07/25/2006 City CouncilEDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES
July 25, 2006
The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Haakenson in the Council
Chambers, 250 5"' 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
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
STAFF PRESENT
David Stern, Chief of Police
Duane Bowman, Development Serv. Director
Brian McIntosh, Parks & Recreation Director
Noel Miller, Public Works Director
Rob Chave, Planning Manager
Dave Gebert, City Engineer
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. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, FOR
APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda
items approved are as follows:
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 25, 2006
Page 1
(A)
ROLL CALL
Approve
7 /18 /06
Minutes
(B)
APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JULY 18, 2006
(C)
APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #89459 THROUGH #89645 FOR JUNE 20, 2006 IN
Approve
Claim
THE AMOUNT OF $1,351,097.96. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSITS AND
checks
CHECKS #43388 THROUGH #43496 IN THE AMOUNT OF $827,109.13 FOR THE
PERIOD OF JULY 1 THROUGH JULY 15, 2006.
Claim for
(D)
ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES FROM JAMIE ROSS
Damages
HALTERMAN ($469.76), ROBERT HENDERSON (AMOUNT UNDETERMINED), DAN
AND JANE HINRICHS ($1,500.00), AND JEAN M. MORSE (AMOUNT
UNDETERMINED).
Community
Services
R
Re
(E)
COMMUNITY SERVICES QUARTERLY REPORT - JULY 2006
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 25, 2006
Page 1
street Development Services Director Duane Bowman explained the Community Services /Development
Vendor
Regula-
Services Committee discussed this issue at their July 1 I meeting and forwarded a recommendation for the
tions Council as a whole to consider the regulations as well as a recommendation for an approval of a potential
change in the street vendor regulations to allow the use of trailers.
Mr. Bowman explained in the mid- I980s the street vendor ordinance allowed trailers and other structures
in the right -of -way, particularly near the ferry holding lanes. Staff experienced some difficulty with
enforcement which resulted in the removal of some trailers. In 2004 a regulation was passed that
redefined the street vendor regulations and prohibited the use of trailers unless it could be pushed by one
person. The City received a proposal from Ricky Andrews, Mill Town Pizza, who is exploring the use of
a trailer in the unopened right -of -way on James Street adjacent to the ferry holding lanes to sell pizza,
drinks, etc. As the City's existing regulations do not permit the use of a trailer, modification of the street
vendor regulations would be required to allow the use of a trailer.
Mr. Bowman advised the Council packet contained a vicinity map, an aerial photograph of the ferry
holding lanes, the current street vendor regulations and a photograph of the trailer Mr. Andrews was
considering using. He recalled consideration had been given to installing pads near the park area for
street vendors to address the Health Department requirements for water, waste, etc. Research of this
option revealed installation of sewer, water, power, etc. was prohibitively expensive.
Councilmember Moore inquired about the push cart required by the current regulations and trailers
allowed by the previous regulations. Mr. Bowman answered although the intent of the original ordinance
was mobile street vendors, the ordinance was vague and the gap in the regulations allowed the use of
trailers. He recalled enforcement action that was necessary to remove a street vendor's trailer. He
explained the only business that had succeeded in the area of the ferry holding lanes, Terminal Caffeine,
was located on the State right -of -way. He recalled a hot dog vendor who obtained a street vendor license
but was unable to sustain the business.
For Councilmember Orvis, Mr. Bowman explained if the Council wanted to allow trailers, the definition
in the regulations would need to be changed to allow trailers and not just push carts. Councilmember
Orvis asked where the trailers would be allowed. Mr. Bowman answered any commercial zone with
unopened right -of -way where a trailer could be located. He pointed out the biggest issue street vendors
faced was meeting the Health District's water and waste disposal requirements. He noted the location on
James had power; water could be an issue, although a vendor could work out an arrangement with an
adjacent property owner.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 25, 2006
Page 2
2007
walk -In
(F)
AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE A 2007 WALK -IN STEP VAN FROM HUSKY
Step van
TRUCK CENTERS FOR $45,194.68 UTILIZING THE KING COUNTY INTER-
GOVERNMENTAL PURCHASING AGREEMENT
Skate
Park
(G)
AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE SKATE PARK COMPONENTS FROM
Equipment
NORTHWEST RECREATION OF WASHINGTON ($81,947.25)
Storm
Improve-
(H)
AUTHORIZATION TO CALL FOR BIDS FOR THE 2006 CITYWIDE STORM
ment
Project
IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
(I)
PROPOSED ORDINANCE EXTENDING A ZONING MORATORIUM ON THE
CG zone
ISSUANCE OF DEVELOPMENT PERMITS FOR CERTAIN USES IN THE CG
Develop-
(GENERAL COMMERCIAL) AND CG -2 (GENERAL COMMERCIAL 2) ZONE
ment
Permits
3.
