Loading...
2019-11-06 Architectural Design Board Packet1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. ti3 f!}:qr Agenda Edmonds Architectural Design Board 't j4yx COUNCIL CHAMBERS 250 5TH AVE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 NOVEMBER 6, 2019, 7:00 PM CALL TO ORDER APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Approval of Draft Minutes of October 2, 2019 APPROVAL OF AGENDA AUDIENCE COMMENTS MINOR PROJECTS ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS / ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION 1. Continued Discussion on ADB Roles ADB MEMBER COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT Edmonds Architectural Design Board Agenda November 6, 2019 Page 1 2.1 Architectural Design Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 11/6/2019 Approval of Draft Minutes of October 2, 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: ADB191002d Packet Pg. 2 2.1.a CITY OF EDMONDS ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD Minutes of Regular Meeting October 2, 2019 Chair Herr called the meeting of the Architectural Design Board to order at 7:00 p. in., at the City Council Chambers, 250 - 5d' Avenue North, Edmonds, Washington. Board Members Present Joe Herr, Chair Kim Bayer Cary Guenther Maureen Jeude Bruce Owenby APPROVAL OF MINUTES Board Members Absent Lauri Strauss, Vice Chair Tom Walker (excused) Staff Present Mike Clugston, Senior Planner Karin Noyes, Recorder BOARD MEMBER GUENTHER MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 2, 2019 BE APPROVED AS AMENDED. BOARD MEMBER JEUDE SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. APPROVAL OF AGENDA BOARD MEMBER GUENTHER MOVED THAT THE AGENDA BE ACCEPTED AS PRESENTED. BOARD MEMBER BAYER 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 Main Street Commons Located at 550 Main Street (File Number PLN20190024) Chair Herr explained that this is a public hearing for the Main Street Common Project located at 550 Main Street. After accepting public testimony, the Board will deliberate and make a decision on the project. He reviewed the rules and procedures for the hearing and invited all who wanted to participate in the hearing to stand and be sworn in. Mr. Clugston explained that this is Phase 2 of the public hearing for the Main Street Commons Project. Phase 1 of the hearing was held on July 3", at which time the applicant provided conceptual design and the Board prioritized the Design Guidelines Checklist and continued the hearing to September 4d'. On September 4d', the Board continued the hearing to October 2nd to allow the applicant additional time to resubmit updated project materials. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting October 2, 2019 Page 1 of 10 Packet Pg. 3 2.1.a Mr. Clugston reminded the Board that projects in the Downtown Business (BD) zones are subject to district -based design review under the regulations of Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 20.12. Applications that trigger State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review are Type III-B decisions that require a two-phase public hearing and design decision by the Architectural Design Board (ADB). He explained that the purpose of the Phase 2 hearing is for the applicant to present revised plans that address the input provided by the public and the ADB at the Phase 1 hearing. At the conclusion of the Phase 2 portion of the hearing process, the ADB will complete its review of the project design and make a final decision. Mr. Clugston reviewed the Staff Report, which contains 15 exhibits. He provided an aerial photograph of the subject property, noting that the site is currently developed with an existing building (west) and a parking lot (east). He explained that Part lof the project includes extensive renovation and alteration (not new construction) of the existing building on the west side of the site for commercial uses. The building height will remain at roughly 23 feet. He provided a photograph of the Main Street fagade of the existing building, with its 195O's design. He pointed out that the design presented at the Phase 1 hearing provided some additional window treatments and siding changes. The updated design that is currently before the Board responds to input from the Board and staff by adding a pedestrian entrance onto Main Street and providing additional windows. He explained that because the building is a remodel, it does not have to meet and cannot meet all of the BD Design Standards, but the current proposal changes the building from addressing the parking lot to the east to addressing the street front at Main Street. Mr. Clugston advised that Part 2 of the project will replace the existing parking lot on the east side of the site with a new 2-story building at the corner of Main Street and 6'1' Avenue South. At the Phase 1 hearing, the Board requested that the ground floor of the building be opened up. Because the building is new construction, it must meet all of the BD Design Standards. The design presented at the Phase 1 hearing did not appear to meet the 75% transparency requirement. In the current design, the building between 2 and 10 feet is almost entirely windows. The rest of the design is similar to the previous submittal, but it provides some different claddings. He summarized that staff believes the proposed design meets the design standards. Mr. Clugston provided a rendering to show how the entire site will fit together. He also provided a plan drawing of the entire site, noting the canopy -covered pedestrian entry on the west building and the canopy covering and outdoor seating between the east building and the sidewalk. The primary entry to the new building would be located at the corner of 6t1i Avenue South and Main Street. He pointed out that an interior plaza would be created on a portion of the existing surface parking lot, and would extend south of the new building to connect to 6t1i Avenue South. Although no parking is required for the project, the applicant is proposing 8 surface parking stalls that load from the alley to the south. The parking space would be separated from the plaza by a low wall and mural system. Mr. Clugston reported that the existing landscaping on Main Street, including the street trees, will be protected and retained, and new street trees will be planted on 6t1i Avenue South. Small planters and a few specimen trees will be provided throughout the site, but the code does not require a lot of landscaping. However, Type V landscaping will be required at the southeast corner for the parking lot. Mr. Clugston said staff is recommending approval of the proposed design with several conditions, some of which simply highlight code requirements. There appears to be a utility pad at the southeast corner of the site by the sidewalk on 6t1i Avenue. A condition is proposed to relocate, bury or screen any utility cabinets to deemphasize them as much as possible. In this same area, a 2' condition would emphasize that Type V landscaping would be required. Staff is proposing a condition that recommends additional interest along the 6t1i Avenue South sidewalk. While street trees are shown, hanging baskets, planters, and street furniture, similar to those on Main Street, would be nice to have on 6t1i Avenue South if there is room. Lastly, the wall between the parking area and the plaza looks very plain in the renderings, and a condition was added to require additional interest via different materials, vegetation, etc. Chair Herr pointed out that a split face and different textures can be used on block walls to enhance their visual interest. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting October 2, 2019 Page 2 of 10 Packet Pg. 4 2.1.a Mike McMurray, Seattle -Snohomish Mill Company, advised that he is the applicant and owner of the subject property. He said he is planning a large green wall on the east side of 6t1i Avenue South that wraps around to the alley. This will soften and provide interest to the building, and he is open to recommendations on the types of planting material. Mr. McMurray commented that his project architects did a great job implementing the recommendations made by the Board and staff at the Phase 1 hearing. He expressed his belief that the glazing and seismic update requirements in the code can conflict with each other and there needs to be a process that allows the requirements to be reduced to some degree. He said his structural engineer was able to beef up some of the beams and do other things to meet the seismic code and still provide the glazing that is required, but it was difficult. The awnings on Main Street were also structurally difficult and expensive to do, given the significant window requirement. He acknowledged that the changes made the building design better, but they also increased his costs. Mr. McMurray agreed that the proposed mural walls could appear too corporate looking, and he solicited input from Francis Chapin and Patrick Doherty on how to make them look better. The goal of the proposed mural walls is to interact not only with pedestrians, but also with the patrons of the boutique event space on the second floor. One option is to break up the mural board into three sections, with space in between each one. This would give the mural more texture and make it look more like a piece of art. He is open to suggestions as this portion of the project evolves over time. He noted that particular attention needs to be paid to the scale of the mural wall. Mr. McMurray said there is currently a flower bed at the corner of the existing building, and the current design calls for an installation art piece. He spoke with Ms. Chapin