Loading...
Cmd60722 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 14, 2022 Page 1 EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING APPROVED MINUTES June 14, 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 STAFF PRESENT Susan McLaughlin, Dev. Serv. Director Mike Clugston, Senior Planner Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Scott Passey, City Clerk 1. CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Council President Pro Tem Buckshnis in the City Council Conference Room and virtually. City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present with the exception of Mayor Nelson. 2. COUNCIL BUSINESS 1. PUBLIC HEARING TO RECEIVE CITIZENS’ COMMENTS ON INTERIM DESIGN STANDARDS FOR MULTIFAMILY-ONLY BUILDINGS IN THE BD2 ZONE Senior Planner Mike Clugston thanked the council for scheduling a public hearing tonight. The intent is to have a hearing before the 60 days expires on the interim ordinance for BD2 design standards. The adopting resolution originally scheduled the hearing on May 19, 2022. That date was missed, but by statue the City has 60 days from the date of adoption which was April 21, 2022 so this hearing meets that deadline. The purpose of tonight’s public hearing is to gather public input about the proposed standards. Following the hearing, council can determine whether to keep the standards and send them to the planning board and finalize them over the next two months or repeal the standards, knowing some other work has been done in the BD2 zone recently. Council President Pro Tem Buckshnis opened the public hearing and described the procedures for in- person public comments. Greg Brewer, Edmonds, commended the council for taking steps to protect the BD2 mixed-use commercial zone. Moving the street frontage line will go a long way toward protecting the small, vulnerable area. The BD2 zone was never intended to be 100% residential and he urge the council to Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 14, 2022 Page 2 protect all of it including outside the street frontage line. Design standards are a good tool for great development, the kind of development that blends well with surrounding structures and functions well within the existing infrastructure. However, the standards brought forward by the planning department are not clear or comprehensive. Guidelines need to be spelled out so citizens, developers, planner, building officials and councilmembers are all on the same page. The less subjectivity to the standards the better for all. Four areas of concern need to be addressed: public amenity spaces, building setback and step-backs, modulation, and parking. First, public amenity spaces need clarification; stacking balconies over ground floor public amenity space is like getting credit for the same space twice. Does any part of the amenity space have a percentage of space clear to the sky? Second, setbacks on the ground floor for 100% residential are important which is why all other multifamily zones have ample setbacks except for the mistake project on Edmonds Street & 3rd where there are no setbacks or off-street parking. Buildings should also step back as they rise from the ground floor; even a few feet makes a huge difference. Setbacks and step-backs facilitate pedestrian traffic and allow light and air around these large buildings and both need concrete dimensions associated with them. Third, modulation is key to avoiding a box; any building that has a square roofline the same width and depth as its base should be banned. For lots combined on a slope as on Main & 6th, modulation of rooftops would make a more attractive appearance and allow for more light and air to adjacent buildings. This is crucial for the health and quality of life for the neighbors. Kathy Brewer, Edmonds, continued Greg Brewer’s comments. Furthermore, remember 25 + 5. While the extra 5 feet was granted for modulation and varied roof structure, now there is 30 + 5 for an architectural feature, equipment or elevator structure. This is being used to enable a third floor with a sunken ground floor and results in creeping heights. Taller buildings are being built that overshadow existing buildings, threatening the harmony and small scale of the quaint downtown core. Finally and most importantly, parking will be problematic. Just as 100% residential should mirror the setback standards for multifamily, so should the parking standards. She reference the memorandum from Otak dated May 19, 2022; Mukilteo and Snohomish parking standards require substantially more parking than Edmonds, yet Edmonds is more densely populated than either of those two cities. Edmonds lacks parking and needs to upgrade the number of parking spaces per unit. The 9-unit mistake project on Edmonds Street & 3rd has tenant parking fanned out on adjacent streets. Imagine what the two proposed 24-unit apartment buildings on Main Street and Dayton Street would do to the already tight parking. There is a line of vehicles parking well up Main and spilling onto residential side streets daily and into the evening. Where will all the apartment tenants park? Main and Dayton Streets, downtown’s main thoroughfares, will be jammed with traffic and parked vehicles. Ms. Brewer continued, this will compound the problem that Dayton residents already have with traffic and pedestrian safety. Getting in and out of downtown with all the traffic and drivers trying to find parking will be a headache and the parking sprawl will be unsightly at the gateway of the historical, charming downtown and should not be allowed. It is imperative that all proposed projects require adequate parking from now on. In conclusion, these design standards are not ready to be passed. There need to be clearly defined public amenity spaces, concrete dimensions for setbacks and step-backs, modulation requirements and an increased number of parking spaces per unit before proceeding. The integrity and charm of the downtown should not be sacrificed for the will of a developer and the ease of the planners. Allowing 100% residential into the tiny BD2 mixed use commercial zone and doing it without clear and comprehensive design standards is a big mistake. Send the planners back to the drawing board to address these issues, not rush this through and ensure what is built is good for the downtown, businesses, citizens and visitors. She referred to an article in My Edmonds News on June 13th, Meet the New Business, where the owner stated she was thrilled to find a storefront space in downtown Edmonds. Her new business is located on 3rd Avenue North in the BD2 zone, evidence that people want and need commercial space in the downtown business district. The BD2 zone needs to be protected and preserved, the demand will only grow as Edmonds grows. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 14, 2022 Page 3 Joan Longstaff, Edmonds, said the downtown corridor has been very special to her since opening her business there in 1980. They worked very hard to have commercial on the first floor and residences above. Although she wanted residential above commercial, she was opposed to this 24-unit apartment building with no commercial. She lived in the 4-unit townhouses in that alley for a time; that alley is very dangerous and that amount of traffic will create a serious situation. She thanked the council for holding this public hearing and expressed her interest in retaining the charm in downtown Edmonds. Lynda Fireman, Edmonds, commented this was supposed to be a public meeting in front of the council and there is not even a sign on the locked door and now citizens find themselves in city hall on Zoom. She had intended to thank the city council for asking questions to clarify the zoning of the designated street fronts and design standards and at no time has she seen anything that was unprofessional, discriminatory, harassing, inappropriate or bullying. It is the council’s job to probe to find answers before making decisions. It is staff’s job to answer those questions and explain their position and reasoning. Communication is key in any office, whether public or private. Most importantly, it is the job of the mayor to be clear what the agenda is because staff follows his lead. This agenda does not seem to be public or council knowledge. She was angry; whenever this development is brought up, there is only 30 minutes for discussion which she found disrespectful. She questioned whether that represented a public forum in Edmonds. She thought a public forum would include questions and answers. She questioned when the public would be given the time they deserved; this is not a project without impacts, it is real life in Edmonds and there is human cost to what is happening. Some of her neighbors may think this won’t affect them or they are afraid to speak up; she is not. The general public is only looking at the inappropriate size and design seen from Main Street and likely don’t know what is happening. These additional design standards are very small wins when it comes to the big picture. It does not address the impact of those who live on the square block or the other surrounding 15 parcels waiting to be developed. Ms. Fireman continued, it is encroaching and invasive and will cause loss of privacy, views, safety, livability and enjoyment of the neighbors’ homes. Except for these three lots, the zoning is residential, RM-1.5. These two lots have a 10-foot drop from Main Street to the alley which means there will be a 4- story flat wall very close to her building. She has asked for pictures like were provided on the front of the building, but still hasn’t received them. The fear factor is being used to push the development through. Edmonds is s small town with small town values, not Seattle or Ballard. She recalled comments from people who spoke about moving to Edmonds to get away from the density. The application said structures on adjacent parcels do not support intensity of development under the current zoning and comprehensive plan and are anticipated to eventually be replaced with higher density development. The proposed project is seen as a guide for future redevelopment allowed and encouraged by comprehensive plan. It also said it was market value. She questioned what is being done and what happens now. The one page of additional design standards doesn’t say much and can have different interpretations. If this is passed, will the developer and other parcels quickly have applications into the planning department before the zoning and comprehensive plan can be redone? She was very disappointed to say the least in this whole process. Michelle Dotsch, Edmonds, referred to Chapter 16.43, definitions and requirements of the five distinct BD zones, and section 16.43.030, site development standards section B.8 states, “Within the BD4 zone, there are two options for developing the ground floor of a building. One option is to develop the ground floor with commercial space, meeting the same requirements detailed for the BD2 and BD3 zones in subsection (B)(7) of this section. As a second option, if more residential space is provided so that the ground floor does not meet the commercial use requirements described in subsection (B)(7) of this section, then the building setbacks listed for the RM-1.5 zone shall apply. In the case where RM-1.5 setbacks are required, the required street setback shall be landscaped and no fence or wall in the setback shall be over four feet in height above sidewalk grade unless it is at least 50 percent open, such as in a lattice pattern.” She emphasized BD4 has the ground floor exception to be entirely residential, therefore if Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 14, 2022 Page 4 the BD2 zone is being interpreted to have the same two options as BD4, the same language should be included as a requirement which will allow BD2 to match the definition as a second option for development of the ground floor as BD4. The Highway 99 subarea plan is fantastic, not mentioned enough and was a very thought-out and thorough process that took years to finalize. Even