Loading...
09/19/2005 City CouncilSeptember 19, 2005 Following a Special Meeting at 6:15 p.m. for an Executive Session regarding labor negotiations, real estate and legal matters, the Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Haakenson in the Council. Chambers, 250 5'i' Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Gary Haakenson, Mayor Richard Marin, Council President Michael Plunkett, Councilmember Jeff Wilson, Councilmember Mauri Moore, Councilmember Peggy Pritchard Olson, Councilmember Dave Orvis, Councilmember Deanna Dawson, Councilmember ALSO PRESENT Molly Thomson, Student Representative 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA STAFF PRESENT David Stern, Chief of Police Duane Bowman, Development Services Director Dan Clements, Administrative Services Director Brian McIntosh, Parks & Recreation Director Jennifer Gerend, Economic Development Dir. Rob Chave, Planning Manager Dave Gebert, City Engineer Steve Bullock, Senior Planner Frances Chapin, Cultural Services Manager Scott Snyder, City Attorney Sandy Chase, City Clerk Linda Hynd, Deputy City Clerk Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst. Jeannie Dines, Recorder COUNCIL PRESIDENT MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DAWSON, FOR Change to Agenda APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA, MOVING CONSENT AGENDA ITEM H TO ITEM 3A, AND ADDING "APPROVAL OF THE SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION LOCAL 925 CONTRACT" AS CONSENT AGENDA ITEM J. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COUNCIL PRESIDENT MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, FOR APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: (A) ROLL CALL Approve 916105 Minutes (B) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 6, 2005. Approve Claim (C) APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #82168 THROUGH #82312 FOR THE WEEK OF Checks SEPTEMBER 6, 2005, IN THE AMOUNT OF $548,359.26, AND CHECKS #82313 THROUGH #82464 FOR THE WEEK OF SEPTEMBER 12, 2005, IN THE AMOUNT OF $519,912.58. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 19, 2005 Page 1 Classico Homes (D) APPROVAL OF AND AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN THE FINAL PLAT Final Plata 8610 202° St. OF CLASSICO HOMES FIVE -LOT FORMAL SUBDIVISION ON 202nd STREET SW. (FILE NO. P -04 -117, PROPERTY LOCATION: 8610 — 202nd STREET SW, APPLICANT: CLASSICO HOMES, INC.) Census Services (E) AUTHORIZATION TO NEGOTIATE PERSONAL SERVICES CONTRACT FOR CENSUS SERVICES Public Streetscape (F) APPROVAL OF CONTRACT FOR PUBLIC STREETSCAPE PLAN UPDATE Plan Surplus Radios (G) DECLARE RADIOS SURPLUS. (APPROVED BY THE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE ON 9/13/05.) Ord# 3561 (I) ORDINANCE NO. 3561 AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF ECDC 20.60.005 Definitions of DEFINITIONS TO CORRECT A SCRIVENER'S ERROR IN ORDER TO REAFFIRM Signs DEFINITIONS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO ORDINANCE NO. 3461 ON JULY 1, 2003, WHILE RETAINING THE DEFINITION OF "CONSTRUCTION SIGN" ADOPTED BY ORDINANCE NO. 3514 SEW Labor Contract (J) APPROVAL OF THE SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION LOCAL 925 CONTRACT Criteria for 3A. PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF ECDC SECTION 18.70.030 Street Use REVIEW (11)(4) RELATING TO CRITERIA FOR STREET USE ENCROACHMENT TO F,ncroaclsfnent PROVIDE FOR NORMALLY ASSOCIATED RESIDENTIAL USES. (APPROVED BY THE COMMUNITY /DEVELOPMENT SERVICES COMMITTEE ON 9/13/05.) Development Services Director Duane Bowman explained this proposed ordinance was initiated by staff in regard to issues that have arisen with street encroachments. As an example, a homeowner in the south end of the City who cleared the brush and built a fence in an area of the right -of -way where the City does not plan to widen the road in the near future is unable to obtain a street encroachment permit. Staff proposes to add via the proposed ordinance a clause in the review criteria that would read, "The proposal (if for an encroachment permit) either benefits the public interest, safety or convenience (e.g., supports or protects the City street, reduces pedestrian hazards) or is an accessory structure, such as a fence normally associated with residential use of the property, and fully complies with the requirements of paragraph B. l through B.3 above." He explained this would allow staff to use the encroachment permit process to deal . with the thousands of encroachments that exist in residential zones where property owners have built fences and small structures that do not hinder the use of utilities or right -of -way or cause a safety hazard for pedestrians or vehicles. Councilmember Plunkett recalled 2 -3 weeks ago he received an email and telephone calls from a resident and asked whether that was in regard to a different issue. Mr. Bowman explained that was a situation . regarding what the City should do with an area of unopened right -of -way on 81" Avenue between Alder and Walnut Streets where there are issues about pedestrian access, use of the right -of -way, etc. The proposed ordinance does not address those issues. He planned to bring a resolution to the Council to initiate a street vacation of the unopened right -of -way between Alder and Walnut Streets to provide a public forum for discussing the issues and providing input regarding the use of the right -of -way. He noted this was a unique piece of right -of -way due to the topography, utilities, and grade changes between driveways, etc. Councilmember Orvis suggested holding a public hearing on this issue rather than passing it tonight to allow the public to air their concerns. He acknowledged it seems straightforward but he wanted to hear from the public. Mayor Haakenson offered to refer the half dozen people who call him weekly with their Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 19, 2005 Page 2 concerns about this to Councilmember Orvis. He explained that staff was recommending this change due to residents' frustration with the existing law. Councilmember Dawson explained many people currently encounter this issue and need to have it resolved. She suggested if there were unintended consequences, the Council could amend the code again. She pointed out there was somewhat of a time issue because so many citizens have encountered this problem and would like to have it resolved as soon as possible. She preferred to move forward with the issue rather than further delay action via a public hearing. City Attorney Scott Snyder explained encroachment permits gave no vested right to any individual; they could be revoked at any time and were a complete permissive use of the City's right -of -way. Councilmember Plunkett expressed concern that Mayor Haakenson was hearing from so many people and perhaps he and the Council should also hear their comments /concerns. He asked whether the proposed ordinance would resolve the issue. Mr. Bowman answered the ordinance would provide staff the ability to approve an encroachment permit. Mayor Haakenson explained staff was currently enforcing the existing law and when stop work orders were posted, residents often called him (Mayor Haakenson) to express their displeasure. The proposed ordinance would fix the problem. Mr. Snyder commented 99% of what people have in the public right -of -way is unpermitted and there was no way to permit it under current city ordinance. If staff began responding to complaints, there was nowhere to stop. Councilmember Moore advised this item was placed on the Consent Agenda by the Community Service/Development Services Committee because Councilmember Wilson and she felt this was a rare example where government could do something that made good, common sense and do it in a timely manner. She referred to a letter the Council had received from a resident regarding a 3 -foot fence she wanted to put around her yard to protect her children in an area where there were no sidewalk and unlikely to be sidewalks constructed any time soon. The proposed ordinance would allow staff to use common sense in those instances. Councilmember Plunkett requested staff inform the Council of any ramifications /unintended consequences so that adjustment could be made if necessary. Ord# 3562 COUNCILMEMBER MOORE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON, FOR Criteria for APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE NO. 3562 AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF ECDC SECTION Street Use Encroachment 18.70.030 REVIEW (B)(4) RELATING TO CRITERIA FOR STREET USE ENCROACHMENT TO PROVIDE FOR NORMALLY ASSOCIATED RESIDENTIAL USES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Master Planned 3B. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING A ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT TO CREATE Office- A MASTER PLANNED OFFICE- RESIDENTIAL ZONE (MPOR), EDMONDS COMMUNITY Residential Zone DEVELOPMENT CODE CHAPTER 16.77. THE TEXT AMENDMENT ALSO INCLUDES A CHANGE TO ECDC 21.40.030 — HEIGHT. INCLUDING DESCRIBING HOW AVERAGE STREET LEVEL IS DETERMINED IN RELATIONSHIP TO DETERMINING BUILDING HEIGHT. (FILE NO. CDC - 2005 -46) Mayor Haakenson reviewed time limits, explaining following staff's presentation the applicant would have 15 minutes for their presentation, followed by the public hearing, where the applicant would have approximately three minutes for rebuttal, staff would provide any additional comments, and the matter would then be remanded to Council for deliberation. City Attorney Scott Snyder agreed, clarifying this was a legislative action, there was no burden of proof. It was unusual in the sense it was an applicant - initiated text change, thus, the reason the applicant was given an opportunity to summarize (rather than rebut). Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 19, 2005 Page 3 Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, challenged the participation of Councilmembers Olson and Moore in this issue. He explained both sat with and conversed with the Hotel Group (applicant) during the presentations to the Planning Board. The Planning Board observed them as part of the process of support for the Hotel Group and both Councilmembers Olson and Moore endorsed the application and pushed for its approval. He noted Councilmember Moore even made part of the motion. He suggested neither Councilmembers Moore nor Olson could be fair or impartial in their consideration of this matter. Mr. Snyder explained this was a legislative action requested of the Council and was not subject to the State Appearance of Fairness Doctrine. Councilmembers were free to participate regardless of any previously expressed opinion pro or con. He noted Councilmembers often sponsor legislative matters. Absent an actual conflict of interest, such as ownership interest in Hotel Group, Councilmembers were free to participate. Mayor Haakenson asked Councilmembers Moore and Olson whether either had a financial interest in Hotel. Group. Both advised they did not have and would not have a financial interest in the project. Jonathan Hatch, attorney representing several property owners, referred to a letter he sent to the Council last Friday, commenting while he recognized this was a legislative matter, it uniquely arose before the Council under the auspices of a Planning Division land development file. He asserted this was a land use action as he interpreted the development code and this legislation did not arise at the Council request, it arose from an applicant's development code application. As a consequence, the entire legislative process must comply with the development code procedural rules. He asserted those rules included a procedure by which all parties of record, including himself and the residents he represented, were entitled to have copies of any specific legislative proposal or language to be considered by the Council tonight particularly with regard to the definition of average street level. Tf there was a proposal or language to be considered by the Council tonight, he objected to the Council proceeding with consideration of language until there was proper notice to all parties of record and all parties of record had an opportunity to review the proposed language. City Clerk Sandy Chase commented because it was a legislative action, this public hearing was handled in the same manner as any other public hearing notification. The first public hearing was held on August 16 and continued to September 6 by motion that evening. On August 23, the City Council by motion changed the date to September 19. A public hearing notice was published in the Herald, the City's official newspaper, on September 5. Notices were also posted at the library, post office, Public Safety complex and City Hall, the City's website and on Channel 21, the City's government access channel, on September 2. Mr. Snyder asked whether the definition referred to by Mr. Hatch was in the Council packet. Senior Planner Steve Bullock explained at the Council meeting where the first public hearing was held, August 16, the direction from the Council was for staff to include some mention of height in the hearing process. The applicant, at the time of their initial proposal, had a definition of how height would be calculated. That was included in the Council's initial packet and staff referred to it in the subsequent agenda memo to highlight that staff was referring back to the original proposal by the applicant for the definition of height. Mr. Snyder referred to notification requirements in City's Code, explaining as a legislative action, there were no parties of record. He recommended the Council proceed. He pointed out it was at the Council's discretion to provide a continuance; however, in his opinion, under Washington law, the Council was not obligated to do so. He offered to meet with the Council in Executive Session to discuss the matter further. Mr. Hatch commented many of the property owners he represented had property immediately adjacent to the properties on Sunset Avenue that would be affected by the proposed change. He asked whether the packet provided to the Council on August 16 contained the language that would be considered tonight. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 19, 2005 Page 4 As he understood the notice for tonight's meeting, the packet did not contain that information and the notice appeared to suggest that the continued public hearing would include discussion of how average street level was determined. He noted that issue had never been addressed in any prior hearings and there was nothing in the packet that provided draft language for such an amendment. If there was such language or staff planned to present such language tonight that was new information that the public had not yet been provided for review. Mr. Bullock advised the concept regarding how the height of buildings would be measured was specifically addressed in the packet the Council received August 16 and was referred to in the agenda memo for tonight's meeting. He assured no new language was being proposed, the language had been considered by the Planning Board and although the language was not included in the Planning Board's recommendation, it was included in the packet. Councilmember Dawson commented if a new proposal would be made tonight regarding how average street level was determined, it was not just the property owners that needed to be provided that information, the Council also needed that information. She asked whether something new was being proposed tonight and, if so, agreed that the Council needed further time for review as well as advertising it to the public. If not, the Council was prepared to move forward. Mr. Bullock assured there was nothing new, the applicant wanted to proceed with the original definition of how height would be calculated in response to Councilmember Wilson's direction. Mr. Snyder pointed out the last line of the notice states, "including how average street level is determined in relationship to determining building height." Councilmember Dawson commented it was not entirely clear whether there would be new language proposed tonight. Staff's explanation indicated there was no new information; the language rejected by the Planning Board was the language the applicant wanted the Council to consider. Mr. Bullock agreed, recalling the Planning Board specifically wanted to move away from specific language regarding height. That language met what staff and the applicant felt was the direction from Councilmember Wilson and therefore, was again presented to the Council. He noted the Planning Board considered this language and the public had an opportunity to consider it and provide testimony on it. Mr. Snyder commented if any new, substantive information was to be considered by the Council, it must be advertised and a recommendation provided by the Planning Board in order to comply with GMA. His understanding was that the language had already been reviewed by the Planning Board and no new proposal was being made. Mr. Bullock relayed the Planning Board's recommendation on a proposed code amendment to establish a new zone district for the City: Master Planned Office and Residential (MPOR) zone. He explained the property owner made this proposal to the City in order to enact/enable a portion of the City's Comprehensive Plan. He referred to the area on Sunset Avenue in the Comprehensive Plan that directed a zone such as this be created. Rather than wait for staff and the Planning Board to address it, the applicant submitted an application and proposed language to create the MPOR zone. The Planning Board considered the applicant's proposal at a June 8 public hearing. The initial proposal was fairly specific, crafted to address this area of the City — four lots north of Main on the west side of Sunset — and was designed to address issues raised in the Comprehensive Plan related to these parcels. After holding the public hearing, the Planning Board was uncomfortable with creating a zone district for such a small area and recommended the zone district be redrafted to be more generally applicable to other areas of the City. He explained one of the purposes of the zone district was to provide a transition between disparate type uses, commercial and single- family uses and areas with environmental features such as significant grade changes. He noted there were a number of locations in the City that had similar issues where there was commercial space located close to single - family properties, coupled with significant topographic issues. A zone district such as this could be used to create a transition zone between those disparate types of uses. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 19, 2005 Page 5 Mr. Bullock explained the applicant and staff developed language in accordance with the Planning Board's direction, although expanding this to other areas of the City made it difficult to establish a single set of development standards that addressed setback, height limits, density limitations, etc. that would be appropriate in all situations. He noted because the issues associated with each area could differ, a proposal was developed similar to what was used for the Master Plan Hillside zone that requires approval of a Master Plan for any development of the property. He noted single - family would be allowed as a permitted use and a Master Plan approval process would be required for higher level development. He noted the Master Plan process would consider the height, bulk, characteristics of the proposed development to ensure it was an appropriate transition -type development that also addressed any environmental characteristics. He pointed out a Master Plan required review by the Planning Board and review and approval by the City Council. Mr. Bullock explained the Planning Board held a public hearing on the modified proposal July 13 and ultimately recommended forwarding the proposal to City Council for public hearing and decision. The proposed MPOR zone district language that outlines the limited permitted uses allowed in the zone — single- family, multi - family and office -type commercial uses is provided as an attachment to the agenda memo for tonight's meeting. The language addresses the development standards and how the Master Plan process would create the development standards for each development. With regard to questions raised at the August 16 meeting regarding height and the Planning Board's recommendation that reflected only the Comprehensive Plan language regarding two -story buildings as measured from the street, he acknowledged there had been a great deal of discussion at the Planning Board regarding the height but they were uncomfortable establishing a specific number for height. The applicant originally proposed language regarding height for the MPOR zone. He directed the Council's attention to page 129 of the August 16 meeting packet, explaining that page was taken from the current definition of height in the City's Code. He referred to Section Cl that documents the applicant's proposal for calculating height in the MPOR zone. He explained the applicant proposed to replace the reference in Section 16.77.020(C) to two stories with 25 -feet. He advised this was not objectionable to staff and was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan's description for the area. Staff's review of the proposed Code language and the definition of height modification found it was consistent with the adopted Comprehensive Plan. If the Council approved the MPOR proposal, Council President Marin asked whether a MPOR2 or MPOR3 that addressed characteristics specific to another location could be created. Mr. Bullock answered yes, commenting during the next review of the Comprehensive Plan, the Planning Board likely would evaluate other areas of the City where the MPOR zone would be appropriate. For Council President Marin, Mr. Bullock explained the only location in the City where the MPOR zone could legitimately apply was the property on Sunset because of how that area was designated in the Comprehensive Plan. He noted no other locations in the City were described in the Comprehensive Plan similar to the MPOR zone. Until the Comprehensive Plan was amended to potentially allow for its use, it would be difficult to apply to other locations. Mr. Snyder commented even if the MPOR zone was enacted and the Comprehensive Plan designated this area as suitable, a rezone application and proceeding before the Council would be required. He explained the rezone process was a quasi-judicial proceeding and at that point there would be parties of record. Councilmember Wilson asked where in tonight's packet the language in Paragraph B regarding "average level" was. Mr. Bullock acknowledged the term "average level" was not specifically used. On page 129, the language describes how the average elevation of the street front would be measured and the height in the MPOR zone would be measured to 25 feet. He explained the way height was proposed to be measured in the MPOR zone considered the average level of the curb or street. He noted while it did not Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 19, 2005 Page 6 use the exact language "average street level" the definition was intended to accommodate it. Councilmember Wilson observed that was contained in C1. Mr. Bullock agreed. For Councilmember Wilson, Mr. Bullock read the revision to the language currently recommended by the Planning Board from Section 16.77.020(C) contained in Exhibit 1 of today's packet, "The maximum . height for structures in the MPOR zone shall result in buildings that are not more than two stories in height," advising the original proposal would replace "two stories" with 1125 feet." He noted the MPOR zone would also contain language in the height section regarding how height was calculated via the average level of the street. Councilmember Wilson clarified the language on page 1.29 in Paragraph C1 would be incorporated in the height section. Mr. Bullock agreed. Councilmember Orvis commented his understanding was the current method of measuring height via measuring from the average of the four corners. Under the proposal, the measurement would be, in this instance, higher up the hill versus if the standard method was utilized, the measurement would be at the mid -point of the hill. He concluded the result would be development at a higher elevation than if the current residential height were applied. Mr. Bullock agreed, assuming this was applied only to the property on Sunset. With regard to setbacks, Councilmember Orvis referred to the chart on page 89 that contained very prescriptive numbers with regard to setbacks, however in the applicant's proposal, the required setback is vague. He asked who would make the decision regarding the setbacks. Mr. Bullock agreed setbacks and other development standard issues were now vaguer than originally proposed by the applicant. This was specifically in response to the direction of the Planning Board who wanted a zone with potentially general application in a number of locations which made it difficult to select a specific number that would work in every location. Under Paragraph D, the applicant would be required to propose in their Master Plan, using the techniques proposed by the Planning Board, how their development provided a reasonable and appropriate transition. If the Council found the transition proposal was not adequate, the applicant could be informed and the project changed or the Council could deny the proposal. Councilmember Orvis asked whether the Master Plan process would occur as part of the rezone. Mr. Bullock answered it could as the Master Plan process was also quasi judicial. Councilmember Dawson commented staff had indicated the applicant's measurement of height was included on page 129 but it was not actually contained on page 129 because there was no language regarding 25 feet on page 129. She asked where the language proposed by the applicant that differed from the Planning Board's recommendation was in the packet so that a determination could be made regarding whether it had been properly advertised. She noted if that language was not in the packet, it was improper to hold the public hearing this