06/14/2005 City CouncilI� M . ,,.
June 14, 2005
Following Committee Meetings at 6:00 p.m., the Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at
7:00 p.m. by Mayor Haakenson in the Council Chambers, 250 5t'' Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting
was opened with the flag salute.
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Gary Haakenson, Mayor
Richard Marin, Council President
Michael Plunkett, Councilmember
Jeff Wilson, Councilmember
Mauri Moore, Councilmember
Peggy Pritchard Olson, Councilmember
Dave Orvis, Councilmember
Deanna Dawson, Councilmember
a a: z l l y� I we] e] ff.,' " 0112 1
STAFF PRESENT
Duane Bowman, Development Services Director
Stephen Clifton, Community Services Director
Jennifer Gerend, Economic Development Dir.
Rob Chave, Planning Manager
Sandy Chase, City Clerk
Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, FOR
APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
COUNCILMEMBER MOORE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT MARIN, FOR
APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda
items approved are as follows:
Approve (A) ROLL CALL
6/7/05
Minutes (B) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JUNE 7, 2005.
Approve
Claim (C) APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #80056 THROUGH #80275 FOR THE WEEK OF
Checks JUNE 6, 2005, IN THE AMOUNT OF $433,141.51.
Code 3
Revisions to
Support the
Comp. Plan
Council President Marin explained that following Development Services Director Duane Bowman's
presentation, Planning Manager Rob Chave would provide an overview of the three major decisions the
Council needed to make. After Mr. Chave reviewed each of the zoning /use districts, the Council would
have an opportunity to provide input. Council President Marin envisioned the Council would then take a
vote on that issue. Following discussion regarding height limits, the Council would again vote on that
issue. Upon completion of the discussion of the third matter, lot orientation and height measurements, the
Council would again vote on that issue.
CONTINUED WORK SESSION ON CODE REVISIONS TO SUPPORT THE COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN.
Edmonds City Council ApprovedMinutes
June 14, 2005
Page 1
Council President Marin referred to his memo, recommending the Council also discuss and take action on
the first three issues, 1) delete modulation requirement, 2) add pedestrian retail design criterion adopted
via reference to Design Guidelines, and 3) add provisions for clock towers, roof decks, architectural
design elements above height limit. He advised the Design Guidelines would be presented to the Council
for discussion at the June 28 Council meeting.
Mr. Bowman recalled the Council had an opportunity over the past several months to obtain information
from many different sources including discussions regarding the Planning Board recommended
Comprehensive Plan as well as recent discussions with Mark Hinshaw, LMN Architects. He noted
nothing that had been presented to the Council to date was set in stone; it was a decision for the Council
to make as a result of their deliberations. Once the Council completed their review and decisions, staff
was seeking specific direction regarding zoning regulations to be referred back to the Planning Board for
review and recommendation.
Mr. Chave explained the Comprehensive Plan contained some general direction with regard to districts
but did not provide actual implementation solutions. He recalled the Council's discussion regarding
overlays that would refine the height and design requirements consistent with the general direction in the
Comprehensive Plan. One method of accomplishing this would be to break the discussion into several
subjects, the first being zoning /use districts. He explained the downtown would be divided into several
zoning districts, potentially with different zone classifications, and established in the code which would
then require rezoning of those areas. He explained each zone would refine the uses for specific areas of
downtown. He clarified this item addressed only the pattern of uses, not heights.
Mr. Chave suggested the second topic for Council discussion be a pattern of basic height limit within the
downtown area. He explained the proposal was a basic height for each area independent of the uses
allowed. He noted the heights could be fixed or achieved via incentives. He recalled discussion that 12-
feet was a compromise for retail /commercial space and that 15 -feet was a more ideal height. He pointed
out if heights in the retail core are reduced to 25 feet, there were likely to be property owners who felt that
was taking something away when they were currently allowed 30 feet (25 + 5 feet). To address both
issues, he suggested devising a set of incentives that would allow a building 25 +5 feet (or whatever
height the Council decided) in exchange for requiring a 15 -foot first floor height.
Mr. Chave referred to a special circumstance where the properties along the east side of 5 I Avenue South
are at the base of a relatively steep grade. He suggested consideration be given to a concept whereby the
height would be calculated from the street level and not be averaged across the lot. He explained the
benefit was the applicant gained the additional height needed for commercial spaces on A, but the
buildings would not rise with the slope into the residential neighborhood. He explained the benefit of
zoning /use districts and basic height limits was there would only be two overlays.
Mr. Chave referred to the discussion regarding average grade versus other methods of calculating height
that would enable a building to be stepped down a slope. The intent was to tie height to the streetfront
and allow a building to step across the depth of the lot. He explained the problem with average grade was
unpredictability with regard to how the building fit on the property, how the building would be oriented to
the street, how the streetfront related to the street, etc. He explained the topography downtown was not
consistent; it sloped west, north, and south depending on the location. Therefore, with average grade it
was virtually impossible to have a predictable streetscape in a commercial core area. One attempt to
address this was lot orientation, for example, on the map, the yellow highlighted lots have an east -west
orientation toward 5h Avenue and toward the side streets, the blue highlighted lots are oriented north -
south toward Main and Dayton Streets. He acknowledged the proposed map was not perfect and would
need closer scrutiny particularly for corner lots that front on multiple streets.
Edmonds City Council ApprovedMinutes
June 14, 2005
Page 2
Mr. Chave referred to height measurement as another potential approach that would be used in tandem
with lot orientation. If the basic height limit were 30 feet, one way to address this is a regulation that
allows the basic height limit at the street and 40 feet into the lot; at the back side of the lot there would be
a new height envelope beginning at the grade level and 40 feet into the lot. He summarized this would
provide an assured height at the street and back and in the middle the two lines would be connected; the
combination of the lines would be the line defining the basic height envelope for the property. He
explained along with this concept would be a process for making adjustments /decisions in unusual
circumstances such as corner lots. He noted a discretionary process inay still be necessary; he suggested
using the Architectural Design Board (ADB) as a pre - application body who could hold a public meeting
and gather public input, forward a recommendation to staff that would then be weighed against criteria
and a decision made with regard to height on the property. He noted this would be an appealable decision
but would provide some flexibility with a fairly predicable set of rules for downtown heights.
Mr. Chave agreed with the suggestion to discuss each of the issues separately, and refer the items the
Council agrees upon as a package to the Planning Board for their review. He did not recommend
forwarding items to the Planning Board on a piecemeal basis due to the importance of considering them
together. The Council's June 28 meeting would include consideration of Design Guidelines; he
recommended the Council make decisions with regard to the Design Guidelines and not refer them to the
Planning Board. He also suggested providing the Planning Board a timeframe for providing a
recommendation on any of the items the Council referred in order to assist the Planning Board in
assigning priority to tasks.
Councilmember Plunkett inquired whether the proposed Design Guidelines were developed using the old
Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Chave answered yes, explaining the Design Guidelines the Council received in
draft form were not inconsistent with the current Comprehensive Plan and the objectives in the Design
Guidelines were incorporated.
