Loading...
03/23/2004 City CouncilMarch 23, 2004 Following a Special Meeting at 6:45 p.m. for an Executive Session regarding a legal matter, the Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Haakenson in the Council Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Gary Haakenson, Mayor Michael Plunkett, Council President Jeff Wilson, Councilmember Mauni Moore, Councilmember Peggy Pritchard Olson, Councilmember Dave Orvis, Councilmember Richard Marin, Councilmember Deanna Dawson, Councilmember ALSO PRESENT David Dwyer, Student Representative 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA STAFF PRESENT David Stern, Chief of Police Duane Bowman, Development Services Director Noel Miller, Public Works Director Rob Chave, Planning Manager Dave Gebert, City Engineer Jeannine Graf, Building Official Steve Bullock, Senior Planner Scott Snyder, City Attorney Sandy Chase, City Clerk Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst. Jeannie Dines, Recorder COUNCIL PRESIDENT PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, FOR APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COUNCILMEMBER MOORE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PLUNKETT, FOR APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: (A) ROLL CALL (B) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MARCH 16, 2004. (C) APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #69731 THROUGH #69901 FOR THE WEEK OF MARCH 15, 2004, IN THE AMOUNT OF $214,405.95. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSITS AND CHECKS #37810 THROUGH #37894 FOR THE PERIOD MARCH 1 THROUGH MARCH 15, 2004, IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,021,024.87. (D) AUTHORIZATION TO CALL FOR BIDS FOR THE SOUTH 76TH AVENUE WEST OVERLAY (SR 99 TO 220TH STREET SW) PROJECT. (E) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN CONTRACT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES WITH EDAW INC. FOR CRITICAL AREAS AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SUPPORT. (F) AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE A 2004 VAN FROM HUSKY TRUCK CENTER IN THE AMOUNT OF $32,184.50 (PRICE INCLUDES SALES TAX). Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 23, 2004 Page 1 3. REPORT ON 2201-H- STREET SW / 881-H- AVENUE W SEWER SPECIAL CONNECTION FEE. City Engineer Dave Gebert explained staff was seeking direction from the Council with regard to a proposal to establish a special connection fee for three private properties on 88th Avenue W in the vicinity of 220th Street SW. He explained the city was planning a major street improvement project for 220th with construction anticipated to begin in summer 2004. Three private properties on 88th Avenue W — 21903, 21904, and 2191.1 — are within the city limits and not currently connected to the sewer but would be City of Edmonds sewer customers if/when they connected. Mr. Gebert displayed a map identifying the location of the three properties. He explained staff considered it in the best interest of the private property owners, the City and City utility to install the sewer collector stub -out for these properties within the 220th Street right-of-way in conjunction with the 220th Street improvement project to avoid a future project that would require boring or trenching into the new pavement, sidewalks, etc. if the properties chose to connect to the sewer in the future. Construction costs would also likely be less to install the sewer stub -out now rather than in the future. Mr. Gebert explained the City's Sewer Capital Fund 41.2 would provide the funds for construction of the sewer stub -out for the three properties which would provide the properties a connection point for future connection. The project to install the stub -out is included in the adopted 2004 Capital Budget; however, the cost of construction should be recovered from private property owners who benefit from the stub -out. Special connection fees are authorized by RCW but special connection fees must be adopted by the City Council after construction is complete and the actual costs are known. Mr. Gebert summarized the two issues staff sought Council guidance on were, 1) whether to proceed with. establishing a special connection fee, and 2) should the properties be required to connect within the timeframe that is currently required by the Edmonds Code or should they be allowed to defer connection until a later date when they needed to connect based on a septic system failure, new development, etc. With regard to whether to establish a special connection fee, Mr. Gebert explained the City Attorney advised there is no legal requirement that a special connection fee be established or that the property owners must pay the fee; however, in an effort to be consistent and in fairness to other rate payers, staff recommends establishing a special connection fee so that the property owners pay for the cost of the stub - out. Historically, the City has required private property owners to pay for utility installations that served private property, typically via LIDs or at the time of development. Staff recommends the property owners fund the cost of construction of the sewer stub -out and several options for payment were evaluated including LID, latecomers agreement and special connection fee. The cost for the stub -out was estimated to be less than $7500 and would be divided between the three property owners. Staff determined the special connection fee was the most expeditious manner and lowest cost method. Mr. Gebert summarized downsides to the special connection fee include that if the City chose not to require the property owners to connect within a set timeframe, it could be some time before the connection fee was paid. Further, the special connection fee would not allow an installment payment plan similar to an LID. With regard to whether the property owners should be required to connect within a set timeframe or defer connection, Mr. Gebert explained the code currently required property owners connect within 30-60 days. In this instance, the property owners would have significant additional costs to connect to the sewer in addition to their portion of the stub -out as they would be required to install approximately 250 feet of sewer collector to connect to the main as well as their own lateral and side sewers. Depending on the method, the estimated cost of the sewer collection was $50,000 - $75,000 which would be divided between the three property owners. Due to the high cost, staff recommends the property owners not be Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 23, 2004 Page 2 required to connect within a set timeframe and be allowed to defer connection until they need/choose to connect. Mr. Gebert described the schedule for improvements on 220`h Street SW with construction to begin in July 2004 and completion of the sub -out for these properties anticipated in Fall/Winter. At that time, the actual cost of the stub -out could be determined and staff would then return to Council with an ordinance to adopt the special connection fee. Mr. Gebert reported staff briefed the Community Services/Development Services Committee on the proposed special connection fee and the Committee endorsed the proposal. Staff also held a neighborhood meeting with the affected property owners. Their most significant concern was the potential substantial cost of additional construction of the 250 feet of sewer to connect to the main. Staff advised the affected property owners this would be on tonight's agenda and that they would have an opportunity to speak. Mr. Gebert summarized staff s recommendation was that the Council direct staff to proceed with development and implementation of a special connection fee that included the following elements: equitable fee prorated among the private properties based on actual costs, special connection fee to be paid in full at time of connection, the property owners be allowed to defer connection (include in ordinance ability to adjust the connection fee for inflation to account for the City fronting the funds from the time of construction to the time of connection), special connection fee to be in addition to the City's normal sewer connection fee (currently $730) and other applicable permit and inspection fees (currently $95). Staff also recommended when construction was complete, an ordinance be presented to