Loading...
08/16/2005 City CouncilAugust 16, 2005 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 Richard Marin, Council President Jeff Wilson, Councilmember Mauni Moore, Councilmember Peggy Pritchard Olson, Councilmember Dave Orvis, Councilmember Deanna Dawson, Councilmember Michael Plunkett, Councilmember (arrived 7:10 p.m.) 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA STAFF PRESENT David Stern, Chief of Police Duane Bowman, Development Serv. Director Jennifer Gerend, Economic Development Dir. Noel Miller, Public Works Director Rob Chave, Planning Manager Dave Gebert, City Engineer Steve Bullock, Senior Planner Scott Snyder, City Attorney Sandy Chase, City Clerk Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst. Jeannie Dines, Recorder COUNCIL PRESIDENT MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DAWSON, FOR APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS Council President Marin requested Item E be removed from the Consent Agenda. COUNCIL PRESIDENT MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, FOR APPROVAL OF THE REMAINDER OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: (A) ROLL CALL Approve 8/2/05 Minutes (B) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF AUGUST 2, 2005. Approve Claim (C) APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #81449 THROUGH #81585 FOR THE WEEK OF Checks AUGUST 1, 2005, IN THE AMOUNT OF $143,923.78. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #81586 THROUGH #81741 FOR THE WEEK OF AUGUST 8, 2005, IN THE AMOUNT OF $342,476.48. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSITS AND CHECKS #41342 THROUGH #41479 FOR THE PERIOD JULY 16 THROUGH JULY 31, 2005, IN THE AMOUNT OF $911,880.00. Claim for Damages (D) ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM SYDNEY AND FAYE LOCKE (IN EXCESS OF $350,000). Approve (F) APPROVAL OF A FORMAL PLAT FOR A 9 LOT SUBDIVISION LOCATED AT 234TH 2341, Formal ST. SW AND 92ND AVE. W. (APPLICANT: MICHEL CONSTRUCTION / FILE NO. P- 92.d Ave. W & 2004 -96) 92 °`� v. W Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 16, 2005 Page 1 Downtown (G) Crosswalk Renovation Law Enforcement (H) Information Exchange Surplus Radios m Hwy 99 Grant (J) Application REPORT ON BID RECEIVED AUGUST 5, 2005 FOR THE DOWNTOWN CROSSWALK RENOVATION PROJECT AND AWARD OF CONTRACT TO FINISHING EDGE CURB AND SIDEWALK, LLC ($106,065). AUTHORIZATION TO SIGN MOU WITH THE LAW ENFORCEMENT INFORMATION EXCHANGE (LINX). DECLARE RADIOS SURPLUS AND APPROVAL OF SALE OF RADIOS TO EDMONDS POLICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION. APPROVAL OF GRANT APPLICATION FOR HIGHWAY 99. ITEM (E): AUTHORIZATION TO AMEND THE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES DATED MAY 4,2004: JUNE 1 2004• AND JUNE 22 2004 Council President Marin recalled a few weeks ago he announced speakers no longer needed to provide their address unless they wanted a follow -up response. One citizen was concerned that their address was Amend Council on the internet in the minutes, therefore, these minutes were being revised to omit their address. Minutes Dated 5/4/04, 6/1/04, and 6/22/04 COUNCIL PRESIDENT MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, FOR APPROVAL OF ITEM E. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Master Planned 3. PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING A ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT TO CREATE A MASTER Office PLANNED OFFICE - RESIDENTIAL ZONE (MPOR), EDMONDS COMMUNITY Residential DEVELOPMENT CODE CHAPTER 16.77. (FILE NO. CDC - 2005 -46) Zone (MPOR) Senior Planner Steve Bullock referred to an email sent to Councilmembers this morning describing an error in Exhibit 1, the Planning Board's recommendation, as a different version was inadvertently included in the Council packet. Mr. Bullock advised the proposed code amendment was a legislative matter. The applicant submitted a proposal, the Planning Board reviewed the proposal at three meetings two of which were public hearings, and the Planning Board provided a recommendation. Initially the applicant submitted a consolidated application, rezone and code amendment, for the property located between Main and Bell Street on the west side of Sunset Avenue. Because they proposed a rezone along with the code amendment, the language of the code amendment in their initial application was designed to comply with the direction of the Comprehensive Plan and was specific to the Sunset property. At the first public hearing, the Planning Board considered the proposal, took public testimony and gave direction to the applicant and staff that the code language be more general in the hope it could be used elsewhere in the city in the future. The applicant asked that the rezone be delayed until this was resolved and later formally requested their rezone be put in abeyance until the Council made a decision on the code amendment. Staff and the applicant worked together to make the changes the Planning Board recommended and held a second public hearing on the more general zoning designation. Mr. Bullock explained the language in the Comprehensive Plan that lead the applicant to make this code amendment addressed properties that have difficult circumstances coupled with transition issues between disparate types of uses. He noted