03/08/2005 City CouncilEDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES
MARCH 8, 2005
Following City Council Committee meetings at 6:00 p.m., 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
Richard Marin, Council President
Michael Plunkett, Councilmember
Jeff Wilson, Councilmember
Mauri Moore, Councilmember
Peggy Pritchard Olson, Councilmember
Dave Orvis, Councilmember
Deanna Dawson, Councilmember
ALSO PRESENT
Bryan Huntzberger, Student Representative
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
STAFF PRESENT
David Stern, Chief of Police
Duane Bowman, Development Services Director
Jennifer Gerend, Economic Development Dir.
Stephen Clifton, Community Services Director
Brian McIntosh, Parks & Recreation Director
Dave Gebert, City Engineer
Rob Chave, Planning Manager
Scott Snyder, City Attorney
Sandy Chase, City Clerk
Meghan Cruz, Video Recorder
Council President Marin requested the addition of a five minute Executive Session regarding an
Change to the Agreement for Investigation of Real Estate to the end of the agenda with possible action following.
Agenda COUNCIL PRESIDENT MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, TO
APPROVE THE AGENDA AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
COUNCIL PRESIDENT MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, FOR
APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows:
Approve (A) ROLL CALL
3/1/05
Minutes (B) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MARCH 1, 2005.
Approve I (C) APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #77696 THROUGH #77871 FOR THE WEEK OF
Claim Checks FEBRUARY 28, 2005, IN THE AMOUNT OF $348,599.60. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL
DIRECT DEPOSITS AND CHECKS #40287 THROUGH #40363 FOR THE PERIOD
FEBRUARY 16 THROUGH FEBRUARY 28, 2005, IN THE AMOUNT OF $825,542.66.
Legal
Services (D) APPROVAL OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR LEGAL SERVICES
Agreement BETWEEN THE CITY OF EDMONDS AND SALTER JOYCE ZIKER, PLLC.
Marina Beach
Restoration I (E) AUTHORIZATION TO APPROVE BID FOR MARINA BEACH RESTORATION.
Edmonds City Council ApprovedMinutes
March 8, 2005
Page 1
Passing of Mayor Haakenson advised of the recent passing of City employee, Melinda Duell, remarking over the
city
Employee past year she had been an inspiration to all as she waged a losing battle against cancer. He explained
Melinda Duell although her name may not be recognizable to all, her work would be; she was responsible for the
hanging baskets and corner gardens throughout Edmonds. He recalled seeing her on her hands and knees
tending the flowers and even as she was fighting the chemotherapy treatments just a few short weeks ago,
she was tending the flowerbeds and had already planted the seeds for the flower baskets, her pride and
joy. He recalled when sitting with her at her hospital bed a few weeks ago, she began to cry and told him
that she just wanted to come back to work, that she missed her job and her co-workers. He offered the
City's prayers, thoughts and hearts to her husband Rich and their family. Mayor Haakenson summarized
Melinda made Edmonds a better place for everyone and she will be missed He invited the audience to
join him and staff in a moment of silence to remember Melinda.
Amendments 3. CONTINUED COUNCIL DELIBERATION ON THE PUBLIC HEARING HELD ON FEBRUARY
tO the
Comprehensive 15. 2005, REGARDING AMENDMENTS TO THE EDMONDS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Plan CONCERNING THE DOWNTOWN WATERFRONT ACTIVITY CENTER (INCLUDING
AMENDMENTS TO THE DOWNTOWN WATERFRONT PLAN)
AMENDMENT NO. I TO THE MAIN MOTION
COUNCILMEMBER MOORE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT MARIN, TO
REPLACE THE PREVIOUS AMENDMENT REGARDING PLANNED RESIDENTIAL - OFFICE
WITH THE PROPOSED LANGUAGE ON PAGE 37, "BECAUSE THE AREA OF THIS
DESIGNATION IS LOCATED ADJACENT TO COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT TO THE SOUTH,
THE RAILROAD TO THE WEST, AND IS NEAR BOTH MULTIPLE FAMILY AND SINGLE
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, THIS AREA SHOULD ACT AS A TRANSITION
BETWEEN THESE USES. BUILDING DESIGN FOR THIS AREA SHOULD BE SENSITIVE TO
THE SURROUNDING COMMERCIAL MULTIPLE FAMILYAND SINGLE FAMILY CHARACTER.
