11/15/2005 City CouncilNovember 15, 2005
The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:09 p.m. by Mayor Haakenson in the Council
Chambers, 250 5`b 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 (arrived 9:01 p.m.)
Mauri Moore, Councilmember
Peggy Pritchard Olson, Councilmember
Dave Orvis, Councilmember
Deanna Dawson, Councilmember
ALSO PRESENT
Michael Bowker, Intern
Steven Landry, Student Representative
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
STAFF PRESENT
Tom Tomberg, Fire Chief
Al Compaan, Assistant Police Chief
Duane Bowman, Development Services Director
Stephen Clifton, Community Services Director
Dan Clements, Administrative Services Director
Brian McIntosh, Parks & Recreation Director
Jennifer Gerend, Economic Development Dir.
Noel Miller, Public Works Director
Kathleen Junglov, Asst. Admin. Services Dir.
Rob Chave, Planning Manager
Dave Gebert, City Engineer
Darrell Smith, Traffic Engineer
Debi Humann, Human Resources Manager
Steve Bullock, Senior Planner
Scott Snyder, City Attorney
Sandy Chase, City Clerk
Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst.
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
COUNCIL PRESIDENT MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, FOR
APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (Councilmember
Wilson was not present for the vote.)
2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
COUNCIL PRESIDENT MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DAWSON, FOR
APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
(Councilmember Wilson was not present for the vote.) The agenda items approved are as follows:
Approve (A) ROLL CALL
11/7/05
Minutes (B) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 7, 2005.
Approve
Claim Checks (C) APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #83666 THROUGH #83822 FOR THE WEEK OF
NOVEMBER 7, 2005, IN THE AMOUNT OF $571,731.44.
Claim for
Damages (D) ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM DON BENSON
(AMOUNT UNDETERMINED).
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 15, 2005
Page 1
Hwy 99 (E) AUTHORIZATION FOR THE MAYOR TO SIGN A CONSULTANT CONTRACT WITH
Traffic
Circulation PERTEET ENGINEERING, INC. FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 TRAFFIC CIRCULATION
Study AND SAFETY STUDY.
2004 Water- (F) REPORT ON BIDS OPENED NOVEMBER 1, 2005 FOR PHASE III OF THE 2004
line Replace- WATERLINE REPLACEMENT PROJECT AND AWARD OF CONTRACT TO
ment Project EARTHWORK ENTERPRISES, INC. ($840,220.14, INCLUDING SALES TAX).
Ord# 3573
Non- (G) ORDINANCE NO. 3573 - 2006 NON - REPRESENTED SALARY ORDINANCE.
Represented
Salaries 3. HEARING EXAMINER ANNUAL REPORT
Hearing
Examiner Hearing Examiner Ron McConnell advised this was his l lth annual report to the Council. He reported the
Annual
Report types of cases last year were similar to the previous year; some required interpretation and some were
appealed to the Council. He expressed his support for the proposed Zoning Code update, commenting
there were some areas of the Code that could benefit from clarification.
Council President Marin requested he elaborate on how Edmonds' Code compared with other cities. Mr.
McConnell answered some codes were easier to work with and more clear; although the Edmonds code
was not the worst, it could be cleaned up and made more clear and more user friendly. He preferred
codes that had more matrixes and charts. He cautioned against a code such as Kirkland's which was
exceedingly detailed and very voluminous. He noted Kirkland had a slightly larger population than
Edmonds and has a planning staff of 20. He recalled Bellevue's code was user friendly and provided a
great deal of clarity. He recalled the drastic improvement in King County's code several years ago when
it was updated. He offered to provide further assistance with the update.
Councilmember Orvis encouraged Mr. McConnell to review Council and City Attorney comments on
variances that have been appealed to the Council during the past year. He asked Mr. McConnell to
clearly delineate in his findings how an application met the five variance criteria.
8" Ave. S 4. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE CONSIDERATION OF A POSSIBLE VACATION OF A PORTION
Between OF THE UNOPENED RIGHT -OF -WAY OF 8TH AVENUE SOUTH BETWEEN ALDER AND
Alder and WALNUT STREETS.
Walnut
Development Services Director Duane Bowman recalled on October 4 the Council passed Resolution No.
1108 initiating this public hearing. The purpose of the public hearing was for the Council to consider the
best use of this unopened right -of -way. He explained the right -of -way had remained in its present
undeveloped state for a number of years, particularly on the north side as it abuts Alder Street where there
were two homes with driveways extending into the right -of -way. He noted property owners on the south
side had cleared the blackberries and landscaped the area. He explained there was a fence with a gate
separating the Walnut side from the Alder street side, recalling efforts to maintain public access in that
area including requesting that the gate remain open. He concluded the issue before the Council was what
to do with the unopened right -of -way.
Mr. Bowman displayed a vicinity map and identified the right -of -way proposed to be vacated. He
explained the City had a waterline that ran north -south in the 8th Avenue right -of -way. He displayed
several photographs, 1) the right -of -way from Alder Street looking down the centerline of the 60 -foot
wide right -of -way, noting both driveways were within the right -of -way, 2) the gate and fences along the
right -of -way and unopened alley, 3) the right -of -way from Walnut whether there was an ecology wall due
to the steep slope, 4) the area where people walk on the Adams driveway, through the gate, and along a
sidewalk on the Larman's property, and the 5) area that was landscaped by neighbors on the Walnut side.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 15, 2005
Page 2
He noted this path was utilized by neighborhood residents to reach downtown, Frances Anderson Center,
and the library to avoid the steep grade on Alder and Walnut.
Mr. Bowman reviewed the following options for the Council:
• Completely vacate the right -of -way while retaining a utility easement for city utilities
• Completely vacate the right -of -way while retaining a utility easement and pedestrian easement
• Do a partial vacation of the right -of -way with retention of appropriate easements
• Do not vacate the right -of -way and leave the right -of -way as it currently exists which requires a
decision regarding the location of the walkway
Mr. Bowman relayed staff's recommendation, to vacate the subject right -of -way at 50% of the appraised
value ($2500) and retain a 10 -foot utility easement and a I0 -foot pedestrian easement through the entire
right -of -way. He recommended staff be directed to prepare the necessary ordinance and exhibits
delineating the required easements. The compensation should be used to construct the trail connecting
Alder and Walnut Streets. He explained both Mayor Haakenson and he had discussed this issue with
neighbors and Council direction was now necessary regarding this right -of -way.
Mr. Bowman displayed a drawing illustrating the route most people used when walking through this area,
from Walnut they walk along the Larman's driveway, through the gate, across the gravel and down the
driveway that serves the Adams residence. He identified the four property owners who abut the property,
Adams and Martin on the Alder side and Larman and Peterson on the Walnut side.
City Attorney Scott Snyder explained this was a public hearing but it was a legislative and not quasi
judicial act of the Council. Courts rarely if ever interfere with City Council's discretion to determine
whether public property was needed; the only time would be if a property were landlocked by the
decision which was not an issue tonight. He explained the Council had the authority to remove any
obstruction from the public right -of -way without compensation. The Council could not order the property
owners to pay for the vacation; however, the vacation could be conditioned on payment of funds.
Because vacations were accomplished via passage of an ordinance, Mr. Snyder advised Mayor
Haakenson could not vote to break a tie.
Councilmember Dawson asked the outcome if the City vacated the right -of -way and three of the four
neighbors did not want the vacation and did not want to pay for the vacated property. Mr. Bowman
answered an option would be not to require compensation for the vacated right -of -way.
Councilmember Dawson inquired about assertions that the property taxes would increase if the property
owners accepted the additional property. Mr. Bowman acknowledged that was a possibility although he
questioned the value -added due to the driveways and retention of utility and pedestrian easements. He
concluded he did not have any information to confirm or refute the neighbor's assertions that their
property taxes would increase, recalling one email estimated the increase at $500 per year. He assumed if
area was added to a property it was likely the assessor would find value had been added to the property
although a homeowner could protest the additional value the assessor assigned due to the limited
functionality of the property.
Council President Marin asked whether one property owner could purchase the entire right -of -way. Mr.
Bowman answered one person could pay the compensation but by law the property must be returned to
the adjacent property owners, in this instance four properties. Council President Marin observed four
property owners had a right to the right -of -way and if vacated could purchase a 1/4 or not. Mr. Bowman
agreed, explaining the Larmans and the Petersons on the south side could obtain the right -of -way, relocate
the easements and create a building lot although most likely that would not occur and neither property
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 15, 2005
Page 3
owner had expressed interest in doing that. He noted that was not possible on the north as the Adams'
and Martin's driveways were located in the right -of -way.
Councilmember Moore asked how long the driveways had been in the right -of -way. Mr. Bowman
answered 25 -30 years. He explained when these houses were built the City authorized the driveways in
the right -of -way as their access. Councilmember Moore asked whether adverse possession was possible
on public property. Mr. Snyder answered no, there was no ability to adversely possess against a
governmental entity. He reiterated the Council had complete discretion to remove anything in the right -
of -way at any time.
Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing.
James Martin, Edmonds, one of the four property owners bordering on the right -of -way, explained the
driveways were on the easement because the City did not construct a street in the right -of -way. He
assumed the City approved the building permit for the homes that have their driveways on the easement.
He preferred the City not vacate the easement and allow the current situation to continue. He found this
the best solution for several reasons, first that the current situation pleased the 12 residents who signed a
petition to have the right to walk through this area; the City approved the petition and took considerable
action to establish a right -of -way. He noted his wife and he have always supported people walking on the
right -of -way and welcomed their use of the easement abutting their home. Because of the slope in the
easement, some people prefer to walk on the Adams' driveway. He cited other reasons for not vacating
the easement including that the current situation pleased three of the four property owners who abut the
easement, the existing situation did not cost the City any money, and the current situation satisfied the
largest number of people. Although he could understand some City officials wanting to vacate the right -
of -way to eliminate the nuisance it causes, he reiterated the City caused the problem by not constructing
the street in the right -of -way. He objected to the vacation, citing increased taxes and insurance on
property he did not want.
Eleanor Bonanno, Edmonds, a resident on Walnut since 1956, . explained she uses this area to reach
downtown and the library due to the steep grade on Walnut. She recalled neighbors and she circulated a
petition to allow them to walk on the right -of -way. She commented the people walking on that right -of-
way do not cause any damage and respect the neighboring properties. She recommended the Council not
vacate the right -of -way and retain the existing pathway.
Trudy Thornbrough, Edmonds (via a letter read by Ms. Bonanno), one of the original petitioners who
submitted a request to the City to open the gate to allow them to walk between Alder and Walnut which
had been possible before the blackberry bushes and the fence was erected, objected to vacating the right -
of -way, envisioning the neighbor who erected the fence would again block access. She referred to the
information in the agenda materials that if vacated the City planned to build another path, finding this an
unnecessary expense to satisfy one person. She urged the Council to retain the existing situation which
worked well for most users. The existing situation did not cost any money nor cause any undue hardship.
She noted the only way to improve the situation would be perhaps to install the gate in its original .
location, permanently mark the right -of -way and/or eliminate the latch on the gate as it was too high for
most users. She noted the right -of -way was marked at one time but the markings were removed.
Brian Larman, Edmonds (via a letter read by Ms. Larman) owner of the property at the southeast corner
of the subject right -of -way, recalled a number of citizens petitioned the City to require the gate /fence
between Walnut and Alder remain unlocked which was accomplished with the assistance of Mr. Bowman
and Mayor Haakenson. He explained this pathway allowed walkers to avoid the steep grade on Walnut
and without it, many were unable to walk to downtown. He assured this was not a main pedestrian
thoroughfare; on average it was used by a relatively small number of neighbors who have demonstrated
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 15, 2005
Page 4
respect for property owners and who appreciated the less arduous route. He and his neighbors obtained
an encroachment permit to landscape and enhance the right -of -way which included a pathway that
connected to their driveway and allowed neighbors to walk on their side of the right -of -way. He
recommended the City retain the existing situation and preserve their right to walk unimpeded on the 8th
Avenue right -of -way, envisioning that vacating the right -of -way would jeopardize the ability to walk
between Walnut and Alder. If vacation were deemed necessary, he requested the City ensure the current
pathway remain unobstructed.
Elizabeth Larman, Edmonds, owner of the property at the southeast corner of the subject right -of -way,
referred to the encroachment agreement they and the Petersons obtained for the south side of the 8tb
Avenue right -of -way. She congratulated the Council for purchasing the Shell Creek property with the
intent of keeping open land for the citizenry, essentially the same thing they were attempting to do in their
neighborhood — preserve the right to walk downtown via the 81h Avenue unopened right -of -way. She
requested the Council support Mayor Haakenson, Mr. Bowman and Mr. Lindsey who responded to their
petition and opened the previously locked gate to provide safe passage via the unopened right -of -way.
She objected to the City's proposal to construct a pathway parallel to the existing blacktop from Alder
Street to the fence, commenting the existing path on City property was adequate and another path would
be a waste of City resources. She supported the current situation, finding it had no impact on existing
landscaping, satisfied the neighborhood's wishes and did not cost the City anything. She urged the
Council not to allow the proposed partial vacation and support neighborhood walkers' right to use the
unopened 8th Avenue right -of -way.
Maureen Martin, Edmonds, one of the four property owners bordering on the right -of -way, requested
the Council abandon their plans to vacate the right -of -way, asserting the transfer of the property would
increase their annual property taxes by approximately $500, an estimate provided by the Snohomish
County Assessor's Office. She assured they had no desire to own the property; when their home was
built over 30 years ago, the right to construct the driveway on the right -of -way was granted. They have
maintained their portion of the unopened right -of -way, noting the City was not required to provide any
maintenance of the area. She also objected to an expenditure of City funds to construct a pedestrian
pathway through the right -of -way when a usable pathway already existed. She preferred those funds be
spent to construct missing areas of the walkway on Dayton and Maple.
Waide (Sonya) Adams, Edmonds, one of the four property owners bordering on the right -of -way, spoke
in support of the vacation, citing continuous issues at night on their driveway. He referred to discussions
with Mr. Bowman and Mayor Haakenson and plans to construct a pathway down the middle of the right -
of. -way. He relayed information provided by the City that a variance was granted 24 years ago to allow
their driveway in the right -of -way. He expressed their willingness to purchase the property if the right -of-
way were vacated, noting that revenue would cover the cost of the trail. The problem was that pedestrians
must currently use private property to reach Walnut; he preferred a trail be constructed from Alder to
Walnut that was open to the public. He requested the Council consider vacating the 8th Avenue right -of-
way, retaining an easement for public access.
LaVerne Adams- Hayter, Edmonds, advised she purchased the property in 1980 and constructed the
home in 1985. After unsuccessful negotiations with the City to vacate the right -of -way at that time, she
received approval to have their driveway in the right -of -way. She requested the right -of -way be vacated
and a walkway constructed from Alder to Walnut.
William Charbonneau, Edmonds, recalled people had used this path for decades until the Adams
installed the gate as well as various other methods of blocking the path. His understanding was the
Adams did not want anyone invading their space and they felt this was their property. He envisioned if
the right -of -way were vacated and a pedestrian easement retained, the Adams would block that path. He
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 15, 2005
Page 5
concluded a citizen would not be allowed to block a right -of -way such as Main Street, why could a citizen
block this right -of -way. If the Council vacated the right -of -way, he envisioned a pathway would never be
completed due to the cost to build stairs where there were currently ecology blocks on Walnut. He
recommended the Council not "make a mountain out of a mole hill" and not forsake the rights of citizens
to use public property to cater to the illegal actions of one citizen.
Warren Peterson, Edmonds, owner of the property on the southwest corner of the subject right -of -way,
pointed out vacating the right -of -way was not in the best interest of the neighborhood as the outcome of
vacation would be to deny residents passage between Alder and Walnut Streets. Residents use this right -
of -way to avoid the steeper slope on Walnut. Only one of the four property owners abutting the right -of-
way was in favor of vacation, the others preferred the existing situation remain and free passage between
Alder and Walnut be retained. He referred to the small, friendly, family atmosphere in Edmonds, relaying
they had not encountered any problems with people using this path for the past 30 years. He concluded it
would be a mistake to vacate the 8th Avenue right -of -way as it would likely result in the closure of that
area to pedestrians.
Tanya Mead, Edmonds, described her use of the path, commenting on the difficulty to reach the latch on
the gate as well as get through the gate with a stroller. She recommended the City retain the path, remove
the gate and identify the path as public property. Not finding a petition from the Adams for vacation in
the file, she questioned why this action was before the Council. She suggested the City provide further
information on how the vacation would impact property owners with regard to insurance, taxes, etc.
Lynne Cimler, Edmonds, commented the recent election illustrated there was a renewed interest in the
preservation of the small town atmosphere and quality of life. She commented her son often walks to
school on the other 8th Avenue right -of -way that connects Walnut and Cedar. She requested the Council
protect precious public lands, noting the future use of these public lands was often unknown. She
preferred the Council not take the drastic action of vacating the right -of -way and instead enforce the law.
Jim Fitch, Edmonds, commented their family has enjoyed using the path for the past several months,
remarking it was easier than walking around. He explained a successful solution would allow residents to
continue using the path/trail between Alder and Walnut safely day or night, allow them to comfortably
permit their daughter and friends to use the path to reach the library or downtown, allow them to walk
their dog on the path, and allow continued good relations with their neighbors. He urged the Council to
make the solution permanent so that this issue did have to be revisited in the future.
Erik Sorensen, Edmonds, requested the Council not vacate the right -of. -way, remarking the current
situation was not broken and did not need to be fixed.
