02/15/2005 City CouncilI� M . ,,.
February 15, 2005
The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m. by Mayor Haakenson in the Council
Chambers, 250 5f' Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute.
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Gary Haakenson, Mayor
Richard Marn, Council President
Michael Plunkett, Councilmember
Mauri Moore, Councilmember
Peggy Pritchard Olson, Councilmember
Dave Orvis, Councilmember
Deanna Dawson, Councilmember
ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT
Jeff Wilson, Councilmember
ALSO PRESENT
Bryan Huntzberger, Student Representative
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
STAFF PRESENT
Tom Tomberg, Fire Chief
David Stern, Chief of Police
Duane Bowman, Development Services Director
Stephen Clifton, Community Services Director
Dan Clements, Achninistrative Services Director
Jennifer Gerend, Economic Development Dir.
Stephen. Koho, Treatment Plant Manager
Rob Chave, Planning Manager
Scott Snyder, City Attorney
Sandy Chase, City Clerk
Linda Hynd, Deputy City Clerk
Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst.
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
COUNCIL PRESIDENT MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, FOR
APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
COUNCILMEMBER MOORE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT MARIN, FOR
APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda
items approved are as follows:
Approve (A) ROLL CALL
2/8/05
Minutes (B) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 8, 2005.
Approve (C) APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #77216 THROUGH #77419 FOR THE WEEK OF
Claim Checks FEBRUARY 7, 2005, IN THE AMOUNT OF $339,279.61.
Claims for (D) ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES FROM ELMER RUPP
Damages ($1,162.81), AND GEORGE P. BASIOLI ($1,000,000).
Screenings (E) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN ADDENDUM NUMBER 1 TO
System PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH BROWN AND CALDWELL FOR
Improvement SCREENINGS SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT PROJECT.
Reclass of I (I) APPROVAL OF RECLASSIFICATION OF OFFICE ASSISTANT POSITION IN THE
Office Asst.
Position CITY CLERK'S OFFICE.
Edmonds City Council ApprovedMinutes
February 15, 2005
Page 1
]Edmonds
Memorial
(G)
PROCLAMATION IN HONOR OF EDMONDS WAR MEMORIAL REDEDICATION
Rededication
DAY, FEBRUARY 21, 2005.
Res# 1084 1
(H)
RESOLUTION NO. 1084 ADOPTING THE NATIONAL INCIDENT MANAGEMENT
Adopt NIMS
SYSTEM (NIMS}
Ord# 3534
(I)
ORDINANCE NO. 3534 GRANTING TO NEW CINGULAR WIRELESS PCS, LLC, A
Cingular
DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, DB /A CINGULAR WIRELESS, A
Wireless
Master Use
MASTER USE AGREEMENT, TO INSTALL, OPERATE, AND MAINTAIN WIRELESS
Agreement
COMMUNICATION FACILITIES WITHIN A CERTAIN DESIGNATED PUBLIC
RIGHT -OF -WAY OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, STATE OF WASHINGTON,
PRESCRIBING CERTAIN RIGHTS, DUTIES, TERMS, AND CONDITIONS WITH
RESPECT THERETO, AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Ord# 3535
Disability
(J)
ORDINANCE NO. 3535 AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF ECC CHAPTER 10.30
Board Terms
DISABILITY BOARD, SECTION 10.30.010 BOARD CREATED — TERMS OF OFFICE
of Office
IN ORDER TO DELETE A PROHIBITION AGAINST SERVING MORE THAN TWO
CONSECUTIVE TERMS.
(K)
ORDINANCE NO. 3536 RELATING TO CONTRACTING INDEBTEDNESS;
Ord# 3536
LTGO Bond
PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE OF THE $200,000 PAR VALUE LIMITED TAX
Telephone
GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND, 2005, OF THE CITY FOR GENERAL CITY
Equipment
PURPOSES TO PROVIDE THE FUNDS WITH WHICH TO PAY COSTS OF
ACQUIRING TELECOMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT AND OTHER CITY
PURPOSES, AND PAYING THE COSTS OF ISSUANCE AND SALE OF SUCH BOND;
FIXING THE DATE, FORM, MATURITY, INTEREST RATE, TERMS AND
COVENANTS OF THE BOND; DESIGNATING AN ACQUISITION FUND AND
ESTABLISHING A BOND FUND, AND APPROVING THE SALE AND PROVIDING
FOR THE DELIVERY OF THE BOND TO BANK OF AMERICA, N.A, OF SEATTLE,
WASHINGTON.
Ord# 3537 (L) ORDINANCE NO. 3537 RELATING TO THE COMBINED WATER AND SEWERAGE
Water and SYSTEMS COMPRISING THE WATERWORKS UTILITY OF THE CITY;
Sewer SPECIFYING, ADOPTING AND ORDERING THE CARRYING OUT OF A SYSTEM
Revenue
Bond OR PLAN OF ADDITIONS TO AND BETTERMENTS AND EXTENSIONS OF THAT
SYSTEM; AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF NOT TO EXCEED $2,000,000
PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF ITS WATER AND SEWER REVENUE BOND
ANTICIPATION NOTE (REVOLVING LINE OF CREDIT) PENDING THE ISSUANCE
OF WATER AND SEWER REVENUE BONDS AUTHORIZED HEREIN; FIXING THE
DATE, FORM, MATURITY, INTEREST RATE, TERMS AND COVENANTS OF THE
NOTE; ESTABLISHING A NOTE REDEMPTION FUND; AND AUTHORIZING THE
ISSUANCE AND PROVIDING FOR THE DELIVERY OF THE NOTE TO FRONTIER
BANK OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON.
Downtown CONCERNING THE DOWNTOWN WATERFRONT ACTIVITY CENTER (INCLUDING
Waterfront AMENDMENTS TO THE DOWNTOWN WATERFRONT PLAN). THE PROPOSAL WOULD
Activity ESTABLISH NEW "DISTRICTS" WITHIN THE DOWNTOWN AREA AND DESCRIBE THE
Center USES AND DESIGN STANDARDS (INCLUDING HEIGHT AND SETBACKS) THAT WOULD
APPLY• THIS INCLUDES A PROPOSED NEW HEIGHT LIMIT OF 33 FEET IN MOST
DOWNTOWN COMMERCIAL AREAS TO ACCOMMODATE A NEW 12 -FOOT FIRST
FLOOR STANDARD.
Planning Manager Rob Chave explained this was the second of two public hearings regarding the
Comprehensive Plan; the previous public hearing focused on other areas of the City, tonight's public
hearing would focus on the downtown-waterfront activity center. He explained the downtown area and
Edmonds City Council ApprovedMinutes
February 15, 2005
Page 2
Hwy. 99 around the hospital and the high school were considered activity centers, the two areas of the
City intended to get most of the growth and change in development over time. It was not intended to
necessarily change the character of the area but these were areas where it could be expected that some
change would occur. He explained the reason for activity centers was in response to the Growth
Management Act (GMA) which required the City accommodate growth targets during a planning period;
the planning period for this Comprehensive Plan is through 2025.
Mr. Chave explained the Planning Board established several goals when they began their review of the
Downtown-Waterfront Plan. Their goals included consolidating all planning direction regarding
downtown in one place in the Downtown-Waterfront Activity Center section, updating the plan with
current information and identifying new trends, addressing issues such as building design, undesirable
commercial spaces, and exploring the idea of downtown districts. The Planning Board began their initial
review early last year with a series of public workshops which identified several alternatives and
principles. The Planning Board considered existing zoning, the existing Downtown - Waterfront Plan, and
information from the Edmonds Crossing project including identification of the Pt. Edwards site as the
best site for relocating the ferry terminal.
Mr. Chave explained the Planning Board also reviewed historical building heights in downtown Edmonds
— no height limits prior to 1956, a 45 -foot height limit beginning in 1956 that was decreased to 35 -feet in
1964 and a height limit of 25 -feet and additional 5 feet with a pitched roof or building modulation from
1980 forward He dsplayed photographs of buildings constructed before 1956, the boxy buildings
constructed between 1956 and 1980, pitched roofed buildings built after 1980 and recent building designs.
In the 1980's commercial floor area was developed with little residential floor area in the BC zone.
Beginning in the mid- 1990's residential development began to occur and by the end of the 1990's and
into 2000's, residential development caught up to commercial development with mixed use occurring
downtown. The Planning Board also considered historical Floor Area Ratios (FAR) for the BC zone.
Mr. Chave noted even though the chart illustrated trends, the actual pattern of development was much
more diffuse. The overall trend since the 1990's has been toward a FAR of approximately 2.5 floors per
development lot downtown.
The Planning Board considered nationwide trends with regard to development in downtown areas. Mr.
