07/20/2004 City CouncilJuly 20, 2004
The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:02 p.m. by Mayor Haakenson in the Council
Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute.
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Gary Haakenson, Mayor
Michael Plunkett, Council President
Jeff Wilson, Councilmember
Mauri Moore, Councilmember
Peggy Pritchard Olson, Councilmember
Dave Orvis, Councilmember
Richard Marin, Councilmember
Deanna Dawson, Councilmember
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
STAFF PRESENT
David Stern, Chief of Police
Duane Bowman, Development Services Director
Dan Clements, Administrative Services Director
Kathleen Junglov, Asst. Admin. Services Dir.
Jennifer Gerend, Economic Development Dir.
Rob Chave, Planning Manager
Dave Gebert, City Engineer
Sandy Chase, City Clerk
Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst.
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
At Councilmember Moore's request, the Council agreed to allow a second opportunity for audience
comment following Agenda Item #7.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN,
FOR APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
Council President Plunkett requested Item I be removed from the Consent Agenda.
Change to COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, FOR
Agenda
APPROVAL OF THE REMAINDER OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows:
(A) ROLL CALL
Appro76p04Ve (B) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JULY 6, 2004.
Minutes
(C) APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #72418 THROUGH #72571 FOR THE WEEK OF
Approve JULY 5, 2004, IN THE AMOUNT OF $102,891.36. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS
Claim Checks #72583 THROUGH #72726 FOR THE WEEK OF JULY 12, 2004, IN THE AMOUNT OF
$143,902.77.
Claims for (D) ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES FROM LINDA LACY
oama =es ($356.75) AND MARIE SUE TOMLINSON (AMOUNT UNDETERMINED).
Community Services Dept. (E) COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT QUARTERLY REPORT.
Office (F) REPORT ON REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR OFFICE SUPPLIES AND
Supplies FURNISHINGS AND AWARD OF CONTRACT TO BOISE OFFICE SOLUTIONS.
Contract
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 20, 2004
Page 1
100" Ave. w i(G) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
Stabilization
AGREEMENT WITH REID MIDDLETON, INC. FOR DESIGN OF THE 100�H AVENUE
Stabilization
WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY STABILIZATION PROJECT.
Snohomish
Regional (H) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT
Drug task Force ESTABLISHING SNOHOMISH REGIONAL DRUG TASK FORCE, FISCAL YEAR 2004-
2005.
Comm 3508
(J) ORDINANCE NO. 3508 AMENDING THE EDMONDS CITY CODE BY THE REPEAL
Commission on
Compensation AND REENACTMENT OF CHAPTER 10.80 FORMERLY ENTITLED CITIZEN'S
of Elected COMMISSION ON SALARIES OF ELECTED OFFICIALS IN ORDER TO RENAME IT
Officials THE CITIZENS' COMMISSION ON COMPENSATION OF ELECTED OFFICIALS.
Ord# 3509
Credit Cards (K) ORDINANCE NO. 3509 AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF ECC 3.04.080 CREDIT
CARDS, AND ECC 3.04.090 RULES AUTHORIZED.
Ord# 3510
Correct
Scrivener (L) ORDINANCE NO. 3510 AMENDING ECDC 16.20.050(E) AND (F) DEALING WITH
Errors re: AMATEUR RADIO ANTENNAS AND WAIVERS FOR TECHNOLOGICAL AND
Amateur Radio Antennas IMPRACTICALITY IN ORDER TO CORRECT CERTAIN SCRIVENERS ERRORS,
WITHOUT ALTERING THE SUBSTANCE OF THE REGULATIONS.
Item L• Proposed Resolution Supporting Edmonds Night Out on August 5, 2004.
Council President Plunkett commented Edmonds Night Out was an opportunity for the community to get
together with the Police Department to discuss crime prevention methods. He read Resolution No. 1068
in support of Edmonds Night Out on August 5, 2004
Res# 10G8
Edmonds
ght out COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DAWSON, FOR
APPROVAL OF ITEM I. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The item approved is as follows:
(I) RESOLUTION NO. 1068 SUPPORTING EDMONDS NIGHT OUT ON AUGUST 5, 2004.
3. PRESENTATION BY HAROLD W. HUSTON PRESIDENT OF THE EDMONDS POLICE
Edmonds Night Out i FOUNDATION ON EDMONDS NIGHT OUT
Harold Huston, President of the Edmonds Police Foundation, recognized members of the Police
Foundation in the audience. He distributed the proposed budget for Edmonds Night Out, explaining that
due to budget cuts in the Police Department, the event will utilize volunteers.
At Council President Plunkett's request, Mr. Huston explained prior to budget cuts in the Police
Department, 2-3 Police Department employees were assigned to work with the Police Foundation to put
on the Night Out event. As a result of recent budget cuts, the Edmonds Police Foundation took over the
event and titled it Edmonds Night Out. He noted Night Out promoted safety and education for youth as
well as families and provided an opportunity for neighbors to meet neighbors. He commended the Police
and Fire Department, noting they were the best of anywhere he had lived.
Council President Plunkett asked whether the Police Foundation had been in the community raising funds
for the event. Mr. Huston answered yes.
