10/07/2003 City Council1
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES
October 7, 2003
The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Haakenson in the Council
Chambers, 250 5`" Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute.
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Gary Haakenson, Mayor
Dave Earling, Council President (arrived 8:00 p.m.)
Jeff Wilson, Councilmember
Michael Plunkett, Councilmember
Lora Petso, Councilmember
Dave Orvis, Councilmember
Richard Marin, Councilmember
ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT
Deanna Dawson, Councilmember
ALSO PRESENT
Alex Brent - Fielding, Student Representative
STAFF PRESENT
Al Compaan, Assistant Police Chief
Duane Bowman, Development Serv. Director
Stephen Clifton, Community Services Director
Dan Clements, Administrative Services Director
Rob Chave, Planning Manager
Dave Gebert, City Engineer
Star Campbell, Planner
Zach Lell, City Attorney
Sandy Chase, City Clerk
Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst.
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
hange to I COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, TO
Benda CHANGE AGENDA ITEM 5 TO ITEM 3A AND AGENDA ITEM 3 TO 3B. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY. (Council President Earling was not present for the vote.)
COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, FOR
APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
(Council President Earling was not present for the vote.)
2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, FOR
APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (Council
President Earling was not present for the vote.) The agenda items approved are as follows:
(A) ROLL CALL
Approve
/23/03 (B) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 23, 2003.
inutes
(C) APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #65534 THROUGH #65706 FOR THE WEEK OF
pprove SEPTEMBER 22, 2003, IN THE AMOUNT OF $166.988.54. APPROVAL OF CLAIM
laim
hecks CHECKS #65707 THROUGH #65872 FOR THE WEEK OF SEPTEMBER 29, 2003, IN
THE AMOUNT OF $159,359.48. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSITS AND
CHECKS #36773 THROUGH #36859 FOR THE PERIOD SEPTEMBER 16 THROUGH
SEPTEMBER 30, 2003, IN THE AMOUNT OF $780,123.51.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 7, 2003
Page 1
laims for
ID amages
(D) ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES FROM JOHN E. TARDIFF
(AMOUNT UNDETERMINED) AND NATALIE SHIPPEN ($384.00).
Liquor
tool
(E) APPROVAL OF LIST OF EDMONDS BUSINESSES APPLYING FOR RENEWAL OF
oard
THEIR LIQUOR LICENSES WITH THE WASHINGTON STATE LIQUOR CONTROL
BOARD.
F (F) AUTHORIZATION FOR THE MAYOR TO SIGN AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT
WITH THE CITY OF LYNNWOOD FOR OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE WATER MAIN AND
SEWER LATERALS INSTALLATION DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION.
E rs (G) REPORT ON FINAL BID CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR THE CITY COUNCIL
CHAMBERS VIDEO SYSTEM AND COUNCIL ACCEPTANCE OF PROJECT.
rd# 3471 (H) ORDINANCE NO. 3471 AMENDING EDMONDS CITY CODE CHAPTER 5.05 ANIMAL
Animal
Control —
CONTROL; CLARIFYING THE NONREFUNDABILITY OF CERTAIN VETERINARY
Veterinary FEES FOR THE ADOPTION OF CATS AND DOGS.
Fees
3A. PROPOSED INTERLOCAL OPERATING AGREEMENT #2 BETWEEN THE CITY OF
dmonds EDMONDS AND EDMONDS PUBLIC FACILITIES DISTRICT AS IT RELATES TO
ublic
acilities REIMBURSEMENT OF FUNDS FOR CITY - RENDERED SERVICES
istrict
On behalf of the Edmonds Public Facilities District (PFD), Community Services Director Stephen Clifton
presented Interlocal Operating Agreement #2. He explained in May 2001, the Council created the PFD
via Ordinance No. 3358 and in June 2001, an Interlocal Agreement between the City and the PFD was
adopted that required the PFD to repay funds the City contributed in the amount of $34,000 for start-up
costs, commencement of the feasibility study, and miscellaneous expenditures. The Interlocal Agreement
also called for the City to contribute the services of the City Attorney and the Finance Director and that
the PFD pay back the reasonable cost of the associated expenditures when practicable.
The proposed Interlocal Operating Agreement #2 proposes the PFD pay approximately $98,000 for years
2003 and 2004 pro -rated and provided to the City on a monthly basis. He noted the PFD wanted to
present the Interlocal Operating Agreement to the Council sooner but wanted to complete the audit first.
He explained the audit has been completed and there were no findings. The Interlocal Operating
Agreement would assist both the City and the PFD in their budgeting as it indicated the exact amount the
PFD would provide the City. The funds would purchase the services of a half -time employee, the
Finance Department's assistance in developing quarterly reports and attending semi - monthly PFD Board
meetings, and the services of Executive Assistant Cindi Cruz and himself, whose hours varied.
Councilmember Petso asked whether the funds were paid to the General Fund and if the use was
unrestricted. Mr. Clifton answered yes. Councilmember Petso recalled when the PFD was established, a
local match was required which was provided via the services of City personnel. She asked how the
local match would be provided if the PFD would be paying for the services of City staff. Mr. Clifton
answered the City exceeded the local match via the $2 million contribution from the Real Estate Excise
Tax (REET).
Councilmember Plunkett asked staff to. describe Section 3 and 4 of the agreement in more detail. City
Attorney Zach Lell explained Section 3 was the termination provision of the Interlocal Operating
Agreement that established the mechanism by which either party may terminate the agreement. Section
4, Integration/Amendments, was the integration clause which defines the parameters of the parties'
contractual relationship and excludes any document not specifically incorporated by reference.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 7, 2003
Page 2
For the audience, Councilmember Marin requested staff explain what it meant when an audit had no
findings. Mr. Clifton explained as a municipal entity, the PFD was required to be audited by the State
Auditor. The audit reviewed the accounting practices of the PFD since their creation in 2001 and no
findings indicated there were no fatal flaws in the PFD's accounting practices. He noted there were
recommendations which have been implemented.
Councilmember Wilson inquired about the number of hours each party provided. Mr. Clifton explained
the only hours identified were for the half -time employee. The Finance Department estimated they
would expend $7500 per year, the total of the half -time employee and the Finance Department was
approximately $50,000 per year. The remaining, approximately $50,000, would fund the services of the
Executive Assistant and himself, regardless of the number of hours they contributed to the PFD. He
explained the time he contributed to the PFD had diminished this year as compared to 2001 and 2002.
He estimated in 2001, approximately 60% of his time was devoted to PFD matters which decreased to
40% in 2002 and 20 % -25% in 2003.
COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, TO
APPROVE INTERLOCAL OPERATING AGREEMENT #2 AUTHORIZING THE CITY AND
EDMONDS PFD BOARD TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY. (Council President Earling was not present for the vote.)
COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, TO
MOVE AUDIENCE COMMENTS UP ON THE AGENDA.
Councilmember Petso suggested the opportunity for public comment be offered again to audience
members who may arrive later.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (Council President Earling was not present for the vote.)
3B. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
uilding Laurie Dressler, 15714 75`h Place W, Edmonds, recalled two weeks ago, a presentation was made at
eights the Council meeting with respect to buildings in the downtown core. She appreciated the effort to
educate the public regarding the chronology of building codes and heights, commenting she was unaware
that four story buildings were common in the past. She was not certain it was necessary to modify codes
to allow residential use of the first floor of new buildings near the downtown core. However, she was
certain residents needed to elect Councilmembers who were willing to go beyond complaining and work
together to find solutions, to attract sales tax- generating businesses to Edmonds, both along Hwy. 99 and
in the downtown area. When watching the slides at the Council meeting, she was impressed with the
beauty of new buildings and how well they fit the character and flavor of the City. She noted the
modulated designs did break up large, boring, square buildings. She thanked the Mayor and staff for the
educational presentation and urged them to continue making such presentations, particularly in areas
where false rhetoric was rampant.
ampaign Rich Demeroutis, 921 Pine Street, Edmonds, referred to a letter sent to residents regarding the
Issues spay /neuter policy that solicited funds for a campaign and used scare tactics to entice contributions to the
candidate. He noted the mailer made false claims that the sender's opponent was backed by people
opposed to the mandatory spay /neuter policy. He noted the newspaper reported Roger Hertrich
contributed to his campaign; however, at no time did any donor mention the spay /neuter policy nor did he
raise the issue. He referred to a false claim in a letter sent by the Dog and Cat Committee and
Councilmember Plunkett which indicated 5,200 Edmonds voters were united in their belief, however, the
newspaper reported 2,183 signed the petition. He referred to letters Councilmember Plunkett has sent to
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 7, 2003
Page 3
residents commending them for participating that included both his Council business card as well as his
real estate business card. He noted the Dog and Cat Committee letter, paid for by the Dog and Cat
Committee, of which Councilmember Plunkett is the sole officer, also included a copy of his real estate
business card. He recalled his opponent sent a letter earlier this year that the pro- casino interests would
have a candidate running against him this fall.
Ray Martin, 18704 94th Avenue W, Edmonds, commented on a daytime variance hearing he attended
recently regarding the new development in Shell Valley.
Development Services Director Duane Bowman cautioned the Council not to hear any testimony
regarding the matter as it was a quasi judicial matter that could be appealed to the City Council. Mr.
Martin noted the hearing was postponed due to a problem with recording and would be held again on
October 15 at 7:00 p.m. in the Brackett Room.
Building Mr. Martin referred to the history of Edmonds buildings that was provided recently, recalling the 35 foot
Heights building heights were raised to 45 feet. The Council later lowered building heights to 35 feet and then to
25 feet, allowing 30 feet with a pitched roof. He noted there were attempts by developers every 3 -4 years
to raise building heights. He recalled Council President Earling's campaign literature promised not to
raise building heights, but he later voted in favor of allowing 30 feet with a pitched roof. Mr. Martin also
objected to candidate endorsements by the Fire Department.
Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, Edmonds, commented that Councilmember Orvis used
ssues misinformation in his advertising and referred to the Enterprise article containing misinformation. He
acknowledged donating to Rich Demeroutis' campaign, explaining he felt Mr. Demeroutis would make a
better Councilmember than Councilmember Orvis. He recalled Councilmember Orvis has indicated
during his term that he would not raise building heights; however, his vote at the July 2 Council meeting
regarding the Unocal MP zones raised building heights. He urged Councilmember Orvis to offer a
disclaimer to his advertising.
Building I Leslie Haan, 750 Edmonds Street, Edmonds, stated as a citizen of Edmonds, she was tired of what was
Codes being built. She referred to previous comments regarding Councilmembers who say one thing and do
another, noting she and others were watching Councilmembers and were tired of the monoliths that were
being built. She noted Mayor Haakenson explained to her that issues regarding buildings were guided by
codes and if she had concerns, they needed to be brought to the attention of the Council. She recalled at
the Council meeting two weeks ago, the Council asked a City Planner how the ADB felt about what was
being built. In her opinion the ADB was not happy with what was being built but felt helpless. She
noted she was approached after the ADB meeting and told she needed to speak to the Council. She
disagreed with the Planner's indication that the ADB supported what was being built. She urged the
Council to help citizens be able to have a future in the City that was not so massive and unappealing.
Mayor Haakenson declared a brief recess to await Council President Earling's arrival.
3C. CLOSED RECORD REVIEW ON AN APPEAL OF THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD'S
Mixed Use DECISION TO APPROVE AN APPLICATION FOR A NEW MIXED USE BUILDING. THE
wilding at PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 215 (CURRENTLY ADDRESSED AS 207 AND 211) 5TH AVENUE
is s's NORTH AND IS ZONED BC (COMMUNITY BUSINESS). (APPELLANTS: DARRELL
MARMION AND LESLIE HAAN, STEPHEN BERNHEIM AND SUSAN BAUER / APPLICANT:
MJ AND MP INVESTMENT LLC / FILE NO. ADB -03 -56 AND AP -03 -142
Mayor Haakenson advised that when Council President Earling arrived, he would be allowed to
participate in this matter as he has read all the materials.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 7, 2003
Page 4
Mayor Haakenson asked staff to describe the procedures for a closed record review. City Attorney Zach
Lell explained this was a closed record appeal of an Architectural Design Board (ADB) decision. In a
closed record review, the Council sat in quasi judicial capacity, as a judge, and only parties of record
from the lower proceeding were allowed to submit testimony. The only factual information that could be
discussed was what was contained in the record created by the ADB; no new facts were allowed to be
presented. He noted new legal arguments were permissible but not new facts. He explained in making
its determination on appeal, the Council used the same criteria for its decision as the ADB used.
Mayor Haakenson advised the City received a letter from Stephen Bernheim, one of the appellants in this
matter; the City Attorney determined the Council could consider the letter in their deliberations as it
contained no new information. Mayor Haakenson established a 20 minute time limit for staff, the
applicant, and appellant. He advised the applicant could retain time for rebuttal.
In accordance with the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine, Mayor Haakenson asked whether any
Councilmember had any ex parte communication or conflicts to disclose.
Several Councilmembers asked to review the list of parties of record. Councilmember Plunkett inquired
how Councilmembers who had not seen the list could make disclosures regarding the parties on the list.
Planner Star Campbell advised the list was not contained in the Council packet. City Attorney Zach Lell
advised Mayor Haakenson, as the presiding officer, had the list and would serve as the gatekeeper of that
information and would prevent anyone who was not a party of record from testifying.
