02/07/2006 City CouncilFebruary 7, 2006
Following a Special Meeting at 6:30 p.m. for an Executive Session regarding a real estate matter, the
Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Haakenson in the Council
Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute.
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Gary Haakenson, Mayor
Deanna Dawson, Council President
Michael Plunkett, Councilmember
Richard Marin, Councilmember
Peggy Pritchard Olson, Councilmember
Dave Orvis, Councilmember
Ron Wambolt, Councilmember
ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT
Mauri Moore, Councilmember
ALSO PRESENT
Michael Bowker, Intern
Brandon Schmidt, Student Representative
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
STAFF PRESENT
David Stern, Chief of Police
Duane Bowman, Development Services Director
Brian McIntosh, Parks & Recreation Director
Jennifer Gerend, Economic Development Dir.
Noel Miller, Public Works Director
Rob Chave, Planning Manager
Dave Gebert, City Engineer
Debi Humann, Human Resources Manager
Phil Olbrechts, City Attorney
Sandy Chase, City Clerk
Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst.
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT, FOR
APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA AS PRESENTED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT, FOR
APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows:
(A) ROLL CALL
(B) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JANUARY 24, 2006.
(C) APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #85330 THROUGH #85525 FOR JANUARY 26, 2006,
IN THE AMOUNT OF $764,432.11, AND #85531 THROUGH #85681 FOR FEBRUARY 2,
2006, IN THE AMOUNT OF $459,472.59. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT
DEPOSITS AND CHECKS #42555 THROUGH #42614 FOR THE PERIOD OF JANUARY
16 THROUGH JANUARY 31, 2006, IN THE AMOUNT OF $758,510.70.
(D) ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM DOUGLAS CHASE
(AMOUNT UNDETERMINED).
( E ) CONTRACT FOR EDMONDS MUNICIPAL COURT JUDGE FOR A NEW FOUR -YEAR
TERM COMMENCING JANUARY 1, 2006, AND EXPIRING DECEMBER 31, 2009.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 7, 2006
Page I
(F) APPROVAL OF 2006 TAXI LICENSE FOR YELLOW CAB OF WASHINGTON.
Hummiingbird
(G) AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE AND INSTALL NEW PLAY STRUCTURE AT
HUMMINGBIRD PARK.
(H) ORDINANCE NO. 3582 — AN INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCE PROHIBITING
Prohibit Certain STORAGE FACILITIES AS PERMITTED PRIMARY AND SECONDARY USE IN THE
Uses in CG and CG AND CG2 ZONES.
CG2 Zones
(I) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN CONTRACT FOR PROFESSIONAL
SERVICES WITH REID MIDDLETON FOR WORK ON THE UPDATE TO THE CITY
OF EDMONDS SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM.
J) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
30 -inch storm AGREEMENT WITH EARTH TECH, INC. FOR NORTHSTREAM 30 -INCH STORM
REPAIR/IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT.
(K) APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT FOR THE JANUARY 17, 2006 CLOSED RECORD
REVIEW OF AN APPEAL OF A HEARING EXAMINER DECISION REGARDING THE
SHORELINE PERMIT APPLICATION TO REPAIR/RECONSTRUCT THE TIMBER
PORTIONS OF THE MEADOWDALE MARINA PIER. (APPLICANT /APPELLANT:
MEADOWDALE MARINA LLC, VLADAN MILOSAVLJEVIC AS GENERAL
MANAGER / FILE NO. SM- 05 -94)
3. 2005 EDMONDS SISTER CITY COMMISSION ANNUAL REPORT
Shiva Riddell, Edmonds Sister City Commission Chair, explained each year the twelve member
Commission strives to fulfill the Sister City Commission's mission, "to promote international
communication and understanding through exchanges of people, ideas, and culture" by providing
activities and exchanges that foster understanding and friendship between Edmonds and its Sister City
Hekinan, Japan. She relayed the Commission's sincere thanks to the many individuals, families,
businesses, schools and organizations that have provided their time and resources to help make the
programs successful. She introduced the Executive members of the Board, Felix de Mello, Vice Chair;
Jeanne Mazzoni, Secretary; Rita Bailey, Treasurer; who have agreed to continue in their positions through
2006. She introduced the remaining Commissioners, Bryan Beehler, Jim Corbett, Lawrence Cretin,
Keiko Frank, Consuelo Kinahan, Iyoko Okano, Vera Papageorgiou, and Karen Towey. She noted 2005
saw the departure of Commissioner Keiko Frank whom she thanked for her service.
Ms. Riddell described the one week delegation visit to Hekinan in April, a delegation that included Mayor
Haakenson and his wife Dolly; Police Chief David Stern and his wife Darlene; Sister City Commissioners
Rita Bailey, Jim Corbett, Iyoko Okano, Vera Papageorgiou, Shiva Riddell and her husband Duncan; and
seven residents of the area including two Edmonds Arts Commissioners. She described highlights of
their visit including visits to local sites, to Nagoya, the world Expo in Aichi Prefecture, and Kyoto; and a
tree planting ceremony in front of the City Hall that includes Mayor Haakenson's name permanently
placed in front of the tree. She extended special thanks to Commissioner Iyoko Okano for her translation
services for the entire delegation.
Ms. Riddell described the 15 student and two chaperone delegation that traveled to Hekinan in July and
the activities they enjoyed while in Hekinan. She described the 15 student and two chaperon delegation
from Hekinan who spent two weeks in Edmonds in August and the activities they enjoyed. She expressed
the Commission's appreciation to Commissioner Lawrence Cretin who was available daily to assist with
driving the students. Remarking that hosting a student was an invaluable cultural experience for a family,
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 7, 2006
Page 2
she encouraged area residents to consider hosting a member of a future delegation. She again thanked
Iyoko Okano for her translation services during the students' visit.
Ms. Riddell described an 8 member adult delegation who visited Edmonds for one week in late October.
Activities during the delegates' stay included visits to Boeing in Everett, a smoked salmon factory in
Everett, Edmonds Police station, Edmonds Fire Station 17, Edmonds Elementary School, Meadowdale
Middle School, Edmonds Community College, Edmonds downtown Halloween, and a day in Seattle.
Ms. Riddell recognized Commissioner Jim Corbett for preparing the quarterly Sister City newsletter. She
also described the Hekinan /Edmonds Cooperative Student Art Project, a woven paper banner created by
34 students and chaperones involved in the 2005 Sister City student exchange summer program.
Ms. Riddell explained the Sister City Commission sends qualified people to Hekinan to serve as Assistant
English Teachers (AET). The two current AETs, Eric Andersen and Dana Heller, will complete their
terms this summer. The Commission will be advertising, interviewing, selecting and sending two new
AETs to Hekinan this August for initial two year terms.
Ms. Riddell relayed the Sister City Commission's appreciation to Mayor Haakenson, the City Council,
the Edmonds Arts Commission and all City Departments for their continued support of the Commission's
cultural programs and activities. Mayor Haakenson extended his appreciation to the Sister City
Commission for everything they do.
