08/05/2008 City CouncilAugust 5, 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
Ron Wambolt, Councilmember
STAFF PRESENT
Tom Tomberg, Fire Chief
Al Compaan, Police Chief
Duane Bowman, Development Services Director
Stephen Clifton, Community Services Director
Brian McIntosh, Parks & Recreation Director
Noel Miller, Public Works Director
Rob Chave, Planning Manager
Steve Koho, Treatment Plant Manager
Mike Clugston, Planner
Scott Snyder, City Attorney
Sandy Chase, City Clerk
Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst.
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
Approve 11. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Agenda
COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO
APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
Councilmember Bernheim requested Items F and H be removed from the Consent Agenda.
COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, FOR
APPROVAL OF THE REMAINDER OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED
Roll Call UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows:
A. ROLL CALL
Approve
7/29/08 B. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JULY 29, 2008.
Minutes
Approve C. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #105843 THROUGH #106039 FOR JULY 31, 2008 IN THE
Claim Checks AMOUNT OF $237,455.63.
Gas Line D. REPORT ON FINAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR THE NATURAL GAS LINE
Re ]acement REPLACEMENT PROJECT AND COUNCIL ACCEPTANCE OF PROJECT.
daIl
Sediment E. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
Sediment
Sampling and WITH SANDERS AND ASSOCIATES INC. (SAI) FOR THE OUTFALL SEDIMENT
Analysis SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PROJECT.
S. County G. AUTHORIZATION TO SOLICIT QUOTES IN EXCESS OF $50,000 FOR NEW SOUTH
Senior Center
Kitchen COUNTY SENIOR CENTER KITCHEN EQUIPMENT.
Equipment
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 5, 2008
Page 1
Aquatics ITEM F: AUTHORIZATION TO ADVERTISE FOR STATEMENTS OF QUALIFICATIONS FROM
Center
Feasibility CONSULTING FIRMS FOR CONSULTANT TEAMS TO PERFORM AN AQUATICS
Study CENTER FEASIBILITY STUDY.
Councilmember Bernheim commented the Aquatics Center Feasibility Study would allow the Parks
Department to solicit an expert to evaluate the community for an aquatics center. He noted the $60,000
budgeted for the study was a reasonable amount considering the scope of the project that would provide costs
and benefits of different types of aquatic centers. He supported the expenditure for the feasibility study,
acknowledging although there were many enthusiastic supporters of an aquatics center, not all citizens were
swimmers.
COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PLUNKETT,
FOR APPROVAL OF ITEM F.
Council President Plunkett advised there was a panel established to select a consultant and asked if another
Councilmember in addition to Councilmember Wilson was interested in participating. Councilmember Orvis
volunteered to participate on the selection panel.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Res# 1179
Community ITEM H: RESOLUTION NO. 1179 — ESTABLISHING CRITERIA FOR USE OF THE "COMMUNITY
Service SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT" PORTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA.
Announce-
ment
Councilmember Bernheim asked whether the 15 minute timeframe would be added to the beginning or end
of Council meetings and the difference between public service announcements and audience comments.
Council President Plunkett responded the public service announcements would be scheduled at the beginning
of the meeting. The difference was convenience; a community organization requested an opportunity to
speak to the Council at the beginning of the meeting about upcoming events. However, the Council's rules
did not allow that order on the agenda, resulting in their presentation occurring late in the evening. Further,
audience comments are limited to three minutes and often public service announcements cannot be
accomplished within three minutes. Council President Plunkett summarized public service announcements
were an opportunity for an organization that met the criteria to spend 3 -5 minutes making a public service
announcement.
Councilmember Bernheim preferred at least for the time being, due to the length of recent Council meetings
and weighty issues the Council was considering, not to add a 15 minute period for public service
announcements at the beginning of the meeting. He strongly supported pre - recording and airing the
announcements on Channel 21.
Council President Plunkett did not anticipate the public service announcements would take 15 minutes at
every meeting, noting the organizations needed to notify City Clerk Sandy Chase or him prior to the meeting.
COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, FOR
APPROVAL OF ITEM H. MOTION CARRIED (6 -1), COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM OPPOSED.
Pubtic Service 3A. PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENTS.
Announce-
ments Pat Greenstreet, Team Captain, Team Peggy, recognized several members of the team in the audience.
She explained Team Peggy was named after Councilmember Peggy Pritchard - Olson. The team's missions
Team Peggy/ were, first and most important to support Councilmember Olson on her journey with ALS as well as increase
ALS Fund- awareness of Lou Gehrig's Disease, known as ALS, and to raise money for the ALS Association. She
raising &
Awareness invited the Council and the public to visit their booth at the Saturday Market, the Taste of Edmonds, and the
Art Walk. She announced upcoming events including a card - marking workshop to benefit the ALS
Association at United Methodist Church on August 24 from 2:00 - 5:00 p.m. and the Walk to Defeat ALS at
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 5, 2008
Page 2
Seward Park on September 27 at 10:00 a.m. She invited walkers or virtual walkers (donors) to register for
Team Peggy online at www.AI,SA- EC.org. She noted in addition to promoting awareness of ALS, they had
been able to get Stevens Hospital to host a monthly support group for ALS patients and caregivers free of
charge beginning in September. Prior to this, the only ALS support groups were in Bellevue, Kent, or
Bellingham.
Mayor Haakenson expressed the City's appreciation for Team Peggy's support of Councilmember Olson.
Closed 313. CONTINUED CITY COUNCIL DELIBERATION ON THE CLOSED RECORD REVIEW: APPEAL
Record OF THE HEARING EXAMINER DECISION TO DENY THE REQUEST BY STEVE SMITH
Review re: DEVELOPMENT LLC, REPRESENTED BY JEAN MORGAN OF MORGAN DESIGN GROUP, TO
Arbor Court at SUBDIVIDE ARBOR COURT, A 1.27 ACRE PARCEL DEVELOPED WITH 35 TOWNHOMES,
23800 -23824
Edmonds INTO 35 FEE - SIMPLE TOWNHOUSE PARCELS. THE SITE IS ZONED MULTIPLE FAMILY
Way RESIDENTIAL (RM -1.5) AND IS LOCATED AT 23800 — 23824 EDMONDS WAY. (FILE NOS. P -08-
16 AND APL -08 -4)
Mayor Haakenson recalled the Council discussed this item at last week's Council meeting and continued
questions and deliberation to tonight's meeting. He invited Councilmembers to make any disclosures
regarding ex parte contact or conflicts under the Appearance of Fairness Act.
Councilmember Orvis advised he received an email from Tony Shapiro today and after reading the first
sentence and realizing it pertained to this matter, he did not read further.
Council President Plunkett and Councilmembers Wambolt and Wilson advised they did not open the email
they received from Mr. Shapiro.
