07/26/2005 City CouncilEDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES
July 26, 2005
Following a Special Meeting at 6:30 p.m. for an Executive Session regarding a real estate matter, the
Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Haakenson in the Council
Chambers, 250 5th 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
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
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
Jeannine Graf, Building Official
Dave Gebert, City Engineer
Steve Bullock, Senior Planner
Frances Chapin, Cultural Services Manager
Sally Lider, Environmental Educ. Coordinator
Jeff Jones, Police Sergeant
Scott Snyder, City Attorney
Sandy Chase, City Clerk
Megan Cruz, Video Recorder.
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
Council President Marin requested that "Confirmation of the Mayor's Appointment of a Temporary
change to the
Agenda Municipal Court Judge" be added as Item 3a and requested Community Services Director Stephen Clifton
make an announcement regarding Consent Agenda Item E.
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 MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DAWSON, FOR
APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
The agenda items approved are as follows:
Approve (A) ROLL CALL
7/19/05
Minutes (B) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JULY 19, 2005.
Approve Claim
Checks (C) APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #81080 THROUGH #81247 FOR THE WEEK OF
JULY 18, 2005, IN THE AMOUNT OF $495,074.38. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT
DEPOSITS AND CHECKS #41209 THROUGH #41339 FOR THE PERIOD JULY I
THROUGH JULY 15, 2005, IN THE AMOUNT OF $776,847.80.
Purchase of
Pumping ( D ) REPORT ON BIDS OPENED ON JUNE 28, 2005 FOR ONE NEW UL -RATED CLASS A
Engine PUMPING ENGINE (1,500 GPM), AND AWARD OF CONTRACT TO H &W
EMERGENCY SERVICES ($393,916).
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 26, 2005
Page 1
Community
Services Report (E) COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT QUARTERLY REPORT.
Economic
Development ( ) F ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT QUARTERLY REPORT.
Purchasing (G) AUTHORIZATION FOR THE MAYOR TO SIGN ADDENDUM NO. 1 TO THE OFFICE
Agreement i SUPPLIES AND FURNISHINGS PURCHASING AGREEMENT WITH OFFICE MAX.
Lift Stations 2 (H) AUTHORIZATION FOR THE MAYOR TO SIGN PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
aria AGREEMENT WITH BERRYMAN & HENIGAR INC. FOR LIFT STATIONS 2 & 13
Improvements �
IMPROVEMENTS DESIGN.
Res# ll02 (I) RESOLUTION NO. 1102 CALLING FOR AN ELECTION TO BE HELD ON THE
Calling for an QUESTION OF ANNEXING AN UNINCORPORATED AREA CONTIGUOUS TO THE
Election re: CITY OF EDMONDS, COMMONLY DOWN AS THE ESPERANCE AREA OF
Esperance UNINCORPORATED SNOHOMISH COUNTY TOGETHER WITH THE SUBMISSION
Annexation
OF A PROPOSITION TO THE VOTERS OF SAID ANNEXATION AREA REQUIRING
THE PROPERTY TO BE ASSESSED AND TAXED AT THE SAME RATE AND ON THE
SAME BASIS AS OTHER PROPERTY WITHIN THE CITY UPON ANNEXATION.
Edmonds Community Services Director Stephen. Clifton recalled when he announced the Final Environmental
cr °sing Impact Statement was issued in November 2004, he noted there was one step remaining to complete the
Project
environmental process. As reflected in the Community Services Quarterly Report (Consent Agenda Item
E), after a 12 -year environmental process, a Record of Decision has been issued and signed by the Federal
Transit Administration and the Federal Highway Administration.
For Council President Marin, Mr. Clifton explained next steps include entering into Phase 2, final design
and permit phase, expected to take 2 -3 years. If sufficient funds are obtained, construction on the project
could begin once final design and permitting are completed.
Temporary 3A. CONFIRMATION OF THE MAYOR'S APPOINTMENT OF A TEMPORARY EDMONDS
Municipal MUNICIPAL COURT JUDGE.
Court Judge
Mayor Haakenson explained due to the resignation of Judge White from the Edmonds Municipal Court, it
was necessary to appoint a temporary judge to complete his unexpired term through January 1, 2006. He
explained when a judge leaves office, his pro -tem judges are also relieved of their duties; the last day for
the two current pro -tem judges will be Friday, July 29. Although the time to select a temporary judge had
been short, he had spent considerable time researching his options. He expressed thanks to Court
Administrator Joan Ferebee, Councilmember Dawson, City Attorney Scott Snyder and the State Office of
Court Administration for the assistance they provided him as well as the input from the Edmonds Police
Department and many citizens who have offered their thoughts regarding a replacement.
Mayor Haakenson explained he was searching for someone who would bring immediate credibility back
to the court, who was not encumbered by a private practice that made scheduling a problem and who had
judicial experience. Therefore, he asked Doug Fair to serve in the capacity of temporary Edmonds
Municipal Court Judge until January 1, 2006 and Mr. Fair accepted the position pending Council's
confirmation. He explained Mr. Fair and his family lived in Edmonds, he has been a Pro -Tem Judge in
Edmonds, Lynnwood and the Lynnwood District Court and comes highly recommended. Mr. Fair was
not able to attend tonight's meeting as he is out of town on vacation.
Mayor Haakenson summarized his recent efforts had been on the present and once the court was back up
to speed, he would work on a plan for a permanent replacement as well as getting Council information
regarding the policy decisions they would need to make about the future of the court.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 26, 2005
Page 2
COUNCIL PRESIDENT MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON, TO
CONFIRM THE MAYOR'S APPOINTMENT OF DOUG FAIR AS THE CITY'S TEMPORARY
EDMONDS MUNICIPAL COURT JUDGE.
Councilmember Moore congratulated Mayor Haakenson on the selection of a person she felt was a very
good choice for the position and who would bring credibility back to the court and for whom scheduling
would not be a difficulty.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Discovery 3B. PRESENTATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION OF WASHINGTON
Program Award AWARD TO THE CITY'S DISCOVERY PROGRAMS.
Marty Fortin, Environmental Education Association of Washington (EEAW), explained the
Association was created in 1991 to focus on education about the environment for schools and other
institutions. When he first learned about the City's Discovery Program, it appeared to a community
catalyst that activated the community to get involved. He advised the Organizational Excellence Award
was presented to the Edmonds Discovery Program at their annual conference last month. He presented
the award to Sally Lider, Environmental Education Coordinator, and her staff. He commented Ms. Lider
was a very likely future candidate for the Educator Award.
Ms. Lider recognized 2005 staff members as well as another 58 people who served as Ranger Naturalists
or Interpretive Specialists since 1992. She thanked the volunteers who have served as beach docents over
the years, and recognized beach docents in the audience. She thanked the dedicated citizen activists who
started the program in 1980, particularly Frances Murphy. She also thanked the current and past Parks &
Recreation Directors, Mayors and Councilmembers for their support of environmental education.
Res# 1103 4. PROPOSED RESOLUTION RECOGNIZING GARTH LANGLEY POLICE EXPLORER FOR
Recognizing HIS PARTICIPATION IN THE NATIONAL LEADERSHIP ACADEMY.