Chave stated 70% of retail sales in the U.S. are made after 5:30 p.m. and on weekends, thus a downtown
area closing early on weekdays misses a great deal of business activity. These trends also indicated
mixed use development was occurring nationwide particularly in downtown areas due to the recognition
of the contribution residents living downtown provided to the success of businesses.
Mr. Chave recalled concern has been expressed that first floors developed recently were not conducive to
retail activity. He displayed photographs the Planning Board considered of recent first floor development
that were below sidewalk level and floor heights that were less than desirable in a commercial district. To
address he Planning Board's question regarding why this type of development was occurring, a
consultant, Heartland LLC, was hired to consider the Edmonds market Heartland concluded
condominium sales were largely driving the financial performance of mixed use projects — the two floors
of residential above commercial were what made a project feasible. Heartland also found in order to
obtain the two floors of residential, developers would treat the first floor commercial space as an
afterthought. Heartland reached a number of other conclusions including that even if someone wanted to
do a 3 -story commercial development in the core retail area, it would likely not be feasible for a
developer to purchase the property, demolish a building and build a new structure. However, for
someone who has owned a property for a period time, they may be able to redevelop the property because
they would not have the added expense of purchasing the property.
Edmonds City Council ApprovedMinutes
February 15, 2005
Page 3
An architect on the Planning Board prepared an illustration of the impact of a higher first floor on overall
building heights. The conclusion was with the 30 -foot building (25 feet plus 5 feet) limit, it was not
possible to provide a 12 -foot first floor unless the topography worked in the developer's favor. The
Planning Board also considered human scale height to width ratios. Mr. Chave explained with a 60 -foot
right -of -way, typically for a downtown, buildings between 20 and 30 feet were considered human or
pedestrian scale. Nationwide, downtown building heights tended to be approximately 35 feet.
The Planning Board determined a 33 -foot building height would accommodate a 12 -foot first floor. To
retain the pedestrian scale, they recommended a 1 -foot setback for every 1 -foot above 30 -feet. He noted
this could result in a 66 -foot right -of -way (three additional feet on each side) allowing for additional
public open space, sidewalks, etc. that would further the goals of downtown pedestrian activity. The
Planning Board considered cross sections of downtown streets including Main, Dayton and Walnut. He
explained there was approximately a 5% grade in downtown; however, most of the grade downtown
occurs above 6t Avenue with the steepest areas occurring in the single family residential areas and grades
leveling out below 6h Avenue.
The Planning Board felt strongly that design was critical to the success of downtown and to retaining the
feel and character of the downtown area. The additional 3 feet of height the Board recommended was
related to the first floor height to provide commercial spaces with adequate height and obtain some
additional sidewalk area downtown. The Board recommended including design objectives in the
Comprehensive Plan and that the Council follow -up with Design Guidelines. Mr. Chave displayed a map
of approximately 15 buildings constructed in the BC zone since 1995, approximately one building per
year. He pointed out most of the buildings were on the periphery of the commercial area and have not
occurred in the core commercial area which appeared to confirm Heartland's findings that in the areas
where the strongest retail activity occurred, it was not economically viable to redevelop.
The Planning Board distributed a series of districts for public input and then developed a final
recommended downtown district proposal. Mr. Chave reviewed several of the districts including the
Fountain Square where the Board recommended the current 25 -foot building height be retained and the
Downtown Mixed Commercial area where the Board recommended 33 -foot building heights. He
identified the Downtown Convenience Commercial area in the southern portion of the downtown corridor
which recognized the historical character of that area such as the grocery and other uses that were auto -
oriented, and the Arts Center Corridor where the Board included a recommendation to make the code
more flexible with regard to residential uses to allow businesses as well as encourage retention of existing
houses. The Board identified a Downtown Master Plan area, an area Heartland indicated would be
challenging to redevelop unless there were provisions for master plan-type development. The Board
identified the shoreline as an area that would be addressed primarily via master planning by the Port. The
Board also identified a Downtown Mixed Commercial area near James Street and 2 "d Avenue S, currently
developed with residential uses, where the Board felt it was appropriate to have a mixture of commercial
and residential uses including on the first floor.
Mr. Chave identified the boundary of the BC zone, explaining the downtown districts were within the BC
zone with the exception of a slight expansion for the Arts Center Corridor. He reviewed the key Planning
Board recommendations including downtown districts, building height increase in some areas to 33 feet,
providing 1 -foot of setback for each 1 -foot above 30 feet, and a 12 -foot first floor requirement.
Mayor Haakenson suggested the Council take public testimony first and if time did not allow them to ask
questions of staff, Councilmembers should email their questions to Mr. Bowman or Mr. Chave so that
staff could respond by the February 22 meeting.
Council President Marin explained the Council's intent was to take public testimony and begin .
deliberations at next week's meeting. As part of the deliberation, he planned to present several slides that
Edmonds City Council ApprovedMinutes
February 15, 2005
Page 4
he had prepared. He assured, contrary to what has been in the newspapers, Couneilmembers had not yet
cast their votes. Following deliberation, the proposal may look considerably different than the Planning
Board's recommendation. Once the Council began its deliberation, it was likely a motion would be made
to approve the Comprehensive Plan update followed by Councilmembers proposing individual
amendments, a process that takes more than one meeting.
Mayor Haakenson encouraged speakers to observe the three minute rule and described the operation of
the warning light on the podium. He encouraged speakers to restrict their comments to Comprehensive
Plan issues and for all audience members to respect the opinions of others and not to applaud or boo. He
encouraged speakers to identify the reason they were in favor or opposed to amendments and not resort to
name - calling, finger - pointing or personal attacks on staff, the Planning Board or elected officials.
Jim Orvis, 23529 93rd Avenue W, Edmonds, Port of Edmonds Commissioner, relayed the
Commission's request that the Council make a pedestrian and bicycle access across the railroad tracks to
the waterfront near Marina Beach Park a priority. He explained this was a significant part of the Port's
Master Plan and a project essential to the effective use of waterfront parks and marsh. In addition to
allowing pedestrian and bicycle traffic to access the waterfront parks and the marsh, it would reduce the
need for residents of the southern portion of downtown to use their cars and the Port's limited parking
when visiting waterfront parks. Although the pedestrian crossing is part of Edmonds Crossing, the Port
wants to ensure the pedestrian/bicycle crossing was provided if the Edmonds Crossing project does not
materialize as planned. He assured their proposal added no additional requirements or costs, it only
requests that the pedestrian/bicycle crossing at the southern end of Marina Beach Park be a priority.
Bob Barley, 2714`" Avenue S #4, Edmonds, suggested the Council reduce the height limit decision to
two basic positions — the proponents of change versus no change of any consequence. With regard to
height limits, proponents of change say it's now 30 feet and are only asking for 3 more feet and there will
be compensation via a mandatory 3 -foot setback; opponents say it's now 25 feet and has been
successfully finagled to 30 -feet in recent years. With regard to guidance, proponents suggest Council rely
on well - considered recommendations of staff that were evaluated and honed by the Planning Board over
the past year; opponents say ignore the height limit recommendation. With regard to diversity of opinion,
proponents urge Council to consider the diversity of businesses and professions represented in the
opinions provided tonight who also reside in Edmonds and care about residential values; the opposition
urges Council to take note of the large number of petition signers whose position is no, not one foot.
With regard to leadership, proponents suggest Council exert leadership in helping improve the economics
and the revenue of downtown; opponents say ignore it and only count the number of petition signers, and
if not, beware in the next reelection campaign. With regard to GMA, proponents say continue to channel
population growth to the downtown area where multi family residences fit and retailers can prosper by
providing products and services; opponents don't like growth and want to stop growth downtown, It is up
to Council to determine to whom to listen, He urged Council not to compromise by splitting the
difference as that would not solve the problem and was not the leadership /vision expected nor what the
community deserved.
Eric Sonett,102 Bell Street, Edmonds, commended the Planning Board for undertaking a thankless task
and for responding to citizens' concerns regarding neighborhood preservation and the proposed creation
of a double standard for measuring building heights; however, removing commercial setback language in
the draft Comprehensive Plan will create the possibility of misinterpretation. He referred to the proposed
planned residential office area, recalling over a year ago, a proposal was made to zone the beachside of
the 100 block of Sunset Avenue as commercial in an attempt to allow one resident to operate a law office.
They were not opposed to that use but rather to zoning that permitted commercial establishments
including bars and taverns, adjacent to their home. The Council now had an opportunity to prevent
annual requests to rezone this area. At the Planning Board, they pointed out staff's draft would eliminate
Edmonds City Council ApprovedMinutes
February 15, 2005
Page 5
a residential neighborhood and create a special method for measuring the height of a building on the four
lots in this proposed zone. To correct the deficiency, the Planning Board removed the commercial
setbacks and the language specifying height be measured from the sidewalk. This left the draft
Comprehensive Plan ambiguous and although the Planning Board's comments at their last meeting
indicated a preference for maintaining the 100 block of Sunset as residential, the Comprehensive Plan did
not reflect this. The daft plan is silent on setbacks for office - residential in contrast to the preceding
paragraph in the Comprehensive Plan where setbacks are specified. Mr. Sonett and many of his
neighbors were not opposed to office - residential use as long as the neighborhood maintained its
residential character. Residential neighborhoods could be preserved while allowing home offices by
maintaining residential setbacks and height limits along with on -site mitigation for any office - related
parking. He urged Council to correct both the omission of residential setbacks and omission of a
statement defining residential office as area zoned to residential standards but permitting office use.
