2022-06-14 City Council - Full S Agenda-32011.
Op E D
o Agenda
Edmonds City Council
tnl. }nyo SPECIAL MEETING
CITY COUNCIL CONFERENCE ROOM
121 - 5TH AVENUE N, EDMONDS, WA 98020
JUNE 14,2022, 7:00 PM
PERSONS WISHING TO JOIN THIS MEETING VIRTUALLY IN LIEU OF IN -PERSON ATTENDANCE CAN
CLICK ON OR PASTE THE FOLLOWING ZOOM MEETING LINK INTO A WEB BROWSER USING A
COMPUTER OR SMART PHONE:
HTTPS://ZOOM. US/J/95798484261
OR JOIN BY PHONE: US: +1 253 215 8782 WEBINAR ID: 957 9848 4261
THOSE PARTICIPATING IN THE PUBLIC HEARING USING A COMPUTER OR SMART PHONE ARE
INSTRUCTED TO RAISE A VIRTUAL HAND TO BE RECOGNIZED. THOSE USING A DIAL -UP PHONE ARE
INSTRUCTED TO PRESS *9 TO RAISE A HAND. WHEN PROMPTED, PRESS *6 TO UNMUTE.
CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL
COUNCIL BUSINESS
1. Public Hearing to Receive Citizens' Comments on Interim Design Standards for Multifamily -only
Buildings in the BD2 zone (30 min)
ADJOURN
Edmonds City Council Agenda
June 14, 2022
Page 1
2.1
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 06/14/2022
Public Hearing to Receive Citizens' Comments on Interim Design Standards for Multifamily -only Buildings
in the BD2 zone
Staff Lead: Mike Clugston
Department: Planning Division
Preparer: Michael Clugston
Background
On February 15, 2022, Council adopted Ordinance 4247, which declared a two -month emergency
moratorium on the acceptance of building permit applications for certain projects in the Downtown
Business (BD2) zone. The moratorium applies to projects that require a SEPA threshold determination
on sites that are not subject to the Designated Street Front standards in Chapters 16.43 and 22.43 of the
Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC). The moratorium was intended to give staff time to
create interim design standards to address gaps in the code that apply to those sites.
On March 29, staff introduced the proposed interim design standards to Council. A new section would
be added to the existing design standards for the Downtown Business zones in Chapter 22.43 ECDC.
These new standards would only apply to projects in the BD2 zone that do not have the Designated
Street Front requirement and are multifamily -only buildings. The intent of the section is to ensure that
this type of project is compatible within the downtown area by adding standards for materials, private
amenity space, and street -side amenity space.
On April 5, Council held a public hearing on the moratorium and voted to extend the moratorium for
two weeks to allow additional time to consider the proposed interim design standards and to gather
additional information about the history of the Designated Street Front requirements in the BD zones.
Staff also presented the proposed interim design standards and received feedback from Council.
On April 6, staff reviewed the proposed interim design standards with the City's Architectural Design
Board (ADB). The ADB was supportive of the proposed standards.
On April 19, Council discussed the proposed standards and proposed some amendments before tabling
the discussion due to the late hour.
At a special meeting on April 21, the Council discussed the revised interim design standards and
approved the emergency Ordinance 4256 and revised standards at that meeting.
Staff Recommendation
No changes to the interim BD2 design standards are proposed. Take public testimony on the interim
standards and by the next regular Council meeting following the hearing, the Council must adopt
findings of fact on the interim ordinance and either justify its continued effectiveness or repeal the
interim ordinance.
Packet Pg. 2
2.1
Narrative
This public hearing is being held within 60 days of the adoption of interim Ordinance 4256 in accordance
with RCW 36.70.A.390 and RCW 35A.63.220.
Because these are interim design standards, final standards must be adopted within six months of
adoption of the interim standards. The standard process for code updates would have the Planning
Board review the proposed final standards and make a recommendation to Council who must adopt the
final standards.
