03/21/2006 City CouncilMarch 21, 2006
Following a Special Meeting at 6:00 p.m. for an Executive Session regarding a real estate matter, the
Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:27 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
Mauri Moore, Councilmember
Peggy Pritchard Olson, Councilmember
Dave Orvis, Councilmember
Ron Wambolt, Councilmember
ALSO PRESENT
Michael Bowker, Intern
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
STAFF PRESENT
David Stern, Chief of Police
Duane Bowman, Development Services Director
Stephen Clifton, Community Services Director
Brian McIntosh, Parks & Recreation Director
Jennifer Gerend, Economic Development Dir.
Noel Miller, Public Works Director
Kathleen Junglov, Asst. Admin. Services Dir.
Stephen Koho, Treatment Plant Manager
Rob Chave, Planning Manager
Dave Gebert, City Engineer
Debi Humann, Human Resources Manager
Lyle Chrisman, Engineering Program Manager
Scott Snyder, City Attorney
Sandy Chase, City Clerk
Linda Hynd, Deputy City Clerk
Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst.
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
Council President Dawson requested Agenda Item 6 become Agenda Item 3A and Agenda Item 3 become
Agenda Item 3B.
COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, FOR
APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, FOR
APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED. THE MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows:
Approve 3/3/06 (A) ROLL CALL
Minutes
(B) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL RETREAT MINUTES OF MARCH 3 AND 4, 2006.
Approve 3/7/06
Minutes (C) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MARCH 7, 2006.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 21, 2006
Page 1
Approve Claim
(D)
APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #86365 THROUGH #86490 FOR MARCH 9, 2006, IN
Checks
THE AMOUNT OF $306,275.11 AND #86498 THROUGH #86688 FOR MARCH 16, 2006,
IN THE AMOUNT OF $719,068.37.
Claims for
(E)
ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES FROM NANCY J.
Damages
HAMMER (AMOUNT UNDETERMINED), VERIZON ($5,703.39), AND KIRK M.
GERDES ($5,500.00).
Street Overlay
Program
(F)
AUTHORIZATION TO CALL FOR BIDS FOR THE 2006 STREET OVERLAY
PROGRAM.
Treatment Plant
Chemicals
(G)
AUTHORIZATION TO CALL FOR BIDS FOR TREATMENT PLANT CHEMICALS.
City Owned
(H)
DISPOSAL OF CITY OWNED PROPERTY IN LYNNWOOD.
Property in
Lynnwood
(1)
RESOLUTION NO. 1119 - AUTHORIZATION TO WAIVE THE CONSULTANT
Res# 1119-
SELECTION AND BIDDING PROCEDURES IN ORDER TO REPLACE THE CITY'S
Sewer Lift
SEWER LIFT STATION TELEMETRY EQUIPMENT.
Station
Sewer Lift
(J)
AUTHORIZATION FOR THE MAYOR TO SIGN A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
Station
AGREEMENT WITH SYSTEMS INTERFACE, INC. TO REPLACE THE CITY'S
Telemetry Sys.
SEWER LIFT STATION TELEMETRY SYSTEM IN THE AMOUNT OF $126,207.00.
Sewer Lift
(K)
AUTHORIZATION FOR THE MAYOR TO SIGN A PURCHASE AGREEMENT WITH
Station
Telemetry Sys.
SYSTEMS INTERFACE, INC. TO REPLACE THE CITY'S LIFT STATION
TELEMETRY EQUIPMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $54,227.00.
c
Transcription
ervi
Services with
s with
L
( )
APPROVAL OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT BETWEEN CITY OF
Jeannie Dines
EDMONDS AND JEANNIE DINES.
Prisoner
(M)
APPROVAL OF 2006 ADDENDUM TO PRISONER DETENTION AGREEMENT WITH
Detention
Agreement
CITY OF LYNNWOOD.
Res. # 1120-
(N)
RESOLUTION NO. 1120 - ADOPTING A COMPLIANCE PLAN PURSUANT TO
Title li
Compliance
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION TITLE VI NEW COMPLIANCE
REQUIREMENTS.
Surplus
Computer
(0)
SURPLUS OF COMPUTER MONITORS AND DONATION TO INTERCONNECTION.
Monitors
Ord# 3585 -
(P)
ORDINANCE NO. 3585 OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS ADOPTING AMENDED FIGURE
Amend Figure
18 -1 TO ORDINANCE NO. 3121 RELATING TO DIMENSIONS OF CERTAIN
18-1 to Ord#
31
31 21
PARKING STALLS AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME
EFFECTIVE.
School Retirees
(Q)
PROCLAMATION IN HONOR OF SCHOOL RETIREES APPRECIATION WEEK,
Appreciation
week
MARCH 20-26,2006.
3A.
DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING OLD WOODWAY ELEMENTARY
old Woodway
SCHOOL PROPERTY
Elementary
School Property
COUNCIL PRESIDENT DAWSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS,
THAT THE CITY, PURSUANT TO DISCUSSIONS HELD IN EXECUTIVE SESSION, MAKE AN
OFFER TO PURCHASE ALL 11 ACRES OF THE OLD WOODWAY ELEMENTARY SITE FOR
AN
AMOUNT AGREED TO IN EXECUTIVE SESSION WHICH IS SUBSTANTIALLY IN
EXCESS OF THE APPRAISAL PRICE AND GREATER THAN THE AMOUNT PREVIOUSLY
OFFERED BY THE CITY.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 21, 2006
Page 2
Council President Dawson advised it was unknown whether the offer would be accepted by the School
District. The City planned to ask the District administration to respond to the City by close of business
March 23 whether the offer was acceptable and if the offer was not acceptable, the Council would meet
again to develop a backup plan. She advised the offer was the maximum amount the Council was
comfortable making and if the amount was not acceptable to the District, fewer acres would need to be
considered.