about the City of Langley's installation art program, which rotates every 12 to 18 months. They have three spots throughout the city, and they have competitions. He suggested that Edmonds could embrace a similar concept, and this corner location could be an ideal place. Mr. McMurray said the site plan hasn't changed a lot since the Phase 1 hearing, except more awnings were added in the plaza and on Main Street. While he isn't required to provide parking, the proposed plan would accommodate 8 spaces. He said he finds it ironic that he is developing parking space for his project when, two lots away, the City is designing an 8.5-acre park without a designated parking lot or American's with Disabilities Act (ADA) parking. Development in the BD1 zone depends on street parking, and he has made some recommendations to the City's leadership about the need for a better balance. He explained that he has allowed people to park on his property for free for the past two years, and some people have voiced concern that the proposed project will take the parking away. He said he would like to provide more parking for his project, but it is extremely costly to provide underground parking. He noted that a few additional parking spaces could be created along 6t1i Avenue South when the existing curb cut is eliminated. Mr. McMurray advised that the tax on the two parcels increased by 60% over the past year, and retaining the parking lot and renovating the existing building with seismic updates, windows, etc. is not feasible in any scenario. He said he has received offers to sell the property for a nice gain for condominium development, which is considered the property's highest and best use. However, it is his belief that the spirit of the BD1 zone is to create a more vibrant, interactive downtown. The downtown is a large part of Edmonds' central identity. It is special and his proposed project tries to take that to heart. Mr. McMurray said the proposed stage area would be used for performances. When no one is performing, the public could utilize the space for seating and protection from the weather. He advised that groups like Sea Jazz need a place to perform, and he is hoping that local groups will perform in the plaza on a regular basis. He emphasized that he doesn't plan to have music there every day. Mr. McMurray pointed out that a signature tree would be planted at the corner of 6'11 Avenue South and Main Street (northeast corner). The idea is to plant a dwarf variety of evergreen tree that will only grow to a height of about 20 feet. The tree could make a statement and soften the building's appearance. He thanked the Board for this recommendation. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting October 2, 2019 Page 3 of 10 Packet Pg. 5 Mr. McMurray said the project's landscape architect also did the landscaping plan for Salish Crossing, and a similar style was used. The paver system used in the main plaza will be a commercial grade that is strong and durable. It will have altering patterns and shapes to provide more texture to the courtyard. The City recommended some bike amenities, which were added. Mr. McMurray said the new building would be open beamed When it is lit up at night, people walking down the hill will be able to see the soft wood of the ceiling. In addition, the sliding doors on the 6t1i Avenue South side of the existing building can be opened up during the summer. Three more trees would be added along 6t1i Avenue South and one would be added on Main Street to make the site more inviting. Mr. McMurray said he recently read the book, CREATING A MORE VIBRANT COMMUNITY, which talks about marque intersections in towns. While 6`h Avenue South and Main Street may not be a marque intersection now, once Civic Park is developed and the town evolves, it could become more of a destination. The book talks about how programming at intersections can help contribute to a town's vibrancy. It also talks about having parking in close proximity but not on the main drag. With the community's help, he is trying to procure the right tenants. He has had the good fortune to do that with an ice cream shop and pizzeria that are family -oriented. In addition, a gentleman is looking to open a yoga/cycle studio. There seems to be a real demand for the type of space that would be offered in the proposed boutique event space, too. The goal is to have tenants and patrons that create synergy on the property throughout the entire day. David DiMarco, DiMarco Architecture, said he is the project architect. He summarized the character of the exterior spaces, emphasizing that the focus was more on the spaces between the buildings than the buildings, themselves. They felt the downtown area really needed a place where informal interaction was encouraged. The goal was to create a community space that is attractive, comfortable and natural for uses in a distinctly Edmonds type of way. The mural panels on the southern side of the property are intended to draw people from 6th Avenue South and Main Street, they don't want them to looking through the plaza area to the less attractive backsides of the buildings across the alley. There is a long history of large-scale murals in Edmonds, and the thought was instead of creating a blank wall on a building and trying to make it look good with a mural, a better approach would be elevated murals that are the focal point of the exterior space. They can be flexible as far as the number and scale of the murals, but the idea is to draw people in a way that is uniquely Edmonds and create a focal point. Mr. DiMarco said the nature of the space behind the east building, which is dubbed the "art alley," is to screen the parking spaces and activate the adjacent space without feeling like you are partying in a parking space. The concrete block half wall is intended to partially screen the view of the cars from the plaza. He noted that concrete block, masonry walls with high reflective glazing are often used at public food markets to provide a sanitary, market feel. The thought was to create walls under colorful art panels to screen the parking, and perhaps even have an art program where students create custom blocks that could be placed intermittently within the wall. The goal is to engage the community in an artful and playful way. Mr. DiMarco advised that the retractable awnings underneath each of the art panels are intended to invoke an open -stall, market -type environment. The idea is to accommodate vendors seasonally to share their art wares. The specific details are born from a much bigger idea of trying to create a community -minded outdoor space. Mr. DiMarco said the code requires new projects to create a distinctive base, middle and top. He pointed out that, on the west building, the scale of the siding panels could be altered to create a base and middle, and the awnings will create the top. Using the recessed entryways, they tried to make the fagade of the building as pedestrian -friendly as possible. With the east building, the pattern of the brick fagade will be changed to create a base and middle. The top will be created with a large, steel cornice piece. Mr. DiMarco provided pictures of the project that summarized how the proposed designs for new east building and the renovated west building address all of the concerns raised by the Board and staff during the Phase 1 hearing. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting October 2, 2019 Page 4 of 10 Packet Pg. 6 2.1.a Najib Azar, Edmonds, said he is a long-time resident of Edmonds and has watched the community grow and thrive over the past 40 years. He and his wife always thought of the community as a dormant, retirement community, but that has changed. The City is waking up, and it is time to see changes that benefit the future generations. He commented that the applicant and his design team have done a tremendous job on the proposed project. It is a beautiful project that will add a great value to the City. He said he plans to open a health and fitness club on the subject site, which he believes will help Edmonds become a healthy and vibrant place. There is now a mix of residents living in Edmonds, and it is time to create a place where all generations can meet. He believes the proposed project will help fill that need. He summarized that the applicant has done a good job of addressing the design details. As a prospective tenant, he asked that the Board expedite the process by approving the project design. Jack Christiansen, Edmonds, asked if the applicant has plans to remove the utility poles that are currently located near the proposed parking spaces. Mr. DiMarco explained that when the electrical engineers put feelers out concerning where to pull power for the project, it became very clear very quickly that their hands were tied as to where poles and o transformers were already established and what was available for the project. The pole that is west of the subject `V property down the alley is the only option, according to the Public Utility District, where they will be able to have ci transformers to pull the power from. There was talk of getting power from the opposite side of the 6t1i Avenue c South/Main Street intersection or the east side of 6"' Avenue South, but these alternatives were determined to be o untenable. Mr. McMurray added that the code requires underground power for the project. The existing significant 4- power supply that comes across the parking lot will be removed. Transformers will be added on the pole near the alley, N and the lines will go down the pole and underground to the vault at the corner of the subject property. c Mr. Christiansen complimented the