexibility so that good projects are not hamstrung by the standards. He voiced concern that the City can end up with
lesser projects when the standards are too specific.
Board Member Rubenkonig reviewed that she served on the ADB after the color police and after the Anderson vs. Issaquah
decision and at a time when many wanted to remove the Board from quasi-judicial decisions. She said she was not happy
with this change because it lessened the ability of the professionals on the ADB to have input into a project. She felt it was
important for the ADB to ask questions of the applicant relative to a proposed project and how it fits into the neighborhood
design. She also asked applicants to explain how various components of design were used to make the building fit into the
fabric of Edmonds. She said she has not seen a predictive design program that embraces an approach that allows for
flexibility and discretion on behalf of the Board. You don't want to try to regulate the design mind. When she served on the
ADB, the Board had the discretion to waive certain standards as long as the proposed project met the intent of the regulation.
It sounds like that is no longer possible. They no longer have that authority, which is upsetting to her. She voiced concern
that the excitement of good design has been lost with the current process.
Board Member Rubenkonig said she understands the concept of allowing a few ADB members to participate in pre -
application meetings, but many of them take place during daytime hours when a lot of the members are at work. In addition,
they will need to be careful not to have too many members in attendance. If a quorum is present, then the meeting must be
advertised and open to the public. She voiced concern that if the ADB goes into a more informal setting (pre -application
meeting) where they are just part of a larger group that reviews an application, they will be giving up their quasi-judicial
authority. While the Board Members can provide good comments relative to the proposal, the applicant will not be required
to incorporate their recommendations. It will all come down to what the City requires that gives the muscle that drives the
design. She cautioned against the ADB giving away their muscle.
Mr. Chave responded that the court already took away much of the ADB's authority via Anderson vs. Issaquah. Board
Member Rubenkonig commented that the ADB operated for several years after the court decision, making sure that their
decisions were consistent with the Development Regulations. They made effective decisions during that time period and the
Board built a good reputation. The current ADB is now dealing with regulations that have been cut down. Further
minimizing the ADB's authority concerns her. She understands wanting to get involved in design review earlier in the
process, but she is not sure the ADB will get what they want out of it because they won't have any authority.
Board Member Rubenkonig remarked that she likes the transparent process that the ADB provided while she served. The
discussions that take place during an administrative decision are not part of the public record. She understands that the
checklist will be part of the public record, but the public record should also provide information about why certain decisions
were made. It is also important to allow citizens and the design professionals on the ADB to express their concerns related to
proposed projects. She summarized that she wants the ADB to have some control over the ultimate design of a project, and
she wants certainty that their recommendations will have some teeth and be incorporated into the project.
Board Member Owensby voiced support for Board Member Rubenkonig's recommendation. The checklist needs to be
specific for each project. Rather than generic and vague comments for the ADB to check off, the checklist could outline all
of the comments and recommendations the ADB provided at the preliminary design stage. Projects can only be approved by
the Board if all of their recommendations have been incorporated.
Chair Cheung asked how the City would screen to make sure that people who are bringing projects forward for pre -
application review are serious and not just wasting the ADB and staff s time. He voiced concern that a developer will request
Planning Board Minutes
July 24, 2019 Page 5
Packet Pg. 33
8.1.c
a pre -application meeting to obtain free advice from a professional without any intention of moving forward with the project.
Mr. Chave explained that there is a fee for the formal pre -application process and applicants are required to provide certain
submissions. This shows that applicants are interested in moving their projects forward and have done some thought process.
However, the City cannot require an applicant to pursue a project following a pre -application meeting. The intent is to
require enough information to work with, but they don't want applicants to sink so much time and money into the project that
they have already reached conclusions as to design. The City simply needs enough information to understand the parameters
of the project and the characteristics of the site.