Promoting 4. AGREEMENT WITH EDMONDS POLICE FOUNDATION TO PROVIDE $1000 FOR
Edmonds PROMOTING THE EDMONDS NIGHT OUT.
fight Out
COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DAWSON, TO
ALLOCATE $1,000 FROM THE COUNCIL CONTINGENCY FUND FOR PROMOTING THE
EDMONDS NIGHT OUT. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 20, 2004
Page 2
Sound Transit 5. PRESENTATION BY SOUND TRANSIT ON PHASE 2 PLANNING
Phase 2
Planning
Sheila Dezarn, Manager Policy and Planning, Sound Transit, explained Sound Transit's goal was to
build a regional high capacity transit system. She described efforts to build the system in phases,
explaining Sound Move was Phase 1 and Phase 2 would be the next step in transit improvements. Phase
2 built on a decade of planning and policy decisions as well as the successes of Phase 1. She noted 50%
of the state's population was located within Sound Transit's boundaries and Puget Sound Regional
Council (PSRC) projects another 1 million will be living in this region in the next 30 years. She
described Sound Transit's mission to build a regional transit system that connects people and jobs through
the most congested corridors, supports growth management, supports economic vitality and helps
preserve communities and the environment.
Ms. Dezarn described progress on Sound Transit's mission including carrying over 8 million people last
year and a 25% increase in ridership this year over last year. She described investments that are already
paying off including a 27% increase in ridership between Everett -Lynnwood to Seattle, a 25% increase in
ridership between Everett and Bellevue, and more than 250,000 Snohomish County riders this year.
Ms. Dezarn explained of the $1.5 billion already invested, one of the guiding principles was subarea
equity — money collected in Snohomish County is spent only on Snohomish County projects. She
described Sound Transit investments in Snohomish County including improvements and expansions in
Sounder commuter rail service, construction of additional parking at stations, express bus service and
HOV direct access ramps. She explained the Sounder service operated on tracks owned by Burlington
Northern Santa Fe (BNSF). Last year, after extended negotiations with BNSF, Sound Transit agreed to
pay BNSF $258 million over four years for BNSF to create capital facilities and provide easements to
allow Sound Transit to operate their trains in perpetuity on those lines without impeding freight traffic.
She anticipated the upgrades to the system would be complete by late 2007.
Ms. Dezarn described special event Sounder service to Seahawks and Mariner games, efforts to develop a
joint ticket program with Amtrak, and ability to provide service between Everett and Tacoma and all
stops in between when upgrades are complete. She described Sound Transit investments in Edmonds
including the Edmonds station. There is currently a temporary platform in Edmonds and one round trip
train to Seattle per day. Plans are underway to expand the service to two round trips per day by 2005 and
to four round trips per day by 2007. Sound Transit is also working with the City and WSDOT on
incorporating a permanent station at Edmonds Crossing. She described efforts to develop a Sounder
station and pedestrian bridge in Mukilteo including efforts to construct a temporary station to allow
service to begin as soon as possible.
Ms. Dezarn explained Sound Transit's efforts to update their Long Range Plan will include consideration
of population and employment, land use, travel corridors and trip patterns, and other regional transit
studies since the plan was adopted. She noted PSRC studies forecast I-5 getting worse, 30% growth in
travel on I-5 between Seattle and Everett and quadruple the need for transit between Seattle and
Snohomish County by 2030. She explained the effort to set priorities for Phase 2 will include
conversations with the public to set priorities, public meetings/forums this fail, and coordination with
local governments. Input from Snohomish County has included when light rail would be extended into
Snohomish County, encouragement for a "starter" light rail line from Everett to Lynnwood, interest in
expanded express bus and Sounder service, coordinating with local land uses, and bus service on SR 527.
Ms. Dezarn reviewed the Phase 2 timeline (Summer 2004 — Fall 2005) including working with local
partners to develop Phase 2 alternative packages for each subarea, beginning public review of packages,
involving all citizens/stakeholders in setting priorities and making trade-offs and drafting a new Plan
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 20, 2004
Page 3
(Spring 2005). She noted the timing of a public vote on Phase 2 improvements had not yet been
determined.
Mayor Haakenson referred to Ms. Dezarn's comment that BNSF would complete the improvements in
late 2007 and asked whether that included the double tracking. Val Davie, Project Manager for the
Edmonds Station, explained that although Sound Transit reached agreement with BNSF to operate
Sounder on their tracks, it did not include a schedule of improvements. Sound Transit is responsible for
providing permits for the improvements, but BNSF determines the schedule for completing the
improvements. The 2007 completion date was an estimate based on work that is underway on the Seattle
to Tacoma segment. Because BNSF does not typically bring on extra crews, it was anticipated the
improvements in this area would not begin before the end of 2005.
Councilmember Marin inquired about the Edmonds station. Ms. Davie answered Sound Transit has
always been supportive of the Edmonds Crossing project and considers themselves a potential partner in
that project. She explained the new Edmonds station would be an interim station with components that
could be moved to the Edmonds Crossing site when it was developed. Due to the uncertain timeline for
development of the Edmonds Crossing project and because the existing station can only accommodate
one or possibly two round trips per day, Ms. Davie explained Sound Transit's plan was to provide an
interim station at the Edmonds/Amtrak station to accommodate the four round trips per day.