the Sunset property had commercial development on Main Street, single family development to the north as well as a mix of multi family in the area surrounding the property. Because there were other areas in the City where the MPOR zone may be appropriate but did not have the exact same circumstances, it was difficult to include standard bulk regulations. The result was staff and the applicant developed a code amendment similar to the Master Plan Hillside zone where Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 16, 2005 Page 2 the Pt. Edwards project was constructed via a master plan process and where bulk regulations were addressed via the master plan review and approval by the City Council. He referred to the proposed language on pages 1 -2 of the Council packet, explaining it would allow for a number of uses that were consistent with single family and light commercial uses. The language describes via site development standards what the City would like to see the development look like such as no more than two stories above the street front; density of single family should not exceed 7.6 dwelling units /acre, the density calculation equivalent to the RS -6 zoning classification; and density of a multi family should not exceed 29.2 dwelling units /acre equivalent to the RM -1.5 zoning classification. Via the Master Plan process, the project would need to show it handled transitions between disparate uses via setback, building height, building massing, lot coverage and landscape features. Mr. Bullock recalled the Planning Board was uncomfortable addressing the height issue in a specific manner due to the City Council's discussions of that issue and that the Comprehensive Plan designation that resulted in this application was not part of the Planning Board's recommendation. As a result the language with regard to height in this code amendment was essentially copying the Comprehensive Plan language that buildings be two stories as viewed from the street. The Planning Board did not specify an actual height limit or how the height would be calculated. Also included in the Council packet was a history of the Planning Board's consideration of the application from the beginning of the process through their final hearing and recommendation Councilmember Dawson expressed concern with holding a public hearing when the public had not received notice of the correct language. She acknowledged it was unknown whether that would have affected anyone's comments and /or who might have attended the public hearing. However, she found it inappropriate for the Council to hold a public hearing and vote when the public had been provided different information. Councilmember Plunkett suggested the Council not proceed until the correct information had been provided to the public. City Attorney Scott Snyder responded a motion to either continue or table would be appropriate. Mr. Bullock did not consider the code language provided in the Council packet and the corrected language to be totally different, explaining they were very similar and represented only minor changes. Mr. Bullock reviewed the difference, first on page 2 of the packet, the language states "the maximum height for structures in the MPOR zone shall result in buildings not more than 25 feet (two stories) in height above the average street front." He pointed out on page 2 of the corrected language, all reference to 25 -feet was eliminated. He noted the Comprehensive Plan refers to two stories and there was some concern with what the 25 -feet referred to, whether it was 25 feet in the manner height was currently calculated using the standard average grade calculations or via a new method that referred to an average street front. The Planning Board recommended eliminating the reference to 25 feet. He noted this was discussed at the Planning Board and reflected in their minutes and decision. He did not find this to be a significant change. Next Mr. Bullock referred to pages 1 -2, the list of permitted primary uses. In order to allow a combination of the permitted primary uses, the Planning Board requested "and /or" be inserted after each use in the list. Mayor Haakenson asked Jonathan Hatch, attorney representing several property owners, whether he had any problem with the Council holding the public hearing on the language as corrected. Mr. Hatch responded while the language change may be minor, the structural change it represented was significant. He pointed out he was prepared to address the language provided in Exhibit 1 and there were completely Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 16, 2005 Page 3 different concerns /issues related to the language as corrected. He acknowledged the two issues were discussed at the Planning Board meetings, but the language in the two drafts was significantly different in the manner that it would be used and interpreted by the Planning Department. He noted this made it difficult for him and perhaps others to argue the language currently being proposed without an opportunity to consider it further. John Bissell, representing the applicant, indicated the change was fairly minor and had been discussed at the Planning Board meetings, however, if there was discomfort with the change, he suggested postponing the public hearing until all parties had