02/22/2005 City CouncilI� M . ,,.
February 22, 2005
The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:02 p.m. by Mayor Haakenson in the Council
Chambers, 250 5"' Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute.
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Gary Haakenson, Mayor
Richard Marin, Council President
Michael Plunkett, Councilmember
Jeff Wilson, Councilmember
Mauri Moore, Councilmember
Peggy Pritchard Olson, Councilmember
Dave Orvis, Councilmember
Deanna Dawson, Councilmember
ALSO PRESENT
Bryan Huntzberger, Student Representative
STAFF PRESENT
David Stern, Chief of Police
Stephen Clifton, Community Services Director
Dan Clements, Administrative Services Director
Jennifer Gerend, Economic Development Dir.
Rob Chave, Planning Manager
Dave Gebert, City Engineer
Scott Snyder, City Attorney
Sandy Chase, City Clerk
Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst.
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Council President Marin requested a Proclamation for Rotary International be added to the agenda as Item
3A and Item 3A moved to 3B.
Change to I Agenda COUNCIL PRESIDENT MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, FOR
APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
Council President Marin requested Items E and H be removed from the Consent Agenda.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, FOR
APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows:
(A) ROLL CALL
Approve
2/15/05 (B) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 15, 2005.
Minutes
Approve I (C) APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #77420 THROUGH #77573 FOR THE WEEK OF
Claim Checks FEBRUARY 14, 2005, IN THE AMOUNT OF $619,529.47. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL
DIRECT DEPOSITS AND CHECKS #40211 THROUGH #40286 FOR THE PERIOD
FEBRUARY 1 THROUGH FEBRUARY 15, 2005, IN THE AMOUNT OF $749,620.48.
Gaon for I Damages (D) ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM LEIGH GORRELL
(AMOUNT UNDETERMINED).
Prosecutor I (F) AUTHORIZATION FOR THE MAYOR TO SIGN THE CONTRACT FOR
Contract PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FOR CITY OF EDMONDS PROSECUTOR
Edmonds City Council ApprovedMinutes
February 22, 2005
Page 1
Lift stations (G) AUTHORIZATION FOR THE MAYOR TO SIGN ADDENDUM NO. 1 TO THE
and 8
Integration PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH HDR ENGINEERING, INC. FOR
THE LIFT STATIONS 7 AND 8 INTEGRATION AND REHABILITATION PROJECT.
Item E: Approval of the fist of Edmonds businesses applying for renewal of their Liquor Licenses
with the Washington State Liquor Control Board.
Council President Marin advised he pulled this item to abstain from the vote.
COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, FOR
APPROVAL OF ITEM E. MOTION CARRIED (6 -0 -1), COUNCIL PRESIDENT MARIN
Liquor I ABSTAINED. The item approved is as follows:
Control Board
(E) APPROVAL OF LIST OF EDMONDS BUSINESSES APPLYING FOR RENEWAL OF
THEIR LIQUOR LICENSES WITH THE WASHINGTON STATE LIQUOR CONTROL
BOARD
Item H. Proposed Resolution opposing Senate Bill 5121 and House Bill 1390 as originally proposed,
the first reading of each were held on January 13, 2005 and January 21, 2005 respectively and the
legislative process employed in addressing the issues.
Council President Marin explained he pulled this item from the Consent Agenda in order to highlight it so
that citizens were aware of this action to oppose further action by the Legislature that would potentially
undermine jurisdictions' ability to have input on the siting of airports.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, FOR
APPROVAL OF ITEM H.
Councilmember Moore suggested the information in the resolution be updated as SB5121 had been
reworded in the past few days to require a statewide siting process. Council President Marin responded
the change was reflected in the resolution.
Res# 1085 MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The item approved is as follows:
Opposing RESOLUTION NO. 1085 OPPOSING SENATE BILL 5121 AND HOUSE BILL 1390 AS
Senate Bill
5121 and ORIGINALLY PROPOSED; THE FIRST READINGS OF EACH WERE HELD ON
House Bill JANUARY 13, 2005 AND JANUARY 21, 2005 RESPECTIVELY AND THE
1390 LEGISLATIVE PROCESS EMPLOYED IN ADDRESSING THE ISSUES.
Rotary 3A. PROCLAMATION IN HONOR OF ROTARY INTERNATIONAL CENTENNIAL
International ANNIVERSARY
Centennial
Mayor Haakenson read a Proclamation recognizing February 23, 2005 as Rotary International Centennial
Day in Edmonds. He presented the Proclamation to the President of the Edmonds Daybreakers Rotary
Club, Jim Crim, and the President of the Rotary Club of Edmonds, Elizabeth Crouch. Ms. Crouch .
thanked the Council for honoring Rotary International's Centennial anniversary. She expressed her pride
to be a Rotarian and particularly an Edmonds Rotarian.
3B. PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF
Utility Rate EDMONDS CITY CODE SECTION 7.50.050, RATES AND CHARGES TO INCREASE THE
COMBINED UTILITY RATE STORM WATER MANAGEMENT COMPONENT BY FORTY -
SEVEN CENTS PER MONTH.
Administrative Services Director Dan Clements explained a presentation was made to the City Council on
February 1 and the Finance Committee reviewed staff's rate recommendations at their January 11
Edmonds City Council ApprovedMinutes
February 22, 2005
Page 2
meeting. The Council requested the public have additional opportunity for input and a public hearing was
scheduled for tonight.
Mr. Clements summarized the three recommendations from the rate study conducted by FCS Group, 1) a
7% storm drainage rate increase in 2005 to help smooth the projected rate increase in 2006, 2) no rate
increases for water and sewer utilities, and 3) evaluate capital improvement implementation and
budgetary performance later in 2005 for all three utilities and reevaluate needs for future years.
Mr. Clements explained because the storm drainage portion was the smallest part of the utility bill, a 7%
increase equated to an additional $0.47 per month, or a 0.83% increase on the overall utility bill.
Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. There were no members
of the audience who wished to provide testimony and Mayor Haakenson closed the public hearing.
Ord#
se
Incree ase COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, FOR
Combined ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO. 3538. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The ordinance
Utility Rate reads as follows:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE
PROVISIONS OF SECTION 7.50.050 RATES AND CHARGES TO INCREASE THE COMBINED
UTILITY RATE, STORM WATER MANAGEMENT COMPONENT BY FORTY -SEVEN CENTS
PER MONTH, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE.