Councilmember Moore expressed her pleasure with the Council's decision, commenting she supported an
effort to acquire the entire 11 acres. She thanked the audience for their support and energy for preserving
the 11 acre site.
Councilmember Marin commented a park in that area was mentioned in the Comprehensive Plan and it
was the intent to have a park in that area. If the District did not accept the City's offer for the entire I I
acres, it was still the Council's intent to pursue a park in that area. He emphasized for those making
offers on the property that the City intended for there to be a park on at least a portion of the site.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Capital 3B. THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC HEARING THAT WAS SCHEDULED THIS EVENING WILL BE
Improvement RESCHEDULED TO A FUTURE DATE TO BE DETERMINED: PUBLIC HEARING ON THE
Program CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (2006 -2011)
Design 14.
Guidelines
PUBLIC HEARING ON DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR MULTI - FAMILY AND COMMERCIAL
DEVELOPMENT.
Planning Manager Rob Chave explained the issue before the Council was a combination of the design
guidelines and design process. He pointed out the necessity of discussing design guidelines and the
review process together. He explained two separate sets of design guidelines had been developed. The
first, recommended by the Architectural Design Board (ADB), were general in nature and not regulatory.
The second set of design guidelines, developed by the Planning Board and augmented by discussions with
consultant Mark Hinshaw, had more details /specifics and were potentially regulatory.
Mr. Chave provided a brief history of the design guidelines, explaining in 1993 a court case Anderson v.
Issaquah ruled that design decisions must be based on specific, measurable, understandable standards.
He noted Issaquah's design guidelines replicated Edmonds' design standards in the ADB section of the
code. From 1993 to approximately 1999, . the City adopted general guidance to defend against issues
raised by Anderson v. Issaquah. In 1999 the City received a report from a consultant, Cedar River
Associates, who considered the City's design review process and design guidelines and found the process
could be improved by moving design review to the beginning of the process so that the ADB could have
more influence on the design. Cedar River also recommended the City develop more clear and specific
design guidelines.
In 2000 the City hired another consultant, Cascade Design Collaborative, who drafted design guidelines.
The City Council forwarded those design guidelines to the Planning Board and the Planning Board spent
2001 and 2002 working on the design guidelines and proposing amendments to the design review
process. The Council initially tabled the design guidelines, then forwarded the design guidelines to the
Community Services /Development Services Committee where the sign portion of the guidelines were
removed and ultimately adopted in 2003.
Although there have been discussions in the interim, the subject of design guidelines arose during
Comprehensive Plan discussions regarding downtown and an effort began again to adopt design
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 21, 2006
Page 3
guidelines. The Council referred the Planning Board's version of the design guidelines to the ADB who
recently returned a different set of guidelines that were more general in nature. He explained the purpose
of tonight's public hearing was to gather public input on the options as well as the specific guidelines.
Mr. Chave reviewed four options:
1) ADB as quasi judicial decision maker on major projects with detailed design guidelines.
Mr. Chave explained this was essentially the same as the current process with staff making most
design review decisions (design review of signs and minor projects) and ADB holding hearings
and making decisions on major projects (those exceeding SEPA threshold of four dwellings or
4,000 square feet). The detailed design guidelines would be the design guidelines developed by
the Planning Board with Mr. Hinshaw's recommendations.
2) ADB as quasi judicial decision maker on major projects with detailed code provisions.
Mr. Chave explained this was a variation on Option 1, the ADB would review major projects but
the ADB recommended design guidelines would be used early in the process to provide
information to applicants. He noted the ADB's guidelines could not be used as a regulatory tool
as they lacked specificity. In this option, the Council would need to identify key design features
to be incorporated into the code as standards.
3) ADB at front of process with general design guidelines and detailed code.
Mr. Chave explained in this option the ADB's review would be at the beginning of the process
where they could hold a public meeting with applicants to discuss design parameters for the site
and make recommendations. He noted having the ADB at the beginning of the process would
also allow the Board more influence over the project design. He did not anticipate this option
would slow the process but developers would need to become accustomed to the design
discussion occurring earlier in the process. Staff would administer the code, making decisions
based on the code and the ADB's recommendations. He noted the ADB's recommendations
would only be recommendations and staff would rely on the code as a basis for their decision,
therefore, it would be important for the Council to identify key design features such as incentives,
specific heights, setbacks, etc. to be incorporated into the code.
4) Integrated Design Review (ADB as Design Standards Review Board)
Mr. Chave explained in this option design parameters would be incorporated into the code and
general guidelines /checklists provided at the beginning of the process. The ADB would review
and evaluate approved projects and the code to determine what in the code influenced the design
and potentially needed to be changed.
Councilmember Moore asked whether Option 4 would be in addition to approved design guidelines. Mr.
Chave answered any design parameters the Council felt strongly about needed to be in the code and
specific enough for staff to administer. There could also be general guidelines such as were developed by
the ADB but they would not be regulatory. Councilmember Moore asked whether it would be possible to
have the ADB act as a Design Standards Review Board as well as having the ADB at the front of the
process. Mr. Chave answered that was essentially Option 3, noting the amount of time the ADB could
devote to reviewing standards would depend on the amount of time they spent on the pre - application
review which was dependent on the threshold. If the thresholds were similar to the current, projects that
exceeded the SEPA threshold of four dwellings or 4,000 square feet, there were few of those type of
projects each year and the ADB would likely have time to review design standards.
Councilmember Plunkett clarified Option 1 was the Planning Board's version which some had felt would
eliminate creativity and not lead to better designed buildings. Mr. Chave answered that was a judgment
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 21, 2006
Page 4
call; he agreed Option 1 was the Planning Board's version of the design guidelines with Mr. Hinshaw's
recommendations.