Acknowledging Councilmembers may be concerned regarding campaign contributions from parties of
record, Mayor Haakenson declared a brief recess to allow Councilmembers to review the list..
Councilmember Orvis advised after reviewing the list, to the best of his knowledge, no one associated
with any of the companies had donated to his campaign. He clarified he was unsure who worked for all
the companies listed as parties of record. He advised he and Mr. Mallonee had talked several times
regarding the issue of height limits in Edmonds but not specifically regarding this project. He advised he
had copies of City ordinances to which he would be referring during the review as was allowed.
Councilmember Plunkett advised the list included Bell Street Building Associates; although he had had
no contact with them or campaign contributions, he was unaware of all the principals of that firm. He
noted the list also included First Baptist Church, again he was unaware who all the principals were. He
advised he had worked with Darrell Marmion on the Historic Preservation Commission but had had no
discussion with him regarding this topic and he had not made a contribution to his campaign.
Councilmember Petso advised to the best of her knowledge and without knowing all the principals of the
firms on the list of parties of record, she did not have any disclosures with regard to the parties of record.
She noted one or more of the parties of record may have her campaign signs in their yards.
Councilmember Wilson advised after reviewing the list, to the best of his knowledge, he did not have any
disclosures. He noted there were three parties on the list with the last name of Wilson, but they were not
related to him. He noted two had the first name of Gregory, his brother's name, however, his brother
lived in Tacoma and had not testified regarding this matter. Councilmember Wilson noted the
applicant's son and he were employed by the same firm in Bellevue. They met on one occasion several
months ago, however, he worked in a different division, and they had had no further contact.
Councilmembers Orvis and Petso disclosed they had visited the site.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 7, 2003
Page 5
Mayor Haakenson asked whether any of the parties of record had any objection to any of the five
Councilmembers participating in the closed record review. There were no challenges voiced.
Planner Star Campbell advised this was an appeal of the ADB's decision regarding a design review
application filed by Warren LaFon for MJ and MP Investment LLC for a mixed use building to be
located at 215 5"' Avenue North, currently addressed as 207 and 211 5t' Avenue N. She displayed a
vicinity map, contained on page 237 of the record and referred to another vicinity map on page 6 of the
record. She identified the site on the map, west of 5t' Avenue, north of Bell Street, and south of
Edmonds Street. Ms. Campbell explained the proposal was for a four floor mixed use commercial
building with the entrance from 5"' Avenue into the ground commercial floor. She described the below
grade parking, ground level commercial, and two floors of multifamily. She displayed a drawing of the
new building from the east and a view of the west elevation (page 128 of the record).
Ms. Campbell explained the first hearing for this application was held by the ADB on August 6, 2003.
The staff report submitted at that hearing can be found on pages 169 -257 and the transcript of that
hearing on pages 35 -59 of the record. She advised the ADB voted at that hearing to table the application
to allow the applicant an opportunity to return with an alternative building design that fit the character of
the neighborhood and incorporated comments made at the public hearing. To address the ADB's
concerns, the applicant submitted new plans addressing the visual relationship of the ground commercial
floor to the sidewalk and the appearance of the modulation on the west side of the building. She referred
to revised plans contained on pages 123 -128 of the record. She advised the ADB considered the revised
application at a public hearing on September 3, 2003 (staff report and exhibits submitted at that hearing
on pages 60 -168). The ADB approved the application with conditions (verbatim transcript on pages 18-
34 and motion for approval on page 34).
Following the ADB's decision, an appeal was submitted by Darrell Marmion, Leslie Haan, Stephen
Bernheim and Susan Bauer (letter of appeal contained in the record as Exhibit 2 on pages 7 -17). The
reasons stated in the letter of appeal were the proposal was in violation of the Comprehensive Plan and
the intent of the BC zoning requirements. She advised that the appeal issues and staff responses were
detailed in the agenda memo on pages 2 -5.
(Council President Earling arrived at 8:00 p.m.) Mr. Lell advised Council President Earling would be
allowed to participate. He noted for the record that only a few minutes had elapsed since Ms. Campbell
began her presentation.
Mayor Haakenson provided Council President Earling the list of parties of record and inquired whether
he had any ex parte communication or conflicts of interest to disclose. Council President Earling advised
he had no disclosures.
Mayor Haakenson advised now that there were six Councilmembers participating, there was the
possibility he would be required to vote in the event of a tie. He disclosed Dr. Schuetz and his wife
donated to his campaign and likely displayed his signs in their yard. He advised he had spoken with
Susan Bauer, Stephen Bernheim, Leslie Haan, Darrell Marmion over many months and not on only this
particular topic. He advised he would not have any conflict if he were required to participate in the vote.
Council President Earling advised one of the parties of record contributed a fairly modest amount to a
past campaign.
No objections were raised to the participation of Mayor Haakenson or Council President Earling.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 7, 2003
Page 6
Ms. Campbell made the following corrections to the Agenda Memo: on page 3, second paragraph, first
sentence, change reference to E.8 to G.8, and on page 4, last paragraph, first sentence, change the
reference to G.3 to G.6.
Ms. Campbell explained the appeal listed a variety of general Comprehensive Plan goals and policies.
She advised the policies were general policies that were specifically implemented with the development
regulations. The ADB considered the issues in the appeal letter and ultimately approved the design of
the project on the basis that it met the development regulations. She explained the alternatives for the
Council included 1) denying the appeal and affirming the ADB's September 3, 2003 decision to approve
the proposal, 2) modifying the ADB's decision, 3) reversing the ADB's action, or 4) remanding the
matter back to the ADB for further consideration.
Councilmember Orvis observed the record indicated the top of the building was 30 feet and that it had a
flat roof. He questioned how the flat roof design was a reasonable interpretation of the code. Ms.
Campbell explained the maximum building height allowed was 30 feet if the ADB approved it as part of
an overall modulated design. She referred to page 170 of the Staff Report for the August ADB meeting
that addressed development standards for the BC zone and how the project complied. She read from the
table on page 170 (required/allowed building height 25 feet from average grade, roof and vertical parapet
walls may extend an additional 5 feet to a maximum of 30 feet if part of an approved modulated design).
Mayor Haakenson noted it was also addressed on page 173 under Size, Height and Bulk. Ms. Campbell
also referred to paragraphs b, c, d, and e on pages 173 -174 which describe how modulation could be
achieved. She referred to a more detailed explanation made by staff at the August ADB meeting (page
39 of the record). She commented the Agenda Memo (page 3 of the record) also addressed the topic of
building height and massing.
Councilmember Plunkett referred to the drawing on page 146, inquiring whether both were views of the
same building. Ms. Campbell advised one illustrated a view of the building from the west, the other
attempted to identify the modulation. Councilmember Plunkett inquired whether the modulated design
must encompass the entire building or only one side. Ms. Campbell answered the modulated design must
encompass the entire building. She offered to identify in the Staff Report how the west elevation was
modulated. She noted that was one of the topics of the ADB's discussion at the September hearing.