Councilmember Plunkett questioned how the Council could work from Design Guidelines that were
predicated on a Comprehensive Plan that was three years old and quite dissimilar to the revised
Comprehensive Plan and very dissimilar to future revisions to the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Chave stated
the objectives in the Design Guidelines were contained in the current Comprehensive Plan. The old Plan
had a great deal of commonality with the new Plan; he viewed the new Plan as a refinement of the old
Plan, providing greater detail and clarity than before, particularly for the downtown. He summarized it
was not necessary to go back to square one with regard to the Design Guidelines.
Councilmember Plunkett commented there were members of the ADB who felt strongly that the proposed
Design Guidelines did not reflect today's reality.
Councilmember Orvis referred to the example of height measurement based on lot orientation, noting the
example used 30 foot height limits and recalling there were areas where the proposed 30 feet was changed
to 33 feet. Councilmember Orvis compared that with the old envelope of 30 feet, commenting the left
corner for a 33 -foot high building would be slightly higher than it would be for a 30 -foot flat envelope
measured from the center. Mr. Chave answered under the current method of measurement, average
grade, it would depend on the property. In this scheme, 33 feet in the back in some cases could be
equivalent to 30 feet from average grade. Councilmember Orvis clarified today's building envelope was
30 feet from average grade which in the example shown, resulted in the left corner being 32.5 feet. Mr.
Chave answered it would depend on the topography. Councilmember Orvis summarized a 33 foot
building envelope would be completely above what the current zoning using average grade 30 feet would
allow. Mr. Chave agreed.
Edmonds City Council ApprovedMinutes
June 14, 2005
Page 3
Councilmember Wilson referred to Mr. Chave's memo in which he listed several zoning /use districts and
asked whether Retail Core would allow or prohibit auto- oriented businesses such as a gas station, drive -in
bank, etc. Mr. Chave assumed Retail Core would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan which
identifies pedestrian oriented businesses. Auto oriented businesses would be restricted to the southern
portion of 5t' Avenue. Councilmember Wilson asked if this was also the case with the Ground
Commercial zone. Mr. Chave answered yes, explaining auto - oriented uses, other than existing uses that
would be grandfathered, would be restricted to the highlighted area at the south end of 5 " Avenue.
Councilmember Wilson asked if Residential/Mixed Use required a storefront or frontage on the ground
level He noted concern with parking at grade level and two stories above. Mr. Chave stated that could
be addressed in the zoning as well as in the Design Guidelines. He suggested if that were direction the
Council agreed upon, they provide that direction to the Planning Board. The idea in the Comprehensive
Plan was that even though it was potentially residential, it should still contribute to the streetscape.
Referring to Mr. Chave's differentiation between the zoning /use districts and the height districts,
Councilmember Wilson asked why a distinction was made between the boundaries of the retail core and
the 25 -foot height envelope. Mr. Chave explained the break in slope occurred in the alley between e and
3`d. Once one reaches the edge of the flat area, the topography slopes consistently and rapidly toward the
waterfront. Staff considered different ideas in this area such as allowing a little more height in areas with
substantial slope as that would not be as problematic for views than it could be in the flatter areas of the
City. Another factor is there are few buildings in this area that contribute to the existing downtown
streetscape as rmst of the historical buildings or buildings identified as within the pedestrian area are
located in the retail core. If the goal was to encourage the retail area to move down toward the waterfront,
some incentives for redevelopment may be appropriate.
Councilmember Wilson referred to the view corridor from 5th & Main looking west down Main which the
drop in topography enhances. He questioned the impact of the proposal on that view corridor. Mr. Chave
noted another concept in the Planning Board's recommendation was if more height were allowed to
encourage development, one of the incentives /criterion could be to require more setback. This would
provide more sidewalk area as well as move a slightly bulkier /taller building back and allow the corridor
to be maintained.
Councilmember Wilson expressed concern with the 33 -foot height on the basic height limit map for the
most western parcel as it appeared to leave that one corner standing alone. He recalled the efforts
associated with relocating the ferry terminal were to draw the commercial corridor to the waterfront and
questioned whether by treating the area between 3rd and the waterfront differently by allowing 33 foot
height limits would create a barrier between downtown and the waterfront. Mr. Chave answered much
would depend on Design Guidelines, particularly if something more than a standard design were required
to achieve 33 -feet. He noted 33 feet and 25 +5 feet were very similar, the primary difference was in how
the building was designed. He envisioned 33 feet could work with clear definitions for how the ground
floor was separated from upper floors and fagade treatment such as maintaining historical design themes
and character. Because this area was part of the retail core area, the driving concern was encouraging
more pedestrian- friendly redevelopment and taking into account building would follow the slope which
would tend to mitigate the bulky feeling of buildings. Furthermore, if this area developed via a Master
Plan, the City would have a great deal of input.
Councilmember Wilson referred to the boundaries of the retail core on the zoning /use district map,
questioning staff's intent in not bringing the retail core area further to the east and west around 4h
Avenue. He referred to the large parking lot behind the bank and other undeveloped properties where it
seemed there was the possibility of development that would expand the retail corridor rather than making
the commercial linear along two accesses of Main Street and 5"' Avenue. Mr. Chave explained the
Edmonds City Council ApprovedMinutes
June 14, 2005
Page 4
proposed arrangement followed Mr. Hinshaw's recommendations. Further, there were a number cf
buildings in this area that would not be redeveloped in the near future. He agreed there were a couple
where redevelopment may occur depending on the regulations. He noted the proposed 33 feet with a 12
foot ground floor did not preclude retail but also did not mandate it.
Councilmember Moore stated in the retail core, the zoning would mandate retail. Mr. Chave agreed retail
would be mandated at the street level. Councilmember Moore noted the current uses would be
grandfathered. Mr. Chave suggested the Council discuss grandfathering, such as whether a space or the
existing business would be grandfathered non - retail. He clarified retail did not mean only retail business,
it would include retail compatible businesses such as uses that typically have a storefront with displays,
etc. that contribute to the streetscape. He agreed it may be difficult to define and there may need to be an
enforcement mechanism.
Councilmember Moore referred to the basic height limit map, inquiring about the area on Main Street
from 3rd Avenue to Railroad and Mr. Chave's suggestion to potentially require a setback for buildings 33-
feet tall to provide a wider sidewalk. She also recalled Mr. Hinshaw's preference to have buildings at the
sidewalk to avoid some buildings being setback and some not as redevelopment occurred. Mr. Chave
answered it was a matter of degree, commenting two feet was not a significant enough difference to give
up the opportunity to gain additional sidewalk. The narrow sidewalks in the City created a great deal of
difficulty with regard to signs, displays, etc. Building setback was one method, another may be to require
a cutout or plaza area that extends the public space into the property. He noted doing this did not break
up the streetscape but provided some ability for seating areas that contributed to the streetscape.
Councilmember Moore commented that approach also had the visual effect of widening the sidewalk.
Councilmember Moore referred to the concept of "wedding cake" buildings, setting back upper floors to
widen the view corridor, pointing out the regulations must require one or the other, setback the entire
building at the street level or setback of upper floors. Mr. Chave agreed a consistent rule and consistent
result would be beneficial. A building setback in exchange for additional height in this specific area
(Main Street from 3rd to Railroad) would be in anticipation of redevelopment. He noted there was not a
consistent streetscape in that area today; therefore, an additional3 feet in building height would not harm
the existing streetscape.
