2011.08.23 CC Agenda Packet
AGENDA
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL
Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex
250 5th Ave. North, Edmonds
AUGUST 23, 2011
7:00 p.m.
Call to Order and Flag Salute
1. (5 Minutes) Approval of Agenda
2. (5 Minutes) Approval of Consent Agenda Items
A.Roll Call
B. AM-4160 Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of August 15, 2011.
C. AM-4157 Approval of claim checks #127228 through #127359 dated August 18, 2011 for
$317,051.73. Approval of payroll direct deposit and checks #50709 through #50759 for
the period August 1, 2011 through August 15, 2011 in the amount of $673,171.85.
D. AM-4153 Approval of minor changes by SNOCOM legal to the "Interlocal Agreement for
SNOCOM Internet Access" that was approved for Mayor's signature on 11-16-2010.
E. AM-4148 Park Trust Fund Ordinance amending City Code 3.16.020.
F. AM-4154 Resolution calling for a report related to the creation and display of wall graphics within
the City of Edmonds.
G. AM-4152 Resolution thanking Peter Gibson for his service as a Student Representative.
3. (5 Minutes)
AM-4151
Presentation of Resolution to Student Representative Peter Gibson.
4. (30 Minutes)
AM-4149
Update on Old Milltown Courtyard design. (Public comment will be received)
Packet Page 1 of 238
5. (30 Minutes)
AM-4163
Discussion of previously approved change orders for the 162nd Ave Park (Haines
Wharf Park) and 75th/76th Walkway Project.
6.Audience Comments (3 minute limit per person)*
*Regarding matters not listed on the Agenda as Closed Record Review or as Public
Hearings.
7. (45 Minutes)
AM-4159
Potential amendments to downtown BD zones.
8. (15 Minutes) Council reports on outside committee/board meetings.
9. (5 Minutes) Mayor's Comments
10. (15 Minutes) Council Comments
ADJOURN
Packet Page 2 of 238
AM-4160 Item #: 2. B.
City Council Meeting
Date: 08/23/2011
Time:Consent
Submitted By:Sandy Chase
Department:City Clerk's Office
Review
Committee:
Committee
Action:
Type:Action
Information
Subject Title
Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of August 15, 2011.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
It is recommended that the City Council review and approve the draft minutes.
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
Attached is a copy of the draft minutes.
Attachments
08-15-11 Draft City Council Minutes
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Mayor Mike Cooper 08/18/2011 04:27 PM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 08/18/2011 04:30 PM
Form Started By: Sandy Chase Started On: 08/18/2011 09:49 AM
Final Approval Date: 08/18/2011
Packet Page 3 of 238
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 15, 2011
Page 1
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES
August 15, 2011
At 6:00 p.m., Mayor Cooper announced that the City Council would meet in executive session regarding
potential litigation. He stated that the executive session was scheduled to last approximately 60 minutes
and would be held in the Jury Meeting Room, located in the Public Safety Complex. No action was
anticipated to occur as a result of meeting in executive session. Elected officials present at the executive
session were: Mayor Cooper, and Councilmembers Bernheim, Plunkett, Fraley-Monillas, Buckshnis,
Peterson, and Wilson. Others present were City Attorney Jeff Taraday, Attorney Sharon Cates, Parks &
Recreation Director Carrie Hite, Public Works Director Phil Williams, City Engineer Rob English, Park
Maintenance Manager Rich Lindsay, and City Clerk Sandy Chase. The executive session concluded at
6:58 p.m.
The regular City Council meeting was called to order at 7:02 p.m. by Mayor Cooper in the Council
Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute.
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Mike Cooper, Mayor
Strom Peterson, Council President
Steve Bernheim, Councilmember
D. J. Wilson, Councilmember
Michael Plunkett, Councilmember
Lora Petso, Councilmember
Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember
Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember
ALSO PRESENT
Peter Gibson, Student Representative
STAFF PRESENT
Al Compaan, Police Chief
Gerry Gannon, Assistant Police Chief
Jim Lawless, Assistant Police Chief
Stephen Clifton, Community Services/Economic
Development Director
Phil Williams, Public Works Director
Carl Nelson, CIO
Rob English, City Engineer
Jeff Taraday, City Attorney
Sandy Chase, City Clerk
Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst.
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
BERNHEIM, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, TO
APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items
approved are as follows:
A. ROLL CALL
B. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF AUGUST 2, 2011.
Packet Page 4 of 238
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 15, 2011
Page 2
C. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #126969 THROUGH #127096 DATED AUGUST 4,
2011 FOR $459,322.72, AND CLAIM CHECKS #127097 THROUGH #127227 DATED
AUGUST 11, 2011 FOR $308,455.96. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSIT
AND CHECKS #50652 THROUGH #50708 FOR THE PERIOD JULY 16, 2011
THROUGH JULY 31, 2011 IN THE AMOUNT OF $734,924.24.
D. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF A CLAIM FOR DAMAGES SUBMITTED BY SOEUN
MANGKORNKEO ($3,200).
E. APPROVAL OF INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH OKANOGAN COUNTY FOR
JAIL SERVICES.
F. REPORT ON FINAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR WEST DAYTON EMERGENCY
STORM REPAIR PROJECT AND ACCEPTANCE OF PROJECT.
G. REPORT ON SMALL WORKS ROSTER SOLICITATION FOR THE DAYTON ST. CIPP
STORM PIPE REHABILITATION PROJECT AND AWARD CONTRACT TO
MICHELS CORPORATION IN THE AMOUNT OF $64,020.00.
H. ORDINANCE NO. 3851 – AMENDING THE EDMONDS CITY CODE, ADDING 4-HOUR
PARKING LIMITATIONS TO BRACKETT’S LANDING NORTH PARKING LOT.
I. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH
COMMUNITY TRANSIT FOR COMMUTE TRIP REDUCTION 2011-2015.
J. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH THE
CITY OF LYNNWOOD TO INSTALL WATERLINE AS PART OF LYNNWOOD'S
76TH AVE W SEWER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT.
3. SWEARING IN CEREMONY FOR CORPORAL MICHAEL B. RICHARDSON.
Police Chief Al Compaan commented one of the highest honors he has as Chief of Police is celebrating
achievement by department members. An oath is an important public recognition of personal achievement
and a personal pledge to the highest legal, ethical and professional standards critical to the law
enforcement mission.
Chief Compaan described Corporal Richardson’s background. He graduated from Meadowdale High
School, attended Shoreline Community College and was hired by the Edmonds Police Department in
February 1991. During his tenure with the department, Corporal Richardson served four years as a
detective on the South Snohomish County Narcotics Task Force and has been the special assault and
crimes against persons detective since 2003. He also spent five years as an investigator on the Snohomish
County Multiple Agency Response Team that investigates major incidents such as officer-involved
fatalities. He has been a member of the SWAT Team and is a department firearms instructor. He was the
department’s Officer of the Year in 1993, an award he received for administering CPR and reviving an
individual suffering from a drug overdose. He has also received formal letters of commendation in 2005
and 2009.
Corporal Richardson introduced his wife Traci, mother Carol, and daughters Victoria “Tori” and Ashley.
Chief Compaan administered the oath of office to Corporal Richardson. Corporal Richardson’s wife
pinned his badge. Chief Compaan presented Corporal Richardson with a framed Certificate of Promotion.
Packet Page 5 of 238
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 15, 2011
Page 3
Corporal Richardson thanked the Mayor, Council, Chief Compaan, and Assistant Chiefs and his
colleagues for their support. Over the past 20 years the department has allowed all his dreams to come
true and his wife has done everything she can to make his life great. Working for the Edmonds Police
Department has been a privilege and he wants to give back to the City and demonstrate the leadership that
other officers and leadership in the department have shown him to continue the tradition of greatness in
the Edmonds Police Department. He thanked the members of the Police Department and his family who
attended tonight to support him.
4. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Al Rutledge, Edmonds, congratulated Corporal Richardson on his promotion and hoped he would
remain with the Edmonds Police Department. Next, he referred to the update provided by Community
Transit at the last Council meeting, and suggested the City consider instituting its own bus service to
transport residents around Edmonds. He commented on the aging population, potential that younger
people will locate in Edmonds and the expectation that an additional 3,000 residents will locate in
Edmonds. He also commented on the importance of parks.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, explained at a recent Hearing Examiner meeting, the City was represented
by the City Attorney rather than staff. He suggested if staff was not competent enough to make their own
presentations, their workloads be adjusted and their salaries reduced. He recalled in the past when the City
had sued residents, citing the totem pole issue as an example. The subject of the recent Hearing Examiner
meeting was a resident who completed and filed the appropriate documents, paid the appropriate fee and
obtained a permit to trim trees. The trees were then over-trimmed, but not removed. The resident is now
required to plant over 50 trees, a decision he questioned because the trees were not removed. He
suggested Mayor Cooper remind code enforcement personnel that they are dealing with real people who
are citizens. He summarized many of the decisions made by code enforcement are arbitrary and not
supported by code.
5. APPOINTMENT OF PRO AND CON COMMITTEES FOR GENERAL ELECTION
PROPOSITIONS.
Council President Peterson explained the City Council is required by Washington State law to appoint
members to Pro and Con Committees for the levies the Council placed on the ballot. The committees are
comprised of up to three people who write pro and con statements. He identified the members of the
committees as follows:
City Services Levy
Pro Committee: Strom Peterson, Dave Page and Kelly Schwarting
Con Committee: DJ Wilson and Harry Gatjens
Roads Levy
Pro Committee: Walter Peale, Graham Marmion, Darrol Haug
Con Committee: DJ Wilson
Parks/Building Maintenance Levy
Pro Committee: Steve Bernheim, William Keppler and Daniel McMillin
Con Committee: DJ Wilson
Council President Peterson advised the statements are due at the end of the month. They will be submitted
to the Snohomish County Auditor as well as the opposing committee who can write a rebuttal statement.
He invited anyone interested in providing input to the committees to contact him at
Packet Page 6 of 238
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 15, 2011
Page 4
Peterson@ci.edmonds.wa.us and he will put them in contact with the committee chair. The committees
are officially comprised of three members but they can have input from others. He thanked the citizens
and Councilmembers who offered to participate on the committees.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
BERNHEIM TO APPROVE THE COMMITTEES AS STATED.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked whether additional members would be appointed to the Con
Committees for the Parks/Building Maintenance and the Road levies. Council President Peterson
responded the names need to be submitted to the Snohomish County Auditor on August 16; additional
assistance can be provided but the individuals will not be identified as committee members. Mayor
Cooper clarified the committees are not required to have three members; an effort needs to be made to
identify members for the committees. City Clerk Sandy Chase agreed.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
6. DISCUSSION REGARDING NEW ENERGY CITIES CONTRACT
Mayor Cooper explained the partners in the New Energy Cities Action Plan include Climate Solutions,
New Energy Cities and the City.
He summarized the process to date:
• A Stakeholder group of over 60 community leaders including Council, staff, and representatives
of the School District, Puget Sound Energy, SnoPUD, Chamber of Commerce and citizens at
large participated in a 2-day workshop to develop the first draft action plan
• Final Plan delivered to Mayor and Council approximately 3 week ago
• Plan reviewed by Mayor’s Climate Protection Committee
• Action items prioritized by Climate Protection Committee and staff
• Progress reviewed with Council
Mayor Cooper identified 2011 priorities:
• Community outreach and involvement branding – Mayor Cooper displayed the brand for the
City’s energy plan, advising additional information was available at Edmondsenergy.org
• Electric vehicle infrastructure, municipal and public - The first of six electric vehicle charging
stations is located in the parking lot adjacent to City Hall. The next two are being installed in the
parking lot of the Public Safety building and the next ones will be installed on Main Street. The
City has Prius vehicles and the Nissan Leafs are being readied for service. Charging stations for
City-owned all electric vehicles are installed in the garage under City Hall. The City received
federal energy block grant dollars that paid the difference between the cost of a gasoline vehicle
and the Nissan Leafs. The cost of the Leafs was approximately $17,000 rather than $34,000.
• Municipal building analysis and retrofit – Analysis of City building, lift stations, use of fuel, etc.
is underway by a consulting team. Funding for the analysis was included in the 2011 budget.
• Residential retrofit analysis – Mayor Cooper highlighted next steps in the Scope of Work that
includes residential retrofit analysis:
o White paper: analyze work done by Sustainable Works and Sustainable Edmonds to examine
successes and determine how residential energy audits and retrofits can be taken to the next
level.
o Utility assessment: Research PSE and SnoPUD incentives for the purpose of integrating an
ongoing single family retrofit program and how those programs integrate with federal funds.
Packet Page 7 of 238
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 15, 2011
Page 5
o Snohomish County Loan Program: Research Puget Sound Cooperative Credit Union and
connect this loan program to the City of Edmonds’ expansion of the Sustainable Works
program. The City develop a “one-stop shopping” opportunity for Edmonds residents to do
residential audits.
o Europe through the Backdoor: Explore creating a voluntary carbon reduction fund with
Europe through the Backdoor to offset the carbon emissions of their customers.
Mayor Cooper explained the scope of work is being negotiated. The cost of the contract is approximately
$10,000; there are funds available in the professional services budget. If a consultant were used instead of
Climate Solutions, the cost would be approximately $40,000. Climate Solutions is a 501(3)(c) non-profit
and receives corporate funding. The Mayor’s Climate Protection Committee unanimously endorsed this
project.
Council President Peterson commented the home energy retrofits are an opportunity for citizens of
Edmonds to save money, determine the amount of energy they use, how they use the energy and how they
can address their use. There are energy audit/assessment programs available via SnoPUD and PSE but
few people take advantage of them. The City is interested in providing residents “one-stop shopping” for
energy assessments. This will be beneficial to homeowners as well as provides an opportunity for local
contractors to assist homeowners with finding low interest loans and free/subsidized energy assessments.
He acknowledged an assessment had the potential to reduce energy use for environmental reasons but
also to lower energy bills.
Mayor Cooper explained the City’s hybrid and all electric vehicles will save the City in excess of
$7,000/year in fuel costs which lowers costs to the taxpayer. Work on City buildings has already lowered
costs for electricity and natural gas fuel.
Councilmember Buckshnis pointed out some of the items in the plan have been completed such as
adopting the Complete Streets ordinance and work on a Business Improvement District (BID). She
inquired about the budget for this effort. Mayor Cooper explained the action plan includes 6-12 month
and longer tasks. The Mayor’s Climate Protection Committee is considering what to recommend to
Council as next steps, some of which will need to be addressed in the budget. He will include
recommendations to the Council as part of the 2011 budget process. A preliminary meeting was held with
representatives of the Chamber of Commerce and PCC regarding commercial retrofits. The Chamber is
developing a conversation with commercial building owners and large users of electricity and natural gas
to encourage retrofits as well as work with tenants in those buildings to convince the building owners to
do retrofits. A long term step that will require a small feasibility study capturing the energy from the
wastewater treatment plant for a heating district, which was done very successfully in Vancouver B.C.
during the Olympics.
Council President Peterson commented New Energy Cities’ goal is not to work with the City after a year;
they want to turn the structure over to the City and move on to other cities. A heating district is a great
partnership opportunity with the Port of Edmonds.
Councilmember Bernheim expressed his support. He pointed out there is a limit to what the government
can do to establish programs to save energy and encourage citizens to save energy. The most important
thing citizens can do to save money is to voluntarily reduce their energy use, in particular gasoline via
wasteful trips.
Mayor Cooper summarized an action plan on the residential retrofit program will be presented to the
Council in the next couple months.
Packet Page 8 of 238
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 15, 2011
Page 6
7. QUARTERLY REPORT REGARDING FIBER OPTIC OPPORTUNITIES
CIO Carl Nelson reported Resolution 1234 required quarterly update on fiber optic opportunities. Fiber is
progressing similar to previous quarters; payback is expected approximately April 2015. The report in the
Council packet is drawn from financial statements and a model was prepared last year. An agreement was
signed by SNOCOM that will be on next week’s Consent Agenda and other opportunities are being
pursued.
Councilmember Plunkett expressed his appreciation for the work done by Mr. Nelson and the CTAC
Committee. Councilmember Plunkett observed that after payback in approximately April 2015, the City
will begin to net cash and savings even if no further businesses/organizations are connected. Mr. Nelson
agreed. Councilmember Plunkett observed the next step is for CTAC and staff to connect
businesses/organizations to net more money for the City. Mr. Nelson commented there were several
opportunities being considered.
8. REPORT ON CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS OF AUGUST 9, 2011.
Finance Committee
Councilmember Buckshnis reported Mr. Nelson provided the committee a quarterly report regarding fiber
optics. The committee also discussed the SNOCOM contract which will be on next week’s Consent
Agenda. Staff reviewed housekeeping amendments to the Park Trust Fund ordinance to make it consistent
with the code. The committee reviewed the Old Milltown courtyard budget review and recommended
Council consideration of a $60,000 reallocation from the REET fund to begin construction this fall. The
final item was a discussion regarding financial reserve policies. During public comment, Darrol Haug
asked whether the forecast includes the 1% annual property tax increase (Mr. Tarte informed him it did),
Roger Hertrich recommended the budget reflect salaries and benefits by department and suggested the
City consider how to reestablish its Fire Department in five years, and Joan Bloom inquired about the
Mayor’s budget committee.
Community Services/Development Services Committee
Councilmember Plunkett reported the Committee discussed the following:
• Report on final construction costs for West Dayton Emergency Storm Repair Project and
acceptance of project – approved on tonight’s Consent Agenda.
• Report on Small Works Roster solicitation for the Dayton Street CIPP Storm Pipe Rehabilitation
Project and awarded contract to Michels Corporation in the amount of $64,020 - approved on
tonight’s Consent Agenda.
• Ordinance Amending the Edmonds City Code, adding 4-hour parking limitation to Brackett’s
Landing North parking lot – approved on tonight’s Consent Agenda.
• Authorization for Mayor to sign Interlocal Agreement with Community Transit for Commute
Trip Reduction 2011-2015 - approved on tonight’s Consent Agenda.
• Authorization for Mayor to sign Interlocal Agreement with the City of Lynnwood to install
waterline as part of Lynnwood’s 76th Avenue West Sewer Improvement Project - approved on
tonight’s Consent Agenda.
• Potential amendment to downtown BD zones – 1) the committee agreed to forward the first three
amendments to the Council for further action, without a committee recommendation, 2) the
committee agreed that the development agreement provisions should be scheduled for further
discussion by the full Council when information from the City Attorney is available, and 3)
Committee Members Plunkett and Fraley-Monillas support removing the taller building clause in
the proposed development agreement for downtown.
• Public comment was provided by Natalie Shippen, Ron Wambolt and Mr. Adams, Seattle.
Packet Page 9 of 238
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 15, 2011
Page 7
Public Safety/Human Resources Committee
Councilmember Bernheim reported the committee discussed an Interlocal Agreement with Okanogan
County for jail services. Housing prisoners in Okanogan County instead of Everett or Lynnwood saves
$10/day per prisoner as well as Okanogan County charges no transportation fees and no booking fees.
9. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Cooper reported the City received a letter from the National Complete Streets Coalition thanking
the City for passing the Complete Streets ordinance and requesting the City sign on to a letter to Congress
asking the delegation to sponsor and vote for the National Complete Streets law. The City’s Congressman
is already a sponsor. He will draft a letter on behalf of the City to the congressional delegation as well as
sign a national letter requesting Congress pass a National Complete Streets law.
Mayor Cooper reported the applicants for the Finance Director position are much better than those
submitted during the previous solicitation. The position was advertised as “open until filled” and a round
of interviews was conducted last week. If reference checks are favorable and he is satisfied following his
interview, he will schedule an opportunity in early September for the Council to interview two candidates
prior to his requesting Council confirmation of his selection. He advised both candidates are highly
qualified and are Finance Directors in cities with much larger budgets than Edmonds.
10. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmember Plunkett commented history shows the emphasis Councilmember Buckshnis put on
transparency, user friendly documents, etc. has served the City well.
Councilmember Wilson referred to comments regarding terminating the FD1 contract, relaying the
Snohomish County Prosecutor’s Office advised the County Council they cannot enter into contracts that
binds them to future appropriations. That clearly was done with the FD1 contract. He has asked City
Attorney Taraday for an opinion. Next, he recalled during negotiations with FD1, there was a five year
term wherein the City could not terminate the contract and two year’s notice was required. At the time he
asked whether that was five plus two years or three plus two years, then-Mayor Haakenson said it was
five plus two. He has also asked Mr. Taraday for clarification regarding that requirement. He recalled the
Council also requested an accounting of the FD1 numbers when a Finance Director was hired. He
summarized the City was being well served by FD1 but those were questions that should be answered.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas recognized the men and women who work at the City’s treatment plant.
She toured the facility today and found it an amazing process.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas invited the public to the annual softball tournament between Mountlake
Terrace and Edmonds at 6:00 p.m. at the ball field behind the pavilion on 228th. Councilmember Petso
and she participated in the tournament last year and Edmonds won the trophy. She was hopeful Edmonds
would win the trophy again this year.
Councilmember Buckshnis thanked the Chamber of Commerce and volunteers who worked at the Taste
of Edmonds. Council President Peterson, Councilmember Wilson and she were food tasters. There were
record crowds on Friday.
Councilmember Petso encouraged anyone interested in donating to the Edmonds Center for the Arts
fundraising auction in September to contact Jamie Herlich at the ECA.
Packet Page 10 of 238
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 15, 2011
Page 8
Council President Peterson encouraged voters to drop off or mail their ballots on Tuesday, August 16 and
wished everyone on the ballot good luck.
11. ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 8:02 p.m.
Packet Page 11 of 238
AM-4157 Item #: 2. C.
City Council Meeting
Date: 08/23/2011
Time:Consent
Submitted For:Jim Tarte Submitted By:Nori Jacobson
Department:Finance
Review
Committee:
Committee
Action:
Type:Action
Information
Subject Title
Approval of claim checks #127228 through #127359 dated August 18, 2011 for $317,051.73. Approval
of payroll direct deposit and checks #50709 through #50759 for the period August 1, 2011 through
August 15, 2011 in the amount of $673,171.85.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Approval of claim checks and payroll direct deposit & checks.
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
In accordance with the State statutes, City payments must be approved by the City Council. Ordinance
#2896 delegates this approval to the Council President who reviews and recommends either approval or
non-approval of expenditures.
Fiscal Impact
Fiscal Year:2011
Revenue:
Expenditure:990,223.58
Fiscal Impact:
Claims $317,051.73
Payroll $673,171.85
Attachments
Claim Checks 8-18-11
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Finance Debra Sharp 08/18/2011 09:18 AM
City Clerk Sandy Chase 08/18/2011 09:48 AM
Mayor Mike Cooper 08/18/2011 04:27 PM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 08/18/2011 04:30 PM
Form Started By: Nori Jacobson Started On: 08/18/2011 08:29 AM
Final Approval Date: 08/18/2011
Packet Page 12 of 238
08/18/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
1
7:49:51AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
127228 8/18/2011 065052 AARD PEST CONTROL 296769 RODENT CONTROL/MEADOWDALE
RODENT CONTROL @ MEADOWDALE CLUBHOUSE
001.000.640.576.800.480.00 82.12
RODENT CONTROL296813
CITY WIDE RODENT CONTROL
001.000.640.576.800.480.00 93.08
Total :175.20
127229 8/18/2011 061029 ABSOLUTE GRAPHIX 811255 VOLLEYBALL & SOFTBALL SHIRTS
VOLLEYBALL & SOFTBALL SHIRTS
001.000.640.575.520.310.00 838.86
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.575.520.310.00 79.69
Total :918.55
127230 8/18/2011 066417 AIRGAS NOR PAC INC 101378811 M5Z34
CALL GASS
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 27.50
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 2.61
M5Z34101386936
CYLINDER RENTAL
411.000.656.538.800.450.21 65.70
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.450.21 6.24
M5Z34101403010
CARBON MONOXIDE
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 433.73
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 20.00
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 43.10
Total :598.88
127231 8/18/2011 000850 ALDERWOOD WATER DISTRICT 9038 MONTHLY WHOLESALE CHARGES FOR JULY 2011
1Page:
Packet Page 13 of 238
08/18/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
2
7:49:51AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
127231 8/18/2011 (Continued)000850 ALDERWOOD WATER DISTRICT
Monthly Wholesale Charges for July 2011
411.000.654.534.800.330.00 130,979.81
Total :130,979.81
127232 8/18/2011 061540 ALLIED WASTE SERVICES 0197-001369983 3-0197-0807770
RECYCLE ROLLOFF
411.000.656.538.800.475.66 10.64
Total :10.64
127233 8/18/2011 068857 AMEC EARTH & ENVIRONMENTAL INC C15926113 PW Vehicle Wash Station - Prof Svc
PW Vehicle Wash Station - Prof Svc
001.000.651.519.920.410.00 1,089.68
Total :1,089.68
127234 8/18/2011 069751 ARAMARK 655-5678974 UNIFORM SERVICES
PARK MAINTENANCE UNIFORM SERVICES
001.000.640.576.800.240.00 28.81
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.240.00 2.74
Total :31.55
127235 8/18/2011 069751 ARAMARK 655-5703070 21580001
UNIFORM SERVICE
411.000.656.538.800.240.00 70.93
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.240.00 6.74
Total :77.67
127236 8/18/2011 069751 ARAMARK 655-5683602 FLEET UNIFORM SVC
Fleet Uniform Svc
511.000.657.548.680.240.00 10.00
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.240.00 0.95
STREET/STORM UNIFORM SVC655-5695555
Street Storm Uniform Svc
2Page:
Packet Page 14 of 238
08/18/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
3
7:49:51AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
127236 8/18/2011 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK
111.000.653.542.900.240.00 5.00
Street Storm Uniform Svc
411.000.652.542.900.240.00 5.00
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.900.240.00 0.48
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.240.00 0.47
FLEET UNIFORM SVC655-5695557
Fleet Uniform Svc
511.000.657.548.680.240.00 10.00
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.240.00 0.95
FAC MAINT UNIFORM SVC655-5703065
Fac Maint Uniform Svc
001.000.651.519.920.240.00 60.87
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.240.00 5.78
Total :99.50
127237 8/18/2011 068379 ARCHITECREATION INC MSC-11-0299 MARINA BEACH PLAY TOY CHIPS
9.5% Sales Tax
125.000.640.576.800.310.00 349.13
MARINA BEACH PLAY TOY CHIPS
125.000.640.576.800.310.00 3,675.00
Total :4,024.13
127238 8/18/2011 064343 AT&T 425-776-5316 PARKS FAX MODEM
PARKS FAX MODEM
001.000.640.576.800.420.00 44.65
Total :44.65
127239 8/18/2011 070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER 61120 OUT SOURCING OF UTILITY BILLS
UB Outsourcing area #800 printing
411.000.652.542.900.490.00 114.97
UB Outsourcing area #800 printing
3Page:
Packet Page 15 of 238
08/18/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
4
7:49:51AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
127239 8/18/2011 (Continued)070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER
411.000.654.534.800.490.00 114.97
UB Outsourcing area #800 printing
411.000.655.535.800.490.00 118.45
UB Outsourcing area #800 postage
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 375.43
UB Outsourcing area #800 postage
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 375.43
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.490.00 10.92
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.490.00 10.92
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.490.00 11.26
Total :1,132.35
127240 8/18/2011 070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER 61226 OUT SOURCING OF UTILITY BILLS
UB Outsourcing area #100 printing
411.000.652.542.900.490.00 90.26
UB Outsourcing area #100 printing
411.000.654.534.800.490.00 90.26
UB Outsourcing area #100 printing
411.000.655.535.800.490.00 92.98
UB Outsourcing area #100 postage
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 294.76
UB Outsourcing area #100 postage
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 294.75
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.490.00 8.57
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.490.00 8.57
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.490.00 8.84
Total :888.99
127241 8/18/2011 001835 AWARDS SERVICE INC 76790 SOFTBALL TROPHIES
4Page:
Packet Page 16 of 238
08/18/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
5
7:49:51AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
127241 8/18/2011 (Continued)001835 AWARDS SERVICE INC
SOFTBALL TROPHIES
001.000.640.575.520.310.00 297.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.575.520.310.00 28.22
Total :325.22
127242 8/18/2011 073734 BAILEY, MARK E1FB.Bailey Easement E1FB.MARK BAILEY UTILITY EASEMENT
E1FB.Mark Bailey Utility Easement
412.200.630.594.320.410.00 1,500.00
Total :1,500.00
127243 8/18/2011 072319 BEACH CAMP LLC BEACHCAMP13935 BEACH CAMP @ SUNSET BAY
BEACH CAMP @ SUNSET BAY #13935
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 5,852.00
Total :5,852.00
127244 8/18/2011 066891 BEACON PUBLISHING INC 6486 CEMETERY DISPLAY AD
DISPLAY AD FOR CEMETERY
130.000.640.536.200.440.00 108.00
Total :108.00
127245 8/18/2011 069226 BHC CONSULTANTS LLC 4019 E8GA.SERVICES THRU 6/24/11
E8GA.Services thru 6/24/11
412.300.630.594.320.410.00 12,520.17
E8GA.Services thru 6/24/11
412.100.630.594.320.410.00 5,625.01
Total :18,145.18
127246 8/18/2011 069218 BISHOP, PAUL 453 WEB SITE MAINTENANCE
Web Site Maintenance
001.000.310.518.880.410.00 390.00
Revisions to financial.stm page
001.000.310.518.880.410.00 130.00
Total :520.00
127247 8/18/2011 002500 BLUMENTHAL UNIFORMS & EQUIP 892018 INV#892018 - EDMONDS PD - SMITH, RT
5Page:
Packet Page 17 of 238
08/18/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
6
7:49:51AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
127247 8/18/2011 (Continued)002500 BLUMENTHAL UNIFORMS & EQUIP
UNIFORM PANTS
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 108.50
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 10.31
Total :118.81
127248 8/18/2011 061966 CAMP FIRE BOYS & GIRLS CAMP FIRE 14207 BABYSITTING BASICS
BABYSITTING BASICS #14207
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 480.00
Total :480.00
127249 8/18/2011 003320 CASCADE MACHINERY & ELECTRIC 378331 LS 9 - Suction Wear Ring and gasket
LS 9 - Suction Wear Ring and gasket
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 193.60
Freight
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 22.05
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 20.49
Total :236.14
127250 8/18/2011 068484 CEMEX LLC 9421967961 Street - Cement
Street - Cement
111.000.653.542.610.310.00 280.00
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.610.310.00 26.60
Total :306.60
127251 8/18/2011 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY RN07111043 HELIUM
HELIUM FOR GYMNASTICS BALLOONS
001.000.640.575.550.450.00 11.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.575.550.450.00 1.05
Total :12.05
127252 8/18/2011 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY BO70548 2954000
6Page:
Packet Page 18 of 238
08/18/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7
7:49:51AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
127252 8/18/2011 (Continued)003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY
SAFETY GLASSES
411.000.656.538.800.310.12 74.90
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.12 7.11
Total :82.01
127253 8/18/2011 066070 CIT TECHNOLOGY FIN SERV INC 19812449 COPIER LEASE PW
copier lease for PW
001.000.650.519.910.450.00 643.07
Total :643.07
127254 8/18/2011 063902 CITY OF EVERETT I11002362 WATER QUALITY LAB ANALYSIS
Water Quality - Water Lab Analysis
411.000.654.534.800.410.00 615.60
Total :615.60
127255 8/18/2011 004095 COASTWIDE LABS W2337818 CLEANING SUPPLIES
BLEACH, CLEANER
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 191.34
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 18.18
YOST POOL SUPPLIESW2339917
SOAP, CLEANER
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 167.28
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 15.89
LINERSW2342508
LINERS
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 926.05
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 87.97
Total :1,406.71
127256 8/18/2011 004095 COASTWIDE LABS W2339799-1 Plaza Room - Supplies
Plaza Room - Supplies
7Page:
Packet Page 19 of 238
08/18/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
8
7:49:51AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
127256 8/18/2011 (Continued)004095 COASTWIDE LABS
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 90.12
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 8.56
Total :98.68
127257 8/18/2011 004095 COASTWIDE LABS W2339799-2 Fac Maint - Liners
Fac Maint - Liners
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 65.03
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 6.18
Total :71.21
127258 8/18/2011 073667 COBURN, LI COBURN081511 OUTDOOR VOLLEYBALL ATTENDANT
OUTDOOR VOLLEYBALL ATTENDANT 8/1 -
001.000.640.575.520.410.00 144.00
Total :144.00
127259 8/18/2011 073135 COGENT COMMUNICATIONS INC Aug-11 C/A CITYOFED00001
Aug-11 Fiber Optics Internet Connection
001.000.310.518.870.420.00 916.20
Total :916.20
127260 8/18/2011 070323 COMCAST 0721433 CEMETERY BUNDLED SERVICES
CEMETERY BUNDLED SERVICES
130.000.640.536.200.420.00 114.07
Total :114.07
127261 8/18/2011 065683 CORRY'S FINE DRY CLEANING JUNE-JULY 2011 EDMONDS POLICE DEPT JUNE-JULY 2011
DRY CLEANING/LAUNDRY FOR 6-7/11
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 831.47
Total :831.47
127262 8/18/2011 070230 DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING 7/20/11-8/16/11 STATE SHARE OF CONCEALED PISTOL
State Share of Concealed Pistol
001.000.000.237.190.000.00 306.00
8Page:
Packet Page 20 of 238
08/18/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
9
7:49:51AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :306.00127262 8/18/2011 070230 070230 DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING
127263 8/18/2011 047450 DEPT OF INFORMATION SERVICES 2011070098 CUSTOMER ID# D200-0
Scan services for July 2011
001.000.310.518.880.420.00 1,184.01
Adobe Photoshop Elements 9 Win license
001.000.310.518.880.310.00 428.22
Total :1,612.23
127264 8/18/2011 064531 DINES, JEANNIE 11-3218 INV#11-3218 EDMONDS PD
TRANSCRIPTION IA11-001
001.000.410.521.100.410.00 402.00
TRANSCRIPTION CASE #11-2450
001.000.410.521.210.410.00 27.00
TRANSCRIPTION CASE #11-2079
001.000.410.521.210.410.00 54.00
TRANSCRIPTION CASE #11-2223
001.000.410.521.210.410.00 105.00
TRANSCRIPTION CASE #11-1054
001.000.410.521.210.410.00 54.00
TRANSCRIPTION SMART #WP11-003
001.000.410.521.210.410.00 99.00
Total :741.00
127265 8/18/2011 072145 DISTINCTIVE WINDOWS INC 17135 FAC - Mill Spacer
FAC - Mill Spacer
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 148.83
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 14.14
Total :162.97
127266 8/18/2011 065892 EAF FOUNDATION EAFF0817 2011 ART STUDIO TOUR
2011 EDMONDS ART STUDIO TOUR
123.000.640.573.100.410.00 1,000.00
Total :1,000.00
9Page:
Packet Page 21 of 238
08/18/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
10
7:49:51AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
127267 8/18/2011 007675 EDMONDS AUTO PARTS 38484 SUPPLIES
ULTRABLACK
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 6.99
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 0.66
Total :7.65
127268 8/18/2011 007775 EDMONDS CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 06302011 VISITOR CENTER AWARD FOR JAN-JUNE 2011
Jan - June 2011 tourism promotion award
120.000.310.575.420.410.00 1,250.00
Total :1,250.00
127269 8/18/2011 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 1-00655 LIFT ST 7
Lift St 7
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 27.50
LIFT STATION #81-00925
LIFT STATION #8
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 34.59
LIFT STATION #11-01950
LIFT STATION #1
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 27.50
LIFT STATION #21-02675
LIFT STATION #2
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 27.50
Public Works Fountain, Bldgs & Restrooms1-03950
Public Works Fountain, Bldgs & Restrooms
411.000.654.534.800.470.00 428.48
Public Works Meter Shop1-05350
Public Works Meter Shop
411.000.654.534.800.470.00 133.71
LIFT STATION #61-05705
LIFT STATION #6
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 55.99
CITY HALL1-13975
CITY HALL
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 440.67
10Page:
Packet Page 22 of 238
08/18/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
11
7:49:51AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
127269 8/18/2011 (Continued)008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION
CITY HALL1-14000
CITY HALL
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 98.69
Total :1,274.63
127270 8/18/2011 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 067508 COPIER LEASE
COPIER LEASE
001.000.640.574.100.450.00 84.30
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.574.100.450.00 8.01
Total :92.31
127271 8/18/2011 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 067808 Meter charges for planning printer.
Meter charges for planning printer.
