08/23/2005 City CouncilAugust 23, 2005
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
Mauni Moore, Councilmember
Peggy Pritchard Olson, Councilmember
Dave Orvis, Councilmember
Deanna Dawson, Councilmember
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
STAFF PRESENT
David Stern, Chief of Police
Duane Bowman, Development Services Director
Stephen Clifton, Community Services Director
Jennifer Gerend, Economic Development Dir.
Rob Chave, Planning Manager
Dave Gebert, City Engineer
Steve Bullock, Senior Planner
Scott Snyder, City Attorney
Sandy Chase, City Clerk
Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst.
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
COUNCIL PRESIDENT MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON, FOR
APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
2.
CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
COUNCIL PRESIDENT MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, FOR
APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda
items approved are as follows:
(A) ROLL CALL
Approve
8/16/05
(B) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF AUGUST 16, 2005.
Minutes
(C) APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #81748 THROUGH #81916 FOR THE WEEK OF
Approve
AUGUST 15, 2005, IN THE AMOUNT OF $506,714.37. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL
Claim
DIRECT DEPOSITS AND CHECKS #41482 THROUGH #41612 FOR THE PERIOD
Checks
AUGUST 1 THROUGH AUGUST 15, 2005, IN THE AMOUNT OF $792,836.82.
Claim for
(D) ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES FROM MARY C.
Damages
ERICKSON (AMOUNT UNDETERMINED), JOHNNY KIM ($661.16), BRIAN WILLIS
(AMOUNT UNDETERMINED), AND BONNIE LYNN OLSON (AMOUNT
Judge Fair
UNDETERMINED).
Agreement
(E) AUTHORIZATION FOR THE MAYOR TO SIGN EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT WITH
DOUG FAIR, MUNICIPAL COURT JUDGE.
Senior
Center
(F) APPROPRIATION OF ADDITIONAL $45,000 AND AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR
Elevator
TO SIGN CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER NUMBER 1 FOR THE 2005 SENIOR CENTER
ELEVATOR REHABILITATION CONTRACT.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 23, 2005
Page 1
Resolution
No. 1105 (G) RESOLUTION NO. 1105 AUTHORIZING AMENDMENT TO INTERLOCAL
AGREEMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THE EDMONDS CENTER FOR THE ARTS
BY AMENDING THE DATE OF DECEMBER 31 2005, CONTAINED IN SECTION BA
Setttement OF THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT, TO READ "MARCH 31,2007."
Agreement
(H) APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE OF ALL CLAIMS
BETWEEN RONDA ROHDE AND THE CITY OF EDMONDS.
3. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Jeremy Steiner, Edmonds, urged the Council to pass an ordinance similar to the ordinance recently
passed by Issaquah that restricts where registered sex offenders may live within the city. He explained
Issaquah's ordinance prohibits Level 2 and 3 sex offenders from living within 1,000 feet of schools and
daycare centers and fines property owners who knowingly rent to sex offenders $250 per day. He
described the crimes committed by registered sex offender Sean Lee Gorr including the rape of a four -
year old boy at a daycare center and first degree burglary, second degree assault and failure to register as
a sex offender. Mr. Gorr was allowed to move into their neighborhood on July 18, 2005, a neighborhood
with numerous children, in close proximity to Yost Pool and a daycare and one mile from an elementary
school and high school. He submitted a petition signed by hundreds of citizens urging the Council to pass
an ordinance. He also submitted a copy of the Issaquah ordinance and information regarding Mr. Gorr.
He noted Monroe was also considering the passage of such an ordinance. He concluded that if necessary,
citizens would pursue a special petition process.
Mayor Haakenson responded the Council and he shared Mr. Steiner's concerns. When he learned Mr.
Gorr was living in the area, Councilmember Wilson asked the City Attorney to consider Issaquah's
ordinance. Council Committees will consider an ordinance at their September 13 meeting and he directed
planning staff to map appropriate areas in Edmonds. City Attorney Scott Snyder responded Ogden
Murphy Wallace represented Issaquah, Monroe and Edmonds. At Councilmember Wilson's request, he
provided a brief synopsis of Issaquah's ordinance to the Council. He explained there were major
distinctions between Edmonds and Issaquah and Monroe in that Issaquah and Monroe contained large,
undeveloped areas. He noted 14 states have enacted community protection zones around sensitive areas
which have typically been upheld as long as someplace within the community was provided for sex
offenders to reside. Planning staff would be mapping sensitive areas and the affect of concentric rings to
determine what would be the most effective method for establishing the necessary legislative history
foundation to determine there remained approximately 5% of the community where an individual could
live.