Councilmember Wilson asked whether the increased number of trains per day was dependent on the
completion of the double tracks. Ms. Davie answered no, the increase in the number of trips was
dependent on Sound Transit's acquiring the permits for the improvements, it was up to BNSF to
determine whether the existing tracks could support the increased trips. The agreement was that Sound
Transit would provide the pen -nits for the improvements and BNSF would determine when and how the
improvements were made.
5�t117 i �1►[�19CKi7►� iu 191►Y K�
Mixed use GayLynn Beighton, 6307 147th Street SW, Edmonds, a commercial real estate broker who had
Buildings - brokered 60-80 commercial leases in the city and chaired the Chamber's Economic Development
First Floor
Ceiling Committee for the past four years, concluded that the ceiling heights in the beautiful new buildings
Height constructed in Edmonds over the past 5-10 years were not conducive to retail uses. She noted a number
of buildings had been vacant for an extended period of time and many ultimately become office space.
She recalled Councilmembers asking her to brainstorm how to enhance economic development, noting
retail businesses were a good way to add to the sales tax revenue collected by the city. She summarized it
would be a boost to the downtown if mixed use buildings were allowed 2-3 extra feet so that retail tenants
would be interested in leasing the space.
Newspaper Ray Martin, 18704 94 h Avenue W, Edmonds, commented on two different stories regarding
Articles re: Councilmember Moore that appeared in local newspapers by two different reporters. He noted the
Mauri Moore
Enterprise reported on February 8, 2004 that while she was attending college in Houston working on an
English degree and planning to become a teacher, Councilmember Moore got a job as a weekend news
writer at a radio station. A visiting ABC correspondent liked her work and told her she should be in New
York. On his recommendation and after a telephone interview, she was hired and spent six months
producing a radio news show at an ABC affiliate in New York. Next Mr. Martin referred to a June 17,
2004 article in the Edmonds Beacon that reported Councilmember Moore left the University of Houston a
few credits shy of her journalism degree to accept a job with a national news organization. Mr. Martin
noted there appeared to be conflict between the reports and asked for an explanation. Mayor Haakenson
suggested Mr. Martin discuss the matter with Councilmember Moore after the Council meeting.
Councilmember Moore commented the reporters were responsible for what they reported.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 20, 2004
Page 4
Purchase of Don Kreiman, 24006 961' Place W, Edmonds, referred to an Edmonds Beacon article regarding a
Walker developmentally challenged child that asked for donations to purchase a walker. When he called, Mr.
Kreiman reported he learned that more than enough had been donated to purchase the walker. He
concluded that although there may be disagreements on some issues, this proved that all Edmonds
residents were good people.
Development 7. PRESENTATION ON DEVELOPMENT ISSUES IN THE BC ZONE.
Issues in the
BC zone Administrative Services Director Dan Clements provided a presentation regarding financial future
projections for the City. He explained that current projections show short term stabilization until 2007.
Continuing long term budget challenges are caused by property tax limitations, elimination of major road
improvement revenues and the need to maintain physical assets. He pointed out staffing and service
levels were well below 2002 due to $1.4 million in cuts, elimination of over 20 positions, and extending
the street overlay cycle to 65 years instead of the 46 year cycle that existed in 2001.
Mr. Clements displayed a graph illustrating a five year revenue projection that indicated the budget was
stable until 2007 when it began a downward trend. He commented on future budget balancing strategies,
noting future budgets would need to be balanced either by increasing revenues, reducing costs or a
combination. He pointed out economic development helped by raising the overall tax base and revenues.
He provided a list of strategies for increasing annual revenues and for reducing annual costs.
Councilmember Marin, a member of the Council Finance Committee, commented on his struggle to
balance cuts in service with increases in revenue as both were difficult. He explained this item was an
attempt to explore ways to reduce the pressure of deriving the City's major source of revenue from
property taxes.
Rick Utt, 19427 86th Avenue W, Edmonds, a primarily retail and commercial architect for 25+ years,
expressed concern that the retail space in Edmonds was not conducive to healthy retail development. He
noted Edmonds, as it was currently developing, was becoming literally and physically top heavy in
condominium development. He stressed the need for balance to maintain the character of Edmonds. He
questioned as condominium construction continued in the downtown area, where would these residents
shop? Thus the need for balance in development to encourage a diverse neighborhood of uses, a
neighborhood of single family, multifamily, small commercial, larger commercial — all in keeping with
the inherent character of Edmonds.
Mr. Utt pointed out the existing zoning resulted in much of the new retail space remaining empty due to
the clearances and location off the street. He addressed the issue of floor -ceiling height, displaying a
photograph of retail space where the mechanical system was under the floor slab above and a photograph
of a new retail/commercial space in Edmonds where the plumbing waste line was visible at the ceiling
due to lack of space to cover it. He displayed an example of retail development with a "for rent" sign in
the window that did not provide the exposure or scale typically expected for retail development. He
displayed an example of a newly developed retail space with 7 foot ceilings which made it difficult to
provide lighting and cover mechanical equipment. Using the ceiling of the Council Chambers as an
example, he noted the ceiling height could be lowered to approximately 10 feet but the physiological
effect would be a compressed/crowded feeling. He stressed the need for proportional scale.