DISCUSSION REGARDING STREET VENDOR REGULATIONS
street Development Services Director Duane Bowman explained the Community Services /Development
Vendor
Regula-
Services Committee discussed this issue at their July 1 I meeting and forwarded a recommendation for the
tions Council as a whole to consider the regulations as well as a recommendation for an approval of a potential
change in the street vendor regulations to allow the use of trailers.
Mr. Bowman explained in the mid- I980s the street vendor ordinance allowed trailers and other structures
in the right -of -way, particularly near the ferry holding lanes. Staff experienced some difficulty with
enforcement which resulted in the removal of some trailers. In 2004 a regulation was passed that
redefined the street vendor regulations and prohibited the use of trailers unless it could be pushed by one
person. The City received a proposal from Ricky Andrews, Mill Town Pizza, who is exploring the use of
a trailer in the unopened right -of -way on James Street adjacent to the ferry holding lanes to sell pizza,
drinks, etc. As the City's existing regulations do not permit the use of a trailer, modification of the street
vendor regulations would be required to allow the use of a trailer.
Mr. Bowman advised the Council packet contained a vicinity map, an aerial photograph of the ferry
holding lanes, the current street vendor regulations and a photograph of the trailer Mr. Andrews was
considering using. He recalled consideration had been given to installing pads near the park area for
street vendors to address the Health Department requirements for water, waste, etc. Research of this
option revealed installation of sewer, water, power, etc. was prohibitively expensive.
Councilmember Moore inquired about the push cart required by the current regulations and trailers
allowed by the previous regulations. Mr. Bowman answered although the intent of the original ordinance
was mobile street vendors, the ordinance was vague and the gap in the regulations allowed the use of
trailers. He recalled enforcement action that was necessary to remove a street vendor's trailer. He
explained the only business that had succeeded in the area of the ferry holding lanes, Terminal Caffeine,
was located on the State right -of -way. He recalled a hot dog vendor who obtained a street vendor license
but was unable to sustain the business.
For Councilmember Orvis, Mr. Bowman explained if the Council wanted to allow trailers, the definition
in the regulations would need to be changed to allow trailers and not just push carts. Councilmember
Orvis asked where the trailers would be allowed. Mr. Bowman answered any commercial zone with
unopened right -of -way where a trailer could be located. He pointed out the biggest issue street vendors
faced was meeting the Health District's water and waste disposal requirements. He noted the location on
James had power; water could be an issue, although a vendor could work out an arrangement with an
adjacent property owner.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 25, 2006
Page 2
Councilmember Orvis asked whether the area where street vendor trailers could locate could be restricted.
Mr. Bowman agreed the use of street vendor trailer could be limited to certain areas of the City.
For Councilmember Wambolt, Mr. Bowman identified the location of Terminal Caffeine on the aerial
map, adjacent to the ferry holding lanes, across the street and slightly south of Skippers. He commented
street vendors previously walked among the ferry holding lanes, a practice the State no longer allowed for
safety reasons. He also identified the site Mr. Andrews was considering. For Councilmember Moore, he
identified the location of the pads that City staff was exploring near the park adjacent to the ferry holding
lanes.
Councilmember Moore asked whether there were other unopened rights -of -way where street vendors
could locate. Mr. Bowman answered there were numerous unopened rights -of -way in the City; the most
likely location was adjacent to the ferry holding lanes due to the volume of potential customers.
Councilmember Moore observed there appeared to be only one unopened right -of -way in the BC zone
that would be feasible for a street vendor. Mr. Bowman agreed, pointing out theoretically a street vendor
could locate in any unopened right -of -way. Councilmember Moore commented that was already allowed
for a street vendor with a push cart.
Councilmember Plunkett asked whether consideration had been given to standards for determining
whether an unopened right -of -way was appropriate for a street vendor such as traffic, etc. Mr. Bowman
answered the primary issue addressed by the code currently was aesthetics, other controlling factors were
addressed by the Health District's regulations. Councilmember Plunkett asked whether safety would be a
consideration. Mr. Bowman answered yes, for example, a vendor would not be allowed to create a sight
distance hazard.
