12/12/2006 City CouncilDecember 12, 2006
Following a Special Meeting at 6:30 p.m. for an Executive Session regarding a legal matter, the Edmonds
City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Haakenson in the Council Chambers,
250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute.
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Gary Haakenson, Mayor
Deanna Dawson, Council President
Michael Plunkett, Councilmember
Richard Marin, Councilmember
Mauri Moore, Councilmember
Peggy Pritchard Olson, Councilmember
Dave Orvis, Councilmember
Ron Wambolt, Councilmember
ALSO PRESENT
Kisa Nishimoto, Student Representative
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
STAFF PRESENT
David Stern, Chief of Police
Al Compaan, Assistant Police Chief
Stephen Clifton, Community Services Director
Dan Clements, Administrative Services Director
Noel Miller, Public Works Director
Kathleen Junglov, Asst. Admin. Services Dir.
Rob Chave, Planning Manager
Steve Bullock, Senior Planner
Scott Snyder, City Attorney
Sandy Chase, City Clerk
Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst.
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, FOR
APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
Councilmember Orvis requested Item J be removed from the Consent Agenda and Council President
Dawson requested Item K be removed.
COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, FOR
APPROVAL OF THE REMAINDER OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows:
Approve A. ROLL CALL
11/21/06
Minutes B. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 21, 2006.
Approve
11/28/06 C. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 28, 2006.
Minutes
Approve I D. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #92491 THROUGH #92652 FOR NOVEMBER 30,
Claim Checks 2006, IN THE AMOUNT OF $51.4,720.49, AND #92653 THROUGH #92830 FOR
DECEMBER 7, 2006, IN THE AMOUNT OF $433,413.74. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL
DIRECT DEPOSITS AND CHECKS #44242 THROUGH #44290 FOR THE PERIOD OF
NOVEMBER 16 THROUGH NOVEMBER 30, 2006, IN THE AMOUNT OF $757,903.85.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 12, 2006
Page 1
Waterline
Replacement E. REPORT ON BIDS OPENED NOVEMBER 30, 2006 FOR THE 2005 WATERLINE
Pro ram REPLACEMENT PROGRAM AND AWARD OF CONTRACT TO INTERWEST
Intergovern- CONSTRUCTION, INC. ($1,380,020.98).
mental
Services F. MIKE DOUBLEDAY INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES CONTRACT.
Towing
Contracts G. POLICE TOWING CONTRACTS FIRST AMENDMENT.
Deceased H. CONTRACT FOR DECEASED ANIMAL DISPOSAL SERVICES WITH THE S. MORRIS
Animals COMPANY.
Services
J. Dines I. PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT WITH JEANNIE DINES.
Contract
Res# 1135 L. RESOLUTION NO. 1135 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
Regional WASHINGTON, ON THE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PACKAGE BEING
Transportation DEVELOPED BY THE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION INVESTMENT DISTRICT IN
Package CONJUNCTION WITH SOUND TRANSIT, EXPRESSING RECOMMENDATIONS
FROM THE CITY OF EDMONDS FOR TRANSPORTATION INVESTMENTS IN
SNOHOMISH COUNTY.
Animal ITEM J: CONTRACT FOR ANIMAL KENNELING SERVICES WITH ADIX'S BED & BATH
Kenneling FOR DOGS AND CATS.
Services
Councilmember Orvis advised he would vote against approving the contract with Adix as he was not
comfortable with their adoption process.
COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, FOR
APPROVAL OF ITEM J. MOTION CARRIED (6 -1), COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS OPPOSED.
The item approved is as follows:
0
Ord# 3615 ITEM K:
Rezone 546
Paradise Lane
CONTRACT FOR ANIMAL KENNELING SERVICES WITH ADIX'S BED & BATH
FOR DOGS AND CATS.
ORDINANCE NO. 3615 - APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT FOR THE CLOSED
RECORD REVIEW HELD ON 1.1/21/06 ON THE APPLICATION BY MICHEL
CONSTRUCTION TO REZONE PROPERTY FROM SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
(RS -6) TO MULTI FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RM -2.4). THE SITE IS LOCATED AT 546
PARADISE LANE. (FILE NO. R- 06 -77)
Council President Dawson explained she would not support the proposed ordinance for the same reasons
she voted against approving the rezone application at the November 6 public hearing,.
Councilmember Orvis advised he also voted no at the November 6 meeting and would not support the
proposed ordinance.
COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, FOR
APPROVAL OF ITEM K. MOTION CARRIED (5 -2), COUNCILMEMBERS PLUNKETT,
MARIN, WAMBOLT, MOORE AND OLSON IN FAVOR; COUNCIL PRESIDENT DAWSON
AND COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS OPPOSED. The item approved is as follows:
K. ORDINANCE NO. 3615 - APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT FOR THE CLOSED
RECORD REVIEW HELD ON 11/21/06 ON THE APPLICATION BY MICHEL
CONSTRUCTION TO REZONE PROPERTY FROM SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
(RS -6) TO MULTI FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RM -2.4). THE SITE IS LOCATED AT 546
PARADISE LANE. (FILE NO. R- 06 -77)
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 12, 2006
Page 2
Water Rate 3. WATER RATE INCREASE PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDINANCE
Increase
Administrative Services Director Dan Clements explained for the past two years Financial Consulting
Services Group had been conducting a rate study for water, sanitary sewer and stormwater utilities. A 3%
water rate increase was included in the 2007 and 2008 budget with no increase in the sanitary sewer and
stormwater rates. The impact on an average residential customer would be approximately $1.45 for the
two month billing period in 2007 and $1.49 for the same billing period in 2008. He explained the primary
drivers for the rate increase were approximately $4.6 million in water line replacements, $100,000 for
replacement of the Five Corners pump station, $100,000 for replacement of a pressure reduction valve,
$90,000 for reservoir security and $150,000 for seismic improvements.
Councilmember Orvis clarified the 3% increase was on the water portion of the utility only, thus the
increase on a resident's total utility bill would be less than 3 %.
Mayor Haakenson opened the public hearing. There were no members of the public present who wished
to provide testimony and Mayor Haakenson closed the public hearing.
Ord# 3616 COUNCILMEMBER MOORE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, FOR
Water Rate
Increase APPROVAL OF THE WATER RATE INCREASE FOR 2007, ORDINANCE NO. 3616. MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Councilmember Moore found it remarkable that the City's infrastructure could be strengthened for
approximately 75 cents per month per household. She pointed out the recent flooding illustrated the
importance of keeping the City's infrastructure sound. She expressed her appreciation to staff for the
proposal.
Refurbishment 4. DISCUSSION AND ACTION ON THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD'S FINDINGS
of Old
M illtown CONCERNING THE PROPOSED REFURBISHMENT OF OLD MILLTOWN LOCATED AT 201
M
5TH AVENUE SOUTH.
Mayor Haakenson recalled that following the Council's previous discussion, he had contact with many
citizens, the developer, and City staff. City Attorney Scott Snyder suggested he be the clearing house for
anyone wanting to discuss the issue as the quasi judicial nature did not allow the Council to talk with
citizens. Therefore he recused himself from any discussion of the matter and had not participated in
Executive Sessions related to this matter. On the advice of the City Attorney, although he could not vote
on the matter, he recused himself, turned the meeting over to Council President Dawson, and left the
building.
Council President Dawson recalled when the Council previously reviewed the ADB's decision regarding
the refurbishment of Old Milltown on October 17, 2006, the Council remanded it back to the ADB to
develop specific findings with regard to how the project complied /did not comply with required criteria in
the code and the Comprehensive Plan. The ADB held a special meeting on November 30 in response to
the Council's remand and after much deliberation and discussion, the project was approved with minor
changes. The ADB's recommendation is now before the Council for deliberation and a decision.
