Loading...
Cmd40522 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 5, 2022 Page 1 EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL HYBRID MEETING APPROVED MINUTES April 5, 2022 ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Vivian Olson, Mayor Pro Tem Diane Buckshnis, Council President Pro Tem Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember Will Chen, Councilmember Neil Tibbott, Councilmember Susan Paine, Councilmember Laura Johnson, Councilmember ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT Mike Nelson, Mayor ALSO PRESENT Brook Roberts, Student Representative STAFF PRESENT Angie Feser, Parks, Rec., Cultural Arts & Human Services Director Susan McLaughlin, Dev. Serv. Director Kernen Lien, Environmental Programs Mgr. Mike Clugston, Senior Planner Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Scott Passey, City Clerk Dave Rohde, GIS Analyst Jerrie Bevington, Camera Operator 1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:22 p.m. by Mayor Pro Tem Olson in the Council Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, and virtually. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. Mayor Pro Tem Olson advised the City was experiencing technical difficulties; the video had been lost previously and may be lost again. The audio will be available throughout the meeting. 2. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Councilmember Chen read the City Council Land Acknowledge Statement: “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.” 3. ROLL CALL City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present with the exception of Mayor Nelson. 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 5, 2022 Page 2 COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Mayor Pro Tem Olson described the procedures for in-person audience comments. Linda Fireman, Edmonds, said she would be commenting on zoning as it relates to proposed plan 2021- 0066. She relayed 605 and 611 Main are zoned BD2 or Downtown Mixed Commercial. Ordinance 3955 relates only to BD1 and only shows subdistricts and permitted uses and is included on the website in Chapter 16.43 DB Downtown Business Permitted Uses for BD2 under 16.43.020 uses for residential and does not reference designated street fronts. Under Table 16.43-1 it can be a single family dwelling or multiple dwelling units but must be located on the second floor or behind the first 45-feet from the sidewalk or rights-of-way. The code is very easy to understand; there is no reference to designated street fronts and there is no B Permitted secondary uses or C. Primary uses requiring conditional use permit shown under the permitted uses for BD2. Table 16.43-1 documents the permitted uses; multiple dwelling units in BD2 must be located on the second floor or behind the first 45-feet from sidewalk or rights-of- way. Multiple dwelling units can be on the ground floor at 605/611 Main Street as long as they are located behind the first 45-feet from the sidewalk or rights-of-way. She proposed if the proposed apartment building is allowed to proceed without commercial space that the zoning be changed to RM-1.5 before planning begins and conform to zoning of the neighborhood. 601 Main is now a single family home. A public hearing and referendum would be welcome. Susie Schafer, Edmonds, read a proclamation from Governor Inslee on native plants: WHEREAS, native plant species are an important part of Washington’s heritage, providing important aesthetic, economic and ecological contributions that make Washington a special place to live; and WHEREAS, Washington enjoys an amazing biodiversity with over 3,000 native plant species, from rain forest plants on the Olympic Peninsula to the desert species in Eastern Washington; and WHEREAS, preserving native plant ecosystems is critical for protecting wildlife, birds, fish and water quality in our state; and WHEREAS, native plant ecosystems protect our watersheds by recharging natural aquifers, modulating stream flows, filtering water and reducing erosion and flooding; and WHEREAS, over 350 of our native plant species are listed as rare by the Washington Natural Heritage Program; and WHEREAS invasive species present a great threat to sustaining our native plant ecosystems and biodiversity; and WHEREAS, climate change significantly impacts Washington’s native plants and their habitats, requiring action to protect them from climate change; NOW, THEREFORE, I, Jay Inslee, Governor of the state of Washington, do hereby proclaim the month of April 2022 as Native Plant Appreciation Month in Washington and I encourage all people in our state to join me in appreciating, enjoying and celebrating our floral diversity by learning more about our native plants and their habitats. Ms. Schaefer continued, stating this was a fabulous proclamation and she was happy to share it with the council and the public. She encouraged the city council, mayor, all departments, commissions and boards to adopt this and follow it. She relayed the native plant demonstration garden has reopened. It was replanted on March 12th and many the plants relocated to City Park. The first program at the demonstration garden will be held later this month. Joan Longstaff, Edmonds, relayed she opened her real estate brokerage in 1980; she started in real estate in Magnolia in 1971 and almost bought an office there but is grateful she came to Edmonds because it is a community that can come together and speak to its council. She expressed her appreciation to the council Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 5, 2022 Page 3 for their service, recognizing it was not an easy job. The council is good at their jobs and may be about the best council the City has had. She has worked under 5-6 mayors, recalling Harve Harrison was a part- time mayor when she opened her brokerage. The community has worked hard to retain and restore the specialness of Edmonds. It has been her pleasure to have the historic house at 524 Main Street, built in 1890 for the blacksmith and his daughter. She encouraged the community to continue to work together, noting she has been on a lot of committees including currently serving on the cemetery board. Recognizing that density is coming, she expressed support for retaining parks and green areas. She reiterated her thanks to the city council. Michelle Dotsch, Edmonds, referred to agenda item 8.1, interim design standards relaying comments from a local, well-respected architect who has dedicated the majority of his over 20-year professional career to the analysis and design of building envelop systems who reviewed staff’s proposed design standards. “I read the 22.43.080 additional design standards you sent. My opinions are an attempt to work within the ideas these new additional design standards address. My opinions: 1. Intent: this statement is too broad in nature, “compatible” is meaningless without further parameters. Such items as building to human scale by vertical and horizontal modulation, building setbacks after a certain height and other defining parameters must be included to make an intent statement. 2. Item 3 balconies: this as written is a concern. This is an encroachment into the setbacks that can be exploited without further definition. Should the deck encroachment be allowed, guardrails should be transparent to lessen their visual impact. Decks encroaching into setbacks should be limited to the second floor only. Upper floor setbacks as indicated in my number 1 above will then have decks that do not enter the setback. 3. Decks at grade encroaching into setbacks shouldn’t be allowed. Patios on grade are okay if associated with landscaping requirements. 4. Roof decks: roof decks can work well. Decks should only be within the middle portions of the building roof footprint. Roof decks should be setback from the roof edges a minimum of 5 feet. This will eliminate the ability to see into windows of adjacent buildings. The roof decks must also have a landscape requirement. 5. Also Item 4, the last sentence “no permanent structures are allowed within the roof deck area” means there can be no roof deck access. Without access, there can be no roof deck. An elevator for disabled people and an exit stair for smaller roof decks are required by the building code. Roof decks exceeding 150 square feet require two separate exits. The towers extend the building height. This visual effect will be lessened or eliminated with stairs or elevators set to the interior portion of the building roof. 6. I believe the 22.43.080 standards can work with further thought and definition. The above opinions can be helpful in making the City’s design standards work for scale and making more interesting building designs for the BD2 zone.” Dr. Dotsch thanked the council for their consideration of this professional opinion. Ken Reidy, Edmonds, requested the council reconsider approval of the agenda, pointing out any councilmember who voted in favor can make a motion to reconsider. After reconsidering the approval of the agenda, he requested the council vote to remove item 8.1 from the agenda. RCW 35A.12.130 states that no ordinance shall contain more than one subject and that must clearly be expressed its title. The title to the proposed ordinance on page 78 of tonight’s packet clearly contains more than one subject. It is even comingled with a separate subject, whether or not to continue or cancel a moratorium adopted on February 15th. Council has not yet adopted findings of fact about the February 15th moratorium, findings that will either justify continuing the moratorium or canceling the moratorium. He asked why the proposed moratorium on page 78 of tonight’s packet implies what the council will decide to do about the moratorium; council has not yet heard public comments on the moratorium and he urged the council to respect citizens and public comments. He asked the council to also request that staff respect the comprehensive plan and the City code. Table 16.43-1 in the City code establishes all permitted uses for the entire BD zone which includes five distinct subdistricts. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 5, 2022 Page 4 Mr. Reidy continued, the BD2 subdistrict is called downtown mixed commercial; the name of the BD2 subdistrict is easily found on page 56 of the 2020 comprehensive plan. For downtown mixed commercial, the comprehensive plan clearly states to encourage a vibrant downtown, first floor spaces should be designed with adequate ceiling height to accommodate a range of retail and commercial uses with commercial entries at street level. Per the City code, in the BD2 subdistrict, the only way a property can host 100% residential use is if it is a single family residence. If a property owner opts for multiple dwelling units, those units must be located on the second floor or behind the first 45 feet from sidewalk or rights-of-way. The code is easy to understand; there are no transitional areas within BD2 and can be easily confirmed by searching the code for the word “transitional.” He read on Law Insider that adjacent lots include parcels that are separated only by a private or public street. This includes lots that are across a public right-of-way from each other. He asked whether any councilmembers had researched this important topic. The City code uses the word “adjacent.” Mayor Pro Tem Olson described the procedures for virtual audience comments. Linda Ferkingstad, Edmonds, commenting on the tree ordinance passed last year, said property rights are one of the most fundamental, constitutional provisions that protect Americans against government abuse. Unfortunately, these rights are under assault by the City of Edmonds who are aggressively targeting property owners applying to divide their property and build desperately needed single family homes. The City’s tree ordinance has seized property rights without providing compensation for the loss and unbelievably is charging owners for the rights to their own property – their trees. In the USA, the worth and property rights of trees belong to the owners of the land they are growing on unless otherwise agreed upon. Property rights to 100% of the trees on all single family zoned vacant properties in Edmonds have been seized before divisions or permits are issued. Edmonds then requires payment of $3,000- $12,000 for the right to each of the trees needing removal for homes to be built and illegally retaining control of the remaining trees on the property indefinitely with no considerations for gardens, natural light or mountain and sound views. New homeowners won’t even be allowed to maintain their own trees. This is a gross violation of the U.S. Constitution. Ms. Ferkingstad continued, the takings clause in the 5th amendment requires if the government seizes property for public use, the owner must be provided just compensation; the opposite has been done here. Property owners are being charged and property taken. Constant vigilance is necessary to protect property owners against any government encroachments on constitutional rights. For this reason, all mayors and councilmember publicly swear an oath to protect the constitution of the United States when they take office, yet here the Edmonds mayor and council knowingly violated their oath and forced a tree ordinance that seizes property rights and instead of just compensation, charges owners hundreds of thousands to restore only partial rights to their property. Mr. Chave stated during a council meeting that only an owner can voluntarily submit their trees to be protected by the City. Theirs have been taken against their will. Property owners building needed homes while complying with stormwater, 30% open green space, multifamily has a 5%-15% requirement, and thousands of pages of Edmonds code and paying tens of thousands for permits, are being taken advantage of and abused by the City, harming the community and electeds’ credibility. The mayor and council have shown their willingness to violate the constitution so which laws can the public trust them to follow? She requested they restore her and her 87-old parents’ property rights and other property owners’ rights without the illegal incumbrances they are enforcing so they may use their property for what it is zoned for, building single family homes. Natalie Seitz, Edmonds, said her comments would focus on equity, representation and the development of the PROS Plan. With regard to equity, she heard councilmembers at last week’s meeting express sadness over the inability to start the marsh project sooner. Great news, the tidal channel can be restored instead of re-engineering it to drain south through Marina Beach by prioritizing fish over existing downtown amenities and the concerns of people who own boats. Re-engineering the marsh to purchase Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 5, 2022 Page 5 and direct fish through a contaminated site and past the dog park is all to avoid restoring the tidal channel. The avoidance of integrating a tidal channel into the marina is the reason restoration is delayed, the reason the city seeks to purchase a contaminated site at great cost and risk, the reason the City is looking at restoration grants instead of far more lucrative infrastructure grants, the reason the City is holding up fish as a justification for not investing in natural spaces for underserved communities. She suggested imagining oneself living in an apartment in the northern portion of SR-99, far from any Edmonds park or open space resource with disproportionate health impacts from a highway whose tax revenue is largely diverted downtown. The service analysis and public feedback say these should be prioritized for investment but the city council said it cannot be invested in because a downtown interest group wants to expand and improve an open space resource against the public feedback and prioritizes the avoidance of impacts to the marina against health and quality of life. Ms. Seitz continued, this downtown interest group also says that the purchase of the contaminated site is a diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) issue. Did the City ask the tribes if they would prefer restoration be delayed to avoid impacts to the marina? Did the City ask the tribes or any other DEI groups to help the City prioritize environmental investments? Is the City planning to ask them or exclude them from this closed door process? The lack of historic and CIP identified future open space investment in the most diverse and underserved areas of the City is the injury. The prioritization of the marina and purchase of a contaminated site above the service analysis, public feedback and health of underserved communities is insulting. Claiming that this property acquisition is needed in a well-resources area, the most white census track in the City as a DEI issue without consulting any DEI groups is a boatload of salt in the wound. She asked the City to set environmental priorities through a transparent, public process that involves outreach to all residents including DEI groups. If the City proceeds with the effort to set environmental priorities behind closed doors, she urged them to consider the significant conflicts of interest that may be present; do councilmembers stand to benefit from the marina staying intact, have councilmembers acted as agents of an interest group? The validity of the task force is based on its ability to dispassionately represent all Edmonds residents. She said her next comments will be regarding fish and the environment. Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Edmonds, relayed concern about the competency of the seventh councilmember who again has not made it to the council meeting for possibility the fourth or fifth night in a row since the meetings have been in-person. She has done a public records request in the hopes of learning the competency level of that councilmember. She thanked Mayor Nelson and his staff for the work done on the community office on Highway 99, the most fabulous thing in that area in a long time. Not only does it make the area feel part of the community, but it also provides assistance to make them part of the community. She agreed with Ms. Seitz’s comments regarding equity in the PROS Plan and regarding the tribes; it is clear equity is not there for Highway 99 folks. She thanked Ms. Seitz for speaking out about what’s occurring [connection lost] people that live in Edmonds along the corridor and ¾ of a mile on either side of the corridor and they are treated as if they are “just not there.” She hoped in the future the City could move forward in a constructive manner and actually make the people along Highway 99 equal to the people who live elsewhere. She offered to work with the City to discuss issues on Highway 99 in a comprehensive manner. She reiterated her concern that the seventh councilmember was not attending council meetings which indicated to her that there was an issue with the councilmember. 6. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING OF MARCH 29, 2022 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 5, 2022 Page 6 2. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS 7. PUBLIC HEARING 1. PUBLIC HEARING ON EMERGENCY MORATORIUM ON BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATIONS FOR BD2 ZONED LOTS THAT DO NOT FRONT ON A DESIGNATED STREET FRONT Senior Planner Mike Clugston explained the moratorium ordinance was intended to allow staff adequate time to draft interim zoning regulations for the BD2 zone that would change the required setback for properties that do not front on a designated street front. A presentation was made at last week’s council meeting regarding the interim standards and council did not take action at that time. The moratorium, adopted as an emergency ordinance on February 15, 2022, stated a public hearing would be held within 60 days of its adoption and that it would expire by April 15, 2022 unless action was taken. Staff recommends the council adopt the proposed interim design standards and thereby repeal the moratorium. The interim standards relate to materials, private amenity space, streetside amenity space and are narrowly focused on just standalone residential projects in the BD2 zone. The interim standards can be revisited during the multifamily design standard project coming up later this year that will look more broadly at multifamily throughout the City. Mayor Pro Tem Olson opened the public hearing. Linda Fireman, Edmonds, requested the moratorium be extended indefinitely because she did not believe the code was being applied correctly and that needed to be addressed first. The interim design standards are very narrow and just provided so that these apartment buildings can go ahead without any further discussion which she did not think was right. Once they are constructed, they will always be there and there needs to be a broader and more substantial look at this. Permitted primary uses for B2 residential are single family and multifamily dwelling units located on the second floor or behind the first 45 feet from the sidewalk or rights-of-way and it does not reference designated street fronts, therefore the ability to have only multifamily development without commercial space is not legal. The narrative states that all parcels zoned BD are subject to designated street front requirements in chapter 16.43 and 22.43 ECDC that were adopted in 2007. She has been trying to get documentation, but it has not been forthcoming. She thanked Mayor Pro Tem Olson who provided Ordinance 3955 passed by the council on January 21, 2014. She referred to 16.43.020 Uses and Table 16.43-1 Permitted Uses from the website which are the same. It does not reference designated street fronts so what is stated in the narrative is not correct. Ms. Fireman continued, the standards are meant to address commercial and mixed use buildings and require a 45-foot depth ground floor commercial space in building measured from the street property line, minimum floor to ceiling heights, etc. However, there are several small areas near the edges of downtown BD2 mixed commercial zone that are not subject to these requirements and in these locations other types of buildings could be constructed including multifamily only building. She did not agree with that. The current permitted uses do not allow this and for some reason if it is allowed, it should be rezoned to RM- 1.5 before planning begins. Interim design standards only cover minor changes written to appease public complaining about the look and doesn’t affect the bulk and mass, the alley or zoning discrepancies. The city, the mayor, the development department, the planning department and the council are responsible for zoning and comprehensive plan. This should be done clearly and with care before development is allowed to proceed. She urged them not to let ambiguous wording and site development standards and design standards in BD zones take precedence. John Hoag, Edmonds, member of Economic Development Commission, but speaking as a private citizen, said he was alarmed by Development Services Director McLaughlin’s comment at last week’s Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 5, 2022 Page 7 council meeting regarding the pending BD2 zone moratorium that there is a housing crisis in the region and inferring that this need takes precedence above every other zoning parameter in the City. That statement was prejudicial to the discussion. He opposed the changes to the BD2 zone as currently proposed, not because of the amount of housing, but because of the 100% loss of commercial space. One current potential development is well within the downtown core and commercial