Council President Dawson asked whether the intent of the revision would be to allow vendors to leave
their facility in place for a period of time. Mr. Bowman answered yes, pointing out the trailer depicted in
the Council packet would not be removed and replaced daily; the trailer would remain in place,
employees would work from the trailer and maintain consistent hours. He pointed out the importance of
consistent hours for such a business to survive.
Observing their appeared to be only one good location, Council President Dawson asked how it be
determined who could occupy the site. Mr. Bowman answered it would be first come, first serve,
whoever applied. Council President Dawson pointed out if the vendor never moved their vehicle, no one
else would have an opportunity to use the right -of -way. Mr. Bowman agreed other vendors could not use
that particular site; however, there may be adequate space for other vendors in that right -of -way. Council
President Dawson expressed concern that whoever paid the minimal permit fee could locate a permanent
business on City property for as long as they wished. Mr. Bowman agreed that would be allowed as long
as the vendor maintained a valid permit.
For Council President Dawson, Mr. Bowman explained in the past, street vendor facilities required
review by the Architectural Design Board (ADB) which he recommended is continued. Council
President Dawson asked what authority the ADB would have to approve /deny on the basis of aesthetics.
Mr. Bowman advised the regulations could include criteria for review.
Council President Dawson requested further information regarding the aesthetics before making a
decision whether to allow trailers. She asked whether this issue had been considered by the Planning
Board. Mr. Bowman answered it was not within the Planning Board's purview as it was a function of the
City Clerk to approve street vendor licenses.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 25, 2006
Page 3
Council President Dawson was concerned about allowing construction of a building in the City right -of-
way. She asked about other cities' vendor regulations. Mr. Bowman answered he had not researched
whether other cities allowed trailers. He noted this was a unique location due to the volume of traffic and
high visibility of the area. Council President Dawson commented without adequate regulations, the
facility could look like anything and the vendor could sell anything. Mr. Bowman agreed the ordinance
did not specify what the vendor sold.
Council President Dawson commented if the vehicle /facility were large enough, it could preclude others
from using the right -of -way. Mr. Bowman agreed the first vendor could preclude other vendors from
having a "front row seat." He advised the permit lasted for one year.
As a person who frequently waited in the ferry lanes, Councilmember Olson commented it would be
beneficial to have vendors adjacent to the ferry holding lanes. She commented ferry riders often were not
aware the wait would be so long. She commented it may be difficult for vendors to operate in that
location during winter weekdays due to reduced ferry traffic. Councilmember Moore suggested the
Council have an opportunity to ask questions of Mr. Andrews.
Councilmember Wambolt commented James Street was a very congested area. He asked how the trailer
would be re- supplied and where employees would park. He summarized safety was an issue in that
location, particularly with people walking from their cars in the holding lanes to the trailer. He suggested
allowing trailers in that location may also be a concern to residents in the area and suggested a public
hearing before any change was made to the street vendor regulations.
Councilmember Plunkett asked whether direction from the Council to allow "Andrews -like structures"
would be sufficient for staff to proceed. Mr. Bowman noted that direction would indicate the Council's
desire to allow trailers.
Councilmember Moore asked about the number of street vendor applications. City Clerk Sandy Chase
answered there was a lot of interest; however, the problem was obtaining permission from adjacent
property owners and Washington State Ferries (WSF) discouraged vendors.
Councilmember Marin commented he was interested in pursuing revisions to the street vendor regulations
and suggested staff explore other cities' street vendor regulations. Mr. Bowman suspected other cities'
street vendor regulations were oriented toward carts. He offered to research cities with ferry activity such
as Bremerton, Kingston, etc.
Council President Dawson asked what direction staff was seeking. Mr. Bowman answered specific
direction was preferable. For example, if the Council wanted to limit the location where a trailer could be
located. He reiterated the Community Services /Development Services Committee supported the concept
of allowing a trailer at the James Street location. He sought direction from the Council whether the use of
trailers should be limited to certain areas.
Council President Dawson asked what issues prompted the revisions of the street vendor regulations in
the past. Mr. Bowman answered the 2004 revision was initiated by staff as a result of the difficult
experience with removing abandoned trailers. Staff's thinking at that time was push carts would
eliminate enforcement action when street vendors essentially abandoned their trailers. Council. President
Dawson observed the intent of the 2004 revisions was to allow for carts that were removed on a daily
basis. Mr. Bowman commented a cart could be left overnight as the ordinance did not require it be
removed.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 25, 2006
Page 4
Council President Dawson asked whether staff had the same concerns they expressed in 2004. Mr.