Board Member Owensby said he does not believe that the ADB and staff would be wasting their time in a preapplication
meeting if the applicant chooses not to move a project forward. While the current owner may decide not to move the project
forward, the lot will still be there and the information from the pre -application meeting can be given to a future owner as a
heads up. Mr. Chave noted that the information from the pre -application meeting would be public information.
Board Member Rubenkonig pointed out that most applicants have paid money as part of a formal application before a project
comes forward for a pre -application meeting. Mr. Chave clarified that there are two different types of pre -application
meetings, one requires a fee and the other does not. Formal pre -application meetings require a fee, but the informal pre -
application discussions do not. An applicant doesn't have to supply a lot of information for an informal pre -application
discussion. Rather than someone coming to the counter to ask questions about a project and not having the appropriate staff
present to respond, the City tries to set up a specific time where three or four staff members are available at the same time to
answer their questions. There is no written record of these discussions and they are free of charge. Most of the larger
projects do formal pre -application meetings and there is a cost. However, some of the cost can be put toward later permit
applications.
Board Member Rubenkonig observed that there would be no ADB presence at gatherings where City planners speak casually
at the counter with developers and/or architects. Mr. Chave said it is very rare that someone will come before the ADB for a
pre -application meeting. When projects are presented to the ADB for a Phase 1 review, they are usually too far along.
Because there is already a pre -application process in place, he suggested that perhaps a few members of the ADB could be
incorporated into that process.
Mr. Chave said the City Attorney has indicated that the City can make the pre -application meeting mandatory for certain
projects based on the location, size, etc. The pre -application meeting would come before any formal public input, but at least
the ADB would have an opportunity to work face-to-face with the applicant and City staff to talk about the project.
Board Member Herr remarked that the ADB members can make all the recommendations they want, but they have no
authority. Applicants can choose whether or not to accept and incorporate the changes. As long as a project meets the design
standards, the Board has no authority to deny it. He can understand how the ADB wants to have a greater role, but without
the accompanying authority, he doesn't believe that is possible. He likes the idea of the ADB at least participating in the pre -
application meetings to get their ideas out there in the beginning. Many applicants will accept these ideas in an initial
meeting if they know that down the line their project won't get as much push back. While the ADB can push back, they
cannot deny a project because they don't like it.
Board Member Guenther pointed out that the ADB rarely denies a project, and their decisions are usually unanimous.
Regarding Chair Cheung's concern that developers will request pre -application meetings just to get free advice, he said he
can think of two or three projects that were approved by the ADB, but haven't been built yet.
Board Member Monroe asked if the ADB would support a provision that allows for a departure process or a process that
allows a developer to choose a certain number of design solutions from a list. He suggested that projects that simply meet all
of the design standards could be approved through an administrative decision. However, if a departure is requested, the ADB
could be the decision maker through a public hearing process.
Board Member Guenther recalled that the last project that came before the ADB was an exceptional building for an
exceptional site. The applicant was looking for a departure route, which the Board could not provide. Board Member
Monroe voiced surprised that there is no appeal or departure process. Board Member Guenther explained that the ADB
wanted to offer the applicant a departure, but it was not allowed by the code. Board Member Monroe pointed out that the
Planning Board Minutes
July 24, 2019 Page 6
Packet Pg. 34
8.1.c
departure option was not included on the ADB's list of potential amendments. Board Member Herr responded that the list
was formulated before their last meeting and before they realized how valuable a departure provision would be in some
situations.
Board Member Owensby expressed his belief that the ADB should have the ability to approve deviations from the design
standards. In the most recent case, a departure would have made the project better. Forcing applicants into a one -size -fits -all
design standard can end up hurting projects.
Board Member Rubenkonig commented that allowing the ADB to approve code departures would be similar to the discretion
the ADB used to have to approve design departures if they met the intent of the regulation. Guenther said there is a risk for
the owner and/or architect who would be at the mercy of the ADB as to whether a code departure would be allowed. Mr.