Councilmember Bernheim advised he opened and printed the email from Mr. Shapiro but had not yet read it.
Councilmember Olson advised she did not read the email from Mr. Shapiro.
Mayor Haakenson asked whether any of the parties of record objected to the participation of any of the
Councilmembers. There were no objections voiced and Mayor Haakenson advised all the seated
Councilmembers would participate.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, advised he was a party of record and because the verbatim minutes were not
available last week he was unable to review them to determine whether to speak at the hearing. He requested
the ability to speak tonight as a party of record.
City Attorney Scott Snyder advised normally a party waived their objection by failing to appear at the
hearing. If the Council wanted to consider reopening the hearing to allow Mr. Hertrich to speak, he
suggested inquiring whether the other parties of record and /or the appellant had an objection, noting the
appellant would be the party prejudiced by reopening the hearing. He further pointed out the references to
this matter as a hearing and use of the term testimony, he clarified the Council received oral argument last
week based on the appeal and tonight the Council was deliberating and making a decision. Mayor
Haakenson advised Mr. Hertrich was not in attendance at last week's Council meeting.
Megan Nelson, attorney, GordonDerr, Seattle, advised they objected to Mr. Hertrich speaking but would
be willing to allow him to speak if they were provided an opportunity for rebuttal.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 5, 2008
Page 3
Council President Plunkett spoke in favor of allowing Mr. Hertrich to speak and to allow rebuttal by the
appellant, acknowledging the records available last week were incomplete. Councilmember Wambolt agreed
with allowing Mr. Hertrich to speak.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT,
TO REOPEN THE ORAL COMMENT FOR ROGER HERTRICH AND REBUTTAL FROM MS.
NELSON. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mr. Hertrich felt several items mentioned in the reconsideration request were outside the record and that new
evidence was provided and argument was made that the Council could not consider. For example, last week
the appellant's attorney referenced previous Hearing Examiner decisions on townhouses and townhouse
ordinances that was not part of the original record. He commented the City had a problem with operating on
staff decisions that were made and repeatedly acted upon without staff referring them to the Planning Board
and the Council for codification. He agreed with the Hearing Examiner's decision, remarking on the
confidence he had in her decision based on the questions she asked.
Planner Mike Clugston had no response to Mr. Hertrich's comments.
With regard to their reference to prior decisions in their Motion for Reconsideration, Ms. Nelson advised, 1)
the Hearing Examiner found no party would be prejudiced by the inclusion of the material in their Motion for
Reconsideration, 2) official notice could be taken of previous decisions by the Council, and 3) the Council .
received a copy of the interpretation after it was made by the Planning Division.
Councilmember Orvis asked whether the reference to the townhouse subdivision policy was the decision
written by Steve Bullock in 2003 on page 153. Mr. Clugston answered yes. Councilmember Orvis noted the
code had specific definitions for street setback and street lot line but he did not find reference to those
definitions in the interpretation. Mr. Clugston read the following from the interpretation, "ECDC 21.100.040
does not directly discuss building setback reduction or elimination. However, in order for (a) lot areas to be
able to be as small as dwelling unit lot coverage and (b) lot lines to be able to be placed (i) on common or
party walls in the case of attached dwelling units or (ii) along the edge(s) of exterior walls of* the dwelling
units in the case of detached dwelling units, individual townhouse lots must be exempt from building setback
requirements except in the case of required setbacks from a proposed townhouse subdivision's exterior
property lines. Nothing in ECDC 21.100.040 suggests that townhouse subdivisions would be exempt from
required setbacks from exterior property lines. In fact, the language of subsections D and E of ECDC
21.100.040 relating to lot coverage, lot area and density indicate an intent for a townhouse subdivision
development to be considered as a whole with all of the bulk standards to be measured as if the property was
not being subdivided."
Councilmember Orvis observed that statement referenced building setbacks and not street setbacks. Mr.
Clugston replied it discussed interior setbacks, not street setbacks. Councilmember Orvis asked if interior
setback was defined in the City's code. Planning Manager Rob Chave advised interior setback was not
defined in the code, but street setbacks were; interior setbacks in the context of the interpretation were the
interior of the project.
Councilmember Orvis observed street setback was defined as measured from the street lot line or right -of-
way. Mr. Chave agreed it was measured from the public street. He noted the definition referred to public
streets as well as easements.
Councilmember Wambolt referred to the memo containing the interpretation, recalling staff comments that
the interpretation was not appealed or questioned by the City Council and that the Council was informed of
that interpretation when it was made. Observing that more than half of the Councilmembers were not on the
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 5, 2008
Page 4
Council at that time, he asked how the Council would be aware of the interpretation prior to seeing it in the
packet. Mr. Snyder cautioned the Council must make their decision based on the information in the record.
Councilmember Wambolt agreed with a former Councilmember's frustration with the closed record review
process.
Councilmember Bernheim asked where it is indicated in the Code that interpretations by staff were
authorized. He clarified he was asking in order to understand the context in which interpretations were
made. He recalled when the City issued an interpretation recently regarding the ground floor level in the BD
zone, he sent an email to staff inquiring how the interpretation could be appealed. Mr. Snyder referenced
ECDC Section 20.105.010 that establishes appealable decisions; Section A addresses staff decisions and
states any person may appeal a decision of staff with a list of decisions, the fourth being interpretations of the
text of the ECDC. Councilmember Bernheim expressed a preference that major questions and interpretations
be brought to be Council to allow a change via law rather than a short term review. Mayor Haakenson
advised the Council could direct staff to change that policy.
Councilmember Wambolt suggested having a post- mortem following the decision on this item to address the
Council's questions regarding the subdivision code.
Councilmember Bernheim requested the appellant reply to the written questions he posed. Ms. Nelson
referred to the response they provided noting her understanding that copies were distributed to the Council.
Hearing no further questions, Mayor Haakenson remanded the matter to the Council for action.
Councilmember Orvis commented the issue in the code was not with the townhouse subdivision policy but
with the definition of street. The Hearing Examiner correctly pointed out that by her definition a street was a
public or private right -of -way or access easement that provides access to five or more lots. He referred to the
map on page 22 of the record that illustrated the driveways are serving more than 5 units and therefore were
access easements and by the code's definition, streets. He noted via subdividing, the lots became individual
lots rather than one lot via condominium ownership. Under the subdivision policy, streets must comply with
Chapter 18 which has numerous standards with regard to sidewalks, width, etc., standards that the Hearing
Examiner pointed out were not met.
Councilmember Orvis pointed out subdivisions also must comply with the zoning code. Although much had
been made of the interpretation that appeared to identify a contradiction between the definition of townhouse
and building setbacks, building setbacks were setbacks measured from the lot such as rear and side setback.
