EDMONDS – Residents will get more chances to provide input on what has become the contentious, controversial issue of building design for downtown Edmonds.
Sometime in the next several months, the Planning Board and the City Council will conduct hearings on the issue of what type of appearance should be required of buildings that are built to 30 feet tall instead of the standard 25.
Additionally, City Council member Richard Marin suggested to the Council April 6 that the city conduct surveys and-or focus groups “and find out what the residents of Edmonds want.” The Council has yet to decide on the idea.
The issue, seemingly resolved for the time being when the City Council approved an interim ordinance in February, was stirred up again a month later when the Council reversed its earlier action.
In February, the Council voted to require that new downtown buildings higher than 25 feet have a pitched roof to avoid the “box” effect. The previous ordinance, approved in 1997, intended to accomplish the same but was written in such a way that could be interpreted as allowing a modulated facade to substitute for the pitched roof. The ordinance often was interpreted in exactly that way, with the Architectural Design Board (ADB) and City Council giving their approval to several 30-foot, flat-roofline buildings downtown in recent years.
The buildings remained a point of contention of some who said they violated the spirit of the ordinance. Mickey Nielsen, a member of the ADB, resigned from the board in January for that reason.
After approving the building that Nielsen said was for her the last straw, a mixed-use building across Fifth Avenue from the Public Safety Complex, the City Council voted unanimously to clarify the issue by removing the ambiguity from the ordinance. Mayor Gary Haakenson, the only current elected official who was on the City Council in 1997, confirmed that pitched roofs were what was meant in the original ordinance by “modulated building design.”
The interim ordinance was intended to stand for six months until the city could complete a long-standing, comprehensive review of all the city’s building design guidelines. A public hearing was held March 16, with three speakers supporting the clarification, two expressing concerns and one – a builder – saying he thought it was clearer the other way.
On March 23, freshman City Council member Mauri Moore proposed to allow the rule to stand as it has been interpreted, with the modulated facade a sufficient substitute for a pitched roof. Moore said she had considered proposing the amendment March 16 but decided against it that night because she didn’t feel well and wanted to study the matter further.
Then, Moore said, she talked to Bob Gregg, the builder, and Rob Michel – a builder and chair of the ADB – and recalled photos and information presented by Marin that showed what she said were attractive buildings. As a result, it “made common sense” to change the ordinance, she said.
Council member Deanna Dawson, expressed surprise and disappointment that the issue was brought up without warning to the Council or the public, and that it seemed to have been planned behind the scenes. Moore had called City Council president Michael Plunkett, who sets the Council agenda, during the week and asked that an amendment to the interim ordinance be prepared. Plunkett in turn called city attorney Scott Snyder and asked that it be drawn up.
Resident Roger Hertrich, speaking after the vote, decried the change as a “sneaky little move.”
According to Plunkett, who has been on the Council since 1998, and Haakenson, this way of doing business is nothing unusual or illegal.
“That’s the way every Council decision is made, really,” Haakenson said. But, he added, “a better way to have handled it would have been for someone to have added it to the agenda before the meeting started.”
The Council approved Moore’s amendment 4-3, with Moore, Plunkett, Marin and Peggy Pritchard Olson voting in favor and Dawson, Dave Orvis and Jeff Wilson voting against.
“We’re back on the road we’ve been consistently on,” Plunkett said. “The policy has been established.”
The matter will first go back to the ADB which will consider it as part of its of its overall review. Its recommendation will go to the Planning Board, which will conduct a hearing and in turn send a recommendation to the City Council. The Council is not required to have another public hearing on the interim ordinance but will likely do so anyway, and must act on the ordinance by the time it expires Aug. 24.
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