Amendments 4. CONTINUED COUNCIL DELIBERATION ON THE PUBLIC HEARING HELD ON FEBRUARY
to the Edmond 15, 2005, REGARDING AMENDMENTS TO THE EDMONDS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Plan Comprehensive CONCERNING THE DOWNTOWN WATERFRONT ACTIVITY CENTER (INCLUDING
Plan
AMENDMENTS TO THE DOWNTOWN WATERFRONT PLAN). THE PROPOSAL WOULD
ESTABLISH NEW "DISTRICTS" WITHIN THE DOWNTOWN AREA AND DESCRIBE ]HE
USES AND DESIGN STANDARDS (INCLUDING HEIGHT AND SETBACKS) THAT WOULD
APPLY, INCLUDES A PROPOSED NEW HEIGHT LIMIT OF 33 FEET IN MOST
DOWNTOWN COMMERCIAL AREAS TO ACCOMMODATE A NEW 12 -FOOT FIRST
FLOOR STANDARD.
City Attorney Scott Snyder recalled comments during public testimony at the February 15, 2005, Council
meeting regarding the lack of specific detail in the Comprehensive Plan. He explained the
Comprehensive Plan was a general planning guideline. Once approved, the City would then enter into a
process of developing specific and comprehensive development regulations to implement the general
guidance of the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Snyder recalled several speakers also referred to a need for detailed architectural design regulations;
he prepared a memo identifying several items that needed greater architectural detail during preparation
of development regulations. Referring to the recent decision in Snohomish County Superior Court Bauer
v. Edmonds, he noted if a judge disagreed with a long - standing interpretation of the Architectural Design
Board (ADB) and staff, that was problematic because the City has the obligation under State law to
provide specific direction for development. If such a gap exists, it needs to be addressed via specific
architectural design guidelines in a process that will follow adoption of the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Snyder referred to an issue that was raised regarding the record providing adequate basis for the
Planning Board's recommendation and whether there was an adequate record for other
suggestions /positions made by the public. He explained this was a legislative decision and any decisions
were appropriate as long as the Council showed its work, developed an adequate record and there had
been appropriate compliance with the City's public participation plan. With regard to showing its work,
he explained if the Council developed new ideas tonight, the Council needed to ensure their origin was
Edmonds City Council ApprovedMinutes
February 22, 2005
Page 3
documented and an adequate record was established. He noted following the Council's deliberation, he
may recommend some issues be referred back for development of a record and a work plan over the
upcoming year for additional public hearings. For example, the Historic Preservation Commission
provided very detailed recommendations; however, those amendments had not been the subject of a
public hearing. The Council may wish to refer those for a public hearing as any change to the
Comprehensive Plan is required by GMA and needs to be the subject of a Planning Board
recommendation and public hearing and a public hearing before the City Council. He concluded any
new, improved ideas the Council may develop that had not been highlighted in a public hearing may need
to have additional public participation.
With regard to the record, he recalled a citizen pointed out there was sufficient record for the Planning
Board's recommendation but there may not be for other positions. For example, implementation of the
original height limit in the downtown area of 25 feet plus a pitched roof. This was within the Council's
discretion but a further record may need to be developed as there is no historical data regarding how the
City would meet GMA guidelines such as encouraging mixed use development and accommodating
population goals because historical data based on a 30 foot height with modulation seems to indicate the
result is two floors of residential property and first floor heights inadequate for commercial use.
In response to a comment made at the last meeting regarding the location of her home, Councilmember
Moore explained her home is located in a single family residential zone and there was no proposal for any
change to that zone; therefore, she had no conflict of interest. Mayor Haakenson clarified the zone where
Councilmember Moore lived was single family residential prior to the Comprehensive Plan update and
would remain single family residential with no change in the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments.
Councilmember Plunkett remarked the Comprehensive Plan consisted of 11 -12 different elements. Mr.
Chave agreed, naming several including Land Use, Housing, Capital Facilities, Transportation, Parks &
Recreation, and Community Culture and Open Space. Councilmember Plunkett observed the Council had
focused its review on development portions of the Comprehensive Plan and asked whether staff could
provide an overview on all the elements. Mr. Chave answered that could be done, explaining the focus
this year has been on amendments to the Comprehensive Plan,
Councilmember Plunkett commented it would be difficult to make substantial changes to an element at
this time without additional public hearings and establishing a record. Mr. Chave agreed, noting the
subject of the prior public hearings had been the proposed amendments. Councilmember Plunkett pointed
out the public did not usually become involved until the amendments reached the Council level. Mr.
Chave commented although more people attended the Council meeting, most of the same viewpoints
were expressed at the Planning Board and possibly in more detail because the Planning Board's public
hearing did not have a 3- minute limit on comments.
Councilmember Plunkett concluded staff could make a presentation on all the elements and the Council
could then hold a public hearing. Mr. Chave commented additional public hearing on this year's
amendments could be problematic due to deadlines. He explained an application for a $500,000 Public
Works Trust Fund Loan for 1001h Avenue stabilization project was due May 9, 2005; if the City did not
have an adopted Comprehensive Plan and consistent development regulations in place, the application
cannot be submitted.
Mr. Snyder commented if the proposed amendments raised additional issues, he suggested the Council
refer those to the 2006 Comprehensive Plan amendment process which will begin as soon as the proposed
amendments are approved. Mr. Chave explained the City tended to focus on different issues in different
years as it was difficult to address the entire Comprehensive Plan in one year. Councilmember Plunkett
concluded there was still some opportunity for additional public hearings but the window for those was
Edmonds City Council ApprovedMinutes
February 22, 2005
Page 4
closing. Mr. Chave responded if any changes were made as a result of a subsequent public hearing that
also required changes to the development regulations, there likely would not be sufficient time. He noted
as a result of the Council's approval in concept of the RS -10 zoning, staff was in the process of
completing the rezone for the Council's review in April and completion before the May deadline.