the Council adopting the special connection fee. Councilmember Orvis inquired whether the stub -out was something the property owners would pay for anyway. Mr. Gebert agreed, explaining if the property owners requested connection to the sewer, they would be required to pay for construction of the line from their residence to the main in the street. The proposal was to install a short section from the main to the edge of the right-of-way to provide a stub -out beyond the street improvements. City Attorney Scott Snyder explained every property owner who connected to the City's sewer paid a general connection fee which represented the cost of buying into the system as a whole. The special connection fee was to pay for improvements specifically installed for a particular property. Councilmember Marin inquired whether the property owners could pay the special connection fee at the conclusion of the construction. Mr. Gebert answered they could pay it at that time if they chose. Mr. Snyder agreed that option could be offered to the property owners. Councilmember Wilson referred to the map, recalling the Community Services/Development Services Committee requested staff investigate whether the larger parcel to the south should be included in this proposal. Mr. Gebert advised the one residence on that parcel was connected to the sewer; as the property was subdividable into more than one parcel, the question was raised whether it would need to connect to this stub -out to accommodate future development. Staffs research determined the property currently had a six inch lateral to the property which was of sufficient size to support three residences, the maximum number of parcels that could be created on that property. If one of the property owners' septic systems failed in the future, Councilmember Wilson asked whether they would be responsible for the entire cost of connecting to the sewer main including a stub -out to serve all three parcels. Mr. Snyder answered the City would be required to pay the overage that could be recovered via a latecomers agreement. Mr. Gebert explained Public Works indicated the City would require an 8-inch collector due to the potential to serve three properties. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 23, 2004 Page 3 Councilmember Wilson asked if the cost would be more or less if construction of the sewer line occurred as the result of a septic system failure or an LID. Mr. Gebert answered several factors would make the cost higher including cutting into the street and restoring the improvements. There would be little difference in the cost of the portion from the stub -out to the residences other than when it is constructed. Councilmember Wilson summarized the special connection fee appeared to be the lowest cost option for the stub -out. Mr. Gebert agreed, noting when the sewer line from the stub -out to the residences was constructed, there were options for construction that may be less expensive than via the City. Councilmember Dawson summarized in the future the property owners were facing a large cost to connect to the sewer and the proposal was that they would not be required to pay the special connection fee until they connected to the sewer. Mr. Gebert agreed. If the property owners objected to the special connection fee, Councilmember Dawson asked whether the city would install the stub -out regardless. Mr. Gebert recommended the stub -out be installed to avoid disruption to the improvements at a later date. Although it was the Council's decision whether to require the property owners pay a special connection fee to pay for the stub -out, past practice has been to require property owners to pay for improvements directly benefiting their property. Tim Sharp, 21911 88`h Avenue W, Edmonds, expressed thanks for the assistance provided by staff. He explained 1-2 property owners may be able to pay the fee and install the sewer system but the third may not. Mr. Gebert explained the two properties who want to connect would pay their special connection fee; the third property owner would not be allowed to connect until they paid the special connection fee. The cost of the collector, lateral and side sewer would be paid by the two property owners and the City would work with them on a latecomers agreement that would require the third property owner to pay their share before connecting to the sewer. Mr. Sharp asked for assurance that the property owners would only be charged for the actual cost of constructing the stub -out. Mr. Snyder answered the special connection fee would be determined based on the actual cost. Mr. Gebert agreed the actual construction costs made up the majority of the fee but the fee also included design costs and any legal fees. Mr. Sharp commented the estimate they were provided appeared to be quite high. Councilmember Wilson inquired whether the grant received for the 220th project was restricted to the street project or could excess funds be used for the stub -out. Mr. Gebert answered the grant funds were restricted to the street project and could not be used for this stub -out; the Sewer Utility would advance the funds for the stub -out. COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, TO DIRECT STAFF TO PROCEED WITH THE FOLLOWING: 1) DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A SPECIAL CONNECTION FEE INCLUDING THE FOLLOWING KEY ELEMENTS: EQUITABLE FEE PRORATED AMONG THE PRIVATE PROPERTIES BASED UPON ACTUAL COSTS, SPECIAL CONNECTION FEE MUST BE PAID IN FULL AT TIME OF CONNECTION, THE PROPERTY OWNERS BE ALLOWED TO DEFER CONNECTION (INCLUDE IN ORDINANCE THE ABILITY TO ADJUST THE CONNECTION FEE FOR INFLATION TO ACCOUNT FOR THE CITY FRONTING THE MONEY FROM THE TIME OF CONSTRUCTION TO THE TIME OF CONNECTION), SPECIAL CONNECTION FEE TO BE IN ADDITION TO THE CITY'S NORMAL CONNECTION FEE AND ALL OTHER APPLICABLE PERMIT FEES, AND 2) UPON COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION AND DETERMINATION OF ACTUAL COST, PRESENT TO THE COUNCIL AN ORDINANCE FOR ADOPTING THE SPECIAL CONNECTION FEE. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 23, 2004 Page 4 4. JOINT MEETING WITH THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD (ADB) TO DISCUSS DESIGN GUIDELINES. A PRESENTATION WILL BE MADE BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN ON ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN FEATURES. Council President Plunkett explained the joint meeting with the ADB would be preceded by four presentations. He explained in the early 1990's the City of Issaquah was sued because their Design Guidelines were too vague. In response, the City contracted with Cedar River and Associates to review the City's Design Guidelines to determine whether they met the Issaquah standards. The Planning Board and ADB considered the Design Guidelines in 2000-2001 and forwarded them to the Council in 2002. The Council referred the Design Guidelines to the Community Services/Development Services Committee; the proposed draft Design Guidelines have been at the Community Services/Development Services Committee for approximately one year. Mayor Haakenson recalled the Design Guidelines were tabled the last time the Council considered them. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON, TO REMOVE THE DESIGN GUIDELINES FROM THE TABLE. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. City Attorney Scott Snyder explained Edmonds' original ordinance was identical to the Issaquah ordinance and was written by the same individual at Ogden Murphy Wallace, thus the reason the City took action to review the Design Guidelines. He explained the core of the Anderson v. Issaquah decision was that if a developer/property owner was to be held to specific standards with regard to design, the code must contain clear, objective standards. Words such as compatible with neighborhood, harmonious, and tasteful were found by the Court to apply to the individual aesthetic sensibilities of the board conducting the review and provided no particular guidance to the developer. The Court of Appeal gave some guidance in its decision, for example citing a Texas case regarding the use of pictures. For that reason, the City enacted a series of stop -gap guidelines and has followed with other amendments such as the City's landscape standards to add needed detail. This was the next phase. Mr. Snyder noted the Council had policy discretion to go two ways; there may be some items within the ordinance that the Council prefers to leave to the marketplace, but if the Council wanted to impose a certain standard, there needed to be specific, objective guidelines. He provided two examples, referring to the objectives in the setback section (page 20 of the Council packet), recalling the language previously provided for setback and other plat plan characteristics that were compatible with the neighborhood — a red flag. In the draft Design Guidelines, there is a standard that requires trash and utility storage elements not be in street setbacks or setbacks adjacent to single family zones. He noted this was an example of a clear objective standard that was enforceable. Mr. Snyder provided a second example (page 45 of the Council packet) that left the building material to the discretion of the builder — the list of building wall materials was changed from "allowable" to "preferred." He noted this provided guidance rather than a requirement and a project could not be rejected for failure to comply. He recommended if the Council had a standard they wished to have enforced, objective detail regarding that standard needed to be included in the Design Guidelines. The Council could, however, for elements of the project that did not need to be regulated, leave them to the discretion of the marketplace and builder. He summarized if standards were vague, it would be difficult if not legally impossible to deny a project based on general vague standards. Senior Planner Steve Bullock explained one of the focuses of tonight's meeting was development in the downtown BC zone. He explained the City adopted its first zoning code in 1956 and made minor modifications in the early 1960s. From 1964 through 1981, 35-feet or 3 stories was the height limit in Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 23, 2004 Page 5 downtown Edmonds. He displayed photographs of several buildings constructed during that timeframe. In 1981, due to concern with the style of buildings being constructed in the City, both the height and the boxy style of buildings, a major rewrite of the City's Development Code was adopted, establishing the height limits for downtown at 25 feet with the possibility of 30 feet with a pitched roof. Mr. Bullock explained that as a result, buildings in the downtown BC zone were then built property line to property line with hip roofs around the perimeter that allowed them to achieve 30 feet. He noted this resulted in a repetitive building theme and there was interest in more variety and creative designs. In 1997, the most current change was made. He displayed a photograph of one of the first buildings to make use of the new standards, the building on 5th Avenue that used barrel vaults and shed roofs, noting there were also portions of roof that were above 25 feet that were flat. He displayed a photograph of the Spec Building at 3rd Avenue N & Bell Street and McGregor Place at 51h Avenue S & Walnut. He summarized the code language over time has influenced the appearance of buildings constructed in the downtown area. Mayor Haakenson advised his presentation was intended to provide the previous Council's approach to modulated design. As a Councilmember in 1997 when the current code was adopted, his recollection regarding modulated roofs was the Council shared staff and residents' frustration that the same type of buildings were being constructed, either flat roofs or hip roofs. Council's intent was more visually appealing buildings in the downtown BC zone. He clarified it was not an attempt to raise building heights in the downtown BC zone; it was only to make buildings more appealing and avoid square buildings on every block. He asked the AD13 and Council to focus on the appearance and aesthetics of future building. He encouraged the public to walk around downtown, look at buildings and determine the features they liked and did not like. He encouraged the public not to think in terms of 25 feet or 30 feet but what people see when they walk in Edmonds, not looking down on the buildings. Councilmember Marin provided a slide show that asked the question, "What are we really trying to accomplish with modulation, a certain height or appearance?" He described his background as a carpenter and later a building contractor. He expressed frustration with the subject of modulation, noting that the most important issue was interesting and pleasing looking buildings with a pedestrian feeling. He pointed out pitched roofs were the roofline of choice in residential areas, but flat -like roofs were the roofline of choice for commercial development. He provided a photograph of Edmonds circa 1949 that illustrated flat roofs throughout much of downtown. He displayed photographs of flat roofs disguised behind a parapet wall, pictures of Chanterelle's, the Edmonds Theater and the Boys & Girls Club. Councilmember Marin displayed several photographs of buildings that appeared to be modulated but actually had flat roofs that were hidden behind a parapet wall. He noted there was little reason to construct a terraced roof when there was little difference in the appearance and actually introduced maintenance problems. Councilmember Marin stated his dismay with a recent newspaper article that indicated the bird's eye view of the City revealed a bunch of boxes, noting buildings needed to be evaluated from the street rather than the air. Councilmember Marin compared a photograph of a "fairly plain looking house" with little modulation with a photograph of a home with architectural features, explaining that similar to residences, architectural features added interest to commercial buildings. He displayed a photograph of a grocery store on Hwy 99, illustrating how the elimination of architecture features that would not be permitted in. the downtown BC zone detracted from the building's appearance. He displayed a photograph of an old building that the code would not allow to be replicated in the downtown BC zone. He displayed a photograph of City Hall, pointing out the need for an architectural feature on the front of the building. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 23, 2004 Page 6 Councilmember Marin concluded the City should not rule out the possibility for developers to propose architectural features. He noted the 30 foot height limit created unusable first floor commercial spaces. He urged the Council to recognize the trend in the marketplace to modulate, to be cognizant that flat roofs were the roof form of choice for commercial development, to evaluate modulation from the street, and to consider allowing architectural features. ADB members Rob Michel, Rick Utt, Jason Anderson and Careen Rubenkonig introduced themselves. Council President Plunkett referred to the discussion outline, posing the first discussion topic to the ADB and Council — what are the characteristics of existing buildings you like and don't like, how important is building design compared to streetscape design and what are examples of good interactions between those two design factors? Council President Plunkett commented the buildings constructed in Edmonds post- 1997 were a vast improvement and were what he liked. Councilmember Moore also liked the post-1997 buildings as well as the pre-1950s, historical buildings. She noted the historical buildings were an essential part of Edmonds identity. She cited the Chanterelle building, the Beeson building, the theater and others at 5th & Main as an essential part of Edmonds character. She pointed out the importance of retaining the historic look of Edmonds. ADB Chair Michel commented it was unusual for the ADB to be asked what they liked; the ADB was required to review buildings as they applied to the Design Guidelines. Councilmember Dawson recalled previous discussion regarding the danger of establishing guidelines that were so stringent that all buildings began to look the same. She did not like buildings that all looked the same and lacked individual character. Although she liked the historic buildings, she did not like buildings that tried to look historic but were not. She pointed out the danger of trying to recreate historic buildings and ending up with buildings that looked kitschy or cute. ADB Member Utt commented on the difference between folly or phony historic buildings versus