evening. Mr. Bullock answered the applicant's initial application proposed 25 feet. He noted 25 feet was also included in the letters sent to the Council during the past week. Councilmember Dawson pointed out the letters the Council received in the last week were not part of the public record prior to the public hearing. She acknowledged she understood the applicant's proposal but wanted to ensure it had been properly advertised. Mr. Snyder referred to the letter from Edmond A. Lee, Hotel Group, contained in tonight's packet which included their original proposal and attached to the letter as an exhibit with 25 feet circled. Councilmember Wilson pointed out the letter was also on page 130 -131 of the August 16 packet. Mr. Bullock pointed out the applicant's original proposal on page 127 that included the site development standards table also referenced 25 feet. Councilmember Dawson pointed out there appeared to be two different proposals, the letter of September 16 and the letter on page 130 -131 which actually contained two alternatives. Mr. Bullock explained the applicant was comparing the height in the BC zone (30 feet) and 25 feet. He emphasized the applicant's proposal had always been 25 feet. The Planning Board made a decision to remove any reference to a specific height. Councilmember Dawson pointed out page 131 compared what the height would be but did not make a proposal regarding what they want. She referred Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 19, 2005 Page 7 to an email received September 16 that referred to staff's original recommendation which was the applicant's current proposal. She clarified that proposal was rejected by the Planning Board because of their aversion to including a specific height. Mr. Bullock agreed, explaining his responsibility was to present the Planning Board's recommendation and respond to Councilmember Wilson's request regarding how average street level would be determined. Councilmember Wilson commented this was referred to the Planning Board because of the action the City Council took in the Comprehensive Plan that specifically addressed Sunset. Mr. Bullock agreed. In reference to Councilmember Orvis' question about defining setback, Councilmember Wilson pointed out that was not part of what the Council referred to the Planning Board with regard to the property on Sunset because in that process the scope of the code language was expanded to be applied throughout the City. Mr. Bullock agreed that was what raised some of the issues. Councilmember Wilson pointed out during the original public hearings on the Comprehensive Plan, Council did not have any policy discussion regarding whether this would be appropriate through the City. Mr. Bullock agreed. Councilmember Wilson clarified the Council's original intent was to address the property on Sunset rather than create a designation city -wide. Councilmember Wilson asked whether the applicant's proposal was contained in staff's memo to the Planning Board, contained on page 120 — 123 of the August 16 packet. Mr. Bullock agreed it was. Councilmember Wilson referred to the section regarding height limit on page 121 that stated the proposed limit for the MPOR zone was 25 feet and asked if this was the applicant's original proposal. Mr. Bullock agreed it was. He advised the applicant also proposed an amendment to the height section that would determine the average level of the street and measure 25 from that average street /curb level. Councilmember Wilson referred to Height Exceptions in paragraph CI on page 129, asking whether that was a clarification of the applicant's original intent. Mr. Bullock agreed it was. Councilmember Wilson summarized the applicant's proposal was contained on pages 121 and 129 with regard to height. Mr. Bullock advised the applicant's initial proposal for the code amendment was contained on pages 126 - 129. He referred to the table of development regulations on page 127 where the maximum height was indicated as 25 feet and a footnote stated height in this zone was measured from the average grade of the constructed street at the elevation of the top of the curb and referred back to the height definition regarding how the average grade was determined. Councilmember Wilson recalled he asked during the previous discussion how average street level was measured since there was no recommendation from the Planning Board. Since there was still not a recommendation from the Planning Board, the default was the applicant's original proposal. Mr. Bullock agreed, explaining staff s opinion regarding the initial review was that it met the intent of the Comprehensive Plan and the 25 -foot height limit and their proposed method of calculation was acceptable to staff. He explained that could be applied to the Planning Board's recommendation if the Council chose. Councilmember Wilson recalled the Council took a series of independent actions with regard to the Comprehensive Plan including this area on Sunset. He noted it was a unanimous decision by the Council, recognizing there were certain conditions on this property that differed from other areas of the City and that was why the Planning Board created a new zoning designation for that area. Mr. Bullock agreed, noting in the Comprehensive Plan the Council specifically identified topography as a significant issue on this site. Mr. Snyder clarified because this was applicant- originated, the applicant was provided time for a presentation. Applicant John Bissell, representing the applicant, distributed the following materials: 1) Comprehensive Plan language adopted on March 8, 2005 to facilitate the Council's review of the proposed MPOR zone as it Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 19, 2005 Page 8 compared to the Comprehensive Plan, 2) the MPOR zone with changes to comply with Councilmember Wilson's concerns, and 3) the height calculation amendment contained on page 129 of the Council packet. Mr. Snyder pointed out this information was also contained in the Council packet. Mr. Bissell recalled on March 8, 2005, the Council adopted a new Comprehensive Plan that included a designation entitled Planned Residential Office for several properties along Sunset. He noted this designation did not currently apply to any other properties in the City but it would be possible to adopt a Comprehensive Plan amendment in the future to apply it to another property. He explained there was currently no zoning code section that implemented that Comprehensive Plan designation. GMA requires the Comprehensive Plan and zoning be compatible, that the zoning code contain implementing zones for the Comprehensive Plan designations. The applicant chose to work with staff to prepare a code amendment to create an implementing zone for the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Bissell read from the Comprehensive Plan language that states several properties lie along the railroad on the west side of Sunset Avenue between existing commercial zoning and Edmonds Street. This area is appropriate for master planned development, which provides for a mix of small scale office and residential uses which provide a transition from the more intensive commercial uses along Main Street and the residential uses along Sunset. Because the area of this designation is located adjacent to commercial development to the south, the railroad to the west, and is near both multiple family and single - family development, this area should act as a transition between these uses. Building design for this area should be sensitive to the surrounding commercial, multi- family and single - family character. Due to the steeply sloping nature of the properties, building heights shall generally be limited to two stories above Sunset Avenue. Mr. Bissell noted the applicant's original proposal contained specific bulk standards. The Planning Board wanted a more master planning type ordinance which implies that some of the specific bulk standards would be replaced with design - related standards, which the proposed MPOR zone now has as well as requiring master planning such as a PRD or contract rezone -type process. He referred to the Comprehensive Plan language "provides for a mix of small scale office and residential uses," pointing out the designation did not allow larger scale -type uses such as restaurants, taverns, but rather office -type uses and low density, multi - family similar to an RM -3 zone. Mr. Bissell referred to the Comprehensive Plan language regarding this area acting as a transition, pointing out the master planning and design guideline elements in the MPOR zone would require an applicant to, via the criteria, act as a transition to all the uses. He pointed out when making a transition, there was a tendency to consider only the