an opportunity to review the corrected documents. Mr. Snyder referred to GMA Section 36.78.035 which states that before the legislative body chooses to consider an amendment, the change proposed be given an opportunity for review and comment. He stated that if the Council made a substantive change, the Council would be required to hold a subsequent public hearing. He suggested two ways to handle the matter — hold the public hearing tonight and continue it for oral and written comment or continue the public hearing without taking public comment tonight. He did not recommend the Council make a final decision tonight. COUNCILMEMBER DAWSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING UNTIL SEPTEMBER 6, 2005. Councilmember Wilson referred to the phrase, "average street front" contained in Section 16.77 and asked whether that phrase had been defined. Mr. Bullock explained it was proposed by the applicant in their initial application. The Planning Board was uncomfortable with that, therefore, it was an issue that would be reviewed as part of the Master Plan. Councilmember Wilson commented that phrase would be critical in how the language was implemented and it would be important to know what it meant and how it would apply in a development situation. He suggested further information regarding the definition and intent of that phrase also be provided at the continued public hearing. He questioned whether it was necessary to send the matter back to the Planning Board for a definition of average street front. He asked whether the Planning Board addressed that issue or only language as provided by the applicant. Mr. Bullock recalled the Planning Board was uncomfortable contemplating any form of height calculation that differed from the current calculation. The applicant proposed an average street front calculation but that was not supported by the Planning Board and the Board only echoed the Council's adopted Comprehensive Plan language regarding the area on Sunset Avenue. Councilmember Wilson concluded the Planning Board supported using the existing methodology for calculating building height. He suggested striking that phrase and relying solely on the current method unless the Planning Board provided a recommendation regarding what the phrase meant. Mr. Bullock noted the Council could also determine what the phrase meant. Councilmember Wilson responded it would be necessary to have language drafted and available for public comment prior to a continued public hearing. Mayor Haakenson pointed out the Council could also change the text at the public hearing. Councilmember Wilson commented it was difficult to take public testimony regarding the result of the height calculation if the meaning was unclear. Mr. Snyder suggested the re- publication of the notice of public hearing indicate a definition would be considered or staff /applicant could provide a written recommendation based on their request and the record. VOTE ON THE MOTION: MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 4. AUDIENCE COMMENTS concern re: Stephen Salyer, Edmonds, commented fluoride was a problem that most people were not aware of. He Plnoride distributed a book review of "Fluoride Deception," and encouraged the Council to read the book. He explained fluoride was a compound of fluorine, a deadly gas and was a way to "make people stupid." Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 16, 2005 Page 4 Observing this was the second time Mr. Salyer had provided information to the Council, Councilmember Plunkett suggested he also indicate the action he wanted the Council to take. Public /Private 5. PRESENTATION ON PUBLIC /PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP PROPOSAL Partnership Proposal Bob Gregg, a 25 -year resident of Edmonds, proposed an Edmonds Main Street Partnership. He began his presentation describing the Green Lake District in Seattle and how they dealt with issues such as building heights. The issue began contentiously, a number of public hearings were held, some Councilmembers favored increased building heights, and some favored lower building heights. Arguments were presented regarding economic vitality and about preserving and maintaining the charm of the old neighborhood. He noted the similarity to Edmonds. Mr. Gregg displayed a photograph of a building he owned in Green Lake for 30 years and described the evolution of the building since it was built in 1920. He explained the building was located on Woodlawn in Green Lake which was the equivalent of Main Street in Edmonds. Mr. Gregg explained in Green Lake, the City of Seattle expressed their intent to replace the 60 -foot zone where this building was located with either a 65 -foot or 40 -foot zone. Property owners, the Chamber of Commerce, etc. supported the 5 -foot increase in the existing height and many of the residents preferred the 20 -foot reduction. He acknowledged this became a very contentious issue. The City invited all parties to sit down with an arbitrator provided by the City to discuss what they wanted. The result was a committee that worked together for 6 -9 months. He explained in this instance the discussion was not an abstract, there was a construction proposal to consider. A model of the proposed building was constructed. Mr. Gregg reviewed the model, pointing