001.000.620.558.800.450.00 80.43
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.620.558.800.450.00 7.64
Meter charges for building printer for067809
Meter charges for building printer for
001.000.620.558.800.450.00 42.59
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.620.558.800.450.00 4.05
Total :134.71
127272 8/18/2011 066378 FASTENAL COMPANY WAMOU23497 SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 12.00
Freight
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 4.80
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 1.60
Total :18.40
127273 8/18/2011 066378 FASTENAL COMPANY WAMOU23671 Storm Water - 21" green stake flags 100
Storm Water - 21" green stake flags 100
11Page:
Packet Page 23 of 238
08/18/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
12
7:49:51AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
127273 8/18/2011 (Continued)066378 FASTENAL COMPANY
411.000.652.542.400.310.00 99.00
Freight
411.000.652.542.400.310.00 18.95
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.400.310.00 11.21
Total :129.16
127274 8/18/2011 069469 FLINT TRADING INC 133136 Traffic Control - Hot Tape Asphalt
Traffic Control - Hot Tape Asphalt
111.000.653.542.640.310.00 22,741.28
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.640.310.00 2,160.42
Total :24,901.70
127275 8/18/2011 011900 FRONTIER 425-712-0647 IRRIGATION SYSTEM
IRRIGATION SYSTEM
001.000.640.576.800.420.00 41.38
SEAVIEW PARK IRRIGATION MODEM425-744-1681
SEAVIEW PARK IRRIGATION MODEM
001.000.640.576.800.420.00 41.38
SIERRA PARK IRRIGATION MODEM425-744-1691
SIERRA PARK IRRIGATION MODEM
001.000.640.576.800.420.00 40.72
MEADOWDALE PRESCHOOL425-745-5055
MEADOWDALE PRESCHOOL
001.000.640.575.560.420.00 58.56
GROUNDS MAINTENANCE FAX MODEM425-776-5316
GROUNDS MAINTENANCE FAX MODEM
001.000.640.576.800.420.00 110.17
Total :292.21
127276 8/18/2011 011900 FRONTIER 425-197-0932 TELEMETRY WATER & LIFT STATIONS
TELEMETRY WATER & LIFT STATIONS
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 261.30
TELEMETRY WATER & LIFT STATIONS
12Page:
Packet Page 24 of 238
08/18/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
13
7:49:51AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
127276 8/18/2011 (Continued)011900 FRONTIER
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 261.29
SEWER - PW TELEMETRY425-774-1031
SEWER - PW TELEMETRY
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 45.93
LIBRARY ELEVATOR PHONE425-776-1281
LIBRARY ELEVATOR PHONE
001.000.651.519.920.420.00 41.38
Total :609.90
127277 8/18/2011 011900 FRONTIER 425-775-7865 Radio Line between Public Works & UB
Radio Line between Public Works & UB
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 53.52
LS 7425-776-2742
LS 7
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 25.56
PUBLIC WORKS C0NNECTION TO 911425-RT0-9133
Public Works Connection to 911
001.000.650.519.910.420.00 5.48
Public Works Connection to 911
111.000.653.542.900.420.00 20.81
Public Works Connection to 911
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 20.81
Public Works Connection to 911
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 20.81
Public Works Connection to 911
511.000.657.548.680.420.00 20.81
Public Works Connection to 911
411.000.652.542.900.420.00 20.78
Total :188.58
127278 8/18/2011 073748 FROTHINGHAM, PETER FROTHINGHAM0821 PARK PRESENTER
PARK CONCERT PRESENTER 8/21/11
117.100.640.573.100.410.00 500.00
Total :500.00
13Page:
Packet Page 25 of 238
08/18/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
14
7:49:51AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
127279 8/18/2011 072515 GOOGLE INC 3060298 INTERNET ANTI-VIRUS & SPAM MAINT FEE
Internet Anti-Virus & Spam Maint Fee -
001.000.310.518.880.480.00 523.33
Total :523.33
127280 8/18/2011 012560 HACH COMPANY 7357529 112830
LAB SUPPLIES
411.000.656.538.800.310.31 517.69
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.31 37.95
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.31 52.80
Total :608.44
127281 8/18/2011 060985 HARRINGTON INDUSTRIAL PLASTICS 007C5689 036570
PVC PIPE/SOLVENT/VALVE BALL
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 205.58
Total :205.58
127282 8/18/2011 010900 HD FOWLER CO INC I2943885 Woodway Park Road - Main Replacement~
Woodway Park Road - Main Replacement~
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 2,441.16
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 231.91
Water - Meter Box BasesI2968993
Water - Meter Box Bases
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 1,841.76
Meter Box Lids
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 1,845.60
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 350.30
Woodway Park Road - Main ReplacementI2968994
Woodway Park Road - Main Replacement
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 182.70
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 17.36
14Page:
Packet Page 26 of 238
08/18/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
15
7:49:51AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
127282 8/18/2011 (Continued)010900 HD FOWLER CO INC
Water Sewer Yard Hydrant SuppliesI2968996
Water Sewer Yard Hydrant Supplies
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 74.22
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 7.05
Total :6,992.06
127283 8/18/2011 072647 HERRERA ENVIRONMENTAL 24883 E1FH.SERVICES THRU 7/29/11
E1FH.Services thru 7/29/11
412.200.630.594.320.410.00 325.67
Total :325.67
127284 8/18/2011 070042 IKON 85241931 COPIER LEASE
PARK MAINTENANCE COPIER LEASE
001.000.640.576.800.450.00 24.70
Total :24.70
127285 8/18/2011 070042 IKON 85310069 Rent on Engineering copier for billing
Rent on Engineering copier for billing
001.000.620.558.800.450.00 443.48
Rent on large copier for billing period85310073
Rent on large copier for billing period
001.000.620.558.800.450.00 827.00
Total :1,270.48
127286 8/18/2011 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED 1923134 SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
001.000.230.512.500.310.00 216.60
SUPPLIES1923441
SUPPLIES
001.000.230.512.500.310.00 -56.89
SUPPLIES1924827
SUPPLIES
001.000.230.512.500.310.00 232.08
Total :391.79
15Page:
Packet Page 27 of 238
08/18/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
16
7:49:51AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
127287 8/18/2011 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED 1924111 Name badges
Name badges
001.000.220.516.100.310.00 24.43
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.220.516.100.310.00 2.32
Copy paper (CSD, MY, HR)1924155
Copy paper (CSD, MY, HR)
001.000.610.519.700.310.00 24.38
Copy paper (CSD, MY, HR)
001.000.220.516.100.310.00 24.37
Copy paper (CSD, MY, HR)
001.000.210.513.100.310.00 24.37
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.610.519.700.310.00 2.32
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.220.516.100.310.00 2.32
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.210.513.100.310.00 2.31
Total :106.82
127288 8/18/2011 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED 1925633 MEADOWDALE PRESCHOOL SUPPLIES
MEADOWDALE PRESCHOOL SUPPLIES: LABELS,
001.000.640.575.560.310.00 45.84
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.575.560.310.00 4.38
Total :50.22
127289 8/18/2011 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED 1924158 226961
COPIER PAPER/WRITING
411.000.656.538.800.310.41 111.15
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.41 10.56
Total :121.71
127290 8/18/2011 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED 1919818 OFFICE SUPPLIES
Office Supplies
16Page:
Packet Page 28 of 238
08/18/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
17
7:49:51AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
127290 8/18/2011 (Continued)073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED
001.000.250.514.300.310.00 62.50
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.250.514.300.310.00 5.95
Total :68.45
127291 8/18/2011 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED 1924039 Misc. office supplies including stapler
Misc. office supplies including stapler
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 384.63
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 36.55
Total :421.18
127292 8/18/2011 068952 INFINITY INTERNET 2978907 PRESCHOOL INTERNET ACCESS
PRESCHOOL INTERNET ACCESS
001.000.640.575.560.420.00 15.00
Total :15.00
127293 8/18/2011 070097 INLAND TECHNOLOGY INC 75801 20170
15 GALLON DRUM TEKSOL
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 720.13
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 79.85
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 76.00
Total :875.98
127294 8/18/2011 014940 INTERSTATE BATTERY SYSTEMS ED7044 INV#ED7044 - EDMONDS PD
CR123 BATTERIES
001.000.410.521.220.310.00 59.80
CR2032 3V LITHIUM BATTERIES
001.000.410.521.220.310.00 8.45
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.220.310.00 6.48
Total :74.73
17Page:
Packet Page 29 of 238
08/18/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
18
7:49:51AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
127295 8/18/2011 072728 KAVADAS, JANET KAVADAS14180 PERSONAL TRAINER
PERSONAL TRAINING SESSIONS
001.000.640.575.540.410.00 196.00
WEIGHT ROOM ORIENTATION
001.000.640.575.540.410.00 31.50
Total :227.50
127296 8/18/2011 073086 KIMMEL ATHLETIC SUPPLY CO 0329724-IN NET BASKETBALL TAGS
NET BASKETBALL TAGS
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 59.50
Freight
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 11.97
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 6.80
Total :78.27
127297 8/18/2011 070285 KPLU-FM IN-1110725949 RADIO AD 6/27 - 7/10/11 EDMONDS PROMO
Radio ad 6/27-7/10/11 Edmonds promotion
001.000.240.513.110.440.00 950.00
Total :950.00
127298 8/18/2011 017060 L & O DISTRIBUTING CO 86411 FAC - supplies
FAC - supplies
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 163.13
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 15.50
Total :178.63
127299 8/18/2011 073136 LANG, ROBERT Lang, Robert City Hall Monitor for 8/4/11 Tree Brd
City Hall Monitor for 8/4/11 Tree Brd
001.000.110.511.100.410.00 36.00
Total :36.00
127300 8/18/2011 068711 LAWN EQUIPMENT SUPPLY 8011-204 NITRILE GLOVES
NITRILE GLOVES
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 294.96
18Page:
Packet Page 30 of 238
08/18/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
19
7:49:51AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
127300 8/18/2011 (Continued)068711 LAWN EQUIPMENT SUPPLY
Freight
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 9.04
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 28.88
Total :332.88
127301 8/18/2011 072059 LEE, NICOLE 762 INTERPRETER FEE
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.230.512.500.410.01 123.96
Total :123.96
127302 8/18/2011 073603 LIGHTHOUSE LAW GROUP PLLC 20033 expenses 06-11 LEGALS FEES
06-11 Reimbursement for expenses
001.000.360.515.100.410.00 58.01
08-11 LEGALS FEESAUG-11
08-11 Legal fees
001.000.360.515.100.410.00 32,000.00
Total :32,058.01
127303 8/18/2011 067631 LODESTAR COMPANY INC 30033 2795
REPAIR MOTOR/THERMOSTAT
411.000.656.538.800.480.22 1,060.59
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.480.22 100.76
Total :1,161.35
127304 8/18/2011 018950 LYNNWOOD AUTO PARTS INC 639213 Street - Exhaust Wrap 1"
Street - Exhaust Wrap 1"
111.000.653.542.310.310.00 36.98
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.310.310.00 3.51
Total :40.49
127305 8/18/2011 071140 MAD SCIENCE OF KING COUNTY MADSCIENCE13779 MAD SCIENCE CAMP
MAD SCIENCE CAMP #13779
19Page:
Packet Page 31 of 238
08/18/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
20
7:49:51AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
127305 8/18/2011 (Continued)071140 MAD SCIENCE OF KING COUNTY
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 1,787.60
Total :1,787.60
127306 8/18/2011 019583 MANPOWER INC 22709954 Receptionist coverage on Friday 8/5/11.
Receptionist coverage on Friday 8/5/11.
001.000.620.558.800.410.00 82.35
Total :82.35
127307 8/18/2011 069362 MARSHALL, CITA 708 INTERPRETER FEE
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.230.512.500.410.01 86.75
INTERPRETER FEE729
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.230.512.500.410.01 87.65
INTERPRETER FEE801
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.230.512.500.410.01 87.65
Total :262.05
127308 8/18/2011 020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO 91856740 123106800
TURN LOCK DEVICE/ROD/V BELT
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 396.49
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 7.84
Total :404.33
127309 8/18/2011 071392 MEDIA BAY PRODUCTIONS LLC 080211 OUTDOOR MOVIES RENTAL
OUTDOOR DELUXE RENTAL, INCLUDING ALL
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 2,500.00
Total :2,500.00
127310 8/18/2011 063773 MICROFLEX 00020162 07-11 TAX AUDIT PROGRAM
TAX AUDIT PROGRAM
001.000.310.514.230.410.00 92.04
Total :92.04
20Page:
Packet Page 32 of 238
08/18/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
21
7:49:51AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
127311 8/18/2011 020900 MILLERS EQUIP & RENT ALL INC 132669 SUPPLIES
CUP WHEEL, HANDLE, BRAKE CLEANER
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 93.83
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 8.91
Total :102.74
127312 8/18/2011 020900 MILLERS EQUIP & RENT ALL INC 132225 Steet - Parts for Back Pack Blower
Steet - Parts for Back Pack Blower
111.000.653.542.710.310.00 11.95
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.710.310.00 1.14
Total :13.09
127313 8/18/2011 064570 NATIONAL SAFETY INC 0301338-IN Sewer - HVY DTY Gloves
Sewer - HVY DTY Gloves
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 318.00
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 30.21
Total :348.21
127314 8/18/2011 066391 NORTHSTAR CHEMICAL INC 23467 260
SODIUM BISULFITE
411.000.656.538.800.310.54 1,258.60
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.54 119.57
Total :1,378.17
127315 8/18/2011 061013 NORTHWEST CASCADE INC 1-326218 HONEY BUCKET RENTAL
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL: FISH HATCHERY
001.000.640.576.800.450.00 112.35
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL1-330408
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL: MADRONA ELEMENTARY
001.000.640.576.800.450.00 102.50
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL1-332354
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL: HUMMINGBIRD PARK
21Page:
Packet Page 33 of 238
08/18/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
22
7:49:51AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
127315 8/18/2011 (Continued)061013 NORTHWEST CASCADE INC
001.000.640.576.800.450.00 112.35
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL1-332452
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL: STANDARD AND
001.000.640.576.800.450.00 1,141.66
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL1-334141
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL: CIVIC CENTER
001.000.640.576.800.450.00 194.62
Total :1,663.48
127316 8/18/2011 025690 NOYES, KARIN 000 00 231 Planning Board minutes on Aug. 12, 2011.
Planning Board minutes on Aug. 12, 2011.
001.000.620.558.600.410.00 320.00
Total :320.00
127317 8/18/2011 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 968168 SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
001.000.230.512.500.310.00 127.93
Total :127.93
127318 8/18/2011 068709 OFFICETEAM 33726093 TEMPORARY STAFFING
Clerk's Office Temp Help
001.000.250.514.300.410.00 705.51
Total :705.51
127319 8/18/2011 063750 ORCA PACIFIC INC 050695 YOST POOL CHEMICALS
YOST POOL CHEMICALS
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 684.15
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 65.00
YOST POOL SUPPLIES050960
YOST POOL CHEMICALS
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 199.15
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 18.91
YOST POOLS SUPPLIES051086
22Page:
Packet Page 34 of 238
08/18/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
23
7:49:51AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
127319 8/18/2011 (Continued)063750 ORCA PACIFIC INC
YOST POOL CHEMICALS
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 466.48
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 44.32
Total :1,478.01
127320 8/18/2011 072739 O'REILLY AUTO PARTS 3685-128752 Fleet - Solenoid
Fleet - Solenoid
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 46.59
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 4.43
Total :51.02
127321 8/18/2011 027060 PACIFIC TOPSOILS 997776 Storm Water - Dump fees
Storm Water - Dump fees
411.000.652.542.320.490.00 210.00
Total :210.00
127322 8/18/2011 066412 PARKS & RECREATION DAYCAMP CAMPCASH0817 DAYCAMP PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT
DAYCAMP SUPPLIES
001.000.640.575.530.310.00 211.88
DAYCAMP PHOTO PRINTS
001.000.640.575.530.490.00 14.29
Total :226.17
127323 8/18/2011 073738 PCS STRUCTURAL SOLUTIONS INC 58116 11391
C-365 A BASIN UPGRADE
414.000.656.594.320.410.10 1,391.00
Total :1,391.00
127324 8/18/2011 008475 PETTY CASH - PUBLIC WORKS 5/7-8/11/11 PARKS - SIGN SUPPLIES
PARKS - SIGN SUPPLIES
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 56.28
PW - DOCUMENT FRAMES
001.000.650.519.910.310.00 44.62
23Page:
Packet Page 35 of 238
08/18/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
24
7:49:51AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
127324 8/18/2011 (Continued)008475 PETTY CASH - PUBLIC WORKS
FAC MAINT - FIRST AID SUPPLIES
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 7.86
FAC MAINT - PRINTER CARTRIDGES
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 44.33
WATER - WORK JEANS L MCMURPHY
411.000.654.534.800.240.00 54.28
WATER - RETURN POSTAGE TO CPR TRAINER
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 5.10
WATER/SEWER - REPLACE APPLIANCE
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 13.68
WATER/SEWER - REPLACE APPLIANCE
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 13.68
SEWER - CDL RENEWAL - B NILSON
411.000.655.535.800.490.00 30.00
UNIT EQ69WA - LIC TABS
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 34.25
UNIT EQ80PO - LIC TABS
511.100.657.594.480.640.00 34.75
UNITS EQ68EN AND EQ82EN - LIC TABS
511.100.657.594.480.640.00 69.50
Total :408.33
127325 8/18/2011 072384 PLAY-WELL TEKNOLOGIES PLAYWELL13774 LEGO CAMPS
LEGO CAMP #13774
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 3,000.00
LEGO CAMP #13771
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 2,875.00
Total :5,875.00
127326 8/18/2011 069198 PNCWA WESTERN WA REGION 2454 PNCWA CONFERENCE/AMBURGEY
PNCWA CONFERENCE/AMBURGEY
411.000.656.538.800.490.71 485.00
Total :485.00
127327 8/18/2011 071811 PONY MAIL BOX & BUSINESS CTR 194603 H2O
24Page:
Packet Page 36 of 238
08/18/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
25
7:49:51AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
127327 8/18/2011 (Continued)071811 PONY MAIL BOX & BUSINESS CTR
UPS/CITY OF OMAK
411.000.656.538.800.420.00 12.75
Total :12.75
127328 8/18/2011 064291 QWEST 206-Z02-0478 332B TELEMETRY
TELEMETRY
411.000.656.538.800.420.00 138.52
Total :138.52
127329 8/18/2011 033550 SALMON BAY SAND & GRAVEL 2283541 Charging Stations - SonoTubes (24)
Charging Stations - SonoTubes (24)
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 180.00
Flower Poles/ Park Supplies
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 607.00
Roadway - Asphalt
111.000.653.542.310.310.00 823.20
Pallet Fees
111.000.653.542.310.310.00 17.00
Freight
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 11.18
Freight
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 37.70
Freight
111.000.653.542.310.310.00 51.12
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 18.16
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 61.25
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.310.310.00 84.67
Total :1,891.28
127330 8/18/2011 073746 SARVIS, BETTY SARVIS0809 REFUND
REFUND OF PLAZA ROOM DAMAGE DEPOSIT
001.000.000.239.200.000.00 500.00
25Page:
Packet Page 37 of 238
08/18/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
26
7:49:51AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :500.00127330 8/18/2011 073746 073746 SARVIS, BETTY
127331 8/18/2011 067076 SEATTLE PUMP AND EQUIPMENT CO 11-3030 Unit 31 - Ball Valves
Unit 31 - Ball Valves
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 250.00
Freight
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 12.88
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 24.98
UNIT 106 - INTAKE TUBE11-845
Unit 106 - Intake Tube
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -172.50
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -16.39
Total :98.97
127332 8/18/2011 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 202504064-7 8100 190TH ST SW
8100 1909TH ST SW
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 31.04
Total :31.04
127333 8/18/2011 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 103769675 2002-0255-4
24400 HIGHWAYY 99/RICHMOND PARK
411.000.656.538.800.471.62 30.02
2019-2988-2130320433
8421 244TH ST SW/RICHMOND PARK
411.000.656.538.800.471.62 30.02
Total :60.04
127334 8/18/2011 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 200706851 SIGNAL LIGHT
SIGNAL LIGHT
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 30.02
SIGNAL LIGHT 961 PUGET DR200723021
SIGNAL LIGHT
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 36.65
BLINKING LIGHT 9301 PUGET DR201431244
26Page:
Packet Page 38 of 238
08/18/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
27
7:49:51AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
127334 8/18/2011 (Continued)037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
BLINKING LIGHT
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 31.04
TRAFFIC CONTROL LIGHT 21531 HWY 99201441755
Traffic Control Light 21531 Hwy 99
111.000.653.542.630.470.00 81.75
TRAFFIC LIGHT 21931 HWY 99202289450
TRAFFIC LIGHT
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 148.63
Total :328.09
127335 8/18/2011 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 200398956 fire station # 16
fire station # 16
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 1,504.43
LIFT STATION #9200611317
LIFT STATION #9
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 155.12
SCHOOL FLASHING LIGHTS 1400 OLYMPIC AVE202519864
SCHOOL FLASHING LIGHTS
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 31.04
FIVE CORNERS WATER TOWER203652151
Five Corners Water Tower
411.000.654.534.800.470.00 247.86
Total :1,938.45
127336 8/18/2011 038500 SO COUNTY SENIOR CENTER INC 329 08/11 RECREATION SERVICES CONTRACT FEE
08/11 Recreation Servies Contract Fee
001.000.390.519.900.410.00 5,000.00
07/11 RECREATION SERVICES CONTRACT FEE331
07/11 Recreation Servies Contract Fee
001.000.390.519.900.410.00 5,000.00
Total :10,000.00
127337 8/18/2011 038300 SOUND DISPOSAL CO 8152011 ASH DISPOSAL
ASH DISPOSAL
411.000.656.538.800.474.65 3,601.56
27Page:
Packet Page 39 of 238
08/18/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
28
7:49:51AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :3,601.56127337 8/18/2011 038300 038300 SOUND DISPOSAL CO
127338 8/18/2011 069997 SRI TECHNOLOGIES INC 119151 E2DB.CAPITAL PROJECT MANAGER SERVICES
E2DB.Capital Project Manager Services
132.000.640.594.760.410.00 2,145.00
Total :2,145.00
127339 8/18/2011 039775 STATE AUDITOR'S OFFICE L89611 JULY-11 AUDIT FEES
July-11 Audit Fees
001.000.390.519.900.510.00 6,042.52
July-11 Audit Fees
411.000.652.542.900.510.00 251.77
July-11 Audit Fees
411.000.654.534.800.510.00 1,007.09
July-11 Audit Fees
411.000.655.535.800.510.00 1,007.09
July-11 Audit Fees
411.000.656.538.800.510.00 1,007.09
July-11 Audit Fees
111.000.653.543.300.510.00 251.77
July-11 Audit Fees
511.000.657.548.680.510.00 503.53
Total :10,070.86
127340 8/18/2011 040430 STONEWAY ELECTRIC SUPPLY 2570210 PS - Electrical Supplies
PS - Electrical Supplies
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 360.35
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 34.23
Total :394.58
127341 8/18/2011 068360 SUMMIT LAW GROUP 52573 Ferebee Investigation report
Ferebee Investigation report
001.000.230.512.501.490.00 405.00
Total :405.00
28Page:
Packet Page 40 of 238
08/18/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
29
7:49:51AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
127342 8/18/2011 040916 TC SPAN AMERICA 56728 Fac. Maint. - Work shirts
Fac. Maint. - Work shirts
001.000.651.519.920.240.00 206.25
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.240.00 19.60
Total :225.85
127343 8/18/2011 009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY 1746258 NEWSPAPER AD
Ordinance 3848
001.000.250.514.300.440.00 46.56
NEWSPAPER AD1746260
Ordinance 3850
001.000.250.514.300.440.00 46.56
NEWSPAPER AD1746261
Ordinance 3849
001.000.250.514.300.440.00 44.84
Total :137.96
127344 8/18/2011 061192 UNITED PIPE & SUPPLY 8724599 SUPPLIES
IRRIGATION SUPPLIES
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 142.82
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 12.76
Total :155.58
127345 8/18/2011 061192 UNITED PIPE & SUPPLY 8716430 Water Inventory - w-valvci-02-010
Water Inventory - w-valvci-02-010
411.000.654.534.800.341.00 973.64
w-valbr-02-010
411.000.654.534.800.341.00 268.54
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.341.00 118.01
Water Inventory - w-valvbr-02-0108716565
Water Inventory - w-valvbr-02-010
411.000.654.534.800.341.00 375.98
Security Sockets
29Page:
Packet Page 41 of 238
08/18/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
30
7:49:51AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
127345 8/18/2011 (Continued)061192 UNITED PIPE & SUPPLY
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 55.29
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.341.00 35.72
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 5.25
Water Parts- 2" Brass Unions8716936
Water Parts- 2" Brass Unions
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 131.64
8.7% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 11.53
Water - Security Socket8719463
Water - Security Socket
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 18.43
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 1.75
Total :1,995.78
127346 8/18/2011 065010 UNIVERSAL ANALYZERS INC 154520 204
FILTER ELEMENT
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 330.00
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 17.21
Total :347.21
127347 8/18/2011 062693 US BANK 6060 COOPER X 6060
Mayor Cooper Purchase Card. ITunes
001.000.210.513.100.490.00 10.94
Total :10.94
127348 8/18/2011 062693 US BANK 1070 INV#1070 08/08/11 THOMPSON - EDMONDS PD
BALACLAVA W/NOMEX
001.000.410.521.230.240.00 22.39
SPEC-OPS RIGGER BELT
001.000.410.521.230.240.00 36.00
BLACKHAWK RIFLE CASE
30Page:
Packet Page 42 of 238
08/18/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
31
7:49:51AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
127348 8/18/2011 (Continued)062693 US BANK
001.000.410.521.230.350.00 89.95
PROMO CERT - RICHARDSON
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 2.71
STREAMLIGHT TACTICAL LIGHTS
001.000.410.521.230.350.00 199.90
ENGRAVING PLAQUES-OFF/EMP YR
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 22.55
FRAMING PROMO CERT-RICHARDSON
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 77.50
INV#2519 08/08/11 TRAINING - EDMONDS PD2519
BFST/PATROL RIFLE INST/LIM 08/11
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 5.90
LUNCH/PATROL RIFLE INST/LIM
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 19.11
DINNER/PATROL RIFLE INST/LIM
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 22.11
FUEL/PATROL RIFLE INST/LIM
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 37.20
DINNER/PATROL RIFLE INST/LIM
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 16.33
BFST/PATROL RIFLE INST/LIM
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 15.56
DINNER/PATROL RIFLE INST/LIM
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 22.61
BFST/PATROL RIFLE INST/LIM
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 15.43
LUNCH/PATROL RIFLE INST/LIM
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 11.78
DINNER/PATROL RIFLE INST/LIM
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 22.31
BFST/PATROL RIFLE INST/LIM
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 15.94
BSFT/PATRIL RIFLE INST/LIM
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 15.56
31Page:
Packet Page 43 of 238
08/18/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
32
7:49:51AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
127348 8/18/2011 (Continued)062693 US BANK
LUNCH/PATROL RIFLE INST/LIM
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 11.78
LODGING/PATROL RIFLE INST/LIM
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 623.60
LUNCH/PATROL RIFLE INST/LIM
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 12.44
INV#3181 08/08/11 - BARD - EDMONDS PD3181
2,000T LABELS
001.000.410.521.910.310.00 21.96
REG. CNOA CONF. CRYSTAL 11/11
001.000.410.521.400.490.00 495.00
PLANE FARE/CNOA CONF-CRYSTAL
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 263.00
Z-PERFORM 2000T LABELS
001.000.410.521.910.310.00 74.99
REG. PNWDIAI CONF. MOORE 9/11
001.000.410.521.400.490.00 130.00
INV#3181 BARD CR CANCELLED ORDER-AMAZON3181
CANCEL ORDER FOR 2000T LABELS
001.000.410.521.910.310.00 -21.96
INV#3215 08/08/11 - COMPAAN - EDMONDS PD3215
FOOD WORKERS CARD-WA STATE
001.000.410.521.100.490.00 10.00
INV#3256 08/08/11 - GANNON - EDMONDS PD3256
BLACKHAWK BELT KEEPERS-FRAUSTO
001.000.410.521.230.240.00 8.99
DC MEDIA CD MASTER
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 10.90
INV#3314 08/08/11 - LAWLESS - EDMONDS PD3314
FOOD WORKERS CARD-WA STATE
001.000.410.521.100.490.00 10.00
BLACKHAWK TAC BOOTS-FRAUSTO
001.000.410.521.230.240.00 129.88
INV#3520 08/08/11 - TRAINING- EDMONDS PD3520
32Page:
Packet Page 44 of 238
08/18/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
33
7:49:51AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
127348 8/18/2011 (Continued)062693 US BANK
LUNCH/ADV PALM/MOORE 07/11
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 6.59
MEAL/ADV PALM PRINT/MOORE
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 24.74
LUNCH/ADV PALM PRINT/MOORE
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 13.18
MEAL/ADV PALM PRINT/MOORE
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 23.99
FUEL/ADV PALM PRINT/MOORE
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 44.20
LODGING/ADV PALM PRINT/MOORE
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 279.27
FOOD/ADV PALM PRINT/MOORE
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 7.85
Total :2,851.24
127349 8/18/2011 062693 US BANK 3249 POSTAGE FOR MAILING PASSPORTS
POSTAGE FOR MAILING PASSPORTS
001.000.230.512.500.420.00 52.25
Total :52.25
127350 8/18/2011 062693 US BANK 3280 Finance Director, #11-22 ad
Finance Director, #11-22 ad
001.000.220.516.100.440.00 25.00
Executive Assistant, #11-23 ad
001.000.220.516.100.440.00 25.00
GFOA ad - Finance Director (#11-22)
001.000.220.516.100.440.00 150.00
Total :200.00
127351 8/18/2011 062693 US BANK 2143 PANIC BUTTONS, IPAD APPS, DOMAIN NAMEREG
MS Outlook software license/updates for
001.000.310.518.880.310.00 24.95
Verisign Information Services -
001.000.310.518.880.490.00 250.00
33Page:
Packet Page 45 of 238
08/18/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
34
7:49:51AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
127351 8/18/2011 (Continued)062693 US BANK
Delcom Products - Push panic buttons
001.000.210.513.100.490.00 104.49
Delcom Products - Push panic buttons
001.000.220.516.100.490.00 104.49
Delcom Products - Push panic buttons
001.000.610.519.700.490.00 104.49
Delcom Products - Push panic buttons
001.000.310.514.230.490.00 104.49
Delcom Products - Push panic buttons
001.000.250.514.300.310.00 52.24
Delcom Products - Push panic buttons
001.000.230.512.501.490.00 52.24
Apple online store - earphones w/remote
001.000.310.518.880.310.00 31.76
Apple online store - iPad camera
001.000.310.518.880.310.00 31.76
Apple online store - Digital av adapter
001.000.310.518.880.310.00 42.71
BulkRegister domain name registration
001.000.310.518.880.490.00 25.90
Amazon - 16GB USB 2.0 Flash drives (3
001.000.310.518.880.310.00 86.70
Apple iTunes - Documents To Go Premium
001.000.610.519.700.490.00 18.60
Amazon - 16GB Flash drives (3 each)
001.000.310.518.880.310.00 103.45
FEDEX, RANDY'S RING & PINION, WEBINAR3470
FedEx Freight charges & insurance~
001.000.310.518.880.420.00 88.37
Randy's Ring & Pinion - Unit #5
511.000.657.548.680.480.00 683.17
Responsible Hospitality - The Economic
001.000.240.513.110.490.00 35.00
34Page:
Packet Page 46 of 238
08/18/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
35
7:49:51AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :1,944.81127351 8/18/2011 062693 062693 US BANK
127352 8/18/2011 062693 US BANK 3306 ELECTRICAL INSPECTION
ELECTRICAL INSPECTION
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 2,098.70
Total :2,098.70
127353 8/18/2011 062693 US BANK 6045 4 more video Albums for energy meter
4 more video Albums for energy meter
001.000.620.558.600.490.00 159.38
Total :159.38
127354 8/18/2011 062693 US BANK 3389 Refreshments for Council Meetings
Refreshments for Council Meetings
001.000.110.511.100.310.00 21.76
Total :21.76
127355 8/18/2011 068724 US HEALTHWORKS MED GROUP OF WA0375350-WA INV 0375350-WA EDMONDS PD
LAVELY RESP QUEST REVIEW 6/13/11
001.000.410.521.220.410.00 32.00
FRAUSTO RESP QUEST REVIEW 7/5/11
001.000.410.521.220.410.00 32.00
LEE RESP QUEST REVIEW 7/5/11
001.000.410.521.220.410.00 32.00
RAMSEUR RESP QUEST REVIEW 7/5/11
001.000.410.521.220.410.00 32.00
GREENMUN RESP QUEST REVIEW 7/5/11
001.000.410.521.220.410.00 32.00
Total :160.00
127356 8/18/2011 072841 VS VISUAL STATEMENT INC 22215 INV#22215 - EDMONDS PD
TRUE PARTNER MAINT (TPM)-EDGE FX
001.000.410.521.710.350.00 1,259.10
Total :1,259.10
127357 8/18/2011 066627 WASH ST CODE REVISOR 2011 WASHINGTON ADMIN CODE
WAC Supplement for 2011
35Page:
Packet Page 47 of 238
08/18/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
36
7:49:51AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
127357 8/18/2011 (Continued)066627 WASH ST CODE REVISOR
001.000.250.514.300.310.00 57.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.250.514.300.310.00 5.41
Total :62.41
127358 8/18/2011 071359 WASSER CORPORATION 117792 564
MIOZINE PAINT
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 515.40
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 93.94
Total :609.34
127359 8/18/2011 073479 WU, THOMAS 741 INTERPRETER FEE
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.230.512.500.410.01 147.95
Total :147.95
Bank total :317,051.73132 Vouchers for bank code :front
317,051.73Total vouchers :Vouchers in this report132
36Page:
Packet Page 48 of 238
AM-4153 Item #: 2. D.
City Council Meeting
Date: 08/23/2011
Time:Consent
Submitted For:Jim Tarte Submitted By:Carl Nelson
Department:Finance
Committee:Finance Type:Action
Information
Subject Title
Approval of minor changes by SNOCOM legal to the "Interlocal Agreement for SNOCOM Internet
Access" that was approved for Mayor's signature on 11-16-2010.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
City Council authorize Mayor to sign updated Interlocal Agreement with SNOCOM.
Previous Council Action
The Finance Committee reviewed this agreement on 11-09-10, and on 11-16-10 recommended for
signature by Mayor.
The Council has previously reviewed and approved two other interlocals (Edmonds Community College
and Stevens Hospital) for the City to provide Internet services. This would be the third.
The Finance Committee reviewed the changes on 08-09-11.
Narrative
In reviewing the agreement for signature, SNOCOM clarified the arbitration section 14.1.3. They have
signed the revised version.
After review of changes, City Attorney agrees to form. Due to change it is appropriate for council to
review before authorizing Mayor to sign. This revised agreement was brought before Finance committee
for review and recommended for consent agenda.
To review the intent of the agreement:
SNOCOM and the City are connected by fiber that provides Police and the Fire Marshals access to
SNOCOM information and dispatch services. The City has offered to provide Internet Access to
SNOCOM over the fiber connection. The attached interlocal provdes the terms, conditions, and rates for
that service.
SNOCOM expressed an initial interest for the City to provide service at the 20Megabit level which would
result in monthly revenue to the City of $600.
Given our current fiber connection to SNOCOM there are no additional expenses anticipated to provide
this service.
Attachments
Packet Page 49 of 238
SNOCOM signed Interlocal
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Sandy Chase 08/18/2011 09:48 AM
Mayor Mike Cooper 08/18/2011 04:27 PM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 08/18/2011 04:30 PM
Form Started By: Carl Nelson Started On: 08/15/2011
Final Approval Date: 08/18/2011
Packet Page 50 of 238
Packet Page 51 of 238
Packet Page 52 of 238
Packet Page 53 of 238
Packet Page 54 of 238
Packet Page 55 of 238
Packet Page 56 of 238
Packet Page 57 of 238
Packet Page 58 of 238
Packet Page 59 of 238
Packet Page 60 of 238
Packet Page 61 of 238
Packet Page 62 of 238
Packet Page 63 of 238
AM-4148 Item #: 2. E.
City Council Meeting
Date: 08/23/2011
Time:Consent
Submitted By:Carrie Hite
Department:Parks and Recreation
Committee:Finance Type:Action
Information
Subject Title
Park Trust Fund Ordinance amending City Code 3.16.020.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Finance committee is forwarding this to full Council for approval.
Previous Council Action
March 27, 2003 Council passed Ordinance No. 3466, establishing ECC Chapter 3.16, the Parks Trust
Fund.
December 2010: Council voted to transfer $36,500 from the general fund back into the Parks Trust Fund
to address concerns of funds being used to carry out the intent of the donor.
Narrative
The City Council established ther Parks Trust fund in March, 2003. Since that time, citizens have
donated money to the city in order to help support Yost Pool, the Beautification program, and the Beach
Ranger program.
We received a warning in the 2009 audit about the code and use of the parks trust fund being inconsistent
with the RCW 35.21.100. The RCW requires that funds be used to carry out the intent of the donor.
In 2009-10 budget years, the city utilized some of the Parks Trust Fund to help general fund operations.
This was a concern of the City Council. Council took action in December 2010 to transfer $36,500 from
the general fund back into the Parks Trust Fund.