Councilmember Plunkett commented it appeared to be a flat building with balconies. Ms. Campbell
referred to the Shapes and Forms section of the August Staff Report (page 173 of the record) which
addresses the different shapes and forms on the building including how they were incorporated into the
west elevation. She also referred to the Details and Fenestration section and the Materials /Colors section
of the August Staff Report (page 174 of the record) which described how details and fenestration and
colors and materials were used throughout the building.
Ms. Campbell again referred to the drawing on page 146 of the record which illustrated the west
elevation after the applicant submitted the revised plans in response to the ADB's concerns and to clarify
the modulation on the west side of the building. The drawing included a view of the west elevation as
well as a portion of the site plan lined up with the west elevation view identifying the points where the
west elevation moved in and out. She noted the modulation was difficult to see on a 2- dimensional view.
Councilmember Wilson asked whether modulation was defined in the code with regard to the goals to be
achieved, a percentage of modulation, change in depth, etc. or was it up to the interpretation of the ADB
to consider each building on its own merits to determine whether the project met the definition of a
modulated design. Ms. Campbell answered there was not an actual definition of modulation in the code.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 7, 2003
Page 7
She explained the ADB was responsible for reviewing the design of each building and determining
whether it was a modulated design. There were no specific requirements regarding the amount of
physical modulation. She explained the design guidelines identify the different ways modulation can be
achieved in a building (pages 173 and 174 of the record).
Councilmember Wilson referred to the reference in the appeal letter to preservation of natural
topography, inquiring whether this referred to the natural or built environment. Ms. Campbell answered
it did not specifically state. She pointed out preservation of natural topography was a general statement
from the Comprehensive Plan and was only one of many goals and policies in the Comprehensive Plan.
Councilmember Wilson summarized there was no specific definition that differentiated between the
natural and built topography on a site.
Councilmember Wilson commented modulated design as described in the Staff Report referred to the
building as a whole and did not require a modulated roof design for the roof or other specific element.
Ms. Campbell agreed.
For Councilmember Wilson, Ms. Campbell referred to building elevations illustrated on page 128 of the
record. Councilmember Wilson observed there were several planes on the west elevation. Ms. Campbell
agreed. She referred to the rear wall outline which depicted the modulation on the west elevation.
With regard to lighting and noise review which were reviewed as part of the building permit,
Councilmember Wilson inquired about the process for making alterations if the noise or lighting did not
meet the performance standards. Ms. Campbell explained it would be the applicant's responsibility
regarding how to respond; for example if HVAC equipment did not meet performance standards, the
applicant would be asked to demonstrate how the equipment could meet the performance standard. If the
applicant chose a different design, it would be reviewed as any other change in the design during the
building permit process.
Councilmember Petso referred to the underground retail, recalling staff did not address that as the appeal
cites only general Comprehensive Plan policies. She noted the appeal indicates the code refers to ground
level retail, and asked how the proposal provided ground level retail. Ms. Campbell answered that was a
portion of the policy stated in the Comprehensive Plan; a project would not necessarily meet every policy
in the Comprehensive Plan. The way the development code implemented that policy was what was
considered by the ADB. She referred to staff's response to the concern expressed in the appeal regarding
the location of the office space (Item 1 in the Agenda Memo) which described how ground floor was
calculated via the definition in the code, explaining this was not a staff interpretation. She noted there
was nothing in the code that required retail space but rather commercial space on the ground floor to a
minimum depth of 30 feet. She noted this project proposes the ground floor to be entirely commercial.
Councilmember Petso commented the result of the development code did not meet the Comprehensive
Plan policy. Ms. Campbell explained when the ADB considered consistency with the Comprehensive
Plan, they did not identify specific parts of the Comprehensive Plan and compare aspects of the specific
development to each policy in the Comprehensive Plan; they considered overall compliance with the
Comprehensive Plan.
Councilmember Petso referred to the letter from Mr. Bernheim regarding protection of views, explaining
that according to the letter, staff advised the ADB to ignore the code provision on protecting views. Mr.
Lell explained the code provision referenced, ECDC 2O.1O.O7O.C.3, which states, "buildings taller than
two stories shall be reviewed to determine the extent to which they will block views from surrounding
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 7, 2003
Page 8
properties. Substantial view blockage should be avoided by alternative roof designs or location or
imposition of special height limits." He noted his interpretation of the Washington Supreme Court
Pierce v. Sewer & Water District case cited in the letter was that there was no legal right to the
preservation of a view under Washington law absent a controlling, contractual obligation or statute. He
noted the statement in 2O.1O.O7O.C.3 was not a specific requirement and only required that substantial
view blockage should be avoided by alternative roof designs or location or imposition of special height
limits. He noted the modulated roof discussed by staff would satisfy that issue.
Councilmember Petso pointed out there was not a modulated roof in this instance; it was a modulated
building but a flat roof. She asked whether that changed his analysis. Mr. Lell answered it did not,
noting the operative word was "should" which did not carry the force of "must." The command in that
subsection was for the ADB to review the extent to which the building proposal would block views.
Responding further to Councilmember Petso, Mr. Lell explained the Council was not technically bound
by the ADB's decision. The Council could give deference to the ADB's interpretation as the entity
charged with interpreting this chapter of the code.
Councilmember Petso noted the ADB record contained reference to concerns about massing, specifically
a code provision that the bulk should not be out of character to the neighborhood. She asked how that
was addressed and whether this was considered an excessively bulky building for the neighborhood. She
referred to a specific comment in the verbatim transcript of the August 6 ADB meeting by Boardmember
Nielsen, "But I really do feel that the bulk of the building is out of place for the neighborhood ... Icannot
vote for this." Ms. Campbell advised the ADB's decision at the August meeting was to give the
applicant an opportunity to revise their plans to demonstrate how the building fit the character of the
neighborhood. She noted the BC zone allows lot line to lot line development with zero setbacks. She
suggested when considering the relationship to adjacent buildings, the Council consider the zoning and
recognize the allowed setbacks for the zone. Councilmember Petso questioned how that could be done in
view of Section 20.10.70 which required bulk consistent with the character of the neighborhood.
Councilmember Petso asked what revisions were made in the design between the August and September
hearings to lower the massiveness of the building. Ms. Campbell explained when the ADB gave
direction to the applicant to make plan revisions that showed how the building fit the character of the
neighborhood, they did not specifically request a reduction in the mass or bulk. The ADB's focus was on
the physical relationship of the commercial floor to the sidewalk and the modulation of the west side. In
comparing the old and new west elevation drawings, she explained the old drawings did not illustrate the
west elevation well; the different materials were not specified well, the depth was not illustrated well,
and the modulation on the west side was not apparent. The applicant made changes to the plans to
demonstrate the modulation on the west side. Further, design changes were made to the east side
including widening the central arch by 8 feet and moving the steps down to the commercial floor to the
east so that they were directly adjacent to the property line improving the relationship of the commercial
floor to the sidewalk.