Councilmember Wilson commented there were other incentives that could be offered for that area on
Main Street such as requiring wider sidewalks plus providing a list of other amenities to choose from in
return for the additional height. He recalled Mr. Hinshaw's reference to the continuity of storefronts,
suggesting in the - retail core the Design Guidelines require the storefronts have some similar
characteristics to maintain that continuity. Mr. Chave agreed that was consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan direction and Mr. Hinshaw's recommendations.
Councilmember Wilson inquired how building heights were calculated today. Mr. Chave explained the
method was the four corners of the smallest rectangle that fit around the building. In the case of a
rectangular building downtown, it would be the four corners of the lot. Councilmember Wilson noted the
size of a building would dictate the average height and how it related to the streetfront. Mr. Chave
explained staff envisioned it would be calculated at each lot line.
Councilmember Dawson recalled last week staff recommended not pursuing an alternate approach to
height measurement, yet now there was a proposal for height measurement. Mr. Chave explained the
memo prepared for the previous Council meeting recommended surveying other jurisdictions to identify a
workable method; in the meantime, he had been thinking about this as a possible method.
Councilmember Dawson recalled last week staff explained the downtown business district had a gradual
slope and there was little possibility for stepping down or it would result in an odd - looking building. She
Edmonds City Council ApprovedMinutes
June 14, 2005
Page 5
was concerned with suddenly a new idea that the Council had little chance to consider and questioned
whether this was a "fully baked idea" or whether additional work would be needed. Mr. Chave agreed the
lot orientation for height measurement concept was new, commenting the zoning /use districts and basic
height limits were more fully developed issues that the Council had more discussion on. He agreed this
concept did not necessarily have to accompany the other two if the Council wanted to further develop that
concept. If the Council found the concept had some merit and wanted a full hearing, it could be referred
to the Planning Board.
Councilmember Dawson explained her concern with referring this to the Planning Board was the amount
of work the Board already had before them. She disagreed that the Council had a great deal of discussion
with regard to the use districts, recalling the Planning Board had some discussion regarding use districts
and rejected the concept and Mr. Hinshaw again suggested it be considered. However, the Council had
not had much discussion and certainly had not had a public hearing. Mr. Chave assured if the Council
agreed with the zoning/use districts, that would need to be referred to the Planning Board.
Councilmember Dawson questioned the value of referring the zoning/use districts to the Planning Board
when they had already considered and rejected that concept. Mr. Chave pointed out the Planning Board
did divide the downtown area into districts in the Comprehensive Plan, although they were described
somewhat differently.
Councilmember Dawson stated the Planning Board did not identify different heights for each district. Mr.
Chave noted the Planning Board had slightly different heights although not in the pattern that was
currently being discussed. He recalled when the Council adopted the Comprehensive Plan, all reference
to heights were removed other than general direction that provided flexibility with regard to heights.
Councilmember Dawson commented the Design Guidelines would address retail but not any of the other
proposed districts. Mr. Chave explained the Comprehensive Plan addressed pedestrian scale, streetscape,
etc. that would allow the Design Guidelines to apply whether a building was retail /commercial,
retail/residential or mixed commercial/residential. The Design Guidelines would be directed more at
streetscape and less at use. Councilmember Dawson disagreed, recalling the Design Guidelines Mr.
Hinshaw proposed, that the Council seemed to agree with, were designed toward retail. Mr. Chave
agreed they were retail - friendly but could also apply to areas where the use was somewhat open, where
retail was not required but where it could occur which implied commonalities in design. He agreed there
were subtle nuances that would occur in areas that were strictly retail versus mixed use and that could be
expanded upon in the Design Guidelines.
Councilmember Dawson pointed out there was a big change between residential versus retail on the
ground floor as well as the convenience commercial. Mr. Chave displayed the area where the
Comprehensive Plan identified residential on the ground floor, pointing out that was still the only area in
the proposed zoning /use districts where residential would be permitted on the ground floor.
Councilmember Dawson asked for clarification regarding a retail compatible use, recalling the issue of a
pedestrian/retail friendly real estate office arose during the Community Outreach meeting, acknowledging
there were some real estate offices that were not pedestrian /retail friendly. She asked how this would be
addressed in the Code. Mr. Chave suggested the Code require generally retail uses and a list of uses that
were presumed to be pedestrian friendly combined with Design Guidelines to require the building be
pedestrian/retail friendly.
MOTION NO. 1
COUNCIL PRESIDENT MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, TO
FORWARD TO THE PLANNING BOARD THE ZONING /USE DISTRICT MAP AND
DESCRIPTIONS OF THE FIVE DISTRICTS AS OUTLINED IN THE MEMO.
Edmonds City Council ApprovedMinutes
June 14, 2005
Page 6
Councilmember Plunkett inquired if the motion was to direct the Planning Board to implement policies or
only refer it to them for deliberation/consideration, public hearing and recommendation. Council
President Marin answered his intent was to refer it to the Planning Board to have staff draft appropriate
code and the Planning Board to hold a public hearing and provide a recommendation to the Council.
Councilmember Wilson suggested expansion of the retail core south of Main Street, down the alleyway
on the west side of 4th Avenue South, over to Dayton Street, and including the corner property on Dayton
and 4th Avenue South on the south side of Dayton, and including all the properties on the north side of
Dayton between the alley to 5th Avenue North. He noted this would provide more substance to the City's
retail core. He also pointed out the natural topographical break on the west side of the alley.
Economic Development Director Jennifer Gerend commented her understanding was that retail would not
be precluded in the ground commercial zone. She pointed out requiring retail versus office in that area
would be an entirely new concept for the property owners. She also recalled Mr. Hinshaw recommended
maintaining a somewhat tight retail area and the City's was already quite expanded compared to his
recommendation. She disagreed with extending the retail core down 41' Avenue to the south, finding it
would be too much for now particularly since retail could occur via redevelopment and Design Guidelines
would result in quality retail space. Councilmember Wilson commented the Council was currently only
considering zoning /use districts although his recommendation would extend to the basic height limit. He
noted this area was underdeveloped and there was the potential for redevelopment which could strengthen
the retail core in that area.
COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED TO AMEND THE MOTION TO EXTEND THE RETAIL
CORE ARE AS HE DESCRIBED. THE AMENDMENT DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND.
Councilmember Plunkett commented this was the beginning of a process that would not end tonight. He
was uncomfortable with the amount of "slicing and dicing" to make a recommendation tonight. He
preferred sending direction to the Planning Board that the Council was interested in uses, streetscape,
orientation, consideration of slopes, zones, setbacks, modulation, mixed use, terracing, arts corridor, and a
conservation district. He indicated the only issue he could vote on tonight was heights and a general
referral of the items in the memo to the Planning Board. Although there were many good ideas with
regard to zoning and uses, he preferred to refer them to the Planning Board for deliberation and public
hearings and specific recommendation in the form of draft ordinances. He did not support the motion.
Councilmember Orvis preferred the area highlighted on the map in pink be larger similar to Mr.