This ordinance amends the code to create consisitency of the city code with the RCW, protecting the
intent of the donor.
Attachments
Parks Trust Fund code amendment
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Sandy Chase 08/17/2011 01:36 PM
Mayor Mike Cooper 08/18/2011 04:27 PM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 08/18/2011 04:30 PM
Form Started By: Carrie Hite Started On: 08/15/2011
Final Approval Date: 08/18/2011
Packet Page 64 of 238
- 1 -
ORDINANCE NO. _______
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE PARKS TRUST FUND
ADMINISTRATION PROVISIONS OF ECC 3.16.020;
PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND SETTING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, RCW 35.21.100 authorizes every city and town by ordinance to
accept any money or property donated, devised or bequeathed to it and to carry out the terms of
the donation, devise or bequest if within the powers granted by law;
WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds by ordinance created a Parks Trust Fund, set
forth in Edmonds City Code Chapter 3.16, for the purpose of receiving donations from the City’s
citizens for, or in aid of, the cost of operating, maintaining and improving the City’s parks and
other related beautification, aquatic and environmental protection programs; and
WHEREAS, the City would like to clarify the intended use of donations to the
Parks Trust Fund; NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. ECC 3.16.020 Administration of the Fund is hereby amended to read
as follows (new text shown in underline; deleted text shown in strike-through
3.16.020 Administration of the fund.
):
The council shall endeavor to utilize the interest earned by the fund in accord with the donors's
wishes for the flower beautification, aquatics, environmental protection and other parks related
programs, within the powers granted by law. The council shall use its best efforts not to invade
the principal of the fund unless called upon by unforeseen budgetary needs. In the event that the
principal of the fund is invaded, the council shall first attempt to utilize the principal for the costs
of operating, maintaining and improving the flower beautification, aquatics, environmental
protection and other parks related programs other similar programs such as programs for the arts,
community beautification, parks acquisition or similar purposes. Ultimately, however, the
Packet Page 65 of 238
- 2 -
council shall maintain its absolute legislative discretion to use all available funds in the best
interest of its citizens in accordance with the council's powers and duties pursuant to state law.
Section 2. Severability
Section 3.
. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this
ordinance should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction,
such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other
section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance.
Effective Date
APPROVED:
. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power
specifically delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum, and shall take
effect five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of
the title.
MAYOR MIKE COOPER
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY:
BY
JEFFREY B. TARADAY
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK:
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
PUBLISHED:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
ORDINANCE NO.
Packet Page 66 of 238
- 3 -
SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. __________
of the City of Edmonds, Washington
On the ____ day of ___________, 2011, the City Council of the City of Edmonds,
passed Ordinance No. _____________. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting
of the title, provides as follows:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE PARKS TRUST FUND
ADMINISTRATION PROVISIONS OF ECC 3.16.020;
PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND SETTING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request.
DATED this _____ day of ________________, 2011.
CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE
Packet Page 67 of 238
AM-4154 Item #: 2. F.
City Council Meeting
Date: 08/23/2011
Time:Consent
Submitted For:Councilman Steve Bernheim Submitted By:Jana Spellman
Department:City Council
Review
Committee:
Committee
Action:
Type:Action
Information
Subject Title
Resolution calling for a report related to the creation and display of wall graphics within the City of
Edmonds.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Previous Council Action
On July 6, 2010 the Edmonds City Council passed Ordinance 3800 pertaining to wall murals.
Attach 1: 7/6/2010 Approved Edmonds City Council Minutes
Attach 2: Ord. 3800 - Sign Permits for Wall Graphic Murals and Artwork
Narrative
I suggest the Council receive a report on the state of the city with regard to the Murals of Edmonds.
I ask because:
1) the council changed an ordinance to make this happen, and I'd like to find out whether the
change is regarded as positive,
2) there is a substantial impact on the downtown as a result of the execution of the murals and I
would like to hear a report and public comments on whether that impact is regarded generally as
positive,
3) to the extent that murals are even yet in progress and planning, I'd like to provide the city with
further report of what the future appears to hold, and
4) are there any modifications of the mural code revision that bear further examination ?
The resolution calls for presentation of a report to the Council prior to October 15; after receipt of the
report, the resolution also calls for scheduling an opportunity for the public to present comments.
Attach 3: Resolution
Attachments
Attach 1: 7-6-2010 Approved Council Minutes
Attach 2: Ord. 3800
Attach 3: Resolution
Packet Page 68 of 238
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Sandy Chase 08/17/2011 01:36 PM
Mayor Mike Cooper 08/18/2011 04:27 PM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 08/18/2011 04:30 PM
Form Started By: Jana Spellman Started On: 08/16/2011 11:11 AM
Final Approval Date: 08/18/2011
Packet Page 69 of 238
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 6, 2010
Page 18
WATER AND STORM AND SURFACE WATER COMPREHENSIVE PLANS FOR YEARS 2010,
2011, AND 2012 AND DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN ORDINANCE FOR
COUNCIL APPROVAL.
Council President Pro Tem Peterson acknowledged concerns with the proposed increases; however, he
balanced it with the amount of work citizens get for the money, the importance of the work, and
continuing to provide clean drinking water. He commented friends visiting from New Mexico were
amazed when he told them they could drink the tap water in Edmonds.
Mayor Pro Tem Bernheim commented since Edmonds was primarily a residential community, residents
have to pay for the services they receive. He viewed the modest cost of utilities as the price to live in this
outstanding community.
Councilmember Wilson acknowledged tax increases were not fun but Edmonds staff did more with fewer
dollars than another city and had far fewer employees per capita for the services the City provides.
Edmonds also has the lowest residential property tax rate of any similarly sized city in the area and the
City’s utility rates are well below the average.
Mayor Pro Tem Bernheim asked whether the Council wanted to continue this public hearing or take
action separately on the water and stormwater rate increases. Council President Pro Tem Peterson
suggested the Council could approve the rate increase as he did not envision substantial changes would be
made to the capital improvements in the Water Plan. It was also appropriate to approve the rate increases
at this time in view of the upcoming transition in Public Works.
Councilmember Wilson agreed it was unlikely there would be substantive changes made to the Water
Plan.
Mr. Snyder clarified the recommended action was to direct the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance. The
ordinance could be scheduled on a future Council agenda.
MOTION CARRIED (5-1-1), COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT VOTING NO AND
COUNCILMEMBER PETSO ABSTAINED.
COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
PLUNKETT, TO EXTEND THE MEETING FOR ONE HOUR. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
9. PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED SIGN CODE AMENDMENTS TO PROVIDE
CLARIFICATION OF DEFINITION AND CRITERIA FOR WALL GRAPHICS/MURALS.
Cultural Services Manager Frances Chapin explained in the current code murals on exterior walls are a
type of non-commercial wall graphic. The purpose of the proposed amendments is to clarify the
definition, review process and review criteria. Staff reviewed other cities’ regulations with regard to
murals and worked with the City Attorney to draft proposed amendments to the existing sign code. The
proposed amendments were presented to the Community Services/Development Services Committee and
the Committee forwarded the item to the Planning Board. The Planning Board held a public hearing,
recommended minor revisions and forwarded the proposed amendments to Council. The document in the
Council packet reflects the changes recommended by the Planning Board. The Council reviewed the
proposed amendments on June 15.
Ms. Chapin referred to a typographical error on page 6 of the document; the word “renewable” should be
“reviewable.”
Packet Page 70 of 238
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 6, 2010
Page 19
Ms. Chapin explained staff’s research found that cities regulate murals in three ways:
1. Establish a theme and specific criteria to which all murals must conform.
2. Establish a special city-run mural program that regulates murals. Operating such a program
requires staff time and money.
3. Treat murals as a type of sign for which a permit and fee are required as part of the sign code as a
non-commercial graphic.
Edmonds had used the third approach in the past; a mural is considered a wall graphic in the sign code.
Murals are a privately created graphic or artwork placed on a privately owned building or wall. Sign
codes often include administrative standards and criteria for review which help clarify what the applicant
needs to provide and to encourage an outcome that fits the community. Wall graphics/murals cannot be
reviewed under the sign code based on content or aesthetic. A mural on a public building is considered
public art which follows the public art review process. Staff proposes changes to the existing sign code to
clarify how murals and wall graphics are handled within the City’s sign code. The goal in establishing
criteria is to ensure murals, 1) meet standards for materials and maintenance, 2) generally fit the
surroundings and 3) clarify for the applicant what information is needed for review.
Ms. Chapin reviewed the proposed changes as follows:
• Definitions – the word “murals” was included in the definition of wall graphic and that they
primarily do not contain words.
• Design Review Procedures –language in this section was changed to clarify wall graphic
applications will be reviewed by the Planning Manager or designee. A subsection was added with
review criteria.
• Staff Review of Murals and Artwork – although a separate sign permit is required for each wall
graphic, staff may make one design review decision on wall graphics that consists of a related
group of murals. Applicants are encouraged to coordinate artwork with the design/architectural
elements of a building and the historic and pedestrian orientation of the downtown area.
• Submission requirements – specific submission requirements were added
• Review Criteria – a section was added identifying review criteria for design review related to
quality of materials, durability and permanence, compatibility of the artwork with architectural
elements or other street elements, minimizing lettering, etc.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked why a theme concept was not selected rather than just encouraging
murals to be compatible with architectural elements. Ms. Chapin answered that would be a decision of the
Council. Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether the permitting process would be less expensive for a
theme-based mural program. Planning Manager Rob Chave answered whether a mural was theme based
was irrelevant to the cost. For example if a theme required the involvement of the Arts Commission, a
different process would be required and potentially additional applicant requirements.
Councilmember Buckshnis envisioned a theme such as “History of Edmonds” would require establishing
parameters, thereby streamlining the mural review process and making the process less costly. City
Attorney Scott Snyder explained the difference would likely be upfront costs to design criteria that were
sufficiently enforceable. He summarized there may be less cost on a per application basis but more costs
up front to develop criteria.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented Port Townsend, Port Angeles and Kalaloch all have themes. Mr.
Snyder responded if the Council wanted to pursue a theme approach, that direction needed to be conveyed
to staff.
Packet Page 71 of 238
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 6, 2010
Page 20
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented a close family member was an artist and she envisioned a
theme would reduce opportunity for artistic creativity. She preferred to allow artists to design/create
murals that were specific to an area or building. Ms. Chapin explained the existing sign code regulates
murals. Staff proposed these amendments to clarify the process for applicants and staff. The amendments
also provide slightly more flexibility for the applicant. If the Council wants to pursue a different
approach, direction needs to be provided to staff.
Councilmember Wilson inquired whether the definition of a mural was a painting on a wall or something
applied to a wall. Ms. Chapin responded under the current code, a mural was a graphic applied to a wall
that is less than ½ inch thick. It could be painted on the wall or applied via other methods.
Councilmember Wilson pointed out the definition of wall sign includes signs painted directly on a wall,
however, the regulations regarding murals do not apply to wall signs. Ms. Chapin clarified a mural was
currently defined in the sign code as a non-commercial wall graphic. Councilmember Wilson commented
there were different definitions for a painting on a wall versus painting on a surface, a wall graphic versus
a wall sign. Mr. Chave clarified either would be a wall graphic; a wall graphic does not specify whether it
is painted directly on the wall or on a material that is attached to the wall. Mr. Snyder referred to the
definition of signs that states graphic symbols or written copy for the purposes of conveying a particular
message. A mural may include graphics but is a broader category.
Councilmember Wilson referred to the definition of wall sign page 6 that states wall signs include signs
that are painted directly upon a wall. He suggested this line be deleted. Mr. Snyder explained the
difference was the amount of signage a business was allowed under the code. A mural would be in
addition to any allowed wall signage. Mr. Chave explained the mural allowance was much broader than
wall sign. A wall sign had strict limitations with regard to dimensions, height above the ground, etc.
Councilmember Wilson expressed concern that it appeared there were two design review procedures, the
Planning Manager and the Architectural Design Board (ADB). Mr. Chave answered most signage is
reviewed under the administrative process in conjunction with a building permit. Signs are not typically
reviewed by the ADB unless flexibility is sought in the signage regulations such as an unusual location or
building configuration. The ADB also reviews sign packages for larger complexes such as a series of
signs.
Councilmember Wilson referred to page 8 and reference to review by the ADB due to the requirement to
obtain a certificate of appropriateness from the Historic Preservation Committee (HPC) for murals on
designated historic structures or with a designated historic district. He asked whether all murals
downtown would be required to be reviewed by the HPC because downtown was a historic district. Mr.
Chave answered the HPC has broad authority over historic sites and it may not be appropriate to apply a
mural to a historic structure.
Councilmember Wilson found it odd that the regulations would require the artistic content to be
consistent with the historic nature of the district and the HPC given authority to review art but not provide
a role for the Art Commission. Mr. Chave responded it was the Council’s discretion whether to require an
arts process or treat murals like signage.
Councilmember Plunkett referred to the clause highlighted by Councilmember Wilson regarding
obtaining a certificate of appropriateness, noting that would only be applicable to the 15 buildings that
were officially recognized on the local or State historic registry. Mr. Chave agreed. Councilmember
Plunkett pointed out no historic districts had yet been established in Edmonds.
Councilmember Wilson disagreed, pointing out the ordinance states a certificate of appropriateness shall
be obtained from the HPC for murals on historic designated structures or within a designated historic
Packet Page 72 of 238
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 6, 2010
Page 21
district and does not define a designated historic district. Councilmember Plunkett asked whether the
reference to a historic district was an established historic district. Mr. Snyder pointed out there was a
process for designating buildings and districts although no districts had yet been designated. He suggested
deleting the clause regarding historic districts or capitalizing Historic District.
COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
BUCKSHNIS, TO CONTINUE THIS MATTER TO THE NEXT COUNCIL MEETING.
Councilmember Petso pointed out this was not a public hearing.
COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS WITHDREW HER MOTION WITH THE
AGREEMENT OF THE SECOND.
Mayor Pro Tem Bernheim opened the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Jeff Stillwell, Edmonds, Edmonds Mural Society (EMS), explained the Society is a non-profit
organization whose mission is to celebrate the beauty, history and people of Edmonds by raising murals
throughout the City. The EMS has strong support in the community since its inception last September as
evidenced by 200 dues-paying members. He identified several members of the EMS in the audience. He
explained raising murals was one of the most technically complex art forms. If a mural is to be of
masterful design and lasting duration, careful research and thorough and careful preparation must be
undertaken. The EMS takes raising a mural very seriously. He recognized Ms. Chapin for overseeing the
effort to craft regulations for a mural. He relayed the EMS’ support for the proposed amendments. He
thanked Mr. Chave and the Planning Department for their thorough, willing and careful support during
the permitting process.
Mayor Pro Tem Bernheim inquired about the proposed waiver of fees. Mr. Stillwell suggested at this time
the Council only consider the municipal code change.
Manya Schilperoost, Development Director, Edmonds Mural Society, read a letter from the artist who
created the first mural last September, Pat Brier. Ms. Brier described her honor at being chosen the first
mural artist for the EMS’ new mural program. She has been working as an artist since 1984, published in
national anthologies, exhibiting in Edmonds since 2000 and an Edmonds resident since 1996. She
described her efforts to develop a mural using the theme the EMS provided and the support provided by
residents and visitors. She described residents’ excitement of the concept of an outdoor fine art gallery
with themes selected by the EMS membership and interpreted by artists in individual visual concepts. She
relayed reports by other mural cities that artistic installations by their mural societies have substantially
improved their economies.
Al Rutledge, Edmonds, reported there was little public participation at the Planning Board public
hearing regarding the proposed amendment to the sign code. He recommended audience comments be
scheduled earlier on the agenda.
Hearing no further comment, Mayor Pro Tem Bernheim closed the public participation portion of the
public hearing.
COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM
PETERSON, TO APPROVE ORDINANCE NO. 3800, AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF
CHAPTER 20.60 RELATING TO SIGNS TO ESTABLISH CRITERIA FOR THE ISSUANCE OF
SIGN PERMITS FOR WALL GRAPHIC MURALS AND ARTWORK.
Packet Page 73 of 238
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 6, 2010
Page 22
COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM
PETERSON, TO AMEND THE ORDINANCE BY CAPITALIZING HISTORIC DISTRICT ON
PAGE 8, PARAGRAPH 2E.
Mayor Pro Tem Bernheim suggested referencing the definition of Historic District. Mr. Snyder advised
that could be done during the codification process.
AMENDMENT CARRIED (6-0-1). COUNCILMEMBER PETSO ABSTAINED.
Councilmember Plunkett explained he supported the proposed amendments as it was the least intrusive of
the three alternatives. He preferred to have the least impact on the content, art and free spirit of murals.
Council President Pro Tem Peterson expressed his support for the proposed amendments. He thanked
staff and the EMS volunteers, noting he was a dues-paying member of the EMS. He viewed the proposed
amendments as a great step toward Edmonds being recognized as an arts community.
Councilmember Buckshnis echoed Council President Pro Tem Peterson’s comments.
Councilmember Wilson commented although the proposed amendments were better than the existing
code, it was not ideal for reasons he mentioned previously. He supported the ordinance but anticipated the
City would be open to significant political challenges. He referred to the City of Snohomish where art
such as murals were regulated by the sign code and the public outcry and political turmoil over a mural
depicting naked pigs.
MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED (6-0-1), COUNCILMEMBER PETSO ABSTAINED.
10. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Al Rutledge, Edmonds, announced a Christmas in July event; Edmonds Lutheran Church will be
collecting toys at Top Foods July 8 – 27.
David Dobradt, Seattle, LaRouche Political Action Committee, urged the Council to pass a resolution
to reinstate the Glass-Steagall Act. He recalled encouraging the Council a few years ago to pass a
resolution in support of the Homeowner Bank Protection Act resolution. At that time Mr. LaRouche
warned if action was not taken to protect homeowners and banks, they would be destroyed by the
financial collapse. That policy was not taken up by Congress and the result has been numerous bailouts
and cities and states have been forced to make budget cuts or raise taxes. The Glass Steagall Act
represents a form of protection from financial collapse, setting up a firewall between the bankrupt
financial system, the population and the commercial banking system. He summarized economic recovery
was possible if action was taken to assert the preamble of the constitution to protect the population from
the bankrupt financial system.
Anastasia Mares, Seattle, LaRouche Political Action Committee, commented many cities and states
are in financial crisis and tent cities are springing up everywhere. If leadership is not asserted via the
Glass-Steagall policy, the United States will cease to exist. She commented on the discouraging situation
for young people who graduate from college and are unable to find a job. If the Council does not pass the
Glass-Steagall resolution as a body, she encouraged individual Councilmembers to support it.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, described a car fire that occurred across the street from Old Mill Town on a
Tuesday evening at approximately 10:00 p.m. Bystanders called 911 and the police responded and
blocked off the street. Personnel at the downtown fire station were unavailable and fire station #16 on
Packet Page 74 of 238
Packet Page 75 of 238
Packet Page 76 of 238
Packet Page 77 of 238
Packet Page 78 of 238
Packet Page 79 of 238
Packet Page 80 of 238
Packet Page 81 of 238
Packet Page 82 of 238
Packet Page 83 of 238
Packet Page 84 of 238
Packet Page 85 of 238
Resolution No.
A Resolution of the City Council calling for a report from the Mayor on the activities of the
Edmonds Mural Society.
WHEREAS, the Edmonds City Council has recently amended the Edmonds City Code Chapter 20.60
to encourage the creation and display of wall graphics within the City of Edmonds; and
WHEREAS, a number of wall graphics have been created and displayed on private wall spaces
prominently visible throughout downtown Edmonds; and
WHEREAS, the quality and quantity of wall graphics displayed on private wall spaces is an important
element of creating an artistic and aesthetic atmosphere for residents and visitors to
downtown Edmonds;
NOW, THEREFORE, the Edmonds City Council hereby resolves:
1. that the Mayor of Edmonds provide a report to the people and to the City Council of the
City of Edmonds no later than October 15, 2011 on the number and nature of wall
graphics on display as a result of the aforesaid changes in Edmonds City Code 20.60,
on the aesthetic impact on the City of the wall graphics created to date, future plans for
additional graphics, and suggestions for further revisions or modifications of city codes,
as appropriate; and
2. that the City Council affords those who wish to comment to the Council on the wall
graphics an opportunity to do so on or within 30 days of the Mayor’s report requested
herein.
Passed, Approved, and Adopted this _____ day of August, 2011.
________________________________
MAYOR, MIKE COOPER
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
_____________________________________
CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK:
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
RESOLUTION NO.
ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Page 86 of 238
AM-4152 Item #: 2. G.
City Council Meeting
Date: 08/23/2011
Time:Consent
Submitted For:Council President Peterson Submitted By:Jana Spellman
Department:City Council
Review
Committee:
Committee
Action:
Type:Action
Information
Subject Title
Resolution thanking Peter Gibson for his service as a Student Representative.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Previous Council Action
Narrative
Resolution thanking Peter Gibson for his service as a Student Representative.
Attachment: Resolution
Attachments
Gibson Resolution
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Sandy Chase 08/17/2011 01:36 PM
Mayor Mike Cooper 08/18/2011 04:27 PM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 08/18/2011 04:30 PM
Form Started By: Jana Spellman Started On: 08/15/2011 09:36 AM
Final Approval Date: 08/18/2011
Packet Page 87 of 238
No:
A Resolution of the Edmonds City Council Commending
Peter Gibson
for His Service as a Student Representative of the Edmonds City Council
Whereas, Peter Gibson, a student at Edmonds-Woodway High School, was selected to serve as a
Student Representative of the Edmonds City Council; and
Whereas, Peter Gibson, served as a student member of the City Council from October 2010
through August 2011; and
Whereas, During his tenure as Student Representative, Peter Gibson demonstrated enthusiasm
and attentiveness in the work of the body. His well-informed comments were
appreciated by all.
Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved, that Peter Gibson be commended for his participation in city
government in Edmonds during his term as Student Representative while participating
in a variety of school activities, and
Be It Further Resolved that the City Council and the Mayor hereby extend their best wishes to Peter
in his future endeavors and express the hope that he will continue to contribute his
fine talents to the democratic process of government in the City of Edmonds and
elsewhere.
Now, Therefore, Be It Passed, Approved, and Adopted the 23rd day of August, 2011.
Mike Cooper, Mayor Strom Peterson, Council President
Michael Plunkett, Councilman Diane Buckshnis, Councilwoman
Steve Bernheim, Councilman D.J. Wilson, Councilman
Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilwoman
Lora Petso, Councilwoman
Attest: City Clerk
Packet Page 88 of 238
AM-4151 Item #: 3.
City Council Meeting
Date: 08/23/2011
Time:5 Minutes
Submitted For:Concil President Peterson Submitted By:Jana Spellman
Department:City Council
Review
Committee:
Committee
Action:
Type:Information
Information
Subject Title
Presentation of Resolution to Student Representative Peter Gibson.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
N/A
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
Presentation of Resolution and plaque to Student Representative Peter Gibson.
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Sandy Chase 08/17/2011 01:36 PM
Mayor Mike Cooper 08/18/2011 04:27 PM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 08/18/2011 04:30 PM
Form Started By: Jana Spellman Started On: 08/15/2011 09:32 AM
Final Approval Date: 08/18/2011
Packet Page 89 of 238
AM-4149 Item #: 4.
City Council Meeting
Date: 08/23/2011
Time:30 Minutes
Submitted By:Carrie Hite
Department:Parks and Recreation
Review
Committee:
Community/Development Services
Finance
Committee
Action:
Recommend Review by Full
Council
Type:Information
Information
Subject Title
Update on Old Milltown Courtyard design. (Public comment will be received)
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Recieve public comment on design.
Approve final design.
Discuss Old Milltown Courtyard budget and timing of grant funding. In order to complete construction of
Old Milltown this Fall, additional city funds may need to be allocated pending grant funding from a local
foundation.
Previous Council Action
Council allocated $40,000 in the 2011 budget process to rebuild Old Milltown. Council discussed design
and construction process at the Council retreat in February.
Council received an update of Old Milltown, and have requested public comment and opportunity to
approve final design in August.
Narrative
The City will be redeveloping the small courtyard area in front of Old Milltown at 5th and Dayton in the
fall of this year. The site is a key gateway into downtown. The Floretum Garden Club worked on some
early design for the courtyard last year. The City has worked with the Club and their project chair to
consider some redesign for the project. The goal was to explore more options in the design so as to satisfy
some of the City’s planning documents and guidelines, and address some of the concerns about the design
from the community.
The City recently contracted with Barker Landscape Architects to help in the redesign. There has been a
design committee representing various groups and leaders in the community that have met over the past
two months to finalize a design for Old Milltown. This final design was unanimously recommended by
the design committee, and was presented to the Planning Board. The Planning Board was very supportive
of the design and have offered support in going forward with construction.
After the presentation in July, Council requested provision of a public hearing in August, and the
opportunity to hear from the design committee. Council also requested the opportunity to approve a final
design in August. After a brief presentation ( attachments 1 and 2 ), the Council will hold a public
hearing. In addition, attachment 3 are comments from a few members of the design committee.
Packet Page 90 of 238
hearing. In addition, attachment 3 are comments from a few members of the design committee.
Because of concerns from Council in July, the recommended design includes elements that will be
attractive to kids, adults, seniors, and visitors. Original elements of the design include raised bed gardens,
artistic elements, a water feature, seating areas, small stage/amphitheatre for performers, and integration
of Old Milltown into the gathering area. Additional elements include large boulders for kids to climb on,
a look, smell, feel educational garden area, a water feature that can be interactive, integrated artistic
elements.
The Parks Department will be working with Floretum Garden Club, Edmonds in Bloom, and various
community leaders to secure additional funds to develop Old Milltown. Because of some of the technical
components added to the design, we will contract out portions of the construction.
The projected budget for the current recommended design for Milltown is $120,000. Additional elements
will add to this cost, depending on what is added. We will be applying for both Hubbard Foundation and
Hazel Miller funds as soon as we have a Council adopted plan. Unfortunately, we missed the July
deadline. The next deadline for submittal and review will be September 23, 2011, with decisions
expected in the beginning of October. This pushes construction back by a month this fall, and will be
subject to the weather window in November. The purpose of this discussion is to determine if Council is
interested in completing the project this fall and would allocate additional REET funds of $70,000 in
order to begin the project in September. Once we apply for funds, and pending approval, we would then
be able to use these funds for construction and not impact the REET.
Attachments
Old Milltown Presentation
Child Friendly elements
Old Milltown committee feedback
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Sandy Chase 08/17/2011 04:07 PM
Mayor Mike Cooper 08/18/2011 04:27 PM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 08/18/2011 04:30 PM
Form Started By: Carrie Hite Started On: 08/15/2011
Final Approval Date: 08/18/2011
Packet Page 91 of 238
MILLTOWN COURTYARD Barker
Landscape
Architects, P.S.
CITY OF
EDMONDS
STORIED HISTORY FORWARD
THINKING
CONNECT TO THE CITY IDENTITY
WATERFRONT CITY
“MEET ME AT MILLTOWN!”
Packet Page 92 of 238
MILLTOWN COURTYARD Barker
Landscape
Architects, P.S.
Yost Auto Corporation
Edmonds Motor Company &
Chevron Service Station Old MilltownEdmonds’ Historic Mills The Future of Old Milltown
cir. 1893 1913-1946 1947-1973 1973 - cir. 2000 2011-future
OVERVIEW OF SITE HISTORY
Packet Page 93 of 238
1
2
4
3
5
6
7
MILLTOWN COURTYARD Barker
Landscape
Architects, P.S.
1. Public Library / Frances Anderson Center
2. Edmonds-South Snohomish Historical Society
3. Chamber of Commerce & City Hall
4. Edmonds Center for the Arts
5. Ferry Terminal
6. BNSF Railroad line / Amtrak
7. Edmonds Waterfront
1 Important Community Spaces
Public Art Features
Downtown Center - “Cedar Dream’ Art Corner
Old Milltown Site
Downtown Business District
Arts corridor
Zoning
Downtown retail core
Mixed Commercial / Convenience
Multi-family residential
Commercial Waterfront
Public Waterfront
Main Vehicular Arterial to ferry & waterfront
Primary Pedestrian Routes to and from Downtown
Downtown core
Gateways to Downtown Core
SITE CONTEXT
Edmonds Centennial Walk historic sites
Historic shingle mill locations
PROJECT SITE
Dayton St.
Maple St.
Alder St.
Walnut St.
Cedar St.
Homeland Dr.
Main St.
Bell St.
Sprague St.
Edmonds St.
Ed
m
o
n
d
s
W
a
y
(
S
R
1
0
4
)
3r
d
A
v
e
S
5t
h
A
v
e
S
7t
h
A
v
e
6t
h
A
v
e
S
4th
A
v
e
N
3rd
A
v
e
N
2nd
A
v
e
N
Sun
s
e
t
A
v
e
Rail
r
o
a
d
A
v
e
Olym
p
i
c
B
e
a
c
h
Bra
c
k
e
t
t
’
s
Lan
d
i
n
g
Bea
c
h
5th
A
v
e
N
Mai
n
S
t
.
6t
h
A
v
e
N
Bell
S
t
.
W Dayton St.
6t
h
A
v
e
S
Beck Ln.
Holly Dr.
Packet Page 94 of 238
MILLTOWN COURTYARD Barker
Landscape
Architects, P.S.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Packet Page 95 of 238
MILLTOWN COURTYARD Barker
Landscape
Architects, P.S.
PROGRAM - A GARDENESQUE PLAZA
Packet Page 96 of 238
MILLTOWN COURTYARD Barker
Landscape
Architects, P.S.
SITE ANALYSIS - STREET VIEW
To residential
neighborhoods
Business Entrance (Current / Future)
Street-to-storefront sightlinesPedestrian circulation
Street / Traffic Noise
(low to moderate)
AM
Sun
Gathering areas
To downtown
center &
waterfront
P r e v a i l ing Winds
PM
Sun
Restaurant Space (bank owned)
Barber Shop
The Winged Pig (Restaurant)
Nail Salon
Retail Space
Retail / Cafe Space
Packet Page 97 of 238
MILLTOWN COURTYARD Barker
Landscape
Architects, P.S.
Circulation concentration and flow
Existing seating or Gathering locations
Primary Entrances
SITE ANALYSIS - PLAN VIEW
Pedestrian circulation
Street-to-storefront sightlines
Barber Shop The Winged Pig (Restaurant) Nail Salon Retail Space Cafe / Restaurant Space
Packet Page 98 of 238
MILLTOWN COURTYARD Barker
Landscape
Architects, P.S.
Circulation Concentration and Flow
Potential Seating or Gathering Locations
Primary Entrances
Faster Pedestrian Circulation
Street-to-Storefront Sightlines
Slower Pedestrian Circulation
Potential “Feature” Space
Potential Outdoor Eating Space
PROGRAM - A SERIES OF OUTDOOR ROOMS
Barber Shop The Winged Pig (Restaurant) Nail Salon Retail Space Cafe / Restaurant Space
Re
s
t
a
u
r
a
n
t
S
p
a
c
e
Packet Page 99 of 238
MILLTOWN COURTYARD Barker
Landscape
Architects, P.S.
SUMMARY OF INPUT FROM PUBLIC MEETING #1
Garden feel
- Remove diseased plants
- Progressive planting design
- Backyard habitat
- Native plants
- Rain garden
- Raised beds
Public Art
- Well-integrated into the site and architecture
- Playful elements
- Photo opportunities
- Historic references
- Landmark for meeting place
Bike/Pedestrian Scale
- Serve as gateway to downtown
- Encourage pedestrians to stop and gather
- Integrate bike parking
- Help slow traffic into downtown
- Helpful wayfinding
- Serve as bridge between 5th/Main and Dayton/Main
Physical Improvements/Sustainable Design
- Include sustainable materials/ design elements
- Capture and reuse rainwater for irrigation
- Address south wall: living wall or other improvement
- Water feature and/or drinking fountain
- Preserve and improve lines of sight
- Creative partnerships for management & maintenance
Multi-functional uses
- Accommodate both planned and spontaneous events/ performances
- Raised or lowered performance space
- Varied experiences (Sunny and shady, large group and small group)
- Capitalize on southern and western exposures
- Meet the needs of aging population, but also young adult & kids
- Potential car charging station along sidewalk
Packet Page 100 of 238
MILLTOWN COURTYARD Barker
Landscape
Architects, P.S.
DESIGN ALTERNATIVES - OPTION 1
Option 1
Option one uses a hardscape pattern of
curved pathways and gathering circles to
create a classic yet relaxed atmosphere
for Milltown’s courtyard. This option
includes a central fountain and two
seating areas adjacent to the covered
walkway which connect the building to
the plaza. Gathering areas at the north
and south ends of the space provide an
amenity for Milltown businesses and
other users of the space. Planted areas
lend color and texture to walkway edges,
and help draw the space together as a
hole.
Packet Page 101 of 238
DESIGN ALTERNATIVES - OPTION 2
Option 2
Option two divides the plaza space into a
series of rooms, using raised planters and
seating areas to bring the geometry of
the building into the space. The fountain
becomes the anchor of this open space,
which incorporates several different
seating options, adjacent to both the
building and the street. Raised planters
and in-ground beds help define the edges
of the space and highlight entrances into
Milltown’s storefronts.
MILLTOWN COURTYARD Barker
Landscape
Architects, P.S.
Packet Page 102 of 238
MILLTOWN COURTYARD Barker
Landscape
Architects, P.S.
DESIGN ALTERNATIVES - OPTION 3
Option 3
The combination of relaxed geometry
and layered planting areas give a balanced,
organic form to the plaza. A raised
planter holds the center of the hardscape,
which is punctuated by wood seating
areas and a sand play space for kids.
Incorporated into the seating area at
the southern end of the plaza is a small
stage for readings and concerts. The
combination of raised planters and in-
ground beds adds colorful, textured edges
to the space . In this scheme, seating
areas articulate sidewalk edge, activating
the street, and drawing passers-by into
the plaza space.
Packet Page 103 of 238
MILLTOWN COURTYARD Barker
Landscape
Architects, P.S.
SUMMARY OF INPUT FROM PUBLIC MEETING #2
Design Alternative #1 (votes: 2)
- More seating
- Generous amount of landscape
- Possibly replace bands with more garden areas
- Make use of the southern wall as a backdrop for metal sculpture
- Narrow walkways could be problematic
- Extended boardwalk is good and curvelinear design is good.
Design Alternative #2 (votes: 0)
- Least popular.
- Positive response to seating area outside of restaurant.
Design Alternative #3 (votes: 19)
- Center feature needs to be a beacon perhaps combining water,
plants and sculpture.
- Fountain is important incorporate with art and make functional.
- Make sand area a raised bed and provide more informal seating for
watching performances.
- Create location for donor elements and use city benches.
- Include a drinking fountain.
- Sand play area is seen as requiring too much maintenance.
Packet Page 104 of 238
MILLTOWN COURTYARD Barker
Landscape
Architects, P.S.
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
Packet Page 105 of 238
MILLTOWN COURTYARD Barker
Landscape
Architects, P.S.
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
Raised Planter
Cafe Space
City Bench
Sculpture / Water Feature
Extended boardwalk
Streetside Plantings
Boulders, Typ.
Raised Garden Beds with Seat walls
Outdoor cafe / multi-use
gathering area
Drinking fountain
Stage Area
Artistic Railing above
Green Wall
Existing boardwalk
Packet Page 106 of 238
MILLTOWN COURTYARD Barker
Landscape
Architects, P.S.
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
Packet Page 107 of 238
MILLTOWN COURTYARD Barker
Landscape
Architects, P.S.
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
Packet Page 108 of 238
MILLTOWN COURTYARD Barker
Landscape
Architects, P.S.
INSPIRATION & THEMES - FOUNTAINS & GREEN WALLS
Packet Page 109 of 238
MILLTOWN COURTYARD Barker
Landscape
Architects, P.S.
INSPIRATION & THEMES - MATERIALS
Packet Page 110 of 238
MILLTOWN COURTYARD Barker
Landscape
Architects, P.S.
INSPIRATION & THEMES - METAL ART
Packet Page 111 of 238
MILLTOWN COURTYARD Barker
Landscape
Architects, P.S.
INSPIRATION & THEMES - ART
Packet Page 112 of 238
MILLTOWN COURTYARD Barker
Landscape
Architects, P.S.
INSPIRATION & THEMES - PLANTS
Packet Page 113 of 238
MILLTOWN COURTYARD Barker
Landscape
Architects, P.S.
INSPIRATION & THEMES: HISTORY
Packet Page 114 of 238
MILLTOWN COURTYARD Barker
Landscape
Architects, P.S.
INSPIRATION & THEMES: HISTORY
Packet Page 115 of 238
MILLTOWN COURTYARD Barker
Landscape
Architects, P.S.
INSPIRATION & THEMES - ARTISTIC CHILD-FRIENDLY ELEMENTS
Packet Page 116 of 238
Attachment 3
Old Milltown Design Committee Comments
On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 1:09 PM, Hite, Carrie <carrie.hite@ci.edmonds.wa.us> wrote:
Hello Everybody:
I wanted to send an update about the Old Milltown construction project.