As this was a quasi judicial matter, under the Appearance of Fairness Act, Council President Dawson
asked whether any Councilmember had any conflict or ex parte communication they wished to disclose.
Councilmember Plunkett advised he received several emails which he did not open because the subject
indicated they were related to this matter. During a telephone call from Roger Hertrich regarding an
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 12, 2006
Page 3
unrelated matter, Mr. Hertrich asked whether he had received the emails. He informed Mr. Hertrich he
could not hear any substance from him regarding the matter and ended the conversation.
Councilmember Olson advised she received the same emails Councilmember Plunkett received but did
not read them.
Councilmember Orvis advised he also received the same emails but did not read them.
Councilmember Moore advised she received the same emails and did not read them.
Councilmember Wambolt advised he received one email which he forwarded to Mr. Snyder. He received
two telephone calls from Mr. Hertrich, one encouraging him to obtain the tapes of the ADB meeting
because there was content not included in the meeting minutes, and the second asking whether he
received the emails.
Council President Dawson advised she received an email from Councilmember Wambolt regarding the
emails Mr. Hertrich referred to. She also received the same emails other Councilmembers received. She
received emails from Finis Tupper regarding the timing of the ADB hearing which she discussed with Mr.
Snyder. She summarized none of these affected her ability to make a fair and impartial decision. She
asked whether the Councilmembers felt they could proceed and make a fair and impartial decision.
Councilmembers Plunkett, Olson, Orvis, Moore and Wambolt answered yes.
Council President Dawson asked whether there were any objections to any Councilmember's
participation based on their disclosures. A member of the audience began to object and Council President
Dawson clarified only parties of record could voice an objection. Mr. Snyder listed the parties of record
as Mr. Gregg, the applicant; Mr. Hertrich; and Ms. Larman. He explained under State Statute only the
people who participated in the initial hearing were parties of record.
Council President Dawson asked Mr. Snyder to describe the procedural challenges made at the ADB
meeting. Mr. Snyder explained Ms. Larman, Mr. Hertrich and Mr. Gregg raised objections to staff in
three categories:
1. Public notification of the special meeting — RCW 42.30.080 establishes the requirements for a
special meeting. Staff and the City Clerk provided an affidavit to the Council showing the
postings and that notice was provided. Mr. Snyder explained a special meeting notice
required only minimal notice; 24 hours in advance of a meeting to parties who have requested
special notice and to the parties of record. It was not a generalized notice nor was it the same
as notice of application; it was very specific notice and only matters listed on the notice could
be considered at the special meeting.
2. References made at Council hearing or at the ADB to matters outside the record. Mr. Gregg
provided an extensive list via email to Mr. Bullock. He advised the findings the Council
adopted for remand to the ADB limited matters to the four elements stated in Ms. Layman's
initial complaint to the Council. The items raised at the Council outside the appeal were not
considered or used by the Council in its remand decision. Ms. Larman and Mr. Hertrich in
separate communications made specific complaints regarding reference by the Chairman
during the ADB's deliberations to a walking tour brochure of historic buildings in Edmonds.
As this was not contained in the original record, he recommended the Council by motion
exclude it from consideration.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 12, 2006
Page 4
COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, TO
EXCLUDE THE BROCHURE REGARDING HISTORIC BUILDINGS IN EDMONDS. MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Ms. Larman and other citizens who were not parties of record alleged the doors to City
Hall were locked. He provided an affidavit from Diane Cunningham, the Planning
Administrative Assistant, stating she staffed the door from 5:30 — 6:30 p.m. He noted
approximately 25 -30 people attended the ADB meeting and members of the Council were
also in the building for other reasons. There was no direct evidence that the door was
locked and Ms. Larman was not in the country at the time. He advised if true, it would be
a violation of the Open Meetings Law but it was outside the scope of this proceeding.
Any person who was excluded had the right to bring a separate legal challenge to
invalidate the proceeding. He outlined the two options for the Council, 1) remand to the
ADB to hold a new deliberation or 2) proceed with considering the matter.
Council President Dawson asked Councilmembers who were in the building that night to comment.
Councilmember Olson advised she arrived at approximately 6:15 p.m. for a South Snohomish Cities
meeting at 6:30 p.m. and was at the door admitting people and recalled Diane Cunningham was also
there. She advised there were people who arrived after 6:30 for the South Snohomish Cities meeting who
were able to get in. Couneilmembers Marin and Moore advised they also attended the South Snohomish
Cities meeting. Councilmember Wambolt was also at the meeting and agreed with Councilmember
Olson's description.
Mr. Snyder advised this was a matter for Council discretion whether to proceed or remand to the ADB.
The only direct evidence was that the door was open. Council President Dawson advised that barring any
evidence other than that the door was unlocked, the Council would proceed.
Mr. Snyder reviewed issues contained in a complaint submitted by Mr. Hertrich, first whether the
provisions of the Comprehensive Plan and zoning ordinance had been complied with in regard to square
footage. He recalled a question was raised at the first hearing whether the square footage of new
construction was less than the SEPA threshold and therefore properly noticed. The second issue was a
challenge to the information in the record; the ADB's recommendations as based on staff notification and
decision rather than a direct square footage measurement. He suggested the Council address this during
its deliberations — whether there was sufficient evidence. The third issue Mr. Hertrich raised was the
ADB confirmed by their comments that the building was boxy, long, and monotonous and that the ADB
redesigned the building. Mr. Snyder advised the ADB could condition approval and the Council on
appeal, under Chapter 20.05.040, had the right to affirm, modify or reverse the actions of the Hearing
Examiner or ADB. Again, he recommended this be addressed during the Council's deliberations. The
fourth issue raised by Mr. Hertrich was the ADB's decision was in error because new information was
accepted. He referred to the Council's motion to exclude evidence regarding the walking tour. He
suggested the Council's deliberations and Findings of Fact address these issues. He summarized the
matter was before the Council for a final decision and the record was closed.
Councilmember Wambolt asked whether the application would be handled differently if the square
footage of new construction was over 4,000. Mr. Snyder answered there would be a different hearing
process, different public notification and different land owner notification.
Council President Dawson remanded to Council for deliberation.
COUNCILMEMBER MOORE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, TO
APPROVE THE ADB'S RECOMMENDATIONS AS WRITTEN.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 12, 2006
Page 5
Councilmember Plunkett recalled at the October 17 meeting his focus was on the historic preservation
aspect. The existing code requires an application be sensitive to the historic character of downtown;
however, as much as he would like to hold an applicant to the term "sensitive" it was an inexact,
undefined word. He recalled he also referenced open space at the October 17 meeting and via discussions
with Mr. Snyder, realized the standards for open space also were not sufficient. He referred to ECDC
20.10.070 which requires long, massive, unbroken design of buildings be avoided. He recalled asking the
applicant whether the proposal reduced or maintained open space and found it decreased the amount of
open space. He referred to existing open space on 5th Avenue and on Dayton that had been moved out to
the sidewalk. He noted this was important under 20.10.070 as it increased the long, massive, unbroken
lines of the building. For that reason, he found the application failed to meet the expectations of the code
and he would not support the motion.
Councilmember Orvis referred to the criteria that long, massive, unbroken design of buildings be avoided.