Mr. Utt pointed out the lower ceiling height was acceptable for some office uses but was not conducive to
retail uses. He noted none of the existing, successful retail in downtown had the ceiling height that was
currently being constructed for future retail/commercial development in downtown.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 20, 2004
Page 5
Mr. Utt displayed a drawing prepared as an attempt to illustrate the minimum requirements for a viable,
healthy retail/commercial space with residential above. He clarified his intent was not to make a case for
building height and/or number of stories, but only to illustrate the minimum first floor requirements. In
his drawing, he depicted the minimum height of the lower level from the floor to the underside of the
second level floor slab as 12 feet. He stressed 12 feet was the minimum for a viable commercial space,
13 feet would be better and often when there were no height constraints, 15 feet was the desired floor to
underside of slab clearance for commercial space. He noted the higher ceiling height was also important
in a restaurant to avoid a feeling of being compressed.
Mr. Utt summarized for a space to be flexible enough for a variety of uses, a minimum of 12-13 feet of
clearance was necessary. He noted for a restaurant, there needed to be adequate space for an oven hood
and kitchen mechanical system as well as HVAC systems.
Mr. Utt displayed photographs of recently developed retail space with residential uses above in
communities similar in size to Edmonds, pointing out the scale of the first floor retail/commercial in
comparison to a person standing in front. He commented the mixture of uses that occurred in much of the
first floor retail/commercial space in other communities was possible because the developer was able to
provide the necessary height to accommodate a variety of uses. He noted the higher first floor ceiling
height also allowed tall windows and an inviting atmosphere. He noted retail/commercial uses prefer an
open, exposed environment as pedestrians are more likely to enter a space that they have the ability to
scope out from the street.
Mr. Utt displayed a photograph of a new development in Edmonds, noting the dimensions and scale was
not very comfortable and psychologically it did not feel inviting. He compared this to the bank across the
street that had high ceilings, a large entry, and large windows that was very inviting. Crossing the street,
he noted it almost appeared a pedestrian needed to stoop over to enter the retail. He noted that retail was
not inviting and did not have the sidewalk scale that made retail space comfortable to shoppers.
Mr. Utt pointed out the need to change the zoning to encourage viable retail/commercial development
while maintaining the character of Edmonds and addressing the realities of development and what spaces
work. He encouraged the Council to allow flexibility. He noted that in an effort to keep retail small,
development was being limited and dead space was being built as a result.
In response to past comments about the view of downtown from above, Mr. Utt displayed examples of
roof gardens, commenting on the opportunity it would provide to enhance the building scape. Although
there were opportunities, the current code did not allow the stairwell or elevator shaft to extend high
enough to allow the roof to be usable. He reiterated the importance of providing opportunity and
flexibility in the code.
Bob Gregg, 16550 76tb Avenue W, Edmonds, described his experience with developments in Mukilteo,
Kirkland, Seattle, Edmonds, Oregon and California. Although his portion of the presentation was
regarding challenges in Edmonds, he also wanted to comment on what was great about Edmonds. He
commended the Planning, Engineering and Building Departments, Architectural Design Board, Planning
Board, City Council and Mayor for their accessibility, open mindedness and willingness to change.
Mr. Gregg identified issues that challenge developers including ambiguities in the codes and policies,
varying standards between the Architectural Design Board and planning process, quantity versus quality
of testimony at public hearings, unpredictable fees, substantial increases in some fees, due process with
regard to engineering, Building Department code interpretations, and reliance on conceptual drawings
when the developer's intent was not to exactly duplicate the colors, etc. of the structure depicted in the
drawing. He provided an example of an artist's conceptual rendering of a building that was later used to
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 20, 2004
Page 6
require the trim colors depicted in the drawing be duplicated. He pointed out the need for a process
similar to a second opinion.
Mr. Gregg relayed an audience member's comment when the speakers were announced that none were
citizens. He corrected that statement, pointing out all the speakers were citizens. He assured that
developers wanted to see Edmonds redeveloped in a manner that retained all the charm that other
residents wanted but he did not want to retain buildings that did not reflect quaint Edmonds charm. He
pointed out there were a number of undeveloped/under-developed buildings that have outlived their life
span that could be properly and tastefully redeveloped.
Mr. Gregg noted one of his buildings was cited as a bad example earlier in the presentation. He explained
despite the location at 5t" & Walnut, it was not targeted for retail; the old parking code only allowed uses
of 1:800 parking and the only allowed use was service with no customers. He noted that had since been
changed but that building had not been designed as retail. He agreed with the comment that pedestrians
had to step down to the entry, the windows were not big enough and the ceiling height was not high
enough. He summarized if the goal was to encourage retail, changes were necessary that would allow
development of sites for retail. Mr. Gregg encouraged the city to give consideration to style, modulation,
decks, materials, weather proofing, and ventilation.
Mr. Gregg commented on the following developer considerations: mixed use is a tough sell, commercial
space is high risk, property sizes are too small, ceiling heights are too low, lack of national tenants, not
enough new shoppers/buyers, too many vacancies. He noted national tenants draw a circle around a town
and consider the density, population, demographics, and family income; in Edmonds, there was only a
half -circle due to the waterfront.
