07/29/2008 City CouncilJuly 29, 2008
The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Haakenson in the Council
Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute.
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Gary Haakenson, Mayor
Michael Plunkett, Council President
Peggy Pritchard Olson, Councilmember
Steve Bernheim, Councilmember
D. J. Wilson, Councilmember
Deanna Dawson, Councilmember
Dave Orvis, Councilmember (arrived 7:05 p.m.)
Ron Wambolt, Councilmember
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
STAFF PRESENT
Duane Bowman, Development Services Director
Stephen Clifton, Community Services Director
Rob Chave, Planning Manager
Mike Clugston, Planner
Scott Snyder, City Attorney
Sandy Chase, City Clerk
Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst.
Change to
Agenda Mayor Haakenson advised Item 3, Swearing In. Ceremony for Corporal Damian. Smith, would be rescheduled
next month. He requested replacing that item on tonight's agenda with a report on PCC Market.
COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO
APPROVE THE AGENDA AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (Councilmember
Orvis was not present for the vote.)
2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO
APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
(Councilmember Orvis was not present for the vote.) The agenda items approved are as follows:
Roll Call
A. ROLL CALL
Approve
07 -22 -08
B. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JULY 22, 2008.
Minutes
C. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #105682 THROUGH #105842 FOR JULY 24, 2008 IN THE
Approve
Claim Checks
AMOUNT OF $1,031,103.25.
Claim for D. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM WILLIAM DAVID
Damages BARNUM & CHERYL BARNUM (AMOUNT UNDETERMINED.
Yellow Cab o
Washington 1 E. APPROVAL OF 2008 TAXICAB OPERATOR'S LICENSE FOR YELLOW CAB OF
WASHINGTON.
Olympic
View Drive F. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT NO. 4 WITH
Water Main C112M HILL FOR OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE WATER MAIN AND SEWER LATERALS
PROJECT.
Ord# 3692
Amend Ord# G. ORDINANCE NO. 3692 - AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2 OF ORDINANCE
3691 NO. 3691 IN ORDER TO INSERT A HEARING DATE.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 29, 2008
Page 1
Public service With regard to Public Service Announcements, Council President Plunkett advised an ordinance providing
Announce-
ments the necessary structure for public service announcements as part of the Council's agenda would be scheduled
on a future Council agenda.
PCC Market 3. REPORT ON PCC MARKET
Mayor Haakenson recalled Councilmember Wambolt requested staff provide a report on the progress of
PCC. Development Services Director Duane Bowman explained PCC Market would be occupying the space
of the former Albertson's store at Westgate. He reported that an interior demolition permit was issued in
December 2007. An application for administrative architectural design review was approved in January
2008 that included the building exterior remodel such as the new required trash enclosure, and bio- retention
areas. Signage is under review via a separate permit for signage. A shell core permit including structural
alteration was issued in February 2008; a tenant improvement permit was issued in April 2008; secondary
permits such as plumbing, mechanical, fire sprinkler, fire alarm, sign, grease interceptor, side sewer have
also been issued. The permit applications have been submitted for the fire suppression system for the
commercial cooking hoods and are currently under review.
The Architectural Design Board (ADB) approved a package for project signage on April 18, 2008; the
approval included the proposed sign package for building and site signage and artwork. A permit application
for alteration of the parking lot for bio - retention area, rain gardens, is currently under review. A permit
application for the rainwater harvesting system that includes the cistern tank is also currently under review.
The permit application was received on June 19, 2008; on July 11, 2008, a complaint was filed regarding the
installation of the cistern without first obtaining permits. The City's Building Inspector verified the tank had
been installed and a stop work order was issued on July 11, 2008 for the tank. A fine for doing work without
an approved permit will be assessed when the pennit is issued.
On June 30, 2008 a complaint was received regarding cutting of trees on the north corner of the sidewalk on
I00th Avenue. Upon investigation, staff determined a total of three trees were cut, trees that were part of the
approved landscape plan for the former Albertson's store, which was in violation of the City's code. A letter
was sent to PCC on July 1, 2008 notifying of the violation and a $500 per tree fine was levied for a total of
$1500. The fine was subsequently paid by PCC and an ADB application for an updated landscape plan was
submitted with double application fees assessed due to the violation.