Attachments:
Ordinance 4256 and Interim BD2 Design Standards
2022-04-19 City Council - Excerpt Minutes
2022-04-21 City Council - Excerpt Minutes
Packet Pg. 3
2.1.a
ORDINANCE NO. 4256
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.
WHEREAS, on February 15, 2022, the city council adopted Ordinance 4247, which
established a moratorium on the acceptance of building permit applications for BD2 zoned lots
that do not front on a designated street front; and
WHEREAS, Ordinance 4247 took effect on immediately on February 15, 2022; and
WHEREAS, the moratorium adopted by Ordinance 4247 was scheduled to terminate on
April 15, 2022; and
WHEREAS, the moratorium was extended six days by virtue of Ordinance 4253; and
WHEREAS, the moratorium was intended to allow planning staff sufficient time to draft
interim regulations for the BD2 zone; and
WHEREAS, the six -day extension was afforded to allow planning staff and the city
attorney sufficient time to research the history and legislative intent surrounding the BD zones
and the designated street front; and
WHEREAS, with work continuing on the designated street front, it is proposed that these
standards be adopted without lifting the moratorium and that the moratorium be lifted in
conjunction with resolution of designated street front issues; and
WHEREAS, planning staff have now completed a proposed set of interim design
standards for the BD2 zone; and
WHEREAS, planning staff continue to work on a permanent set of multi -family design
standards, which could be ready for adoption in the next six -months; and
WHEREAS, while the work referenced above continues, the city council desires to adopt
the following interim standards to bring the BD2 regulation into closer harmony with the city's
values and policy statements; NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS DOES ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
Section I. Interim ❑esign Standards. A new section 22.43.080, entitled "Additional
Design Standards Stand -Alone Multiple Dwelling Buildings in the BD2 zone," is hereby added
Packet Pg. 4
2.1.a
to the Edmonds Community Development Code to read as set forth in Exhibit A, which is
attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as if fully set forth.
Section 2. Duration of -Interim Design Standards. The interim design standards
adopted by this ordinance shall commence on the effective date of this ordinance. As long as the
city holds a public hearing on this ordinance and adopts findings and conclusions in support of
its continued effectiveness (as contemplated by Section 3 herein), this ordinance shall not
terminate until six (6) months after the effective date, unless it is repealed sooner.
Section 3. Public Hearing on Interim Standards. Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.390 and
RCW 35A.63.220, the city council shall hold a public hearing on this interim ordinance within
sixty (60) days of its adoption. In this case, the hearing shall be held on May 17, 2022 unless the
city council, by subsequently adopted resolution, provides for a different hearing date. No later
than the next regular council meeting immediately following the hearing, the city council shall
adopt findings of fact on the subject of this interim ordinance and either justify its continued
effectiveness or repeal the interim ordinance.
Section 4. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance
should be held to be unconstitutional or unlawful by a court of competent jurisdiction, such
invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other
section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance.
Section 5. Declaration of EmeMencv. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power
specifically delegated to the city council, is not subject to referendum. Because it is not subject to
referendum, RCW 35A.12.130 applies. Pursuant to RCW 35A.12.130, this ordinance shall take
effect immediately upon passage by a majority vote plus one of the whole membership of the
city council. The city council hereby declares that an emergency exists necessitating that this
2
Packet Pg. 5
2.1.a
ordinance take immediate effect. Without taking immediate effect the interim regulations
adopted by this ordinance would not take effect prior to the expiration of the moratorium,
allowing for the possibility that building permit applications could become vested to the existing
regulations, which are not consistent with the city's values and vision for the BD2 zone.
Therefore, these interim regulations must be imposed as an emergency measure to protect the
public health, safety, and welfare, and to ensure that any building permit applications submitted
would vest to the regulations set forth in this ordinance. This ordinance does not affect any
existing vested rights.
Section 6. Publication. This ordinance shall be published by an approved summary
consisting of the title.