4. PUBLIC HEARING ON ORDINANCE NO. 3581, DECLARING A MORATORIUM ON
APPLICATIONS TO REZONE, CONTRACT REZONE OR OTHERWISE DEVELOP
PROPERTIES PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 1.6.77, MPOR ZONE
Development Services Director Duane Bowman recalled on October 25, 2005, the Council passed
Ordinance No. 3569 which created the new Master Plan Office /Residential (MPOR) zone. An application
was submitted and proceeded through the hearing process. The Council's consideration of the application
concluded with a tie 3 -3 vote which resulted in no action on the rezone application. Subsequently on
January 3, 2006, the Council passed Ordinance No. 3581 establishing a moratorium on rezone
applications intending to use the MPOR zone and set tonight as the date for the public hearing on the
ordinance. Staff's recommendation is after taking public testimony, Council provide specific direction to
the Planning Board for modifications to the MPOR zone.
Mr. Bowman recalled during discussions regarding the MPOR zone and during the rezone hearing
process, there was concern expressed with the lack of clarity in the standards for the newly created zone
and the Council indicated their intent to provide further clarity. He noted the City Attorney also
recommended during the rezone process that clarification was needed.
Council President Dawson stated some of the neighbors who were opposed to the proposed development
in the MPOR zone spoke to her about potentially meeting with the property owner. She then spoke with
City Attorney Scott Snyder regarding the City assisting in some form of mediation and Mr. Snyder
expressed his willingness to work with the neighbors and the property owner to potentially identify a
solution that would work for the neighbors as well as the property owner.
Mayor Haakenson opened the public hearing, advising the Council had received correspondence from the
property owner Don Drew and an email from Eric Sonnett.
Eric Sonnett, Edmonds, pointed out a number of his neighbors' names had reviewed and agreed to the
email; their names were included in the email. He explained his email cited Comprehensive Plan
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 7, 2006
Page 3
language, specifically sensitive to surrounding commercial, multi family and single family character;
transition from more intensive commercial uses; and the area should act as a transition. He explained one
of the neighbors' primary issues was the lack of clarity; they interpreted the Comprehensive Plan as
protecting the residential values and character of that area but found the development proposal did not
protect those values and character. He encouraged the Council to provide specificity and definitions so
that both the developers and residents were informed of the rules. The neighbors were willing to work
with Mr. Drew and welcomed facilitation by Mr. Snyder, noting the neighbors realize the property will
likely be developed and it was in their best interest to find a mutually agreeable solution. Mayor
Haakenson added that further clarity would also assist staff.
Quentin Clark, Edmonds, read a statement from the Chamber of Commerce that stated putting in place
another moratorium could not be a substitute for a vision for economic development in Edmonds. Last
year with the full support of the Greater Edmonds Chamber of Commerce and the Planning Board, the
Council approved the MPOR zone to combine residential and business uses in an area located between
residential and business zones. The new MPOR zone would allow undeveloped areas to be developed
into sources of revenue for the City while increasing vitality and pedestrian traffic. Last year however the
Council failed to approve the first application to use the MPOR zone made by the Hotel Group for a
building on Sunset Avenue although the project had the full support of the Planning Board. A new
moratorium would send a message to the public that the City and Council was not ready /willing to
address economic development issues that would ensure the vitality of a pedestrian friendly downtown.
The Greater Edmonds Chamber of Commerce invited the Council to avoid further delays and reject the
moratorium and instead plan for responsible solutions to the City's financial challenges.
Don Kreiman, Edmonds, commented this year Edmonds collected the most Real Estate Excise Tax
(REET) it had collected at any time in history, yet none of it was from downtown. At the recent meetings
at Five Corners and Firdale Village, residents stressed the need for less congestion. Yet the Council was
proposing a moratorium on property that had not been developed since the City's zoning code was
enacted in 1956. He noted the property owner, Mr. Drew, had paid a lot of taxes in that time, yet the
neighbors had not paid anything for the view and the opportunity to develop that property was lost. He
summarized if the Council placed a moratorium on the MPOR zone and maintained the moratorium on
downtown, development and growth would continue but it would be in neighborhoods, causing more
congestion, traffic, and safety problems. He urged the Council to utilize members of the community to
clarify the code and resolve issues that were preventing development.
Pat Peterson, Edmonds, property owner on Sunset, commented on her excitement at having a new
neighbor on Sunset in a beautiful building designed as office and residential for the Lees. She noted this
would have been a wonderful addition to the block and a dramatically positive change to an unattractive,
unsellable waterfront property. After the tremendous amount of work that went into that application and
the positive recommendations of staff, she found it inconceivable how the Council could have destroyed
that effort via a tie vote. She commented on her doubts that the Council was working in the best interest
of citizens, pointing out the city had been fortunate to have the Lees and the Hotel Group operating a
successful business in Edmonds, a situation that now may be lost. She concluded the loss of the proposed
building was a great loss for the block, the waterfront and the city.
Ray Martin, Edmonds, commented the MPOR zone was created for the benefit of one property owner,
one developer and one property as illustrated by the numerous special provisions in the zone. He found
this to be a spot rezone. He pointed out the code had provisions for variances without giving special
dispensation for development. He found the proposed development on Sunset incompatible with the
neighborhood, recalling Mr. Snyder's suggestion that the term "incompatible" be eliminated from the
code because it was not specific enough. He recommended "incompatibility" be defined and remain in
the code. He concluded this Council would consider the issues and make a good decision.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 7, 2006
Page 4
John Marts, Edmonds, disagreed that the MPOR zone was created for Mr. Drew, commenting this issue
arose when he tried to site a law office at 133 Sunset. After various discussions with staff, it appeared an
amendment to the Comprehensive Plan would be necessary to locate a law office in the building even
though the building would not be changed. He offered an overnight in the house to anyone who doubted
the building's suitability for residential use due to the noise from the train. He reiterated his interest in
locating a law office at 133 Sunset Avenue, stating it would create little traffic, certainly not the type of
traffic created by the ferry or Rory's. He referred to Council President Dawson's comment regarding
mediation between the neighbors and the property owner, commenting mediating the situation was likely
not possible. He recalled the Lees had met with the neighbors in the past. He requested the Council
establish standards and lift the moratorium to allow them to submit an application for a law office. At the
request of Mayor Haakenson, Mr. Marts advised his house was adjacent on the north side to the property
the Lees were attempting to develop. He advised the MPOR zone extended north to include a four -plex
owned by the Jacobsons who also owned property across the street.
Mayor Haakenson closed the public participation portion of the public hearing.
For Councilmember Orvis, Mr. Bowman confirmed the property was currently zoned RS6.
Mayor Haakenson agreed this property was extremely difficult to develop. There was a willing seller, a
buyer who was willing to put an extraordinary amount of money to build a quality project, add jobs and
property tax to the community. The end result of the Council not approving the Lees proposal was lost
jobs and lost property tax revenues. He noted for a Council intent on economic development, the loss of
jobs was a step backward. Although the Planning Board and staff recommended approval of the
application, because the guidelines were unclear, when the proposal reached the Council, the project
failed and the community lost jobs, property tax revenue and a quality development. He urged the
Council to provide specific direction to the Planning Board on modifications to the MPOR zone. He
summarized both citizens, developers and staff had the right to simple, understandable regulations.