We have been busy the past two weeks, working it through the Planning Board and City Council. We
also have been busy working on the financial package for the construction of Milltown.
The Planning Board like and appreciated the design. There was only one concern that was raised
that had to do with the relationship of the private development and public development sharing a
border. I will be looking into the possibility of formalizing that relationship in regard to mutual use
and setbacks for any future development. I am not hopeful, as the bank that owns this property has
been very slow, and really only concerned about their bottom line and the ability to sell and/or lease
the property. That said, it is certainly worth asking some questions.
A majority of the City Council liked the design, and were appreciative of the committee’s work.
There was one, possibly two Council members that would have like to see more design that is kid
friendly. They also have requested that we bring the design back to them in August for approval and
wanted to open it up for public comment. One Council member requested to hear from the
committee that designed the Milltown Courtyard; either by email or presence at the upcoming
Council meeting. Currently, it is scheduled to come back to Council on August 15th. However, I will
be requesting to move that back to the 23rd. As soon as I get confirmation, I will let you know. It
might be good for you to watch the city council meeting, or to talk with somebody who was present at
the council meeting to fully understand the concern
If any of you have ideas about features that would fit into this design that would be more kid friendly,
I would love to hear from you. I will also be meeting with the Councilmember that had this concern
today to see if he has any ideas. I would really like to use our current design, and possibly add minor
changes to address this concern. Does anyone have any thoughts on this?
As far as putting together the finances for this Milltown Courtyard, I met with the Floretum Club and
Edmonds in Bloom yesterday, who have committed $10,000 and 4,000 respectively. We will be
submitting a grant for the Hubbard Foundation and the Hazel Miller Foundation this week to
request support.
I will be out of the office on vacation for the next two weeks, starting on Monday. Upon my return,
we will start working on more of the details of the Milltown courtyard.
Thanks everyone for your continued involvement. I would love for you to either weigh into the
process or attend the City Council meeting in August so you can be both recognized for your efforts,
and add to the public comment on the design of Milltown.
Thanks all! Hope you are all having a great summer.
Carrie Hite
Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Services Director
City of Edmonds | 700 Main Street | Edmonds WA 98020
425.771.0256 <tel:425.771.0256> | 425.771.0253 <tel:425.771.0253> (F)
carrie.hite@ci.edmonds.wa.us
Packet Page 117 of 238
From: don hall <halldb12@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 12:05 AM
Subject:
To: djwilson@ci.edmonds.wa.us
Cc: adrienne.monillas@ci.edmonds.wa.us, plunkett <plunkett@ci.edmonds.wa.us>,
diane.buckshnis@ci.edmonds.wa.us, bernheim <council@stevebernheim.com>, lora petso
<lora.petso@ci.edmonds.wa.us>, mike cooper <mike.cooper@ci.edmonds.wa.us>
Council member Wilson, I was on the committee to develope plans for the Milltown park. Just
because I dont have rug rats running around my house doesnt mean I did not take children into
concideration. There was conciderable discussion about features for children. Just because a sand
box wasnt one of them doesnt make it unattractive for children. Not every park has to be
designed for children. How about a park where us old people can stop and rest or read a book as
we walk along 5th. ave. If you take a close look you will see many places for peaple of all ages
to gather and enjoy. The idea of having an educational garden for children is something we do
not have and is needed as we are a city that prides itself on having beautiful public and private
gardens. You insulted my intelligence in my ability to look at the big picture on this project as
well as lot of groups who are dedicated to trying to make Edmonds a better place in my humble
old opinion. Maybe you should make it a requirement that a certian percentage of all committee
membership have children. Don Hall
Hi Carrie,
I agree with some of the comments that there should not be a children play area per say. This is
not what this park is about. However I had planned to have part of the garden area be a "touch-
me,feel me,smell me" type of garden for young kids to be able to 'interact with the plants and
learn about them throughout the year with seasonal plantings. Also since the plants were going to
be in a raised bed it could be used by handicapped people from their wheel chair to touch, smell
and enjoy. I had also envisioned to involve older kids about learning about plants and caring for
them with a special program during one of the monthly workshop that the club holds across the
street at Coldwell Banker Bain. Of course the stage area would feature Edmonds young artists
for free shows to the public. 3rd Thursday and other festivals downtown.
Those were my original ideas regarding the involvement of children and youths at OMT garden.
Thanks for keeping me in the loop.
have a great vacation.
Betty
_____________________________________________________________________________
I agree with Betty. I love children and enjoy watching them discover new things… when they get so
excited about seemingly small things that we adults sometimes take for granted. So the see, touch,
smell, enjoy concept is one that pertains to ALL ages… and is educational. Have you (and everyone) seen
the beautiful “markers” indicating the plant names at the Native Plant Demonstration Garden near the
hatchery?- beautiful calligraphy on rocks that complement the natural garden atmosphere.
Packet Page 118 of 238
The Milltown Garden is a small space. It’s hard to have public space in a confined area that is all things
to all people. The size, location, and original intent of this space was to augment the “downtown”
experience in a way that complements the businesses and provides a beautiful, natural garden setting
which serves as a community gathering/meeting place. There are other parks and spaces that are suited
for children’s play. Yes, having more of these and updating our playfields is always an aspiration and
should be a focus. But, I’m afraid if we try to incorporate too much into the Milltown Garden, we will
lose the uniqueness and focus intended for this space. Again, I really like the educational aspect of the
interactive garden elements (see, touch, smell).
Cheers,
Rich
Edmonds, Washington ...
A Great Place To Spend A Day
Or A Lifetime!
Richard I. Senderoff, Ph.D.
18823 81st Avenue West
Edmonds, WA 98026
425-778-9746
Carrie,
As I recall the interest in children and Old Mill Town Park I recalled the idea that children could
climb on the rocks. Kids will like to run up and down the stairs at the area designated for
performers. Kids play in many different ways. The idea of a sandbox seemed more appropriate
for other parks. Betty mentioned an area that would have plants that appeal to children and
perhaps a teaching area. I am not sure where that would be.
We have an extensive children's area at Frances Anderson Center which is not far from Old
Mill Town. There's the skateboard park on 6th. And of course there are beaches along the sound
for kids. I don't think of Edmonds as being short of play areas. We have Hummingbird Hill
Park near our home and we are only a 15 minute walk from downtown. I see groups of kids
walking up to the park frequently during the summer.
I will try to see the presentation on cable and get an idea of the concern. I hope we can keep
most of the plan as it is.
Barbara Chase
Hi Carrie,
Sounds like there is going to be a lot of stuff going on in OMT garden! I think it should be
noted that Edmonds has a magnificent children's play yard in Haines Warf Park just a short drive
from downtown and that multi million dollar park should be billed as THE children's park of
Edmonds.
Betty
Packet Page 119 of 238
Hi all,
Just to repeat some of what I expressed about children and OMT. Betty mentioned the north
park, but we also have near OMT what would be considered traditional children's play areas at
Frances Anderson Center and Hummingbird Hill Park, not to mention Edmonds Elementary.
The skateboard park appeals to another segment of children and of course our extensive beach
areas too.
In OMT kids can enjoy the plants, put their fingers in the water,climb on rocks, go up and down
the stepped area. There are many ways children can play, but it is not appropriate to put in a
special area for kids. Some mothers would like to sit on a bench and watch their children go on
the paths. I envision the park as a place to sit and rest, but not to stay for a long time.
Just a little food for thought.
Barbara Chase
From: Jane Schindler <jane.schindler@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 3:49 PM
Subject: Miltown Park Design
To: spellman@ci.edmonds.wa.us
I'm in total agreement with Adrienne's comments at the Council meeting. As a senior I frequent
the Bowl area as well as the waterfront in my walking routine as well as relaxing time. As a
parent of 4 adult children I know the importance of quality recreational areas for children but as
a senior many times I long for an outdoor space where I can enjoy mother nature, the sound of
birds and/or the surf WITHOUT the many sounds of gleeful children exhibiting their stamina,
and sheer delight in their engaged activities
At times I feel the library is my only choice for reading, relaxing. But I give up nature, quiet
conversation with friends over coffee. The dogs have a park, the kids have many sandboxes,
playgrounds, parks, swimming pools.
I vote for the current park plan without any revisions. Wait a minute! Maybe a small area
could have a sign reading "reserved for seniors only" and that would make me feel that seniors
in Edmonds are just as important as children and receive equal consideration by the Council.
Let's get moving on this much needed project. The present Miltown area is a disgrace to all
Edmonds residents.
Jane Schindler
Just back from several trips; I agree with concerns expressed by Betty and Barbara.
Rebecca
Packet Page 120 of 238
_____________________________________________________________________________
Hello all,
I've been watching these emails go back and forth and totally agree w/ Barbara
that this is not a 'children's park'. I love the idea of it as a place one can
rest.
I, also, do not think the expense of making a covered area is a good idea or
necessary. If it's raining people go inside. There is also the continued expense
of upkeep for any kind of plastic structure.
I think the design team has done an excellent job of putting so many suggestions
into one very small space. There is a tendency to try to do too much.
Thanks, Chris Loos
Packet Page 121 of 238
AM-4163 Item #: 5.
City Council Meeting
Date: 08/23/2011
Time:30 Minutes
Submitted By:Phil Williams
Department:Public Works
Review
Committee:
Committee
Action:
Type:Information
Information
Subject Title
Discussion of previously approved change orders for the 162nd Ave Park (Haines Wharf
Park) and 75th/76th Walkway Project.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Review information concerning approved change orders on the 162nd Ave Park (Haines Wharf Park) and
75th/76th Walkway project. Consider a new City Policy regarding change order processing for City
capital projects.
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
Haines Wharf Park and Walkway Project achieved substantial completion in November, 2010. A
construction contract for this project of $1,634,000 was awarded to Precision Earthworks in May, 2009.
To date, ten change orders totalling $725,000 have been approved to complete the project. This
discussion with Council will review those change orders and a chronology of the project's construction
phase.
Staff will present a proposed new City Policy for Council consideration regarding the processing of
change orders on City capital projects.
Attachments
List of Change Orders
Chronology
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Sandy Chase 08/19/2011 09:37 AM
Mayor Mike Cooper 08/19/2011 11:52 AM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 08/19/2011 11:53 AM
Form Started By: Phil Williams Started On: 08/19/2011 08:45 AM
Final Approval Date: 08/19/2011
Packet Page 122 of 238
Attorney Work Product
75th-76th Walkway and Park Project
Design Site Conditions Owner Requests Safety Schedule A-1 Schedule A-2 Schedule A-3 Schedule B Tax
Change Order #1 $59,895 $59,895
Change Order #2 $28,584 $28,584
Change Order #3 $19,548 $2,570 $22,117 $0 $0 $0
Change Order #4 $6,230 $3,866 $10,096
Change Order #5 $15,799 $14,428 $1,371
Change Order #6 $11,935 $92,432 $2,175 $25,006 $0 $0 $0 $120,135 $11,413
Change Order #7 $3,808 $187,766 $401 $53,321 $58,640 $0 $0 $170,462 $16,194
Change Order #8 $58,010 $47,166 $56,924 $5,640 $347 $0 $0 $152,870 $14,523
Change Order #9 $15,332 $1,609 $7,337 $831 $5,349 $0 $10,270 $8,666 $823
Change Order #10 $19,618 $17,916 $1,702
Total =$177,564 $370,548 $92,892 $84,798 $725,802 $146,349 $28,584 $20,366 $484,478 $46,025 $725,802
24.5%51.1%12.8%11.7%100.0%
Change Order #1 Design Site Conditions Owner Requests Safety Schedule A-1 Schedule A-2 Schedule A-3 Schedule B
1 Install Modular Block Wall w/ Geogrid (small block)$3,056 $3,056
2 Install Modular Block Wall w/ Geogrid (large block)$22,407 $22,407
3 Flagging for the installation of modular block Walls $27,113 $27,113
4 Flagging for tree cutting for installation of Soldier Pile Walls $7,319 $7,319
Total Change Order #1 =$59,895 $59,895 $59,895 $59,895
Change Order #2 Design Site Conditions Owner Requests Safety Schedule A-1 Schedule A-2 Schedule A-3 Schedule B
1 Extend Soldier Pile No. 2 24 ft South. $24,676 $24,676
2 Extend 12-inch storm line at pile wall No. 2, catch basins and flagging $3,908 $3,908
Total Change Order #2 =$28,584 $28,584 $28,584 $28,584
Change Order #3 Design Site Conditions Owner Requests Safety Schedule A-1 Schedule A-2 Schedule A-3 Schedule B
1 Install 105 lf of storm line to tightline exisitng storm system $2,570 $2,570
2 Coordinate with PUD to hold power pole for foundation excavation for
modular block wall. Underground water and clay soil required a need to
over excavate two to three feet below design elevation.$1,872 $1,872
3 install 45 lf of Storm line. Unexpected underground conditions required
work to be done at force account. Found existing buried wood log mat and
16 to 18 inches of pavement.$17,676 $17,676
Total Change Order #3 =$19,548 $2,570 $22,117 $22,117 $22,117
Change Order #4 Design Site Conditions Owner Requests Safety Schedule A-1 Schedule A-2 Schedule A-3 Schedule B
1
Install gravity block wall in place of soldier pile wall. Unable to install
soldier pile wall due to conflict with overhead power lines. $6,230 $6,230
2 Remove gravity block wall due to neighborhood complaints.$3,866 $3,866
Total Change Order #4 =$6,230 $3,866 $10,096 $10,096 $10,096
Change Order #5 Design Site Conditions Owner Requests Safety Schedule A-1 Schedule A-2 Schedule A-3 Schedule B Tax
1 Decommission 2-inch monitoring well found in the park. $1,036 $946 $89.87
2 Stabilize hillside to control slide. $11,034 $10,077 $957.28
3 Foundation over excavation for play area. Underground water and clay
soils required over excavation.$3,729 $3,405 $323.52
Total Change Order #5 =$15,799 $15,799 $14,428 $1,371 $15,799
Packet Page 123 of 238
Change Order #6 Design Site Conditions Owner Requests Safety Schedule A-1 Schedule A-2 Schedule A-3 Schedule B Tax
1
Slide Stabilization - Remove rock used to stabilize hillside after slide.
$3,282 $2,998 $284.77
2 Install foundation curb to support concrete sidewalk south of pile
supported elevated walkway.$5,166 $4,718 $448.23
3
Restore south end of yard at 16411 due to storm installation w/in city's
easement. $1,066 $973 $92.46
4
Foundation over excavation for the jungle gym. Existing soils were not
suitable for jungle gym. Quarry Spalls and geo-grid added in place of poor
soil.$10,372 $9,472 $899.85
5
Additional erosion protection due to volumes of unsuitable dirt handled by
contractor. $1,673 $1,528 $145.15
6 Export 571.cy of unsuitable material from hill slide and jungle gym.$19,615 $17,913 $1,701.76
7 Remove and replace 3 and 4 man rocks per Susan Black.$4,947 $4,518 $429.18
8 Remove sidewalk at south end of walkway due to re-design of stairs.$373 $341 $32.35
9
Apply mastic coating on foundation curbs prior to installation of pre-cast
panels $1,449 $1,323 $125.70
10
Deliver caps for gravity block wall that was taken down at storm crossing
sta 15+85. Caps were delivered to PW yard.$1,109 $1,013 $96.24
11 Pick-up gravity blocks from PW yard to the park $1,032 $942 $89.51
12
Install temporary storm pipe to drain and control groundwater at jungle
gym.$662 $605 $57.47
13
Export unsuitable material generated from benching for the pile supported
modular block wall at the Park.$28,257 $25,805 $2,451.51
14
Import, place and compact 1-1/4 inch gravel borrow to replace unsuitable
material generated from benching for the pile supported modular block
wall at the Park.$28,570 $26,091 $2,478.69
15 Furnish and install gravity block wall along west property line of park. $23,974 $21,894 $2,079.93
Total Change Order #6 =$11,935 $92,432 $2,175 $25,006 $131,548 $0 $120,135 $11,413 $131,548
Change Order #7 Design Site Conditions Owner Requests Safety Schedule A-1 Schedule A-2 Schedule A-3 Schedule B Tax
1 Export 1600 cy of unsuitable material from schedule A-1. Material was to
be placed as fill at the park. $54,832 $54,832
2
Furnish and install extra landscaping at 16621 76th Ave W. Relocate
existing Rhododendrons.$1,255 $1,255
3
Extra work to step the fence down along the top of the soldier pile wall.
Longer poles had to be furnished at each stepdown.$2,554 $2,554
4
Furnish and install 125 sf of gravity block wall along west property line of
park.$4,873 $4,450 $422.75
5
Excavate for 125 lf of Gravity Block wall along the west property line of
park.$16,090 $14,694 $1,395.97
6
Export unsuitable material generated from benching behind the new
gravity block wall along the west property line of park.$22,065 $20,151 $1,914.32
7
Furnish, place and compact gravel backfill for new gravity block wall along
west property line of park.$10,293 $9,400 $893.00
8
Import 1831 tons of 1-1/4 inch CSBC to replace unsuitable material
removed for Type II manhole, park grading and 5ft zone behind the new
gravity block wall.$36,091 $32,960 $3,131.18
9 Excavate and haul unsuitable material from the Park. $24,414 $22,296 $2,118.11
10
Excavate and haul 846 cy of unsuitable material from Park during 3-1-2010
to 3-31-2010.$50,561 $46,175 $4,386.59
11 Export unsuitable material generated from the 48-inch manhole.$15,461 $14,119 $1,341.33
12
Attempt to place and grade native material per City's instruction. Remove
and dispose of material after HWA deemed it to be unsuitable.
$2,206 $2,015 $191.39
Packet Page 124 of 238
13
Dewater exposed trench for gravity block wall along the west property line
of park.$566 $517 $49.13
14
Over excavate unsuitable soil from the swing area as directed by HWA.
$3,002 $2,742 $260.46
15
Furnish and place fill in area over excavated for swing area at the park.
$633 $578 $54.88
16
Move rock from atop pile supported wall to accommodate added sitting
area.$401 $367 $34.82
Total Change Order #7 =$3,808 $187,766 $401 $53,321 $245,297 $58,640 $170,462 $16,194 $245,297
Change Order #8 Design Site Conditions Owner Requests Safety Schedule A-1 Schedule A-2 Schedule A-3 Schedule B Tax
1 Furnish and install trash rack at inlet of stream crossing $347 $347
2
Install 90 lf of curb wall for circle play area. The play are curb had to be
replaced with a curb wall to match the elevations of the adjacent asphalt
walkway.$15,073 $13,766 $1,307.73
3
Furnish and install 143 lf of play area curb wall for swing play area. The
play area curb had to be replaced with a curb wall to match the elevations
of the adjacent asphalt walkway.$25,035 $22,863 $2,171.97
4
Install 220 lf of 42-inch vinyl coated chain link fence on top of pile
supported modular block wall and gravity block wall per revised L-4.
$9,304 $8,496 $807.16
5
install 140 lf of 6 ft vinyl coated chain link fence along the park's north
property line per revised L-4.$9,707 $8,865 $842.17
6 Install 320lf of 1-inch water service line in park per revised L-4.$4,030 $3,680 $349.60
7 Install 1-inch water service connection for park.$2,578 $2,354 $223.64
8
Install modular block wall with geogrid west of swing play area per revised
L-4.$3,636 $3,320 $315.43
9
Install quick coupler system and DCVA for new water service per revised L-
4.$4,946 $4,517 $429.10
10
Install 25 lf of 8-inch CPEP storm line, one catch basin and 5 lf of 6-inch
storm pipe to drain the modular block wall west of the swing play area per
field directive 4-7-2010.$2,004 $1,830 $173.85
11 Install 4-inch PVC sleeve to protect quick coupler system.$138 $126 $11.98
12
Core drill holes for the installation of the new 42-inch chain link fence on
top of the pile supported modular block wall.$2,122 $1,938 $184.10
13
Install 18-inch concrete wall in lieu of modular block wall between the
stairs and the circle curb wall play area per revised L-4.
$269 $246 $23.35
14
Slide Installation - grade for slide play area curb. Field locate slide and
manually remove quarry spalls from rock climb to allow for grout
placement and installation of slide. The slide had to be dry-fit in the field
several times under the direction of the city's design consultant and city.
$1,169 $1,068 $101.44
15 Readjust slide per city instruction. $416 $380 $36.13
16
Form and pour in place a 6-ft section of circle play are curb wall at the slide
in order to dry-fit the slide per attachment B. $3,210 $2,932 $278.51
17
Remove quarry spalls off of hillside to allow for dry-fit of slide and grouting
of the quarry spalls. $2,096 $1,914 $181.86
18
Dry fit slide to determine slide support. The slide had to be dry-fit in the
field several times under the direction of the city's design consultant and
city.$2,920 $2,667 $253.34
19
Furnish and mix test grout batch for structural testing per approved mix
design under HWA's direction. Grout is to be used for grouting the quarry
spalls per revised L-17. $807 $737 $69.97
20 Install temporary pipes for the grouting of the quarry spalls. $311 $284 $27.02
21
Install grout in the quarry spalls and rock climb area per revised L-17.
$27,390 $25,014 $2,376.34
22 Install Hendrikus soil per revised L-17. $17,473 $15,957 $1,515.96
Packet Page 125 of 238
23
Excavate and grade for stairs and cheek wall to upper picnic area on the
east side of park per revised L-4. $226 $207 $19.64
24
Install platform to support top of slide and entry into slide per revised L-4.
$7,474 $6,825 $648.42
25
Install 80 lf of 6-inch dia storm pipe to collect ground water from the base
of stairs west 80 ft to the gravity block wall along the park's west property
line per revised L-4.$1,184 $1,081 $102.70
26
Install concrete on top of pile supported modular block wall. This concrete
was necessary to close the gap between the exposed blocks of the pile
supported modular block wall and the newly installed 4-inch concrete
walkway at the upper picnic area.$389 $355 $33.74
27
Install stair way and stair cheek wall to the upper picnic area per revised L-
4.$19,028 $17,377 $1,650.81
28
Install concrete walkway on top of pile supported modular block wall at the
upper picnic area per revised L-4 $4,457 $4,070 $386.69
Total Change Order #8 =$58,010 $47,166 $56,924 $5,640 $167,739 $347 $152,870 $14,523 $167,739
Change Order #9 Design Site Conditions Owner Requests Safety Schedule A-1 Schedule A-2 Schedule A-3 Schedule B Tax
1 Tear down modular block walls 3,6,7,10 and 11. Reconstruct and adjust
modular block walls to adjust to new design height due to required change
in block size.$1,028 $1,028
2
Stand-by charges waiting on guidance regarding modular block wall
construction at 16621 76th Ave.$735 $735
3 Restocking fee for small modular blocks.$510 $510
4
Stand-by charges waiting on guidance regarding modular block wall
construction at 16411 75th Pl W.$551 $551
5
Tear down modular block walls 12 and 4A. Reconstruct and adjust
modular block walls to new design height due to required change in block
size.$800 $800
6
Tree Trimming. Cut down and dispose of tree at Sta 31+00. Tree was safety
hazard for pedestrians along the newly installed sidewalk.
$831 $831
7
Install landscape fabric under elevated walkways prior to placement of
bark/mulch to minimize growth of weeds.$894 $894
8
Shipping and handling of material for deleted soldier pile wall #7 from site
to Precision yard.$877 $877
9 Pave driveway and install modular block wall at 15810 75th PL W. $7,837 $7,837
10
Install sealant to driveway at 15810 75th Pl W. The remaining driveway
had to be sealed to be restored to like conditions.$1,555 $1,555
11 Contractor had to rent a pump to test the water line in the park. $210 $191 $18.19
12 Pressure Reducer for drinking fountain.$676 $617 $58.61
13 Remove and restock 2-inch water valve.$130 $119 $11.29
14
Regrade walkway and adjust the alignment to address the exposed pile
supported modular block wall footing.$2,061 $1,882 $178.77
15
Deliver left over rocks used for the Rock climb to Jetty as directed by Parks.
$1,058 $966 $91.76
16 Install 6-ft. enclosure and lattice for the new Portable toilette.$4,475 $4,087 $388.23
17
Supply extra colors, panels, and design changes to sails as directed by
Susan Black.$881 $805 $76.44
Total Change Order #9 =$15,332 $1,609 $7,337 $831 $25,109 $5,349 $10,270 $8,666 $823 $25,109
Change Order #10 Design Site Conditions Owner Requests Safety Schedule A-1 Schedule A-2 Schedule A-3 Schedule B Tax
1
Install handrail for the rock climb, stairway to upper picnic area and slide
platform in the park.$19,618 $17,916 $1,702.04
Total Change Order #10 =19,618 $19,618 17,916 $1,702.04 $19,618
Packet Page 126 of 238
Council
No.Date Action Action Amount Description
Planning Phase
1993-1998 Parks Comprehensive Plan Yes Proposed Park at 162nd Street
Design Phase
September 19, 2006 Gray & Osborne - PSA Approved Yes $112,600 Preliminary Design Work and Public Involvement
September 18, 2007 Gray & Osborne - Addendum 1 Yes $157,000 Final Design & Bid Documents
December 14, 2007 Gray & Osborne - Addendum 2 $6,545 Replace timber walkway south of Meowdale Beach Rd
June 23, 2008 Gray & Osborne - Addendum 3 $6,575 Revisions to Park design - wall and play swing area
January 28, 2009 Gray & Osborne - Addendum 4 $13,900 Delete Irrigation system, Rebid effort, Const Phase Support
October 26, 2009 Gray & Osborne - Addendum 5 $7,500 Additional on-call Construction Support (G&O & Susan Black)
April 5, 2010 Gray & Osborne - Addendum 6 Yes $43,200 Additional on-call Construction Support (G&O & Susan Black)
Public Involvement
April 26, 2007 Public Meeting Receive public comment on preliminary design
January 31, 2008 Public Meeting Receive public comment on final design
Permitting
August 11, 2008 Shoreline Substantial Dev. Permit Hearing Examiner Approval
Right of Way
June 24, 2008 Right of way Acquisition Yes $40,000 Purchase Right of Way from Lawson property
1st Bid
June 24, 2008 Bids opened 4 Bids submitted and Low bid was $2,332,905
July 15, 2008 Rejection of Bids Yes Bids over Budget
2nd Bid
February 13, 2009 13 Construction Bids opened Precision provides low bid of $1,708,741
March 17, 2009 Rejection of Bids Yes Listing of subcontractors w/ bid
3rd Bid
April 21, 2009 9 Bids were opened Precision provides low bid of $1,634,668
May 5, 2009 Award Contract to Precision Yes
Construction Phase
June 15, 2009 Notice to Proceed Issued
December 8, 2009 Meeting w/ Precision Discuss soil conditions and extra costs
December 17, 2009 Change Order 1 Executed $59,895 Install Block walls
December 17, 2009 Change Order 2 Executed $28,584 Extend soldier pile wall and storm line
February 10, 2010 Meeting w/ Precision Discussion about project issues
February 10, 2010 Change Order 3 Executed $22,117
Packet Page 127 of 238
February 10, 2010 Change Order 4 Executed $10,096 Block wall changes
February 10, 2010 Change Order 5 Executed $15,799 Slide Stabilization; bad soils
March 23, 2010 Change Order 6 Executed $131,547
April 14, 2010 Meeting w/ Precision Discussion about project issues
April 19, 2010 Change Order 7 Executed $245,297
May 3, 2010 Update Mayor on project costs Brian McIntosh scheduled mtg
June 8, 2010 Change Order 8 Executed $167,739 Park changes and extra work
July 6, 2010 Executive Session Briefing Council briefed on potential litigation per OMW's annual report to Auditor.
Potential Claim estimated at $500k
August 17, 2010 Change Order 9 Executed $25,109
September 8, 2010 Change Order 10 Executed $17,916 Handrail for rock climb area in park
November 17, 2010 Substantial Completion
January 7, 2011 Meeting w/ Precision Discuss Landscape maintenance and project issues
January 24, 2011 Public Records Request by Marconi
January 25, 2011 Equitable Adjustement (EA) Submitted
February 9, 2011 City Response to EA
February 28, 2011 Precision Response to EA Precision clarifies EA $701,964 (Kulchin's $240,645 & Precision 461,319)
March 22, 2011 Executive Session Briefing Council briefed on $701,964 request for Equitable Adjustment
May 3, 2011 Kulchin Attempts to Submit Claim Kulchin's claim request is $258,362
May 19, 2011 City Response Kulchin Claim City rejects claim since not in format according to Standard Specs
June 17, 2011 Meeting w/ Precision Discuss Request for Equitable Adjustment
City Attorney
February 3, 2010 Meeting with OMW (Geoff B. & Bio)Mtg @ OMW to discuss change order payments and project issues.
February 8, 2010 OMW approves CO's 3,4 &5 Change orders approved to form
March 22, 2010 OMW approves CO#6 Change orders approved to form
April 14, 2010 OMW approves CO#7 Change orders approved to form
June 1, 2010 OMW approves CO #8 Change orders approved to form
Packet Page 128 of 238
AM-4159 Item #: 7.
City Council Meeting
Date: 08/23/2011
Time:45 Minutes
Submitted By:Rob Chave
Department:Planning
Review
Committee:
Community/Development Services Committee
Action:
Recommend Review by Full
Council
Type:Action
Information
Subject Title
Potential amendments to downtown BD zones.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Adopt the recommendation of the Planning Board (Exhibit 9).
Note that this recommendation does not include the recommendations regarding development
agreements, which will be considered by the Council as a separate issue on a future agenda.
Previous Council Action
The City Council held a public hearing on this issue on July 26, 2011, and referred the matter to the
Community Services/Development Services Committee for further review and discussion. After
discussion, the Committee forwarded three of four issues to the full Council for further deliberation and
potential action. Minutes from both of these meetings are included in Exhibit 8.
Narrative
(Note that Exhibits 1-7 are the same as those included in the July 26th public hearing.
Exhibits 8 and 9 are new.)
After a number of months of discussion and work, the Planning Board held a public hearing on June 8,
2011, on proposed amendments to ECDC 16.43, code requirements pertaining to the downtown BD
zones. The Planning Board’s recommended amendments resulting from that public hearing are contained
in Exhibit 1, which shows a markup version displaying changes from the existing code. A staff summary
of the proposed changes is contained in Exhibit 2, and the Planning Board minutes are in Exhibit 3.
An earlier staff memo describing some of the issues involved is contained in Exhibit 4, with the hearing
draft of the amendments that was considered by the Planning Board contained in Exhibit 5. A map of the
existing downtown BD zones can be found in Exhibit 6.
The City Council held a public hearing on July 26, 2011, and referred the amendments to Council
Committee for further discussion. The CS/DS Committee discussed the matter on August 9, 2011, and
after discussion, forwarded the amendments to the full Council for further deliberation and potential
action. The one exception are the amendments related to development agreements, which the Committee
recommended by taken up by the full Council as a separate matter, the Committee believing that
additional discussion on that subject should take place with the input of staff and the City Attorney in a
work session format.
Exhibit 9 contains the amendments recommended by the Planning Board, excluding the
Packet Page 129 of 238
Exhibit 9 contains the amendments recommended by the Planning Board, excluding the
recommendations related to development agreements -- these have been stricken from this draft.
Attachments
Exhibit 1: PB draft code amendments
Exhibit 2: Staff summary of PB recommendations
Exhibit 3: Planning Board minutes
Exhibit 4: Staff memo from 6/8/2011 PB hearing
Exhibit 5: Draft amendments from 6/8/2011 PB hearing
Exhibit 6: Map of BD zones
Exhibit 7: CSDS minutes of 8/11/2010
Exhibit 8: 2011 City Council minutes
Exhibit 9: Draft amendments excluding development agreements
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Sandy Chase 08/18/2011 10:39 AM
Mayor Mike Cooper 08/18/2011 04:27 PM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 08/18/2011 04:30 PM
Form Started By: Rob Chave Started On: 08/18/2011
Final Approval Date: 08/18/2011
Packet Page 130 of 238
1
Chapter 16.43
BD – DOWNTOWN BUSINESS
Sections:
16.43.000 Purposes.
16.43.010 Subdistricts.
16.43.020 Uses.
16.43.030 Site development standards.
16.43.035 Design standards – BD1 zone.
16.43.040 Operating restrictions.
16.43.000
Purposes.
The BD zone has the following specific purposes in addition to the general purposes for
business and commercial zones listed in Chapter 16.40 ECDC:
A. Promote downtown Edmonds as a setting for retail, office, entertainment and associated
businesses supported by nearby residents and the larger Edmonds community, and as a
destination for visitors from throughout the region.
B. Define the downtown commercial and retail core along streets having the strongest
pedestrian links and pedestrian-oriented design elements, while protecting downtown’s identity.
C. Identify supporting arts and mixed use residential and office areas which support and
complement downtown retail use areas. Provide for a strong central retail core at downtown’s
focal center while providing for a mixture of supporting commercial and residential uses in the
area surrounding this retail core area.
D. Focus development between the commercial and retail core and the Edmonds Center for
the Arts on small-scale retail, service, and multifamily residential uses. [Ord. 3700 § 1, 2008].
16.43.010
Subdistricts.
The “downtown business” zone is subdivided into five distinct subdistricts, each intended to
implement specific aspects of the comprehensive plan that pertain to the Downtown Waterfront
Activity Center. Each subdistrict contains its own unique mix of uses and zoning regulations, as
described in this chapter. The five subdistricts are:
BD1 – Downtown Retail Core;
BD2 – Downtown Mixed Commercial;
BD3 – Downtown Convenience Commercial;
BD4 – Downtown Mixed Residential;
BD5 – Downtown Arts Corridor. [Ord. 3700 § 1, 2008].
Packet Page 131 of 238
2
16.43.020
Uses.
A. Table 16.43-1.
Permitted Uses BD1 BD2 BD3 BD4 BD5
Commercial Uses
Retail stores or sales A A A A A
Offices (including professional offices) A1 A A A A
Service uses (including banks and real estate businesses) A A A A A
Restaurants and food service establishments A A A A A
Retail sales requiring intensive outdoor display or storage
areas, such as trailer sales, used car lots (except as part of a
new car sales and service dealer), and heavy equipment
storage, sales or services
X X X X X
Enclosed fabrication or assembly areas associated with and
on the same property as an art studio, art gallery, restaurant
or food service establishment that also provides an on-site
retail outlet open to the public
A A A A A
Automobile sales and service X A A X X
Dry cleaning and laundry plants which use only
nonflammable and nonexplosive cleaning agents
C A A A X
Printing, publishing and binding establishments C A A A C
Community-oriented open air markets conducted as an
outdoor operation and licensed pursuant to provisions in the
Edmonds City Code
A A A A A
Residential Uses
Single-family dwelling A A A A A
Multiple dwelling unit(s) A A A A A
Other Uses
Bus stop shelters A A A A A
Churches, subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.020 A A A A A
Primary and high schools, subject to the requirements of
ECDC 17.100.050(G) through (R)
A A A A A
Local public facilities, subject to the requirements of ECDC
17.100.050
C C C A C
Packet Page 132 of 238
3
Permitted Uses BD1 BD2 BD3 BD4 BD5
Neighborhood parks, natural open spaces, and community
parks with an adopted master plan subject to the
requirements of ECDC 17.100.070
A A A A A
Off-street parking and loading areas to serve a permitted use B B B B B
Commuter parking lots in conjunction with a facility
otherwise permitted in this zone
B B B B X
Commercial parking lots C C C C X
Wholesale uses X X C X X
Hotels and motels A A A A A
Amusement establishments C C C C C
Auction businesses, excluding vehicle or livestock auctions C C C C C
Drive-in or drive-through businesses CX C A C X
Laboratories X C C C X
Fabrication of light industrial products not otherwise listed as
a permitted use
X X C X X
Day-care centers C C C A C
Hospitals, health clinics, convalescent homes, rest homes,
sanitariums
X C C A X
Museums and art galleries of primarily local concern that do
not meet the criteria for regional public facilities as defined
in ECDC 21.85.033
A A A A A
Zoos and aquariums of primarily local concern that do not
meet the criteria for regional public facilities as defined in
ECDC 21.85.033
C C C C A
Counseling centers and residential treatment facilities for
current alcoholics and drug abusers
X C C A X
Regional parks and community parks without a master plan
subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.070
C C C C C
Outdoor storage, incidental to a permitted use D D D D D
Aircraft landings as regulated by Chapter 4.80 ECC D D D D D
Notes:
A = Permitted primary use
B = Permitted secondary use
C = Primary uses requiring a conditional use permit
D = Secondary uses requiring a conditional use permit
X = Not permitted
1 = Office uses in the BD1 zone may not be located within a designated street front
Packet Page 133 of 238
4
For conditional uses listed in Table 16.43-1, the use may be permitted if the proposal meets
the criteria for conditional uses found in Chapter 20.05 ECDC, and all of the following criteria
are met:
1. Access and Parking. Pedestrian access shall be provided from the sidewalk. Vehicular
access shall only be provided consistent with ECDC 18.80.060. When a curb cut is necessary, it
shall be landscaped to be compatible with the pedestrian streetscape and shall be located and
designed to be as unobtrusive as possible.
