09/19/2005 City CouncilSeptember 19, 2005
Following a Special Meeting at 6:15 p.m. for an Executive Session regarding labor negotiations, real
estate and legal matters, the Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor
Haakenson in the Council. Chambers, 250 5'i' 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
ALSO PRESENT
Molly Thomson, Student Representative
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
STAFF PRESENT
David Stern, Chief of Police
Duane Bowman, Development Services Director
Dan Clements, Administrative Services Director
Brian McIntosh, Parks & Recreation Director
Jennifer Gerend, Economic Development Dir.
Rob Chave, Planning Manager
Dave Gebert, City Engineer
Steve Bullock, Senior Planner
Frances Chapin, Cultural Services Manager
Scott Snyder, City Attorney
Sandy Chase, City Clerk
Linda Hynd, Deputy City Clerk
Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst.
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
COUNCIL PRESIDENT MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DAWSON, FOR
Change to
Agenda APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA, MOVING CONSENT AGENDA ITEM H TO ITEM 3A, AND
ADDING "APPROVAL OF THE SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION LOCAL
925 CONTRACT" AS CONSENT AGENDA ITEM J. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
COUNCIL PRESIDENT MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, FOR
APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda
items approved are as follows:
(A) ROLL CALL
Approve 916105
Minutes (B) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 6, 2005.
Approve Claim (C) APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #82168 THROUGH #82312 FOR THE WEEK OF
Checks SEPTEMBER 6, 2005, IN THE AMOUNT OF $548,359.26, AND CHECKS #82313
THROUGH #82464 FOR THE WEEK OF SEPTEMBER 12, 2005, IN THE AMOUNT OF
$519,912.58.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 19, 2005
Page 1
Classico Homes
(D)
APPROVAL OF AND AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN THE FINAL PLAT
Final Plata
8610 202° St.
OF CLASSICO HOMES FIVE -LOT FORMAL SUBDIVISION ON 202nd STREET SW.
(FILE NO. P -04 -117, PROPERTY LOCATION: 8610 — 202nd STREET SW, APPLICANT:
CLASSICO HOMES, INC.)
Census
Services
(E)
AUTHORIZATION TO NEGOTIATE PERSONAL SERVICES CONTRACT FOR
CENSUS SERVICES
Public
Streetscape
(F)
APPROVAL OF CONTRACT FOR PUBLIC STREETSCAPE PLAN UPDATE
Plan
Surplus Radios
(G)
DECLARE RADIOS SURPLUS. (APPROVED BY THE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE
ON 9/13/05.)
Ord# 3561 (I) ORDINANCE NO. 3561 AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF ECDC 20.60.005
Definitions of DEFINITIONS TO CORRECT A SCRIVENER'S ERROR IN ORDER TO REAFFIRM
Signs DEFINITIONS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO ORDINANCE NO. 3461 ON JULY 1, 2003,
WHILE RETAINING THE DEFINITION OF "CONSTRUCTION SIGN" ADOPTED BY
ORDINANCE NO. 3514
SEW Labor
Contract (J) APPROVAL OF THE SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION LOCAL 925
CONTRACT
Criteria for 3A. PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF ECDC SECTION 18.70.030
Street Use REVIEW (11)(4) RELATING TO CRITERIA FOR STREET USE ENCROACHMENT TO
F,ncroaclsfnent PROVIDE FOR NORMALLY ASSOCIATED RESIDENTIAL USES. (APPROVED BY THE
COMMUNITY /DEVELOPMENT SERVICES COMMITTEE ON 9/13/05.)
Development Services Director Duane Bowman explained this proposed ordinance was initiated by staff
in regard to issues that have arisen with street encroachments. As an example, a homeowner in the south
end of the City who cleared the brush and built a fence in an area of the right -of -way where the City does
not plan to widen the road in the near future is unable to obtain a street encroachment permit. Staff
proposes to add via the proposed ordinance a clause in the review criteria that would read, "The proposal
(if for an encroachment permit) either benefits the public interest, safety or convenience (e.g., supports or
protects the City street, reduces pedestrian hazards) or is an accessory structure, such as a fence normally
associated with residential use of the property, and fully complies with the requirements of paragraph B. l
through B.3 above." He explained this would allow staff to use the encroachment permit process to deal .
with the thousands of encroachments that exist in residential zones where property owners have built
fences and small structures that do not hinder the use of utilities or right -of -way or cause a safety hazard
for pedestrians or vehicles.
Councilmember Plunkett recalled 2 -3 weeks ago he received an email and telephone calls from a resident
and asked whether that was in regard to a different issue. Mr. Bowman explained that was a situation .
regarding what the City should do with an area of unopened right -of -way on 81" Avenue between Alder
and Walnut Streets where there are issues about pedestrian access, use of the right -of -way, etc. The
proposed ordinance does not address those issues. He planned to bring a resolution to the Council to
initiate a street vacation of the unopened right -of -way between Alder and Walnut Streets to provide a
public forum for discussing the issues and providing input regarding the use of the right -of -way. He
noted this was a unique piece of right -of -way due to the topography, utilities, and grade changes between
driveways, etc.
Councilmember Orvis suggested holding a public hearing on this issue rather than passing it tonight to
allow the public to air their concerns. He acknowledged it seems straightforward but he wanted to hear
from the public. Mayor Haakenson offered to refer the half dozen people who call him weekly with their
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 19, 2005
Page 2
concerns about this to Councilmember Orvis. He explained that staff was recommending this change due
to residents' frustration with the existing law.
Councilmember Dawson explained many people currently encounter this issue and need to have it
resolved. She suggested if there were unintended consequences, the Council could amend the code again.
She pointed out there was somewhat of a time issue because so many citizens have encountered this
problem and would like to have it resolved as soon as possible. She preferred to move forward with the
issue rather than further delay action via a public hearing.
City Attorney Scott Snyder explained encroachment permits gave no vested right to any individual; they
could be revoked at any time and were a complete permissive use of the City's right -of -way.
Councilmember Plunkett expressed concern that Mayor Haakenson was hearing from so many people and
perhaps he and the Council should also hear their comments /concerns. He asked whether the proposed
ordinance would resolve the issue. Mr. Bowman answered the ordinance would provide staff the ability
to approve an encroachment permit. Mayor Haakenson explained staff was currently enforcing the
existing law and when stop work orders were posted, residents often called him (Mayor Haakenson) to
express their displeasure. The proposed ordinance would fix the problem. Mr. Snyder commented 99%
of what people have in the public right -of -way is unpermitted and there was no way to permit it under
current city ordinance. If staff began responding to complaints, there was nowhere to stop.
Councilmember Moore advised this item was placed on the Consent Agenda by the Community
Service/Development Services Committee because Councilmember Wilson and she felt this was a rare
example where government could do something that made good, common sense and do it in a timely
manner. She referred to a letter the Council had received from a resident regarding a 3 -foot fence she
wanted to put around her yard to protect her children in an area where there were no sidewalk and
unlikely to be sidewalks constructed any time soon. The proposed ordinance would allow staff to use
common sense in those instances.