out how the design addressed the concern with a canyon wall along Woodlawn by designing the building to look like two buildings. To address the desire for a 40 -foot height, the floors above 40 feet were stepped back. He pointed out the public and private open space in the center of the building, landscaping, brick construction on the first four floors, lamp posts, etc. He acknowledged the model had been modified several times before the final design that all parties agreed on. The end result was that the building was constructed on three properties — his building, a parking lot and a 1950s -style low rise apartment building. Mr. Gregg displayed a photograph of the completed building, identifying planters, awnings, 12 -foot ceilings, 40 -foot height with the two additional stories stepped back, courtyard with tables, banners, and street lamps. In place of the old buildings and parking lot, there were now seven new businesses with 50 employees that generated over $2 million in sales tax in their first year of operation. He summarized this was a good example of a community working through issues and developers and property owners reaching a compromise. Next, Mr. Gregg provided a photographic survey of several buildings on Main Street in Edmonds, commenting on the potential of several buildings and identifying Chanterelle's as a good example of taller first floor ceiling heights, transom windows, etc. With regard to the Edmonds Theater, he commented the theater was an asset to the city whose future should be assured for future decades. He referred to the National Trust for Historic Preservation that has a division for the preservation of old theaters as well as a division for assisting cities with a population of 50,000 or less with revitalizing their Main Streets via historic preservation. He joined the Trust, a 25 -year old organization, that has had 1200 cities participate in their program. He described booklets available from the Trust. The Trust also has 44 case studies available on their website to non - members and members can view all 1200. In an effort to determine how difficult a public /private partnership would be, Mr. Gregg investigated the ownership of parcels on Main Street from 2nd to 5th. He displayed a schematic of parcels on Main Street, identifying ownership of several property blocks. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 16, 2005 Page 5 To answer the question "why a Public /Private Partnership (PPP)," he cited: long term property ownership, property not for sale, high risk development, we /our public perception, potentially conflicting objectives, and a PPP providing an alignment of interests. He proposed the private property owners on Main Street be asked to contribute (quit claim deed) their property to the PPP. In return, property owners would receive one square foot of new retail space on the ground floor for each square foot of old retail space they contributed. The benefit to property owners was increased value, increased cashflow, reduced maintenance, no risk, no increased debt, and they retained titled ownership. He explained the property owners would give up their air rights — everything above the ground floor remained in the PPP. The PPP could then do whatever the committee recommended and the City Council approved. He noted this could be some one -story structures, some two story and possibly some three story; fiduciary responsibility would determine the most appropriate height. He explained the deliverable to the Council would include options for one, two and three story buildings and combinations, costs and projected revenues. He commented this was a model for many Main Street revitalizations and exactly what was used in the Green Lake project. He noted in the project he was constructing at 5th and Walnut, three of the four lots were contributed to him for zero dollars and a portion returned to them redeveloped. Mr. Gregg described the benefit to the public including that it assured revitalization, resulted in a master - planned project, provided more and better real estate, facilitated public input in the design (not just public hearings), provided public space, the height above the ground floor was in the PPP, and developer profit belongs to the public. Assuming there would be a surplus, those funds could be used to promote Edmonds, create public space, attract desirable businesses, or fund the performing arts center. He explained the public input would be via a committee that had membership from businesses, citizens, property owners, city staff, architects, etc. By having the space above the ground floor in the public trust, the property owners no longer cared about the building height. He noted the average amount the 1200 communities who revitalized their downtown via the National Trust for Historic Preservation program have spent was an average of 2 -3 times the city's worse case scenario. He envisioned any subsidy would be a very small amount per tax payer. Mr. Gregg explained there were two phases to his proposal, first feasibility and second, implementation. He proposed in Phase 1 forming a company, Main Street Partners LLC, who via an agreement with the City would negotiate and sign contingent contracts with property owners. He commented in discussions with several property