Garth Langley
COUNCIL PRESIDENT MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON, FOR
APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. 1103, RECOGNIZING EDMONDS POLICE EXPLORER
GARTH LANGLEY. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Police Chief David Stern commented on the Explorer program associated with scouting, explaining the
Explorers devote hundreds of hours of volunteer service assisting the Police Department at various
community events.
Sgt. Jeff Jones, Explorer Post Coordinator, provided a slide show illustrating Mr. Langley's participation
in the FBI Leadership Program. Sgt. Jones noted Mr. Langley was also selected as one of four to present
a wreath on the 4 1 of July at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier.
Sgt. Jones read Resolution No. 1103, recognizing Mr. Langley, a 17 -year old student at Kamiak High
School, for his service to the City of Edmonds as an Explorer, for being accepted to attend Cal State East
Bay in California, for his pursuit of a career in law enforcement and for his acceptance and participation
in the FBI Leadership Academy in July 2005. The audience and Council congratulated Mr. Langley on
his achievements.
Sgt. Jones also recognized Explorer Denise Wilkie who joined the U.S. Army and would soon be
reporting to boot camp.
5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Speakers' l h f
i
h
i
d
i
Council President Marn advised the requirement or speakers to provide their address was not a
Address Not
Required necessity, therefore, the Council would forgo that information in the future. He suggested it would be
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 26, 2005
Page 3
helpful if speakers indicated whether or not they were Edmonds residents. If a speaker wanted a response
from the City regarding their comment, he suggested they provide their address on the sign -up sheet.
Fire station l� Ray Martin, Edmonds, commented on his experience with personnel from Station 17 of the Edmonds
Emergency Fire Department who were summoned to his home and transported him to the hospital emergency room.
services He was impressed with the attitude and professional performance of the Fire Department personnel,
commenting they were the finest to be found. He stated the next time there was a proposal to increase
taxes or reduce services via a police /fire levy, he would be more involved than he was previously. With
regard to building heights, he suggested that decision be delayed until after the election as the election
would decide the matter.
Building Height Dave Page, Edmonds, commented this was the most dedicated Council in his 16 -year experience in the
Issues city. He expressed his appreciation for the Council's integrity and their efforts to educate themselves
regarding building heights, commenting they were now highly qualified to make the necessary decisions.
He stated the Council could have taken the easy way, folded to the pressure of people who wanted things
their way, instead the Council decided to take another look. He referred to the minutes of the July 13
Planning Board meeting, questioning the sincerity of some property owners at that meeting who indicated
they purchased their property 30 years ago to build three stories. He commented everyone testifying at
the July 13 Planning Board meeting had a vested, financial interest in building heights. He noted the
issue was not politicized previously but it was now. He suggested compromising with Councilmember
Wilson's proposal.
4' Ave. N Pat Marker, Edmonds, explained his property was on 4th Avenue North in the area proposed to be
Change from
BC to changed from BC to Conservation. The current BC zoning allowed 25 -foot heights with an additional 5
Conservation feet with modulation, a total of 30 feet. The proposed Conservation zone would reduce the height limit to
25 feet. He explained they purchased the property in the early 1990s because of the BC zoning and if it
changed to Conservation, they would be restricted and their property's value diminished. He requested
the one block where their property was located retain the BC zoning consistent with the surrounding area.
He noted the block to the north was proposed to be upgraded from multi family to BC zone. Mayor
Haakenson clarified Mr. Marker's request was for the height limit to remain at 30 feet and not necessarily
retain BC zoning. Mr. Marker agreed.
Norma Bruns, Edmonds, concurred with Mr. Page's comments regarding the Planning Board's July 13
Planning Board
July 13 Meetin meetin g• She disagreed that property owners needed an opportunity to provide input, pointing out that
many of them had spoken at public hearings and were given the same opportunity for input as the rest of
the public. She disagreed with Mr. Gregg's comment urging the Planning Board not to listen to special
interest groups, pointing out property owners were also special interest. She acknowledged citizens
interested in retaining lower height limits were special interest but they did not have an interest in
Buffer Area increased profit. She then expressed concern that a reduction to a critical area buffer at Shell Creek on
Buffer on Main h P
Main Street was approved to allow the property owner to build a house.
Height Limit Steve Bernheim, Edmonds, echoed the praise of the Council for their effort, attention and dedication,
reminding that much of the height issue arose when the Council voted 4 -3 to allow a 30 -foot building via
the "so- called" 30 -foot height limit. He explained the current height limit is 25 feet for the building and 5
feet for the roof structure. He cited several recent buildings that abused this height limit.
Breast cancer 1 Mike Cooper, Edmonds, President Emeritus of the International Association of Firefighters, Local 1760
Walk in Shoreline, described his involvement in recruiting medical team volunteers for the 3 -day Breast Cancer
Walk where nearly 3,000 men and women walked 60 miles over three days to raise $6.2 million for breast
cancer research. He commented it was a natural fit for firefighters to care about cancer given that the
incidence of cancer in their occupation was several times greater than the general population. He
described his contact with President of the Edmonds Firefighters Local 1828, Doug Dahl, to recruit
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 26, 2005
Page 4
people to work on their days off and ride their bicycle on the 60 -mile walk. He commended the six
firefighters from Edmonds who participated, joining the nine firefighters from Shoreline as well as
firefighters from Redmond and Seattle. He stated it would not have been possible without the leadership
of the Union President and Edmonds Fire Chief Tom Tomberg whose support was essential to be able to
use bicycles and transport vehicle when they were not working. He offered the thanks of the Shoreline
Firefighters Union to the Edmonds Firefighters Union and Fire Chief Tom Tomberg for providing two
bike riders every day for three days to support the walkers and help raise funds for breast cancer research.
rresign Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, urged the Council to eliminate the 3 -story illustrations in the Design
esign Guidelines, finding they were misleading. He suggested the Council review the language proposed to be
deleted in Sections 20.10.060 and 20.10.070, questioning whether that information, much of which he
deemed appropriate, had been incorporated elsewhere in the Design Guidelines. With regard to building
heights, he agreed the limit was always 25 feet plus 5 feet for the roof.
In response to Ms. Bruns' comment regarding a request for a critical area variance east of 9th on Main
Critical Area Street, Senior Planner Steve Bullock explained in the downtown bowl of Edmonds, the City was
Variance on
Mai„ established and lots platted in 1890. Until the first Critical Areas Ordinance was adopted in 1991, there
were limited regulations regarding critical areas and property owners were allowed to culvert streams, fill
a wetland, etc. When lots are legally created and subdivided based on the rules at the time the lots were
created, the City must consider that a legal building lot. Most lots in the City, approximately 95 %, were
created prior to the adoption of the Critical Areas Ordinance; therefore, the Critical Areas Ordinance must
now be applied after the lots were created.