Section 7. Effective Date. This ordinance is not subject to referendum and shall take
effect and be in full force and effect immediately upon passage, as set forth herein, as long as it
is approved by a majority plus one of the entire membership of the Council, as required by RCW
35A.12.130. If it is only approved by a majority of the Council, it will take effect five days after
passage and publication.
APPROVED:
MAY MIKE NELS N
ATTEST/AUTHENTI TED:
&JYXW,SCOtL!�4AEY
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY:
Packet Pg. 6
2.1.a
BY
JEFF TARADAY
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: April 28, 2022
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: April 19, 2022
PUBLISHED: April 21, 2022
EFFECTIVE DATE: April 19, 2022
ORDINANCE NO. 4256
4
Packet Pg. 7
2.1.a
SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO.4256
of the City of Edmonds, Washington
On the 191h day of April, 2022, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed Ordinance No.
4256. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting of the title, provides as follows:
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.
The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request.
DATED this 191h day of April, 2022.
�y
CIT CL I %K, S c,6 SEY
Packet Pg. 8
2.1.a
Everett Daily Herald
Affidavit of Publieation
State of Washington }
County of Snohomish } ss
Michael Gates being first duly sworn, upon
oath deposes and says: that he/she is the legal
representative of the Everett Daily Herald a
daily newspaper. The said newspaper is a legal
newspaper by order of the superior court in the
county in which it is published and is now and
has been for more than six months prior to the
date of the first publication of the Notice
hereinafter referred to, published in the English
language continually as a daily newspaper in
Snohomish County, Washington and is and
always has been printed in whole or part in the
Everett Daily Herald and is of general
circulation in said County, and is a legal
newspaper, in accordance with the Chapter 99
of the Laws of 1921, as amended by Chapter
213, Laws of 1941, and approved as a legal
newspaper by order of the Superior Court of
Snohomish County, State of Washington, by
order dated June 16, 1941, and that the annexed
is a true copy of EDI1953211 ORMNIANCE 4255,
4256 as it was published in the regular and
entire issue of said paper and not as a
supplement form thereof for a period of I
issuc(s), such publication commencing on
04/25/2022 and ending on 04/25/2022 and that
said newspaper was regularly distributed to its
subscribers during all of said period.
The amount o the fee for su publication is
$37.84.
Subsefted and sworn
air..
day of
;,,,,,me on this
Nof!aty Public in and for the State of
Washington.
Ciq• of Edmonds - LEGALADS 114101416
SCOIT PASSEY
+ Linda Phillips
Notary Public
State of Washington
MyAppoin.-,ent Expires 8!2912025
Commis„ion Number b417
.may
c
Packet Pg. 9
2.1.a
Classified Proof
ORDINANCE SUMMARY
gf the Cily0IEdmoods, Washington
On the 2151 o[ Aprll, 2022, the City Council of fie City of
Edmonds, passed Iha following Oronarmes, The Summaries of said
ordinances consisting of titles are provided as fottoWS:
ORpINAN� - NO.4255
AN ORDINANCE OF H CITY DMbNDS, WASHINGTON.
EXTENDING THE MORATORIUM ON THE ACCEPTANCE OF
BUILDING PERMTT APPLICATIONS FOR BD2 ZONED LOTS
THAT 00 NOT FRONT ON A DESIGNATED STREET FRONT AS
IMPOSED BY ORDINANCE 4247 AND EXTENDED BY
ORDINANCES 4253 AND 4254.
ORDINANCE NO.425E
AN ORDINANCE OF c�IDS, 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.
The full text of these Ordinances will be sent upon roquest.
DATED Ihis 21st Day of ApnL 2D22
CITY CLERK. SCOTT PASSEY
Published: April 25, 2022. EDH953211
Proofed by Phillips, Linda, 04/25/2022 01:18:20 pm Page: 2
Packet Pg. 10
2.1.a
EXHIBIT A
22.43.080 Additional Design Standards Stand -Alone Multiple Dwelling
Buildings in the BD2 zone.
A. Intent. To ensure that buildings entirely comprised of multiple dwelling residential units are
compatible with the downtown area.