Councilmember Plunkett requested staff inform the Council of any ramifications /unintended
consequences so that adjustment could be made if necessary.
Ord# 3562 COUNCILMEMBER MOORE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON, FOR
Criteria for APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE NO. 3562 AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF ECDC SECTION
Street Use
Encroachment 18.70.030 REVIEW (B)(4) RELATING TO CRITERIA FOR STREET USE ENCROACHMENT
TO PROVIDE FOR NORMALLY ASSOCIATED RESIDENTIAL USES. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
Master Planned 3B. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING A ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT TO CREATE
Office- A MASTER PLANNED OFFICE- RESIDENTIAL ZONE (MPOR), EDMONDS COMMUNITY
Residential
Zone DEVELOPMENT CODE CHAPTER 16.77. THE TEXT AMENDMENT ALSO INCLUDES A
CHANGE TO ECDC 21.40.030 — HEIGHT. INCLUDING DESCRIBING HOW AVERAGE
STREET LEVEL IS DETERMINED IN RELATIONSHIP TO DETERMINING BUILDING
HEIGHT. (FILE NO. CDC - 2005 -46)
Mayor Haakenson reviewed time limits, explaining following staff's presentation the applicant would
have 15 minutes for their presentation, followed by the public hearing, where the applicant would have
approximately three minutes for rebuttal, staff would provide any additional comments, and the matter
would then be remanded to Council for deliberation. City Attorney Scott Snyder agreed, clarifying this
was a legislative action, there was no burden of proof. It was unusual in the sense it was an applicant -
initiated text change, thus, the reason the applicant was given an opportunity to summarize (rather than
rebut).
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 19, 2005
Page 3
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, challenged the participation of Councilmembers Olson and Moore in this
issue. He explained both sat with and conversed with the Hotel Group (applicant) during the
presentations to the Planning Board. The Planning Board observed them as part of the process of support
for the Hotel Group and both Councilmembers Olson and Moore endorsed the application and pushed for
its approval. He noted Councilmember Moore even made part of the motion. He suggested neither
Councilmembers Moore nor Olson could be fair or impartial in their consideration of this matter.
Mr. Snyder explained this was a legislative action requested of the Council and was not subject to the
State Appearance of Fairness Doctrine. Councilmembers were free to participate regardless of any
previously expressed opinion pro or con. He noted Councilmembers often sponsor legislative matters.
Absent an actual conflict of interest, such as ownership interest in Hotel Group, Councilmembers were
free to participate.
Mayor Haakenson asked Councilmembers Moore and Olson whether either had a financial interest in
Hotel. Group. Both advised they did not have and would not have a financial interest in the project.
Jonathan Hatch, attorney representing several property owners, referred to a letter he sent to the
Council last Friday, commenting while he recognized this was a legislative matter, it uniquely arose
before the Council under the auspices of a Planning Division land development file. He asserted this was
a land use action as he interpreted the development code and this legislation did not arise at the Council
request, it arose from an applicant's development code application. As a consequence, the entire
legislative process must comply with the development code procedural rules. He asserted those rules
included a procedure by which all parties of record, including himself and the residents he represented,
were entitled to have copies of any specific legislative proposal or language to be considered by the
Council tonight particularly with regard to the definition of average street level. Tf there was a proposal
or language to be considered by the Council tonight, he objected to the Council proceeding with
consideration of language until there was proper notice to all parties of record and all parties of record had
an opportunity to review the proposed language.
City Clerk Sandy Chase commented because it was a legislative action, this public hearing was handled in
the same manner as any other public hearing notification. The first public hearing was held on August 16
and continued to September 6 by motion that evening. On August 23, the City Council by motion
changed the date to September 19. A public hearing notice was published in the Herald, the City's
official newspaper, on September 5. Notices were also posted at the library, post office, Public Safety
complex and City Hall, the City's website and on Channel 21, the City's government access channel, on
September 2.
Mr. Snyder asked whether the definition referred to by Mr. Hatch was in the Council packet. Senior
Planner Steve Bullock explained at the Council meeting where the first public hearing was held, August
16, the direction from the Council was for staff to include some mention of height in the hearing process.
The applicant, at the time of their initial proposal, had a definition of how height would be calculated.
That was included in the Council's initial packet and staff referred to it in the subsequent agenda memo to
highlight that staff was referring back to the original proposal by the applicant for the definition of height.
Mr. Snyder referred to notification requirements in City's Code, explaining as a legislative action, there
were no parties of record. He recommended the Council proceed. He pointed out it was at the Council's
discretion to provide a continuance; however, in his opinion, under Washington law, the Council was not
obligated to do so. He offered to meet with the Council in Executive Session to discuss the matter
further.
Mr. Hatch commented many of the property owners he represented had property immediately adjacent to
the properties on Sunset Avenue that would be affected by the proposed change. He asked whether the
packet provided to the Council on August 16 contained the language that would be considered tonight.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 19, 2005
Page 4
As he understood the notice for tonight's meeting, the packet did not contain that information and the
notice appeared to suggest that the continued public hearing would include discussion of how average
street level was determined. He noted that issue had never been addressed in any prior hearings and there
was nothing in the packet that provided draft language for such an amendment. If there was such
language or staff planned to present such language tonight that was new information that the public had
not yet been provided for review.
Mr. Bullock advised the concept regarding how the height of buildings would be measured was
specifically addressed in the packet the Council received August 16 and was referred to in the agenda
memo for tonight's meeting. He assured no new language was being proposed, the language had been
considered by the Planning Board and although the language was not included in the Planning Board's
recommendation, it was included in the packet.
Councilmember Dawson commented if a new proposal would be made tonight regarding how average
street level was determined, it was not just the property owners that needed to be provided that
information, the Council also needed that information. She asked whether something new was being
proposed tonight and, if so, agreed that the Council needed further time for review as well as advertising
it to the public. If not, the Council was prepared to move forward. Mr. Bullock assured there was
nothing new, the applicant wanted to proceed with the original definition of how height would be
calculated in response to Councilmember Wilson's direction.
Mr. Snyder pointed out the last line of the notice states, "including how average street level is determined
in relationship to determining building height." Councilmember Dawson commented it was not entirely
clear whether there would be new language proposed tonight. Staff's explanation indicated there was no
new information; the language rejected by the Planning Board was the language the applicant wanted the
Council to consider. Mr. Bullock agreed, recalling the Planning Board specifically wanted to move away
from specific language regarding height. That language met what staff and the applicant felt was the
direction from Councilmember Wilson and therefore, was again presented to the Council. He noted the
Planning Board considered this language and the public had an opportunity to consider it and provide
testimony on it. Mr. Snyder commented if any new, substantive information was to be considered by the
Council, it must be advertised and a recommendation provided by the Planning Board in order to comply
with GMA. His understanding was that the language had already been reviewed by the Planning Board
and no new proposal was being made.