FCC's updated landscape plan shows the removal of a total of 13 trees throughout the site including the 3
trees already removed and 27 new trees planted. On July 22, 2008 a complaint was received regarding the
trash enclosure in the setback on the west side of the building. The trash enclosure was shown on the
approved plans for the project and reviewed under the earlier ADB design review. The trash enclosure walls
are considered a fence and are permitted within the setback area consistent with City code requirements. An
application for ADB review of the landscape plan for the site was reviewed and approved on July 23, 2008.
The review included integration of the rainwater collection system and trash enclosure into the landscaping,
the removal of a total of 13 trees from the site and replanting of 27 new trees.
Ord # 3693 4. SECOND READING: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS WASHINGTON
Verizon GRANTING A NONEXCLUSIVE FRANCHISE TO VERIZON NORTHWEST INC. TO
Northwest
Franchise CONSTRUCT MAINTAIN OPERATE AND REPAIR A CABLE SYSTEM TO PROVIDE CABLE
Agreement SERVICES IN ACROSS OVER ALONG UNDER UPON THROUGH AND BELOW THE PUBLIC
RIGHTS -O&WAY OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS• PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY AND
ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE
COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT MOVED SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DAWSON, FOR
APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE NO. 3693. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 29, 2008
Page 2
COUNCILMEMBER DAWSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, TO
AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE PROPOSED FRANCHISE AGREEMENT ON
BEHALF OF THE CITY. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Closed 5. CLOSED RECORD REVIEW: APPEAL OF THE HEARING EXAMINER DECISION TO DENY
Record THE REQUEST BY STEVE SMITH DEVELOPMENT LLC, REPRESENTED BY JEAN MORGAN
Review— OF MORGAN DESIGN GROUP, TO SUBDIVIDE ARBOR COURT, A 1.27 ACRE PARCEL
Arbor Court DEVELOPED WITH 35 TOWNHOMES, INTO 35 FEE - SIMPLE TOWNHOUSE PARCELS. THE
23800 -23824
Edmonds SITE IS ZONED MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RM -1.5) AND IS LOCATED AT 23800 —
Way 23824 EDMONDS WAY. (FILE NOS. P -08 -16 AND APL- 08 -4).
City Attorney Scott Snyder advised because the Council had not been provided a copy of the verbatim
transcript, it would be necessary for the Council to have an opportunity to review the transcript before
rendering a final decision. The Council could hear from the parties tonight and continue the closed record
review to a later date following the Council's review of the transcript or postpone the matter entirely.
Council President Plunkett preferred to hear the matter tonight and continue Council deliberation to a later
date.
Councilmember Dawson anticipated the parties would need to return for Council deliberation to answer any
questions and asked whether the parties preferred to have the hearing in two parts or have the hearing at one
time.
Jean Morgan, representing Steve Smith Development LLC, asked the date of the continued hearing.
Mayor Haakenson answered it would be next Tuesday, August 5. Ms. Morgan advised they would be
available. Councilmember Dawson asked whether the parties would prefer to have the entire hearing at one
time or have testimony tonight and return for questions based on Council's review of the record. Ms.
Morgan advised they would prefer to proceed tonight and return next week if needed.
For Councilmember Bernheim, Mayor Haakenson advised the Council would take testimony this evening
and delay deliberation until next Tuesday. No further public comment from parties of records would be
taken next week and following the Council's review of the verbatim transcript, the Council would ask
questions and deliberate next week. Mr. Snyder clarified because this is a closed record review, there was no
testimony, only oral argument based on the existing record. He suggested the Council have an opportunity to
review the record before asking questions to avoid going outside the record. He recommended proceeding
with oral argument and comments from parties of record and continuing the hearing to a date certain. He
noted the Council may find their questions were answered via the transcript and he did not want to invite
matters outside the record via Council questions.
Councilmember Wambolt inquired whether he could ask questions of staff. Mr. Snyder advised staff was
limited to referencing relevant areas in the record. Mayor Haakenson commented it appeared it would be
preferable to hold all questions until next week. Mr. Snyder answered it would be neater but it was up to the
Council. Councilmember Wambolt asked whether staff could respond to questions via email. Mr. Snyder
responded staff could not respond via email as Council deliberations needed to occur within the context of
the Council Chambers. Mr. Snyder commented he was more comfortable with the Council asking questions
of staff because staff understood they were limited to what was in the record. He suggested it would be more
orderly for the Council to review the record to determine if their questions were addressed in the record and
ask questions at one time. Council President Plunkett agreed it would be more orderly to take testimony
tonight and take questions next week.
