05/10/2005 City CouncilEDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES
May 10, 2005
Following committee meetings beginning at 6:00 p.m., the Edmonds City Council meeting was called to
order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Pro Tem Marin in the Council Chambers, 250 5" Avenue North, Edmonds.
The meeting was opened with the flag salute.
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Richard Marin, Mayor Pro Tem
Jeff Wilson, Council President Pro Tem
Dave Orvis, Councilmember
Michael Plunkett, Councilmember
Mauri Moore, Councilmember
Peggy Pritchard Olson, Councilmember
Deanna Dawson, Councilmember
ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT
Gary Haakenson, Mayor
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
STAFF PRESENT
David Stern, Chief of Police
Duane Bowman, Development Serv. Director
Stephen Clifton, Community Services Director
Dan Clements, Administrative Services Director
Jennifer Gerend, Economic Development Dir.
Noel Miller, Public Works Director
Steve Bullock, Senior Planner
Linda Hynd, Deputy City Clerk
Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst.
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
COUNCILMEMBER DAWSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, FOR
APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
COUNCILMEMBER MOORE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DAWSON, FOR
APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda
items approved are as follows:
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 10, 2005
Page 1
(A)
ROLL CALL
5 sp05Ve
(B)
APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MAY 3, 2005
Minutes
(C)
APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #79278 THROUGH #79437 FOR THE WEEK OF
Approve I
MAY 2, 2005. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSITS AND CHECKS #40649
Claim Checks
THROUGH #40728 FOR THE PERIOD APRIL 16, APRIL 30, 2005, IN THE AMOUNT
OF $843,343.49
Claim for I
(D)
ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM SHANE THOMAS
Damages
KEEFER (AMOUNT UNDETERMINED)
Building
(E)
PROCLAMATION IN HONOR OF BUILDING SAFETY WEEK, MAY 9 -13, 2005
Safety Week
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 10, 2005
Page 1
Energy Cost (F) AUTHORIZATION TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH QUANTUM
Audit ENGINEERING AND DEVELOPMENT, INC., FOR A DETAILED ENERGY COST
AUDIT FOR CITY BUILDING FACILITIES ($47,220.00)
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Building Ray Martin, 18704 94"' Avenue W, Edmonds, summarized an email he sent to the Council today,
Heights Issue agreeing with Mr. Hinshaw's assertion of uncertainty regarding building rules, noting the building rules
were not only uncertain for the developer's but also for citizens. Mr. Martin inquired about the affect that
the new modulated buildings would have on view corridors and recalled special rules for favorite builders
had backfired in the past with regard to the economic welfare of the community. He cited averaging as
another questionable concept. He referred to a concept that would increase heights in exchange for
setbacks, questioning whether the result would be buildings 18 inches apart. He commented on the
failure of four Councilmembers to address the building heights issue, noting the greatest uncertainty of all
was dealing with building heights. In rebuttal to the Economic Development Director's report last week,
he provided a comparison of Edmonds' third and fourth quarter 2004 taxable retail sales unit count,
Woodway up 25 %, Mill Creek up 21.4 %, Mukilteo up 17.6 %, Edmonds up 12.7%, Lynnwood up 12.4%
and Mountlake Terrace down 4.4% with the average being 14.1 %. He questioned what the Economic
Development Director was doing for the City at a cost of approximately $100,000 per year, the equivalent
of the Edmonds city tax for over 200 homeowners.
Kiwanis Club Al Rutledge, 7101. Lake Ballinger Way, Edmonds, announced the Kiwanis Club's annual berry sale,
sexy sale explaining prices remained the same — $25 for 15 lbs. of strawberries, $27 for 14 lbs. of raspberries and
$20 for 10 lbs. of blueberries. He advised the funds raised from the berry sale were distributed to over
nine organizations in the City. There were current 392 customers and the goal was to add 50 more. He
encouraged the public and the Council to support the berry sale.
Mixed Use Natalie Shippen,1022 Euclid, Edmonds, recalled last month Mr. Hinshaw recommended retail areas be
Development compact, last week he added that one of the tasks for the Council would be to determine what streets were
Concept most appropriate and desirable for retail, keeping that number low, and not forcing mixed use in areas
where it was not appropriate. She pointed out Mr. Hinshaw was the third consultant in six years to
recommend compact retail as well as recommend reconsideration of the mixed use concept because of
problems it caused. She recalled in 1999 HyattPalma reviewed the economic situation and divided the
BC zone into sub - districts, including a specialty cluster where retail uses, food establishments,
entertainment and art would be located HyattPalma recommended those uses be primarily on the first
floor and as the overall retail market became stronger over time, uses could be placed in appropriate and
acceptable upper floors. She recalled when the Planning Board asked Heartland which scenario would
provide the greatest tax revenue for the City, the consultant suggested the City encourage non - residential
uses on upper floors for the greatest return to the City and that better designed retail space would benefit
the City. She recalled drawing the Planning Board's attention to these recommendations in a letter she
wrote in October 2004, stating the merchants in Edmonds would prefer higher first floor ceilings in the
BC zone which could be granted in a limited area of the BC zone to discourage retail sprawl. At the
Planning Board's public hearing, she recommended the Board reconsider the concept of mixed use
development as it did not appear to be working. She noted reconsidering the mixed use concept would
solve the height dispute which was created via the retail/residential combination as separating residential
from retail would provide adequate height within the 30 -foot height limit. She recommended the Council
digress from the minutia they had been discussing and discuss three consultants' recommendations.
Downtown I Ron Wambolt, 530 Dayton Street, Edmonds, recalled at last week's meeting, Mr. Hinshaw reviewed
Buildings Edmonds downtown architecture, raving about older buildings and voicing dislike for newer buildings.