Hinshaw's map. He also preferred the yellow areas be larger specifically to include 5th Avenue to connect
the art center /art area to the downtown core. He did not support the motion.
Councilmember Moore clarified the motion was to send it to the Planning Board. She pointed out the
Planning Board did not want general recommendations; they wanted specific guidance so that they could
make the proper recommendations to the Council. She recalled the Planning Board was provided general .
guidance in the past which was part of the reason for the current quandary. She was satisfied with the
proposed zoning /use districts, commenting the Council had a great deal of discussion and input. She
commended staff for doing a spectacular job pulling all the concepts together and expressed her support
for the motion.
Councilmember Dawson commented it appeared the Council had taken one step forward and two steps
backward and were facing more work than was anticipated a few months ago. She recalled Mr. Hinshaw
was hired to assist with discussions on Design Guidelines; however, what was proposed was altogether
different including the creation of areas for which the City did not have Design Guidelines. She reiterated
Edmonds City Council ApprovedMinutes
June 14, 2005
Page 7
her concern with ground floor residential in what was currently the BC zone. She summarized although
some of the ideas were good, they were not fully formed enough. She enumerated her concern with the
definition of retail- compatible, possibly requiring some things and at the salve time allowim4 things that
may not be appropriate, how design drove heights, and mandating 12 -foot first floor heights in areas that
may not be retail. She anticipated it would be impossible for staff to write a code in the next few months
if all this information were referred to the Planning Board. Further, she did not feel the Council had done
adequate due diligence to recommend the zoning/use districts at this time. She recommended continued
discussion by the Council, Planning Board and possibly ADB regarding zoning /use districts.
Councilmember Olson found the Council had this information for some time and if the current process
continued, it would be a year before any changes were made. Recalling the Comprehensive Plan the
Planning Board recommended did have different uses, she supported forwarding the zoning /use districts
to the Planning Board.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (3 -4), COUNCIL PRESIDENT MARIN AND
COUNCILMEMBERS MOORE AND OLSON IN FAVOR; AND COUNCILMEIMBERS WILSON,
PLUNKETT, ORVIS AND DAWSON OPPOSED.
Councilmember Wilson stated that although the intent of previous Council discussions has been to
provide direction to the Planning Board, it appeared at least three Councilmembers were not interested in
discussing any of the versions. He explained he voted against the motion based on the proposed
boundaries.
Councilmember Moore explained the reason she did not second Councilmember Wilson's amendment
was she took Ms. Gerend's advice to heart and she was reminded of Mr. Hinshaw's recommendation to
focus the retail- mandated core very tightly. Although she agreed with the concept of expanding the retail
area, if one of the properties redeveloped prior to the rest of the retail core, there would be mandated retail
on Dayton and the alley and vacant storefronts on Main Street. For now, she preferred forwarding the
proposed boundaries to the Planning Board. She emphasized the Council was only voting to send the
concepts to the Planning Board to allow them to consider and discuss it and solicit input.
Council President Marin suggested Councilmember Wilson restate his motion to forward the expanded
zoning /use districts to the Planning Board as he described. Councilmember Moore agreed, pointing out
the Planning Board could then consider the expanded boundaries and may conclude mandating retail in
that area was inappropriate.
MOTION NO. 2
COUNCIL PRESIDENT MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, TO
FORWARD TO THE PLANNING BOARD THE ZONING MAP AND USE DESCRIPTIONS
WITH THE BOUNDARIES MODIFIED AS DESCRIBED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON.
Councilmember Dawson took issue with the inference that she did not want to do anything, the fact that
she did not agree with the zoning /use districts as proposed did not mean she was not willing to move
forward with a plan for the BC zone. She acknowledged there were some good ideas but she did not
agree with the way it was currently proposed.
Councilmember Wilson clarified his intent was to modify the boundary to come down the alley south of
Main Street between Chanterelle's and Bank of America, proceed south to Dayton, proceed east at that
point and then south on 4`" Avenue to take in the parcel at the southeast corner of Dayton and 4 ' Avenue
South. He commented the difficulty was this also related to the issue of height; he was less concerned
Edmonds City Council ApprovedMinutes
June 14, 2005
Page 8
with whether the ground floor was retail- mandated or could be commercial, and more concerned with the
building height in that location.
Councilmember Plunkett commented if it could be suggested that those voting against the motion were
doing it to be obstinate, it could equally be suggested that those voting in favor of it were doing so just to
pass something.
Councilmember Wilson disagreed voting in favor of the motion would be just passing something,
pointing out the Council had been having this discussion for over a month including discussions regarding
the Comprehensive Plan. He noted the motion was an effort to satisfy what the Council agreed was
necessary in order to address the issue of building height. It acknowledged the proposal had been
modified somewhat based on discussions with Mr. Hinshaw. The boundaries where retail and
commercial with residential above were consistent with the current Comprehensive Plan designation and
zoning, thus there was not a substantive change. He agreed that there was not enough definition for the
three new areas — conservation, residential mixed use and convenience commercial.
Councilmember Dawson disagreed that all Councilmembers found this necessary to address the issue of
heights, recalling six Councilmembers voted on the issue of heights prior to this expanded discussion.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4 -3) COUNCIL PRESIDENT MARIN AND
COUNCILMEMBERS MOORE, OLSON, AND WILSON IN FAVOR; AND COUNCILMEMBERS
DAWSON, PLUNKETT, AND ORVIS OPPOSED.
With regard to the conservation district where the recommended height was 25 feet, Councilmember
Moore requested staff elaborate on the language in the staff report that the 25 foot height limit was
intended to provide the maximum protection for the historic properties and small scale development on
the block and if adopted, it would be more imperative that significant public investment in streetscape
improvements be done to develop a true corridor linking the arts center to Nhin Street. Mr. Chave
explained if the goal was to retain the current flavor of development in the conservation district such as
retaining some of the buildings, the goal would not be to encourage redevelopment. Therefore,
streetscape improvements to create a corridor would not be provided by private development, but would
be provided via public investment and as soon as possible to stimulate the desired type of
businesses /activity in that corridor.
Councilmember Moore commented this was not an immediate need. Mr. Chave agreed, recommending
this corridor be addressed during the Parks & Recreation's update of the Public Urban Design Plan
including the kind of improvements, how to fund the improvements, etc.
Councilmember Moore pointed out the basic height limit map reflected an area beyond the conservation .
district with a 30 -foot height limit but within the BC zone. Mr. Chave answered the Downtown Plan
adopted as part of the Comprehensive Plan identified that area as part of the corridor. He noted Mr.
Hinshaw also recommended including the half block to the east that fronts on 5t'' Avenue.
Councilmember Moore asked why staff recommended 33 -foot height limit in the area Councilmember
Wilson identified to expand the retail core. Mr. Chave answered that reflected the boundaries
recommended by Mr. Hinshaw.
For Councilmember Moore, Mr. Chave explained the Planning Board would receive the Council's
minutes and the information presented by Mr. Hinshaw for their use in considering zoning /use districts
and heights as well as holding public hearings before forwarding a recommendation to the Council.