applicant on the traditional design of the existing building renovation. He also likes the traditional windows that have been proposed. He noted there is no dimension provided for the height of the building co at the corner of 6`'' Avenue South and Main Street. He asked how high the building would rise above the existing o sidewalk. Mr. DiMarco answered that on the far side of the east building, the height would be about 29 feet, but the o floor level at the corner is about 4 feet higher than the plaza level. The resulting height on the 2-story corner at 6t1i and > main will be approximately 25 feet. The covered entrance has a balcony across the top that is 15 feet floor -to -floor as a mandated by code, with a 3.5 foot -railing. The overall height would be about 19.5 feet. C Mr. Christiansen asked if there would be any personnel access or use of the roof. Mr. DiMarco said the elevator tower N would be there, as required by the elevator manufacturer. During Phase 1, the HVAC was placed on the rooftop, but o they were quickly told that is not permissible. As currently proposed, the southeast corner of the east building now has a recessed roof section to house all of the HVAC equipment, so it won't be any higher than the brick parapet. The code o allows the elevator tower to extend three feet above the roof, and it would have a simple stucco face. a Anne Christiansen, Edmonds, asked if the existing flower beds at the corner of 6`'' Avenue South and Main Street c would be preserved, and Mr. DiMarco answered affirmatively. cc Chair Herr expressed his belief that the applicant and his team did a great job of responding to the Board's direction and Q comments. He understands that adding more windows and relocating the entrance was structurally difficult, but they did a tremendous job. Board Member Bayer agreed with the comments made by Mr. Azar. She said she has lived in Edmonds for decades and has witnessed the vibrancy, growth and positive changes that have occurred. When the application was first presented in July, she was lukewarm with the proposed design for the existing building. She agreed with Chair Herr that the applicant did a great job updating the design for the benefit of the community. Board Member Bayer said she is a proponent of bringing more art into the community, but she is still trying to understanding the billboard concept. During the Phase 1 hearing, they discussed that perhaps the proposed mural walls were too large and intrusive and could take away the focus from Main Street and OhAvenue South. The applicant has Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes ofRegular Meeting October 2, 2019 Page 5 of 10 Packet Pg. 7 2.1.a indicated there is flexibility as far as the murals are concerned. She questioned how much flexibility the applicant would have, how big the murals could be, and who would make the decision as to what art or mural is installed. Mr. DiMarco explained that the three panels are hopeful placeholders at this time. Mr. McMurray hasn't engaged enough in how specifically the panels could be used to best benefit the local arts community. For example, they need to explore whether they should be permanent art installations or if they are intended to rotate. If they are permanent, artists may not be excited about working within a specific triangle, and if they are rotated, there is significant cost involved with changing out art at that scale. The pieces could almost be a framework right now, without any solid planes. You could then add specific pieces to them that are sponsored for however long the community or the artist chooses. The important elements are the half walls, the columns and the retractable awnings that create a sheltered space for the temporary stage area and the two market stall areas. Whatever happens above those is really up for grabs. By the time the permit application is finished and before a final decision has to been made, the applicant will have done the necessary research to get a feel for what would be the most engaging and enjoyable contribution he could make in large-scale art for the downtown area. It was never the applicant's intent to install large, suburban billboards in the downtown. The idea was to make a space that has art as a destination. That goal will remain consistent no matter how it morphs and changes. Mr. McMurray explained that the two mural panels on the east side near 6t1i Avenue South will be part of Part 2, so there will be time to consider a variety of options. He wants to focus on the mural in the courtyard first. The goal is to make it more interactive and look less like a billboard. Anything that can be done to interact with the pedestrians at the ground level in an artistic way will be important. He likes the idea of wall murals, but there are other options to shield the project from the parking and adjacent buildings. He said he is not 100% set on the murals and is open to suggestions. Board Member Bayer said she is more concerned about the murals in the plaza area, but is satisfied as long as the applicant remains open to suggestions. Chair Herr reminded the Board that the murals would require a separate permit, and there are stipulations relative to size, height, etc. Board Member Owenby recalled that he commended the applicant on the design at the Phase 1 hearing, and he extended that commendation to the Phase 2 proposal. The project will be great for the City. He likes that they are trying to create a community space rather than just designing facades. Quite often people come in with big ideas, which work sometimes, but if something falls the entire project fails. He likes that the applicant has created so many different elements that the project would still be successful even if some were eliminated. He likes all of the applicant's ideas for activating the space. He said he likes the signature tree at the corner, and making the windows bigger creates a nice loft feel. He also likes the art screen, but they might be too high. He asked if the applicant has done studies to identify the appropriate level. He appreciates that the applicant is open to suggestion for the art screen, and there are a number of option that could be considered. He said he likes the proposed design of the existing building renovation, and he likes the idea that the proposed project will create an anchor that will cause people to come further down the street. Board Member Guenther agreed with Board Member Owenby. He likes how the project will create a center for the community at the next corner moving up the hill. The proposed open spaces and buildings will create important synergy. He commented that Edmonds is a great community and the proposed project will make it even better. Board Member Jeude said it is very obvious that the applicant's heart is in the project and in the community. She likes the family orientation and the idea of incorporating the arts. The applicant could have tweaked a few things from the Phase 1 design and probably made the Board happy, but he responded to absolutely everything. Edmonds really needs more retail option, and the project will contribute to the local economy. Chair Herr closed the public testimony portion of the hearing. Chair Herr observed that the applicant has gone beyond what the Board asked at the Phase 1 hearing. They were able to overcome some significant obstacles and come back with a project that is even better than the one that was initially presented to the Board. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting October 2, 2019 Page 6 of 10 Packet Pg. 8 BOARD MEMBER GUENTHER MOVED THAT THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD ADOPT THE FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ANALYSIS OF THE STAFF REPORT; FIND THAT THE PROPOSAL IS CONSISTENT WITH THE ZONING ORDINANCE, 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. STREET -LEVEL WINDOWS ON BOTH BUILDINGS ALONG MAIN STREET MUST BE TRANSPARENT AND UNOBSTRUCTED CONSISTENT WITH ECDC 22.43.050.B. 2. ALL UTILITY CABINETS MUST BE RELOCATED, BURIED, SCREENED WITH VEGETATION, OR CAMOUFLAGED WITH ART TO REDUCE THEIR VISUAL IMPACT AT THE SIDEWALK LEVEL. 3. LANDSCAPING CONSISTENT WITH THE TYPE V REQUIREMENTS IN ECDC 20.13.030.E MUST BE PROVIDED IN THE LANDSCAPED AREA AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE SITE BY 6'H AVENUE SOUTH AND THE ALLEY (HATCHED AREA ON EXHIBIT 5). 4. ADDITIONAL HANGING BASKETS AND STREET FURNITURE MUST BE PROVIDED WITHIN THE PUBLIC SIDEWALK IF THERE IS SUFFICIENT ROOM BETWEEN OTHER REQUIRED FRONTAGE IMPROVEMENTS AND UTILITIES. 5. ADDITIONAL INTEREST MUST BE ADDED TO THE LOW WALL BETWEEN THE PARKING STALLS AND PLAZA. THIS COULD TAKE THE FORM OF LANDSCAPING, VARIED MATERIALS, OR THE LIKE. 6. MURALS WILL REQUIRE A SIGN PERMIT PER ECDC 20.60.015.C. 7. 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 OWENSBY SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. CONSOLIDATED PERMIT APPLICATIONS (No Public Participation): There were no consolidated permit applications. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTSATEMS FOR DISCUSSION: Continued Discussion of ADB Roles and Design Review Process Mr. Clugston reviewed that the Architectural Design Board (ADB) met jointly with the Planning Board on July 24th to discuss the Board's potential roles and the design review process. He advised that the goal of this meeting is to develop a consensus proposal to present to the Planning Board at a joint meeting on October 9t'. He recalled that when the Board last discussed the issue, they directed staff to come back with a recommendation that would allow the Board to be involved earlier in the design review process and allow the Board to have a role in reviewing and developing design standards that are principal drivers of general design and development in the City. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting October 2, 2019 Page 7 of 10 Packet Pg. 9 2.1.a Mr. Clugston explained that, as envisioned, there are two possible opportunities for the Board to review a project during the design review cycle. The first would be at the pre -application phase when an applicant is still in the early stages of project development. The second would be if the Board wants to remain within the project decision cycle by reviewing submitted projects that require non -staff design review (projects that require a SEPA determination and tall projects in the General Commercial zones) and making recommendations on their design to the final decision maker (likely the Hearing Examiner). He pointed out that doing the recommendation will require more project review work, but it would also allow the Board to take another look at a project to see if it addresses the Board's design vision as discussed at the pre -application meeting. He noted that there was discussion on both options, but the Board has not yet indicated its preferred option. Mr. Clugston summarized that, as discussed previously by the Board, their desired roles include: • Developing and recommending city-wide design guidelines and standards (e.g. for landscape treatments, multifamily development), as well as context -sensitive standards for special design districts (e.g. Downtown, Westgate, Five Corners, Highway 99). • Reviewing projects post -hoc to evaluate whether what was constructed reflects the intent of what was approved and, if not, recommending refinements to adopted design guidelines and standards. • Doing pre -application meetings for certain "significant" projects and providing recommendations to the Hearing Examiner when quasi-judicial decision -making is required (similar to how consolidated permit reviews operate now). • Reviewing public projects and providing recommendations to the City Council. • Providing decision support to staff, which may relate to various design -related topics. Next, Mr. Clugston asked the Board to review the staff proposed recommendations for implementing the Board's desired roles and provide feedback. Specifically, he asked the Board to provide feedback on whether or not they want to have two opportunities for project review and the ability to make a recommendation to the Hearing Examiner for large projects in the CG zone and projects that require SEPA review. Staff s Recommendations for Implementing the Board's Desired Goals: 1. Mandatory pre -application meetings with prospective applicants, before designs are completed and applications submitted (see separate flow chart for an example). 2. Periodic reviews of completed projects, comparing approved designs to completed projects (both at completion and 3-5 years after the project has been built. 3. Review City codes and policies related to design, making recommendations to the City Council on adjustments, or when appropriate, new standards or design guidance. To implement this role effective, the code should be clarified so that the sections of the code relevant to design are identified and the ADB's role made clear. Board Member Bayer asked how the periodic reviews (Recommendation 2) would happen, and what recourse the Board would have if a completed project is found to be inconsistent with the approved design. Mr. Clugston said he is not sure exactly how the periodic reviews would play out. Perhaps they could look back one year to recently completed projects, as well as a review of projects that were completed five to ten years ago. The idea is to review projects to see how they age over time and whether or not they are consistent with the design guidelines. If they aren't, the Board could recommend policy and code changes. For example, during its review of a recent multifamily project, the Board expressed concern that the current code does not require guest parking, nor does it require that projects be oriented towards the street. The thought is that the proposed changes would allow the Board to recommend code and policy changes as appropriate to improve the design of buildings going forward. If the Board wants to retain its role in providing recommendations to the Hearing Examiner, perhaps one meeting a month could be devoted to post -hoc reviews and the other meeting could be reserved for recommendations on projects. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting October 2, 2019 Page 8 of 10 Packet Pg. 10 2.1.a Board Member Jeude observed that if the Board were to do periodic post -hoc review of projects going forward, someone would have to record what the expectations of the approved design were so they could be referred to five years down the road to identify potential changes. Mr. Clugston said the post -hoc reviews would include reviewing the approved plans and the minutes from the Board's meetings to identify any divergence between what the Board recommended and what was actually constructed. He pointed out that there are already solid design standards for the BD zones, but the City's general design standards apply to projects in other multifamily and commercial zones in the City. Chair Herr observed that, when Mr. Lien presented a review of projects completed over the past 10 years, he didn't see anything that was radically different from what the Board approved. Board Member Guenther recalled that this issue first came up five or six years ago when some members of the Board felt that projects were not being built consistent with what the Board approved. However, Mr. Lien's recent presentation indicated that was not the case. With the notable exception of the post office project, all of the projects were fairly consistent with the design that was approved by the Board. The post office project design was changed enough that it should have been brought back to the Board for additional review. Board Member Guenther voiced concern that the pre -application meeting may be too early to discuss design, as the information provided is quite basic. While he likes the idea of the Board participating earlier in the process, perhaps there needs to be a separate meeting to deal with design. Board Member Owenby agreed. The Board's participation should come at a time when schematic design are available to review issues such as massing, how a project addresses the street, etc. Mr. Clugston explained that there are two types of pre -application meetings. There's a free development review committee meeting, which provides a very high-level look at a project. But the pre -application meetings are paid for by the applicant and reasonably -detailed site plan and building elevation are submitted for review. He suggested they could ask for a higher level of detail at the pre -application stage for projects that trigger SEPA. Board Member Guenther agreed it would be appropriate to have a minimum requirement for site plan, elevation, massing studies, etc. Board Member Jeude commented that the requirement for awnings and 75% transparency seemed to surprise the applicant for the Main Street Common Project. She suggested there should be some way to make all of the requirements clear before applicants get too far into their design. Mr. Clugston said he cannot think of another time, other than a pre -application meeting, for the Board to provide input early enough to where they can have a general discussion about the project and its context. However, they must make sure to require useful renderings, massing information, etc. He suggested that the development review committee meeting could be the fact-finding meeting, but for projects that require SEPA, they could ask for more information upfront so the Board has more solid plan to look at. Board Member Owenby said it will be important for the City to provide clear information about exactly what will be required for the pre -application meetings. Mr. Clugston said that, hopefully, the Board's work will eventually be reflected in the design standards and guidelines contained in the code, but they aren't quite there yet. The intent is for the Board to spend more time working on policies and codes that result in better design. There will be a transition period, but the pre -application meeting concept is a good place to start. As they get further down the road, the standards and guidelines can be tightened up, and perhaps the pre - application meetings will no longer be necessary. The pre -application meetings will get applicants thinking more closely about design, even if the Board's input is only a recommendation. Board Member Bayer commented that, overall, the proposed recommendation represent a great new direction for the Board's role. She asked if there would be an opportunity for Board Members to provide further feedback at a future meeting. Mr. Clugston said it would be useful for the Board to indicate support for the general recommendation, which will be presented at the joint meeting with the Planning Board. Additional details can be discussed and fleshed out at the joint meeting. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting October 2, 2019 Page 9 of 10 Packet Pg. 11 2.1.a Chair Herr commented that the staff recommendation provides a good starting point. They won't know how the changes will play out until they are implemented. He anticipates that other ideas will come up later and the Board will have some additional recommendations. He supports moving the recommendations forward to the Planning Board to get the process rolling. Mr. Clugston asked the Board to provide specific direction about whether they want to participate in just the pre - application review, or if they want to reserve the ability to review projects after an application comes in and make a recommendation to the Hearing Examiner. He emphasized that the second review would be followed by a recommendation to the Hearing Examiner, and not final approval by the Board. Board Member Owensby said it is important for the Board to have an additional meeting to review significant projects. The Main Street Commons Project is a good example of a project being significantly improved for the second hearing. It would be good to have the ability to provide continuing feedback, but it would be even better if the Board's feedback had some teeth behind it. Mr. Clugston said the Board's recommendation could include conditions of approval, and it would be up to the Hearing Examiner whether to adopt the conditions or not. Chair Herr pointed out that projects on Highway 99 will be significantly larger and have a greater impact from the standpoint of design. As the Housing Commission moves forward, it will be important for the Board to provide input as to how development along Highway 99 will look. The entire corridor will change dramatically as the City starts to address housing issues. It is the only place in the City where there is the height and land available for large housing projects. Mr. Clugston reminded the Board that the City Council recently adopted new design standards for the General Commercial (CG) zones that are far reaching. They also completed a project SEPA for the entire Highway 99 area. The Board should have been involved in the development of the design standards, using their expertise as designers and architects, but that didn't happen. The Board Members indicated they would be able to meet jointly with the Planning Board on October 9t11. Mr. Clugston agreed to prepare an agenda memo that outlines the ADB's recommendation. Board Member Owenby asked if the Planning Board has discussed the concepts related to design review. Mr. Clugston recalled that the ADB met jointly with the Planning Board in July to discuss the concepts, and they are aware that the Board would like to change its focus. They have requested that the ADB prepare a set of recommendation. He advised that, because the proposed changes will require code changes, the Planning Board will need to be involved in the process and make a recommendation to the City Council. He summarized that the Planning Board is aware that the ADB wants to do something different, and they advised the City Council of the proposed changes at their joint meeting in September. They know that changes are coming, but it is up to the ADB to provide input on the best way to make them happen. Board Member Guenther stressed the need for the ADB to work closely with the Planning Board to make sure they understand exactly what the Board is recommending. They will need to support the proposed changes as they move through the process, including final approval by the City Council. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS: Mr. Clugston announced that he is not aware of any projects that will be coming before the Board for review in the near future. Board Member Owenby asked if the Board's work on proposed policy and code amendments would have to be done in a public setting, and Mr. Clugston answered affirmatively. However, he agreed that the meeting room could be set up differently in a conference -style setting. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting October 2, 2019 Page 10 of 10 Packet Pg. 12 6.1 Architectural Design Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 11/6/2019 Continued Discussion on ADB Roles Staff Lead: Mike Clugston Department: Planning Division Prepared By: Michael Clugston Narrative Continue discussion on refinements to ADB scope and roles (see Attachment 1). Minutes from the October 9 joint meeting with the Planning Board are included as Attachment 2. Attachments: Attachment 1: ADB Role Recommendations Attachment 2: October 9 minutes from joint PB/ADB meeting Packet Pg. 13 6.1.a Recommendations from the Architectural Design Board (ADB) on Design Review Introduction The Architectural Design Board (ADB) has served in Edmonds for several decades. Over the years, the ADB has observed certain concerns about design in Edmonds. Notably, the ADB believes that design standards are incomplete and, in some cases, are not necessarily yielding the results either the Board or the Edmonds Community would like to see. In general, the Board feels it has spent too much time "approving" already -designed projects without being able to influence design decisions early in the development process, particularly before applications have been submitted. This can be accomplished in two ways, by having a role earlier in the process (at the pre -application stage before a design solution has been arrived at), and by having a role in the review and development of design standards that are the principal drivers of general design and development in the City. Current ADB Powers and Duties (adopted in ECC 10.05) The board is empowered to advise and make recommendations to the mayor, city council, planning commission and the planning department on matters hereinafter enumerated and on such matters as may be specifically referred to the board by the mayor, city council, planning commission or the planning department: A. To study and prepare a recommendation for a comprehensive architectural design plan including the recommendation of establishment of specific design districts which shall be a part of the comprehensive plan. B. To review and study land use within the city of Edmonds from a design standpoint. C. To establish goals, objectives and policies for design districts. D. To recommend legislation to effectuate the implementation of the comprehensive architectural design plan and the goals, objectives and policies for each established design district. E. And for such other matters as shall be referred to the board for review and recommendation by the mayor, city council, planning commission or the planning department. [Ord. 1683 § 1, 1973]. Desired roles expressed by ADB (2019) • Develop and recommend city-wide design guidelines and standards (e.g. for landscape treatments, multifamily development), as well as context -sensitive standards for special design districts (e.g. Downtown, Westgate, Five Corners, Highway 99) Packet Pg. 14 6.1.a • Review projects post -hoc to evaluate whether what was constructed reflects the intent of what was approved and, if not, recommend refinements to adopted design guidelines and standards • Do pre -application meetings for certain "significant" projects and provide recommendations to the Hearing Examiner when quasi-judicial decision -making is required (similar to how consolidated permit reviews operate now) • Review public projects and provide recommendations to City Council • Provide decision support to staff (which may relate to various design -related topics) Recommendations To implement these desired roles, the ADB recommends that its meetings change in emphasis, focusing more on: • Mandatory pre -application meetings with prospective applicants, before designs are completed and applications submitted (see separate flow chart for an example); • Periodic reviews of completed projects, comparing approved designs to completed projects (both at completion and at, for example, 3-5 years after the project has been built); • Review City codes and policies related to design, making recommendations to the City Council on adjustments or, when appropriate, new standards or design guidance. To implement this role effectively, the code should be clarified so that the sections of the code relevant to design are identified and the ADB's role made clear. Packet Pg. 15 6.1.b CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD Minutes of Meeting October 9, 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 — 51 Avenue North. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FOR INDIGENOUS PEOPLES We acknowledge the original inhabitants of this place, the Sdohobsh (Snohomish) people and their successors the Tulalip Tribes, who since time immemorial have hunted, fished, gathered, and taken care of these lands. We respect their sovereignty, their right to self-determination, and we honor their sacred spiritual connection with the land and water. PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT Matthew Cheung, Chair Daniel Robles, Vice Chair Todd Cloutier Alicia Crank Nathan Monroe Carreen Nordling Rubenkonig (left at 8:00) Mike Rosen Conner Bryan, Student Representative BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT Roger Pence (excused) READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT Joe Herr, Chair Maureen Jeude Bruce Owensby Cary Guenther ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT Laurie Strauss, Vice Chair Kim Bayer Tom Walker STAFF PRESENT Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager Mike Clugston, Senior Planner Rob English, City Engineer Shannon Burley, Deputy Director, Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Jerrie Bevington, Video Recorder Karin Noyes, Recorder BOARD MEMBER MONROE MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 25, 2019 BE APPROVED AS PRESENTED. BOARD MEMBER ROSEN SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA The agenda was accepted as presented. AUDIENCE COMMENTS There were no audience comments. Packet Pg. 16 6.1.b DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR REPORT TO PLANNING BOARD There were no comments related to the Development Services Director Report JOINT MEETING WITH THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD (ADB): DESIGN REVIEW ROLES AND PROCESS Mr. Clugston reviewed that the Planning Board and ADB discussed revisions to the ADB's roles and involvement in project reviews at a joint meeting on July 24', and the Planning Board discussed revisions to the ADB's roles and processes at a joint meeting with the City Council on September 241. The purpose of this meeting is to have continued discussion about the ADB's changing roles in developing the guidance and standards necessary to influence design in Edmonds and its specific role in the project design review process. It is anticipated that, at the end of the discussion, the two groups will provide direction to staff to draft code revisions to implement the changes. Mr. Clugston reviewed that the ADB is concerned that the design standards are incomplete and do not always yield the results that the ADB and the Edmonds community want to see. The ADB feels it spends too much time approving already - designed projects without being able to influence design decisions early in the development process. They have expressed a desire to have an earlier role in the review process, as well as a role in reviewing and developing design standards. He referred to Attachment 1, which provides a summary of the ADB's current codified powers and duties compared with the ADB's desired roles and a list of recommendations from the ADB. He also referred to Attachment 2, which is a flowchart of the proposed new design review process. He reviewed the ADB's recommendations are as follows: 1. Mandatory pre -application meetings with prospective applicants, before designs are completed and applications submitted. For the past 30 years, the ADB's work has focused on making quasi-judicial decisions at the end of a project review, and this has caused it to miss opportunities to participate in recent design work related to Westgate, Highway 99, Five Corners, etc. As was discussed at the last joint meeting, quasi-judicial decision making at the end of a project review cycle is not the best use of the ADB's time and expertise. In addition, the City Council, via Resolution 1367, has stated its intent to remove volunteer boards from the quasi-judicial decision - making role. As envisioned, the ADB would have two touches of larger projects during the design review cycle. The first would be at the pre -application phase when an applicant is still in the early stages of project development, and the second would be during the application review as a recommendation to the final decision maker. A mandatory pre -application meeting would allow the ADB to provide guidance on a variety of elements, including massing, site context and open space, before an applicant spends significant time and money preparing design plans. The second review would allow the Board to take a second look at a project to see if the applicant addressed the Board's design vision from the pre -application meeting and propose design conditions if it did not. 2. Periodic reviews of completed projects, comparing approved designs to completed projects. Post -hoc reviews of completed projects would allow the ADB to see how projects age into sites and whether what was envisioned by the design standards and guidelines are working or if they need to be revised to ensure the community is getting the design it wants. 3. Review City codes and policies related to design, making recommendations to the City Council on adjustments or, when appropriate, new standards or design guidance. The ADB would like to have a role in developing and recommending citywide design guidelines and standards, as well as context -sensitive standards for special design districts such as Highway 99, Five Corners, Westgate, etc. Board Member Owensby said the ADB hasn't had a lot of opportunity to discuss how the proposed recommendations would be implemented, but they all feel frustration with the current process and their inability to provide input relative to design. In some cases, the ADB has approved projects it normally wouldn't have simply because they meet all of the City's design standards and they had no choice. He said the ADB would like to play a larger role in developing policies and codes that affect design. There are currently a lot of design standards that appear to be requirements, when in fact, they are just guidelines and the ADB doesn't have the ability to enforce them. It would be good to have guidelines in place that are both consistent and enforceable. He suggested that, rather than one -size -fits -all design standards, the standards should recognize Planning Board Minutes October 9, 2019 Page 2 Packet Pg. 17 6.1.b that the setbacks, building modulation and other design standards need to based on the type of building, as well as its use and location. Chair Herr recalled that, just recently, an applicant presented a project that the ADB really liked but could not approve as presented. While the intent of the design standards is good, it wasn't possible to meet them without making significant structural engineering changes. The Board's hands were tied because it has no discretionary ability to modify the standards. If the ADB had been involved early in the design, perhaps it could have recommended some potential solutions. In the end, the applicant came back with a project that met all of the Board's recommendations, but a lot of time and money was required to get to that point. They could have got out in front of these issues if they had had an opportunity to meet with the applicant early in the design process. He summarized that the Board can recommend changes as part of its quasi-judicial review, but it has no authority to stop a project that meets all of the design guidelines and code standards. The fact that this developer took the ADB's recommendations to heart and redesigned the building was a bonus, but he didn't have to do it. Chair Herr explained that, with the current process, applicant's present projects and the Board reviews the Design Guideline Checklist and signs off on them without having an opportunity to provide significant input. They can make recommendations, but there are no teeth to require applicants to implement changes. If the ADB doesn't like a project, they have to approve it anyway if it meets all of the design guidelines and codes. The ADB would like to be involved earlier in design review to help guide projects. Board Member Guenther pointed out that the ADB has never been invited to provide input on design elements when the Comprehensive Plan is updated. He expressed his belief that the ADB needs to be more involved in both Comprehensive Plan policies and legislative code amendments related to design. Besides just approving projects, the ADB can offer a lot more. Board Member Rosen asked what the Planning Board's role will be in the process of changing the ADB's role and the design review process. Mr. Chave explained that, as per code, the Planning Board is responsible for making recommendations to the City Council regarding amendments to the Development Code, including ADB procedures and responsibilities, and that is why the ADB is meeting jointly with the Planning Board to share its recommendation. Mr. Chave said the ADB has discussed having all of the design standards in one section of the code, and then having the ADB the body in charge of making recommendations to the City Council regarding design code changes. He suggested it would be awkward for the ADB to have study sessions and public hearings on proposed amendments, only for the Planning Board to have to repeat the process before making a recommendation to the City Council. The ADB is interested in having a stronger role in the development of design guidelines (Comprehensive Plan) and design standards (Development Code), and staff believes it would make sense for the ADB to submit their recommendations directly to the City Council. In an attempt to advance the recommendations with the best opportunity for success, Board Member Rosen asked if it would be better to have the recommended changes come from the Planning Board or from both boards together. Mr. Chave suggested that it would be appropriate to present the proposed changes to the City Council in a joint meeting. Regarding Board Member Guenther's comment about the ADB being left out of the Comprehensive Plan process, Board Member Rubenkonig pointed out that there hasn't been a comprehensive review of the Comprehensive Plan for quite a while. The most recent amendments were unrelated to design. Board Member Guenther recalled that he was a member of the Planning Board when the design element of the Comprehensive Plan was updated, and the Planning Board did not solicit feedback or help from the ADB. He suggested that it would be appropriate for the ADB to participate the next time the design element is updated. Board Member Rubenkonig asked Mr. Chave to explain the City's process for reviewing the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Chave said the City completes a comprehensive update of its Comprehensive Plan every seven years. In between, the City conducts an annual update to address minor changes that are needed for one reason or another. He said the ADB has suggested it would like to take a larger role in modifications to and development of the design guidelines, some of which are in the Comprehensive Plan. They would also like a larger role in creating and modifying the design standards in the Development Code. He noted that their input has been largely left out of previous updates. Planning Board Minutes October 9, 2019 Page 3 Packet Pg. 18 Board Member Monroe recalled that at the last joint meeting, the