Mr. Bullock noted in his interpretation that there could not be a "tight fitting" lot line (which Councilmember
Orvis defined as a lot line directly around the unit) if there was a building setback. He noted street setbacks
were not mentioned in the interpretation and there was nothing that applied to street setback. The street
setback was not measured from the lot but from the street, therefore it was possible for a townhouse to have a
"tight fitting" lot line and meet the setback from the street via either common property between the
townhouse and the street or another unit that had a street setback. He noted the code section that referred to
"tight fitting" lot line used the word "may" which did not instill a right, but that it may have a "tight fitting"
lot line if it met the other standards. He concluded since the driveways were streets, the 15 -foot street
setback was required.
Councilmember Orvis noted previous approvals also had sidewalk and street standards, a finding made by
the Hearing Examiner on page 200 of the record. He referred to the applicant's statement on page 78 of the
record, "this required harmony can only be achieved if individual townhouse lots are exempt from building
and street setback requirements," which he noted illustrated the applicant's awareness of the two different
types of setback - building and street - street having a specific definition in the code. On the same page, the
applicant quotes the townhouse subdivision policy that only refers to building setback. He summarized even
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 5, 2008
Page 5
if the interpretation were upheld, there were standards that must be met with regard to the streets including
street setbacks and street standards.
COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DAWSON, THAT THE
APPEAL BE DENIED AND THE HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION BE UPHELD.
Councilmember Dawson commented there were facts in the record that could go both ways. Although she
was sympathetic to the applicant's issue, she found the Hearing Examiner's rationale compelling and correct.
Councilmember Wambolt advised he would not support the motion although he did not like the project
because so much of the land was used there was not even space for a garbage can outside the garage, there
was no parking which would result in continual blockage of the fire lanes, and there was no on- street parking
in the surrounding area. He supported the project in the interest of fairness because the applicant had every
reason to believe it would be approved because the 2003 interpretation had never been questioned/reversed
and several similar projects had been approved including one by this Hearing Examiner. He recommended
making revisions to the townhouse subdivision code in the future.
Council President Plunkett did not support the motion, finding that the Hearing Examiner was legislating
rather than adjudicating.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (3 -4), COUNCILMEMBERS ORVIS, DAWSON AND
BERNHEIM IN FAVOR; AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PLUNKETT AND COUNCILMEMBERS
WILSON, OLSON, AND WAMBOLT OPPOSED.
COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO
UPHOLD THE APPEAL AND REVERSE THE HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION.
With regard to the issue of fairness, Councilmember Bernheim commented other than a notice to the Council .
with a 30 day appeal period there was no other notice to the Council that there was a gap in the code that
required a staff interpretation. He acknowledged applicants were placed in a bad position when the Planning
Department issued a potentially questionable ruling regarding ambiguity in the code. He expressed his
support for the Hearing Examiner's decisions.
Councilmember Dawson commented it was incumbent on the Council to bring any interpretation they
disagreed with to the attention of staff. In this instance, she did not believe it was a correct legal decision
that staff's interpretation was forever binding. She found the Hearing Examiner's decision an appropriate
reading of the code as it currently exists and that her decision represented judicial interpretation of a code
provision more accurately than staff's interpretation.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4 -3), COUNCIL PRESIDENT PLUNKETT AND
COUNCILMEMBERS WAMBOLT, WILSON, AND OLSON IN FAVOR; AND
COUNCILMEMBERS BERNHEIM, ORVIS, AND DAWSON OPPOSED.
It was the consensus of the Council to refer the interpretation issue to the Community Services /Development
Services Committee.
Councilmember Wilson requested the Councilmembers voting in the minority provide their comments to the
Community Services /Development Services Committee in writing. Councilmember Dawson explained she
found the Hearing Examiner's rationale more compelling than staff's interpretation. Mayor Haakenson
suggested the Committee compare the Hearing Examiner's decision on this subdivision to her previous
decision and determine what was different.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 5, 2008
Page 6
Councilmember Wilson commented he also had several issues with this project including guest parking.
Therefore, it was less an issue with the interpretation but rather a need to revise the townhouse subdivision
code. Mr. Bowman advised staff could present information to the Committee at their August 12 meeting and
return to the Council for confirmation before forwarding it to the Planning Board. He agreed that section of
the code needed to be rewritten.
Councilmember Wambolt reiterated his question regarding how new Councilmembers were made aware of
past staff interpretations. Mr. Snyder answered one of the difficulties was the Council was presumed to
know the City's ordinances and prior code interpretation.
Design 4. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PLANNING BOARD'S RECOMMENDATION TO AMEND CHAPTER
Standards for
the BDI Zone 16.43 ECDC TO INCORPORATE DESIGN STANDARDS FOR THE BDI ZONE.
Planning Manager Rob Chave explained when the City Council adopted the new downtown BD zone, there
was some discussion regarding design standards, particularly with regard to the downtown retail core and the
Council requested input from the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) regarding design standards for
that area. The HPC presented suggestions to the Council who referred their suggestions to the Planning
Board. The Planning Board worked with the Architectural Design Board (ADB) and the HPC and developed
several pages of illustrations and language be incorporated into the BDI zone with regard to character,
standards for retail use, pedestrian orientation, etc. He noted the Planning Board wanted further opportunity
to work with the HPC on demolition, design review thresholds, etc. He summarized tonight's hearing was
on the design standards recommended by the Planning Board and to direct staff to prepare an ordinance to
implement the design standards. He noted the design standards were tailored to address the most critical
aspects of design such as streetscape, relationship of retail spaces to the street, etc. without being overly
detailed.
Councilmember Wilson asked how the previous discussion regarding form -based planning applied to this
item. Mr. Chave answered this was consistent with the City's hybrid approach.
Council President Plunkett commented he had been associated with this for 3 -4 years via the HPC. He
explained this was an attempt to preserve the character and charm of downtown, noting there were a number
of ways to accomplish that from design standards to other more restrictive methods. The Council's and most
citizens' intent was to ensure that new construction or rehab of an existing structure in the downtown core
used design standards that reflected the historic nature, character and charm of downtown. Mr. Chave
commented while many of the standards were mandatory via the use of "shall," they did not mandate a
specific building style which reflected the ADB and Planning Board desire. The Planning Board and ADB
were interested in the relationship of the building to the street and pedestrian and found scale more important
than building style. He pointed out there was not a single historic or architectural style downtown. Council
President Plunkett agreed the Council's emphasis with regard to downtown buildings has been scale and
streetscape.
Councilmember Bernheim asked whether the Windermere building with its courtyard, the building across
street, the former Bank of Washington building and the new Bank of Washington building met the proposed
design standards. Mr. Chave answered they likely would not be approved in the form they existed today.
For example, the main part of the buildings were set back with columns along the pedestrian street front; the
retail industry did not find this desirable as it did not allow shoppers to see into retail spaces.
Councilmember Bernheim commented the design standards did mandate certain styles and exclude others.