Observing this was a quasi judicial matter, Mayor Haakenson asked whether under the Appearance of
Fairness Doctrine any Councilmember had any conflicts or ex parte communication to disclose regarding the
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 29, 2008
Page 3
hearing. He read the list of parties of record: Northwest Townhomes, Steve Smith Development LLC, Jean
Morgan, Al Rutledge and Roger Hertrich.
Councilmember Dawson disclosed that one of the parties of record supported her campaign in the past and
one was her opponent in the last campaign but that would not affect her decision.
Councilmember Orvis disclosed his father lived near the site but that would not affect his decision.
Councilmember Wambolt disclosed Mr. Hertrich contributed to his campaign but that would not affect his
views in this matter.
Council President Plunkett disclosed Mr. Hertrich called him to ask a procedural question; before proceeding
with the conversation, both acknowledged they could not talk about substantive matters. He relayed Mr.
Hertrich's question, why was the Hearing Examiner not present.
Councilmember Orvis advised Mr. Hertrich contributed to his campaign but it would not affect his decision.
Mayor Haakenson asked whether the four Councilmembers who made disclosures felt they were capable of
making a decision without any bias. Councilmembers Dawson, Orvis, and Wambolt and Council President
Plunkett advised they could. Mayor Haakenson asked whether any of the parties of record had any objection
to the participation of any of the four Councilmembers. There were no objections voiced.
Mayor Haakenson established time limits for staff and applicant presentations, 10 minutes for staff and 20
minutes for the applicant.
Planner Mike Clugston explained the applicant applied for design review of the project in February 2007.
After a public hearing, the 35 -unit project received ADB approval in June 2007. In November 2007 the
applicant applied for building permits to redevelop the site. At this time the building permits are under
review. In March 2008 the applicant applied for a formal plat subdivision to create fee - simple lots associated
with each of the residential units. The formal plat review process was based on the concept of a townhouse
subdivision for multi - family developments. The townhouse review process is based on a formal staff
interpretation from 2003 which was not appealed and has been in effect since that date. Since the
Interpretation was issued, the process has been used several times and those formal plat subdivisions were
approved by former Hearing Examiners as well as the current Hearing Examiner.
For this project, staff prepared a report recommending the Hearing Examiner approve the townhouse
subdivision with conditions. A public hearing on the proposed subdivision was held on May 15, 2008. The
Hearing Examiner subsequently denied preliminary plat approval. Three Requests for Reconsideration were
filed in a timely manner. The Hearing Examiner reviewed the requests and upheld the denial.
In their appeal, the applicant requests the Council reverse the Hearing Examiner's denial of the proposed 35-
lot formal plat. They maintain that the plat as originally proposed and as further clarified in their
Reconsideration meets the criteria for approval of a townhouse subdivision.
In their reconsideration request, staff also raised concerns noting that a number of similar projects have
previously been approved using the townhouse model. Staff raised these concerns and others in the City's
Reconsideration Request and while the Hearing Examiner did not reverse entirely, she agreed that her
understanding regarding the minimum lot area requirements for multi - family developments had been in
error. That concern, minimum lot size, is no longer at issue.
Mr. Clugston pointed out the townhouse subdivision process exists only to create fee - simple lots in multi-
family developments. The buildings the applicant has proposed were approved by the ADB and can receive
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 29, 2008
Page 4
building permits as long as they meet the required building and zoning codes. The proposed structures are
currently being reviewed for building permits. If approved, and without the subdivision, the applicant could
build the proposed multi - family structures and either rent them or create condominiums. The other option, as
intended by the townhouse subdivision process, is to create what are in essence single- family ownership
opportunities in the development rather than having a rental or condominium situation. Staff recommends
the Council consider the appeal and following next week's deliberation either, 1) affirm, modify or reverse
the Hearing Examiner's decision to deny the subdivision, or 2) remand the application back to the Hearing
Examiner for additional consideration or clarification, with the Council specifying the items or issues to be
considered.
City Clerk Sandy Chase distributed copies of the verbatim minutes of the Hearing Examiner public hearing
to the Council. Council President Plunkett clarified the verbatim minutes were being distributed for the
Council's future review.