Councilmember Plunkett summarized the issue was not only is there time for a public hearing but the
results of the public hearing. Mr. Chave agreed with Mr. Snyder's suggestion, if there were issues that
needed further public hearing and development regulations, it was appropriate to include those in the
2006 Comprehensive Plan amendments.
Mr. Snyder explained basically anything in the Downtown Waterfront Plan could be addressed; however,
if the Council wanted to expand into other areas of the Comprehensive Plan, that had not been the subject
of a public hearing and would be in violation of the Public Participation Plan if amended this year.
Councilmember Plunkett asked whether there had been discussion over the past year about something
other than condominiums downtown such as apartments to increase density at a more affordable level.
Mr. Chave answered condominiums versus apartments had not been discussed, commenting it would be
difficult to distinguish /regulate between condominiums and apartments.
Councilmember Wilson questioned the need for the specificity in the Comprehensive Plan with regard to
building heights. Mr. Snyder answered normally that degree of specificity was deferred to the
development regulations. Staff and the Planning Board tried to highlight that issue because it was
controversial and because of the time factor, it was more appropriate to have that issue resolved early in
the process. Mr. Chave added the Planning Board wanted to ensure their intent was clear so that there
would be no surprises when the development regulations followed to implement the direction in the
Comprehensive Plan.
Councilmember Wilson commented that could be accomplished via vision and height ranges in the
Comprehensive Plan followed by specifics in the development regulations rather than including specific
building heights and first floor ceiling heights in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Chave answered the
Planning Board wanted to be very clear with regard to their proposal. If the Council wanted to
accomplish similar goals without the specific language, that could be done but it would make the
development regulations phase more controversial. If that was the Council's desire, the key would be to
include specific enough description so that the intent was clear during the development regulation phase.
Mr. Snyder reiterated if the Council wanted to take a different policy direction such as leave the details to
development regulations or pursue the current direction via specific Design Guidelines, the record could
be created at the next level if general policy direction was provided at this level.
Councilmember Wilson remarked the Comprehensive Plan was a policy document. Mr. Chave reiterated
the Planning Board was attempting to be as direct as possible. The approach suggested by
Councilmember Wilson was supported by some public comment, getting the various positions together to
discuss alternative approaches such as a design approach.
Councilmember Wilson asked for clarification that the Comprehensive Plan amendment and the
development regulations to implement the Comprehensive Plan policies need to be completed prior to
staff applying for the Public Works Trust Fund loan. Mr. Chave answered the City needed to have
development regulations consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. One of the most critical is the RS -10
zoning on which the Council has already provided direction. If the Council removed the specifics
regarding the 33 -foot height limit and 12 -foot first floor ceiling height and left the downtown districts
intact as recommended, the BC zone still largely implements that recommendation.
Councilmember Wilson questioned the connection between applying for a Public Works Trust Fund loan
and development regulations. Mr. Chave answered one change that must be made in the development
regulations is the RS -10 zoning, other regulations only needed to be updated if the Comprehensive Plan
Edmonds City Council ApprovedMinutes
February 22, 2005
Page 5
was changed to an extent that the current regulations were inconsistent. When the City submits the
updated Comprehensive Plan to CTED, the City also adopts a resolution concluding development
regulations are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. If changes were made to the Comprehensive
Plan such as establishing different height limits in certain districts, the Council could not honestly adopt a
resolution stating the development regulations were consistent with that policy.
Responding further to Councilmember Wilson, Mr. Chave explained one of the application review criteria
on the loan application was an adopted Comprehensive Plan and consistent development regulations.
CTED requires an adopted resolution that states the development regulations are consistent with the
updated Comprehensive Plan. If the Council could not adopt such a resolution, CTED could not certify
that the City's development regulations were consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the City could
not meet the criteria for submitting the application.
Councilmember Wilson asked whether the City was being encouraged to shortcut the public participation
process to have consistent development regulations. Mr. Chave reiterated that was why the Planning
Board wanted to be specific at the Comprehensive Plan level so that the development regulations were not
a surprise and would be less controversial. If the Council was not comfortable with the specifics and
provided general direction in the Comprehensive Plan with the intent of working out the details later, that
should be sufficient. Mr. Chave emphasized that was one of the criteria for Public Works Trust Fund
loans and different agencies evaluate in different ways, for example a letter from CTED saying the City
was working on its update was sufficient for submitting a FEMA grant. He concluded the Public Works
Trust Fund loan process was one of the most rigorous.
Councilmember Wilson asked whether the City had the ability to establish a minimum density
requirement in multi family designations. Mr. Snyder agreed that was a valid form of zoning. The
Council could provide general direction and then use development regulations to implement that policy.
Councilmember Wilson asked whether the City had the ability via the Comprehensive Plan process to set
policy that would require new development to provide a certain percentage of affordable housing. Mr.
Snyder commented those goals already existed in the Comprehensive Plan; the task would be to prepare
implementing development regulations.
Councilmember Orvis inquired about the height limit in the Planned Residential- Office designation. Mr.
Chave answered it was 25 feet and the language in the Comprehensive Plan does not indicate the height
would be calculated any differently than the method used to measure height on any other property.
Councilmember Orvis clarified the height was not 25 feet plus 5 feet, it was 25 feet, the same as a single
family residence. Mr. Chave agreed.
Councilmember Orvis noted there were provisions in the Comprehensive Plan for first floor residential in
the BC zone beyond a depth of 90 feet if adjacent to a residential neighborhood. He asked whether
Planning Board review would be required if the scope of ground floor residential were expanded to all
buildings, not just those adjacent to a residential neighborhood, and if the depth were reduced from 90
feet to 60 feet. Mr. Chave answered it would be acceptable if there was sufficient logic in the record of
the Council's deliberations. Mr. Snyder advised the record would need to show that the City was
encouraging mixed use development and that there was an adequate commercial area. Councilmember
Orvis observed currently the commercial depth only needed to be 30 feet and parking was allowed in the
remaining depth; a depth of 60 feet would be more than was currently required.
Councilmember Orvis asked whether the language in the Comprehensive Plan would accommodate two
floors of commercial in front and three floors of condominiums in back. Mr. Chave read the current
language, first floors are required to be a minimum of 12 -feet in bight (floor to ceiling plate) to
accommodate retail and other commercial uses. He anticipated the language would require 12 foot
Edmonds City Council ApprovedMinutes
February 22, 2005
Page 6
ceiling heights in the commercial areas and not require 12 feet in the residential portion. He summarized
that would need to be specified in the development regulations. Mr. Chave suggested if that was the
Council desire, they direct staff via the legislative record and include it in the ordinance.