Mr. Bullock explained the Critical Areas Ordinance contains an element that allows property owners to
request reasonable use of their property. He explained this was the result of a Federal Supreme Court
case where cities were required to either allow a property owner to make reasonable use of their property
or compensate the property owner for the rights taken away. The primary reason the City had reasonable
use exception provisions in the Critical Areas Ordinance was because the City did not have the available
funds to compensate property owners who were prevented from building on their lots. The reasonable
use process allowed a property owner to make reasonable use of a property and the review process was
intended to ensure what was built had the least impact to the critical area as possible. Reasonable use in a
single family zone was one single family home on a single family lot. If a property owner owned a large
lot that was large enough to subdivide into multiple lots, reasonable use would not be subdivision into
multiple lots; reasonable use was construction of one home in a location that had the least impact.
With regard to the project on Main east of 91h, Mr. Bullock explained the property was relatively flat close
to 9th and then dropped down into the Shell Creek ravine. The property owner proposed all development
as close to the street as possible. Conditions were placed on the project by the Hearing Examiner
including a reduction in the size of the residence that was proposed. Staff also recommended conditions
prior to the hearing that minimized and reduced the applicant's original proposal. He summarized staff
wanted to protect the environment and property rights while implementing the City's ordinances that
allow property owners to make reasonable use of their property.
Downtown BC 6. RECONSIDERATION OF DOWNTOWN BC ZONE
Zone
Councilmember Moore referred to a map she provided with her proposal. She prefaced her motion
stating she had reached the conclusion after listening to testimony and reading the materials that what was
needed was a 35 -foot height for commercial buildings in all BC zones. She pointed out a 33 -foot building
height would create design challenges but would address the issue of first floor retail space to encourage a
charming, vibrant retail core. She suspected a motion for a 35 -foot building height would not be
acceptable to the Council but planned to ask the Planning Board to consider it during their work.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 26, 2005
Page 5
Councilmember Moore referred to the Planning Board's conclusion that 33 -feet was a minimally
acceptable height limit for mixed use buildings, noting the Planning Board reached that conclusion
logically and based on facts including addressing sunken first floor commercial spaces and without
considering a change in the current parking requirements. She paraphrased testimony from property
owners, retail tenants and builders, acknowledging they had a vested interest and pointing out that what
they decided to do with their land affected the City and its residents: retailers said 12 -foot ceiling heights
were essential for retail; landowners said they needed three floors in order to redevelop; a usable first
floor with a 3 -story building and underground parking was needed otherwise downtown Edmonds would
not survive; it is extremely expensive to upgrade old buildings and starting over is a better way; if the
public wants 2 -story buildings the retail core could be condemned and a bond passed to subsidize 2 -story
buildings; property owners needed 3- stories in order to redevelop (12 -foot first floor ceiling heights for
retail and two floors of condominiums to attain population density to support retailers); and all of the
money residents pay to get close to downtown Edmonds will disappear if redevelopment does not occur.
Councilmember Moore commented those who do not believe the property owners and retailers may be
denying reality. She no longer wanted to appease and instead planned to stop following a politically
compromised solution and follow her conscience by doing what she believed was best for the City long
term. She summarized 33 -feet was the minimum for a mixed use building; she supported using design to
make the buildings charming and quaint including wider sidewalks, wider view corridors, possibly a
stepped back third floor, updated retail space, population density to support the retail and the long term
vitality of the City.
Councilmember Moore proposed a 33 -foot height limit in the BC zone except a 25 -foot height limit plus
5 -feet in the Conservation Zone, which she proposed be revised to the Arts Corridor. She suggested the
incentive to gain the additional 5 feet would be to retain the appearance of a 2- story, single family home.
She pointed out the Planning Board's original concept for the Arts Corridor was to extend the BC zone
with a pedestrian promenade, shops, and /or restaurants that would lead people from downtown to the
performing arts center.
Councilmember Moore referred to the area around the fountain (Fountain Square), suggesting a 25 -foot
height limit in that area with an 8 -foot bonus with the following conditions: widening the circle to create
a wider circle around the fountain to maintain the pedestrian scale, and a setback of the third floor so that
only two stories would be visible from the street. She summarized this would result in more public space,
a larger plaza, pedestrian scale, wider sidewalks and a wider view corridor.
COUNCILMEMBER MOORE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, FOR A
33 -FOOT HEIGHT LIMIT IN THE BC ZONE EXCEPT FOR TWO AREAS, THE ARTS
CORRIDOR WHICH WOULD BE RESTORED TO ITS 25 +5 HEIGHT LIMIT WITH
INCENTIVES (RETAINING THE APPEARANCE OF A 2 -STORY SINGLE FAMILY HOME)
AND THE FOUNTAIN SQUARE BUILDINGS WHICH WOULD BE 25 + 8 FEET WITH
INCENTIVES OF A SETBACK FROM THE STREET TO WIDEN THE CIRCLE AROUND THE
FOUNTAIN AND A SETBACK THIRD FLOOR.
Councilmember Plunkett expressed his appreciation for Councilmember Moore being up front and
communicative about what she wants including the memo and map she provided outlining her ideas. He
disagreed with Councilmember Moore's proposal for a 33 -foot height limit in the BC zone, questioning
how new 2 -story buildings were being constructed if a 33 -foot height limit was necessary for buildings to
be viable. He recalled the consultant Mark Hinshaw's reference to the Fairhaven district in Bellingham
and his illustration of very nice 2 -story buildings. He referred to comments by the consultant that he
could not provide an economic analysis, yet he did so by stating taller buildings were necessary to
increase economic viability. He concluded the advocates of taller buildings had not provided any
evidence that a taller building equated to increased economic activity.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 26, 2005
Page 6
Councilmember Plunkett acknowledged the consultant indicated a need for density, however, what he
actually said was if the City were to have taller buildings, they needed "density, density, density."
Councilmember Plunkett pointed out without taller buildings that amount of density was unnecessary.
Most residents wanted to save, preserve and protect what existed. He commented on the economic
activity already in place including the performing arts center, investments on Hwy. 99, condominiums in
south Edmonds, and expanded commuter rail. He stated Edmonds was a vital city and the population and
property values would continue to increase as people would continue to want to live in Edmonds.
Councilmember Olson commented every person at the July 13 Planning Board meeting with business and
property owners said three stories were necessary for redevelopment, none said two stories would be
acceptable. She acknowledged the majority of those in attendance were property owners in the 5 t &
Main retail core. She referred to the owner of the bakery who also owns the adjacent tavern that is
boarded up who said he was unable to develop his building unless three stories were allowed. She
referred to the apparent disconnect between property owners and citizens who want to retain the existing
look. She noted the infrastructure of many of the buildings downtown was deteriorating and property
owners would not continue to put money into buildings that the rents could not cover. She commented if
the existing 1 -2 story buildings remained, it was likely the downtown would eventually die because the
reality was that things either grow or they die. She encouraged the Council to consider a 33 -foot height
limit to accommodate 12 -foot first floor ceiling heights with two additional floors.