Councilmember Plunkett clarified Option 2 was the ADB version with the ADB recommended design
guidelines that City Attorney Scott Snyder indicated would be difficult to defend. Mr. Snyder responded
Option 2 assumed more work would be done to establish criteria and priorities. Councilmember Plunkett
recalled staff's original opinion regarding the ADB's recommended design guidelines was that they were
not legally defensible. Now staff was indicating they could be defensible with additional work. Mr.
Snyder acknowledged his original opinion was adopting the ADB recommended design guidelines could
put the City at legal risk. They were workable with additional effort.
Councilmember Plunkett referred to Option 3, ADB at front of the process with design guidelines and
detailed code, and asked whether the detailed code was the Planning Board's recommendation or an
updated code. Mr. Chave answered that option assumed the design guidelines recommended by the ADB
would be adopted as recommended to be used up front by the ADB to guide a project and not be
regulatory. Any critical aspects of design that the Council did not want altered by a project such as
setback, height standards, landscaping standards, etc. would be included in the code. Councilmember
Plunkett asked whether the detailed code was the Planning Board's version. Mr. Chave answered not
necessarily; the Council could select items, either from the Planning Board's recommendations, other
sources or by adding specificity to a concept from the ADB's recommended guidelines, that would be
adopted in the code. He noted items that were not adopted in the code would not be standards that a
project could be required to meet. He summarized the key was to have any design parameters that the
Council wanted projects to meet included in the code.
Councilmember Plunkett noted Option 4 appeared to eliminate the ADB from the up front process and as
well as a quasi judicial decision maker and the ADB essentially became a think tank. Mr. Chave agreed
the ADB would be monitoring projects and the code and ensuring the two were compatible.
Councilmember Plunkett noted other than managing their time, there was no reason the ADB could not
perform the review function in Option 3. Mr. Chave agreed, noting it would depend on the number of
projects the ADB reviewed.
Councilmember Wambolt asked whether the Planning Board had reviewed the design guidelines since
2001. Mr. Chave answered the Planning Board had not reconsidered the design guidelines since
recommending them to the Council in 2001/2002 and had not reviewed Mr. Hinshaw's recommendations.
Councilmember Wambolt asked whether the Planning Board still endorsed the design guidelines they
recommended in 2001. Mr. Chave acknowledged it was a moving target; the Planning Board worked on
the design guidelines for two years. If the question was whether the Planning Board wanted to review
them again, they have said they do not want to.
Councilmember Marin recalled one of the conclusions of the Cedar River study was to move the ADB to
the front of the process. He was intrigued with having the ADB at the front of the process with the
outcome being better design. He asked how long it would take to implement Option 3 if the Council
spent 6 -8 weeks reviewing the Planning Board version to identify key elements and forwarded those to
the Planning Board. Mr. Chave explained Option 3 required modification of the existing process; the
more guidance the City Council gave, the less time it would take the Planning Board. Mr. Snyder noted
the Cedar River study provided an outline of the process, the process could be designed while the code
language was being developed.
Council President Dawson observed if the Council was not happy with the design guidelines
recommended by the Planning Board in 2001 and wanted design guidelines more like what the ADB
recommended, key elements would need to be identified and included in the code. She asked what would
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 21, 2006
Page 5
be done in the meantime and whether the current system could remain in place. Mr. Chave answered the
current system was minimal and needed to be expanded. Mr. Snyder noted staff had identified several
issues in the code that needed to be addressed. Council President Dawson summarized the amount of
detail recommended by the Planning Board was not necessary but some specifics needed to be included in
the code. Mr. Chave agreed, noting for example there was little issue with the landscape provisions of the
Planning Board recommendations; that section could be considered separately and moved forward. If the
Council identified the key elements, staff could develop defensible code language for Council review.
Once the Council identified those key elements, the Planning Board's review could be quite rapid.
Council President Dawson asked whether Option 3 was the same as Seattle's process. Mr. Chave
answered it was similar but much shorter. Council President Dawson asked whether the ADB had the
ability to grant incentives. Mr. Chave answered only those that the Council adopted. Mr. Snyder noted
the proposed process was much shorter than Seattle's because the ADB did not have that authority. Mr.
Chave explained any specific incentives the Council wanted to allow the ADB to grant would need to be
identified in the code.
Council President Dawson clarified Mr. Snyder's recommendation was if the Council wanted to adopt
design guidelines such as the ADB recommended, the ADB would need to be at the front of the process
versus as a quasi judicial decision maker. Mr. Snyder answered to adopt what the ADB recommended,
their review needed to be at the front of the process. If the ADB was at the end of the process, there was
not enough criteria in the design guidelines they recommended on which to base a decision.
Council President Dawson commented when the ADB forwarded their recommended design guidelines,
they did not anticipate changing their role and she was uncertain whether they would have made the same
recommendation if they had been aware it would change their role. She commented it may be beneficial
to have Mr. Snyder, the ADB, and members of the development community discuss the ADB's role in the
process. Mr. Chave commented Option 3 was similar to Cedar River's recommendation, the difference
between that and Seattle's process was Seattle's was a very lengthy process that included multiple
meetings with various boards and neighborhood districts. He noted another difference from the current
process would be that the ADB's input would occur at the beginning of the process where discussion
regarding design rather than review of detailed plans would occur. He noted Option 3 would allow the
ADB's expertise at a point in the process when it would do the most good. Mr. Snyder noted the ADB's
role in Option 3 would be to influence /encourage good design and not as a regulatory body; projects
would not be denied if they did not incorporate the ADB's suggested design elements unless they violated
specific code provisions.
Council President Dawson commented she also supported the ADB serving as a Design Standards
Review Board. Mr. Chave agreed that role would likely also be possible. Mr. Snyder commented for
example the ADB could begin to develop individual design standards for each neighborhood district.