B. Materials. Building facades must be clad with preferred building materials which include
natural stone, wood, architectural metal, brick and glass. Concrete, laminates, veneers, fiber
cement products and the like may be permitted by the Director or Architectural Design Board if
they replicate the appearance of the preferred materials.
C. Private Amenity Space. An exterior area equivalent to at least 10% of the project's gross lot
area must be provided as private amenity space for residents of the development. This
standard can be met through a combination of balconies (cantilevered, recessed or semi -
recessed), decks, patios or yards for individual dwelling units or the site as a whole.
1. Not all dwelling units are required to have private amenity space. When it is provided,
it must be immediately accessible from the dwelling unit and be a minimum of 40 sq. ft.
2. If the space is at ground level facing a street, no fence may be over three feet in height.
3. Balconies may encroach into a required setback adjacent to R-zoned property up to a
maximum of 5 feet. Patios and decks may encroach into a required setback adjacent to
R-zoned property up to a maximum of 10 feet.
D. Some roof modulation is required with preference for step-downs that follow the slope
when slope exists.
E. Street -side amenity space or Pedestrian Area. An exterior area equivalent to at least 5% of
the project's gross lot area must be provided as street -side amenity space or pedestrian area.
This space must be arranged along the street front between the building and the sidewalk and
must be open to the sky, unless otherwise excepted. The space must be pedestrian -oriented
and may include the following elements:
1. Landscaping
2. Seating area
3. A similar feature as approved by the Director or Architectural Design Board
4. Areas allocated to private amenity space cannot be used toward the street -side amenity
space or pedestrian area requirement.
Packet Pg. 11
2.1.b
3. INTERIM DESIGN STANDARDS FOR MULTIFAMILY -ONLY BUILDINGS IN THE
BD2 ZONE (previously Item 8.2)
Senior Planner Mike Clugston provided an update on the status of the design standards for multifamily
only buildings in BD2. Since the April 5' meeting where there were comments on several of the design
standards, staff took the standards to the Architectural Design Board (ADB) who were generally in favor
of the proposed language with a couple of tweaks. Staff s recommend is to approve the interim design
standards in Exhibit 2 via the ordinance in Exhibit 3. With regard to materials, which was one of the
design standards, no change was recommended; the ADB and the public seemed to like the concept of
materials used on these types of buildings. Similarly, for the street side amenity space, the concept that
provides a setback was well received and no changes are proposed.
Mr. Clugston continued, there were no concerns with the private amenity space generally, but there was
some concern with roof top decks. As a result a small change was proposed to the roof top deck areas as
outlined in the packet. Previously a roof top deck would be allowed to fulfill the amenity space
requirement; that was changed to say it could not be used to fulfill the amenity space requirement, but
could be provided. Another question raised was whether roof top decks should be allowed to the edge of
the roof; the building code allows railings at the edge. There was some concern from the council, public
and the ADB who felt some setback of the railing would be useful for safety and proposed a 5-foot
setback as a starting point. He recalled a setback for the railing was also suggested by a member of the
public at the April 5' meeting.
Mr. Clugston continued, another question was raised about whether the roof top deck should be counted
toward the private amenity space requirement. There was some concern that a developer would put all the
50% amenity space on the roof, thereby depriving some individual residences of balconies, decks and
patios. The revised language changes the ability to use the roof top deck to meet the amenity space
requirement; a roof top deck is still allowed, but all the private amenity space has to be provided with
individual units or at the ground level meeting the existing standards in the proposed language. He
summarized with the feedback from council, the ADB and the public, the design standards are generally
pretty good and would result in improved projects in multifamily only buildings in BD2.