Brad Butterfield, 654 5th Avenue S, Edmonds, a partner in Taylor Gregory Butterfield Architects,
President of Hammerworks Construction and developer in the Edmonds BC zone. He estimated they had
developed 10-12 mixed use projects in Edmonds and pulled 30-35 developer service permits in the BC
zone in the past 25 years. He displayed a photograph of the Edmonds waterfront at the turn of the century
and a photograph of the waterfront today, 100 years later. He recalled a conversation with a
Councilmember at a post -election night celebration regarding codes and development in Edmonds and the
Councilmember's comment that Edmonds did not want to become like Lynnwood. After giving the
statement considerable thought, he did not believe Edmonds would become like other small communities
because Edmonds was a unique city. He noted Edmonds had a downtown where people lived and worked
in the same neighborhoods, a dynamic that provided Edmonds' energy and sense of community. He
noted the downtown did not clear out at 5:00 p.m. due to opportunities to walk, eat and socialize into the
evening. He noted many cities were trying to create this environment; a place where people live and
work in the same neighborhood and Edmonds already had it.
Mr. Butterfield commented Edmonds had struggled for a number of years with how to handle growth due
to the diverse opinions and citizens who speak passionately about their feeling with regard to change and
growth. He pointed out the need for downtown business that had up-to-date, good, physical space so that
they could be competitive with their markets in other communities. He referred to the need for successful
businesses in Edmonds to maintain the vibrant nature of the city that all residents loved as well as
sensitive and well -thought-out development to continue to enhance the community. He requested the
Council prioritize specific recommendations and send them to the Planning Board for future public
comment and review so that the city could continue to grow in a positive direction.
Quentin Clark, 19423 86th Avenue W, Edmonds, a consultant, resident and Chair of the Chamber of
Commerce Economic Development Committee, noted building heights and ceiling height had been a
major topic of conversation at the Chamber Economic Development Committee. He stated the
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 20, 2004
Page 7
Committee's desire was that due diligence be given to the process. He read a letter addressed to Mayor
Haakenson and Council President Plunkett that stated following a review conducted by the Chamber
Economic Development Committee, the Chamber Board of Directors voted unanimously on the following
recommendation: that the City Council direct the Planning Board to study the effects and/or issues of the
first floor ceiling heights in the BC zone and building design as a means of ensuring and improving the
economic vitality of the downtown area. The letter, signed by Dave Arista, President of the Greater
Edmonds Chamber of Commerce, urged the City Council to consider the recommendation.
Councilmember Moore thanked those who made presentations, noting it was an important time for
Edmonds and an important time to be asking these questions due to the top priority of economic
development. There had been a great deal of changes in the state in the past 15-20 years and much of the
development in Edmonds was pre Tim Eyman initiatives, pre Growth Management Act and pre 9/11 and
it was time to reassess.
Councilmember Marin referred to a book by MIT professor Alan Jacobs, "Great Streets," who has studied
what constitutes a great street, a reference that is used extensively by planners throughout the world. He
noted the book did not include formulas that some people prefer; the book refers to scale and proportion.
He referred to the comment made by one of the presenters regarding walking, talking and socializing,
noting those concepts were discussed throughout the book in the context of what constituted a street that
people wanted to be on and much of the focus was on the interaction between businesses on the first floor
and pedestrians. As to how economic development could enhance the City's tax base and reduce the
dependence on property taxes was explored, he noted another key element was ensuring what was
developed was socially acceptable and an enhancement to the community. It was his hope that this topic
could be forwarded to the Planning Board, indicating the Chairman Jim Young had expressed interest in
studying this issue.
Darrell Marmion, 750 Edmonds Street, Edmonds, a property owner in the BC zone, was concerned
that this item had the aura of a public hearing although it was not advertised as such. Although he found
the presentation interesting, one piece that was missing that would add credibility was a dissenting
opinion. He commented there appeared to be two important issues, first floor height and consistent
application of rules. With regard to first floor ceiling heights, he pointed out one solution was
development of one story buildings rather than three story buildings in a 25 foot height restriction with a
5-foot allowance for modulation. A 2-story building that would accommodate the 12-13 foot first floor
ceiling height was in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan stated the goal
for downtown was 2-story buildings, however, the majority of the projects approved by the Architectural
Design Board were 3-story buildings. He questioned how this was consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan. He recommended the community first revise the Comprehensive Plan if desired in a manner that
everyone agreed to and not just those with a financial interest. He concluded it was up to the Council to
ensure they were getting an accurate reading of what all citizens wanted, not just those who made the
most noise.
Mayor Haakenson clarified the Council was not required to take any public comment as this item was
intended as public education. If the Council forwarded the matter to the Planning Board, there would be
ample opportunity to speak to the issue as well as when the issue was returned to the City Council.
Ray Martin, 18704 94t`' Avenue W, Edmonds, commented 2-story buildings worked but were not as
economically valuable to the developer and property owner as a 3-story building. He saw this as another
attempt to push building heights. He pointed out the sea breeze that drew in cool air to the city could be
blocked by high buildings.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 20, 2004
Page 8
Bruce Nicholson, 9829 Cherry Street, Edmonds, commented in the business sector this would be
referred to as an inward, downward spiral; it would be difficult to make ends meet if the present status
were maintained. He referred to an office building he constructed on 4`t' Avenue, pointing out three 8 foot
floors for a total of 24 feet did not allow adequate space for the building infrastructure. With regard to
one and two-story buildings, he pointed out the need to provide off. -street parking. He commented the
building he constructed was a substandard building constructed in accordance with the city's
requirements and had 7'6" ceilings in the structure. As a 58-year resident of the City, he attested that the
Council and residents have caused this problem; the residents by not wanting the community to change.