Council President Marin explained tonight there would likely be a motion to approve the Comprehensive
Plan, anticipating Councilmembers would describe potential amendments to provide Councilmembers an
opportunity to review the amendments prior to next week and then the Council would take action on
amendments at next week's meeting.
Council President Marin provided a slide presentation, explaining he was not as interested in the entire
BC zone as ensuring there were viable first floors on lots that face Main Street and 5' Avenue up to
Walnut. He displayed a series of photographs taken from the vantage point of the first housing unit — the
current view and projecting the outline of a 33 -foot building to illustrate the impact on the view: looking
down the alley between Bell & Main Streets, the view down Main Street Dayton Street, Maple Street,
Alder Street, and Walnut Street. He pointed out little of the views were lost with the construction of a 33-
foot building and the view that was lost was not such a great picture. He concluded Walnut was as far
south as he was interested in ensuring there was pedestrian-oriented retail.
Council President Marin continued his slide presentation, showing a photograph of a building near the
fountain, pointing out a single story building obliterates the view of Puget Sound. He pointed the first
floor shop /window dressing was what most pedestrians saw. He reported on a recent trip to San
Francisco where he realized most of the way a building related to the street was its first floor. He
displayed a photograph of an older Edmonds building with interesting architecture, pointing out what a
pedestrian saw /related to was the first floor. He concluded as one walked around downtown, most of the
facades above the first floor were uninteresting. He displayed a drawing illustrating a building's view
over another building and the obstruction of that view when a taller building was constructed He
concluded this had nothing to do with the Comprehensive Plan as this was already occurring downtown.
Council President Marin displayed another drawing illustrating the building above that had a view over
another building may have obstructed the view of another building when it was constructed. He
displayed a drawing illustrating a person standing at the base of a 30 -foot building looking at the top of a
30 -foot building across the street, then a drawing showing when both buildings were moved back 3 feet,
the same sight line was at 31.2 feet as well as introduced more light and sky onto the street. He wanted to
ensure the Comprehensive Plan and development regulations did not prevent developers from
constructing buildings with courtyards and other amenities such as the Windermere building downtown.
Council President Marin displayed a map of the properties in the BC zone that he recommended allowing
a 33 -foot height limit and requiring a 12 -foot ceiling height in exchange for wider sidewalks and design
guidelines. He was less interested in a building height over 30 feet or 12 -foot first floor heights in the
remainder of the BC zone. He pointed out the need for balance to ensure that as properties redevelop, the
downtown can evolve and continue to be vital.
Council President Marin proposed amending the map to only require the 12 -foot first floor height on the
properties that front on Main Street and 5"' Avenue. Next, he proposed amending the map to allow either
commercial or residential for the property located at Dayton & 6`h (the American Legion) as research has
indicated first floor commercial in that location is not appropriate. He also proposed an amendment to
replace the `floor to ceiling plate" requirement of 12 feet to "floor to floor" which would provide
developers flexibility regarding the floor structure, plumbing, HVAC, etc.
Councilmember Plunkett referred to the properties Council President Marin recommended be allowed a
33 -foot building height and required to have 12 -foot first floor ceiling heights, commenting he would not
Edmonds City Council ApprovedMinutes
February 22, 2005
Page 7
support anything that would increase the likelihood that those businesses would move or the buildings
would be replaced.
Councilmember Plunkett explained his original intent had been to present the amendments recommended
by the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) tonight and make the amendments next week; however,
based on the information provided by Mr. Snyder tonight, it is clear further discussion with staff will e
necessary to determine which amendments are appropriate in this process. Councilmember Plunkett
explained many of the amendments are in response to the HPC's finding that there was not enough
emphasis in the Comprehensive Plan on preserving, protecting, and restoring existing buildings.
Councilmember Plunkett presented the HPC's findings and recommendations which found the
Comprehensive Plan was lacking in four ways, 1) insufficient reference to HPC goals, 2) insufficient
implementation strategies, 3) insufficient design objectives, and 4) does not include the recommendations
of the historic survey report. He provided a PowerPoint presentation with several recommended
amendments. To address insufficient reference to HPC goals, he described several amendments that
would encourage adaptive reuse as an alternative to redevelopment in several sections.
To address insufficient implementation strategies for historic preservation, Councilmember Plunkett
relayed the HPC's finding that the nexus between goals and implementation strategies was not sufficient.
He described several specific amendments that would provide policy with regard to implementation. The
HPC also recommends Fountain Square be reviewed for concurrence with the recommendations of the
professional historic study and possible further amendments made next year. To address insufficient
design objectives, Councilmember Plunkett relayed the HPC's finding that the design objectives for the
Downtown Waterfront areas were missing design elements that could apply to properties on the Edmonds
Historic Register. He reviewed specific amendments to address signage, building forms, architectural
reproduction of historic buildings as well as the inclusion of a section on historic preservation in the
design objectives.
Councilmember Plunkett relayed the HPC's recommendation that the recently completed historic survey
of downtown Edmonds, that identified 80 structures that qualify for the Edmonds Historic Register, be
included in the 2004 Comprehensive Plan. He summarized although there were numerous amendments
related to historic preservation, most citizens would find preservation of the downtown character as high a
priority as public safety and the economic health of the community. He concluded some of the proposed
amendments may require further public hearings.
For Council President Marin, Councilmember Plunkett explained a request to place a property on the
historic register could be made by anyone; staff and the HPC determine whether it meets the criteria and
the property owner makes the final decision with regard to placing it on the historic register.
Councilmember Moore inquired what parameters were used to determine which buildings were historic.
Councilmember Plunkett advised those standards were contained in the report. HPC Member Darrell
Marmion advised the state - defined criteria described in the ordinance were used. He offered to provide
the criteria to the Council. Councilmember Wilson requested the map that identified the properties.
Councilmember Dawson observed there appeared to be some confusion during public comment regarding
how the height in the Planned ResidentiapOffice would be measured. Mr. Chave answered originally the
Planning Board considered 25 feet from the street grade which would have been a different method of
measuring height. During their deliberations, the Planning Board was clear that the 25 -foot height should
be measured in the manner that height is calculated on any property — the four corners. Absent any
additional direction from the Council, that was the intent.