historic honesty where a new building recognized the historical roots of the community. He pointed out the unique character of Edmonds and suggested design recognizes the character and identity of Edmonds. Councilmember Orvis echoed Councilmember Moore's comments regarding preserving historic buildings, although he also liked newer buildings such as the Spec, McGregor and Tully's buildings. He cited the open space and setback on the Tully's building and the setback on the Spec building. He noted those buildings also had higher, more viable commercial space. With regard to roof modulation, he pointed out there was not much on the McGregor or Spec buildings. Tully's also did not have much modulation but the large windows looked good which could possibly be an alternative to modulation. ADB Member Rubenkonig recalled flexibility has long been an issue for applicants. She referred to an objective under building/site identity "retain a connection with the scale and character of the City of Edmonds through the use of similar materials, proportions, forms, masses or building elements." She recalled often asking an applicant what they drew from in the surrounding neighborhood that was incorporated into their building design. She identified buildings she liked — the maritime building at 2" d & Dayton due to their attempt to capture the Sound in their facade and attention to the corner treatment, and the northwest craftsman bungalow -style of the building at 2ud & Edmonds which was a good fit for Edmonds. What Ms. Rubenkonig indicated she did not like was that the lot line to lot line development did not allow for adjustment of the massing of the building on the lot. She referred to page 35 of the proposed Design Guidelines which suggested at a certain size building, the mass be broken into 2-3 masses. She felt the Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 23, 2004 Page 7 massing was what concerned the public, as the roofs were not as noticeable as the massing of the elevations straight up from the sidewalk without any setback or green space between the sidewalk and building. She also expressed concern with the elimination of natural landmarks/heritage of Edmonds including the forests, undulated hills, etc., noting the code did not provide the ability to protect existing trees. She noted the proposed Design Guidelines allowed setback averaging which may allow the applicant to site a building to preserve vegetation and/or contours of a parcel. She suggested setback averaging be allowed in all zones due to the flexibility it provided in placement of a building on a site. ADB Member Anderson identified buildings he liked downtown, including the Washington Mutual. building due to the architectural elements such as the turret, the weather vane, and the stained glass window. He also liked the barn -like look of the Petosa's Family Grocery building and the design of the McGregor building. What he did not like was the trash enclosures that did not fit with the building particularly along Walnut. Development Services Director Duane Bowman commented what he liked about the Tully's building was the plaza, noting this was a good example of a streetscape design that provided for interaction between the street and the building. He cited other examples of interaction between the street and the building such as the corner entrance of the Washington Mutual bank building and the Floral Arts Center. Council President Plunkett posed the next discussion question, what are the specific characteristics of downtown building design preferred in the design guidelines, what roof designs are okay, what fagade designs are okay, what combination of these designs are okay, and what criteria should be included in the design guidelines for downtown buildings to achieve these objectives? He also inquired what specific aspects of the existing code did the ADB have difficulty with. Boardmember Utt noted there is confusion over the meaning of a flat roof versus the roofline. He pointed out a flat roof did not necessarily equate to a big box; a building with a flat roof could have articulation in the fagade or modulation of the parapet. To some, the roofline is where the edge of the building meets the sky, to others the roofline is the actual roof. He suggested more definition and more illustration regarding the definitions. With regard to the character of the City, he recalled his family's tradition of coming to Edmonds from Camano Island at Christmas to window shop due to the pedestrian oriented nature of downtown. He summarized building design needed to incorporate architecture that reinforced the pedestrian nature of downtown. ADB Chair Michel agreed the pedestrian aspect of the downtown BC zone was very important. He noted that could be enhanced via more occupied storefronts rather than unused office space. Councilmember Dawson agreed the area at 5th & Main was expected to be commercial versus office space, however, the outlying areas of the BC zone were less compatible with retail and more compatible with commercial office space. She suggested the possibility of specifying requirements based on specific streets/locations in the downtown. She noted there may be areas where opportunity for retail space downtown was lost as a result of the current code and developers' efforts to obtain more residential space above. ADB Member Utt commented on mixed use in Redmond that combined housing above an office/storefront for that unit. Councilmember Wilson commented live/work environments were fairly common in many areas although they were not usually in the downtown commercial core but in a transition area. With regard to the lack of setback in downtown, Councilmember Wilson noted in traditional small town development, buildings were lot line to lot line and up to the sidewalk. He pointed out the importance of Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 23, 2004 Page 8 protecting commercial development in downtown and including wider pedestrian spaces in front of the buildings, street furniture, etc. He pointed out problems that arise when buildings are not built lot line to lot line on the sides such as the creation of small alleys. He preferred to break up the massing via the appearance of smaller buildings. ADB Member Rubenkonig agreed with the importance of breaking up the massing of buildings. She pointed out the difficulty with developing on smaller parcels due to the inability to meet the parking requirements. There were many items that drove building design including parking requirements and the location of trash enclosures. The City's alleys were a resource that was not recognized or being preserved. She raised the issue of second stories facing the fountain in downtown. She summarized she has been comfortable with the design professionals on the ADB making decisions regarding buildings. Councilmember Marin observed an interesting roofline where it met the sky was of more importance than the flatness of the roof. ADB members agreed. ADB Chair Michel suggested this be clarified in the code to make it easier for the public as well as applicants. ADB Member Utt commented the roofscape was the issue. Councilmember Moore agreed with the importance of alleys and questioned why rooftop gardens were not allowed. ADB Member Utt explained they were expensive, high maintenance and often failed. She suggested exploring rooftop gardens. Councilmember Wilson relayed a concern with creating a canyon effect and suggested stepping back upper stories could avoid a canyon effect. He noted stepping back upper floors also provide an opportunity for a second story deck. With regard to the roofscape, he commented that few noticed whether it was a flat roof or pitched roof, the most important aspect was how the roofline looked from a pedestrian's point of view. ADB Member Utt recommended not imposing requirements for "gigs and jogs in a roof' as this could also create maintenance problems and the potential for failure. He pointed out the need to recognize the reality of construction materials and this climate. Councilmember Dawson noted the issue was not whether flat roofs were allowed but rather whether extra height should be allowed if the roofline/roof was more interesting. She noted the intent was to have interesting buildings that were not all one height or look. She summarized the issue was never that flat