lowest impact use; however, transition meant in between the uses. He referred to comments that the area should be residential because the existing zoning was residential and there were residential uses nearby; however, Comprehensive Plan language states building design for this area should be sensitive to the surrounding commercial, multi- family and single - family character. He noted this area was surrounded by all those uses; the intent of the zone was to allow for that type of transition. He summarized the proposed language was created specifically to comply with the adopted Comprehensive Plan language. With regard to the Comprehensive Plan language that states due to the steeply sloping nature of the properties, building heights shall generally be limited to two stories above Sunset Avenue, he referred the February 22 Council meeting regarding downtown height limits, specifically a debate between. Councilmembers Dawson and Wilson about including specific height limits in the Comprehensive Plan. He recalled Councilmember Wilson stating it was not appropriate to have height limits in a Comprehensive Plan section and those specifics should be included in the regulating document — the zoning code. He noted on March 1, 2005, a motion was approved by the Council to allow the final sentence to state height is limited to no more than 25 -feet, plus five feet for roof and /or building modulation above the average street/sidewalk level. As a result of further discussion, the specific height Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 19, 2005 Page 9 limit was amended to incorporate the language that due to the steeply sloping nature of the properties, building heights shall generally be limited to two stories above Sunset Avenue. He pointed out there was never a conflict among the Council regarding whether 25 feet above the street was acceptable, the debate was whether to include specific heights in the Comprehensive Plan. He referred to the Planning Board minutes which indicate because the Planning Board was unclear of the Council's intent, they forwarded the issue to the Council with nearly the same language in the Comprehensive Plan. Although he felt the master plan would protect the City even if a specific height were not included, incorporating the 25 -foot height limit and the height calculation provided more predictability for the surrounding property owners. He summarized the proposed ordinance complied with the Comprehensive Plan as written and apparently intended as reflected in the Council minutes. Mayor Haakenson opened the public hearing, advising the Council received 28 emails /letters in their packet, one from Mr. Hatch outlining the concerns he addressed at the beginning of the hearing, and 27 in support of the text amendment. Eric Sonett, Edmonds, described information they displayed in front of their house including photographs approximating what the sidewalk view could look like and a letter addressed to the Council that stated, "Don't wail off Sunset Avenue. Homes with offices, not office buildings with condominiums. The Edmonds City Council should keep Sunset Avenue residential, residential height limits and residential setbacks. The Comprehensive Plan's residential /office designation should be used to allow offices in homes, not office buildings with condominiums. Sunset Avenue should not be walled off from the Sound." He provided the signatures of 477 plus people who signed the letter, not via an organized petition process, but via an informal opportunity they provided for people who chose to read the information they displayed. He recalled the last time signatures opposing increases in building height were presented to the Council some commercial interests implored the Council to ignore the voices of their constituents under the guise of leadership. He noted commercial interests have also stated their right to profit, commenting they may have a right to speculate but not to profit. He concluded walling off Sunset Avenue would harm. Edmonds commercially, increase the office space vacancy rate by adding to the supply and would make much of downtown Edmonds less desirable for tourists, shoppers and business people. Jon Hatch, Edmonds, explained that due to the time limitations, he would limit his comments to an attempt to clarify the juxtaposition between a height limitation and its calculation. He explained under the current code there was a uniform mechanism for calculating height city -wide in all zones. The proposal was to create a new mechanism for calculating height that would be unique to this zone, specifically these four lots. He pointed out this was important because if a height were established for the zone, the result would be a differential of several feet under proposed height calculation. The applicant's proposal was a method for calculating height that would increase the height of the resulting building several feet beyond what would be permissible if the same 25 -foot limitation were utilized under the existing method of calculating height. He referred to page 130 of the packet where the applicant stated the average height of the sidewalk in front of the two lots they proposed to develop was 28 feet above sea level. He noted sea level was consistent with the bottom of those lots, adding to that the approximately 25 feet proposed, the resulting building would be approximately 53 high on the water side. He pointed out this proposal essentially ensured that a building would be 25 feet high from the sidewalk, taller than any other building on Sunset Avenue, which the letter on page 130 substantiates. Although he appreciated the developers desire to develop the property, the functional affect of their proposal would be a building that was larger in scale and taller than any building on Sunset, which would have a significant impact on residents in the area and the entire impression of the waterfront. Don Kreiman, Edmonds, asked why Mr. and Mrs. Lee who paid their taxes and built a successful business in Edmonds could not get approval to build on property vegetated by blackberries and difficult Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 19, 2005 Page 10 to develop for years while nine blocks up Main Street, the Chair of the Architectural Design Board (ADB) received approval to build in a heavily wooded, steeply sloped wetland. Why couldn't the Lees who have brought good people and high paying jobs to the City get approval for a building that would allow them to work and live and keep their business in Edmonds while another developer was allowed to cut trees east of Yost Park on a steep slope and obtain height variances over 25 feet in a residential area? Why couldn't the Lees build a 2 -story structure that was limited to 25 feet above the street while design guidelines allow buildings on 5th that are three stories and exceed 36 feet above the street? How could the Lees who have carefully followed the City's instructions be denied while the Chair of the ADB could purchase property near 8th & Pine and get a PRD approved quickly even though the previous owner tried to develop the property for years? Mr. Kreiman did not know the Lees personally but liked what he saw - they had been patient and courteous when testifying before the Planning Board and City Council. What the Lees proposed was a win for everyone in Edmonds, except perhaps the neighbors across the street that have enjoyed that view for years at the property owner's expense. Eric Anderson, Edmonds, owner of the Five Corners Shopping Plaza, asked whether the MPOR would have any affect on Five Corners. He noted in the Five Corners area, a number of houses adjacent to commercial property have been converted to professional offices, etc. which works well as a transition. He expressed his support for including Five Corners as an MPOR zone in the future. Alan Young, Edmonds, spoke in opposition to changing the building height calculations and setback requirements in the new MPOR zone, preferring that the residential zoning requirements remain. He and his wife own three properties within '/z block of the new MPOR zone on Sunset, two directly across the street from this new zone that would be significantly impacted. Because the rules change in the BC zone every few years, they were moving to the corner of Sunset & Bell where they were forced to demolish the existing house and build a new house because the City would only allow a certain percentage of the home to be remodeled because a portion of the house was in the setback. He noted the applicant's proposal only affected two lots on Sunset as the other two were developed. He objected to changing the height calculation for only this area and recommended the developer /owner abide by the existing regulations. He