DUE TO THE STEEPLY SLOPING NATURE OF THE PROPERTIES, BUILDING HEIGHTS
SHALL GENERALLY BE LIMITED TO TWO STORIES ABOVE SUNSETAVENUE) ".
Council President Marin clarified this paragraph would replace the paragraph added by motion at the
March 1 Council meeting. Councilmember Moore agreed that was her intent.
VOTE ON AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE MAIN MOTION
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Councilmember Wilson proposed replacing "are limited to 30 feet" with "shall be pedestrian in scale and
compatible with the historic character of this area" in the Fountain Square section on page 37. He noted
the Comprehensive Plan amendment would be followed by adoption of specific design regulations and
Design Guidelines to implement this language. He acknowledged at some point the Council would need
to establish specific numbers; however, the Comprehensive Plan as a policy document established the
framework and was not intended to include specifics such as numbers.
COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT MARIN, TO
MAKE CHANGES AS HIGHLIGHTED IN GREEN ON PAGE 35 TO "FOUNTAIN SQUARE"
REPLACING THE LANGUAGE ON PAGE 35 THAT LIMITED BUILDING HEIGHTS TO 30
FEET WITH "SHALL BE PEDESTRIAN IN SCALE AND COMPATIBLE WITH THE HISTORIC
CHARACTER OF THIS AREA."
Councilmember Orvis indicated he would not support the motion, explaining he would prefer "30 feet" be
replaced with "25 feet plus 5 feet for roof" He did not support replacing the protection provided for
height in this district with language that only required buildings to be pedestrian in scale which he
interpreted to mean height could be traded for setback.
Councilmember Plunkett also indicated he would oppose the amendment, explaining specific heights
could and should be included in the Comprehensive Plan.
Edmonds City Council ApprovedMinutes
March 8, 2005
Page 2
Councilmember Dawson commented it was up to the Council and community to decide whether
including specific height restrictions was important enough to include in the Comprehensive Plan. She
noted in some cities it may not be appropriate; in Edmonds, it clearly was. She preferred to have specific
heights included and if not, preferred there be some greater detail with regard to the intent of the
language. She noted it was particularly important in the Fountain Square area to define the intent of
pedestrian scale and compatible with the historic character of the area.
Councilmember Wilson reiterated the Comprehensive Plan was a policy document. If it was not, the Plan
would include specifics such as the number of required parking spaces. He commented there was no
policy basis for selecting a number, finding that building design, compatibility and scale were design
features that were developed via a design process. He preferred establishing a vision first, followed by
development of specific regulations to implement the vision which would also be a public process via the
Planning Board and the City Council for final adoption. He did not support establishing a number
without knowing how it related to a final design of a building and the appropriate scale. The
Comprehensive Plan would provide the tools for creation of development regulations following the
adoption of the Comprehensive Plan.
Councilmember Moore agreed with Councilmember Wilson, pointing out the overall intent of design as
developed by the Planning Board was reflected in the Comprehensive Plan beginning on page 38 (Site
Design). These were good guidelines that would help guide the process of developing Design Guidelines.
At the suggestion of Mayor Haakenson to include the amendments to all districts in the motion,
Councilmember Wilson added the following to the motion:
ARTS CENTER CORRIDOR — DELETE THE LANGUAGE ON PAGE 36 WITH SPECIFIC
REFERENCE TO 30 FEET IN HEIGHT AND REQUIRING ONE FOOT OF SETBACK FOR
EVERY ONE FOOT OF HEIGHT AND ESTABLISHING A MAXIMUM OF 33 FEET AND ADD
THE SENTENCE, "BUILDING DESIGN AND HEIGHT SHALL BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE
GOAL OF CREATING A PEDESTRIAN ORIENTED ARTS CORRIDOR WHILE PROVIDING
INCENTIVES FOR THE ADAPTIVE REUSE OF EXISTING HISTORIC STRUCTURES."