Councilmember Moore stated her interest was addressing the problem of sunken first floor retail spaces as
well as how to keep property taxes down and still support essential City services. She referred to an
economic projection for the City where revenues decreased and expenditures increased, pointing out
increased sales tax was needed to rectify this so that property taxes did not continue to increase. She
recalled the Planning Board asked Administrative Services Director Dan Clements to develop a detailed
report of where the City stands economically. When that information is available, Mr. Clements will
provide it to the Planning Board and the Council. If that projection shows revenues are increasing to pay
for essential City services and costs are steady, she could accept retaining the city as it is and keeping a
25 -foot height limit.
Councilmember Dawson suggested one of the reasons property owners downtown may not have invested
in their buildings was because they think the City Council will raise the heights, allowing them to
demolish their building and construct a 3 -story building. If the Council would take a stand, property
owners might take a different attitude and it might affect property values in a manner that made it more
beneficial to develop a 2 -story building and/or invest in existing buildings. The issue of buildings heights
has been a topic of discussion for the past 30 years and the comments have been the same — doom and
gloom if Edmonds does not have taller buildings — and the citizenry has not wanted increased building
heights. In the past the Council has listened and building heights have not been increased. She
recommended the Council listen to the citizenry and do what they wanted the Council to do.
Mayor Haakenson pointed out for the audience, Councilmember Moore's motion would increase building
heights to 33 feet in nearly the entire BC zone, versus the map sent to the Planning Board previously
where approximately half the BC zone had a 33 -foot height limit.
UPON ROLL CALL VOTE, MOTION FAILED (2 -5), COUNCILMEMBER MOORE AND
COUNCILMEMBER OLSON IN FAVOR; AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT MARIN,
COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, DAWSON, WILSON AND PLUNKETT OPPOSED.
COUNCILMEMBER MOORE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT MARIN, TO
CHANGE THE NAME OF THE CONSERVATION DISTRICT (FROM BELL STREET, DOWN
4TH AVENUE TO DALEY STREET) TO ARTS CORRIDOR WITH HEIGHT LIMITS OF 25
FEET + 5 FEET WITH THE INCENTIVE FOR THE ADDITIONAL 5 FEET BEING A LOOK OF
A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 26, 2005
Page 7
Councilmember Plunkett asked whether specific incentives would be determined later. Councilmember
Moore answered yes.
Councilmember Dawson inquired about the current zoning of the Conservation Zone outside the BC
boundary. Planning Manager Rob Chave answered it was zoned multi family which has a 25 foot height
limit with an additional 5 feet with a pitched roof.
Councilmember Dawson questioned the need for a 25 +5 foot height limit if the intent was to have the
appearance of a single family home, finding that 25 feet was sufficient. She commented the point of the
Conservation District was to retain the existing buildings and discourage redevelopment. She concluded
she would not support the motion.
Mayor Haakenson asked whether there were any buildings in the existing Conservation District that
exceeded 25 feet. Senior Planner Steve Bullock responded the Floral Arts Center was 30 feet but did not
have data regarding the height of the other structures in that zone.
For Councilmember Wilson, Mr. Bullock explained the height limit in the multi family zone was 25 feet
and up to 30 feet as long as all elements of the building over 25 feet were 4:12 roof pitch or greater. The
BC zone had that same language until the mid -90's when it was broadened to include modulated
buildings, the issue currently under moratorium.
Councilmember Wilson inquired about the genesis of the 4:12 roof pitch, questioning whether the intent
was to retain a residential character. Mr. Bullock explained in the late 1970's and early 1980's the code
allowed building up to 35 feet; following discussion regarding building heights, the next code amendment
was 25 feet plus an additional 5 feet for roofs that were pitched 4:12 or greater. His impression was the
intent was to maintain a residential -type feel and one of the reasons the Council broadened it in the
downtown BC zone was because they did not want the downtown to have solely a residential feel and
wanted to allow other building forms to occur in the commercial zone.
Councilmember Wilson referenced Councilmember Moore's comments regarding the additional 5 feet to
maintain a residential, single family character and Councilmember Dawson's comment that 30 feet was
not necessary for a single family structure, noting the height limit for a single family in many jurisdictions
was 35 feet. He asked whether the intent of Councilmember Moore's motion was that the additional 5
feet would be allowed for a 4:12 or greater pitched roof. Councilmember Moore agreed her intent was to
maintain a residential style, and she planned to ask the Planning Board to consider specifics for the Arts
Corridor such as front porches, etc. that provided the appearance of a single family home. The 25+ 5 feet
would be important for a commercial building to retain the look of a single family home. She noted some
of the homes in this area were highly distressed and it would not be appropriate to retain them.
Councilmember Wilson commented he would be supportive of a 25 foot base height limit with the same
requirement for multi family, the 4:12 or greater pitched roof. Councilmember Moore suggested the
Planning Board consider a minimum 4:12 pitched roof as one of the incentives for attaining the additional
5 feet. This was added to the motion as a friendly amendment. Mr. Chave illustrated a 4:12 roof pitch.
Councilmember Orvis was supportive of a pitched roof as an incentive.
Councilmember Plunkett recalled the Conservation District was proposed by the consultant and asked
whether his intent was to preserve those structures or was that only a name he selected. Mr. Chave
acknowledged Mr. Hinshaw did not elaborate. In his experience, Mr. Chave said Conservations Zones
were the result of the historic preservation movement to address situations where there was not a historic
district but there was a desire to preserve the look and feel of a neighborhood. Councilmember Plunkett
concluded the consultant merely renamed the Arts Corridor Conservation.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 26, 2005
Page 8
Councilmember Plunkett inquired about the difference between the old Arts Corridor and the new
Conservation Corridor. Regardless of the name, the uses need not be residential but could be retail. He
noted a retail use may need the additional 5 feet. Mr. Chave explained the original intent of the Planning
Board was to retain the character of the buildings in that area as well as provide incentives for retaining
the buildings. The Planning Board felt without incentives, the buildings would inevitably redevelop.
Councilmember Plunkett pointed out the importance of this area to the City and the importance of
explaining to the Planning Board that the Council was open to possibilities. He concluded the motion
was intended to be broad, to maintain the existing heights but address potential commercial uses.
Councilmember Olson expressed her support for extending the Arts Corridor to the performing arts center
and indicated she would support the motion,
Mayor Haakenson asked whether Councilmember Moore's amendment included her house.
Councilmember Moore answered it did not.
Councilmember Dawson commented she was not satisfied with the motion in its present form; allowing
an additional 5 feet if a new building had the appearance of a single family. The notion of a corridor
where the homes were converted to a use other than residential may be an interesting idea; however, she
did not support the idea of forcing a developer to make a new building look like an old house as the result
was likely to be kitschy, poor architecture. She was not opposed to the Planning Board considering
incentives to encourage the retention of the existing buildings.
Council President Marin explained he was interested in pursuing the concept originally proposed by the
Planning Board, developing a corridor that led to the performing arts center. Whether the buildings
looked like a single family home was less important to him than asking the Planning Board to determine
what the Arts Corridor could look like. He supported providing enough latitude to the Planning Board to
identify other incentives.
Councilmember Wilson supported establishing the boundaries of the area and the height limit. He agreed
with Councilmember Dawson's concerns, noting the Planning Board could develop specific design .
standards to implement the desired result.