David Dean, Edmonds, commented there was a growing group of Edmonds citizens who were
concerned about wetlands and particularly the Shell Creek wetlands. He requested Councilmembers state
their opinion about protecting wetland and enforcing the ordinance designed for the protection of
wetlands.
Robert Driscoll, Edmonds, recalled in 2002, a contract rezone process approved the project being built
on the property between Walnut and Holly Avenue on 5th Avenue. The Council approved a rezone that
allowed the project to encroach on the adjacent single family neighborhood and the developer, Bob
Gregg, stated he would only go west to east and north to south within 15 feet of his building, the
remainder would be open space. He referred to Ordinance 3422 that approved the rezone and stated the
owner shall not request or otherwise seek any amendment or material modification of this agreement for a
period of five years from the effective date which was October 3, 2002. He summarized this would not
allow any modification until 2007. In talking with planning staff, he learned plans were approved March
30, 2005 which includes an encroachment into the open space. He displayed a photograph of the east end
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 23, 2005
Page 2
of the building under construction, explaining his measurement from the datum point in the adjacent
residential driveway to the building was 45 feet. The contract rezone states the open space would be 45
feet or more. He also questioned whether the "concrete thing" in the open space was a bicycle rack and
pointed out there were overhangs on the building within the 45 foot open space. He questioned how the
amendment that allowed encroachment into the open space was approved if amendments were not
allowed within a period of five years. He also objected to the "hole" between the building and the
property line, recalling that area was described during the process as being level.
Mayor Haakenson requested Development Services Director Duane Bowman provide a report to Council
regarding Mr. Driscoll's concerns. Mr. Bowman advised it would be provided in next week's Council
packet.
Don Kreiman, Edmonds, referred to the October 2, 2002 Council minutes that state in 1991 Cedar River
Associates completed a study of the City's design review process and determined that design guidelines
in the existing code were inadequate and the Architectural Design Board (ADB) did not serve a positive
role. In response, the City hired a professional architectural firm with experience writing design
guidelines for public and private development. The architecture firm presented the initial design
guidelines to the Council which were accepted and forwarded to the Planning Board in November 2002.
Nearly two years later after three joint meetings with the ADB, six public hearings and numerous reviews
of the design guidelines by the Planning Board, the design guidelines were returned to the City Council
with the Planning Board's recommendation. On October 1, 2002, the Council held a single public
hearing on the design guidelines where developers and real estate interests plummeted staff and the
Planning Board. He recalled then- Council President Plunkett gave Rob Michel more time to speak than
anyone else and invited him to discuss several issues and did not enforce the 3- minute time limit. Later
Councilmember Plunkett moved to table the design guidelines which passed 4 -2 and the design guidelines
have remained tabled since then. He commented Mr. Michel has developed over 50 projects, and as chair
of the ADB, approves all significant development. He questioned why Mr. Michel or any other developer
was allowed to shape the City's design review process.
Dennis Lowenthal, Edmonds, referred to a variance request to build a house at 951 Main Street that
allowed them to destroy a wetland adjacent to Shell Creek. He referred to the Council's adoption of the
Critical Areas Ordinance that required specific evaluation be completed on the impact to wetlands and
adjoining buffer areas when development is planned. City Attorney Scott Snyder interrupted, explaining
this was a pending application; the Council could be required to act as a quasi judicial body in appeal and
thus could only hear information regarding this project at the hearing. He cautioned Mr. Lowenthal to
comment on issues in general and not the specific project. Mr. Lowenthal responded he was opposed to
the variance request. He remarked the evaluation process outlined in the ordinance had not been followed
by the City's planning division and the variance was issued. Mayor Haakenson encouraged Mr.
Lowenthal to discuss this with Senior Planner Steve Bullock.