summarized if development occurred 25 feet up from the street, the people living and walking in the area would hold the Council accountable. Quentin Clark, Edmonds, Chair of the Chamber of Commerce Economic Development Committee, read a position statement from the Edmonds Chamber of Commerce, which stated the Edmonds Chamber of Commerce supports the concept of creating new MPOR zone that could be used as a transitional zone between commercial and residential properties. Chamber notes that any such application of this zone must be consistent with the City's adopted Comprehensive Plan and supports the concept of a Master Plan approval process for development of these transitional properties. Mr. Clark added that although the Chamber supported the concept of the MPOR zone, not necessarily this application. John Marts, Edmonds, recommended the Council approve the Planning Board's recommendation. He acknowledged it was a difficult decision, made more difficult by the upcoming election. He explained his client owned the property north of the planned development on Lots 3 and 4 and the height would affect their views to the south and possibly to the west; however, they were aware they did not own that view. He suggested residents change their perspective about views, pointing out the residents across the street had the right to purchase the property to maintain their view but did not. Doug Dreher, Edmonds, corrected a statement made by Mr. Hatch that the bottom of the lots on Sunset were at sea level, explaining they were actually 16 feet above sea level. He expressed his support for the proposed MPOR zone and suggested the regulations be left general enough to use in other areas. Ray Martin, Edmonds, referred to campaign materials from Councilmembers Olson, Moore and Wilson in which they pledged to protect property owners. Next, he referenced this area providing a transition, Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 19, 2005 Page 11 pointing out transition meant development that was between the two zones. He questioned how a 53 -foot tall building, one of the tallest buildings in Edmonds, could be considered a transition. He expressed concern with the possibility of this setting precedence for increased building heights. Bud Kopp, Edmonds, referred to changes that have occurred in South Snohomish County over the past 45 years and voiced his support for the MPOR zone. He noted a transition zone was a great idea for this area as well as other areas of the City and it was in the best interest of the City and residents to allow a transition between the existing commercial and residential zone. He referred to drawings he had seen of the proposed building, commenting it was beautiful. There were many benefits to the citizens, including increased tax revenue, buffer, and promoting a positive project in an area that otherwise would not be developed. Although he sympathized with the residents whose views would be affected, he commented they should have bought the property. Michael Young, Edmonds, expressed his support for the MPOR zone as it was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and would provide the City Council, Planning Board, and the public an opportunity to provide input on the final product rather than including all the requirements in the code. He summarized the proposed development was not a wall, it was a building that with proper design guidelines would be a benefit to Edmonds. Randy Meyer, Edmonds, referred to the photographs used to attract signatures on the letter urging the Council not to wall off the Sound, pointing out they were not accurate representations of what would be built. Although the opposition would have the Council believe the lots proposed to be developed would obliterate their view, he displayed a photograph of the existing 3/4 mile permanently unobstructed view from the petition sponsor's property. He noted the sponsors of the petition and those opposed to this proposal live across the street and north of the site affected by the MPOR and want to preserve their southwest view via another person's property. He urged the Council to approve the proposed MPOR zone. Renee Streighter, Edmonds, stated the proposed language for the MPOR zone was well worded and included the necessary elements to ensure it was reasonable and fair for those affected. The public would have an opportunity to voice their concerns at the public hearing during the master plan process. She suggested clarifying the definition of a 2 -story limit as no higher than 25 feet, noting that was a reasonable height and would prevent a future developer from constructing a building that was too tall for the area. Robin Koetje, Edmonds, commented he did not live near the downtown core but lived in a modest home without a view, which was not within reasonable walking distance of downtown, but they enjoyed visiting the waterfront. He displayed a photograph of the view to the north of the proposed MPOR from the bluff on Sunset, commenting that was one of the best features of Edmonds and one that would never be developed. He displayed a photograph that illustrated the lack of sidewalk in front of two of the lots proposed to be zoned MPOR, explaining after driving to downtown and parking, they must walk in the street on the west side to reach the bluff. Installation of a sidewalk on the west side would be a benefit to the public. He also supported the concept of this being a transition zone and urged the Council to approve the proposed MPOR zone. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, commented the concept of a transition was good if development actually provided a transition. He found the proposed language regarding the height limit inadequate to provide sufficient assurance to the property owners and citizens who use the area. He preferred to use the existing method of calculating building heights in this zone, which he noted would not result in 25 feet above the street. He anticipated if the method of calculating building heights was changed for this zone, every other downhill ocation would want to use that method. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 19, 2005 Page 12 Don Drew, Edmonds, took exception to be being referred to as a developer trying to make a fast buck, explaining he and his two sons had owned and paid taxes on this property for the past 29 years while the property produced no income. He noted several of the neighboring property owners who enjoyed the view corridor at no cost to them have mounted a campaign to block the development of the property. He referred to the damaging statements and inaccurate photographs the neighbors had displayed alleging terrible impacts from development on the property, commenting it was easy to get people to sign such a statement. He pointed out the properties across the street had blocked the views of others when they built their homes. He commented the property owners across the street could have purchased his property to preserve their views and assume responsibility for the taxes. He commented on realtors and developers who have expressed interest in the property in the past, only to be deterred when they learned of the development constraints. He summarized that after 29 years, someone has the resources and vision to transform the property into a beautiful, practical development that would provide the owner offices and a residence and substantially enhance the area. Hearing no further comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public hearing. COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, TO EXTEND THIS ITEM FOR 30 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Bissell reiterated their proposal was in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and the proposed ordinance implements the Comprehensive Plan. Mayor Haakenson remanded the matter to Council for action. COUNCIL PRESIDENT MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, TO DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN ORDINANCE WHICH WILL ESTABLISH THE NEW MPOR ZONE. Councilmember Orvis stated he would not support the motion as he viewed the MPOR as a way to allow taller buildings. Councilmember Plunkett referred to the language in the Comprehensive Plan that building design for this area should be sensitive to the surrounding commercial, multi - family and single - family character, finding that while it was sensitive to commercial and multi- family, because it was an increase in the height, it did not meet the test of being sensitive to residential development. He suggested the applicant apply their vision /knowledge to a building that was within the standard height limit. He indicated he would oppose the proposed height increase. Councilmember Wilson asked for clarification whether the motion was to incorporate the language regarding two stories or 25 feet above the average street level and the amended height calculation. Council President Marin advised it was 25 -feet above the average street level and the amended height calculation. Councilmember Wilson read the last sentence of the language the Council adopted that due to the steeply sloping nature of the properties, building heights shall generally be limited to two stories above Sunset Avenue, which he pointed out all Counciimembers had approved. However, now at least two were walking away from that statement. He emphasized the Council was not approving a project but rather was approving language to implement the Comprehensive Plan that the Council unanimously adopted. He pointed out the Council was responsible for adopting code language that implemented the Comprehensive Plan. With regard to the future building design, the public and the Council would have an opportunity to have input via the master plan process. The language in the Comprehensive Plan clearly stated two stories above Sunset Avenue; this process was merely putting a number to the height. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 19, 2005 Page 13 He commented if two stories could not be 25 feet, there would be a lot of short single - family homes. He summarized the proposed MPOR zone was clearly consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and he urged Councilmembers to adopt language that implemented the adopted Comprehensive Plan. Councilmember Dawson took issue with the language regarding 25 feet from the sidewalk and questioned why a new method of calculating heights in the zone was necessary when there were many heavily sloped lots where there were challenges associated with development. She concluded she would not support the new method of calculating height in this zone. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4 -3), COUNCIL PRESIDENT MARIN, AND COUNCILMEMBERS MOORE, OLSON AND WILSON IN FAVOR; AND COUNCILMEMBERS PLUNKETT, DAWSON AND ORVIS OPPOSED. Mayor Haakenson declared a brief recess. 4. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Ray Martin, Edmonds, referred to a letter from David Dwyer regarding the project at 5th & Walnut, Project at 5" noted it would appear staff had made a mess of things; however, he opined, they were not actually and walnut responsible as they were doing as they were told within narrow parameters. He noted the real decision - maker and person that must be held accountable was Mayor Haakenson, along with certain other elected officials who supported the project at 5th & Walnut. He referred to a motion in the September 16, 2002 Council minutes to approve that contract rezone by a 5 -2 vote with former Councilmember Dave Earling and Councilmembers Plunkett, Orvis, Wilson and Marin voting in favor and Councilmember Dawson and former Councilmember Petso opposed. He noted Councilmember Petso later forced another vote that passed 4 -2 with the same votes cast with the exception of Councilmember Earling who was absent. He urged citizens to vote for Lora Petso, Deanna Dawson and Ron Wambolt if they wanted to prevent such buildings in the future. resign Don Kreiman, Edmonds, explained his family successfully manufactured and engineered a product, Guidelines following the customers' specifications at a reasonable price and delivering it on time. One of the tactics of their competitors was to "spec them out," which meant convincing a client to create a specification that gave your company an overwhelming advantage. A developer must comply with the City's design guidelines; vague design guidelines allowed a developer to get their project approved easily and if a developer could control the specifications, he would have an overwhelming advantage, eventually becoming the most successful developer in the City. He noted the most successful developer in Edmonds was Rob Michel who with Councilmember Plunkett's assistance "torpedoed" the design guidelines at the City Council three years ago. He noted Mr. Michel was also the Chair of the ADB who approved all significant development in Edmonds except his own. He commented the City Council was now asking the ADB to create policy for the design guidelines, a conflict of interest for Mr. Michel due to the overwhelming advantage it gave him. He recommended a developer not be involved in establishing policy for the City's design guidelines. Michael Young, Edmonds, commended Mayor Haakenson, Councilmembers, and staff for their efforts. candidate He Debate acknowledged he likely would disagree with everyone at one time or another , hoping that even when parties had to agree to disagree, there was respect. He reported being flabbergasted during the recent candidate debate, sponsored by the League of Women Voters, where an Edmonds citizen veered from the format and personally attacked an Edmonds Councilmember. He found this incredibly inappropriate and disgusting. He again thanked the Council for what they do and suggested Mr. Martin get a new hobby. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, thanked those who had called him about the election. He inquired about the Vld Wodway effort Councilmember Moore started to purchase the old Woodway Elementary, asking whether the City ementa Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 19, 2005 Page 14 had hired a grant writer to obtain grants to purchase the property. He asserted Mayor Haakenson was opposed to the purchase of Woodway Elementary and if the Council wanted to guarantee the City received a grant to purchase Woodway Elementary, he recommended developing a plan and hiring a grant writer like Arvilla Ohlde. With regard to the comment regarding ADB boardmembers, if the Council was dissatisfied with the function of any of the City's Boards /Commission, he recommended reinstating term limits. Bob Gregg, Edmonds, responded to allegations regarding the project at 5th & Walnut. With regard to the Project at t allegation that the building exceeded the permitted maximum height, he assured it did not. With regard to and Walnut g g p g g not applying the special formula in the contract rezone, he assured it was. In response to a question posed by Mr. Graham regarding how on a lot that generally sloped east to west could a point more westerly be higher than a point more easterly, he described how the height was calculated. With regard to HVAC in the structures to the east, he advised the HVAC was not in those structures. With regard to grading, he noted every drawing of the project showed windows and doors in the back at grade level irregardless of whether it was commercial or residential. He noted their application was also accompanied by a grading plan, assuring there was never anything hidden or suspect. He referred to language in the contract rezone that grading of the open space on Parcel B would begin at the current level. Mayor Haakenson recalled the Council asked staff to provide a report on the questions raised with regard to the project on 5th & Walnut, which staff did. He asked whether the Council wanted to proceed with Mr. Gregg's response and Councilmembers agreed they did. Mr. Gregg referred to a question regarding where the grade would begin, explaining that like most development, it began at the vertical retaining wall and proceeded down to the doors and windows. Next, he referred to confusion with regard to the open space, explaining the open space was not for public use and would be fenced and the public would not see into that area. He noted the contract rezone allowed them to build certain structures on the open space, and a deck or cover over the open space would be allowed. He noted private open space was much less restrictive than publicly -owned open space, such as sidewalks, and it was common to overhang decks or eaves over sidewalks. With regard to the sidewalk, he explained the sidewalks to be installed with this project were originally 7 -feet wide. Before the civil permit was issued, the engineering department reduced the width to 5 -feet. Neighbors later spoke to him about the sidewalk and the final building permit contained a 3 -foot curb and landscaping with no sidewalks. He advised there had not been a partial street vacation but contrary to information provided in staff's answer, the building did not go to the property line, the right -of -way extended to the property line. He expressed concern that residents on Holly may be in conflict with each other over whether or not to include the sidewalk and suggested residents meet to reach a solution. 