Councilmember Bernheim referred to drawings of 3 -story buildings on pages 2 and 3, suggesting scale or
measurements be included to illustrate how the renderings represented buildings that could be constructed in
the BD 1 zone. Mr. Chave answered depending on the topography, it was theoretically possible to construct
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 5, 2008
Page 7
more than two stories in the BD zone. Councilmember Bernheim asked whether buildings as depicted by
the drawings on pages 2 and 3 were possible in the BD zone. Mr. Chave answered they were intended to be
generic illustrations that described various portions of the building. Councilmember Bernheim anticipated a
developer could refer to the drawings as something that was allowed. He found the drawings a poor choice
for inclusion in the design standards. Mr. Chave reiterated the drawings were intended to be generic
illustrations of three different stages of a building and could be deleted if the Council wished.
Councilmember Orvis referred to page 7 of the design standards, transparency at street level, inquiring
whether transparency was required above 10 feet. Mr. Chave answered there was not a requirement for
transparency above 10 feet. Councilmember Orvis noted the design standards also contained criteria for
blank walls and questioned the intent of Item J, an architectural element not listed above, as approved, that
meets the intent. Mr. Chave advised that was intended to provide some flexibility to the ADB to approve
something that met the intent. For Councilmember Orvis, Mr. Chave described a medallion as a small,
decorative element with a carved face or symbol.
Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Elizabeth Larman, Edmonds, commended Mr. Chave for producing the design standards. She agreed with
Councilmember Bernheim that the design standards for the BD zone should not contain drawings of 3 -story
buildings. She also recommended all ADB decisions, particularly with regard to building exteriors, be
binding which they currently were not. For example, Old Milltown was originally to be sandstone with
expensive awnings; however, the end result was paint on the building exterior and fabric awnings which she
asserted looked cheap and would deteriorate quickly. She noted near the end of a project the profit margin
narrowed and corners were cut, in this case to the detriment of the public who must look at the building. She
also recommended ADB and Planning Board meetings be televised so that the public was aware what was
being discussed and approved.
Hearing no further public comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public hearing.
Council President Plunkett asked staff to respond to Ms. Larman's comment regarding binding ADB
decisions. Mr. Chave responded ADB decisions were binding; however, occasionally there were
modifications to an approved plan and staff makes a determination whether they are substantial enough to
require ADB review. Council President Plunkett suggested if the Council wanted all modifications to be
reviewed by the ADB or consider to changing the threshold for staff approval, that was an issue separate
from this document. Mr. Chave advised the ADB, HPC and Planning Board had a great deal of discussion
regarding the threshold for review - what in the BD should be reviewed by the ADB versus a staff decision.
He noted this was a difficult determination as historically design review in the downtown commercial
districts has been a very sensitive area of discussion because many people care about the area and requiring
too much to be reviewed by the ADB had a deleterious affect on business openings. He clarified if the
threshold was set too low and too much required review and public hearing by the ADB, the result could be a
substantial slowdown to businesses. He noted the HPC, ADB and Planning Board agreed a lower threshold
was appropriate in the BD 1 zone but had not yet agreed on a threshold.
COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT, TO
DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE EDMONDS
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC) TO IMPLEMENT THE PLANNING BOARD'S
RECOMMENDATION.
Councilmember Bernheim reiterated his concern with the drawings in the standards, questioning how they
could be constructed in the BD I zone.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 5, 2008
Page 8
COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PLUNKETT,
TO MODIFY/REPLACE THE DRAWINGS WITH DRAWINGS OF BUILDINGS THAT COULD BE
BUILT IN THE BDl ZONE.
Councilmember Wambolt commented the drawings were for illustrative purposes only and the height limits
of the zone would determine the building height.
Councilmember Dawson agreed the drawings on pages 2 and 3 were confusing, noting if the first floor was
required to be 15 -feet, there was no possible way to achieve a building in the BD1 zone as depicted in the
drawings. She summarized the drawings gave the wrong impression regarding what could be built in the
BD1 zone and supported replacing or deleting the drawings. She noted page 2 contained two excellent
photographs that illustrated the distinction between the base and top of the building.
Councilmember Wambolt commented the buildings as shown in the drawings could be built downtown, for
example Old Milltown, whose owner decided not to add a third floor.
Councilmember Orvis recalled the Council designed the BD1 zone with 2- stories with the knowledge that 3
stories may be possible. He recalled there had been applications for height limit variance downtown,
anticipating the drawings could be referenced by such an applicant.
Councilmember Bernheim suggested eliminating half of the building in the drawing on page 3 and the entire
drawing on page 2 or replacing them with drawings of buildings that could be built. Mr. Snyder suggested
the Council could review the drawings when the ordinance was scheduled on the Consent Agenda. He also
suggested adding a footnote that the drawing illustrated an element of design and did not control the height.
Councilmember Wambolt suggested this could be addressed by his previous motion to limit the BD 1 zone to
two stories.
VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT: MOTION CARRIED (6 -1), COUNCILMEMBER OLSON
OPPOSED.
Councilmember Bernheim commented certain buildings such as the Windermere building would be excluded
by these design standards as would certain modern architecture. Thus the design standards were establishing
a semi - classic, retro- modern, drive -up 2 -story base and top that reflected a certain history. There were many
buildings in the City's historical inventory that were designed in this manner and he preferred to preserve
those buildings rather than require new buildings to look like old buildings. He commented style in
downtown Edmonds was less important than bulk, noting he supported height limits and lot coverage
standards. He expressed support for the proposed standards, remarking they could be changed if the result
was not satisfactory.
Councilmember Dawson thanked staff and the Planning Board for their efforts, noting the proposed
standards described what the Council and public wanted to see in the BD zone.
VOTE ON MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED: MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Hiappropriate Jesse Scott, Edmonds, asked if the Council was powerless to regulate inappropriate building construction in
Builaing the city. He referred to comments made by Council President Plunkett last year that there was nothing the
c °nstr "cti °n Council could do as well as Development Services Director Duane Bowman's comment that although the
proposed addition was "the poster child for undesirable construction" nothing could be done. He displayed a
photograph of an addition to a house that blocked his view of Puget Sound and read from the code that
private projects were to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. He read goals in the Comprehensive
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 5, 2008
Page 9
Plan that custom homes were to be designed and constructed with architectural lines that enabled them to
harmonize with existing surroundings, protect neighborhoods from incompatible additions to existing
buildings that do not harmonize with existing structures, and minimize encroachment on view of existing
homes by new construction or addition to existing structures. He displayed additional photographs of a
3,000 square foot addition to a 1500 square foot home via a 10 -foot breezeway and referred to ADB review
criteria that long, massive, unbroken or monotonous buildings shall be avoided to comply with the chapter
and design objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. He summarized the City's codes needed to be changed as
this addition was currently legal.
