Loading...
03/28/1995 City CouncilApproved City Council Minutes 41419.5 EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES MARCH 28, 1995 A Special Meeting of the Edmonds City Council was held at 6:45 p.m. for the purpose of interviewing a candidate for the Sister City Commission. The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Laura Hall in the Library Plaza. Room, 650 Main Street followed by the flag salute. ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Laura Hall, Mayor Tom Petruzzi, Council President William J. Kasper, Councilmember Michael Hall, Councilmember Dave Earling, Councilmember John Nordquist, Councilmember Roger L. Myers, Councilmember Barbara Fahey, Councilmember APPROVAL OF AGENDA STAFF PRESENT Art Housler, Administrative Services Director Paul Mar, Community Services Director Arvilla Ohlde, Parks and Recreation Manager Rob Chave, Planning Manager Kirk Vinish, Planner Steve Bullock, Assistant Planner Tim Whitman, Assistant Fire Chief Robin Hickok, Assistant Police Chief Scott Snyder, City Attorney Rhonda March, City Clerk Christine Laws, Recorder Mayor Hall asked if all Councilmembers had the information on Aurora Marketplace, and confirmed with Council President Tom Petruzzi that this would be Item 4A for 5 minutes. COUNCIL PRESIDENT TOM PETRUZZI MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BILL KASPER, THAT ITEM 12 BE CHANGED TO REFLECT THAT THE EXECUTIVE SESSION ON THREE LEGAL MATTERS WILL BE MOVED UP TO ITEM 6A FOR 20 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED. 2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS Council President Tom Petruzzi requested Item C be pulled. COUNCIL PRESIDENT TOM PETRUZZI MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BARBARA FAHEY, TO APPROVE THE BALANCE OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. The agenda items passed are as follows: (A) ROLL CALL (B) APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF MARCH 14, 1995 (D) APPROVAL OF CLAIMS WARRANT #951352 THRU #951479 FOR WEEK OF MARCH 20, 1995; AND PAYROLL WARRANTS #951148 THRU #951424 FOR THE PERIOD OF MARCH 1 THRU MARCH 15, 1995 Approved City Council Minutes March 28, 1995 Page 1 (E) ORDINANCE NO. 3015 PERMITTING LICENSED COMMUNITY -ORIENTED OPEN AIR 6plplo MARKETS (referred from Finance Committee on March 14, 1995) Council President Tom Petruzzi pulled Item C as he was not present at the meeting. COUNCILMEMBER DAVE EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ROGER MYERS, THAT WE RESCHEDULE THE APPROVAL OF THESE MINUTES TO THE NEXT MEETING AS UPDATED MINUTES ARE IN THE PROCESS OF BEING PROVIDED. MOTION CARRIED WITH COUNCIL PRESIDENT TOM PETRUZZI ABSTAINING. The item deferred to next week is as follows: (C) APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF MARCH 21, 1995 3. PRESENTATION ON PRIVATE DONATION OF COMMUNITY CULTURAL CENTER Mayor Hall introduced Mr. Hanken who was to present a plan on a community cultural center. James Hanken, 3400 U.S. Bank Center, 1420 Fifth Avenue, Seattle, spoke on behalf of an Edmonds couple who are his unnamed clients. He indicated his clients want to build an Edmonds Community Cultural Center and are prepared to endow the foundation established for this purpose. The foundation would have title to the facility, but would like to see a private -public partnership. The City needs room for offices related to the arts and community activities. It is envisioned that the Foundation will exchange office space for in -kind services including operation, maintenance and scheduling; the City would control the facility's day -today operations. It would be the primary focus of the operation to provide a meaningful contribution to the community cultural life, a legacy to the City of Edmonds. It is to be built with their own funds and turned over to the City for its operation. He called Council attention to the information contained in the packets. He then went on to describe in some detail the plan and conceptual drawings. He requested the matter be referred to the appropriate committee for consideration and initial drafting of paperwork with which to accomplish the task. The objective is to build this year. Mr. Hanken advised that the only known item left to be resolved is the parking issue. That will have to be recognized in the Comprehensive Plan. He asked for Council assent, approval and cooperation and presented color renderings for perusal after logging them in with the City Clerk. Mayor Hall added that they had met with the City Attorney, Arvilla Ohlde, and Paul Mar. Mr. Hanken expressed thanks for Staff courtesy and cooperation. Council President Petruzzi commented that this wonderful gift was warmly received and asked Mr. Hanken to express appreciation to his clients. Councilmember Dave Earling asked Mr. Hanken to let them know how overwhelming it is for the City to have this opportunity and that the City will do all it can to assist with the project. He went on to suggest that the Community Services Committee, the Finance Committee and, lastly, the Public Safety Committee should be involved. He commented on the high degree of receptivity of the arts and thinks there must be some way to come to a reasonable and amicable resolution of potential problems. It was suggested that those committees could meet on the issue simultaneously, and Mr. Hanken specifically requested a joint meeting so that only one presentation needs to be made. Councilmember Mike Hall asked Mr. Hanken to explain to the public how a foundation works and how it can benefit a city. Mr. Hanken did explain, and went on to inform those listening that a Washington non- profit corporation known as the Edmonds Community Cultural Center Foundation had been established. A board of directors has been selected, mainly community residents and others with expertise. He noted that Approved City Council Minutes March 28, 1995 Page 2 the goals of this private foundation are: maintaining the cultural and civic beautification programs, the hanging basket program; and if extra monies are being earned in the process, scholarships for Edmonds Community College. None of it will come back to the parties involved. Mayor Hall noted some other positive ramifications of this project gift. City Attorney Scott Snyder suggested that in addition to referring to the Council committee, the Staff be authorized to discuss the issue with the Planning Board to review the Comprehensive Plan to make sure there are not any unnecessary impediments as you define the public use zone. The parking issue is one he thinks can be easily resolved. Basically the issue is that for many years the City has authorized contracts for businesses and others in the downtown area to permit them to contract for off -site parking. The issue here would be to make sure that the Public Use Zone is broadly enough defined and includes the site in question so that if the City Council