Warren Sehweppe, 8524 215th SW, Edmonds, questioned whether 33 -foot building I-eights for 3 -story
buildings with 12 -foot ceilings on the first floor would make downtown more attractive and attract more
business. He referred to a memo from Economic Development Director Jennifer Gerend that indicated
the new building heights would bring in more business and improve the quality of life in the bowl area
including wider sidewalks and services within walking distance and new revenues would take the
pressure off property taxes. Conversely, an architect friend told him that adding 100 condominiums and
raising first floor ceiling heights to 12 feet would not necessarily improve the business climate unless
large anchor tenants are secured. He understood residents not wanting existing views obstructed but was
in favor of improving the business climate in downtown Edmonds as long as it did not impact others. He
suggested to the Council it was time to get off the fence and let the citizens know how they felt.
Lyn MacFarlane, 546 Walnut St #206, Edmonds, expressed her desire for Edmonds to keep the same
atmosphere it had now. She anticipated if building heights were increased to 33 feet, another increase to
35 feet would follow and Edmonds would begin to look like any other city. She suggested it was not
necessary to build residential on the second floor of a building if the limit were two stories as offices
could be constructed on the second floor, particularly offices suited to serving the needs of the older
population residing near downtown.
Jan Vance, Assistant Director, Greater Edmonds Chamber of Commerce, 121 Jdh Avenue N,
Edmonds, advised on November 18, 2004, the Chamber Board approved the following mission
statement, "The Greater Edmonds Chamber of Commerce supports the Edmonds Planning Board's efforts
to create and improve a vibrant downtown business area that is pedestrian friendly in keeping with the
character of the community. The Chamber supports a first floor ceiling height to be at least 12 feet from
street level and overall building height not to exceed a maximum of 33 feet for any building located in the
retail commercial zones." The Chamber agreed with the Planning Board's conclusion that without the
recommended changes, development would not occur that would support a healthy downtown and
downtown would continue to see undesirable commercial spaces developed with new buildings or if
buildings were limited to two stories via height restricts, it was likely no new mixed use development
would occur.
Alan MacFarlane, 546 Walnut, Edmonds, explained they moved to Edmonds to enjoy a small town, in
Seattle, tall buildings took over the University District and many other areas of the city. He urged the
Council not to change Edmonds much because the small town was why many people chose to live here.
Rob Rinehart, 21127 Shell Valley Road, Edmonds, pointed out there was nothing wrong with change
as long as there was a constant. In the City, the constant was vitality. He encouraged the City focus their
attention on how to maintain the vitality of Edmonds. Clarifying he did not support unhindered
development, he found there was no benefit to imposing restrictions that detracted from the movement
Edmonds City Council ApprovedMinutes
February 15, 2005
Page 6
forward that was integral to the Comprehensive Plan. He noted there were once 14 sawmills in
downtown Edmonds and suggested downtown Edmonds would not have the charm it had today if the
Council had heeded requests of citizens in the early 1900's to keep the City the same. He summarized the
City needed a Comprehensive Plan that was designed to preserve and foster, not protect and limit. He
offered his endorsement for the Comprehensive Plan as recommended by the Planning Board.
Roger Hertrich,1020 Puget Drive, Edmonds, displayed a visual example of a 25 -foot height limit and a
pitched roof as allowed in the five feet above a 25 foot height limit. He explained the Council a number
of years ago created the ability for design in a roofline which has worked well. He pointed out the view
corridors that pitched roofs provided that a flat roof to a 30 -foot height did not. He displayed a visual
example depicting the proposed additional three feet, which eliminates view corridors that are provided
by pitched roofs. He pointed out neither the Planning Board or staff provided any design for rooflines to
33 feet. The result of the Planning Board's recommendation was to allow 25 foot roofs to extend 8 feet
higher. He concluded the Council had the opportunity to alleviate this error.
Bob Gregg, 16550 76th Avenue W, Edmonds, enumerated the benefits the public received via the
Planning Board's recommendations including wider sidewalks, more street landscaping, wider view
corridors, better places to shop and a better variety of stores, retention of the current pedestrian scale,
economic benefits of a more vital and vibrant downtown, more sales tax, more real estate excise tax, more
payroll, more payroll tax, more property tax, and more people living, working, dining and shopping
downtown. He did not doubt that the opponents of the Planning Board's recommendation were sincere in
their desire to have Edmonds retain its small town charm. The Comprehensive Plan only allows for better
design, it does not achieve better design. Design was far more important for retaining and enhancing
Edmonds' small town charm than a few additional feet. In the Green Lake neighborhood, a similar
conflict was resolved by approving a small height increase (5 feet) in exchange for adopting new Design
Guidelines that were specific to the area being rezoned. In that instance, people from both sides were able
to develop guidelines that both sides endorsed. He suggested forming a committee to discuss design and
work together to develop a design that everyone could be proud of He concluded neither side wanted
Edmonds to lose its small town charm. He proposed for the long term benefit of Edmonds that the
Council approve the proposed Comprehensive Plan unanimously recommended by the Planning Board
with the added provision that the Design Guidelines be reviewed and modified as needed to define and
retain the historical queues and small town charm of downtown Edmonds.
Bob Appleby, 51 W Dayton, Ste. 304, Edmonds, explained for nearly a year, the Planning Board held
public meetings, sought input from local experts and conducted research used in crafting their
recommendation. The Planning Board's recommendation was unanimously approved and documented
with each member's reasons for supporting the recommendations. The recommendations are not a rubber
stamp for property owners or developers. He requested for the benefit of Edmonds, that the Council
unanimously approve the proposed Comprehensive Plan as unanimously recommended by the Planning
Board.
Chuck LaWarne, 20829 Hillcrest Place, Edmonds, Edmonds Historic Preservation Commission
(EHPC), pointed out the EHPC s an advisory commission to the Council. They are charged with
reviewing and commenting on land uses as they relate to historic issues in the City. When the EHPC was
formed, the members reviewed the Comprehensive Plan to ensure the appropriate language existed for
moving forward on identifying and actively encouraging the conservation of the City's historic resources.
Upon the completion of the review, they found the 2002 Comprehensive Plan satisfactory. The EHPC
began its review of the proposed 2004 Comprehensive Plan a few weeks ago. They recently received a
report on the formal historic survey of the downtown area commissioned by the EHPC and intend to
report the findings to the Council in the coming weeks. He noted an important observation of the historic
survey report is that a large number of the remaining historically significant structures in Edmonds are in
Edmonds City Council ApprovedMinutes
February 15, 2005
Page 7
the downtown - waterfront area. He summarized the EHPC had concerns about the proposed
Comprehensive Plan revision as it may negatively impact historic resources. Although there was a good
summary of the goals and methods for historic preservation in the proposed Comprehensive Plan, there is
no linkage to the policies proposed for redevelopment and the EHPC feared the result might be the loss of
historic resources.
Darrell Marmion, 750 Edmonds Street, Edmonds, Edmonds Historic Preservation Commission,
continued the description of the EHPC's concern with lack of linkage between the Comprehensive Plan
goals and policies. He referred to a report the EHPC provided the Council that included a detailed
analysis of the Comprehensive Plan and areas of concern as well as specific recommendations for
information that would be included in the Comprehensive Plan to address the lack of linkage. He
reviewed several specific concerns including that downtown waterfront land use policies in the
Comprehensive Plan have only one reference to historic preservation as a goal and one reference to the
historic center; the implementation policies do not apply to the goal of historic preservation and address
development and redevelopment; there is m emphasis on the alternative of historic preservation or on
incentives associated with preservation; there is no mention of the linkage between historic preservation
and a successful downtown business district; there is no reference to the concept of historic districts; a
section regarding significant areas that highlighted items in the community that are important including
historic preservation, architectural details and archeological details was deleted; and a section outlining
the concept of a downtown area modeled after Main Rreet America was deleted. He pointed out the
importance of including information developed via the recent survey in the Comprehensive Plan. He
summarized historic properties surveyed showed that the primary population of remaining historic
structures is in the downtown-waterfront area and this area needs the most consideration for identifying
positive incentives and alternatives for preserving historic structures. The proposed Comprehensive Plan
takes the City in the wrong direction by not highlighting alternatives to redevelopment. The proposed
policy changes will further increase redevelopment rates and escalate the risk to historic structures. He
concluded the EHPC did not recommend approval of the proposed Comprehensive Plan and urged the
Council to consider their input. Councilmember Plunkett, Council representative on the EHPC,
commented that at the recommendation of the EHPC, he would be proposing 10-12 amendments.