Councilmember Wambolt supported implementation of the moratorium for as short a period of time as
possible. He recommended the reference to transition be removed from the code, noting that because
there were several properties in the zone, it was confusing what they were transitioning to.
Councilmember Orvis liked the concept of increased flexibility for locating businesses on properties near
downtown but he did not support changing the bulk standards. He recommended the MPOR zone be
modified to use the underlying zone height calculation of 25 feet based on the four corners, density
calculation of one residence per lot, lot coverage of 35% and setbacks for the RS6 zone. He reiterated he
did not object to businesses in this area but wanted structures to adhere to the bulk standards of the
underlying RS6 zone.
Council President Dawson clarified this agenda item was not to debate the merits of the previously
proposed application or the merits of enacting a moratorium as the moratorium was already in place. She
agreed with Councilmember Wambolt's recommendation to have the moratorium in place for as short a
time as possible, yet develop sufficient standards so that the Council would not be in the same situation in
the future. She agreed it was important to have standards that were clear to the property owners,
applicants, and staff. She agreed the Council should have been clearer when the MPOR zone was created,
noting it was a good lesson for the Council to ensure all legislation passed by the Council was clear. She
agreed further clarity was needed with regard to this zone being a transition. She also suggested defining
small scale development and what transition meant and how it would work. She suggested the most
workable solution to providing transition between more intense commercial uses and the residential
neighborhood may be to allow some degree of commercial use but have as Councilmember Orvis
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 7, 2006
Page 5
suggested, the same bulk standards as the single family zone. She summarized this would be clear, allow
for transition, would accommodate Mr. Marts' request, allow the Council to remove the moratorium as
soon as possible and allow the properties in the zone to be used for commercial purposes. She
recommended massing also be considered, such as developing two lots could only be what was allowable
on each lot in a single family zone. She noted the massing of development impacted the neighborhood
more significantly than commercial uses.
Councilmember Olson commented if the height were measured the way Councilmember Orvis suggested,
the building would be 10 -15 feet from the sidewalk level on Sunset. She commented that did not fit with
the existing residences in the neighborhood and it would be preferable to have the buildings 25 feet from
the sidewalk level so that development looked like the houses in the area. Councilmember Orvis
commented there were plenty of residences throughout Edmonds that were developed in the manner he
proposed, that was the way lots on a steep slope were developed including putting the garage on the top
floor. Councilmember Olson commented that would handicap the property owner from any development
occurring on the property. Due to the expense associated with the requirements to build on the Drew
property, it was unlikely a house would be developed on that property. She disagreed with measuring the
height in the manner Councilmember Orvis proposed.
Councilmember Marin commented a wholesale change in the concept of how height was measured was
not the right approach. He explained the intent was to do something to allow that property to be
developed and although the solution to allow height to be measured 25 feet from the sidewalk level may
not be perfect, there may be some way to allow reasonable development on the property. He commented
on the difficulty of building on lots such as this, noting adopting rules that made it impossible for
development to occur was a disservice to the community.
Mayor Haakenson pointed out the Council needed to reach consensus on the issues they forwarded to the
Planning Board. He suggested the Council describe what they did not like about the previous application.
Councilmember Plunkett agreed with Councilmember Orvis that the setback, height, lot coverage should
be the same as the underlying RS6 zone. He noted it was not unusual to build on such a lot in Edmonds,
referring to development in the Meadowdale area. With regard to the comment about wholesale change
in the way height was measured, he noted the wholesale change was made when the MPOR zone was
created. Councilmember Orvis' suggestion was that the height be measured the same as other
residential /commercial structures in Edmonds. He supported the MPOR zone being an integral part of
downtown. He characterized the effort to pass the MPOR zone as desperation, not well thought -out and
basically jerry - rigged. He noted the use of the RS6 standards would result in an office building that was
beneficial to the community and fit with the residences in the area.
Councilmember Wambolt referred to the standards suggested by Councilmember Orvis, noting that would
be the same situation as previously existed other than possibly allowing commercial uses. Allowing
commercial uses may be enough to allow development to occur, however, if it was not enough
inducement, nothing would be built. He agreed that some compromise was necessary.
Council President Dawson commented the height measurement in the MPOR zone of 25 feet from the
sidewalk level was a unique method. She expressed a willingness to consider a way to allow the property
to be developed and suggested a height of 30 feet or 25 feet plus 5 feet measured from the four corners as
a transition. She acknowledged the result would not be much different but it would not be a dramatic
shift in the method of measuring height.
Mayor Haakenson asked staff to describe the standards for the underlying RS6 zone. Mr. Bowman stated
the RS6 zone required a 20 -foot setback, 5 -foot sideyard setback and 10 -15 foot rear setback. He pointed
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 7, 2006
Page 6
out there was Comprehensive Plan language that addressed height. If the Council was interested in
changing the height, direction would need to be provided to the Planning Board to consider that as well.
He noted on the one property, calculating building height in the usual manner resulted in a sunken lot
which created issues related to access and parking for the structure and the steep grade that would be
required for a driveway into the building. It was highly impractical to have parking on the top of the
building and it was unlikely to occur. The cost of development and the cost of the property would be
extremely high. He summarized whatever regulations were developed must implement the
Comprehensive Plan.
Mayor Haakenson inquired about the previously proposed development's setbacks. Mr. Bowman
answered they had generally larger setbacks although it was slightly closer on the street setback and there
was a difference in the way the building height was calculated. He noted the setback from the north .
property line was larger than the RS6 zone required.
Councilmember Marin commented the intent in developing the MPOR zone was to create standards that
would be workable on this lot as well as possibly applied elsewhere on particularly challenging, sloped
lots. The issue with the four - corner average concept was it was advantageous on the uphill side of the
street but a disadvantage on the downhill side to the point where the street fagade might not be workable.
He referred to projects the Council has reviewed in the past that have a below grade level ground floor, a
situation that developers were forced into by four - corner averaging. He envisioned if a residence and
business were located in a building on this lot, the business would have to be underground.
Councilmember Marin described a great looking building in the Fairhaven area of Bellingham that was
stepped down the slope rather than averaging the four corners. He suggested this concept be explored,
recalling Edmonds used to measure height from two corners on the street which he found a reasonable
approach. He concluded the four - corner averaging concept worked on level ground but introduced
challenges on a sloped site. He recommended exploring options that would make development on that
property workable.
Councilmember Plunkett commented rather than being underground, a business in that location would
have one of the most unprecedented views in the city. He agreed with the suggestion to allow 25-5 foot
height which was the same as the commercial height limit and would provide some transition.
Councilmember Orvis stated every floor of a building on that lot would have an incredible westward view
and a business could be located on any level. He commented he lived adjacent to an undeveloped lot; if
the owner of that property wanted to construct a house on the lot, he was agreeable to that. However, as a
neighboring property owner, he would not be agreeable to development that had less setback, more lot
coverage, etc. He reiterated his support for the use of the bulk standards for the underlying RS6 zone.
In an effort to reach consensus on issues, Mayor Haakenson inquired of Councilmembers regarding
Councilmember Wambolt's suggestion to remove the transition language from the MPOR zone.