old Safeway Barbara Tipton, Edmonds, referred to Councilmember Wambolt's guest column in the Edmonds Beacon
ana skippers that stated a small group of citizens convinced a few Couneilmembers that the old Safeway and Skippers
sites
sites could not be appropriately developed by the owners and Councilmember Wambolt's determination that
the best option would be construction of 3 -4 story buildings even though the WG33, citizens who spoke to
the Council and who wrote to the Edmonds Beacon opposed that type of development. She pointed out
increasing the scale of development beyond that available under current zoning was the preferred option of
the developers and would provide a subsidy to the developer by increasing the potential profits. She referred
to Al Hooper's column that referenced the vigilant four, Council President Plunkett, Couneilmembers
Dawson, Orvis and Bernheim, and chided them for vigorously enforcing existing codes. She supported their
position as well as Councilmember Bernheim's recommendation for an appraisal to determine the value of
the property, noting the appraiser could take into account the soil, drainage, flooding, high water table and
proximity to the railroad. The City also had the option of revising the Comprehensive Plan to designate the
property as a public use area which would enable the City to apply for grant funding, further reducing the
cost to taxpayers. She referred to Councilmember Wambolt's attempt to divide the proponents of schools,
hospitals and public acquisition into warring camps and his reference to increased property taxes, concluding
that compared to Seattle, Edmonds' tax burden was relatively light.
Purchase of Faye May, Edmonds, encouraged the City to consider purchase of the waterfront site, commenting the City
waterfront had the unique opportunity to become an outstanding destination City. She noted Edmonds was known for
site its charm and uniqueness; acquisition of this property would continue to draw citizens, businesses and
visitors. She recalled the numerous citizens who spoke on May 1 regarding development of the waterfront
area and desire that Edmonds retain its current charm. She read from an article by John Pierre in the July 24
Edmonds Beacon regarding maintaining the ambiance of Edmonds and promoting the 1940s atmosphere of
the community. She favored the City acquiring the property and developing it as an extension of the
downtown core to ensure the continuance of Edmonds' charm and uniqueness.
Purchase of i Barbara Chase, Edmonds, pointed out there was only one chance to purchase the waterfront property. It is
Waterfront
Site a completely different situation than the expenditures for other capital improvements such as sidewalks.
Year-round Mike Cooper, Edmonds, relayed conversations between the agricultural community, Snohomish County
Farmers Council and Planning staff regarding siting a regional, year -round farmers market in Snohomish County. He
Market in
described recent visits to farmers markets in Calgary and in Kansas City, the were regional and
Snohomish g � y� g y g
Co. community gathering places. Edmonds' demographics, middle to high income neighborhoods, median age
residents, high density and tourism, made it perfect for a year -round farmers market. He recalled his
suggestion to Councilmember Dawson that the City consider working jointly with the agricultural
community in Snohomish County, Snohomish County government and private investors to make the
waterfront property an attractive open space with retail and a farmers market. He commented that type of
partnership was appropriate particularly in these days of tight budgets, high fuel prices, and concern about
safe food supplies. He relayed Snohomish County Councilmember Somers' and his commitment to working
on a partnership between Snohomish County, the City and private investors.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 5, 2008
Page 10
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, agreed with the comments regarding the waterfront. Next, he was disappointed
the Council failed to realize that illegal things occurred in the hearing and evidence was considered that was
outside the record. Mr. Snyder ruled Mr. Hertrich out of order as the Council had not yet adopted Findings
Staff and because the item was on the agenda as a public hearing. Mr. Hertrich recommended the Council restrict
Interpretationsi staff interpretations and have all interpretations reviewed by the Planning Board to ensure there was a public
process.
Antique Mall John McGibbon, Edmonds, urged the Council and the community not to purchase the Antique Mall and the
and skippers sites Gregg property, noting there were better uses for tax payer dollars. He advocated a public - private project,
possibly via a contract rezone whereby the City could exert considerable influence over the outcome and
produce an attractive and useful community asset that would generate revenue rather than consume taxpayer
dollars.
Antique Mall
and Skippers Dave Page, Edmonds, commented as a member of WG33 he felt they were somewhat herded which he felt
sites was acceptable at the time. He would have supported a compromise as many of the designs were quite good.
However, at the end of the process many felt "sucker punched" because the preferred design was not what
the group was headed toward. He pointed out there was a great deal of funding available for purchase and
development of the site including State and Federal funds. He expressed support for the City purchasing the
site and urged the Council to continue their research.
Antique Mall Tom Pirie, Edmonds, stated the waterfront property was a jewel with great potential; however, if left to
and Skippers
Sites developers, it could become an eyesore. He recalled the excitement created by designs proposed by high
school students and the discussion their designs stimulated in the community. He referred to Mike Cooper's
suggestion for a farmers market, pointing out the changes that have occurred in the area surrounding Pike
Place Market including new development and tourism. Acknowledging in the short term a project that drew
visitors to the area would cost the City, in the long term the City's revenue concerns would be overcome. He
noted other development of the site would diminish the value of the surrounding properties and would not
attract businesses and stimulate tourism like a farmers market.
Antique Man Elizabeth Larman, Edmonds, read a letter from Lyn MacFarlane, Edmonds, referencing geologist reports
and skippers that the soil on the waterfront property was unstable, oceanographers' reports that the water level would
Sites
continue to rise, and meteorologists' reports that expected a period of greater storms and heavier rains. Ms.
MacFarlane anticipated the best use of the property was a park, referencing the destruction of much of the
Hilo, Hawaii, business district by a tsunami. She urged the Council not to allow higher buildings and to
develop the site as a park. Ms. Larman commented although Councilmember Wambolt stated he had spoken
to many citizens who were opposed to purchasing the waterfront property, only one person spoke in
opposition tonight. In her conversations with numerous people, everyone wanted the City to maintain this
area for the public's enjoyment.
Antique Mall Beverly Starkovich, Edmonds, stated her opposition to the City purchasing the property, fearing the result
and skippers Sites would be a lack of revenue or increased property taxes. She expressed support for development in the City
in a manner that appealed to young people and not converting it to a Leavenworth or a retirement
community.
Janis Freeman, Edmonds, commented although Mike Cooper's suggestion for a farmers market showed
nd Skpp rs' promise, she was opposed to the City purchasing either the former Skipper's property or the Antique Mall
sites property, commenting the City had far more important priorities such as maintaining and improving the
aging public infrastructure. She supported the properties being developed with mixed use development
under the existing codes to provide retail and commercial uses as well as residences within easy walking
distance of downtown's amenities and services. She suggested negotiating open space with the developer via
goodwill and compromise. She anticipated if the City purchased the property it would spend the next ten
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 5, 2008
Page l l
years determining the uses. She also pointed out the importance of reducing reliance on fossil fuels and the
need to get people out of their cars by providing a viable transportation system and access to the system via
safe, well lit sidewalks which were lacking in Edmonds.