Councilmember Dawson recalled the testimony regarding a specific project on that site indicated that
method would not work for their project Mr. Chave agreed they indicated 25 feet from the average grade
Edmonds City Council ApprovedMinutes
February 22, 2005
Page 8
would not be workable for their project. Councilmember Dawson observed it appeared the reason those
parcels were designated in that manner by the Planning Board was in response to one project. Mr. Chave
answered there was no specific design connected to the Planning Board's recommendation; that project
was an example of what could be done with the property. The Planning Board considered the
topography, relationship to other uses, etc. and absent this project, their recommendation would remain.
Councilmember Dawson suggested there be further clarification regarding how the height would be
measured to avoid a challenge to what was intended. Mr. Chave answered the Planning Board's intent
was to have the height measured as any other height in the City. Councilmember Dawson inquired about
setbacks on those properties. Mr. Chave answered there was a great deal of discussion; however, the
Planning Board agreed the setbacks were a development regulation issue.
Councilmember Dawson expressed her appreciation fir the information provided by Councilmember
Plunkett and the HPC, agreeing historic preservation was missing from the proposed Comprehensive
Plan. She agreed many citizens were as concerned with the demolition of old buildings and
redevelopment as they were with having a lot of tall buildings. Many citizens may be interested in
making it more difficult to construct tall buildings to avoid demolition of all the old buildings. She
supported encouraging historic preservation to ensure existing buildings were allowed to remain.
Councilmember Dawson observed the 33 -foot building height was not consistent with the goals in the
Comprehensive Plan. She identified specific goals in the Comprehensive Plan including the goal to
promote downtown as a setting for retail, office, entertainment and associated businesses supported by
nearby residents and the larger Edmonds community as a designation for visitors from throughout the
region, commenting that anything that took away from what currently exists did not promote Edmonds as
a destination and could result in the loss of the uniqueness of the downtown.
Councilmember Dawson referred to the Downtown. Waterfront Plan. Policies, specifically, ensure that the
downtown waterfront area continues — and builds on — its function as a key identity element for the
Edmonds Community, commenting that policy could be expanded with regard to historic preservation. If
the existing buildings were replaced with new buildings, it would take away the key identity element of
downtown Edmonds. She referred to the goal in the Comprehensive Plan, encouraging opportunities for
new development and redevelopment that reinforce Edmonds attractive, small town, pedestrian oriented
character, height limits that reinforce and require pedestrian -scale development are an important part of
the quality of life and should be implemented through zoning regulations and design guidelines, pointing
out this statement was not consistent with increasing allowable building heights and should have some
reference to historic preservation.
Councilmember Dawson referred to the statement in the Comprehensive Plan, providing greater
residential opportunities and personal services in the downtown especially to accommodate the changing
population, concluding that encouraging two stories of expensive condominium was not necessarily
accommodating the changing population. She suggested consideration be given to accommodating
services and housing affordable to a greater range of the population.
With regard to Council President Marin's presentation, Councilmember Dawson emphasized the
projected 33 -foot height represented a dramatic change because not only would there be a taller building,
the existing building would be lost. It was not just a matter of views of the water and mountains, it was
about shadowing, maintaining the existing openness in the downtown, which the setbacks to provide
wider sidewalks did not accomplish. She summarized the Council may have more work to do to
accomplish these goals and to ensure a viable, economic setting downtown. She pointed out the
Heartland study did not consider the viability of 2 -story commercial development, an issue that may need
to be considered. She urged the Council to move forward cautiously and err on the side of preservation.
Edmonds City Council ApprovedMinutes
February 22, 2005
Page 9
Councilmember Wilson disagreed with Council President Marie's suggestion to make the commercial
core smaller, noting the properties Council President Marin identified did not represent a downtown but
rather a strip mall. Although the Heartland study provided information regarding redevelopment, it only
resulted in specifics with regard to 33 feet versus 25 feet and did not address the vision for the downtown
— the existing character and quality that people like — and how to move that character and quality forward.
He noted the Council's task was to do what they could to preserve the past as well as look to the future,
capture the essence of the qualities of downtown today and move into the future. He expressed concern
that the focus was creating an urban downtown when Edmonds was a suburban downtown. Although he
recognized the benefit of a mixture of housing in downtown, he found regulations that promoted
functional retail space on the ground floor to be a platform for low density, condominium use on the
upper floors which was not the vision for downtown.
With regard to downtown building heights, Councilmember Wilson commented heights should not be the
focus of the discussion; pedestrian scale was not related to building height, it was a number of factors
including building design, relation to the street, building materials, windows, entries, etc. He supported
the creation of design guidelines that create pedestrian scale so that buildings mimic the character that
people associate with downtown Edmonds and that attracts people to the downtown. He reiterated his
disagreement with limiting the area of downtown, preferring the downtown be allowed to grow in order to
be successful. He cautioned the Council against a quick fix/solution versus long term goals. He pointed
out the quick fix on Hwy. 99 that resulted in the conversion of industrial property to apartments which
eliminated the industrial commercial base. He concluded once the vision for downtown was defined, then
issues such as pedestrian scale, appropriate heights, etc. could be addressed.
Councilmember Wilson commented due to his experience, he often looked at the upper floors of
buildings, noting attractive, well designed buildings, modulation, facades, materials, etc. attract people to
downtown just as the commercial establishments attract people. Council President Marin's depiction of a
33 -foot tall building illustrated the impact but also provided a negative message because it illustrated the
mass of square building at 33 -feet. However, with appropriate design standards that allowed some
portions of a building to extend to 33 -feet could result in an attractive building that did not have the mass
illustrated in Council President Marin's examples. He noted additional height may allow parapets that
screen mechanical equipment.
With regard to density downtown, Councilmember Wilson noted if the intent was to increase population
downtown to provide a benefit to commercial, consideration should be given to establishing minimum
densities. The large condominiums that are currently being constructed result in very low density
whereas increasing the density and constructing smaller units would attract more people and more diverse
lifestyles downtown. He was also concerned that condominiums downtown precludes conversion in the
future; apartments downtown could provide more affordable housing as well as the ability to convert uses.