Councilmember Plunkett was not supportive. Council President Dawson supported clarifying the
definition of transition such as providing transition via a commercial zone whose standards were similar
to the residential zone with regard to setback, heights, etc. It was the consensus of the Council to retain
the transition language in the zone and define it better.
Council President Dawson, Councilmembers Orvis, Plunkett and Wambolt supported the use of the
underlying residential zone standards; Councilmembers Marin and Olson did not.
With regard to the height calculation, Mayor Haakenson noted the Council was focused on the one lot that
was very difficult to develop. He suggested the Council consider what heights would be appropriate in
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 7, 2006
Page 7
the northern portion of the MPOR zone where the properties may be easier to develop. Council President
Dawson advised she would prefer the height be 25 feet measured from the four corners, the same as the
height in a residential zone, but in order to provide some transition, a compromise would be 25 +5 feet.
Councilmember Marin recommended before that was forwarded to the Planning Board, staff illustrate the
result of a height measurement of 25 +5 on that property. He explained the importance of the appearance
of a building's entrance, commenting if the standards did not allow a decent front entrance, the likelihood
of the property being developed was greatly reduced.
Mayor Haakenson commented there appeared to be some consensus for considering the 25 +5 foot height
in that area. He suggested the Council indicate to the Planning Board their interest in a 25 +5 foot height
and staff could report to the Planning Board the effect of a 25 +5 height measurement on that property
without bringing the issue back to the Council. If that height limit was not workable, the Planning Board
could advise the Council. Councilmember Marin was agreeable to asking the Planning Board to consider
the 25 +5 height and if it was not workable, considering a similar solution.
Council President Dawson assured she was not supportive of a height limit in that area that would be
higher that 25 +5 feet. She recalled that height limit was considered during earlier discussions of the
MPOR zone and the difference in height between 25 and 25 +5 was a couple feet.
Councilmember Wambolt asked what would be required to obtain the additional five feet.
Councilmember Plunkett commented that would be a topic of discussion in a few weeks. Councilmember
Wambolt reiterated the need to consider standards that would make that lot buildable.
Mayor Haakenson suggested the Council identify an incentive for the additional five feet in the MPOR
zone, commenting the MPOR zone differed from the BC zone where the Council would be considering
the 25 +5 foot height issue. Councilmember Plunkett preferred to take public comment on the 25 +5
building heights before establishing incentives.
Councilmember Wambolt commented on his research and the letter provided by Mr. Drew, noting the
difficulties associated with construction on that lot due to the steep slope such as the installation of pilings
to support a foundation made development very expensive. He did not envision development would ever
occur if there were not some compromise. He surmised allowing commercial may be of some assistance
and asked whether consideration had ever been given to multi family in that area. Mayor Haakenson
responded multi family zoning would produce an entirely different set of problems such as parking.
5. PATHWAY CONNECTING ALDER AND WALNUT STREETS WITHIN THE UNOPENED
RIGHT —OF —WAY OF 8TH AVENUE SOUTH.
Development Services Director Duane Bowman recalled in November 2005, the Council considered the
possibility of vacating the right -of -way and decided against that action and ordered the gate in the right -
of -way to be removed. At their January 10, 2006, meeting the Community Services /Development
Services Committee discussed the possibility of constructing a pathway in the 8th Avenue right -of -way to
connect Alder and Walnut Streets and voted to recommend to the full Council that the pathway be
constructed. He recalled Mr. Snyder's indication at the November 15, 2005, public hearing that the City
now had an obligation to provide a safe and unobstructed access to the public who are using the right -of-
way for pedestrian access.
Mr. Bowman added that although property owners adjacent to the right -of -way have expressed ideas
about building a pathway, staff recommends if a pathway is to be built, the City should build it. Park staff
estimates the cost of building the pathway to be approximately $17,000; funds are available in Fund 125
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 7, 2006
Page 8
for construction of this pathway. Should the City decide to construct this pathway, there were other street
ends and unopened rights -of -way that exist where residents could potentially petition the City to construct
a pathway. Staff's recommendation is for the Council to authorize staff to construct a pathway
connecting Alder and Walnut Streets within the 8th Avenue South right -of -way. Because this was a small
contract, it could have been bid without Council approval; however, due to the nature of the request,
Council approval was sought.
Mr. Bowman displayed an aerial map and identified the 8th Avenue South right -of -way, the two
driveways on the Alder Street side and the landscaped area between the driveways. He explained one of
the driveways was elevated above the other driveway. Users currently walk down the driveway in front
of 801 Alder. He identified the location of the gate that has since been removed and fences that protect a
drop -off in the right -of -way. He identified the undeveloped alley running east -west which in the
1980s/1990s was a blackberry patch. At the request of the adjacent property owners, the Petersons and
the Larmans, an agreement was reached with Public Works that if the City cleaned up that area, where the
City had a waterline, they would landscape and maintain it. Mr. Bowman identified the steep elevation
on the Walnut Street side where the City installed an ecology block wall to stabilize the bank. He
identified the Peterson and Larman residences on the Walnut side. He identified the route most users take
when traversing through the 8th Avenue South right -of -way between Walnut and Alder Streets. He
provided a view looking south from Alder Street, identifying the Martin and Adams residences, the grade
change between the driveways, the landscaped area between the driveways, and the T- intersection at 81h
Avenue South.
For Councilmember Plunkett, Mr. Bowman identified the 60 -foot wide public right -of -way on the Alder
Street side, explaining both driveways were located in the right -of -way. He also identified the Larman
and Peterson residences on the Walnut Street side. He displayed a view from the Walnut Street side,
identifying the landscaping done in the right -of -way by the adjacent property owners, the ecology block
wall and the steep grade change. He displayed a view looking north down the Adams' driveway, pointing
out the landscaped area between their driveway and the Martin's driveway.
Mr. Bowman displayed a photograph of the ecology block wall, identifying the steep grade change. He
described the wall construction, two blocks high on one side tapering to one block on the other side,
noting users could navigate around the end of the ecology blocks to access the path on Walnut Street.
Councilmember Plunkett commented the Adams could remove some landscaping, add to the width of
their driveway to the east and provide plantings for a buffer. Mr. Bowman commented there were a
number of things the property owner could do. He explained three of the four houses were dependent on
the City's right -of -way for their driveway access.
Councilmember Orvis asked whether there were proposals made by the residents for a pathway. Mr.
Bowman recalled discussions with Mr. Adams regarding his paying for a path but he was unsure whether
he was still willing in view of the cost. He recalled discussions with Mrs. Larman regarding constructing
access on the Walnut Street side as a neighborhood project with the City contributing building materials.
Staff recommended if a pathway was constructed, it should be done by the City.
In response to Mayor Haakenson's inquiry, several members of the audience indicated they were present
for this agenda item. Mayor Haakenson recalled the Council's previous indication was that they were
interested in hearing from the neighbors. He advised the Council received several emails from neighbors
as well as a packet of information and were well versed on the issues. He advised there would be no time
limits imposed on speakers' comments.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 7, 2006
Page 9
Council President Dawson explained the Council's intent was to have the neighbors present answer
questions but if neighbors had additional information, they could provide it to the Council.