He recalled Mr. Hinshaw found the characteristics in older buildings were conducive to retail businesses;
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 10, 2005
Page 2
however, newer buildings were not as customer - friendly. Mr. Hinshaw recommended returning to classic
rules. Mr. Wambolt noted the other major factor in Edmonds that had produced retail- inferior buildings
was the departure from developing buildings for the ultimate user whose goals are to cater to customers
and maximize sales to the current era where the City's building codes and guidelines cater to the
speculative developer whose sole goal was to maximize profits. He referred to the end -users who have
renovated one -story buildings in the past year, concluding the undesirable situation was not caused by this
City Council; however, this Council had the chance to turn the situation around. He recommended the
Council "just do it."
Building Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, Edmonds, commented the last three meetings with the consultant
Heights and had been a pleasure as he seemed to endorse the same things the petition signers endorsed, maintaining
Retta% Ratio for downtown Edmonds within its present limits. Mr. Hertrich noted one of the reasons the City had reached
this point with the problems with retail was the pressure that resulted from the construction of the
building across from Petosa's with two stories of residential above one story of "squashed" retai space.
He recalled at that time there was a requirement for a 51 % ratio of retail in downtown buildings which
was later eliminated by those who wanted more residential and less retail. He commented that ratio
worked because it ensured each building was 51% retail. He noted later changes allowed retail to only a
30 -foot depth on the first floor to accommodate parking in the rear, allowed garage entrances and
entrances for residential to be included in the main entrance of the building, and the result over time was a
reduction in the first floor retail space to accommodate the developer's desire for residential space. He
recommended returning to the requirement for 51% ratio for retail.
4. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
May 31
Community Mayor Pro Tern Marin reminded of the Council's Community Outreach Meeting on the fifth. Tuesday,
Outreach May 31 in the Seaview Elementary library. He encouraged the public to come to the meeting and talk to
Meeting the Council in a setting where the dress was casual and there were no cameras and no time limits.
Absence MAYOR PRO TEM MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, TO
Absence EXCUSE COUNCILMEMBER WILSON FROM THE MAY 3 MEETING. MOTION CARRIED
(6 -0 -1), COUNCILMEMBER WILSON ABSTAINED.
COUNCIL COMMENTS
Council President Pro Tem Wilson referred to Ms. Shippen's comments at last week's meeting regarding
the definition of gothic and offered to speak with her after the meeting.
Councilmember Moore announced Mayor Pro Tem Marin had been appointed to the Sound Transit
Sound Transit Board. She explained to be appointed, one must be a Councilmember and on the Community Transit
Board (on which Mayor Pro Tem Marin serves as the Vice President). She explained the Sound Transit
was comprised of 18 elected officials in three counties and 54 cities who meet biweekly to plan Phase 2
and the route for light rail in Snohomish County.
Mayor Pro Tem Marin declared a brief recess.
6. WORK SESSION ON CODE REVISIONS TO SUPPORT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Ci
to mpre ensiv t the Mayor Pro Tem Marin explained this was the Council's third work session; the Council would hold its
Compreh
Plan I final work session on May 24 to review draft code language which would be forwarded on to the Planning
Board for their public process and a report back to the Council. The Council would then review the code
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 10, 2005
Page 3
language again prior to final adoption. Development Services Director Duane Bowman estimated the
Planning Board's review would take 2 -3 months.
Mark Hinshaw, LMN Architects, explained tonight's presentation would show images from the tour of
Fairhaven, a district in Bellingham, that had a number of useful lessons for Edmonds. He explained
Fairhaven had a mixture of uses — residential, commercial, retail, while facing west, is near the water, and
had a similar scale, history and grain/texture.
Mr. Bowman agreed there were many striking similarities between Edmonds and the Fairhaven district,
that Edmonds was incorporated in 1890 and Fairhaven was incorporated in 1899. He displayed a map of
Fairhaven, identifying their historic district, the commercial area comprised primarily of retail and mixed
use, industrial areas near the waterfront that includes the Alaskan Ferry, sewer treatment plant, single
family neighborhoods, and high density multifamily residential areas. He noted Fairhaven was also
similar to Edmonds topographically, with the area stair - stepping down the slope to the west.
Mr. Bowman explained last Friday, Councilmembers Marin and Olson, Community Services Director
Stephen Clifton and he visited Fairhaven and took a number of photographs. He noted there are no
parking requirements for commercial uses in the Fairhaven commercial district, other than for lodging
facilities. He displayed a photograph of a new building in the historic district constructed in 2004,
Village Books, and an adjacent 2 -story building constructed in 1890. He noted the oldest building, the 4-
story Masonic Hall, was located to the left.
Mr. Bowman explained the building height in the historic district was 35 feet and that a building could go
up to 54 feet with Council approval. The design review process is administrative; if staff renders a
decision up to 35 feet, the decision is appealable to the Hearing Examiner. A request for a building height
up to 54 feet requires Council approval and the decision is appealable to Superior Court. He noted the
rights -of -way in Fairhaven are 80 feet wide and although the area was platted in a similar time period,
there are no alleys, which creates an issue with refuse. Mr. Bowman displayed a photograph of wide
sidewalks in Fairhaven, including a photograph illustrating tables and chairs on either side of the sidewalk
with area to walk in between.
Mr. Bowman displayed a number of photographs illustrating the colorful, distinctive blade signs used in
Fairhaven whose decorative bracing add to the character of the sign. He displayed photographs
illustrating the first floor scale of buildings, identifying a new building approximately 35 feet tall with
large windows and an open area to the sidewalk. He commented on the wide sidewalks, the street trees
and street furniture. He displayed several photographs of colorful painted buildings and interesting,
different things to see as one walks around, including signs painted on the walls, a covered gazebo, a
fountain, and landscaped areas adjacent to the sidewalk.