2. Design and Landscaping. The project shall be designed so that it is oriented to the street
and contributes to the pedestrian streetscape environment. Fences more than four feet in height
along street lot lines shall only be permitted if they are at least 50 percent open, such as a lattice
pattern. Blank walls shall be discouraged, and when unavoidable due to the nature of the use
shall be decorated by a combination of at least two of the following:
a. Architectural features or details;
b. Artwork;
c. Landscaping. [Ord. 3700 § 1, 2008].
Packet Page 134 of 238
5
16.43.030
Site development standards.
A. Development within the BD zones shall meet the following site development standards,
unless a development is approved pursuant to ECDC 20.08 which meets the requirements of
ECDC 16.43.050.
Table 16.43-2.
Sub
District
Minimum Lot
Area
Minimum
Lot Width
Minimum
Street
Setback
Minimum
Side
Setback1
Minimum
Rear
Setback1
Maximum
Height2
Minimum
Height of
Ground Floor
within the
Designated
Street Front4
BD15 0 0 0 0 0 25' 15'
BD25 0 0 0 0 0 25' 12'
BD35 0 0 0 0 0 25' 12'
BD43,5 0 0 0 0 0 25' 12'
BD55 0 0 0 0 0 25' 12'
1 The setback for buildings and structures located at or above grade (exempting buildings and structures entirely below the
surface of the ground) shall be 15 feet from the lot line adjacent to residentially (R) zoned property.
2 Specific provisions regarding building heights are contained in ECDC 16.43.030(C).
3 Within the BD4 zone, site development standards listed in Table 16.43-2 apply when a building contains a ground floor
consisting of commercial space to a depth of at least 60 45 feet measured from the street front of the building. If a proposed
building does not meet this ground floor commercial space requirement (e.g., an entirely residential building is proposed), then
the building setbacks listed for the RM-1.5 zone shall apply. See ECDC 16.43.030(B)(8) for further details.
4 “Minimum height of ground floor within the designated street-front” means the vertical distance from top to top of the
successive finished floor surfaces for that portion of the ground floor located within the designated street front (see ECDC
16.43.030(B)); and, if the ground floor is the only floor above street grade, from the top of the floor finish to the top of the
ceiling joists or, where there is not a ceiling, to the top of the roof rafters. “Floor finish” is the exposed floor surface, including
coverings applied over a finished floor, and includes, but is not limited to, wood, vinyl flooring, wall-to-wall carpet, and
concrete, as illustrated in Figure 16.43-1. Figure 16.43-1 shows a ground floor height of 15 feet; note that the “finished” ceiling
height is only approximately 11 feet in this example.
5 Site development standards for single-family dwellings are the same as those specified for the RS-6 zone.
Packet Page 135 of 238
16.43.030
Map 16.43-1: Designated Street Front for Properties in the BD1BD Zones
Packet Page 136 of 238
Edmonds Community Development Code 16.43.030
Figure 16.43-1: Ground Floor Height Measurement
B. Ground Floor. This section describes requirements for development of the ground floor of
buildings in the BD zones.
Packet Page 137 of 238
8
1. For all BD zones, the ground floor is considered to be that floor of a building which is
closest in elevation to the finished grade along the width of the side of the structure that is
principally oriented to the designated street front of the building (this is normally the adjacent
sidewalk). For the purposes of this section, the ground “floor” is considered to be the sum of the
floor planes which, in combination, run the full extent of the building and are closest in elevation
to one another. For the purposes of this chapter, the definition of “ground floor” contained in
ECDC 21.35.017 does not apply.
2. Designated Street Front. Map 16.43-1 shows the streets that define the designated street
front for all properties lying within the BD1 zones, which is The designated street front is
defined as the 30 45 feet measured perpendicular to the indicated street front of the building lot
fronting on each of the mapped streets. For all other BD zones, the designated street front is
established as the first 60 feet of the lot measured perpendicular to any street right-of-way,
excluding alleys.
3. Minimum Height of the Ground Floor within the Designated Street Front. The minimum
height of the ground floor specified in Table 16.43-2 only applies to the height of the ground
floor located within the designated street front established in subsection (B)(2) of this section.
4. Access to Commercial Uses within the Designated Street Front. When a commercial use
is located on the ground floor within a designated street front as defined in subsection (B)(2) of
this section, the elevation of the ground floor and associated entry shall be within seven inches of
the grade level of the adjoining sidewalk. “Grade” shall be as measured at the entry location.
Portions of the ground floor outside the designated street front of the building need not comply
with the access requirements specified in this section.
5. When the designated street front of a building is on a slope which does not allow both
the elevation of the entry and ground floor within the designated street front to be entirely within
seven inches of the grade level of the sidewalk, as specified in subsection (B)(4) of this section,
the portion of the ground floor of the building located within the designated street front may be
designed so that either:
a. The entry is located within seven inches of the grade of the adjacent sidewalk, and the
commercial portion of the ground floor located within the designated street front is within seven
inches of the grade level of the entry; or
b. The building may be broken up into multiple frontages, so that each entry/ground
floor combination is within seven inches of the grade of the sidewalk.
c. For corner lots, a primary entry shall be established for the purposes of determining
where the ground floor entry rules detailed in this section shall apply. The first choice for the
primary entry shall be either 5th Avenue or Main Street. In the case of the BD5 zone, the primary
entry shall always be on 4th Avenue.
Packet Page 138 of 238
16.43.030
6. Within the BD1 zone, development on the ground floor shall consist of only commercial
uses, except that parking may be located on the ground floor so long as it is not located within
the designated street front.
7. Within the BD2 and BD3 zones, development on the ground floor shall consist of only
commercial uses within the designated street front. Any permitted use may be located on the
ground floor outside of the designated street front.
8. Within the BD4 zone, there are two options for developing the ground floor of a
building. One option is to develop the ground floor with commercial space, meeting the same
requirements detailed for the BD2 and BD3 zones in subsection (B)(7) of this section. As a
second option, if more residential space is provided so that the ground floor does not meet the
commercial use requirements described in subsection (B)(7) of this section, then the building
setbacks listed for the RM-1.5 zone shall apply. In the case where RM-1.5 setbacks are required,
the required street setback shall be landscaped and no fence or wall in the setback shall be over
four feet in height above sidewalk grade unless it is at least 50 percent open, such as in a lattice
pattern.
9. Within the BD5 zone, one option is to develop the ground floor with commercial space,
meeting the same requirements detailed for the BD2 zone in subsection (B)(7) of this section.
When development of the ground floor does not conform to these requirements, then
development within the BD5 zone shall meet the following requirements:
a. The building shall be oriented to 4th Avenue. “Orientation to 4th Avenue” shall mean
that:
i. At least one building entry shall face 4th Avenue.
ii. If the building is located adjacent to the public right-of-way, architectural details
and/or applied art shall be incorporated into the building design to add interest at the pedestrian
(i.e., ground floor) level.
iii. If the building is set back from the street, landscaping and/or artwork shall be
located between the building and the street front.
b. Live/work uses are encouraged within the BD5 zone, and potential live/work space is
required for new residential buildings if no other commercial use is provided on-site.
i. If multiple residential uses are located on the ground floor, the building shall
incorporate live/work space into the ground floor design in such a way as to enable building
occupants to use portion(s) of their space for a commercial or art/fabrication use. “Live/work
space” means a structure or portion of a structure that combines a commercial or manufacturing
activity that is allowed in the zone with a residential living space for the owner of the
commercial or manufacturing business, or the owner’s employee, and that person’s household.
The live/work space shall be designed so that a commercial or fabrication or home occupation
use can be established within the space.
Packet Page 139 of 238
10
Figure 16.43-2: BD5 Development
Building at right (foreground) shows landscaping located between building and street.
Building at left (background) shows commercial space integrated with residential uses, and the entry oriented to the
street.
10. Exceptions and Clarifications. The regulations for the ground floor contained in
subsections (B)(1) through (9) of this section apply with the following exceptions or clarifi-
cations:
a. That in all areas the provision of pedestrian access to permitted residential uses is
allowed as a permitted secondary use.
b. The restrictions on the location of residential uses shall not apply when a single-
family use is the only permitted primary use located on the property.
c. Existing buildings may be added onto or remodeled without adjusting the existing
height of the ground floor to meet the specified minimum height, so long as the addition or
remodel does not increase the building footprint or its frontage along a street by more than 25
percent. Permitted uses may occupy an existing space regardless of whether that space meets the
ground floor requirements for height.
d. Parking is not considered to be a commercial use for the purposes of satisfying the
ground floor commercial use requirement within the designated street front (e.g., when the first
30 45 feet of a building are within a designated street front in the BD1 zone, parking may not be
located within that 30 45 feet).
e. For properties within the BD2 or BD3 zone which have less than 90 feet of depth
measured from the street front, parking may be located in the rearmost 30 45 feet of the property,
even if a portion of the parking extends into the first 60 45 feet of the building. In no case shall
the depth of commercial space as measured from the street front of the building be less than 30
feet.
Packet Page 140 of 238
11
f. Within the BD2, BD3 and BD4 zones, if the first 60 45 feet of the building as
measured perpendicular to the street consist only of commercial uses and permitted secondary
uses, then permitted multiple-family residential unit(s) may be located behind the commercial
uses.
g. Recodified as ECDC 22.43.050(B)(4).
h. Within the BD1 zone, each commercial space located on the ground floor within the
designated street front shall be directly accessible by an entry from the sidewalk.
C. Building Height Regulations.
1. The basic height limit is 25 feet (see definition of “height” detailed in ECDC 21.40.030).
2. Within the BD1, BD2, BD3, or BD4 zones, an additional five feet of building height –
increasing the overall building height to a maximum of 30 feet – may be obtained if the building
meets the ground floor requirements for the zone as enumerated in ECDC 16.43.030(B). Step-
Back Rules. The following rules apply when calculating the maximum building height for any
building in the specified zone(s) (see Figures 16.43-3 and 16.43-4 for illustrated examples).
a. Within the BD2, BD3, or BD4 zones, an additional five feet of building height, not to
exceed 30 feet, may be obtained if the building is designed to meet all of the following
conditions:
i. A building step-back is provided within 15 feet of any street front. Within the 15-
foot step-back, the maximum building height is the lesser of 25 feet above grade at the property
line (normally the back of the sidewalk) or 30 feet above the “average level” as defined in ECDC
21.40.030. For corner lots, a 15-foot step-back is required along both street fronts. If a building
located on a corner lot has insufficient lot width (i.e., less than 40 feet of lot width) to enable it to
provide the required step-back on both street fronts, then the step-back may be waived facing the
secondary street. This waiver may not be granted for building step-backs required from Fifth
Avenue, Dayton Street, or Main Street.
ii. A 15-foot step-back is provided from the property line opposite the street front.
Within the 15-foot step-back, the maximum building height is the lesser of 25 feet above grade
or 30 feet above the “average level” as defined in ECDC 21.40.030. For corner lots for which a
15-foot step-back is required on more than one street front, there is no 15-foot step-back required
from the property line opposite each street front. For the purpose of determining step-back
requirements, alleys are not considered to be streets.
iii. A building setback, in which the entire building is set back from the property line,
may be substituted on a foot-for-foot basis for the required building step-back. For example, a
five-foot building setback can be combined with a 10-foot building step-back to meet the 15-foot
step-back requirement.
b. Within the BD1 zone, building height may be a maximum of 30 feet in order to
provide for a minimum height of 15 feet for the ground floor. The allowable building height is
measured from the “average level” as defined in ECDC 21.40.030.
Packet Page 141 of 238
12
Note: the diagrams on this page are
deleted in the Planning Board
recommendation.
Packet Page 142 of 238
13
3. Within the BD5 zone, the maximum height may be increased to 30 feet if the building
meets one of the following conditions. In addition, if the building is located within 15 feet of the
public right-of-way, architectural details and/or applied art shall be incorporated into the building
design, and the ground floor shall be distinguished from the upper portions of the building
through the use of differences in materials, windows, and/or architectural forms.
a. All portions of the building above 25 feet consist of a pitched roof such that the pitch
of all portions of the roof is at least six-by-12 and the roof includes architectural features, such as
dormers or gables of a steeper pitch, that break up the roof line into distinct segments.
b. If the building does not make use of a pitched roof system as described in subsection
(C)(3)(a) of this section, the building shall meet the same requirements step-backs shall be
required the same as for the BD2 zone, as described detailed in subsection (C)(2) of this section.
4. Height Exceptions. In addition to the height exceptions listed in ECDC 21.40.030, the
following architectural features are allowed to extend above the height limits specified in this
chapter:
a. A single decorative architectural element, such as a turret, tower, or clock tower, may
extend a maximum of five feet above the specified height limit if it is designed as an integral
architectural feature of the roof and/or facade of the building. The decorative architectural
element shall not cover more than five percent of the roof area of the building.
b. Roof or deck railings may extend a maximum of 42 inches above the specified height
limit within any building step-back required under subsection (C)(2) of this section; provided,
that the railing is constructed so that it has the appearance of being transparent. An example
meeting this condition would be a railing that is comprised of glass panels.
D. Off-Street Parking and Access Requirements. The parking regulations included here apply
specifically within the BD zone. Whenever there are conflicts between the requirements of this
chapter and the provisions contained in Chapter 17.50 ECDC, Off-Street Parking Regulations,
the provisions of this chapter shall apply.
1. Within the BD1 zone, no new curb cuts are permitted along 5th Avenue or Main Street.
2. No parking is required for any commercial floor area of permitted uses located within
the BD1, BD2, BD4, and BD5 zones.
3. No parking is required for any floor area in any building with a total building footprint of
less than 4,800 square feet.
E. Open Space Requirements.
1. For buildings on lots larger than 12,000 square feet or having an overall building width
of more than 120 feet (as measured parallel to the street lot line), at least five percent of the lot
area shall be devoted to open space. Open space shall not be required for additions to existing
buildings that do not increase the building footprint by more than 10 percent. Open space shall
be provided adjacent to the street front (street lot line). Such open space may be provided as any
combination of:
a. Outdoor dining or seating areas (including outdoor seating or waiting areas for
restaurants or food service establishments);
b. Public plaza or sidewalk that is accessible to the public;
c. Landscaping which includes a seating area that is accessible to the public.
2. Required open space shall be open to the air and not located under a building story.
Packet Page 143 of 238
14
3. In overall dimension, the width of required open space shall not be less than 75 percent
of the depth of the open space, measured relative to the street (i.e., width is measured parallel to
the street lot line, while depth is measured perpendicular to the street lot line).
F. Historic Buildings. The exceptions contained in this section apply only to buildings listed
on the Edmonds register of historic buildings.
1. If a certificate of appropriateness is issued by the Edmonds historic preservation
commission under the provisions of Chapter 20.45 ECDC for the proposed project, the staff may
modify or waive any of the requirements listed below that would otherwise apply to the
expansion, remodeling, or restoration of the building. The decision of staff shall be processed as
a Type II development project permit application (see Chapter 20.01 ECDC).
a. Building step-backs required under subsection (C)(2) of this section.
b. Open space required under subsection (E) of this section.
2. No off-street parking is required for any permitted uses located within a building listed
on the Edmonds register of historic buildings. Note that additional parking exceptions involving
building expansion, remodeling or restoration may also apply, as detailed in ECDC
17.50.070(C).
Packet Page 144 of 238
15
3. Within the BD5 zone, if a building listed on the Edmonds register of historic buildings is
retained on-site, no off-street parking is required for any additional buildings or uses located on
the same property. To obtain this benefit, an easement in a form acceptable to the city shall be
recorded with Snohomish County protecting the exterior of the historic building and ensuring
that the historic building is maintained in its historic form and appearance so long as the
additional building(s) obtaining the parking benefit exist on the property. The easement shall
continue even if the property is subsequently subdivided or any interest in the property is sold.
G. Density. There is no maximum density for permitted multiple dwelling units.
H. Screening. The required setback from R-zoned property shall be landscaped with trees and
ground cover and permanently maintained by the owner of the BD lot. A six-foot minimum
height fence, wall or solid hedge shall be provided at some point in the setback, except for that
portion of the BD zone that is in residential use.
I. Signs, Parking and Design Review. See Chapters 17.50, 20.10, and 20.60 ECDC. Sign
standards shall be the same as those that apply within the BC zone.
J. Satellite Television Antennas. In accordance with the limitations established by the Federal
Communications Commission, satellite television antennas greater than two meters in diameter
shall be reviewed in accordance with the provisions of ECDC 16.20.050. [Ord. 3736 § 10, 2009;
Ord. 3700 § 1, 2008].
16.43.035
Design standards – BD1 zone.
Design standards for the BD1 zone are contained in Chapter 22.43 ECDC. [Ord. 3700 § 1,
2008].
16.43.040
Operating restrictions.
A. Enclosed Building. All uses shall be carried on entirely within a completely enclosed
building, except:
1. Public uses such as utilities and parks;
2. Off-street parking and loading areas, and commercial parking lots;
3. Drive-in businesses;
4. Plant nurseries;
5. Seasonal farmers’ markets;
6. Limited outdoor display of merchandise meeting the criteria of Chapter 17.65 ECDC;
7. Bistro and outdoor dining meeting the criteria of ECDC 17.70.040;
8. Outdoor dining meeting the criteria of Chapter 17.75 ECDC.
B. Nuisances. All uses shall comply with Chapter 17.60 ECDC, Performance Standards. [Ord.
3700 § 1, 2008].
Packet Page 145 of 238
16
16.43.050
Development agreements.
A. A development in a BD zone may be approved using the process and criteria described for
development agreements in ECDC 20.08.
B. What can be approved. A development agreement for a development in a BD zone may
vary any of the site development standards contained in ECDC 16.43.030 or 16.43.040 subject to
the following limitation:
1. Building height limits may be increased to a maximum height of 35.
C. Criteria for approval. In addition to the criteria described in ECDC 20.08, a development
approved pursuant to a development agreement must be designed to attain at least a LEED Silver
or equivalent level of green building certification. The development must also satisfy at least two
of the following criteria:
1. The development is designed to attain at least a LEED Gold or equivalent level of green
building certification;
2. The development incorporates one or more of the following uses designed to further the
city’s economic development goals:
a. a hotel;
b. a post office;
c. a farmers market;
d. studio work space, housing or live-work space for artists.
3. The development includes enhanced public space and amenities. Without limiting the
scope of enhanced public space and amenities, examples include such features as public
restrooms, additional building setbacks which provide expanded public sidewalks or gathering
space and/or combined with eating or food retail spaces which include open areas adjacent to the
sidewalk. Art features visible to the public shall also be incorporated into building and/or site
design.
Packet Page 146 of 238
Summary of Planning Board Recommended Changes to BD Zones
1. Designated street front and commercial depth requirements. Commercial depth
requirements are changed to a consistent 45‐foot depth and are tied to a new expanded map
covering all BD zones. This replaces the 30‐foot requirement in the BD1 zone and the 60‐foot
requirement elsewhere. The map of ‘designated street fronts’ is expanded in the code to include
all BD zones, not just the BD1 zone. This helps clarify where the primary pedestrian areas are
throughout the downtown BD zones.
2. Uses in the BD1 (Retail Core) zone. Uses are restricted in the BD1 zone with revisions to the
Table in ECDC 16.43.020. While retail, restaurants and service businesses are allowed, office or
professional office uses must be located outside the 45‐foot 'designated street front.' In
addition, drive‐in or drive‐through businesses are prohibited in the BD1 zone. Existing non‐
conforming uses would be dealt with via the nonconforming rules in the zoning code... i.e. they
would be able to continue as that type of use so long as they are occupied. In addition, other
kinds of office uses could locate behind the designated street front (i.e. behind the first 45 feet)
or on upper floors of a building. However, going forward, the emphasis would be on pedestrian‐
oriented retail, restaurant and service uses along commercial street fronts within the BD1 zone.
3. Step‐back requirements. Step‐backs are no longer required in downtown buildings (currently,
they are not required in the BD1 zone, while a 15‐foot step‐back is required above 25 feet in
other BD zones). The Planning Board concluded that the current step‐backs built into the code
end up removing too much of the upper portion of a building to be feasible to enforce, and the
design of buildings is determined more by overall height and design standards.
4. Development Agreements. Development agreements are authorized in the proposed
amendments (see ECDC 16.43.030.A and 16.43.050). The language in ECDC 16.43.050 includes
sample criteria and authorizes what can be modified by a development agreement. Approval
hinges on meeting at least two of three criteria, generally including (1) attaining at least a LEED
Gold or equivalent level of green building certification; (2) the development incorporates one or
more uses designed to further the city’s economic development goals (such as a hotel, post
office, farmers market, or space for artists); (3) the development includes enhanced public
space and amenities. Development agreements are authorized as an alternative development
approval process, requiring public hearings at both the Planning Board and City Council, with
final approval by the Council. Notwithstanding the other criteria, a development agreement
cannot increase the height of a building to be more than 35 feet.
2011.07.15
Packet Page 147 of 238
APPROVED JUNE 22nd
CITY OF EDMONDS
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
June 8, 2011
Chair Lovell called the meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public Safety
Complex, 250 – 5th Avenue North.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT
Philip Lovell, Chair
Kevin Clarke
Todd Cloutier
Bill Ellis
Kristiana Johnson
Valerie Stewart
Neil Tibbott
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT
John Reed, Vice Chair (excused)
STAFF PRESENT
Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager
Karin Noyes, Recorder
READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES
BOARD MEMBER CLARKE MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF MAY 25, 2011 BE APPROVED AS AMENDED.
BOARD MEMBER TIBBOTT SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA
No changes were made to the agenda.
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
No one in the audience expressed a desire to address the Board during this portion of the meeting.
PUBLIC HEARING ON POTENTIAL AMENDMENTS TO DOWNTOWN BUSINESS DISTRICT (BD) ZONES
(FILE NUMBER AMD20110003)
Mr. Chave reviewed each of the proposed amendments as follows:
Designated Street Front and Commercial Depth Requirements:
Mr. Chave referred the Board to the proposed map of Designated Street Fronts for BD Zones (Map 16.43-1), which has been
expanded to include all BD zones, not just the BD1 zone. The purpose of the map is to clarify where the primary pedestrian
areas and commercial uses are intended to be oriented within the BD Zones. He explained that ground floor of properties
along designated street fronts would be required to meet the commercial height and depth requirements. At this time, the
commercial height requirement for the ground floor space of properties along the designated street fronts is 12 feet. The
Packet Page 148 of 238
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
June 8, 2011 Page 2
proposed language identifies a consistent commercial depth requirement of 45 feet, which replaces the 30-foot requirement
in the BD1 zone and the 60-foot requirement elsewhere in the BD zones. Staff believes the 30-foot standard is too small to
ensure adequate commercial space. Conversely, it makes no sense to require a greater standard of 60 feet outside the retail
core (BD1). He reminded the Board that multi-family residential and professional offices would be allowed to locate on the
portions of ground floor space located outside of the designated street front areas and on the upper floors of all buildings in
the BD Zones.
Mr. Chave said the Board is specifically seeking feedback from the public about the proposed amendment to the commercial
depth requirement, as well as the proposed Designated Street Front Map. He advised that staff measured a large number of
commercial spaces in the BD zones in 2005 and 2006, with particular focus on the BD1 zone. They found that the vast
majority of the commercial spaces had a depth of at least 60 feet. Therefore, they believe that a 45-foot commercial depth
requirement would be reasonable to ensure an adequate amount of ground floor commercial space. Again, he emphasized
that this requirement would only apply to properties located along designated street fronts.
Step-Back Requirement:
Mr. Chave explained that, currently, there is no step-back requirement in the BD1 zone, but there is a 15-foot step-back
requirement in all other BD zones. In order to increase the height of a building from 25 to 30 feet, a 15-foot step-back is
required for the portion of the structure above 25 feet. This requirement results in a significant loss in the amount of
developable area and ends up prohibiting buildings from actually being constructed within the established downtown height
limits. He said the proposed language provided for the hearing identifies a reduced step-back requirement from 15 feet to 5
feet. However, the Board is also considering the option for removing the step-back requirement entirely from all BD zones.
The logic is that if the 30-foot height limit is adequate in the BD1 zone, it should be adequate for all BD zones. In addition,
the step-back requirement does not really add any additional protection that is not already addressed by the existing Design
Guidelines for the BD zones. He said the Board is seeking feedback on whether or not the step-back requirement should be
reduced or eliminated.
Uses in the BD1 (Retail Core) Zone:
Mr. Chave explained that the area one to two blocks radiating out from the fountain is known as the downtown retail core or
BD1 zone. Members of the Planning Board surveyed the existing uses in this area and found that it is predominately retail
and restaurant uses, with a fair amount of service uses that are generally compatible with retail uses. However, there are
some uses that are not compatible, such as medical offices and/or other types of offices that do not have walk-in customers.
These uses tend to want to wall off their businesses from the street front, which discourages pedestrian activity. If more of
these types of uses are located in the retail core, they could undermine the viability of the existing retail uses. He particularly
noted that medical uses are required to provide privacy to their patients. Because they have not been allowed to close off
their front windows, they have used privacy screens inside, which have had the same affect.
Mr. Chave said the Board has discussed the idea of prohibiting certain types of uses that are incompatible with the retail core.
As per the proposed amendment in Table 16.43.020, retail, restaurant and service businesses would be allowed, but office
and/or professional office uses would only be located outside the 45-foot designated street front. Another option being
considered by the Board would be even more restrictive to prohibit office and service uses in the designated street front areas
in the BD zone. Only retail and restaurant uses would be allowed. He emphasized that the BD1 zone occupies only a small
portion of the downtown, and the use restrictions would only apply to the designated street front areas. Office uses would
still be allowed elsewhere in the building behind the front retail-oriented uses or on the upper floors of the building. He
noted that if the proposed language is adopted, existing nonconforming uses would be dealt with via the nonconforming rules
in the zoning code. They would be allowed to continue as the same type of use so long as they remain occupied.
Development Agreements:
Mr. Chave explained that a development agreement is similar to the “contract rezone” concept, which is no longer used by
the City. As proposed, the development agreement concept would allow flexibility for a developer to propose modifications
to the development standards in exchange for providing a public benefit. He referred to the proposed code language in
Packet Page 149 of 238
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
June 8, 2011 Page 3
Section 16.43.050, which includes sample criteria and authorizes what can be modified by a development agreement. The
Board is seeking specific feedback about whether the criterion is appropriate and whether development agreements should be
available in all BD zones. They would also like feedback about whether specific conditions should be attached to
development agreements, as well as what development standards could be varied, and to what extent.
Mr. Chave said that, as proposed in Section A, development agreements would be reviewed by the Planning Board as part of
a public hearing process. The Board would forward a recommendation to the City Council, and the City Council would
conduct another public hearing before making a final decision. The Board’s recommendation and the City Council’s final
decision would be based on whether or not a proposal is consistent with the City’s economic development and
Comprehensive Plan goals and the downtown Design Guidelines.
Mr. Chave reviewed that Section B outlines what can be approved as part of a development agreement. The language
includes two options. One would allow a development agreement to vary any of the site development standards contained in
ECDC 16.43.030 or 16.43.040. An alternative would be to allow a development agreement to vary any of the site
development standards contained in ECDC 16.43.030 or 16.43.040 except building height limits would only be allowed to
increase to 35 feet or three stories, whichever is greater. He recalled that the Board specifically discussed the concept of
using “stories” to address height. He explained that the topography in downtown Edmonds makes this approach difficult.
Because of topographical changes, development on a single lot could accommodate up to three stories on one side, but four
on another. He said the Board is particularly interested in hearing public feedback regarding this concept.
Mr. Chave referred to the criteria for approval of development agreements, which is outlined in the proposed language for
Item C. As proposed, in addition to attaining at least a LEED Silver or equivalent level of green building certification, a
development would be required to meet at least two of the following three criteria:
1. The development is designed to attain at least a LEED Gold or equivalent level of green building certification.
2. The development incorporates one or more of the follow uses designed to further the City’s economic development
goals: a hotel, a post office, a farmer’s market, and/or studio work space, housing or live-work space for artists.
3. The development includes enhanced public space and amenities.
Mr. Chave observed that, typically, sidewalks in the downtown are narrow and buildings are constructed right to the
sidewalk. A developer could propose an expanded sidewalk or plaza area to enhance the pedestrian space, which would meet
one of the criteria for a development agreement. He reminded the Board that a development agreement must be consistent
with the goals and policies in the Comprehensive Plan and the downtown Design Guidelines.
Chair Lovell referred to the proposed Designated Street Front Map (Map 16.43-1) and recalled the Board previously
discussed that a portion of the street front on 5th Avenue between Howell Way and Erben Drive has a steep topography and
is not really an ideal location for retail uses. It was suggested that this area should not be designated as commercial street
front. Mr. Chave recalled this was discussed by the Board and the Citizens Economic Development Commission (CEDC) at
a joint meeting. He said staff recommends that the designated street front extend all the way up 5th Avenue to the end of the
BD3 zone. Otherwise, the area would be made available for other types of uses that are not compatible with retail and/or
commercial uses.
Chair Lovell pointed out that Footnote 3 on Page 5 should be amended to identify a 45-foot commercial depth requirement in
rather than a 60-foot requirement.
Board Member Ellis requested further information about how nonconforming uses would be addressed. While he
understands the uses would be allowed to continue for a time after the amendments are approved, he asked when they would
lose their nonconforming status. Board Member Johnson answered that the businesses would be allowed to continue as
nonconforming uses as defined in ECDC 17.40. However, they would not be allowed to expand in any way, including the
number of employees, equipment and/or hours of operation, except as provided in ECDC 17.40.050. If a nonconforming
uses ceases for a period of six continuous months, any later use of the property occupied by the former nonconforming use
would be required to conform to the zoning ordinance. In laymen’s terms, the property could be rented to another similar
Packet Page 150 of 238
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
June 8, 2011 Page 4
business or to a permitted use. However, if the building is vacant for six months, it may only be used for conforming uses in
the code.
Board Member Clarke suggested that the Designated Street Front Map does not accurately represent how the City is legally
platted into lots. Rather, it represents ownership. Mr. Chave explained that the map is divided into tax parcels, which are
different than legal lots. In some cases, multiple lots are combined into a single tax parcel. As an example, Board Member
Clarke specifically referred to the properties on the south side of Main Street between 2nd and 3rd Avenues South. The
property to the west of the alley is divided into three lots, and the same size of property to the east of the alley is identified as
a single lot because it is under the same ownership. Board Member Clarke pointed out that requiring a 15-foot step-back on
narrow lots for portions of a building above 25 feet makes development challenging, if not impossible. The stepped-back
portion of the buildings would be nonfunctional. Mr. Chave explained that the step-back requirement is particularly onerous
for properties that have two street fronts (the main street front and the alley). These buildings are required to step back 15
feet on each side. Board Member Clarke referred to the property located just west of 3rd Avenue South at the northwest
corner of the alley and questioned if it is legally possible to redevelop just one of the lots based on the current step-back
requirement. Mr. Chave agreed that redeveloping just one of the lots would be very challenging.
Doug Spee, Woodway, said he has an office on Bell Street. He expressed his belief that the proposed code amendments are
well written and would benefit all property owners in the BD zones. They do not favor any particular land owner. He said
that while the step-back concept works well for high-rise development in downtown Seattle, the Board should keep in mind
that development in downtown Edmonds is limited to three stories. Asking a developer to step back the top floor can kill the
design and make a project unfeasible. He expressed his belief that a step-back requirement is the wrong choice to prequalify
a developer for the additional 5 feet in height. Another option would be to allow the additional 5 feet in height if a building
is modulated. He pointed out that the Architectural Design Board has the ability to effectively control whether a proposed
building provides enough modulation to warrant the additional 5 feet in height. A step back should not be the only way a
developer can obtain the additional height.
Mr. Spee referred to the proposed development agreement language (ECDC 16.43.050) and noted that the alternative
language for Item B could be interpreted to allow building heights much greater than 35 feet if a developer proposes a 3-
story building with tall ceiling heights on each floor. He suggested the language be clarified or that the reference to the
number of stories be eliminated altogether.
Ron Wambolt, Edmonds, thanked the Board for the time and effort they have spent to work through the proposed
amendments. He said he hopes that when they are presented to the City Council, they will be in a good frame of mind to
support the Board’s recommendation. He said he supports most of the changes as proposed. He specifically said he believes
development agreements would stimulate economic development in downtown Edmonds. He noted there has been no new
development in downtown Edmonds since the BD zoning was implemented in early 2006. While the economy is partially to
blame, he believes the other cause is the rigid BD development standards. Currently, the only flexibility allowed in the BD
zones is through a variance, which requires a developer to meet six criteria. While the variance concept is well intended, it
generally curbs the granting of any variance. He said he believes the development agreement provision would open new
opportunities for controlled flexibility. Developers would have more flexibility, but the flexibility would be controlled by
the City Council. It sets up the opportunity for a win-win situation where the developer has to give something in order to get
something in return. He said he hopes the Board can reach a unanimous decision and forward their recommendation to the
City Council as soon as possible.
Stephen Clifton, Community Services/Economic Development Director, referred to the Planning Board’s minutes of
April 13th, which incorrectly quoted him as stating that “the step-back requirement should be applied in all BD zones.” His
intent was to suggest that he did not see the logic of applying a 15-foot step back in any of the BD zones.
Karen Wiggens, Edmonds, said she supports the Board’s proposal to prohibit office uses in the BD1 zone. It is important
for the retail area to be pedestrian friendly. However, she is not sure she supports the idea of prohibiting service uses, as
well. Many people who visit the nail and hair salons walk to their destinations. She said she also supports the proposal to
change the commercial depth requirement to 45 feet for all BD zones and to eliminate the step-back requirement. She
explained that she owns a building on 2nd Avenue South and James Street, and they are currently negotiating a 10-year lease
Packet Page 151 of 238
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
June 8, 2011 Page 5
with Landau Associates, which will be good for her and for the City. Part of the reason she can negotiate the new lease is
because she can offer additional space on the third floor, which can be expanded on the east side of the building. There is no
reason for a 15-foot step back on her building. If she was not allowed to expand her building to the street front, the City
would lose a good business, and she is not the only property owner in this type of situation. She said that while she supports
the development agreement concept, she cautioned that the proposed language appears to address one specific property,
which can be a dangerous approach.
THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Chair Lovell requested clarification of Mr. Spee’s comment related to the proposed language in Alternative B in ECDC
16.43.050 (height versus stories). He said he does not interpret the language to allow a 3-story building that is greater than
35 feet in height. Mr. Spee said he supports the concept of limiting building height to 35 feet. However, his interpretation of
Alternative B is that a 3-story building could actually be much greater than 35 feet if each of the floors had a 16-foot ceiling
height. He said he does not believe the language, as currently drafted, defines the maximum building height allowed.
Board Member Clarke observed that Ms. Spee is a successful developer in other jurisdictions in the Puget Sound area. He
asked him explain how a developer could construct a 4-story building when the height is limited to 35 feet, particularly given
the height required to provide a 12-foot ground floor commercial space, as well as space to locate the mechanical equipment.
Mr. Spee answered that if a lot is sloped, it may be possible to construct four stories on one side. He said that if the proposed
Designated Street Front Map is approved as presented, his property would qualify for four stories because a portion of the
development would be outside the designated street front area. Therefore, he would not be required to provide 12-foot
ceiling heights for the ground floor space. He briefly explained how a 4-story development could be accomplished on his
particular lot.
Board Member Clarke reminded the Board that the objective of development agreements is to enhance flexibility. The
development standards do not take lot size and topography into consideration, and applying a one-size-fits-all approach does
not allow flexibility for developers to explore other options that would enhance overall development without creating a
monstrous development that the community does not want. He recalled that the purpose of the height limit is to avoid
massive buildings. Mr. Spee pointed out that a 30-foot high building could not be considered large. He suggested that one
aspect that is missing from the conversation is that topography creates a stadium setting as you approach the downtown. The
one-size-fits-all approach does not acknowledge that a slightly taller building on 4th Avenue South and Main Street would
not look different from uphill. Development agreements would offer flexibility for the City to allow slightly taller buildings
that do not block view from uphill. They also allow developers an opportunity to try and sell something that makes better
sense to the public and the City Council. He said he has spent several months trying to offer ideas for how his development
could provide more benefits to the community, but the current code language does not allow flexibility to implement any of
the ideas.
Board Member Clarke pointed out that Mr. Spee also owns property in Redmond near their town center, which has potential
for redevelopment. Mr. Spee said he purchased the property in July of 2008 and the permits to construct an 85-foot tall
building were obtained in December of 2010. He said that while Redmond’s development standards are different, they are
not necessarily any better. However, they do not have a building height requirement for their town center zone.
The Board reviewed each of the proposed amendments and took action as follows:
Uses in the BD1 (Retail Core) Zone:
CHAIR LOVELL MOVED THAT THE BOARD RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REVISED TABLE IN
ECDC 16.43.020 AS PROPOSED BY STAFF. BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER SECONDED THE MOTION.
