Loading...
07/06/2004 City CouncilEDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES July 6, 2004 Following a Special Meeting at 6:30 p.m. for an Executive Session regarding real estate matters, 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 Peggy Pritchard Olson, Councilmember Dave Orvis, Councilmember Richard Marin, Councilmember Deanna Dawson, Councilmember ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT Mauri Moore, Councilmember 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA STAFF PRESENT David Stern, Chief of Police Duane Bowman, Development Services Director Stephen Clifton, Community Services Director Dan Clements, Administrative Services Director Noel Miller, Public Works Director Kathleen Junglov, Asst. Admin. Serv. Director Stephen Koho, Treatment Plant Manager Dave Gebert, City Engineer Darrell Smith, Traffic Engineer Steve Bullock, Senior Planner Frances Chapin, Cultural Resources Coordinator Scott Snyder, City Attorney Sandy Chase, City Clerk Cindi Cruz, Senior Administrative Assistant Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council. Asst. Jeannie Dines, Recorder COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PLUNKETT, FOR APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA AS PRESENTED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS Councilmember Dawson requested Item L be removed from the Consent Agenda. COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PLUNKETT, FOR APPROVAL OF THE REMAINDER OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: Approve (A) ROLL CALL 6/22/04 Minutes (B) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JUNE 22, 2004. Approve 6/29/04 (C) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JUNE 29, 2004. Minutes (D) APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #72151 THROUGH #72282 FOR THE WEEK OF Approve JUNE 21, 2004, IN THE AMOUNT OF $308,038.98 APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS Claim Checks #72283 THROUGH #72417 FOR THE WEEK OF JUNE 28, 2004, IN THE AMOUNT OF $234,538.33. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSITS AND CHECKS #38497 THROUGH #38645 FOR THE PAY PERIOD JUNE 16 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2004, IN THE AMOUNT OF $835,499.57. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 6, 2004 Page 1 Approve Claim for (E) ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM ELIZABETH LECKIE Damages (AMOUNT UNDETERMINED). Quit Claim Deed at 1t720 (F) ACCEPTANCE OF QUIT CLAIM DEED AT 11720 UNOCO ROAD FROM POINT Unoco Rd. EDWARDS LLC. Quit Claim Deed at 8114 (G) ACCEPTANCE OF QUIT CLAIM DEED AT 8114 — 242ND STREET SW FROM FLOYD 242,d St. SW FREIMARK. Quit Claim Deed at 8715 (H) ACCEPTANCE OF QUIT CLAIM DEED AT 8715 MAPLEWOOD LANE FROM Maplewood ROBERT L. OLSEN. Alder St. Utility and (I) REPORT ON BIDS OPENED JUNE 22, 2004 FOR THE ALDER STREET UTILITY 231s`Pl. SW REPLACEMENT AND 231s" PLACE SW STORM IMPROVEMENT PROJECT AND Storm AWARD OF CONTRACT TO TRIMAXX CONSTRUCTION, INC. ($239,784.73). Improvement 2004 Street (J) REPORT ON BIDS OPENED JUNE 22, 2004 FOR THE 2004 STREET OVERLAY Overlay PROGRAM AND AWARD OF CONTRACT TO RINKER MATERIALS ($449,436.65). Program Sanitary (K) AUTHORIZATION FOR THE MAYOR TO SIGN TERMINATION AGREEMENT WITH Sewer Service THE TOWN OF WOODWAY FOR SANITARY SEWER SERVICE. Termination Addendum to (M) AUTHORIZATION FOR THE MAYOR TO SIGN AN ADDENDUM TO INTERLOCAL PFD OPERATING AGREEMENT #2 BETWEEN THE CITY OF EDMONDS AND THE Interlocal EDMONDS PUBLIC FACILITIES DISTRICT. Agreement Surplus (N) AUTHORIZATION TO SURPLUS AND SELL FIVE (5) 2001 PATROL CARS (UNITS Vehicles #255, 256, 257, 258 AND 260) AND ONE (1) 1999 PATROL CAR (UNIT #687) IN THE AMOUNT OF $35,500 TO FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS INTERNATIONAL, INC. Temporary Engineering (0) COUNCIL APPROVAL OF CONTRACT WITH SRI TECHNOLOGIES, INC. FOR inspector TEMPORARY ENGINEERING INSPECTOR. Reappoint PFD Board (p) REAPPOINTMENT OF EDMONDS PUBLIC FACILITIES DISTRICT BOARD Member MEMBER. Item L: Authorization for the Mavor to SiLyn the Settlement ALreement with Point Edwards LLC. Point Edwards At Councilmember Dawson's request, City Attorney Scott Snyder reviewed the indemnity provision of Settlement Agreement the Settlement Agreementy which indemnified the City from all claims and staff costs until December 31 2010.and from claims of owners in buildings 6 and 7 without a time limit. He explained potential challenges could be due to the approval of the Settlement Agreement or due to a slide. He explained any potential challenge to the approval of the Settlement Agreement must be brought within 30 days via LUPA or by a constitutional