Mr. Bowman displayed photographs of an urban park, Village Green, that was made possible by a bond
issue to purchase and develop the property. He noted this common area was used for the farmers' market
and a large screen was painted on the back side of a building to display outdoor movies. He also
displayed photographs of murals painted on buildings in the area. Several photographs illustrated
buildings and uses, including an upper dining area, benches, walkways, wide sidewalks with flower pots,
planted areas, and blade signs. He commented it was fun to walk around Fairhaven. He noted the street
trees, which had street grates and decorative tree guards, were pruned from the bottom up to maintain the
crown of the tree and open up the retail space.
He described a photograph where a building was demolished and a courtyard created between buildings,
with several shops and offices, including a restaurant with an outdoor seating area. He displayed
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 10, 2005
Page 4
photographs of newer buildings, many with historic character, including one new building adjacent to a
historic building where the historic features of the older building were incorporated into the new building.
He displayed a photograph of two buildings, one old and one new, pointing out the difficulty in
distinguishing the difference between the old and the new. He pointed out the windows, cornice
treatment and brickwork on the buildings.
He displayed and described examples of buildings that did not fit well within the district, one that was
constructed prior to design guidelines, and another building that was constructed in the early years of the
design guidelines that was referred to as a "learning building."
Mr. Bowman provided photographs of a 5 -story mixed use building under construction to the west of the
historic area, pointing out the high first floor ceilings and four floors of condominiums above. He noted a
9 -story building that was proposed in front of this building and to the south that would not block the
views from the 5 -story mixed-use building. He noted there was no height limit in the Planned
Commercial zone where these buildings were located.
Mr. Bowman displayed a photograph illustrating how a building in Fairhaven followed the slope, and
described how a building on a similar slope in Edmonds would look. He explained unlike Edmonds'
method of calculating building heights which results in a tall building on the down slope and lower
building on the upper slope, Fairhaven calculates building heights using the mean elevation at the
sidewalk which steps the buildings down a slope. He noted the real estate market in Fairhaven is very
hot; the average house price in 2004 increased from $233,000 to $274,000 in 2005.
Mayor Pro Tern Marin commented that when touring Fairhaven, in addition to seeing the interesting
looking old buildings, was the feeling /experience he had within the first 12 -15 feet of the sidewalk — it
felt good to be walking down the street and interacting with the stores. He commented on examples of
how one was drawn into a space because of the emphasis on the building front in that 12 -15 foot area.
Councilmember Olson commented on a nursery whose wares spilled out onto the sidewalk, and noted that
when walking down the sidewalk it often felt like walking through stores rather than past stores.
Councilmember Plunkett referred to the first photograph (Village Books building) and asked the height of
the building. Mr. Bowman estimated it was 38 feet. He offered to obtain the exact height of any of the
buildings from Fairhaven staff.
Mr. Hinshaw noted that the Village Books building was an example of a historical era where upper floors
were also taller, which required higher ceiling heights. He agreed the first 12 vertical/horizontal feet was
an area Fairhaven has nurtured, as well as blurred the distinction between the private and public areas of
sidewalk. He noted this provided the appearance of a private garden in front of each store that
collectively passersby could enjoy. He noted Fairhaven was a stunning example of focusing on the first
12 -1.5 vertical/horizontal feet. He noted this had occurred in a fairly short timeframe; almost none of it
existed when he visited the area five years ago.
Mr. Hinshaw encouraged Councilmembers to experience the area for themselves, noting there were like ly
lessons to be learned from discussions with the private sector in Fairhaven as well. Mr. Bowman
commented that they had met with the son of a local developer who was the driving force behind the
resurrection/renewal of the Fairhaven district who allowed them to look at the inside of an old building he
was restoring. Mr. Bowman agreed much of the renewal had occurred fairly recently. He commented
Fairhaven allows sandwich-boards and, although they were not technically allowed by the code, they
could be located in front of a building but not in the center of the sidewalk.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 10, 2005
Page 5
Councilmember Plunkett referred to the map of the area, inquiring about the relationship of the water to
the location of residential areas. Mr. Bowman identified single - family neighborhoods, multi - family and
single - family mixed areas, and multifamily areas. Councilmember Plunkett concluded the vast majority
of residents with views to the west, other than those directly to the east of the commercial area, had
unobstructed views of the water. Mr. Bowman identified the views from the residential areas.
Councilmember Plunkett observed most residents did not look over the downtown buildings for their
view. Mr. Bowman concurred.
Councilmember Orvis asked whether the Edmonds code prohibited blade signs. Mr. Bowman answered
no, although Fairhaven strongly encouraged the use of blade signs. He noted any of the signs shown in
the photographs of Fairhaven would be permitted in Edmonds. He noted staff was discussing taking
photographs of the signs in Fairhaven to use as examples for businesses. He commented the only
difference may be the height between the sidewalk and the bottom of the sign as the Edmonds code
requires a minimum clearance under the sign, although the blade signs in Fairhaven were well up on the
building. He noted having the trees trimmed from the bottom up facilitated the visibility of the blade
signs and first floor area.
Council President Pro Tem Wilson commented the photographs, particularly in the historic district, did
not show awnings and asked whether that was by choice or if Fairhaven discouraged awnings. Mr.
Bowman answered Fairhaven did not discourage awning and in fact the planner commented they would
like to see more awnings. However, he noted, awnings may overly dominate the front of a building and
create shadows. He noted Fairhaven was a pleasant place to walk when it was sunny, but he recalled
from his college days that the winds from the north can make it miserable when it rains. He noted the
awnings that have been installed have signage on the sides rather than on the face of the awning to
provide uniformity with the blade signs. He recalled one example where an awning blocked a business'
blade sign.