decides it is appropriate to proceed, that part of the arrangement would be entering into a contract with the City so that this site can provide its parking at existing City parking locations at the campus or at the other site which the Council will be considering shortly for acquisition, which is within 100-200' of this location. That would be consistent with the City's past practice, mainly because the anticipated peak hour use would dovetail quite nicely with the City's office use and permit basically joint use of existing public parking. He mentioned it because the Comp Plan is very near to coming back to Council, the next committee meeting is April 1 lth, and he understands the Comp Plan is expected back for final approval on the 18th. We must make sure those two things are tracking. Mr. Hanken agrees that the Comprehensive Plan aspect is very necessary for this project to succeed. Councilmember Barbara Fahey reiterated by reference the comments of other Councilmembers as to the fantastic nature of this gift. COUNCILMEMBER BARBARA FAHEY MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT TOM PETRUZZI, TO AUTHORIZE CITY ATTORNEY TO DRAFT APPROPRIATE ORDINANCE(S) FOR PUBLIC/PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP TO BE BROUGHT BACK TO CITY COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL AND STAFF TO PROCEED WITH COORDINATION OF PROJECT PLANS AND COSTS WITH MR HANKEN. MAYOR HALL INDICATED INHERENT IN THAT WOULD BE BRINGING IT TO THE PLANNING BOARD AND SUCH. MOTION CARRIED. Mr. Hanken introduced Anio Domoto, the project Architect, and Bud Sorrell, the Project Manager for Construction and Development. 4. REVIEW OF PROPOSED INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH CITY OF LYNNWOOD FOR -G' RECYCLING P�l Community Services Director Paul Mar reminded Council that as part of its approval of the 1995 operating budget, there was $13,600 that was earmarked for the recycle program. It was at Council's suggestion that we look at other local communities to have a joint sharing of resources. Since that time we have discussed it wth the City of Lynnwood and with the Edmonds School District. Included in Council's packet is the interlocal agreement, and Mr. Mar was informed last night that it was approved by the Lynnwood City Council. He requested Edmonds' Council approval tonight. Mr. Mar also advised he had received a March 24 letter from the Edmonds School District. As part of that letter Bret Carlstad indicated that he is in the process of getting a draft interlocal agreement through their board. Subsequent to their approval, Mr. Mar will be presenting that to this Council as well. In the agreement with Lynnwood, Steve Fisher would perform similar duties for them that he has done so successfully for Edmonds. Approved City Council Minutes March 28, 1995 Page 3 Discussion followed regarding the various money aspects of the agreement. It was questioned what labor contract this person would fall under and whether the Lynnwood City Attorney had sent any documentation saying they will okay Mr. Fisher working there under their union agreement. Mr. Mar indicated his understanding that both Edmonds' City Attorney and Lynnwood's City Attorney had reviewed the Interlocal Agreement. City Attorney Snyder said the Fair Labor Standards Act establishes a classification employee called joint employees which are employees shared by governmental agencies. Basically, his recommendation is to simply inform the two effected bargaining units of the existence of this employee who would in effect be a contract service employee for an unlisted term. Upon the expiration of the agreement, the position would in effect never be created in those cities and would lapse within this jurisdiction. The definition covers overtime issues and the individual position is not covered by the definitional coverage of the bargaining units in the City of Lynnwood. Further discussion followed with regard to the term of the agreement, as well as the potential additional interlocal agreement with the School District. Lynnwood is aware of what is being done with the School District. City Attorney Snyder said the reason behind using a calendar year was that where funds were not budgeted for the position in other communities, we have an opportunity to review it to greater extent. COUNCILMEMBER DAVE EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MICHAEL HALL, TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO SIGN THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN LYNNWOOD AND EDMONDS TO JOINTLY FUND THE RECYCLE COORDINATOR POSITION AND IMPLEMENT THEIR RESPECTIVE 1995 RECYCLE PROGRAMS. MOTION CARRIED. 4.A PROPOSED ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A STAY ON THE COLLECTION OF CITY OF EDMONDS UTILITY TAX FROM THE AURORA MARKETPLACE ANNEXATION AREA, 444y ✓ AND ANY OTHER AREA ANNEXED TO THE CITY WHOSE ANNEXATION IS STAYED OR LIMITED PURSUANT TO A COURT ORDER BY JUDICIAL APPEAL OF SUCH ANNEXATIONIST AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. Administrative Services Director Art Housler indicated that the passage of this ordinance is necessary as a result of a citizen bringing to his attention that in the newly annexed area of Aurora Marketplace they have been billed for the City utility tax on their electric bill, telephone bill and gas bills. This annexation for the first time in the history of Edmonds has been appealed where there has been a judicial stay on the annexation. As a result of that, we will not receive any of the property taxes from this area. They have been billed the County taxes, and when we go out and provide information to the citizens that are annexing or desiring to annex into the city of Edmonds, we disclose that the taxes on a composite nature are 8.7% less in the city, so these people are holding us to that. He reiterated that in order to correct the problem, this ordinance must be passed. Council President Petruzzi pointed out that in the ordinance, it directs the special counsel representing the City and the Aurora Marketplace to enter into negotiations with Snohomish County in order to insure that the City receives tax revenues from Snohomish County sufficient to compensate the City for providing police, fire, street, maintenance and other public services within the Aurora Marketplace. He expressed a desire to be fair to the people in the Aurora Marketplace and not have them pay our additional taxes until the annexation is approved. Secondly, the Council will be seeking compensation from the County for our provision of services to that area. COUNCIL PRESIDENT TOM PETRUZZI MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MICHAEL HALL, TO ADOPT ORDINANCE NO.3016. MOTION CARRIED. Approved City Council Minutes March 28, 1995 Page 4 Councilmember Fahey inquired whether the agenda memo phrase "and fix a time when the same shall become effective" was done. City Clerk Rhonda March responded that is based upon the publication. She publishes on Sunday, and it is effective five days from then, on the following Friday. 