Mr. Bullock relayed the Planning Board's recommendation on a proposed code amendment to establish a
new zone district for the City: Master Planned Office and Residential (MPOR) zone. He explained the
property owner made this proposal to the City in order to enact/enable a portion of the City's
Comprehensive Plan. He referred to the area on Sunset Avenue in the Comprehensive Plan that directed a
zone such as this be created. Rather than wait for staff and the Planning Board to address it, the applicant
submitted an application and proposed language to create the MPOR zone. The Planning Board
considered the applicant's proposal at a June 8 public hearing. The initial proposal was fairly specific,
crafted to address this area of the City — four lots north of Main on the west side of Sunset — and was
designed to address issues raised in the Comprehensive Plan related to these parcels. After holding the
public hearing, the Planning Board was uncomfortable with creating a zone district for such a small area
and recommended the zone district be redrafted to be more generally applicable to other areas of the City.
He explained one of the purposes of the zone district was to provide a transition between disparate type
uses, commercial and single- family uses and areas with environmental features such as significant grade
changes. He noted there were a number of locations in the City that had similar issues where there was
commercial space located close to single - family properties, coupled with significant topographic issues.
A zone district such as this could be used to create a transition zone between those disparate types of uses.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 19, 2005
Page 5
Mr. Bullock explained the applicant and staff developed language in accordance with the Planning
Board's direction, although expanding this to other areas of the City made it difficult to establish a single
set of development standards that addressed setback, height limits, density limitations, etc. that would be
appropriate in all situations. He noted because the issues associated with each area could differ, a
proposal was developed similar to what was used for the Master Plan Hillside zone that requires approval
of a Master Plan for any development of the property. He noted single - family would be allowed as a
permitted use and a Master Plan approval process would be required for higher level development. He
noted the Master Plan process would consider the height, bulk, characteristics of the proposed
development to ensure it was an appropriate transition -type development that also addressed any
environmental characteristics. He pointed out a Master Plan required review by the Planning Board and
review and approval by the City Council.
Mr. Bullock explained the Planning Board held a public hearing on the modified proposal July 13 and
ultimately recommended forwarding the proposal to City Council for public hearing and decision. The
proposed MPOR zone district language that outlines the limited permitted uses allowed in the zone —
single- family, multi - family and office -type commercial uses is provided as an attachment to the agenda
memo for tonight's meeting. The language addresses the development standards and how the Master Plan
process would create the development standards for each development.
With regard to questions raised at the August 16 meeting regarding height and the Planning Board's
recommendation that reflected only the Comprehensive Plan language regarding two -story buildings as
measured from the street, he acknowledged there had been a great deal of discussion at the Planning
Board regarding the height but they were uncomfortable establishing a specific number for height. The
applicant originally proposed language regarding height for the MPOR zone. He directed the Council's
attention to page 129 of the August 16 meeting packet, explaining that page was taken from the current
definition of height in the City's Code. He referred to Section Cl that documents the applicant's proposal
for calculating height in the MPOR zone. He explained the applicant proposed to replace the reference in
Section 16.77.020(C) to two stories with 25 -feet. He advised this was not objectionable to staff and was
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan's description for the area. Staff's review of the proposed Code
language and the definition of height modification found it was consistent with the adopted
Comprehensive Plan.
If the Council approved the MPOR proposal, Council President Marin asked whether a MPOR2 or
MPOR3 that addressed characteristics specific to another location could be created. Mr. Bullock
answered yes, commenting during the next review of the Comprehensive Plan, the Planning Board likely
would evaluate other areas of the City where the MPOR zone would be appropriate.
For Council President Marin, Mr. Bullock explained the only location in the City where the MPOR zone
could legitimately apply was the property on Sunset because of how that area was designated in the
Comprehensive Plan. He noted no other locations in the City were described in the Comprehensive Plan
similar to the MPOR zone. Until the Comprehensive Plan was amended to potentially allow for its use, it
would be difficult to apply to other locations.
Mr. Snyder commented even if the MPOR zone was enacted and the Comprehensive Plan designated this
area as suitable, a rezone application and proceeding before the Council would be required. He explained
the rezone process was a quasi-judicial proceeding and at that point there would be parties of record.
Councilmember Wilson asked where in tonight's packet the language in Paragraph B regarding "average
level" was. Mr. Bullock acknowledged the term "average level" was not specifically used. On page 129,
the language describes how the average elevation of the street front would be measured and the height in
the MPOR zone would be measured to 25 feet. He explained the way height was proposed to be
measured in the MPOR zone considered the average level of the curb or street. He noted while it did not
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 19, 2005
Page 6
use the exact language "average street level" the definition was intended to accommodate it.
Councilmember Wilson observed that was contained in C1. Mr. Bullock agreed.
For Councilmember Wilson, Mr. Bullock read the revision to the language currently recommended by the
Planning Board from Section 16.77.020(C) contained in Exhibit 1 of today's packet, "The maximum .
height for structures in the MPOR zone shall result in buildings that are not more than two stories in
height," advising the original proposal would replace "two stories" with 1125 feet." He noted the MPOR
zone would also contain language in the height section regarding how height was calculated via the
average level of the street. Councilmember Wilson clarified the language on page 1.29 in Paragraph C1
would be incorporated in the height section. Mr. Bullock agreed.
Councilmember Orvis commented his understanding was the current method of measuring height via
measuring from the average of the four corners. Under the proposal, the measurement would be, in this
instance, higher up the hill versus if the standard method was utilized, the measurement would be at the
mid -point of the hill. He concluded the result would be development at a higher elevation than if the
current residential height were applied. Mr. Bullock agreed, assuming this was applied only to the
property on Sunset.
With regard to setbacks, Councilmember Orvis referred to the chart on page 89 that contained very
prescriptive numbers with regard to setbacks, however in the applicant's proposal, the required setback is
vague. He asked who would make the decision regarding the setbacks. Mr. Bullock agreed setbacks and
other development standard issues were now vaguer than originally proposed by the applicant. This was
specifically in response to the direction of the Planning Board who wanted a zone with potentially general
application in a number of locations which made it difficult to select a specific number that would work in
every location. Under Paragraph D, the applicant would be required to propose in their Master Plan,
using the techniques proposed by the Planning Board, how their development provided a reasonable and
appropriate transition. If the Council found the transition proposal was not adequate, the applicant could
be informed and the project changed or the Council could deny the proposal. Councilmember Orvis
asked whether the Master Plan process would occur as part of the rezone. Mr. Bullock answered it could
as the Master Plan process was also quasi judicial.