that plan has a very critical concern noted in the design elements, not allowing a flat, unmodulated wall next to single family or less dense RM-1.5 zone or street. Dr. Dotsch continued, an alley is considered a street as was learned from the streateries and reimagining streets conversations. It states, “The current design critical seek to ensure buildings do not display, bank, unattractive walls to the abutting streets or residential properties, walls or portions of walls abutting streets or visible from residentially zoned properties and suggests a variety of architectural treatments to mitigate impact.” It also states, “The comprehensive plan includes recommendations that should be considered when developing uses adjacent to single family areas where intense development adjoins residential areas. Site design including buffers and landscaping and building design should be used to minimize adverse impacts on residentially zoned properties.” The recommendation was to establish step- back and setback standards for multifamily buildings adjacent to single family zoning including RM-1.5. She requested those be included in these standards as the Highway 99 subarea plan has great ideas that could be used in the downtown as well. Alleys are streets so a zero lot line, blank, unmodulated wall, just as in the Highway 99 subarea plan should also not be allowed in the downtown BD subarea design standards. There has never been a picture provided of a blank wall on that alley. There is no rush; she requested the council slow down and include photos of what these new design standards will look like. She also requested every adjacent property owner within the usual distance of the BD2 subarea be notified that these setbacks and design standards have been altered and allow them to provide comment in the future. Council Pro Tem Buckshnis described the procedures for virtual public comments. There were no virtual public comments. Council Pro Tem Buckshnis closed the public hearing and remanded the matter to council. Councilmember K. Johnson suggested bringing this back for discussion at a future date. There have been good public comments as well as written comments and the council deserves an opportunity to review them before taking action. City Attorney Jeff Taraday advised the council is required to adopt findings based on the hearing at the meeting following the hearing. The adoption of findings will come to council next week although it could be on the Consent Agenda. As the council’s agendas have been very full recently, he was unable to say how much time would be devoted to that item. Mayor Pro Tem Olson asked if staff could provide the information on the item mentioned by Michelle Dotsch regarding the Highway 99 subarea plan regarding walls facing streets by email in the next couple days. Mr. Clugston answered yes. He explained what is being considered tonight is just the interim design standards that the council already adopted. The question is whether to continue those for the next four months while the planning board and city council take another look at the standards or allow the interim standards to expire and have no standards while work is done on the design standards. The interim design standards were developed fairly quickly, but the architectural design board (ADB) and the planning board liked them and the council adopted them. These standards could be retained for now, knowing the process will continue at the planning board and council to make some tweaks if necessary in response to issues that have been raised. The interim standards are valid for six months from adoption so consideration by the planning board and council needs to be completed in the next four months. Mayor Pro Tem Olson commented if council was interested in including the language from the Highway 99 subarea plan, it could not be included as part of the interim design standards; the choice was to Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 14, 2022 Page 5 continue with the interim standards or abandon them completely and not have any design standards for multifamily in the BD2 zone. Mr. Clugston answered yes. Councilmember Paine asked if the interim design standards included the analysis done by Kernen Lien regarding the street frontage for the BD2 zone. She observed staff was nodding. She asked the status of multifamily design standards, relaying her understanding they had been reviewed by the ADB and should be at the planning board soon. She anticipated the multifamily design standards could help inform this discussion. Development Services Director Susan McLaughlin answered this has been a complex conversation so it is natural there are both active development projects that people are opposed to in addition to the designated street front conversation which was more of a land use conversation regarding permitted uses within the BD2 zone as well as the interim design standards. She acknowledged it was confusing, but there are three separate things. The interim design standards are intrinsically linked with the multifamily design standards, however, the multifamily design standards will not get into land uses/permitted uses. Since there is so much interest in this from council, staff has considered whether it is more of a comprehensive plan issue related to the length of the designated street front throughout the downtown and taking a more comprehensive view of the BD zoned properties in conjunction with the vision of the comprehensive plan. The 2022 multifamily design standards are moving forward. Mr. Clugston explained the focus now is on these interim standards. The City has until October to finalize them; it will take time to go through the planning board and council process. Once that is completed, the multifamily design standards will go through the planning board, ADB and council. The interim design standards will inform that larger project, but the interim standards need to be completed first. 3. ADJOURN With no further business, the council meeting was adjourned at 7:31 p.m.