Carlyn James, Edmonds, remarked they had lived in the area for 19 years and she was not aware of this
path until a neighbor informed her recently although she had often wished for a path between Alder and
Walnut. She requested the trail be allowed to remain and was happy that at least three property owners
were willing to share a portion of their property so that residents could pass through the area. She
suggested marking the path so that area residents were aware of its existence.
Robert Miller, Edmonds, spoke in support of maintaining the status quo, concurring with the reasons
previous speakers provided for why the right -of -way should not be vacated.
Joe Wermus, Edmonds, spoke in opposition to vacating the right -of -way. He agreed it was not easily
apparent that there was a public pathway in the right -of -way and recommended the trail be identified and
the gate that blocked public access be removed.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 15, 2005
Page 6
Roger Hertrieh, Edmonds, referred to conversations he has had with neighbors in the area and his visit
to the property, remarking he was surprised there was a trail in this location because of the gate that
blocked it. He expressed a preference for an open passage such as an arch rather than the gate, remarking
the latch was installed high to make opening the gate more difficult. He requested the Council listen to
the neighbors' pleas, mark the path and allow them to continue using the path.
Hearing no further public comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public hearing.
Councilmember Plunkett asked why an effort was being made to vacate the right -of -way. Mr. Bowman
answered staff wanted policy direction from the Council that they could enforce. Councilmember
Plunkett asked why staff recommended vacation. Mr. Bowman answered the recommendation was based
on this being unopened right -of -way where a road would not be constructed at any time in the near future.
He agreed that in addition to a utility easement the pedestrian access through the right -of -way should be
retained which he assured could be achieved via vacation. If after listening to public testimony the
Council preferred to retain the existing situation that could be accomplished. He acknowledged the
pathway could be marked better as it was not obvious that a path exists.
Councilmember Plunkett questioned why a gate with a latch was allowed. Mr. Bowman stated staff had
been struggling with that issue. Unfortunately in working with the parties involved, they had not been
successful in addressing all issues. He advised the gate was removed at one point and later reinstalled in
another location at the direction of staff. He referred to Mayor Haakenson's unsuccessful efforts to
address the gate issue with the neighbors, thus it was presented for the Council for policy direction.
Councilmember Plunkett asked whether there was a reason why the right -of -way needed to be vacated
and whether something could be done about removing the gate. Mr. Snyder stated the Council had total
ability and perhaps an obligation to remove any obstruction in the public right -of -way to make it passable.
Although the Council could legally allow the existing situation to remain, practically the Council created
a public record that people are using a public walkway that is unsafe and frequently blocked. If the
Council did not vacate the right -of -way, it needed to be marked and made safe for passage.
With regard to the comment about making a mountain out a molehill, Mayor Haakenson explained when
a director was unable to resolve a problem and the mayor was required to convene a neighborhood
meeting, it was already a mountain.
Council President Marin asked under what conditions a fence and gate would be permitted across the
right -of -way. Mr. Bowman answered it could be done with an encroachment permit. Council President
Marin asked if a permit was obtained for this fence /gate. Mr. Bowman answered there were no permits
for the Adams' fence /gate, the Martin's fence or for a number of fences in the unopened alley. Council
President Marin asked if the Council could direct that the gate be removed. Mr. Bowman answered yes.
Council President Marin asked whether the Council could direct staff to install signage identifying both
sides as a city trail. Mayor Haakenson advised a sign could not be installed on the Walnut side because
the path in that location was on private property. Mr. Bowman described the path from Walnut to Alder,
explained the Larman's have graciously allowed people to use their driveway and a sidewalk through
their yard to reach the gate. After passing through the gate, people walk down the driveway in front of
the Adams residence, the property owner who requested the right -of -way be vacated. Mayor Haakenson
clarified that to access the path from the Walnut Street side, pedestrians must walk on the Larman's
property; there was no path from Walnut to Alder that was totally on City -owned right -of -way. Mr.
Bowman stated the slope on the Martin's side of the right -of -way prevented most pedestrian's use of that
area.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 15, 2005
Page 7
Mayor Haakenson explained in addition to opening the gate, the Parks Department drew a chalk line and
spray painted the fence where the right -of -way was located at the neighbors' request so that they could
show they were walking on City right -of -way although they were technically using someone's driveway
on one side. When those lines were removed, staff sought guidance from Council. He explained if the
current situation remained, the only solution was to paint a white line up the right -of -way on both sides
designating it as City right -of -way. Mr. Bowman identified the extent of the City right -of -way into the
Adams and Martins yards. Mr. Bowman acknowledged the existence of the right -of -way was unknown to
most pedestrians. Mr. Snyder explained there was nothing inconsistent with the use of City right -of -way
for a driveway, recalling his comment that the only reason vacations were overturned by the courts was if
access were denied. It was common to allow joint use of public right -of -way as long as it was not
inconsistent with the public's use.
Mayor Haakenson advised Mr. Adams' objection was that people walking down the public right -of -way
that he uses for his driveway look into his house as well as cause his dogs to bark and people walking on
the public right -of -way feel they have been treated poorly by Mr. Adams which has resulted in this
neighborhood conflict.
Council President Marin observed the gate could be removed. Mr. Bowman answered yes and Mayor
Haakenson remarked the gate was not the issue. Council President Marin asked if any action necessary to
terminate the vacation request if the Council chose not to vacate. Mr. Snyder advised the Council could
take no action, however, he recommended it be resolved.
Councilmember Orvis inquired about the ability to install stairs on the Walnut side. Mr. Bowman
answered the Larmans have allowed people to use their driveway; stairs would need to be constructed in
the right -of -way to make that area accessible due to the steep grade.
Councilmember Moore asked whether Public Works /Parks had been asked to provide an estimate for a
trail. Mayor Haakenson advised Parks estimated the cost at $4,000 for a path on the Alder side; the cost
for a path through the ecology block had not been investigated due to the anticipated expense.
Councilmember Plunkett asked what the $4,000 would provide. Mayor Haakenson advised the solution
would be to remove the vegetation in the center of the right -of -way between the Adams and Martins and
construct a path to the gate leading to the Larman's property. However when he proposed this, the
Larmans did not want to allow access to their private property.
For Councilmember Plunkett, Mr. Bowman explained if the Council chose not to vacate the right -of -way
and directed removal of the gate, staff could do that and work with Public Works /Parks on signage.
Councilmember Plunkett asked if further direction from the Council would be necessary. Mr. Bowman
answered no.
Mayor Haakenson advised this was presented to the Council because all remedies had been exhausted; if
the Council directed staff to paint stripes on the driveways to identify the public right -of -way that would
solve the problem. Mr. Snyder suggested there were three other issues, 1) he recommended the Council
provide direction regarding signage, such as requiring the sign to describe the hazards which would
enable the City to take advantage of the recreational use statute, 2) civil or criminal action may be
required to ensure the gate remains open and 3) because the use of the Larman's property creates an
easement adversely against their property, a permissive use agreement should be developed between the
City and the Larmans unless stairs were constructed in the right -of -way.
Hearing no further questions for staff, Mayor Haakenson remanded the matter to Council for action.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 15, 2005
Page 8
Councilmember Moore expressed her opposition to vacating this property, acknowledging although there
may not be any current plans for the property, there could be a need for it in the future. She preferred if
the area were being used as a public walkway, there be a sign identifying it so that people could use it and
not feel they were walking on private property. She also supported the removal of all fences and gates on
the right -of -way, preferring neighbors assist each other with building new fences that separated the public
right -of -way from their property. She recommended clearly marking the trail and removing the gate.
Mayor Haakenson explained it was not that simple — staff could remove the gate and /or fence tomorrow,
it did not solve the problem. There would still be access from Alder to the middle of the easement and
then pedestrians must use the Larman's property. If the Council wanted to have a pathway constructed in
the unopened right -of -way on the Walnut Street side, he suggested an estimate be obtained first because
he anticipated it would be very costly.
Council President Marin preferred to terminate the vacation request and direct staff to remove the gate.
Mayor Haakenson reiterated removing the gate was not the problem; if the Council wanted the status quo
to remain, he recommended not vacating the right -of -way and providing direction to mark the Alder
Street side of the public access that will go through the Larman's yard on the other side.
COUNCILMEMBER MOORE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, TO NOT
VACATE THE RIGHT -OF -WAY AND DIRECT STAFF TO OBTAIN AN ESTIMATE FOR A
TRAIL THROUGH THE UNOPENED RIGHT -OF -WAY.
Councilmember Orvis requested staff also have the flexibility to negotiate with the Larmans to avoid
constructing stairs.
Councilmember Olson remarked it seemed like this issue was becoming very complicated. She preferred
to retain the existing situation and remove the gate, mark the public right -of -way and see how it worked
for a year. If there were a lot of people using the pathway, possibly the Council would need to reconsider
building a pathway.
COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT MARIN,
TO AMEND THE MOTION TO REQUEST STAFF BRING BACK A PLAN TO DO NOTHING
OTHER THAN IMPROVE THE MARKING, INSTALL SIGNS, REMOVE THE GATE, ETC.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (Councilmember Wilson was not present for the vote.)