two boards talked about the need for a deviation process. He asked if the ADB had a chance to talk about the concept further. Board Member Owensby answered no. Mr. Chave explained that the proposal currently before the Board would modify the code to allow the ADB to be involved earlier in design review and to have a role in developing and modifying design guidelines, design standards and other code regulations related to design. If and when the current proposal is adopted by the City Council, the ADB can begin to discuss potential code amendments, including a provision that allows for deviations to the design standards. Vice Chair Robles recalled that at the joint meeting, he recognized that the ADB members are creative, technically -minded and safety conscious in taking care of details. At their joint meeting with the Council, the Planning Board expressed its belief that the ADB is being underutilized at this time. For example, it was pointed out that the ADB has some great ideas related to Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) that could be beneficial to the Housing Commission. When the City Council made it clear that ADU's were under the purview of the Housing Commission, he pointed out that allowing the ADB to study the issue and recommend a set of specifications that can work for ADUs would help the Housing Commission move quicker. He said he can see how the ADB's work at the front end could actually lubricate the issue and allow it to run smoother rather than hold it back. He wholeheartedly agreed that having ADB participation closer to the front end of design review would be beneficial, as well. He asked what would be the best approach for pushing the ADB's recommended changes forward to the City Council. Chair Herr referred to Attachment 1, which outlines what the ADB is striving to accomplish. However, implementing all of the changes will take baby steps. The ADB's recommendation list only includes three items as a place to start. As the changes are implemented, the Board will get a better idea of how it can best serve and help applicants present their projects. If the ADB is allowed to comment earlier, their feedback will come more as a suggestion or recommendation. If they are presented at the end after a project has been fully designed, applicants are much less willing to consider the recommendations. Having the review come earlier in the process will benefit developers, the ADB, the City and the community. Vice Chair Robles stressed the need to clearly articulate the ADB's vision. If you flip the politics, it becomes an easy change. It is all about communicating the proposal to the City Council in a way that they are open to the rest of the changes. Mr. Chave referred to Attachment 1, which lists the ADB's current powers and duties, noting that most of what the ADB currently does (reviewing projects) isn't even on the list. Their major job now is to act as the approval body for projects rather than providing design expertise for the development of design in the City. The ADB is suggesting going back to the powers and duties that the current code assigns to them. They would still have a role in project review, but it would be pushed much earlier in the process to better influence how design develops. Having a provision in place that allows for design standard modifications would encourage good design to happen. He summarized that if the Planning Board supports the ADB's recommendations, staff could schedule a joint meeting with the ADB, Planning Board and City Council. If the Council is receptive to the recommendation, staff could draft the appropriate code changes to make it happen. Board Member Owensby agreed that the proposal's success will depend on how it is presented to the City Council. He doesn't want to step on anyone's toes. As an architect, he has to gather and assimilate a variety of information (building codes, soil conditions, client desires, etc.) in order to do a good project. The ADB members excel at doing this. With regards to ADUs, the ADB could help the Housing Commission think through the process creatively so that Edmonds gets the type of housing it needs. Vice Chair Robles agreed that the Housing Commission is necessary, and the ADB could support their efforts so they don't get bogged down with details that would be easy for the ADB to address. Mr. Chave explained that the Housing Commission's role will be to come up with policies relative to ADUs and not to develop detailed standards for ADU's. Once the policies are in place, they will allow the Planning Board and/or ADB to come up with specific implementation standards to implement the policies. The City Council didn't want the Planning Board and ADB to "get too far into the weeds" before the Housing Commission comes up with the big picture policy direction. Board Member Rubenkonig said she watched the video of the Planning Board's joint meeting with the City Council and observed that there was a misrepresentation of the ADU concept and that some Board Members confused the issue. She appreciates that Mr. Chave has set the Board straight. She said the way the Board could impact the ADU discussion was also Planning Board Minutes October 9, 2019 Page 4 Packet Pg. 19 6.1.b misrepresented. It is her understanding that the Planning Board and ADB can look at the current criteria for detached ADUs and consider other criteria that would result in acceptable design for the City, and it is time for that to take place. There is no new policy being made at this time for detached ADU's, and it is not within their purview to discuss policy changes. However, the Planning Board can work with the ADB to see if there is another way for ADUs to look that might be more palatable for the neighborhoods and the City. The current regulations have been in place for a long time, and perhaps they no longer represent the present concerns or future needs. Discussing these regulations are well within the purview of the two Boards. She recalled previous discussions with the Development Services Director, indicating that the Planning Board could work with the ADB on the design issues related to ADU's. However, policies as to who can benefit from ADU's will come from the Housing Commission. That is what the City Council was trying to clarify. Board Member Rubenkonig concluded that, with this understanding and staff s support, the Planning Board can engage with the ADB in looking at the design standards for ADUs. However, they must be clear they can always do what they have been doing, which is making preferences known as to the benefit these structures could be for other people in the City aside from family members. The Planning Board is expected to represent different views and be part of the conversation. Striking a chord on the Board will require communication and that they are all in agreement when it comes to agenda setting for when they meet with the City Council. They need to be clearer, publicly, about how they discuss things as a Board. Once they make plans, they have to protect those plans and represent the Board in a fine manner. They have to be very clear tonight about the difference between the policies the Housing Commission will be setting and the Planning Board's future work with the ADB. She concluded that it was disconcerting to see the issue become so mottled, and she didn't want the confusion to continue at this meeting. Board Member Crank said she supports the ADB's recommendation and the flowchart that was attached to the Staff Report. The last thing that volunteers want to feel like is that their time and talent is not being utilized because their hands are being tied or that the work is not going down the right pathway for them to be effective. She recalled that, at the Planning Board's joint meeting with the City Council, Councilmember Johnson brought up that some items have been on the Planning Board's extended agenda for years. She would like these items to be revisited. She suggested that the 2020 Planning Board Chair should proactively work with staff to schedule these projects on the Board's extended agenda and find ways to incorporate the ADB where appropriate. Board Member Rosen said that whenever he considers potential changes, he tries to consider what issues might come up that will kill a new idea. He asked what are the worst things someone might say in opposition to the ADB's recommended changes. Chair Herr responded that, without the changes, good volunteers may decide to leave their position on the ADB. Board Member Rosen agreed that will be an outcome of the proposed change. Board Member Guenther commented that if the ADB is able to make recommendations directly to the City Council, it will appear they are being promoted a level up the chain. The current process requires the ADB to make recommendations to the Planning Board and then the Planning Board makes a recommendation to the City Council. Along the way, recommendations get modified, and what is eventually adopted may not be consistent with the ADB's original recommendation. He said it makes sense for the ADB to make recommendations directly to the City Council, but this change could raise some concerns. Board Member Owensby voiced concern that elements of an ADB recommendation can get lost in the translation as it is moved through the Planning Board and then to the City Council. The Planning Board may not have an adequate understanding of an ADB recommendation to clearly explain to the City Council why it is important. If the ADB is able to make recommendations directly to the City Council, they can clearly explain their reasoning. Board Member Rosen agreed that many good ideas have been derailed by