He referred to page 40 of the packet which illustrated the north side of the existing building and the
proposed building, noting the existing building appeared to be two buildings, one with a flat roof and the
other a taller building with a pitched roof. The drawing of the proposed building appeared to be a two -
floor, single color building with a continuous flat roof, that actually concealed the alley. The photograph
and drawing on page 41 of the existing building illustrated the bay window that broke up the fagade had
been eliminated in the proposed building. He concluded the building design was long and unbroken.
Councilmember Wambolt observed the ADB's deliberation on December 1 was more comprehensive and
allowed him to determine he could not support the motion. He objected to the massing of the building
and agreed with the ADB's minority report authored by Mr. Michel who voted against approval because
of the massing. He disagreed with the three ADB members who supported the proposal and did not
believe there was massing. He noted the proposal to fill in the west side of the building along 5`h would
make it 70% longer than it was today with less modulation via the removal of the bay window. He
preferred adding more modulation rather than removing modulation, finding the same for the Dayton side
of the building due to the elimination of the open space on the first level and the addition of a second
level on the northeast corner. He concluded the building would look more like it did in 1913 when it was
renovated; what people liked was the appearance of the building as it had existed since being renovated in
1973. He did not support the motion.
Councilmember Moore commented it was not a matter of what people liked, it was a matter of whether
the proposal complied with the law. She noted the minority on the ADB was only one member; the
remainder of the members agreed that every criterion in the code had been met. She encouraged the
Council to uphold the law and approve the application.
Councilmember Olson commented the ADB stated the proposed project avoids long, massive, unbroken
and monotonous facades. Facades are broken up by new windows and doors in addition to variations in
building material used on the exterior. Windows are used and arranged in such a way to allow light and
air into the occupants of the project. Different styles of windows are used to add variety to the fagade but
are used in such a manner to add symmetry and balance to the fagade. There are planter boxes on the
street level to allow for landscaping while still enhancing the pedestrian experience on the street level.
She pointed out three ADB members found the proposal was not massive. She agreed with
Councilmember Moore, Councilmembers could not vote based on their personal opinion whether they
liked a building; the decision must be based on whether it complied with the code.
Councilmember Marin was troubled that the applicant was being penalized by the size of the lot; a
building on a larger lot would naturally be bigger. He objected to the requests to reduce the mass by
cutting the building into small pieces. He noted the applicant was attempting to remodel and retain a
landmark building; one of the options was to demolish the building. He found the applicant's proposal
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 12, 2006
Page 6
reasonable and that it addressed the issues of breaking up the length and height of the building with
interesting architectural features.
Councilmember Moore agreed with Councilmember Marin, pointing out that in addition to lacking a
definition of open space and sensitive to historic character, the City did not have a definition of massing;
therefore that was not adequate to reject an application. With regard to Councilmember Orvis' comment
that the building appeared to be all one color (page 40), Councilmember Moore noted it was a black &
white picture. She objected to making an important decision on redevelopment in the downtown area of a
2 -story building that would revitalize the retail core based on a black & white artist's rendering.
Councilmember Wambolt disagreed with Councilmember Marie's comment that some Councilmembers
wanted the building broken up into smaller buildings, noting he had not heard that statement made. He
pointed out it was possible to provide the appearance of small buildings. He concluded the Council was
complying with the law when stating the building was too massive and referenced ECDC 20.10.070(4)
which states long, massive, unbroken or monotonous buildings shall be avoided in order to comply with
the purposes of this chapter to allow light and air to occupants of the development and to provide space
for landscaping and recreational facilities. He found the proposal to be a long, massive, unbroken,
monotonous building.
Councilmember Moore referred to the portion of the code regarding light and air to residents of the
building, noting there was plenty of light and air reaching the residents.
Council President Dawson commented her perspective had not changed as a result of the ADB's review;
she did not find the proposal complied with the code. She referred to ADB Member Michel's comments
on page 89, finding the building long and monotonous. She noted the question before the ADB and the
Council was not how the design could be tweaked to comply but whether the proposal complied with the
code. She referred to the criteria that long, massive, unbroken or monotonous buildings be avoided,
finding the proposal did not comply with that criterion. She disagreed that a building of this size could
not be designed to avoid monotony, noting the photographs of the existing building illustrated a building
that was not monotonous or too massive and had excellent modulation. She did not support the motion.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (3 -4), COUNCILMEMBERS MARIN, OLSON AND
MOORE IN FAVOR; COUNCIL PRESIDENT DAWSON AND COUNCILMEMBERS
WAMBOLT, PLUNKETT AND ORVIS OPPOSED.
COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, TO
DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE FINDINGS OF FACT TO AFFIRM THE
APPEAL AND REVERSE THE FINDINGS OF THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD
BASED ON FAILURE TO MEET THE CRITERIA IN ECDC 20.10.070 WITH REGARD TO
LONG, MASSIVE, UNBROKEN AND MONOTONOUS BUILDINGS.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4 -3), COUNCIL PRESIDENT DAWSON AND
COUNCILMEMBERS PLUNKETT, WAMBOLT, AND ORVIS IN FAVOR;
COUNCILMEMBERS OLSON, MARIN, AND MOORE OPPOSED.
Council. President Dawson declared a brief recess and Mayor Haakenson returned to the dais.
Downtown i 5. CONTINUED COUNCIL DELIBERATION AND ACTION ON THE PUBLIC HEARING HELD
Business
Zones ON SEPTEMBER 18 2006 ON THE DRAFT "BD - DOWNTOWN BUSINESS ZONES"
INTENDED TO BE APPLIED TO THE DOWNTOWN AREA TO IMPLEMENT THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
Planning Manager Rob Chave pointed out the Council was in continued deliberation on the BD zones as
well as the downtown plan language amendments. He recommended once the Council completed their
discussion regarding the BD zones, they revisit the plan language to ensure it was consistent.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 12, 2006
Page 7
COUNCILMEMBER MOORE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, TO
ADOPT THE PLAN AS PRESENTED.
Councilmember Plunkett proposed allowing drive -up windows as a Conditional Use Permit (CUP)
downtown. He recalled the Council's preference not to allow any more drive -ups and suggested uses
such as pharmacies or banks have the opportunity to persuade the Council and community that they
should be allowed a drive -up via a CUP. He concluded the result would be there would not be any more
drive -up windows downtown unless the applicant met the burden of proof via a CUP process.
COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT DAWSON,
TO AMEND THE PLAN TO ALLOW DRIVE -UPS DOWNTOWN AS A CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT.
Mayor Haakenson pointed out CUPs were reviewed by the Hearing Examiner.
Councilmember Moore advised she would not support the amendment, recalling the original intent was to
make the downtown pedestrian friendly. The Planning Board also expressed concern with conflicts
between curb cuts /cars and pedestrians. She preferred there eventually be no drive- throughs in the
downtown core. She noted this core was a small area and there were other zones that allowed drive -in
businesses.
Council President Dawson commented there may be circumstances where a drive -in may be beneficial.
She noted there were existing businesses downtown with drive- throughs that worked well. She agreed
with requiring stringent regulation via a CUP. She expressed support for the motion.
MOTION CARRIED (6 -1), COUNCILMEMBER MOORE OPPOSED.
Councilmember Plunkett noted art galleries were slated for the 4th Avenue corridor; he preferred they be
allowed in all BD zones.
COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, TO
ALLOW ART GALLARIES AND MUSEUMS OF LOCAL CONCERN AS AN OUTRIGHT
PERMITTED USE IN THE DOWNTOWN ZONE. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Councilmember Orvis referred to his previous presentation illustrating his concern with the proposed
height exceptions.
COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT DAWSON, TO
AMEND THE PLAN AS FOLLOWS: 1) DELETE 16.43.030.C.5a REGARDING HEIGHT
EXCEPTION FOR BUILDING CORNICES, 2) DELETE 16.43.030.C.5b REGARDING HEIGHT
ROOF OR DECK RAILINGS, 3) CHANGE 16.43.030.5c TO INSERT THE WORD "SINGLE"
BEFORE "DECORATIVE ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENT," 4) DELETE 16.43.030.C.5d
REGARDING PITCHED ROOFS, AND 5) DELETE 16.43.030.C.5e.
Councilmember Orvis explained the intent of the amendment was to eliminate all exceptions except the
current exceptions for pipes, chimneys and elevator penthouses and allow an exception for a single
architectural element.
Councilmember Marin advised he would vote against the motion, expressing concern that eliminating the
exceptions removed options for designing an interesting looking building and would result in buildings
that all looked the same.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 12, 2006
Page 8
Councilmember Moore did not support the amendment, finding it too restrictive. She commented it was
the Council's intent to provide flexibility in the code so that architects and builders could submit their
concepts to the ADB for review.
Councilmember Olson recalled staff developed the exceptions as a compromise to higher buildings but
allow for interesting design such as a roof garden and a parapet. She agreed the proposed amendment
was too restrictive as it would eliminate that opportunity.
Councilmember Moore noted none of the proposed amendments had been through a public hearing like
all the other concepts had been. If the Council was interested in eliminating height exceptions, the
Council should approve the plan with the exceptions and then seek the public's input regarding further
changes.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4 -3), COUNCIL PRESIDENT DAWSON AND
COUNCILMEMBERS PLUNKETT, ORVIS AND WAMBOLT IN FAVOR; COUNCILMEMBERS
MOORE, MARIN AND OLSON OPPOSED.
Councilmember Orvis referred to the direction given to the Planning Board with regard to 30 -foot
building height in the retail core with a maximum of two floors and requiring a 15 -foot first floor. He
recalled the 30 -foot building height was allowed with a 15 -foot first floor to accommodate two stories on
a site that sloped down. He noted the proposed ordinance did not contain the two floor criteria. He
recalled a citizen questioned why 30 feet was necessary for 3 additional feet on the first floor, suggesting
for the additional 3 feet on the first floor a building height of 28 feet be allowed.
COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT DAWSON, TO
CHANGE 16.43.030.0.2 TO READ, "WITHIN THE BDI, THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT IS 28 FEET.
Councilmember Moore found this the most onerous of Councilmember Orvis' amendments, pointing out
a 28 -foot building height negated nearly three years of work. She recalled the Planning Board's first
recommendation was 33 feet with a 12 -foot first floor which the Council rejected. The 30 -foot building
height with a 15 -foot first floor, which has had four public hearings versus Councilmember Orvis'
amendment which has had none, was a compromise she supported. She found it ill advised, unfair and
illogical to arbitrarily eliminate 2 feet from the building height from the most expensive commercial area
in the City and an area that was vital to the City's economic development with no public or Planning
Board input.
Councilmember Moore pointed out the Chanterelle building was 33 feet tall; a proportion that gave it
charm, grace and historic significance. If the Council wanted to prohibit buildings such as that, it would
be advisable to get some public input. With regard to two stories versus three stories, she noted there had
not been any evidence presented in the past three years that two stories were better or more attractive than
three. The evidence provided actually said redeveloping to two stories was not economically feasible.
The Council decided on a 30 -foot maximum building height; what happened within the building envelope
should be determined by design guidelines and the ADB, property owner and architect. She preferred to
step -back the third floor or anything over 25 feet to protect the pedestrian scale of narrow streets and
preserve the continuous commercial experience. She did not support the proposed amendment.
Mayor Haakenson agreed there had not been any public hearing or public input on changing the height
limit to 28 feet. From staff's perspective, changing the maximum building height to 28 feet negated the
last two years of work. He agreed with Councilmember Moore that changing the height limit tonight was
ill conceived and ill advised.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 12, 2006
Page 9
Councilmember Wambolt concurred the Council had agreed to a 30 -foot building height and he would
not support the amendment.
Council President Dawson commented the issue of building height had been discussed a lot and there had
been a great deal of public input. She recalled the consultant recommended 25 -feet in the BD1 zone. If
the intent was to preserve buildings like Chanterelle, she preferred to preserve existing buildings in the
BD 1 such as Chanterelle. She commented higher building heights in the fountain square area that made
redevelopment economically feasible would result in existing buildings being demolished and new
buildings constructed. However, a lower building height such as suggested by Councilmember Orvis'
amendment of 28 feet was more likely to result in redevelopment that maintained existing structures in
the BD1 zone. She agreed if the first floor ceiling height was increased from 12 feet to 15 feet, the
maximum building height should only be an additional 3 feet. She concluded this was the best way to
preserve the historic character of the BD zone. She found the 28 -foot building height a compromise; she
preferred a 25 -foot building height. She expressed her support for the amendment.
Councilmember Marin commented on the Port Commissioners' reference to mixed signals they received
from the Council with regard to building heights for Harbor Square redevelopment, noting this was
another example of the Council sending mixed signals. He did not support the proposed amendment.
Councilmember Moore commented no one had ever said they wanted to preserve all the buildings in
downtown Edmonds; there were many that were inadequate and did not meet fire or building codes, many
were cinder block construction and there was nothing charming, historic or beautiful about them. She had
heard people say they were interested in preserving the charm of downtown. She reiterated there had
been no public input on 28 -foot building heights. She recommended the change to 28 feet be considered
as a future amendment after the plan had been approved.
Councilmember Wambolt recalled the direction the Council gave to the Planning Board at the March 28
meeting was 15 -foot first floor ceiling heights and a maximum of two floors in the retail core and a 30-
foot building height.
Council President Dawson pointed out she voted against providing that direction to the Planning Board.
Councilmember Plunkett commented heights from 25 to 33 feet had been discussed for the past three
years. He did not agree there had not been adequate public input just because there had not been input on
this specific amendment. He was satisfied with the amendment, finding the citizens' had provided
adequate input over the past three years.
Mayor Haakenson agreed there had been enough public comment on height limits; however, the
Council's direction to the Planning Board was a 30 -foot height limit and tonight was the first time a
height of 28 feet had been discussed.
Council President Dawson pointed out the direction to the Planning Board included a requirement for two
stories which was not included. She concluded 28 feet was viewed by at least three Councihnembers as a
compromise to requiring two stories.
Councilmember Wambolt pointed out the packet contained his proposed amendment regarding two
stories.
Councilmember Olson referred to staff's comment in the agenda memo that a 28 -foot height limit would
not allow a building like Chanterelle. She concluded even staff had concerns with this amendment. She
did not support the proposed amendment.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 12, 2006
Page 10
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (3 -4), COUNCILMEMBERS ORVIS AND PLUNKETT
AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT DAWSON IN FAVOR; COUNCILMEMBERS OLSON,
WAMBOLT, MOORE AND MARIN OPPOSED.
Councilmember Orvis noted the code contained an open space requirement but the threshold was 12,000
square feet; he proposed a threshold of 6,000 square feet.
COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT DAWSON, TO
AMEND 16.43.030.E TO START OUT BY SAYING "FOR BUILDINGS LARGER THAN 6,000
SQUARE FEET..."
Councilmember Moore commented there had not been any public input on this amendment; therefore, she
could not support it.
MOTION FAILED (2 -5), COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT DAWSON
IN FAVOR; COUNCILMEMBERS PLUNKETT, MARIN, WAMBOLT, MOORE AND OLSON
OPPOSED.
COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, TO
AMEND 16.43.030.C.2 TO READ: "WITHIN THE BDI ZONE THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT IS 30
FEET WITH NO MORE THAN TWO FLOORS ABOVE THE STREET LEVEL AND THE
GROUND FLOOR MUST BE AT LEAST 15 FEET IN HEIGHT."
Councilmember Orvis commented this would restore the original intent of the direction to the Planning
Board; therefore, he would support the proposed amendment.
Councilmember Moore asked staff to comment on the proposed amendment. Mr. Chave commented
overall this would not have an effect except in a small portion of the BD on 5th where there is an uphill
slope. In that area it may be possible to get an extra floor with a 30 -foot building height. He noted that
was the reason for discussing step- backs.
Councilmember Moore expressed concern with the use of stories and floors interchangeably. City
Attorney Scott Snyder advised definitions were the next task in the code rewrite. He envisioned the
language two floors above street level and the ground floor must be 15 feet in height could be read as
ground floor synonymous with the street level and two floors above that which he was certain was not
Councilmember Wambolt's intent. Councilmember Moore commented for that reason and others, she
would not support the amendment.
Council President Dawson preferred staff's recommendation regarding step backs with regard to how the
streetseape looked. She did not support the motion as currently worded.
MOTION FAILED (2 -5), COUNCILMEMBERS WAMBOLT AND ORVIS IN FAVOR;
COUNCILMEMBERS PLUNKETT, MOORE, OLSON, AND WAMBOLT, AND COUNCIL
PRESIDENT DAWSON OPPOSED.
COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, IN
THE TABLE OF PERMITTED USES, DELETE "NEW" FROM AUTOMOBILE SALES AND
SERVICE.
Councilmember Wambolt pointed out this would allow the sale of used vehicles in addition to new. He
noted automotive sales and service was not allowed in the BDI, BD4 or BD5 zones but was allowed in
the BD2 and BD3 zones.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 12, 2006
Page 11
Council President Dawson proposed the step -back rules in the BD 1 be consistent with the step back rules
in the other areas so that the building did not have the appearance of additional height. Her concern was
that there was the ability in the BDI to have buildings that are and appear to be taller than the rest of
downtown, something she found surprising in the fountain square area. She referred to staff's note in the
packet that as an alternative to a 28 -foot height limit in the BDI zone and to address the concern about the
interaction of slope and building height, the Council could establish a step -back rule for the BDI zone,
requiring a step -back for any portion of the building that exceeded 30 feet above the street or 30 feet
above average grade. Although she was still uncomfortable with a 30 -foot building height, she found this
an acceptable compromise.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT DAWSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, TO
ADD THE BDI ZONE TO THE STEP -BACK RULES IN 16.43.030.C.3.
Councilmember Marin advised he would support the amendment but did not believe it would ever be
used as that area was fairly level.
A tel I I [11110M 19 71IIIliI►/_ \►161 [1100 1`
Councilmember Wambolt pointed out 16.43.030.C.2 had to be changed as the existing wording, the
maximum height may be increased to 30 feet when the ground floor is at least 15 feet in height, was
misleading because the ground floor in the BDI was required to be 15 feet. Mr. Chave explained the
reason it was worded that way was the base height was 25 feet. Mr. Snyder pointed out that wording was
necessary to prevent an existing building that was remodeled less than 50% of its value from increasing
the building height without increasing the first floor height.
MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED (6 -1), COUNCIL PRESIDENT DAWSON OPPOSED.
COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, TO
DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN ORDINANCE FOR COUNCIL ADOPTION
TO LIFT THE MORATORIUM ON CERTAIN DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS IN THE BC
ZONE.
Citing the Council's recent quasi judicial review of a building that many people had feelings about and
the Council's inability to overturn the ADB's recommendation based on historical character because the
City's standards relied on the term "sensitive" which was a general term and difficult to enforce,
Councilmember Orvis suggested the Council begin a process that involved the Historical Preservation
Commission (HPC) to develop historical standards for buildings in the BD zone.
Mayor Haakenson suggested Councilmember Orvis' concept would need to be separate from the current
moratorium. Councilmember Orvis was concerned with lifting the moratorium on the BDI, expressing
interest in a moratorium on development in the BDI until a historical review process could be developed
to ensure new buildings in BDI zone had a historical flavor via either maintaining the existing historical
building or redeveloped to look like a historical building. Mayor Haakenson suggested the proper process
would be to lift the current moratorium and adopt a new moratorium on the BDI zone for historical
purposes.
Mr. Snyder suggested if the motion passed, another motion could be made directing him to draft another
moratorium on the BDI zone. He pointed out that would be a broader moratorium; the one proposed to
be lifted was only on development over 25 feet. Mayor Haakenson asked how long the City could
continue to have a moratorium. Mr. Snyder answered it had been a long time, a duration he was not
comfortable with. He suggested lifting the current moratorium and as Councilmember Orvis described,
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 12, 2006
Page 12
establish a moratorium on the issuance of all building permits for new construction and demolition
permits in the downtown area.
Council President Dawson asked when the current moratorium ended. City Clerk Sandy Chase advised it
had been extended recently and expired May 17. Mayor Haakenson explained Councilmember Marin's
motion was to repeal the current moratorium; Councilmember Orvis' suggestion was for a different
moratorium with a different legislative rationale.
MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCIL PRESIDENT DAWSON OPPOSED.
Councilmember Orvis explained his hope was that the Council would direct the HPC to develop
ordinances to hold buildings in the BD1 to tighter historical standards than currently existed; the
moratorium would protect the buildings in the BD 1 zone until the ordinances could be adopted. He
hoped this could be done in a timely manner so that the moratorium would be short lived.
COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT DAWSON,
THAT THE COUNCIL DIRECT THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION TO
DEVELOP ORDINANCES THAT HOLD BUILDINGS TO TIGHTER HISTORICAL
STANDARDS.
Councilmember Moore commented she did not understand what the tighter historical standards would be
and again, this suggestion needed public input. She pointed out a moratorium was a very serious thing
and she did not believe anyone would file an application for a building in the BD1 because of the
restrictions the Council placed on that zone. She emphasized the term "historic" needed to be defined
before a moratorium was adopted as historic was something more than nostalgic.
Council President Dawson clarified the motion was for the HPC to begin working on historic standards
and did not include a moratorium. She supported the concept of historic preservation downtown to ensure
the buildings the community believed were historic were preserved. She expressed her support for the
motion.
Mayor Haakenson assumed whatever the HPC developed would be forwarded to the Planning Board for
their consideration. Council President Dawson agreed it would have to be reviewed by the Planning
Board.
Councilmember Moore commented she misunderstood the motion to include a moratorium.
Councilmember Orvis commented that would be his next motion.
Councilmember Plunkett agreed specific language needed to be developed so that the community was
satisfied that new construction and remodeled structures met historic standards that reflected the character
and the will of the community. That could be achieved via the HPC developing language for input by the
Council and review and hearings by the Planning Board. He expressed his support for the motion.
Councilmember Marin commented the work of the HPC to date made it optional for the property owner
to have their building declared historic and providing the owner with options. He was hesitant to support
the motion as worded in the fear it would lock owners in and tell them what they could /could not do with
their building.
Councilmember Plunkett commented the intent of the motion was not to establish an historic district such
as Pioneer Square in downtown Seattle. He agreed the only process for historic structures today was
voluntary; the motion addressed specific design guidelines so that new construction or a remodel would
meet the intent of sensitive to historic character.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 12, 2006
Page 13
Councilmember Moore commented the Council still had not passed design guidelines although they had
been a Council priority for some time. She questioned how a process to develop historic design
guidelines would be dovetailed with the design guidelines that were already in process. Councilmember
Plunkett was hopeful they would dovetail, that would be a good objective. The HPC's objective would be
to move as fast as possible.