Councilmember Wilson inquired about the uses on the upper floors in the historic district, noting from the
photographs it was apparent the first floors were used for commercial. Mr. Bowman answered they were
a mix of residential and commercial recalling a yoga studio in one of the upper floor spaces of an older
building. Council President Pro Tem Wilson asked whether commercial uses were encouraged above the
first floor. Mr. Bowman answered either residential or commercial was allowed.
Council President Pro Tem Wilson inquired about the occupancy rate in the downtown commercial space.
Mr. Bowman answered he had only observed one vacant space during their tour, which he commented
was amazing for that entire area. Mr. Hinshaw emphasized the importance of having a substantial
number of people living nearby to support the retail business. He estimated the retail vacancy rate 5-6
years ago at 20 -30 %, primarily because no one lived in the commercial area. He noted the thousands of
people now living within a 15 minute -walk were enough to support a lot of new retail.
Councilmember Moore commented Everett was considering expanding mixed use to get more people
living downtown.
Council President Pro Tem Wilson referred to Mr. Hinshaw's comment regarding residents living within
a 15- minute walk to support downtown and his earlier comment that some buildings were more
conducive to all retail or all residential. Mr. Hinshaw answered that a 15- minute walk was a universal
comfort level He explained that when they do community planning, they overlay a template of an area to
determine what could occur in that area. He agreed there could be single purpose commercial buildings
and single purpose residential buildings, as well as a mix of both, to fill all the niches in the marketplace.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 10, 2005
Page 6
He noted every building did not need to be mixed use but the neighborhood/district needed to be mixed
use so that people were walking about. He emphasized the secret was to find a way to provide as many
choices as possible. Mr. Bowman recalled in Mill Creek's Town Center, the commercial builders wanted
to see the residential development that would support the commercial development. He explained once
the residential development occurred north of Mill Creek's Town Center, Mill Creek amended their plan
and commercial development in the town center increased rapidly.
Mr. Hinshaw noted Fairhaven managed to set the bar of expectation very high; their design review
process has lead to competition between developers to do better and better and outdo the previous
building. He referred to the predominance of masonry materials, very little use of stucco, etc. to
emphasize the richness of the experience. He acknowledged Fairhaven learned from some examples that
they could not let poorly designed buildings slip in because they would detract from the rest of the
buildings. He noted the goal was good, solid, long -term investments; if buildings that detracted from that
were allowed, other developers would not want to invest in the area because it would be too risky.
Mr. Hinshaw described their experience working with Washougat Washington, where a developer who
wanted to do a mixed-use development in the town center was demanding the city establish a set of
design standards to set the bar very high so that subsequent building around him would be held to the
same high standard. He suspected Fairhaven had a very strong merchant association that fostered the
decorative signs, noting that was often more effective than regulations in encouraging business. He
commented Edmonds could establish a sister city relationship with Fairhaven.
Mr. Hinshaw prefaced the next portion of the presentation, discussing the issue of height, by stating he
was presuming the Council would want to enact a set of design standards that was not just an issue of
heights but other qualitative things that encouraged better and better forms of development. He noted if
all the Council was interested in was changing numbers in the code, that would not accomplish the
desired outcome. He anticipated if all the Council did was change height regulations, the city would not
be in any better place a year from now. He recommended the Council make changes that would result in
the code working better, being more effective, being simpler perhaps, being more descriptive of
expectations and demand that people do a better job of developing.
Mr. Hinshaw displayed an aerial map of Edmonds downtown and waterfront area, explaining this was his
initial take on dividing the downtown into districts and maximum heights. He explained he had not had
any discussions with any staff members in preparing the heights or district boundaries, nor did the budget
allow him to survey every building. He cautioned some of the things he would display may not be
acceptable to everyone.
He displayed a drawing illustrating how heights are currently calculated in Edmonds, measuring to an
average point from grade. He offered that this method was producing rather crude results that most
people did not like, a blocky, chunky, clumsy development pattern. He noted this was exacerbated when
someone developed an entire block, and the larger the building was, the more ungainly its proportions
were. He commented it may be okay for a very small, singular building of approximately 7,000 - 10,000
square feet. He concluded the way the city measured height was the first place he would recommend a
change.
Mr. Hinshaw suggested instead dividing the site into quarters along the length of the slope and measuring
the height at each of the segments to produce a stair- stepped building hat would break up the
massiveness. He cautioned the city obviously would not want every building to literally stair -step down
the slope because that would be boring. He suggested in the center segments there could be some latitude
for shifting the step to provide the opportunity for variety, possibly determined via the design review
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 10, 2005
Page 7
process. He noted the end result would be that the outer portions, the ends that affected neighbors, would
be fixed, but the center sections could be shifted to provide some variety. He noted the roofs need not
necessarily be flat, but there could be pitches. He noted possibly this method would not apply to very
small buildings and suggested possibly there could be two different height measurement methods, one for
larger buildings and another for smaller buildings. He noted this would provide some incentive for
smaller increments of development and make larger buildings look like a series of smaller buildings. He
noted Fairhaven may have an easier way of calculating heights than the way he was suggesting.
Councilmember Orvis commented on a site that was 120 feet deep with a 5% slope, the difference in
height from the upper corner and the lower corner would only be six feet, making each step very small.
Mr. Hinshaw answered that within the envelope of the building, the steps and building form could vary.
Council President Pro Tern Wilson asked whether the parcel size was based on the square footage of the
parcel or linear frontage. Mr. Hinshaw answered that it could be either, the mechanics and details would
need to be worked out. He stressed this was only a conceptual notion, a tool that would result in new
development with a scale /form that fit better.