Councilmember Plunkett expressed concern this was not advertised, therefore, the community was not
provided formal notification that the Council would take testimony. Mayor Haakenson assured anyone
interested in this issue was made well aware of tonight's meeting.
Council President Dawson recalled the Council's direction when this was last discussed was to hear from
the immediately affected four neighbors. She was comfortable with allowing people in the neighborhood
to speak as well but it was not a public hearing.
City Attorney Phil Olbrechts advised in his research of the City's rules, he did not find any restriction on
taking public comment. He noted as long as it was not a land use matter where the Council was unable to
take comment outside the hearing process, it was appropriate for the Council to take public comment.
Warren Peterson, Edmonds, property owner on the southwest corner of 8th and Walnut, recalled when
they moved here 30 years ago, they could walk directly through to Alder. He explained the issue began in
2001 when the Larmans and Petersons paid for and secured an encroachment permit for the property
between their homes to landscape the area to facilitate the neighbors' legal right to walk on 81h Avenue
South right -of -way between Walnut and Alder. He explained the Larmans and they proceeded to have
the area professionally landscaped including a path for residents' use. He noted this path served residents
well except during those periods when the gate was locked; the City eventually had the gate removed
entirely. He did not support constructing a pathway at a cost of $17,000, noting a very limited number of
people used the path, perhaps six per day, and it was intended as a convenience for neighbors not a
thoroughfare. He supported simple construction that promoted ease of entry and safety such as grading
and /or steps that would allow pedestrians to safely navigate between Walnut and the path. He concluded
the cost to the City of this solution would be minimal and there was no reason for the City to invest
$17,000 to replicate an existing path.
James Martin, Edmonds, one of the four property owners bordering the easement, referred to the
comment that the driveways were on the City's right -of -way, pointing out there was supposed to be have
been a street in this area; the driveways were there because the City did not construct the street. He noted
the City approved the building permits for the homes providing the homeowners permission to have their
driveways in this location. He found the current situation the best, commenting it was well landscaped
and looked good on all four sides. He acknowledged the need for a walkway on the south, commenting
on the opinion by the City Attorney that if the Larman's property continued to be used for access, there
may be a problem with it reverting to public ownership. However, he did not support a walkway on the
north between two existing, parallel strips of asphalt driveway. He recommended the Council satisfy the
following issues with their decision, 1) cost effective, and 2) improve on the current situation. He
expressed concern that most of the existing landscaping between the driveways would be removed if the
proposed pathway were constructed which would adversely affect his views.
Elizabeth Larman, Edmonds, one of the four property owners bordering the easement, disagreed with
the indication in the materials that she had agreed to the pathway on the north. She was only interested in
improving access on the south. She pointed out there was a perfectly good pathway on the north. She
agreed with the Adams' request for a fence between the gap in the shrubs and the existing fence, although
the fence should be constructed on the Adams property, not in the City's right -of -way. She did not
support the expenditure of $17,000, noting all that was needed was three steps and a platform to reach the
path from Walnut. If the City had excess funds, she recommended they be allocated to the flower
program or the sidewalk fund. She concluded there were already two driveways that provided adequate
access on the north and constructing a pathway down the center would be illogical and ugly. She
emphasized this was public land and the public had the right to walk on it.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 7, 2006
Page 10
Brian Larman, Edmonds, pointed out the need for steps to reach the area above the ecology blocks on
the Walnut side where the Petersons and they had installed landscaping that included a pathway to the
gate. He read a letter provided by his neighbor Robert Miller who cautioned the Council against setting
a precedent in the community that the Council could be bullied into spending $17,000 to placate one
resident. Mr. Miller recommended enforcement, taking down the barriers, installing signage identifying
the property as a City path, and providing safe access via a few steps on the Walnut side. Mr. Larman
pointed out the encroachment permit the Petersons and they obtained required their homeowners'
insurance cover the liability for any accident on the pathway.
Sonya Adams, Edmonds, one of the four property owners bordering the easement, objected to a situation
where the neighbors expected them to maintain their driveway for public use while evading their own
similar obligation. She commented on harassment of their pets they had experienced from neighbors due
to the easement issue. She expressed concern with the City's liability for the hazardous and improperly
maintained easement and expressed support for the installation of a safe trail, vacating the right -of -way or
providing alternate access. She described several exhibits, first the City's variance for their driveway
dated 1981 which she noted was clearly distinct from 8"' Avenue South which the City has not opened.
She noted the area was planned and built as a driveway and not for pedestrian use. She recalled they had
repeatedly advised the City and users of their driveway about hazards to pedestrians and have been
compelled at various times to install gates as well as remove them at the City's request and their expense.
She noted there was no public access through the easement for approximately 20 years until August 2004.
Ms. Adams described photographs she submitted to Council, explaining the Martins had an identical
obligation to provide public access but had obstructed access to Walnut via plantings and a gateless fence.
A photo of the Larman's yard in December 2004 illustrated the easement on the Walnut side at that time
consisted of a level grass lawn safe for pedestrian use. Exhibit 7 in her submittal indicated no valid
permit was obtained for subsequent work. Exhibits 8 -10 illustrated uneven grass not suitable for safe
walking and an unsafe, uneven, improperly poured pathway on the easement along with various
structures, work she asserted was performed without valid permits. Exhibits 11 -12 illustrated obstacles
confronting people using the easement on the Walnut side. Exhibit 13 was a prospective view from the
Adams home. Exhibit 14 illustrated the Martin driveway with no gate. She also referred to text from
Council minutes of November 15, 2005 where Mr. Martin offered the public use of his driveway.
Ms. Adams asserted the City's approach to enforcement had been unfair and she questioned why they had
repeatedly been forced to install and remove gates while the Martins were not subject to enforcement. In
the hope of resolving this issue in an amicable manner, she offered to, a) personally pay $500 toward the
cost of opening a gate in the Martin's fence to allow public access to Walnut via his driveway, b) vacate
the right -of. -way entirely, or c) endorse the City's proposal for a walkway from Alder to Walnut down the
center of the City's right -of -way. They would not accept any proposal that left the existing situation.
Mayor Haakenson advised Roger Hertrich he would not be allowed to speak as he was not a resident of
the neighborhood. Mr. Hertrich found that unfair, commenting he was a member of the public, an
expenditure of public funds was being considered, and he had spoken on the matter in the past. Council
President Dawson advised it was not a public hearing; the Council expressed interest in hearing from the
adjacent neighbors. She invited him to speak during the public comment agenda item. When Mr.
Hertrich repeated his request to be allowed to speak, Council President Dawson reiterated the Council
determined they would only hear from adjacent neighbors unless the majority of the Council wished to
hear from others. Councilmember Plunkett was supportive of allowing anyone present to speak. Council
President Dawson appreciated that Mr. Hertrich had something to say, however, the Council was very
well informed via the information provided by the neighbors. Mayor Haakenson requested Mr. Hertrich
take his seat and Mr. Hertrich indicated he would do so under protest.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 7, 2006
Page 11
Lynne Cimler, Edmonds, commented she utilized both driveways when she walked down the 8th
Avenue right -of -way and found access from Walnut difficult. She did not support the City's use of funds
to construct a pathway or setting a precedent for other residents to request the City build an elaborate
walkway. She concluded the proposed pathway was not necessary to use the path.