Jay Young, owner, Steve Smith Development LLC, explained over the past five years they have
successfully built townhouse projects similar to Arbor Court and the type described in the Edmonds
townhouse ordinance in Seattle, Shoreline, Juanita and Bellevue. He described their intent to build a well
designed, infill housing product, affordable to workforce buyers. He explained there was no difference
between a condominium project and a townhouse project; they preferred to build townhouses because a fee -
simple townhouse was a more desirable product and it was less expensive to build as it did not require a
homeowners association or expensive condominium liability insurance and were more attractive to first time
homebuyers because they are less expensive, easier to finance and do not have homeowners' dues.
This site was advertised for sale as a development site; in 2006 they negotiated a purchase and sale
agreement that included a feasibility period that would provide enough time for due diligence. During the
feasibility period, they held a pre- application meeting with the City, meeting with a City planner and officials
from the Building, Fire, Engineering and Water Departments. They had the property surveyed, met with the
Department of Transportation, did an environmental review and conducted soil sampling. Based on the
results of their pre - application meeting with the City and favorable findings from all the experts they hired,
they proceeded with purchase of the property and the application process to obtain a building permit and
subdivision. Now two years later after working diligently with the Planning and Building Departments,
spending tens of thousands on professional fees to design and engineer this project to meet the code and
current townhouse ordinance, and obtaining approval of the ADB and the City Planning Department, the
Hearing Examiner denied their subdivision application. And after developing a comprehensive point -by-
point appeal, the Hearing Examiner again denies their appeal.
He summarized they had done everything according to the City's code, hired the most competent experts,
and adhered to the process as presented. He emphasized they were not requesting any variances, rezones,
departures or special favors; their project mirrors the other townhouse projects recently approved and
constructed. He expressed frustration that it did not matter what the Planning Department said with regard to
a townhouse subdivision, its fate relied solely on the interpretation of an independent Hearing Examiner who
in their opinion, did not accurately apply the Edmonds townhouse ordinance.
Jean Morgan, architect, President, Morgan Design Group, commented in the 20 years she has been
designing single family and multi family homes in King, Snohomish and Pierce Counties, she had never
encountered a situation where a Hearing Examiner overturned a formal code interpretation. She noted
architects rely on City municipal and land use codes and clarification from City Planners in order to prepare
site layouts. They conducted their due diligence including meeting with City Planners, Engineers, the Fire
Marshal, and WSDOT multiple times. At no time was it ever indicated that this type of project could not be
built as proposed on this site. In September they were provided a copy of Michel Construction's recently
approved townhouse plat to use as a guideline; they designed their project using the same setbacks. She
identified the four internal driveways in the project with no setback from the road, and 24 -foot access road
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 29, 2008
Page 5
with no internal setback. She concluded that without consistency in how codes and regulations were applied
project to project and reliance on code interpretations by Planners, it was impossible for architects,
developers or landowners to know how or what they are able to build in Edmonds.
Megan Nelson, attorney, GordonDerr, Seattle, explained in this instance, the Hearing Examiner had
overturned a well considered, formal code interpretation five years after the fact. The Hearing Examiner
second - guessed the subdivision recommendation of City staff, ignored the bad policy outcomes as a result of
her decision and contradicted legal doctrines supported by Washington case law. Ms. Nelson requested the
Council reverse the Hearing Examiner's decision and approve the Arbor Court townhouse plat. She
provided the facts, public policy and law that should lead the Council to reverse the Hearing Examiner's
decision in this matter.
She explained in 2003 the City's Planning Division issued its formal code interpretation, known as the
townhouse subdivision policy. This formal code interpretation found that interior building and street setback
requirements were not applicable to townhouse subdivisions. This interpretation was not appealed and
therefore became the City's final authorized code interpretation. Over the past five years the City has
approved several townhouse developments based on this formal code interpretation and last year this same
Hearing Examiner affirmed the townhouse subdivision policy in her approval of the Michel Construction
plat. In relying on this policy, past approvals and the assurance of the City Planning Division, the applicant
submitted their application for the Arbor Court plat.
As outlined in the staff report, approval of the plat was recommended; staff found the applicant's proposal
complied with the subdivision ordinance, the City's code and flood plain management provisions. Despite
this recommendation, the Hearing Examiner denied the applicant's plat. Both the Planning Division and the
applicant filed motions for reconsideration based on the formal code interpretation which allows plats such as
the applicant proposed. On reconsideration, the Hearing Examiner for a second time disregarded the
Planning Division's request and rejected the townhouse subdivision policy.