Jim Traner, Traner Smith & Co., 110 James Street, Edmonds, explained they were in the process of
relocating their office to the proposed office - residential building site on Sunset Avenue north of Main
Street. The site was not developable for single family homes and it was appropriate to have a transitional
zone on this property. If the required street setback were greater than required in the typical business
commercial zone, a low impact office- residential building on the site would minimize the impact cn the
surrounding neighborhood. He requested the Council approve the proposed office- residential zoning for
the property on Sunset Avenue.
Quentin Clark, 19423 86Th Avenue W, Edmonds, Chair of the Chamber Economic Development
Committee and member of the Chamber Board of Directors, read his letter to the Everett Herald in
December 2004 expressing his support for modifying the current regulations in Edmonds to allow for 12-
foot first floor ceiling heights and building heights up to 33 -feet. Downtown building could then be
constructed with full capability for retail or restaurant use on the first floor and two floors above for
commercial and/or residential use which would better utilize the downtown property resources and
promote economic development by creating opportunity for more attractive, appealing stores and
restaurants. Current codes result in first floors too low to attract effective retail or 2 -story buildings, not
the best utilization of downtown property or drivers of economic development. He then read a more
recent letter to Chamber members explaining the Downtown - Waterfront Plan that considered the needs of
the members and the needs of all other stakeholders was a good compromise. Developers will offer wider
sidewalks in exchange for up to three feet of building height and build much better commercial space
with a 12 -foot minimum first floor ceiling height. He summarized the Comprehensive Plan
Edmonds City Council ApprovedMinutes
February 15, 2005
Page 8
recommended by the Planning Board was a good compromise for all as it honored the integrity of the
downtown and views of Puget Sound and nurtured economic development.
Ann Little, 554 6t'' Avenue S, Edmonds, also speaking on behalf of her in -laws at 556 6h Avenue S,
expressed a desire to retain the charm and character of this waterfront town. She emphasized Edmonds
was a waterfront town, not just a city /town in the middle of a countryside, and residents want to maintain
the versatility of downtown. Originally from Anacortes, she noted downtown Anacortes did not have
three and four story buildings, yet the town was thriving with one and two story buildings and new retail
space along the downtown corridor that maintain views of the marina. She pointed out 2 -story buildings
could be as attractive and bring in revitalization as well as 33 -foot buildings.
Pamela Harold, 8311 Frederick Place, Edmonds, referenced the many letters in local newspapers and
many speakers who have addressed retaining the original look of Edmonds. She recalled a recent
photograph in the newspaper of Edmonds Main Street in 1950 that was ugly and non - descript. She
emphasized that times change and the City needed to continue to improve the look of the downtown core
to keep it attractive and pedestrian friendly to enable businesses to remain financially stable. If
businesses fail, the merchants will leave, the town center will slowly deteriorate and Edmonds will no
longer have a heart. Edmonds was attractive to shoppers with fewer empty stores due to the efforts of
dedicated and hardworking merchants. She commented on new buildings that have setbacks that allow
for plantings and sitting areas. She noted stores with step -down entrances did not attract merchants or
shoppers and were not pedestrian friendly. The new height limits proposed by the Planning Board are
contingent on buildings having a setback which would provide an aesthetic improvement. The wider
sidewalks would also provide space for display of public art. She commended the Planning Board for
their careful consideration of the need to improve regulations governing new buildings in the downtown
area and urged the Council to adopt the proposed Comprehensive Plan.
Ray Gould, 19225 92"d Avenue W, Edmonds, a former Councilmember who participated in the vote to
enact the 25 -30 foot height regulations years ago, pointed out the underlying issue the city was struggling
with was a reduction in revenue caused by a recent initiative passed by the public that affected taxes. The
Comprehensive Plan update responded by proposing to increase sales tax revenue by increasing building
heights in the downtown business area. Citizens who voted for the initiative saw a 3.5% increase in the
2005 budget and no immediate level of service reductions as a consequence of their action. He was not
convinced enough sales tax would be generated by increasing building heights and he found one floor
above retail adequate. He referred to the petition the City has received with over 1,000 signatures against
raising building heights which he considered a major expression of how residents feel and warranted
consideration by the Council. He recalled the 25 -30 foot height limit was adopted originally because it
responded to what Edmonds residents value — a small, quaint downtown atmosphere with sign
regulations, low building heights, trees, city flower beautification, waterfront, scenery, unique bowl area,
magnificent views, and residential community. He pointed out the need for a strategy, anticipating the
City would continually encounter tax cut initiatives. A long term strategy could be to redevelop and
expedite plans for Hwy. 99 development where building heights were not an issue and improvements
were in proximity to infrastructure. The next time a tax-cut initiative faced the City, he recommended the
Council communicate with citizens regarding the consequences of reduced taxes. He stated building
heights downtown should not be raised as a response to tax cutting initiatives.
Vern Chase, 1105 Daley Place, Edmonds, commented on his background in economic development
with several small cities and Ports in the northwest and expressed his strong support for the Planning
Board's recommendations.
Strom Peterson, 9110 Olympic View Drive, Edmonds, President, Downtown Edmonds Merchant's
Association and Board member of the Chamber of Commerce, expressed his support for the adoption of
Edmonds City Council ApprovedMinutes
February 15, 2005
Page 9
the amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. Speaking as a citizen and referring to fears that have been
expressed about Edmonds losing its charm and character, he pointed out Edmonds' charm and character
was not from the hodge -podge of buildings on Main Street and on 5`h Avenue. The character was in the
people. What has been created and what economic vitality would continue to create would be wonderful
storefronts and a vibrant streetscape with wider sidewalks where residents can meet their neighbors and
attend local events. He questioned how a 3 -foot or 5 -foot increase in the building heights would change
the character of the City, pointing out that without a vital business district, Edmonds would slowly wither
away and that would change the character of downtown. He concluded the Planning Board did a
phenomenal job considering all aspects and he urged the Council to move the City into the future.
Ray Martin, 18704 94t'' Avenue W, Edmonds, commented from the 1970's to the 1980's Edmonds was
an average town economically; from 1980's to 1997, there were several efforts to raise building heights
and in 1997 via a 3-4 vote, building heights were raised to 30 feet with modification and the City has
gone downhill since. Now the proposal is to increase building heights another 3 feet. He anticipated the
Council would likely vote to increase building heights to 33 feet but Edmonds would continue to be
average. He commented a few people would make money from the increased building Ieights but it
would degrade the small town atmosphere of the City. He recommended Councilmember Moore recuse
herself from the vote due to her recent purchase of property where new zoning was proposed.
Steve Bernheim, 216 4r'' Avenue N, Edmonds, advised the number of signatures on the petitions was up
to 1,795, and explained the signatures were not offered as intimidation but to express how many people
want to remain the small town character by limiting development to 2 stories in the downtown BC zone.
He provided several photographs of 2 -story buildings that he described as "nice," and then to illustrate
what the increased height might look like, he overlaid 33 -foot tall rooflines to illustrate the affect of the
increased height. He also pointed out examples of buildings whose views may be blocked by future
development. He encouraged the Council to consider the traffic impact of increased development. He
concluded the Design Guidelines should be the beginning of the discussion, not the increased height.
Ron Wambolt, 530 Dayton Street, Edmonds, stated he supported much of the Planning Board's
recommendations with caveats. He supported level entries but not where sloping lots make a few steps
more practical. He supported 12 -feet for first floor retail and restaurant space but not making it
mandatory because it was not practical for office space. He supported a height of 33 -feet or more but
only when the building average was not greater than 30 feet including a modulated roof He supported
requiring 3 -foot setbacks to allow wider sidewalks. He supported providing residences for the anticipated
5,000 increase in the City's population but few in the BC zone because the 297 condominiums at the
Unocal site and the $500,000 average price would likely be sufficient to cover the segment of the
population able to pay those prices. He supported the conclusion that 33 -feet was not needed to make
projects feasible, pointing out recent development that has occurred in the City, a flaw in the Heartland
study. He supported the conclusion that 33 -feet would be the catalyst for developers to construct 3 -story
lot- line -to- lot -line mixed use buildings in the shopping area with the end result being a proliferation of 3-
story buildings rather than the existing predominately 1 -story buildings. He supported the conclusion that
33 -feet was not needed for economic reasons, and to the contrary failed any rational risk/reward analysis.
It was not acceptable to risk the charm of Edmonds to obtain a I% increase in city revenues, based on
information from the City's Administrative Services Director. He referred to a recent comment by the
Chamber in an Edmonds newspaper, it's hard to build three stories and keep the historic small scale feel
of the area. He urged the Council not to approve the 33 -foot building height and not make a 12 -foot first
floor ceiling height mandatory.