Councilmember Dawson commented staff had indicated the applicant's measurement of height was
included on page 129 but it was not actually contained on page 129 because there was no language
regarding 25 feet on page 129. She asked where the language proposed by the applicant that differed
from the Planning Board's recommendation was in the packet so that a determination could be made
regarding whether it had been properly advertised. She noted if that language was not in the packet, it
was improper to hold the public hearing this evening. Mr. Bullock answered the applicant's initial
application proposed 25 feet. He noted 25 feet was also included in the letters sent to the Council during
the past week. Councilmember Dawson pointed out the letters the Council received in the last week were
not part of the public record prior to the public hearing. She acknowledged she understood the applicant's
proposal but wanted to ensure it had been properly advertised.
Mr. Snyder referred to the letter from Edmond A. Lee, Hotel Group, contained in tonight's packet which
included their original proposal and attached to the letter as an exhibit with 25 feet circled.
Councilmember Wilson pointed out the letter was also on page 130 -131 of the August 16 packet. Mr.
Bullock pointed out the applicant's original proposal on page 127 that included the site development
standards table also referenced 25 feet. Councilmember Dawson pointed out there appeared to be two
different proposals, the letter of September 16 and the letter on page 130 -131 which actually contained
two alternatives. Mr. Bullock explained the applicant was comparing the height in the BC zone (30 feet)
and 25 feet. He emphasized the applicant's proposal had always been 25 feet. The Planning Board made
a decision to remove any reference to a specific height. Councilmember Dawson pointed out page 131
compared what the height would be but did not make a proposal regarding what they want. She referred
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 19, 2005
Page 7
to an email received September 16 that referred to staff's original recommendation which was the
applicant's current proposal. She clarified that proposal was rejected by the Planning Board because of
their aversion to including a specific height. Mr. Bullock agreed, explaining his responsibility was to
present the Planning Board's recommendation and respond to Councilmember Wilson's request regarding
how average street level would be determined.
Councilmember Wilson commented this was referred to the Planning Board because of the action the City
Council took in the Comprehensive Plan that specifically addressed Sunset. Mr. Bullock agreed. In
reference to Councilmember Orvis' question about defining setback, Councilmember Wilson pointed out
that was not part of what the Council referred to the Planning Board with regard to the property on Sunset
because in that process the scope of the code language was expanded to be applied throughout the City.
Mr. Bullock agreed that was what raised some of the issues. Councilmember Wilson pointed out during
the original public hearings on the Comprehensive Plan, Council did not have any policy discussion
regarding whether this would be appropriate through the City. Mr. Bullock agreed. Councilmember
Wilson clarified the Council's original intent was to address the property on Sunset rather than create a
designation city -wide.
Councilmember Wilson asked whether the applicant's proposal was contained in staff's memo to the
Planning Board, contained on page 120 — 123 of the August 16 packet. Mr. Bullock agreed it was.
Councilmember Wilson referred to the section regarding height limit on page 121 that stated the proposed
limit for the MPOR zone was 25 feet and asked if this was the applicant's original proposal. Mr. Bullock
agreed it was. He advised the applicant also proposed an amendment to the height section that would
determine the average level of the street and measure 25 from that average street /curb level.
Councilmember Wilson referred to Height Exceptions in paragraph CI on page 129, asking whether that
was a clarification of the applicant's original intent. Mr. Bullock agreed it was. Councilmember Wilson
summarized the applicant's proposal was contained on pages 121 and 129 with regard to height. Mr.
Bullock advised the applicant's initial proposal for the code amendment was contained on pages 126 -
129. He referred to the table of development regulations on page 127 where the maximum height was
indicated as 25 feet and a footnote stated height in this zone was measured from the average grade of the
constructed street at the elevation of the top of the curb and referred back to the height definition
regarding how the average grade was determined.
Councilmember Wilson recalled he asked during the previous discussion how average street level was
measured since there was no recommendation from the Planning Board. Since there was still not a
recommendation from the Planning Board, the default was the applicant's original proposal. Mr. Bullock
agreed, explaining staff s opinion regarding the initial review was that it met the intent of the
Comprehensive Plan and the 25 -foot height limit and their proposed method of calculation was acceptable
to staff. He explained that could be applied to the Planning Board's recommendation if the Council
chose.
Councilmember Wilson recalled the Council took a series of independent actions with regard to the
Comprehensive Plan including this area on Sunset. He noted it was a unanimous decision by the Council,
recognizing there were certain conditions on this property that differed from other areas of the City and
that was why the Planning Board created a new zoning designation for that area. Mr. Bullock agreed,
noting in the Comprehensive Plan the Council specifically identified topography as a significant issue on
this site.
Mr. Snyder clarified because this was applicant- originated, the applicant was provided time for a
presentation.
Applicant
John Bissell, representing the applicant, distributed the following materials: 1) Comprehensive Plan
language adopted on March 8, 2005 to facilitate the Council's review of the proposed MPOR zone as it
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 19, 2005
Page 8
compared to the Comprehensive Plan, 2) the MPOR zone with changes to comply with Councilmember
Wilson's concerns, and 3) the height calculation amendment contained on page 129 of the Council
packet. Mr. Snyder pointed out this information was also contained in the Council packet.
Mr. Bissell recalled on March 8, 2005, the Council adopted a new Comprehensive Plan that included a
designation entitled Planned Residential Office for several properties along Sunset. He noted this
designation did not currently apply to any other properties in the City but it would be possible to adopt a
Comprehensive Plan amendment in the future to apply it to another property. He explained there was
currently no zoning code section that implemented that Comprehensive Plan designation. GMA requires
the Comprehensive Plan and zoning be compatible, that the zoning code contain implementing zones for
the Comprehensive Plan designations. The applicant chose to work with staff to prepare a code
amendment to create an implementing zone for the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Bissell read from the Comprehensive Plan language that states several properties lie along the
railroad on the west side of Sunset Avenue between existing commercial zoning and Edmonds Street.
This area is appropriate for master planned development, which provides for a mix of small scale office
and residential uses which provide a transition from the more intensive commercial uses along Main
Street and the residential uses along Sunset. Because the area of this designation is located adjacent to
commercial development to the south, the railroad to the west, and is near both multiple family and
single - family development, this area should act as a transition between these uses. Building design for
this area should be sensitive to the surrounding commercial, multi- family and single - family character.
Due to the steeply sloping nature of the properties, building heights shall generally be limited to two
stories above Sunset Avenue.
Mr. Bissell noted the applicant's original proposal contained specific bulk standards. The Planning Board
wanted a more master planning type ordinance which implies that some of the specific bulk standards
would be replaced with design - related standards, which the proposed MPOR zone now has as well as
requiring master planning such as a PRD or contract rezone -type process. He referred to the
Comprehensive Plan language "provides for a mix of small scale office and residential uses," pointing out
the designation did not allow larger scale -type uses such as restaurants, taverns, but rather office -type
uses and low density, multi - family similar to an RM -3 zone.