Councilmember Moore asked at what point would the public's input be in Options 3. Mr. Chave
answered it would be at the front of the process at an ADB public meeting. Councilmember Moore asked
where else in the process the public could have input. Mr. Chave answered it would be a staff decision
which was generally appealable. If the public wanted to influence design, it was best done at the front of
the process as it was difficult to influence decisions in the current role of the ADB when developers were
committed to a particular design. The purpose of Option 3 was to identify neighborhood issues up front
so that alternative designs could be considered. That process was also beneficial to applicants as it may
reduce the possibility of lengthy appeals that delayed a project.
Councilmember Moore commented that even though the ADB would not be a regulatory body in Option
3, it would be a way for the developer to hear the public's concerns. Mr. Chave agreed the key was to do
it early enough in the design process so that a developer was not committed to a particular design.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 21, 2006
Page 6
Councilmember Olson noted the ADB's role as the quasi judicial decision maker at the end of the process
had not been particularly effective, recalling there had been several buildings that the ADB had to
approve because they met the code even though the ADB was not happy with the appearance of the
building. Mr. Chave agreed the ADB wanted to influence design but their role at the end of the process
has not allowed that. Mr. Snyder observed ADB appeals to the Council or Superior Court were citizen
opposition to projects and the ADB approval was one of the necessary administrative remedies they were
exhausting. He noted Bauer and other cases were resolved on code provisions and not on design criteria
because the design criteria was so vague that the ADB was unable to deny a project on the criteria. As a
result the application of the code was taking center stage which was not the intent of the process. Mr.
Chave recalled one of Cedar River's observations about Edmonds' process was that the ADB's time was
spent on details rather than meaningful aspects of the project.
Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Scott Schlumberger, Edmonds, a real estate investor /developer expressed concern with the amount of
design impact and decision - making staff had. He cautioned against developing a checklist of items to be
included in a project, noting the more codified the guidelines were, the more cookie - cutter development
resulted. A checklist approach may be possible in a master- planned development but it was not effective
with infill development such as occurred in Edmonds. He recommended the City consider design
departures such as were allowed by Seattle, noting design departures were often important to making a
project pencil out. He supported including the development community in the development of a workable
process.
Al Rutledge, Edmonds, commented on the impact that "zone creep" had on the character of
neighborhoods. Several other cities were experiencing the same problems created by zone creep.
John Heighway, Edmonds, commented the process was important but the Council needed to address
basic issues to keep a system in place to ensure development continued. He suggested as part of the
process the Council address the following: basic building blocks, maximum lot size, height limit,
incentives for additional height, maximum footprint, percentage of ground floor retail, whether ground
floor residential was allowed, and notice of public hearings.
Don Kreiman, Edmonds, supported using the ADB before a building was designed as it would provide
the neighborhood an opportunity to provide input to the developer and the ADB regarding their
preferences before a building was designed. Currently the ADB based its approval of a project on
whether it complied with the design guidelines regardless of whether it was a good design. A better way
would be to consider what design fit the site, what was a good design for the site and what was acceptable
to the public. He displayed photographs of several structures on the west side of 5r'' Avenue questioning
whether some were the best use of the property. He displayed a photograph of a structure that blocked
views and another where a taller structure would not impact views. He summarized providing the ADB
the ability to analyze sites and solicit input from the public at the beginning of the process would assist
developers in designing a building that best fit the site and was acceptable to the public. Staff could then
determine whether the developer's design complied with the ADB's direction and the code. He
concluded a collaborative process would result in less controversy and better design.
Tony Shapiro, Edmonds, commented the Council and staff were confusing bulk regulations, generally
governed by zoning regulations, with design criteria. He did not support the use of design guidelines to
establish essential elements such as height. However, because architectural design was ever - changing, he
pointed out the difficulty for cities to establish regulations with sufficient flexibility to respond to changes
in architecture. He preferred the ADB provide subjective analysis of projects rather than attempt to
codify regulations to respond to every site situation. He supported having the ADB up front in the
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 21, 2006
Page 7
process and public input such as in Option 3. He expressed concern with potential impact on the timing
of projects with the ADB early in the process, noting a developer may only have 45 -60 days to conduct
their initial review on a parcel. He suggested the ADB be incorporated in the pre- application process and
encouraged the ADB to meet more frequently than once a month.
Jason Anderson, ADB Chair, Edmonds, recommended the ADB have an opportunity to meet with Mr.
Snyder and staff before the Council made a decision.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, pointed out the benefits of the ADB meeting with the Planning Board to
educate them on design. He recommended the ADB be retained as the quasi judicial decision maker,
noting some of the ADB's ideas could be incorporated earlier in the process such as during pre -
application meetings. He expressed concern with several photographs /sketches in the ADB
recommended design guidelines of buildings that did not conform to the current building height.
John Bissell, Edmonds, referred to Mr. Snyder's comment that the ADB would make a recommendation
and that a project could not be denied on the basis of design alone. He emphasized Edmonds did not have
an intersection of freeways like some cities to bring in economic development; it was only the character
of Edmonds that attracted economic development. He noted Option 3 may be workable if the detailed
code referred to in Option 3 were developed carefully; if not, Option 2 would be preferable. He noted
developers preferred Option 3 due to the amount of time and money developers put into a project to reach
the quasi judicial approval process, however, in the best interest of the City it was important to have
criteria in the code to support Option 3. He encouraged the Council to pursue Council President
Dawson's suggestion to have a joint meeting with developers, the City Attorney, staff and stakeholders.
Hearing no further public comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public participation portion of the
public hearing.
COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT DAWSON,
TO EXTEND DISCUSSION OF THIS ITEM FOR TEN MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
Councilmember Moore requested staff respond to Mr. Shapiro's comment regarding changing
architectural fashions. Mr. Chave agreed designs changed; for example, development in Seattle's Bell
Town likely would be recognizable in 20 -30 years as building that occurred in 2005 -2006. The challenge
in developing design guidelines and/or code was to identify the parameters that were the most important
such as scale, height, bulk, setbacks, etc. and let the design community determine the building solution to
meet those goals. He noted there could be incentives for providing certain elements or the specifics could
be codified such as in Leavenworth. He agreed it was important to allow some flexibility but identify
specifics with regard to elements that could not be varied.