zone; that is why it is zoned business district. Like the unit lot subdivision proposal a few months ago, there are forces at work in Edmonds to remove commercial space in ideal commercial locations and predominantly or 100% replace it with housing. He believed these changes would further erode existing commercial space set aside for business, business expansion or new business for the City, thus stifling job creation and business recruitment, and is very short-sighted planning and piecemeal. Mayor Nelson has made climate action one of the community’s priorities; having goods and services within walking and biking distance from neighborhood districts or hubs can only happen if a certain amount of commercial space is maintained. If work/live is truly desired in Edmonds, he recommended the City stop prioritizing housing over commercial space. He could not find anywhere in the City’s code in which the BD2 zone, downtown mixed commercial, allowed 100% multifamily housing; it is a mixed commercial zone and commercial must be part of any new development. Greg Brewer, Edmonds, commended the council for hitting the pause button on BD2 commercial development as there is precious little business space in the downtown core. Previous councilmembers and planners have lamented over the potential loss of business space in the downtown core. BD2, downtown mixed commercial, was never meant to be 100% residential. The comprehensive plan states under economic development goals, page 112 B4, continue to foster and enhance the economic vitality of downtown Edmonds, including retention of growth of existing businesses, attraction of new businesses and promotion of appropriate in-fill redevelopment. The existing code supports this. BD2 is defined in the code as mixed commercial; in chapter 16.43 page 13, item 7, the code clearly states within BD2, commercial development on the ground floor shall consist of only commercial uses within the designated street front. Any permitted use may be located on the ground floor outside of the designated street front. BD commercial mixed use, same chapter, page 3, reads as follows: multiple dwelling units are permitted with the following stipulation: multiple dwelling units must be located on the second floor or behind first 45 feet from the sidewalk or rights-of-way. Mr. Brewer urged the council not to be misled; there is nothing in the code allowing 100% residential dwellings in the BD2 mixed commercial zone. Unless a building is a single family residence, the code clearly states the first 45 feet of the ground floor needs to be commercial. As a citizen, he applauded the City’s efforts to strengthen design standards and setbacks, but any revisions to the interim code should be to strengthen BD2 mixed commercial requirement and encourage more open space, modulation and articulation, not diminish or replace current codes. All current and future BD2 commercial mixed use projects should foster and enhance the economic vitality of downtown Edmonds as stated in the comprehensive plan. Joan Longstaff, Edmonds, commented the community has worked hard over the last 42 years that she has been involved to have a commercial area and to allow residents to live above commercial and she did not recommend deviating from that now. As a residential real estate broker, she was in favor of housing, but said it did not have to be in that block of Main Street as there were many opportunities for housing in other locations. She urged the council to take a serious look at this and not go backwards. Michelle Dotsch, Edmonds, asked what legal definition was being used for the BD2 zone in moratorium ordinance 4247. Page 55 of the comprehensive plan under the 2015 alternatives analysis states, “New development and redevelopment in the downtown waterfront area should be designed to meet overall design objectives and the intent of the various districts described for the downtown area.” She referred to ECDC chapter 16.43, 16.43.010 subdistricts which states, “The downtown business zone is divided into Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 5, 2022 Page 8 five distinct subdistricts intended to implement specific aspects of the Comprehensive Plan that pertain to the downtown waterfront activity center. Each subdistrict contains its own unique mix of uses and zoning regulations as describe in this chapter. The five subdistricts are BD1 downtown retail core, BD2 downtown mixed commercial, BD3 downtown convenience commercial, BD4 downtown mixed residential, BD5 downtown arts corridor.” She recommended reaffirming the unique intent of the BD2 downtown mixed commercial district on page 56 of the 2020 City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan adopted on November 17, 2020. Downtown mixed commercial, to encourage a vibrant downtown, first floor spaces should be designed with adequate ceiling height to accommodate a range of retail and commercial uses with commercial entries at street level. Buildings can be built to the property line. Building heights shall be compatible with the goal of achieving pedestrian scale development. The first floor of the building must provide pedestrian weather protection along public sidewalks. Design guidelines should provide for pedestrian scale design features, differentiating the lower commercial floor from the upper floors of the building. The design of the interior commercial spaces must allow for flexible commercial space. Dr. Dotsch encouraged the council to read the remainder for themselves. If the intent tonight was to rename pieces of the BD2 downtown mixed commercial subdistrict to BD4 downtown mixed residential, she asked the council to explain when that was done and where it was documented. If it was spot rezoned at one point, only those 25+ BD2 lots within the BD2 subdistrict designation in 16.43.010 to a different intent of development of uses, where can the public find that documentation and was the selective spot zoning of those 25+ lots legal? She asked that her questions be answered in a transparent manner in front of the public at this public hearing tonight before any decision was made on what legal definition was being used for the BD2 zone in moratorium ordinance 4247. If these cannot be answered, she suggested extending the moratorium up to a possible four months or ask that a new ordinance be drafted for six months to allow time for a clearly defined and legally agreed upon definition of the BD2 downtown mixed commercial subdistrict before any current or future building permit application is accepted in this area. Ken Reidy, Edmonds, asked the council to halt this public hearing; staff has comingled two separate subjects and made the following recommendation for the public hearing: adopt the interim design standards and repeal the moratorium. Staff’s recommendation clearly involves two things; one of the two things, adoption of the interim design standards, involves a completely different agenda item that is not subject to this public hearing. He questioned why the words, proposed interim design standards were listed when that was not what this public hearing was about. He questioned how staff could recommend repealing the moratorium prior to the city council discussing which findings of fact the council wanted to adopt on the subject. Tonight’s public hearing is supposed to be for city council to adopt findings of fact on the subject of the February 15th moratorium and either justify its continued imposition or cancel the moratorium. He questioned how citizens are supposed to know how to prepare public comments for this public hearing when neither the public notice nor agenda packet identified the findings the council will consider for adoption related to the moratorium. Mr. Reidy continued, Ordinance 4247 documents that the purpose of the moratorium was to allow the City adequate time to draft interim zoning regulations for BD2 that would change the required setback for properties that do not front on a designated street front. Setback is a very clear legal term and everyone knows what that is. He requested the council ask whether private amenity space was the legal equivalent of setback. The situation has been very confusing since the moratorium was passed on February 15th, prior to any explanation provided to citizens. How do citizens know how to engage with elected officials in situations like this? BD2, the downtown mixed commercial subdistrict, does not permit property to be used as 100% residential. He requested the council halt the public hearing and start over. There are roughly 10 more days to comply with state law. He requested findings of fact regarding the moratorium be published and citizens be allowed to comment on whether the moratorium should be continued or Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 5, 2022 Page 9 canceled. That is what this public hearing should have addressed. He questioned why it was comingled with a separate subject, interim design standards. Kathy Brewer, Edmonds, asked council to protect the downtown business district and extend the BD2 moratorium for as long as necessary to allow time for design standards and codes to be examined and clarified so that citizens, the council, staff and developers understand what is permissible in this important downtown business zone. As others have cited from the code, BD2 is downtown mixed commercial. The code for BD2 clearly states multiple dwelling units must be located on the second floor behind first 45 feet from sidewalk or rights-of-way. Therefore, all buildings involving multifamily residential in BD2 must be mixed use and no multifamily only buildings should be considered by the building department. With this important fact pointed out, the interim design standards for multifamily only buildings proposed last week by staff are irrelevant for BD2. In the council agenda document, interim design standards for multifamily only buildings in the BD2 zone, prepared by Michael Clugston of the planning division for tonight’s meeting, clarify that BD2 cannot be multifamily only. Under the narrative on page 2, it refers to the BD2 zone, “where commercial development is intended to be the primary use,” then describes mixed use as “a building with multiple dwelling units above ground floor commercial” and “a more measured approach would be appropriate for these transitional BD2 mixed commercial properties.” Ms. Brewer noted there are no transitional BD2 mixed commercial properties and there is nothing in the code that refers to transitional BD2 properties. As stated in the document, commercial development is intended to be the primary use of BD2 and commercial is required to be on the ground floor. This is a clear effort by staff to rezone and she urged council to reject staff’s attempt to allow multifamily only buildings in the BD2 zone by claiming there are transitional properties that do not have to abide by BD2 code. She concluded it is imperative that the City support code that protects business in BD2. If the intent is a thriving downtown, there needs to be a thriving commercial district. If staff is allowed to convert lots to 100% residential, valuable commercial space will be lost forever. Instead of converting or rezoning, businesses in the BD zone need to be maintained, expanded and promoted. She urged the council to promote business by ensuring staff adhere to the code. She recommended extending the moratorium and clarifying the design standards and code to ensure what is built is good for the community, not just for the developer. Finis Tupper, Edmonds, shared his concerns with the interim zoning moratorium for the BD2 zone. The growth management act and local project act clearly require public participation when amending City land use plans, development regulations and project review. All parties should be informed, consulted, involved and empowered. It