DOWNTOWN MIXED COMMERCIAL — DELETE THE LANGUAGE ON PAGE 36
REGARDING 30 FOOT HEIGHT AND 33 -FOOT HEIGHT MAXIMUM AND ADD LANGUAGE,
"BUILDING HEIGHTS SHALL BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE GOAL OF ACHIEVING
PEDESTRIAN SCALE DEVELOPMENT."
DOWNTOWN MIXED RESIDENTIAL — DELETE LANGUAGE ON PAGE 36 REQUIRING ONE
FOOT OF SETBACK FOR EACH ONE FOOT OF HEIGHT AND A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 33
FEET AND ADD LANGUAGE, "HEIGHT AND DESIGN OF BUILDINGS SHALL CONFORM TO
THE STANDARDS OF THE DOWNTOWNMIXED COMMERCIAL DISTRICT."
SHORELINE COMMERCIAL — DELETE THE LANGUAGE ON PAGE 37 REGARDING
SETBACKS AND THE MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT AND ADD LANGUAGE, 'BUILDING
HEIGHTS SHALL BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE GOAL OF ACHIEVING PEDESTRIAN SCALE
DEVELOPMENT WHILE PROVIDING INCENTIVES TO ENCOURAGE PUBLIC VIEW
CORRIDORS."
DOWNTOWN CONVENIENCE COMMERCIAL — DELETE THE LANGUAGE ON PAGE 37
REGARDING ONE FOOT OF SETBACK FOR EACH ADDITIONAL FOOT OF BUILDING
HEIGHT AND THE MAXIMUM 33 -FOOT BUILDING HEIGHT AND ADD LANGUAGE,
"HEIGHT AND DESIGN OF BUILDINGS SHALL CONFORM TO THE STANDARDS OF THE
DOWNTOWN MIXED COMMERCIAL DISTRICT."
HEIGHT — DELETE LANGUAGE REGARDING PROVIDING 1:2 RATIO OF BUILDING
HEIGHT TO PUBLIC SPACE; FOR EXAMPLE WHEN THE EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY IS
LIMITED TO 60 FEET IN WIDTH, BUILDINGS THAT GO ABOVE 30 FEET IN HEIGHT
Edmonds City Council ApprovedMinutes
March 8, 2005
Page 3
SHOULD PROVIDE ADDITIONAL SETBACKS TO MAINTAIN A CONSISTENT HUMAN
SCALE ALONG THE PUBLIC STREETSCAPE. IN THE AREA AROUND THE FOUNTAIN AT
5TH AND MAIN, BUILDING SETBACKS OR STEP -BACKS OF FLOORS ABOVE THE
COMMERCIAL STREET LEVEL SHOULD BE PROVIDED TO ASSURE THAT THE SCALE
OF BUILDINGS RELATES TO THE PUBLIC OPEN SPACE AT THIS LOCATION. REVISE
PARAGRAPH B UNDER HEIGHTS TO READ, "CREATE AND PRESERVE A HUMAN SCALE
FOR DOWNTOWN BUILDINGS. UNLESS MORE SPECIFIC PROVISIONS ARE CONTAINED IN
THE DESCRIPTIONS FOR THE SPECIFIC DOWNTOWN DISTRICTS, BUILDINGS SHALL BE
GENERALLY TWO STORIES IN EXTERIOR APPEARANCE, DESIGN AND CHARACTER.