Edmonds City Council ApprovedMinutes
June 14, 2005
Page 9
Councilmember Wilson referred to the area on Main Street west of Sd Avenue, recalling staffs earlier
justification for 33 foot height limits. He was not comfortable that the information provided adequately
addressed incentives, public benefit, etc. Mr. Chave explained the Planning Board would receive the
entire record developed by the Council and although the Council had some discussion regarding
incentives, no decision had been made. He recommended providing the Planning Board as much
guidance as possible with regard to incentives.
Councilmember Wilson referred to the newly expanded zoning /use district, noting that area was basically
the same topographically as the properties to the north and east along 5" and along Main. Mr. Chave
commented as one progressed west, the topography became more steep, the break was generally about at
that alley. He anticipated more detailed topographic information would be provided to the Planning
Board. Councilmember Wilson recommended maintaining the 25 foot height limit in that area due to the
similarities in topography. Mr. Chave agreed with the logic of maintaining the same height limit in the
expanded retail area.
Using the basic height limit map, Mr. Chave identified the area proposed to have 25 -foot height limits
which generally corresponded to the area Mr. Hinshaw referred to as the retail core (5"' Avenue and Main
Street). He explained the current height limit was 25 feet + 5 feet for some type of roof feature. He
identified the area proposed to have a 30 -foot height limit (the area fringing the downtown core and
surrounding the conservation area), commenting the proposed bight limit was similar to the existing 25
feet + 5 feet. He identified the area proposed to have a 30 -foot height limit, explaining the intent was to
allow a height of 33 -feet in this area via incentives. He identified the east side of 5t'' Avenue South where
there were commercial properties fronting on residential properties immediately to the east and where
there was a significant slope. He explained the intent was the height would be established at the street
level and carried through to the back of the property, eliminating average height and the ability of
increasing the building height up the slope. He identified the 25 foot height limit proposed for the
conservation area.
Councilmember Plunkett referred to the proposed height increase to 33 feet south on 5"' Avenue and to
the west of 5th Avenue, noting approximately half of downtown was proposed to be increased to 33 -feet.
Mr. Chave responded the additional height would depend on incentives.
Councilmember Moore asked whether the retail core, ground commercial, conservation and convenience
commercial zoning /use districts required a 12 -foot first floor height. Mr. Chave answered yes.
Councilmember Moore noted the first floor 12 -foot minimum height limit would be required in the
conservation district only with new construction.
For Councilmember Moore, Mr. Chave recalled a 12 -foot first floor ceiling height was somewhat of a
compromise and a 15 -foot first floor ceiling height was most desirable for retail. Therefore, in the area
proposed to have a 25 -foot height limit downtown, to avoid the idea that something was being taken away
from the currently allowed 25 +5 foot height, if a 1.5 foot first floor was provided, a building could
potentially be taller. Ms. Gerend referred to incentives in the Comprehensive Plan, noting that may be an
incentive to encourage really outstanding retail space in the retail core. Mr. Chave commented regardless
of incentives in that area, it was unlikely much change would occur any time soon due to ownership
patterns, the income currently generated, cost of construction, etc. Even if a 30 foot building height were
allowed with a 15 -foot first floor, the result would only be two stories which a number of buildings
already have and there wasn't enough incentive for redevelopment of the one -story buildings.
Councilmember Moore suggested the Council consider a 15 -foot minimum first floor ceiling height and
allowing a 30 -foot building height as an incentive.
Edmonds City Council ApprovedMinutes
June 14, 2005
Page 10
Councilmember Wilson recommended expanding the 25 -foot height limit to correspond with the
expanded retail core area on the zoning /use district map. He asked for clarification regarding the
proposed 33 -foot height limit at the streetfront only (orange striped on the map). Mr. Chave explained
height was typically calculated using an average grade; therefore, the current height limit in the BC zone
(25 +5) could potentially allow portions of the building to be as high as 30 feet. Using the current average
grade method results instead of 30 feet above street level, the height can be pulled up the slope so that the
street level could be higher than 30 feet and the overall building higher than might be expected. If a
method of stepping buildings with the slope were adopted, he doubted in this area it would be desirable to
have a building step up the slope due to the residences behind. Therefore, the intent was to establish a
special regulation due to the unique location that would measure height from the streetfront and straight
back to the back of the property. He noted that should not be an issue to a developer as they could
excavate into the hillside, but it would provide some protection to the residential properties behind. He
noted this was particularly important in this area because there was no alley separation and the City's
interest should be primarily what occurs at the streetfront.
Councilmember Wilson referred to the area to the north of Walnut to Maple, recalling the topography at
the street level was relatively flat and it was only on the south side of Walnut where there was a more
dramatic rise on the back of the property. He questioned the benefit of allowing a height limit of 33 feet
on the east side of 5th Avenue. Mr. Chave answered if it was acknowledged that if there was a rise, it was
to the east and if 5`h were identified as the key streetfront, the height at the streetfront was most important.
Councilmember Wilson questioned why the proposal was a 33 foot height limit versus 30. Mr. Chave
answered 33 feet would potentially allow 3 stories which 30 feet would not due to the 12 -foot minimum
first floor height.
Councilmember Wilson referred to the west side of 5' Avenue where a height limit of 33 feet was
proposed and asked the implications at 5th Avenue due to the drop in topography to the west. Mr. Chave
answered if an average grade height method were used, the result could be similar to the Taylor- Gregory
building that looked like two stories from the streetfront but more like four stories from the back. He
commented if the height limit were fixed to the west side, it would be more difficult to ensure reasonable
commercial space on the street side. He acknowledged this was a difficult problem. Another possibility
may be to establish a reasonable height limit on the back side of those lots.
Councilmember Wilson commented the problem begins south of Howell Street due to the drop in the
topography to the west. He suggested giving consideration to a maximum 25 -foot height at street
frontage on 5h Avenue which results in the greater mass of the building being on the west side. Mr.
Chave pointed out that was largely what occurred now due to the grades, even on some occasions under
25 -feet at the street level. Councilmember Wilson asked what a 33 foot building height would
accomplish that a 25 -foot building height would not. Mr. Chave answered if the intent was to fix the
height at the streetfront, the basic height was different than if an average grade method were used. Using
an average method, staff could make guesstimates on the height but the actual height would not be known
until a lot developed.
Councilmember Wilson referred to the area south of Howell Street where the topography drops off to the
west as well as slopes to the north and suggested fixing a 25 -foot height limit at the street level. Mr.
Chave answered if that was the Council's desire, staff would need to research the grades further.
Councilmember Wilson commented it may be out of character to have taller buildings in this area as one
enters the City due to the residential areas. Mr. Chave recalled Mr. Hinshaw identified this area as
appropriate for 33 feet with the lower height where there was less slope and taller heights further north.
Councilmember Wilson commented if the base height was established at 25 feet and buildings were
allowed to extend to 30 or 33 feet, the missing component was incentives or Design. Guidelines to define
Edmonds City Council ApprovedMinutes
June 14, 2005
Page 11
when the taller heights would be allowed. Although topography was one factor, there was other design
criteria that needed to be considered to allow taller structures. Mr. Chave agreed, explaining incentives
were different from Design Guidelines; Design Guidelines were standards that buildings have to meet
such as the appearance of the building from the street and the streetscape regardless of the height.