Mr. Chave referred to the proposed table and noted that the only term currently defined in the code is “office,” which means
“a building or separate defined space within a building used for a business which does not include on-premises sales of
goods or commodities.” He noted that this definition is not particularly helpful, and that is why staff provided more
descriptive language for office and service uses. He advised that the Board would review all the use classifications after the
Packet Page 152 of 238
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
June 8, 2011 Page 6
University of Washington Team has worked out their proposal for form-based zoning for the Westgate and Five Corners
commercial areas. He referred to the handout that matches the 1987 Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Codes to the
1997 North American Industry Classification System (NAICS), which identifies very different kinds of service categories.
He recalled the Board has talked about allowing personal service uses in the BD1 zone. He summarized that while they must
deal with use definitions at some point in the future, the proposed amendment is workable because it includes terms that are
used throughout the Development Code.
Board Member Ellis recalled the Board previously discussed the option of prohibiting both office and service uses in the
BD1 zone. However, the motion currently on the floor would only restrict office uses from being located in the designated
street front areas within the BD1 zone.
Board Member Stewart reviewed the updated results of the survey she and Board Member Johnson conducted to identify the
current uses in the BD1 zone. They found that 35% of the designated street fronts were retail uses, 5% were art, and 23%
were restaurant and food services. That means a total of 63% of the uses were retail and/or food related. In addition, 25% of
the space was occupied by beauty and wellness uses, finance, insurance and real estate uses, and professional offices. Other
uses occupied 4% of the space, and 8% of the space was vacant. Mr. Chave observed that professional offices occupy only a
small percentage of the designated street front space in the BD1 zone. However, adopting the proposed language would
eliminate the possibility of more of these uses locating in these critical retail areas.
Board Member Cloutier recalled the Board’s previous discussion about what options a land owner would have if they are
unable to rent their space for a retail use. If a space cannot be rented within a 6-month time period, he suggested it would be
better to allow the space to be rented for a professional office use rather than remain vacant. He questioned how this need
could be addressed. Mr. Chave said the proposed amendment would offer no option for other types of uses, and a
development agreement would not be allowed to modify the allowed uses, either. Board Member Stewart suggested the
purpose of the proposed amendment is to serve a greater City need. Landowners have the option of adjusting their rent
and/or terms to attract retail tenants. Mr. Chave recalled an experience shared earlier by Mr. Clifton in which he encouraged
a property owner to think more carefully about the types of businesses he/she was trying to recruit. The property owner
assumed the space was more suitable for office use, but he was able to convince him/her that a retail food business would be
a better choice. The property owner was able to successfully recruit this type of use. Board Member Stewart emphasized
that getting more retail uses in the BD1 zone will be positive for the landowners, too.
Board Member Johnson pointed out that changing the uses allowed in the BD1 zone would not require a successful office
use to terminate now. However, she felt the proposed amendment would be appropriate if the City’s intent is to have retail
uses in the BD1 zone. She agreed that service uses such as nail and hair salons could be part of the retail mix. She would
even support allowing all service uses, but medical and other professional office uses should be prohibited.
Board Member Cloutier agreed the City’s goal is to have retail uses in the BD1 zone. However, he cautioned against
limiting the property owners’ ability to rent their space too much. There should be some provision that allows
nonconforming uses if that is the only type of use interested in the space. Allowing a nonconforming use would be better
than an empty store front. Mr. Chave pointed out that the hardship to property owners would be mitigated by the fact that
the use restrictions would only apply to the portions of buildings located within the designated street front. The limited use
would apply to just a very small portion of the downtown area, and he would advocate holding firm on the areas that matter
(BD1 zone).
Board Member Clarke said it appears that the vacant properties in the BD1 zone are designed for retail rather than
professional office uses. Mr. Chave added that much of the vacant space is in space that has never been occupied but was
constructed for retail uses. Board Member Clarke said he cannot foresee a situation in which the proposed amendment
would place a hardship on a property owner. He expressed his belief that the proposed amendment represents the best
interest of the public and provides a fair balance between the needs of the landowners and the current economic conditions.
Board Member Johnson pointed out that, as proposed, drive-through businesses would no longer be allowed in the BD1
zone. The Board has generally agreed with this approach. However, as she reviewed the table of permitted uses, her
attention was drawn to hotel and motel uses, both of which are permitted primary uses in the BD1 zone. She explained that a
Packet Page 153 of 238
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
June 8, 2011 Page 7
motel is designed for auto travelers, and a hotel is defined in Chapter 21 as containing five or more separately-occupied
rooms. A boarding house is a use that contains not more than four rooms for lodgers and boarders. She expressed her belief
that hotel and boarding house uses seem to be more consistent for the BD1 zone, but perhaps motels should be excluded.
Motels require an additional driveway access, which is similar to a drive-through business. If one is permitted and the other
is not, it appears to be contrary to the desired pedestrian environment in the BD1 zone. Mr. Chave acknowledged that, at
one time, the terms “hotel” and “motel” were defined differently, but now there is much less distinction. He reminded the
Board that the BD1 development standards prohibit additional curb cuts, which would address issues related to access.
Board Member Johnson pointed out that the definitions she provided came directly from the existing ECDC. Mr. Chave
agreed but said the definitions are old and need to be reviewed and updated at some point in the near future. Board Member
Clarke explained that the term “drive-through” references the fact that a user is maintaining their auto in the rendering of the
service such as a coffee stand, a fast-food restaurant, etc. People are served while they remain in their cars. On the other
hand, people who visit motels are required to park their cars to access their rooms. In the transient lodging world, which
covers hotels, motels, etc., there is no such thing as a drive-through motel. Therefore, he suggested that motels are unrelated
to drive-through uses. He summarized his belief that the City should not prohibit transient lodging facilities in the BD1
zone.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Designated Street Front and Commercial Depth Requirements:
BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER MOVED THAT THE BOARD RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE
AMENDMENT TO ECDC 16.43.030 TO CHANGE THE COMMERCIAL DEPTH REQUIREMENT TO 45 FEET
IN ALL BD ZONES AS PROPOSED BY STAFF WITH THE CORRECTION TO FOOTNOTE 3 (CHANGE 60
FEET TO 45 FEET). HE FURTHER MOVED THE BOARD RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE DESIGNATED
STREET FRONT FOR BD ZONES MAP AS PROPOSED BY STAFF. BOARD MEMBER STEWART
SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Step-Back Requirements:
CHAIR LOVELL MOVED THAT THE BOARD RECOMMEND THAT THE STEP-BACK REQUIREMENT BE
ELIMINATED IN ALL BD ZONES. BOARD MEMBER JOHNSON SECONDED THE MOTION.
Chair Lovell said the logic behind his motion is that the Comprehensive Plan and Design Guidelines provide that building
design shall include façade articulation and/or modulation. Using changes in textures, materials and articulation can achieve
the same aesthetic result as requiring a step back. He expressed his belief that even a 5-foot step back would be too much
when multiplied by the entire width of the lot.
Board Member Clarke observed that there is no step-back requirement in the BD1 zone. Similar to how the commercial
depth requirement was changed to be consistent for all BD zones, he said he would support a consistent step-back
requirement. He said the existing architecture in the BD zones reflects the uniformity of no step-back requirement since no
new development has occurred since the step-back requirement was implemented. As examples, he noted the Windermere
Building, City Hall, the Harbor Building, and the condominiums built in downtown. He concluded that the step-back
provision has not proven to be a valuable contribution to the building code. For uniformity and to be consistent with how the
City is currently developed, he recommended the step-back requirement be eliminated.
Board Member Ellis said he supports the motion to eliminate the step-back requirement for the same reasons that were stated
by Board Member Clarke and Chair Lovell. He said he does not see why they should have a different step-back requirement
for any of the BD zones. The current requirement is too blunt an instrument to accomplish its goal.
Chair Lovell referred to written comments submitted by Vice Chair Reed, which state, “I think the step-back change is good,
though upper floor step-backs are a good design feature that I would hope is still used. Otherwise, we could end up with
shoe boxes for the sake of maximizing square footage.”
Packet Page 154 of 238
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
June 8, 2011 Page 8
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Packet Page 155 of 238
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
June 8, 2011 Page 9
Development Agreements:
BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER MOVED THAT THE BOARD ADOPT THE PROPOSED LANGUAGE FOR
ECDC 16.43.050 AS PRESENTED BY STAFF, USING ALTERNATIVE B. CHAIR LOVELL SECONDED THE
MOTION.
Board Member Cloutier referred to Mr. Spee’s earlier concern that using the term “story” could result in building that are
significantly taller than 35 feet if a developer chooses to construct three stories that are each 16 feet tall. He reminded the
Board that the additional height would only be allowed via an approved development agreement, which would be reviewed
by both the Planning Board and the City Council. If the proposed height of a development is unreasonable, the City would
not be obligated to approve the development agreement. A developer would have to make a strong case to support why each
story would have to be so tall, and each request would be weighed against the Downtown Design Guidelines and the
Comprehensive Plan policies.
Board Member Cloutier recalled that one Board Member expressed concern that if all provisions in ECDC 16.43.030 and
16.43.040 can be altered with the exception of height, these two code sections would be meaningless. He reminded the
Board that any code diversion would have to be approved by the City Council as part of a development agreement. Mr.
Chave added that a developer would have to make a case to support his request to modify a development standard. Board
Member Cloutier said a Board Member also raised the question of what would happen if a developer chooses not to meet one
of the requirements of ECDC 16.43.030 or 16.43.040 after a development agreement has been approved. Mr. Chave
answered that the developer would be required to either amend the development agreement or request an entirely new
development agreement, both of which would require a public process and final approval by the City Council. These
inconsistencies should be caught during the development permit review, and no development permit would be issued for a
project that does not meet all of the code requirements as outlined in the development agreement.
While he actually recommended including the reference to “stories” in Alternative B, Board Member Clarke questioned if it
is needed if the goal is to create flexibility. He asked if the 35-foot maximum height limit would provide enough safeguard
that someone would not be able to build a taller structure. If so, then reference to “stories” is irrelevant. Mr. Chave agreed
and noted that height has traditionally been regulated based on a specific height and not stories. The language related to
stories was added at the request of the Board. It is not really necessary. Board Member Clarke said it is possible for a
development that is 35-feet high to include a taller first floor to accommodate the mechanical equipment and a taller third
story to provide a greater ceiling height for residential units. This would allow for development that is architecturally unique
and different than a standard box. He noted that other municipalities are allowing flexibility in their codes for this type of
development. He said he would support the motion, but he would like to amend it to delete the reference to “three stories.”
Board Member Ellis suggested it would make more sense to change Alternative B to read, “A development agreement for a
development in a BD zone may vary any of the site development standards contained in ECDC 16.43.030 or 16.43.040
except building height may only be increased to 35 feet.” Board Member Chave agreed that would be appropriate and would
not alter the intent of the proposed language.
BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER MOVED THAT THE MOTION BE AMENDED TO DELETE THE WORDS “OR
THREE STORIES, WHICHEVER IS GREATER” FROM ITEM B.1. BOARD MEMBER JOHNSON SECONDED
THE MOTION.
Board Member Clarke said he appreciates that the City Council takes the time to read the Board’s minutes because they have
spent a lot of time on this issue. That is one of the reasons he has taken the time to have the discussion about building
heights versus stories and the combination of the two. This discussion helps to lay the foundation so the City Council can
see the complexity of the problem they face in the BD zones and offer a solution that meets the Design Guidelines and
Comprehensive Plan Policies to encourage positive economic development and suitability to the community in long-term
investments with the anticipation of providing economic benefits for all stakeholders in the community. Board Member
Clarke said it is important for the City Council and the public to have a clear understanding of the concept of highest and
best use of the development of real estate. He explained that there are four criteria for evaluating the highest and best use of
a piece of property:
Packet Page 156 of 238
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
June 8, 2011 Page 10
1. Potential Development. The potential development must be physically possible based on current construction
standards and standards associated with the site.
2. Legally Permissible. This falls directly under the zoning code and development standards to create the elasticity on
legally permissibility. Flexibility in the code enables the highest and best use to expand and adapt to different
market conditions, which is critical in the development arena.
3. Financially Feasible. This is a key concept for the community to consider. For example, if the cost of land and the
cost of construction are both high, these costs must be covered by the economic feasibility of the proposed project.
This is one reason why the step-back requirement is onerous. It reduces a developer’s opportunity to spread the
financial viability over a larger footprint. The Board has enhanced the concept of highest and best use by
recommending that the step-back requirement be eliminated and by establishing a uniform commercial depth
requirement of 45 feet. Both of these amendments allow for more flexibility for the types of land uses that can be
put in the BD zones. It also enhances the arena for financial feasibility.
4. Maximum Productivity. Maximum productivity is based on opportunity costs. If a developer has two alternatives,
they must determine which one produces the maximum productivity of the asset. The zoning code helps the
developer be able to choose the best of all the land uses based on economics at the time of development.
Board Member Clarke summarized that if all four criteria can be met, there is a high probability that the project will be
sustainable over the long term and improve the return to all stakeholders through increased tax revenues and enhanced use of
the property by the community. He said the Board has worked hard to create an environment that meets and exceeds the
goals of the Comprehensive Plan with respect to the economic sustainability of the community. Developers will be able to
speak to all four points with more flexibility, and there will be more opportunities for return to the community.
Chair Lovell referred to Vice Chair Reed’s written concern about changes that occur after a development agreement has been
approved. Mr. Chave clarified that the staff cannot unilaterally change a development agreement. Changes would have to
go back to the City Council for approval.
Board Member Stewart pointed out that the proposed amendment incentivizes the City’s goal of being sustainable by
requiring Silver and/or Gold LEED or equivalent for all development agreements. It is also important to consider the
concept of adaptive reuse so that the uses of buildings can be altered as the market changes without requiring substantial
redevelopment. In addition, new construction should use local materials and other sustainable resources, be energy efficient,
maximize day lighting to reduce electricity requirements, and safeguard the indoor environmental quality by eliminating the
use of toxic materials. She summarized that return on investment is not just about construction costs, it also includes
reducing operating costs over the life of a building. These measures will help improve the economic and social sustainability
of the City.
Board Member Ellis questioned how the Board came up with the four uses outlined in Item C.2. Mr. Chave said these uses
were identified in discussions with the Planning Board and CEDC as priorities for promoting tourism in the downtown.
Board Member Ellis asked if this list is intended to be exclusive of the things that are desirable or if additional uses could be
added. Mr. Chave agreed that the four items may not be the only important and desirable uses, but they represent those that
have been identified thus far. Board Member Ellis questioned if specifically identifying these uses would preclude other
desirable uses in the future. Mr. Chave pointed out that the language could be amended in the future if more uses are
identified. Board Member Ellis suggested that a better option would be to identify the four uses as potential examples, but
not all inclusive. Mr. Chave cautioned against leaving the language so extremely open ended.
Board Member Clarke suggested another option would be to add “or characteristics” after “uses,” and then include a
provision that allows the Planning Board to make recommendations to the City Council for uses or other characteristics that
may be considered in the future. This would allow the document to be more flexible rather than restricted to just those four
uses. Mr. Chave pointed out that this process would really be no less time consuming than a development code amendment
to add another use.
Board Member Clarke said it is important for the City Council to see that this concept was considered by the Board and their
intent is that it not be limited to the four uses identified in Item C.2. Neither is the language intended to apply to the needs of
Packet Page 157 of 238
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
June 8, 2011 Page 11
just one property owner. Mr. Chave said the items on the list have been pursued and talked about at various levels for quite
some time. He said the list is intended to represent the uses that have been identified to this point. He noted that the City
Council would also have the ability to add additional uses to the list prior to their final approval.
Board Member Johnson reminded the Board that in previous discussions with the CEDC, public restrooms were identified as
a desired public amenity. She suggested that the words “public restrooms” be inserted into Item C.3 as an example of a
potential public amenity.
Board Member Ellis requested clarification of how Criteria C.3 would be applied. Mr. Chave clarified that art features
would only be required if the applicant chooses to utilize Criteria C.3, which calls for enhanced public space and amenities.
Board Member Ellis suggested that the words “without limiting the scope of enhanced public space and amenities,” be added
at the beginning of the second sentence to make it clear that developers can propose public space and amenities that are not
included on the list of examples.
BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER MOVED THAT THE MOTION BE AMENDED TO CHANGE ITEM C.3 TO
READ, “THE DEVELOPMENT INCLUDES ENHANCED PUBLIC SPACE AND AMENITIES. WITHOUT
LIMITING THE SCOPE OF ENHANCED PUBLIC SPACE AND AMENITIES, EXAMPLES INCLUDE SUCH
FEATURES AS PUBLIC RESTROOMS, ADDITIONAL BUILDING SETBACKS WHICH PROVIDE EXPANDED
PUBLIC SIDEWALKS OR GATHERING SPACE, AND/OR COMBINED WITH EATING OR FOOD RETAIL
SPACES WHICH INCLUDE OPEN AREAS ADJACENT TO THE SIDEWALK. ART FEATURES VISIBLE TO
THE PUBLIC SHALL ALSO BE INCORPORATED INTO BUILDING AND/OR SITE DESIGN.” BOARD
MEMBER JOHNSON SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
THE MAIN MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED LANGUAGE FOR ECDC 16.43.050
WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED AS AMENDED.
REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA
Mr. Chave announced that the Board Members have been invited to attend the CEDC’s June 15th meeting, at which the
University of Washington/Cascade Land Conservancy Team will provide a final update on their work with the Five Corners
and Westgate Commercial Centers before presenting their findings to the City Council. The Board would be invited guests
of the CEDC and would not be voting on the item. He explained that after their presentation to the City Council, the Team
would ask the City Council for authorization to begin the formal review of the Development Code and then the item will
come before the Planning Board for review.
Mr. Chave advised that Mr. Lien would be present at the Board’s June 22nd meeting to discuss the Shoreline Master Program
Update.
PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS
Chair Lovell did not provide any comments during this portion of the meeting.
PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
Board Member Stewart announced that the City of Bellingham is sponsoring their 9th Annual Imagine This! Home and
Landscape Tour on June 25th and 26th from 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. She said she would not be able to attend the event. She
encouraged Board members to visit http://sustainableconnections.org/events/9th-annual-home-and-landscape-tour for more
information. She felt the event would be of interest to the Board given the City’s goal of implementing green initiatives in
Edmonds. She would like ideas for promotional events to show off green projects that have occurred in the City.
ADJOURNMENT
The Board meeting was adjourned at 9:20 p.m.
Packet Page 158 of 238
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
5
9
o
f
2
3
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
6
0
o
f
2
3
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
6
1
o
f
2
3
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
6
2
o
f
2
3
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
6
3
o
f
2
3
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
6
4
o
f
2
3
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
6
5
o
f
2
3
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
6
6
o
f
2
3
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
6
7
o
f
2
3
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
6
8
o
f
2
3
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
6
9
o
f
2
3
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
7
0
o
f
2
3
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
7
1
o
f
2
3
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
7
2
o
f
2
3
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
7
3
o
f
2
3
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
7
4
o
f
2
3
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
7
5
o
f
2
3
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
7
6
o
f
2
3
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
7
7
o
f
2
3
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
7
8
o
f
2
3
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
7
9
o
f
2
3
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
8
0
o
f
2
3
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
8
1
o
f
2
3
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
8
2
o
f
2
3
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
8
3
o
f
2
3
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
8
4
o
f
2
3
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
8
5
o
f
2
3
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
8
6
o
f
2
3
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
8
7
o
f
2
3
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
8
8
o
f
2
3
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
8
9
o
f
2
3
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
9
0
o
f
2
3
8
Item #__6a_
City of Edmonds Planning Board
Meeting Date: June 8, 2011
Agenda Subject: Public Hearing on draft amendments to downtown BD zones.
Staff Lead /
Author:
Rob Chave
Initiated By: City Council Planning Board City Staff
Citizen Request Other:
The Planning Board had discussions on potential amendments to the downtown BD
zones during its meetings on March 9th, March 23rd , April 13th, and April 27th of this
year. The draft amendment language prepared for the public hearing show what the BD
zoning chapter would look like if the following features were included:
1. Uses in the BD1 (Retail Core) zone. Uses are restricted in the BD1 zone with revisions
to the Table in ECDC 16.43.020. While retail, restaurants and service businesses are
allowed, office or professional office uses must be located outside the 45‐foot
'designated street front.' Presumably if these rules are adopted, existing non‐
conforming uses would be dealt with via the nonconforming rules in the zoning code...
i.e. they would be able to continue as that type of use so long as they are occupied. In
addition, other kinds of office uses could locate behind the designated street front (i.e.
behind the first 45 feet) or on upper floors of a building. However, going forward, the
emphasis would be on pedestrian‐oriented retail, restaurant and service uses along
commercial street fronts within the BD1 zone. Another option being considered by the
Planning Board is to be even more restrictive, i.e. prohibiting office, professional office,
and service uses in the ‘designated street front’ of the BD1 zone. Only retail and
restaurant uses would be allowed along the street front.
2. Designated street front and commercial depth requirements. Commercial depth
requirements are changed to a consistent 45‐foot depth and are tied to a new expanded
map covering all BD zones. This replaces the 30‐foot requirement in the BD1 zone and
the 60‐foot requirement elsewhere. Staff believes the 30‐foot standard is too small to
ensure adequate commercial space. Conversely, it makes no sense to require a greater
Edmonds Planning Board
Agenda Memo
Packet Page 191 of 238
standard (i.e. 60 feet) outside the retail core. The map of ‘designated street fronts’ is
expanded in the code to include all BD zones, not just the BD1 zone. This helps clarify
where the primary pedestrian areas are throughout the downtown BD zones.
3. Step‐back requirements. The issue here is that it appears that the current step‐backs
built into the code end up removing too much of the upper portion of a building to be
feasible to enforce. This in turn ends up prohibiting a building from actually being built
within the established downtown height limits. In the sample draft provided for the
hearing, step‐backs are reduced from 15 feet to 5 feet. As another option, the Board is
also considering removing the requirement entirely. Currently, there is no step‐back
requirement in the BD1 zone, but a 15‐foot step‐back is required in other BD zones.
4. Development Agreements. Development agreements are authorized in the current
draft code amendment language (see ECDC 16.43.030.A and 16.43.050). The language in
ECDC 16.43.050 includes sample criteria and authorizes what can be modified by a
development agreement. The Planning Board has been discussing whether these are the
right criteria, and whether development agreements should be available in all BD zones.
For example, the Board has discussed not allowing these types of development
agreements in the BD5 zone (the Fourth Avenue Arts Corridor).
Packet Page 192 of 238
1
Chapter 16.43
BD – DOWNTOWN BUSINESS
Sections:
16.43.000 Purposes.
16.43.010 Subdistricts.
16.43.020 Uses.
16.43.030 Site development standards.
16.43.035 Design standards – BD1 zone.
16.43.040 Operating restrictions.
16.43.000
Purposes.
The BD zone has the following specific purposes in addition to the general purposes for
business and commercial zones listed in Chapter 16.40 ECDC:
A. Promote downtown Edmonds as a setting for retail, office, entertainment and associated
businesses supported by nearby residents and the larger Edmonds community, and as a
destination for visitors from throughout the region.
B. Define the downtown commercial and retail core along streets having the strongest
pedestrian links and pedestrian-oriented design elements, while protecting downtown’s identity.
C. Identify supporting arts and mixed use residential and office areas which support and
complement downtown retail use areas. Provide for a strong central retail core at downtown’s
focal center while providing for a mixture of supporting commercial and residential uses in the
area surrounding this retail core area.
D. Focus development between the commercial and retail core and the Edmonds Center for
the Arts on small-scale retail, service, and multifamily residential uses. [Ord. 3700 § 1, 2008].
16.43.010
Subdistricts.
The “downtown business” zone is subdivided into five distinct subdistricts, each intended to
implement specific aspects of the comprehensive plan that pertain to the Downtown Waterfront
Activity Center. Each subdistrict contains its own unique mix of uses and zoning regulations, as
described in this chapter. The five subdistricts are:
BD1 – Downtown Retail Core;
BD2 – Downtown Mixed Commercial;
BD3 – Downtown Convenience Commercial;
BD4 – Downtown Mixed Residential;
BD5 – Downtown Arts Corridor. [Ord. 3700 § 1, 2008].
Packet Page 193 of 238
2
16.43.020
Uses.
A. Table 16.43-1.
Permitted Uses BD1 BD2 BD3 BD4 BD5
Commercial Uses
Retail stores or sales A A A A A
Offices (including professional offices) A1 A A A A
Service uses (including banks and real estate businesses) A A A A A
Restaurants and food service establishments A A A A A
Retail sales requiring intensive outdoor display or storage
areas, such as trailer sales, used car lots (except as part of a
new car sales and service dealer), and heavy equipment
storage, sales or services
X X X X X
Enclosed fabrication or assembly areas associated with and
on the same property as an art studio, art gallery, restaurant
or food service establishment that also provides an on-site
retail outlet open to the public
A A A A A
Automobile sales and service X A A X X
Dry cleaning and laundry plants which use only
nonflammable and nonexplosive cleaning agents
C A A A X
Printing, publishing and binding establishments C A A A C
Community-oriented open air markets conducted as an
outdoor operation and licensed pursuant to provisions in the
Edmonds City Code
A A A A A
Residential Uses
Single-family dwelling A A A A A
Multiple dwelling unit(s) A A A A A
Other Uses
Bus stop shelters A A A A A
Churches, subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.020 A A A A A
Primary and high schools, subject to the requirements of
ECDC 17.100.050(G) through (R)
A A A A A
Local public facilities, subject to the requirements of ECDC
17.100.050
C C C A C
Packet Page 194 of 238
3
Permitted Uses BD1 BD2 BD3 BD4 BD5
Neighborhood parks, natural open spaces, and community
parks with an adopted master plan subject to the
requirements of ECDC 17.100.070
A A A A A
Off-street parking and loading areas to serve a permitted use B B B B B
Commuter parking lots in conjunction with a facility
otherwise permitted in this zone
B B B B X
Commercial parking lots C C C C X
Wholesale uses X X C X X
Hotels and motels A A A A A
Amusement establishments C C C C C
Auction businesses, excluding vehicle or livestock auctions C C C C C
Drive-in or drive-through businesses CX C A C X
Laboratories X C C C X
Fabrication of light industrial products not otherwise listed as
a permitted use
X X C X X
Day-care centers C C C A C
Hospitals, health clinics, convalescent homes, rest homes,
sanitariums
X C C A X
Museums and art galleries of primarily local concern that do
not meet the criteria for regional public facilities as defined
in ECDC 21.85.033
A A A A A
Zoos and aquariums of primarily local concern that do not
meet the criteria for regional public facilities as defined in
ECDC 21.85.033
C C C C A
Counseling centers and residential treatment facilities for
current alcoholics and drug abusers
X C C A X
Regional parks and community parks without a master plan
subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.070
C C C C C
Outdoor storage, incidental to a permitted use D D D D D
Aircraft landings as regulated by Chapter 4.80 ECC D D D D D
Notes:
A = Permitted primary use
B = Permitted secondary use
C = Primary uses requiring a conditional use permit
D = Secondary uses requiring a conditional use permit
X = Not permitted
1 = Office uses in the BD1 zone may not be located within a designated street front
Packet Page 195 of 238
4
For conditional uses listed in Table 16.43-1, the use may be permitted if the proposal meets
the criteria for conditional uses found in Chapter 20.05 ECDC, and all of the following criteria
are met:
1. Access and Parking. Pedestrian access shall be provided from the sidewalk. Vehicular
access shall only be provided consistent with ECDC 18.80.060. When a curb cut is necessary, it
shall be landscaped to be compatible with the pedestrian streetscape and shall be located and
designed to be as unobtrusive as possible.
2. Design and Landscaping. The project shall be designed so that it is oriented to the street
and contributes to the pedestrian streetscape environment. Fences more than four feet in height
along street lot lines shall only be permitted if they are at least 50 percent open, such as a lattice
pattern. Blank walls shall be discouraged, and when unavoidable due to the nature of the use
shall be decorated by a combination of at least two of the following:
a. Architectural features or details;
b. Artwork;
c. Landscaping. [Ord. 3700 § 1, 2008].
Packet Page 196 of 238
5
16.43.030
Site development standards.
A. Development within the BD zones shall meet the following site development standards,
unless a development is approved pursuant to ECDC 20.08 which meets the requirements of
ECDC 16.43.050.
Table 16.43-2.
Sub
District
Minimum Lot
Area
Minimum
Lot Width
Minimum
Street
Setback
Minimum
Side
Setback1
Minimum
Rear
Setback1
Maximum
Height2
Minimum
Height of
Ground Floor
within the
Designated
Street Front4
BD15 0 0 0 0 0 25' 15'
BD25 0 0 0 0 0 25' 12'
BD35 0 0 0 0 0 25' 12'
BD43,5 0 0 0 0 0 25' 12'
BD55 0 0 0 0 0 25' 12'
1 The setback for buildings and structures located at or above grade (exempting buildings and structures entirely below the
surface of the ground) shall be 15 feet from the lot line adjacent to residentially (R) zoned property.
2 Specific provisions regarding building heights are contained in ECDC 16.43.030(C).
3 Within the BD4 zone, site development standards listed in Table 16.43-2 apply when a building contains a ground floor
consisting of commercial space to a depth of at least 60 feet measured from the street front of the building. If a proposed
building does not meet this ground floor commercial space requirement (e.g., an entirely residential building is proposed), then
the building setbacks listed for the RM-1.5 zone shall apply. See ECDC 16.43.030(B)(8) for further details.
4 “Minimum height of ground floor within the designated street-front” means the vertical distance from top to top of the
successive finished floor surfaces for that portion of the ground floor located within the designated street front (see ECDC
16.43.030(B)); and, if the ground floor is the only floor above street grade, from the top of the floor finish to the top of the
ceiling joists or, where there is not a ceiling, to the top of the roof rafters. “Floor finish” is the exposed floor surface, including
coverings applied over a finished floor, and includes, but is not limited to, wood, vinyl flooring, wall-to-wall carpet, and
concrete, as illustrated in Figure 16.43-1. Figure 16.43-1 shows a ground floor height of 15 feet; note that the “finished” ceiling
height is only approximately 11 feet in this example.
5 Site development standards for single-family dwellings are the same as those specified for the RS-6 zone.
Packet Page 197 of 238
16.43.030
Map 16.43-1: Designated Street Front for Properties in the BD1BD Zones
Packet Page 198 of 238
Edmonds Community Development Code 16.43.030
Figure 16.43-1: Ground Floor Height Measurement
B. Ground Floor. This section describes requirements for development of the ground floor of
buildings in the BD zones.
Packet Page 199 of 238
8
1. For all BD zones, the ground floor is considered to be that floor of a building which is
closest in elevation to the finished grade along the width of the side of the structure that is
principally oriented to the designated street front of the building (this is normally the adjacent
sidewalk). For the purposes of this section, the ground “floor” is considered to be the sum of the
floor planes which, in combination, run the full extent of the building and are closest in elevation
to one another. For the purposes of this chapter, the definition of “ground floor” contained in
ECDC 21.35.017 does not apply.
2. Designated Street Front. Map 16.43-1 shows the streets that define the designated street
front for all properties lying within the BD1 zones, which is The designated street front is
defined as the 30 45 feet measured perpendicular to the indicated street front of the building lot
fronting on each of the mapped streets. For all other BD zones, the designated street front is
established as the first 60 feet of the lot measured perpendicular to any street right-of-way,
excluding alleys.
3. Minimum Height of the Ground Floor within the Designated Street Front. The minimum
height of the ground floor specified in Table 16.43-2 only applies to the height of the ground
floor located within the designated street front established in subsection (B)(2) of this section.
4. Access to Commercial Uses within the Designated Street Front. When a commercial use
is located on the ground floor within a designated street front as defined in subsection (B)(2) of
this section, the elevation of the ground floor and associated entry shall be within seven inches of
the grade level of the adjoining sidewalk. “Grade” shall be as measured at the entry location.
Portions of the ground floor outside the designated street front of the building need not comply
with the access requirements specified in this section.
5. When the designated street front of a building is on a slope which does not allow both
the elevation of the entry and ground floor within the designated street front to be entirely within
seven inches of the grade level of the sidewalk, as specified in subsection (B)(4) of this section,
the portion of the ground floor of the building located within the designated street front may be
designed so that either:
a. The entry is located within seven inches of the grade of the adjacent sidewalk, and the
commercial portion of the ground floor located within the designated street front is within seven
inches of the grade level of the entry; or
b. The building may be broken up into multiple frontages, so that each entry/ground
floor combination is within seven inches of the grade of the sidewalk.
c. For corner lots, a primary entry shall be established for the purposes of determining
where the ground floor entry rules detailed in this section shall apply. The first choice for the
primary entry shall be either 5th Avenue or Main Street. In the case of the BD5 zone, the primary
entry shall always be on 4th Avenue.
Packet Page 200 of 238
16.43.030
6. Within the BD1 zone, development on the ground floor shall consist of only commercial
uses, except that parking may be located on the ground floor so long as it is not located within
the designated street front.
7. Within the BD2 and BD3 zones, development on the ground floor shall consist of only
commercial uses within the designated street front. Any permitted use may be located on the
ground floor outside of the designated street front.
8. Within the BD4 zone, there are two options for developing the ground floor of a
building. One option is to develop the ground floor with commercial space, meeting the same
requirements detailed for the BD2 and BD3 zones in subsection (B)(7) of this section. As a
second option, if more residential space is provided so that the ground floor does not meet the
commercial use requirements described in subsection (B)(7) of this section, then the building
setbacks listed for the RM-1.5 zone shall apply. In the case where RM-1.5 setbacks are required,
the required street setback shall be landscaped and no fence or wall in the setback shall be over
four feet in height above sidewalk grade unless it is at least 50 percent open, such as in a lattice
pattern.
9. Within the BD5 zone, one option is to develop the ground floor with commercial space,
meeting the same requirements detailed for the BD2 zone in subsection (B)(7) of this section.
When development of the ground floor does not conform to these requirements, then
development within the BD5 zone shall meet the following requirements:
a. The building shall be oriented to 4th Avenue. “Orientation to 4th Avenue” shall mean
that:
i. At least one building entry shall face 4th Avenue.
ii. If the building is located adjacent to the public right-of-way, architectural details
and/or applied art shall be incorporated into the building design to add interest at the pedestrian
(i.e., ground floor) level.
iii. If the building is set back from the street, landscaping and/or artwork shall be
located between the building and the street front.
b. Live/work uses are encouraged within the BD5 zone, and potential live/work space is
required for new residential buildings if no other commercial use is provided on-site.
i. If multiple residential uses are located on the ground floor, the building shall
incorporate live/work space into the ground floor design in such a way as to enable building
occupants to use portion(s) of their space for a commercial or art/fabrication use. “Live/work
space” means a structure or portion of a structure that combines a commercial or manufacturing
activity that is allowed in the zone with a residential living space for the owner of the
commercial or manufacturing business, or the owner’s employee, and that person’s household.
The live/work space shall be designed so that a commercial or fabrication or home occupation
use can be established within the space.
Packet Page 201 of 238
10
Figure 16.43-2: BD5 Development
Building at right (foreground) shows landscaping located between building and street.
Building at left (background) shows commercial space integrated with residential uses, and the entry oriented to the
street.
10. Exceptions and Clarifications. The regulations for the ground floor contained in
subsections (B)(1) through (9) of this section apply with the following exceptions or clarifi-
cations:
a. That in all areas the provision of pedestrian access to permitted residential uses is
allowed as a permitted secondary use.
b. The restrictions on the location of residential uses shall not apply when a single-
family use is the only permitted primary use located on the property.
c. Existing buildings may be added onto or remodeled without adjusting the existing
height of the ground floor to meet the specified minimum height, so long as the addition or
remodel does not increase the building footprint or its frontage along a street by more than 25
percent. Permitted uses may occupy an existing space regardless of whether that space meets the
ground floor requirements for height.
d. Parking is not considered to be a commercial use for the purposes of satisfying the
ground floor commercial use requirement within the designated street front (e.g., when the first
30 45 feet of a building are within a designated street front in the BD1 zone, parking may not be
located within that 30 45 feet).
e. For properties within the BD2 or BD3 zone which have less than 90 feet of depth
measured from the street front, parking may be located in the rearmost 30 45 feet of the property,
even if a portion of the parking extends into the first 60 45 feet of the building. In no case shall
the depth of commercial space as measured from the street front of the building be less than 30
feet.
Packet Page 202 of 238
11
f. Within the BD2, BD3 and BD4 zones, if the first 60 45 feet of the building as
measured perpendicular to the street consist only of commercial uses and permitted secondary
uses, then permitted multiple-family residential unit(s) may be located behind the commercial
uses.
g. Recodified as ECDC 22.43.050(B)(4).
h. Within the BD1 zone, each commercial space located on the ground floor within the
designated street front shall be directly accessible by an entry from the sidewalk.