Sandy Eastly, 16858 76th Avenue W, Edmonds, expressed support for the 25 -foot height limit for
buildings downtown. She noted not only citizens of Edmonds enjoyed downtown; many visitors
Edmonds City Council ApprovedMinutes
February 15, 2005
Page 10
indicated their desire to sign the petition opposing 33 -foot building heights. She commented many people
move to Edmonds because it is an ideal place to live and raise a family.
Ruth Arista, 18431 High Street, Edmonds, voiced her support for the Port's request for a
pedestrian/bicycle walkway, commenting the access would provide a simple and vital link to the
waterfront. As a resident and business owner, she pointed out Edmonds had the types of spaces that
allowed people to start their own business as well as move to another space to expand and grow their
business. She acknowledged they were not a huge tax generator, but their business generated four times
as much excise tax for the City than they did via their annual property taxes. She commented on her
willingness to pay property taxes, the majority of which supported schools even though she did not have
children because that was a vital part of the community. Although some may think as a business owner
she has a vested interest in raising building heights to 33 feet, she preferred the funds generated by her
business be used to benefit the community or to augment the City's budget. She commented one of the
reasons their business has thrived is the design of the building at 5" & Main. She offered to show people
spaces they were shown as opportunities for relocating their retail space, noting many businesses have
failed in those spaces because of the design. She supported allowing 2 -3 more feet in the building height
to allow more locally owned businesses to generate taxes and keep her property taxes from increasing.
David Arista, 18431 High Street, Edmonds, and also a merchant at �h & Main, expressed his support
for the Planning Board's recommendation to approve the downtown Comprehensive Plan. He was
opposed to bad code, bad architectural design because of bad code, unoccupied commercial and retail
space, and old dilapidated and unmaintained buildings as these did not make for a vibrant, pedestrian
friendly and healthy downtown. He commended the Planning Board and City staff for their thorough and
detailed work on this issue. He also thanked the Council for listening to testimony and for exhibiting
leadership to the community.
Barbara Lee, 845 NW 205th Street, Shoreline, and co -owner of Hotel Group, 110 James, Edmonds,
explained their corporate office employs 20 people and has been located in Edmonds for 20 years. She
acknowledged being partially responsible for the proposed new zoning of the Sunset Avenue property
included in the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments due to their desire to build a mixed use office/
residential building on an undeveloped site. She commented on their efforts to determine whether the
property was buildable and under what parameters, information they have shared with City staff to assist
in their understanding of the height and setback requirements to allow a reasonable project to be
developed. In the process they concluded it was possible to develop the parcels in a manner that would
benefit the neighborhood and the City. Although this public hearing was not to entertain proposals for
specific projects, she explained the first step toward responsible development of the parcels was to
provide for a zoning change as proposed in the current draft Comprehensive Plan. She encouraged the
Council to approve the special office - residential zoning for the Sunset Avenue parcels.
Douglas Dreher, 5730 Hillpoint Circle, Lynnwood, President, Hotel Group, 110 James Street,
Edmonds, expressed his support for the proposed special office - residential zoning for the lots on Sunset
Avenue. Their company was one of the top 50 hotel management and investment companies with 28
hotels from Alaska to Connecticut with one -fourth of their hotels in Washington State. He explained
expansion of their company necessitates new office space and they would prefer to stay in Edmonds.
Development of an office- residential development would be a win -win for the City; their plans call for an
attractive design with an added bonus of retaining their company in Edmonds. He urged the Council to
vote in favor of the proposed zoning change for the Sunset Avenue lots.
Randy Meyer, 13415 45th Court W, Mukilteo, Chief Financial Officer, Hotel Group, 110 James Street,
Edmonds, expressed support for the office - residential zoning of the vacant lots on Sunset Avenue north of
Main Street. He pointed out these lots have a unique topography and have been zoned residential since
Edmonds City Council ApprovedMinutes
February 15, 2005
Page 11
the late 1950's, yet have not been developed. Without development, these lots continue to have unsightly
blackberry bushes that continually gather litter and do not benefit the community. The proposed new
zoning would allow the lots to be developed, benefiting the City via continued patronage of downtown
businesses by their employees, increased taxes as well as opening up numerous on- street parking spaces
downtown as the proposed design provides for self - contained underground parking. Their firm was a
model citizen for Edmonds because they were self- contained, employed residents, contributed to the
community by supporting local businesses, participating in civic organizations and contributed their tax
dollars. He encouraged the Council to approve the recommendation of the Planning Board for the
proposed zoning of the Sunset Avenue property.
Robin Koetje, 21505 88`h Avenue W, Edmonds, agreed with the need for a special office - residential
zoning designation for the lots bordering the railroad tracks north of Main Street on Sunset Avenue. He
emphasized the proposed rezone of this parcel was not about the controversial 33 -foot height limit; this
was about two unique undeveloped parcels that would never be developed under their present zoning
because of the steep slope and proximity of the railroad tracks. He supported creating a zoning
designation that would allow these properties to be developed in a manner that fit with the surrounding
neighborhood which includes both commercial and residential properties. He encouraged the Council to
approve the new zoning designation, providing a transitional zone for this area.
Brian Slick, 425 Pontius Avenue N #200, Seattle, an architect representing clients Barbara and Ed Lee,
explained the new office - residential zoning designation of the two lots on Sunset Avenue would free up
on- street parking in the downtown core because the project would include new, self - contained,
underground parking in excess of requirements for the residential and office uses. He suggested when
approving the Comprehensive Plan amendment, the Council also consider clarifying the definition of the
height limit. He explained the current proposal was a 25 -foot height limit, but the height limit was not
linked to the average of the existing grade, the current designation in the BC zone which would be their
preference, or above the average sidewalk grade.
Lisa Kendall, 16410 72nd Avenue W, Edmonds, agreed with the need for a special office- residential
zoning designation for the lots bordering the railroad tracks just north of Main Street. She supported the
creation of a zoning designation that was between residential and commercial zoning that could be used in
special instances to allow for development of property without allowing them to be as dense as
commercial zoning would allow. She encouraged the Council to create special zoning for the Sunset
Avenue parcels.
Bernice Dreher, 234 2nd Avenue N #200, Edmonds, a resident around the corner from the undeveloped
property on Sunset Avenue, spoke in favor of the proposal to create a new zoning designation that would
allow these lots to be developed, noting the lots were an eyesore in their current state. She pointed out the
lots were bordered by a commercial building on the south and a 4plex and single family residences on
the north and transitional zoning of this property was appropriate. She suggested the entire community
would benefit via utilization of these lots from increased taxes and removal of the blackberry bushes.
Only two homes would have their views substantially reduced, all other homes in the neighborhood
would continue to maintain their views. She encouraged the Council to approve the proposed new office -
residential zoning designation for parcels on Sunset Avenue as it was in the best interest of the
community.
David Page, 1233 Olympic View Drive, Edmonds, referred to a letter he provided to the Council,
reporting his findings that a condominium could be constructed in the downtown area for $130 /square
foot and the retail space for $100 /square foot. He disagreed with the conclusion in the Heartland study
that a developer could not make a profit with development of two floors. Although his analysis and the
Heartland study were close on the square footage cost of construction (Heartland reported $120 /square
Edmonds City Council ApprovedMinutes
February 15, 2005
Page 12
foot for residential and $80 /square foot for retail), they differed on the comparables. The comparables he
used indicated a 20,000 square foot property could be purchased for $800,000 - $900,000; Heartland
reported a cost of $1.6 million. He acknowledged no one could make a profit by purchasing property for
$1.6 million and building a 2 -story building because over 50% of the value of the property was expended
on the land. However, based on the real cost of the property, an $800,000 profit could be realized. He
agreed with Mr. Gregg that the City needed to get the people with energy together to develop Design.
Guidelines. He encouraged the Council to vote no and develop the Design Guidelines first.
Pat Pedersen, 101 Main Street, Edmonds, advised she owned Lot 1, Block 13, adjacent to the ferry
dock currently zoned Downtown Mixed Commercial. She referred to a letter she submitted in support of
the rezone to residential - office for Lots 3-6 on Block 13 located north of Main Street on Sunset Avenue.
She pointed out the beauty of the waterfront which was located across the street from these lots and
encouraged the Council to continue to build and improve the community. She expressed her support for
the development proposed by the Lees.