Council President Olson said she not sure she was against the idea of a roof top deck but was not sure she
was ready to say they absolutely should be allowed. Her concern was with building heights, a cultural
value in Edmonds. When building heights were increased 5 feet at one point, the idea wasn't to allow
increased levels of living units, but to allow for some roof modulation or slope so the roofs were not all
flat because that is not a great design in the Pacific Northwest. Things can be placed on a roof top deck,
even if they aren't permanent, such as umbrellas and furniture. If part of the desire to keep building
heights at a certain level is to be respectful of views due to the slope throughout the lower level of
Edmonds, she had an issue with roof top decks in the context of the community value of avoiding
increasing building heights due the impact on views. She summarized she was uncertain she was ready to
allow roof top decks as an amenity.
Mr. Clugston responded a number of exceptions to the height are allowed such as an architectural feature
that can cover 5% of the roof area on a BD building, elevator penthouses, solar panels, etc. He
summarized the height limit such as 30 feet is not an absolute drop dead maximum as things can project
above it. Using that information, staff determined roof top decks fit with that concept particularly if the
railings are transparent and there are no permanent structures on the roof top.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS,
TO EXTEND FOR 30 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes Q
April 19, 2022
Page 17
Packet Pg. 12
2.1.b
Development Services Director Susan McLaughlin said staff is not wed to the concept of roof top decks
as part of the interim design standards. The most recent revision excludes roof top decks from the
required private amenity space and they are happy to exclude roof top deck from the interim design
standards. The multifamily design standards are a 2022 work plan item which will provide more time to
delve into it. The focus of the interim design standards is setback, articulation, and more green space on
multifamily buildings.
Councilmember Buckshnis said she was not sure if she was in favor of roof top decks; Edmonds is not
Seattle and Seattle has a lot of them. She might be interested if they were recessed further than five feet.
She recalled complaints the City received about the visibility of a tent on a business's roof for a long
period of time due the slope. She supported having more research done because Edmonds is unique and
she anticipated roof top patios could get out of hand. There are rooftop patios in many large cities and she
was not sure Edmonds was large enough for that yet.
COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PAINE, TO
APPROVE THE REVISED INTERIM DESIGN STANDARDS IN EXHIBIT 2 AND ADOPT THE
ORDINANCE IN EXHIBIT 3.
Councilmember L. Johnson commented this is the third time the council has worked on this and the issues
that were raised last week have been addressed. Staff came forward with what the council requested and
further amendments can be made.
COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON,
TO AMEND THE ORDINANCE BY REMOVING THE ROOF TOP PORTION AS IT IS
WORTHY OF FURTHER DISCUSSION AND DELIBERATION. AMENDMENT CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
Councilmember Paine expressed support for the product as amended, noting there is an opportunity for
greater review by the public and another public process. This is a good interim proposal and it was her
understanding the process would take about nine months which would allow for a good public process.
A MOTION WAS MADE AND SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON TO AMEND TO
CHANGE THE CURRENT SECTION D OF 22.43.080 TO E AND ADD A NEW SECTION D
THAT READS, SOME ROOF MODULATION IS REQUIRED WITH PREFERENCE FOR STEP
DOWNS THAT FOLLOW THE SLOPE WHEN SLOPE EXISTS.
Council President Olson said that was one of the features she notices and likes when she is downtown and
prefers to see. The history of allowing an additional 5 feet in height was to allow slope on roofs or
modulation so buildings were not square boxes and were a more attractive design. She recognized these
were interim design standards, but some projects will vest under these interim design standards.
Councilmember Paine asked how much slope modulation there was in other parts of Edmonds. She was
concerned this would be disparate if it was only required in one of the business districts, noting it was not
required for single family residences. She asked if any other zoning districts in the City required
modulation on the slope.
Council President Olson offered a point of clarification, that was not the amendment. Her motion was
some roof modulation is required with preference for step-downs that follow the slope when slope exists,
it would not be a mandate.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes Q
April 19, 2022
Page 18
Packet Pg. 13
2.1.b
Councilmember Paine said she was still curious about the answer to her question, whether this existed in
any other zones. Mr. Clugston answered in the RM zones the base height maximum was 25 feet and an
additional 5 feet was allowed with a roof pitch of 4:12 or greater. That was also permitted in BC zones.