If the Council affirmed the Hearing Examiner's decision, Ms. Nelson asserted it would set a bad precedent
and would set a poor public policy for the City. First, the Hearing Examiner's decision paralyzes the
Planning Division; the Edmonds Municipal Code grants the Planning Division the authority to issue formal .
code interpretations. Such interpretations are appealable to the Hearing Examiner; this interpretation was not
appealed. The Examiner's decision places into question the authority of the Planning Division to issue such
interpretations. She questioned the incentive for the Planning Division to issue future interpretations if such
decisions could not be relied upon by property owners, pointing out the Department could not move forward
with any townhouse subdivisions until the application of interior setback requirements to townhouses was
clarified. Second, the Examiner's decision jeopardizes development within the City; by removing certainty
within the planning process, property owners can no longer rely on formal code interpretations even
decisions issued five years ago and relied upon in other projects. The City will suffer if property owners are
unable to develop their land without reasonable certainty.
Third, the Hearing Examiner's decision is contrary to previously approved townhouse projects. The Hearing
Examiner approved the very similar Michel Construction plat that relies on this policy. She noted there are
no discernable, factual differences between the two plats; the internal access road is actually wider in the
applicant's plat as compared to the Michel Construction plat. Fourth, the Examiner's decision violates the
City's infill related goals; the staff indicates the applicant's project exemplifies designed infill as stated as a
policy goal in the City's Comprehensive Plan. The site is to be redeveloped from 12 units to 35 units, a more
efficient use of a previously zoned multi family parcel. The Examiner's decision undermines the City's
Comprehensive Plan goal of providing infill development consistent with neighborhood character based on
streamlined permitting, flexible standards, and improved design guidelines by impeding infill development.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 29, 2008
Page 6
Fifth, the Examiner's decision is fundamentally unfair to the applicant. Developers must be able to
determine the rules that govern their development. In this case the applicant relied on a five year old
townhouse subdivision policy, several prior townhouse subdivision approvals, the Michel Construction plat
and the assurances of the City's Planning Division. But the rules were changed and the reasonable
expectations of Steve Smith Development have been violated. The Hearing Examiner's decisions are
contrary to the outcome recommended by City staff. The staff report recommended approval of the plat.
The Planning Division's motion for reconsideration stated its strong disagreement with the Examiner's denial
of the plat and requested she revisit her decision regarding the townhouse subdivision policy. The Examiner
ignored the Planning Division's requests and denied the applicant's plat.
Ms. Nelson commented the Examiner's rejection of the City's townhouse subdivision policy and resulting
denial of the applicant's plat are without legal basis. She referred to legal arguments in their motion for
reconsideration, identifying the applicable legal doctrines, the doctrine of collateral estoppel and legislative
acquiesce. She explained collateral estoppel prohibits the re- litigation of a previously adjudicated legal
issue; in this case the legal issue of permitted exception from interior setback for townhouse subdivision has
already been decided and the Examiner cites no legal authority to reexamine the validity of the townhouse
subdivision policy. The doctrine of legislative acquiesce recognizes after an extended period of time, in this
case five years, a rule adopted by a governmental agency is deemed acquiesced to by the legislative branch.
Again, the Examiner cites no authority allowing departure from this doctrine.
Ms. Nelson summarized the Hearing Examiner's decisions resulted in bad public policy, are contrary to the
City's Planning Division recommendations and are unsupported by law. For those reasons, she requested the
Council reverse the Hearing Examiner's decision and approve the applicant's subdivision. She noted the
City's Request for Reconsideration stated a condition could be placed upon the subdivision approval which
would allow certain technical issues to be revisited during review of building permits. The applicant is
amenable to including such a condition on any future subdivision approval.
Mayor Haakenson invited parties of record to provide comment.
Al Rutledge, Edmonds, referred to Hearing Examiner finding #28 regarding his comments about the site not
being included in the City's stormwater plan.
There were no other parities of record who wished to speak and Mayor Haakenson closed the opportunity for
participation by parties of record.
Ms. Nelson did not offer any rebuttal to Mr. Rutledge's comments.
Councilmember Wambolt asked why the Hearing Examiner was not represented at the meeting. Mr. Snyder
explained the Hearing Examiner was a decision - maker, not a party to the matter. Her opinion as written .
speaks for itself and typically a judge was not questioned at a later proceeding.
COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PLUNKETT,
TO CONTINUE THIS ITEM TO AUGUST 5.
Councilmember Bernheim asked if Councilmembers could submit questions in writing prior to the meeting.