Councilmember Wilson asked how the Council should apply the character of the neighborhood when it
was zoned BC but was an area in transition where there was a mixture of old and new. Should the
Council consider what was intended or what existed? Mr. Lell answered both.
In response to questions regarding the physical movement in and out of the west side of the building, Ms.
Campbell referred to the fifth paragraph on page 29 of the record where Mr. Bullock describes the
movement of the building and that the distance from the property line varied from 2 to 15 feet. She noted
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 7, 2003
Page 9
the following paragraph on page 29 contained a staff explanation of the Comprehensive Plan direction
regarding relationship to adjacent property.
Applicant
Warren LaFon, 546 Paradise Lane, Edmonds, project architect, asked to retain five minutes for
rebuttal. He explained staff determined this project met the code established by the City in this zone. He
noted this zone was a transitional zone and the proposed building was part of that evolution. The BC
zone had existed in this area for 20 -25 years and it was only just beginning to redevelop. He advised the
ADB approved the application based on the City's codes. He sited elements of the building such as the
courtyard and building modulation that responded to design guidelines.
Mr. LaFon explained the parking on the lower floor was setback 5 feet from the alley and the alley was
21 feet wide. The office space on the next level was also setback 5 feet. The upper two floors modulate
in and out over the lower levels. He noted the outside walls were heavily modulated and on each side the
upper walls were 10 feet from the property line. He advised the south wall of the park was setback 1.9
feet; the dance studio extends onto their property 9' /z inches. He described different materials used on
the front and back of the building.
Mr. LaFon recalled a concern expressed by the appellant that the alley was too small and cars could not
pass in the alley. He explained the 16 foot alley remained; however, there were existing garbage cans,
hedges, garages that impacted the alley. He recalled comments made regarding kids playing in the alley,
noting the alley was not a playground.
Mr. LaFon stated there were portions of the appellant's letters that were flawed in their interpretation.
Staff had done a good job addressing each item and applying the code in its entirety to this project. He
then described the courtyard and its relationship to the other floors and connection to the street.
Councilmember Petso inquired about the underground retail /commercial. Mr. LaFon answered the
Planning Department determined that the floor closest to the grade was the ground floor.
Councilmember Petso noted the commercial floor was consistent with the definition in the code but
produced a result that was not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. LaFon reiterated it was
determined based on the code.
Councilmember Petso inquired about the roof height and massing. Mr. LaFon explained the entire
building was modulated in and out and 1 -2 areas were modulated up and down. He noted this created the
modulation for the roof also.
Councilmember Plunkett recalled the building was designed to the facts of the code but the modulation
was not based on fact but rather interpretation. He referred to McGregor Place which had a flat roof but
also had a fagade that hid the flat roof. He noted that and the building modulation established a
precedent. The proposed development appeared to request the Council continue to interpret and accept a
building with what was undeniably a flat roof that was not disguised. He acknowledged the building was
modulated but did not meet the "McGregor precedent." He asked whether the proposed building was in
keeping with the "McGregor precedent" and that Council interpretation. Mr. LaFon asked whether the
interpretation was part of the code. Councilmember Plunkett answered modulation was interpretation.
Mr. LaFon responded the ADB and staff interpreted the proposed building as a modulated design.
Councilmember Petso noted that may be their interpretation but the Council had established a precedent.
Mr. LaFon commented he was unaware the Council had established a precedent.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 7, 2003
Page 10
Councilmember Marin pointed out the drawings provided were two dimensional drawings and no one
viewed the building in that manner once constructed. He referred to page 127, floor plan of the top floor;
it appeared the patios were approximately 8 feet deep. Therefore, for anyone looking at the building
from the west, there would be the illusion of a modulated roof as there would be five different roof levels
and it would appear to move up and down as much as McGregor Place. Councilmember Marin
commented on the possibility of leaks in roofs by requiring different roof levels. He did not support the
City dictating the appearance of a modulated roof by requiring different levels and potential for leaks.
COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING, TO
EXTEND THIS ITEM FOR 30 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Councilmember Marin pointed out a great deal had been done to dress up the appearance of the building
on the west side; in the previous drawing, it appeared to be a flat building. He concluded the drawing
illustrated there was a great deal of detail and there would be a tremendous amount of movement both in
and out and vertically.
For Councilmember Wilson, Mr. LaFon displayed page 78 (drawing of the east elevation) and explained
the main courtyard archway had been widened and the other arch had been modified. He explained the
building was otherwise essentially the same. Councilmember Wilson noted the three entryways provided
relief, however the relief provided by the columns did not appear to be extremely deep. Mr. LaFon
described the in and out modulation along the east elevation. He advised the courtyard was 3'/2 feet
below the street level. He explained the concept was to simulate a series of smaller buildings.
Councilmember Wilson asked whether the lower windows were for the commercial space. Mr. LaFon
agreed. Councilmember Wilson asked how the design guideline for storefront windows was achieved
with the proposed design. Mr. LaFon answered in the courtyard, all the office walls were glass and one
could look through the courtyard, into the neighboring office, and up to the sky.
Councilmember Wilson asked whether there had been any discussion by the ADB regarding a change in
elevation such as the upper floor not extending property line to property line to further the illusion of two
separate buildings. Mr. LaFon answered there had not been such a discussion.
Appellant
Steve Bernheim, 216"' 4"' Avenue N, Edmonds, referred to Councilmember Marin's comments
regarding the illusion of modulation on the building. He referred to page 124 -127 of the record, the four
floor plans, pointing out there was no modulation on the lower floor, the wall that was on the alley would
be a flat wall. He referred to page 125 and noted the floor plan of the main floor also reflected a flat
wall. He commented that was a mitigating factor against the illusion of modulation. He noted page 126,
the floor plan of the second floor, also reflected a straight plane on the west wall because the balconies
mitigated the modulation. He urged the Council to stand firm on the lack of modulation.
Although he favored development, Mr. Bernheim noted there were many ways the building could be
developed without impairing anyone's property rights. The code stated flat roofs were not allowed to
extend above 25 feet unless they were part of an approved modulated design. He pointed out this did not
mean any modulation but an approved modulated design. He questioned whether the proposed
modulation was sufficient to be approved. The modulation was only visible from the top looking down,
pedestrians walking by in the alley would see a flat wall and the garbage cans behind a chain link fence.