Mayor Haakenson referred to comments that the City did not have adequate funds for this project and
asked staff to identify the source of the funds. Mr. Bowman advised the source was Fund 125 which was
quite healthy and the use of the funds were restricted to parks and recreation facilities including the
proposed pathway. He advised there were sufficient funds available for a small project such as this.
Councilmember Plunkett asked whether the Martins were obligated to allow access, noting it appeared the
Martin's landscaping precluded access. He noted for someone looking at the two driveways, there did not
appear to be any access through the Martin's landscaping, thus most reasonable people would use the
Adams driveway. Mr. Bowman displayed a photograph and identified the slope on the Martin's driveway
and an area where landscape timbers with a fence on top protected a drop -off. He advised anyone could
walk down the Martin's driveway, through the shrubs and up the bank, acknowledging the plantings
discouraged that activity.
Councilmember Plunkett referred to the view down the Adams' driveway and suggested an alternate
location for the path alongside the driveway which would avoid the slope and associated costs and
preserve the landscaping in the center of the driveways. Mayor Haakenson advised he had suggested that
pathway and the neighbors on the other side said they would cut off access through their property from
the Walnut side.
Councilmember Marin asked what portion of the estimated $17,000 cost was for the trail on the south and
how much for the trail on the north. Mr. Bowman answered the greatest expense was on the south side.
Parks & Recreation Director Brian McIntosh advised the cost was $10,000 for the path on the south and
$7,000 for the path on the north.
Councilmember Marin referred to comments that improvements were needed on the south but questioned
the need for the pathway on the north. He asked whether it was feasible to do the work on the south and
not do the work on the north. Mr. Bowman agreed that was feasible; the issue was the conflict that arose
with people using the Adams' driveway. He commented this was one neighborhood issue he had been
unable to resolve.
Councilmember Wambolt expressed his support for constructing the pathway on the south and allowing
residents to continue to use the existing asphalt driveways on the north. He noted the shrubs on the north
may need to be trimmed.
Councilmember Plunkett pointed out the burden of accommodating pedestrians using the right -of -way fell .
to the Adams as the Martins via their landscaping had essentially prevented access on their side.
Councilmember Orvis questioned how the situation as described by Councilmember Plunkett differed
from areas where there was a sidewalk on one side of the street. He questioned how one could say it was
unfair to the people with a sidewalk on their side of the street that pedestrians were walking in front of
their house. Mayor Haakenson pointed out most sidewalks had a setback from a house, there was no
setback from the driveway so anyone walking there could walk nearly up to their front door and still be in
the public right -of -way. For Councilmember Orvis, Mr. Bowman identified the width of the right -of-
way, explaining the Martins and Adams' homes were built to the street setback and their driveways were
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 7, 2006
Page 12
in the right -of -way. He also identified the location of a sidewalk if the City were to construct a street in
the 8th Avenue right -of -way.
Councilmember Wambolt commented it wasn't the landscaping that prevented most people from walking
on the Martin's side, it was the slope. He relayed that younger people did walk on the slope.
Councilmember Plunkett asked how the slope on the Martin's property was created. Mr. Bowman
advised it was created as part of the development of the houses. He noted there was also a utility line in
the right -of -way. Councilmember Plunkett agreed the slope was the impediment to pedestrians using the
Martin's driveway rather than the landscaping.
Councilmember Olson asked whether staff's recommendation to construct the pathway was due to their
inability to reach a solution that was acceptable to all four property owners. Mr. Bowman answered a
great deal of time has been spent on this issue and he doubted a solution that resulted in pedestrians
continuing to walk down the Adams' driveway would be workable. He explained their intent was to
identify a solution that made it clear to a pedestrian where the pathway was. He commented the
landscaping that would be removed to construct the pathway in the center of the right -of -way would
eventually grow back. He acknowledged even if a pathway were constructed, people could walk on the
residents' driveways because it was a public right -of -way.
Councilmember Wambolt commented that was the tradeoff for having the ability to put a driveway on the
City's property.
COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED TO AUTHORIZE STAFF TO CONSTRUCT A
PATHWAY CONNECTING ALDER AND WALNUT STREETS WITHIN THE UNOPENED
RIGHT- OF-WAY OF 8 T AVENUE SOUTH. MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND.
Council President Dawson commented although property owners may find it objectionable to have people
walking near their home, they were walking on the public right -of -way. She noted the property that all
four property owners were treating like their own was actually not their property. She appreciated staff s
attempt to reach a solution that made everyone happy, concluding nothing would make everyone happy.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT DAWSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, TO
DIRECT STAFF TO CONSTRUCT A PATHWAY /STEPS ON THE WALNUT SIDE TO
PROVIDE PUBLIC ACCESS BUT NOT CONSTRUCT A PATHWAY ALL THE WAY
THROUGH AND THAT THE PUBLIC BE ALLOWED TO USE WHATEVER DRIVEWAY
THEY CHOSE ON THE NORTH SIDE CONSISTENT WITH THE PUBLIC RIGHT -OF -WAY IN
THAT AREA AND AUTHORIZE PAYMENT OF UP TO $10,000 TO CONSTRUCT THAT
PROJECT. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mayor Haakenson declared a brief recess.
Council Extended Agenda
Mayor Haakenson recalled a Councilmember mentioning public comment regarding the 25 +5 foot height
Hearing on issue in the BC zone would be taken at a Council meeting in two weeks; however, he did not find that on
the extended agenda. Council President Dawson agreed the intent was to take public testimony at the
February 21 meeting but not necessarily take any action. She advised the Alliance for Citizens of
Edmonds (ACE) as well as the Chamber of Commerce had been invited to provide a presentation
regarding downtown development particularly as it pertained to height. She noted Councilmember Orvis
planned to make a presentation on February 21 and other Councilmembers may also choose to make
presentations. The Council would then consider the information at a future Council meeting. City Clerk
Sandy Chase suggested the title of the item be refined and recommended it be advertised as a public
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 7, 2006
Page 13
hearing. Council President Dawson requested "Building Heights in the BC Zone" be added to the
February 21 agenda.
6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, congratulated the Council on the decision they made on the last agenda item.
ith regard to his attempt to speak during that item, he referred to page 7 of the January 24 minutes in
which Mayor Haakenson suggested the people involved in the February 7 agenda item, "Consideration of
Walnut streets Construction of a Pathway Connecting Alder and Walnut Streets" be allowed to testify at that meeting
and Council President Dawson's agreement. He next referred to a rumor that staff, specifically Mr.
Bowman, discovered that the Gregg building's electrical box was out of compliance with what had been
approved. He requested a public answer on that issue. He suggested anything staff found to be out of
compliance be corrected before the building was rebuilt. He requested the Council also consider the
issues raised by residents in that area with regard to the contract rezone, specifically a list of issues
compiled by Mr. Chapman.