For Councilmember Moore, Mr. Chave advised the Planning Board was holding a hearing tomorrow
night. Councilmember Moore envisioned those design guidelines would come to the Council before the
HPC could begin their work and if the HPC developed historic design guidelines, the process would need
to begin again.
Councilmember Wambolt indicated he would support the motion due to his belief the issue of historic
buildings needed to be reviewed because most citizens had a different ideas of what it meant — they
believed historic buildings were protected and that the owner could not demolish a building designated as
historic.
Councilmember Orvis agreed it would be preferable if the processes dovetailed. If a conflict arose
between the design guidelines, his preference would be to side with the historic standards due to the
importance of preserving the historic nature of downtown. He pointed out the importance of the City's
historical character to economic development.
Councilmember Moore agreed with better defining historic standards. She pointed out the downtown had
been developed over decades and only a few buildings could be identified as having a historic look. She
would support the motion so that the HPC could hear from the public what they believed was historic and
why.
Councilmember Olson recommended this effort be fast- tracked and incorporated into the design
guidelines currently being processed.
Mr. Snyder pointed out the motion did not refer to a specific zone. Councilmember Orvis advised his
intent was to limit it to the BD1 zone. Mr. Snyder inquired whether his intent was only architectural
features. Councilmember Orvis clarified his intent was an open -ended process for the HPC to determine
how the history of downtown could be preserved.
Councilmember Marin questioned what date would be frozen as "historic." He pointed out in Pioneer
Square, there were a sufficient number of buildings constructed in that era that satisfied an architectural
style and it was appropriate to freeze that time. Conversely, Edmonds' downtown has evolved over a
long period of time. He objected to freezing buildings that were no longer viable. Mayor Haakenson .
clarified the motion was for the HPC to study historic buildings and what historic buildings mean and
make a recommendation to the Planning Board.
Mr. Chave commented if the Council charged the HPC with analyzing options for preserving downtown,
there were many different options. He suggested the HPC decide on an approach and present it to the
Council before forwarding it to the Planning Board to develop ordinances.
Mayor Haakenson restated the motion as follows:
DIRECT THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION TO COME BACK TO THE
COUNCIL WITH A RECOMMENDATION REGARDING HOW THEY WOULD PROCEED
WITH HISTORIC PRESERVATION IN THE BDI ZONE.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 12, 2006
Page 14
Mr. Snyder asked whether Councilmember Orvis was interested in a moratorium on building and
demolition permits and if so, in what zones. Councilmember Orvis answered building and demolition
permits in the BD zone. Mr. Snyder commented there were other vesting requirements in the code; he
clarified Councilmember Orvis did not want any vested right to demolish or construct a building in the
BD zone. Councilmember Orvis agreed that was his intent.
COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, TO
DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO DRAFT AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A
MORATORIUM ON BUILDING PERMITS AND DEMOLITION PERMITS IN THE BD1 ZONE
WITH THE VESTING PROVISIONS OUTLINED BY MR. SNYDER.
Councilmember Marin indicated he could not support the motion because the historic preservation
provisions currently in place allowed a person to decide whether or not they wanted to utilize the tools
available to a historic building. The proposed motion would handcuff those property owners.
Councilmember Plunkett expressed his support for the motion, pointing out he did not want anything to
occur in the downtown core until the community had an opportunity to define historically sensitive so that
buildings would be designed and constructed to those standards.
Councilmember Moore pointed out the most important issues were design guidelines and economic
development. She recalled Councilmembers Plunkett and Orvis voted against development on Hwy. 99
and were not in favor of much development in neighborhood centers and asked where they planned to
support economic development in Edmonds. She noted the budget kept increasing, tonight water rates
were increased and it would get worse unless there was some economic development in the City. She
summarized the more moratoria the Council enacted and the longer they dragged their feet, the longer it
would be before any economic development occurred and the more property taxes would increase or
services would decrease. She would not support the proposed moratorium, commenting it was doubtful
any applications would be Bled for redevelopment in the downtown area in view of the restrictions the
Council placed on development. She reiterated the need for design guidelines.
Mayor Haakenson commented the Council had had a moratorium in this area for a long time and if this
motion passed, there would be another moratorium on a section of downtown for another reason. He
asked at what point someone would reach the point of saying enough's enough. Council President
Dawson suggested Mr. Snyder provide any legal advice to the Council in Executive Session. Mr. Snyder
suggested he address the process and offered to describe the risks in Executive Session. He pointed out
the moratoria were two separate issues and would need separate legislative findings and reasons. The
first moratorium was a result of the Bauer decision and a consistent interpretation of the 25+ foot height
limit. That was overturned by the court and a moratorium was put in place on construction over 25 feet
until that issue was addressed. This was a different moratorium, enacted for different reasons in a
different geographical area. He offered to prepare a memorandum for discussion in Executive Session .
before the next Council meeting.
Councilmember Plunkett commented some believed that preserving the charm and character of downtown
was economic development. He pointed out the General Fund budget had increased $1.0 million in the
past ten years, sales tax revenues had increased from $2.4 million to $5.4 million in the past ten years, and
merchants' gross receipts over the past ten years have doubled from $30 million to $60 million, all
without taller buildings. That additional revenue and economic development was from preserving the
charm and character of the community. He summarized that was good policy, good economic
development and what the people of Edmonds wanted.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 12, 2006
Page 15
Councilmember Olson expressed concern that there were more and more empty spaces downtown. She
found the moratorium onerous as a property owner with a building that was not historic such as a cement
cinderblock building, could not do anything with the moratorium in place.
Council President Dawson agreed with Councilmember Plunkett regarding economic development,
commenting people came to downtown to shop because of its historic nature. She agreed there were
some buildings downtown that were not historic but she preferred to error on the side of protecting too
much versus protecting too little. She commented the recent process illustrated the code did not provide
clear guidance on being sensitive to historic structures and did not require redevelopment to be sensitive
to existing structures. She noted that came as a surprise to many although that was certainly the intent of
the drafters of the original code, to preserve the historic nature of the downtown area. She discounted the
concern with enacting a brief moratorium while the HPC developed language regarding historic
preservation, anticipating it may only require tightening up design guidelines to define sensitive to
historic structures. She pointed out there was currently nothing in the code that prevented the demolition
of Old Milltown; if the Council cared about preserving that structure, a moratorium was necessary until it
could be determined how historic structures could be preserved.
Councilmember Olson observed the original moratorium was only supposed to be for a few months and
ended up being two years. She emphasized moratoria had a huge impact on property owners because they
could not do anything with their property while the moratorium was in place. She objected to enacting a
moratorium that had such a large impact on property owners and not seeking input from the public and
the property owners. She concluded enacting moratoria often had unforeseen consequences.
Councilmember Wambolt indicated he was not comfortable voting on this motion tonight. He suggested
further discussion occur in Executive Session. Mr. Snyder agreed the risks could be discussed in
Executive Session. He recalled Washington Cities Insurance Authority's (WCIA) indication that
moratorium were the largest source of municipal liability and as such asked to be notified of any
moratoria. The Council's direction was to prepare an ordinance to impose a moratorium for Council
consideration at the next meeting. A public hearing must then be held within 60 days and the moratorium
was limited to six months absent Council action to extend it via separate action. He clarified regardless of
the Council's action tonight, applications for permits could be accepted until the Council passed the
moratorium ordinance.