C. Building Height Regulations.
1. The basic height limit is 25 feet (see definition of “height” detailed in ECDC 21.40.030).
2. Step-Back Rules. The following rules apply when calculating the maximum building
height for any building in the specified zone(s) (see Figures 16.43-3 and 16.43-4 for illustrated
examples).
a. Within the BD2, BD3, or BD4 zones, an additional five feet of building height, not to
exceed 30 feet, may be obtained if the building is designed to meet all of the following
conditions:
i. A building step-back is provided within 15 5 feet of any street front. Within the
155-foot step-back, the maximum building height is the lesser of 25 feet above grade at the
property line (normally the back of the sidewalk) or 30 feet above the “average level” as defined
in ECDC 21.40.030. For corner lots, a 155-foot step-back is required along both street fronts. If a
building located on a corner lot has insufficient lot width (i.e., less than 40 feet of lot width) to
enable it to provide the required step-back on both street fronts, then the step-back may be
waived facing the secondary street. This waiver may not be granted for building step-backs
required from Fifth Avenue, Dayton Street, or Main Street.
ii. A 155-foot step-back is provided from the property line opposite the street front.
Within the 15-foot step-back, the maximum building height is the lesser of 25 feet above grade
or 30 feet above the “average level” as defined in ECDC 21.40.030. For corner lots for which a
155-foot step-back is required on more than one street front, there is no 155-foot step-back
required from the property line opposite each street front. For the purpose of determining step-
back requirements, alleys are not considered to be streets.
iii. A building setback, in which the entire building is set back from the property line,
may be substituted on a foot-for-foot basis for the required building step-back. For example, a
fivetwo-foot building setback can be combined with a 103-foot building step-back to meet the
155-foot step-back requirement.
b. Within the BD1 zone, building height may be a maximum of 30 feet in order to
provide for a minimum height of 15 feet for the ground floor. The allowable building height is
measured from the “average level” as defined in ECDC 21.40.030.
Packet Page 203 of 238
12
Note: the diagrams on this page must
be changed to match any changes to
required the step-back (e.g. 0 or 5 ft)
Packet Page 204 of 238
13
3. Within the BD5 zone, the maximum height may be increased to 30 feet if the building
meets one of the following conditions. In addition, if the building is located within 15 feet of the
public right-of-way, architectural details and/or applied art shall be incorporated into the building
design, and the ground floor shall be distinguished from the upper portions of the building
through the use of differences in materials, windows, and/or architectural forms.
a. All portions of the building above 25 feet consist of a pitched roof such that the pitch
of all portions of the roof is at least six-by-12 and the roof includes architectural features, such as
dormers or gables of a steeper pitch, that break up the roof line into distinct segments.
b. If the building does not make use of a pitched roof system as described in subsection
(C)(3)(a) of this section, step-backs shall be required the same as for the BD2 zone, as described
in subsection (C)(2) of this section.
4. Height Exceptions. In addition to the height exceptions listed in ECDC 21.40.030, the
following architectural features are allowed to extend above the height limits specified in this
chapter:
a. A single decorative architectural element, such as a turret, tower, or clock tower, may
extend a maximum of five feet above the specified height limit if it is designed as an integral
architectural feature of the roof and/or facade of the building. The decorative architectural
element shall not cover more than five percent of the roof area of the building.
b. Roof or deck railings may extend a maximum of 42 inches above the specified height
limit within any building step-back required under subsection (C)(2) of this section; provided,
that the railing is constructed so that it has the appearance of being transparent. An example
meeting this condition would be a railing that is comprised of glass panels.
D. Off-Street Parking and Access Requirements. The parking regulations included here apply
specifically within the BD zone. Whenever there are conflicts between the requirements of this
chapter and the provisions contained in Chapter 17.50 ECDC, Off-Street Parking Regulations,
the provisions of this chapter shall apply.
1. Within the BD1 zone, no new curb cuts are permitted along 5th Avenue or Main Street.
2. No parking is required for any commercial floor area of permitted uses located within
the BD1, BD2, BD4, and BD5 zones.
3. No parking is required for any floor area in any building with a total building footprint of
less than 4,800 square feet.
E. Open Space Requirements.
1. For buildings on lots larger than 12,000 square feet or having an overall building width
of more than 120 feet (as measured parallel to the street lot line), at least five percent of the lot
area shall be devoted to open space. Open space shall not be required for additions to existing
buildings that do not increase the building footprint by more than 10 percent. Open space shall
be provided adjacent to the street front (street lot line). Such open space may be provided as any
combination of:
a. Outdoor dining or seating areas (including outdoor seating or waiting areas for
restaurants or food service establishments);
b. Public plaza or sidewalk that is accessible to the public;
c. Landscaping which includes a seating area that is accessible to the public.
2. Required open space shall be open to the air and not located under a building story.
Packet Page 205 of 238
14
3. In overall dimension, the width of required open space shall not be less than 75 percent
of the depth of the open space, measured relative to the street (i.e., width is measured parallel to
the street lot line, while depth is measured perpendicular to the street lot line).
F. Historic Buildings. The exceptions contained in this section apply only to buildings listed
on the Edmonds register of historic buildings.
1. If a certificate of appropriateness is issued by the Edmonds historic preservation
commission under the provisions of Chapter 20.45 ECDC for the proposed project, the staff may
modify or waive any of the requirements listed below that would otherwise apply to the
expansion, remodeling, or restoration of the building. The decision of staff shall be processed as
a Type II development project permit application (see Chapter 20.01 ECDC).
a. Building step-backs required under subsection (C)(2) of this section.
b. Open space required under subsection (E) of this section.
2. No off-street parking is required for any permitted uses located within a building listed
on the Edmonds register of historic buildings. Note that additional parking exceptions involving
building expansion, remodeling or restoration may also apply, as detailed in ECDC
17.50.070(C).
Packet Page 206 of 238
15
3. Within the BD5 zone, if a building listed on the Edmonds register of historic buildings is
retained on-site, no off-street parking is required for any additional buildings or uses located on
the same property. To obtain this benefit, an easement in a form acceptable to the city shall be
recorded with Snohomish County protecting the exterior of the historic building and ensuring
that the historic building is maintained in its historic form and appearance so long as the
additional building(s) obtaining the parking benefit exist on the property. The easement shall
continue even if the property is subsequently subdivided or any interest in the property is sold.
G. Density. There is no maximum density for permitted multiple dwelling units.
H. Screening. The required setback from R-zoned property shall be landscaped with trees and
ground cover and permanently maintained by the owner of the BD lot. A six-foot minimum
height fence, wall or solid hedge shall be provided at some point in the setback, except for that
portion of the BD zone that is in residential use.
I. Signs, Parking and Design Review. See Chapters 17.50, 20.10, and 20.60 ECDC. Sign
standards shall be the same as those that apply within the BC zone.
J. Satellite Television Antennas. In accordance with the limitations established by the Federal
Communications Commission, satellite television antennas greater than two meters in diameter
shall be reviewed in accordance with the provisions of ECDC 16.20.050. [Ord. 3736 § 10, 2009;
Ord. 3700 § 1, 2008].
16.43.035
Design standards – BD1 zone.
Design standards for the BD1 zone are contained in Chapter 22.43 ECDC. [Ord. 3700 § 1,
2008].
16.43.040
Operating restrictions.
A. Enclosed Building. All uses shall be carried on entirely within a completely enclosed
building, except:
1. Public uses such as utilities and parks;
2. Off-street parking and loading areas, and commercial parking lots;
3. Drive-in businesses;
4. Plant nurseries;
5. Seasonal farmers’ markets;
6. Limited outdoor display of merchandise meeting the criteria of Chapter 17.65 ECDC;
7. Bistro and outdoor dining meeting the criteria of ECDC 17.70.040;
8. Outdoor dining meeting the criteria of Chapter 17.75 ECDC.
B. Nuisances. All uses shall comply with Chapter 17.60 ECDC, Performance Standards. [Ord.
3700 § 1, 2008].
Packet Page 207 of 238
16
16.43.050
Development agreements.
A. A development in a BD zone may be approved using the process and criteria described for
development agreements in ECDC 20.08.
B. What can be approved. A development agreement for a development in a BD zone may
vary any of the site development standards contained in ECDC 16.43.030 or 16.43.040.
{The following Alternative to “B” is also being considered}
B. What can be approved. A development agreement for a development in a BD zone
may vary any of the site development standards contained in ECDC 16.43.030 or
16.43.040 subject to the following limitation:
1. Building height limits may be increased to a maximum height of 35 feet or three
stories, whichever is greater.
C. Criteria for approval. In addition to the criteria described in ECDC 20.08, a development
approved pursuant to a development agreement must be designed to attain at least a LEED Silver
or equivalent level of green building certification. The development must also satisfy at least two
of the following criteria:
1. The development is designed to attain at least a LEED Gold or equivalent level of green
building certification;
2. The development incorporates one or more of the following uses designed to further the
city’s economic development goals:
a. a hotel;
b. a post office;
c. a farmers market;
d. studio work space, housing or live-work space for artists.
3. The development includes enhanced public space and amenities. Examples include such
features as additional building setbacks which provide expanded public sidewalks or gathering
space, combined with eating or food retail spaces which include open areas adjacent to the
sidewalk. Art features visible to the public shall also be incorporated into building and/or site
design.
Packet Page 208 of 238
(((((((((((((((((
((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((
(((
(((
!!
(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((
((((((((((((((((((((((((((
!
!!!!
!
!!!!
!
!!!!
(((((((((((((
((((((((((((
((((
((((
!
!!!!
!
!!!!
!
!!!!
(((
(((((
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
((((
((((((((((((((((((((((((
((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((
(((((
((((((((((((((
(((((((((((((
((((((((
((((((((
(((((((((((((((((((((
((((
(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((
(((
((((((((((((((
((
((((((((((
(((((((((((
((((
((((((
(((((
(((((((
(((((((((((((
(((((((((((((((
((((((((((
((
((
(((
((((((((((
((
!
!
((((
((((((((((((
(((((((
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
((((
((((
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
((((
(((((((((((
!
!
!
!!
((((((((
((((
!
((
!
!
((((((((((((((((
((((((((
((((((((((((((((
(((((((((((((((((((((
(((((
(((((
(((((
(((((
((((((((((((((((((((
((((((((((((((((((((((((
((((((((((((((((((((((((((((
((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((
((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((
(((
(((
(((
(((
(((
(((
(((
(((
(((
(((
(((
(((
(((
(((
(((
(((
(((
(((
(((
(((
(((
(((
(((
(((
(((
(((
(((((
(((
(((((
(((
(((((
(((
(((((
(((
(((((
(((
(((((
(((
(((((
(((
(((((
(((
(((((
(((
(((((
(((
(((((
(((
((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((
((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((
(((
(((
((((
(((
((((
(((
((((
(((
((((
(((
((((
(((
((((
(((
((((
(((
((((
(((
((((
(((
((((
(((
((((
(((
((((
(((
((((
(((
((((
(((
((((
(((
((((
(((
((((
(((
((((
(((
((((
(((
((((
(((
((((
(((
((((
(((
((((
(((
((((
(((
((((
(((
((((
(((
((((
(((
((((
(((
((((
(((
((((
(((
((((
(((
(
((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((
(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!
!
Br
a
c
k
e
t
t
'
s
La
n
d
i
n
g
No
r
t
h
Ol
y
m
p
i
c
B
e
a
c
h
Br
a
c
k
e
t
t
'
s
La
n
d
i
n
g
So
u
t
h
Civic
Pl
a
y
f
i
e
l
d
s
Ci
t
y
P
a
r
k
Ed
m
o
n
d
s
Ma
r
s
h
[e
[e
[e
[e[e
[e
[e
[e
[e
[e RS
-
6
P
PP
P
OS
M P1
MP
2
CG
W
CW
BC
RS
-
6
RS
-
6
RM
-
2
.
4
BD
3
BD
1
RM-1.5
BD
5
BD
4
RM
-
1
.
5
RS-6 RS-6
RM
-
1
.
5
RM
-
3
BD
2
BD
2
BD2
BD
2
OR
R-
1
9
7
9
-
4
R-
1
9
9
5
-
1
7
7
R -19
9
8
-20
7
R-
2
0
0
2
-
1
0
1
PRD 2002-102 M A I N S T D A Y T O N S TDALEYST M A P L E S T W A L N U T S TALDERST7THAVES
2
N
D
A
V
E
N
M A G N O L I A L NCEDARST
4
T
H
A
V
E
N
A
D
M
I
R
A
L
W
A
Y
J A M E S S T
R
A
I
L
R
O
A
D
A
V
E
5
T
H
A
V
E
N
H E M L O C K
W A Y
H O W E L L
W A Y
S
U
N
S
E
T
A
V
E
S
H E M L O C K S T
P I N E S T
H O L L Y
D R
L A U R E L S T
3
R
D
A
V
E
N
B E L L S T
M A I N S T
6
T
H
A
V
E
N
D A Y T O N
S T
H O M E L A N D
D R
W D A Y T O N S T
3
R
D
A
V
E
S
4
T
H
A
V
E
S
E
D
M
O
N
D
S
W
Y
/
S
R
1
0
4
6
T
H
A
V
E
S
5
T
H
A
V
E
S
7THAVEN
W A
L N U T
S T
5
T
H
A
V
E
S
7THAVES H E M L O C K W A Y
S E A M O N T
L N
E R B E
N
D R
3
R
D
A
V
E
S
R
A
I
L
R
O
A
D
S
T
DURBINST S L AEDMONDSST
2
N
D
A
V
E
S
E D M O N D S S T
8THAVESBELLST
6
T
H
A
V
E
S
A L D E R
S T
S P R U C E S T
A
D
M
I
R
A
L
W
A
Y
8THAVES
2
N
D
A
V
E
S
3
R
D
A
V
E
S
4
T
H
A
V
E
S
S P R A G U E S T
4
T
H
A
V
E
S
8THAVEN
M
O
N
D
S
W
A
Y
/
S
R
1
0
4
4
T
H
A
V
E
S
M A I N S T D A Y T O N S TDALEYST M A P L E S T W A L N U T S TALDERST7THAVES
2
N
D
A
V
E
N
M A G N O L I A L NCEDARST
4
T
H
A
V
E
N
A
D
M
I
R
A
L
W
A
Y
J A M E S S T
R
A
I
L
R
O
A
D
A
V
E
5
T
H
A
V
E
N
H E M L O C K
W A Y
H O W E L L
W A Y
S
U
N
S
E
T
A
V
E
S
H E M L O C K S T
P I N E S T
H O L L Y
D R
L A U R E L S T
3
R
D
A
V
E
N
B E L L S T
M A I N S T
6
T
H
A
V
E
N
D A Y T O N
S T
H O M E L A N D
D R
W D A Y T O N S T
3
R
D
A
V
E
S
4
T
H
A
V
E
S
E
D
M
O
N
D
S
W
Y
/
S
R
1
0
4
6
T
H
A
V
E
S
5
T
H
A
V
E
S
7THAVEN
W A
L N U T
S T
5
T
H
A
V
E
S
7THAVES H E M L O C K W A Y
S E A M O N T
L N
E R B E
N
D R
3
R
D
A
V
E
S
R
A
I
L
R
O
A
D
S
T
DURBINST S L AEDMONDSST
2
N
D
A
V
E
S
E D M O N D S S T
8THAVESBELLST
6
T
H
A
V
E
S
A L D E R
S T
S P R U C E S T
A
D
M
I
R
A
L
W
A
Y
8THAVES
2
N
D
A
V
E
S
3
R
D
A
V
E
S
4
T
H
A
V
E
S
S P R A G U E S T
4
T
H
A
V
E
S
8THAVEN
M
O
N
D
S
W
A
Y
/
S
R
1
0
4
4
T
H
A
V
E
S
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
20
9
of
23
8
D R A F T M I N U T E S
Community Service/Development Services Committee Meeting
August 11, 2010
Elected Officials Present: Staff Present:
Council Member Strom Peterson, Chair Rob Chave, Planning Manager
Council Member Petso Brian McIntosh, Parks Director
Rob English, City Engineer
Stephen Clifton, CS/Econ Dev Director
Phil Williams, Public Works Director
The committee convened at 6:17 p.m.
A. Continued discussion regarding a proposed “Tree Board.”
Barbara Tipton, Rich Senderoff, and Ann Heckman participated in the discussion, explaining that the
benefits and purpose of establishing a tree board are outlined in the draft ordinance. A major
purpose is to move the city toward obtaining the Tree City USA designation, since having a tree
board is a necessary requirement for obtaining that status. The ordinance does not introduce any
new regulations or requirements beyond what the city is already doing, but the designation would
enable the city to seek funding to help in researching and promoting the benefits of trees in the
community. The tree board could also serve as a resource the city could draw on.
The Committee also briefly discussed existing penalties for tree cutting, and agreed to discuss this
subject further at the September meeting.
ACTION: The Committee agreed to forward the draft ordinance to the City Attorney to put in final
form for consideration for adoption by the full Council.
B. Removing leashed dog restrictions in Hutt Park and the asphalt areas of Brackett's
Landing north and south of the ferry terminal.
Brian McIntosh explained that the proposal to extend provisions to allow dogs to be on-leash in Hutt
Park came about at the April 20, 2010 public hearing in regard to a similar discussion for five other
park areas in the City. Three of those parks were recommended to become on-leash (with
restrictions) and Council decided not to extend that recommendation to Brackett’s Landing North &
South. As Hutt Park was not part of the public hearing, it was decided to take this to Council
Committee as the next step.
Council President Bernheim tonight spoke in favor of extending the on-leash areas to both Brackett’s
Landing North & South Parks adjacent to the ferry terminal. Consensus of the Committee was to
move forward with the proposal for Hutt Park but deny the request to extend on-leash provisions to
the Brackett’s Landing parks.
ACTION: As this action would result in a code change, the Committee agreed that it should
be forwarded to full Council as a public hearing at a future date.
Packet Page 210 of 238
CS/DS Committee Minutes
April 14, 2009
Page 2
2
C. Discussion on possible 'green' initiatives and zoning clarifications for downtown business
zones.
Rob Chave introduced the discussion by explaining that there are several items staff wishes to
initiate to clean up in the existing downtown BD zones, such as the required depth of commercial
uses, the zoning requirements along the 4th Avenue Arts Corridor, and clarifying where the
commercial street frontages are outside of the BD1 zone. In addition, Stephen Clifton reported that
staff has been fielding inquiries from major private interests on zoning requirements related to
downtown; these interests range from individual property owners to developers of hotels and other
projects. In all cases, concern has been expressed about working within existing code requirements.
In light of the city’s adoption of its sustainability element, staff considers it a good time to see
whether Council would be receptive to including incentives in the code that would promote features
such as green building projects (LEED Gold being an example), expanded open space and sidewalk
areas, or other amenities that would improve downtown streetscape and design. Additional height
was noted as being something developers have asked about, and that small, carefully situated
height bonuses implemented as part of a project-specific negotiated development agreement
approved by Council, could be something that staff and the Council could develop within the code.
Council Member Peterson noted that this could be something that fits well with the city’s economic
development goals, as well as showing leadership in sustainability and green development. Council
Member Petso expressed support for including green development standards within the code as a
basic requirement, but said she did not support trading environmental benefits for any increases in
height or other incentives.
The Committee discussed the approach of asking the full Council to discuss the issue, or allow the
Economic Development Commission to work with the Climate Committee and/or Planning Board to
develop some ideas that could be brought back to the Committee for further discussion.
ACTION: The Committee agreed to forward the staff recommended minor BD zone updates
(review of the 4th Avenue Arts Corridor zoning and street frontage mapping) to the Planning
Board for review. The Committee also forwarded the commercial depth requirements to the
Planning Board, asking the Board to review the existing depth for the BD1 zone along with
the other BD zones; the Committee expressed doubt that the existing 30-foot depth in the
BD1 zone is adequate to encourage sustainable commercial use.
ACTION: The Committee agreed to forward the issue of code incentives and/or requirements
for sustainable development downtown to the EDC and Climate Committee to develop
further, with ideas brought back to the Committee for further review and discussion.
D. Proposed 8th Ave South pathway south of Alder Street.
Rob English (City Engineer) presented Mr. Adams’ proposal to build a pathway between 802 and
724 Alder St. in the unimproved 8th Ave right of way. The pathway would begin at Alder St and
continue to the existing path on the south half of the 8th Ave right of way between Alder and Walnut
Streets. Mr. Adams has offered to hire and pay a contractor to construct the path. The conceptual
drawing submitted by Mr. Adams was shown to the committee.
The history on previous City Council action related to the possible vacation of 8th Ave and the
pathway between Alder and Walnut Streets was discussed. In November 2005, the City Council
decided not to pursue the vacation of 8th Ave and in February 2006, the City Council directed staff
to build only the south half of the pathway between Alder and Walnut Streets.
Packet Page 211 of 238
CS/DS Committee Minutes
April 14, 2009
Page 3
3
The Committee recognized and asked for comments from Mr. and Mrs. Martin who own 724 Alder
St. The Martins explained their observations of how the path is used by citizens and how they
believe a new pathway is not necessary. They also expressed that Mr. Adams is one of four
property owners adjacent to the unopened 8th Ave right of way between Alder and Walnut Streets
and he is the only owner in favor of constructing the proposed pathway.
ACTION: The Committee voted to not proceed with Mr. Adams’ request to construct the
proposed pathway.
Packet Page 212 of 238
M I N U T E S
Community Services/Development Services Committee Meeting
August 9, 2011
Elected Officials Present: Staff Present:
Council Member Adrienne Fraley‐Monillas, Chair Phil Williams, Public Works Director
Council Member Michael Plunkett Rob English, City Engineer
Rob Chave, Planning Managaer
Jeff Taraday, City Attorney
Stephen Clifton, Community Services and
Economic Development Director
The committee convened at 6:00 p.m.
A. Report on final construction costs for West Dayton Emergency Storm Repair Project and
acceptance of project.
Mr. English reviewed the scope and limits of the emergency repair and how agenda items A and
B are related since both projects were on the storm pipeline in Dayton Street between the BNSF
railroad and Admiral Way. The emergency repair was completed by Interwest Construction and
the final costs including staff time and testing was $75,858.
ACTION: Moved to Consent Agenda for Approval.
B. Report on Small Works Roster Solicitation for the Dayton St. CIPP Storm Pipe
Rehabilitation Project and award contract to Michels Corporation in the amount of
$64,020.00.
The scope of the project was reviewed and an explanation was provided on the cured in place
pipe (CIPP) method that will be used to repair 215 feet of existing 24-inch stormline in Dayton
Street.
ACTION: Moved to Consent Agenda for Approval.
C. Ordinance Amending the Edmonds City Code, Adding 4-Hour Parking Limitations to
Brackett’s Landing North Parking Lot.
The Parking Committee recommends a proposed ordinance to add a four hour parking restriction
for Brackett’s Landing north parking lot in Section 8.64.065 of the Edmonds City Code. The
parking lot currently has a posted four hour parking limitation and this change will allow the
Police Department to enforce the restriction.
ACTION: Moved to Consent Agenda for Approval.
Packet Page 213 of 238
CS/DS Committee Minutes
August 9, 2011
Page 2
2
D. Authorization for Mayor to sign Interlocal Agreement with Community Transit for
Commute Trip Reduction 2011-2015.
The proposed Interlocal Agreement with Community Transit would continue the Commute Trip
Reduction (CTR) Program in Edmonds. The purpose of the CTR program is to reduce the
Vehicle Miles Traveled and Single Occupant Vehicle commute trips and reduce vehicle related
air pollution, traffic congestion and energy use.
ACTION: Moved to Consent Agenda for Approval.
E. Authorization for Mayor to sign Interlocal Agreement with the City of Lynnwood to install
waterline as part of Lynnwood’s 76th Ave W Sewer Improvement Project
The City of Lynnwood is designing a new sewer main for 76th Ave W to increase the capacity of
their sewer sytem. The City of Edmonds has identified a watermain replacement project that falls
within Lynnwood’s project limits. This agreement will provide for the coordination and
combination of both projects into one to reduce costs and minimize the disruption to residents
during construction. Mr. English reviewed a minor change to Section 6, “Payment Schedule” that
reduced Lynnwood’s 8.5% administration charge to 2% during the project’s design phase.
ACTION: Moved to Consent Agenda for Approval.
F. Potential amendment to downtown BD zones.
The Committee initiated the discussion by identifying the development agreements provisions as
the most complex and potentially controversial aspect of the amendments. Staff concurred, and
agreed that the Council could elect to act on the other three items (designated street fronts and
45-foot commercial depth, uses in the BD1 zone, and step-back requirements). The Committee
reviewed each of the three items in turn, with staff summarizing the Planning Board/EDC
recommendations. The 45-foot commercial depth would help standardize the requirements
among the BD zones. In regard to BD1 uses, it was pointed out that the Planning Board and
EDC desired to do more work to review and refine the definition of service uses, but approving
the current amendments to not allow office uses in critical storefront spaces would be a desirable
first step. The concern over step-back requirements was that it was counter-productive in
obtaining desirable building designs, particularly given historical downtown commercial building
forms.
City Attorney Jeff Taraday participated in the discussion of development agreements. He pointed
out that the mechanism was authorized by state law and was already in the city’s code. Most
observers believe that the state legislature’s intent was to replace contract rezones with the
development agreement option, but this wasn’t made explicitly clear. Regardless, how
development agreements are configured within the code can determine how open-ended or
‘tight’ the provisions are, and will ultimately determine how they are used to further the city’s
expressed goals. He noted that staff believes more work needs to be done to provide guidance
and clearer standards within the provisions so that the city can be assured that “we get what we
want.” The Committee discussed forwarding the development agreement to the Council to
schedule for a full Council work session, to be accompanied by a background memorandum
from the City Attorney. This discussion did not have to be on the same night as the other BD
zone amendments; it could be scheduled separately by the Council President when the City
Packet Page 214 of 238
CS/DS Committee Minutes
August 9, 2011
Page 3
3
Attorney was ready. Councilmember Plunkett noted his opposition to any provision that would
provide a way to increase building heights.
Councilmember Plunkett stated that he wanted the record to show he continues to believe the
taller building clause in the proposed development agreement for downtown should be removed.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas agreed.
ACTION:
1. The committee agreed to forward the first 3 amendments to the Council for further action, without
a recommendation from the committee.
2. The committee agreed that the development agreement provisions should be scheduled by the
Council President for further discussion by the full council, when the City Attorney’s information
is ready.
G. Public Comments
Natalie Shippen, Edmonds, spoke in favor of retaining existing height limits and in opposition to proposed
Planning Board recommended development agreement.
Ron Wambolt, Edmonds, suggested making sure the Planning Board recommended development agreement
be very specific.
Mr. Adams of Seattle spoke in favor of Planning Board recommended development agreements.
The meeting adjourned at approximately 7:15 p.m.
Packet Page 215 of 238
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 26, 2011
Page 2
F. AUTHORIZATION TO ADVERTISE RFQ FOR ARTISTS TO CREATE
INTERPRETIVE ELEMENTS FOR THE DOWNTOWN EDMONDS CULTURAL
HERITAGE TOUR PROJECT
G. APPOINTMENT OF MARLA MILLER TO THE EDMONDS PUBLIC FACILITIES
DISTRICT BOARD.
ITEM B: APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JULY 19, 2011
Councilmember Bernheim requested the following changes to the minutes:
• Page 17, last paragraph, delete the sentence, “He suggested including bike racks and an electric
car plug.”
• Page 23, second paragraph from the bottom, change “admirably” to “adequately.”
COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT,
TO APPROVE ITEM B AS AMENDED.
Council President Peterson advised he would abstain from the vote as he was absent from the meeting.
Councilmember Wilson observed it was the Council’s normal process to refer the minutes to the Clerk for
verification. Councilmember Bernheim responded he was trying to save the Clerk time. Councilmember
Wilson recalled Councilmember Bernheim did say he wanted bike racks in the park but would not hold
up his vote to get them. Councilmember Bernheim read the comments he made at the July 19 meeting
from a transcript.
MOTION CARRIED (5-1-1), COUNCILMEMBER WILSON VOTING NO AND COUNCIL
PRESIDENT PETERSON ABSTAINING.
3. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION REGARDING
POTENTIAL AMENDMENTS TO DOWNTOWN BD ZONES. THE AMENDMENTS FOCUS ON
USES PERMITTED IN DESIGNATED STREET FRONTS IN BD ZONES, COMMERCIAL
DEPTH REQUIREMENTS, REDUCING MANDATORY STEP-BACKS, AND PROVIDING FOR
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS TO ACHIEVE SPECIFIED CITY GOALS
Planning Manager Rob Chave reviewed the Planning Board’s recommendations:
1. Designated street front and commercial depth requirements. The current commercial depth
requirement is 30 feet in the BD1 downtown retail core and 60 feet elsewhere in the downtown
zones. The Planning Board felt the existing commercial depth requirements were contrary to the
City’s goals for the retail core and felt a consistent definition of designated street front and street
depth was appropriate throughout the downtown area. The Planning Board recommended a
consistent 45-foot depth. Staff’s walkthrough of commercial spaces downtown a few years ago
found nearly all commercial spaces, in the BD1 zone in particular, were approximately 60 feet in
depth. Existing uses will be allowed to continue, the amended depth will only apply to new
development.
2. Uses in the BD1 (Retail Core) zone. There are currently no restrictions as long as the use is
commercial. In the City’s economic development goals and the downtown Comprehensive Plan,
pedestrian activity and retail activity in particular is a core goal for the downtown BD1 area. The
Planning Board recommended not allowing offices or professional offices within the 45-foot
designated street front in the BD1 zone. Uses within the first 45 feet uses must be retail or
service-related businesses. The Planning Board felt offices and professional offices do not rely on
walk-in customers and some offices in the BD1 close off their visible windows to the public via
Packet Page 216 of 238
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 26, 2011
Page 3
blinds, etc. Mr. Chave reminded the BD1 zone is a very small area, the two blocks radiating out
from the center fountain. Retail and service oriented business would be allowed to locate within
the first 45 feet; any commercial use including offices can locate behind the first 45 feet or in the
upper story.
3. Step‐‐‐‐back requirements. There is currently no step-back requirement in the BD1 zone. The
other downtown BD1 zones require a 15‐foot step‐back above 25 feet. The Planning Board felt
building design could be addressed by the existing design guidance that refers to presence of
building on the street, differentiating lower portions from upper portions. Historic buildings
downtown such as Beeson Building or Chanterelles derive their character not from a step-back
but decoration, ornamentation, etc. which the Planning Board felt provided more building design
enhancement than a step-back.
4. Development Agreements. Developers would be allowed to build according to normal
development pattern in accordance with the current zoning or could propose a development
agreement. Development agreements have a thorough public hearing process at both the Planning
Board and the City Council and the final decision is made by the City Council. Under the
Planning Board’s recommendation, development agreements would achieve certain specified
goals. A developer would need to achieve two of the following three goals:
1) Attain at least a LEED Gold or equivalent level of green building certification
2) The development incorporates one or more uses designed to further the city’s economic
development goals (such as a hotel, post office, farmers market, or space for artists)
3) The development includes enhanced public space and amenities.
Mr. Chave explained the goal of tonight’s hearing was to identify what the Council wants to include in an
updated code. The language could be amended such as strengthening or providing further clarity on some
of the development agreement criteria. A number of the code provisions were adopted in 2006, about the
time of the economic downturn. Therefore, the City has virtually no experience with the code provisions.
The Planning Board, Economic Development Commission (EDC) and staff feel a down economy is an
appropriate time to make improvements to the code where appropriate.
The EDC had a lengthy discussion regarding development agreements as they relate to the City’s
economic development goals. The EDC discussed and endorsed the Planning Board’s recommendations
at their recent meeting. The EDC expressed interest in further defining service uses, which service uses
were appropriate in a retail core.
Councilmember Bernheim asked whether there was any sense of urgency or request that the City Council
make a decision tonight following the public hearing rather than listening to points of view and making a
decision in the next weeks or months before the end of the year. Mr. Chave answered it is a legislative
matter so there is no particular deadline. The Planning Board and EDC felt these were important issues
and hoped the Council would address them as quickly as possible. Councilmember Bernheim asked
whether there was a need for the Council to make a decision tonight. Mr. Chave answered the public
testimony may indicate a need that he is not aware of; there is no specific deadline.
Councilmember Petso referred to minutes in the Council packet that indicate the CS/DS Committee
wanted to refer the environmental sustainability considerations to the Mayor’s Climate Protection
Committee and asked whether that had been done. Mr. Chave answered that is a separate issue, including
broader incentives in the codes. The environmental aspect tonight is only related to development
agreements.
Councilmember Petso asked whether there had been discussion regarding something other than LEED for
the environmental incentive. Mr. Chave answered the Planning Board’s discussion primarily focused on
LEED although they did discuss other standards. The problem is there are few other good environmental
Packet Page 217 of 238
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 26, 2011
Page 4
standards; LEED is the best established standard at this time. The words “or equivalent” were included
because other standards or ways of measuring environmental benefits may develop over time such as the
Master Builders green building initiatives. If a developer could show their proposal had equivalent
environmental benefits, it would be acceptable. He summarized it was not expected that a developer
would complete the LEED certification process.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked what type of businesses would be prohibited in the BD1 zone. Mr.
Chave answered general office such as a corporate or business office or a professional office such as a
doctor’s office would not be allowed in the designated street front. Both could occur behind the
designated street front, in the story above or in one of the surrounding commercial zones. Conversely any
retail or service use would be allowed.
Councilmember Buckshnis thanked staff, the EDC and the Planning Board for their work. As Council
liaison to the EDC, she is aware of the discussions that occurred at their meeting and the Planning Board
minutes demonstrate a very thoughtful process. She referred to page 9 of the Planning Board June 8
minutes, where Board Member Cloutier moved that the motion be amended to delete the words “or three
stories, whichever is greater” from Item B.1. The motion was seconded by Board Member Johnson. The
minutes do not reflect a vote on the amendment. Mr. Chave recalled it was approved.
Councilmember Plunkett observed the proposed development agreement would increase height to 35 feet.
In Mr. Spee’s case, per the Planning Board minutes, he is planning that some portion of his lot will have a
4-story building. Councilmember Plunkett asked whether removing 35 feet from the development
agreement and retaining the height in the existing code would eviscerate the value of the development
agreement. He asked whether development agreements were predicated on an increase in height up to 35
feet and in some cases, depending on the lot, up to 4 stories. Mr. Chave answered the language in the
development agreement states the development standards in general can be varied. The language
regarding 35 feet is a limitation. Even if a developer wants to vary other regulations in the code, the
height cannot exceed 35 feet. If the Council did not want to allow height above the existing feet, the
language would need to be changed to not more than 30 feet. Whether it eviscerated the value of a
development agreement was in the eyes of the beholder.
Councilmember Plunkett asked whether there was value in a development agreement if the Council did
not approve allowing an increase in height. Mr. Chave answered there could still be some value because
other regulations could be altered via a development agreement. Some of the discussion by the EDC and
Planning Board was regarding uses that they wanted to occur downtown such as a boutique hotel.
Companies who develop that use considered the City’s zoning and indicated it would not be feasible
under the existing 30-foot height limit and would require a few additional feet in height. The discussion
by the Planning Board and EDC specifically referenced that input. Depending on the situation,
particularly where a higher building would not impact the existing street scape and the use would
potentially be a huge economic benefit particularly for tourism, the Planning Board and EDC felt strongly
the opportunity for increased height was appropriate. Councilmember Plunkett pointed out the Council
had been told previously that a certain building could not be built but it was later constructed when
required to build to code.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether a development agreement could be used with a variance. Mr.
Chave answered the City’s variance criteria are very tight and absent something unique to the site, the
variance criteria could not be satisfied. For example, he could not imagine a circumstance where
additional height would be granted via a variance for a boutique hotel. Councilmember Buckshnis pointed
out the land slopes. Mr. Chave explained there are slopes throughout the downtown and it would be
difficult to argue that because a particular property slopes, granting additional height would be so unique
Packet Page 218 of 238
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 26, 2011
Page 5
that another site should not also receive a variance for slope. He summarized granting a variance on one
site opened up to variances all over the City.
Councilmember Petso referred to the identifying street fronts (page 111 of the packet) where there is one
parcel on 2nd Avenue extending north from Main Street that has the blue line designating the street front
on only a portion of the parcel. Mr. Chave explained when the lines were drawn, consideration was given
to commercial streets and the designated street front were identified in areas where there are commercial
uses on both sides or there is a long history of commercial use in the vicinity. The EDC and ultimately
Planning Board may reconsider the area south of 5th beyond Howell Way. In the core area the intent was
to avoid extending the designated street front along areas where there are significant residential uses or
wrapping around corners where there is commercial only on one side.
Councilmember Petso asked when this particular property at the corner of 2nd and Main develops, will it
be required to have a designated street front all the way along 2nd, part of the way along 2nd or none of the
way on 2nd. Mr. Chave advised in areas where there is not a designated street front, the requirement for a
45 foot depth does not apply and any of the uses allowed by the zone would be permitted.