owners, there was a high level of interest in this proposal. The feasibility phase would also include defining the scope; refining the parameters of the project and making recommendations including but not limited to setback, alleys, parking, and phasing; and input from the public. The feasibility phase would include development of preliminary design concepts including style and height options as well as development of a preliminary budget for both estimated costs and revenue. Mr. Gregg proposed to conduct the feasibility at no cost unless implementation was approved. He outlined an optional expenditure in the feasibility phase for holding a charette (budget to be developed and submitted for separate approval). He requested the Council authorize City Attorney Scott Snyder to work with his attorney to draft a letter of agreement to begin the feasibility study. He clarified his proposal was not to form the PPP now, only to do the feasibility. Councilmember Moore asked what Mr. Gregg's role had been in the Green Lake project. Mr. Gregg stated he was one of three property owners contributing property to the third party entity; in that instance it was not public /private partnership but a private developer. He served for nine months on the committee that developed design guideline for the Green Lake area, an overlay to the Seattle design guidelines. Councilmember Moore inquired about parking for the Green Lake building. Mr. Gregg answered Green Lake was a pedestrian zone; therefore, parking was only required for the condominiums (at a ratio of 1.6:1) but not the retail space. The stalls for the condominiums were located on two underground floors. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 16, 2005 Page 6 He explained Seattle previously required a lot of parking but now would not allow a project to build parking over what was required in the code. He noted the parking requirement for the retail was zero although via negotiations, seven stalls were provided. Councilmember Moore asked what Mr. Gregg would get from the proposal. Mr. Gregg answered he would get a great deal of satisfaction; his final proposal for implementation would include fees but he was uncertain at this point what his fee might be. Councilmember Moore asked how the existing businesses would be accommodated during redevelopment. Mr. Gregg replied the key to phasing was in deference to existing tenants such as building in an infill location first to allow the tenants to relocate. He noted there would likely be many tenants on the committee to address that issue. Phasing would also consider the expiration of leases. Councilmember Orvis referred to the comment that the risk to the individual property was high but the risk via the PPP was less due to diversification. Mr. Gregg explained that pooling /averaging reduced the overall risk and if there was a deficit, it was borne by all the taxpayers via the PPP. Council President Marin stated it appeared Mr. Gregg was asking the Council to approve proceeding with the feasibility study which would defer costs until the city proceeded to implementation. Mr. Gregg answered the city would not be obligated to pay for the feasibility, but implementation would include costs. He intended to keep track of his hours and bill at a reasonable rate with the hope of recovery. Council President Marin asked the cost of a charette. Mr. Gregg stated the charette was optional although several people have expressed interest in that process and many of the case studies in the National Trust for Historic Preservation utilized charettes. The cost could range from $30,000 to $100,000. With regard to the public portion, Council President Marin asked who would pay and how. Mr. Gregg answered some of those details would be addressed during the feasibility phase. Possibilities include a local improvement district, business improvement district, borrowing from a bank, or bonds. Council. President Marin clarified it was conceivable then that taxpayers would pay for this. Mr. Gregg answered it was very conceivable and the options could range from a loss to a profit. He acknowledged there was more potential for profit with increased density although the public was interested in less density than the maximum allowed. He summarized this was a way for everyone to get what they wanted. He envisioned a subsidy of $10 per month per taxpayer per year. Council President Marin clarified Mr. Gregg was asking the Council to approve a feasibility phase that might have costs associated with it and at the end of that process, a plan would be proposed to the public that might require them to make a contribution. Mr. Gregg agreed, envisioning a model of Main Street would be provided with the existing historic buildings revitalized and infill buildings replaced. Councilmember Moore asked whether there were any cities in Washington who had participated in Main Street revitalization via the National Trust for Historic Preservation. Mr. Gregg answered there were several. He clarified he was not necessarily recommending the city participate in that program, only that the Trust had many resources the city could utilize. Councilmember Moore noted in Phase 2, the framework would be developed for Council review and no money would be spent by the taxpayers until the Council authorized implementation. Mr. Gregg agreed. Councilmember Moore commented she did not see a downside to Mr. Gregg's proposal; the city would receive information at no cost. She recalled many people have asked for a model /artist conception of what buildings could look like; this process could provide that information. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 16, 2005 Page 7 Councilmember Plunkett commented he did not have enough information to determine whether there was a downside. He preferred the Economic Development Director, Finance Director and Development Services Director provide their opinion regarding Mr. Gregg's proposal before he made a decision. Mr. Gregg commented he did not disagree with either Councilmember Moore or Councilmember Plunkett. The people Councilmember Plunkett named were among those he wanted on the committee. He commented at one time the plan was to have his attorney talk with Mr. Snyder and then it was decided to seek direction from the Council before having the attorneys discuss it further. He explained the reason he needed a letter from Mr. Snyder to begin speaking with property owners was because the proposal depended on the property owners' interest in participating. Property owners would be asked to sign a contingent contract to participate, subject to City Council approval of implementation. Council President Marin suggested a phased feasibility study, where the early stage would include staff evaluating and reporting to the Council on the impact that participation on the committee would have on their time. Then Council could make a decision whether to move forward. Mayor Haakenson pointed out staff first needed to know whether the Council was interested in pursuing a feasibility study. Mayor Haakenson advised it was acceptable to him to have Mr. Clements, Mr. Bowman and Ms. Gerend serve on the committee. Councilmember Plunkett reiterated his interest in an opinion from staff before beginning a feasibility study as he had not concluded he was ready to proceed with a feasibility study. Councilmember Moore pointed out staff could not talk with the property owners about their interest. If the property owners were not interested, proceeding further was a waste of time; Mr. Gregg's proposal was to detennine their interest first. Councilmember Moore asked how long the feasibility study would take. Mr. Gregg answered 6 -9 months; however, that phase would be terminated early if the property owners were not interested. Councilmember Plunkett suggested Mr. Gregg talk to the property owners and report to the Council. Councilmember Dawson found it absurd for the Council to consider any formal action tonight, commenting there had been nothing provided to the Council or the public in writing other than a slide show describing an interesting concept but no details. She commented there was a great deal more due diligence to be done before the City Council authorized Mr. Gregg to talk with the property owners. Councilmember Wilson agreed, finding it reasonable to allow staff to provide their initial reaction /analysis of Mr. Gregg's proposal such as pros and cons, impact on staff time, etc. Councilmember Moore pointed out this was the exact presentation that Councilmember Orvis and Councilmember Plunkett provided at the Council retreat. Councilmember Dawson responded she had no idea from the agenda memo that this was the same presentation that was made at the retreat and unless the public was at the retreat, they did not have access to the materials. She questioned whether the concept Mr. Gregg proposed was legal. She reiterated it would be irresponsible for the Council to vote on this item tonight when there had been no opportunity for public input. She relayed information from Mr. Clements that it would take an additional $10 million in sales tax revenue to pay for a $1.00,000 charette. With regard to the benefit to the City from sales tax revenue, she noted the city did not receive much from sales tax revenue. She found it irresponsible to spend $100,000 for a charette or additional staff time on a concept that may /may not be a good idea and reiterated there was a great more due diligence to be done. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 16, 2005 Page 8 Councilmember Moore questioned how the city would do due diligence if it could not afford the staff time. Mayor Haakenson restated it was acceptable to him to have Mr. Clements, Mr. Bowman and Ms. Gerend participate on the committee. He urged the Council to provide clear direction as vague direction . made it difficult for staff to provide answers. Councilmember Plunkett requested staff consider the proposal and provide their comments in writing. Mayor Haakenson responded if there was no cost to the city to do a feasibility study, staff would likely say they had nothing to lose. Councilmember Plunkett commented he was interested in a pre - feasibility opinion from staff. Councilmember Olson referred to Mr. Gregg's indication that a feasibility study was a moot point if the property owners were not interested. Councilmember Plunkett agreed Mr. Gregg could talk to property owners and possibly obtain a letter of interest from a few. Councilmember Wilson asked whether the proposal, feasibility and implementation, could be accomplished within