Councilmember Wilson was interested in establishing a vision for downtown, whether it is a
retail /commercial corridor with opportunities for the future or low density condominium with retail space
on the first floor. He supported the concept of a minimum first floor height and agreed with the
suggestion to define it as "floor to floor." Although he did not disagree with the concepts with regard to
historic preservation, he supported providing incentives but not legislating that buildings be preserved.
Due to the timeline, it may be necessary to postpone some issues to the 2006 amendment.
Councilmember Plunkett assured it was not the intent of the HPC or any of the amendments to require
any property owner to do anything with their building. The HPC's intent was to provide incentives to
preserve older buildings and to allow them to continue to be economically viable.
With regard to the proposed amendments relating to historic preservation, Mr. Snyder concurred with the
reference to reuse which comprised a majority of the recommended changes. He noted the
Edmonds City Council ApprovedMinutes
February 22, 2005
Page 10
recommendations related almost entirely to programmatic issues which were budgetary issues, not
development regulations or Comprehensive Plan issues and the City Council could implement them at
anytime throughout the year as the Council found appropriate. He identified four amendments, H-3.2
which relates to form, H -3.3 which relates to massing, H-2.5 which relates to the fountain area and the
role of the HPC in design elements for that area, and the recommendation in the report related to
development incentives that had not had public input and were new concepts. He suggested if the
Council was interested in pursuing those, they be referred to the development regulatory process which
will follow shortly. With regard to adopting the report as part of the Comprehensive Plan, he suggested
formal adoption be a 2006 amendment as an entirely new Comprehensive Plan element.
Mr. Chave advised the HPC intended to make a presentation to the Council regarding the survey. He
noted a survey was not typically a Comprehensive Plan level document; normally such a report would be
followed by an implementation program and possibly included as part of a historic preservation element
in the Comprehensive Plan.
Councilmember Moore encouraged the Council to consider amending the Comprehensive Plan to include
the walkway over the railroad tracks to Marina Beach as requested by the Port. She offered to craft an
amendment for consideration next week. She expressed her appreciation for the HPC's work and agreed
with Mr. Snyder's comments. She agreed with Councilmember Wilson's comment about not limiting the
downtown area as much as Council President Marin suggested and about giving consideration to
minimum densities. She expressed her appreciation to Council President Marin for providing the visuals.
Councilmember Moore commented the Council could have been working on a vision for the downtown
this year; however, the Council did not do that even though she recalled Mayor Haakenson imploring the
Council to develop a vision. As the Council now had a Comprehensive Plan that needed to be approved,
she suggested the Council work on a vision as part of the 2006 process to give the Planning Board
guidance.
Council President Marin explained his projection of a 33 -foot tall building represented the maximum
envelope and was not a suggestion that buildings would be a square mass. His intent was merely to
illustrate the maximum size that could be constructed. He encouraged Councilmembers to walk
downtown and observe for themselves that there were few interesting architectural details on most
buildings and a preponderance of square buildings. He envisioned buildings with architectural details
such as the turrets on the bank at Walnut and 5t'', the courtyard on the Windermere building, different
textures, etc., features that make buildings interesting.
Councilmember Moore suggested an experimental charette to identify buildings the public liked and
disliked for use in developing the vision for downtown. She agreed with Council President Marin's
observation that what people saw was the shops on the first floor. She pointed out the people in the shops
were part of the small town feel and was the reason Edmonds was designated the friendliest town. She
noted she visits her favorite shop in downtown for the people and their products, not for their building
which is not an architectural delight, has substandard plumbing and heating and no air conditioning. She
noted if that business moved, she would visit them in they new location. She commented Edmonds was
lucky to have retailers who provide that atmosphere, emphasizing that was what created a small town
atmosphere and had nothing to do with buildings. She noted the heart of any town was its businesses and
its public facilities; without those, it wasn't a town, it was only a neighborhood.
Councilmember Orvis wanted to ensure buildings that developed downtown were capable of supporting
the type of businesses that citizens want — retail and restaurants. To accomplish that, there needed to be
sufficient ceiling heights and sufficient depth. He noted because of the current requirements, first floors
had low ceiling heights and commercial spaces can be only 30 feet deep. He recommended increasing the
first floor heght and depth. He did not necessarily agree a 33 -foot building height was necessary to
Edmonds City Council ApprovedMinutes
February 22, 2005
Page 11
accomplish that and disagreed with many of the assumptions in the Heartland study. He encouraged the
Council to consider ground floor residential, noting because ground floor residential was currently not
allowed, the depth behind the commercial space was used for parking. He found this could be better
utilized as residential as it would increase the feasibility of buildings and had the potential to assist
existing buildings by allowing them to convert the space behind commercial to condominiums.
Councilmember Orvis supported the amendments proposed by the HPC and the recommendation made by
the Port with regard to the walkway over the railroad tracks to the waterfront.
Councilmember Plunkett commented sooner or later the Council needed to make a decision on the
Comprehensive Plan; he questioned how the Council would develop a vision now. He did not support the
proposed 33 -foot building height. He urged the Council to consider the adaptive reuse /historic
preservation amendments. He clarified although he assisted with organizing the amendments, Historic
Preservation Commissioner Darrell Marmion was the spirit behind the 16 amendments.
Councilmember Wilson stated the Arts Corridor was a great start and there was a great deal of benefit to
considering the charm of that area and using the existing structures to make a connection between the
Performing Arts Center and downtown. However, he was unsure where the language with regard to the
Arts Corridor promoted the use of the existing stock of structures for a live /work environment,
commenting it appeared to provide an opportunity for converting the area to mixed use structures rather
than promoting use of existing structures. He requested staff provide further clarification.
Councilmember Wilson agreed with Councilmember Moore that much of what defined the character of
downtown was the businesses and the City needed to do what it could to support those businesses. He
suggested the Council also consider how parking was provided downtown if there was interest in making
spaces viable as much of what drives the cost of a building is providing below grade or surface parking.
He noted this may be the driver for taller buildings to generate more revenue via more leasable space. He
summarized how parking was provided contributed to the cost of developing /redeveloping property
downtown. He noted the success of historic preservation would also add to parking issues.
Councilmember Wilson reiterated it was not appropriate to identify a specific building height in the
Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan should address policy such as pedestrian scale and
development regulations should implement that policy. He suggested the Council may need to develop a
vision for downtown as part of the 2006 process.