Mr. Snyder commented when developing design criteria, the criteria needed to be specific enough to meet
the Anderson v. Issaquah test and not so detailed that the result was a cookie- cutter approach. The
Council also needed to balance the development community's desire for design flexibility and potential
for variances with the community's interest in specific bulk standards.
Councilmember Moore asked staff to comment on Mr. Shapiro's concern with the potential for Option 3
to delay the initial review period. Mr. Chave answered it was likely the review would occur sooner and
would not slow down the process. Staff would need to determine whether the ADB could be incorporated
into pre - application conferences; it may depend on a developer's willingness to wait three weeks versus
two for the pre - application conference. Mr. Snyder noted if the design input was provided at the
beginning of the process, the Council would need to determine what process would occur at the end to
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 21, 2006
Page 8
determine whether the ADB's recommendations were adhered to and whether the ADB's input were
recommendations or appealable criteria. Staff has assumed the ADB's input up front would be advisory.
Mr. Chave commented if the Council wanted to implement Option 3 and liked the ADB's recommended
design guidelines, he recommended they be referred to the Planning Board. The Council may also want
to develop a list of elements from the Planning Board's and/or ADB recommended design guidelines to
be incorporated into the code. He anticipated staff would develop code language to implement the items
the Council wanted incorporated in the code.
Councilmember Moore noted the list of elements could be changed at any time. Mr. Chave agreed,
stating the Council could request the Planning Board and /or ADB recommend changes each year based
on challenges they have encountered with the design guidelines.
Councilmember Wambolt asked staff to comment on Mr. Schlumberger's reference to Seattle's use of
design departures. Mr. Chave explained Seattle had general design parameters and some ability to alter
the code standards was allowed. Mr. Snyder provided an example of a Seattle design departure — altering
the height calculation depending on the slope and contour of a lot. Mr. Chave acknowledged many of
Seattle's design departures were in regard to height in exchange for varying the building design. He
noted that may be the reason the design departure route was less desirable for Edmonds.
Councilmember Wambolt referred to Mr. Hertrich's comment regarding pictures /sketches in the design
guidelines of buildings that would not be allowed in Edmonds. Mr. Chave commented the design
guidelines were originally intended to apply citywide, thus the reason there were a variety of buildings.
Councilmember Plunkett commented design departures were not always related to height. Mr. Chave
agreed, noting those regarding height were the most powerful departures. He acknowledged there may be
opportunity for allowing design departures in Edmonds. Mr. Snyder provided an example such as
alternatives for height calculation depending on the side of the street downtown. Mr. Chave provided an
example of a decorative turret above the height limit in exchange for setback or open space.
Mayor Haakenson remanded the matter to Council for action.
Council President Dawson recommended Mr. Chave and Mr. Snyder meet with the ADB and
stakeholders including the development community, ACE, and property owners in the area to gather input
on the ADB's proposal. Councilmember Moore requested the meeting be well advertised such as
advertisement in the newspaper and on Channel 21.
COUNCILMEMBER MOORE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT DAWSON, TO
ASK THAT MR. SNYDER, MR. CRAVE AND MR. BOWMAN GO TO THE ADB AND DISCUSS
THE ROLE OF THE ADB AND INVITE THE PUBLIC TO ATTEND THE MEETING.
Mr. Snyder welcomed the public's attendance but recommended staff have a discussion with the ADB
and a few stakeholders. Council President Dawson clarified her intent would be a dialogue between staff
and representatives from the stakeholder groups and not just a staff presentation and audience members
providing 3- minute comments.
Councilmember Marin spoke in support of the motion, commenting it appeared the Council was leaning
toward Option 3 which may assist with guiding discussion at the meeting toward implementation of that
option.
Councilmember Olson agreed with Councilmember Marin, suggesting the meeting focus on Option 3
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 21, 2006
Page 9
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
suitding 5. DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING BUILDING HEIGHTS IN THE BC ZONE
Heights in the
>3c zone Development Services Director Duane Bowman reviewed the following list of Council downtown
decision points:
Confirm that the adopted downtown districts are still the ones the Council would like to see.
Example: Should there be an area that is optional for commercial development? Should residential
use be an allowed use on the first floor?
2. Does the city want first floors in the core area to be retail only and /or 12 - 15 feet in height? Is this
"core area" larger than the adopted "Fountain Square" in the Comprehensive Plan but smaller than
the adopted "Downtown Mixed Commercial" area? For example, one version of a retail core that's
been discussed runs along Main from 3rd to 6th and along 5th from Walnut to Bell. Does the Council
want incentives to achieve first floor ceilings of 15 feet in this "core area "?
Confirm that first floor heights in all downtown commercial areas are to be a minimum of 12 feet in
height which would allow space to be converted in the future.
4. Confirm that the goal is to have first floors and entries in all commercial areas at street grade.
When the street grade is on a slope, the Planning Board will need to develop rules for how the
building will maintain a street presence.
Confirm that there should be a maximum of two stories at the street, with a possible third story if
set back from the street front.
5.a. Do you want buildings to be set back from the street property line in order to have wider
sidewalks?
5.b. Do you want additional incentives in exchange for allowing a third floor? Example:
additional street -level open space.
6. Should there be smaller buildings downtown? What incentive system could be used to achieve
this?
Note: There is an interaction between a building's size and the ability to have underground parking
in order to meet existing parking requirements. If the Council wants to encourage smaller buildings
through incentives, parking requirements could be waived for commercial space if the building is
under a certain size. Larger buildings could be required to undergo more extensive design review.
7. Confirm that there can be exceptions that can extend above the roof of the building such as
decorative cornices, parapets, clock towers or other building enhancements? Confirm maximum
building height limit.