the framework of the existing Comprehensive Plan or would changes be necessary to the Plan. Mr. Gregg commented if the Council wanted to proceed with a process as was being discussed, that was okay with him. In response to Councilmember Wilson's question, Mr. Gregg acknowledged he structured his proposal so it could win at any level. He was certain the outcome of the feasibility study would be a variety of options and one of the options would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan but there may be other options that were not. Mr. Bowman clarified Mr. Gregg was saying whatever options were developed would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan or the PPP could propose a Comprehensive Plan amendment to do something different. He noted in general discussions with Mr. Gregg, his proposals appear to be generally consistent with the direction the Council has been discussing in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Bowman agreed with Councilmember Dawson's position. Although he read the proposal at the Council retreat, staff had not analyzed it in detail. He suggested staff analyze the proposal and prepare pros /cons, issues that must be addressed, etc. He agreed with Mayor Haakenson that staff should not spend a great deal of time on the analysis without direction from the Council. He was also concerned with the lack of a public process particularly with the potential for public subsidies. Councilmember Wilson asked what Mr. Gregg envisioned the agreement between the Main Street Partnership and the City would contain. Mr. Gregg replied he was not seeking any protection from liability, only authority to talk to property owners. He envisioned the agreement would contain bullet points and legalese to protect the City. Mayor Haakenson explained several months ago when Mr. Gregg talked to him, Mr. Gregg's attorney, Mr. Snyder and he decided not to proceed further until the Council directed. He also recalled suggesting Mr. Gregg wait until the Comprehensive Plan was completed and it was not an election year. Council President Marin suggested rescheduling this for a September meeting and before then, Mr. Gregg would provide copies of his presentation and a few case histories of cities in Washington who have embarked on a similar process as well as further information regarding Green Lake's experience including where the money came from, how much it cost, etc. Once that information was available, he suggested staff prepare a brief for further Council discussion on September 27. Councilmember Wilson encouraged Mr. Gregg and staff to provide the information as far in advance of the meeting as possible. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 16, 2005 Page 9 Mr. Gregg acknowledged no one had proposed exactly what he was proposing. According to the National Trust for Historic Preservation, 1200 cities had used some elements of the Trust's program to revitalize their downtown. Councilmember Wilson requested Mr. Snyder provide a legal opinion regarding the legality of a PPP. 6. REPORT ON CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS OF AUGUST 9.2005 Community/ Community /Development Services Committee Development Services Councilmember Moore reported the committee's recommendation to authorize Ms. Gerend to pursue a Committee grant to work on Hwy. 99 was approved on tonight's consent agenda. Finance I Finance Committee Committee Councilmember Plunkett reported the committee was provided an overview of the 2005 budget which indicated revenues were slightly better than anticipated. He noted more detailed information was available from Mr. Clements. The committee also reviewed a draft Interlocal Agreement between the City and the Public Facilities District which the committee recommended be forwarded to the full Council as a consent item when the document was in its final form. Public safety Public Safety Committee committee Councilmember Orvis reported the committee discussed a concept for establishing a business pass to provide parking accommodations for large, all -day events such as occurs with Europe through the Back Door. The committee brainstormed and forwarded their ideas to the City Parking Committee for review and a recommendation. Next the committee was presented a plan to surplus several unused police portable radios that was approved on the consent agenda. The committee was also provided an overview of the LinX project, an information sharing database funded by the Naval Criminal Investigative Service that makes it easier to detect terrorists. The final item discussed by the committee was a proposal for the Police portion of the Public Safety Comprehensive Plan Element. The committee recommended forming a subcommittee to work on the Public Safety Element of the Comprehensive Plan. 7. MAYOR'S COMMENTS At Mayor Haakenson's request Mr. Bowman provided an update regarding the Esperance annexation, Esperance nnexation explaining the application was submitted to the Snohomish County Boundary Review Board (BRB) and the legal description had been reviewed with the Assessor's office. If no comments were received by September 15, Snohomish County would not invoke jurisdiction for a public hearing and the election would proceed, likely at the November general election. If the BRB did invoke jurisdiction for a public hearing, it likely could be scheduled to allow annexation to be on the November ballot. Pro and con Mayor Haakenson advised if annexation was on the November ballot, pro and con committees from the committees Esperance area needed to be formed to write a statement for the voters pamphlet. He indicated he had emailed residents on both sides of the issue and some had expressed interest. He invited anyone in the viewing audience who was interested in participating to contact the City Clerk's office. 