Chave cautioned that the code cannot be so vague that the Board is allowed to come up with two different solutions for two
different projects. If this approach is used, it will be important to describe the parameters under which a deviation or
departure could be granted.
Board Member Monroe asked if the ADB would feel comfortable working with staff to come up with potential parameters to
implement a departure provision. Board Member Guenther felt the ADB and staff could come up with a process to provide
for deviation with specificity. They cannot open the door for the ADB to allow departures for whatever reason. There must
be some guidelines in place.
Mr. Chave suggested they suggested that there could be two different processes. The standard design review process could
be used for projects that meet all of the design standards and code requirements. These situations could be a staff decision.
However, applications that include code departure requests could be go before the ADB for review and approval.
Mr. Chave agreed that staff could work with the ADB to come up with draft code language. However, before they go too far
down that road of creating a firm proposal, he suggested that the Board seek feedback from the City Council at their joint
meeting in September. If the City Council's response is positive, a draft proposal could be finalized and brought to the Board
for a public hearing and recommendation to the City Council. In the meantime, he agreed to work with the ADB on a
preliminary proposal that could be reviewed by the Planning Board at their September I I' meeting prior to presenting the
concept to the City Council on September 24t1i
Board Member Rubenkonig said she is hearing that the ADB would like to have more standards in place when reviewing
projects. They also expressed concern that they haven't formally reviewed the built projects to determine how well the
standards work. She is also hearing interest in having two ways to approach the ADB. An applicant could go before the
ADB with the checklist that shows how the project meets all of the standards, or they could use a different process that
allows the ADB to consider departures to the design standards.
Board Member Monroe observed that the standards are evolving and changes are needed as new codes are developed. The
checklist should evolve, as well. The checklist sometimes fails to address unusual site conditions and other times there are
opportunities to improve design through a deviation. There should be a separate path for applicants who want to depart from
the design standards. This would require changes to give the ADB the appropriate level of control and involvement to
leverage their professionalism to make decisions. He voiced concern that without these changes, the experts may lose
interest in serving on the ADB.
Mr. Chave summarized that most of the Board Members are unhappy with the current design review process. It would be
great to have ADB influence as early in the process as possible in the pre -application phase. If an applicant goes through the
pre -application process and receives guidance and then chooses to do a standard building that meets all of the code and
design standards, there is not much the ADB can do at that point to influence the project. There is no point in having a public
hearing since the ADB will have to approve the project. However, in some cases an applicant will want a departure because
the site is unique, the standards do not work, etc. In these cases, the ADB could weigh in on the final decision and there
would be some discretion in determining whether or not a departure request is appropriate and meets the intent of the code.
He summarized that requiring a different process for projects that are different than the standard would be appropriate. If
developers repeatedly request departures from a specific standard, the ADB would be a great body to consider whether or not
Planning Board Minutes
July 24, 2019 Page 7
Packet Pg. 35
8.1.c
a code change is needed. It is extremely important to have a body doing post construction review to determine which
standards are working and which are not.
Board Member Herr explained that, for the most part, the standards have worked for new projects. However, the most recent
case was an adaptive reuse of an existing building. Applying modern standards to an existing building doesn't always work,
and that is where the City is more likely to receive departure requests so that discretionary decisions can be made by the
ADB. He said he would like a process to be in place that allows developers to get past requirements that are impossible to
meet in the design for a variety of reasons.
Mr. Chave agreed and said it will be important to describe situations where the letter of the law, in terms of design standards,
runs up against other standards like engineering and building standards. When standards start to conflict, which is common
with existing buildings, a departure process would be an appropriate solution.
Board Member Owensby said it would also be helpful if the ADB could grant departures when an applicant is trying to do
something that benefits the public but runs up against conflicting design standards. In the most recent case, the applicant was
trying to give something back to the community, but he was hamstrung by the current standards and there was no process in
place by which the ADB could negotiate a departure.