HOWEVER, HEIGHT INCENTIVES MAY BE ADOPTED WHICH ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE
PEDESTRIAN SCALE OF DOWNTOWN EDMONDS AND WHICH PROVIDE ADDITIONAL
HEIGHT — NOT TO EXCEED THREE STORIES IN APPEARANCE — IN EXCHANGE FOR A
CLEAR PUBLIC BENEFIT SUCH AS DEDICATED PUBLIC SPACES, AMENITIES OR DESIGN
FEATURES WHICH ENHANCE THE PUBLIC STREETSCAPE OR PRESERVE, CREATE OR
ENHANCE VIEWS FROM PUBLIC PROPERTY. NOTE THAT THE DOWNTOWN MASTER PLAN
DISTRICT DESCRIBED ON PAGES 36 -37 COULD ALLOW A DESIGN WHICH PROVIDES FOR
HIGHER BUILDINGS OUTSIDE CURRENT VIEW CORRIDORS. "
Councilmember Plunkett commented this height amendment was the controlling amendment to all
districts. He pointed out that because ` §tory" had not been defined, the height of a story could be
anything, potentially resulting in a height increase above 33 feet. He acknowledged that supposedly a
vision and Design Guidelines would follow to determine the maximum building height based on design,
contending that at some point the Council would need to determine the maximum height. He was unable
to support the motion, believing it to actually be a height increase. He explained the amendment replaced
the numbers with words, words that meant more than the numbers.
Councilmember Orvis commented the words that troubled him were "story" and "appearance." He
displayed a photograph of the Marion Building in Everett that had a nice exterior and looked like a 2-
story building but was actually a 4 -story building. He estimated the building height at approximately 40
feet although it appeared to be two stories. He found this amendment was moving in the wrong direction
and he planned to vote against the motion for those reasons.
Councilmember Dawson agreed with Councilmembers Plunkett and Orvis, recalling many citizens were
troubled by an increase to 33 feet; the proposed language could result in even taller buildings. She
expressed concern that if the proposed language were adopted, a future ordinance would not be limited to
33 feet. She preferred the language she proposed last week, 25 + 5 feet, returning to the height restriction
that has been in place for some time. She explained the Planning Board considered pedestrian scale and
developed a number they felt was appropriate. Although she felt the height the Planning Board proposed
was too high, the proposed amendment language deleted the number and appeared to indicate that number
was not high enough. She concluded the intent of the motion appeared to be for Design Guidelines to
consider building heights above 33 feet. Although she supported eliminating the language regarding 33
feet, she was unable to support language that would potentially allow even higher building heights.
Councilmember Moore remarked the fears being expressed were unfounded, pointing out there was
nothing in the Comprehensive Plan that addressed higher buildings and she did not believe that was
Councilmember Wilson's intent. She disagreed the proposed language opened the door to higher
buildings. She concluded the Comprehensive Plan was a policy document and the specificity would be
included in Design Guidelines that would follow adoption of the Comprehensive Plan.
Mayor Haakenson asked what the height limit would be if the Council approved this amendment tonight
and a builder proposed a building tomorrow. City Attorney Scott Snyder responded height limits would
remain as they currently exist; the amendment would not result in any change. Further, there was a
moratorium in place and a developer could not vest any rights.
Edmonds City Council ApprovedMinutes
March 8, 2005
Page 4
Council President Marin spoke in favor of the motion, pointing out the previous amendments that speak
to historic preservation and the inclusion of design queues from the past. He commented this amendment
would provide some latitude and would assist in providing a bridge between the past and future in a
manner that would benefit the entire city. He referred to Port Townsend and Aberdeen where there are
some major buildings downtown, buildings with architectural style that the City could be proud o£ He
explained this amendment was a good companion to the historic preservation amendments and would
allow latitude to reconstruct historic buildings.
Mayor Haakenson asked for clarification — if this amendment did not change the height limit, what would
be necessary for the Council to change the height limit and if the Council did nothing after approving the
Comprehensive Plan, what was the height limit? Mr. Snyder responded the height limit under the current
development regulations remained unchanged. He noted the legal "soft spot" was the City's
Comprehensive Plan will imply and promise a development incentive program for developers that will
not exist in the development regulations; therefore, it would be incumbent on the Council to draft
development regulations as soon as possible, at least by the self - certification date of May 9.
Mayor Haakenson emphasized this amendment did not change height limits. Mr. Snyder agreed,
explaining the development regulation height limits remained There was a moratorium on applications
so no one can vest rights. However, development regulations implementing the Comprehensive Plan will
need to be developed promptly.
Councilmember Dawson reiterated the language implied higher heights would be adopted. She suggested
if the four members of the Council who favored the amendments did not intent to raise heights any
further, they should state that or risk leaving the public with the impression that they do. She suggested
the Council either state or take a vote on the maximum height restriction now so the intent was clear.