Bowman answered yes, staff's recommendation to the Community Services /Development Services
Committee was not to change the street vendor regulations.
Council President Dawson asked whether street vendors must comply with sign regulations. Mr.
Bowman answered yes, emphasizing the biggest hurdle street vendors encountered were the Health
District's regulations. Mr. Andrews has obtained the Health Department's trailer concept.
Councilmember Olson suggested staff research Bainbridge Island's regulations, recalling there were
trailer -like structures near their ferry holding lanes.
Councilmember Moore asked whether the applicant would be given an opportunity to speak to the
Council. Council President Dawson commented this item was not noticed as a public hearing and there
may be others who are interested in this issue. Mr. Bowman suggested if the Council was interested in
revising street vendor regulations to allow trailers, staff could draft a proposed ordinance and the Council
could hold a public hearing on the proposed ordinance. Council President Dawson observed the Council
was interested in exploring revisions, exploring other cities' street vendor regulations, and holding a
public hearing.
Councilmember Moore asked Mr. Bowman what Mr. Andrews said about the aesthetics of his trailer.
Mr. Bowman answered Mr. Andrews said he would do whatever the City wanted. Councilmember
Moore asked how Mr. Andrews planned to deliver pizza to the trailer. Mr. Bowman answered Mr.
Andrews indicated he would cook the pizza at his business and transport it to the trailer. He also proposes
to place a skirt around the trailer to hide the wheels and make it look less like a trailer. Councilmember
Moore asked where his employees would park. Mr. Bowman advised he had not discussed that with Mr.
Andrews. Councilmember Moore asked how portable the trailer would be. Mr. Bowman advised the
trailer could be moved rapidly if necessary.
Councilmember Plunkett supported staff developing a broad ordinance and obtaining information from
other cities for a public hearing.
Councilmember Olson inquired about Mr. Andrews' winter hours. Mr. Bowman advised Mr. Andrews
planned to operate seven days a week with consistent hours.
It was the consensus of the Council to have staff prepare a draft ordinance, research how other cities
address street vendor regulations, particularly with regard to trailers, and schedule a public hearing on the
ordinance as soon as possible.
4. DISCUSSION REGARDING PUGET SOUND REGIONAL COUNCIL (PSRC) VISION UPDATE
DRAFT EIS
Puget Planning Manager Rob Chave advised the deadline for comments on the PSRC draft EIS, the vehicle
Sound PSRC was using to lead the discussion on the update, was the end of July. He advised Snohomish County
Regional Tomorrow (SCT) would be discussing their collective response at their July 26 meeting. He referred to
council
Vision the comment letters contained in the Council packet, one from the City and one from SCT. He explained
Update ti
ff
both letters offered concerns and identified issues a needed e addressed as we as Draft that dd t bdd d well expressed
P
Rzs support for the process. He emphasized the need not to lose track of the multi- county policies that were
adopted via the PSRC and applied to the four counties in the region. He noted in addition to the regional
2020 plan, there were multi- county policies that each jurisdiction must acknowledge and reflect in their
Comprehensive Plans. As this process continued, the multi- county policies would be provided along with
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 25, 2006
Page 5
the supplemental EIS which would contain a preferred alternative. He recalled PSRC explored four
alternatives in the EIS; the final alternative would be a combination of the four. He clarified at the time
the supplemental EIS was issued, there would be a preferred alternative and a mechanism for ensuring the
alternative was implemented in jurisdictions via the multicounty policies.
Councilmember Orvis recalled when PSRC made the presentation regarding the Vision 2020 update, he
inquired about the possibility of moving the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). He asked whether that had
been addressed in the City's letter. Mr. Chave answered no, advising SCI's letter adequately addressed
the UGB. If the Council wished, the UGB could also be addressed in the City's letter.
Councilmember Wambolt commended Mr. Chave on the letter, finding it identified all the key issues. He
expressed concern with the tone of SCI's letter that Snohomish County was not being allocated enough
growth with no mention that Edmonds would get too much growth. Mr. Chave acknowledged it was
difficult to draft a letter that applied county -wide. SCI's point was that two of the alternatives envisioned
the 2040 population of Snohomish County at or below Snohomish County's projections for 2025. SCI's
concern was if historical growth continued, the vision would not adequately plan for the growth that was
likely to occur.