Councilmember Chen asked if there were any buildings in the City that had roof top amenities. Mr.
Clugston answered roof top decks were allowed in other zones but the only one he was aware of was the
new building at Westgate. Councilmember Chen said that could be a wonderful feature with enough
setback. He supported respecting people's privacy by having enough distance from the edge of building
so that people were looking at the water and mountain views and not into other people's windows.
UPON ROLL CALL, AMENDMENT CARRIED (5-2), COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON,
CHEN, TIBBOTT AND BUCKSHNIS AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING YES;
COUNCILMEMBERS PAINE AND L. JOHNSON VOTING NO.
COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON, TO
AMEND WITH REGARD TO GROUND FLOOR STREET FRONTS, TO EXTEND THE STREET
FRONT TO THE ABUTTING CORNERS AROUND THE INTERSECTION TO INCLUDE
STREET FRONTS IN THOSE LOCATIONS. THE EFFECT WOULD BE TO EXTEND WHERE
THERE IS COMMERCIAL AND RETAIL ON THE GROUND FLOOR IN THOSE LOCATIONS.
THERE ARE THREE PLACES ON THE MAP WHERE IT IS EXTENDED TO ALL FOUR
CORNERS AND FOUR PLACES WHERE IT IS NOT. FOR EXAMPLE MAIN AND 6TH, IT
STOPS RIGHT AT 6TH AND THERE ARE TWO OTHER CORNERS THAT DO NOT HAVE
STREET FRONT AND THREE OTHER PLACES THAT SIMILAR TO THAT IN THE
DOWNTOWN AREA.
Mr. Taraday asked if the intent was to have that brought back or have an ordinance drafted tonight that
would accomplish that. Councilmember Tibbott said he was open to asking Mr. Taraday to bring and
ordinance back to council for review. Mr. Taraday said he would need to work with planning staff on that;
that type of an amendment would be difficult to adopt tonight. If the intent is to have that in place before
lifting the moratorium, the moratorium would need to be extended. The complexity involved with a map
amendment of that nature would be difficult to do at 10:15 p.m. without long extensions of the meeting. If
the council extended the moratorium for a month, it would give him time work with the planning division
to bring back an ordinance that would accomplish that. If that was the case, there would need to be other
amendments made to the ordinance currently before the council such removing language in Section 2 that
lifts the moratorium.
Council President Olson asked if the council was otherwise satisfied with the design standards, could the
section about the moratorium be struck while staff is figuring out the designated street front. Mr. Taraday
answered the council has options, 1) adopt the design standards as just amended and lift the moratorium,
or 2) adopt the design standards as just amended and keep the moratorium in place. Adopting the design
standards and keeping the moratorium in place will require two separate ordinances. As he was not
certain how the discussion/vote would go, as a precaution, he prepared an ordinance to extend the
moratorium for a month so it was ready if the council needed it. If council wants to adopt the design
standards as amended and keep moratorium in place, a motion would need to be made to approve the
version of the ordinance that he sent the council by email this afternoon that contains immediate effect
language, not the packet version of the ordinance. Section 2 of that ordinance which repeals the
moratorium would need to be deleted. He summarized if the council likes the design standards as
amended and does not want to repeal the moratorium, that could be accomplished by deleting Section 2 of
the ordinance he sent council this afternoon.
COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT WITHDREW THE MOTION WITH THE AGREEMENT OF
THE SECOND.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes Q
April 19, 2022
Page 19
Packet Pg. 14
2.1.b
COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER CHEN, TO
ACCEPT THE DESIGN STANDARDS AS AMENDED TONIGHT AND OTHERWISE
REPRESENTED IN THE ORDINANCE SENT THIS AFTERNOON BY EMAIL WITH THE
EXCEPTION OF DELETING SECTION 2 THAT LIFTS THE MORATORIUM.