Finis Tupper, Edmonds, presented a petition on behalf of Joe Dwyer who was unable to attend tonight's
meeting. He explained the petition was in regard to Chapter 20.100.40, Review of Approved Permits,
which stated one of the methods for review was via a Council motion. He requested the Council review
the contract rezone approved via Ordinance 3422. He asserted the subsequent permits were invalid and
the current construction was injurious to the surrounding properties, hazardous and a nuisance. He
reviewed the alleged violations of the contract rezone, 1) the contract rezone language states the primary
use of the structure on the residential property was for parking; however, no parking or BC use is
provided on the 15 feet on the residential lot, 2) the formula in the contract rezone was not followed, the
dedicated open space was proposed to be 45 feet from the east residential property to the building and the
structure within the 45 feet was not a bike rack but was a vault that would house the building systems, a
nuisance for adjacent property owners. He also pointed out the area was to have been level with Holly
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 23, 2005
Page 3
and the eastern adjacent property and fully landscaped. He provided materials to be distributed to the
Council.
Tony Shapiro, Edmonds, referred to the design guidelines, pointing out the core of the issue was process
versus guidelines. Edmonds was unique in having a design review board for over 20 years. As a design
review professional who deals with guidelines in numerous municipalities, he preferred to deal with
boards versus a fixed, menu - driven guideline that was a static document that could not anticipate the
unique qualities of a particular site. He remarked it was not possible to codify conditions that would
address all the variables that design professionals encounter. He concluded having a design board
comprised of citizens and individuals with design expertise was preferable to a menu - driven solution.
In response to Mr. Kreiman's comment regarding membership on the ADB, Mayor Haakenson advised
the City's code dictates what expertise was required for the ADB and a developer was required to be on
the ADB.
4. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Haakenson encouraged anyone interested in participating on the committee to write the Esperance
annexation pro or con statements to contact the City Clerk. Two people have agreed to serve on the pro
committee and one person has agreed to serve on the opposition committee to date.
5. INDIVIDUAL COUNCIL REPORTS ON OUTSIDE COMMITTEE /BOARD MEETINGS
Council President Marin encouraged citizens to attend the Public Outreach meeting in the Sherwood
Elementary gymnasium on Tuesday, August 30.
Council President Marin recalled at last week's Council meeting the public hearing regarding a zoning
text amendment to create a Master Planned Office- Residential Zone was continued until September 6. He
advised the date needed to be changed to September 19.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT,
TO CHANGE THE DATE OF THE CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING A ZONING
TEXT AMENDMENT TO CREATE A MASTER PLANNED OFFICE- RESIDENTIAL ZONE
(MPOR), EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE CHAPTER 16.77. (.FILE NO. CDC -
2005-46) TO SEPTEMBER 1.9, 2005. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Council President Marin announced the preliminary budget would be presented to the Council on October
18. He requested Councilmembers reserve Saturday, October 22 for a budget workshop.
Councilmember Wilson advised the August Snohomish County Tomorrow meeting was cancelled. A
presentation will be made at the September meeting regarding the future of Paine Field. He advised these
meetings were open to the public and were usually held on the 4th Wednesday of each month. He offered
to provide further information regarding the meeting date, time and location prior to the meeting. The
meeting would also include discussion regarding a countywide policy for siting of cell towers. He
explained this would focus primarily on the areas that were likely to be annexed to develop some
commonality of standards between Snohomish County and the annexing jurisdictions.
Councilmember Moore reported on the Prosperity Partnership, the Puget Sound Regional Council's
initiative on economic development, whose goal was to create 100,000 new jobs in the central Puget
Sound Region. The Partnership was beginning to set timelines and measurements of success in clusters
they have identified and a set of detailed action initiatives would be available soon.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 23, 2005
Page 4
Couneilmember Moore reported on the SeaShore Forum that Couneilmember Olson and she attended,
advising they were setting project priorities for Sound Transit Phase 2. She advised SeaShore determines
projects for north King County only; however, due to interest in linking those projects with Snohomish
County, the County has been invited to the next SeaShore meeting.
In response to Mr. Dean's request that Councilmembers state their opinion with regard to protection of
wetland, Council President Marin invited him to contact each Couneilmember. He recalled the Council
recently approved a fairly rigorous Critical Areas Ordinance.
Couneilmember Moore explained staff had been asked to consider creating a website for each
Couneilmember as they developed the City's website. She anticipated using her website page to provide
her position with regard to wetland protection as well as other issues.
Design 6. JOINT MEETING WITH THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD (ADB) REGARDING
Guidelines DESIGN GUIDELINES
Architectural. Design Boardmembers Jason Anderson, Valerie Kendall and Rick Utt were present.
Boardmembers Lowell, Michel, Christianson, and Elliott were not present. Mr. Lowell and Mr. Michel
provided written comments.