Mr. Bissell referred to the Comprehensive Plan language regarding this area acting as a transition,
pointing out the master planning and design guideline elements in the MPOR zone would require an
applicant to, via the criteria, act as a transition to all the uses. He pointed out when making a transition,
there was a tendency to consider only the lowest impact use; however, transition meant in between the
uses. He referred to comments that the area should be residential because the existing zoning was
residential and there were residential uses nearby; however, Comprehensive Plan language states building
design for this area should be sensitive to the surrounding commercial, multi- family and single - family
character. He noted this area was surrounded by all those uses; the intent of the zone was to allow for that
type of transition. He summarized the proposed language was created specifically to comply with the
adopted Comprehensive Plan language.
With regard to the Comprehensive Plan language that states due to the steeply sloping nature of the
properties, building heights shall generally be limited to two stories above Sunset Avenue, he referred the
February 22 Council meeting regarding downtown height limits, specifically a debate between.
Councilmembers Dawson and Wilson about including specific height limits in the Comprehensive Plan.
He recalled Councilmember Wilson stating it was not appropriate to have height limits in a
Comprehensive Plan section and those specifics should be included in the regulating document — the
zoning code. He noted on March 1, 2005, a motion was approved by the Council to allow the final
sentence to state height is limited to no more than 25 -feet, plus five feet for roof and /or building
modulation above the average street/sidewalk level. As a result of further discussion, the specific height
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 19, 2005
Page 9
limit was amended to incorporate the language that due to the steeply sloping nature of the properties,
building heights shall generally be limited to two stories above Sunset Avenue. He pointed out there was
never a conflict among the Council regarding whether 25 feet above the street was acceptable, the debate
was whether to include specific heights in the Comprehensive Plan.
He referred to the Planning Board minutes which indicate because the Planning Board was unclear of the
Council's intent, they forwarded the issue to the Council with nearly the same language in the
Comprehensive Plan. Although he felt the master plan would protect the City even if a specific height
were not included, incorporating the 25 -foot height limit and the height calculation provided more
predictability for the surrounding property owners. He summarized the proposed ordinance complied
with the Comprehensive Plan as written and apparently intended as reflected in the Council minutes.
Mayor Haakenson opened the public hearing, advising the Council received 28 emails /letters in their
packet, one from Mr. Hatch outlining the concerns he addressed at the beginning of the hearing, and 27 in
support of the text amendment.
Eric Sonett, Edmonds, described information they displayed in front of their house including
photographs approximating what the sidewalk view could look like and a letter addressed to the Council
that stated, "Don't wail off Sunset Avenue. Homes with offices, not office buildings with condominiums.
The Edmonds City Council should keep Sunset Avenue residential, residential height limits and
residential setbacks. The Comprehensive Plan's residential /office designation should be used to allow
offices in homes, not office buildings with condominiums. Sunset Avenue should not be walled off from
the Sound." He provided the signatures of 477 plus people who signed the letter, not via an organized
petition process, but via an informal opportunity they provided for people who chose to read the
information they displayed. He recalled the last time signatures opposing increases in building height
were presented to the Council some commercial interests implored the Council to ignore the voices of
their constituents under the guise of leadership. He noted commercial interests have also stated their right
to profit, commenting they may have a right to speculate but not to profit. He concluded walling off
Sunset Avenue would harm. Edmonds commercially, increase the office space vacancy rate by adding to
the supply and would make much of downtown Edmonds less desirable for tourists, shoppers and
business people.
Jon Hatch, Edmonds, explained that due to the time limitations, he would limit his comments to an
attempt to clarify the juxtaposition between a height limitation and its calculation. He explained under
the current code there was a uniform mechanism for calculating height city -wide in all zones. The
proposal was to create a new mechanism for calculating height that would be unique to this zone,
specifically these four lots. He pointed out this was important because if a height were established for the
zone, the result would be a differential of several feet under proposed height calculation. The applicant's
proposal was a method for calculating height that would increase the height of the resulting building
several feet beyond what would be permissible if the same 25 -foot limitation were utilized under the
existing method of calculating height. He referred to page 130 of the packet where the applicant stated
the average height of the sidewalk in front of the two lots they proposed to develop was 28 feet above sea
level. He noted sea level was consistent with the bottom of those lots, adding to that the approximately
25 feet proposed, the resulting building would be approximately 53 high on the water side. He pointed
out this proposal essentially ensured that a building would be 25 feet high from the sidewalk, taller than
any other building on Sunset Avenue, which the letter on page 130 substantiates. Although he
appreciated the developers desire to develop the property, the functional affect of their proposal would be
a building that was larger in scale and taller than any building on Sunset, which would have a significant
impact on residents in the area and the entire impression of the waterfront.
Don Kreiman, Edmonds, asked why Mr. and Mrs. Lee who paid their taxes and built a successful
business in Edmonds could not get approval to build on property vegetated by blackberries and difficult
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 19, 2005
Page 10
to develop for years while nine blocks up Main Street, the Chair of the Architectural Design Board (ADB)
received approval to build in a heavily wooded, steeply sloped wetland. Why couldn't the Lees who have
brought good people and high paying jobs to the City get approval for a building that would allow them to
work and live and keep their business in Edmonds while another developer was allowed to cut trees east
of Yost Park on a steep slope and obtain height variances over 25 feet in a residential area? Why couldn't
the Lees build a 2 -story structure that was limited to 25 feet above the street while design guidelines allow
buildings on 5th that are three stories and exceed 36 feet above the street? How could the Lees who have
carefully followed the City's instructions be denied while the Chair of the ADB could purchase property
near 8th & Pine and get a PRD approved quickly even though the previous owner tried to develop the
property for years? Mr. Kreiman did not know the Lees personally but liked what he saw - they had been
patient and courteous when testifying before the Planning Board and City Council. What the Lees
proposed was a win for everyone in Edmonds, except perhaps the neighbors across the street that have
enjoyed that view for years at the property owner's expense.
Eric Anderson, Edmonds, owner of the Five Corners Shopping Plaza, asked whether the MPOR would
have any affect on Five Corners. He noted in the Five Corners area, a number of houses adjacent to
commercial property have been converted to professional offices, etc. which works well as a transition.
He expressed his support for including Five Corners as an MPOR zone in the future.
Alan Young, Edmonds, spoke in opposition to changing the building height calculations and setback
requirements in the new MPOR zone, preferring that the residential zoning requirements remain. He and
his wife own three properties within '/z block of the new MPOR zone on Sunset, two directly across the
street from this new zone that would be significantly impacted. Because the rules change in the BC zone
every few years, they were moving to the corner of Sunset & Bell where they were forced to demolish the
existing house and build a new house because the City would only allow a certain percentage of the home
to be remodeled because a portion of the house was in the setback. He noted the applicant's proposal
only affected two lots on Sunset as the other two were developed. He objected to changing the height
calculation for only this area and recommended the developer /owner abide by the existing regulations.
He summarized if development occurred 25 feet up from the street, the people living and walking in the
area would hold the Council accountable.