Councilmember Plunkett commented this was a concept/idea and suggested unanimous Council
acceptance may be possible if the height limit were not imposed at this time.
Mayor Haakenson restated the motion as follows:
TO RENAME THE CONSERVATION DISTRICT TO THE ARTS CORRIDOR, ESTABLISH A
HEIGHT LIMIT OF 25 FEET PLUS 5 FEET WITH POSSIBLE INCENTIVES TO MAINTAIN
THE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOOK ALONG THE STREET WHICH MAY INCLUDE
A 4:12 PITCHED ROOF IN THE AREA AS DESCRIBED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE.
MOTION CARRIED (6 -1), COUNCILMEMBER DAWSON OPPOSED.
Councilmember Moore commented she was uncomfortable with the expansion of the Retail Core which
mandated retail uses on the first floor. She suggested shrinking the Retail Core, pointing out the difficulty
with renting retail space in an area that did not have other retailers around. She pointed out the Retail
Core could be expanded in the future.
COUNCILMEMBER MOORE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO
REDRAW THE BOUNDARIES OF THE RETAIL CORE, WHERE RETAIL IS MANDATED ON
THE FIRST FLOOR, ON MAIN FROM 3RD AVENUE TO 6TH AND ON 5TH AVENUE FROM THE
ALLEY TO MAPLE.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 26, 2005
Page 9
Mr. Chave clarified the only difference between Councilmember Moore's amendment and the map the
Council approved on June 14 was Councilmember Moore's amendment reduced the extent of the Retail
Core on Main Street to 3rd. Mayor Haakenson clarified retail uses were allowed in the area that would
now not be Retail Core but it was not mandatory on the first floor.
Councilmember Orvis asked what the areas previously identified as Retail. Core would become with
Councilmember Moore's amendment. Councilmember Moore suggested Ground Commercial.
Councilmember Wilson inquired about the standards for Ground Commercial, recalling that a 12 -foot first
floor was required in that zone. Mr. Chave agreed, recalling the Council directed the Planning Board to
explore other requirements. Councilmember Wilson summarized the most substantive change would be a
reduction in the first floor height from 15 feet, which was touted as the best for commercial, to 12 feet
which was the minimum. He explained the intent of his original motion to expand the boundary of the
Retail Core was the hope that when all the retail storefronts on 5th & Main were full, the retail area could
be expanded and expanding the Retail Core area would provide for that expansion to occur. He was
concerned that if an area was not provided for retail expansion, future opportunities may not be realized.
He agreed with the concept of maintaining a compact retail area but also wanted to provide space for
growth. He referred to the building at the southeast corner of 4th Avenue & Main, pointing out the
building's current design did not have any street appeal toward 4th and was oriented to Main. Without
expansion of the Retail Core down 4th Avenue, that building would likely redevelop the same, oriented
toward Main Street, with a blank wall on 4th. He recalled Mr. Hinshaw discouraged blank walls and
encouraged continuity in the street appeal /presence. He felt strongly about the area on the east side of 4th
commenting that area was ripe for redevelopment.
If the Retail Core was extended down 4th, Councilmember Moore questioned how the problem of
mandating retail on the first floor of a building that redeveloped in the next few years would be addressed.
She suggested mandating that the space be built to allow for retail but make an exception for other uses
during an interim period.
Councilmember Wilson agreed if the intent was to create building to meet retail standards to allow that
activity to occur, there could be sufficient flexibility to allow that to occur.
Councilmember Dawson stated she would support the amendment to narrow the area that required retail .
on the ground floor. The ground floor requirements in that area and the height limits were separate issues.
The larger Retail Core previously approved by the Council was a mistake because many of the people
who shopped and ate at restaurants were those who were visiting offices nearby. Having too large a
Retail Core may actually stifle retail development. Retail and retail - compatible development and how to
grandfather non - retail uses were issues that would need further discussion.
Councilmember Moore clarified the boundaries of the Retail Core she proposed were on Main Street from
3rd Avenue to 6th Avenue and on 5th Avenue from Maple to Bell. (Councilmember Moore later clarified
the boundary on 5th Avenue was from Maple to the alley before Bell Street.)
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Council President Marin referred to the block immediately north of City Hall across the street from the
Public Safety Complex parking lot, noting it was currently identified as Ground Commercial which
requires commercial space on the ground floor. He found that block appropriate for Residential /Mixed
Use which would allow commercial or residential uses on the first floor. He also proposed a height limit
of 30 feet.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 26, 2005
Page 10
COUNCIL PRESIDENT MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, TO
CHANGE THE BLOCK NORTH OF CITY HALL, THE WEST SIDE OF 5TH AVENUE FROM
BELL STREET TO EDMONDS STREET, FROM GROUND COMMERCIAL TO
RESIDENTIAL /MIXED USE.
Mr. Chave pointed out that change would require a Comprehensive Plan amendment. He suggested the
Planning Board be asked to study that as a potential fixture change.
Councilmember Plunkett asked whether this motion had been provided to the Council in advance.
Council President Marin answered no. Councilmember Plunkett recalled two weeks ago
Councilmembers were asked to provide advance notice of motions that members intended to make. He
indicated he would not support the motion because no advance notice had been provided.
Councilmember Dawson agreed that it was inappropriate for a proposal of this significance to be
presented without advance notice.
COUNCILMEMBER MOORE WITHDREW HER SECOND AND THE MOTION DIED FOR
LACK OF A SECOND.
COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DAWSON, TO
CHANGE THE HEIGHT LIMITS IN THE ORANGE AND PURPLE ZONES TO ALLOW 25
FEET WITH AN ADDITIONAL 5 FEET WITH CERTAIN INCENTIVES TO BE DETERMINED
BY THE PLANNING BOARD THAT WOULD INCLUDE SETBACK AND MODULATION
REQUIREMENTS.
Mayor Haakenson clarified the plan the Council previously forwarded to the Planning Board had a 25-
foot height limit with a maximum of 33 feet with incentives; Councilmember Orvis' proposal was a
maximum of 30 feet. Mayor Haakenson clarified the purple zone currently had a 30 -foot height limit,
Councilmember Orvis' proposal was a 25 -foot height limit with an additional 5 feet with incentives.
Councilmember Plunkett pointed out the Council previously voted to allow taller buildings in
approximately 50% of downtown; this motion was an attempt to reinstitute the existing downtown height
limits. He expressed his support for the motion, reiterating there had been no proof provided that taller
buildings were needed.
Councilmember Moore commented the majority of public testimony to the Planning Board and the
Council was in favor of taller building heights, therefore she would not support the proposed motion.
Councilmember Orvis pointed out they should also consider testimony provided via email which was
primarily opposed to increased height limits as well as the signatures submitted on the petition opposed to
increased height limits. He commented during his campaign while doorbelling he had not heard citizens
speak in favor of increasing height limits. Therefore he concluded the people of Edmonds were opposed
to taller buildings.
Councilmember Moore argued an extra 18 inches was not really taller buildings and would provide a way
to solve the original problem — 30 foot buildings with a sunken first floor. Without making a change,
more of the same would be constructed, buildings everyone seemed dissatisfied with. She urged
Councilmembers not to support the motion.