Council President Marin explained there were two major issues to address, 1) the ADB having input early
in a project such as pre- design review versus their current role as a hearing body, and 2) gathering the
ADB's input on the specific design guidelines. He commented the staff report contained a great deal of
narrative and background that appeared to indicate it may be more helpful to the ADB to be involved
early in a project before a developer /architect had gone to a great deal of expense and effort. He was
inclined to agree with this approach, to change the emphasis of the ADB and take them out of the role of a
hearing body.
Boardmember Rick Utt recalled the owner of a project that the ADB reviewed and rejected recently
expressed frustration because of the amount of time and money they had spent on the site plan, elevations
etc. that were approximately 85% complete and ready to submit for a building permit. Boardmember Utt
was surprised to be at the design review stage and have an owner suggest their project should be approved
because of the amount of work they had already done. He acknowledged the need to be cognizant of
establishing a process that was expeditious, manageable and worked for developers by having some
design input at the beginning of the process.
Boardmember Utt referred to his comments in the ADB minutes where he describes the opportunity in
some jurisdictions to discuss the project informally with the design board so that when the project reached
the official presentation, the developer had an idea what the city was looking for. He suggested a one or
two meeting process where a developer could provide a site plan or concept and sound out the City. He
expressed his willingness to meet twice a month as the ADB used to, noting the Board currently only met
once a month.
Boardmember Jason Anderson recalled a project the ADB reviewed that was very far along in the design
process. Although the design was not necessarily what the city wanted, they met the guidelines and at
that point there was nothing the ADB could do to influence the design to make it a better project. He
suggested a preliminary meeting off the record where the Board and the architect could discuss concepts.
He recalled Mr. Bullock mentioned there may be a conflict of interest with that approach.
City Attorney Scott Snyder explained one of the issues was pre judgmental bias which was inherent and
not waivable under the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine. The difficulty for the ADB was in order to have
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 23, 2005
Page 5
meaningful input, they would need to express opinions. When an opinion was expressed regarding a
proposal, and then the proposal came before the Board for review, the boardmember(s) could be struck
from the review or the decision invalidated based on pre judgmental bias. Therefore, it was difficult for
the Board to have meaningful input early in the process and sit as the hearing body later in the process.
Boardmember Valerie Kendall commented she worked for a non -profit developer and was aware of
timelines that require critical decisions be made early in the process. She too was surprised at times how
complete proposals were when they were presented to the ADB, particularly some projects that followed
the law but were not really the best design. She recalled a project in a residential neighborhood that the
ADB approved because it followed the rules but there could have been a better design. She also
expressed willingness to meet more often, noting a month was a long time for a developer to wait for
feedback on a project. She pointed out the importance of the ADB having input early in the process.
Mr. Snyder commented one of the reasons this effort was being undertaken was a desire by the City to
closely follow Anderson v. Issaquah, a decision that stated the City was obligated in design situations to
provide specific direction to developers. He acknowledged that put the Board in the conundrum if a
project met the rules it must be approved even if it may tweak the Board's aesthetic sensibility. He
explained the best way for the Board to have input regarding aesthetics was to provide up front input and
to advise the Council if the "barn door needs to be closed," if the ADB was forced to approve a project
that they felt was not in the City's best interest. He reminded the ADB's role was also to advise the
Council annually regarding potential changes to the ADB ordinance and the City's design guidelines.
Councilmember Wilson asked whether having a subcommittee of the ADB who would meet with a
developer early in the process would avoid the issue of pre judgmental bias. Mr. Snyder answered that
was a possible solution but may affect the length of the process. Councilmember Wilson referred to the
comments that plans were presented to the ADB that are 85% complete and ready for permit submittal,
stating his clients would be very displeased if construction drawings for permits were begun before design
review approval was provided. He asked whether there was something missing in the process that
resulted in developers proceeding with drawings. He agreed developers should be presenting conceptual .
elevations, site plans, and landscape design to the ADB and not full construction drawings.
Boardmember Utt responded his discussions with staff indicated the applicant had that option; the City
did not require it. He noted there was no point in the process where design review was required, it was
only required prior to building the project. Therefore, the applicant had the option to take the project to
85% completion. He noted the people most frustrated were those that were not experienced with the
process. He commented the City did not have adequate materials to provide to a developer describing the
city's processes. In most jurisdictions, he was unable to talk with the Building Department until he had a
letter from the Planning Department stating he had completed their process.
Councilmember Wilson asked if applicants may be presenting complete applications to the ADB because
they only met once a month. Boardmember Utt answered that was possible. He noted those who
expressed frustration did not seem to understand the ADB's expectations.