4. CONTINUED COUNCIL DELIBERATION OF UPDATED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - LAND (� USE ELEMENT (from March 21, 1995) Planning Manager Rob Chave reminded Council that a hearing was held last week on land use issues. The purpose tonight is to review and discuss general overall concepts and then get into small area recommendations. The Growth Management Act has changed the landscape for how development f� regulations and long-term planning are inter -related. Up until the Growth Management Act, zoning controlled how development occurred on the land. The Comprehensive Plan, its land use policies and maps were advisory. They were two separate, but related, information that were considered in development and regulatory decisions on the part of the City. Zoning is now just one implementation measure along with all the other developmental regulations. All of those must be consistent and implement the Comprehensive Plan. It is more a direct relationship than ever before, and the Comprehensive Plan has the primary place. What has been done is to analyze the existing Comprehensive Plan, paying close attention to what the current development pattern and zoning pattern is in the city. Staff has tried to pinpoint some strategic changes it thinks are going to occur over the next 20 year period. It is thought those changes are focused in the downtown waterfront area because of the changes in transportation, and the hospital/99 area largely pushed along by two specific developments to be occurring in the next few years -- the high school and potentially some activity in the hospital area in addition to increasing linkage of those two developments to find a core to encourage development and set the tone for development in that entire area. Staff sees both areas as being activity centers which are pedestrian oriented, transit oriented, and mixed use developments. Mr. Chave thinks the public meetings generally have had a receptive attitude toward that overall concept. Upon request, Mr. Chave recounted the schedule for the next several weeks as to additional meetings. Mr. Chave added that the April 4 meeting was a key meeting in that the transportation issue will generate a lot of interest. Depending upon how discussions go, the earliest date upon which formal decision could be made on the overall Comprehensive Plan is in two weeks, after the housing issue is considered. A draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is expected in the next one to two weeks. There will be a comment period. If the Comprehensive Plan is adopted at that time, it would be as an interim advisory document until the EIS process has reached final determination. Further dialogue concerned publicity, notices, and availability of drafts. The concern raised by Councilmember Kasper is that the document is difficult to understand, even to someone who is knowledgeable in the areas discussed. Mr. Chave believes transportation to be the most complex element of the Plan. Councilmember Fahey asked for clarification regarding the difference between Planned Residential Developments and multi -family zoning and referred specifically to page 22 § C. She was advised that was existing language in the existing Comprehensive Plan that has never been implemented in zoning or development regulations. City Attorney Snyder advised that the use of a Planned Unit Development (as it is called in most cities) or a PRD usually contains both attached and detached concepts. It began with detached concept as being more representative of the existing Edmonds neighborhoods, particularly in areas such as Highway 99 where you are trying to capture density near to transportation centers. The clustering of units and additional unit densities in exchange for the achievement of other policy goals is a fairly common tool in comprehensive plans. What this opens up is a discussion as to whether the City is now ready for the second part of the second common use or planned residential developments. Approved City Council Minutes March 28, 1995 Page 5 Mr. Chave explained it was felt good to continue to have it included because the Staff recognizes that there are some very difficult pieces of development land around. In some of those circumstances, if we follow the Comprehensive Plan with an Urban Design Guidelines (the targeted work program for the second half of the year), they think this concept will work. They are single-family, but rather than being surrounded by lawn, they are right up against another unit as in a townhouse concept or pitched roofs or single buildings next to single buildings. City Attorney Snyder advised that since the days of the Council's PRD discussion and the Planning Board PRD discussion, the City has implemented a Critical Areas Ordinance which, on some of the difficult sites Mr. Chave mentioned, may result with a required buffering of wetlands and a far less usable lot area. While there is a reasonable use exception, one reasonable use of a 20-acre site with a 10-acre wetland with buffering removes three-quarters of the site would be to permit preservation of the wetland with buffering in tact and cluster the permitted units in a way which fits in with the neighborhood and preserves the wetland. There are a number of required changes in the ordinances which have occurred since the days of the City's last PRD discussion, and it is time to look at the concept. Mr. Chave further reported there is nothing in the code right now that allows townhouse -type development. In a past presentation, people tended to act more favorably to pitched roofs and things that looked single- family even if they weren't. There were also very negative reactions to a single-family that looked like a multi -family with very square shape and little adornment. Mayor Hall acknowledged for the record the package of letters attached to the packets. Mr. Chave reminded Council there were approximately 11 small areas that came up before the Planning Board. They were brought to that board's attention generally by previous re -zone or planned change requests or specific letters requesting a review. Generally, they were prompted because there was a conflict between what the existing Comprehensive Plan indicates and what the existing zoning indicates. Mr. Chave reviewed the areas thought to be design recommendations — land use changes proposed to take a long-term view on one hand and are based on the assumption that compatible design is possible in these instances. There are several options. He reviewed the locations of the smaller areas and what the decisions of the Planning Board were. There was considerable deliberation regarding the numerous smaller areas. City Attorney Snyder reiterated and restated that