Farmers Mayor Haakenson advised Snohomish County Councilmember Cooper, Councilmember Dawson,
Market Community Services /Economic Development Director Stephen Clifton and he have met with proponents of a
Proposal
farmers market and Mr. Clifton and he have met with some of them on the site. He noted that was not
unusual; staff and he often did that with people interested in that property and although they were encouraged
by the interest, there was nothing concrete at this time; there was no financing, no deal with the owner to
purchase the property, etc., thus it was a long way from fruition and only one of many ideas for that property.
Councilmember Dawson acknowledged although discussions for a farmers market on this site were in their
infancy, plans for a regional farmers market were fairly well developed.
Mayor Haakenson declared a brief recess.
Downtown 6. CONTINUED DISCUSSION AND POTENTIAL ACTION REGARDING THE DOWNTOWN
Master Plan
Area MASTER PLAN AREA - WATERFRONT ANTIQUE MALL, HARBOR SQUARE AND SKIPPERS
PROPERTIES.
Council President Plunkett clarified there was no opportunity for public comment on this item. He offered to
provide a background/opening statement which would be followed by questions /answers and then. Council
deliberation and potential action.
Council President Plunkett commented he was fascinated by the concept of a farmers market, remarking
while in London this summer he visited a huge, vibrant farmers market two blocks from the Thames River.
He recalled in 2007 the Port formed a group that became WG33 with funding from the Port and the City, to
develop plans for the waterfront property. He commended Port Executive Director Chris Keuss for the
numerous presentations he made that began the discussion in the community. At the conclusion of that
effort, the Port indicated they had completed their process and turned it over to the City. As Council
President, he felt responsible to move the process forward; therefore, in January the Council discussed the
possibility of open space on the property. Due to the Council's interest, it was discussed further at the
Council retreat where the Council concluded they needed to hear from the citizens and the property owners.
The property owners subsequently made presentations and the public was provided an opportunity to speak
to the Council. There have been several attempts by the Council to take action during the year, attempts he
resisted in favor of gathering information from the property owners, the citizens, and staff. He recalled a few
months ago staff also provided the Council a list of infrastructure priorities to assist the Council in their
discussion.
Council President Plunkett concluded there were four potential directions the Council could take, 1) a City -
driven master plan, 2) a property owner -driven master plan, 3) the Council proceeding with potential
purchase of the property and 4) other.
Councilmember Wambolt observed although a few people spoke tonight during audience comment against
the City purchasing the property, the most vocal citizens were those who favored the City purchasing the
property. Those who were opposed to the purchase preferred to email and indicated he had several emails
expressing opposition to the purchase. He noted the citizens who wanted to purchase the property could be
divided into two groups, those who wanted the City to purchase the property to 1) protect their views and 2)
because they genuinely felt it was the best thing for the City and its citizens. He commented although it was
easy for those who supported the City purchasing the property to see the benefits, they had not been given
enough information to assess challenges associated with the City purchasing the property.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 5, 2008
Page 12
Councilmember Wambolt recapped the current economic climate, pointing out the Real Estate Excise Tax
(REST) collected by the City in 2008 was half what was collected in 2007, which meant considerably less
funding for parks as well as the possibility of increasing the street overlay cycle to 70 years again, the level it
was at before excess REST funds were allocated to street overlays. He noted the Snohomish County
Executive recently vetoed a new Justice Center in Everett because it would increase taxes for citizens by
$0.109 or $38 /year on a $350,000 home. The State's revenue is $60 million below projections for the month
of June and the State has instituted a hiring freeze. The City is facing a few million dollars in operating
shortfall by 2010 and both Stevens Hospital and the Edmonds School District needed additional funding. He
noted prices were outpacing income and the second highest increase in prices in three decades occurred in
June. Observing that the Council would be assessing capital improvement priorities at the August 18
Council retreat and would ask staff to determine the cost of the necessary improvements, he suggested staff
could also be asked to assess the magnitude of a levy lid lift to address the operating shortfall.
Councilmember Wambolt referred to an article in the recent AWC bulletin regarding the worsening
condition of many cities' fiscal condition and declining REET and property taxes due to the downturn in
home building, reductions in consumer confidence and declining home values. He suggested staff return at
the last meeting in August with an assessment of the funds that were needed for essential projects. He
commented although it would be nice to purchase these properties, it was essential to assess the magnitude of
the City's needs before taking any action with regard to these properties.
Councilmember Bernheim suggested Councilmember Wambolt distribute any emails he received that
opposed the public purchase of the property, noting he had read only approximately ten such emails. He
reminded this was not high value waterfront property; this was railroad track property that was underwater
when it rained. He acknowledged the property provided an important connection to the waterfront, thus its
value to the City. The property had many potential uses including a farmers market, parking, a transit
coordination center rather than moving the ferry terminal, uses that encouraged tourism, special needs
housing, shops and restaurants, or a senior center, all uses that could access funds outside the City. He noted
a great deal of public funds had been expended by the Port and the City via the WG33 process to determine
what the owners wanted but there had not been any research done with regard to potential funding sources.
He suggested hiring a consultant to determine what the City and its citizens wanted, a study similar to the
aquatic center feasibility study. He commented an aquatics center, depending on the size and location, could
be a regional attraction that generated revenue. He commented now was the time to investigate the
possibility of public ownership of the properties, noting he found the high school students' proposals
inspirational and potentially achievable. He acknowledged there were competing projects, thus the
importance of gathering the facts including the cost to plan and operate a public facility in order to accurately
evaluate the decision. He supported moving the process forward and not waiting to obtain a commercial .
appraisal until after the Council's discussion regarding upcoming capital projects.
Councilmember Bernheim explained if an appraisal determined the fair market value was substantially less
than the owners wanted for their property, that was important information in the discussion regarding public
acquisition of the property. He pointed out the property owners could proceed with development under the
existing code, noting he found the BC zone appropriate for that area as it would allow at least two stories and
conceivably three stories in some areas. He supported obtaining an appraisal of the properties, incorporating
the ideas developed by the students and the Port to bring in low impact futuristic, make -sense development
rather than intensive condominium development that cost the City more in the long term via traffic,
consumption of resources, parking etc.
Councilmember Orvis spoke in support of moving forward, specifically option 3, recognizing that the voters
would have to determine whether to provide the funds for purchasing the property. He also supported
proceeding with environmental due diligence, noting that would drive the appraisal as well as the uses on the
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 5, 2008
Page 13
site. Although he preferred not to use eminent domain, if it came to that he wanted to ensure the process was
fair.