Councilmember Wilson asked Boardmembers to be candid in answering this question: when an applicant
presented a project with drawings that were 80 -85% complete, did they feel any extra burden to try to
help them achieve approval, versus if the project were at the conceptual stage, they might not feel as
much pressure and suggest changes. Boardmember Utt answered it depended on the attitude of the
developer; if they were sincere and were really trying to meet the rules, he wanted to help them. If they
were belligerent and defensive, he was less inclined to help them. He agreed there was more pressure
with a fairly complete project. He noted the ADB has approved projects with conditions for the Planning
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 23, 2005
Page 6
Department to follow up on. Boardmember Anderson answered the bottom line was a project must meet
the standards of the City and that was why conditions may be imposed.
Councilmember Plunkett observed the boardmembers present seemed to agree the ADB's input should
occur early in the process. Insofar as only one open record hearing could be held, if the ADB were early
in the process, the ADB would not function as a regulatory board and the Council would function in that
role. He expressed concern that the ADB members, not the Council, were the professionals with the
experience and knowledge and questioned who was better to serve as the regulatory board, laymen such
as the Council, or the ADB who were professionals.
Councilmember Plunkett asked who would be the regulatory body if the ADB were not. Mr. Snyder
answered there were two roles to be filled by either staff, the Council or Hearing Examiner. There would
need to be one body to hold the required on- the - record hearing and then an internal appeal on the record
to another body. He noted the Council has served as the appeal body in the past; either the Hearing
Examiner or staff could provide the record necessary for a later review.
Councilmember Plunkett asked whether instead of the ADB being the regulatory body, it could be the
Hearing Examiner. Mr. Snyder answered yes, reminding that in accordance with Anderson v. Issaquah, it
was the City's obligation to tell developers precisely what was required. He explained the review body
need not necessarily have the expertise. For example, when the court reviews the Council's decisions,
they were looking for the plain, ordinary meaning of a word, not necessarily what it may mean to a
specialized body.
Councilmember Plunkett observed the ADB was originally established to be a citizens' regulatory body
to provide the collective wisdom of members of the community. If their review was early in the process,
the Board would be relinquishing that fundamental premise — a group of professionals who represent the
citizens of Edmonds. He asked whether the ADB was willing to relinquish that role. Boardmember
Anderson referred to the ADB meeting minutes that indicated the Board was not ready to give up that role
but were looking for ways to do both, provide input early in the process off the record.
Councilmember Plunkett noted other than possibly Councilmember Wilson's suggestion for a
subcommittee, the ADB could not do both, express their opinions and later act as a judge. Boardmember
Utt commented the Board did not necessarily express an opinion, only how the project met or did not
meet the guidelines. Councilmember Plunkett asked whether the ADB could do both. Mr. Snyder
answered most other jurisdictions did not use the ADB for a hearing body and those that do have not yet
been challenged. He summarized allowing the ADB to do both injected an automatic appeal issue. The
Council has the ability to change the law to create standards that explicate precisely what the Council
wants done. When things were left more open, there were more appeals, and the City would lose more
lawsuits at the Superior Court level. The ultimate decision was left to not a citizen board but to whoever
heard the appeal last, such as the Superior Court or Court of Appeals. If the Council wanted the ADB to
control what was built, it would be more effective to precisely describe what they wanted built; this would
result in far fewer challenges and far fewer decisions that were overturned.
Councilmember Plunkett pointed out the way for the ADB to have input was via identifying issues and /or
problems in the code and presenting them to the City Council for resolution. Boardmembers agreed this
was a way for them to have influence. Asked whether the members present saw the value in the ADB
being the citizens' regulatory body rather than the City Council, Boardmember Utt answered yes. He
commented he was not comfortable in the role he was in now, passing judgment based on a document and
guidelines he did not find appropriate.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 23, 2005
Page 7
Councilmember Plunkett summarized if the ADB could influence the development of policy, then the
developer could develop to the established policy and then the ADB could judge the developer's ability to
meet the policy. Boardmember Anderson did not anticipate that modifying the design guidelines would
resolve all issues because they were guidelines. Councilmember Plunkett agreed the design guidelines
needed to be predictable but flexible. In addition to providing input on the development of design
guidelines, he pointed out the place between predictability and flexibility was where the citizens'
regulatory body should have their input.