Ray Martin, Edmonds, expressed his disappointment in Mayor Haakenson's treatment of Mr. Hertrich
Council tonight. He then referred to the October 25, 2005 meeting where Mayor Haakenson had treated him
Meeting unfairly. Followinh that incident he gathered facts from the ACLU Public Disclosure Commission ,
(PDC) and the City's regulations. In regard to comments made by a representative of the Citizens for
Edmonds School following an update by the Edmonds School District encouraging the public to support
the levy and bond, the PDC advised that updates to the City Council such as provided by the Edmonds
School District were not forums for citizen participants to make statement supporting or opposing ballot
propositions and as the elected official in charge of the meeting, it was Mayor Haakenson's responsibility
to ensure the participants to the Council were aware of this prohibition. Mr. Martin recalled in December
2005, then Council President Marin, with no public hearing, limited discussion and no Council vote,
added a rule to audience participation which purported to repeat the applicable RCW. He reported the
ACLU's response to Councilmember Marin's action was that while such a rule may be legal, it was not
necessarily prudent and it was likely to cause difficulties for the Council as the rule lent itself to
viewpoint -based misapplication and open the City to liability. He pointed out Mayor Haakenson again
failed to enforce the rule when Mr. Hertrich spoke in favor of the Edmonds School District levy at the last
Council meeting. He concluded Mayor Haakenson could not be selective when enforcing that rule.
Don Drew, Edmonds, asked for clarification whether the Council wanted to meet with the property
owner regarding the MPOR zone. Council President Dawson answered the neighbors expressed
willingness to meet with the property owner. Mr. Drew informed the Council the Lees were leaving the
city and taking approximately 35 employees with them.
Don Kreiman, Edmonds, was saddened by the Lee's departure, finding they were good people, a local
employer and provided revenue the City needed. He commented the City had funded study after study,
and they all said the same thing, however, no matter what the studies said, the Council apparently felt
economics did not matter. He pointed out there was no other city in the area that collected less sales tax
revenue even though Edmonds was one of the most beautiful locations on Puget Sound. He
recommended the Council listen to the experts who prepared these studies.
Mayor Haakenson advised the electrical boxes Mr. Hertrich referred to were green, ugly, and tall and did
not meet the specifications the City approved. The boxes will be taken out by PUD and moved down one
level or into the basement so that they were no longer above grade. With regard to Mr. Hertrich's
comment that this was the appropriate time to discuss the contract rezone, Mayor Haakenson reminded
the developer had a valid building pen-nit and he was allowed to rebuild the building exactly as it was.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 7, 2006
Page 14
Staff has studied residents' comments and reported to the Council; further information was available from
Development Services.
In response to Mr. Martin, Mayor Haakenson disagreed he had treated Mr. Hertrich badly this evening;
Mr. Hertrich wanted to be argumentative with the Council President who decided several times he would
not be allowed to speak and he was finally asked to take his seat. In response to Mr. Martin's report
regarding the PDC , Mayor Haakenson agreed on October 25 2005 the school superintendent provided an
update to the Council and the citizen volunteer encouraged the public to vote in favor of the levy.
Following that meeting, Mr. Martin filed a complaint with the Washington PDC alleging Mayor
Haakenson had used the City's public facilities to promote the levy measure. Last week the PDC decided
not to investigate the complaint but reminded him as the elected official in charge of the meeting that it
was his responsibility that participants were made aware of the prohibition against citizen statements for
or against ballot measures at Council meetings. The PDC also indicated Council meetings were not to be
a forum for citizen participations to make statements to promote or oppose ballot propositions. Mayor
Haakenson advised he was also reminded in writing by the City Attorney of his responsibility as Chair of
the meeting.
Mayor Haakenson cautioned he planned to rule anyone out of order and remove them from the meeting if
necessary if they violated the Council and State policy regarding commenting on ballot measures. He
recalled it was Mr. Hertrich who violated the Council and State rule on January 24, 2006 by asking the
public to support the Edmonds School District ballot measure. Mayor Haakenson advised when Mr.
Hertrich made those comments, he simply did not want to get into a confrontation with him and said
nothing about his violation of the prohibition. The City Attorney reminded him of his responsibility and
followed up with his admonition in writing later that week. Mayor Haakenson assured he would be more
vigilant in enforcing the rules than he was in those two incidences and cautioned speakers not to cross the
line in this area as there was now a zero tolerance policy.
In response to Mr. Kreiman's suggestion that Edmonds was not performing well economically,
Councilmember Plunkett pointed out the City's sales tax revenue had doubled in the last ten years. With
regard to the Hinshaw report, Councilmember Plunkett recalled by Mr. Hinshaw's own admission, he was
not qualified to provide an economic analysis. Councilmember Plunkett recalled the Heartland study
provided an economic analysis and their representative indicated Edmonds was one of the healthiest
communities on Puget Sound.
7. DISCUSSION ON THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE
Economic Development Director Jennifer Gerend recalled the Council had their first discussion regarding
the Economic Development element of the Comprehensive Plan at last year's retreat. Last summer a
work plan was developed and the Council held a work session in November where she presented an
analysis of the local economy as well as the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats that was
contained in the draft element. Approximately three weeks ago the Council was provided a copy of the
draft element. The next opportunity for a public hearing at the Planning Board would be on March 22
which would need to be advertised in early March.
Ms. Gerend reviewed comments she received from Councilmembers, noting some were minor
modifications and others would require some discussion. She referred to a question raised by
Councilmember Plunkett regarding a statement on page 10, "For example, design guidelines should
ensure that first floor commercial units in the downtown and throughout the city are able to physically
accommodate restaurant and retail uses." She recalled first floor heights was one of the threats identified
in the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT) analysis. She pointed out it was critical
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 7, 2006
Page 15
to ensure adequate first floor heights not only in downtown but also as redevelopment occurred in other
areas of the city. She noted new development in most cities had 14 -foot ceiling heights, at -grade
entrances, etc. She pointed out this was only a policy statement and not a regulation.
Councilmember Plunkett advised his concern was with "should ensure" which sounded like a requirement
when the Council had not determined what 25 +5 foot height limits would entail. A requirement for 12-
foot first floor heights could allow only 2 -story buildings. He suggested replacing "should ensure" with
incentives that would provide flexibility. Ms. Gerend answered in her professional opinion, the City
should ensure that first floor commercial spaces in the downtown and throughout the city were able to
physically accommodate restaurant and retail uses and not only provide incentives due to the importance
of first floor heights.
Councilmember Plunkett asked if she was suggesting buildings should be above 30 feet or buildings
should only be two stories. Ms. Gerend clarified she was not referring to building heights; she was only
addressing first floor heights. She suggested the conversation regarding building heights be continued on
February 21. She encouraged the Council to consider first floor heights in other areas of the city.
Councilmember Plunkett pointed out the Council could not forward the draft Economic Development
element to the Planning Board until the issue of 25 +5 foot building heights had been resolved.
Ms. Gerend referred to a suggestion by Councilmember Marin to use softer language in the third bullet
under weaknesses, "Edmonds' rigid, inflexible land use and parking regulations in the business district."
Councilmember Marin suggested deleting "rigid, inflexible," commenting it was not appropriate to
include that type of language in the Comprehensive Plan. Councilmember Plunkett agreed, commenting
the City's land use and parking regulations were very flexible.