For Councilmember Wambolt, Mr. Chave explained the Office of Financial Management (OFM) was the
state agency that prepared and distributed population projections to each county. That county projection
became the amount each local jurisdiction must use in its local planning. SCT was the vehicle that
Snohomish County used to get each jurisdiction to identify population planning targets.
Councilmember Plunkett asked the amount of people projected to live in Snohomish County in the next
5 -15 years. Mr. Chave answered the most recent plans envision a population of 914,000 by 2025;
population in 2006 is approximately 670,000.
Councilmember Moore commended Mr. Chave on the letter. She asked for further clarification regarding
regional governance issues referred to in the last paragraph of the letter. Mr. Chave answered the primary
regional governance issue he was referring to was the multi- county planning policies as they guide how
the plan would be implemented in the region. He explained currently GMA encourages a collaborative
approach and jurisdictions' Comprehensive Plans were assumed to be consistent with GMA. He recalled
PSRC's indication that the 2020 update would not contain specific targets for each jurisdiction. The
concern would be if that changed, and specific numbers were contained in the multi- county planning
policies. He stressed the importance of tracking the regional governance issues.
Councilmember Moore referred to the next to the last paragraph regarding Edmonds' aging infrastructure
and increasingly limited options for funding, expressing her hope that PSRC would consider those issues
in the update. Mr. Chave acknowledged any concentration of growth would require serious infrastructure
improvements which would be difficult for local jurisdictions to fund.
Councilmember Moore asked Mr. Chave to elaborate on the last bullet in the letter regarding actions the
City has completed to increase density and improve housing affordability. Mr. Chave answered the
Housing Element listed several actions. For example the density cap in the downtown BC zone, one unit
per 1500 square feet was removed. He explained the density cap resulted in very large, expensive
dwellings. Removing the density cap allowed height, bulk, parking, etc. would control the number of
residential units. Other actions the City has taken include the sliding parking regulations and senior
housing regulations.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 25, 2006
Page 6
Councilmember Moore asked how successful these measures have been in improving housing
affordability. Mr. Chave answered government regulations by themselves were not enough. He referred
to a recent Seattle Times article regarding housing affordability region -wide. He noted although housing
costs have escalated tremendously, incomes have not escalated in a similar manner which has a greater
impact on affordability than government action. He acknowledged housing affordability was a concern
and the City was doing what they could to reduce costs of development and streamline permit processes
but there was a limit to what governmental regulations could do.
Council President Dawson expressed her appreciation for the letter Mr. Chave drafted, commenting it
captured the Council's comments and concerns. She commented SCI's letter and the City's letter would
provide a good prospective of concerns county -wide and for Edmonds. She pointed out the importance of
individual cities providing specific comments. Mr. Chave suggested the City may want to include in its
letter SCI's comments regarding shared values. The Council agreed to include that information in the
City's letter.
5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Natalie Shippen, Edmonds, understood Snohomish County voters would be asked in November 2007 to
raise sales tax and Motor Vehicle Excise Tax to assist with funding a new ferry terminal. Plans envision
two ferry terminals in Edmonds, one slip at Pt. Edwards and retention of the old terminal as a back -up.
The total cost of Edmonds Crossing would be $167,100,000 if built at one time and $171,300,000 if
phased as proposed. The voters will be asked to approve $123,400,000 or 75% of the total cost. She
relayed a still unanswered question, how Edmonds calculated the amount to ask Snohomish County
voters to provide. She referred to a recent Sound Transit meeting and discussion regarding the exactness
of the figures, how to provide information to the public, and the need for transparency and conservative
figures. She requested the Council direct staff to provide an answer to her question regarding how the
amount was determined.
Don Kreiman, Edmonds, described his recent vacation in Colorado where he visited several old mining
towns with 2 -story structures constructed in the late 1800s and early 1900s. He commented although
tourists flocked to these towns and the stores /restaurants catered to the tourists' needs, they did not
address the residents' needs. He pointed out one of the best things about Edmonds was the friendly
people who walked, visited local stores and made it a good place to live. He noted the buildings in the
mining towns, although historic, were too old to accommodate residential units above. He supported
smart development, commenting if downtown were not allowed to change and keep up with the times, it
would become a tourist town, which he did not want to happen.