roofs were bad, they were currently permitted at 25 feet. Boardmember Rubenkonig recalled the ADB previously considered the roof treatment separate from the building design. A few years ago, the ADB began looking at how the roof integrated with the walls as part of a unified design. ADB Chair Michel questioned whether a major rewrite was necessary that deviated from a unified design. His observation was that applicants made a concerted effort to submit projects that met the Design Guidelines. He noted the ADB was not having any difficulties using the current guidelines to review buildings. Council President Plunkett posed the final discussion topic, whether amendments could be made to satisfactorily meet Issaquah standards and meet Edmonds values and standards, or the proposed draft Design Guidelines satisfactorily met the Issaquah standards and Edmonds values and standards? He noted the ADB also had several new members. ADB Chair Michel noted his understanding of the Court of Appeals' conclusion regarding Anderson v. Issaquah was less about guidelines and more about the board's interpretation. He questioned Edmonds' Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 23, 2004 Page 9 original ordinance being identical to the Issaquah ordinance, pointing out Issaquah's ordinance referred to the "valley and surrounding mountains." In addition, he recalled the applicant in that case was required to appear before the board four times due to the board's inability to articulate the guidelines to the applicant. Mr. Snyder explained the Court also pointed out that the board's view changed over time; the ordinance did not provide a clear directive for an applicant regarding their obligations. He noted one of the difficulties in judging the success of a board was changes in key staff and boardmembers may result in the loss of history, thus the importance of clear guidelines that can be provided to an applicant. Mr. Snyder noted several of the issues raised in the discussion would require a significant rewrite of the guidelines including public spaces and massing. He noted most cities that require public spaces and/or massing provide incentives. With regard to harmonizing projects with the surrounding neighborhood, the issue arises whether applications are taken on a first -come -first served basis with each property owner determining what is appropriate or whether incentives are provided for stepping back buildings, providing public space, etc. He noted there were few incentives that could be offered to applicants due to the City's height limits and currently allowed lot line to lot line development. If the goal was to provide a more cooperative, community based approach with flexibility, the City's ordinance would not achieve that as the Design Guidelines were becoming more detailed. He noted tools that allowed for a more interactive process that rewarded creative design and public spaces was a very different approach. ADB Member Utt expressed concern with the use of the term "should" versus "shall." He explained he often works with Design Guidelines and preferred those with pictures. He referred to the City of Seattle's guidelines that provided methods and tools for achieving building articulation. He also recommended being open to suggestions a developer may propose. As a builder and a creative person, Councilmember Marin liked the concept of maintaining flexibility in the process as well as identifying elements within the guidelines where specific standards were desired. He recommended considering elements of the Design Guidelines separately rather than as a whole. In view of the new ADB members, Councilmember Moore suggested the ADB review the draft Design Guidelines in relation to tonight's discussion. Mr. Bowman commented the ADB had done a good job approving buildings, recognizing the continuity of the board and the historic knowledge provided by the key staff person, Senior Planner Steve Bullock. He noted the ADB had been accused of both being unpredictable as well as not being flexible. He suggested a list of provisions in the Design Guidelines as well as allowing the ADB to review a provision proposed by an applicant to determine whether it met the intent. He suggested the ADB hold a special meeting to discuss the Design Guidelines. Council Discussion Council President Plunkett suggested the ADB schedule a meeting to discuss the Design Guidelines and provide a recommendation to the Council with regard to amending the existing guidelines or adopting the proposed draft Design Guidelines. With regard to the interim ordinance, Councilmember Moore explained she had done further study regarding the issue of building and/or roof modulation. She noted Councilmember Marin's presentation and comments by the ADB reinforced the need to add "or" to the ordinance because building and/or roof modulation was the intent. She noted the issue was not really the roof but rather the roofline. COUNCILMEMBER MOORE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, TO ADD THE WORD "OR" TO THE INTERIM ORDINANCE SO THAT IT STATES "BUILDING AND/OR ROOF MODULATION." Councilmember Orvis indicated he would not support the amendment, explaining the intent of the ordinance was an incentive for the builder to get more height and the City to get a more interesting Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 23, 2004 Page 10 design. He noted there were many good arguments that roof modulation was not much of a tangible benefit but he preferred a solution that provided a tangible benefit such as more height for commercial space or open space to mitigate the canyon effect. He noted these ideas need to be considered before changing the ordinance. Councilmember Dawson was troubled that this discussion occurred last week and a decision was made at that time not to pursue an amendment. She was also troubled that the agenda for tonight's meeting was publicized and did not include this issue. She was unaware that this issue would be raised again this week. COUNCILMEMBER DAWSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON, TO TABLE THIS ISSUE. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (3-4), COUNCILMEMBERS DAWSON, WILSON AND ORVIS IN FAVOR; AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PLUNKETT, AND COUNCILMEMBERS MOORE, OLSON AND MARIN OPPOSED. Councilmember Wilson appreciated Councilmember Moore's efforts but noted even the framing of her motion indicated the complexity and problems created by the wording. He noted Councilmember Moore's motion was to add building and/or roof modulation but her discussion referred to roofline which. was not contained in the motion and did not clarify the issue. He noted this was how the Council got itself into difficulty, making piecemeal motions without thought to the consequences. He noted the original effort was an interim ordinance to clarify the issue and provide time to review of the Design Guidelines to bring the issue to a resolution rather than a piecemeal approach. He concluded he would not support the motion. Councilmember Moore agreed it was an interim ordinance and the ADB would be considering the matter in a more holistic approach. In the meantime, she concluded it was worthwhile to change the interim ordinance. Council President Plunkett advised he would support the motion because the ordinance was an interim ordinance. He noted the intent of the interim ordinance was to clarify the Council's intent. Councilmember Olson indicated she would support the amendment because the interim ordinance currently penalized someone who wanted to build a flat roof. She noted the intent was to build in some flexibility to allow good design. Councilmember Wilson questioned whether it was the Council's intent to amend the interim ordinance on a weekly basis. Councilmember Moore referred to Councilmember Orvis' comment regarding other incentives that could be provided to applicants. She suggested the ADB consider how to incorporate such incentives in the Design Guidelines. Councilmember Marin indicated he would support the amendment because from the discussion and from. his presentation, it was clear that the roof structure was not the issue, but rather the roofline or roofscape and how the structure looked against the skyline. To those who insisted on roof modulation, he suggested they discuss with the City Engineer the problems occurring with the terraced library roof. He reiterated it was not the Council's place to dictate how someone constructed a building's roof. Mr. Snyder advised that at the Council President's request, he prepared an ordinance to add "and/or." Councilmember Dawson referred to Mr. Snyder's comment that the Council President requested this ordinance be drafted and questioned how many Councilmembers discussed the matter among themselves Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 23, 2004 Page I I before raising the matter at the meeting, why it was not advertised to the public, and why the remainder of the Council was not informed this would be an item for discussion. Council President Plunkett recalled the ordinance was discussed at last week's Council meeting and Councilmember Moore and at least 1.