Council President Dawson pointed out the moratorium could be lifted by the Council at any time during
the process. The moratorium would assist in preserving existing buildings until language could be
developed with regard to historic preservation.
Councilmember Wambolt asked whether construction could begin on the AM -PM property. Mr. Snyder
answered anyone with a vested permit right who had filed a fully complete building permit or filed a fully
completed demolition permit or had vested under the ADB vesting process could continue with
construction. Anyone could file any of those permits until the Council imposed a moratorium via
ordinance. He summarized the motion instructed him to draft an ordinance and did not do anything
legislatively.
Mayor Haakenson asked whether the Bank of Washington had filed any building permits. Mr. Chave
answered they received a Conditional Use approval for a drive -in; he was not certain whether they had
submitted for a building permit. For Mayor Haakenson, Mr. Snyder explained any individual could vest
by filing a permit under the current ordinances at any time until a moratorium was enacted. Mayor
Haakenson commented realistically no one could design a building and apply for a building permit in a
week's time unless they happened to be ready to go. Mr. Snyder advised the City's building code had a
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 12, 2006
Page 16
specialized vesting permit procedure to allow individuals who were concerned about an avenue for
vesting their right.
Councilmember Plunkett advised the HPC had already drafted a recommendation in anticipation of the
Council's frustration with the word sensitive. The HPC's intent was to vet their recommendation with
Mr. Snyder and Mr. Chave and then bring them to the Council.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (3 -4), COUNCIL PRESIDENT DAWSON AND
COUNCILMEMBERS ORVIS AND PLUNKETT IN FAVOR; COUNCILMEMBERS WAMBOLT,
MARIN, OLSON AND MOORE OPPOSED.
Mr. Chave referred to revised language that was distributed to the Council, explaining the intent was to
ensure the language was aligned with decisions made with regard to downtown zoning. He referred to
page 38, vehicular access and parking, and suggested the second sentence be eliminated. He noted this
language was provided by the Planning Board consistent with their recommendation there be no drive -
through businesses, and that there also not be any new curb cuts downtown. Since the Council allowed
the potential for new drive -in businesses downtown, that language should be removed. He advised the
revisions would require Council adoption of an ordinance. Council President Dawson suggested
language strongly discouraging new curb cuts except when a CUP was granted for a drive- through.
Council President Dawson suggested the Council read through the changes for discussion and adoption
next week.
G��II 7 i �1►[�19[K�]u iu 191►Y Ky
Alan McFarland, Edmonds, commented one of the City's greatest draws was Old Milltown, particularly
Old Milltown th
the south half bordering on 5 Avenue South, which filled the need for asit -down place where residents
and visitors could talk, eat, hang out and enjoy this unique space. Besides being a fun place to go, it
brought a lot of tourist dollars to the City. He emphasized the south end of Old Milltown was too
wonderful in its present state for the Mayor, Council, Planning Board or ADB to allow its present
footprint to be changed and "Greggorize" it. He envisioned if it were destroyed, residents and visitors
would lose one of the single most important historic attractions in downtown. He urged the Council to
slow down, do it right and involve the public in maintaining this unique piece of history.
suitdings in Don Kreiman, Edmonds, provided numerous photographs that illustrated the Council's legacy,
eed of photographs of several buildings on 5th Avenue and on Main Street that needed revitalization. He also
Revitalization provided photographs of the unsightly condition of the rear of several of the same buildings. He pointed
out the action the Council took tonight would allow these conditions to continue. He displayed
photographs of other areas that were not being developed due to restrictive codes including the former
Albertson's store, the strip mall across the street, a vacant lot on Sunset and Firdale Village. He provided
a photograph of a ravine in his neighborhood that was cleared and filled and replaced with houses. He
urged the Council to be leaders so that their legacy would be meaningful.
old Milltown Bob Gregg, Edmonds, thanked the Council for culminating a lengthy process, commenting his feeling
was "win some, lose some." He noted the process over the last three months for Old Milltown had been a
lightning rod for bringing the community together to develop ideas. He pointed out what was historic
needed to be resolved, whether it was 1913 or 1978. He commented as a result of Council comments
regarding the loss of open space, they were willing to make revisions to retain that gathering space, but
the quasi judicial process did not allow any dialogue. Mr. Snyder cautioned the Findings of Fact had not
yet been adopted with regard to the Council's decision on Old Milltown. Mr. Gregg offered to meet with
staff after next week. He advised the moratorium which he believed was aimed at 201 5th Avenue was
unnecessary as he was willing to work with the City.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 12, 2006
Page 17
[November 30 Lynn McFarland, Edmonds, reported the November 30 ADB meeting was poorly run and the Chair was
ADB Meeting rude and threatening and his behavior was beyond belief. She did not feel he was a person that should be
in a position of public trust, recalling he even invited a person who disagreed with him to go outside to
settle it. She requested something be done to remove Mr. Utt from the ADB.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, recalled a question was raised at the ADB with regard to phasing and how
Old Milltown Roger
square footage of the remainder of Old Milltown would be considered. The answer was there were no
rules with regard to phasing. Staff would determine whether the new square footage constituted phasing
and whether the two together resulted in a larger square footage, creating more requirements. The answer
also revealed there was no time requirement. He requested the Council create a new rule regarding
phasing that included a time limit to ensure the decision was not left to staff. He preferred the entire Old
Milltown project had been done under a master plan so that the entire renovation could be reviewed at one
time. Next, Mr. Hertrich expressed concern with the material choices on the exterior of the building
under construction by Mr. Gregg, recalling it was originally brick and now included brick, shingle,
horizontal and vertical siding. He suggested Mr. Gregg revisit the design.
Concerns re: James Clauson, Edmonds, commented he had participated in 21 jurisdictions over the past 39 years and
Development had never heard a Councilperson state what Council President Dawson did, that the financial
in Downtown opportunities of some property owners would be limited, a statement that was supported by
Councilmember Orvis, Plunkett and Wambolt. He asked whether this was getting close to a Council
taking, the Council ruling out any development in a major section of downtown that encompassed many
properties. City Attorney Scott Snyder answered he did not understand Council President Dawson or any
other Councilmembers to say that. The Council expressed a desire to take a legislative action but not any
plans to take any property. Any action the Council took would be in conformance with the requirements
of State law, the Comprehensive Plan, and zoning code. Any citizen who did not agree with the
Council's actions could appeal in Superior Court or to the Growth Management Hearings Board. Any
zoning moratoria would also be subject to challenge and must be enacted with appropriate legislative
findings and an opportunity for public hearing.
Anderson 7. AUTHORIZATION FOR THE MAYOR TO SIGN A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
Center Seismic WITH REID MIDDLETON INC. FOR THE FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER
Structural SEISMIC STRUCTURAL RETROFIT PROJECT -PHASE 2- DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION
Retrofit DOCUMENTS IN THE AMOUNT OF $169,299.
Public Works Director Noel Miller explained in 2002 following the Nisqually earthquake, staff applied
for a FEMA grant; the cost estimate at that time was $860,000. Unfortunately due to the number of grant
requests, the project was not funded. In 2005 when staff was notified of another grant opportunity, the
cost estimate was revised to slightly over $1 million. Unfortunately the FEMA cost estimating
methodology did not allow for the normal practice of a construction contingency for project escalation
due to inflation or unforeseen conditions. Once the City received the grant, Reid Middleton was selected
to begin pre - design work of developing an engineering approach and a revised cost estimate. Typically a
30% construction cost contingency is added to a project; thus there is a strong likelihood the project will
cost $1.5 million.
Mr. Miller pointed out the seismic retrofit included strengthening the roof which requires removal of the
existing roof, eliminating the need to replace the roof in the future, a cost of approximately $250,000.