Councilmember L. Johnson observed there was an motion on the floor to approve the ordinance in the
packet. Mr. Taraday agreed the ordinance was moved originally and assumed the version of the ordinance
was the one he sent this afternoon. Councilmember L. Johnson said her motion was to approve the
ordinance in the packet. Mr. Taraday clarified the packet version will not take effect prior to the
expiration of the moratorium. A version of the ordinance needs to be adopted which takes effect
immediately which is why he sent out a revised version this afternoon. The revised version does not
change any of the substance of the design standards, it is contains a declaration of emergency and has an
immediate effect clause. He asked whether the maker of the motion was okay substituting that version for
the version in the packet. Councilmember L. Johnson said she was unable to give that at this point
without reading what was emailed.
Mayor Nelson observed there was already a motion on the floor and this is another motion. He suggested
addressing the main motion.
Council President Olson began to make an amendment, to have Section 2 deleted that lifts the
moratorium. She asked if the emergency clause could be removed if the moratorium was not lifted. Mr.
Taraday said if the council wanted to prevent developments vesting to the preexisting standards, the
ordinance needs to take effect immediately. The packet version does not take effect immediately; the
council would need to adopt the version he sent this afternoon in order for it to take effect immediately.
He offered to highlight the change to the ordinance in the packet.
Councilmember L. Johnson clarified the version Mr. Taraday sent this afternoon does not lift the
moratorium, it allows the design standards to take immediate effect. Mr. Taraday answered it does both;
the council probably will want the design standards to take immediate effect either way unless a separate
ordinance is adopted that extends the moratorium. If a separate ordinance is adopted to extend the
moratorium, then the design standards ordinance does not need to be an emergency.
The motion was clarified as follows:
Councilmember L. Johnson was open to changing the motion to include what was emailed to the
council now that she had had a chance to look at it, provided that that lifts the moratorium. The
seconder, Councilmember Paine agreed as long as it lifted the moratorium.
Councilmember Buckshnis said she would like to see all of this in writing and give citizens an
opportunity to participate. She was concerned that at 10:25 p.m., the council was attempting to approve
something that was sent this afternoon and then making amendments to it. She preferred to have the
ordinance in the packet. She did not support the motion but wanted to have the moratorium extended so
this could be fixed and everyone could see it in writing in the packet. She asked what needed to be done
to make that happen. Mr. Taraday said the council would want to adopt the other ordinance he emailed
this evening, not the afternoon one, that extends the moratorium for a month.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked if the council would have to wait to do that until the motion the floor
was addressed. Mr. Taraday agreed. Councilmember Buckshnis did not support the motion as she
believed there needed to be a public process, the public had not read the ordinance and she had only read
it quickly.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS,
THAT WE TABLE THIS MOTION.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes Q
April 19, 2022
Page 20
Packet Pg. 15
2.1.b
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (5-2), COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, CHEN,
TIBBOTT AND BUCKSHNIS AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING YES;
COUNCILMEMBERS PAINE AND L. JOHNSON VOTING NO.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS,
TO EXTEND THE MORATORIUM ONE MONTH.
Council President Olson observed there was an ordinance that does that. She offered to read the
ordinance.
Councilmember L. Johnson raised a point of order, asking where this was on the agenda. Council
President Olson answered this was one of the things the council can do. Councilmember L. Johnson said
the council tabled this item.
Mr. Taraday explained the motion to adopt the ordinance that adopts the interim design standards was
tabled. If the council wants to take alternative action regarding the moratorium, it can do so, it can amend
agenda, etc. A majority of the council can do whatever it wants during a regular meeting. Councilmember
L. Johnson observed it was not on the existing agenda.
Council President Olson asked if it was the council's desire to take vote to add this to the agenda or could
it be done via a head nod. Councilmember L. Johnson commented the council did not take action via head
nods.
Council President Olson restated her motion:
TO ADD THE ITEM TO THE AGENDA AND EXTEND THE MORATORIUM.
Councilmember Paine said adding this to the agenda at 10:26 p.m. was a rather thin nail to hang the
transparency hat on.