Using a parcel map of the downtown, Mr. Hinshaw displayed a i/4 mile radius of the downtown, the
comfort level for most people to walk around. He noted most of the pedestrian-oriented retail, the area
where there was 100% occupancy of the retail space, was within this '/4 mile radius. He noted in this area,
the terrain was generally flat other than a slight slope. He commented as soon as the slope increased,
retail began to suffer. He noted it was rare to see retail in areas such as downtown Seattle or San
Francisco on sloping streets; it was the flat streets where the retail flourished.
He noted although there was one downtown district, there were actually quite dramatic differentiations.
However, the City has a one - size - fits -all code, treating the entire area the same, with no differentiation for
topography, history, scale, etc. He suggested giving consideration to determining how to get more
character for each different area and let the areas evolve on their own to have their own distinct
personality. He noted the area within easy walking distance, the inner heart, was what people loved about
downtown Edmonds, and was the area they were the most fearful would change and lose its character,
charm and individuality that people treasured.
Again using the parcel map, Mr. Hinshaw identified buildings with historic character, most within the
central heart of downtown within a 23 block area. He assumed the character, scale, charm, and
individuality of those buildings were treasured and there may need to be mechanisms to ensure that area
is not changed very much. He noted height may not be the only way. He identified the art district near
the proposed Edmonds Arts Center where it was envisioned small houses would be retained for
commercial uses. He pointed out a special mechanism other than building heights and design guidelines
would be necessary to ensure that occurred. He referred to the conservation district that Bozeman,
Montana established.
He identified three -story buildings on the map, some new and some old, noting they were not located in
the center of downtown but were around the edges. He noted many cities have a lower height in the
center than are allowed on the edges, often the retail in the center was ringed by mixed -use and
residential. He noted in downtown Seattle and the Bellevue Square area, the retail core had a
substantially lower height than the perimeter. He recommended this be used judiciously to ensure there
are a lot of people living in the downtown to support the retail uses.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 10, 2005
Page 8
Mr. Hinshaw reiterated the Edmonds code was one - size -fits -all; however, Edmonds was sophisticated,
mature and diverse enough to have a code that had a more delicate, refined nature. He noted Edmonds,
like other cities, had been affected by suburban zoning, which was generally one -size- fits -all.
He displayed a parcel map identifying possible overlay districts in which the height would vary for each
district. He stressed the boundaries were his initial thinking and did not represent a huge amount of
study. His overlay identified the inner core area with a 25 -foot height limit where there would be ground
floor retail and either commercial or residential development on the second floor. He noted this would
ensure the continuance of the existing scale that people liked within the core area. He noted this area was
a highly walkable, retail zone, with a more historic or small-town nature. He noted there were some sites
within this overlay district where an occasional higher building may be acceptable. He commented
Edmonds, like Fairhaven, could approve individual projects with a taller height on a case -by -case basis.
He identified another overlay district near the proposed Edmonds Center for the Arts that he suggested as
a conservation district, again with a 25 -foot height limit. He identified two areas further down the slope
where the maximum height could vary from 30 feet for a residential only building or 33 feet if ground
floor retail were provided. He noted this recognized that the retail area would expand as demand
increased and the health of commercial activity increased. He noted the additional height would only be
allowed for a substantial amount of first floor retail, which could be based on a percentage to ensure it
was not just token retail. He identified an area that could be considered a gateway to downtown where
building heights could be 30 feet as it was unlikely retail would flourish there due to the distance from the
core. He concluded in his concept that there were multiple overlay districts that are tailored to respect/
reflect the character of the area.
Council President Pro Tem Wilson referred to the area where building heights could vary from 30 feet for
residential and 33 feet with ground floor retail, asking whether the first floor would need to be retail or
could be commercial. Mr. Hinshaw suggested the higher first floor ceiling heights were necessary for
retail and therefore allowing the taller height should be dependent on a commitment to lease the ground
floor for true retail use with generous storefront windows, etc. Council President Pro Tern Wilson
inquired whether that design would occur via design review. Mr. Hinshaw answered yes.
Councilmember Moore commented when a building is constructed, often the developer does not know
who will lease the space and it could change over time, such as the retail customer moving out to be
replaced by an office use. She noted this appeared to conflict with earlier statements that not every
building needed to be mixed-use. Mr. Hinshaw agreed, pointing out that there could be purely residential
buildings in that area that would be restricted to a 30 -foot building height. Councilmember Moore
inquired whether that would pencil out in the downtown corridor. Mr. Hinshaw answered 30 feet would
accommodate three full floors of residential, a taller building height would be required for four floors. He
commented it could be that the developer would need to design the space for retail with large storefront
windows, high ceilings, recessed entrance, etc. with the expectation that the space would be used for retail
at some point, although in the interim it could be leased for a non-retail/commercial use. He noted there
were some communities where ground floor retail was required on certain streets.
Mr. Hinshaw acknowledged there were some uses occurring in the Edmonds retail core that were not
contributing to the retail energy; in other communities those uses were not acceptable on the ground floor
in the core area. He noted the interruption of the retail experience by more than 25 -30 feet led to
passersby losing interest; interesting things like dresses, antiques, kitchen wear, artwork, etc. were what
attracted people to the retail core.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 10, 2005
Page 9
Mayor Pro Tem Marin inquired how architectural features, such as clock towers, etc., would be treated
within the height limit. Mr. Hinshaw answered there could be in the definition of height an exception for
a very small area that was purely decorative to embellish a building. He noted this would need to be
tightly defined, such as a percentage of the roof area, to ensure no one took advantage of it. He noted it
also could only be allowed on certain gateway corners.