Councilmember Olson recalled the audience commenting at last week's public hearing on what a great
place Anacortes is. She referred to a Sunday newspaper article that indicated Anacortes has the same
problems Edmonds has such as the need for economic development. She supported the transition zone on
Sunset, commenting it was an opportunity to construct a building on those lots to replace the blackberries
that have occupied that area for so long.
In response to a question from Councilmember Moore regarding the process, Council President Marin .
anticipated a motion for approval of the Comprehensive Plan followed by amendments and discussion on
the amendments and eventual adoption of the Comprehensive Plan. Mayor Haakenson suggested
Councilmembers provided proposed amendments in writing to staff and each other as soon as possible to
provide an opportunity for review prior to the next meeting.
Mayor Haakenson remanded the matter to Council for action.
COUNCILMEMBER MOORE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO
APPROVE THE DOWNTOWN - WATERFRONT PLAN.
Mayor Haakenson advised the Council would continue their deliberation at the March 1 Council meeting.
Edmonds City Council ApprovedMinutes
February 22, 2005
Page 12
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Rowena Miller, 8711 182 nd Place SW, Edmonds, supported developing a vision. She supported a 25-
Building foot building height, commenting building heights affected how the city felt. She referred to Jacksonville,
Heigh` Oregon, where the entire town is on the Historic Register, one of three such towns in the nation. She
suggested the BC zone be extended to the Art Corridor and make that a historic corridor. She pointed out
the energy loss of unneeded higher ceilings, relaying the PUD Energy Conservation Department's
indication that regardless of how modern the equipment or building materiak were, increasing the ceiling
height increased the cost to heat or cool the space; increasing an 8 -foot ceiling to a 12 -foot ceiling would
result in approximately a 30% energy loss. She noted it would not be necessary to have 12 -foot ceiling
in all downtown first floors as offices did not need the additional ceiling height. With regard to the
Council il Council's upcoming retreat, she expressed dismay that the retreat would be held in LaConner again. If
the Council was interested in economic development, she recommended the retreat be held in Edmonds
which would not only keep sales tax in Edmonds but make the retreat accessible to the citizens.
Al Rutledge, 7101 Lake Ballinger Way, Edmonds, recalled budget cuts made in 1991 with regard to
eke
Ballinger Lake Ballinger were never restored; he requested funding in the 2006 and 2007 budgets, noting the
Engineering Department was aware of the problems. He advised their next meeting was scheduled for
March 1 at 7:00 p.m. in the Mountlake Terrace Library. Next, he encouraged the public to donate to the
Kiwanis food drive on March 18 — 20 at Top Foods and possibly other local stores.
Building an Wambolt, 530 Dayton Street, Edmonds, commented many seem to think the primary opposition to
Height 33 -foot building heights is view blockage. Although that is a concern, the central reason for the
opposition is as Councilmember Dawson described He noted the Windermere building that Council
President Marin identified as a building he liked was constructed under the existing code.
Comprehens3v Ray Martin, 18704 94th Avenue W, Edmonds, commented 20 years ago he took pride in the City
Plan Council and it had been several years since he had that feeling. Tonight, he felt some pride in the
Amana�nants Council, commenting he was impressed with Councilmember Plunkett's presentation. He commented
Councilmember Dawson was great as always and Councilmembers Wilson and Orvis expressed
sensitivity to what the public has been expressing. The Couneilmembers were having an influence on
others and urged them to keep up the good work. He concluded the Council demonstrated leadership
tonight, both as individuals and as a group.
cnmprehensiv Don Kreiman, 24006 95th Place W, Edmonds, expressed his disappointment in the Council. He
Plan described his participation in the process, the opportunity the public had to provide testimony and the
Amendments
hours of work the Planning Board put into the amendments, concluding it was the most ideal process he
had seen. He urged the Council to respect the Planning Board's work on the Comprehensive Plan. He
pointed out if the Council had a vision for the City, they should have informed the Planning Board and
they would have complied with the vision; however, the Council had not provided a vision. He reiterated
his disappointment and lack of respect for the Council, pointing out after everyone had an opportunity to
have input in the process, now the Council was saying it needed to develop a vision.
Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, Edmonds, referred to Anacortes as an alternative to what has been
suggested by the Planning Board. He suggested the City contact the City of Anacortes and their Chamber
Comprehensive and discuss what has worked for them. He recalled at Planning Board meetings, staff made presentations
Plan
Amendments and Heartland was hired to "make the sell" for 12 -foot first floor ceiling heights and 33 -foot building
heights, however, the public's comments regarding preservation of historic aspects were not considered.
Comprehens3v Mathew Brenan, owner of property at 207 5" Avenue NE, Edmonds, recalled half the audience at last
Amendments week's Council meeting spoke in favor of the Comprehensive Plan. He noted the article regarding
Edmonds City Council ApprovedMinutes
February 22, 2005
Page 13
Anacortes, a town less than half the size of Edmonds, indicated they have serious issues. He recalled
Anacortes was seeking a balance, pointing out Edmonds also needed to find a balance. He noted
Edmonds may become the fourth town in the United States to be entirely historic because nothing was
getting done.
Bob Gregg, 16550 76th Avenue W, Edmonds, commented to Councilmembers who were opposed to the
Comprebensiv height increase that some of the nicest historic buildings were higher than the height limit, some were 40
Pan feet tall. He pointed out he had never said 33 feet was the right height, just that the objectives that the
A e °a1 cuts City was attempting to achieve were the right objectives. He agreed it may be necessary to pass the
Comprehensive Plan and leave specific details to development regulations.
John Bissell, 8630 217"' Street, Edmonds, representing a client, sought clarification with regard to the
Planned Planned ResidentiaWffice zone on Sunset. He noted a business owner in the City was interested in
Residential relocating o that site • however, due to the topography, a 25 -foot flat roof building was not feasible on that
Office zone on g � g
Sunset site. The developer interested in locating on this site could put equity into the site that other developers
may not; the feasibility of a building on the site was based on the business owner constructing a building
for their business and residence. He noted such a structure was only feasible with the 25 feet plus 5 feet
building height; absent that height, even with the equity this developer could provide, the project was not
feasible. If the City wanted to retain a good, strong, vital Edmonds business that employed Edmonds
residents, he urged the Council to consider making the approval as general as possible and removing the
25 -foot height limit and allowing that to be addressed via the code, or be more specific and allow a height
consistent with the existing BC zone. He reiterated development was not feasible with a height limit of
25 feet measured from the four corners due to the topography of the site.
laI \a7 twirel17ai►11 o1►Y K`l
Mayor Haakenson had no report.