8. COUNCIL COMMENTS COUNCIL PRESIDENT MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DAWSON, TO Excused I EXCUSE COUNCILMEMBERS WILSON AND ORVIS FROM THE MEETING OF AUGUST 2, Absences 2005. (COUNCILMEMBER WILSON WAS OUT OF TOWN AND COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS WAS CARING FOR HIS ILL WIFE.) MOTION CARRIED (5 -0 -2) COUNCILMEMBERS ORVIS AND WILSON ABSTAINED. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 16, 2005 Page 10 Council President Marin reported the Sounder Train began service without Mukilteo and with only one Sounder Train train and was slow in developing ridership. A second train has now been added and ridership has increased significantly even without Mukilteo, over 500 boardings per day. He reported on the spectacular experience riding the Sounder Train, commenting when in Seattle he often opts to take the Sounder Train and a bus to his home from the Senior Center instead of the bus that takes him nearly to his front door. He encouraged the public to ride the Sounder Train. Health District Council President Marin reported he spent three days at the National Association of Local Boards of Board Health in Nashville including attending one session on fluoride that was lead by a PhD from the Center of Disease Control. He offered to meet with Mr. Salyer to share information on the wonders of fluoride. Joint Meeting Council President Marin advised next Tuesday's Council meeting would include a joint meeting with the With ADB Architectural Design Board to discuss design guidelines and their role in that process. He also Community encouraged the public to attend the Council's Community Outreach Meeting at Sherwood Elementary on Outreach August 30. Fire Rescue Councilmember Orvis reported the grant for the Fire Rescue Boat had been approved and an order would Boat be placed. Councilmember Plunkett encouraged staff and Council President Marin to ensure the discussion with the ADB next week was directed toward the specific issues that needed to be discussed. With no further business,the Council meeting was adjourned at 9:05 p.m. G° 'Y ENSON,MAYOR SANDRA S. CHASE, CITY CLERK Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 16,2005 Page 11 ,idat AGENDA EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex 250 5th Avenue North 7:00 - 10:00 p.m. AUGUST 16, 2005 7:00 p.m. - Call to Order/Flag Salute 1. Approval of Agenda 2. Consent Agenda Items (A) Roll Call (B) Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of August 2, 2005. (C) Approval of claim checks #81449 through #81585 for the week of August 1, 2005, in the amount of $143,923.78. Approval of claim checks #81586 through #81741 for the week of August 8, 2005, in the amount of $342,476.48.* Approval of payroll direct deposits and checks #41342 through #41479 for the period July 16 through July 31, 2005, in the amount of$911,880.00. *Information regarding claim checks may be viewed electronically at www.ci.edmonds.wa.us (D) Acknowledge receipt of Claim for Damages from Sydney and Faye Locke (in excess of$350,000). (E) Authorization to amend the City Council Minutes dated May 4, 2004, June 1, 2004, and June 22, 2004. (F) Approval of a Formal Plat for a 9 lot subdivision located at 234th St. SW and 92"d Ave. W. (Applicant: Michel Construction / File No. P-2004-96) (G) Report on bid received August 5, 2005 for the Downtown Crosswalk Renovation Project and award of Contract to Finishing Edge Curb and Sidewalk, LLC ($106,065). (H) Authorization to sign MOU with the Law Enforcement Information Exchange (LinX). (Approved by the Public Safety Committee on 8/9/05.) (I) Declare radios surplus and approval of sale of radios to Edmonds Police Officers Association. (Approved by the Public Safety Committee on 8/9/05.) (J) Approval of grant application for Highway 99. (Approved by the Community/Development Services Committee on 8/9/05.) Page 1 of 2 CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA AUGUST 16, 2005 '3. (75 Min.) Public Hearing regarding a zoning text amendment to create a Master Planned Office-Residential Zone (MPOR), Edmonds Community Development Code Chapter 16.77. (File No. CDC-2005-46) 4. Audience Comments (3 Minute Limit Per Person)* *Regarding matters not listed on the Agenda as Closed Record Review or as Public Hearings. 5. (75 Min.) Presentation on public/private partnership proposal. 6. (15 Min.) Report on City Council Committee Meetings of August 9, 2005. 7. ( 5 Min.) Mayor's Comments 8. (15 Min.) Council Comments ADJOURN Parking and meeting rooms are accessible for persons with disabilities. Please contact the City Clerk at(425) 771-0245 with 24 hours advance notice for special accommodations. A delayed telecast of the meeting appears on cable television-Government Access Channel 21. Page 2 of 2