Councilmember Wilson commented it was appropriate to move forward with an appraisal or other measures
if the Council had a vision for the site. He commented on the amount of discussion regarding the property in
the past year, noting at some point the Council must develop a clear vision for the property before asking the
citizens to provide funding. He remarked if the Council could not agree on a vision, they would be unlikely
to garner support from the voters.
Councilmember Dawson commented the Harbor Square property owned by the Port, Antique Mall and
Skippers properties each had a different status. The Port, as a public entity, had some control over how their
property will develop. With regard to the Skippers property, it did not appear to be in imminent danger of
redevelopment in a manner that was detrimental to the City's interests; it was her understanding Mr. Gregg
planned to demolish the building and lease the property to Sound Transit for parking for the next couple
years and possibly as a transit station in the future. The Antique Mail property although not for sale and the
price quoted by the property owner was not within the realm of what the taxpayers would pay for the
property, placed the City in a position of looking at condemnation procedures to acquire it for a lesser
amount, a process that would substantially limit the uses that would be allowed on the property.
Councilmember Dawson commented there were many excellent possibilities for the property including a
farmers market and suggested the City continue to work with the property owners and other entities to
determine if there were ways the property could be developed with support from the City but that did not
necessarily require purchase by the City. She expressed support for the property being developed in a
manner that was in the public's interest and had Edmonds' vision such as a farmers market that did not
require the City to purchase or maintain the property. She thanked Mr. Clifton and Mayor Haakenson for
their efforts to meet with the proponents of a farmers market, commenting there may also be opportunities to
partner with the Port.
Councilmember Dawson summarized there was no rush to purchase the property nor was there an ability to
immediately purchase the property as the earliest a funding measure could be placed on the ballot would be
late winter or early spring. She expressed interest in continuing to gather citizens' vision for the property,
asking staff to provide further information regarding the EIS process, and possibly hiring a consultant to
determine suitable uses for the property. She was also interested in determining the environmental
constraints on the property, noting without that information, the appraisal may not be accurate. She
suggested informing the public regarding the limitations on the use of the property under public ownership,
commenting the City would not be able to purchase the property for special needs housing or shops and
restaurants, particularly via condemnation. If the primary goal was to generate revenue to make it self -
sustaining, it was important for the public to understand the uses that were allowed under City ownership.
She suggested one method for gathering public input was via an online survey. She expressed interest in
further investigation of the farmers market concept.
Councilmember Orvis agreed if the property were acquired via eminent domain, the allowed uses as well as
environmental issues would drive how the property was developed.
Councilmember Wilson did not support gathering further unstructured comment from the public. Although it
was his perception that the majority of citizens would not support the City purchasing the property; his
personal view was that the Council could develop and sell a concept to the public. He suggested retaining a
facilitator to assist the Council in developing options for the site and then asking citizens for input on those
options. He agreed there was no rush to develop the parcels.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 5, 2008
Page 14
Councilmember Bernheim stated the appraisal would provide facts that may refute the property owners
stated price of $16 million. If the appraisal determined the fair market value was substantially lower than the
price stated by the property owners due to the high water table, heavy railroad traffic and ferry traffic, the
discussion may be very different. He found an appraisal an extremely inexpensive way to obtain a very
effective bargaining chip, commenting it would be difficult to negotiate without knowledge of the fair market
value. He also supported conducting environmental due diligence depending on how it was defined, noting
he did not support spending $350,000 to hire an environmental engineer.
Councilmember Wambolt commented appraisals were difficult particularly in this economic climate. He
remarked if the appraisal was below $16 million, the property owners would require additional appraisals.
He concluded obtaining an appraisal was a waste of time and was not the panacea some may think it was.
Council President Plunkett summarized the Council needed to do three things, 1) discuss priorities which
would be done at the August 18 retreat, 2) obtain an appraisal with environmental due diligence on the site,
and 3) develop a vision for public use. He suggested directing staff to return with public use consultants and
a potential scope of work and identify appraisers and a scope of work, while the Council was discussing
priorities.
Councilmember Olson agreed with Councilmember Dawson, commenting if an appraisal were conducted
prior to the EIS, the appraisal may not be accurate. She suggested further information be provided at the
Council retreat regarding the availability of grants, noting in her experience it had gotten much more difficult
to obtain funding in the past three years.
Council President Plunkett clarified an appraisal needed to be done in conjunction with the environmental
work as the environmental assessment would impact the appraisal. He anticipated the environmental
information would be provided to the appraiser who would take those issues into account in determining the
fair market value.
Councilmember Wilson agreed the three actions Council. President Plunkett described, the public use vision,
appraisal and environmental due diligence, could occur simultaneously. He noted his day job includes
polling with regard to political issues; Snohomish County residents were highly anti -tax by 20 points, thus
the importance of developing a concrete vision that could be sold to the citizens. He agreed there were funds
available, particularly State and Federal. He used Lake Ballinger as an example, noting $200,000 was
obtained from the State by making a compelling request to the State Legislature. He pointed out federal
appropriations were due by February 1, 2009, thus the City needed to have a proposal in place that could be
presented to the federal delegation. If the February 1, 2009 deadline were missed, he noted there would be
little opportunity for federal funding in 2010 or 2011.
COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PLUNKETT,
TO DIRECT PLANNING STAFF TO DEVELOP A REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS FOR A
COMMERCIAL APPRAISAL NOT TO EXCEED $20,000 THAT CONSIDERED THE FAIR
MARKET VALUE OF THE ANTIQUE MALL AND SKIPPERS PROPERTY AND THE FERRY
PROPERTY CONSIDERING ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS SUCH AS FLOODING AND WATER
TABLE.
Council President Plunkett asked if Councilmember Bernheim's intent was for staff to provide potential
appraisers and a scope of work for final Council approval. Councilmember Bernheim agreed that was his
intent.
City Attorney Scott Snyder commented one of the reasons for presenting a scope of work would be to
educate the Council regarding the MAI appraisal guidelines which were typically based on comparable sales.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 5, 2008
Page 15
Because this property was unique, it would be difficult to identify comparable sales and there would be
limitations on the amount of speculative environmental information an appraiser could consider versus being
within a zoning category such as a critical area.
Council President Plunkett suggested staff also provide recommendations with regard to an environmental
consultant to assess issues such as the water table and flooding so that information could be made available
to the appraiser. He asked if it was Councilmember Bernheim's intent to obtain separate appraisals for the
Skippers, Antique Mall and the WSDOT property. Councilmember Bernheim answered that was his intent.
Council President Plunkett also suggested staff provide the appraiser with information and documentation on
environmental issues that staff was aware of on the subject properties including but not limited to flooding
and water table. He also expressed interest in hiring a public use consultant, noting he was interested in a
consultant who would consider the purchase from the prospective of public use. He referred to the
Pomegranate Center who has assisted with the creation of public uses and gathering places.
Councilmember Wambolt did not support the motion, finding it premature. He preferred to proceed as
described by Councilmember Dawson.