Councilmember Olson spoke in favor of the amendment, recalling public testimony that preferred Design
Guidelines be developed first followed by establishing the height. That was the intent of including this
policy statement in the Comprehensive Plan, followed by development of the Design Guidelines where a
decision regarding building heights would be made.
Councilmember Plunkett commented providing latitude was the reason he did not support this language.
If the intent was not to go above 30 or 33 feet, he preferred Councilmembers make that statement now.
Absent that statement, he found it reasonable to assume that the amendment was a height increase and
was intended to lead the Council in that direction.
Council President Marin clarified it was not his intent to go above 33 feet. Having been involved as a
builder for much of his life, he looked at a building's construction, plumbing, wiring, etc. He noted many
of the older buildings in the City were in poor condition and the opportunities for renovation were limited
due to the type of construction, wiring, etc.
Councilmember Plunkett commented the Historic Preservation Commission passed ordinances that allow
owners of historic structures to renovate structures under those historic preservation codes. He noted an
owner of an historic structure could refurbish the building and even rebuild it should it be destroyed.
Council President Marin commented in his experience it was often more expensive to remodel a building
than to demolish the building and rebuild. He agreed it was good to have incentives in place to allow an
owner to rebuild an historic structure, but it must be recognized that this was done at a premium and the
owners must be willing to make that commitment.
VOTE ON AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO THE MAIN MOTION
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4 -3), COUNCIL PRESIDENT MARIN,
COUNCILMEMBERS MOORE, OLSON AND WILSON IN FAVOR, AND COUNCILMEMBERS
PLUNKETT, DAWSON AND ORVIS OPPOSED.
Edmonds City Council ApprovedMinutes
March 8, 2005
Page 5
At Council President Marin's request, Mr. Snyder explained the difficulty with the action just taken was it
created a promise of an ncentive program for developers. Staff would need to draft development
regulations by the first week in May in order to self - certify by the May 9 deadline in order to quality for
Public Works Trust Fund loans. However, this would be difficult to accomplish in six weeks given the
public process that requires a Planning Board public hearing, a Planning Board recommendation, a
Council public hearing and a Council recommendation. This process would require a great deal of
thought, design guidelines, and details and was not the type of thing that could be accomplished via an
interim ordinance and not without a public process. He suggested building into the Comprehensive Plan
an acknowledgement that the Council would be developing Design Guidelines over the next year. He
referred to a proposed amendment developed by staff and noted the key sentence in the amendment was
"therefore the grogram of height incentives referenced above will be developed during 2005 for final
implementation in conjunction with the City's 2005 Comprehensive Plan updates." He explained this
would allow the Council time to craft a process that had reasonable public involvement and develop
regulations that were detailed enough to meet the Anderson v. Issaquah requirement to provide detailed
directions so that developers do not have to guess. For those who were skeptical, he advised the
moratorium could be continued and until the Council approved something otherwise, the current height
limits would remain in effect.
AMENDMENT NO.3 TO THE MAIN MOTION
COUNCIL PRESIDENT MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, TO
APPROVE THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENT: THE DOWNTOWN AREA OF EDMONDS IS
THE CITY'S SIGNATURE COMMERCIAL AND PUBLIC CORE AND HELPS DEFINE THE
CHARACTER OF OUR COMMUNITY. CHANGE IS NECESSARY TO BALANCE MIXED USE
DEVELOPMENT AND ACHIEVE HIGH QUALITY RETAIL AND COMMERCIAL SPACES
WHILE NOT LOSING THE CITY'S CHARACTER. THEREFORE, THE PROGRAM OF
HEIGHT INCENTIVES REFERENCED ABOVE WILL BE DEVELOPED DURING 2005 FOR
FINAL IMPLEMENTATION IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE CITY'S 2005 COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN UPDATES. THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS WILL INCLUDE PLANNING SESSIONS
IN WHICH THE PUBLIC, BUSINESS PERSONS, DESIGN PROFESSIONALS AND
DEVELOPERS ALL PARTICIPATE.
