Loading...
Cmd42122 spec mtg Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 21, 2022 Page 1 EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING - VIRTUAL/ONLINE APPROVED MINUTES April 21, 2022 ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Mike Nelson, Mayor Vivian Olson, Council President Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember Will Chen, Councilmember Neil Tibbott, Councilmember Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember Susan Paine, Councilmember ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT Laura Johnson, Councilmember STAFF PRESENT Susan McLaughlin, Dev. Serv. Director Kernen Lien, Interim Planning Manager Mike Clugston, Senior Planner Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Scott Passey, City Clerk 1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE The Edmonds City Council virtual online meeting was called to order at 5:15 p.m. by Mayor Nelson. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. 2. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Councilmember Paine read the City Council Land Acknowledgement 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 participating remotely, with the exception of Councilmember L. Johnson. 4. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER CHEN, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Mayor Nelson described the procedures for virtual audience comments. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 21, 2022 Page 2 Lynda Fireman, Edmonds, referred to the email she sent to council that asked they use their minds eye to visualize not only what each development will look like as part of a whole in the landscape, but also how it will impact the neighborhood, not just at the front and side but the back of the building as well. Earlier today as she was driving down Main Street, the spectacular view always takes her breath away. The current businesses on either side at 600, 605 and 611 Main do not interfere with the ambiance, allow enjoyment of the wonderful view and don’t distract from it which is why residents live here and tourist come to experience it. She suggested imagining how it would look with the proposed apartments dwarfing the heritage cottage at 601 Main and obliterating the 1895 cottage at 605 Main, two of the last vestiges of Edmonds’ heritage and a blight on the landscape forever, particularly if the same was built at 600 Main. The square block between 6th and 7th and Main & Bell is already very high density. Residents pay a premium to live there and spend their money in Edmonds. Some, definitely not all developers, are only in it to maximize their profits and their money goes into the bank; they don’t care about the impact on the residents or on the City. Ms. Fireman applauded the council for their wish to add addendums to expand the limits of the designated street front map because businesses are needed, to extend the moratorium for two months for further study, and to eliminate roof top decks, add a provision to follow the slope of the lot against the alley and lot line to help reduce the scale of the building and alleviate the pervasiveness of the 40-foot tall straight flat wall against the alley lot line and allow the adjacent residents to reclaim a little of the lost visual of their surroundings and the light that will be taken away. She urged the council not to allow roof top decks, commenting the development was already oversized and residents want to avoid being kept awake at night. In addition, there is a wind tunnel that comes up the alley and she could envision things flying off the deck. She would like to see the development reduced in height and scale to fit in with the historic downtown and to somehow save the 1895 cottage; it has been a viable business for years and possibly can be moved. She asked the council to give consideration to those who live in the area and are impacted by the development as well as those who will be affected by other imminent development in BD2 spot zones. She recognized there was a lot of divisiveness around these issues, but hoped the council could come together to resolve them. Finis Tupper, Edmonds, commented this has been quite a charade. He recognized councilmembers had a lot of work to do and had to review a lot of materials in the agenda packet. He wondered if any councilmembers looked at Ordinance 3955 regarding BD1 ground floor street front and compared it to the code. He questioned why the code was not updated when Ordinance 3955 was passed. He questioned who was in charge at the City, who was checking this stuff, whether it was the attorney, the council president, the city clerk or the mayor. Anyone with a 6th grade education looking at the building standards for the BD1 zone knows it is business and mixed use commercial. Nowhere has Kernen Lien shown the council where City staff was told that outside the designated street front there could be an entirely multifamily project. The dimensional requirements in the zoning code clearly state 45 feet in the designated street front is required to be commercial. The exception in 7 under BD1 ground floor street front does not apply to these buildings. There could be doctors or dentists in that 45 feet but there can’t be in the BD1 or the designated street front. Every house in Edmonds has a designated street front. He questioned whether it was