Mayor Haakenson summarized the action requested was to refer an agreed upon basic height map to the
Planning Board for a public hearing and recommendation.
MOTION NO. 3
COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, TO
EXPAND THE 25 FOOT AREA CURRENTLY SHOWN ON THE MAP TO INCLUDE THE
AREA SOUTH OF MAIN STREET, EAST OF THE ALLEY BETWEEN 4TH AND 3R1 OVER TO
THE EXISTING 25 FOOT HEIGHT LIMIT INCLUDING THE PARCEL AT THE SOUTHEAST
CORNER OF DAYTON AND 4TH
Councilmember Dawson expressed support for the motion although she would support a far greater
expansion of the area with a 25 -foot height limit.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
MOTION NO. 4
COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, TO
ACCEPT THE PROPOSED FLAT 25 -FOOT (NO ADDITIONAL 5 FEET) HEIGHT LIMIT FOR
THE CONSERVATION DISTRICT. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
MOTION NO. 5
COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DAWSON, TO
APPROVE THE 25 -FOOT HEIGHT LIMIT FOR THE LILAC (RETAIL CORE) AREA.
COUNCILMEMBER MOORE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO
AMEND THE MOTION TO ALLOW 30 FEET WITH 15 FEET ON THE FIRST FLOOR.
Councilmember Moore clarified a 30 foot height limit would only be allowed with a 15 -foot ceiling
height on the first floor which would result in a 2 -story building. She noted the result would be the same
building height that is currently allowed with the 25+5 foot height limit. Councilmember Wilson asked if
the intent was that 30 -feet would be the highest point on the building. Councilmember Moore answered
the intent was that 30 feet would be the maximum height of the roof, acknowledging Design Guidelines
could allow features that extended beyond.
Councilmember Dawson expressed her opposition to the amendment, questioning the need for a 30 foot
building height and a 15 -foot second floor.
Councilmember Orvis asked whether the measurement method was from the streetfront or using the
current average grade method. Councilmember Wilson pointed out the Council had not adopted an
amendment to the method for calculating building height; therefore, the method was as described in the
current Code.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION TO AMEND CARRIED (4 -3) COUNCIL PRESIDENT MARIN,
AND COUNCILMEMBERS WILSON, MOORE, AND OLSON IN FAVOR; AND
COUNCILMEMBERS ORVIS, DAWSON AND PLUNKETT OPPOSED.
Mayor Haakenson restated the motion as follows:
Edmonds City Council ApprovedMinutes
June 14, 2005
Page 12
THE ENTIRE LILAC ZONE TO BE 25 FEET AND ALLOW A 30 FOOT MAXIMUM HEIGHT
WITH A 15 -FOOT MINIMUM FIRST FLOOR AND NO MORE THAN A 2 -STORY BUILDING.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED (4 -3) COUNCIL PRESIDENT MARIN,
AND COUNCILMEMBERS WILSON, OLSON AND MOORE IN FAVOR; AND
COUNCILMEMBERS PLUNKETT, ORVIS, AND DAWSON OPPOSED.
MOTION NO. 6
COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, TO
APPROVE THE PROPOSED HEIGHT OF A FLAT 30 FEET FOR THE PURPLE AREA,
EXCEPT FOR THE PURPLE AREA OUTSIDE THE CURRENT BC ZONE BOUNDARY AND
THE AREA FRONTING ON 5TH TO THE NORTH OF BELL STREET WHICH WOULD HAVE A
FLAT 25 -FOOT HEIGHT LIMIT.
Councilmember Moore clarified the 25 -foot height limit for the areas outside the BC zone and the area
fronting on Sh to the north of Bell Street would not expand the conservation zone. Councilmember
Wilson explained it would remain Ground Commercial as indicated on the zoning /use district map; his
motion only referred to the height limit.
For Councilmember Moore, Councilmember Wilson explained the only properties that his motion would
impose a lower height limit on was the area fronting on 5 " to the north of Bell Street.
Councilmember Dawson indicated she would support a height limit of 25 feet to the two excepted areas
but was less supportive of the 30 foot height limit for the purple area. She recalled Mr. Hinshaw's
comment that a 30 -foot height limit was a "tease," as it was inadequate for three stories particularly if a
12 -foot first floor height was required. She preferred a 25 foot height limit due to the inability to achieve
three stories within a 30 -foot height limit and if it was not the Council's intent to achieve three stories, the
height could be limited to 25 feet. For those reasons, she would not support the motion.
Councilmember Wilson commented the additional height provided more flexibility in the exterior
building architecture, all the things that contribute to a better design to fit the character of downtown.
Councilmember Dawson disagreed, questioning if a 25 -foot building height would result in a less
desirable building design, why would Councilmember Wilson want to allow 25 foot buildings adjacent to
this area.
Councilmember Orvis stated his support for the 25 -foot height limit in the purple and yellow areas but did
not support a 30 -foot height limit in the purple area.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4 -3) COUNCIL PRESIDENT MARIN, AND
COUNCILMEMBERS WILSON, OLSON AND MOORE IN FAVOR; AND COUNCILMEMBER
ORVIS, DAWSON AND PLUNKETT OPPOSED.
Mayor Haakenson declared a brief recess.
MOTION NO. 7
COUNCILMEMBER MOORE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT MARIN, TO
FORWARD THE ENTIRE MAP TO THE PLANNING BOARD WITH THE MOTIONS
ALREADY APPROVED.
Councilmember Dawson expressed her opposition to the motion and to raising heights to 33 -feet. She
commented on inconsistency in how Councilmembers who vote in favor of the motion were addressing
the issue. For example, she reiterated her question why a 30 -foot building height would be necessary for
Edmonds City Council ApprovedMinutes
June 14, 2005
Page 13
a 2 -story building and why a 33 -foot building height would be necessary in the area proposed to be
residential She also found a straight 33 -foot height limit without requiring any incentives to be
contradictory to the Comprehensive Plan amendments the Council adopted that indicated there would be
incentives for height increases.
Councilmember Wilson agreed with Councilmember Dawson that the Comprehensive Plan indicated two
stories and that there would be incentives for anything above that. He noted the process omitted the step
of identifying incentives /public benefit to achieve the additional height. He concurred a 33 -foot height
limit may not be appropriate in the areas where residential mixed use would be allowed, areas that are
currently developed residential. He suggested the Council discuss incentives to achieve a 33 -foot
building height. He expressed concern with a 33 -foot height limit along the primary view corridor on
Main Street on the west side of yd Avenue.
Councilmember Moore suggested amending the motion to forward the map to the Planning Board as is,
with the exception of the residential mixed use area with instructions to the Planning Board that they
return with incentives to allow a 33 -foot building height.
COUNCILMEMBER MOORE WITHDREW HER MOTION.
Councilmember Wilson reiterated the Comprehensive Plan indicated there would be incentives to achieve
a building greater than two stories but those had not yet been defined The base height limit map
proposed a 33 -foot height limit in some areas but did not address a base height upon which to base
incentives to achieve increased building height. He supported providing direction to the Planning Board
with regard to incentives.