Quentin Clark, Edmonds, Chair of the Chamber of Commerce Economic Development Committee,
read a position statement from the Edmonds Chamber of Commerce, which stated the Edmonds Chamber
of Commerce supports the concept of creating new MPOR zone that could be used as a transitional zone
between commercial and residential properties. Chamber notes that any such application of this zone
must be consistent with the City's adopted Comprehensive Plan and supports the concept of a Master
Plan approval process for development of these transitional properties. Mr. Clark added that although the
Chamber supported the concept of the MPOR zone, not necessarily this application.
John Marts, Edmonds, recommended the Council approve the Planning Board's recommendation. He
acknowledged it was a difficult decision, made more difficult by the upcoming election. He explained his
client owned the property north of the planned development on Lots 3 and 4 and the height would affect
their views to the south and possibly to the west; however, they were aware they did not own that view.
He suggested residents change their perspective about views, pointing out the residents across the street
had the right to purchase the property to maintain their view but did not.
Doug Dreher, Edmonds, corrected a statement made by Mr. Hatch that the bottom of the lots on Sunset
were at sea level, explaining they were actually 16 feet above sea level. He expressed his support for the
proposed MPOR zone and suggested the regulations be left general enough to use in other areas.
Ray Martin, Edmonds, referred to campaign materials from Councilmembers Olson, Moore and Wilson
in which they pledged to protect property owners. Next, he referenced this area providing a transition,
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 19, 2005
Page 11
pointing out transition meant development that was between the two zones. He questioned how a 53 -foot
tall building, one of the tallest buildings in Edmonds, could be considered a transition. He expressed
concern with the possibility of this setting precedence for increased building heights.
Bud Kopp, Edmonds, referred to changes that have occurred in South Snohomish County over the past
45 years and voiced his support for the MPOR zone. He noted a transition zone was a great idea for this
area as well as other areas of the City and it was in the best interest of the City and residents to allow a
transition between the existing commercial and residential zone. He referred to drawings he had seen of
the proposed building, commenting it was beautiful. There were many benefits to the citizens, including
increased tax revenue, buffer, and promoting a positive project in an area that otherwise would not be
developed. Although he sympathized with the residents whose views would be affected, he commented
they should have bought the property.
Michael Young, Edmonds, expressed his support for the MPOR zone as it was consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan and would provide the City Council, Planning Board, and the public an opportunity
to provide input on the final product rather than including all the requirements in the code. He
summarized the proposed development was not a wall, it was a building that with proper design
guidelines would be a benefit to Edmonds.
Randy Meyer, Edmonds, referred to the photographs used to attract signatures on the letter urging the
Council not to wall off the Sound, pointing out they were not accurate representations of what would be
built. Although the opposition would have the Council believe the lots proposed to be developed would
obliterate their view, he displayed a photograph of the existing 3/4 mile permanently unobstructed view
from the petition sponsor's property. He noted the sponsors of the petition and those opposed to this
proposal live across the street and north of the site affected by the MPOR and want to preserve their
southwest view via another person's property. He urged the Council to approve the proposed MPOR
zone.
Renee Streighter, Edmonds, stated the proposed language for the MPOR zone was well worded and
included the necessary elements to ensure it was reasonable and fair for those affected. The public would
have an opportunity to voice their concerns at the public hearing during the master plan process. She
suggested clarifying the definition of a 2 -story limit as no higher than 25 feet, noting that was a
reasonable height and would prevent a future developer from constructing a building that was too tall for
the area.
Robin Koetje, Edmonds, commented he did not live near the downtown core but lived in a modest home
without a view, which was not within reasonable walking distance of downtown, but they enjoyed visiting
the waterfront. He displayed a photograph of the view to the north of the proposed MPOR from the bluff
on Sunset, commenting that was one of the best features of Edmonds and one that would never be
developed. He displayed a photograph that illustrated the lack of sidewalk in front of two of the lots
proposed to be zoned MPOR, explaining after driving to downtown and parking, they must walk in the
street on the west side to reach the bluff. Installation of a sidewalk on the west side would be a benefit to
the public. He also supported the concept of this being a transition zone and urged the Council to approve
the proposed MPOR zone.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, commented the concept of a transition was good if development actually
provided a transition. He found the proposed language regarding the height limit inadequate to provide
sufficient assurance to the property owners and citizens who use the area. He preferred to use the existing
method of calculating building heights in this zone, which he noted would not result in 25 feet above the
street. He anticipated if the method of calculating building heights was changed for this zone, every other
downhill ocation would want to use that method.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 19, 2005
Page 12
Don Drew, Edmonds, took exception to be being referred to as a developer trying to make a fast buck,
explaining he and his two sons had owned and paid taxes on this property for the past 29 years while the
property produced no income. He noted several of the neighboring property owners who enjoyed the
view corridor at no cost to them have mounted a campaign to block the development of the property. He
referred to the damaging statements and inaccurate photographs the neighbors had displayed alleging
terrible impacts from development on the property, commenting it was easy to get people to sign such a
statement. He pointed out the properties across the street had blocked the views of others when they built
their homes. He commented the property owners across the street could have purchased his property to
preserve their views and assume responsibility for the taxes. He commented on realtors and developers
who have expressed interest in the property in the past, only to be deterred when they learned of the
development constraints. He summarized that after 29 years, someone has the resources and vision to
transform the property into a beautiful, practical development that would provide the owner offices and a
residence and substantially enhance the area.
Hearing no further comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public hearing.
COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, TO
EXTEND THIS ITEM FOR 30 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mr. Bissell reiterated their proposal was in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and the proposed
ordinance implements the Comprehensive Plan.
Mayor Haakenson remanded the matter to Council for action.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, TO
DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN ORDINANCE WHICH WILL ESTABLISH
THE NEW MPOR ZONE.
Councilmember Orvis stated he would not support the motion as he viewed the MPOR as a way to allow
taller buildings.
Councilmember Plunkett referred to the language in the Comprehensive Plan that building design for this
area should be sensitive to the surrounding commercial, multi - family and single - family character, finding
that while it was sensitive to commercial and multi- family, because it was an increase in the height, it did
not meet the test of being sensitive to residential development. He suggested the applicant apply their
vision /knowledge to a building that was within the standard height limit. He indicated he would oppose
the proposed height increase.
Councilmember Wilson asked for clarification whether the motion was to incorporate the language
regarding two stories or 25 feet above the average street level and the amended height calculation.
Council President Marin advised it was 25 -feet above the average street level and the amended height
calculation.
Councilmember Wilson read the last sentence of the language the Council adopted that due to the steeply
sloping nature of the properties, building heights shall generally be limited to two stories above Sunset
Avenue, which he pointed out all Counciimembers had approved. However, now at least two were
walking away from that statement. He emphasized the Council was not approving a project but rather
was approving language to implement the Comprehensive Plan that the Council unanimously adopted.