Councilmember Dawson agreed with Councilmember Olson, although she was not in favor of white lines
painted down the driveway. She preferred the individual property owners delineate between their private
property and the public right -of -way if they wished. She found it inappropriate to sign the public right -of-
way on Alder side unless a permissive use agreement were developed with the Larmans so that they
would not lose the ability to prevent people from walking on their property in the future if they chose.
She noted future property owners may want to pursue vacation, but until that happened she did not
support pursuing vacation of the right -of -way. Although she did not oppose staff obtaining estimates for
a path, she found it unlikely the City could afford to construct a path through that area.
Mayor Haakenson explained the simplest solution, as the neighbors said, was to maintain the status quo.
This could be accomplished via the Council acknowledging that the property where the Martins and
Adams driveways were located was public right -of -way and anyone could walk on it. Councilmember
Dawson agreed, noting although the area needed to be identified as public property and pedestrians could
access the portions that were public property, the gate should be removed. She recommended the right -
of -way not be vacated and the gate be removed.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 15, 2005
Page 9
COUNCILMEMBER MOORE WITHDREW HER MOTION WITH THE AGREEMENT OF THE
SECOND.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DAWSON, TO
DIRECT STAFF TO REMOVE THE GATE, TERMINATE THE VACATION ACTION AND
ACKNOWLEDGE THAT PUBLIC RIGHT -OF -WAY IS PUBLIC RIGHT -OF -WAY. MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (Councilmember Wilson was not present for the vote.)
Mayor Haakenson declared a recess. To accommodate Councilmember Wilson's delayed arrival due to a
flight delay, Council President Marin requested the Council take Agenda Item 8 next.
8. REPORT ON CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS OF NOVEMBER 7 2005
Public Safety Public Safety Committee
Committee Councilmember Dawson reported the Committee reviewed the police towing contract that is modeled
after Lynnwood's contract. The Committee recommended this item be approved on the Consent Agenda
following another review of the contract with inclusion of further indemnification language.
Finance Finance Committee
Committee Councilmember Olson reported the Committee was provided an overview of the proposed changes to the
City's Municipal Employees Benefit Trust (MEBT) Plan. Final changes need to be approved by
December 31 and submitted to the IRS. As the final ordinance had yet to be received, the Committee
forwarded this item to Council without recommendation. Next staff provided a third quarter budget
report; there were no major changes from the information provided mid -year. The Committee then
discussed the final 2005 budget amendment and forwarded it to the full Council for review. The final item
reviewed by the Committee was the 2006 non - represented salary ordinance which calls for a 2.7% cost of
living increase for eligible employees. The Committee forwarded this item to Council for approval on the
Consent Agenda.
Community /Development Services Committee
Development Councilmember Moore reported the Committee discussed underground wiring, topic that arose when
Development p g g� p
Services the City was approached by wireless providers who requested an increase in utility pole height and
Committee Councilmember Wilson suggested establishing a fee that could be used to underground wires in view -
sensitive areas. Although this would likely not provide enough money to cover the expensive task of
undergrounding, it could offset the cost of a LID or provide matching funds for a grant. The City
Attorney was asked to provide information on potential fees for wireless franchise agreements. The
Committee then discussed speed humps near the 220th Street project; Fire Chief Tomberg voiced his
concern regarding speed humps. Staff was directed to request a memo from the Police Department
outlining their position on speed humps.
2006 Budget 5. 2006 BUDGET
A. DISCUSSION ITEMS
• WORKSHOP FOLLOW -UP
• COUNCIL BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS
Administrative Service Director Dan Clements advised at the request of Council at the last meeting, the
packet contained several revenue and expense scenarios and copies of decision packages that were
approved and not approved via the budget process. He displayed a list of proposed budget adjustments,
explaining the Team Edmonds request was shown as $0 because it overlapped Councilmember Moore's
$20,000 request.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 15, 2005
Page 10
General Fund
Amount
Purpose
Funding Source
$20,000
Marketing Budget
Ending Fund Balance
$ 5,000
Camera Equipment
Ending Fund Balance
$ 5,000
Community Notification
Ending Fund Balance
$0
Team Edmonds
Non - General Fund
Amount
Pur ose
I Funding Source
$17,000
Fire Pension LEOFF Co-Pay
I Fire Insurance Premium
$ 1,500
Traffic Loop Detector (SR 104)
1 Ending Fund Balance
Councilmember Plunkett inquired whether Team Edmonds had agreed not to include funding in the
budget. Mr. Clements answered an email from the Chamber Director indicated he felt this was acceptable
but final approval would not be provided by the Chamber until their November 17 meeting.
B. REMAINING ACTION ITEMS
• 2006 BUDGET ORDINANCE
For Councilmember Plunkett, Mr. Clements advised the proposed ordinance contained the entire banked
capacity. He explained one of the scenarios was the use of 50% of banked capacity in 2006
(approximately $142,000) and the remaining 50% in 2007. If the Council chose, the 2006 budget
ordinance could be amended to use 50% of the banked capacity in 2006.
Councilmember Plunkett commented the Council usually adopted the property tax ordinance prior to
adopting the budget ordinance. Mr. Clements recalled the Council expressed a preference to discuss the
budget prior to adopting the property tax ordinance.
For Councilmember Moore, Mr. Clements explained the blue dotted line in Scenario 2 (Decision
Packages with Sourcing & 50% Banked Capacity in 2006, 50% Banked Capacity in 2007) was a fund
balance equal to 8% of expenditures, a standard targeted fund balance for general government operations.
The charts also include a line at $1 million, the target for a number of years; as the budget has grown, the
standard practice was to have the reserve increase with the budget.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, FOR
APPROVAL OF THE 2006 BUDGET ORDINANCE TO INCLUDE THE ITEMS ON THE LIST
Councilmember Moore observed the amendments would be funded from the ending fund balance and
were not relevant to any property tax increase. Councilmember Plunkett pointed out the use of ending
cash resulted in less cash which may /may not have an affect on a Councilmember's decision to increase
the property tax. He preferred to take action on the property tax ordinance prior to the budget ordinance.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT MARIN WITHDREW HIS MOTION WITH THE AGREEMENT OF
THE SECOND.
• 2006 PROPERTY TAX ORDINANCE
COUNCIL PRESIDENT MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, TO
APPROVE THE PROPERTY TAX ORDINANCE WITH FULL BANKED CAPACITY.
Councilmember Orvis expressed his preference to amend the ordinance to use half the banked capacity.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 15, 2005
Page I1
Councilmember Plunkett indicated he would not support the motion.
Councilmember Moore asked why Councilmember Orvis preferred to use half the banked capacity.
Councilmember Orvis responded the scenarios indicated there was little difference between using half the
banked capacity this year and half in 2007 versus using all the banked capacity this year. He preferred to
keep property tax growth at inflation which could be accomplished by spreading the capture of banked
capacity over two years.
Councilmember Dawson stated she would be unable to support the motion. Although she appreciated the
effort that had gone into the budget and the numerous decision packages that had been eliminated, she did
not find it necessary to access all the banked capacity and maximize property taxes at this time.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT MARIN WITHDREW HIS MOTION WITH THE AGREEMENT OF
THE SECOND.
Ord# 3574 COUNCIL PRESIDENT MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, TO
Property Tax APPROVE THE PROPERTY TAX ORDINANCE NO. 3574 WITH AN AMENDMENT TO USE
HALF THE BANKED CAPACITY (1.75 %) IN 2006 PLUS 1 %.
Councilmember Dawson appreciated the attempts to lessen the tax increase but could not support the
motion. She supported accessing banked capacity in order to fund essential ongoing items in the budget
such as the Street Crime Unit, replacement of bullet resistant vests and a vehicle for the Street Crime Unit
on the condition those items would be funded. She recalled from budget discussions those items may not
be funded regardless of the use of banked capacity unless sales tax sourcing was approved by the
legislature this year. Unless those items were funded, she would only support the 1% property tax
increase authorized by law.
Council President Marin recalled as a participant on the budget committee he reviewed the decision
packages and the budget. Although it was painful to increase citizens' and his taxes, the reality was there
were many needs that could not be avoided. He acknowledged it was expensive to operate a municipal
corporation, maintain infrastructure and maintain competent staff.
Councilmember Plunkett clarified this was not a huge tax increase but was simply the rate of inflation.
He noted the Council had increased taxes at a rate of 6% per year in the past; it was only in the past four
years that Mayor Haakenson had reduced that amount and via an initiative process, the increase was
restricted to 1 %. He pointed out that due to labor costs, benefits, insurance, and inflation, the budget
increased faster than inflation. He indicated his support for the motion.
For Councilmember Moore, Mr. Clements advised the cost to the owner of a house valued at $500,000 of
recapturing half the banked capacity would be $18/year. Councilmember Moore expressed her support
for the motion.
Councilmember Olson commented if some of the one -time costs were not funded this year, they would be
more expensive next year. She indicated her support for the motion as she preferred to increase taxes at
the rate of inflation.