Don Drew, 111 Sunset Avenue, Edmonds, stated he was the owner of the property developed with a
commercial building on Lot 2 on Sunset Avenue, owner of lots 3 and 4 of Block 13 on the west side of
Sunset and that he represented Mrs. Stark, 133 Sunset and her daughter Susan Stark, and John Marts, 805
Aloha Street. He explained this was the last parcel of undeveloped land along the entire downtown
Edmonds waterfront. This property was undeveloped because the present RS zoning that has existed on
this lot since the 1950's made it economically unbuildable although not untaxable. Although this
property bad generated no income for the 29 years they have owned it, they have paid a considerable
amount in property taxes; in the past ten years the assessed value on this undeveloped land has increased
1400 %. The Snohomish County Assessor's Office is required by State law to value land at its highest and
best use; the south side abuts commercial and the Assessor does not anticipate this property being used
for single family homes. During the 29 years, many builders have approached them to purchase, build
and sell a home on the property but rapidly lost interest when they realized the high cost of construction
due to requirements for pilings and because the zoning will put the majority of a home below the street
level of Sunset Avenue. Meanwhile, they pay the taxes and provide a narrow but free view corridor for
homes across Sunset Avenue. The properties across Sunset have starting elevations 5-12 feet above
Sunset whereas their property on the west side of Sunset has a base elevation at the railroad tracks, 15 feet
below Sunset. Without a zoning change, the property was destined to remain undeveloped and a
repository for various debris. The Lees proposal to develop the property would eliminate the unsightly
debris, would provide a beautiful building visible from Brackett's Landing Park on the west and Sunset
Avenue on the east and would provide a substantial increase in tax revenue to the City. He requested
Council adopt the new Comprehensive Plan in its entirety as recommended by the Planning Board.
Bud Kopp, 8610 240 I SW #B -10, Edmonds, spoke in favor of the proposed new zoning of the Sunset
Avenue property. This portion of the Comprehensive Plan was not about the 33 -foot height limit, only
about creating a zoning that would allow properties to be developed instead of remaining vegetated with
blackberries that collect litter and debris. He pointed out the uniqueness of these parcels required a
unique approach if the community was to benefit. Surveying, engineering studies and architectural
concepts have shown the properties can be developed in a manner that would compliment the
neighborhood and provide adequate parking. Development of these properties under the new zoning
designation would substantially affect the views of only two existing residences and he urged the Council
not to base their decision on the desire of two residences to maintain their view corridor as the change
would benefit the community as a whole. He encouraged the Council to approve the new zoning
designation for this property as an investment in the City as a whole.
Michael Young, 20209 83rd Avenue W, Edmonds, and downtown business owner, offered to clear up a
misconception of his business and other downtown merchants, pointing out they were not mom - and -pop
Edmonds City Council ApprovedMinutes
February 15, 2005
Page 13
organizations, hobbyists, or operating their business for the fun of it, they were doing it to earn a living.
He was aware of more than a dozen people whose sole source of income was a business in downtown
Edmonds which said not only a great deal about downtown and the people who patronize their businesses
but also the people who don't patronize downtown businesses. Some of the most vocal opponents of the
Comprehensive Plan update, which he supported, did not live in the bowl and did not shop downtown.
Many admitted they did not shop downtown and would rather go shop outside the City. He expressed
dismay that because some businesses voiced their opinions, some of the opponents called for a boycott.
He noted one very vocal opponent to 3 stories and a 33 -foot height limit lives in a 3-story view
condominium. He referred to the charm of downtown Edmonds, pointing out there was no charm in
vacant buildings which would continue unless changes were made. He emphasized growth and
development would occur, it was up to the Council to guide change. He also commented on the
confusing wording on the petition.
Joan Bloom, 600 Stn Avenue N, Edmonds, spoke in opposition to raising height limits, and questioned
how economic development could be tied to the height of buildings. Many changes that have occurred in
Edmonds over the years have not been positive, recalling in earlier years when living on Dayton, she
could walk into downtown to visit grocery stores, produce market, fish market, pharmacies, etc., now
none of those services exist. The character and quality of Edmonds had already changed and raising the
height limits would further change the quality. She agreed with Mr. Page's indication that 2story
buildings were economic ally viable. She pointed out the need to draw more young people into Edmonds,
noting young families could not afford to live in downtown condominiums and teens had no reason to
visit downtown. To increase vitality, she recommended providing affordable housing for young families
as well as providing services and entertainment that drew all ages.
Joan Longstaff, 524 Main, Edmonds, commented as a realtor she has specialized in marketing
community and quality of life for many years. Edmonds was a special community with a small town
atmosphere due to planning for growth and development together. She recalled planning that has been
done in the past that moved the City forward and urged the community to continue to plan and grow
together. She expressed support for the proposed Comprehensive Plan, noting when residents want to sell
their large homes and move to the bowl, they want services to be available. She also supported 12 -foot
first floor ceiling heights, setbacks and wider sidewalks.
Careen Rubenkonig, 1.1505 81't Place W, Edmonds, former Architectural Design. Board Member,
referred to her letter to the Council. In response to Mayor Haakenson's recent newspaper article,
although she appreciated his efforts to explain the issues for the public, she disagreed with his last article
on several premises. First, it appeared Mayor Haakenson supported having the Council make decisions
on development applications — she pointed out that was currently the role of the Architectural Design
Board (ADB) which she found to be in the best interest of Edmonds citizens as the ADB was not a
political group but a group of design professionals and citizens. If the decision was made by the Council,
objectivity in the decision could be compromised Second, during her 7 -year term on the ADB, it was
apparent the issue was not so much height of buildings but building mass. She favored the ability for the
ADB to depart from the code to address building massing. Third, whatever is done to zoning in the BC
zone and waterfront, she recommended the Council keep in mind there were other areas of the city that
love their view of the sky as much as residents who value their view of the mountains. Fourth, keep the
public hearing process open and do not limit participation to those within 300 feet. Fifth, allow additional
heights for commercial use on the first floor.
Lon Davidson, 1111 Emerald Hills Drive, Edmonds, advised his intent this summer was to move his
business from downtown Seattle to downtown Edmonds. He was excited about the Comprehensive Plan
due to improvements such as wider sidewalks, setback, plantings, vital economic community, etc. He
supported the suggestion for all concerned to participate in the development of Design Guidelines.
Edmonds City Council ApprovedMinutes
February 15, 2005
Page 14
Sean Drew, 2329 N 58`h Street, Seattle, co -owner of the lots on Sunset Avenue, expressed his support
for the proposed new transitional office- residential zoning. His family had owned the parcel since 1976
and until recently, he was opposed to plans to develop the lots because single family development was not
economically feasible and a rezone to commercial did not feel right for the community. The proposal for
a transitional office- residential was appropriate for these lots and was a reasonable solution to allow the
basic use of this area to be commercial which was appropriate due to its proximity to the train tracks but
with a reduced height and larger street setback than a commercial designation would allow. This would
reduce the impact on the area and allow development to blend with existing housing to the north and their
commercial building to the south. He encouraged the Council to adopt the proposed draft Comprehensive
Plan as recommended by the Planning Board.
Collin Winters, 4319 109"` Place SE, Everett, speaking on behalf of Wilcox Architectural and General
Contracting, expressed their support for the Comprehensive Plan as recommended by the Planning Board.
He noted over the past seven years, the ADB has done a great job enforcing the code and Comprehensive
Plan. With regard to economic growth of the community, the proposed 33 -foot building height that
would accommodate a 12 -foot first floor ceiling height would make development downtown feasible.
John Reed, 720 6`" Avenue S, Edmonds, expressed his opposition to increasing building heights. The
issue was not financial as it has been stated that 2 -story buildings could be profitable. He pointed out, 1)
the land values in the Heartland report were too high and used too little parking, 2) the Heartland report
questioned the demand for retail space in the downtown area, 3) additional revenue generated would not
be substantial, only $470,000 for property and sales tax at full build -out, 4) there would be additional
costs associated with the Comprehensive Plan as currently structured because increased density
downtown as well as increasing the number of businesses downtown would require traffic and parking
improvements which would offset any additional revenue. There were other sources of revenue available
including B &O taxes that total $3.4 million as evidenced by sources listed in the 2005 budget that were
brainstormed by the Council and staff.
Darlene McLellan, 22608 92 °d Avenue W, Edmonds, commented the Planning Department had
carefully and thoughtfully evaluated the prospects for growth. In order to achieve a 33 -foot building
height, a building would need to be set back 3 feet from the sidewalk, creating a very pedestrian friendly
environment which the recently constructed step down design does not provide. She urged the
community to trust that Design Guidelines would be in place to provided necessary controls. She
concluded the Planning Board did a very thorough job of researching the existing planning documents
including the Cultural Plan which references the use of art. She welcomed new design objectives that
would invite more appealing building design and differentiations in fagade treatment. The standards
suggested in the Plan mimic the spaces in more historic buildings. She expressed her support for the
Comprehensive Plan and encouraged the Council to support it.