Boardmember Utt commented the ADB was uncomfortable with imposing rules /regulations they did not
necessarily support. Councilmember Plunkett explained if the City Council and ADB developed the rules
together, the ADB could determine whether the developer met those standards.
Observing Regulatory Reform allowed only one open record hearing, Councilmember Wilson asked
whether the ADB could hold the hearing, provide comment to the applicant and continue the hearing to a
future date where the applicant could present modifications. Councilmember Wilson asked whether that
would still meet the intent of Regulatory Reform. Mr. Snyder answered yes, particularly since the statute
that set time guidelines had expired.
Councilmember Wilson asked what the intent was — to accomplish good design or good process. If the
intent was good design, the City needed to determine how to accomplish that including how to create a
good process that resulted in good design. He supported providing an applicant enough direction that
they could anticipate the outcome. He asked whether the ADB was interested in only being a regulatory
body or a body that accomplished good design on behalf of the community. Boardmember Anderson
commented the City had been fortunate in the past three years he had been on the ADB that projects have
typically been well designed and met the criteria which made the ADB's job easier.
Boardmember Utt responded most boardmembers got involved on the ADB because they wanted to
improve the quality of the community via design. He expressed frustration at being hobbled sometimes
with having to forego good design to comply with the rules. The Council knew how he felt with regard to
downtown height; he also supported zoning changes that would enhance the experience such as encourage
more sidewalk activity and allow roof gardens. He summarized those features were not allowed by the
current guidelines and the ADB was restricted by old, antiquated, ambivalent design guidelines.
Boardmember Kendall commented the City could have good design and a good process. She supported a
method by which the ADB could provide their expertise, commenting most developers were willing to
make changes early in the process. Mr. Snyder noted several boardmembers expressed frustration at
being constrained by the law to apply the ordinances as written. He explained ordinances were a
derogation of common law property rights and if there was ambiguity, it was resolved in favor of the
property owner. In their training to all member agencies, one of the points Washington Cities Insurance
made was that decisions made in a politicized context were one of the biggest causes for municipal
zoning liability and cost. The Board's discomfort was exactly what the Council deals with regularly in
that in order to have a positive role and change things, the Council must act legislatively. If the ADB's
goal was to positively influence design by comment, they were better off doing it early in the process —
expressing their opinions and using their expertise — because as a hearing officer /body, the ADB had little
or no discretion and would have little opportunity to apply their expertise. An ordinance that allowed the
ADB to inject their professional opinions would be automatically suspect under Anderson v. Issaquah.
Planning Manager Rob Chave referenced a comment in Boardmember Lowell's letter regarding the duties
and powers originally established for the ADB such as recommending comprehensive architectural design
plans, establishing design districts, reviewing and studying land use, establishing goals, objectives and
policies for design, etc., a role that the ADB has gotten away from. Over the years, the ADB has become
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 23, 2005
Page 8
more of a regulatory, quasi judicial board and has overlooked the reason the Board was originally
established.
Councilmember Dawson referred to the email from Boardmember Michel that suggested working on the
design guidelines first and insert them into the existing process to see if they worked before changing the
process. She asked whether it would be appropriate to rework the design guidelines before the process.
Boardmember Utt answered yes, expressing his support for meaningful design guidelines.
Councilmember Dawson commented new design guidelines may identify problems in the process.
Boardmember Utt expressed interest in guidelines that had more details and included more pictures and
examples. He suggested design guidelines identify what materials an applicant needed to present to the
ADB. He commented they currently reviewed projects that ranged from a sketch on a paper napkin to
reams of plans.
Councilmember Dawson asked whether the ADB wanted their role to remain the same with revised
design guidelines. Boardmembers Anderson and Kendall supported revising the design guidelines first
and then the process.
Councilmember Dawson asked whether the ADB was open to relinquishing their role as a judge.
Boardmember Utt answered he was open. Boardmember Anderson answered the bottom line was the
ADB wanted to affect good design within the City. Boardmember Kendall commented she was not yet
ready to relinquish that power. Boardmember Utt commented he was more comfortable with that power
if there were good design guidelines that they believed in and a process that made it easy to implement
the guidelines.
Councilmember Dawson summarized if design guidelines could be developed that the ADB was more
comfortable with, possibly the process may not be broken and the ADB's input could be provided via the
legislative process rather than on a project -by- project basis and the ADB could maintain their role as a
regulatory body.
Councilmember Orvis preferred the ADB make the final decision on design and supported the ADB
having input into the development of the design guidelines.