Councilmember Dawson anticipated the scope of work being discussed would vastly exceed $20,000. She
suggested it may be more appropriate to have staff return with potential costs to respond to Councilmember
Wilson's suggestions and potential environmental work, noting the cost may impact whether some
Councilmembers wanted to proceed. She did not support the motion as currently configured but did support
moving forward as she suggested. Mayor Haakenson clarified staff providing an RFQ for an appraiser did
not cost anything other than staff time. He cautioned staff's priority for the next four months would be the
budget.
Councilmember Bernheim emphasized the intent of obtaining an appraisal was to determine the fair market
value to provide the City some leverage in negotiating with the property owner. If the City could provide
evidence that a commercial real estate appraiser disagreed with the price quoted by the property owner, the
position of the owners may change.
Council President Plunkett suggested staff identify potential appraisers and environmental consultants and a
general scope of work and provide that information to the Council in two weeks. Mr. Snyder suggested staff
provide the Council with a scope of work for the appraisal and the environmental work as well as the
limitations of the MAI appraisal format and environmental information that could be gathered without access
to the property. Council President Plunkett questioned if it was appropriate for the Council to consider the
scope of work prior to considering a list of appraisers. Development Services Director Duane Bowman
advised staff could develop a scope of work and the process for obtaining environmental information in two
weeks but it would be impossible for staff to develop a proposal in that timeframe. He suggested issuing a
Request for Proposal with the scope of work to appraisers and environmental consultants. He anticipated the
cost would exceed $20,000, particularly the environmental assessment. Mayor Haakenson suggested
limiting the appraisal to property the City had condemnation power over which would not include the State -
owned property.
Councilmember Dawson agreed with Mr. Bowman and suggested staff also provide an RFQ for a consultant
to assist with the planning process. She noted market value was what a willing seller may sell their property
to a willing buyer; currently the City did not have the ability to be a willing buyer and there was not
necessarily a willing seller. She was also interested in information from staff regarding limitations due to the
City not having access to the property for an environmental assessment. She planned to continue meeting
with the Agricultural Board regarding the potential for a farmers market. She suggested staff provide the
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 5, 2008
Page 16
information at the Council's mini - retreat on August 18. Mayor Haakenson suggested the Council also
discuss how to fund the appraisal and environmental assessment.
Councilmember Wilson suggested the Council develop a vision for the property via a City- driven master
planning process that would include engaging the current/potential property owners. He noted the Council
agreed there should be public space on the property; if the Council determined it wanted to purchase the
property, he was confident the Council would purchase only a small parcel. He noted that could only be
determined via a visioning process as part of a master plan.
COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DAWSON, TO
EXTEND THE MEETING UNTIL 10:30 P.M. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Council President Plunkett noted Mr. Snyder suggested staff bring back a scope of work in two weeks with
regard to a potential appraisal. Councilmember Bernheim agreed that would be acceptable.
COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS TO
DIRECT STAFF TO RETURN SOMETIME IN THE NEXT TWO WEEKS HOPEFULLY BEFORE
THE RETREAT WITH A SCOPE OF WORK.
For Councilmember Wambolt, Councilmember Bernheim clarified the scope of work would be to 1) hire a
commercial appraiser to determine the fair market value of the properties and 2) for environmental .
investigation to assist the appraiser.
Councilmember Wambolt questioned why an appraisal was necessary to accomplish what Councilmember
Wilson described. Councilmember Wilson agreed an appraisal was not necessary, however, by having an
appraisal there was the potential to build support on the Council. He could support obtaining an appraisal if
it would move the process forward.
Council President Plunkett clarified the motion was for staff to provide a scope of work for a potential future
appraisal and environmental investigation. Mr. Bowman pointed out a scope of work was not necessary for
an appraiser as they had standards they must follow. Mr. Snyder suggested staff inform the Council of the
rules for obtaining a MAI appraisal.
MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT OPPOSED.
Council President Plunkett also expressed interest in a public use consultant.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, TO
DIRECT STAFF TO BRING BACK IDEAS REGARDING POTENTIAL CONSULTANTS FOR THE
COUNCIL TO CONSIDER IN REGARD TO DEVELOPING A VISION.
Councilmember Dawson questioned whether the vision must be limited to solely public uses. She recalled
interest by the public and noted it was her interest to have a component that was not necessarily public use
but uses that generated tax revenue and brought visitors to the area and was beneficial to the public. She
indicated her support for the motion as long as it was not just to consider a park but also private development
by the current or different owners or the City. Council President Plunkett indicated that was acceptable to
him.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 5, 2008
Page 17
Councilmember Wilson offered to work with Council President Plunkett and staff over the next two weeks to
develop a timeline for the next five months.
Councilmember Olson expressed concern with hiring consultants, noting the City often paid a great deal for
consultants' work and then never did anything.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
08 -23 -08 Mayor Haakenson announced the free document shredding event scheduled on August 23 at Top Foods from
Do
nt
Shreddieddi ng 9:00 - 12:00, advising participants were limited to the equivalent of five boxes of paper documents and were
Event asked to remove large staples from the papers.
8. COUNCIL COMMENTS
08 -18 -08 Council President Plunkett asked for Council direction regarding the August 18 public hearing on the liquor
Public license for the restaurant at Five Corners. He was inclined to hold the public hearing even though it was
Hearing re: unlikely to have any effect. Councilmember Wilson advised the neighbors, the owner of the restaurant,
Liquor
License for Councilmember Wambolt and he and another Councilmember if another wanted to attend, were meeting on
Restaurant at Saturday. If the neighbors' concerns could be addressed at that meeting, the public hearing may not be
Five corners necessary. Council President Plunkett summarized unless directed otherwise, the public hearing would be on
the August 18 agenda.
Councilmember Wilson acknowledged how frustrating the legislative process could be at times, noting there
were a number of times he wished the process could have been moved forward more quickly. He anticipated
the motions the Council passed tonight regarding the previous agenda item could have been passed months
ago but it was unlikely it would have been with a 6 -1 and 7 -0 vote.
Councilmember Olson thanked the ladies from Team Peggy, an amazing group of women that included
Executive Council Assistant Jana Spellman and City Clerk Sandy Chase. She appreciated the support they
provided her and raising awareness and funds for ALS.
Councilmember Dawson advised the November ballot would included a Sound Transit measure. She
Sound Transit planned to ask the Council President to schedule presentations by Sound Transit staff to provide the Council
and the public more details on the robust package that would bring light rail to Lynnwood as well as a 30%
increase in bus service in Snohomish County and substantial funding for a transit station in Edmonds. She
also planned to ask the Council President to schedule a resolution of support and the required public hearing.
She invited anyone with questions regarding the Sound Transit package to contact her.
9. ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:25 p.m.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 5, 2008
Page 18