Albert Dykes, 9792 Edmonds Way #260, Edmonds, one of the owners of the Edmonds Shopping
Center, the former Safeway, and developer of hundreds of thousands of square feet of commercial,
industrial, residential and recreational properties, commented his property was the largest property in the
area and he has been told he paid the most in taxes. As a member of the Chamber's Economic
Development Committee, he reported the committee unanimously adopted the resolution in support of the
Planning Board's recommendation. He encouraged the Council to give substantial weight to the Planning
Board's unanimous decision. The minor changes would allow the City to attract ground floor retail.
With regard to Mr. Page's disagreement with the figures in the Heartland study, Mr. Dykes noted he has
personally sold and was aware of numerous other BC properties in the Edmonds bowl area that have been
sold at prices above those quoted in the study. For those who want to preserve Edmonds' character
Edmonds City Council ApprovedMinutes
February 15, 2005
Page 15
downtown, he pointed out the 15 -20 foot ceilings commonly developed for commercial space in
downtown in the early 1900's.
Don Kreiman, 24006 95`" Place W, Edmonds, agreed with Mr. Marmion that the decision was whether
the City wanted 2 or 3 -story construction downtown and whether it was 2 or 3-story, most residents
wanted a building everyone could be proud o£ Although he had heard all the arguments for and against
3 -story buildings, he had not heard the consequences if the City did not allow 3 stories other than
consultants who have indicated development will cease in downtown Edmonds if buildings are restricted
to 2 stories. The Planning Board assured the Comprehensive Plan as amended would comply with the
GMA but he questioned whether it would comply if only 2 -story buildings were allowed. He questioned
whether if a developer could not make a profit with 2- stories, would the price of land decrease due to
lower demand or would prices of condominiums increase due to limited availability? He expressed
concern that if downtown was not allowed to develop with 3-story buildings, the result would be
additional development in residential neighborhoods to accommodate the growth which would also
necessitate removal of trees. He recalled the Planning Board unanimously recommended the draft
Comprehensive Plan and subsequently provided clarification regarding their recommendations. He
trusted the Planning Board's knowledge and reputation as well as the process.
Joe Wermus, 752 Dayton Street, Edmonds, referred to the appeal of the downtown fountain area
including the small buildings and view of the sky versus the lack of appeal in areas where there are taller
buildings. Edmonds was unique and priceless and that appeal was more important than maximizing the
first floor ceiling heights and building heights. He questioned the need for 3 stories, noting Anacortes is a
huge success and does not have tall buildings. The height increase was actually 8 feet as a flat building
would be allowed to be increased from 25 feet to 33 feet; a major change in the character of the town and
Edmonds would not be the same with 33 -foot tall buildings.
Mathew Brenan, owner of property at 207 Soh Avenue N, Edmonds, expressed his pleasure at hearing
others express their support for the Planning Board's recommendations and he encouraged the Council to
adopt their recommendations. He noted the Planning Board wanted to preserve the past as well as
discover the future. They did not want static, they wanted dynamic. They did not want status quo, they
wanted growth. They did not want old, they wanted new and they wanted strong leadership. He recalled
Council President Marin's comment that there were two sides. A property owner had the right to develop
their property within the codes. He agreed the charm of Edmonds was the people, the bowl area, and the
scenic views. He reiterated people walking downtown were unlikely ID look at buildings and notice
whether they were 25, 30 or 33 feet tall, they came to Edmonds to experience the beauty.
Dick White, 217 5`" Avenue N #B, Edmonds, property owner adjacent to the property proposed for
development by Mr. Brenan, asserted that in approving that building, the ADB and the Council violated
the code as evidenced by the Snohomish County Superior Court overruling their decision. He did not
object to the building Mr. Brenan proposed other that than the massive size did not fit the area. He
disagreed with Mayor Haakenson's reference in his article to it being a 3 -story building, pointing out the
first floor was a 38 -car parking garage, the second floor was retail /commercial space and the top two
floors were condominiums, a total of 4 stories. Mr. Brenan's design would site the building within 18
inches of his property making it impossible for them to maintain the south side of their building once the
building was constructed. He concluded what triggered the 1700+ signatures on the petition was Mr.
Brenan's building because it violated the city's code and did not fit. He expressed his opposition to that
portion of the draft Comprehensive Plan.
Gaylynn Beighton, 307 147`" Street SW, Edmonds, commercial real estate broker, explained she has
negotiated hundreds of leases with retail and office tenants, but has not leased any retail or office space in
downtown Edmonds since November 2004, very unusual for her. She described her experience last year
Edmonds City Council ApprovedMinutes
February 15, 2005
Page 16
when a prestigious federal government office wanted to relocate to downtown Edmonds. After four site
visits, a final site was selected but later rejected because the office was below grade and did not provide a
friendly, accessible entrance. Many buildings in downtown Edmonds were functionally obsolete from the
time they were constructed. She supported the draft Comprehensive Plan and encouraged a minimum 12-
foot first floor ceiling height and a minimum 33 -foot building height. The residential property tax burden
would be subsidized when the City was able to attract more new retailers. If the City was unable to
attract new retailers, the easiest alternative was to raise residential property taxes to fund the City's
budget, thus residents benefit from diversity in the tax base. First floor heights must be raised if new
buildings are to accommodate successful, vibrant retail tenants. The existing height limit that allows 10-
foot first floor ceiling heights was not adequate to create modern, inviting retail and the existing ceiling
heights must be raised at least 2 feet above the current 10 feet. She noted 10 -foot ceilings height actually
resulted in 8 -foot finished height to accommodate the building's mechanical infrastructure. She noted
some of the chronically vacant storefronts and retail spaces were ultimately used as office space because
it was difficult /impossible to rent the space due to inadequate ceiling height for retail use.
Bruce Nicholson, 9829 Cherry Street, Edmonds, commended the Planning Board and staff for what he
considered one of the best thought -out plans in his 59 -year history in Edmonds. Edmonds was at a
crossroads of either dying on the vine or revitalizing to improve the economic health of the community.
Those who did not believe the City was struggling for revenue were not paying attention to City business.
He noted with the road improvement cycle, his street would never be resurfaced during his lifetime. He
referred to comments to have development occur on Hwy. 99, pointing out when people come to
Edmonds, they come to the bowl, not to visit Hwy. 99. He agreed with Mr. Dykes that an economically
viable 2 -story building could not be constructed in downtown Edmonds with the cost of the land. He
subsidized the office building they developed on 4" Avenue by 40% to make the rents viable. He
supported the Planning Board's unanimous recommendation cf the Comprehensive Plan and urged the
Council to adopt it.
Norma Bruns, 960 Stn Avenue S, Edmonds, concurred with the comments urging the Council to think of
Edmonds not as a big city but as a small, waterfront town. She referred to the Planning Board's reasons
for voting for the Comprehensive Plan, recalling one member indicated it was a good start but he would
prefer even higher buildings, others mentioned economics as their main reason. She disagreed with the
comment that people who signed the petition did not shop in Edmonds, emphasizing that many of the
people who were instrumental in the creation of the Alliance for Citizens of Edmonds have lived in
Edmonds for over 50 years and they shopped and conducted their business in Edmonds.
Edmund Lee, 110 James Street, co- owner, Hotel Group, thanked the Planning Board and staff for the
work they did and the Council for their efforts on behalf of the community. He congratulated the citizens
present for their respectful comments even though there were opposing views. He displayed photographs
of the massing of the building that would be located on the Sunset Avenue site, noting it was similar in
height to the surrounding properties. He noted the Comprehensive Plan as recommended by the Planning
Board contained an ambiguity that was critical to this project; when first drafted it was intended to be 25
feet above the average sidewalk height which would be a new method of establishing height. When the
plans were drawn, the method was the standard BC zone, 30 feet above average four corners. He noted
both methods were within 1 -2 feet, that was not the issue. If the Comprehensive Plan as recommended by
the Planning Board was not further defined and was later interpreted to be 25 feet above the average of
the four corners, the project could not be built to accommodate parking with two stories above. He
encouraged Council to define this now or set that issue aside and address it during the code process.
Hearing no further public comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public hearing and thanked the
audience for respecting each other's opinions. He then declared a brief recess.
Edmonds City Council ApprovedMinutes
February 15, 2005
Page 17
4. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, Edmonds, referred to the height of the area in the rear of the
Council Chambers and above the Council dais. Mayor Haakenson inquired whether Mr. Hertrich should
be providing this information while the Council was in deliberation. City Attorney Scott Snyder
responded this was a legislative matter, Mr. Hertrich could provide any information 1r wished although
any information stated outside the public hearing record would not be considered if the matter were
referred to the Growth Management Hearings Board. Mr. Hertrich continued, pointing out the
measurement from floor to the lights was 11 feet. He referred to this as cavernous; noting the proposal in
the Comprehensive Plan was 12 -foot first floor ceiling heights. He pointed out the ceiling height in City
Hall was 9 -feet which was sufficiently roomy. He encouraged the Council to keep those dimensions in
mind when considering the recommended 12 -foot first floor ceiling heights.