5. CONTINUED DISCUSSION ON PUBLIC /PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP PROPOSAL Public /Private Partnership Proposal Mayor Haakenson recalled the Council requested staff provide feedback regarding the positive and negative aspects of the public /private partnership concept. Economic Development Director Jennifer Gerend reported a staff team consisting of Development Services Director Duane Bowman, Community Services Director Stephen Clifton, Planning Manager Rob Chave, Administrative Services Director Dan Clements, City Attorney Scott Snyder and she was assembled to review the information Mr. Gregg presented. She briefly reviewed potential positives that included a unified development scenario, a way of achieving public goals, ease in permitting and potential property and sales tax revenues. She reviewed potential negatives that staff identified, including a unified development scenario, commitment of City resources reducing their availability for other projects and priorities, and the affect on the local real estate and retail market. She referred to information in the packet regarding legal, logistical and financial issues and private - private and quasi - private options to address some of the positives staff identified. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 19, 2005 Page 15 6. REPORT ON CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS OF SEPTEMBER 1.3, 2005 Public Safety Public Safety Committee Comm ittee Councilmember Dawson reported the Committee considered a recommendation to declare certain radios surplus which the Council approved on tonight's Consent Agenda. She noted the Committee discussed possibly donating the equipment to agencies impacted by Hurricane Katrina. Next the Committee reviewed the Municipal Court Security Guard position, explaining the former judge made a decision to cut security at the courthouse; the City's new judge was interested in restoring the Security Guard position for the safety of court staff and members of the public who attend court. The item has been scheduled on the Council's October 4 agenda. The final item discussed by the Committee was the Public Safety element of the Comprehensive Plan. She advised a member of the Police Foundation would be serving on a committee to develop the police portion of the element. Community/ Community Services /Development Services Committee Development Councilmember Moore reported the Committee discussed the street encroachment issue which the Services Committee Council approved on tonight's agenda. The Committee also reviewed the Issaquah ordinance regarding sex offenders and recommended the matter be scheduled for review by the full Council on September 27. At Council President Marin's invitation, Mr. Gregg responded to staff's memo regarding the Public/Prvate Partnership public /private partnership, stating he agreed with the pros and cons identified by staff and their comments Proposal about encouraging redevelopment. In response to why a public /private partnership was proposed, he explained a majority of the Council felt it was in the best interest of citizens and/or a desire of citizens to focus on 2- story, 25 -foot buildings. He noted the difficulty with this was that the Heartland study found such buildings could not be built by the private sector. The public /private partnership has suggested a way to achieve the 2- story, 25 -feet in height. He agreed with staff's recommendation to tweak the Code to make it possible for the private sector to build 2 -story buildings. He encouraged the Council to reread the Heartland study, commenting either the study was incorrect or the City needed to modify the code so that the City got the buildings it wanted that the private sector could build. Mr. Gregg pointed out the Heartland study did not state that 2 -story buildings could not be developed profitably, only that there would be a 5% profit, not enough for the private sector to take the risk but it was enough for a non - profit. If modifying the code was not possible, he recommended the City consider the public /private partnership concept again, but with two changes: 1) no public subsidy and 2) identifying one property owner willing to participate and determine whether the pros staff identified could be achieved and the cons avoided. He encouraged the Council to make the zoning consistent with the Heartland study. 7. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Community Mayor Haakenson announced ten days ago he invited all the church leaders in Edmonds to meet with him Response to and approximately 20 attended a meeting last Tuesday to discuss how the Edmonds community could Hurricane help the victims of Hurricane Katrina. He advised those 20 leaders determined they would like to pursue Katrina the opportunity that the U.S. Conference of Mayors presented for the ability for Edmonds to adopt a city. He advised the City was now waiting for the U.S. Conference of Mayors to match Edmonds with a similar -sized city to assist them with recovery. He noted that effort would require money, clothing, sports equipment, and people — a combined Edmonds community effort to assist whatever City of Edmonds was assigned. 8. COUNCIL COMMENTS Community Councilmember Moore congratulated Mayor Haakenson and the church leaders for their effort. With Response to Hurricane family members in Louisiana and Mississippi and friends throughout the Gulf Coast , she knew the Katrina suffering and need would extend for a long, long time. She encouraged Edmonds residents to consider Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 19, 2005 Page 16 their own personal readiness in the event of an earthquake, including having emergency kits and knowing their neighbors' names and whereabouts. Mayor Haakenson advised students from Edmonds-Woodway and Meadowdale High School were helping with the effort to assist victims of Katrina. TeenRep Molly Thomson advised Edmonds-Woodway High School raised over $1,000 to date for Hurricane Katrina relief. She agreed both high schools would be interested in participating in a community-wide effort. Mayor Haakenson advised three goals were developed at the meeting with area church leaders: 1) assisting the hurricane victims, 2) not forgetting the needy in our own community and 3) ensuring the Edmonds community's readiness. With no further business,the Council meeting was adjourned at 9:58 p.m. GAR ENSON,MAYOR SANDRA S. CHASE, CITY CLERK Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 19,2005 Page 17 AGENDA EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL �r Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex 250 5th Avenue North 7:00 - 10:00 p.m. Special Monday Meeting SEPTEMBER 19, 2005 6:15 p.m. - Executive Session regarding labor negotiations, real estate and legal matters. I 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 September 6, 2005. (C) Approval of claim checks #82168 through #82312 for the week of September 6, 2005, in the amount of $548,359.26, and checks #82313 through #82464 for the week of September 12, 2005, in the amount of $519,912.58.* *Information regarding claim checks may be viewed electronically at www.ci.edmonds.wa.us (D) Approval of and authorization for Mayor to sign the Final Plat of Classico Homes five-lot formal subdivision on 202"d Street SW. (File No. P-04-117; Property Location: 8610 - 202nd Street SW; Applicant: Classico Homes Inc.) (E) Authorization to negotiate Personal Services Contract for Census Services. (F) Approval of contract for Public Streetscape Plan Update. (G) Declare radios surplus. (Approved by the Public Safety Committee on 9/13/05.) (H) Proposed Ordinance amending the provisions of ECDC Section 18.70.030 Review (B)(4) relating to criteria for street use encroachment to provide for normally associated residential uses. (Approved by the Community/Development Services Committee on 9/13/05.) (I) Proposed Ordinance amending the provisions of ECDC 20.60.005 Definitions to correct a scrivener's error in order to reaffirm definitions adopted pursuant to Ordinance No. 3461 on July 1, 2003, while retaining the definition of "Construction Sign" adopted by Ordinance No. 3514. Page 1 of 2 CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA SEPTEMBER 19, 2005 3. (75 Min.) Continued Public Hearing regarding a zoning text amendment to create a Master Planned Office-Residential Zone (MPOR), Edmonds Community Development Code Chapter 16.77. The text amendment also includes a change to ECDC 21.40.030 - Height, including describing how average street level is determined in relationship to determining building height. (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. (45 Min.) Continued discussion on public/private partnership proposal. 6. (15 Min.) Report on City Council Committee Meetings of September 13, 2005. 7. ( 5 Min.) Mayor's Comments 8. (15 Min.) Council Comments ADJOURN I I 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