Mr. Snyder answered yes as long as they were placed in the record and there was no response outside the
meeting. He reminded staff was only able to cite the record or indicate the information was not contained in
the record. Mr. Snyder clarified a Councilmember could provide written questions to allow the applicant
and/or staff to respond, however, no response should occur outside the record and any written comments
would be entered into the record at the next proceeding. He noted staff could prepare a written response that
could be included in the Council packet; however, no discussion may occur outside the record or proceeding.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 29, 2008
Page 7
Councilmember Orvis requested the verbatim minutes be included in the packet for next week's meeting.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Comp Plan 6. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE RECOMMENDATION BY THE PLANNING BOARD TO DENY A
Amendment PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FROM "DOWNTOWN MIXED
Request at COMMERCIAL" TO EITHER (1) "DOWNTOWN RESIDENTIAL OFFICE" OR (2) "MULTI
Ave. I 10 Sunset
Av N. FAMILY — HIGH DENSITY" AT 110 SUNSET AVE. N. (FILE NO. AMD- 07 -16).
Planning Manager Rob Chave explained this proposal to amend the Comprehensive Plan map at 110 Sunset
Avenue was referred to the Planning Board by the Council. The Planning Board held a public hearing and
recommended the Council not approve the change in the zoning. The Planning Board agreed with staff's
analysis that possibly in the future some transition would be appropriate for the area but changing the
designation of this particular area was not appropriate as it would be an intrusion into the consistent
commercial corridor along Main Street. The Planning Board also felt it was not appropriate to extend further
north as those properties are currently zoned single family and there has not been any interest expressed by
property owners for any change. The Planning Board was also concerned it could create a situation that
compromised the existing transition. The Planning Board felt the OR zone was specifically tailored to a
topographical situation on the west side of Sunset as identified in the Comprehensive Plan and it was not
appropriate for these properties.
Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing, noting the Council received
documents from Alan Young related to the public hearing. Mr. Chave advised the documents provided by
Mr. Young were circulated to the Planning Board and were not returned to staff for inclusion into the record.
Harold Huston, Edmonds, commented he has no problem with the property owner. The house on 110
Sunset was built in 1948 and had been a residential house for over 60 years, prior to the inception of the
City's first zoning map in 1956. He relayed before he made his proposal, he discussed it with
Councilmembers and did not feel there was any opposition. Two senior planners concurred with his proposal .
and one suggested a moratorium on development of the lot until the Planning Board completed their review.
He expressed concern with a Planning Board Member's question at the July 29 public hearing regarding the
Council's authority to refer this proposal to the Planning Board, pointing out the Planning Board served at
the pleasure of the Council and the Council was elected by the citizens. He recalled Mr. Chave's suggestion
at the September 21 Planning Board that he consider proposing a multi- family zoning designation for the
subject parcel to provide appropriate transition. He expressed opposition to another mega building in
Edmonds, noting the street was one of the busiest in Edmonds.
Alan Young, Edmonds, owner of the subject property, requested the Council uphold the Planning Board's
recommendation to deny the rezone. He noted there had been no communication with him in 20 months
since this began in October 2006 until June 27, 2008. He expressed concern that the Comprehensive Plan
amendment was proposed by Mr. Huston who was not involved until he purchased his condominium. Mr.
Huston signed the purchase and sale agreement knowing he (Mr. Young) owned the property in front. Mr.
Young recalled on October 1, 2006, 17 days before the Planning Board meeting, Mr. Huston took possession
of the property. Then at the October 18, 2006 Planning Board hearing, there was only three sentences
regarding the proposed amendment and 20 months later he learned of the proposed amendment for his
property. He urged the Council to deny the proposed amendment, noting he purchased the property to
preserve his view.
Al Rutledge, Edmonds, commented the Planning Board meetings and items to be discussed were posted on
the City's website and the community was aware of the meetings.
Hearing no further public comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public hearing.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 29, 2008
Page 8
Councilmember Wambolt asked if there was a loophole in the City's procedures that the property owner was
not notified when someone else proposed a rezone of their property. Mr. Chave answered this was a very
unusual situation regarding an individual property. In the past there have been proposals for groups of
properties; however, it was extremely unusual to target one property. He explained notifications were
typically accomplished for the public hearing and there was not a process for informing property owners of
informal discussions without a formal proposal. He suggested discussing with City Attorney Scott Snyder
who could propose an amendment. Historically the codes have not required an ownership interest;
Comprehensive Plan amendments were a legislative decision and did not require an ownership interest. He
noted this had not occurred since he had been employed by the City.