Councilmember Plunkett commented the Council's discussion began with a height downtown, progressed
to possibly having different heights downtown, and then the Council determined numbers were not
important and spent three months hearing how numbers were not important. He noted Mr. Hinshaw's
presentation began by saying numbers were not important, yet, now during the final analysis, he had
selected numbers, when the Council had been waiting to hear why they did not need a number. He
concluded the Council was back at the same issue it had been discussing three months ago. Mr. Hinshaw
clarified he did not mean to imply numbers were not important, only that they were not the only thing the
Council should focus on because focusing on height would not result in quality buildings. He noted at
some point, the city had to have numbers to provide to the people doing the development. He suggested,
based on his observation, that this could be one reasonable, conceptual way of crafting the downtown to
have a more refined atmosphere rather than a one - size -fits -all.
Councilmember Orvis asked whether the intent was to measure building height from the east -west side,
from the front to the alley. Mr. Hinshaw answered it was based on selecting a new method of measuring
height.
Councilmember Moore acknowledged this was a reasonable approach and asked if there were other
approaches and, if so, wouldn't the City Council and Planning Board just continue their debate. Mr.
Hinshaw agreed there were many, many ways; his goal was to make it not overly complex, such as a
different height limit for each block, but also complex enough to allow the different districts to evolve.
He noted to argue about a few feet was silly and a waste of energy as long as the height was within the
ballpark. He noted he had used 33 feet because he had heard that number during discussions; had he not
heard that number, he may have used 32 feet or 34 feet, all were within the same ballpark. He urged the
Council to pick a number and it would work.
Council President Pro Tem Wilson asked whether Mr. Hinshaw was comfortable that the types of
buildings that would result in any of the overlay districts would fit within the scale /mass of what was
appropriate for the downtown and the streetscape, pedestrian feel, character, etc. Mr. Hinshaw answered
only if it was coupled with much better, crisper, more demanding set of design standards. He
acknowledged there was a classic rule of building height to street width ratio and because Fairhaven
streets were wider, it was still comfortable with a fourth floor. He assumed a fourth floor in Edmonds
would be stretching the limits of comfort. He noted the core was precious enough to require a 25 foot
height limit in the near future, noting there was some value in retaining an area where not a lot of change
would occur.
For Council President Pro Tem. Wilson, Mr. Hinshaw envisioned the zoning code would contain a similar
map with height limits.
At Councilmember Dawson's request, Mr. Hinshaw invited Councilmembers to contact him with specific
questions and offered to provide copies of his presentation.
Councilmember Moore observed that other than the numbers, there were some issues that the Council
could agree upon, such as the simplicity of the code, first floor ceiling heights at the sidewalk level to
protect the 12x12 streetscape, eliminating the requirement for first floor commercial in some areas,
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 10, 2005
Page 10
instituting a new method for measuring height, eliminating the requirement for modulation, and providing
public spaces. She recalled a public comment suggesting the City require wider sidewalks and asked
whether that was possible. Mr. Hinshaw answered the City could require wider sidewalks, however, it
would be a hundred years before all the sidewalks were wider and the interim with some sidewalks being
wider and others not may be problematic. He did not recommend allowing increased height for wider
sidewalks; however, there could be a requirement that the third floor be setback 5-7 feet, as was often
done on older buildings.
Mayor Pro Tern Marin noted the stepback area could provide space for a roof garden. Mr. Hinshaw
agreed that would be appropriate for a private garden.
Councilmember Moore asked whether extra height should be allowed for an elevator shaft to a roof
garden. Councilmember Olson recalled a roof garden with a glass railing in Fairhaven. Mr. Hinshaw
responded most codes exempted elevator shafts, parapet walls, railings, etc.
Councilmember Plunkett questioned whether because of the extensive amount of time the Planning Board
had spent on heights if they wanted to again review heights. He recalled Mayor Haakenson mentioning
they did not. He commented there was nothing new as a result of this discussion that would entice the
Planning Board to again discuss heights. However, there were many other good ideas for the Planning
Board to consider and he welcomed the opportunity to refer them back to the Planning Board.
Mayor Pro Tem Marin commented Mr. Hinshaw's map looked remarkably like the map provided by the
Planning Board. He emphasized his main concern has been preserving the retail core and ensuring
adequate ceiling heights. He was pleased with the description of ways to make the retail areas work. He
was satisfied with retaining a 30 -foot height limit in the retail area and even a lower building height in the
retail core as he wanted to ensure the retail was vital. He noted Mr. Hinshaw's proposal contained only a
few blocks where an incentive for a 33 -foot building would be provided to ensure first floor retail was
vital.
Mayor Pro Tem Marin referred to the PowerPoint presentation he provided several weeks ago that
illustrated 33 -foot buildings would not block views. He recalled after his presentation, members of the
public indicated view blockage was not their main issue. If the Council could agree on draft language, it
would provide direction for the Planning Board's review. He agreed with Councilmember Moore that
there were several tremendous goals provided by Mr. Hinshaw that could vastly enhance the City's code
and produce better results.
Councilmember Moore agreed the Council had learned a lot, for example, eliminating modulation, and
unfortunately the Planning Board had not had the benefit of that insight.
Council President Pro Tern Wilson commented Mr. Hinshaw's proposal was a great concept that may
need some tweaking. He agreed with Councilmember Moore regarding the value of design and how it
could enhance /detract from the retail experience. He suggested the use of alleys as pedestrian linkages to
assist in moving through downtown. He noted Mr. Hinshaw's discussion had assisted in answering many
questions including the importance of design appropriate to the scale of downtown and how it relates to
the historic character and the surrounding area.