is impossible to accomplish these effective procedural requirements in a closed meeting that is not open to the public. The public cannot understand the council’s actions when decisions are made privately with just the city attorney and city staff. This interim ordinance created controversy and distrust because the governing body failed to explain their reasons for passing the motion or the interim ordinance. It appears to the public that the city council took this action and made a decision in a closed meeting, without the public’s involvement or participation. There seems to be confusion by the planning department about what types of development are allowed in the BD2 zone. Mr. Tupper continued, instead of administering and implementing the zoning ordinances and complying with the comprehensive plan, staff is requesting changes to those land use plans. Staff’s testimony at last week’s meeting is inconsistent with the plain language in the code and in the comprehensive plan. Staff and the city attorney are missing the legislative intent of the BD zone. He researched the ordinances, council meeting minutes and agenda packets and did not find that the public and the city council were informed that the BD zone was a transition zone allowing exclusively multifamily units. Edmonds is divided into different zone districts, residential, commercial, and industrial for the purposes of compatibility with surrounding uses and public health, safety and welfare. The BD2 zone restricts multifamily units to the second floor or behind the first 45 feet of the street frontage of the building. He Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 5, 2022 Page 10 hoped the council would continue the moratorium and get the public involved as required; the council does not get to make decisions in closed meetings. Stephen Cunliffe, Edmonds, said his comments have nothing to do with legality, regulations, or restrictions so they may go down like a lead balloon in this environment, but they come from the heart and are prompted by what he and his wife have seen of the architectural drawings proposed for this development which is pivotal to the discussion. They moved to Edmonds last year after 15 years in Port Townsend. Port Townsend is distinguished by an integrated community and a great deal of character, character that is visually expressed by its buildings. They looked for a place to live on the east side of Puget Sound and decided on Edmonds because of its character and sense of community. If buildings such as the proposed building are allowed to be constructed close to the downtown, it will contribute to the destruction of the community’s character as expressed in buildings. He questioned why building that would be perfectly acceptable elsewhere but that did not suit or fit in this area would be allowed. As his comments were not qualitative, he will rely on the experts to take his input and hopefully make it happen. Deborah Arthur, Edmonds, commented there was slander and there was HIPPA. She questioned whether a mayor who broke their legs or a pregnant councilmember who required bedrest would be kicked off the council. Councilmember K. Johnson is not required to tell anyone her personal business nor does HIPPA require it. She objected to the comments about Councilmember K. Johnson, equating it to a Zoom bomb. She supported the person’s comments about Highway 99, but not attacking a councilmember. Mayor Pro Tem Olson interrupted, advising this was a public hearing on the BD zone, not audience comment. Natalie Seitz, Edmonds, said she 100% supports transparent processes and that decisions should not be made behind closed doors. With regard to zoning and density, the downtown has a 12:1 ratio of parks in comparison to SR-99 and south Edmonds. The growth management act would have density decided in conjunction with resources, but that is not the historic pattern of the City. Mayor Pro Tem Olson interrupted, advising this was public hearing about the BD zone and the moratorium, not the PROS Plan. Ms. Seitz said she was getting to that point. Density needs to be sited in conjunction with resources. The moratorium to not allow more density downtown is problematic because of the way the City has sited resources. She was fine with whatever design standards the downtown community wants as long as the density functionally goes there because that is functionally where all the resources are. Hearing no further public comment, Mayor Pro Tem Olson closed the public hearing. COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM BUCKSHNIS, TO EXTEND THE MORATORIUM ON THE BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATIONS FOR BD2 UNTIL APRIL 21, 2022. Councilmember Tibbott explained this would give council additional time to consider public comments made tonight and to include those in the design standards the council will consider at a later date. It is obvious from the comments received tonight and over the last few weeks that the council is not ready to make a decision on the design standards. He wanted an opportunity to consider the comments before making a decision so it was appropriate to extend the moratorium. Council President Pro Tem Buckshnis expressed support for extending the moratorium, although she preferred to extend it longer. She has all the back data regarding how the BD zones started. She has always been a strong supporter of the business commercial area, recalling the Roger Brooks days and the days of having a strong core downtown to promote a gathering place. She has had issues with how this has played out, such as not recognizing what a true BD zone is. She recommended the council step back and do its homework because this could have a tremendous impact on the downtown area. Ten small businesses in the downtown area will be displaced and it will result in density creep. She envisioned the Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 5, 2022 Page 11 same thing happening to another building across the street where there are small businesses. She is a strong believer in the downtown core and supports working through this properly because the way this has been handled has been upsetting and emotional for many people and she does not have enough information to make a decision. Councilmember Paine said she had envisioned this could be resolved tonight. She asked how long it would take to complete the multifamily design standards. Development Services Director Susan McLaughlin answered there is a work plan for the multifamily design standards; the staff person assigned to that work resigned and the City is recruiting for that position. Ideally that body of work would be completed by the end of the year. Depending on staff recruitment, a consultant may be used to expedite the process. Councilmember Paine summarized they would be completed in approximately nine months. Ms. McLaughlin agreed. Councilmember Paine commented the City cannot have a moratorium because it is very damaging for development and business and conveys unreliability to developers. She did not envision adding two weeks would be beneficial when the multifamily design standards for the entire community to consider and comment on would not be available for nine months. Nine months will be at the end of the year which is a chaotic time to start something. Councilmember Paine asked the harm to the practice of development if the council delayed the moratorium. She recalled the last time there was a moratorium, a developer decided not to do a multifamily project and instead built three homes which caused a lot of environmental damage in a different business district. She asked staff to comment on the pros and cons of maintaining a moratorium or concluding this with the proposed interim standards. Ms. McLaughlin said she could only speculate on behalf of developers regarding the detrimental effect of a moratorium, but in her professional experience, developers expect a level of confidence in codes. She realized tonight there was an interpretation issue and staff would be happy to provide that interpretation, the history and the conclusion. These interim design standards were proposed not because the use of particular properties was debated, but to ensure excellence in design standards for solely multifamily buildings, recognizing it was a need. It was consistent with the comprehensive plan to provide multifamily downtown. Ms. McLaughlin speculated the longer a moratorium is extended, the less confidence it would seem there is from the development community. The recommendation is to extend the moratorium to April 21; staff has already done a thorough interpretation and have that information ready to share. That was part of staff’s due diligence for reviewing one of the projects that this is subject to; staff would not have proceeded with that project and advancing it to the Architectural Design Board (ADB) if they were not confident in its use. If the issue is the use, staff can bring that information forward tonight or next week. Councilmember Paine relayed she was on vacation last week, but had watched the video. If there was information that was not shared last week, she would like to see it. Ms. McLaughlin said Kernen Lien, the interim planning manager and planner on the 6th & Main project, did the due diligence for that project in particular but it applies to all BD zones and is relevant to this discussion. A councilmember raised a point of order. Mayor Pro Tem Olson ruled that the information could be provided because it was peripherally related to the moratorium. Council President Pro Tem Buckshnis raised a point of order, stating the public hearing was related to extension of the moratorium. The information staff is offering is related to Item 8.1 regarding design standards. She agreed the staff recommendation regarding this agenda item was incorrect, it should have been related to whether or not to extend the moratorium. Mayor Pro Tem Olson ruled this is in order because whether or not multifamily is allowed is relevant to whether the moratorium should be continued or not. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 5, 2022 Page 12 Audience members attempted to speak to the council. Mayor Pro Tem Olson said the council is discussing whether the moratorium for the BD2 related to interim design standards specifically for multifamily is to be continued or not. Mr. Lien began his presentation regarding the history of the BD zones, explaining the original BD zone ordinance was adopted in 2007 and there have been 8 amendments to the BD zones. Mayor Pro Tem Olson recognized Councilmember K. Johnson who had her hand raised. Councilmember K. Johnson said her virtual hand was ignored, so she raised her actual hand. Mayor Pro Tem Olson said she had not been ignored, staff was speaking in response to a question about the relevance of proceeding with this item. She offered to come back to Councilmember K. Johnson. Councilmember K. Johnson said the council was off topic as they should be speaking to the motion. Mayor Pro Tem Olson asked for ruling from one of the parliamentarian whether the information from staff was germane and appropriate. City Attorney Jeff Taraday said it was his understanding that one of the reasons the council was interested in a possible extension of the moratorium was to determine whether the use issues raised at the hearing needed to be resolved as part of this interim zoning ordinance or whether the use issues did not need to be resolved now. It would seem in order for the council to determine whether there is a use issue as addressed by the public that warrants an extension of the moratorium, the council may want to hear from staff regarding their interpretation of the zoning ordinance. Council does not have to agree with staff but they may want to at least listen to staff. He concluded hearing staff’s