He noted many businesses have left the city because the environment was not conducive to business and
the net result was a lack of revenue to support the city.
Mr. Nicholson challenged the Council with the difficult decisions regarding what was good for the city.
He noted some residents may berate the Council because of what they think is good for the city but the
Council needed to consider what was necessary to enhance the city's economic viability. He summarized
the importance of economic enhancement, doing what was necessary to generate revenue in the city as
increased fees were not the solution.
John Bissell, 8630 217Ih Street, Edmonds, a land use planner, applauded the Council for bringing this
issue forward. With regard to 2-story buildings as a solution, he pointed out economic development
required people which necessitated at least two stories of residential over commercial space that must
have at least 12-foot ceilings. One-story buildings with 16 foot ceilings did not provide residents to shop
downtown. He pointed out 5th and Main contained four buildings with 10-12 foot ceilings that could
accommodate viable businesses. The code currently allowed a 300% floor area ratio and the four
buildings were at a 100% floor area ratio, making it likely those buildings would redevelop sometime in
the future. He noted if those buildings were redeveloped under the current code, they would not be retail
spaces but likely would be office spaces in the future. He pointed out a worse problem in the future if the
code were not changed would be what replaced the existing retail uses in downtown.
Don Kreiman, 24006 96th Place W, Edmonds, expressed his support for the Chamber's
recommendation. He pointed out the recommendation was not to change anything, only to study the issue
via the Planning Board where everyone would have an opportunity to have their say. He noted there were
four stakeholders in this issue, the developers who need to be allowed to make a profit, the citizens of
Edmonds who want an attractive downtown, the downtown merchants who need to remain profitable, and
the property owners who should be allowed to develop their property. He pointed out the importance of
all being willing to compromise. He agreed the future of the city was dismal if changes were not made.
He urged the Council to follow the Chamber's recommendation.
Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, Edmonds, commented low ceiling heights were created in an effort
to achieve a 3-story building with two floors of condominiums. Higher first floor ceiling heights were
necessary to create an environment that was conducive to retail, however, the target for economic
development needed to be tourist dollars. He pointed out the importance of development that attracted
tourists, noting the city had this ability with the waterfront in conjunction with development. He stated
what attracted tourists to the small town environment was low buildings, one and two story buildings, not
three story buildings. Tourists need places to walk, gather, and sit as well as a feeling of spaciousness.
He disagreed increasing building heights was the answer, preferring to increase only the first floor.
Council President Plunkett asked Planning Board Chairman Jim Young whether the Planning Board was
interested in considering the issue identified in the presentation. Mr. Young answered he was asked by
Councilmember Marin if the Planning Board would be willing and he responded yes. Council President
Plunkett asked if the Planning Board's intent would be to hold public hearings and make a
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 20, 2004
Page 9
recommendation to the Council. Mr. Young noted a change to the Community Development Code
required public hearings.
Councilmember Wilson commented although he had no issue with asking the Planning Board to consider
first floor ceiling heights, that could be accomplished with no change to the code if the goal was to create
first floors that were usable, economically viable. He noted a second phase was what happened to the
remainder of the building if the first floor ceiling height was increased. He pointed out the city was in the
midst of a Comprehensive Plan update and the most appropriate mechanism for studying this issue was
via the Comprehensive Plan update. He noted there were efforts on the Planning Board to consider the
BC zone and how it was divided, possibly dividing it into smaller components which would provide more
latitude such as increased building heights in some areas but not others. He pointed out there was more
flexibility if the issue was considered as part of the overall effort to review the Comprehensive Plan and
establish guidelines and policies. He concluded it would be appropriate to have the Planning Board
consider this issue in their review/update of the Comprehensive Plan.
Councilmember Dawson commented it was unusual to be having this conversation as it appeared to
indicate to the public that there was something in the code that precluded higher ceiling heights which she
indicated was not true. The issue was the challenges of 3-story buildings in a code with a height
restriction designed for 2-story buildings. She pointed out the Comprehensive Plan refers to 2-story
buildings or less in the downtown waterfront area. She noted this was where the conflict arose, not that
viable commercial space could not be provided, but developers were attempting to construct 3-story
buildings when the code was designed for 2-story buildings.
Councilmember Dawson agreed it was appropriate to consider whether a minimum height restriction was
desirable but cautioned the end result may not be 3-story buildings. The end result may be 2-story
buildings, one floor of viable commercial space and one floor of condominiums. She agreed it was
appropriate to consider this issue and the Planning Board should be open to all possibilities not just
increased height restrictions. She concluded the end result to provide viable retail may be to stop
allowing 3-story buildings in a 2-story zone and maintain the current height restrictions. She noted this
may be what much of the public was hoping for.
Councilmember Orvis spoke in support of increasing the minimum commercial ceiling height but not
raising building heights. He suggested the roof modulations be waived in return for higher ceilings. He
noted the Spec and MacGregor buildings had 2-foot modulations, both would have benefited from
removing the modulation requirement, allowing a 30-foot building and adding the 2-feet to the
commercial area.