Councilmember Moore asked whether the Boardmembers had reviewed the draft design guidelines.
Boardmember Utt answered they did some time ago. He wanted more pictures, commenting he liked the
input Mr. Hinshaw provided. He noted he also wanted zoning changes.
Councilmember Moore asked if there were specifics provided to applicants regarding what they needed to
provide for ADB review. Mr. Bullock advised there were minima] submittal requirements in the
materials provided to applicants. He agreed there were applicants who appeared before the ADB with
voluminous amounts of information. Staff counsels applicants when preparing their packets to provide
only the information the ADB was interested in and would review in making their decision. However,
some additional information may be required by other departments and applicants may include it in the
materials provided to the ADB. He noted there was not as much difficulty with under- developed packets
as there was in past years. Mr. Snyder recalled in 2003, in order to address concern with the vesting of
rights, the Council established an augmented Architectural Review Application that allowed an applicant
who wanted to ensure they vested rights to submit very detailed packages to ensure everything they
wanted to do was included in the event the Building Code or City ordinance changed. This would avoid
an applicant proceeding through the ADB process and then the Building Code or Zoning Code change.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 23, 2005
Page 9
Mr. Chave stated the City's preliminary review process allowed review and discussion of conceptual
design, however, this was an optional process and very few applicants took advantage of it. The
applicants that did utilize this process were notable to the ADB as some of the more successful projects.
Mr. Snyder recalled one of the processes reviewed in the Cedar River Study was Seattle's where the ADB
worked with the applicant in a conceptual stage and could establish conditions that were applied by staff
in an approval process. In that manner the ADB could inject its opinions as well as create conditions to
be applied at a later stage.
Boardmember Utt asked whether the ADB could establish minimum requirements for drawings that must
be provided with every application and then the applicant would be free to provide additional materials if
they wished. Mr. Snyder stated that could be required, noting that was required for a subdivision. For
Councilmember Moore, Mr. Bullock stated it could be done administratively, and in fact the ADB
handouts currently include minimum requirements. He did not recall any projects that did not meet the
minimum requirements but there were applicants who submitted more than the minimum.
Councilmember Moore referred to Mr. Chave's memo identifying five key questions for design
guidelines and review. (1) What is the main emphasis of design review intended to be: to influence
design or be regulatory, and (2) Is the process intended to be more efficient and streamlined than it is
now? Both questions had been discussed. She referred to the question: How predictable is the process
intended to be? She asked how the design guidelines could be both predictable and flexible?
Boardmember Utt answered the ADB would like clear references they could refer to in the design
guidelines and at the same time, design guidelines that would encourage creativity. He noted some
jurisdictions provide a menu in the design guidelines from which applicants can choose and when
appropriate, allow an applicant to demonstrate how they met the intent.
Councilmember Moore asked whether Boardmember Utt agreed with Chair Michel, that design
guidelines were guidelines. Boardmember Utt answered yes.
Councilmember Moore referred to another question in the memo: At what state of the process is public
involvement required/desired? The boardmembers indicated they still wanted to hold the public hearing.
Councilmember Moore noted the last question in Mr. Chave's memo, what is the balance desired between
guidance versus requirements for design, had been addressed.
Councilmember Plunkett observed the ADB was interested in an opportunity to review the proposed
design guidelines. Boardmember Anderson agreed.
Councilmember Olson commented she wanted to avoid having to make changes after problems were
identified as that often resulted in buildings that the public didn't like. She preferred to be proactive in
identifying areas that needed to be changed.
Economic Development Director Jennifer Gerend referred to different parts of the City that have different
dynamics. In some areas, a business /property owner may want to make a minor fagade improvement but
when they learned it would take months and a design review fee, they may be discouraged and not bother
making the improvement. She supported whatever needed to be done to streamline the process and
suggested consideration be given to differentiating between areas of the City such as establishing a
threshold for ADB review. Boardmember Utt commented in some jurisdictions, a property/business
owner could meet with staff who identified what process their proposal would require.
Councilmember Dawson stated it was her intent to get the ADB's feedback on the draft design guidelines.
She suggested boardmembers review the guidelines individually, meet as a board to discuss the guidelines
and then hold another joint meeting with the Council to discuss specific issues. Boardmembers agreed.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 23, 2005
Page 10
Councilmember Moore referred to the findings of the Cedar River Associates Study, noting although the
finding that the City had inadequate design review guidelines and that the ADB did not have a positive
role would be addressed, she wanted their other findings to be addressed as well. She referred to the
ordinance creating the ADB, specifically that the ADB provide an overview of design in the City, and
suggested consideration be given to holding neighborhood hearings in areas of the City that may need
different design input. Boardmember Utt supported holding neighborhood meetings, pointing out the
importance of involving citizens.