MOTION CARRIED (6 -1), COUNCILMEMBER DAWSON OPPOSED.
For Mayor Haakenson, Mr. Clements advised recapturing only half the banked capacity reduced revenue
in 2006 by approximately $142,000. He asked how that affected the decision packages that were
approved recapturing the full banked capacity. Mr. Clements explained there was little difference
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 15, 2005
Page 12
between using half the banked capacity this year as long as the remaining banked capacity was used in
2007 or another revenue source identified.
• 2006 PROPERTY TAX ORDINANCE (con't)
COUNCIL PRESIDENT MARIN MOVED TO APPROVE THE BUDGET ORDINANCE WITH
THE AMENDMENTS IN AGENDA ITEM 5A WITHOUT THE REDUNDANT $30,000 FOR
TEAM EDMONDS. MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND.
Councilmember Plunkett suggested the proposed budget amendments be discussed again at the November
29 meeting to allow him time to review the budget under the new scenario and to consider
Councilmember Dawson's comments.
Councilmember Moore asked if Councilmembers had any additional cuts they wanted to propose.
Councilmember Dawson commented although she had made several suggestions regarding items that
could be cut from the budget, it appeared there was not consensus to make any further cuts.
Ord# 3575
2006 Budget COUNCIL PRESIDENT MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, TO
APPROVE BUDGET ORDINANCE NO. 3575 WITH THE AMENDMENTS IN AGENDA ITEM
5A WITHOUT THE REDUNDANT $30,000 FOR TEAM EDMONDS.
Councilmember Plunkett commented his hesitation in adopting the budget was to allow Councilmember
Dawson to provide a more formal proposal regarding the possible cuts she suggested. Councilmember
Dawson answered if four Councilmembers were not interested in considering cuts, it was not worthwhile
to make a more formal presentation. If the Council reduced revenues by $142,000 in 2006, she
recommended there be corresponding cuts in expenditures. She could not support the budget as proposed
due to the $1.42,000 reduction in revenues with no offsetting cuts in expenditures and the additional
$30,000 in General Fund expenditures.
Councilmember Plunkett supported delaying adoption of the 2006 budget to allow Councilmembers time
to reflect on the $142,000 reduction in revenue.
Councilmember Moore asked what would be discussed on November 29 that could not be discussed now.
Mayor Haakenson asked the cost of the new Street Crime Unit and new vehicle. Mr. Clements estimated
it was $150,000 - $160,000; the recapture of half the banked capacity provided approximately $142,000.
Councilmember Wilson expressed interest in items Councilmember Plunkett would be willing to cut,
assuming Councilmember Plunkett had items in mind to cut if he did not support the recapture of the full
banked capacity. He referred to one -time costs in the budget such as the rewrite of the Zoning Code,
commenting most cities updated their codes every ten years, Edmonds code was 25 years old. He
acknowledged Councilmembers could choose to procrastinate funding that update because it was not as
visible an expenditure as police officers, however, it needed to be done to facilitate staff and Council's
jobs. He recommended the Council fund the rewrite so that the code was usable for citizens and staff,
pointing out that delaying it was not a guarantee it would be funded in the future. He was willing to adopt
the budget unless there were Councilmembers willing to propose further cuts.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (5 -2), COUNCIL PRESIDENT MARIN AND
COUNCILMEMBERS OLSON, MOORE, ORVIS, AND WILSON IN FAVOR, AND
COUNCILMEMBERS DAWSON AND PLUNKETT OPPOSED.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 15, 2005
Page 13
6. CLOSED RECORD REVIEW OF A CONSOLIDATED APPLICATION BY DON DREW
ixx Sunset PROPERTY OWNER AND ED LEE OF THE HOTEL GROUP FOR A CONTRACT REZONE
Ave. N —
Hotet Uroup MASTER -PLAN APPROVAL AND DESIGN REVIEW FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT
1XX SUNSET AVENUE NORTH. THE CONTRACT REZONE REQUEST SEEKS TO CHANGE
THE ZONING FROM RS -6 TO MASTER - PLANNED OFFICE AND RESIDENTIAL (MPOR)
TIED TO A MASTER -PLAN AND DESIGN REVIEW PROPOSAL FOR A 2 -STORY OFFICE
AND RESIDENTIAL BUILDING WITH A BASEMENT PARKING GARAGE.
As this was a quasi judicial matter, Mayor Haakenson asked whether any Councilmember had any
disclosures to make under the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine.
Councilmember Orvis explained because this was occurring at the same time as the legislative process, he
had numerous conversations regarding the legislative issues associated with the MPOR zone. Mayor
Haakenson asked whether he would have any difficulty making a fair and impartial decision.
Councilmember Orvis advised he would not. Mayor Haakenson asked whether any parties of records had
any objection to Councilmember Orvis' participation. There were no objections voiced.
At Councilmember Dawson's request, Mayor Haakenson listed the parties of recorded: John Bissell,
Doug Dreher, Bernice Dreher, Don Drew, Jonathan Hatch, Roger Hertrich, Robin Koetje, Bud Kopp, Don
Kreiman, Ed Lee, Tom Robinson, Brian. Slick, Erik Sonnett and Finis Tupper. He advised the Council
did not have this list of parties of records as he had just received it. Councilmember Dawson advised at
least one of the parties of record contributed to her campaign. Mayor Haakenson asked whether she could
render a fair and impartial decision on the matter. Councilmember Dawson answered she could. Mayor
Haakenson asked whether any parties of records had any objection to Councilmember Dawson's
participation. There were no objections voiced.
Councilmember Plunkett advised he did not believe any of the parties of record had contributed to his
campaign.
Councilmember Wilson advised Don Kreiman contributed to and worked on his campaign; however, they
had not discussed this topic. Mayor Haakenson asked whether he could render a fair and impartial
decision. Councilmember Wilson answered he could. Mayor Haakenson asked whether any parties of
records had any objection to Councilmember Wilson's participation. There were no objections voiced.
Councilmember Orvis commented without an opportunity to compare the list with his campaign
contributions, he could not definitively answer whether any of the parties of record had made a
contribution.
Councilmember Wilson asked whether Mr. Gifford testified at one of the hearings. Senior Planner Steve
Bullock advised Mr. Gifford did not testify but was counsel for the applicant. Councilmember Wilson
advised Mr. Gifford contributed to his campaign and because he was counsel for the applicant, he would
recuse himself. Councilmember Wilson left the dais.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, challenged the participation of Councilmember Olson, recalling she attended
the Planning Board meetings where the Hotel Group were presenting the rezone. He recalled she sat in
front of the representatives of the Hotel Group and conversed with them, appearing to be a member of
their party. He suggested Councilmember Olson's interaction with the representatives of the Hotel Group
influenced the Planning Board to some degree and implied she was in favor of the project. He questioned
her ability to participate fairly in the discussion and decision. He also challenged Mayor Haakenson's
participation in the event of a tie. City Attorney Scott Snyder explained a rezone was implemented by
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 15, 2005
Page 14
ordinance and under RCW 35A.12.100 the Mayor could not vote on the passage of any ordinance
therefore he would not be allowed to vote in the event of a tie.
Mayor Haakenson asked Councilmember Olson whether she could render a fair and impartial decision.
Councilmember Olson answered she was not at the Planning Board for this issue and she merely said
hello to the representatives of the Hotel Group.
Mayor Haakenson established 20 minute time limits for the staff and applicant presentations, reminding
the applicant to retain time for rebuttal.
Mr. Bullock explained the proposal before the Council was a consolidated application for a contract
rezone that would implement a master plan as well as design review approval for a proposed project. He
advised the specifics for the master plan and design review proposal were included in the Council packet
as Exhibits 1, 5, and 6. He described the process for this project which included review by the
Architectural Design Board (ADB) who reviewed the design of the building for its compliance with the
City's urban design guidelines as well as design - related criteria of the MPOR zone and ultimately
forwarded a recommendation for approval to the Planning Board. Their recommendation included
comments about necessary additional setback on the north side of the building.
The Planning Board held a public hearing on October 26, and a verbatim transcript of the public hearing
is included in the packet as Exhibit 7. At the public hearing, the applicant offered responses to the ADB's
recommendation including adjusting setbacks on the north side of the building as well as offering to
improve more frontage than they would typically be required — extending the sidewalk from Main Street
to the Sunset bluff. He acknowledged the applicant's response did not necessarily go as far as the ADB
recommended but was intended to address their concerns and went further in some respects than the ADB
recommended. The Planning Board recommended approval of the contract rezone and the building
design. The recommended action is to approve the design of the building and direct the City Attorney
and applicant to return with a final ordinance and contract to implement the proposed contract rezone.