in the past the actual zoning of a tract of land controlled. Under the GMA, the Comprehensive Plan designation controls, and zoning must be consistent. That means two things: you are going to encounter some situations where the consistency is going to need to be brought about by the Comprehensive Plan change, and 2) if there are any changes there will be two steps seen both now and at a later time for those people who are requesting changes. Questions raised concerned: transitional zones, down -zoning and decreased land use, impact on property rights and whether taking is a concern, and density. When asked about PRD possibilities and procedures, Mr. Chave said he wanted Council to start thinking about whether it wants to take the next step on the PRD issue and allow or direct Staff to consider some kind of attached units in transitional areas and putting together some type of proposal. Up to now they have not been able to do that under any circumstances. In the context of the Urban Design Guidelines that are being developed, that will point to situations where you may be able to afford a transition and have a townhouse development (as example) that would be in a transitional area between single-family and multi -family. He cited a specific area where this could be applied. While it is a policy question, it is ultimately an implementation question. Approved City Council Minutes March 28, 1995 Page 6 Additional discussions concerned policy statements, flexibility, citizen desire to highest and best use of their property, traffic, dual zone properties, non -conforming use, and whether down-comping a property puts the City in a legal position. City Attorney Snyder raised one practical consequence of the way things have been done in the past. Because specific zoning designations controlled, zoning maps were very precise, and the boundaries followed lot lines. There was a great emphasis on the zoning map as being exactly correct. Because comp plans were general planning documents and did not require the precision, and because state law granted supremacy to the actual zoning designation, some of these designations are the result of that imprecision that occurred in past zoning documents because of line size. Under the GMA plan, both the Comprehensive Plan designation and the zoning designation will need to be the same. it will result in the Comprehensive Plan having the precision it didn't have before. Mr. Snyder pointed out that in some of these small areas, we are basically cleaning up the map. Each of the small areas were discussed in order to try to reach Council consensus as to direction. Area 2 Councilmember Hall suggested that Area 2 remain as high density and that Council make that consistent with the Zoning Code in the Comprehensive Plan. City Attorney Snyder advised that the Central Puget Sound Growth Planning Hearings Board has put emphasis on a requirement that cities in their comprehensive planning process should show their work, meaning that if you are going to make changes or as you make these designations, you leave a clear trail in the minutes regarding your rationale. As you go through here, if you have references to the goals that the City has adopted in the past, make reference to them, so that they understand the reasoning. Going through step by step and giving some instruction to Staff as to what the ordinance that comes back to Council contains will be very helpful in that process. Councilmember Hall recounted his belief that the reason for doing this is to maintain the historical comprehensive plan for this area. He reminded that four different council members had provided their reasonings. City Attorney Snyder suggested a comprehensive planning policy would be to cluster high density development in close proximity to transportation corridors such as Highway 99 which he believes is the basis for the Comprehensive Plan designation in the first place. This would provide, as you move out, high density, a high density buffer and then single-family neighborhoods. There are presently policies about maintaining those buffered areas and preventing the intrusion of higher densities and commercial uses into the single-family neighborhoods. Obviously, where there is a variety of transportation corridors coming together, Council will have some fine distinctions that need to be made (such as whether to utilize Highway 99 in the rationale or SR 104). Councilmember John Nordquist asked if the Planning Board did not also have to provide a paper trail as to its rationale and was advised it was. He commented, and it was generally agreed, that their's was cloudy. Mr. Chave reported one of the goals for the activity centers which this is within is to encourage mixed used development patterns that divide a variety of commercial and residential opportunities. If you are looking for a true mixture of uses, encouraging multi -family to be within close proximity to all that is exactly what you are after. Councilmember Kasper thinks it okay to go into zoning at this time so long as Council is willing to acknowledge that when we do the Comp Plan, it doesn't mean we are going to follow through with the proper thing for the area. He doesn't see these properties under immediate use. He sees it as a matter of not wanting to lose the position they are in or get stuck somewhere they don't want to be. He thinks that needs to be addressed first. Approved City Council Minutes March 28, 1995 Page 7 Further zoning clarifications were made, after which Council President Petruzzi indicated he believed there was a consensus on the Council backed up by reasoning by our attorney, that we are not changing the zoning right now. Mr. Chave agreed that Council was establishing intent. Area 1 Councilmember Roger Myers asked if Area 1 had been overlooked. Mr. Chave indicated this area did not produce much comment at any level. The recommendation is to fill that in so that it would also be designated high density, multi -family, which is found to the north of it. It is now a "finger" of a lower classification. Council President Petruzzi recommended this block be designated RM 2.5. Area 3 Mr. Chave reminded Council this area is commonly referred to as Paradise Lane. Right now it is zoned single-family, and the recommendation from the Planning Board was medium density. This would ultimately translate in zoning to RM 3 or RM 2.4. He thinks from their discussions they were assuming it would be lowest multi -family designation. They prefaced that on the policy statements that are in the draft comp plan regarding designing to be compatible with the neighborhood, buffers, and the rest. It was the policy statements in the recommendation to which they were tying it. Discussion occurred concerning the number of multi -family zoning options available and the location of the area. It was stated planned business would not be in this area. Councilmember