Councilmember Wilson asked if the amendment were adopted and the City moved forward with drafting
Design Guidelines and development regulations to implement the Comprehensive Plan, would they be
limited to how it would affect a two story building. Mr. Snyder stated the Comprehensive Plan and
development regulations must be consistent. This amendment would acknowledge that the development
regulations warrant a public process and would take longer than six weeks to develop.
Councilmember Wilson stated adopting this amendment would allow the City to proceed with
development regulations related to 1 -2 story buildings, pedestrian scale, etc. Mr. Snyder explained the
language provides a laundry list of types of incentives; the Council may determine during the process that
there are incentives they do not want to include. This could be accomplished via amendment of the
Comprehensive Plan during the 2005 process at the same time development regulations are adopted to
implement the other incentives.
Mayor Haakenson inquired whether the Council's intent via the creation of design regulations was to
return the issue of a specific height to the Planning Board. Councilmember Wilson answered yes,
acknowledging specific heights have to be included in the development regulations. Mayor Haakenson
urged the Council to select the specific height number themselves rather than return it to the Planning
Board who has taken public comment and provided a recommendation with regard to height. He
explained the Planning Board did not care what number the Council chose but they did not want the issue
back again as the public comment would be the same. He cautioned the Council against sending an issue
back to the Planning Board that they had already ruled on.
Edmonds City Council ApprovedMinutes
March 8, 2005
Page 6
Councilmember Moore agreed with Mayor Haakenson. She recalled earlier this year, there was concern
with losing the 2005 building season and inquired how this would impact the 2006 building season.
Development Services Director Duane Bowman answered if a developer was contemplating a building
larger than two stories, this would result in a delay but it would not impact the schedule for a developer
contemplating a two story building. Mr. Snyder asked how many buildings in downtown were typically
developed each year. Mr. Bowman answered approximately one per year.
Mr. Snyder requested this amendment be included as a footnote to "height" on page 40.
Council President Marin suggested exploring the addition of another step, developing a committee
composed of two Councilmembers, two members of the Architectural Design Board (ADB), two
members of the Planning Board, two citizens and two staff members to meet over a 6-8 week period to do
some preliminary work on code revisions, return it to the Council for review and then refer it to the
Planning Board. He noted although this would add approximately two months to the process, it would
provide the opportunity for additional public process in the crafting of the code language. He suggested
the citizen members be Darrell Marmion and Bob Gregg and recalled Councilmember Wilson had
expressed interest in participating. He suggested exploring the idea with the Chair of the Planning Board
and ADB over the coming week and identify another Councilmember to participate.
Councilmember Dawson expressed concern with the amendment, particularly height incentives, but
favored involving the public in the process. She pointed out maintaining the building moratorium would
ensure taller buildings were not allowed in the interim. Due to the need to move the process forward and
her hesitancy at losing out on the Public Works Trust Fund loan, she reluctantly agreed to support the
amendment.
VOTE ON AMENDMENT NO. 3 TO THE MAIN MOTION
MOTION CARRIED (6 -1), COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT OPPOSED.
AMENDMENT NO.4 TO THE MAIN MOTION
COUNCIL PRESIDENT MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON, TO
EXPLORE THE MAKEUP OF A COMMITTEE CONSISTING OF TWO COUNCILMEMBERS,
TWO MEMBERS OF THE ADB, TWO MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING BOARD, TWO
CITIZENS AND TWO MEMBERS OF STAFF TO FORMULATE AND BRING BACK
RECOMMENDATIONS ON CODE REVISIONS THAT WOULD THEN COME TO THE
COUNCIL AND BE DIRECTED TO THE PLANNING BOARD.
Councilmember Wilson proposed a friendly amendment not to have two staff members on the committee
but rather use staff as a resource and appropriate staff be provided as necessary. Council President Marin
agreed.