Mr. Hinshaw advised the next step was a draft document, which he noted would be a work in progress
and even as development occurred tweaking it would be necessary.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 10, 2005
Page 11
Mayor Pro Tem Marin invited the Council's input on whether anything that had been discussed over the
past three weeks was not acceptable. He wanted to ensure Mr. Hinshaw had been given enough direction
to develop a draft code.
Councilmember Plunkett commented that he liked everything from a conceptual point of view; however,
he would not be supportive of anything with taller building heights.
Councilmember Orvis agreed that everything discussed was acceptable with the exception of heights. He
was skeptical of the concept of stepping buildings down the slope. He noted the original height limit was
established for a predominantly 2story downtown. He found measuring from east to west would be
detrimental to people living on the east side because of the larger fagade that would result. He favored a
reduced building height for buildings that were stepped down a slope.
Council President Pro Tem Wilson commented 3rd Avenue was the demarcation of where the slope begins
to drop off and east of 3'd Avenue was the core where Mr. Hinshaw suggested 25 -foot building heights.
To the west of 3" Avenue where the topography begins to slope, a 30 or 33 -foot building would be less
visible because it would be at a lower elevation. Mr. Hinshaw assured the boundaries of the overlay
districts could be shifted.
With regard to the concept of stair - stepping, Council President Pro Tem Wilson commented it may be
more appropriate to consider the linear frontage of a site. Mr. Hinshaw suggested the City consider the
method utilized by Fairhaven.
Councilmember Dawson asked if there were ways, other than additional height, to encourage /reward
people for developing retail on the ground floor in the area where 30 or 33 -foot heights would be allowed.
Mr. Hinshaw answered there were many 3 -story buildings in the City, the development pattern was not 2-
story buildings any longer, that pattern was broken decades ago; therefore, the City needed to ensure it
did not continue to get the 70's era, clunky buildings that were not sensitive to the history of the
community. He noted a 30 -foot building height was a tease that sent a mixed message. Often people
would try to develop three stories and the result would be that one story suffered. He noted it would be
better to limit buildings to one story and accept that redevelopment would not occur. He noted Mercer
Island tried a 25 -foot height limit, essentially a 2 -story height limit, and no reinvestment occurred for 12
to 15 years. Only in the last four years when Mercer Island has allowed more intensity has more
reinvestment occurred. If the Council wanted to restrict redevelopment, he agreed a 25 -foot overall
height limit would be appropriate.
Councilmember Dawson observed Mr. Hinshaw suggested a 25 -foot height limit in the core area. Mr.
Hinshaw agreed that that relatively small area was precious enough that the city was willing to give up
some redevelopment potential, however, the remaining areas would act as an engine for redevelopment.
Councilmember Moore noted the central core was most in need of redevelopment. Mr. Hinshaw
disagreed, noting Bainbridge Island has had predominately 1 -2 story buildings downtown for decades and
although virtually no substantial redevelopment has occurred, the downtown is very healthy and vibrant
with 100% occupancy because of the dense housing around the downtown.
Council President Pro Tem Wilson asked whether there was adequate housing density around the
downtown core now to support the area or were changes needed to increase the density around the
perimeter of downtown. Mr. Hinshaw agreed there needed to be some more density, noting GMA was
directing cities toward that goal anyway and virtually all communities were directing density to their
downtown core. In conjunction, increased density supports higher grade retail. He noted vacant spaces,
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 10, 2005
Page 12
hobby businesses, etc. in downtown Edmonds were indicators that there was not enough density to
support the retail. He concluded there was nothing other than more people that would support a broader
choice of good, high quality retail — more people wanting goods and services produces more demand.
Councilmember Plunkett observed Mr. Hinshaw appeared to equate taller buildings with economic
development and at the same time that more people created economic development. To suggest that taller
buildings equals more people seems to ignore the existing commuter rail service and future expansion of
commuter rail service, the 270 new condominiums being developed to the south, the performing arts
center to the north that will create $2.4 million in economic development, investments on Hwy. 99 and
the growth that GMA funnels into the downtown, continually increasing property values, the high
retail/commercial rental rates, and the continued growth of Snohomish County and Seattle. He concluded
there were innumerable factors that will result in more people coming to Edmonds and nothing outside of
catastrophe would stop economic growth of Snohomish County, King County, and Edmonds and to
equate that a few more building stories was even close to these economic engines seemed to ignored those
factors. Mr. Hinshaw answered it simply helped, they all worked together.
Councilmember Plunkett observed Mr. Hinshaw was suggesting that only more stories would result in
economic growth when in fact those stories would have a minimal effect as compared to the economic
growth that is already occurring. He disagreed with the premise that if the City did not add a few feet of
building height, economic growth would not occur.
Mayor Pro Tem Marin observed the downtown BC zone was already zoned for 30 foot tall buildings; the
only change Mr. Hinshaw proposed was lower building heights in the center and slightly taller building
heights of 33 feet in some areas if ground floor retail was provided. He pointed out Edmonds is in
competition with surrounding areas where a tremendous amount of redevelopment and energy is
occurring. Mr. Hinshaw identified the areas proposed to have a 30 foot maximum height or 33 foot
maximum height with ground floor retail would be allowed.
In response to Mayor Pro Tem Marin's earlier question regarding Mr. Hinshaw developing draft code,
Councilmember Plunkett advised that he had yet to decide whether he liked the overlay dstricts Mr.
Hinshaw proposed.
Councilmember Orvis disagreed that the proposed method of measuring heights would match existing
height limits. He referred to the Copperstone building where in his opinion they forced a 3 -story building
on a site better suited for a 2 -story building. If the height limit were changed to 30 feet measured from
the sidewalk, the result would be a 3 -story building. He concluded the 30 foot height as depicted on Mr.