INDIVIDUAL COUNCIL REPORTS ON OUTSIDE COMMITTEEIBOARD MEETINGS
Council President Marin reported over the past six months, Community Transit has been developing a
Community new loo and bus design and recently received six new buses with the new graphics. He advised the
Transit g � y g p
buses would eventually be part of bus rapid transit that was envisioned to operate on Hwy. 99.
AWC Councilmember Moore reported on the AWC conference where discussion centered on economic
Conference development as well as telecommunications. She noted Edmonds was considering what
telecommunications can be provided to citizens less expensively and better. She recalled in informal
meetings at the AWC conference, there was interest expressed by neighboring cities in identifying ways
Public Facility to partner. In addition, she reported the Public Facility District was working through some difficult
District
funding issues and will be presenting a plan to the Council n the next few weeks.
AWC Councilmember Olson reported the AWC conference also included a great deal of discussion regarding
Conference I transportation.
Councilmember Plunkett recalled in 1999, 2000 and 2001 he would often state his opposition to holding
Council Retrea the retreat in LaConner. In 2002 and 2003, the Council held its retreat in Edmonds. In 2004 when he was
Council President and felt an obligation to fulfill the will of the Council, the retreat was held in LaConner.
He again expressed his preference that the retreat be held in the City, commenting the benefits of
remaining in the City outweigh the benefits of going to LaConner. He noted in LaConner the Council
was able to get more work done and the retreat was more intense; however, by remaining in the City,
more citizens were able to attend.
Edmonds City Council ApprovedMinutes
February 22, 2005
Page 14
Downtown With regard to the Downtown Parking Committee, Councilmember Plunkett described walking around
Parking the area where the new performing arts center is proposed to be located in response to three perceived
Committee problems. First, with the increase in the number of people parking around the performing arts center, the
permitted parking zone was too small. The Parking Committee will soon be proposing ordinances to the
Council to expand zones where permitted parking would be allowed. Second, due to a security concern
with addresses printed on parking permits, permits will be color coded. Third, Traffic Engineer Darrell
Smith has developed some options to address the 4-5 residences near the performing arts center that do
not have off-street parking. He advised those items would be presented to the Council in the next few
months.
SnoCom Councilmember Dawson reported the SnoCom meeting was postponed to next week due to the AWC
conference. She reported while at the conference, a dinner was held on behalf of Snohomish County
AWC Cities and Towns. She thanked Mayor Haakenson and Councilmembers for attending as well as Senator
Conference Paull Shin and Representative Mary Helen Roberts. Councilmember Dawson expressed particular
appreciation to Linda Carl,Mayor Haakenson's Executive Assistant, for her assistance.
Excused COUNCILMEMBER DAWSON MOVED,SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT,TO
Absence EXCUSE COUNCILMEMBER WILSON FROM THE FEBRUARY 15, 2005, COUNCIL
MEETING. MOTION CARRIED(6-0-1),COUNCILMEMBER WILSON ABSTAINED.
Mayor Haakenson advised tomorrow he and nine other mayors from large cities would be in Olympia to
inform the Legislature and the Governor that cities are in trouble and need their help.
With no further business,the Council meeting was adjourned at 9:50 p.m.
G RY • • ENSON,MAYOR SANDRA S. CHASE, CITY CLERK
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 22,2005
Page 15
ilk
AGENDA
Iii I !. } EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL
�r Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex
250 5th Avenue North
7:00 - 10:00 p.m.
FEBRUARY 22, 2005
7:00 p.m. - Call to Order and Flag Salute
1. Approval of Agenda
2. Consent Agenda Items
(A) Roll Call
(B) Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of February 15, 2005.
(C) Approval of claim checks #77420 through #77573 for the week of February 14,
2005, in the amount of $619,529.47. Approval of payroll direct deposits and
I/ checks #40211 through #40286 for the period February 1 through February 15,
2005, in the amount of$749,620.48.*
*Information regarding claim checks maybe viewed electronically at www.ci.edmonds.wa.us
(D) Acknowledge receipt of Claim for Damages from Leigh Gorrell (amount
undetermined). .
(E) Approval of list of Edmonds businesses applying for renewal of their Liquor
Licenses with the Washington State Liquor Control Board.
(F) Authorization for the Mayor to sign the Contract for Professional Services for
City of Edmonds Prosecutor.
(G) Authorization for the Mayor to sign Addendum No. 1 to the Professional
Services Agreement with HDR Engineering, Inc. for the Lift Stations 7 and 8
Integration and Rehabilitation Project.
(H) Proposed Resolution opposing Senate Bill 5121 and House Bill 1390 as
originally proposed; the first readings of each were held on January 13, 2005
and January 21, 2005 respectively and the legislative process employed in
addressing the issues.
3. (15 Min.) Public Hearing on proposed Ordinance amending the provisions of Edmonds
City Code Section 7.50.050, Rates and Charges, to increase the combined
utility rate, storm water management component, by forty-seven cents per
month.
Page 1 of 2
CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA
FEBRUARY 22, 2005
4. (90 Min.) Continued Council deliberation on the Public Hearing held on February 15,
2005, regarding amendments to the Edmonds Comprehensive Plan concerning
the Downtown Waterfront Activity Center (including amendments to the
Downtown Waterfront Plan). The proposal would establish new "districts"
within the downtown area and describe the uses and design standards
(including height and setbacks) that would apply; this includes a proposed new
height limit of 33 feet in most downtown commercial areas to accommodate a
new 12-foot first floor standard.
5. Audience Comments (3 Minute Limit Per Person)*
*Regarding matters not listed on the Agenda as Closed Record Review or as Public Hearings.
6. ( 5 Min.) Mayor's Comments
7. (15 Min.) Individual Council Reports on Outside Committee/Board Meetings
ADJOURN
Parking and meeting rooms are accessible for persons with disabilities.
Please contact the City Clerk at(425) 771-0245 with 24 hours advance notice for special accommodations.
A delayed telecast of the meeting appears on cable television-Government Access Channel 21.
Page 2 of 2