Councilmember Dawson noted a motion may not be necessary as it appeared the intent was to discuss the
makeup of the committee and their work plan over the next week. Rather than forming the committee
tonight, she suggested Council President Marin withdraw his motion and return next week with further
details regarding the formation of a committee. Council President Marin agreed to return next week with
a plan.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT MARIN WITHDREW HIS MOTION WITH THE AGREEMENT OF
COUNCILMEMBER WILSON.
Councilmember Dawson recalled a suggestion for next year's Comprehensive Plan process to consider
including additional elements such as Public Safety. Mr. Snyder explained the deadline for docketing
Comprehensive Plan amendments was December 31, 2004, although the Council could extend that
deadline if good cause could be shown. Since the Council identified several issues to be incorporated into
Edmonds City Council ApprovedMinutes
March 8, 2005
Page 7
the 2005 Comprehensive Plan amendment docket, he intended to draft a resolution waiving the deadline
for the issues the Council had already recommended be forwarded to the 2005 process and any others
identified tonight.
AMENDMENT NO.4 TO THE MAIN MOTION
COUNCILMEMBER DAWSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON, TO
INCLUDE IN THE RESOLUTION TO BE PREPARED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY THE
COUNCIL'S INTENT TO CONSIDER PUBLIC SAFETY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AS
ELEMENTS IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
VOTE ON AMENDMENT NO. 4 TO THE MAIN MOTION
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
RESTATED MAIN MOTION
COUNCIL PRESIDENT MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, TO
APPROVE THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WITH THE AMENDMENTS; AN ORDINANCE TO
BE BROUGHT BACK TO THE COUNCIL ON MARCH 15, 2005.
Councilmember Plunkett reiterated his intent to vote against the motion, commenting there had been
enough vision and community input. He preferred the Council state, as a motion, their intent regarding
specific height numbers.
VOTE ON THE MAIN MOTION
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4 -3) COUNCIL PRESIDENT MARIN,
COUNCILMEMBERS WILSON, OLSON AND MOORE IN FAVOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS
ORVIS, DAWSON, AND PLUNKETT OPPOSED.
4. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Haakenson had no report.
COUNCIL COMMENTS
March 29 Council President Marin reminded the public of the community outreach meeting on the fifth Tuesday,
Community
Outreach March 29 at the Meadowdale Clubhouse at 7:00 p.m. He extended the Council's invitation for citizens to
Meeting attend and talk to the Council about whatever topic they wished.
Councilmember Wilson responded to issues raised with regard to his amendment. The issue for him with
Comprehensive regard to the Comprehensive Plan and the Downtown- Waterfront Plan was vision. The downtown design
Plan
Amendment objectives are intended to encourage high quality, well designed projects in the downtown - waterfront area
that reflect the values of the citizens of Edmonds. He noted under building setback was the statement,
"provides a human, pedestrian friendly scale for downtown buildings." He commented those statements
established a vision, picking a number did not. He referred to language regarding encouraging new
construction to use design elements that tie historic forms or patterns found in the downtown, noting there
were buildings downtown that exceeded the numbers selected in the past but these buildings may be on
the Historic Register in the future, an action that Councilmember Plunkett supported as a way to preserve
the past. He questioned how new buildings could be tied to historic forms if consideration was not given
to the design of buildings and how buildings interact.
Councilmember Wilson acknowledged it had never been an issue for him about picking a number; finding
33 feet had nothing to do with building design. He favored creating design guidelines that provided
latitude to create interesting building elements such as a turret or clock tower which he acknowledged
may exceed 25, 30 or even 33 feet but would add to the character of downtown and enhance the area. He
Edmonds City Council ApprovedMinutes
March 8, 2005
Page 8
summarized planning was a process of looking long term, not just 1-2 years in the future, but 20 years in
the future.
Councilmember Wilson remarked throughout the Design Guidelines were statements regarding human
scale and quality of buildings downtown,yet that was never discussed as part of the Council's vision. He
expressed dismay that the Council spent so much time discussing whether Councilmembers were for or
against 33 feet rather than discussing the quality and design of buildings downtown. It was the quality of
a building's exterior design that was important as that was what people remembered,not the height.
