The Point Edwards development was originally approved by the Architectural Design Board (ADB) under file number ADB-2002-226 for 295 units. In 2005, the ADB approved an increase in the number of units at Point Edwards to 350 units, which is still below the maximum 419 units allowed by the Point Edwards Master Plan. To date, 261 residential units have been constructed at Point Edwards. Building 10 was also the subject of further design review in 2006 under file number ADB-2006-97. Currently, the applicant has proposed to revise the design of Building 10 from what was approved by the ADB in 2002 and 2006, including an increase to the number of units provided within Building 10. The proposed Building 10 would hold 85 units at Point Edwards for a total of 346 units at the site.
At its May 15, 2013 meeting, the ADB reviewed and approved a revision to Building 10 of the Point Edwards development, which is the last of the buildings to be constructed for the Point Edwards multi-family master plan development. On appeal, the Edmonds City Council remanded the proposal back to the ADB in order for the ADB to enter findings and conclusions consistent with their May 15, 2013 vote. On August 7, 2013 the ADB adopted findings and conclusions in support of their previous vote on Building 10. The City of Edmonds has received four appeals of the ADB decision on Point Edwards Building 10.
The City Council began the closed-record review hearing on Tuesday, October 15, 2013. The City Council will continue review of the appeals at their November 14, 2013 Council meeting. A video of the October 15, 2013 Council meeting on this matter is available at this link.
At the October 15, 2013 closed record review, special counsel to the Council Carol Morris offered to prepare an appeal index to aid the Council in review of the appeal issues and the Council accepted this offer. Ms. Morris prepared a color coded annotated version of the ADB's Findings and Conclusion with colors matching the various appeals and applicants responses to the appeal issues. Below are links to the color coded ADB Findings and Conclusion, appeals and applicants responses as prepared by Ms. Morris:
Color coded annotated version of the ADB's Findings and Conclusions
Color coded Inadomi appeal and Applicant responses
Color coded Waggner appeal and Applicant responses
Color coded Town of Woodway appeal and Applicant responses
Color coded Widing and Fleming appeal and Applicant responses
Closed Record Appeal
A closed record appeal means an administrative appeal on the record to the City Council, following an open record public hearing on a development project permit application when the appeal is on the record with no new evidence nor information allowed to be submitted, except as provided in ECDC 20.07.005.B, and only appeal argument allowed.
Only parties of record are allowed to testify at the closed record appeal or submit responses to the written arguments that are submitted as identified in the timeline below. ECDC 20.07.003.B defines parties of record as:
||Any person who testified at the open record public hearing on the application;|
||Any person who individually submits written comments concerning the application at the open record public hearing (or to staff if an appeal of a Type II decision). Persons who have only signed petitions are not parties of record; and/or|
||The City of Edmonds|
Record on Appeal
Pursuant to Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 20.07.005.A, closed record appeals shall be based on the record established at the open record hearing before the hearing body/officer (the Architectural Design Board in this instance), which includes the written decision of the hearing body/officer, copies of any exhibits admitted into the record, and official transcript, minutes or tape recording of the proceedings.
The official record on appeal for the Point Edwards Building 10 design review is posted below. The first link is to all of the written materials associated with the record including the Architectural Design Board decision, staff report and other exhibits admitted into the record. This written record has been Bates Stamped with sequential numbers (0001 to 0640), which are located at the bottom of each page. This will help the City Council and parties of record identify and reference specific sections of the record. A verbatim transcript of the May 15, 2013 hearing has been prepared and a link to the transcript is also provided below. Also included below are links to the minutes and the audio file from the August 7, 2013 ADB meeting.
The written record for the Building 10 design review application is available by clicking here. (Note this is a large file at 640 pages and 71 mb). A table of contents for the written record is available at this link.
A verbatim transcript of the May 15, 2013 Architectural Design Board meeting is available at this link.
Minutes from the City Council's July 2, 2013 meeting where the Council remanded the decision back to the ADB from Findings and Conclusions are availble at this link.
The minutes from the August 7, 2013 Architectural Design Board meeting are available at this link.
The audio file from the August 7, 2013 Architectural Design Board meeting is availabe at this link (Note this is a large file at 104 mb). The Building 10 item begins at 2:15 minutes into the file and runs to 43:40 minutes.
Four appeals of the Architectural Design Board's decision have been received by the City of Edmonds. Each appeal is available by clicking on the appeal file number below.
|Appeal File Number||Appellants|
|APL20130006||Thomas Waggner et al.|
|APL20130007||Town of Woodway|
|APL20130008||Widing and Fleming|
ECDC 20.07.005.D provides appellants an opportunity to submit written arguments, and parties of record and the applicant an opportunity to respond to those written arguments on a prescribed timeline. The deadlines for submission of written arguments is as follows:
|If you are an appellant (one of the persons listed above) and you wish to submit written arguments, you must submit any written argument by September 27, 2013.|
|Any party of record may respond to the written argument (except the appellant who wrote it) in writing and must submit the response by October 4, 2013.|
|An appellant may rebut in writing to responses submitted by parties of record no later than October 9, 2013.|
The applicant may submit a final surrebuttal in writing to an appellant's rebuttal no later than October 11, 2013.
All written arguments and rebuttals must be received by the City's Development Services Department at or before 4:30 p.m. on the applicable due dates listed above. Late submittals will not be accepted. The Development Services Department is located on the second floor of City Hall at 121 5th Avenue North.
As stated above, this matter is a closed record appeal, and no new testimony or other evidence will be accepted by the City Council except as specified in ECDC 20.07.005.B. When submitting written arguments and rebuttals, please reference the specific location in the record by referencing the Bates Stamped page numbers. This will help all parties prepare for the closed record review and during the review before City Council.
The written arguments received by the City will be posted on this page upon receipt. It is the responsibility of the parties involved to obtain for their own use copies of the written arguments, responses, rebuttals and surrebuttals submitted. This web page is intended to make that easier given the sensitive timelines involved.
Written arguments will be posted below as they are received. These arguments can be viewed by clicking on the author of the arguments.
|Appellants Written Arguments|
|September 26, 2013||Carla Nichols, Mayor, Town of Woodway|
|September 27, 2013||Douglas W. Purcell, Attorney for Appellant Waggner, et al|
|Parties of Record Written Responses|
|September 30, 2013||Kernen Lien, Senior Planner, City of Edmonds|
|October 4, 2013||Rick Gifford, Applicant response to APL20130005|
|October 4, 2013||Rick Gifford, Applicant response to APL20130006|
|October 4, 2013||Rick Gifford, Applicant response to APL20130007|
|October 4, 2013||Rick Gifford, Applicant responce to APL20130008|
|October 7, 2013||David Inadomi (APL20130005)|
|October 11, 2013||Rick Gifford, Applicant Surrebuttal to APL20130005|