defined in the code and said the lie is related to ceiling height and allowed uses in those zones. What the council is trying to do is absolutely illegal and is appealable to the Growth Management Hearings Board. Michelle Dotsch, Edmonds, said the foundation to tonight’s discussion hinges on whether to keep a small portion of the required development in the BD2 downtown mixed commercial zone as commercial. It needs to be accurately stated that multifamily is an allowed use in this zone, even encouraged as mixed use in the comprehensive plan along with a minimum square footage on the ground floor for businesses and jobs that support and compliment the BD1 commercial only zone. The 2020 validation study of the buildable lands study comparing development predictions with actual development, shows Edmonds exceeded the total predicted housing units by 74%. It also shows the average buildable density in Edmond exceeded predicted Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 21, 2022 Page 3 targets by 64%. That is only through 2019, there is time to get this right. She asked how do the community wanted the future vision of Edmonds to play out, whether it was a greater emphasis on Edmonds just expanding housing only which the study clearly shows exceeded county targets, losing small businesses and commercial balance along with local job opportunity growth to coordinate with housing expansion. This will only push residents to travel farther for goods and services including driving further to their jobs because local business options have been removed for even more housing only buildings. A 15-minute City discussion was presented by the development services director as a possible goal for Edmonds, but if the vital supporting role that BD2 service businesses provide to the town is removed, it will become a 45-90 minute town in the end. Dr. Dotsch continued, support service businesses are vital to a thriving community and are excluded from the BD1 ground floor designated street front zone. Chapter 16.43 which defines all the BD zones contains a footnote that states services, by appointment uses not providing open door retail, dining, entertainment functions as a primary component of the business, are not allowed within BD1 ground floor street front first 45 feet. Open door businesses, e.g. real estate offices, banks with tellers and no drive throughs, nail and hair salons are allowed. Now the council is prioritizing eliminating the BD2 language that allows for these other uses, these smaller service business to thrive and compliment the mix of jobs and uses in the entire downtown district. Less options for small, appointment-only business will force residents to travel further for these vital services and the staff and clients they bring that frequent the retail shops, restaurants, banks in the core daily. This BD2 use zoning designed on the shoulders of the small downtown district should be preserved for its core economic health, livability and job creation. She requested the council require that businesses and jobs remain in this small BD2 zone. There is already more multifamily square footage allowed in this zone than business, once it is 100% gone, there is no room in the small downtown core to bring it back. She requested the council renew the moratorium and design standards for six months to get this right as there is no rush. 6. COUNCIL BUSINESS 1. EXTENSION OF MORATORIUM ON CERTAIN BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATIONS IN THE BD2 ZONE City Attorney Jeff Taraday explained two days ago the council adopted an ordinance to extend the moratorium through May 19th. However, because that ordinance passed on a 4-3 vote, it will not take effect until sometime next week. The moratorium ends today, so theoretically starting tomorrow building permit applications could be submitted that would vest to the existing design standards, zoning, etc. To the extend the council wants to prevent that from happening, the council has an opportunity at this meeting to adopt the ordinance in the packet that would, with at least five votes, take immediate effect and would also extend the moratorium until June 2nd. That date was chosen after consulting with the development services director to determine the amount of time that likely would be needed for the designated street front issue to be returned to the council for further consideration. Mr. Taraday continued, the idea is the council could extend the moratorium tonight through June 2nd and then take up the designated street front issue on May 17th and perhaps the following meeting, and still have time to adopt an ordinance before the moratorium expires on June 2nd. Of course, as long as the moratorium is within the six month authority, the council has some discretion to extend it further, but staff does not believe that it will take longer than June 2nd to complete work on the designated street front. If it appears on May 17th that more time is necessary, the council could extend the moratorium again, but his understanding after consulting with the development services director is that it should come to council on May 17th. Mr. Taraday identified minor amendments that he suggested be made to the packet version. He referenced the draft extension moratorium ordinance on page 4, pointing out the title references both Ordinance 4253 