Council President Dawson questioned the use of "weaknesses," suggesting "challenges" instead. She
referred to items listed as "weaknesses," noting some were positives with regard to community ambiance
although they may pose challenges in other regards. Ms. Gerend explained a SWOT analysis was a
commonly accepted planning analysis and an analysis that CTED recommended. Councilmember
Wambolt agreed a SWOT analysis was commonly used in the industry.
Mayor Haakenson cautioned Ms. Gerend was hired as the expert to provide the Council her thoughts. In
the end, this document would be the Council's document. Council President Dawson agreed the
Economic Development Element was not an expert's analysis but must reflect the Council's and the
community's vision. She suggested Councilmember Plunkett provide suggested changes in writing and
following Ms. Gerend's presentation, the Council consider whether this document was philosophically
what they were interested in adopting and if not, alternate language needed to be proposed.
Ms. Gerend referred to an issue raised by Councilmembers Plunkett and Wambolt with the fourth bullet
under opportunities, "Leverage telecommunication /technology assets to provide better service for
customers and new revenue sources for the city," explaining the language was purposely vague because
the Council had not yet addressed this issue. With regard to a question raised regarding Policy Id,
"Develop a local purchasing policy that gives priority to doing business with locally -owned companies, if
within a range of price competitiveness," Ms. Gerend explained some cities had local purchasing policies
that gave preference to local companies. She referred to a question raised by Councilmember Plunkett
with regard to the use of the term "revitalize" in Goal 2, "Revitalize the city's business districts, balancing
redevelopment„ preservation and the need for consumer amenities," explaining that term would typically
be used with regard to commercial revitalization /regeneration.
Next, Ms. Gerend reviewed Policy 2e, "Explore options such as Business Improvement Districts /Areas as
a way to help shopping areas fund marketing and beautification in a sustainable fashion," Policy 2i,
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 7, 2006
Page 16
•
"Create synergy for commercial businesses where possible for example, by implementing a "retail core"
area in the downtown," and Policy 3b, "Leverage technology assets, such as existing fiber connections,to
pursue new revenue streams."
Councilmember Plunkett referred to Hyett Palma's conclusion shown on page 2 that there were people in
Edmonds with their head in the sand and asked who Hyett Palma was referring to and whether they were
referring to some City Councilmembers. Ms. Gerend answered only Hyett Palma could answer that
question. Mayor Haakenson clarified that was a quote from Hyett Palma and it could be referring to
citizens, elected officials or anyone.
Councilmember Plunkett proposed all the information with regard to the Hyett Palma study be eliminated
as he found it to be a gross misrepresentation of the work the Council had done including the work being
done by Councilmember Marin and the Hwy. 99 Task Force and the development of the Edmonds Center
for the Arts. He commented the Council had been moving forward with economic development policies
for the past eight years. Ms. Gerend recalled the Council requested the element include information
regarding past economic development efforts.
Councilmember Marin commented the genesis of including this information may have been his comment
that the element referenced some studies but failed to mention the Hyett Palma study. His intent was to
include mention that the Hyett Palma study had been conducted but not necessarily the details. He agreed
this section should be eliminated from the element. Councilmember Marin complimented Ms. Gerend on
the development of the draft Economic Development element.
Council President Dawson suggested Councilmember Plunkett's suggested changes be provided in
writing for the February 21 packet and any additional changes be provided for the February 28 packet in
preparation for further discussion of the Economic Development element at the February 28 work
meeting.
Commenting she was not on the Council at the time the Hyett Palma study was conducted
Councilmember Olson asked for clarification why Councilmember Plunkett felt the Hyett Palma study
was a false report. Councilmember Plunkett responded the Council accepted the Hyett Palma study but
did not endorse their conclusions. Councilmember Olson suggested Councilmember Plunkett clarify why
he felt the Hyett Palma study was a false report.
At Council President Dawson's request, Senior Executive Council Assistant Jana Spellman offered to
provide the Council copies of the Hyett Palma study.
8. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Haakenson had no report.
9. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Council President Dawson advised of her plans to attend the National League of Cities Conference in
Washington DC next month and encouraged other Councilmembers to attend.
10. ADJOURN
With no further business,the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:23 p.m.
GARY HAAKENSON, MAYOR SANDRA S CHASE, CITY CLERK
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 7,2006
Page 17
AGENDA
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL
Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex
250 5th Avenue North
7:00 - 10:00 p.m.
FEBRUARY 7, 2006
6:30 p.m. - Executive Session regarding a real estate matter.
7:00 p.m. - Call to Order and Flag Salute
1. Approval of Agenda
2. Consent Agenda Items
A. Roll Call
B. Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of January 24, 2006.
C. Approval of claim checks #85330 through #85525 for January 26, 2006, in
the amount of $764,432.11, and #85531 through #85681 for February 2,
2006, in the amount of$459,472.59. Approval of payroll direct deposits and
checks #42555 through #42614 for the period of January 16 through
January 31, 2006, in the amount of$758,510.70.
D. Acknowledge receipt of Claim for Damages from Douglas Chase (amount
undetermined).
E. Approval of contract for City of Edmonds Municipal Court Judge for a new
four-year term commencing January 1, 2006 and expiring December 31,
2009.
F. Approval of 2006 Taxi License for Yellow Cab of Washington.
G. Authorization to purchase and install new play structure at Hummingbird
Park.
H. Proposed Interim Zoning Ordinance prohibiting storage facilities as a
permitted primary and secondary use in the CG and CG2 zones.
I. Authorization for Mayor to sign contract for professional services with Reid
Middleton for work on the update to the City of Edmonds Shoreline Master
Program.
J. Authorization for Mayor to sign professional services agreement with Earth
Tech, Inc. for Northstream 30-Inch Storm Repair/Improvements Project.
Page 1 of 2
o
CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA
FEBRUARY 7, 2006
K. Approval of Findings of Fact for the January 17, 2006 closed record review
of an appeal of a Hearing Examiner decision regarding the Shoreline Permit
Application to repair/reconstruct the timber portions of the Meadowdale
Marina Pier. (Applicant/Appellant: Meadowdale Marina LLC, Vldan
Milosavljevic as General Manager/ File No. SM-05-94).
3. (15 Min.) 2005 Edmonds Sister City Commission Annual Report.
4. (45 Min.) Public Hearing on Ordinance No. 3581, declaring a moratorium on applications
to rezone, contract rezone or otherwise develop properties pursuant to Chapter
16.77, MPOR Zone.
5. (20 Min.) Consideration of pathway connecting Alder and Walnut Streets within the
unopened right-of-way of 8th Avenue South.
6. Audience Comments (3 minute limit per person)*
*Regarding matters not listed on the Agenda as Closed Record Review or as Public Hearings.
7. (30 Mina Discussion on the Economic Development Element of the Comprehensive Plan.
8. ( 5 Min.) Mayor's Comments
9. (15 Min.) Council Comments
ADJOURN
Parking and meeting rooms are accessible for persons with disabilities.
• Please contact the City Clerk at(425) 771-0245 with 24 hours advance notice for special accommodations.
• A delayed telecast of the meeting appears on cable television- Government Access Channel 21.
• Visit the city's website at www.ci.edmonds.wa.us to view copies of all documents for this agenda.
Page 2 of 2