Councilmember Moore spoke in favor of the Planning Board's previous recommendation with regard to
heights as well as staff's proposal for 33 -foot height limits in these areas. She was unsure whether
incentives were necessary and asked staff to comment on incentives to achieve a 33 -foot building height.
Mr. Bowman explained the Council could use the existing 30 -foot (25 +5) foot height limit the BC zone
and allow an additional 3 feet via incentives such as wider sidewalks, rooftop deck, unique architectural
features, etc. He recommended providing some direction to the Planning Board with regard to incentives.
The Council could also use 25 feet as a reference point and provide incentives to achieve 30 feet. Mr.
Chave suggested approaching it the same as the light lavender highlighted area where there was a base
height of 25 feet with the ability to achieve up to 5 additional feet with incentives. Another approach
could be select 30 feet as the base and allow up to 8 additional feet with incentives. He recalled the
Council had previously discussed incentives including setback from the street, setback of upper floors,
additional first floor height, rooftop treatment, public artwork, etc.
MOTION NO. 8
COUNCILMEMBER MOORE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT MARIN, TO
FORWARD THE 33 -FOOT HEIGHT LIMIT IN THE ORANGE AREAS TO THE PLANNING
BOARD WITH THE INSTRUCTION TO THE PLANNING BOARD TO PROVIDE A MENU OF
INCENTIVES TO ACHIEVE AN ADDITIONAL 3 FEET ABOVE 30 FEET IN HEIGHT THAT
WOULD INCLUDE ITEMS SUCH AS ROOFTOP DECKS, WIDER SIDEWALKS,
PUBLIC /OPEN SPACE, PUBLIC ART, ETC.
COUNCILMEMBER WILSON PROVIDED A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO HAVE THE BASE
BE 25 FEET AND INCENTIVES THAT WOULD ALLOW UP TO AN ADDITIONAL 8 FEET IN
HEIGHT. THE MAKERS OF THE MOTION ACCEPTED THE FRIENDLY AMENDMENT.
Edmonds City Council ApprovedMinutes
June 14, 2005
Page 14
Councilmember Wilson inquired whether Councilmember Moore's intent was for this height limit to
apply to the area designated as residential /mixed use on the zoning /use district map. Councilmember
Moore answered yes.
Councilmember Orvis clarified the maximum height was 33 feet. Mayor Haakenson answered yes.
Mayor Haakenson restated the motion as follows:
FORWARD THE HEIGHT LIMIT FOR THE ORANGE AREA TO THE PLANNING BOARD
WITH A 25 FOOT BASE HEIGHT WITH THE ABILITY TO ACHIEVE A 33 -FOOT HEIGHT
WITH INCENTIVES.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4 -3), COUNCIL PRESIDENT MARIN, AND
COUNCILMEMBERS OLSON, MOORE AND WILSON IN FAVOR; AND COUNCILMEMBERS
DAWSON, ORVIS AND PLUNKETT OPPOSED.
MOTION NO. 9
COUNCILMEMBER MOORE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT MARIN, TO
FORWARD THE STRIPED ORANGE ZONE ALONG 5 n AVENUE SOUTH OF HOWELL WAY
TO THE PLANNING BOARD.
Councilmember Wilson did not support a 33 -foot height limit on the east side of 5th Avenue and preferred
a maximum height of 30 feet in that area as it was on the uphill side of the street. He found the maximum
height of 33 feet on the west side of �h acceptable as it was based on the current method of measuring
heights which would result in a lower structure in that area.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (3 -4) COUNCIL PRESIDENT MARIN AND
COUNCILMEMBERS OLSON AND MOORE IN FAVOR; AND COUNCILMEMBERS
DAWSON, PLUNKETT, ORVIS AND WILSON OPPOSED.
MOTION NO. 10
COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, TO
FORWARD TO THE PLANNING BOARD A MAXIMUM HEIGHT LIMIT FOR THE STRIPED
ORANGE ZONE OF 30 FEET BASED ON THE PRESENT DEFINITION OF MEASURING
BUILDING HEIGHTS.
Councilmember Orvis clarified that would change the orange striped area to purple.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4 -3) COUNCIL PRESIDENT MARIN, AND
COUNCILMEMBERS MOORE, WILSON, AND OLSON IN FAVOR; AND COUNCILMEMBERS
ORVIS, DAWSON AND PLUNKETT OPPOSED.
MOTION NO. 11
COUNCILMEMBER MOORE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT MARIN, TO
SEND THE "LOT ORIENTATION FOR HEIGHT MEASUREMENT" MAP AND THE
DESCRIPTIONS TO THE PLANNING BOARD.
Councilmember Moore asked staff whether any of the previous motions affected this map. Mr. Chave
answered no, calculation of height was independent of the two maps. He clarified absent any further
discussion, there had been no change recommended in the way height was measured.
Councilmember Dawson inquired if the intent in forwarding the lot orientation map to the Planning
Board, was to have the Planning Board recommend a method cf measuring heights. Councilmember
Edmonds City Council ApprovedMinutes
June 14, 2005
Page 15
Moore answered her intent was to support giving consideration to the way a lot is sloped when measuring
building height. Councilmember Dawson questioned whether the intent was to consider a different
method for calculating height in only the BC zone. She commented forwarding the lot orientation for
height measurement to the Planning Board along with everything else was asking a lot of the Planning
Board. She envisioned it would be a long time before the Planning Board completed their work if it was
envisioned that they would develop a new method of height calculation along with considering zones and
heights.
Mr. Chave explained he thought it may be worthwhile to pursue an alternate method of height
measurement. Although it created a better package if all the issues went together, the Planning Board
could address zoning /use and basic height limits as a package without the height measurement
component. He anticipated if the Council forwarded lot orientation for height measurement to the
Planning Board, they could forward a recommendation on the zoning /use and basic height limit to the
Council before holding further deliberation/discussion on the lot orientation for height measurement. He
noted the Council could also discuss height calculation methods before forwarding it to the Planning
Board.
Councilmember Moore commented because this was a newer issue, she preferred the Planning Board
consider it in a holistic manner.
Councilmember Dawson commented Councilmember Wilson's last motion was premised on the notion of
measuring heights in the current manner rather than a new method of calculation. Therefore, modifying
the way heights are calculated could have a dramatic affect on other issues. She preferred the Council
provide the Planning Board more direction with regard to height calculation rather than just forwarding
the lot orientation for height measurement map to them. She summarized there could be a dramatic
difference in building height utilizing a method that measured height from the street level versus average
grade, particularly on a very sloped lot. She commented either the discussion regarding height
measurement needed to occur before voting on the other issues or the Council should proceed with
forwarding the other issues to the Planning Board and then have further discussion regarding height
measurement. She found it premature to forward the lot orientation for height measurement method to
the Planning Board without further discussion.
Councilmember Orvis advised he would vote against the motion as he did not want to send a signal to the
Planning Board that he favored lot orientation for height measurement as a method for calculating height.