Mr. Bernheim recommended the building design include a requirement to locate the garbage cans inside
the structure.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 7, 2003
Page 11
Mr. Bernheim stated the west elevation did not show any lighting and hoped there were no plans for
lights on that side. With regard to cut and fill, he noted the entire site would be excavated 40 feet. He
referred to Section 20.10.070.13.1 which states large cut and fill should be avoided. He concluded the
code also states buildings taller than two stories shall be reviewed to determine the extent to which they
will block views from surrounding properties. Substantial view blockage should be avoided by
alternative roof designs or location or imposition of special height limits. He pointed out this code
provision provided the Council the flexibility to require alternative roof designs, locations, or imposition
of special height limits.
Councilmember Wilson asked whether Mr. Bernheim's primary concern regarding modulation was the
west elevation. Mr. Bernheim answered his major concerns were height and view blockage of the west
elevation and the modulation as a justification for the extreme height.
Councilmember Wilson recalled Mr. Bernheim's comment that the decks on the west elevation were on
the same plane, noting unless the deck was an enclosed structure, it provided relief in the plane. Mr.
Bernheim referred to pages 126 and 127 which illustrate a flat plane on the west side. He agreed the
walls on the corners moved in, noting that if decks were not provided, the modulation would be more
apparent than it was with the decks. He viewed the deck as an impediment to modulation.
Councilmember Wilson commented the deck itself created modulation and Mr. Bernheim's argument
was with the degree of modulation. Mr. Bernheim answered the decks impaired modulation. He referred
to the drawing on page 126, the floor plan of the second floor, pointing out the plans showed a straight
line on the west side where the decks were located.
Councilmember Wilson referred to page 128 which included the west elevation, pointing out there was a
flat plane for approximately two stories and then the first deck and then another deck. He noted although
there may be a flat plane created by the railing, it did not extend to the ceiling. He concluded it appeared
there was modulation. Mr. Bernheim urged the Council to adopt an approach that the degree of
modulation in the proposed building was not acceptable.
Councilmember Wilson asked whether there was modulation on the west elevation created by the decks.
Mr. Bernheim acknowledged there was modulation but the code required in 16.50.020 an approved
modulated design. The question for the Council was whether this was adequate modulation. If the
Council found it was, he anticipated the next building design would be a box with 2 inch cuts on each
side to achieve modulation.
Councilmember Wilson referred to Mr. Bernheim's letter regarding view blockage, inquiring what views
were being blocked. Mr. Bernheim answered he lived across the alley from the chain link garbage area.
The four story building and a 16 foot alley was more than a 3:1 elevation; the view that would be blocked
was the sun until approximately 11:00 a.m. and light and air all day. He noted across the narrow alley
would be the garage door, garbage area, and the flat roof of the offices.
Councilmember Wilson pointed out the code was non - specific regarding view blockage. He asked
whether Mr. Bernheim kept his garbage on the alley. Mr. Bernheim answered no, it was on the side of
his garage.
Susan Bauer, 216`h 4th Avenue N, Edmonds, requested the Council reverse the ADB's decision because
the building was too high, too massive, and put too many people on the lot space. She expressed her
support for aesthetically pleasing and sensitive real estate development, noting the property owner did
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 7, 2003
Page 12
1
not focus enough on those subjective ideas. She pointed out the Edmonds code was written to encourage
the conservation of a desirable and aesthetic environment. She commended staff for their clear
presentation of their line of reasoning in arriving at their approval of the project from a purely regulatory
standpoint. She noted staff acknowledged many aspects of the project could not be arrived at by
averaging numbers. She noted the Code and Comprehensive Plan mentioned street level; it was difficult
to reconcile that with the proposed building design. She recalled during the August 6 public hearing, Mr.
Bullock admonished the ADB, explaining they had a fair amount of latitude in implementing the urban
design guidelines and the guidelines provided a fair amount of flexibility and left a great deal of
discretion to the ADB to determine whether something was consistent.
Ms. Bauer explained the proposed building would block the eastern and southern light from her home
and carriage house office space as well as air and views of the sky. She noted neighbors were aware they
could each submit commercial mixed use and multi -unit residential plans for development of their own
BC zoned land. However, she trusted that each submittal would be held to the highest standard of design
review. She recommended codifying a development rule that no developer may inflict on anyone else
anything he /she would not inflict on themselves. She urged the Council to reverse the ADB's decision
and deny the applicant the right to develop the proposed building based on several factors including that
there was no street level commercial space.
Darrell Marmion, 750 Edmond Street, Edmonds, explained six months ago he learned the property
was proposed for development and obtained preliminary sketches from staff (page 77 of the record). He
noted this represented a blatant violation of what the BC zone was intended for. He referred to the
appeal letter and the issue of below grade retail, explaining the code clearly defined ground floor and the
calculation was not an interpretation. He read from the definition section of the Community
Development Code, "ground floor of a structure is the floor which is closest in elevation to the finished
grade along the width of the side of the structure that is principally oriented to the street which provides
primary access to the property." He noted the definition did not allow for the use of the average
elevation to determine the floor closest to the finished grade, commenting that was an interpretation. His
understanding of the intent of the Comprehensive Plan and why ADB review was required was to show
compliance with code requirements per Section 20.10.060. He noted the code referred to ground level
and the Comprehensive Plan referred to street level; however, the drawings were clearly not in
compliance with shops and storefronts on street level.
Mr. Marmion quoted from the verbatim transcripts of the August ADB hearing, such as "it did not say
first floor it says first level, it sets a dangerous precedent, express my concern with changing the
direction of the interpretation of the BC zone, up until this evening I have never seen pedestrian level
interpreted quite this way, my concern is regarding precedent, and setting a precedent regarding retail in
downtown Edmonds." Mr. Marmion noted if this project were approved, a property owner at 5`h and
Main could propose similar subterranean retail. He noted there were similar comments at the September
ADB hearing. He expressed concern with the apparent change in the ADB's perception between the first
and second public hearings that they could turn their concerns into a decision. He recalled the first
public hearing concluded with a 5 -1 rejection of the proposal. He speculated that ADB members were
chastised for making comments at the public hearing that they could not accept the project.
Next Mr. Marmion expressed concern with the massing and modulation, explaining it was the Council's
responsibility to determine whether this was an approved modulated design and until that decision was
made, it was not approved. He again quoted from the ADB public hearings, "this does not reflect the
concerns for overall modulation of the building, I don't think it meets the intent of the particular section
of the site development standards, I feel the same way about the vertical modulation of the roofline, I
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 7, 2003
Page 13
think we need to make something clear in regard to our design intent or we're going to see a lot of flat
buildings springing up all over, the bulk of the building is out of place with the character of the
neighborhood." He disagreed with the staff comments that there were no concerns raised by the ADB
with regard to wall modulation and following the first meeting, they were asked to approach the Council
for assistance. He recalled before the motion was made, it was apparent they had to show compliance
with the general massing and zoning code requirements and did not have the latitude of expressing their
other concerns. He recalled the ADB asked that their concerns be expressed to the Council emphasizing
that this was setting a dangerous precedent.