understanding of the use issues would be relevant to determining to what extent an extension of the moratorium is necessary. Mr. Lien continued his presentation, advising three of the BD ordinances (shaded below) were relevant to the discussion regarding multifamily use in the BD2 zone: • BD Ordinance History o Ord. 3624 –Original BD Zone Adoption (Jan 2007) o Ord. 3700 –First Designated Street Front (Nov 2008) o Ord. 3865 –Revised Designated Street Front (Dec 2011) o Ord. 3894 –Interim Ord. for Farmers Markets (Sep 2012) o Ord. 3902 –Food Trucks (Sep 2012) o Ord. 3918 –Design Standards and Building Step back (Apr 2013) o Ord. 3932 –Farmers Markets (July 2013) o Ord. 3955 –BD1 GFSF (Jan 2014) o Ord. 4190 –Parking (Feb 2019) • Map of Pre BD Zoning – downtown was all BC • Map of 5 BD Zones • Designated Street Front o Ord. 3700 –BD1 Zone 30-foot Depth ▪ Map only applied to BD1 zone ▪ BD1 zone designated street front 30-feet in depth ▪ Zoning text –“for all other BD zones the designated street front is established as the first 60 feet of the lot measured perpendicular to any street right-of-way, excluding alleys.” o Ord. 3865 –Revised 2011 ▪ Designated street front mapped for all BD zones ▪ 45 feet from mapped designated street front ▪ Reviewed by Planning Board and Economic Development Commission - “The purpose of the map is to clarify where the primary pedestrian areas and commercial uses are intended to be oriented within the BD Zones.” (Rob Chave, PB Public Hearing, 2011.06.08) Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 5, 2022 Page 13 - “He reminded the Board that multi-family residential and professional offices would be allowed to locate on the portions of ground floor space located outside of the designated street front areas and on the upper floors of all building in the BD zones.” (Rob Chave, PB Public Hearing, 2011.06.08) • Residential Use – BD1 GFSF o Revisions to the BD1 uses under Ord. 3955 where lead by Stephen Clifton (former Economic Development Director) o Focus was on clarifying uses allowed within the BD1 Ground Floor Store Front o The MF restriction in the use table was supposed to be a footnote: ▪ Excerpt from PB Minutes 09/11/2013: Board Member Lovell requested an explanation of how the proposal would impact a property owner’s ability to provide multi-family residential uses. Mr. Clifton answered that residential uses would not be allowed within the areas designated as BD1 GFSF. However, residential uses would be allowed behind the 45-foot street front spaces and in the upper floors. Mr. Chave suggested that it might be helpful to add a reference in the footnote to the applicable chapter in the code to provide more clarity. ▪ Rather than a footnote, that clarification was added to the use table, but the intent was that it only applied to the BD1 zone Mr. Lien said when working through the entirety of the BD zones, it is clear that commercial area is only applied to the designated street front. All the discussion about the commercial ground floor and 45 feet is in regard to that designated street front map. That is how staff reached the interpretation that an entirely multifamily building could be located in the BD2 zone outside of the designated street front. Councilmember Paine thanked staff for that clarification, relaying it was good to hear the history. She observed the last time this was discussed was 9 years ago in 2013. Having worked with some community groups who pay close attention to the BD1 and all the business district zoning, she was very familiar with the BD1 restrictions but it was good to have the historical context. Councilmember Chen expressed appreciation for the history as it provided him knowledge for making a decision. Based on this interpretation, he asked the definition for today’s BD2 code, whether or not it allowed residential. Mr. Lien answered it could be residential only outside the designated street front. Mayor Pro Tem Olson referred to staff’s indication that Ordinance 3955 was for BD1 only, but the other BD zones preexisted this ordinance so when it said BD1 that was not the only BD zone. Mr. Lien answered the revisions in Ordinance 3955 were focused on the BD1 retail only and the intent of the ordinance was to clarify the retail uses allowed in the BD1 zone because the uses in the table weren’t clear. He referred to the use table in 16.43.030 where a new column was added with this ordinance and several new uses listed to clarify retail uses that were allowed in the downtown retail core, the BD1 zone. In reading the description of Ordinance 3955, it is clear the focus was only on BD1 zone. Mayor Pro Tem Olson said in just reading the code and not having all the background available, it was very reasonable for people to reach the conclusion they did and she had a difficult time getting over that interpretation. She asked how many times staff has approved projects that follow this interpretation of multifamily allowed on the bottom floor on undesignated street fronts. Mr. Lien answered two building have been constructed with residential uses within an undesignated street front; one building was multifamily only at the corner of 3rd & Edmonds within the BD2 zone where there is no designated street front and the other was phase 1 of the post office site. For the building where the post office is located, the designated street front went halfway down the block from Main Street. Where the post office is located is a designated street front and there is commercial on the first floor; the other half of the building, Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 5, 2022 Page 14 north of the post office, is all residential on the ground floor because it is outside the designated street front. Those are the only two projects outside the designated street fronts since the BD code was adopted. Mayor Pro Tem Olson said as someone who goes to DEMA and Chamber meetings, it seems that everybody is always looking for more commercial space. This was concerning to her especially when other people may look at the code and see that it is not allowed and may not be pursuing those things. She concluded it was another reason for extending the moratorium for two weeks, to give the council time to digest that. COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM BUCKSHNIS, TO AMEND TO EXTEND THE MORATORIUM TO MAY 17, 2022. Councilmember K. Johnson said she feels additional time is needed and two weeks may not be sufficient. There seems to be real confusion by the public and perhaps by council about what is a designated street front, whether it applies to this application and what conditions the council needs to consider changing to make the BD2 code more palatable. Councilmember L. Johnson said given the explanation provided by staff showing how multifamily only is allowed and given that there is a moratorium based on an emergency situation and to allow staff time to create interim design standards to address gaps in codes that apply to sites, it appears staff has provided interim design standards and explained how it came about that multifamily only is allowed in certain portions of the BD2 zone outside the designated street front map. She was challenged with determining how this would be considered an emergency to continue the moratorium as it appears the reasons that the council initially adopted the moratorium have been satisfied. Mr. Taraday answered he agreed with the analysis that Mr. Lien provided in terms of how to interpret the existing zoning code, but wanted to underscore a couple of the points Mr. Lien made to ensure the council digests them. It would be a roundabout way of answering Councilmember L. Johnson’s question. Mr. Taraday continued, from the adoption of Ordinance 3700 until the adoption of Ordinance 3865, a four year period from 2008 to 2011, an entirely residential building could not have been allowed anywhere in the BD2 zone. In 2011 when Ordinance 3865 was adopted, a revision was made to the definition of designated street front. The map is expanded but the effect is to leave small pockets of the BD zone where there is no designated street front. It used to be there was designated street front everywhere in the BD zone due to the text. With the map amendment, it looks like it is being expanded because the map gets bigger, but because of the text change, the actual effect is to remove the designated street front from certain portions of the BD zone. The effect of Ordinance 3865 is there can be entirely residential buildings in pockets of the BD zone that do not have a designated street front. That was the case without a doubt from 2011 until 2014 when Ordinance 3955 was adopted. He understood that the way the table was developed in Ordinance 3955 created some confusion. Mr. Taraday agreed with Mr. Lien when looking at the totality of code and the totality of the ordinances that it does not appear that when the city council adopted Ordinance 3955 in 2014 that it intended to undo the change made in 2011. There was no discussion of that, there is no mention of it in the whereas clauses; it seems to have been entirely focused on BD1 uses. In response to Councilmember L. Johnson’s question about whether to extend the moratorium, he said there is potentially some value in a short extension because he had not had enough time to research whether the council understood in 2011 that there would be pockets where an entirely residential structure would be allowed and whether it was intended or was it an unintended consequence of the text change. That is relevant because in the same way that the design standards staff prepared were intended to fix an unintended consequence of the code, if it appears after studying the minutes, video and discussion that it was an unintended consequence of Ordinance 3865, the council could justify taking a crack at fixing that unintended consequence in the Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 5, 2022 Page 15 same way it was fixing the design standards because the design standards did not apply to an entirely residential structure. Mr. Taraday continued, Mr. Lien did a great job explaining it tonight, but with an additional two weeks staff could put it in writing for the public to review and understand and there might be more information about what was really known and intended with Ordinance 3865. He acknowledged that after doing all this additional research, staff may return and say there wasn’t discussion about the pockets of BD that do not have designated street fronts and the ramifications of that and then the council would need to decide what to do about that. He hoped this information was helpful to explain why a short extension of the moratorium would be appropriate. He did not think staff needed until May 17th, that was more time than staff needed to put this explanation together in comprehensive way. Councilmember L. Johnson clarified that given the information provided, it rises to the level justifying the emergency definition to continue it until April 22nd. Mr. Taraday answered yes, because depending on what the additional research reveals, it is possible the council could be justified in doing something that addresses this designated street front situation. Council President Pro Tem Buckshnis said she just received all this information which should have been in the packet. Ordinance 3918, amending chapter 16.43 and 22.43 ECDC relating to the development relationship and design standards for downtown business zones, actually explains the zones and subdistricts: BD1 downtown retail, BD2 downtown mixed commercial, BD3 downtown convenience commercial, BD4 downtown mixed residential and BD5 downtown arts corridor and defines each BD zone. She has at least four other ordinances and did not know where this fits with the three that were highlighted. She believed more time was needed because in reading Ordinance 3918 which has not been rescinded, there is no way it is legal to have an apartment complex in a BD2 zone. There are other ordinances that are not being addressed such as Ordinance 3628. Councilmember Paine said after hearing all the background, once further research was done by the city attorney and all the BD ordinance history was provided, she felt it was premature to extend the moratorium to May and that two weeks would be more than adequate. She was not in favor of extending the moratorium to May. Councilmember Chen relayed staff said two weeks was enough time to develop the documented explanation so the public and the council can have a better understanding of this issue. He preferred to extend the moratorium to April 21st and revisit it if necessary. Mayor Pro Tem Olson commented moratoriums have serious business impacts and because there is no certainty that more than a two week extension is necessary, she will vote no on the amendment and support the original two week extension. UPON ROLL CALL, AMENDMENT FAILED (2-5), COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM BUCKSHNIS VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS CHEN, TIBBOTT, PAINE AND L. JOHNSON AND MAYOR PRO TEM OLSON VOTING NO. Mr. Taraday restated the motion: TO ADOPT THE ORDINANCE HE CIRCULATED BEFORE THE MEETING, THE TITLE IS: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, EXTENDING THE MORATORIUM ON THE ACCEPTANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATIONS FOR BD2 ZONED LOTS THAT DO NOT FRONT ON A DESIGNATED STREET FRONT AS IMPOSED BY ORDINANCE 4247. Councilmember Tibbott agreed that was the intent of his motion. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 5, 2022 Page 16 Councilmember K. Johnson asked if the intent was to extend the moratorium to Tuesday, April 19th or Thursday, April 21st. Mr. Taraday said the ordinance states April 21st. He did that intentionally not knowing what may be on the April 19th agenda, and he wanted to provide additional time in the event the council needed to adjourn meeting to another night that week to finish its business. MAIN MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 8. COUNCIL BUSINESS 1. INTERIM DESIGN STANDARDS FOR MULTIFAMILY-ONLY BUILDINGS IN THE BD2 ZONE Council President Pro Tem Buckshnis raised a point of order, stating this should not have been as part of the agenda due to extending the moratorium. Mayor Pro Tem Olson said it was relevant because the council may want to give input to staff for further work in order to move quickly past moratorium. Mr. Taraday agreed from a parliamentary standpoint, it was not out of order. It is on the agenda and with only a short extension of the moratorium, it would be helpful for staff to receive feedback from the council sooner rather than later. Mayor Pro Tem Olson suggested limiting the discussion to feedback regarding how it could be improved. Senior Planner Mike Clugston offered to provide last week’s PPT again or just proceed to council discussion/questions. Councilmember L. Johnson said given the information the council heard earlier, it would be beneficial to have a shortened presentation. Mr. Clugston reviewed Interim Design Standards of Stand-alone multifamily building in BD2 zone, explaining the intent of the interim design standards was to apply them to the parcels on the edge of the BD2 zone outlined in red on the map that do not have a designated street front: Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 5, 2022 Page 17 • Standards are intended to apply to two situations 1. Property is adjacent to R-zoned property, and/or 2. Property is adjacent to other BD2 property • Proposed design standards o Materials ▪ Benefits - Breaks up massing; strengthens identity - Preferred exterior materials: natural stone, wood, architectural metal, brick, and glass - Manmade okay if made to look like preferred - Photos of projects using more traditional building materials o Street-side amenity space ▪ Benefits - Results in setback to the street to serve as amenity space - Activates street front to improve the pedestrian experience - Strengthens pedestrian access and site identity ▪ Plan view – Street-side Amenity Space - 5% of lot area must be provided - Shall be between building and sidewalk only and open to sky - Must include landscaping, seating, art, etc. ▪ Section Cut – Street Facing - Street-side amenity space area excludes any private amenity space area that is provided at the front of the building - Canopy/awnings required and does not impact amount of street-side amenity area o Private amenity space ▪ Benefits - Improves livability for smaller residential units - Allows for architectural discretion to design amenity space to align with building character, orientation and style - Provides additional articulation of massing, adds interest to the façade and increases ‘eyes on the street’ thereby improving safety ▪ Plan View – Private Amenity Space - 10% project area - Balconies, decks, patios, yards - Together with a dwelling unit or grouped for resident use - If with individual units, > 40 sf - 50% of required area can be achieved with a roof top deck ▪ Section Cut – Adjacent Property - Balconies can project 5’ into setback from R-zone property - Decks and patios 10’ Councilmember Paine said she did not have any trouble with most of the interim design standards, but wanted to understand the impact of removing C.4, “A maximum of 50% of the required private amenity space may be provided as roof top deck. Deck railings may…”. Mr. Clugston answered it would limit the ability of designers to provide private amenity space. They could probably do it in other ways such as a recessed balcony. The intent is to use the roof top as a gathering space for residents. Similar features are allowed to exceed the height in all zones such as elevator penthouses, chimneys, etc. This is an example of what could be on a roof top in a dense downtown area. Councilmember Paine said amenity space that was not on the roof would provide articulation and modulation on the building sides so it wasn’t a giant mass and such a square. Grooves provide sightlines, a square does not. Having a roof top deck seems to shift that visual so it is not really community friendly. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 5, 2022 Page 18 Mr. Clugston said that is an option; other zones in Edmonds such as the General Commercial and Westgate Mixed Use allow roof top decks. Councilmember Paine said she was open to considering it in the multifamily design standards that will have a public process, but preferred to have the standards be tighter now and be more generous when there was a public process. Ms. McLaughlin said she could understand what Councilmember Paine was saying about having it be part of the required private amenity space and asked if she would be opposed to allowing roof top amenity space after they had met their standards. For instance, if the developer already met their private amenity space per the interim design standards and chose to do a roof top deck, would that be allowed. Councilmember Paine said she do not know how she felt about that, she has the square in her head. Ms. McLaughlin said that would be solved via the private amenity space; it was her understanding Councilmember Paine did not want the roof top deck to count toward that because she wanted further articulation. She could see that point of view but wanted to clear whether the desire was to prohibit roof top decks. Councilmember Paine said visual examples would be helpful. She hoped to avoid a block with people partying on top of the building. Councilmember K. Johnson agreed with idea of maintaining the private amenity space and once that has been met, whether there is a roof top deck is inconsequential to the design standard. Council President Pro Tem Buckshnis agreed with Councilmembers Paine and K. Johnson. She did not want people hanging out on decks, hanging over and looking and waving at people down on Main Street. There is nothing in the code that says decks on a roof top are considered open space. She wanted to be conscientious of that and not turn into Seattle where people hang out on decks waving at everybody walking by. She referred to a statement last week that a traffic analysis had been done, but now staff indicates no traffic analysis had been done and that it would come later. Ms. McLaughlin said at the last council meeting there was a question regarding the project development process for this particular project, specifically what types of studies are requested during project review and a traffic study was one of the questions. Traffic is typically evaluated in any project; in this project, which is not the subject of tonight’s review, the traffic analysis yielded less than 25 PM peak hour trips. When a preliminary traffic analysis results in less than 25 PM peak hour trips, a full traffic study is not required because the impacts per hour on the street network are negligible. Council President Pro Tem Buckshnis questioned 25 peak hour trips with the addition of at least 24 cars. Ms. McLaughlin answered international transportation engineering guidelines guide trip generation analysis. Public Works leads this process and the engineering team can provide more detail. It is a very standardized methodology for determining peak hour trips in different types of land use. Council President Pro Tem Buckshnis referred to Ordinance 3918 which is very explanatory about the design standards in BD zones but doesn’t say anything about roof top decks. Mr. Clugston said he would need to look at the code and report back. Council President Pro Tem Buckshnis asked if staff had spoken to the developer regarding mixed use versus fully residential since it is in a BD2 zone. Mr. Clugston answered this is a discussion on interim design standards for buildings in the BD2 zone. Councilmember Chen referred to an area outlined in red south of Main and east of 6th on the map of designated street fronts and areas without designated street fronts. He asked if the Bellmont Building at 600 Bell was in the BD2 zone. Mr. Clugston answered that is in a multifamily zone. Councilmember L. Johnson asked about the design standards and allowances for roof top decks or if the interim standards were allowing something that did not currently exist. She preferred to have that go through the more lengthy process with the overall multifamily design standards. She was concerned with adding something like that through these interim design standards if it did not already exist. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 5, 2022 Page 19 Councilmember Tibbott said he was interested in the purpose of transition zones. There are very intensive uses in BD1, less intensive uses in BD3 and BD2 seems to be somewhat of a transition between those two. He asked the purpose of a transition zone and what the difference would be between mixed use and a mix of uses in BD2. Ms. McLaughlin answered the term transition zone is something that has used in staff’s presentations. As the public mentioned, it is not found in the zoning code. In her professional judgment, transitional zones are meant to taper out the intensity of a mix of uses that are often found in a downtown core. It affords a larger variety for developers to choose from with regard to market demand. There is a typology that is more suited to a higher density retail core for in downtown core for mixed use buildings. With regard to a mix of uses, tapering away from the retail core, it allows for a variety of uses that still support, as stated in the comprehensive plan, the intensity that happens in the core and supports the retail and commercial uses by providing residences and other uses that help keep that space lively and vibrant. Councilmember Tibbott referred to the photographs on packet page 107 of the North Sound Center and the post office building that have modulation and articulation in the rooflines and the sides. He asked staff to address how the articulation and design features help with good design for the City. Mr. Clugston said these buildings illustrate human scale. The lower buildings on Main Street are only 15’ tall so they definitely have human scale but the Starbucks building on the corner and the post office buildings are definitely not monolithic blocks, they have elements that provide modulation, different eaves, etc. The Graphite building also has a lot going on and even on the North Sound building, there is modulation using colors, materials and windows to create human scale. Councilmember Tibbott said the proposed interim design standards for BD2 would be in line with this kind of modulation and natural materials and would help tie all the BD zones to downtown. Mr. Clugston agreed that was the intent. Ms. McLaughlin advised the proposed interim design standards would be used in combination with the existing design standards that talk about mimicking historic patterns, human scale, etc. and would not be used in isolation. The whole package of applicable design standards are in the council packet. Mayor Pro Tem Olson said if a roof top deck was included, she agreed it should be recessed from the edge so people could not look into windows on surrounding buildings, that was good input from the architect during the public hearing. She will listen to that public comment again to ensure she considered everything that was mentioned. She encouraged staff to consider that comment and other comments from the public. If councilmembers objected to the idea of a roof top deck, she suggested perhaps it could be allowed with a conditional use permit so the surrounding residents could weigh in. Councilmember Tibbott said it was clear from the council’s discussion that clearer design standards were needed for a roof top deck. He asked what happened if a design was proposed that did not meet the design standards. Mr. Clugston said the developer would be sent back to the drawing board. Councilmember Tibbott asked if the proposal would be denied. Mr. Clugston said when staff or the ADB is reviewing a project, the goal is not to deny but to get them to something that is code compliant that also meets the design guidance in the comprehensive plan. Councilmember Tibbott summarized they would need to meet the design standards before it was approved for construction. Mr. Clugston answered yes, or before it was conditionally approved. 2. 2022 PROS PLAN DRAFT REVISION PROPOSAL Parks, Recreation, Cultural Arts and Human Services Director Angie Feser said the final draft PROS Plan is currently under council consideration for approval. After robust public engagement and considerable public comment since the January 7th draft release, the plan is in its last stage of council review and revision. Usually in this phase council has the option of approving the final draft as recommended by the Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 5, 2022 Page 20 Planning Board or make revisions to the final draft. At the conclusion of the public hearing on March 22nd, council asked staff for a proposal to incorporate a wide range of revision considerations requested by the council. Tonight is a presentation on that proposal. The current proposal developed by working with council leadership is to form a 2-3 person council task force consisting of councilmembers, staff and the consultant to work through the council comments, group them by subject matter, and determine how to incorporate them in the PROS Plan. She envisioned 1-2 meetings involving herself, the consultant and the councilmembers. She gathered all the comments including those made at the last council meeting and emails sent since then and those would be presented to the task force to work through as a group. The revisions would be brought back to the council through a public process in a revision table similar to the one created for the comments at the Planning Board. During that process, the Planning Board responded to about 100 comment to the PROS Plan; the table showed how the comments were grouped by subject matter and addressed in the PROS Plan with revisions shown in red edits. The public would have an opportunity to see and comment on the revisions. The consultant’s original scope of work has been completed; the additional work with the task force is estimated to cost an additional $6800-$8000 depending on time and scope. Ms. Feser said another option that was not included in the packet but that has been discussed during in the last couple days is for staff and the consultant to gather comments made by council and come back to council with the proposed changes without using a task force. That would shorten the time period, reduce the consultant’s fee considerable. That is the typical, traditional option. Mayor Pro Tem Olson observed it would cost less for the consultant to work on it without a task force. Ms. Feser said she has all the comments from the last meeting and various emails and would work with the consultant and bring those forward in a very transparent manner, such as the revision table that was done for the Planning Board to show the proposed changes. Councilmember Tibbott assumed if staff were to bring back the revisions, they would include the gaps that have been identified over the last couple months and the council could then approve or reject the revisions. He said that sounded like an expedient way to move forward. Ms. Feser said a table of the revisions could be created and the council could approve/not approve each one or make further revisions to what is proposed. Councilmember Paine said however the process proceeds, it needs to be transparent. There has been a lot of public input and the outreach was remarkably well done with a lot of input through various methodologies and it is statically significant. She said anything “that goes through this little black box” could possibly undo all that transparency and equity that occurred during the PROS Plan process. She requested whatever happens, it not go into a dark hole without the public. If the council proceeds with option 2 with the director and consultant working on it, that typically would not need to be publicized. If it was councilmembers, the director and consultant, it could be available via Zoom so it was visible to the public so there would be some level of transparency. Her biggest concern was undoing all the great equity and transparency that was done over the last several months. Councilmember K. Johnson presented a third option; Ms. Feser indicated she has summarized all the comments that came in through the planning board process and planned to summarize the council comments, but in addition there were additional oral and written public comments as well as comments at the public hearing. She suggested including all the comments that came in after the planning board during the council process as well as the city council’s comments. Ms. Feser agreed it would be appropriate to create a document that includes all the comments made between the planning board and council presentation. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 5, 2022 Page 21 Councilmember Chen agreed with Councilmember K. Johnson about including verbal and written comments as well as the council’s input. He preferred to have staff and the consultant compile the amendments and bring it back to council. That would be less time consuming, less costly and more transparent. Council President Pro Tem Buckshnis agreed it would be best if Ms. Feser worked with the consultant. She asked if the amendments would include the addition of an implementation chapter. Many people have repeated themselves weekly so in her opinion staff has enough information. She observed the survey is one component of the PROS Plan; the reason so many environmental and nearshore estuary issues were raised was because that was not addressed in the survey. She wanted to ensure there was an implementation chapter to assist with grant writing, noting the City just received over $20 million for Highway 99. She summarized it will be an open and transparent process, and no one’s comments will be diluted. Council is available to help and she preferred the traditional method. With regard to comments after the public outreach process, Councilmember L. Johnson said the majority of those comments have been provided at council meetings or emailed. Not everyone is comfortable attending meetings or organized enough to submit their comments. If people still want to submit comments, she asked where they should be sent and what was the deadline. She asked if there would be any outreach for addition comments. Ms. Feser said there is a specific email for comments on the PROS Plan, prosplan@Edmondswa.gov. A schedule will be established and distributed including the mailing list of individuals involved with the process who requested to be on a notification email list, the typical avenues such as social media as well as other avenues to get the word out. The council packet is available the Friday before council meetings which provides an opportunity for the public to review materials and comment via email to the council and/or staff or at council meetings, Part of reason the packets related to the PROS Plan have been so large is because all the comments have been included. That has been the practice and staff will continue collecting them up to the publication of the packet. Councilmember L. Johnson said it takes a certain amount of availability and know how to do this. Going out again and opening the opportunity for comment risks diluting the detailed, expansive and statistically significant outreach. She was hoping there was a good way to balance that with the comments that are still being submitted. COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM BUCKSHNIS, TO USE OPTION 2 THAT WAS PRESENTED THIS EVENING. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mayor Pro Tem Olson proposed a 5 minute break and to adjourn at 10:30 p.m. because the meeting started late. Mr. Taraday recommended a motion to extend before the break. COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER CHEN, TO EXTEND TO 10:30. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mayor Pro Tem Olson declared a 5 minute recess at 9:55 p.m. 3. RESIDENTIAL OCCUPANCY CODE AMENDMENTS INTRODUCTION Environmental Program Manager Kernen Lien reviewed: • Changing concept of Family o What is a family? ▪ Changes across time and cultures ▪ Traditionally two or more people related by blood and marriage Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 5, 2022 Page 22 ▪ Modern families include single parent households, foster families, same-sex couples, child free families and many variations of the traditional norms ▪ Some people do not grow up with the family of orientation but become part of a stepfamily or blended family ▪ Updated definitions of family provide a more realistic and inclusive definition of family • SB 5235 o 2021 State Legislation o Prohibits local governments from limiting the number of unrelated persons occupying a home o Exceptions for short-term rentals, Building Code occupancy loads, some group homes o Also addressed owner occupancy requirements for Accessory Dwelling Units (Governor Vetoed Section) • Conflicting Edmonds Community Development Code o Definition of Family –ECDC 21.30.010 A. Family means individuals consisting of two or more persons related by genetics, adoption, or marriage, or a group of five or fewer persons who are not related by genetics, adoption, or marriage and none of whom are wards of the court unless such wards are related by genetics, adoption, or marriage to all of the members of such group living in a dwelling unit. D. Calculation of Residents 1. When one or more unrelated persons reside with a family whose members are related by genetics, adoption or marriage, the total number of residents shall not exceed five persons except as provided in subsection (D)(2) of this section. 