2019-07-24 Planning Board MinutesCITY 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
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
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 241h 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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