Ray Martin, Edmonds, shared his experience observing the variance for the Five Corners PRD. He
recalled Councilmember Orvis' question of staff regarding variances and staff's response that everything
was fine. He noted if the inquiry was in regard to individual resident's variance requests, staff was
correct; however, everything was not fine with regard to variances in PRDs. He objected to the need for
18 variances for the 26 -unit Five Corner PRD immediately following approval of the PRD. He advised
an evening meeting regarding the variances was rescheduled for a daytime meeting without notice to the
public. He advised of his plans to continue his comments at a future Council meeting.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, commented on the City's failure to pursue SAFETEA -LU funding for
sidewalks and walkways and their apparent preference to use REST funds. Next, he referred to a
difference of opinion he had with Development Services Director Duane Bowman with regard to the
location of Hindley Creek. Mr. Hertrich contacted Edmonds School District suggesting they correct their
environmental checklist with regard to the location of the creek. He concluded developers must comply
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 25, 2006
Page 7
with all regulations, but apparently when the City and the School District were involved in a joint project,
the regulations did not apply. He referred to the open stream next to the playground that should have
been considered.
6. CODE INTERPRETATION REGARDING SINGLE FAMILY HOMES IN THE BC ZONE
Planning Manager Rob Chave explained the way code interpretations were done in the City was when
Interpre- staff issued a code interpretation that was substantial /significant, it was forwarded to the City Council to
tation on
Single provide the Council an opportunity to raise any issues with staff. As a result of an interpretation made
Fa
HoomesYin approximately 1'/2 weeks ago, Council President Dawson expressed interest in having a policy discussion
BC zone with regard to the issues in that code interpretation. Mr. Chave relayed his discussion with City Attorney
Scott Snyder who urged the Council when discussing the code interpretation not to make a connection to
the existing permit. Mr. Chave advised this was a building permit for an addition to a single- family home
in the BC zone. They did not rely on this interpretation when they applied; they applied under the
existing code. Staff issued a correction notice and they will potentially need to change their plans. In
discussing the issue with Mr. Snyder and staff, it may be necessary to change how setbacks are applied in
the BC zone.
Mr. Chave explained the issue as follows: existing setback for buildings in the BC are zero; buildings can
be constructed to the lot line. However, the historic interpretation has been the language for single family
refers to RS -6 zone which requires a single family house to be set back from the property line, even
though a larger building would not be required to be set back. He noted this interpretation provided
somewhat of an incentive to demolish a house rather than add on. He referred to the City's adopted
historic preservation regulations that support retaining existing homes. He referred to the counter
argument that business zones were intended to preserve land for business use and single family homes in
business districts reduced the land available for business purposes. He noted another counter argument
would be the possibility that because of views, people may want to build new homes in an area intended
to be a business zone. He noted if the City allowed its business zone to erode over time, there arose the
potential need to rezone other areas for business use.
To ensure it was clear this interpretation was not running with a permit application, Mr. Snyder
recommended rescinding the interpretation, which was done this afternoon; thus, the Council no longer
had a code interpretation for review but still had the policy question. Mr. Chave reviewed the Council's
options: concur with the code interpretation and reissue the interpretation or adopt an interim zoning
ordinance. Another option would be to allow the existing code and historical interpretations to continue
with no change. The Council could also provide direction to the Planning Board to consider this issue.
He noted the Planning Board was holding a public hearing on July 26 regarding downtown zoning.
Testimony the Planning Board has received has included concern with regard to existing homes in
commercial zones.
Council President Dawson explained if there was to be a change in an interpretation such as the
interpretation staff made 1' /z weeks ago, Mr. Snyder suggested that be addressed by the Council
legislatively rather than staff altering their interpretation of the existing code. She relayed Mr. Snyder's
recommendation that the City's code be clarified with regard to the Council's intent regarding the
treatment of single family homes in the BC zone. Her understanding was the reason for the interpretation
was a desire to preserve existing homes in the BC zone and allow houses in the BC that were damaged to
be rebuilt and not treated as a nonconforming use. However, there was not an intent to encourage
building of new homes in the BC zone as the intent of the BC zone was businesses. She was concerned
someone would purchase a lot in the BC zone with an existing house, demolish the house and construct a
McMansion. She preferred if existing houses in the BC zone were demolished, they be redeveloped with
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 25, 2006
Page 8
a business. She commented on the very large houses that could be constructed in the RS -6 zone with the
existing setbacks.
Council President Dawson summarized the intent of the code and the prior interpretation was to retain the
existing homes in the BC zone and allow them to be rebuilt/improved but not to encourage the
construction of new single family homes in the BC zone.