Fahey called Council's attention to correspondence from Rob Morrison who provided additional input. City Attorney Snyder advised that one basic rule of serving on the Planning Commission is that, while you may express your opinions as an individual, his comments in the first paragraph regarding changing his -vote should be disregarded. As a Planning Board member, the action of the board as a whole speaks for itself, and he retains the right as a citizen to give you his opinion. It was suggested that any attempt by an individual member to express the reasoning or decision -making pattern of the board or attempt to change a vote should be disregarded. Council President Petruzzi asked if there were any objections to going along with the Planning Board recommendation on Area 3. Councilmember Hall wanted to make sure that if this does get zoned for more than single-family residence, that the idea of having a green buffer on the residential side be highly recommended to whatever landowners are going to develop this area. If at all possible, ingress and egress should be on SR 104 to help minimize the impact to the neighborhood. In response, Mr. Chave called attention to page 27 of the Comprehensive Plan Land Use plan § (f)(1) which provides more detail as to what is expected of the Westgate Corridor as an entryway. Councilmember Nordquist led discussion with regard to the Westgate Study being considered even though it was not passed formally by the Planning Board. The last charge to complete the study was a traffic study which has not been done. Further discussion concerned whether the transportation plan to be considered next week classified as a traffic study. Councilmember Kasper initiated dialogue concerning the potential need for additional rights -of -way in addition to the ingress and egress issues. He was advised there were not currently plans under way to increase the street widths in that corridor. Councilmember Kasper brought up that a ferry site had not yet been finalized. He thinks this may be the only access to the ferry. Mr. Chave said that Council would be Approved City Council Minutes March 28, 1995 Page 8 - considering the entire Comprehensive Plan, and if Council wanted to revisit any of these areas after discussion of the transportation issue, it was free to do so. Councilmember Earling does not believe it reasonable to expect that traffic will be allowed onto SR 104. He thinks traffic would have to come off Paradise Lane. Conversation followed on street widths and the likelihood they would be sufficient for the amount of traffic generated. Councilmember Fahey confirmed that some of the concerns expressed by the citizens over the narrowness of the street and the safety hazards that could be created would have to be resolved when a developer came in with a proposal for an apartment, condominium, etc. Some situations may need close review at the ADB level because of the close proximity to single-family residence. She further questioned the issue of owner - occupied properties. Area 4 Mr. Chave described the area and current status of the area's development. Questions were raised as to current designation, zoning, lot orientation and buffering. Councilmember Fahey asked for clarification of the recommendation for this area. Mr. Chave showed a map showing the proposed plan. He explained the plan and advised that it was believed it would form a transition between the planned business areas which are directly on the arterial and the single-family neighborhoods which are oriented internally and away from the arterial. Area 5 Mr. Chave described the area being discussed and referred to a letter from John Maher, one of the proponents. He said the Westgate Study in 1988 said it should be a planned business area with some type of commercial development. It would be included under this scheme as part of this planned business corridor through SR 104. The Planning Board felt that because of the topography change they did not want to extend that designation all the way back, closer to the single-family areas. They wanted to make it clear that it was appropriate for that type of development down low along Edmonds Way but not a way to do so up high. Councilmember Myers confirmed that this was discussed last week by individuals who had part of a property in one zoning and part in another. He questioned the impact of this dual zoning on a property owner. High rockeries and terracing were briefly discussed. Area 6 Mr. Chave indicated Council had a lot of information on this particular area. Basically, it is a property that is split single-family in front and multi -family behind. Generally the current Comprehensive Plan addresses it as the same. The proponent is arguing that his only access is off of 196th. The Planning Board felt that rather than changing the zoning, they would rather look to the PRD provisions if those are modified to provide some type of relief for infill development. Presently there are a variety of non- conforming uses. Councilmember Kasper said this is an area Council in effect zoned out. He questioned City Attorney Snyder with regard to having the Stockman property which after five years of haggling came in through a PRD process. What the people are against is having a high piece of property and having everyone in the higher sections looking into the back yards. That is not the case here. That property was cut off on some zonings back in 1972. There is no access now because of that. Addressing City Attorney Snyder, Councilmember Kasper expressed his belief that this can be dealt with in future Comp Plan changes if you Approved City Council Minutes March 28, 1995 Page 9 wanted to blend it. Mr. Chave suggested waiting until after the Urban Design Guidelines come out to see if there will be enough control at the site development level to feel comfortable with some kind of change in land use and zoning. It may not then require a PRD. The flexibility of the Planning Board recommendation was discussed. Other questions and discussion concerned topography, access, frontage dimensions, and the existence of a non -conforming structure. Area 7 Rob Chave says that Area 7 indicates a problem between 76th and Highway 99. There -are split situations where it is commercially oriented to Highway 99 then steps down to multi -family behind. Under the Comprehensive Plan designation for this area, it is generally designated corridor which gives the City flexibility at the zoning level. Under the existing map the City has the flexibility to be able to address this at the zoning level. He thinks that would be consistent with the Planning Board recommendation. They wanted more time to study this. The Comp Plan is not foreclosing Council's options. Questions were raised concerning re -zoning, what needs to be done regarding present zoning problems and how owners could get relief. By way of clarification, Mr. Chave