-2 others made their position clear that they were not satisfied with the original interim ordinance and would consider an amendment. Based on that potential, Council President Plunkett explained he asked Mr. Snyder to draft an amendment which was placed at each Council seat tonight. He concluded it was obvious to the audience and Council last week that the Council was not satisfied with the interim ordinance and that action would be taken soon. Mr. Snyder clarified the request was made today. Councilmember Dawson questioned why, if it was so obvious last week, the matter was not scheduled on. the agenda and why the public was not informed the issue would be raised. If the intent of the interim ordinance was to clarify the Council's intent, she questioned how returning to an ordinance that was the same as the one nobody understood a couple weeks ago provided clarification. If the intent was to clarify that a varied roofline was required rather than the roof itself, why did the interim ordinance not state that? She noted the ordinance would now allow a modulated building with no variation in the roof to be 30 feet tall. She reiterated her concern that this issue was being discussed without any notice to the public. She questioned when another public hearing would be scheduled on the interim ordinance. Mr. Snyder answered the public hearing held on the interim ordinance satisfied the public hearing requirement. The interim ordinance, if amended, would still be in effect for the original 60 day period. Councilmember Dawson asked whether another public hearing must be held on the revised interim ordinance. Mr. Snyder explained the statute regarding interim ordinances and zoning moratoria allowed the Council to enact an ordinance and a public hearing was required. Following that public hearing, the Council may let the original ordinance stand or amend it. Councilmember Dawson clarified the Council could amend the interim ordinance as desired without another public hearing. Mr. Snyder agreed the Council may discuss/amend the interim ordinance at any public meeting. He noted the new ordinance would also require public hearing at the Planning Board, Planning Board recommendation, etc. Councilmember Moore clarified the intent was to adopt good Design Guidelines for the City. She indicated she tried to advise Councilmember Dawson but she did not return her telephone calls. Councilmember Dawson responded if Councilmember Moore was trying to reach her as part of a rolling quorum, she was glad she had not been able to reach her. Councilmember Moore responded that was not her intent, she only wanted to get Councilmember Dawson's feelings. Council President Plunkett indicated he would convey to the Planning Board Chair the Council's intent with regard to this issue and request that the Planning Board begin amending City code with regard to a permanent change which would include Planning Board public hearings. Councilmember Wilson asked whether the Council was precluded from holding another public hearing. Mr. Snyder answered the Council could have as many public hearings as it desired. Mayor Haakenson reiterated this was an interim ordinance; the Planning Board would hold at least one public hearing on this issue, make a recommendation to the Council and the Council would hold a public hearing on the new ordinance. He summarized there were plenty of opportunities for the public to address the change. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-3), COUNCIL PRESIDENT PLUNKETT, AND COUNCILMEMBERS MOORE, OLSON AND MARIN IN FAVOR; AND COUNCILMEMBERS DAWSON, WILSON AND ORVIS OPPOSED. The ordinance approved reads as follows: Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 23, 2004 Page 12 ORDINANCE NO. 3492 — AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, REPEALING ORDINANCE 3488 AND ENACTING A NEW INTERIM ZONING REGULATION ADOPTED PURSUANT TO RCW 35A.63.220 CLARIFYING THE APPLICATION OF ROOF HEIGHT ABOVE TWENTY-FIVE (25) FEET AS A PART OF MODULATED ROOF AND/OR BUILDING DESIGN, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE 5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Larry Temple, 217 51" Avenue N, Edmonds, was troubled by Mayor Haakenson's comment last week and tonight that people were not looking down on buildings but rather were looking up. He pointed out some people who have views did look down on Edmonds including the rooftops. With regard to Councilmember Marin's comment that a higher vantage point was required to verify that Spec building had a flat roof, he knew it had a flat roof because they look down on the building. He pointed out that the parapet on the roof of the Spec building eliminated their view of the ferry dock. With regard to Councilmember Moore's comment that a building five feet taller was not a big deal because from the street, one only saw the roofscape, he noted an additional five feet was a big deal to residents with views that were disappearing. He urged the Council as new Design Guidelines were developed to think about how height affected views. John Quast, 15714 75th Place W, Edmonds, was troubled by the viewpoint being given to this discussion, the pedestrian view. As the previous speaker indicated, downtown Edmonds is a bowl and many residents look down on the downtown BC zone as well as people who view the BC zone as they enter the city. He urged the Council to consider other aspects in addition to the pedestrian viewpoint of buildings. Roger Hertrich, 1.020 Puget Drive, Edmonds, commented on the discussion with the ADB, noting that although the ADB did a good job educating the Planning Board, there was little chance the ADB could educate the Council. He alleged there were four Councilmembers, Plunkett, Marin, Moore and Olson, who were in the process of ensuring a 30-foot building height with flat roofs. He expressed concern with the "sneaky little move you pulled tonight" which he cited as an example of how these Councilmembers played the game. Bob Gregg, 16550 76th Avenue W, Edmonds, pointed out the comments made by the public revealed why clarification was needed. He noted the Spec building did not have a flat roof but was approved under the guidelines as a modulated flat roof. He questioned why flat roofs were only attractive on 25-foot buildings and not 30-foot buildings. He noted the reason the interim ordinance needed to be amended was because it was adopted without the benefit of public input. He disagreed the amendment returned the City to the previous situation as the original ordinance allowed flat roofs above 25 feet as long as part of an approved modulated design, the interim ordinance required an approved roof and building design, and the amendment allowed roof and/or building modulation. He noted McGregor Place included a tremendous amount of modulation but also a lot of unused space. Ron Wambolt, 504 6th Avenue S, Edmonds, questioned whether the previous speaker orchestrated the amendment to the interim ordinance. He relayed his understanding that Councilmember Moore was campaigning for 35-foot building heights. Rob Michel, 7907 212th Street SW, Edmonds, referred to the flyer that was distributed to property owners in the Meadowdale area regarding Agenda Item #7, pointing out the pictures in the flyer, which were not from the Meadowdale area, gave the public the impression the area was falling off the map. He noted the Meadowdale area was not unique to the Puget Sound area; there were many areas with a tendency for ground movement with excessive moisture and other jurisdictions did not have special Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 23, 2004 Page 13 ordinances for those areas. He noted good engineering practices were needed to stabilize those areas without need for special ordinances. He hoped there would be a public hearing held with regard to this issue. Mayor Haakenson declared a brief recess. 