Councilmember Wilson questioned why the ADB voted unanimously for approval. Mr. Marmion
referred to the verbatim text which reflected several boardmembers' concerns but that they felt their
concerns were outside their latitude.
Councilmember Wilson referred to the motion on page 34 of the record which reflected unanimous
approval of the project with minor changes. He questioned why there was unanimous approval if
boardmembers had significant concerns regarding compliance with the code or setting a dangerous
precedent. Mr. Marmion recalled the ADB rejected the proposal 5 -1 at the first public hearing. At the
second hearing, the only change in the design was the arch was 8 feet wider and the stairs were moved
closer to the sidewalk. He noted the vote at the second meeting was unanimous with one member absent.
Councilmember Wilson clarified the ADB did not reject the proposal at the first meeting but voiced
concerns and allowed the applicant to return with revisions. The applicant then returned at the
September meeting with revisions which the ADB unanimously approved. Mr. Marmion recalled there
was discussion at the first hearing regarding whether to table the issue or reject it; the decision was made
to table it to allow the applicant to return with revisions to address the ADB's concerns.
Sue Bauer presumed the reason the ABD tabled the issue at the first hearing was because the submersion
of the commercial level confounded the ADB as well as the Planning Department because of the impact
it had on the mixed use criteria including the height, building's primary access, etc. She noted the
applicant used great materials on the building in an attempt to make it an era - specific building but there
were many more things that could have been done. She reiterated her request that the Council reverse the
ADB's decision and asked the applicant to consider some obvious design alterations such as terracing the
west fagade.
Parties of Record
There were no parties of record who wished to provide testimony.
Rebuttal
Mr. LaFon recalled the ADB required trellises on the back wall with plantings. He advised no lights
were shown on the west elevation other than lights from the doorways to the parking to prevent lights
shining onto adjacent properties. With regard to the 40 foot excavation, he noted the property only
dropped 13 feet. He referred to Ms. Bauer's comment regarding having to be on hands and knees to look
into the office space, explaining the office areas would be visible from the sidewalk. He acknowledged
there would be no retail space, only office space as the site was not close enough to the retail core to be
viable for retail use. Regarding speculation that boardmembers had been coached, he emphasized that
was only speculation not fact. He noted most of the comments that were quoted were from one person,
not different ADB members. He noted the eight steps into the commercial area had been reduced. He
summarized the adjacent property owners had the same property rights and he hoped they would allow
this owner his property rights.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 7, 2003
Page 14
Councilmember Orvis inquired about the difference between reversing the ADB's decision and
remanding back to the ADB. Mr. Lell explained reversing would be to undo the decision of the ADB and
impose the Council's own decision. Remanding would be to send the matter back to the ADB for further
reconsideration with instruction from the Council.
Councilmember Orvis inquired about the affect on the applicant. Mr. Lell answered in the case of a
reversal, the application would be terminated unless a land use petition act appeal was filed.
Councilmember Petso referred to the verbatim transcript of the ADB meeting and staff's explanation
regarding the history of modulated roof ordinance (page 39 of the record), observing the extra 5 feet on
the Spee building was based on a roof that moved up and down and had different levels. The second case
cited was the McGregor building. She asked whether the McGregor building was reviewed by the
Council or approved by the ADB. Development Services Director Duane Bowman advised the
McGregor building design was not appealed to. the Council.
As the Council did not make the decision regarding the McGregor building, Councilmember Petso asked
whether the Council could make its own interpretation regarding a modulated roof. Mr. Lell agreed,
explaining the Council was the final interpreter of the City's code. His understanding was that the
McGregor building was never, before the Council, therefore the Council was not bound by an
administrative stare decisis.
Councilmember Wilson asked Mr. Lell to explain the interpretation of the code with regard to the use of
"should" versus "shall." Mr. Lell explained the general rule of code interpretation was that the
development code should be interpreted to further its purposes. He advised that "shall" was a more
mandatory term than "should." He explained there was sufficient leeway within the definition of
"should" to support a contrary interpretation. Councilmember Wilson noted if the code language was
"should," it was not an obligation, only that it should be considered. Mr. Lell answered the Council
would have more latitude when the code used "should" than when it used "shall;" the degree of
discretion was dependent on the context of the specific issue and the intent of the code section.
Councilmember Wilson noted there had been a great deal of discussion regarding modulated roof design
as in the Spee or McGregor buildings, however, that was not the code requirement. The ADB was only
required to consider the modulated design of the building. Ms. Campbell agreed the ADB was required
to consider only the overall modulated design of the entire building. If the ADB found the building was
an approvable modulated design, it could be 30 feet high.
Councilmember Wilson noted the roof of the proposed building was one plane with possibly one
exception where there was a slight modulation. He noted roof modulation was not required if the ADB
found the building as a whole was a modulated plan. Ms. Campbell agreed it was the entire building.
Councilmember Marin referred to page 77, prospective drawing of the east elevation, asking whether the
west elevation reflected the same roof variation at the central arch. If the matter was remanded to the
ADB, he recommended requesting a prospective drawing of the west side of the building.
Councilmember Plunkett asked whether this was viewed as a neighborhood in transition and if so, was
there an additional burden on an applicant designing a building in a BC zone in transition. Ms. Campbell
answered this neighborhood was zoned BC. The existing development was not all built when the
neighborhood was zoned BC and includes single family homes as well as multifamily buildings. If one
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 7, 2003
Page 15
considered what the neighborhood was now, the zoning, and what the BC zone allowed, it could be
considered a neighborhood in transition and what existed was not up to the potential allowed by the code.
Councilmember Plunkett asked whether there was additional burden on a developer building in a
transition zone. Ms. Campbell answered there should not be any additional burden.
Hearing no further questions for staff, Mayor Haakenson remanded the matter to Council for action.
Councilmember Orvis indicated he would be unable to approve the proposal but was undecided regarding
reverse and remand. He explained after reading Section 16.50.020 numerous times, it was not his
impression that a building such as this met the code. He observed staff's conclusion was that modulated
design meant modulated building design; if any part of the building was modulated, the height could be
30 feet. However, the statement in the code regarding modulated design was in a paragraph regarding
roofs and followed by photographic examples of modulated roof designs. His interpretation of approved
modulated design meant approved modulated roof design and the code as currently written required a
roof to be modulated to achieve a 30 foot building height.
Councilmember Plunkett explained he found the building compelling and that it included a modulated
roof. However, the applicant had the burden of proving to the Council that the entire building was
modulated and the west side did not appear to be sufficiently modulated. He concluded the west side
may be as compelling as the east side but it was not visible on the drawings in the record. He supported
an action other than approval.