Councilmember Petso observed this was supposed to be legislative but the discussion appears to relate
strongly to a particular project that has yet to be submitted. City Attorney Jeff Taraday explained this
discussion is in regard to all the BD zones and the map on page 111 encompasses several blocks. To the
extent any particular lot was discussed in the context of a hypothetical development, he supposed that
could assist the Council in understanding the effect of the proposed changes as long as it was understood
any discussion regarding a site specific application of the proposal was purely hypothetical. There is no
quasi judicial land use application before the Council tonight.
On a property where hypothetically the blue line stopped in the middle of a parcel, Councilmember Petso
asked whether the parcel has a designated street front or only has a designated street front as far as the
blue line extends. Mr. Chave answered the designated street front only extends as far as the blue line. If it
splits a parcel, only the portion of the parcel where the blue line is has a designated street front. The
designated street fronts are tied to street sections rather than property lines.
Councilmember Plunkett advised he heard a conversation that led him to believe this development
agreement was pretty much centered around one potential developer. He was at a Historic Preservation
Commission meeting when a representative for the developer of the post office made comments,
believing he was speaking to the Planning Board. The representative stated all he needed to do was get
the Council to change the code and they could construct a nice building with a number of nice attributes.
Councilmember Plunkett asked if this matter was still legislative when he heard something like that
because he assumed this particular developer would ultimately submit an application. Mr. Taraday
answered this is a legislative matter and while there may be developers/property owners in the community
who lobby the City Council to adopt/not adopt the proposed amendments, they are free to do so in the
context of approaching their elected officials about a legislative matter. Access to Councilmembers will
change as soon as a development application is submitted; to his knowledge there is no application on file
yet, therefore, the Council is truly in the legislative realm. Councilmember Plunkett clarified a developer
could lobby a Councilmember as much as they wanted even if they would profit from the change. Mr.
Taraday answered absolutely.
Student Representative Gibson asked whether it would be fairer to everyone else if the blue line extended
through the entire property rather than stopping halfway through the property. Mr. Chave answered the
concept behind the designated street front is to identify portions of downtown where there is the strongest
commercial activity. There are certain main pedestrian arterials, along Main, down 5th, and somewhat on
Dayton, that tend to be the main corridors. However, outside those main corridors, the question arises if
Packet Page 219 of 238
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 26, 2011
Page 6
commercial is required, how far off the corridor commercial will it be viable. Especially in areas where
one side of the street is residential, requiring commercial on the opposite side lessens its viability. When
people walk down a commercial street, they like to see activity on both sides. He summarized
determining how far the requirement for commercial activity should extend is a judgment call, the reason
this is a legislative matter.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked who designated the street fronts. Mr. Chave answered the concept
was first raised when the BD zones were adopted in 2006 and established only for the BD1 zone. The
Planning Board ultimately recommended expanding that concept to the other BD zones.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas pointed out the designated street front on 4th Avenue extends to Daley
Street although it is residential past Bell Street, yet on 2nd Avenue it is cut off a block short of James and
mid-block south of Bell. Mr. Chave answered beyond Dayton there is a consistent block on the south side
of 4th versus 3rd where there is only one large building on the east side and only a small corner on the west
side. He reiterated it is a judgment call; the Council could revise the locations of the designated street
fronts.
Councilmember Wilson inquired about the definition of service uses. Mr. Chave acknowledged there was
no definition for service uses. The EDC and Planning Board felt it worthwhile to forward the proposed
amendments to the Council but want to review and further define services uses to determine whether
some are more retail oriented.
Councilmember Bernheim asked whether it was true that the height in the BD1 zone is 25 feet with a
minimum 12-foot first floor ceiling height but the building height can be 30 feet if the developer includes
a 15-foot first floor ceiling height. Mr. Chave answered there must be a 15-foot first floor ceiling height
and the maximum height is 30 feet. Councilmember Bernheim clarified in the BD1 zone a 15-foot first
floor ceiling was required. Mr. Chave agreed.
Mayor Cooper opened the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Karen Wiggins, Edmonds, owner of a commercial building and former contractor, commented all the
BD1 zone changes are beneficial. She expressed concern with the development agreement, opining that
development agreements were legislated to avoid cities being accused of spot zoning. In this case the
development agreement is for a specific building and lists the things that a property owner wants to do
with the building. The development agreement also allows a building to extend above the height limit.
She recalled the City’s Comprehensive Plan refers to 3-story buildings, not 4 stories. She concluded a
development agreement was a fancy way to get around spot zoning.
Doug Spee, Edmonds, a property owner in the downtown BD2 zone, acknowledged his interest may be
more personal than other speakers. He expressed support for the proposed amendment with regard to the
designated street front; extending the designated street front down Main Street to ensure a consistent look
down Main and up the side streets that cross Main but still allow flexibility on the outer portions of the
zoning that in some cases face a mixed residential zone. In his experience, renting commercial space on
the edges of the commercial zone is virtually impossible; he has had a vacancy for four years. With regard
to step-backs, he commented removing the step-back provision is long overdue. Although passage of that
change five years ago was intended to reduce the perceived size of a new building as viewed from the
street or sidewalk, it eliminates any possible duplication of layout for residential levels of a small mixed
use building and it is architecturally unattractive unless above a fourth floor or higher. The code has
adequate provisions without the step-back requirement to ensure esthetically pleasing and appropriate
development downtown.
Packet Page 220 of 238
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 26, 2011
Page 7
With regard to development agreements, Mr. Spee pointed out a huge component of design downtown
relates to the location of the site within the specific BD zone. Although the planner may have ideas, they
must simply quote the code, play no part in the design even though a site may be perfectly situated for
public open space, have overhead power lines could be undergrounded, or be perfectly situated for a
certain use that deserved some concession to make it possible. The City’s unbending code language hurts
the ability of a designer to take advantage of a site’s unique characteristics and prevents a flow of
discussion between the developer and the planner which could result in a win-win project. Any
development agreement requires public hearings and Council approval, thus eliminating the concern it
would get out of control. He encouraged the City Council to approve the Planning Board’s
recommendations as proposed.
Don Hall, Edmonds, retail store owner and member of the EDC, urged the Council to pass the four
proposed changes to the BD zone code, envisioning they will lead to better development, economic
growth and go a long way toward bringing new business to Edmonds. Development agreements are the
key to economic vitalization downtown. A hotel and apartments will add to the number of people that
need the goods and services offered by downtown merchants. The use of development agreements would
achieve the goal of silver and gold LEED building and require public amenities such as public restrooms,
gathering spaces, and public art. He urged the Council to view the code change as a way to kick start the
desperately needed economic revitalization downtown.
John Reed, Edmonds, Planning Board Member, advised he was out of town when the Planning Board
held the public hearing on the proposed modifications to the BD zones, ECDC 16.43. He expressed
support for economic development and as a member of the Planning Board, supported recent changes to
zoning at Firdale Village which among other things included significant height increases. He also
supported the creation of the Edmonds Way Corridor zones and applauded the work of the EDC over the
last 18 months. Regarding the proposed changes, he supported eliminating the step-back requirement but
encouraged their use as an attractive design feature. He supported the changes to the primary and
secondary uses in the BD zones and had recommended the BD1 zone be changed to full retail/restaurant
and other commercial uses excluded although the Planning Board did not make that change. He supported
changing the commercial depth on designated street fronts to a consistent 45 feet rather than the existing
30 and 60-foot depths. He expressed concern with 16.43.050, development agreements and its interaction
with the development agreement section of ECDC 20.08. Section 16.43.050 allows all BD zone
provisions except design provisions to be eligible for modification by a developer meeting only two
criteria, some of which are loosely defined such as no square footage or percentage requirements and
therefore could be minimal.
Mr. Reed relayed ECDC 20.08 has two provisions that may be cause for concern; final plans and
drawings are not required, conceptual drawings and general design criteria must be specified. These often
change during design development as a project evolves. He questioned whether those changes would be
transparent and public knowledge and whether follow-up hearings at the Planning Board and Council
would be required. ECDC 20.08 also refers to consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and existing
code. He questioned whether the freedom to modify nearly all the major provisions of the BD zone code
was consistent with this requirement. The 35-foot maximum height included a maximum of 3-story
statement when considered by the Planning Board. That statement has been removed and he echoed the
question whether that change was actually approved by the Planning Board. Some sloped lots would
qualify for 4 stories which can be built if 35 feet is allowed without a story limitation. He believed 4
stories was 1 too many downtown and asked that the Council revise the statement to either limit
development to 30 feet or 3 stories. He relayed his concern that the open ended nature of 16.43.050 may
lead to litigation if/when an agreement meeting the basic but loosely defined criteria is denied by the
Planning Board and City Council.
Packet Page 221 of 238
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 26, 2011
Page 8
Ron Wambolt, Edmonds, urged the Council to support the Planning Board’s recommendations,
envisioning that the ability to use development agreements would stimulate economic development
downtown. He pointed out there had been no new development downtown since the BD zoning was
implemented in early 2006. Although the economy may be partially to blame, another cause is the rigid
BD development standards. The only flexibility currently allowed in the BD zones is via a variance which
requires a developer meet six criteria. Although the variance concept is well intended, meeting all six
criteria generally prevents the granting of a variance. The development agreement provision will open
new opportunity for controlled flexibility; developers will have more flexibility but the flexibility is
controlled by the City Council. A development agreement allows for a win-win situation; the developer
must give something to get something in return. With regard to the 35-foot maximum height, retaining the
existing 30-foot height limit as Councilmember Plunkett suggested would eviscerate the value of a
development agreement because although a building can be developed in 30 feet, it would prevent a third
floor of apartments and the generation of sales tax and ongoing property taxes from those 17 apartments.
As Mr. Spee has previously indicated, the additional floor of apartments would allow him to lower rents
by $200/month. The tenants in his existing apartments in the Spee Building will attest he has not raised
rents in ten years. He urged the Council to approve the amendments without delay so that much needed
economic development can occur. Economic development is a real need, without economic development
and as long as inflation exceeds 1%, annual levy lid lifts will be necessary.
Joan Bloom, Edmonds, referred to the Planning Board minutes in which Mr. Chave stated a
development agreement is similar to the contract rezone concept that the City no longer uses. She asked
why contract rezones are no longer being used by the City, how development agreement are superior to a
contract rezone, and whether the flexibility provided by a development agreement would open the City to
lawsuits if one developer is granted something for a specific site and another developer does not get what
they want.
Ruth Arista, Edmonds, advised the extension of the designated street front on 4th Avenue to Daley was
related to that being part of the Arts Corridor to the Edmonds Center for the Arts. As a business owner in
three locations in downtown Edmonds, on the corner of 5th & Main, next to that corner on 5th Avenue, and
currently further south on 5th Avenue, she supported the proposed designated street front map. She
described a shopper at the corner of 5th & Dayton on Saturday where there are two banks and an empty
store front turning around and heading back to the intersection of 5th & Main. The designated street front
proposal is very important to businesses located further down the street. Store fronts with good eye candy
keep people walking and going into one store after another. Some offices do a great job decorating their
windows, and although the banks provide a terrific service, people are not drawn to a bank. The blue line
identifying designated street front stops in the middle of the parcel because a retail business located on the
corner of 2nd & Bell was unlikely to get much foot traffic. She expressed her support for the proposed
changes.
Rebecca Wolfe, Edmonds, member of the EDC and the tourism subcommittee, explained whenever the
subcommittee thinks of something wonderful for Edmonds, the need for more hotels arises. The proposed
project for a boutique hotel on 2nd & Main is very exciting. She recalled from their presentation that the
elevation between Main and Bell makes development tricky without an increase in the height. She agreed
with all the previous speakers who supported the proposed changes.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, referred to the criteria for a development agreement related to a green
building, recalling a grocery store that installed an ugly water tank in an effort to be green. He hoped that
would not be allowed in the future to meet the criteria for a green building. He questioned how long a
uses that allowed a developer to use a development agreement would be required to remain and how that
use could be guaranteed long term. Public restrooms are an expensive amenity and likely not practical for
a developer to provide. His goal was protecting Edmonds’ small town atmosphere and protecting existing
Packet Page 222 of 238
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 26, 2011
Page 9
views downtown. He questioned how a green building protected views. With regard to increasing the
maximum height, he recommended further consideration such as whether the requirements are
appropriate. Only three people spoke at the Planning Board; another public hearing was likely to generate
more public participation. He urged the Council not to make a final decision tonight and to consider this
the beginning of the discussion.
Rich Senderoff, Edmonds, explained as a member of the EDC he supported the recommended changes
to the BD zone. There was a great deal of discussion by the EDC regarding service uses in the retail core
and the EDC recommended further vetting of service uses. He explained a service is an exchange of
money for a product or service such as a hair salon. That definition is consistent with recommendations
for the BD1 zone in the Comprehensive Plan. He recalled comments that prohibiting a drive-through
would discourage banks from locating in the BD zone. When someone is told they cannot do something,
it is easy to get around that; when someone is told what is expected, it is harder to get around. He
recommended the “such as” clause in the development agreement amendment needed further specificity.
With regard to requiring two of the three criteria for a development agreement to be met, he
recommended requiring the use criteria be met and then one of the other criteria. He summarized
development agreements were a way for the community and the Council to help shape the downtown
area.
Al Rutledge, Edmonds, pointed out 2500-3000 additional residents will locate in Edmonds in the future.
He recommended including a criteria for the use of a development agreement that relates to a
transportation system that will bring people downtown to shop.
Hearing no further comment, Mayor Cooper closed the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Councilmember Bernheim commented he was positive about the changes, but due to the hour and the
urgency of the levy discussion, he proposed bringing this matter back for a special workshop. He has
questions about raising the height limit to 35 feet and raising the standard height limit to 30 feet but it was
unlikely the Council would work through those issues tonight.
COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT,
TO RESCHEDULE THIS FOR AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. MOTION CARRIED (5-2),
COUNCILMEMBER WILSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON VOTING NO.
Council President Peterson recalled there was some concern the issues were not discussed by the Mayor’s
Climate Protection Committee. He suggested discussing it at their August 4 meeting. In response to
comments that this was to be reviewed again by the CS/DS Committee before forwarding it to full
Council, he suggested the CS/DS Committee discuss it at their August 9 meeting and this item be
scheduled on the August 23 Council agenda.
Councilmember Wilson advised he would relay his questions under Council comments. Mayor Cooper
encouraged Councilmembers to submit any questions/comments prior to the August 23 meeting.
4. AUDIENCE COMMENTS (
Al Rutledge, Edmonds, referred to an interview of Human Resources Director Debbie Humann in the
Everett Herald. Next, he reported on the legislative redistricting; the last meeting is in Seattle on August
9. Public hearings will be held in Seattle, Spokane, Vancouver and Olympia after the final decision is
made in November. In 2000 a public hearing was not held after the final decision. Further information is
available at 360-786-0046. With regard to the levy, he recommended forming a 100-150 member
advisory committee. He suggested a levy include funds to purchase Al Dykes’ property and that it
developed with a use that was beneficial to citizens.
Packet Page 223 of 238
1
Chapter 16.43
BD – DOWNTOWN BUSINESS
Sections:
16.43.000 Purposes.
16.43.010 Subdistricts.
16.43.020 Uses.
16.43.030 Site development standards.
16.43.035 Design standards – BD1 zone.
16.43.040 Operating restrictions.
16.43.000
Purposes.
The BD zone has the following specific purposes in addition to the general purposes for
business and commercial zones listed in Chapter 16.40 ECDC:
A. Promote downtown Edmonds as a setting for retail, office, entertainment and associated
businesses supported by nearby residents and the larger Edmonds community, and as a
destination for visitors from throughout the region.
B. Define the downtown commercial and retail core along streets having the strongest
pedestrian links and pedestrian-oriented design elements, while protecting downtown’s identity.
C. Identify supporting arts and mixed use residential and office areas which support and
complement downtown retail use areas. Provide for a strong central retail core at downtown’s
focal center while providing for a mixture of supporting commercial and residential uses in the
area surrounding this retail core area.
D. Focus development between the commercial and retail core and the Edmonds Center for
the Arts on small-scale retail, service, and multifamily residential uses. [Ord. 3700 § 1, 2008].
16.43.010
Subdistricts.
The “downtown business” zone is subdivided into five distinct subdistricts, each intended to
implement specific aspects of the comprehensive plan that pertain to the Downtown Waterfront
Activity Center. Each subdistrict contains its own unique mix of uses and zoning regulations, as
described in this chapter. The five subdistricts are:
BD1 – Downtown Retail Core;
BD2 – Downtown Mixed Commercial;
BD3 – Downtown Convenience Commercial;
BD4 – Downtown Mixed Residential;
BD5 – Downtown Arts Corridor. [Ord. 3700 § 1, 2008].
Packet Page 224 of 238
2
16.43.020
Uses.
A. Table 16.43-1.
Permitted Uses BD1 BD2 BD3 BD4 BD5
Commercial Uses
Retail stores or sales A A A A A
Offices (including professional offices) A1 A A A A
Service uses (including banking and real estate businesses) A A A A A
Restaurants and food service establishments A A A A A
Retail sales requiring intensive outdoor display or storage
areas, such as trailer sales, used car lots (except as part of a
new car sales and service dealer), and heavy equipment
storage, sales or services
X X X X X
Enclosed fabrication or assembly areas associated with and
on the same property as an art studio, art gallery, restaurant
or food service establishment that also provides an on-site
retail outlet open to the public
A A A A A
Automobile sales and service X A A X X
Dry cleaning and laundry plants which use only
nonflammable and nonexplosive cleaning agents
C A A A X
Printing, publishing and binding establishments C A A A C
Community-oriented open air markets conducted as an
outdoor operation and licensed pursuant to provisions in the
Edmonds City Code
A A A A A
Residential Uses
Single-family dwelling A A A A A
Multiple dwelling unit(s) A A A A A
Other Uses
Bus stop shelters A A A A A
Churches, subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.020 A A A A A
Primary and high schools, subject to the requirements of
ECDC 17.100.050(G) through (R)
A A A A A
Local public facilities, subject to the requirements of ECDC
17.100.050
C C C A C
Packet Page 225 of 238
3
Permitted Uses BD1 BD2 BD3 BD4 BD5
Neighborhood parks, natural open spaces, and community
parks with an adopted master plan subject to the
requirements of ECDC 17.100.070
A A A A A
Off-street parking and loading areas to serve a permitted use B B B B B
Commuter parking lots in conjunction with a facility
otherwise permitted in this zone
B B B B X
Commercial parking lots C C C C X
Wholesale uses X X C X X
Hotels and motels A A A A A
Amusement establishments C C C C C
Auction businesses, excluding vehicle or livestock auctions C C C C C
Drive-in or drive-through businesses CX C A C X
Laboratories X C C C X
Fabrication of light industrial products not otherwise listed as
a permitted use
X X C X X
Day-care centers C C C A C
Hospitals, health clinics, convalescent homes, rest homes,
sanitariums
X C C A X
Museums and art galleries of primarily local concern that do
not meet the criteria for regional public facilities as defined
in ECDC 21.85.033
A A A A A
Zoos and aquariums of primarily local concern that do not
meet the criteria for regional public facilities as defined in
ECDC 21.85.033
C C C C A
Counseling centers and residential treatment facilities for
current alcoholics and drug abusers
X C C A X
Regional parks and community parks without a master plan
subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.070
C C C C C
Outdoor storage, incidental to a permitted use D D D D D
Aircraft landings as regulated by Chapter 4.80 ECC D D D D D
Notes:
A = Permitted primary use
B = Permitted secondary use
C = Primary uses requiring a conditional use permit
D = Secondary uses requiring a conditional use permit
X = Not permitted
1 = Office uses in the BD1 zone may not be located within a designated street front
Packet Page 226 of 238
4
For conditional uses listed in Table 16.43-1, the use may be permitted if the proposal meets
the criteria for conditional uses found in Chapter 20.05 ECDC, and all of the following criteria
are met:
1. Access and Parking. Pedestrian access shall be provided from the sidewalk. Vehicular
access shall only be provided consistent with ECDC 18.80.060. When a curb cut is necessary, it
shall be landscaped to be compatible with the pedestrian streetscape and shall be located and
designed to be as unobtrusive as possible.
2. Design and Landscaping. The project shall be designed so that it is oriented to the street
and contributes to the pedestrian streetscape environment. Fences more than four feet in height
along street lot lines shall only be permitted if they are at least 50 percent open, such as a lattice
pattern. Blank walls shall be discouraged, and when unavoidable due to the nature of the use
shall be decorated by a combination of at least two of the following:
a. Architectural features or details;
b. Artwork;
c. Landscaping. [Ord. 3700 § 1, 2008].
Packet Page 227 of 238
5
16.43.030
Site development standards.
A. Table 16.43-2.
Sub
District
Minimum Lot
Area
Minimum
Lot Width
Minimum
Street
Setback
Minimum
Side
Setback1
Minimum
Rear
Setback1
Maximum
Height2
Minimum
Height of
Ground Floor
within the
Designated
Street Front4
BD15 0 0 0 0 0 25' 15'
BD25 0 0 0 0 0 25' 12'
BD35 0 0 0 0 0 25' 12'
BD43,5 0 0 0 0 0 25' 12'
BD55 0 0 0 0 0 25' 12'
1 The setback for buildings and structures located at or above grade (exempting buildings and structures entirely below the
surface of the ground) shall be 15 feet from the lot line adjacent to residentially (R) zoned property.
2 Specific provisions regarding building heights are contained in ECDC 16.43.030(C).
3 Within the BD4 zone, site development standards listed in Table 16.43-2 apply when a building contains a ground floor
consisting of commercial space to a depth of at least 60 45 feet measured from the street front of the building. If a proposed
building does not meet this ground floor commercial space requirement (e.g., an entirely residential building is proposed), then
the building setbacks listed for the RM-1.5 zone shall apply. See ECDC 16.43.030(B)(8) for further details.
4 “Minimum height of ground floor within the designated street-front” means the vertical distance from top to top of the
successive finished floor surfaces for that portion of the ground floor located within the designated street front (see ECDC
16.43.030(B)); and, if the ground floor is the only floor above street grade, from the top of the floor finish to the top of the
ceiling joists or, where there is not a ceiling, to the top of the roof rafters. “Floor finish” is the exposed floor surface, including
coverings applied over a finished floor, and includes, but is not limited to, wood, vinyl flooring, wall-to-wall carpet, and
concrete, as illustrated in Figure 16.43-1. Figure 16.43-1 shows a ground floor height of 15 feet; note that the “finished” ceiling
height is only approximately 11 feet in this example.
5 Site development standards for single-family dwellings are the same as those specified for the RS-6 zone.
Packet Page 228 of 238
16.43.030
Map 16.43-1: Designated Street Front for Properties in the BD1BD Zones
Packet Page 229 of 238
Edmonds Community Development Code 16.43.030
Figure 16.43-1: Ground Floor Height Measurement
B. Ground Floor. This section describes requirements for development of the ground floor of
buildings in the BD zones.
Packet Page 230 of 238
8
1. For all BD zones, the ground floor is considered to be that floor of a building which is
closest in elevation to the finished grade along the width of the side of the structure that is
principally oriented to the designated street front of the building (this is normally the adjacent
sidewalk). For the purposes of this section, the ground “floor” is considered to be the sum of the
floor planes which, in combination, run the full extent of the building and are closest in elevation
to one another. For the purposes of this chapter, the definition of “ground floor” contained in
ECDC 21.35.017 does not apply.
2. Designated Street Front. Map 16.43-1 shows the streets that define the designated street
front for all properties lying within the BD1 zones, which is The designated street front is
defined as the 30 45 feet measured perpendicular to the indicated street front of the building lot
fronting on each of the mapped streets. For all other BD zones, the designated street front is
established as the first 60 feet of the lot measured perpendicular to any street right-of-way,
excluding alleys.
3. Minimum Height of the Ground Floor within the Designated Street Front. The minimum
height of the ground floor specified in Table 16.43-2 only applies to the height of the ground
floor located within the designated street front established in subsection (B)(2) of this section.
4. Access to Commercial Uses within the Designated Street Front. When a commercial use
is located on the ground floor within a designated street front as defined in subsection (B)(2) of
this section, the elevation of the ground floor and associated entry shall be within seven inches of
the grade level of the adjoining sidewalk. “Grade” shall be as measured at the entry location.
Portions of the ground floor outside the designated street front of the building need not comply
with the access requirements specified in this section.
5. When the designated street front of a building is on a slope which does not allow both
the elevation of the entry and ground floor within the designated street front to be entirely within
seven inches of the grade level of the sidewalk, as specified in subsection (B)(4) of this section,
the portion of the ground floor of the building located within the designated street front may be
designed so that either:
a. The entry is located within seven inches of the grade of the adjacent sidewalk, and the
commercial portion of the ground floor located within the designated street front is within seven
inches of the grade level of the entry; or
b. The building may be broken up into multiple frontages, so that each entry/ground
floor combination is within seven inches of the grade of the sidewalk.
c. For corner lots, a primary entry shall be established for the purposes of determining
where the ground floor entry rules detailed in this section shall apply. The first choice for the
primary entry shall be either 5th Avenue or Main Street. In the case of the BD5 zone, the primary
entry shall always be on 4th Avenue.
Packet Page 231 of 238
16.43.030
6. Within the BD1 zone, development on the ground floor shall consist of only commercial
uses, except that parking may be located on the ground floor so long as it is not located within
the designated street front.
7. Within the BD2 and BD3 zones, development on the ground floor shall consist of only
commercial uses within the designated street front. Any permitted use may be located on the
ground floor outside of the designated street front.
8. Within the BD4 zone, there are two options for developing the ground floor of a
building. One option is to develop the ground floor with commercial space, meeting the same
requirements detailed for the BD2 and BD3 zones in subsection (B)(7) of this section. As a
second option, if more residential space is provided so that the ground floor does not meet the
commercial use requirements described in subsection (B)(7) of this section, then the building
setbacks listed for the RM-1.5 zone shall apply. In the case where RM-1.5 setbacks are required,
the required street setback shall be landscaped and no fence or wall in the setback shall be over
four feet in height above sidewalk grade unless it is at least 50 percent open, such as in a lattice
pattern.
9. Within the BD5 zone, one option is to develop the ground floor with commercial space,
meeting the same requirements detailed for the BD2 zone in subsection (B)(7) of this section.
When development of the ground floor does not conform to these requirements, then
development within the BD5 zone shall meet the following requirements:
a. The building shall be oriented to 4th Avenue. “Orientation to 4th Avenue” shall mean
that:
i. At least one building entry shall face 4th Avenue.
ii. If the building is located adjacent to the public right-of-way, architectural details
and/or applied art shall be incorporated into the building design to add interest at the pedestrian
(i.e., ground floor) level.
iii. If the building is set back from the street, landscaping and/or artwork shall be
located between the building and the street front.
b. Live/work uses are encouraged within the BD5 zone, and potential live/work space is
required for new residential buildings if no other commercial use is provided on-site.
i. If multiple residential uses are located on the ground floor, the building shall
incorporate live/work space into the ground floor design in such a way as to enable building
occupants to use portion(s) of their space for a commercial or art/fabrication use. “Live/work
space” means a structure or portion of a structure that combines a commercial or manufacturing
activity that is allowed in the zone with a residential living space for the owner of the
commercial or manufacturing business, or the owner’s employee, and that person’s household.
The live/work space shall be designed so that a commercial or fabrication or home occupation
use can be established within the space.
Packet Page 232 of 238
10
Figure 16.43-2: BD5 Development
Building at right (foreground) shows landscaping located between building and street.
Building at left (background) shows commercial space integrated with residential uses, and the entry oriented to the
street.
10. Exceptions and Clarifications. The regulations for the ground floor contained in
subsections (B)(1) through (9) of this section apply with the following exceptions or clarifi-
cations:
a. That in all areas the provision of pedestrian access to permitted residential uses is
allowed as a permitted secondary use.
b. The restrictions on the location of residential uses shall not apply when a single-
family use is the only permitted primary use located on the property.
c. Existing buildings may be added onto or remodeled without adjusting the existing
height of the ground floor to meet the specified minimum height, so long as the addition or
remodel does not increase the building footprint or its frontage along a street by more than 25
percent. Permitted uses may occupy an existing space regardless of whether that space meets the
ground floor requirements for height.
d. Parking is not considered to be a commercial use for the purposes of satisfying the
ground floor commercial use requirement within the designated street front (e.g., when the first
30 45 feet of a building are within a designated street front in the BD1 zone, parking may not be
located within that 30 45 feet).
e. For properties within the BD2 or BD3 zone which have less than 90 feet of depth
measured from the street front, parking may be located in the rearmost 30 45 feet of the property,
even if a portion of the parking extends into the first 60 45 feet of the building. In no case shall
the depth of commercial space as measured from the street front of the building be less than 30
feet.
Packet Page 233 of 238
11
f. Within the BD2, BD3 and BD4 zones, if the first 60 45 feet of the building as
measured perpendicular to the street consist only of commercial uses and permitted secondary
uses, then permitted multiple-family residential unit(s) may be located behind the commercial
uses.
g. Recodified as ECDC 22.43.050(B)(4).
h. Within the BD1 zone, each commercial space located on the ground floor within the
designated street front shall be directly accessible by an entry from the sidewalk.
C. Building Height Regulations.
1. The basic height limit is 25 feet (see definition of “height” detailed in ECDC 21.40.030).
2. Within the BD1, BD2, BD3, or BD4 zones, an additional five feet of building height –
increasing the overall building height to a maximum of 30 feet – may be obtained if the building
meets the ground floor requirements for the zone as enumerated in ECDC 16.43.030(B). Step-
Back Rules. The following rules apply when calculating the maximum building height for any
building in the specified zone(s) (see Figures 16.43-3 and 16.43-4 for illustrated examples).
a. Within the BD2, BD3, or BD4 zones, an additional five feet of building height, not to
exceed 30 feet, may be obtained if the building is designed to meet all of the following
conditions:
i. A building step-back is provided within 15 feet of any street front. Within the 15-
foot step-back, the maximum building height is the lesser of 25 feet above grade at the property
line (normally the back of the sidewalk) or 30 feet above the “average level” as defined in ECDC
21.40.030. For corner lots, a 15-foot step-back is required along both street fronts. If a building
located on a corner lot has insufficient lot width (i.e., less than 40 feet of lot width) to enable it to
provide the required step-back on both street fronts, then the step-back may be waived facing the
secondary street. This waiver may not be granted for building step-backs required from Fifth
Avenue, Dayton Street, or Main Street.
ii. A 15-foot step-back is provided from the property line opposite the street front.
Within the 15-foot step-back, the maximum building height is the lesser of 25 feet above grade
or 30 feet above the “average level” as defined in ECDC 21.40.030. For corner lots for which a
15-foot step-back is required on more than one street front, there is no 15-foot step-back required
from the property line opposite each street front. For the purpose of determining step-back
requirements, alleys are not considered to be streets.
iii. A building setback, in which the entire building is set back from the property line,
may be substituted on a foot-for-foot basis for the required building step-back. For example, a
five-foot building setback can be combined with a 10-foot building step-back to meet the 15-foot
step-back requirement.
b. Within the BD1 zone, building height may be a maximum of 30 feet in order to
provide for a minimum height of 15 feet for the ground floor. The allowable building height is
measured from the “average level” as defined in ECDC 21.40.030.
Packet Page 234 of 238
12
Note: the diagrams on this page are
deleted in the Planning Board
recommendation.
Packet Page 235 of 238
13
3. Within the BD5 zone, the maximum height may be increased to 30 feet if the building
meets one of the following conditions. In addition, if the building is located within 15 feet of the
public right-of-way, architectural details and/or applied art shall be incorporated into the building
design, and the ground floor shall be distinguished from the upper portions of the building
through the use of differences in materials, windows, and/or architectural forms.
a. All portions of the building above 25 feet consist of a pitched roof such that the pitch
of all portions of the roof is at least six-by-12 and the roof includes architectural features, such as
dormers or gables of a steeper pitch, that break up the roof line into distinct segments.
b. If the building does not make use of a pitched roof system as described in subsection
(C)(3)(a) of this section, the building shall meet the same requirements step-backs shall be
required the same as for the BD2 zone, as described detailed in subsection (C)(2) of this section.
4. Height Exceptions. In addition to the height exceptions listed in ECDC 21.40.030, the
following architectural features are allowed to extend above the height limits specified in this
chapter:
a. A single decorative architectural element, such as a turret, tower, or clock tower, may
extend a maximum of five feet above the specified height limit if it is designed as an integral
architectural feature of the roof and/or facade of the building. The decorative architectural
element shall not cover more than five percent of the roof area of the building.
b. Roof or deck railings may extend a maximum of 42 inches above the specified height
limit within any building step-back required under subsection (C)(2) of this section; provided,
that the railing is constructed so that it has the appearance of being transparent. An example
meeting this condition would be a railing that is comprised of glass panels.
D. Off-Street Parking and Access Requirements. The parking regulations included here apply
specifically within the BD zone. Whenever there are conflicts between the requirements of this
chapter and the provisions contained in Chapter 17.50 ECDC, Off-Street Parking Regulations,
the provisions of this chapter shall apply.
1. Within the BD1 zone, no new curb cuts are permitted along 5th Avenue or Main Street.
2. No parking is required for any commercial floor area of permitted uses located within
the BD1, BD2, BD4, and BD5 zones.
3. No parking is required for any floor area in any building with a total building footprint of
less than 4,800 square feet.
E. Open Space Requirements.
1. For buildings on lots larger than 12,000 square feet or having an overall building width
of more than 120 feet (as measured parallel to the street lot line), at least five percent of the lot
area shall be devoted to open space. Open space shall not be required for additions to existing
buildings that do not increase the building footprint by more than 10 percent. Open space shall
be provided adjacent to the street front (street lot line). Such open space may be provided as any
combination of:
a. Outdoor dining or seating areas (including outdoor seating or waiting areas for
restaurants or food service establishments);
b. Public plaza or sidewalk that is accessible to the public;
c. Landscaping which includes a seating area that is accessible to the public.
2. Required open space shall be open to the air and not located under a building story.
Packet Page 236 of 238
14
3. In overall dimension, the width of required open space shall not be less than 75 percent
of the depth of the open space, measured relative to the street (i.e., width is measured parallel to
the street lot line, while depth is measured perpendicular to the street lot line).
F. Historic Buildings. The exceptions contained in this section apply only to buildings listed
on the Edmonds register of historic buildings.
1. If a certificate of appropriateness is issued by the Edmonds historic preservation
commission under the provisions of Chapter 20.45 ECDC for the proposed project, the staff may
modify or waive any of the requirements listed below that would otherwise apply to the
expansion, remodeling, or restoration of the building. The decision of staff shall be processed as
a Type II development project permit application (see Chapter 20.01 ECDC).
a. Building step-backs required under subsection (C)(2) of this section.
b. Open space required under subsection (E) of this section.
2. No off-street parking is required for any permitted uses located within a building listed
on the Edmonds register of historic buildings. Note that additional parking exceptions involving
building expansion, remodeling or restoration may also apply, as detailed in ECDC
17.50.070(C).
Packet Page 237 of 238
15
3. Within the BD5 zone, if a building listed on the Edmonds register of historic buildings is
retained on-site, no off-street parking is required for any additional buildings or uses located on
the same property. To obtain this benefit, an easement in a form acceptable to the city shall be
recorded with Snohomish County protecting the exterior of the historic building and ensuring
that the historic building is maintained in its historic form and appearance so long as the
additional building(s) obtaining the parking benefit exist on the property. The easement shall
continue even if the property is subsequently subdivided or any interest in the property is sold.
G. Density. There is no maximum density for permitted multiple dwelling units.
H. Screening. The required setback from R-zoned property shall be landscaped with trees and
ground cover and permanently maintained by the owner of the BD lot. A six-foot minimum
height fence, wall or solid hedge shall be provided at some point in the setback, except for that
portion of the BD zone that is in residential use.
I. Signs, Parking and Design Review. See Chapters 17.50, 20.10, and 20.60 ECDC. Sign
standards shall be the same as those that apply within the BC zone.
J. Satellite Television Antennas. In accordance with the limitations established by the Federal
Communications Commission, satellite television antennas greater than two meters in diameter
shall be reviewed in accordance with the provisions of ECDC 16.20.050. [Ord. 3736 § 10, 2009;
Ord. 3700 § 1, 2008].
16.43.035
Design standards – BD1 zone.
Design standards for the BD1 zone are contained in Chapter 22.43 ECDC. [Ord. 3700 § 1,
2008].
16.43.040
Operating restrictions.
A. Enclosed Building. All uses shall be carried on entirely within a completely enclosed
building, except:
1. Public uses such as utilities and parks;
2. Off-street parking and loading areas, and commercial parking lots;
3. Drive-in businesses;
4. Plant nurseries;
5. Seasonal farmers’ markets;
6. Limited outdoor display of merchandise meeting the criteria of Chapter 17.65 ECDC;
7. Bistro and outdoor dining meeting the criteria of ECDC 17.70.040;
8. Outdoor dining meeting the criteria of Chapter 17.75 ECDC.
B. Nuisances. All uses shall comply with Chapter 17.60 ECDC, Performance Standards. [Ord.
3700 § 1, 2008].
Packet Page 238 of 238