Board Member Rosen said he supports the changes that have been discussed. However, if the Board is going to present a
recommendation to the City Council, they should outline the problems that would be solved by the proposed changes. These
problems might include: 1) ensuring excellence of design, both for function as well as for the community, 2) protecting the
integrity and character of the community and the neighborhoods, 3) protecting residents by making better use of experts, and
4) identifying the standards that make absolutely no sense and correcting them. He it is important to position their
recommendation to the City Council by pointing out the things that can be done better. The second part will to identify areas
where the proposed changes could be vulnerable. For example, what are the worst things people might say about the
proposed changes. People already complain that the City's processes take too long. Will the proposed changes add more
time, resulting in push back? Will inserting the ADB in multiple steps make it harder for a developer to project the potential
costs of a project? It will be good to hear the problems that the proposed changes might create so they can be anticipated and
a process can be created to mitigate or overcome these problems.
Board Member Owenby observed that most projects do not come to the ADB until they are very far along in the design
process. It upsets developers and it is costly when changes are requested late in the process. As an architect, he said he
would not be upset if the ADB reviewed his project early to identify the items that are important to the City and what he
needed to address as part of his design. He would like an opportunity to present his design again to the Board when it is
further along to confirm that it addresses what they are looking for. The ADB needs to participate a lot earlier in the process
in order to have an impact.
Vice Chair Robles asked if it would be possible for the City to offer an accelerated design review process for applicants who
consult with the ADB during the early phase of design. Board Member Owensby said he likes the idea of providing an
incentive to developers to encourage them to participate in pre -application meetings. Vice Chair Robles expressed his belief
that creating an incentive would promote proactive design. Mr. Chave cautioned against offering an accelerated design
review process to applicants who participate in a pre -application meeting. Allowing an opportunity for departures would
provide incentive and give developers options to achieve better design, which in turn can save money.
Board Member Rosen summarized that the recommendation to the City Council should include a provision for departures, as
well as a mandated pre -application meeting.
Board Member Guenther commented that the current checklist process works well for multifamily projects for the most part.
It is a matter of how may units will fit per acre, what is the height limit, etc. However, the checklist doesn't work well for
commercial projects where the City wants to require more design elements. He would anticipate more departure requests for
commercial development.
Planning Board Minutes
July 24, 2019 Page 8
Packet Pg. 36
8.1.c
Chair Cheung asked how the City's design standards and review process compares to other cities. Board Member Herr
responded that the City of Redmond's design standards are so strict that they are very cumbersome. He said he does not want
Edmonds to go to that extreme because it will stymy development.
Vice Chair Robles asked if reducing the risk that a project will get hung up in the design review process could be quantified.
He suggested it is important to understand the consequences of the proposed changes. For example, they need to identify the
risk of exposure and understand the likelihood of whether or not the proposed changes will cause a distraction.
Mr. Chave explained that, over time, the number of projects that go before the ADB have decreased substantially. This was a
natural outgrowth of the move towards standards and a conscious decision that small projects really don't need design
review. The ADB's agendas used to include a few dozen items, and now there are just one or two significant projects. He
suggested that they are heading in the right direction, with fewer but more important projects. Going forward, defining the
projects that need to go to the ADB, such as departures, makes a lot of sense. But projects that comply with all of the code
requirements and produce the result the City wants do not need to come before the ADB. The trick will be coming up with
the right standards, the right mix, and providing a departure path.
Board Member Monroe agreed there is a risk that Edmonds loses itself and part of its identify, but there is also a risk of
losing good projects. The proposed changes offer an opportunity to address both risks. He asked the staff and the ADB to
work together to prepare potential amendments for the Board to present to the City Council at their joint meeting. His
understanding is that the ADB would like to have early involvement via a pre -application meeting requirement. They would
also like to have a process for considering departures from the design standards. Again, Mr. Chave agreed to prepare some
potential language for the ADB to consider. These ideas could be presented to the Planning Board on September 111 prior to
their joint meeting with the City Council on September 241.