John Bissell, Higa Burkholder Associates, asked to retain five minutes for rebuttal. He recalled the
Council's adoption of the Comprehensive Plan designated the subject site Planned Residential /Office. At
the time of adoption, there was no implementing zone for Planned Residential /Office which led to the
application for a text amendment to create a zoning district for the Planned Residential Office
Comprehensive Plan designation. The Council passed the Master Plan Office Residential (MPOR) zone
that created the implementing zone. The MPOR zone allowed for development on a project -by- project
basis with a contract rezone master plan which required an applicant to submit for master plan building
design showing the building elements and how it would provide a transition. The applicant applied for a
consolidated application so that the ADB could review it and forward a recommendation to the Planning
Board.
Mr. Bissell advised the ADB reviewed the application and recommended approval to the Planning Board.
The Planning Board also reviewed the project and recommended approval to the Council. He referred to
declarations in Attachment 3, Exhibit 1, that show proof of compliance with the criteria for rezone
followed by proof of compliance with criteria for approval of the master plan. The Planning Board found
the applicant had shown compliance with these criteria to such an extent that the motion included
Attachment 3, Exhibit 1 as a Finding of Fact for compliance. He recommended Council approval.
Brian Slick, Weber Thompson Architects, representing The Hotel Group and Barbara & Ed Lee,
displayed a photograph of the site on Sunset Avenue, 1/2 block north of Main Street. He advised the
proposed building would contain The Hotel Group's offices and a personal residence for the Lees on the
upper floor. He displayed an aerial site analysis, identifying the site and surrounding uses that include
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 15, 2005
Page 15
commercial and residential. He displayed photographs of the existing vacant parcel, residential property
to the north, small office building to the south, and views across and down Sunset Avenue.
Mr. Snyder clarified this was a closed record review and the exhibits the applicant was displaying were
contained in the record beginning with Exhibit 4.
Mr. Slick displayed several neighborhood context photos, examples of contemporary architecture similar
to what they planned for the project, and historical precedent photos illustrating coastal architecture. He
explained the building was three stories although the third story was only visible from the water side. He
displayed a floor plan of the below grade lower floor that contained approximately 24 parking stalls and
building services. He noted the code required 21 -24 stalls depending on the final square footage. He
displayed a floor plan of the ground floor commercial level where The Hotel. Group offices will be
located, identifying the existing setback on the office building to the south, 10 foot setback in the front
and further setbacks on the northern portion of the property to match the residential project. He identified
the building entry which would also function as the entry to the residences above.
Mr. Slick displayed a floor plan of the upper residential level, identifying the Lee's personal residence
and a second residence and pointing out the additional setback on the upper floor. He displayed and
reviewed a detailed landscape plan for the building as well as concept plan/perspectives illustrating the
level of landscaping they were committed to via the contract rezone. He displayed an elevation of the
east side, advising building materials included cut stone or masonry at the base, wood shingle on the mid
section with stucco detailing above, a slate roof, and copper building accents, downspouts and gutters. He
displayed elevations of the west (water) side both square (showing all three stories) and angled (showing
the first two stories). He also displayed north and south elevations.
Mr. Slick displayed a height limit diagram which was prepared to illustrate how the building met the
height requirement, noting the building was actually below the maximum height limit by 6 inches in the
peak with the exception of the allowed protuberance for the elevator shaft. He displayed a building
section illustrating the setback at the main entry from the property line as well as 3- dimensional views
illustrating the proposed perspectives from the north, front, looking south on Sunset Avenue, looking
north on Sunset Avenue and views of the water side. He also displayed an artist's rendering of the front
of the building.
Ed Lee, The Hotel Group, recalled discussion earlier in the meeting regarding the need for pedestrian
access, pointing out their plans to extend the sidewalk from Main Street to the Sunset Avenue bluff, one
of the most significant public benefits of the project in addition to the removal of the unsightly blackberry
bushes. He displayed the artist's rendering of the front of the building, pointing out their previous plan
was to have the bulk of the mass near the adjacent residential uses. After a number of public meetings
regarding the Comprehensive Plan, that design was altered so that the bulk of the building was adjacent to
the commercial use. Mr. Lee displayed a building footprint, explaining the building setback on Sunset
would be no less than 10 feet, the building would be highly modulated, the courtyard would be at least
1.6 -17 feet, and the north setback adjacent to the residential uses would be a minimum of 6 feet and
modulation made the average setback 8 feet. He displayed views of the existing condition, extended
sidewalk, and landscaping.
Mr. Lee displayed photographs of existing mixed use buildings within 2 -3 blocks and enumerated
common characteristics of mixed use buildings such as 2'/2 -3 stories in height, no setbacks, and 100% lot
coverage. He displayed photographs of existing residential within one block, citing common
characteristics such as base height several feet above the street, potential height more than 30 feet above
street level, and older homes smaller and lower and older homes being redeveloped. He compared the
artist rendering of their building to a photograph of a new residence being constructed on a lot where an
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 15, 2005
Page 16
older home was demolished. He displayed computer models of the proposed building on the site,
pointing out that due to the slope, the residences across the street were higher than their proposed
building. The computer model also illustrated the setback in the front, where he pointed out in the
courtyard area the setback was 16 -17 feet compared to the adjacent 20 -foot setback on the adjacent
property; the lot to the north had a 10 -foot setback. He displayed computer models of the building from
the water side, illustrating the scale of the building compared to structures on adjacent lots.
Mr. Lee enumerated the significant improvements their building would provide for the neighborhood that
included a handsome building with an upscale residential look, elimination of the blackberry patch,
landscaping /courtyard visible to the public, completion of the sidewalk from Main Street to the bluff. He
requested the Council consider their project as a whole and determine whether it was good for Edmonds.
Mayor Haakenson advised the applicant had not retained any time for rebuttal.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, TO
EXTEND THE MEETING 20 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Parties of Record
Don Drew, Edmonds, commented he had owned the lots for 30 years, no development had occurred, and
no income was derived from the lots; however, their assessment required the payment of high taxes. He
explained over 50 years ago these lots were included in a rezone in which the first two properties on the
south and north side of Main Street were zoned BC and the lots beyond were zoned single family
residence with no transition between the zones. Through the years the zoning on lots on 5"' —2 d Avenues
had been increased but this was not done on Sunset. He pointed out these lots were unique in that they
were the closest residential lots to the railroad as well as were at the level of the railroad tracks, 1'/2 stories
below Sunset Avenue. Residential homes built on these lots using the standard formula of the average of
four corners of the lot would have P/2 stories below Sunset, leaving only 1/2 story and a roof visible from
Sunset, a view he envisioned would be very unattractive. Two years ago they were contacted by an
intermediary for a party interested in purchasing the property for their offices and residences for the
owner. He later met the Lees who lead a successful, nationwide business. With regard to concern
regarding two stories above the street, he pointed out virtually all properties in the area could be more
than two stories above the street because of the elevated level of the lots. He summarized the master plan
was the best opportunity for having attractive development on property that had been unusable for over 50
years. He emphasized this was a rare opportunity not to be lost and requested the Council vote to approve
this project which would enhance the waterfront and Edmonds community.
Jonathan Hatch, attorney representing several property owners who live in close proximity to the
project, advised his previously expressed concerns with regard to the rezone were adequately outlined in
the record. He referred to the recommended action, that the Council approve the design of the proposed
building and direct the City attorney to prepare an ordinance to rezone the property. He pointed out that
despite the ADB's recommendation for approval, the ADB and several Planning Board members
expressed concern and reservation about the project as proposed. The October 5, 2005 ADB minutes
establish that Boardmembers Lowell, Anderson and others expressed concerns about the massing created
by the building design and the failure of the building design to adequately address the transition required
by the MPOR zoning relative to the adjoining residential properties. He quoted from the October 5, 2005
ADB minutes, `Boardmember Anderson was also uncomfortable. He felt like they were putting a
massive building in a residential neighborhood."
Mr. Hatch quoted a statement made in Planning Division Advisory Report Findings, Conclusions and
Recommendations, "Based on Findings of Fact, Conclusions and Attachments to this report Planning
Staff generally feel the proposed Contract Rezone, Master Plan and Design Review approval can be
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 15, 2005
Page 17
supported. However, there may be some elements of the project that could be changed to provide a better
transition than what is proposed." Mr. Hatch pointed out in his oral comments to the Planning Board, Mr.
Bullock expanded on the ADB's concerns when he stated, "They had some concern about how the project
complied with a couple of the MPOR transition requirement elements. They felt like the combination of
the mass of the building and the setback of the building on the north side didn't necessarily meet the
transition requirements." Similar concerns were expressed by several members of the Planning Board at
the October 26 public hearing. He questioned why the ADB and Planning Board members concerns
about massing and transition issues with respect to the building design had not translated to a negative
recommendation. His clients opposed approval of the application due to the manner in which the
proposed project reached this point. Their collective perception was that the "tail had wagged the dog" in
this project from the outset and it seemed, prior to Councilmember Wilson's recusal, that the outcome of
tonight's review was preordained.