Councilmember Wilson noted there were good elements of this building and there were elements with
which he had concern. He preferred there had been more in the recommendation from the ADB
regarding how the proposed design was consistent with the code. He preferred remanding the matter
back to the ADB to allow them to provide a more detailed discussion and content in their decision
regarding appropriate modulation. He recommended the ADB be asked to consider impact on adjacent
property with regard to light, air, and noise; provide alternate trash screening that would make the area
more aesthetically pleasing to the neighbors, and provide specific discussion and conclusions regarding
how the design complied with the requirement for modulated design and commercial space.
COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, TO
REMAND THE MATTER TO THE ADB TO CONSIDER THOSE SPECIFIC ITEMS (IMPACT
ON ADJACENT PROPERTY WITH REGARD TO LIGHT, AIR, AND NOISE; PROVIDE
ALTERNATE TRASH SCREENING THAT WOULD MAKE THE AREA MORE
AESTHETICALLY PLEASING TO THE NEIGHBORS; AND PROVIDE SPECIFIC DISCUSSION
AND CONCLUSIONS REGARDING HOW THE DESIGN COMPLIED WITH THE
REQUIREMENT FOR MODULATED DESIGN AND COMMERCIAL SPACE).
Councilmember Petso commented the code could easily be read that a modulated roof design was
required to attain a 30 foot tall building. If a modulated roof design were not required, she would expect
substantive modulation such as a building that stepped back from the property line. She noted the
shoebox with a flat roof was a design the City was trying to avoid with the additional 5 feet. She agreed
with remanding the matter to the ADB for further discussion. Another issue of concern was the
underground commercial, noting the code stated the design must be consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan and the Comprehensive Plan states street level commercial in the downtown. She suggested the
ADB consider the Comprehensive Plan statement that required street level commercial.
With regard to massing and how big /long buildings in the downtown should be, Councilmember Petso
recalled there was a code provision that stated buildings shall be designed to comply with the purposes of
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 7, 2003
Page 16
this chapter and to avoid conflict with existing or planned character of the nearby area. She
recommended in addition to the roof height, the ADB consider underground commercial and massing.
Councilmember Marin recommended the applicant provide a prospective drawing of the west elevation.
Although there were some improvements that could be made to the garbage area, trellising, etc., he was
satisfied that substantial modulation had been incorporated into the design. He noted there were only a
handful of modulated roof structures that were possible.
Council President Earling disagreed with the neighbors implying the developer did not have as much
property rights as they did or that their property rights included what was being constructed across the
alley. He agreed the developer needed to meet the. code but disagreed a neighbor must enjoy the property
rights of an adjacent property. He agreed with remanding the matter to the ADB rather than reversing the
ADB's decision, commenting it was a great project in the making. He recalled voting in favor of the
Spee building because he was convinced there were a series of plateaus in the roofline. He
acknowledged the proposed building was modulated but preferred plateaus in the roofline.
Mayor Haakenson recalled in November 1999 as a Councilmember, when he voted in favor of the Spee
Building, it was because of the modulated roofline. He recalled Councilmember White's statement at the
time that that was not the code he intended. Mayor Haakenson recalled recommending to the Council
that they pursue an amendment to the code to agree with the Council's interpretation of the code. He
noted since November 1999, staff and the ADB have been awaiting clarification on what modulation, lot
line to lot line development, and the 30 foot commercial space really meant. He concluded this issue
would continue to haunt the Council until they clarified the policy for the ADB.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
6. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Haakenson wished Councilmember Wilson a happy birthday tomorrow.
7. COUNCIL COMMENTS
udget Council President Earling requested Councilmembers reserve November 8 and 15 for Council budget
ork Shop workshops.
In view of the Council's remand to the ADB, Councilmember Petso inquired about the Council's ability
Closed to discuss the matter with the parties of record. Mr. Lell advised against discussing the matter until the
Record
Review 21 day land use petition act appeal deadline had expired. Councilmember Petso asked whether the
Council could speak with the press. Mr. Lell advised the Council could speak with the press.
Councilmember Petso suggested the Community Services/Development Services Committee initiate a
review of the development regulations for downtown. Councilmember Wilson advised the issue of
development regulations was on the Committee's next agenda.
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:24 p.m.
. Aale- -
G Y ENSON, MAYOR
SANDRA S. CHASE, CITY CLERK
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 7, 2003
Page 17
v AGENDA
- EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL
Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex
250 51" Avenue North
7:00 - 10:00 p.m.
OCTOBER 7, 2003
7:00 p.m. - Call to Order
Flag Salute
1. Approval of Agenda
2. Consent Agenda Items
(A) Roll Call
(B) Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of September 23, 2003.
(C) Approval of claim checks #65534 through #65706 for the week of September
22, 2003, in the amount of $166,988.54. Approval of claim checks #65707
through #65872 for the week of September 29, 2003, in the amount of
$159,359.48. Approval of payroll direct deposits and checks #36773 through
#36859 for the period September 16 through September 30, 2003, in the
amount of $780,123.51.
(D) Acknowledge receipt of Claims for Damages from John E. Tardiff (amount
undetermined), and Natalie Shippen ($384.00).
(E) Approval of list of Edmonds businesses applying for renewal of their liquor
licenses with the Washington State Liquor Control Board.
(F) Authorization for the Mayor to sign an Interlocal Agreement with the City of
Lynnwood for Olympic View Drive water main and sewer laterals installation
design and construction.
(G) Report on final construction costs for the City Council Chambers video system
and Council acceptance of project.
(H) Proposed Ordinance amending Edmonds City Code Chapter 5.05 Animal
Control; clarifying the nonrefundability of certain veterinary fees for the
adoption of cats and dogs.
Page 1 of 2
CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA
OCTOBER 70 2003
Page 2 of 2
3. (60 Min.) Closed Record Review on an appeal of the Architectural Design Board's
decision to approve an application for a new mixed use building. The property
is located at 215 (currently addressed as 207 and 211) Stn Avenue North and is
zoned BC (Community Business). (Appellants: Darrell Marmion and Leslie
Haan, Stephen Bernheim and Susan Bauer / Applicant: MJ and MP Investment
LLC / File No. ADB -03 -56 and AP -03 -142)*
*Note: This matter is a closed record review: state law allows only parties of record to speak.
4. Audience Comments (3 Minute Limit Per Person)*
*Regarding matters not listed as Closed Record Review or as Public Hearings.
5. (15 Min.) Proposed Interlocal Operating Agreement #2 between the City of Edmonds and
the Edmonds Public Facilities District as it relates to reimbursement of funds
for city- rendered services.
6. ( 5 Min.) Mayor's Comments
7. (15 Min.) Council Comments
ADJOURN
Parking and meeting rooms are accessible for persons with disabilities. Contact the City Clerk at (425) 771 -0245
with 24 hours advance notice for special accommodations. The Council Agenda as well as a delayed telecast of
the meeting appears on cable television Government Access Channel 21.