Vice Chair Robles advised that the Planning Board will soon be considering potential amendments to the Accessory
Dwelling Unit (ADU) regulations as a component of affordable housing. He pointed out that there are both good and bad
examples of ADUs, and the Planning Board could use the ADB's help to create design standards for both detached and
attached ADUs. He explained that allowing ADUs will grant citizens the same opportunity for economic gain as developers
so property owners won't be forced to sell to developers to build tract development. ADU's provide opportunities for
reunification of families, as well as opportunities for citizens to age in place as long as possible. He felt it would be helpful
to consult with the ADB as the discussion moves forward.
Board Member Herr pointed out that a code amendment would be needed to change the ADU regulations and asked if the
Planning Board influences zoning. Vice Chair Robles answered that zoning code amendments come before the Planning
Board for review, a public hearing and a recommendation to the City Council. Board Member Herr commented that there are
a lot of components to consider when reviewing the ADU provisions, and the ADB would like to be part of the conversation.
Board Member Owensby cautioned that the success of the proposed amendments will depend on how well they are sold to
the public as a benefit. ADU's could potentially result in more traffic, but in many situations, the children have moved away
and only one or two people are living in the main home. ADU's can provided an opportunity for extra income so that these
individuals can stay in their homes as they age. Quite often, ADU's do not even require any additional services such as
water, sewer or parking.
Board Member Rubenkonig acknowledge that the ADB does not do design review for single-family development. However,
it would be helpful for them to provide information about design elements that might be appropriate for ADU's. The
remainder of the Planning Board Members agreed that future discussions with the ADB relative to ADUs would benefit the
process.
Board Member Rubenkonig recalled that when she served on the ADB in 2002 and 2003, they had a great desire to be part of
the pre -application process, but that hasn't happened yet. One question to consider moving forward is at what point the ADB
would give up its authority to participate in quasi-judicial decisions if Board members attend pre -application meetings. She
questioned who and how many ADB members would attend the daytime preapplication meetings, and how many could be
present with out it constituting a quorum. She cautioned against the ADB giving up its quasi-judicial authority. Mr. Chave
said this may selectively occur upon further discussion with the ADB.
Planning Board Minutes
July 24, 2019 Page 9
Packet Pg. 37
8.1.c
Board Member Pence said he is new on the Planning Board, and he knows very little about the topic at hand. He came from
Seattle where he participated as a citizen in a few design review projects at the neighborhood level. He recalled that, with the
most recent project, the first unveiling to the community was a set of massing options early in the design process. The
citizens were invited to express their opinions, along with the design board. He is very supportive of early involvement of
design consideration, whether from a board of professionals or at a public hearing involving citizens. Seattle did, and
probably still does, have a design departure process where they are able to fine tune a project to make it better for the
proponent and the surrounding neighborhood. It sounds like the discussion tonight is moving in that direction for the City of
Edmonds, which would be great.
Board Member Pence said that, in terms of having a standard path for getting a cookie cutter building versus a more complex
path involving departures and the like, he suggested that perhaps the City could offer developers some incentives to enhance
the project an encourage them to go the more difficult route rather than the standard cookie cutter project.
Board Member Pence observed that, as a newcomer to Edmonds, he sees a great variety of building aesthetics. He would not
like to see some of the buildings replicated, beginning with City Hall. He has a concern that someone will want to duplicate
this building someplace else in Edmonds, and the ADB apparently would have no ability to deny the project if it meets the
code and design standards. He said he hopes these potential unfortunate outcomes can be avoided with whatever tweaking of
the code they do as a result of this conversation. Mr. Chave pointed out that City Hall does not meet code.
Board Member Becker agreed with Board Member Pence, and that is one reason she joined the ADB. They have the same
purpose and mission in regards to this issue.
REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA
Chair Cheung reviewed that the August 14' meeting agenda will include an update on the RoadMap Project (Ruckelshaus
Center Report) and a public hearing on the Street Vacation Code amendments (ECDC 20.70). The August 28t' Meeting
agenda will include an update on the Vision 2050 Multicounty Planning Policies and an update on the Urban Forest
Management Plan. The Board's September I I' meeting will include a review of potential amendments related to the ADB's
role in design review in preparation for the joint meeting with the City Council on September 25t1i
PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS
Chair Cheung did not provide any additional comments.
PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
Board Member Rosen asked staff to provide the Board a written response to each of the questions raised by Mr. Reidy earlier
in the meeting regarding street vacations. He asked that the response be provided prior to the public hearing on August 14'
Board Member Monroe reported that he attended a recent City Council meeting where they discussed how to pay for future
operations and maintenance costs. There is a reaction to some rising utility rates, and the Council is looking at everything
from deferring maintenance to bonding maintenance, which is the same thing as putting a mortgage on a credit card. He
cautioned that the City needs to be very careful with this approach.
ADJOURNMENT
The Board meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m.
Planning Board Minutes
July 24, 2019 Page 10
Packet Pg. 38
8.1.d
ENGINEERING PERMITS. MINOR CHANGES TO THE APPROVED DESIGN MAY BE
APPROVED BY STAFF AT THE TIME OF BUIDLING PERMIT WITHOUT FURTHER DESIGN
REVIEW BY THE BOARD AS LONG AS THE DESIGN IS SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR TO THAT
ORIGINALLY APPROVED.
CONSOLIDATED PERMIT APPLICATIONS (No Public Participation):
There were no consolidated permit applications.
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS/ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION:
Election of Officers
BOARD MEMBER WALKER MOVED THAT BOARD MEMBER HERR SERVE AS CHAIR OF THE
BOARD IN 2019. BOARD MEMBER STRAUSS SECONDED MOTION, WHICH CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
The Board agreed to postpone election of Vice Chair until the newly appointed Board Members were present to
participate.
Update on Architectural Design Board (ADB) Roles
Mr. Clugston provided a chart comparing the Board's current powers and duties found in Edmonds City Code (ECC)
10.05 with the expressed work preferences the Board discussed last fall. He noted that the current powers and duties are
very similar to the Board's expressed preferences of what they actually want to do. The powers and duties were
originally adopted in 1973, and he doesn't know how the Board went from a policy advisory board to a quasi-judicial
decision -making Board. For example, the Board' expressed 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 is
consistent with ECC 10.05. He reminded them that the City Council has also indicated that they do not want the Board
to continue making quasi-judicial decisions.
Mr. Clugston also provided a flow chart of a hypothetical design review process that would get the Board out of its
decision -making role and put its expertise more at the beginning of the review process. Staff's thought is that Board
Members could participate in pre -application meetings where State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review is
required. He explained that in a pre -application meeting, staff from all different departments meet with an applicant to
review tentative plans. Board Members could sit in on these meetings to review the plans and provide input at the
beginning of the process. This would enable them to provide design direction early in the process when their input can
be better applied.
Mr. Clugston explained that, whether design review is done by staff or by the Hearing Examiner, the Board Members
could be called upon for specific input. They could be consulted on an "as needed basis," but they would not be asked to
make the final decision on an application.
Mr. Clugston suggested that the next step in the process would be a joint meeting with the Planning Board to discuss
potential code changes and how the ADB might become more involved in policy -level work. He explained that the
Planning Board handles the bulk of the policy recommendation work right now, and the discussion could focus on how
the ADB's design knowledge might be incorporated into the Planning Board's policy work. The intent would be for the
two Boards to work in parallel.
Board Member Guenther said he is intrigued by the idea of Board Members attending pre -application meetings, but he
asked if the Board would only be invited to participate in meetings when applications trigger SEPA review. Mr.