Councilmember Plunkett referred to page 3 of staff's memo, pointing out staff was proposing a change, a
new interpretation. Mr. Chave agreed. Councilmember Plunkett expressed interest in allowing flexibility
for older structures and asked whether the proposed new interpretation resolved Council President
Dawson's concerns. Mr. Chave explained it could create the potential situation she described; someone
could build a new home that did not observe the traditional. RS -6 setbacks. Councilmember Plunkett
suggested staff allow flexibility without unintended consequences. Mr. Chave agreed that was the
difficulty; non - conforming rules were very strict. When a property owner wanted to add on to an existing
home, they were frequently at or inside the RS -6 setbacks. He welcomed any guidance the Council
wished to provide, particularly with regard to homes in the 4th Avenue Corridor. He noted there had been
testimony to the Planning Board from homeowners downtown concerned about their ability to reconstruct
if their home were destroyed by fire.
Councilmember Plunkett observed the Council supported handling this legislatively, relieving the non-
conformance burden without unintended consequences. Mr. Chave agreed if the Council provided
general direction, staff could work with Mr. Snyder to develop 1 -2 alternatives that would address
existing homes within existing setbacks but not open the floodgates to no restrictions. Councilmember
Orvis agreed, suggesting staff prepare an ordinance that would allow retention of existing older homes
and adding on to existing homes within their established setbacks without allowing the construction of
McMansions.
Councilmember Moore agreed with Council President Dawson, and Councilmembers Plunkett and Orvis,
commenting she was particularly concerned about retaining houses in the 4th Avenue Arts Corridor.
Councilmember Marin agreed with the previous comments, pointing out the Council wanted to promote
businesses in the BC zone, not drive out existing residences, and not expand the opportunity for existing
residences to be enlarged.
Councilmember Olson agreed with the previous comments.
Councilmember Wambolt agreed with the points made by Councilmember Marin. He asked whether
these issues were being considered by the Planning Board. Mr. Chave acknowledged the Council was not
required to address this issue. It was presented to the Council because it was an issue that arose a number
of times and was an important policy issue. He concluded it would be helpful for the Planning Board to
have input from the Council with regard to the policy.
Councilmember Plunkett disagreed with Councilmember Marin's comment about not allowing any
expansion, expressing interest in allowing some expansion to allow existing residences to remain
economically viable. Mr. Chave clarified the Council direction appeared to be limiting expansion.
Council President Dawson commented if there were single family homes in the BC zone, she wanted
them to look like single family homes; however, the proposed interpretation appeared to do the opposite.
She concluded the Council wanted to preserve historic single family homes in the BC zone but not allow
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 25, 2006
Page 9
construction of new single family homes in the BC zone. She expressed her appreciation to Mr. Chave
Mayor for his assistance with this discussion.
Comments
7. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Haakenson had no report.
Council
Reports
8. INDIVIDUAL COUNCIL REPORTS ON OUTSIDE COMMITTEE /BOARD MEETINGS
Council President Dawson wished Councilmember Marin a Happy Birthday on July 30.
Council President Dawson, Chair of the SnoCom Board, explained over the years there had been a great
deal of discussion with regard to SnoCom working with SnoPak while still retaining their autonomy. In
her new position with Snohomish County, she serves as the County's representative on the SnoPak Board
of Directors which allows her to bridge the gap between the two Centers. One of the issues the Boards
have been discussing and preparing for is upgrading their CAD systems in a manner that would allow the
two centers to better communicate with each other. The Boards plan to hold a joint meeting to discuss
technologies and governance issues. She expressed her thanks to the Chair of the SnoPak Board, Murray
Gordon, for his assistance.
Councilmember Wambolt reported he was unable to attend the recent Port meeting as he was out of town.
He asked whether staff would provide a response to Ms. Shippen's questions. Mayor Haakenson offered
to confer with Community Services Director Stephen Clifton.
Councilmember Plunkett reported the Historic Preservation Commission was considering 8 -10 properties
for historic designation. The Parking Committee planned to meet in a few weeks; one of the topics of
discussion would be the request made to the Council that residents be allowed to park downtown after
6:00 p.m.
Councilmember Moore reported the Community Outreach Committee's next meeting is August 3 when
they will discuss a possible partnership with the high school and the best use of channel 21. With regard
to the questions posed by Mr. Hertrich, she asked for a report on why the City did not apply for
SAFETEA -LU funds. Mayor Haakenson referred to the report provided by City Engineer Dave Gebert,
noting the City had applied for those funds in the past. With regard to Henley Creek, Mayor Haakenson
explained what Mr. Hertrich referred to was a request for matching funds by a PTA a few months ago to
improve the playfields at Edmonds Elementary. In their application, the school district indicated there
was no creek or wetland. Mr. Hertrich disagreed with Mr. Bowman's determination that Henley Creek
was located within a pipe and that there were no wetlands.