Councilmember Olson pointed out the reason heights were being considered by the Council was that they
were not happy with the buildings that have been constructed in the recent past. If the 30 -foot height limit
was reinstituted, the same type of buildings would be constructed.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 26, 2005
Page 11
Councilmember Wilson stated the purple area had a maximum building envelope of 30 feet. He pointed
out Design Guidelines and standards that would affect the appearance of the building and how it would fit
with the character and scale of the surrounding neighborhood had yet to be developed. For the areas with
a base height of 25 feet and incentive to reach 33 feet, he emphasized the need to consider the topography
in those areas. He pointed out the properties in the orange that had a maximum 30 foot height limitation
were downward sloping properties to the west. Using the current formula for calculating building
heights, the buildings would have the same scale as other buildings downtown on the uphill side. He
acknowledged they would be taller on the downhill side, the same as currently allowed based on the way
building heights are calculated. For these reasons, he was unable to support the proposed motion.
Councilmember Dawson commented many people have complained to her about buildings in downtown
but never because they did not think the building was tall enough. She noted the concern some people
have with buildings constructed downtown recently was they were out of scale to what they considered to
be compatible with downtown Edmonds and adding more height would not make the buildings more
acceptable.
Councilmember Plunkett agreed that if bulk and massing of a building were addressed via Design
Guidelines, most people's concerns would be addressed. In his experience, most people think of taller
buildings as having more mass and bulk. He acknowledged most people would not recognize the
difference between a 30 -foot and a 33 -foot building but would recognize the difference in architecture
and massing. He concluded most people wanted to retain the existing heights and improve on building
design and not allow taller buildings and "density, density, density."
Councilmember Wilson agreed people did not recognize the difference between a 30 -foot and a 33 -foot
building, they looked at the design of a building, how it related to the street, and their experience as they
walked down the street. He urged the Council to place the emphasis on Design Guidelines, disagreeing
that establishing an artificial height limit would lead to better design.
Councilmember Olson pointed out the 33 -foot height limit required incentives; things that made the
buildings not look so massive. However, with a 30 foot building height, there were no incentives.
MOTION FAILED (3 -4), COUNCILMEMBERS PLUNKETT, ORVIS, AND DAWSON IN
FAVOR; AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT MARIN AND COUNCILMEMBERS OLSON, MOORE
AND WILSON OPPOSED.
Councilmember Orvis suggested delaying implementation of the plan and scheduling an advisory election
on the issue of heights. He clarified an advisory election was asking the public what they think. He
indicated he would follow the will of the voters.
COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, TO
DELAY IMPLEMENTING THE PLAN AND SCHEDULE AN ADVISORY ELECTION ON THE
ISSUE OF HEIGHT LIMITS.
Councilmember Dawson commented an election was a good idea, particularly because heights have been
discussed for so many years and possibly an election was a way to decide the issue with some finality.
Councilmember Moore expressed her opposition to an election, commenting it was too complex an issue
to present as a yes /no ballot because of the different zones, different design elements, etc. She
commented on the length of time the Planning Board and Council had been studying the issue.
Councilmember Plunkett cautioned against underestimating the intelligence of Edmonds voters.
Councilmember Moore responded she did not doubt the voters' intelligence; she was concerned with how
issues such as different zones, incentives, economic development, etc. could be simplified on the ballot.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 26, 2005
Page 12
Councilmember Wilson indicated he would not support the motion, pointing out the Council was elected
to make the tough choices. If the Council backed away from this issue, he envisioned every difficult issue
would become a ballot measure. He urged the Council to take responsibility for their actions /choices and
if they could not, they should not be a Councilmember.
Councilmember Dawson commented there was no basis for saying that the three Councilmembers who
spoke in favor of the motion had any hesitancy to make difficult decisions. She was concerned that some
Councilmembers may not be taking into consideration the will of the citizens. If the Council voted to
raise building heights, they may see a referendum anyway because the voters wanted an opportunity to
have their say. She noted some Councilmembers feel the wrong decisions have been made by the Council
and this would be a way to correct that.
Councilmember Olson agreed with Councilmember Wilson that it was a bad precedent to set; if the
Council began deferring difficult decisions to an election, there would need to be elections for everything.
She commented if a majority of citizens did not like the way Councilmembers were making decisions,
they would be voted out of office. She did not support an election regarding building heights.
MOTION FAILED (3 -4), COUNCILMEMBERS ORVIS, PLUNKETT AND DAWSON IN FAVOR,
AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT MARIN AND COUNCILMEMBERS WILSON, MOORE AND
OLSON OPPOSED.
Mayor Haakenson declared a brief recess.
Design 7. COUNCIL DELIBERATION ON DESIGN GUIDELINES
Guidelines
Planning Manager Rob Chave explained that because of the short turn around between the Council's last
meeting on this subject and this meeting, only some of the changes Council requested were incorporated
into the Design Guidelines document. The version in the packet contains only the revisions requested at
the public hearing. He recalled during the public hearing there was some discussion regarding the design
review process. He suggested it would be worthwhile for the Council to revisit that issue to ensure the
design review process was as the Council wanted. He explained the way the process was currently
structured, major projects that required SEPA review would be reviewed by the Architectural Design
Board (ADB). All other projects that did not deviate from the Design Guidelines would be approved by
staff. Any deviation from the Design Guidelines would require an additional process that required public
notice. He referred to Councilmember Wilson's suggestion to streamline the review process for
development on Hwy. 99; one option would be to have deviations decided by staff. Projects on Hwy. 99
were typically much less controversial than projects downtown or in the neighborhoods.
Council President Marin commented he had read the Design Guidelines document five times and found
the latest version acceptable. He referred to two items in Councilmember Wilson's July 18 memo that he
wanted to have incorporated in the final version of the Design Guidelines, the first in Exhibit 1, Item 8,
encouraging shared parking lots. He supported this concept but wanted to ensure a property owner who
explored the concept and found it infeasible would not be prevented from developing their property. The
second in Exhibit 3, Item 1, with regard to whether different design review procedures should be
established for different areas of the City, Council President Marin spoke in favor of an expedited design
review process for projects on Hwy. 99. He requested staff incorporate language for these two items in
the Design Guidelines.
Councilmember Dawson referred to comments she had received from citizens, particularly telephone calls
today from Roger Hertrich and Tony Shapiro who felt there was a great deal more work to be done on the
Design Guidelines. The Design Guidelines were shelved for several years, brought back with the
inclusion of some information from Mr. Hinshaw, but the Council had not had as much public input into
the process as there should be. The ADB has also expressed interest in reviewing the Guidelines and
providing their perspective. Although staff recommends not delaying the adoption of the Design
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 26, 2005
Page 13
Guidelines, she favored referring the Guidelines to the ADB for review, solicit input from developers,
architects and members of the public and return them to the Council before the Planning Board completes
their work on the Comprehensive Plan. She noted this was somewhat of a cart before the horse,
developing Design Guidelines based on a Comprehensive Plan the Council had not yet approved. She
suggested the Council could also identify other specific issues the ADB could consider.