Planning Manager Rob Chave presented a concept staff developed to address height calculation on sloped
lots. He displayed an example of a building on a downhill slope and identified the east and south
elevations. He explained the current average grade rule for calculating height yielded 25 +5 at the top of
the building on the east elevation. He noted the height of the structure at the street on the south elevation
was less than 25 feet, however, on the west, the building was appropriate 40 feet in height due to the slope
on the site. He identified the commercial floor at or below eye level. He summarized the problems with
the building were the height at the rear lot line was out of scale with adjoining properties and the location
of the commercial floor on the street side was problematic.
He explained when staff attempted to develop a rule that would accomplish setbacks as well as tie the
building to the street, they found if the height were set at the lower of 25 feet from the street or 30 feet
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 21, 2006
Page 10
from average grade, the result would be the rear of the building steps down with the slope to 25 foot level
at the rear property line and the at- street height was 25 feet with the commercial floor set at street.
Mr. Chave provided an uphill example, identifying the original grade and average grade for a site where
the slope rises from the street. He displayed the average grade rule that would result in a building that
was 30 feet high across the entire site. If a rule similar to the downhill property were applied, 25 +5 feet
could be obtained in exchange for set backs and street orientation and the rear of the building steps with
the slope to 25 feet from the lower of grade /average grade at rear property line.
Mr. Chave reviewed potential implementation rules including establishing a base height (25 feet);
maximum building height at the street /opposite property line is the lesser of 25 feet above grade (e.g.
average grade at back of sidewalk) or 30 feet above average grade, whichever is less; allow additional 5
feet for step backs for all parts of the building exceeding the basic (25 -foot) height established above;
make provisions for decorative cornices, parapets or other features (e.g. roof deck railings, clock tower or
steeply pitched roof) extending above the roof.
Additional incentives (rules for height calculations and step backs still apply) could include requiring
parking only for residential uses in 2 -story buildings; waiving all parking requirements for 2 -story
buildings that provide plazas, mini -parks or other open space exceeding a certain size or percentage of the
site; and waiving all parking requirements for 2 -story buildings with a footprint of less than a certain
square footage. He summarized a concept such as a "lot orientation map" could establish orientation of
lots for height measurement purposes.
Council President Dawson commented she was intrigued by this concept, finding it may be a way to
address many of the issues the Council has been struggling with. As staff did not include these materials
in the Council packet as they felt an explanation needed to accompany the materials, she suggested the
Council defer any action to the March 28 meeting to allow the Council to consider the materials further.
She thanked staff for their efforts to develop a concept that addressed Councilmembers' concerns and was
workable for the development community.
Councilmember Orvis commented the key word was minimum; a building could not protrude above the
way a 30 foot building was currently measured. Mr. Chave agreed, explaining the height calculation
would still be based on the average grade and 25 +5. Councilmember Orvis asked if this would define
third floor setbacks which required a definition of "floor." Mr. Chave answered it was to identify setback
above a certain height. He noted it usually would be a third floor but was tied to a height number.
Councilmember Orvis noted even if the building were two stories, it would need to be set back above a
certain height. Mr. Chave agreed, unless there were exceptions included in the code such as for a 15 -foot
first floor. Councilmember Orvis asked how far the set back would be. Mr. Chave advised the
suggestion for 15 feet was developed as BC buildings currently had a 15 -foot set back when adjoining
single family development.
Councilmember Moore asked why the height was 25 +5 rather than 30 feet. Mr. Chave answered in his
example the additional 5 feet was obtained in exchange for the set back. Councilmember Moore
expressed support for the set back and ability to waive parking requirements and asked whether the
Planning Board had considered parking requirements. Mr. Chave answered the Planning Board only
addressed height and number of floors.
Councilmember Moore asked when the Council would address the decision points that Mr. Bowman
outlined. Council President Dawson suggested the Council first discuss height incentives.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 21, 2006
Page 11
Councilmember Olson thanked staff for developing this concept. She expressed interest in allowing
decorative elements to extend above 30 feet, noting this could make roof gardens feasible.
Councilmember Plunkett noted it had been suggested that if 12 -foot ceiling heights were required, there
was a property downtown that could only be one story. Mr. Chave answered it would depend on the
amount of slope. If a building was one story at the street, there likely would be enough slope on the back
side to have more than one story down the slope. He noted what was feasible may depend on the parking
requirement.
Councilmember Plunkett asked whether an exception to the 12 -foot ceiling would be allowed if a
property owner could prove they could not build two stories. Mr. Chave answered it was difficult to write
regulatory language to address economics. Councilmember Plunkett concluded someone had suggested
there were a number of lots where development would not be feasible if the city required 12 -foot first
floor ceiling heights. He planned to have this person contact staff to discuss their concerns. Mr. Chave
reiterated a building with one story at the street was not necessarily one floor on the down slope.
Councilmember Moore noted the building at 5th and Walnut was 36 feet from the sidewalk; if this concept
were used on that lot, the result would be a 25 -foot building on the street side and a 15 foot setback. She
asked what would have occurred on the back of the building. Mr. Chave answered it may differ
depending on whether a lot adjoined a single family zone; a more stringent rule would be appropriate for
development that adjoined single family. He noted there would already be a 15 foot setback due to the
adjacent residential development.
Council President Dawson requested staff include the slides in the Council packet for the March 28
meeting as well as real examples of staff's proposal. Mr. Chave agreed examples could be provided by
the Council meeting. She also asked staff to provide examples of building footprints where parking
requirements could be waived.
7. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Scott Chapman, Edmonds, described his interest in the park property and thanked the Council for
Old woodway
Elementary changing their position and submitting an offer to purchase the 11 acre property. He referred to the 600
school Property signatures gathered on petitions and extended the community's willingness to assist the city in acquiring
the property such as lobbying the School District to accept the City's offer or identifying options to fill
gaps between the amount the City offered and other offers. He advised they planned to have a
representative attend a meeting with the Edmonds School District Superintendent at Madrona School on
March 22. He inquired about the City's fallback position if the District rejected the City's offer.
olawooaway Colin Son hcote -Want, Edmonds, expressed his delight with the Council's vote to submit an offer to
Elementary purchase the entire 11 acre parcel. He noted the Comprehensive Plan stated 21 acres of neighborhood
school Property parks were needed by 2010. He commented on the inequity of parks throughout the City, noting
Ballinger had only two very small parks, there were four in north Edmonds, four in Maplewood /Five
Corners, six in Seaview, six in the Bowl but none in south Edmonds. He encouraged the City to
aggressively pursue grants to fund the purchase, noting the variety of recreational activities may make the
park eligible for several grants. He expressed concern about the possibility of the School District
rejecting the City's offer, recalling the Superintendent's comments on the bidding war on another
property. If the City's offer was rejected, he encouraged the Council to consider a right of first refusal.
old wooaway Rob Trahms, Edmonds, thanked the Council for their decision to submit an offer for the entire 11 acres.
Elementary He commented on the number of people in southwest Edmonds who used the old Woodway Elementary
sch °ol Pr °pe't5 School site as a park. He advised in the last four days, 12 people had collected over 600 signatures from
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 21, 2006
Page 12
residents throughout Edmonds in support of the purchase. Once the City secured the property, he
recommended the City and citizens work together to identify alternative funding sources.
Lake Ballingel Al Rutledge, Edmonds, referred to the presentation made by the Lake Ballinger Association last week,
noting Edmonds owned the lift station property on Lake Ballinger as well as a boat ramp on 76th. Next he
expressed his support for the purchase of the old Woodway Elementary School property. With regard to
Old Woodway
Elementary the minutes no longer containing residents' addresses, he recommended addresses be included to ensure
school Property speakers lived in Edmonds.
old Woodway Gary Humiston, Edmonds, applauded the Council for their decision to submit an offer to purchase the
Elementary 11 acre property. If the School District rejected the City's offer, he requested the Council advise residents
School Property
SO that other financial options could be considered.
old wooaway Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, expressed his support for the Council's action to submit an offer to purchase
Elementary the old Woodway Elementary School site. As there was no guarantee the City's offer would be accepted,
school Property he recommended the City begin plans for condemnation before the property was sold. With regard to
funding, it was his understanding that once a master plan was developed, the park could be divided into
natural trails and active areas and grants pursued for each as well as conservation futures funds for
maintenance. Mr. Hertrich expressed concern with a letter of intent that was submitted that did not
request $500,000 in conservation future funds as well as IAC grant funds.
Tony Shapiro, Edmonds, suggested the Council spread payment to the School District over several
years. With regard to heights, he noted although the focus had been on downtown, there were BC zoned
Building Height ro erties outside downtown. He urged the Council to consider raisin height limits on BC zoned
in BC Zone properties g g g
property outside downtown, pointing out the difficulty of developing property outside the bowl with a 25-
30 foot height limit. He suggested allowing a 35 -40 foot height limit on Edmonds Way and in other areas
of the City. He urged the Council to consider this at the same time height limits in the downtown BC
were being discussed.
Ray Martin, Edmonds, recognized Council President Dawson for her leadership, Councilmember
Builaing Height Moore for her perseverance and the Council for their efforts. He referred to the 120 foot square building
in Bc zone used in Mr. Chave's examples regarding height calculation on sloped lots, noting the slope situation .
outlined by Mr. Chave would rarely arise as there were few buildings of that size in Edmonds. Next Mr.
Martin cautioned the Council regarding including terms such as "decorative cornices" in the code,
recalling the problems created by the term "modulation."
8. REPORT ON CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS OF MARCH 14, 2006
Finance Finance Committee
committee Councilmember Olson reported Mr. Clifton briefed the Committee on the proposed federal Title VI non-
discrimination resolution; in return for receipt of federal grants for highway improvements the City is
required to adopt a Title VI resolution. The Committee recommended forwarding the resolution to full
Council as a consent Item. The Committee, staff and public then discussed the direction the City's
technology should take and three future actions were agreed upon, 1) a public discussion of the CTAC
initiative was scheduled for March 29 at 7:00 p.m. in the Brackett Room, 2) staff and CTAC members
should prepare a detailed work and business plan for moving ahead on the project, and 3) staff should
prepare a Request for Qualifications for firms interested in managing the City's fiber resources.
Public safety Public Safety Committee
committee Councilmember Orvis stated Chief Tomberg reported on plans for a new medic unit. Next the Committee
discussed a $9,999 grant the City will be receiving to purchase equipment for video arraignment. The
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 21, 2006
Page 13
Committee then discussed a professional contract between the City and Jeannie Dines and an addendum
to the prisoner detention agreement with the City of Lynnwood which were approved on tonight's
Consent Agenda. The last item discussed was fire additions to the Strategic Plan.
Community/ Community Services/Development Services Committee
Development Councilmember Plunkett reported Mr. Gebert described how the City managed street repairs for
Services
committee developers who did street cuts for utilities, noting by law the City was limited in the amount of repairs
that could be required. It was agreed the long term answer was improved funding for the City's overlay
program.
Combined Community Services/Development Services Committee /Public Safety Combined Committee Meeting
Meeting of Council President Dawson advised the two committees discussed the interpretation of the smoking ban as
CSDS and it pertained to special events on City property. She noted the law banned smoking inside public buildings
Public safety as well as outdoor public areas such as the Taste of Edmonds. It was agreed event contracts would be
revised to include a clause notifying event organizers of the need to comply with the smoking ban enacted
by State law.
9. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Michael Mayor Haakenson advised tonight was the Council Intern, Michael Bowker's, last meeting. He thanked
$owker, Intern Mr. Bowker for his service and wished him the best in the future.