Councilmember Chen said the council needs more time and cannot vote on something that was sent in the
afternoon. He did not support the motion.
Council President Olson offered to withdraw the motion and plan a special meeting on Thursday.
Councilmember Chen said that would be more appropriate.
Councilmember K. Johnson said she like to take this vote tonight and did not want to have a special
meeting on Thursday for this one item. It is part and parcel of what the council has discussed tonight
related to adopting a resolution to adopt the findings in support of the BD2 moratorium. The motion
would be to extend moratorium and she favored taking that action tonight.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, TO
EXTEND 10 MINUTES TO 10:40. MOTION CARRIED (5-2) COUNCILMEMBERS L. JOHNSON
AND PAINE VOTING NO.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON,
FOR AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, EXTENDING THE
MORATORIUM OF THE ACCEPTANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATIONS FOR BD2
ZONE LOTS THAT DO NOT FRONT ON A DESIGNATED STREET FRONT AS IMPOSED BY
ORDINANCE 4247 AND EXTENDED BY ORDINANCE 4253.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes Q
April 19, 2022
Page 21
Packet Pg. 16
2.1.b
Councilmember Buckshnis said this was following through on what Councilmember K. Johnson said.
There is a moratorium in place, this is the formal action to extend it for one month. If the council does not
take this action, the moratorium will expire on Thursday and she did not think the city attorney and staff
would have the necessary materials completed in time for a continued meeting on Thursday. She
preferred to either approve extending the moratorium and if not, it will end on April 21 and the interim
building standards will take effect. This will give time to do what needs to be done in terms of getting
packet materials done and extending the moratorium.
Councilmember L. Johnson did not support the motion. She found it interesting that the council just
tabled something based on being unable to review something that was received at 5:00 p.m., yet would
vote on a document that was received during the council meeting which she has not had an opportunity to
review.
Councilmember Paine preferred to come back on Thursday. There is a chance to have enough public
process to get through the tail end of the moratorium. Moratoriums are damaging to the City's reputation
and progress on building, things that are normally allowed. She felt it was shortsighted and that the
council would not get that much more information about what the business practices need to look like
within a month as that is a much bigger study.
Councilmember Chen agreed that the council needs to come back on Thursday. It is late at night and all of
a sudden the council wants to pass a motion to extend the moratorium. He was not comfortable
supporting that.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-3), COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, TIBBOTT
AND BUCKSHNIS AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS
CHEN, PAINE AND L. JOHNSON VOTING NO.
Mr. Taraday explained a 4-3 vote adopts the ordinance, but does not take immediate effect with a 4-3 vote
and will take effective 5 days after passage and publication. If the council does not meet on Thursday to
take some other action, the moratorium will end at the close of business on Thursday and on Friday a
developer theoretically could vest an application pursuant to the prior development standards. If the
ordinance takes effect five business day after publication, next Wednesday, that leaves four business days,
Friday, Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday, for a developer to vest an application. The council could take
other action on Thursday that would take immediate effect, but five votes are required for an ordinance to
take immediate effect.
Council President Olson began to make a motion to add back Items 3 and 4 that were deleted so they
could be discussed at the special meeting on Thursday, and then concluded a motion was not necessary.
4. ARPA FUNDING STATUS (Previously Item 8.3)
Due to the late hour, this item was postponed to a future meeting.
5. SPECIAL EVENT PERMITS AND AMENDMENTS TO ECC TITLE 4 LICENSES
(Previously Item 8.4)
Due to the late hour, this item was postponed to a future meeting.
9. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS
1. COUNCIL COMMITTEE MINUTES
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes Q
April 19, 2022
Page 22
Packet Pg. 17
2.1.c
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 Q
April 21, 2022
Page 6
Packet Pg. 18
2.1.c
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 LIFT-ING—THE
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 Q
April 21, 2022
Page 7
Packet Pg. 19
2.1.c
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.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes Q
April 21, 2022
Page 8
Packet Pg. 20