Councilmember Moore commented the ordinance also refers to design districts. Boardmember Utt
explained Seattle had design districts and each district had design guidelines that were specific to that
district. Councilmember Moore suggested the ADB consider design districts.
Councilmember Dawson noted the draft design guidelines had been modified since they were reviewed
by the ADB previously. She asked when the ADB could complete their review of the design guidelines
and return to the Council. Mr. Bullock advised the ADB's September agenda was light and staff had
considered scheduling the design guidelines on that agenda. The Board could also schedule a special
meeting on September 21 and return to the Council in October.
Councilmember Wilson encouraged the ADB to consider the design district concept, agreeing that
different neighborhoods may need to be viewed differently. He supported input from the neighborhoods
and possibly different levels of design review for different districts. He suggested the ADB also interact
with the Planning Board who holds the public hearings on policies that are forwarded to the Council.
Councilmember Orvis supported a fairly quick turnaround and cautioned the ADB against going too far in
their efforts if they deviated greatly from the draft design guidelines. He suggested the ADB consider
whether some issues could be separated from the design guidelines and addressed separately,recalling the
revisions that were made to the sign code based on the previous design guidelines.
Councilmember Olson recalled the materials Mr. Hinshaw provided had numerous pictures. She
suggested the ADB provide any pictures they wanted included in the design guidelines.
Council President Marin observed there was not a consensus among the boardmembers present regarding
changing the role of the ADB but it appeared there was consensus that the design guidelines could be
used in the existing process. He requested the ADB provide the revisions to the design guidelines with
tracked changes and identify specific paragraphs that were of concern and/or language they wanted
added. He noted it may be possible to implement small changes now while referring larger, more
substantive changes for further research.
Councilmember Wilson summarized he was interested in the ADB's comments regarding how to change
the design guidelines so that the ADB and Council could affect good design in Edmonds.
Councilmember Moore supported a three tiered process that would allow some items to be expedited.
Mayor Haakenson thanked Boardmembers Anderson, Kendall and Utt for providing their opinions to the
Council.
With no further business,the Council meeting was adjourned at 8:55 p.m.
gior Ai .1
awe-,G�d'Y A,�� NSON,MAYOR /sda......44.1 SANDRA S. CHASE,CITY CLERK
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 23,2005
Page 11
REVISED
rt AGENDA 8/19/05 at 3:00 p.m.
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL
Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex
250 5t" Avenue North
7:00 - 10:00 p.m.
AUGUST 23, 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 August 16, 2005.
(C) Approval of claim checks #81748 through #81916 for the week of August 15,
2005, in the amount of $506,714.37. Approval of payroll direct deposits and
checks #41482 through #41612 for the period August 1 through August 15,
2005, in the amount of$792,836.82.*
'Information regarding claim checks maybe viewed electronically at www.ci.edmonds.wa.us
(D) Acknowledge receipt of Claims for Damages from Mary C. Erickson (amount
undetermined), Johnny Kim ($661.16), Brian Willis (amount undetermined), and
Bonnie Lynn Olson (amount undetermined).
(E) Authorization for the Mayor to sign Employment Agreement with Doug Fair,
Municipal Court Judge.
(F) Appropriation of additional $45,000 and authorization for Mayor to sign
Contract Change Order Number 1 for the 2005 Senior Center Elevator
Rehabilitation Contract.
(G) Resolution authorizing Amendment to Interlocal Agreement for Development of
the Edmonds Center for the Arts by amending the date of December 31 2005,
contained in Section B.4 of the Interlocal Agreement, to read "March 31,
2007."
(H) Approval of Settlement Agreement and Release of All Claims between Ronda
Rohde and the City of Edmonds.
Page 1 of 2
CITY.COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA
AUGUST 23, 2005
3. Audience Comments (3 Minute Limit Per Person)*
*Regarding matters not listed on the Agenda as Closed Record Review or as Public Hearings.
4. ( 5 Min.) Mayor's Comments
5. (15 Min.) Individual Council reports on outside committee/board meetings.
6. (2 Hours) Joint Meeting with the Architectural Design Board regarding Design Guidelines.
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