Architectural Design Board Meeting
Minutes of Regular Meeting
April 3,2019
Page 4 of 5
Packet Pg. 39
8.1.d
Clugston explained that, currently, there are two types of pre -application meetings. In formal pre -application meetings,
applicants submit fairly detailed drawings and staff provides written comments back to them. A development review
committee meeting is a higher -level review. He explained that SEPA review was used in the draft flow chart as a
placeholder concept, but the Board could be involved in all pre -application meetings if that is the desire.
Board Member Guenther recalled that when he served on the Planning Board, the ADB was the "color police" of the
City. They also reviewed signage. At some point, all of those responsibilities were cut back, and now they are simply
reviewing projects that are almost complete as far as design. He is interested in the pre -application meeting concept
because it would enable the Board to get involved earlier in the process and have more say in the design.
Chair Strauss suggested that it could be a mandatory requirement that certain members of the ADB attend pre -
application meetings and provide input on projects that trigger SEPA review. For projects that do not require SEPA
review, ADB members could be invited to attend pre -application meetings and provide input, but their attendance would
not be mandatory. Mr. Clugston agreed that is a possible approach.
Mr. Clugston advised that, currently, pre -application meetings are held on Thursday afternoons at 1:30 p.m. and 3:00
p.m., which will make it difficult for Board members to attend. They will need to work out some of these details.
Perhaps a rotating group of Board Members could be assigned to attend the pre -application meetings. He advised that,
currently, the pre -application meetings are scheduled two to three weeks out.
Chair Strauss suggested the Board wait until the new ADB Members are on board before meeting jointly with the
Planning Board. Mr. Lien reported that Mayor Earling has interviewed two candidates and will forward a
recommendation to the City Council for approval on April 16'. Staff will re -advertise the remaining position on the
Board. The intent is to have a full Board in place soon.
Mr. Clugston agreed to set up a joint meeting with the Planning Board in the next month or two. He advised that there
will be three or four applications for design review within the next few months, as well.
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS:
There were no additional comments from Board Members.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned at 7:45 p.m.
Architectural Design Board Meeting
Minutes of Regular Meeting
April 3,2019
Page 5 of 5
Packet Pg. 40
8.1.d
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. hi 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
Architectural Design Board Meeting
Minutes of Regular Meeting
October 3, 2018
Page 2 of 8
Packet Pg. 41
8.1.d
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. 42
8.1.d
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.
Architectural Design Board Meeting
Minutes of Regular Meeting
October 3, 2018
Page 4 of 8
Packet Pg. 43
8.1.d
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
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.
Architectural Design Board Meeting
Minutes of Regular Meeting
October 3, 2018
Page 5 of 8
Packet Pg. 44
8.1.d
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
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.
Architectural Design Board Meeting
Minutes of Regular Meeting
October 3, 2018
Page 6 of 8
Packet Pg. 45
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.
c
a
Chair Strauss asked if the Board should provide a recommendation relative to the proposal to remove it from quasi-
0
judicial decision making. Mr. Chave said this decision will ultimately be made by the City Council. If the Board is
a�i
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.
0
Board Member Broadway suggested that perhaps the Board's name should be changed to Design Guidance Board.
c
•0
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
vOi
open to discussion.
m
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
c
difficult for developers to build in Edmonds. However, he agreed that it would be useful for the Board to provide
0
guidance to developers to look at the standards more closely.
W
m
Board Member Broadway said she is particularly concerned about pedestrian and vehicular access, and Chair Strauss
0
5
said she is interested in what a developer is doing for. Mr. Clugston commented that these issues need to be addressed
E
adequately in the design standards and guidance. Perhaps the City could provide a list of options to meet the standards
ca
a
and guidance without being too specific.
w
0
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
a`
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.
c
a�
E
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
a
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
c
m
E
must be cognizant of the type of place Edmonds is. For example, Redmond required two bike stalls for each unit in a
0
project he was working on. While this sounds like a great amenity, it is too much. They must be realistic about what
a
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. 46
8.1.d
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. 47