COUNCILMEMBER DAWSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, TO
REFER THE DESIGN GUIDELINES TO THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD BEFORE
THE COUNCIL ACTS ON IT IN FINAL FORM.
Councilmember Plunkett supported referring the Design Guidelines along with the input provided by
Councilmembers to the ADB in order to get their opinion on the Guidelines.
Councilmember Moore asked Mr. Chave if he was satisfied with these Design Guidelines and whether the
Guidelines would assist staff if a building were developed next year. Mr. Chave replied in the long term,
the Guidelines would need more work but they were vastly superior to what the City had now.
Although she understood the desire to have the ADB review the Guidelines, Councilmember Moore
explained the Planning Board wanted Design Guidelines before they reviewed other issues because of
how the issues were linked. She referred to staff's recommendation against the temptation to defer action
on the Design Guidelines until after the Planning Board made a recommendation because without Design.
Guidelines, the City ran the risk of having more poorly designed buildings built downtown and in other
parts of the City. She asked whether it was necessary that the Design Guidelines apply to other areas of
the City or could they be restricted to downtown. Mr. Chave answered that absent Design Guidelines in
other parts of the City, there would continue to be a lack of guidance regarding building design.
Councilmember Moore preferred instead that the Council pass the Design Guidelines and request a
mandatory review by the ADB and Planning Board within one year.
Councilmember Orvis indicated he would support the motion although he preferred a different approach
to Design Guidelines, the "low hanging fruit approach." He recalled the last time the Council considered
the Design Guidelines, they were not adopted in total but in response to complaints regarding signs, and
the sign review process was changed. He noted the problem now was design and how commercial uses
were sited in buildings.
Councilmember Dawson clarified she was not suggesting the Design Guidelines be delayed until the
Planning Board has acted. She recommended the Design Guidelines be referred to the ADB and returned
to the Council before the Planning Board completed their work. She pointed out the Planning Board had
access to the proposed Design Guidelines and could see the direction the Council was headed.
Councilmember Moore suggested establishing a deadline for the ADB to complete their review.
Mr. Chave explained the ADB was not familiar with the Design Guidelines. When Mr. Bullock discussed
the Design Guidelines with the ADB, they requested specific Council guidance regarding what they were
supposed to look at and when they were to report to the Council. He relayed Mr. Bullock's sense that it
would take the ADB several months to complete their review. He cautioned the Council not to expect a
uniform position from the ADB as they approach issues from very different perspectives.
Councilmember Dawson commented she would like to hear the expert opinions of the ADB before
adopting the Design Guidelines. She suggested the ADB complete their review as quickly as possible.
Mr. Chave advised the ADB did not have an extended agenda; they met as applications were submitted.
He offered to suggest that the ADB meet twice per month to review the Design Guidelines. He
anticipated it would take at least three months for them to review the Guidelines. Councilmember
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 26, 2005
Page 14
Dawson suggested the Council discuss referring the Design Guidelines again once staff had an
opportunity to discuss the timeframe with the ADB.
Mr. Bullock recalled one of the primary comments from the ADB after reviewing the Design Guidelines
at their last meeting was there were portions of the Design Guidelines that were very detailed and other
portions that were very conceptual. The ADB was unsure what role the Council wanted the ADB to play,
whether the Council wanted them to have a very integral part by applying their experience and design
sense in the review and ultimate approval of buildings and if so, leave the Design Guidelines general and
they could apply their expertise and knowledge. If the Council wanted the ADB to rubber stamp the
requirements in the Design Guidelines, the Guidelines needed to be very detailed and review and approval
could be done by staff with little need for the ADB. He summarized the ADB was uncomfortable
reviewing the Design Guidelines without Council direction regarding their role in the process.
Although he saw merit in referring the Design Guidelines to the ADB, Councilmember Wilson was
concerned with the potential delay. He suggested the ADB hold two special meetings in August, provide
a draft to the Council in early September, and the Council consider the Guidelines at the third Council
meeting in September. He also suggested the Council provide direction regarding specific items for the
ADB to consider which would expedite their review. He noted it was not necessary to have consensus by
the ADB, different opinions were also acceptable.
Council President Marin expressed disappointment in the public hearing on the Design Guidelines,
having hoped to hear any serious resistance to the Design Guidelines at the public hearing. He was not
opposed to having the ADB comment on the Guidelines if their review could be expedited.
Councilmember Plunkett surmised from Mr. Bullock's comments that there were a few broad
philosophical questions the Council had not yet addressed. If the Council referred the Guidelines to the
ADB, it may be helpful for Mr. Bullock to write out those questions and a narrative to assist the Council
in providing further direction. Mr. Chave commented part of the problem was there had been a fairly
significant turnover on the ADB and most of the boardmembers were appointed after the original Design
Guidelines were drafted.
Councilmember Moore did not object to seeking the A.DB's feedback if it could be provided in a short
timeframe. She acknowledged the confusion created by the Design Guidelines containing general,
conceptual guidance as well as highly specific guidance and questioned the advisability of referring a
document to the ADB that was already confused philosophically. She inquired about Councilmember
Dawson's intent regarding the timeframe for referring the Guidelines to the ADB. Councilmember
Dawson answered her intent was to give direction to the ADB tonight or if Councilmembers preferred, it
could be discussed at a future meeting.
Councilmember Moore asked whether Councilmember Dawson wanted the ADB to comment on what
they believed their role should be versus what the Council wanted their role to be. Councilmember
Dawson answered she would like to hear both. She suggested it may be effective for the Council to meet
with the ADB to discuss their role. Mayor Haakenson suggested rather than referring the Design
Guidelines to the ADB, scheduling a joint meeting. Councilmember Dawson suggested the ADB hold a
work session on the Guidelines first. Mr. Chave agreed, recommending the Council schedule a lengthy
discussion with the ADB.
Councilmember Plunkett suggested that staff provide a framework such as identifying the key issues. Mr.
Chave agreed, commenting staff has identified a short list of key issues and depending on how those were
decided would determine how the Guidelines were structured. He suggested providing those key issues to
the ADB as well as reviewing them at a joint meeting with the ADB.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 26, 2005
Page 15
Councilmember Olson requested staff also comment on how to expedite the design review process.
Mr. Chave suggested staff discuss the Guidelines with the ADB at their meeting during the first week in
August and schedule a joint meeting with the ADB at the Council's August work session. Staff was
asked to provide the list of key issues for this Friday's packet.
COUNCILMEMBER DAWSON WITHDREW HER MOTION WITH THE AGREEMENT OF
THE SECOND.
8. REPORT ON COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS OF JULY 12 2005.
Finance Finance Committee
ittee
committee Councilmember Olson reported the Committee reviewed the proposed 2005 mid -year budget amendment
and recommended it be forwarded to the Council for a public hearing.