Mr. Hatch referred to comments made by Planning Board Chair Young, "we got backed into making this
decision by some judgments of the Council who wanted to tailor make a piece of property tailored to
some specific needs. And I've got a problem with that and I have shared that one -on -one with any
number of members of the Council." He referred to another statement by Chair Young, "we have really
been jammed into this by the way the Council has written the ordinance and by the fact that they have by
their own, I mean they're the ones who only made this apply on two lots in the entire City, and my
conscience is clear on that one because I raised that ever since we've been having a discussion on this a
year and a half ago." Mr. Hatch found one of the most compelling statements in the records was made by
Planning Board Member Crim, "The Growth Management Act is meant to foster development in urban
growth areas. That's what we are. That means infill type development. That's what this piece of property
is and yes we have bent a whole lot of rules trying to set it up this way, but it hasn't been developed, and
so why not."
Mr. Hatch concluded the Council had an obligation to represent all citizens, not only the specific interests
represented by this application. If tailor making and bending rules were to become the norm, he opined
the greatest loss in the approval of this project as proposed would not be the loss to his clients but the loss
of integrity of City government. He urged the Council to seriously consider this application in light of the
ADB and Planning Board's concerns and not approve it until the massing and transition issues had been
adequately and properly addressed.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, advised he had followed this application due to his concerns with the change
in the method for determining the building height on this property. He pointed out the engineering
department had not determined the final traffic impact of this project. He objected to the number of
parking spaces provided, envisioning an 8,000 square foot office building could have 50 employees, yet
only 20 parking spaces were provided. He concluded staff's analysis of the traffic impacts would
determine the building size. He concurred with Mr. Hatch's reference to several comments made by the
ADB, pointing out the comment by ADB Member Anderson regarding putting a massive building in a
residential neighborhood and doubling the lot coverage of any other residence in the neighborhood. He
referred to Planning Board Member Utt's comment that the transition issue bothered him. He noted
neither the ADB nor the Planning Board had considered the MPOR zone before and although they felt
inclined not to hold it up, they expressed their concern. He referred to the statement by Planning Board
Chair Young, "if we vote tonight, I am going to have to vote to recommend its approval and I'm going to
have to express some concerns ... I think we've really been jammed into this."
Mr. Hertrich commented zoning only two lots in one location in the City with the MPOR zone constituted
a spot zone. He referred to remarks made by Planning Board Member Crim, "In my view the ADB is
looking at a transition zone, and they are likely to have as big a transition as they can get, and it's a
judgment call and I simply disagree with their judgment." Mr. Hertrich referred to the size of the
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 15, 2005
Page 18
building, noting doubling up development on two lots resulted in a massive building that was over 100
feet in length. He found the building totally out of character with the neighborhood and provided more
transition to the BC zone than the residential zone.
Bud Kopp, Edmonds, suggested a better example of massive was the residence under construction at
Sunset & Bell on a lot where an older home was demolished. He recalled making a statement at the
Planning Board public hearing regarding the contract rezone, indicating his support for the project and
finding that it was clearly in the City's interest to pursue it. He was pleased to find the Planning Board
agreed and recommended approval by a vote of 7 -1, noting the ADB had also recommended approval.
He quoted from the Planning Board verbatim transcript, Chair Young stated, "I think the record is going
to be good that there are benefits, substantial benefits associated with this to the community. No question
about that." Board Member Cassutt said, "I think the applicant has done absolutely everything we've
asked him to do ... I think we are fortunate that it will be a nice looking building from the water. So I
think it will be an asset to our waterfront." Chair Young said, "I think the benefits of this all the way
around, whatever direction you are coming from are wonderful." Board Member Guenther said, "I'll
commend the architect on his building ... I like the way they were able to transition through the setback
from the north ... and then transitioning to the south and breaking it up." Boardmember Cassutt said,
"with the piece of property the way it is and everything, I've think we have got the best of both worlds."
Mr. Kopp agreed with these opinions expressed by the Planning Board, noting the comments were
overwhelmingly positive. Even Board Member Dewhirst, the only Board Member who did not vote in
favor of the application, said "I think as to the rezone there's all kinds of positive reasons to approve a
rezone." Mr. Kopp recommended the Council approve this application and allow the building to be
constructed which would replace the troublesome blackberry patch as well as complete the sidewalk from
Main Street to the bluff.
Don Kreiman, Edmonds, commented he attended every meeting and was very impressed with the Lees
and Mr. Drew. He cited the benefits of the proposed project including increased tax base from $1 million
to $4 million which would also increase revenue to the City, and construct a gorgeous building housing
offices and residences on property that has remained vacant for 50 years. He noted the only negative
consequence of the building was to the neighbors across the street, many of whom would be allowed to
construct a taller structure.
Eric Sonnett, Edmonds, referred to Exhibit 6 which contained selected common characteristics of
buildings and residences, noting it omitted residential setback and how construction of new residences
including the one referred to in Mr. Lee's presentation increased the previous home's 10 -foot setback
from the street to 20 feet. He noted Exhibit 6 also omitted any reference to lost tax revenue from lower
residential property values in the area as well as how the proposed massive structure transitioned to
smaller and lower homes across the street. He noted the Planning Board voiced concern with the
proposed office building's mass, "1.14 to 112 feet long ... an awful long structure." He commented
although the proposed building was an excellent design, it was massive and did not fit the neighborhood.
He urged the Council to require true transition to a residential neighborhood. He encouraged the Council
to respect the approximately 500 petitioners, the majority of whom did not live across the street but
enjoyed walking on Sunset, who signed the petition opposing walling off Sunset Avenue. He agreed the
Lees would be great neighbors, however, the proposed building did not provide an appropriate transition
for their neighborhood.
Mr. Snyder advised the petition mentioned by the last speaker was not part of the record. He advised the
Council that public sentiment was not a reason to deny an application.
Mr. Bullock referred to the quotes by ADB and Planning Board members referenced by parties of record
regarding what different members thought during the review of the project. He pointed out the ADB,
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 15, 2005
Page 19
although they had concerns about the massing, made a recommendation to the Planning Board. The
applicant responded to the ADB's recommendation by modifying their design. He acknowledged the
applicant did not completely change their design to meet exactly the ADB's recommendation but in their
presentation, modified their proposal in an attempt to address the ADB's concerns as well as include other
amenities beyond what the ADB recommended. The Planning Board reviewed the project and via a 7 -1
vote recommended approval to the Council.
For Councilmember Dawson, Mr. Snyder explained the building moratorium was on applications that
attempted to utilize the specific ADB provisions in the code and was not applicable to this property.
Councilmember Orvis inquired about the project's lot coverage. Mr. Bullock referred to page 25 of the
verbatim transcript where Mr. Bissell indicates the lot coverage for the project is 67 %. Mr. Bullock
advised the BC zone allows up to 100% lot coverage, single family zones allow 35 %; the applicant's
proposed 67% lot coverage split the difference.
Hearing no further questions for staff, Mayor Haakenson remanded the matter to Council for action.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, TO
APPROVE THE DESIGN OF THE PROPOSED BUILDING.
Mr. Snyder advised that was not the issue before the Council, design approval would be incorporated into
the contract rezone. He suggested the Council's motion address the required findings.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT MARIN WITHDREW HIS MOTION.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, TO
DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN ORDINANCE WHICH WILL REZONE
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY TO MPOR SUBJECT TO A CONTRACT AND APPROVE THE
DESIGN OF THE PROPOSED BUILDING.
Councilmember Dawson commented that although this was a very nice building and a great design, she
questioned whether it fit in the neighborhood. She questioned whether everyone was jammed into this
because of the way the Council behaved in adopting the zone. She recalled she had vehemently opposed
approval of the MPOR zone; the question she struggled with during the process was that given the
Council created a zone tailor -made to this project, was the Council required to approve the rezone. With
regard to a question posed by the applicant regarding whether this project was good for Edmonds, she did
not find it was. She did not find the applicant had met the burden of illustrating how their project met the
criteria, particularly whether it was an appropriate transition. She was also troubled by the 67% lot
coverage in what was really a residential neighborhood. She referred to the new house under
construction, noting if more houses in the neighborhood had been demolished and rebuilt, it would be
easier to find that the proposed building was consistent with the surrounding neighborhood and that there
had been a sufficient change in the character of the immediate area to justify the rezone. She indicated
she would vote against the motion as she did not find there had been a sufficient change in the character
of the immediate area to justify the rezone and did not find that the proposed building provided an
appropriate transition.
Councilmember Orvis expressed concern with the transition, recalling the ADB made a specific
recommendation regarding what needed to be done to improve the transition which the applicant did not
do. He questioned how he could approve the rezone when the ADB had not really approved it. He
indicated he would vote against the motion.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 15, 2005
Page 20
Councilmember Moore commented the proposed project benefit Edmonds in many ways. If as the
Planning Board suggested Edmonds was destined to provide infill, this was infill of unused property that
would assist the City in complying with GMA requirements, increase General Fund revenues, provide
public walkways in addition to what was required, would house the headquarters of a nation wide
company that had a low environmental impact on the City and complied with the 25 -30 foot building
heights. Although she hoped affordable housing could be created in other areas of the city, she pointed
out that unlikely in the bowl due to property values. She found the building's size somewhat irrelevant
because it was a transition and was surrounded by large buildings. She found the 67% lot coverage an
appropriate transition between the 100% lot coverage allowed in the BC zone and the 35% allowed in the
residential zone. She pointed out the applicant had complied with everything they had been asked to do;
the building would be an asset to the community. With regard to a comment that the building would
lower property values in the area, she envisioned property values in the area soaring once this building
was completed. She found no downside to development of this building.