Mayor's Mayor Haakenson advised the Mayor's neighborhood meetings would be held at 7:00 p.m. on March 22
Neighborhood at Seaview Elementary, March 23 at Edmonds Elementary, March 29 at Chase Lake and March 30 at
Meetings
Maplewood.
xatrina Relief Mayor Haakenson reported the City had raised $5,000 to date for the family the City adopted in Bay St.
Fund Louis, Mississippi. He invited anyone interested in assisting with rebuilding the family's home to make
out a check to the City of Edmonds Katrina Relief Fund and mail it to his office.
10. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Council President Dawson cautioned that although the City had submitted an offer for the old Woodway
Elemeentary ntary la y Elementary School property, there was no guarantee the School District would accept the City's offer.
School Property She reiterated the offer was in excess of the previous offer made on the property and vastly exceeded the
appraised value of the property. If the Council learned Thursday that the offer was not acceptable to the
School District, a special Council meeting would be scheduled for Saturday morning. In the meantime,
the City would be aggressively pursing funding options. She advised that Councilmembers Marin and
Moore would be meeting with former Parks & Recreation Director Arvilla Ohlde to discuss grant
opportunities.
o1a wooaway Councilmember Moore thanked the Council for their efforts in Executive Session and making the difficult
Elementary decision. She thanked Council President Dawson for her leadership and for appointing her to the
sch °o1 Pr °pe'� committee to discuss funding options with Ms. Ohlde. With regard to Mr. Shapiro's comments regarding
113uildinglieigh4 building heights in neighborhood centers, she noted this was discussed at the Council retreat and would
be discussed further by the Council in the future. She congratulated Economic Development Director
F,evelop ° Jennifer Gerend for the $319 000 rant she secured for Hwy. 99 improvements.
Development � g Y• p
1AC Grant Councilmember Moore asked for an explanation regarding Mr. Hertrich's comment about both boxes not
Application I being checked. Council President Dawson relayed Parks & Recreation Director Brian McIntosh's
explanation that while it was possible, it was not required to pursue that funding through the IAC process.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 21, 2006
Page 14
Mr. McIntosh also indicated the fund did not have any money and last year a total of$1.8 million was
granted statewide and over 95% of the projects that sought funding were not funded. In addition he felt
this project would not qualify for funding.
Graffiti Councilmember Wambolt commented on graffiti occurring in the City particularly in the alley between
Concerns 3rd and 2nd from James to Main. He invited the public to contact the City with any leads on who painted
the graffiti. Mayor Haakenson advised there had been 21 incidents of graffiti in recent months by taggers
who considered their work art and it was not gang-related. He advised detectives were working on
several leads.
So.Snohomish Councilmember Olson advised the South Snohomish Cities meeting was scheduled for Thursday, March
Cities Meeting
30 at 6:30 p.m. in City Hall.
11. ADJOURN
With no further business,the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:15 p.m.
GARY HAAKENSON,MAYOR SANDRA S. CHASE, CITY CLERK
1
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 21,2006
Page 15
Mk, AGENDA
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL
Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex
250 5th Avenue North
7:00 - 10:00 p.m.
MARCH 21, 2006
6:00 p.m. - Executive Session Regarding a Real Estate Matter
11 �..
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 Retreat Minutes of March 3 and 4, 2006.
C. Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of March 7, 2006.
D. Approval of claim checks #86365 through #86490 for March 9, 2006, in the
amount of $306,275.11, and #86498 through #86688 for March 16, 2006, in the
amount of$719,068.37.
E. Acknowledge receipt of Claims for Damages from Nancy J. Manner (amount
undetermined), Verizon ($5,703.39), and Kirk M. Gerdes ($5,500.00).
F. Authorization to call for bids for the 2006 street overlay program.
G. Authorization to call for bids for treatment plant chemicals.
H. Disposal of City owned property in Lynnwood.
1. Authorization to waive the consultant selection and bidding procedures in
order to replace the City's sewer lift station telemetry equipment.
J. Authorization for the Mayor to sign a Professional Services Agreement with
Systems Interface, Inc. to replace the City's sewer lift station telemetry
system in the amount of$126,207.
K. Authorization for the Mayor to sign a Purchase Agreement with Systems
Interface, Inc. to replace the City's sewer lift station telemetry equipment in
the amount of$54,227.
Page 1 of 2
CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA
MARCH 21, 2006
L. Approval of Professional Services Contract between City of Edmonds and
Jeannie Dines.
M. Approval of 2006 Addendum to Prisoner Detention Agreement with City of
Lynnwood.
N. Federal Highway Administration Title VI new compliance requirements.
O. Surplus of computer monitors and donation to Interconnection.
P. Proposed Ordinance adopting amended Figure 18-1 to Ordinance No. 3121
relating to dimensions of certain parking stalls.
Q. Proclamation in honor of School Retirees Appreciation Week, March 20 - 26,
2006.
3. (5 Min.) The following Public Hearing that was scheduled this evening will be
rescheduled to a future date to be determined:
Public Hearing on the Capital Improvement Program (2006-2011).
4. (60 Min.) Public Hearing on Design Guidelines for Multi-family and Commercial
Development.
5. (60 Min.) Discussion and possible action regarding building heights in the BC Zone.
6. (30 Min.) Discussion and possible action regarding old Woodway Elementary School
property.
7. Audience Comments (3 Minute Limit Per Person)*
*Regarding matters not listed on the Agenda as Closed Record Review or as Public Hearings.
8. (15 Min.) Report on City Council Committee Meetings of March 14, 2006.
9. ( 5 Min.) Mayor's Comments
10. (15 Min.) Council Comments
ADJOURN
Parking and meeting rooms are accessible for persons with disabilities.
Please contact the City Clerk at(425) 771-0245 with 24 hours advance notice for special accommodations.
A delayed telecast of the meeting appears on cable television-Government Access Channel 21.
Page 2 of 2