the current process, which is a compelling argument in support of the proposed changes. Mr. Chave said they may receive some pushback on the mandatory pre -application meeting requirement. He explained that pre -application meetings are not mandatory at this point. Quite a number of applicants do them anyway, but it is something else to make it mandatory. Some element of the development community is used to the current process, and adding a new step early in the process might cause some pushback. He said that, in his view, it isn't really a penalty to require a pre - application meeting; it just means that people will have to think of that earlier in the process. Planning Board Minutes October 9, 2019 Page 5 Packet Pg. 20 6.1.b Board Member Rosen asked if other jurisdictions in the region require pre -application meetings. Chari Herr said he works in a lot of jurisdictions, and most have pre -application meetings. He said he doesn't think they will receive a lot of pushback from the development community because they are used to it in most jurisdictions. Mr. Chave commented that some of the local developers are not used to pre -application meetings, but they provide a potential benefit, particularly if the City has a process for deviations to the standards. A pre -application meeting will allow the ADB to engage a prospective developer early enough that they can see possibilities they may not have recognized themselves. BOARD MEMBER ROSEN MOVED THAT THE BOARD ENDORSE THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD AND SET UP A TIME TO CO -PRESENT THE RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL. BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER SECONDED THE MOTION. Board Member Cloutier pointed out that, as proposed, the pre -application meeting would only be mandatory for significant projects and not every project. Developers of larger projects will have a different level of visibility anyway. Mr. Chave referred to the flowchart (Attachment 2) that was attached to the Staff Report, emphasizing that it is just a draft now. Once they get into the details of the process, they can set different thresholds, depending on where projects are located. For example, he can see that the threshold for mandatory pre -application meetings would be different for development in the downtown versus Highway 99, Westgate, etc. Board Member Owenby said he would like to make sure that any project that is publicly oriented should require a pre - application meeting. This would include development on Highway 99, downtown, Five Corners, etc. The threshold should be based on both size and location. Board Member Cloutier cautioned that it will be important to clearly define the threshold so it is easy for people on the outside to understand. The process outlined in the flowchart is simple, setting the threshold at projects that require State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review. Chair Herr agreed that would be a good place to start. However, the pre -application meeting could remain an option for all projects, and some developers might take advantage of the opportunity. Board Member Rubenkonig said she has no comments regarding the contents of the Staff Report, but she is concerned that the ADB hasn't had enough time to consider their recommendation and some of their members are not present. She observed no action is required at this time. They can reconvene the joint meeting on a future date if necessary for the ADB to have more preparation time. Chair Herr responded that the ADB has discussed the recommendation at length in prior meetings. All members of the ADB have participated in the discussion and all are in agreement with the recommendation. Board Member Owensby clarified that the intent of his earlier comment is that the ADB hasn't had time to go beyond the initial recommendation to look at the specific design guidelines and design standards they might recommend in the future. Once again, Chair Herr reminded them that it will take small steps, starting with outlining the framework and gaining the Planning Board and City Council support. As they move forward, the details will all be fleshed out. Board Member Rubenkonig asked the Planning Board members why they are comfortable moving the ADB's recommendation on to the City Council. Board Member Cloutier clarified that they are not recommending a complete rewrite of the code. They are simply endorsing the three recommendations provided in Attachment 1 of the Staff Report, which outline what they want the ADB to be doing. The proposed recommendations set a vision for where the ADB should be going, and then the recommendations will be implemented with new actions. Board Member Monroe commented that the ADB recommendation represents a thoughtful process and is exactly the process he wants to have for the design review board. The proposed changes offer a great way to keep the citizen boards engaged, and they need to be able to fix things that aren't working. He is open to hearing the ADB's ideas for implementing the changes in the future. Chair Cheung said he appreciates the ADB's recommendation and found their arguments to be compelling. He supports empowering the ADB to do work where they can help the most. Rather than the ADB making a recommendation to the Planning Board and then the Planning Board making a recommendation to the City Council, he would support the ADB making their own recommendations to the City Council. Planning Board Minutes October 9, 2019 Page 6 Packet Pg. 21 6.1.b Vice Chair Robles said he is an engineer and works with architects. They rely on each other, and the working relationship is very important. It is also important that both boards represent the citizens. They need to take every opportunity to increase the weight of the citizen comments, and he trusts the architects on the ADB to do that. He looks forward to their active participation in forwarding the goal of protecting the health, safety and welfare of people and property. Board Member Rubenkonig clarified that the ADB is made up of a planner, a civil engineer, at least one architect, a design professional, and two representatives from the community. They are not all architects, but most are related to the design profession. She cautioned against an overemphasis on the ADB members all being architects when the reality is, they represent the design profession. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Board Member Rubenkonig left the meeting at 8:00 p.m. PRESENTATION OF THE PROPOSED 2020 — 2025 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN/CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN (CFP/CIP) Mr. English explained that the Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) is required by the Growth Management Act and covers a planning horizon of 6 to 20 years. It is intended to identify longer term capital needs (not maintenance) and be tied to the City's Level of Service (LOS) Standards. The Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) is a budgeting tool that includes capital and maintenance projects, and it ties the projects to the various City funds and revenues. The CFP is required to be consistent with the other elements of the Comprehensive Plan, and there are restrictions on how often it can be amended. There are no restrictions tied to the CIP. The two plans intersect when identifying 6-year capital projects with funding sources. The CIP is organized based on the City's financial funds and provides a description of each of the capital projects identified for the six - year period. Mr. English explained that projects are added to the CFP and CIP based on adopted elements of the City's Comprehensive Plan. The Parks, Recreation and Open Space (PROS) Plan, the Transportation Plan and Utilities Plans all go through extensive public processes of updating and establishing policies and goals. The CIP is tied to the City's budget and several funds make up the overall document: • Fund 112 is a Transportation Fund that is managed by the Public Works Department. It is funded via grants and the gas tax. • Fund 125 is a Capital Projects Fund that is managed by both the Public Works and Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Departments. It is funded by the Real Estate Excise Tax (REET). • Fund 126 is a Special Capital Project and Parks Acquisition Fund that is managed by both the Public Works and Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Departments. It is also funded by REET. • Fund 332 is a Parks Construction Fund that is managed by the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Department. It is funded by grants. • Fund 421 is the Water Utility Fund that is managed by the Public Works Department. • Fund 422 is the Stormwater Utility Fund that is managed by the Public Works Department. • Fund 423 is the Sewer and Wastewater Treatment Fund that is managed by the Public Works Department. Mr. English shared highlights of 2019 Projects: The $1.8 million Pavement Preservation Program was a key part of the program for maintaining City streets. In 2019, the City overlaid 6.5 lane miles and 13 new Americans with Disabilities (ADA) ramps were added using funding from both the Street Overlay Program and the Utility Programs. The 89t1i Place Retaining Wall Project was funded with REET dollars. The project is on a small cul-de-sac street. The existing wall was failing and causing the street to settle and slope away. They were able to rebuild the rockery with a mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) wall and the project was completed last spring at a cost of about $125,000. Planning Board Minutes October 9, 2019 Page 7 Packet Pg. 22