Councilmember Wilson commented times and economies have changed significantly since the
Comprehensive Plan was written in the 1980's as have the cost and ability to develop land. If one story
commercial was desired, it was important to do the economic analysis to determine whether any
redevelopment would occur if only one story commercial was allowed. He anticipated that was not likely
to happen because the return on investment for a one story commercial building was not sufficient to
cover the improvements. He anticipated this would result in retaining the existing building stock and
although this may accomplish some goals to preserve existing heritage and buildings, structures did have
a useful life and preserving them beyond their useful life may result in dilapidated, vacant buildings
which was counterproductive to development in the downtown. Councilmember Wilson suggested the
Planning Board conduct due diligence in studying this issue, looking at the cause and effect of changes or
maintaining the current policies.
Councilmember Olson agreed the more information that was available, the better the decision. She
agreed with forwarding the issue to the Planning Board for study.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 20, 2004
Page 10
Councilmember Marin noted he and all property owners had a vested interest in this issue because of the
property taxes they paid. He commented as he approached the time in his life when he would be on a
fixed income, he did not like the prospect of paying increased taxes from a smaller income. He agreed
that this should be part of the review of the Comprehensive Plan.
Planning Board Chair Jim Young asked the Council to provide some specificity with regard to what the
Council wanted the Planning Board to look at — economic development, building heights, number of
stories, 10 feet versus 12 feet for commercial ceiling heights, and/or how a change would impact
economics.
Councilmember Wilson commented the Council should not tell the Planning Board what height was
appropriate for the first floor. If the Planning Board was to study the issue, it would be important to seek
technical information from staff, mechanical contractors, architects, etc. regarding what was necessary to
create a first floor space that was usable for retail/commercial activity. He suggested a work session with
the Planning Board and City Council to discuss all aspects of the downtown and not just heights and first
floor ceiling heights.
Council President Plunkett summarized the Council wanted to know the best height for first floor
commercial space and how to get it. He suggested the Planning Board examine that and return to the
Council.
Councilmember Marin commented never in the city's history have 3-story buildings not been allowed.
He pointed out that according to the Snohomish County Assessor, property was valued based on highest
and best use. He noted a great disservice has been made to the first floor occupants in the past 20-years
when buildings have been limited to 30 feet. The first floor had a huge impact on the livability of the city
and viability of businesses. He concluded 30 foot building heights may be doing the city and its citizens a
disservice as lack of viable retail caused property taxes to continually increase. He suggested the
Planning Board determine the minimum ceiling height to ensure it was viable and beneficial to the city.
Councilmember Dawson suggested the Planning Board determine whether the city should regulate first
floor ceiling heights, noting the city had not regulated minimum ceiling height to date. She questioned
whether the Planning Board was a good vehicle for determining the ideal ceiling height in a commercial
area as it would depend on the use. She agreed the Planning Board could determine whether the city
wanted to regulate first floor ceiling heights and if so, what did that mean to the number of stories that
could be constructed in a building.
Councilmember Dawson advised that the Comprehensive Plan includes under goals for community
commercial areas and neighborhood commercial areas that the goal was to provide for pedestrian scale
design of buildings that were 2-stories or less in height and that contained architectural features that
promoted pedestrian activity.
Councilmember Moore agreed that the Planning Board should consider the optimum ceiling height for the
first floor and how to get there. It was essential for all property owners in. Edmonds to ensure economic
growth so that the burden was not continually carried by residents. She agreed it may be beneficial to
have a joint meeting with the Planning Board.
8. REPORT ON CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS ON JULY 13 2004
Finance Finance Committee
Committee
Councilmember Orvis reported staff presented several options for increasing revenue in Fund 112 for
streets and stormwater projects and recommended the full Council review this topic. The Committee then
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 20, 2004
Page I
discussed office supply bids and after reviewing correspondence from City Attorney Scott Snyder, it was
the consensus of the Committee to recommend the bid be awarded to the low bidder, Boise Office
Solutions. This item was approved as Consent Agenda Item F. Next, the Committee discussed and
recommended approval of a change to the name of the Salary Commission. The name change was
approved as Consent Agenda Item J. The Committee also reviewed a request from Administrative
Services to modify credit card limits; this item was approved as Consent Agenda Item K.
Community/ Community Services/Development Services Committee
Development
Services Councilmember Wilson reported on the Committee's continued discussion regarding Planned Residential
Services
committee Development (PRD) variances, explaining this arose as a result of a developer's request for 20 height
variances following the Council's approval of the PRD. The Committee reviewed a proposed amendment
to the PRD ordinance that requires variances to be part of the application process. The Committee asked
that the proposed amendment be forwarded to the Planning Board for review and recommendation to the
City Council as an immediate solution. The Committee also requested the Planning Board consider
additional solutions. The Committee then discussed the definition of family as the current definition in
the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) does not allow exchange students. The Committee
requested the Planning Board review the definition of family in 2005.
Next, the Committee discussed a skate park in downtown including a presentation by an Edmonds-
Woodway student who advocated development of a skate park in the downtown area. He noted a
downtown skate park was identified in the Parks & Recreation Comprehensive Plan and was included in
the CIP. No action was taken and the issue will continue to be studied including potential locations. The
Committee then discussed the city's trash enclosure policy due to staff s desire to have haulers involved
in the development of multifamily and commercial projects early in the process with regard to appropriate
site and accessibility of trash enclosures. The Committee was supportive of staff finalizing a policy for
approval and enforcement of trash enclosures.
Public Safety Committee
Committee safety Councilmember Olson reported the Committee reviewed the Interlocal Agreement establishing
Com
Snohomish Regional Drug Task Force 2004-2005 and recommended approval on the Consent Agenda.