He pointed out the Council was responsible for adopting code language that implemented the
Comprehensive Plan. With regard to the future building design, the public and the Council would have
an opportunity to have input via the master plan process. The language in the Comprehensive Plan
clearly stated two stories above Sunset Avenue; this process was merely putting a number to the height.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 19, 2005
Page 13
He commented if two stories could not be 25 feet, there would be a lot of short single - family homes. He
summarized the proposed MPOR zone was clearly consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and he urged
Councilmembers to adopt language that implemented the adopted Comprehensive Plan.
Councilmember Dawson took issue with the language regarding 25 feet from the sidewalk and questioned
why a new method of calculating heights in the zone was necessary when there were many heavily sloped
lots where there were challenges associated with development. She concluded she would not support the
new method of calculating height in this zone.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4 -3), COUNCIL PRESIDENT MARIN, AND
COUNCILMEMBERS MOORE, OLSON AND WILSON IN FAVOR; AND COUNCILMEMBERS
PLUNKETT, DAWSON AND ORVIS OPPOSED.
Mayor Haakenson declared a brief recess.
4. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Ray Martin, Edmonds, referred to a letter from David Dwyer regarding the project at 5th & Walnut,
Project at 5" noted it would appear staff had made a mess of things; however, he opined, they were not actually
and walnut responsible as they were doing as they were told within narrow parameters. He noted the real decision -
maker and person that must be held accountable was Mayor Haakenson, along with certain other elected
officials who supported the project at 5th & Walnut. He referred to a motion in the September 16, 2002
Council minutes to approve that contract rezone by a 5 -2 vote with former Councilmember Dave Earling
and Councilmembers Plunkett, Orvis, Wilson and Marin voting in favor and Councilmember Dawson and
former Councilmember Petso opposed. He noted Councilmember Petso later forced another vote that
passed 4 -2 with the same votes cast with the exception of Councilmember Earling who was absent. He
urged citizens to vote for Lora Petso, Deanna Dawson and Ron Wambolt if they wanted to prevent such
buildings in the future.
resign Don Kreiman, Edmonds, explained his family successfully manufactured and engineered a product,
Guidelines following the customers' specifications at a reasonable price and delivering it on time. One of the tactics
of their competitors was to "spec them out," which meant convincing a client to create a specification that
gave your company an overwhelming advantage. A developer must comply with the City's design
guidelines; vague design guidelines allowed a developer to get their project approved easily and if a
developer could control the specifications, he would have an overwhelming advantage, eventually
becoming the most successful developer in the City. He noted the most successful developer in Edmonds
was Rob Michel who with Councilmember Plunkett's assistance "torpedoed" the design guidelines at the
City Council three years ago. He noted Mr. Michel was also the Chair of the ADB who approved all
significant development in Edmonds except his own. He commented the City Council was now asking
the ADB to create policy for the design guidelines, a conflict of interest for Mr. Michel due to the
overwhelming advantage it gave him. He recommended a developer not be involved in establishing
policy for the City's design guidelines.
Michael Young, Edmonds, commended Mayor Haakenson, Councilmembers, and staff for their efforts.
candidate He Debate acknowledged he likely would disagree with everyone at one time or another , hoping that even when
parties had to agree to disagree, there was respect. He reported being flabbergasted during the recent
candidate debate, sponsored by the League of Women Voters, where an Edmonds citizen veered from the
format and personally attacked an Edmonds Councilmember. He found this incredibly inappropriate and
disgusting. He again thanked the Council for what they do and suggested Mr. Martin get a new hobby.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, thanked those who had called him about the election. He inquired about the
Vld Wodway effort Councilmember Moore started to purchase the old Woodway Elementary, asking whether the City
ementa
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 19, 2005
Page 14
had hired a grant writer to obtain grants to purchase the property. He asserted Mayor Haakenson was
opposed to the purchase of Woodway Elementary and if the Council wanted to guarantee the City
received a grant to purchase Woodway Elementary, he recommended developing a plan and hiring a grant
writer like Arvilla Ohlde. With regard to the comment regarding ADB boardmembers, if the Council was
dissatisfied with the function of any of the City's Boards /Commission, he recommended reinstating term
limits.
Bob Gregg, Edmonds, responded to allegations regarding the project at 5th & Walnut. With regard to the
Project at t allegation that the building exceeded the permitted maximum height, he assured it did not. With regard to
and Walnut g g p g g
not applying the special formula in the contract rezone, he assured it was. In response to a question posed
by Mr. Graham regarding how on a lot that generally sloped east to west could a point more westerly be
higher than a point more easterly, he described how the height was calculated. With regard to HVAC in
the structures to the east, he advised the HVAC was not in those structures. With regard to grading, he
noted every drawing of the project showed windows and doors in the back at grade level irregardless of
whether it was commercial or residential. He noted their application was also accompanied by a grading
plan, assuring there was never anything hidden or suspect. He referred to language in the contract rezone
that grading of the open space on Parcel B would begin at the current level.
Mayor Haakenson recalled the Council asked staff to provide a report on the questions raised with regard
to the project on 5th & Walnut, which staff did. He asked whether the Council wanted to proceed with
Mr. Gregg's response and Councilmembers agreed they did.
Mr. Gregg referred to a question regarding where the grade would begin, explaining that like most
development, it began at the vertical retaining wall and proceeded down to the doors and windows. Next,
he referred to confusion with regard to the open space, explaining the open space was not for public use
and would be fenced and the public would not see into that area. He noted the contract rezone allowed
them to build certain structures on the open space, and a deck or cover over the open space would be
allowed. He noted private open space was much less restrictive than publicly -owned open space, such as
sidewalks, and it was common to overhang decks or eaves over sidewalks. With regard to the sidewalk,
he explained the sidewalks to be installed with this project were originally 7 -feet wide. Before the civil
permit was issued, the engineering department reduced the width to 5 -feet. Neighbors later spoke to him
about the sidewalk and the final building permit contained a 3 -foot curb and landscaping with no
sidewalks. He advised there had not been a partial street vacation but contrary to information provided in
staff's answer, the building did not go to the property line, the right -of -way extended to the property line.
He expressed concern that residents on Holly may be in conflict with each other over whether or not to
include the sidewalk and suggested residents meet to reach a solution.
5. CONTINUED DISCUSSION ON PUBLIC /PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP PROPOSAL
Public /Private
Partnership
Proposal Mayor Haakenson recalled the Council requested staff provide feedback regarding the positive and
negative aspects of the public /private partnership concept.