Council President Marin commented staff had developed a potentially brilliant solution to height
calculation that could be very beneficial to the City. He reminded the Council was not adopting code
tonight, only forwarding matters to the Planning Board. He recalled a problem was perceived when a
building was proposed where the back side seemed too tall; this method may allow the City to eliminate
that problem. He recalled discussions with Mr. Hinshaw regarding how to ensure the pedestrian feel was
fully developed on the sidewalk which this method would address. He favored having the Planning
Board consider this method and, as part of that process, was certain the Planning Board would investigate
how it would apply to various areas in the City.
Councilmember Moore commended Mr. Chave for developing this concept, noting this was a tool the
Planning Board could use to address Edmonds' unique topography in a holistic manner.
Councilmember Dawson reiterated her question whether the intent was to have the Planning Board
consider this as a method for measuring heights citywide or only in the BC zone. Councilmember Moore
answered only in the BC zone.
Edmonds City Council ApprovedMinutes
June 14, 2005
Page 16
Councilmember Dawson agreed consideration should be given to how building height is measured but
preferred it be citywide. She pointed out forwarding a new, different method of measuring building
height without specific direction would complicate the discussion for the Planning Board. She preferred
the Council have further discussion on the matter before forwarding it to the Planning Board.
Councilmember Wilson spoke against the motion, commenting the discussion during consideration of
basic height limits was premised on the way heights are currently calculated. He also agreed
consideration should be given to how height was measured for the city as a whole and not just the
downtown core. He noted the lot orientation for height measurement made assumptions with regard to
building orientation which may not be accurate for corner lots or for consolidated properties. He
preferred not to confuse lot orientation for height measurement with the issues of zoning /uses and base
height limits and preferred to address it separately at a later date.
Councilmember Olson commented on the importance of the way building heights were measured,
recalling in one instance a lawsuit resulted due to the massiveness of the structure on the back side. She
summarized not taking care of this problem would impact buildings downtown; if it was not addressed
tonight, she did not want it put off for a long time.
Councilmember Moore explained she preferred to restrict lot orientation for height measurement to the
BC zone as that was the area being considered by the Council and slopes were virtually non-existent in
other business districts including Hwy. 99, Five Corners, and Westgate.
Councilmember Wilson commented properties fronting on Hwy. 99 were very much affected by slope.
He stated what tended to get local governments in trouble was lack of consistency for applicants. He
preferred to consider the City's philosophy for measuring building height on a citywide basis and as a
separate issue.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4 -3) COUNCIL PRESIDENT MARIN, AND
COUNCILMEMBERS MOORE, PLUNKETT AND OLSON IN FAVOR; AND
COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, DAWSON AND WILSON OPPOSED.
MOTION NO. 12
COUNCIL PRESIDENT MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, TO
EXTEND THE MEETING FOR 20 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
MOTION NO. 13
COUNCIL PRESIDENT MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO
DELETE THE MODULATION REQUIREMENT FROM THE CODE AND REPLACE IT WITH
REFERENCE TO DESIGN GUIDELINES.
Councilmember Dawson pointed out the code was being substantially rewritten to remove height
restrictions which was where the modulation requirement exists. She questioned why this revision was
necessary. Mayor Haakenson suggested the Council recommend the Planning Board delete modulation
requirements and add provisions for clock towers, roof decks, architectural design elements, etc. Council
President Marin agreed.
Although she did not have a problem with the Planning Board considering clock towers, roof decks, etc.,
Councilmember Dawson was unsure whether she wanted to provide a height incentive for some of those
items.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT MARIN WITHDREW HIS MOTION.
Edmonds City Council ApprovedMinutes
June 14, 2005
Page 17
4. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
No report.
5. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Sound In response to a question regarding the Sound Transit amendments, Council President Marin reported the
Transit "Golden Spike" amendment had been revised and it now addressed the Everett starter line. He advised
the Paine Field and Hwy. 99 deviations had been eliminated and the I-5 alignment to Ash Way was pretty
firm. The deadline for amendments was June 23 and the vote would be taken on July 7. With regard to
Paine Field whether Paine Field was off the table forever,he advised it would be off the table as long as he was on the
Sound Transit Board.
Paine Field Mayor Haakenson clarified his question was whether Paine Field was off of Phase 2 to which Council
President Marin answered yes. When Mayor Haakenson asked whether Paine Field was off Phase 3,
Council President Marin answered it was fairly early to answer that with 100% certainty but it was
proceeding in that direction and he would be pushing to make that happen. Mayor Haakenson suggested
the Council consider a resolution recommending Paine Field not be included in Phase 3.
Councilmember Dawson recalled her suggestion to postpone some items scheduled for the June 21
meeting, yet it appeared from the extended agenda there were agenda items scheduled to last more than
four hours. She asked whether this was the final agenda and Council President Marin answered it was.
Councilmember Dawson questioned why it was necessary to consider all the items at that meeting, noting
the Council tended not to be very productive when the hour grew late.
Mayor Haakenson pointed out the times on the agenda were clearly a guess by staff and the Council had
total control over the amount of time each agenda item took. Councilmember Dawson agreed,
questioning the Council's ability to discuss Esperance in one hour. She also expressed concern with
scheduling that as the last item on the agenda, pointing out that may not be the best time for the residents
of Esperance who may want to attend.
With no further business,the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m.
G Y ENSON,MAYOR SANDRA S. CHASE, CITY CLERK
•
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 14,2005
Page 18
Mak AGENDA
l.,- EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL
r�, Public Safety Complex
250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds
June 14, 2005
6:00 p.m. - City Council Committee Meetings
The City Council Committee meetings are work sessions for the City Council and staff only.
The meetings are open to the public but are not public hearings. The City Council will meet
separately as committees in different meeting rooms as indicated below.
1. Community/Development Services Committee
(Meeting Location: Council Chambers)
(A) Discussion on 2005 Six Year Transportation Improvement Program. (15 Min.)
(B) Discussion on awnings, signs and small tenant improvements. (15 Min.)
(C) Discussion on Esperance Island Annexation. (30 Min.)
2. Finance Committee
(Meeting Location: Jury Meeting Room)
(A) Wastewater Treatment Plant Reorganization. (10 Min.)
(B) Update on Energy Savings Project for City Buildings. (10 Min.)
(C) Discussion on Esperance Island Annexation. (30 Min.)
3. Public Safety Committee
(Meeting Location: Police Training Room)
(A) Fire Rescue Boat. (20 Min.)
(B) Discussion on Esperance Island Annexation. (30 Min.)
7:00 p.m. - City Council Meeting
Call to Order/Flag Salute
1. Approval of Agenda
2. Consent Agenda Items
(A) Roll Call
(B) Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of June 7, 2005.
Page 1 of 2
CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA
JUNE 14, 2005
(C) Approval of claim checks #80056 through #80275 for the week of June 6, 2005,
in the amount of$433,141.51.*
*Information regarding claim checks may be viewed electronically at www.ci.edmonds.wa.us
3. (60 Min.) Continued Work Session on Code revisions to support the Comprehensive Plan.
4. ( 5 Min.) Mayor's Comments
5. (15 Min.) Council Comments
ADJOURN
Parking and meeting rooms are accessible for persons with disabilities.
Please contact the City Clerk at(425) 771-0245 with 24 hours advance notice for special accommodations.
A delayed telecast of the meeting appears on cable television-Government Access Channel 21.
Page 2 of 2