Councilmember Wambolt commented it was not reasonable to expect a property owner to review the City's
meeting agendas to determine if their property was being discussed. Mr. Chave commented Mr. Young
received notification and attended both Planning Board hearings. He acknowledged Mr. Young's frustration
that a property owner should be informed if their property was the subject of discussion.
On behalf of the Council, Councilmember Wilson offered Mr. Young an apology that this had progressed
this far without his being notified. Councilmember Wilson asked staff to identify what could be constructed
under the existing BD2 zoning versus the new zone. Mr. Chave advised the existing Comprehensive Plan
and zoning would allow a broad range of downtown commercial uses up to a height of 25 or 30 feet. The
OR Comprehensive Plan designation and zoning has a cap of 25 feet and additional setback requirements not
found in the BD2 zone. The multi family zones allow 25 plus 5 feet with specific pitched roof requirements
to achieve a height above 25 feet. The multi family zones also allow multi family uses versus commercial
which was one of the Planning Board's major concerns.
Councilmember Wilson asked if this was a spot rezone. Mr. Chave answered it was technically not a spot
rezone as there were adjacent similar uses. The difficulty was that it negates /impinges on the pattern of use
on Main Street. He noted the maps illustrate a consistent line that demarks the border between commercial
and other uses. While technically not a spot rezone, it was a change in the pattern that was not warranted.
Mr. Snyder referred to it as "ad hoc zoning creep," noting zoning creep referred to changes that did not
follow a logical boundary.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT,
TO UPHOLD THE PLANNING BOARD DECISION TO DENY THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO
THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
Councilmember Bernheim commented the agenda memo did not refer to the Planning Board's reasons for
denying the proposed amendment and suggested in the future there be specific findings and conclusions.
Councilmember Wilson appreciated Mr. Huston's concern with regard to traffic and maintaining his view,
noting one option may be to approach Mr. Young with a proposal to purchase the development rights on the
property above a certain height.
Councilmember Wambolt acknowledged Mr. Huston would be disappointed but agreed with the Planning
Board's unanimous decision. He relayed the Planning Board's suggestion that if there was to be a transition
zone, it should be further north. He concurred with the Planning Board's reasoning.
Councilmember Orvis noted Mr. Young purchased the property to protect his views, suggesting the common
goals of the two parties could be achieved without a Comprehensive Plan amendment. He encouraged Mr.
Young to consider the difference in the zoning, noting although BC appears to have more development
potential, it has stringent commercial standards that may be counter to the property's value. He did not agree
with the Planning Board's concern regarding the depth of the commercial, noting the lots would need to be
combined before that would be an issue as the current depth of the commercial would be measured from
Sunset.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 29, 2008
Page 9
Council President Plunkett found this a difficult decision in view of Mr. Huston's long history of community
involvement and his 40 year friendship. However, based on the facts and in the community's interest, he
would support the motion.
Councilmember Dawson did not support the motion, commenting the zoning creep was the result of this
parcel's commercial zoning. She found it more appropriate to zone the property residential or
business /office and found it peculiar that it was zoned in the current manner.
UPON A ROLL CALL VOTE, MOTION CARRIED (4 -3), COUNCIL PRESIDENT PLUNKETT AND
COUNCILMEMBERS OLSON, WAMBOLT, AND WILSON IN FAVOR; AND
COUNCILMEMBERS BERNHEIM, ORVIS AND DAWSON OPPOSED.
7. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Protection of Dave Page, Edmonds, commented most other counties believe the United States has a democratic form of
species over government by majority rule. He referred to his earlier comments regarding the protection of several species
Humans
over humans, noting the Porcupine Caribou was recently protected to prevent drilling in the artic. He noted
the Porcupine Caribou population that live under the Prudhoe Bay pipeline have increased 900% due to the
warmth from the pipeline. He commented to other counties it may appear the people of the United States
would rather protect fish, birds and animals than Homo sapiens, spend billions on foreign oil rather than use
their own resources and fight wars on foreign soil rather than use their own resources.
Former Al Rutledge, Edmonds, recommended keeping the potential property purchase in front of the public. Next,
Woodway
Elem. School commented on the continuation of the case regarding the former Woodwa Elementary School property.
Elem. schoot g g Y ry 1� 1� Y•
He encouraged the public to attend the Taste of Edmonds on August 8 -10.