Councilmember Dawson explained the Council agreed they wanted to have quality and character in the
design of buildings, but there was disagreement with how tall the buildings should be. She noted no one
who favored height restrictions wanted shorter, ugly buildings; they wanted to have attractive, quality
buildings that were not as tall. She found it unfair to say that those who favored lower height restrictions
were not in favor of quality buildings, emphasizing they were in favor of historic preservation and quality
buildings, but they wanted the buildings not to be three stories and not to be one unusable story with two
large stories of condominiums above. She reiterated at some point a number would need to be selected
and she preferred Councilmembers be clear with regard to the height limit they supported.
Councilmember Plunkett agreed with Councilmember Wilson that the vision for Edmonds was what this
was all about. He emphasized the people of Edmonds believe the vision of Edmonds is existing heights
and that was why he supported existing heights as well as Design Guidelines to support that vision.
Opening of Councilmember Olson announced the opening of a new candy store on 5th Avenue and Bell Street,
New Business,
Nama's Nama's, and encouraged the public to visit the store.
Councilmember Moore agreed heights were just numbers and were not vision. She thanked
Councilmember Wilson for his comments and for bringing his professional expertise to the Council's
discussion.
6. EXECUTIVE SESSION
Executive
Session At 8:15 p.m., Mayor Haakenson recessed the Council to a five minute Executive Session regarding an
Agreement for Investigation of Real Estate with possible action following. The meeting was reconvened
at 8:22 p.m.
Agreement for
Donation of COUNCIL PRESIDENT MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, TO
Real Property APPROVE THE AGREEMENT FOR DONATION OF REAL PROPERTY AND ESCROW
INSTRUCTIONS. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
With no further business,the Council meeting was adjourned at 8:23 p.m.
G• Y H`I• ENSON,MAYOR SANDRA S. CHASE, CITY CLERK
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 8,2005
Page 9
4111 AGENDA
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL
Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex
250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds
March 8, 2005
City Council Committee Meetings
The City Council Committee meetings are work sessions for the City Council and staff
only. The meetings are open to the public but are not public hearings. The City Council
will meet separately as committees in different meeting rooms as indicated below.
1. Community Services/Development Services Committee - 6:00 p.m.
(Meeting Location: Council Chambers)
(A) Capital Improvement Program 2005 - 2010. (30 Min.)
(B) Review of Closed Record Review packets. (30 Min.)
2. Finance Committee- 6:30 p.m.
(Meeting Location: Jury Meeting Room)
(A) Petty cash account authorization. (5 Min.)
(B) Accounts payable write-offs. (5 Min.)
(C) Advance Travel Fund closure. (5 Min.)
(D) Blanket banking resolution. (5 Min.)
(E) Equipment Rental Rates submittal. (5 Min.)
3. Public Safety Committee - 6:30 p.m.
(Meeting Location: Police Training Room)
(A) Declaring VHF portable, mobile radios, and one HP optical disk jukebox surplus.
(10 Min.)
(B) Declaring Police Department laptop computers surplus. (10 Min.)
7:00 p.m. - City Council Meeting
Call to Order/Flag Salute
1. Approval of Agenda
2. Consent Agenda Items
(A) Roll Call
Page 1 of 2
CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA
MARCH 8, 2005
(B) Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of March 1, 2005.
(C) Approval of claim checks #77696 through #77871 for the week of February
28, 2005, in the amount of $348,599.60. Approval of payroll direct deposits
and checks #40287 through #40363 for the period February 16 through
February 28, 2005, in the amount of$825,542.66.*
*Information regarding claim checks maybe viewed electronically at www.ci.edmonds.wa.us.
(D) Approval of Professional Services Agreement for Legal Services between the
City of Edmonds and Salter Joyce Ziker, PLLC.
(E) Authorization to approve bid for Marina Beach restoration.
3. (60 Min.) Continued Council deliberation on the Public Hearing held on February 15,
2005, regarding amendments to the Edmonds Comprehensive Plan
concerning the Downtown Waterfront Activity Center (including amendments
to the Downtown Waterfront Plan).*
*Please note that no public testimony will be taken at this meeting.
4. ( 5 Min.) Mayor's Comments
5. (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.
Page 2 of 2