Approximately three weeks ago Mayor Haakenson, Administrative Services Director Dan Clements,
Parks Director Brian McIntosh, and he met to discuss the project. They concluded there was good value
and benefit to the community from this project. There are sufficient funds in the Parks Improvement
Fund 125 to finance the project. He relayed staff's recommendation to authorize a professional services
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 12, 2006
Page 18
contract with Reid Middleton for the design of the Frances Anderson Center seismic structural retrofit
project. Once the design was complete, staff would return to the Council prior to going out to bid.
COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT, TO
AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO SIGN A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH
REID MIDDLETON, INC. FOR THE FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER SEISMIC
STRUCTURAL RETROFIT PROJECT — PHASE 2 — DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION
DOCUMENTS IN THE AMOUNT OF $169,299. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
8. REPORT ON CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS
Community/ Community/Development Services Committee
Development
v
S ervices ices Councilmember Plunkett reported the Committee continued their discussion regarding temporary sign
Services
Committee regulations. The matter was referred to the full Council for further discussion.
Finance
Finance Committee
committee Councilmember Wambolt reported the Committee discussed the utility tax ordinance which was
recommended as a Consent Agenda item for December 12. The Committee also discussed Mike
Doubleday's intergovernmental contract and recommended approval of the contract and a 3.3% increase
as a consent item.
Public safety Public Safety Committee
committee Councilmember Marin reported the Committee had a follow -up discussion regarding court security; a
tentative solution has been reached and the matter was left to Judge Fair and the President of the Edmonds
Police Officers Association. The Committee had its final discussion on barking dogs and concluded there
were adequate mechanisms in place. With regard to cat enforcement, the Committee requested the City
Attorney draft language for the Committee's review to protect adjacent property owners, the animal and
the owner. The Committee then discussed and recommended approval of a professional services contract
with Jeannie Dines, discussed and recommended approval of four police towing contracts, and discussed
and recommended approval of a contract with S. Morris Company for deceased animal disposal; these
items were approved on tonight's consent agenda. The final item was consideration of the contract for
animal kenneling services with Adix's Bed and Bath for Dogs and Cats. Following discussion it was
agreed to forward the contract to Council with no recommendation as a consent item and Councilmember
Orvis could pull the item to voice his opposition.
EMS Biue 9. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Ribbon
committee Mayor Haakenson requested Council President Dawson appoint Councilmembers to a EMS Blue Ribbon
Hearing Committee and a panel to interview candidates for the Hearing Examiner position. Councilmember
Examiner Wambolt volunteered to serve on the EMS committee.
Interview
Panel Mayor Haakenson explained on September 3 Jay Clements, the son of Administrative Services Director
Dan Clements, was gunned down in a yard in Brier. The suspect arrested in that shooting has been in jail
in Snohomish County awaiting trial in March under $1 million bail. He was astounded to learn that the
Superior Court Judge reduced the suspect's bail to $250,000 and allowed him to go home for the holidays
to be with his family after overwhelming evidence showed he committed this act and he admitted to firing
a gun into a crowd of 50 people. The suspect was placed on home detention and ordered not to have any
contact with visitors or phone calls but computer access or text messaging was not addressed. The
suspect's mother told the Judge her son did not commit this crime and believed he would be found
innocent. Mayor Haakenson commented while he was happy for the suspect's mother that her son would
be home for the holidays, he emphasized Jay Clements was never coming home for the holidays. He was
appalled and astounded that the judicial system allowed this to happen.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 12, 2006
Page 19
10. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Court security Council President Dawson referred to Councilmember Marin's report regarding court security, advising
that issue had been resolved. She recalled the court's position was that security was within the court's
budget and a court hiring decision, it was within the court's responsibility to make this decision. Mr.
Snyder suggested a professional services contract between the court and whomever the court chose to
contract with for security services. She relayed this was satisfactory to the Edmonds Police Officers
Association.
Council President Dawson requested Councilmembers contact her this week regarding participating on
the EMS Blue Ribbon Committee and a panel to interview candidates for the Hearing Examiner position.
Councilmember Orvis thanked the Council for their patience during his multiple amendments.
Councilmember Moore suggested the public correspond with the judge who reduced the bail for the
suspect in the murder of Jay Clements and planned to write him herself.
Councilmember Wambolt provided an update on the Harbor Square redevelopment. He reported Al
Harbor square Dykes, the owner of the old Safeway property, convened a meeting of his group; representatives of the
Redevelo went
Port, Mayor Haakenson, Community Services Director Stephen Clifton, and he also attended the meeting
as well as a consultant who talked about the redevelopment of the property. He explained the property
owners were hesitant to divulge the details of their discussion and the only way he could participate was
by signing a non - disclosure agreement which would limit what information he could relay to the Council.
He relayed Mr. Snyder's advice that he could not sign a non - disclosure agreement. Mayor Haakenson
relayed his conversations with Mr. Snyder and his concern with signing a confidentiality agreement.
While he was in a different position than Councilmember Wambolt who was on the committee to report
to the Council, Mr. Snyder felt if Mayor Haakenson signed a confidentiality agreement, he would be
required to recuse himself from any further discussion. He advised Mr. Snyder was still studying the
issue.
Councilmember Wambolt reported he was pleased with what he heard at the meeting; Mr. Dykes was
proceeding in the right direction. Mayor Haakenson was impressed with the consultant's ideas for
amenities and concepts, particularly since he had only had three weeks to review the property. If the
other consultants were anything like this one, the project was going in the right direction.
Councilmember Plunkett asked whether Mayor Haakenson and staff would be involved in secret
conversations with the property owners. Mayor Haakenson advised Mr. Dykes and the Port
Commissioners were trying to create a concept that they would then present to the public. He noted one
of Councilmember Wambolt's options was to stay on the committee although he could not report to the
Council and it may impact his ability to vote on future development. He noted Councilmember Marin
and others who served on the Hwy. 99 taskforce had made decisions regarding that area and were not
required to recuse themselves. He concluded the process seemed to be on the right track and a "quiet
period" to allow the property owners to develop a plan was not unreasonable. Councilmember Wambolt
agreed. Mayor Haakenson pointed out if the development were proposed as a contract rezone, it would
be reviewed by the Council.
So. Snohomishl Councilmember Olson reported the South Snohomish Cities, comprised of a representative of the Port and
cities City Councilmembers from eight cities, met recently with Snohomish County Executive Aaron Reardon.
She thanked the Edmonds Councilmembers who also attended the meeting.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 12, 2006
Page 20
Councilmember Marin volunteered to serve on both the EMS Blue Ribbon Committee and the panel to
interview candidates for the Hearing Examiner position. At the request of Student Representative Kisa
student Rep. Nishimoto who had to leave early, he advised the Edmonds - Woodway High School food drive had been
Report extended to December 14. Last weekend they held a 24 -hour food drive at Top Foods, raising $900 and
collecting 2,000 cans. Their toy drive ends tomorrow; toys will be donated to the Ryder House and the
food will be donated to Edmonds Food Bank. Mayor Haakenson added that Meadowdale High School
was also conducting a food drive.
cities & ToWns Mayor Haakenson advised next week's agenda included a presentation from the Cities and Towns
Legislative legislative committee regarding a legislative agenda for the cities and towns in Snohomish County. He
committee had made presentations to Lynnwood, Mukilteo and Woodway Councils. He noted it was appropriate for
the cities in Snohomish County to come together to do work in Olympia to counteract the work done by
King County and Pierce County.
11. ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:10 p.m.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 12, 2006
Page 21