stated that he thinks that in looking at the broad use land pattern the Planning Board could not make a call at that level as to whether it will ultimately be commercial or multi -family. He thinks the impressions seemed to be that commercial was probably going to be the ultimum outcome, but the rezoning process must happen first. Councilmember Fahey asked if it were feasible to give them relief by making that business within the Comprehensive Plan instead. Mr. Chave suggested Council could make that statement of intent and then carry it through the zoning process. Councilmember Nordquist indicated a desire for there to be an historical knowledge of the area and the various changes that have taken effect over the last several years. He believes they need help. Mr. Chave indicated that if Council gives the Planning Board a statement of intent at this point in time, they can carry that along with a re -zone effort. Councilmember Earling stated that when this area was previously discussed, he specifically voted against the change because this was all going to be considered in the Comprehensive Plan review. Now, we are looking at the same piece of property and still not telling the people we're going to do anything very soon for them. There is no reason for these people to have to endure this. Mr. Chave said some of these can be started now with the Planning Board. The information is basically put together. It is a matter of bringing the matter through immediately following the plan update next month. Councilmember Myers confirmed that it is almost automatic, that if they apply for it, they would receive a commercial designation for that. Councihnember Myers feels Council should just rezone the area as commercial in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Chave responded that the way the commercial corridor is set up, the policies state that when the properties who have any kind of access to Highway 99 or 76th, they are basically zoned commercial in those situations. What it means is that that decision has to take place at the zoning level. He feels, however, that we have enough statement of intent that that should be clear. Area 8 The existing Comprehensive Plan designates this area as single-family zoning, and recent development is multi -family. The Planning Board had a difficult time with this; they felt that as far East as the current development pattern goes (Mr. Koo's recent proposal) should be retained high density multi -family, but that the last couple of lots immediately East should step down to a medium density designation. This would provide a little better transition to the neighborhood while still retaining a multi -family development Approved City Council Minutes March 28, 1995 Page 10 pattern. The feeling was that even though they didn't have direct access to SR104 because of its proximity, very high volume, traffic, long history of being multi -family, they really didn't have a lot of choice. Discussion followed on whether contract zoning on the north side of that street still exists. Further discussion was pursued with regard to the Planning Board decision, as reflected in its minutes, in deciding to hold it where the current development pattern is. Buffers were also considered. Mr. Chave expressed his belief that with the recent development effort going on that this was a moot issue. Area 9 - Mr. Chave said the most difficult part of this was sorting out what the current zoning and development pattern was. He invited questions, but there were none. Area 10 Rob Chave reported that a number of new letters had been received on this area. This is known as the Homeland Drive area. This is a design -oriented decision the Planning Board came up with. It is a difficult location. The only sense the Planning Board made out of it was that if it was going to be developed, it had to be developed where BC development was down low and oriented to Fifth Avenue. It did not make any sense for that type of development to be up high. The assumption they are making in that long-term decision is that there would be a way to control that type of development if it occurred. They thought it inappropriate to develop commercial up high that was going to be backed into the residential neighborhood rather than Fifth Avenue. The current Comprehensive Plan is multi -family and is zoned single family. It is the only remaining single family in that entire stretch of Fifth Avenue. Mr. Chave said this was another area where it may make more sense to hold until the Urban Design Guidelines are done. Unless there are some real specific policies in the plan that said this type of development must be at street level on an arterial, there would be nothing to do but prevent them from putting a BC development on top of the rise. At this point there is nothing we can do to prevent that from happening. Mr. Chave responded that Urban Design Guidelines is the only way you could do that. It was suggested that there were potential problems, and this is an area which should be reviewed carefully as they were comprehensively zoned multiple underneath and single family on top. It has always been consensus to leave it because of the rolling terrain. Councilmember Nordquist concurred to leave it as is. Councilmember Myers initiated discussion on what type of protection could be offered if a change were not made right now. By not doing anything now, they are protected by the single-family zoning. Upon questioning, Mr. Chave explained that as far as the Planning Board is concerned, Areas 8, 9 and 10 came along later in the process. They dealt with the first 7 as a group, and then started dealing with 8, 9 and 10 later. He will make sure that Council is provided with information necessary for Areas 8, 9 and 10 in order for the record to be complete. Area 11 Area 11 has been talked about already in context of Westgate, but it was revisited to make sure it was included. The concern expressed by the letter in the packet was that if the Planning Board changed designations on the West side of SR104, then there really wasn't much point in the East side remaining single-family because they would be opposite that type of development. It you look at the pattern, the lots' only frontage is SR104. The Comp Plan designation is single-family, zoning is single family, and the recommendation would be the planned business strip along the East side of Edmonds Way. Approved City Council Minutes March 28, 1995 Page 11 Councilmember Myers expressed a desire to see a map of Area IL 5. DISCUSSION ON POSSIBILITY OF MORATORIUM ON CELLULAR TOWERS (from h� February 7, 1995) 1 Community Services Director Paul Mar introduced the issue and provided an overview. Planner Kirk Vinish discussed the regulatory portion, and Assistant Planner Steve Bullock addressed E(monds-specific issues. Mr. Vinish was the lead on the OneComm application, and Mr. Bullock was the