Councilmember Moore referred to testimony provided by Economic Development Director Jennifer
Gerend about the benefits of this type of development. She challenged the Councilmembers who did not
want to approve upscale, low impact, compliant development such as this to determine how to stabilize
and increase the City's revenue stream.
Councilmember Olson pointed out both the ADB and the Planning Board recommended the project. The
Council established those boards for their expertise in advising the Council in this type of situation.
Although there were concerns expressed by the ADB and Planning Board, they recommended the project
because a majority of the members felt this was a worthwhile project for the City. She pointed out this
was a perfect example of bringing good economic development to the City. She noted the proposed
project was located adjacent to a commercial building that was developed nearly lot -to -lot and was not
located in the middle of a residential area. This was a transition area and the transition needed to start
somewhere. She referred to the new residential construction occurring down the street, noting that would
continue to happen because many of the smaller, older homes were ripe for redevelopment due to the land
values. She envisioned in ten years the proposed building would fit with the neighborhood. If
development did not start somewhere, the blackberry patch that someone paid the taxes on would remain.
Councilmember Orvis clarified the ADB passed a version of the building that imposed conditions on the
building, conditions the applicant chose not to meet.
Mr. Snyder referred to a State Supreme Court case that held a change in the neighborhood was not
required when implementing new ordinances or a change in the Comprehensive Plan. Should the motion
fail, he advised that would not be included as a finding.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED IN A TIE (3 -3) VOTE, COUNCIL PRESIDENT MARIN
AND COUNCILMEMBERS MOORE AND OLSON IN FAVOR; AND COUNCILMEMBERS
ORVIS, PLUNKETT AND DAWSON OPPOSED.
Mr. Snyder advised he would prepare Findings of Fact that reflected the motion did not receive an
affirmative vote of the Council. Noting the findings would require Council approval, he requested an
opportunity to research how to address the situation.
7. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Al Rutledge, Edmonds, suggested the City establish an election committee to prevent candidate forum
DriveFood moderators from endorsing specific candidates. He then announced the Edmonds Senior Kiwanis annual
Drive
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 15, 2005
Page 21
Food Drive at Top Foods on November 18-20. He advised the next edition of the Edmonds Beacon
would contain an article describing what the Kiwanis club does for the local community.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, congratulated the winners in the election. He suggested the Council consider
department head's salaries including comparing them to the private sector. He noted jobs with the local .
government were virtually guaranteed and had the best benefits. He noted there were some department
heads who did not have a lot of responsibility but had very high salaries. He referenced a complaint that
the November 1 minutes did not accurately reflect the situation. He asserted the City Clerk had a
tendency to mold the minutes without some of the controversy. He pointed out the November 1 minutes
did not reflect approximately 50 seconds of his testimony. He assumed Mayor Haakenson had directed
the City Clerk to omit his comments.
Mr. Snyder advised the Council still needed to dispose of the ADB application on the previous item.
With regard to the minutes, he advised the Council's minutes were summary minutes of the Council's
official actions. If pertinent testimony on a quasi judicial matter or legislative matter were omitted, he
agreed it should be included; however, Mr. Hertrich's remarks were not testimony but were public
comment. He advised the Council's minutes must contain a summary of every official action the Council
took and the basis for that action but there was no requirement for any depth other than someone spoke
about something during public comment. The Council was free to amend the minutes but there was no
State statutory requirement that public comments at the end of the meeting be anything other than a brief
summary of pertinent information and the Council decided what was pertinent.
City Clerk Sandy Chase remarked it was absolutely absurd to think the Mayor would direct her in the
preparation of the minutes or to remove any comment. Mayor Haakenson commented in the six years he
has been Mayor, he had never told anyone to leave anything out of the minutes and found it silly for Mr.
Hertrich to say that. Mayor Haakenson commented no one cared that Mr. Hertrich had gotten into a fist
fight with Bruce Nicholson, it was not Council business and apparently the minute taker did not find it
important enough to include in the minutes.
COUNCILMEMBER DAWSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, TO
DENY THE ADB APPLICATION CONSIDERING THAT THE REZONE WAS NOT GRANTED.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED VIA A TIE (3 -3) VOTE, COUNCILMEMBERS
DAWSON, ORVIS, AND PLUNKETT IN FAVOR; AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT MARIN AND
COUNCILMEMBERS OLSON AND MOORE OPPOSED.
Councilmember Dawson commented because the property was not rezoned, the ADB application could
not possibly be approved. She asked whether Mayor Haakenson could break the tie.
Mayor Haakenson asked what options the applicant would have now. Mr. Snyder answered a Land Use
Petition Act appeal or the applicant could refile. He agreed absent approval of the rezone, the applicant
was not in conformance with the zoning ordinance which was a required criteria for ADB approval. He
reiterated a change in circumstance was not a required finding in this situation.
Deny ADB COUNCILMEMBER DAWSON MOVED, SECONDED BY PLUNKETT, TO DENY THE ADB
Application APPLICATION AS IT DID NOT MEET THE REQUIRED CRITERIA. MOTION CARRIED (4-
Property at
1 XX Sunset 3), MAYOR HAAKENSON AND COUNCILMEMBERS DAWSON, ORVIS, AND PLUNKETT IN
Ave. N) FAVOR; AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT MARIN AND COUNCILMEMBERS OLSON AND
MOORE OPPOSED.
9. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Haakenson had no report.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 15, 2005
Page 22
10. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Council President Marin reminded that the November 22 Council meeting had been cancelled and a
Council meeting scheduled for November 29.
Councilmember Dawson apologized for her late arrival, explaining she had been in Everett attending the
Human Services Council of Snohomish County 20th annual partnership forum where the South
Snohomish County Domestic Violence Task Force received an award for their partnership with
Snohomish County. She remarked this was a great program and she was happy to be part of it. She
expressed her thanks to the Edmonds Police Depaittuent for their support of the program, particularly
Assistant Chief Gerry Gannon. She congratulated the members of the Task Force.
Councilmember Moore remarked the Council's decision on Agenda Item 6 was the most pathetic decision
the Council had ever made and represented a total loss of common sense.
With no further business,the Council meeting was adjourned at 11:02 p.m.
i
111
G• 'Y • ENSON, MAYOR SANDRA S. CHASE, CITY CLERK
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 15,2005
Page 23
AGENDA
!.� EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL
Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex
250 5th Avenue North
7:00 - 10:00 p.m.
NOVEMBER 15, 2005
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 November 7, 2005.
C. Approval of claim checks #83666 through #83822 for the week of November 7,
2005, in the amount of $571,731.44.*
*Information regarding claim checks may be viewed electronically at www.ci.edmonds.wa.us
D. Acknowledge receipt of Claim for Damages from Don Benson (amount
undetermined).
E. Authorization for the Mayor to sign a consultant contract with Perteet
Engineering, Inc. for the Highway 99 Traffic Circulation and Safety Study.
F. Report on bids opened November 1, 2005 for Phase III of the 2004 Waterline
Replacement Project and award of contract to Earthwork Enterprises, Inc.
($840,220.14, including sales tax).
G. 2006 Non-represented Salary Ordinance. (Approved by the Finance Committee on 11/7/05.)
3. (10 Min.) Hearing Examiner Annual Report
4. (60 Min.) Public Hearing. on the consideration of a possible vacation of a portion of the
unopened right-of-way of 8th Avenue South between Alder and Walnut Streets.
5. (30 Min.) 2006 Budget
A. Discussion Items
• Workshop Follow-up
• Council Budget Adjustments
B. Remaining Action Items
• 2006 Budget Ordinance
• 2006 Property Tax Ordinance
Page 1 of 2
CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA
NOVEMBER 15, 2005
6. (75 Min.) Closed Record Review of a consolidated application by Don Drew, property
owner, and Ed Lee of the Hotel Group for a contract rezone, master-plan
approval and design review for the property located at 1XX Sunset Avenue
North. The contract rezone request seeks to change the zoning from RS-6 to
Master-Planned Office and Residential (MPOR) tied to a master-plan and design
review proposal for a 2-story office and residential building with a basement
parking garage.
7. Audience Comments (3 Minute Limit Per Person)*
*Regarding matters not listed on the Agenda as Closed Record Review or as Public Hearings.
8. (10 Min.) Report on City Council Committee Meetings of November 7, 2005.
9. ( 5 Min.) Mayor's Comments
10. (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