Michael Young, 20209 83rd Avenue W, Edmonds, commended the Planning Board, staff and City
Council for their efforts on the Comprehensive Plan amendments as well as on other issues. He was
impressed by the demeanor of Councilmembers who come under attack regularly.
Strom Peterson, 9110 Olympic View Drive, Edmonds, clarified a 12 -foot first floor ceiling height
would result in an 11 -foot or less finished ceiling height due to space needed for venting, pipes, etc. He
thanked the City Council, staff, Planning Board and the Mayor for the work they have done.
Darrell Marmion, 750 Edmonds Street, Edmonds, thanked the 1700 people who signed the petition
opposing increased height limits. He pointed out the first 1000 signatures were collected in front of
Petosa's, indicating they did shop in Edmonds.
Joan Longstaff, 524 Main, Edmonds, also thanked those who signed the petition. She referred to
verbiage in the Edmonds brochure that described Edmonds as a small picturesque community that
captivates visitors and residents alike with beautiful flowers, culture, fine dining and shopping and a
bustling waterfront that overlooks the Olympic Mountains.
Don Kreiman, 24006 95th Place W, Edmonds, expressed his pride in the community, noting it was
about the people not buildings. He was glad everyone was able to provide their point of view with no
controversy. He expressed dismay with continual attacks on Planning Board Members and City
Councilmembers. He urged the Council to read and discuss the Planning Board's research as well as the
input provided by citizens and businesses.
5. REPORT ON CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS OF FEBRUARY 8, 2005
Public safety Public Safety Committee
Committee Councilmember Dawson reported the Committee discussed a resolution regarding the National Incident
Management System (NIMS), a city -wide emergency incident management system that guides City
Directors in training key personnel and developing department - specific emergency response procedures.
The resolution was adopted on tonight's Consent Agenda. Next, the Committee had a presentation on the
Edmonds Fire Safety Foundation's purchase of Automatic External Defibrillators (AEDs) for placement
in City Hall, Frances Anderson Center, Library, Police and Council Chamber area, Public Works
building, Senior Center and Yost Pool at a cost of approximately $17,200. Fire Chief Tomberg will
prepare a Council resolution thanking the Foundation for adoption at a future meeting. The final item was
a report by Chief Tomberg that the Fire Department had received a $200,000 grant for the purchase of a
fire- rescue boat to be berthed at the Port of Edmonds via a 2004 Homeland Security grant administered
by Snohomish County Department of Emergency Management. The boat will be a resource for both the
City and the Port for fire suppression, EMS, hazardous materials response, technical rescue, Dive Team,
Edmonds City Council ApprovedMinutes
February 15, 2005
Page 18
law enforcement support, waterside access in support of landslide emergency operations, etc. Chief
Tomberg will be making a report to the Port at their February 28 meeting.
Finance Committee
Committee Councilmember Plunkett reported the Committee discussed the rationale for reclassifying an Office
Assistant position to Senior Office Assistant. The job description was drafted in the 1990's and since that
time work requiring computer skills and balancing of deposits justifies the reclassification. The
reclassification was approved on tonight's Consent Agenda. The Committee then reviewed the telephone
system financing bid results and recommended awarding the financing to Bank of America. This was
approved on tonight's Consent Agenda. Next the Committee reviewed an ordinance authorizing $2
million in interim financing for Treatment Plant projects with Frontier Bank. This item was approved on
tonight's Consent Agenda. The final item was a fourth quarter budget report which is available via the
Finance office.
6. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Haakenson expressed his appreciation for the large audience conducting themselves in such a well
behaved manner,particularly on such a controversial matter.
7. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Council President Marin announced the rededication of the City's war memorial on Monday,February 22
Edmonds War at 4:00 p.m. in front of the Carnegie Library. He explained the monument was built in the 1950's and
Memorial g p
Rededication originally located on Hwy. 99. When originally constructed, the branch of service and rank for the
individuals listed on the memorial were omitted and when it was moved to Edmonds, it was decided it did
not look enough like a war memorial. A 3-year effort followed to acquire two artifacts that will stand as
sentinels. As part of the rededication ceremony, each name will be read and a bell rung. There will also
be people in attendance who can describe some of the people listed on the monument.
Council President Marin advised two bills were introduced, SB5121 and HB 1390 that would eliminate
Proposed the right of cities to have a sayin the sitingof an airport. He noted these bills were introduced following
Legislation re: g rP
Siting of adoption of the Council's resolution opposing expansion of Paine Field. Staff was directed to acquire
Airports information on a substitute bill in the Senate and to work with the City Attorney to draft a new resolution
expressing the Council's displeasure that the State would consider taking this decision out of cities'
hands.
Councilmember Dawson commented she was grateful so many people cared about the community; she
has received 5-10 emails/telephone calls each day from citizens wanting to voice their views. She
cautioned as the Council worked though the issues, they would not be able to please everyone. Next, she
congratulated her husband who had begun working in downtown Edmonds and was enjoying the much
shorter commute to downtown Edmonds instead of Seattle.
Student Representative Bryan Huntzberger commented on the behavior of the majority of the audience,
explaining to those voicing their opinion that a calm, less aggressive manner was much more effective.
With no further business,the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:28 p.m.
6..
GAMY H NSON,MAYOR 7,da.".04.4...- "41. eit....e.e.J
SANDRA S. CHASE, CITY CLERK
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 15,2005
Page 19
Athi AGENDA
.�" EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL
r Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex
250 5th Avenue North
7:00 - 10:00 p.m.
FEBRUARY 15, 2005
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 February 8, 2005.
(C) Approval of claim checks #77216 through #77419 for the week of February 7,
2005, in the amount of$339,279.61.*
*Information regarding claim checks may be viewed electronically at www.ci.edmonds.wa.us
(D) Acknowledge receipt of Claims for Damages from Elmer Rupp ($1,162.81), and
George P. Basioli ($1,000,000).
(E) Authorization for Mayor to sign Addendum Number 1 to Professional Services
Agreement with Brown and Caldwell for Screenings System Improvement
Project.
(F) Approval of reclassification of Office Assistant position in the City Clerk's
Office.
(G) Proclamation in honor of Edmonds War Memorial Rededication Day, February
21, 2005.
(H) Proposed Resolution adopting the National Incident Management System
(NIMS).
(I) Proposed Ordinance granting to new Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC, a Delaware
Limited Liability Company, D/B/A Cingular Wireless, a Master Use Agreement,
to install, operate, and maintain wireless communication facilities within a
certain designated public right-of-way of the City of Edmonds, State of
Washington, prescribing certain rights, duties, terms, and conditions with
respect thereto, and establishing an effective date.
Page 1 of 2
CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA
FEBRUARY 15, 2005
(J) Proposed Ordinance amending the provisions of ECC Chapter 10.30 Disability
Board, Section 10.30.010 Board Created - Terms of Office in order to delete a
prohibition against serving more than two consecutive terms.
(K) Proposed Ordinance relating to contracting indebtedness; providing for the
issuance of the $200,000 par value Limited Tax General Obligation Bond, 2005,
of the City for general City purposes to provide the funds with which to pay
costs of acquiring telecommunications equipment and other City purposes,
and paying the costs of issuance and sale of such bond; fixing the date, form
maturity, interest rate, terms and covenants of the bond; designating an
acquisition fund and establishing a bond fund, and approving the sale and
providing for the delivery of the bond to Bank of America, N.A, of Seattle,
Washington.
(L) Proposed Ordinance relating to the combined water and sewerage systems
comprising the waterworks utility of the City; specifying, adopting and
ordering the carrying out of a system or plan of additions to and betterments
and extensions of that system; authorizing the issuance of not to exceed
$2,000,000 principal amount of its water and sewer revenue bond anticipation
note (revolving line of credit) pending the issuance of water and sewer revenue
bonds authorized herein; fixing the date, form, maturity, interest rate, terms
and covenants of the note; establishing a note redemption fund; and
authorizing the issuance and providing for the delivery of the note to Frontier
Bank of Edmonds, Washington.
3. (150 Min.) Public Hearing on amendments to the Edmonds Comprehensive Plan
concerning the Downtown Waterfront Activity Center (including amendments
to the Downtown Waterfront Plan). The proposal would establish new
"districts" within the downtown area and describe the uses and design
standards (including height and setbacks) that would apply; this includes a
proposed new height limit of 33 feet in most downtown commercial areas to
accommodate a new 12-foot first floor standard.
4. Audience Comments (3 Minute Limit Per Person)*
*Regarding matters not listed on the Agenda as Closed Record Review or as Public Hearings.
5. ( 5 Min.) Report on City Council Committee Meetings of February 8, 2005.
6. ( 5 Min.) Mayor's Comments
7. (15 Min.) Council Comments
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