2. A family unit consisting entirely of persons related by genetics, adoption or marriage may rent a room to a total of two additional renters, or up to two students as a part of a recognized foreign exchange program • Proposed Code Amendments o Removes Residential Occupancy Limits per State Legislation o Strengthens Structural / Element requirements for Single Family Dwellings (One Water, Gas and Electric Meter…Common Access to Rooms) o Maintains Limits on Number of Dwellings in Single Family Zoning o Maintains Restrictions on Group Homes o Definition of Family – 21.30.010 ▪ Removes occupancy limitation Family means individuals consisting of two or more persons related or unrelated by genetics, adoption, or marriage, or a group of five or fewer persons who are not related by genetics, adoption, or marriage and none of whom are wards of the court unless such wards are related by genetics, adoption, or marriage to all of the members of such group living in a dwelling unit. ▪ Removed subsection to calculate occupancy limits (Sub D) ▪ Maintains subsections on Group Living (Sub B) and Exclusions from Family Definition (Sub C) ▪ Maintains provisions limiting rental of ADU to either primary house or ADU ▪ Maintains provision allowing normal hosting activities (guests and visitors) o Dwelling Unit Definitions ▪ 21.90.080 Single-family dwelling unit - Strengthens and adds criteria for definition - Maintains requirement for one family and one dwelling unit per lot - Adds requirement to:  Be limited to one mailbox, water meter, gas meter and electric meter (Properties with an approved ADU may have an additional mailbox)  Have common access to common use of all living, kitchen, and eating areas Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 5, 2022 Page 23 ▪ 21.20.050 Dwelling unit - Strengthens and aligns better with State’s definition - Add portion that state it includes permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking and sanitation. o Chapter 20.21 ECDC - ADU ▪ 20.21.030 Criteria for attached accessory dwelling units. D. Add one gas meter and provision for an addition mailbox F. Occupancy - Removes occupancy limits and exceptions for nurses and caregivers - Maintains owner occupancy requirements ▪ 20.21.020 Density limitation –Limitation on the total occupancy o Removes reference to the exceptions listed in 20.21.030 o Maintains the density limits for ADUs • Next Steps o Public hearing o Adoption following public hearing Councilmember Tibbott said the planning board had this discussion when he was on the board ages ago. He recalled the same question, what is a family, and was glad that finally some changes have been made and he was not surprised this was coming to council at this point. He asked if a single family residence with two kitchens with people living on multiple floors was still a single family residence. Mr. Lien said two kitchens in houses is becoming more common, particularly in larger houses. The question is whether they are two separate living areas or if there is common access to the areas. As long as there is common access throughout the house, it is still single family. Councilmember Tibbott asked about a locked door between the first and second floors. Mr. Lien said then it would not have common access and it was not single family. Councilmember Paine said she encountered the definition of family in an HOA code, relaying her understanding this would not affect HOAs in the community. Mr. Lien answered this change applied to how family is defined in the City code and zoning code. CC&RS could have additional restrictions about who is allowed to live in homes, but that is not affected by this. Councilmember Chen said this may sound funny but it is a serious question. The language does not exclude animals and he asked if dogs or cats were considered family. Mr. Lien said other sections of the code limit the number of domestic animals; he recalled five domestic animals were allowed in single family zones. While many people think of their pets as family, they are not included in this definition. Councilmember L. Johnson assumed the reason for doing this was to not be discriminatory regarding what defines a family. If that was the case, she asked why the City would allow HOAs to be discriminatory regarding what defines a family. That has been done in the past and she questioned why the City would allow it to continue. Mr. Lien referred to senior living 55 and older communities that can be located in single family zones but have private restrictions on residents. There are a lot of CC&RS in the City, the City is involved with compliance with zoning; if they are more restrictive, they are enforced by the HOA. City Attorney Jeff Taraday said the legislature clearly told cities what they cannot do but did not take the next step to regarding how HOAs define a family. One is a regulation of a private entity and the other is what a city does with its police power. The question is whether the city can use its police power to do what the legislature did not do, prohibit that type of private regulation through an HOA. He would need research that if it was something the council was interested in pursuing. In general, the City does not place restrictions on what HOAs can do via their neighborhood restrictions. The City has laws that apply Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 5, 2022 Page 24 citywide but do not generally target HOA with special focus. That was not to say that the City can’t, but he was not certain. Councilmember L. Johnson said it deserves more thought; in the past HOAs have discriminated based on race, gender, etc. and there is a reason the state did this. She acknowledged there were certain things the City would not want to tell HOAs that they could/could not do, but if an HOA allowed a family of 3-4 related people but not 3-4 unrelated people, that could be discriminatory. She reiterated there is a reason the state did this and it was worth additional conversation. Mayor Pro Tem Olson asked if having a public hearing needed to be voted on by council. Mr. Lien said code amendments require a public hearing and the date needs to provide enough time for notice. He can work with Mayor Pro Tem Olson on the schedule. COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON, TO HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING ON RESIDENTIAL OCCUPANCY CODE AMENDMENTS. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 4. SPECIAL EVENT PERMITS AND AMENDMENTS TO ECC TITLE 4 LICENSES Mayor Pro Tem Olson requested City Clerk Scott Passey provide an quick introduction, noting there have been some emails submitted with questions. Mr. Passey said he had more than a couple minute of introduction. There is a lot of information and he did not want to give this item short shrift because it has been in the works for literally years. This proposal was developed prior to COVID and then the idea of special events became rather superfluous given other priorities that arose. He introduced this to the PSPP committee last September and they recommended a presentation to full council. He explained the City has administered a special event permit program for many years, however, there is no adopted City code that outlines the process or criteria governing the issuance of special event permits. Mr. Passey continued, the intent of this proposal is to codify the process for permitting special events that impact City right-of-way, public property and other facilities or services. These special events enhance the community and provide benefits to the citizens through the creation of venues for expression and entertainment that are not normally provided as part of government services. A new chapter is proposed to Title 4, Chapter 4.100, special event permits, that will provide a clear and efficient process for permitting special events within the City. Mr. Passey said he has a lot more information. Mayor Pro Tem Olson said she want to have this introduced and encouraged councilmembers to review the information and contact Mr. Passey with any questions so when it comes back, the council is prepared to take action or not. Councilmember Paine suggested scheduling this sooner rather than later as it has been on the schedule for some time. She noted there may be time on April 26th. There are a lot of summer events, and it would be helpful to have this codified and announced in advance. Mayor Pro Tem Olson shared that prioritization and assured it would be scheduled as soon as possible. 9. MAYOR'S COMMENTS 10. COUNCIL COMMENTS Mayor Pro Tem Olson felt strongly she needed to make this statement based on repetitive comments by the audience regarding the use of the hybrid option. “This city council voted unanimously to conduct our meetings in a hybrid format. This had something to do with continuing uncertainties related to COVID and something to do with feeling that hybrid is the way of future and that we may as well just get on Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 5, 2022 Page 25 board. This unanimous decision to go hybrid makes participation full participation whether a councilmember is here in chambers or on Zoom. As such, I want to make sure the public is aware that the councilmember participating on Zoom is serving you fully. In fact if you really want to see her in action at her best, I recommend you watch the Parks & Public Works Committee meeting next Tuesday, April 12th, 7:30 – 9:30 pm.” Councilmember L. Johnson announced the state passed a transportation bill, Move Ahead Washington, and Edmonds received $22.5 million for the Highway 99 revitalization project. She thanked everyone involved in that, noting it is an area that really needs focus and dedication and the funds will go a long way toward that. Councilmember Paine commented this has been an interesting meeting and she liked having these topics come up. She hoped the council could get through things more quickly and was interested in finding additional things to cover as a council. There are a lot of things on the to-do list and it would be great to start looking at them. She looked forward to a productive spring and summer. Council President Pro Tem Buckshnis thanked Mayor Pro Tem Olson for her comments about hybrid meetings. She recalled the late great Peggy Olson who attended meeting and was unable to speak. Everyone needs to realize that councilmembers have their unique way of expressing their opinion either on Zoom or on the dais. She thanked the people who continue to call, text, and email her. Councilmember Chen thanked the public for their participation. He was glad to see the neighborhood City office, although he would like to call it a remote police station. After the grand opening, he stopped by a few times and found the doors closed. He was happy to see lights on this morning when he stopped by and encouraged the public to use that venue to access City services. He thanked staff for their efforts related to the neighborhood office and the city council for funding it. Councilmember K. Johnson said it was good to see Susie Schaefer here tonight and to have her read the governor’s proclamation about native plants. She was glad to hear the demonstration garden was open and that a lot of native plants have been transferred to City Park. She recalled when Councilmember Tibbott and she were on the transportation commission over a decade ago, one of their efforts was Highway 99. She was glad the legislature was able to put together a package of badly needed improvements. 11. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:27 p.m.