190 sunset Don Hall, Edmonds, referred to the Council's upcoming discussion regarding the property at 190 Sunset
ana skipper's and the former Skipper's property, suggesting the Council may be premature in making a decision regarding
Properties which path to follow. The owners have not made a specific proposal or design plan although there has been
a great deal of speculation. He suggested delaying any action such as obtaining an appraisal until the
property owners' proposals were made public and a determination could be made regarding how it would
benefit or hurt the City. If the Council chose the path of the City developing the properties, he urged full
funding from start to finish, recalling past plans were not funded such as the downtown street lighting, Arts
Corridor, and many other projects. He reiterated his request to discontinue the use of plastic bags.
city
Harold Huston, Edmonds, commended the City's employees and the Mayor who also acts as the City
Employees Manager. He expressed frustration with the amount of time staff must spend with citizens he called
"nitpickers." He spoke favorably regarding the Planning Division, pointing out even if a person did not like
an individual, they should respect the position. He respected staff who were doing a job for the City and he
was proud to live in Edmonds.
E:�►� / \`(i77i.YK�7►y i►� 1 �1►(I IE.`�
Edmonds Mayor Haakenson reported on the activities at Edmonds Night Out, expressing his appreciation to the
Night Out
Edmonds Police Foundation who sponsored the event. He next announced the City's annual document
Document I shredding event will be held on August 23 at TOP Foods from 9:00 a.m. to Noon.
Shred Event
9. COUNCIL COMMENTS
comp Plan Council President Plunkett referred to Item 6 where a single property owner was the subject of a
Amendment Comprehensive Plan amendment and there did not appear to be any rules that he receive special notice. He
Notification inquired whether the Community Services /Development Services Committee wanted to take up this issue or
Procedures
have staff provide a recommendation. City Attorney Scott Snyder advised revisions to the City's procedures
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 29, 2008
Page 10
had been drafted to simplify and provide great guidance to the public but not yet been presented to the
Planning Board due to their workload. He suggested adding notification of a Comprehensive Plan
amendment that was instituted by someone other than the property owner to those revisions. Council
President Plunkett requested staff investigate when the Planning Board could consider the revisions.
old Safeway Councilmember Wambolt referred to Dr. Senderoff s comments regarding his editorial in the Edmonds
and Skippers
Properties Beacon. With regard to Dr. Senderoff s concern with the use of subjective language, Councilmember
Wambolt suggested he be similarly concerned about being factual, noting he made several errors last week.
First, the owners of the old Safeway and Skippers did not purchase the properties with the intention of
waiting until taller buildings were allowed; they would like taller buildings but are proceeding with code -
compliant projects. The Skipper's property was acquired December 2007. Second, Dr. Senderoff alleged he
campaigned for election saying he would not change the building code. Councilmember Wambolt stated this
was untrue, the central plank in his platform was his opposition to taller buildings downtown. That objective
was accomplished with the establishment of the BD zones in 2006; he was the fourth vote on the Council that
made that possible. Third, Dr. Senderoff said he had chosen to side with developers and not citizens, who
Dr. Senderoff believed the majority favored the City purchasing the property. Councilmember Wambolt
noted there were an abundance of citizens on both sides of the issue and the Enterprise newspaper stated its
opposition to the purchase in an editorial last week. Fourth, in response to Dr. Senderoff s statement that it
was speculation that the property purchase would be combined on the ballot with other items,
Councilmember Wambolt assured that would be decided by the City Council and he was in a better position
to assess Council views than Dr. Senderoff. Councilmember Wambolt summarized the Council welcomed
citizen comments but urged them to be factual.
Councilmember Dawson concurred tonight's Edmonds Night Out celebration was great, expressing her
fight out I appreciation for the community's support of the event, particularly in the poor weather. She pointed out
Celebrations Edmonds has its Night Out Celebration on a different night than other cities /counties; the other Night Out
celebrations are next Tuesday including one hosted by the Snohomish County Executive's office at
McCollum Park.
Stevens I Councilmember Wilson reported Stevens Hospital has put on hold any plans to sell the hospital and is
Hospital considering a ballot measure. It was conveyed to him by Commissioners, employees and union members
that one of the actions with the most impact in the past few months was the Edmonds City Council's
resolution and they expressed their appreciation for the Council's leadership and attention to the matter.
10. ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 5:35 p.m.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 29, 2008
Page l l