staff lead on the Cellular One application. Mr. Mar noted at this point that there were no Staff recommendations. Mr. Mar used the overhead to show a visual of the large number of existing cellular towers in South Snohomish County. He also recapped the applications of Cellular One, OneComm and U. S. West and described the players. Mr. Vinish described the current criteria which in essence said you must meet conditional use permit criteria and have zones which allow transmitting. The went on to further detail how some other jurisdictions handle matters such as land use standards, regulations based on radio frequencies, power output and citizen/industry criteria. Mr. Bullock identified where towers might be placed under the current plan and the areas where currently transmission and receiving facilities are allowed right now. He went on to show visuals of the topography of Areas A and B. He then showed and explained the shadows created by towers of various heights. He said that viable sites address city concerns, the cellular industry and the topographic constraints. Mayor Hall noted for the record receipt of correspondence from Don Storch Mr. Mar portrayed for Council some of the "holes" and described where towers would need to be located in view of those holes. He also related that companies have begun establishing contact with the Department of Development and Environmental Services and the Seattle Department of Construction and Land Use. He said that Edmonds is the third entity to be approved. This is being done through the collective effort of the cellular industry rather than individually. He further identified for Council what the issues are from the industry perspective. He indicated the issue needing to be addressed is how to get approved. A moratorium life span is six months. Discussion followed on the options on regulatory action: 1) impose a moratorium, 2) direct Staff to begin drafting regulatory language, 3) direct Staff to immediately begin working on an ordinance and not impose a moratorium, or 4) do nothing and leave current siting process in place. Concerns raised included Snohomish County being inundated by radio waves, directing the towers away from residential areas, and the placement of towers in Esperance and at the fire station (Mayor Hall thinks that a tower was needed at the fire station water tower). It was suggested that six months would allow time to get more information. It was also hoped that an ordinance may be able to be in effect within that time. It was further suggested that if individuals are really serious, they should get together and form a standard rate for towers. It was suggested that if the 800 megahertz system is approved there may not be any reason for any towers at all. There was concern about the potential proliferation of towers before the medical problem possibilities are resolved. It was proposed that two or three locations should be considered rather than eight. It was felt there was a need to provide the service, but not at the expense of the quality of life in Edmonds. There was also discussion about the potential need to upgrade the 800 megahertz system at some point as well as the existence of new products already. k COUNCILMEMBER MICHAEL HALL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BARBARA FAHEY, TO EXTEND THE MEETING. MOTION CARRIED. Approved City Council Minutes March 28, 1995 Page 12 Discussion was had on the topic of a task force designed to, among other things, develop an ordinance. The ones in King County and Seattle include community interests as well as industry representatives and jurisdiction staff in trying to work together to craft an ordinance. COUNCILMEMBER DAVE EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JOHN NORDQUIST, THAT WE PLACE A SIX MONTH MORATORIUM ON CELL TOWERS, WITH THE PROVISO THAT WITHIN 60 DAYS A WORKSHOP BE SET UP WITH INFORMATION THAT STAFF CAN BRING BACK TO US REGARDING THE VARIOUS ISSUES SUCH AS RADIO WAVES AND HEALTH ISSUES SO THAT THE COUNCIL CAN BETTER UNDERSTAND SOME OF THE ISSUES RELATED HERE. COUNCILMEMBER BARBARA FAHEY ASKED IF THERE WAS ANYTHING TO PRECLUDE US FROM SAYING UP TO SIX MONTHS SO THAT IF WE CAME TO A DECISION EARLIER THAN SIX MONTHS, SOMETHING COULD BE PUT INTO PRINT. COUNCILMEMBER EARLING AGREED WITH THE RECOMMENDATION, AS DID THE SECONDER City Attorney Snyder advised that Mr. Earling mentioned 60 days and the City by imposing a moratorium on the next Consent Agenda is required by GMA to have a hearing within 60 days of that date in order to confirm Council's action. That could be combined with the workshop and preliminary report. He also indicated there had been some discussion of consolidation of sites. The City was a hard bargainer in the last negotiation with U. S. West. He cautioned that federal anti-trust laws would prohibit the City from using its zoning power in order to consolidate a limited number of sites to gain an advantage in the bargaining process. If the outcome were to be that there were a limited number of sights, that due to the crest of the hill which runs primarily through residential settings, those portions of the city are best suited for the location of the tower currently have zoning which is at odds, with the exception of some of the public sites. He did not want any implication in the record that the City ended up providing sites for cellulars, that it was doing so in order to obtain an unfair bargaining advantage in the process. You may get less by directing them to public sites. MOTION CARRIED. Rob Chave clarified that the task force is going to report directly back to Council for policy decisions, and any subsequent regulations. Council would refer on to the Planning Board. The Planning Board will be on hold until some direction on how to proceed is given. In response to Councilmember Hall's request for clarification, Mr. Snyder advised that what was being discussed was one of the taxing provisions so that the City's utility taxes for cellular and other phone operations was uniform through the cities in the state. It was further explained it was a gross receipts tax, and the only way this subject was tied to the present discussion would be if there were more people, with more cellular phones, and subsequently more money in the form of the tax. The tax is not site -specific. Mr. Snyder indicated it is based on the gross revenues of the consumer, and the consumer is not where you are using the phone, but where they are sending the bill. 6.A EXECUTIVE SESSION ON THREE LEGAL MATTERS Mayor Hall recessed Council for a 20 minutes Executive Session on three legal matters. The meeting reconvened at 10:45 p.m. COUNCIL MEMBER TOM PETRUZZI MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ROGER MYERS, TO REMOVE ITEM 9 INDIVIDUAL COUNCIL REPORTS/UPDATES ON RESPECTIVE. BOARD MEETINGS. MOTION CARRIED. Approved City Council Minutes March 28, 1995 Page 13 