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 21, 2022 Page 4 and 4254 (Ordinance 4254 was adopted on Tuesday). As Section 1 does not reference Ordinance 4254, he suggested a minor edit to Section 1 that would read, “…extended by Ordinances 4253 and 4254 …” The second edit would add a whereas clause before the last whereas clause that reads, “Whereas Ordinance 4254 extended the moratorium through May 19th, 2022 but did not pass with sufficient margin to take immediate effect; and. He apologized for the edits, but said with the moratorium expiring, they are necessary. COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE 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 AND EXTENDED BY ORDINANCES 4253 AND 4254. Council President Olson said she was excited for the opportunity to pass this ordinance with a super majority and have it take effective immediately so there will be better design standards in place. COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON, TO AMEND THE ORDINANCE AS RECOMMENDED BY THE ATTORNEY, ADDING ORDINANCE 4254 IN SECTION 1 AND THE ADDITIONAL WHEREAS CLAUSE. Councilmember Buckshnis asked Mr. Taraday to send councilmembers the language he read for the additional whereas. Mr. Taraday shared his screen so councilmembers were able to read it and repeated the amendments, revise Section 1 to read, “…extended by Ordinances 4253 and 4254 …” and add a whereas clause before the last whereas clause that reads, “Whereas Ordinance 4254 extended the moratorium through May 19th, 2022 but did not pass with sufficient margin to take immediate effect; and. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (6-0), COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON, CHEN, TIBBOTT, BUCKSHNIS, AND PAINE AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING YES. Councilmember Buckshnis said she has either an amendment or a clarification. She referred to the 15th whereas clause (WHEREAS, the history suggests that what was seen in 2011 as the logical limits of the downtown commercial core may no longer fit the circumstances of 2022 due to the fact that certain blocks are showing vibrant commercial activity right up to the edges of the designed street front map; and) and questioned why 2011 was used when the original Ordinance 3628 regarding BD zones was adopted in 2007. Mr. Taraday said it was most recently amended in 2011. Interim Planning Manager Kernen Lien said 2011 is the ordinance that adopted the current extent of the designated street front. Councilmember Buckshnis relayed her understanding it was updating Ordinance 3628. Mr. Lien agreed. Councilmember Buckshnis said in reading this, it is kind of judgmental and she preferred using logical limits, fit the circumstances, etc. She questioned if that whereas clause was even needed. Mr. Taraday pointed out a typo in that whereas clause; it should be “designated,” instead of “designed.” In his opinion the whereas clause is helpful because it explains why the extension of the moratorium to June 2nd is necessary; it is necessary because the council wants to reevaluate the designated street front map. That is essentially the primary reason for the proposed extension. He felt it was a helpful whereas clause, but recognized the council was free to amend. Councilmember Buckshnis said now that Mr. Taraday had explained it, she was fine with it. She suggested a whereas clause saying the definition of the BD2 is mixed residential. She has yet to see where council has deliberated on the two options which were given to the council at the time of the BD4 zones and wanted to have language that states, “Whereas BD2 always been recognized by council as mixed residential.” Mr. Taraday answered the whereas clauses explain in essence the reasons for what the council is doing today, Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 21, 2022 Page 5 but do not prevent the council from taking action in future. He realized that some people may still disagree with the analysis provided regarding the BD zone. That whereas clause does not prevent the council from stating in the future that there is not going to be residential only structures anywhere in the BD2 zone. There are several ways to accomplish that such as drastically increasing the designated street front map, a map amendment, text amendment, etc. That whereas clause does not prevent the council in the future from doing what the council wants to do with residential structures. Councilmember Buckshnis said it was Ordinance 3918 that describes the subdistricts and BD2 is downtown mixed commercial. She would like to have a whereas in Ordinance in 3918 stating the BD2 zone is defined as downtown mixed commercial. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS/COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, TO ADD A WHEREAS CLAUSE THAT ORDINANCE 3918 DEFINES BD2 AS DOWNTOWN MIXED COMMERCIAL. Councilmember Buckshnis commented some councilmembers lived through this; she recalled former Councilmember Petso saying land use is permanent, you better be very careful with what you do. She has read a lot of materials, she appreciated the work done by staff and Mr. Taraday, but in her opinion Ordinance 3918 was left out of the agenda memo and she felt it was a very important ordinance. The new moratorium addresses street fronts and defines building types. Ordinance 3918 defines BD2 as downtown mixed commercial. She had not seen any materials related to transition zones, etc. This further acknowledges that there are a number of important ordinance related to the BD topic. Councilmember Paine said the whereas that refers to 2011 is the reason for extending the moratorium from May 19th to June 2nd. She did not believe this new whereas clause adds additional clarity or a compelling story which is the reason for having clear whereas clauses. Council President Olson said the comment by Councilmember Paine was a fair point. She was the one that noticed Ordinance 4254 was not referenced in the whereas clause and even though it didn’t change anything, it did document the history and she felt the same about adding language regarding Ordinance 3918. It does not have an impact because the council can choose what they think is appropriate for the BD2 zone, but it documents the history and therefor it adds value. Councilmember Chen valued the history and the additional understanding via adding Ordinance 3918 to the proposed ordinance. Mr. Taraday commented it is true that Ordinance 3918 was one of the ordinance that amended the BD zoning code, but the language about downtown mixed commercial has been in code since 2008; it was not amended by Ordinance 3918. It was not staff’s goal in drafting the memo regarding the history to identify every ordinance that has amended any aspect of the BD zone. Staff’s focus was on the ordinances they felt had some relevance to the designated street front and the BD2 uses which is why Ordinance 3918 is not referenced. He did not think there was any harm in referencing it, but it does not add much to explain why the council was doing this. Ordinance 3918 was primary about building height and things like that, not about uses or the designated street front. The red lines in the ordinance show where it was amended. Councilmember Buckshnis read from Ordinance 3918, Whereas the following work sessions with the members of the ADB and Planning Board took place July 9, 2013, February 13 and February 27, 2013. She recalled it very clearly and she was sure Councilmember K. Johnson did as well and likely Councilmember Tibbott. It defines the subdistricts, whereas the memo goes into the reasoning behind the street fronts; in her opinion reference to Ordinance 3918 added a valuable piece of history. Ordinance 3918 was a pivotal year when the council was looking at the BD zones; some may not feel it adds value but she thought it did. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 21, 2022 Page 6 UPON ROLL CALL, AMENDMENT CARRIED (5-1), COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON, CHEN, TIBBOTT, AND BUCKSHNIS, AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBER PAINE VOTING NO. MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. INTERIM DESIGN STANDARDS FOR MULTIFAMILY-ONLY BUILDINGS IN THE BD2 ZONE Senior Planner Mike Clugston offered to review the language in the packet. Councilmember K. Johnson said the first step is to un-table this item so the council can discuss it. COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON TO UN-TABLE THIS DISCUSSION ITEM FOR INTERIM DESIGN STANDARDS FOR MULTIFAMILY ONLY BUILDING IN THE BD2 ZONE. City Attorney Jeff Taraday said he included a recommendation in the agenda that the council not un-table the motion as it will be a much easier process to move the ordinance in packet. Otherwise a number of amendments would need to be made to the ordinance that the council tabled. If the council prefers to start where they left off on Tuesday, that is certain the council’s prerogative. Councilmember K. Johnson asked for further clarification, advising she did not see the recommendation to not un-table the item and she did not understand how the council could discuss it without un-tabling it. Mr. Taraday relayed the recommendation to move the ordinance in the packet. Tuesday’s motion was to move the ordinance in that packet. They are not the same ordinances and the council’s deliberation would be much more straightforward if the council began by moving the ordinance in the packet. COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON WITHDREW THE MOTION WITH THE AGREEMENT OF THE SECOND. Councilmember Buckshnis relayed her understanding that by not removing the item from the table, it would be tabled indefinitely. Mr. Taraday agreed, explaining there is no obligation to ever remove something from the table. His intent was to provide the most streamlined process; the ordinance in tonight’s packet will be the best starting point for council’s deliberation and starting anywhere else will make deliberations more complex. He recommended leaving Tuesday’s ordinance on the table and starting deliberations with the ordinance in tonight’s packet. COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ESTABLISHING INTERIM DESIGN STANDARDS FOR STAND-ALONE MULTIPLE DWELLING BUILDINGS IN THE BD2 ZONE, SETTING SIX MONTHS AS THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF THE INTERIM STANDARDS, AND LIFTING THE MORATORIUM THAT WAS ESTABLISHED THROUGH ORDINANCE 4247 AND EXTENDED THROUGH ORDINANCE 4253. Councilmember Tibbott said staff did a good job of capturing the essence of Tuesday’s conversation and he agreed with the language used to describe the design standards. He will support ordinance. Councilmember Paine said she will support this ordinance and hoped it would be sufficient for as long as it was needed. She hoped the feasibility study regarding the needs of either commercial businesses or residential in this part of town would be completed prior to the moratorium’s expiration on June 2nd. She will support the interim ordinance, expressing her preference to have moratorium lifted well before June 2nd. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 21, 2022 Page 7 Councilmember Chen asked for clarification on design standard D, some roof modulation is required with preference for step-down that follows the slope when slope exists. He asked if that affected the building height. Mr. Clugston answered this was offered as an amendment on Tuesday. It does not affect the maximum height in the zone which is still 30 feet for the BD2 zone, but requires some roof modulation and step-down is one of the option. Councilmember Chen asked if the roof modulation referred to the same building or separate buildings. Mr. Clugston answered it would refer to two separate buildings, As the slope steps down, there would be roof modulation between the buildings and the intent is that each building would have some roof modulation. That could be achieved via a step-down or other ways. Councilmember Chen summarized the intent is for the view from the higher building to not be blocked by the building lower on the slope. Mr. Clugston said he did not know if that was the intent of adding this standard. If there is a slope, the buildings would step down the slope and there would be opportunity to modulate the roof. Councilmember Chen expressed support for the ordinance. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if Exhibit A, Chapter 22.43.080, was adopted as part of this ordinance. Mr. Taraday answered yes. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, ADD TO THE END OF SECTION A, INTENT, “AND COMPLY TO HUMAN SCALE BY VERTICAL AND HORIZONTAL MODULATION.” Councilmember Buckshnis said a builder with over 20 years’ experience indicated using “compatible within the downtown area” could result in a big block building and suggested adding human scale. The intent of the amendment is to take vertical and horizontal issues into account. She recall Councilmember Tibbott asking about that relative to the post office building. Councilmember Paine asked if an addition to the intent helped describe what was required or was that accomplished via the specifics regarding materials, private amenity space, street site amenities, roof modulation, landscaping, etc. Human scale is subjective depending on context. Adding human scale is a broader discussion that should be reviewed by the planning board and ADB to ensure they are comfortable with adopting that because they would need to review against it. Development Services Director Susan McLaughlin answered this section will be a subsection of the broader design standards. The intent and purpose of those design standards already articulate human scale, keeping with the historic nature of downtown, repeating historic patterns, vertical and horizontal modulation, etc. so it would be redundant. Having an intention statement identifies the outcome once all the design standards are rolled up. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS WITHDREW THE AMENDMENT MOTION WITH THE AGREEMENT OF THE SECOND. COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO AMEND SO THE TITLE OF THE ORDINANCE READS, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ESTABLISHING INTERIM DESIGN STANDARDS FOR STAND- ALONE MULTIPLE DWELLING BUILDINGS IN THE BD2 ZONE, SETTING SIX MONTHS AS THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF THE INTERIM STANDARDS. , AND LIFTING THE MORATORIUM THAT WAS ESTABLISHED THROUGH ORDINANCE 4247 AND EXTENDED THROUGH ORDINANCE 4253. AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON, TO AMEND ITEM 2 RELATED TO BALCONIES, TO ADD AT THE END OF THE FIRST SENTENCE, “DECKS ENCROACHING INTO SETBACKS SHOULD BE LIMITED TO THE SECOND FLOOR ONLY.” Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 21, 2022 Page 8 Councilmember Buckshnis commented it is important to understand that decks encroach on the vibrancy of the City because it is part of the common space. Therefore, she wanted to ensure that decks that encroach into the setback were limited to the second floor and up. Councilmember Paine assumed all decks would on the second or third floor and she did not understand what this amendment would change. Most likely decks would encroach, but not beyond 5 feet. Councilmember Buckshnis provided an example, pointing out on the post office building part of it is commercial and she considered the patios to be decks. Mr. Clugston explained the intent of the standard was balconies are on the second and third floors of buildings and can project out or be built into the building; decks and patios are at the ground level which is why two different standard distances were proposed. On the ground level, they can project into the 15 foot setback by 10 feet and balconies on the second and third floors can project a maximum of 5 feet. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS WITHDREW THE MOTION WITH THE AGREEMENT OF THE SECOND MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 7. ADJOURN With no further business, the council meeting was adjourned at 6:11 p.m.