Councilmember Moore relayed a comment by a business owner that highlighted the City's anti - business
reputation. She offered to provide the full story to individual Councilmembers and did not identify the
business owner publicly due to his fear he would encounter further difficulty from City Hall. She
explained staff was reported to have acted without regard to common courtesy, timeliness, and common
sense. She pointed out as part of their support of economic development, the Council wanted to retain .
strong retail, however, the policies may not be carried out by staff. She noted some staff members may
believe they are not allowed to make common sense decisions and as a result may jeopardize a good
business. She relayed that one employee was reported to have said to a business owner, "it's not your
opinion that counts, it's mine," noting that attitude was not business friendly. She asked for a review of
how staff was trained to make decisions.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 25, 2006
Page 10
Councilmember Moore referred to Seattle Mayor Nickels' website which describes the Kyoto agreement
that Mayor Haakenson signed last year. She urged residents to volunteer for the committee the Mayor has
established. She listed 12 actions in the agreement that communities could take to meet Kyoto targets:
1. Inventory global warming emissions in City operations and in the community, set reduction targets
and create an action plan.
2. Adopt and enforce land -use policies that reduce sprawl, preserve open space, and create compact,
walkable urban communities;
3. Promote transportation options such as bicycle trails, commute trip reduction programs, incentives for
car pooling and public transit;
4. Increase the use of clean, alternative energy by, or example, investing in "green tags ", advocating for
the development of renewable energy resources, and recovering landfill methane for energy
production;
5. Make energy efficiency a priority through building code improvements, retrofitting city facilities with
energy efficient lighting and urging employees to conserve energy and save money;
6. Purchase only Energy Star equipment and appliances for City use;
7. Practice and promote sustainable building practices using the U.S. Green Building Council's LEED
program or a similar system;
8. Increase the average fuel efficiency of municipal fleet vehicles; reduce the number of vehicles; launch
an employee education program including anti - idling messages; convert diesel vehicles to bio- diesel;
9. Evaluate opportunities to increase pump efficiency in water and wastewater systems; recover
wastewater treatment methane for energy production;
1.0. Increase recycling rates in City operations and in the community;
11. Maintain healthy urban forests; promote tree planting to increase shading and to absorb CO2; and
12. Help educate the public, schools, other jurisdictions, professional associations, business and industry
about reducing global warming pollution.
With regard to #8, she recalled seeing a City vehicle idling while staff completed their work and asked
whether idling vehicle had been addressed. She asked for a report on the efforts the City has taken with
regard to these actions.
Councilmember Olson reported the SeaShore Transportation Forum was working on an agreement that
would allow all participating cities to vote unless a group requesting information wanted only the original
cities (Seattle, Shoreline, Lake Forest Park and King County) to vote. Next, she reported the South
Snohomish Cities group was addressing Low Density Multifamily Residential (LDMR) that was
occurring in unincorporated Snohomish County. She acknowledged this was not a problem in Edmonds
but it was for other cities who border unincorporated Snohomish County as their standards were less
restrictive and allowed these open -air condominiums to be constructed 10 units /acre with drive aisles
instead of streets, no parking, etc; Bothell allows 8 units /acre. She advised a resolution would be
presented to the Council in the near future. She reported the South Snohomish Cities group was also
planning a dinner with the legislators and representatives from South Snohomish cities to discuss
legislative issues prior to the session.
Councilmember Orvis reported he attended the Hotel /Motel Tax Advisory Commission meeting where
they discussed how to spend hotel /motel tax and agreed to distribute the funds in the same manner as last
year. He also reported on the WRIA 8 meeting where they approved an Interlocal Agreement regarding
how a quorum was determined. They also discussed the allocation of funds for King County
Conservation District. One of the projects that was funded was assisting Issaquah with the purchase of
7.8 acres along Issaquah Creek.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 25, 2006
Page 11
Councilmember Marin reported some citizens took exception to Sound Transit's advertising campaign
related to the "Creature from the Black Lagoon" that referred to "the creature from Edmonds" (and other
cities). Sound Transit planned to modify the billboards to refer to "the creature from I -5." He relayed
Sound Transit's apology.
9. ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 8:50 p.m.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 25, 2006
Page 12