Economic Development Director Jennifer Gerend reported a staff team consisting of Development
Services Director Duane Bowman, Community Services Director Stephen Clifton, Planning Manager Rob
Chave, Administrative Services Director Dan Clements, City Attorney Scott Snyder and she was
assembled to review the information Mr. Gregg presented. She briefly reviewed potential positives that
included a unified development scenario, a way of achieving public goals, ease in permitting and potential
property and sales tax revenues. She reviewed potential negatives that staff identified, including a unified
development scenario, commitment of City resources reducing their availability for other projects and
priorities, and the affect on the local real estate and retail market. She referred to information in the
packet regarding legal, logistical and financial issues and private - private and quasi - private options to
address some of the positives staff identified.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 19, 2005
Page 15
6. REPORT ON CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS OF SEPTEMBER 1.3, 2005
Public Safety Public Safety Committee
Comm ittee Councilmember Dawson reported the Committee considered a recommendation to declare certain radios
surplus which the Council approved on tonight's Consent Agenda. She noted the Committee discussed
possibly donating the equipment to agencies impacted by Hurricane Katrina. Next the Committee
reviewed the Municipal Court Security Guard position, explaining the former judge made a decision to
cut security at the courthouse; the City's new judge was interested in restoring the Security Guard
position for the safety of court staff and members of the public who attend court. The item has been
scheduled on the Council's October 4 agenda. The final item discussed by the Committee was the Public
Safety element of the Comprehensive Plan. She advised a member of the Police Foundation would be
serving on a committee to develop the police portion of the element.
Community/ Community Services /Development Services Committee
Development Councilmember Moore reported the Committee discussed the street encroachment issue which the
Services
Committee Council approved on tonight's agenda. The Committee also reviewed the Issaquah ordinance regarding
sex offenders and recommended the matter be scheduled for review by the full Council on September 27.
At Council President Marin's invitation, Mr. Gregg responded to staff's memo regarding the
Public/Prvate
Partnership public /private partnership, stating he agreed with the pros and cons identified by staff and their comments
Proposal about encouraging redevelopment. In response to why a public /private partnership was proposed, he
explained a majority of the Council felt it was in the best interest of citizens and/or a desire of citizens to
focus on 2- story, 25 -foot buildings. He noted the difficulty with this was that the Heartland study found
such buildings could not be built by the private sector. The public /private partnership has suggested a
way to achieve the 2- story, 25 -feet in height. He agreed with staff's recommendation to tweak the Code
to make it possible for the private sector to build 2 -story buildings. He encouraged the Council to reread
the Heartland study, commenting either the study was incorrect or the City needed to modify the code so
that the City got the buildings it wanted that the private sector could build.
Mr. Gregg pointed out the Heartland study did not state that 2 -story buildings could not be developed
profitably, only that there would be a 5% profit, not enough for the private sector to take the risk but it
was enough for a non - profit. If modifying the code was not possible, he recommended the City consider
the public /private partnership concept again, but with two changes: 1) no public subsidy and 2)
identifying one property owner willing to participate and determine whether the pros staff identified could
be achieved and the cons avoided. He encouraged the Council to make the zoning consistent with the
Heartland study.
7. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Community Mayor Haakenson announced ten days ago he invited all the church leaders in Edmonds to meet with him
Response to and approximately 20 attended a meeting last Tuesday to discuss how the Edmonds community could
Hurricane help the victims of Hurricane Katrina. He advised those 20 leaders determined they would like to pursue
Katrina
the opportunity that the U.S. Conference of Mayors presented for the ability for Edmonds to adopt a city.
He advised the City was now waiting for the U.S. Conference of Mayors to match Edmonds with a
similar -sized city to assist them with recovery. He noted that effort would require money, clothing, sports
equipment, and people — a combined Edmonds community effort to assist whatever City of Edmonds was
assigned.
8. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Community Councilmember Moore congratulated Mayor Haakenson and the church leaders for their effort. With
Response to
Hurricane family members in Louisiana and Mississippi and friends throughout the Gulf Coast , she knew the
Katrina suffering and need would extend for a long, long time. She encouraged Edmonds residents to consider
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 19, 2005
Page 16
their own personal readiness in the event of an earthquake, including having emergency kits and knowing
their neighbors' names and whereabouts.
Mayor Haakenson advised students from Edmonds-Woodway and Meadowdale High School were
helping with the effort to assist victims of Katrina.
TeenRep Molly Thomson advised Edmonds-Woodway High School raised over $1,000 to date for
Hurricane Katrina relief. She agreed both high schools would be interested in participating in a
community-wide effort.
Mayor Haakenson advised three goals were developed at the meeting with area church leaders: 1)
assisting the hurricane victims, 2) not forgetting the needy in our own community and 3) ensuring the
Edmonds community's readiness.
With no further business,the Council meeting was adjourned at 9:58 p.m.
GAR ENSON,MAYOR SANDRA S. CHASE, CITY CLERK
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 19,2005
Page 17
AGENDA
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL
�r Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex
250 5th Avenue North
7:00 - 10:00 p.m.
Special Monday Meeting
SEPTEMBER 19, 2005
6:15 p.m. - Executive Session regarding labor negotiations, real estate and legal matters. I
7:00 p.m. - Call to Order/Flag Salute
1. Approval of Agenda
2. Consent Agenda Items
(A) Roll Call
(B) Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of September 6, 2005.
(C) Approval of claim checks #82168 through #82312 for the week of September 6,
2005, in the amount of $548,359.26, and checks #82313 through #82464 for the
week of September 12, 2005, in the amount of $519,912.58.*
*Information regarding claim checks may be viewed electronically at www.ci.edmonds.wa.us
(D) Approval of and authorization for Mayor to sign the Final Plat of Classico
Homes five-lot formal subdivision on 202"d Street SW. (File No. P-04-117;
Property Location: 8610 - 202nd Street SW; Applicant: Classico Homes Inc.)
(E) Authorization to negotiate Personal Services Contract for Census Services.
(F) Approval of contract for Public Streetscape Plan Update.
(G) Declare radios surplus. (Approved by the Public Safety Committee on 9/13/05.)
(H) Proposed Ordinance amending the provisions of ECDC Section 18.70.030
Review (B)(4) relating to criteria for street use encroachment to provide for
normally associated residential uses. (Approved by the Community/Development Services
Committee on 9/13/05.)
(I) Proposed Ordinance amending the provisions of ECDC 20.60.005 Definitions to
correct a scrivener's error in order to reaffirm definitions adopted pursuant to
Ordinance No. 3461 on July 1, 2003, while retaining the definition of
"Construction Sign" adopted by Ordinance No. 3514.
Page 1 of 2
CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA
SEPTEMBER 19, 2005
3. (75 Min.) Continued Public Hearing regarding a zoning text amendment to create a
Master Planned Office-Residential Zone (MPOR), Edmonds Community
Development Code Chapter 16.77. The text amendment also includes a
change to ECDC 21.40.030 - Height, including describing how average street
level is determined in relationship to determining building height. (File No.
CDC-2005-46)
4. Audience Comments (3 Minute Limit Per Person)*
*Regarding matters not listed on the Agenda as Closed Record Review or as Public Hearings.
5. (45 Min.) Continued discussion on public/private partnership proposal.
6. (15 Min.) Report on City Council Committee Meetings of September 13, 2005.
7. ( 5 Min.) Mayor's Comments
8. (15 Min.) Council Comments
ADJOURN
I
I
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