Hinshaw's map was a height increase due to the method of calculating the height.
Council President Pro Tem Wilson advised the reason that building was 30 feet was that it was in an area
where retail was required on the first floor. Under Mr. Hinshaw's proposal, a building could be 33 feet if
they provided 12 foot ceilings for retail on the ground floor. If they did not provide retail on the ground
floor, they were limited to 30 feet, the height to which buildings can be constructed now.
Councilmember Orvis disagreed, noting under the current method, they could only build to approximately
27 feet. Council President Pro Tem Wilson responded it would depend where on the site the building was
located. Councilmember Moore noted because mixed-use was required, the Copperstone building had to
provide retail on the first floor. If that was not required, a 2 -story residential building could have been
constructed. Councilmember Orvis noted under the proposed method, lot line to lot line, 3 -story
development could occur, which would be an increase.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 10, 2005
Page 13
In response to Councilmember Plunkett's comments, Council President Pro Tern Wilson noted it was
dangerous to assume what was occurring around the city would determine the future of the city. With
regard to the number of commuter rail trains, at a recent Snohomish County Tomorrow meeting, Sound
Transit was backing away from six round-trip commuter trains; the city could not count on that as an
economic driver. Second, with regard to the 270 condominiums being developed on the former Unocal
property, that was outside the comfortable walking distance to downtown. With regard to Hwy. 99, little,
new successful redevelopment, with the exception of auto dealership/car lots has occurred and although
Hwy. 99 had been a high rise corridor for the past 25 years,nothing has happened. He concluded the City
could only control what happened within its boundaries.
Councilmember Plunkett agreed everything needed to be taken into context. However, to assume that a
3-story building equaled economic development did not take everything into consideration. He
emphasized that economic growth would occur absent economic catastrophe. He asked for clarification
whether according to Mr. Hinshaw's map, all the areas with a 30 foot height limit could have a 33 foot
building. Mr. Hinshaw identified the two districts on the map where a 30 foot, all residential building or
a 33-foot building with ground floor retail would be allowed. He noted in the other areas where 30 feet
was indicated, the height would be fixed at 30 feet. Councilmember Plunkett observed the areas where a
30-foot, all residential building or a 33-foot building with ground floor retail would be allowed covered
approximately half of downtown. Mr. Hinshaw reiterated this was a conceptual map, his take on how the
concept of a variable height limit could be applied.
Councilmember Moore agreed three stories did not equate to economic development and littering the City
with really ugly, square, 3-story buildings would kill it. Economic development was about everything
else — design, the 12 by 12-foot outdoor living room, the use of the building, etc. She emphasized not
allowing redevelopment someplace would kill the downtown. She pointed out Edmonds was not a
destination city and would never be a destination city unless redevelopment occurred and unless there was
a boutique hotel. She encouraged the Council to consider zoning that allowed for a boutique hotel.
Mayor Pro Tern Marin commented that although the Council was frustrated and Councilmembers have
different points of view regarding how to accomplish it, all could agree they wanted to continue to have a
great downtown core and not to miss that opportunity. He concluded Mr. Hinshaw would provide draft
language to the Council in two weeks and it was important to remember everyone who lived in the City
loved it and wanted to see it prosper.
With no further business,the Council meeting was adjourned at 9:36 p.m.
G Y H ENSON,MAYOR SANDRA S. CHASE, CITY CLERK
•
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 10,2005
Page 14
AOlik AGENDA
P.
�" EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL
Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex
250 5th Avenue North
7:00 - 10:00 p.m.
MAY 10, 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. Public Safety Committee-6:00 p.m.
(Meeting Location: Police Training Room)
(A) Authorization for the Fire Department to Advertise for Bids to Replace One Fire
Engine (15 Min.).
(B) Interlocal Agreement Establishing Snohomish Regional Drug Task Force, Fiscal
Year 2005-2006 (5 Min.).
(C) Approval of contract between the City of Edmonds and the law firm of Zachor &
Thomas, Inc., P.S., for prosecution services (15 Min.).
2. Community Services/Development Services Committee-6:00 p.m.
(Meeting Location: Council Chambers)
(A) Continued Discussion on Wireless Facilities and Recommendation from Community
Technical Advisory Committee (CTAC) (25 Min.).
3. Finance Services Committee-6:30 p.m.
(Meeting Location: Jury Meeting Room)
(A) Public Facilities District Financial Risk Assessment (20 Min).
7:00 p.m. - City Council Meeting
Call to Order/Flag Salute
1. Approval of Agenda
2. Consent Agenda Items
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.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA
MAY 10, 2005
(A) Roll Call
(B) Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of May 3, 2005.
(C) Approval of claim checks #79278 through #79437 for the week of May 2, 2005.
Approval of payroll direct deposits and checks #40649 through #40728 for the
period April 16, April 30, 2005, in the amount of$843,343.49.*
*Information regarding claim checks may be viewed electronically at www.ci.edmonds.wa.us
(D) Acknowledge receipt of Claim for Damages from Shane Thomas Keefer (amount
undetermined).
(E) Proclamation in honor of Building Safety Week, May 9 - 13, 2005.
(F) Authorization to enter into an agreement with Quantum Engineering and
Development, Inc., for a Detailed Energy Cost Audit for City Building Facilities
($47,220.00).
3. Audience Comments (3 Minute Limit Per Person).*
Regarding matters not listed on the Agenda as Closed Record Review or as Public Hearings.
4. ( 5 Min.) Mayor's Comments
5. (15 Min.) Council Comments
6. (3 Hours) Work Session on Code revisions to support the Comprehensive Plan.
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