6. REPORT ON GENERAL FUND FINANCIAL POSITION FOR THE PERIOD ENDED FEBRUARY 28,1995) Administrative Services Director Art Housler utilized the overhead to emphasize his presentation. Revenues to date over the two month period are right on target as are expenditures. Revenues are over by $5,600 for the period, and expenditures are over by $4,800 which is not particularly significant at this point in time. He then went on to discuss the sales tax trend and indicated that it is over and above the last three years and is a 9% increase over 1994 for the two month period. Sales tax is doing real well. Council President Petruzzi related his understanding that traffic tickets are down considerably. He asked Mr. Housler to check with the Chief of Police and see how they are running so it can be gauged It was suggested by Councilmember Myers that when the results of the traffic study conducted during the time the ferry was down may provide some answers as to why ticket revenues were down. 7. APPOINTMENT BY MAYOR TO SISTER CITY COMMISSION COUNCII, PRESIDENT TOM PETRUZZI MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JOHN NORDQUIST, TO CONFIRM STEPHEN C. WAITE TO THE SISTER CITY COMMISSION, POSITION NO. 12, 3/28/95 THROUGH 12/31/97. MOTION CARRIED. COUNCILMEMBER ROGER MYERS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BILL KASPER TO EXCUSE TOM PETRUZZI'S ABSENCE LAST WEEK BECAUSE OF HIS BEING AWAY DUE TO AN ILLNESS IN THE FAMHIY. MOTION CARRIED. 8. MAYOR Mayor Hall noted that Mr. Housler's picture appeared on the front page of the "Enterprise" newspaper which generated some comments. It regarded the proposed purchase by the City Council. She wanted to go on record as saying that starting in September 1994 with discussion of this, the public has not been j involved. She said the public must be involved and make sure they have some input as to the destiny of the City Hall. She also emphasized that in the past the Council has held its own public hearings. If, in fact, this goes through, it must be scheduled for a public hearing. She cited Washington law that says: "Secrecy is efficient but breeds suspicion. Openness is difficult but breeds trust". Mayor Hall further announced that RTA postmortem hearing will be held April 17 at 5:00 p.m. in this n,t room. There will be another one up north on April 4 at 2:00 p.m. She invited all Council to attend. W 9. COUNCIL Council President Petruzzi responded to Mayor Hall's letter about secrecy. He stressed that when the Council agrees to execute a contract, this will be in open session. There has been nothing hidden, but negotiations are very confidential because it can hurt the parties involved if there is exposure time to the sellers. This will be on the agenda and will be in public. Any questions desired may be asked privately of Councilmembers. The same criteria has been followed on all past acquisitions by the City. Council President Petruzzi announced and explained in some detail the system being placed to assist in answering correspondence addressed to the Council or to individual Council members. Councilmember Fahey reported that the Multipurpose Facilities Task Force has been officially formed. p�W The South Snohomish County Chamber of Commerce and the Cascade Board are collaborating on efforts and will be submitting a grant. The South Snohomish County Chamber will be the lead agency on the Approved City Council Minutes March 28, 1995 Page 14 grant. The task force is composed of seven members, three of whom represent the Cascade Board and four representatives from the South Snohomish County Chamber. From the Chamber, at least two of those individuals will be representatives of the lodging industry. The representatives form the Cascade Board will be George Janecke from the City of Lynnwood, David Gossett who is the President of the Cascade Board and also represents Mountlake Terrace, and Councilmember Fahey. The Steering Committee will be an offshoot of everything being done for Cascade. The next meeting on that will be on the 31st. Councilmember Fahey also announced the first meeting of a group interested in the creation of an Economic Development Council on next Monday at the Anderson Center, Room 206, from 2:30 to 4:30 p.m. She is excited about the response she has received and passed along information as to some of groups cP making inquiries. 10. EXECUTIVE SESSION ON REAL ESTATE MATTER There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was recessed to an Executive Session on a real estate matter at 11:00 p.m. and adjourned from there at 11:27 p.m. THE ORIGINAL SIGNED COPY OF THESE MINUTES, AS WELL AS A TAPED RECORDING OF ALL COUNCH, MEETINGS, CAN BE FOUND IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE. err" u''�iu� �■�ur.: � qo/n-dffld��Mach, City Clerk Approved City Council Minutes March 28, 1995 Page 15 r AGENDA EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL PLAZA MEETING ROOM - LIBRARY BUILDING 7:00 -10:00 p.m. MARCH 28, 1996 SPECIAL WORK MEETING NO AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION 6:45 P.M. - INTERVIEW CANDIDATE FOR SISTER CITY COMMISSION CALL TO ORDER - 7:00 P.M. FLAG SALUTE 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 2. (10 Min.) CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS (A) ROLL CALL (B) APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF MARCH 14, 1995 (C) APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF MARCH 21, 1995 (D) APPROVAL OF CLAIMS WARRANT #951352 THRU #951479 FOR WEEK OF MARCH 20, 1995; AND PAYROLL WARRANTS #951148 THRU #951424 FOR THE PERIOD OFMARCH 1 THRU MARCH 15, 1995 (E) PROPOSED ORDINANCE PERMITTING LICENSED COMMUNITY -ORIENTED OPEN AIR MARKETS (referred from Finance Committee of March 14, 1995) 3. (16Min.) PRESENTATION ON PRIVATE DONATION OF COMMUNITY CULTURAL CENTER 4. (6 Min.) REVIEW OF PROPOSED INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH CITY OF LYNNWOOD FOR RECYCLING 5. (60Min.) CONTINUED COUNCIL DELIBERATION OF UPDATED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - LAND USE ELEMENT (from March 21, 1995) 6. (45 Min.) DISCUSSION ON POSSIBILITY OF MORATORIUM ON CELLULAR TOWERS (from February 7, 1995) 7. (10 Min.) REPORT ON GENERAL FUND FINANCIAL POSITION FOR THE PERIOD ENDED FEBRUARY 28, 1995 8. (3 Min.) APPOINTMENT BY MAYOR TO SISTER CITY COMMISSION 9. (10 Min.) INDIVIDUAL COUNCIL REPORTS/UPDATES ON RESPECTIVE BOARD MEETINGS 10. (6 Min.) MAYOR 11. (16 Min.) COUNCIL 12. EXECUTIVE SESSION ON REAL ESTATE AND LEGAL MATTERS The public Is Invited to attend. Parking and meeting rooms are accessible for persons with disabilities. Contact the City Clerk at 771-0245 with 24 hours advance notice for special accommodations. The Council Agenda appears on Chambers Cable, Channel 32. Delayed telecast of this meetingg appears the following Wednesday evening at 7.00 p.m. on Channel 36, and the following Friday and Monday at noon on Channel 32.