6. REPORT ON NEGOTIATIONS WITH MR. SYD LOCKE REGARDING BUILDING PERMIT ISSUES City Engineer Dave Gebert explained on December 16, the Council authorized the Mayor to sign a Quit Claim Deed reconveying certain portions of the Pine Street right-of-way between SR 104 and 3rd Avenue back to the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT). During the December 16 Council meeting, there was also discussion related to other issues Mr. Locke has with the City and WSDOT including a second driveway, a fence, building permit and fines. At that time, Mr. Locke informed the Council that he had been in contact with WSDOT and received a more favorable response regarding issues that WSDOT had indicated to the City were unacceptable. With regard to the building permit issue and accumulated fines, at the December 16 meeting, Council directed staff to freeze Mr. Locke's fines at $27,600 for 120 days (April 14), negotiate a walk -away agreement with Mr. Locke and resume the accumulation of fines at the conclusion of 120 days if agreement was not reached. The Council also requested staff report in 100 days. Since the December 16 Council meeting, staff froze Mr. Locke's fines and advised him of the specific requirements to obtain a building permit to continue his garage construction. On February 26, staff and Councilmember Orvis met with Mr. Locke to negotiate an agreement. Staff again informed Mr. Locke of the requirements to obtain his building permit and complete his garage which included satisfying WSDOT requirements. The meeting concluded without reaching agreement. Since the February 26 meeting, Mr. Locke corresponded with WSDOT on March 4 requesting their assistance with resolving the issues. Staff received a copy of WSDOT's March 19 response today that stated Mr. Locke's second driveway must be removed, the WSDOT fence that Mr. Locke removed must be replaced and Mr. Locke must submit his drainage plans to WSDOT for approval. At this time, an agreement has not been reached between the City and Mr. Locke. Staff recommends the Council authorize staff to continue negotiations for an additional 90 days beyond the April 14 deadline. If an agreement cannot be reached within that timeframe, the fines related to the building permit would again accrue. City Attorney Scott Snyder noted staff would return to the Council for authorization prior to resuming accumulation of Mr. Locke's fines. Mr. Gebert agreed. COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, TO AUTHORIZE STAFF TO CONTINUE NEGOTIATIONS FOR AN ADDITIONAL 90 DAYS BEYOND THE APRIL 14, 2004 DEADLINE. IF A WALK AWAY AGREEMENT CANNOT BE REACHED WITHIN THIS TIMEFRAME, THE FINES SHALL BEGIN TO ACCUMULATE AGAIN FOR MR. LOCKE. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 7. WORK SESSION ON PROPOSED MEADOWDALE EARTH SUBSIDENCE AND LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREA DEVELOPMENT CHANGES (EXISTING ECDC 19.05). Development Services Director Duane Bowman explained this section of the land use development regulations dated back to 1988. This section was developed in conjunction with an investigation the City conducted related to installing sewers and storm drains in the Meadowdale Landslide Hazard Area. In order to utilize the preexisting geotechnical information submitted by past development and to further Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 23, 2004 Page 14 analyze and evaluate the ongoing geologic processes in this area, the City retained a consultant to review the City's regulations with regard to the Meadowdale Landslide Hazard Area and make recommendations regarding necessary revisions. Building Official Jeannine Graf referred to Attachment #1, Meadowdale Educational flyer, explaining the flyer was developed in an effort to continue to educate homeowners to encourage them to reduce landslide hazards. The consultant, Landau Associates, provided technical information and staff created the flyer that provides information regarding reducing landslide risks and mitigating landslides. She noted over 500 flyers and a letter from Mayor Haakenson were mailed to Meadowdale property owners inviting them to tonight's meeting. Ms. Graf referred to Attachment #2, Meadowdale Permit Submittal Checklist, explaining the checklist identifies what applicants were required to submit in order for the City to review and approve permit applications. She noted Landau Associates found the checklist complete; however, some wording would need to be revised if the Council accepted the overall proposal for changes. Ms. Graf explained Attachment #3, Temporary Erosion Control Technical Memorandum, was created by Landau Associates and addresses some of the inspection problems occurring in Meadowdale such as the location of soil stockpiles, proper protection of slopes, methods for erosion control, inspection requirements and earthwork during the raining season. She explained this memo would be converted into an Erosion and Sedimentation Control handout for Meadowdale Landslide Hazard Area applicants. Ms. Graf explained because experience showed few geotechnical engineers were reading the historic reports of the Meadowdale area, Landau was asked to create an. Area Summary Report (Attachment #4) as a more user-friendly version of the most important geotechnical information and landslide history. Ms. Graf explained Landau also suggested the City look at the Meadowdale area in terms of Hazard Zones (Figure 1 of Attachment 4) to summarize relationships between locations, type of landslide hazard, landslide processes and recommended geotechnical report requirements and issues to be considered for development. Debra Ladd, Professional Engineer, Landau Associates, explained the Summary Report provides the history and intent of the original regulations and the LID, history of the original risk and technical figures that describe the hazard on particular lots. Ms. Graf pointed out the importance of the adopted GeoEngineers landslide hazard area map as it was how the development requirements in ECDC 19.05 were imposed. She explained Landau Associates reviewed the currently adopted GeoEngineers landslide hazard area map and provided recommendations for a short term and long term mapping proposal. The interim map revisions would utilize the City's existing GIS capabilities (Attachment #8). She pointed out a correction on Attachment 8, the buffer was shown as only 100 feet rather than 200 feet as indicated in the map notes. She explained the significant changes proposed to the map would be to eliminate the risk percentages and simplify the map by including only an outer boundary of the landslide hazard area. To account for the fact that the original base map by GeoEngineers was not 100% accurate, a 200 foot buffer was proposed on the map. She noted properties not shown on the GeoEngineers map but that were in the buffer area would need to present preliminary reports to the Building Official to determine whether the provisions of ECDC 19.05 were applicable to their development. Ms. Graf explained Landau's long term proposal would be to utilize a LIDAR aerial surveying to create a GIS system with detailed topographic layers that could pinpoint steep slope hazard areas and dramatically improve the exactness of the Meadowdale Landslide Hazard Area maps. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 23, 2004 Page 15 City Attorney Scott Snyder provided a history regarding the origin of the ordinance. He recalled the drainage and sanitary sewer improvements in the Meadowdale area were installed to address a grey water problem; the many septic systems in the area created a grey water problem due to the high groundwater. Water in the ground also greatly enhances the probability of earth movement. The City had a moratorium in effect until the improvements were installed. In 1983, the City was in the process of lifting the moratorium and to again allow development. In the course of installing the drainage and sanitary sewer improvements in the Meadowdale area, the City developed a great deal of information indicating prior to the installation of the improvements, some of the land had a 90% probability of earth movement and other areas a 30% probability. Under the State Building Code, building permits can only be issued to stable building sites; however, the State Building Code did not define stable. Mr. Snyder explained the existing ordinance was a spin on the City of Seattle's development regulations. One significant difference between Edmonds and Seattle was Seattle had a full-time geotechnical engineer on staff who reviewed every application. In order to keep faith with residents who funded the drainage improvements via an LID, Edmonds enacted the ordinance and took several steps, 1) with the approval of the State Building Code Council, defined "stable" as 30% or less probability of earth movement, the degree that had been achieved by the improvements, and 2) adopted the Seattle approach. with the significant difference that the burden was placed on property owners to investigate their risk and via their own geotechnical engineers provide reports to the City. The intent was to gather information via development on a lot -by -lot basis build a body of knowledge. However, many of the reports the City received from geotechnical professionals would simply agree with the risk identified by the City. Therefore the City has not developed the individualized information over the past 20 years that had been hoped although the City has developed a great deal of expertise in the area. He characterized the proposed revisions as an attempt to make the process more user-friendly, provide greater guidance to applicants via zones and require specific information from applicants within each zone. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, TO EXTEND THE MEETING 15 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Ms. Graf explained under the current ordinance, a geotechnical engineer was required to identify a percentage of landslide risk, a statistical probability of hazard. Landau Associates concluded the critical issue for slope stability in the Meadowdale area was groundwater levels and it was their opinion that the current conditions were substantially unchanged over the past 20 years. Therefore Landau Associates recommended that a map showing specific probability risk levels was no longer needed for the Meadowdale area. She noted this would not eliminate the geotechnical engineer's need to identify landslide hazards that were applicable to an individual site. Ms. Graf requested the Council direct staff to draft a proposed ordinance to be scheduled for public hearing on April 20. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, TO DIRECT STAFF TO DRAFT A PROPOSED ORDINANCE TO BE SCHEDULED FOR PUBLIC HEARING ON APRIL 20. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. In response to Mr. Michel's comments regarding the brochure, Mayor Haakenson commented he found the Meadowdale Landslide Hazard Area brochure to be very informative, explaining it addressed what were landslides, what causes landslides, how do you know if you are in a landslide area, homeowners' dos and don'ts in a landslide area, be observant, and key property observations. 8. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Haakenson had no report. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 23, 2004 Page 16 9. INDIVIDUAL COUNCIL REPORTS ON OUTSIDE COMMITTEEBOARD MEETINGS Uer-v�atio:n Council President Plunkett reported on the Edmonds Historic Preservation Commission, explaining the special taxevaluation incentive for properties on the historic register allowed them to avoid taxes on improvements for up to ten years. He cited savings experienced by property owners in other communities via the special tax evaluation incentive — $842,000 in Ellensburg, $1.4 million in Everett, $1.5 million in Olympia, $730,000 in Shelton, $603,000 in Wenatchee. He noted staff has interviewed a consultant and is developing a contract for an inventory of historic properties in Edmonds beginning in April. He noted properties that were on the inventory would have an opportunity to apply to be placed on the register and take advantage of incentives. Council President Plunkett explained the Edmonds Historic Preservation Commission also developed a five minute video that would be shown on Channel 21 regarding historic preservation and were in the process of developing a brochure for distribution to property owners. He noted the Commission was also reviewing the City's code to ensure a historic structure that was damaged could be reconstructed as well as considering parking requirements for nonconforming historic buildings. He reported there were two private properties in Edmonds considering historic registry and one public building, the Carnegie library, that would soon be added to the register. Seashore Councilmember Olson reported on the March 17 SeaShore Transportation Forum where co-chairs were Transportation elected as well as funding priorities for RTID were discussed. Because regional transportation issues Drum impact all jurisdictions, RTID funding priorities identified by SeaShore were the viaduct and the 520 bridge, followed by I-90 and SR-522, followed by regional projects including 167, 509 and 405. Councilmember Moore clarified SeaShore was the North King County subarea group and their funding priorities were for King County RTID funds. Priorities for Snohomish County RTID funds had been established previously via another process. Strategic Plan Council President Plunkett recalled Administrative Services Director Dan Clements was instrumental in assisting the Council at the retreat to develop a vision statement and now wanted the Council to develop a strategic plan to implement the vision. He directed Mr. Clements to work with the Outreach Committee to develop a strategic plan. 3-way Stop at Student Representative David Dwyer reported the eastbound stop sign for the 3-way stop at Frances Lnderson Anderson Center was hidden by tree branches, a condition that would worsen when the trees began to leaf Center out. With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:15 p.m. l 1, Lim RE, 4 FArWAff"iKENSON, O. SANDRA S. CHASE, CITY CLERK Edmonds) City Council Approved Minutes March 23, 2004 Page 17 AGENDA EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex 250 5t' Avenue North 7:00 - 10:00 p.m. MARCH 23, 2004 6:45 p.m. - Executive session regarding a legal matter. 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 March 16, 2004. (C) Approval of claim checks #69731 through #69901 for the week of March 15, 2004, in the amount of $214,405.95. Approval of payroll direct deposits and checks #37810 through #37894 for the pay period March 1 through March 15, 2004, in the amount of $10021,024.87.* *Note: Claims information may be viewed electronically at www.ci.edmonds.wa.us. (D) Authorization to call for bids for the South 76th Avenue West Overlay (SR 99 to 220t" Street SW) Project. (E) Authorization for Mayor to sign contract for Professional Services with Edaw Inc. for critical areas and Comprehensive Plan support. (F) Authorization to purchase a 2004 van from Husky Truck Center in the amount of $32,184.50 (price includes sales tax). 3. (30 Min.) Report on 220th Street SW / 881h Avenue W sewer special connection fee.* *Audience comments will be received. 4. (90 Min.) Joint meeting with the Architectural Design Board to discuss design guidelines. A presentation will be made by Councilmember Marin on architectural design features. 5. Audience Comments (3 Minute Limit Per Person)* *Regarding matters not listed on the Agenda as Closed Record Review or as Public Hearings. Page 1 of 2 1 CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA March 23, 2004 Page 2 of 2 6. (10 Min.) Report on negotiations with Mr. Syd Locke regarding building permit issues. 7. (30 Min.) Work session on proposed Meadowdale earth subsidence and landslide hazard area development changes (existipq ECDC 19.05). S. ( 5 Min.) Mayor's Comments 9. (15 Min.) Individual Council reports on outside committee/board meetings. ADJOURN Parking and meetingrooms are accessible for persons with disabilities. Please contact the City Clerk at (425) 7.79-0245 with 24 hours advance notice for special accommodations.. The Council Agenda as well as a delayed telecast of the meeting appears on cable television Govemment Access Channel 21.