Old Milltown may head to court

EDMONDS

Developer Bob Gregg is challenging in Snohomish County Superior Court the Edmonds City Council’s denial of his application to renovate Old Milltown shopping complex.

“It’s not my choice,” said Gregg of the petition filed Jan. 25 by Gregg Production Associates and Bridge Architects. He said an appeal in Superior Court of the Council’s decision to uphold an appeal which reversed the city Architectural Design Board’s decision favoring the project and deny Gregg’s application is the only avenue open to him by law.

The action, according to Edmonds city attorney Scott Snyder, is a lawsuit but doesn’t seek monetary damages. He said the city is obligated to defend the council’s decision.

Also named in the action is Elisabeth Larman, a resident who appealed the design board decision, and Roger Hertrich, a citizen activist who asked to be a party of record in the action. Legally, they must be named but it’s up to them whether or not they want to participate with the city, Snyder said.

Both Larman and Hertrich said they are looking into their options.

Gregg said his legal team told him the action could take up to a year to resolve in the courts; Snyder believes it will take two or three months.

Running concurrent to the suit is Gregg’s land-use application before the design board for a revised plan for Old Milltown. Gregg bought the property last year for $3.2 million with the intention of renovating it to provide new commercial, office, retail and restaurant spaces. The design board is scheduled to hear the application Wednesday, Feb. 7, and could render a decision that same evening.

Although he prefers his original plan, Gregg said the revamped proposal basically leaves the building untouched from the concrete ramp on the Dayton Street side eastward.

Gregg said the deadline for filing the appeal and uncertainty as to when the design board would review his latest application led to the overlap. He can withdraw the lawsuit or the new application, if he so chooses.

In a 4-3 vote on Dec. 19, the council rejected the $2.5 million renovation plan that was twice approved by the design board. Council members opposing it cited a section of the city’s development code that forbids “long, massive, unbroken or monotonous” structures.

Gregg said his proposal was for a building that was “anything but” those adjectives, pointing to its “windows, indents, awnings, cornices, medallions … you have everything in Michael Plunkett’s historical preservation plan.”

Plunkett is a council member and sits on the city’s Historical Preservation Commission.

Voting to uphold Larman’s appeal were Plunkett, Dave Orvis, Deanna Dawson and Ron Wambolt. Richard Marin, Mauri Moore and Peggy Pritchard Olson felt the plan met code requirements.

Wambolt, considered a swing vote on the matter, admitted “absolute total surprise” over Gregg’s court action. He said he was confident an acceptable alternative would be worked out.

Gregg said he told Wambolt and city Development Services director Duane Bowman in a meeting after the vote that it was his intention to appeal the decision.

Gregg said his appeal stemmed from frustration over development codes that are “likely unconstitutional” due to their ambiguity and vagueness. “There’s not a single objective person who can tell you what ‘long … unbroken … monotonous’ is,” he said, adding that that the dissenting council members based their decision on personal opinions, not whether it fulfilled code requirements.

“The ADB needs to look carefully at applications and apply codes and laws as they exist … and then if it (their decision) is appealed … the City Council should do the same thing,” he said. “(The council needs) to leave their politics at home.

“Those four say with their vote they represent the people who elected them. I’m sorry, but that’s not what they are charged with. They are charged with applying (codes) as they are written.

“We can build anything they want,” he said. “But we can’t build what’s in (the council’s) imagination.

“This is a watershed event,” Gregg concluded. “It’s like Scott (Snyder) keeps trying to tell them (the Council) — there are very expensive consequences to these actions.”