Community/ Community Services /Development Services Committee
Development
Services Councilmember Wilson reported the Committee discussed the WRIA 8 Conservation Plan. The
Committee Committee recommended approval of the Plan and it was approved on the July 19 Consent Agenda. The
Committee also discussed the Hwy. 99 CG and CG2 zones and directed staff to draft an interim ordinance
for review by the Committee at a special July 26 meeting. Councilmember Moore reported tonight the
Committee forwarded the issue to Council with a recommendation for approval.
9. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Haakenson had no report.
10. INDIVIDUAL COUNCIL REPORTS ON OUTSIDE COMMITTEE /BOARD MEETINGS
Excused COUNCIL PRESIDENT MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, TO
Absence
EXCUSE COUNCILMEMBER WILSON FROM THE JULY 5 AND JULY 19 MEETINGS DUE
TO BUSINESS TRAVEL. MOTION CARRIED (6 -0 -1), COUNCILMEMBER WILSON
ABSTAINED.
Community With regard to Community Transit, Council President Marin reported he has led a movement to revise the
Transit Board of Directors' goals so that the number 1 goal for Community Transit is to improve ridership. He
reported for the first six months of 2005, there were 4,280,000 boardings, an increase of 4.4% over the
previous year.
Health District With regard to the Snohomish County Health District Board, he reported on two recent tuberculosis
incidents, one at a high school and another at an Edmonds Community College daycare facility.
Normally the Health District has 14 people involved in the tuberculosis program; because they were in the
process of moving their facility, it was necessary to rearrange schedules to find 50 additional Health
District staff members to work the situation. He explained over 400 people had to be traced and followed
up on to determine their exposure and what type of prophylaxis were appropriate. He noted 11 people
were undergoing prophylaxis and additional follow -up will be done on the 400 people. He summarized
the Health District would likely spend $100,000 pursuing this particular outbreak.
Disability Councilmember Dawson reported Councilmember Orvis and she serve on the Disability Board, which is
Board responsible for considering expenses for retired LEOFF 1 employees including determining what
expenses are medically necessary and approving those that are and denying expenses that are not
medically necessary. She noted one of the discussions the Board had recently was hearing aids and what
level of hearing loss was appropriate for approving a hearing aid. She noted there were a lot of gray
areas, therefore, the Board planned to establish policy for the future. She referred to a Fire District 1
Disability Board case where the Fire District brought a declaratory judgment against the Disability Board,
alleging the Board was paying expenses that were not medically necessary. The opinion issued by the
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 26, 2005
Page 16
Division 1 Court of Appeals recently found the Disability Board acted appropriately and had broad
discretion regarding what was medically necessary.
m
Councilmember Dawson, Chair of the SnoCom Board, advised the Board's discussion in recent months
have focused on consolidation of communication centers. All SnoCom members agreed there should not
be a forced consolidation because they are satisfied with the service provided by SnoCom. She
commented an initial draft report from Snohomish County Executive Reardon seemed to favor pursuing
consolidation. After her discussion with Executive Reardon regarding the initial draft, a second draft was
much improved and more neutral indicating the Executive would not take a position. She commented
although consolidation could potentially save Snohomish County some money, it was not perceived it
would save any money for individual jurisdictions. She was drafting a resolution to be presented to South
Snohomish County cities served by SnoCom expressing their opposition to forced consolidation and
would be asking the Council to consider it in the near future.
SeaShore Councilmember Olson reported Councilmember Moore and she served on the SeaShore Transportation
Transportation Forum. At a recent meeting Sound Transit provided an update indicating the 14 miles of light rail in
Phase 1 were now under construction, they were 6% under the estimated cost and 10% under budget.
Since adding the second Sounder train,ridership is up 40%.
Alliance of Councilmember Olson reported a meeting of the Alliance of South Snohomish County Cities was
Cities scheduled for July 28 in the Fourtner Room at 7:00 p.m. She explained the seven cities would be
discussing issues that all had an interest in,believing they could be more influential as a group.
Councilmember Plunkett expressed his appreciation for the Council's comments/conversations tonight on
two very emotional issues, noting nearly everything that was said was done in a professional and
respectful manner.
.wish Co. Councilmember Wilson advised agenda items at tomorrow night's Snohomish County Tomorrow meeting
°'`°W included a report from Puget Sound Regional Council, consideration of the 2006 budget, a briefing by
Bob Drewel on prosperity partnership, and discussion regarding GMA growth targets.
Port Councilmember Orvis reported the Port had a significant discussion regarding a letter of intent for a new
building the Edmonds Yacht Club proposed to build on Port property. The Port also discussed sales tax
from a potential new marine vendor, a marine yacht sale and service center. He advised the vendor would
be submitting permits to the City soon.
Public Facilities Councilmember Moore reported the Public Facilities District was transitioning from a planning group to a
District management group.
With no further business,the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:15 p.m.
G# 'Y H ENSON,MAYOR SANDRA S. CHASE, CITY CLERK
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 26,2005
Page 17
CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA
JULY 26, 2005
111 3. (10 Min.) Presentation of Environmental Education Association of Washington Award to
the City's Discovery Programs.
4. ( 5 Min.) Proposed Resolution recognizing Garth Langley, Police Explorer, for his
participation in the National Leadership Academy.
5. Audience Comments (3 Minute Limit Per Person)*
*Regarding matters not listed on the Agenda as Closed Record Review or as Public Hearings.
6. (60 Min.) Reconsideration of downtown BC Zone.
7. (75 Min.) Council deliberation on Design Guidelines.
8. ( 10 Min.) Report on Council Committee Meetings of July 12, 2005.
9. ( 5 Min.) Mayor's Comments
10. (15 Min.) Individual Council reports on outside committee/board meetings.
ADJOURN
I
I
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
OAGENDA
� EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL
Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex
250 5th Avenue North
7:00 - 10:00 p.m.
JULY 26, 2005
6:15 p.m. - Special Meeting of the Community/Development Services Committee
6:30 p.m. - Executive Session Regarding a Real Estate Matter
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 July 19, 2005.
(C) Approval of claim checks #81080 through #81247 for the week of July 18,
2005, in the amount of $495,074.38. Approval of payroll direct deposits and
checks #41209 through #41339 for the period July 1 through July 15, 2005, in
the amount of$776,847.80.*
*Information regarding claim checks may be viewed electronically at www.ci.edmonds.wa.us
(D) Report on bids opened on June 28, 2005 for one new UL-rated Class A Pumping
Engine (1,500 GPM), and award of contract to H&W Emergency Services
($393,916).
(E) Community Services Department Quarterly Report.
(F) Economic Development Department Quarterly Report.
(G) Authorization for the Mayor to sign Addendum No. 1 to the Office Supplies and
Furnishings Purchasing Agreement with Office Max.
(H) Authorization for the Mayor to sign Professional Services Agreement with
Berryman & Henigar, Inc. for Lift Stations 2 & 13 Improvements Design.
(I) Proposed Resolution calling for an election to be held on the question of
annexing an unincorporated area contiguous to the City of Edmonds,
commonly known as the Esperance area of unincorporated Snohomish County
together with the submission of a proposition to the voters of said annexation
area requiring the property to be assessed and taxed at the same rate and on
the same basis as other property within the City upon annexation.
Page 1 of 2