The Committee then discussed motorized scooters, a difficult issue as solutions needed to be enforceable.
An educational pamphlet will be developed and distributed via the City's utility billing system and the
Committee recommended forwarding the issue of motorized scooters to the full Council for a public
hearing on September 7. Councilmember Olson noted the City's noise ordinance may assist residents
who are currently experiencing problems with scooters in their neighborhood.
9. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Haakenson had no report.
10. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Council President Plunkett wished Mayor Haakenson a Happy Birthday.
PSRC )icon.
Development Councilmember Moore reported on the PSRC Economic Development District Board meeting. A
District Board consultant was hired on a 12-month contract to initiate action on behalf of cities and towns to stimulate
economic development. She also reported on the Port of Edmonds Commission meeting where she made
Port District a presentation regarding televising Port meetings. Although the Port is not in a position to televise their
meetings nor is the City in a position to assist them, she offered to assist when/if the Port decided to
televise their meetings.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 20, 2004
Page 12
In response to a comment made at the July 6 City Council Meeting, Councilmember Marin demonstrated
that some people see a glass half filled with water as half full and some see it half empty. Although he
saw it as half full, he did not have a problem with someone having a different opinion. He recalled two
weeks ago, an audience member chided four Councilmembers for seemingly having made up their minds
before a quasi judicial hearing was held. He explained quasi judicial hearings were troubling because the
Council was limited to deliberating on material/issues already in the record and nothing more could be
added. He explained the Council was provided a packet on the Friday prior to a meeting and he
acknowledged that most of the time during his review, he reached some conclusion as to the way he
leaned before the matter was presented. He noted he often asks questions of staff prior to the presentation
at the Council meeting. Although Councilmembers endeavored to study the materials, he acknowledged
argument at a Council meeting has changed his opinion. If someone made reasonable argument, he was
prepared to change his mind. He compared the Public Facilities District to a 3/4 full glass, having raised
over $12 million of their $16 million goal. He summarized he was unable to vote for an appeal absent
reasonable argument. He recalled the Council voted unanimously two weeks ago to deny the appeal
because it had no merit.
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 9:42 p.m.
Y ENSON, MAYOR
GEC. , , e-4�
SANDRA S. CHASE, CITY CLERK
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 20, 2004
Page 13
u AGENDA
- EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL
Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex
250 5' Avenue North
7:00 - 10:00 p.m.
J U LY 20, 2004
7:00 p.m. - Call to Order
Flan Salute
1. Approval of Agenda
2. Consent Agenda Items
(A) Roll Call
(B) Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of July 6, 2004.
(C) Approval of claim checks #72418 through #72571 for the week of July 5, 2004,
in the amount of $102,891.36. Approval of claim checks #72583 through
#72726 for the week of July 12, 2004, in the amount of $143,902.77.*
*Information regarding claim checks may be viewed electronically at www.ci.edmonds.wa.us
(D) Acknowledge receipt of Claims for Damages from Linda Lacy ($356.75) and
Marie Sue Tomlinson (amount undetermined).
(E) Community Services Department Quarterly Report.
(F) Report on Request for Proposals for Office Supplies and Furnishings and award
of contract to Boise Office Solutions.
(G) Authorization for Mayor to sign the Professional Services Agreement with Reid
Middleton, Inc. for design of the 100t' Avenue West right-of-way stabilization
project.
(H) Authorization for Mayor to sign the Interlocal Agreement Establishing
Snohomish Regional Drug Task Force, Fiscal Year 2004-2005.
(1) Proposed Resolution supporting Edmonds Night Out on August 5, 2004.
(J) Proposed Ordinance amending the Edmonds City Code by the repeal and
reenactment of Chapter 10.80 formerly entitled Citizen's Commission on
Salaries of Elected Officials in order to rename it the Citizens' Commission on
the Compensation of Elected Officials.
Page 1 of 2
CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA
J U LY 20, 2004
Page 2 of 2
(K) Proposed Ordinance amending the provisions of ECC 3.04.080 Credit Cards,
and ECC 3.04.090 Rules Authorized.
(L) Proposed Ordinance amending ECDC 16.20.050(E) and (F) dealing with amateur
radio antennas and waivers for technological impracticality in order to correct
certain scriveners errors, without altering the substance of the regulations.
3. (10 Min.) Presentation by Harold W. Huston, President of the Edmonds Police
Foundation, on Edmonds Night Out.
4. (10 Min.) Agreement with the Edmonds Police Foundation to provide $1,000 for
promoting the Edmonds Night Out.
5. (20 Min.) Presentation by Sound Transit on Phase 2 planning.
6. Audience Comments (3 Minute Limit Per Person)*
*Regarding matters not listed on the Agenda as Closed Record Review or as Public Hearings.
7. (60 Min.) Presentation on development issues in the BC Zone.
8. (15 Min.) Report on City Council Committee Meetings of July 13, 2004.
9. ( 5 Min.) Mayor's Comments
10. (15 Min.) . Council Comments
ADJOURN
Parking and meeting rooms are accessible for persons with disabilities. Please contact the City Clerk a,
'425) 771-0245 with 24 hours advance notice for special accommodations. The Council Agenda as well as G
Delayed telecast of the meeting appears on cable television Government Access Channel 21.