writ. He further stated the second area of potential claim would be from movement of the hillside which could potentially involve Burlington Northern Santa Fe as there were no other property owners at the bottom of the hill. He noted the geotechnical reports indicate no significant potential for deep-seated movement although there could be some sloughing. The geotechnical reports have indicated that stabilization should occur within a short period of time and if it did not, the City had four tools to address it, Critical Areas Ordinance, the moratorium process, the building permit process and Appendix 70 UBC which governs unstable slopes and hillsides. He concluded there was very little probability of a problem arising that would not be resolved within the next 2-3 years and certainly within the 61V2 year period. The only real Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 6, 2004 Page 2 potential for significant, long term liability was the purchasers of homes at the top of the slope and for that portion, the City had unlimited indemnification. COUNCILMEMBER DAWSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, FOR APPROVAL OF ITEM L. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The item approved is as follows: (L) AUTHORIZATION FOR THE MAYOR TO SIGN THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WITH POINT EDWARDS LLC. 3. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE Traffic Impact Fee Ordinance Traffic Engineer Darrell Smith explained that in 1990, the legislature authorized cities to collect Traffic Impact Fees that could only be used to offset growth from new development. Fees must be proportionate to growth created by the development and the development community could be asked to pay the fees to offset the impacts from their development on the transportation infrastructure. The City currently collected various fees via the SEPA process; Edmonds currently charged approximately $200 per PM peak hour trip. The proposed ordinance would charge $763.66 per PM peak hour trip on all new development. Mr. Smith provided a comparison of the Traffic Impact Fee charged in other cities - $885 in Bellevue, $3,000 in Brier, $900 in Everett, $2000 in Issaquah, $2200 in Kenmore, and $1600 in Redmond. He provided examples of the implementation of the proposed fees $840.72 per single family home, $474.24 per dwelling unit for condominiums, $544.49 per room for a hotel, $3.14 per square foot for a supermarket, and $4.92 per square foot for a restaurant. He noted all the impact fees were based on the $763.66 per PM peak hour trip and the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation which analyzes how a development creates traffic. With regard to why Traffic Impact Fees were being proposed, Mr. Smith displayed a map illustrating numerous intersections that would be operating at level of service F in 20 years without capacity improvements. He displayed a map of recommended capacity improvements, explaining funds from the traffic impact fees would be used for those improvements which include signal/roundabout and widening improvements. He described public feedback that had been solicited via the 2002 Transportation Element update which included a number of technical and citizen advisory groups, a public open house, the SEPA process and discussions with the Master Builders Association. Mr. Smith noted the Master Builders Association had expressed concern with staff s original proposal to include an inflationary index, the Seattle Consumer Price Index. It was determined this was not appropriate for Edmonds because the City factors in inflation when developing project cost estimates. As a result, staff recommends the Council direct staff to remove the last sentence in Section 18.82.110 referencing the Seattle Consumer Price Index. Staff also recommends modifying the second sentence of that Section to replace "adjust" with "review." Councilmember Wilson suggested Section 18.82.11.0 reflect the Council's ability to review and make adjustments as necessary. Mr. Smith agreed the sentence should reflect the intent to review costs annually and make adjustments if deemed necessary or appropriate. Councilmember Wilson referred to a developer's ability to seek credit for facilities they had paid into or built. Mr. Smith referred to his discussions with Young Henderson & Company, leading experts in the northwest on the development of Traffic Impact Fees, who indicated there is specific language in the RCWs that state cities must provide that option although there is no case history regarding any challenges. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 6, 2004 Page 3 Councilmember Wilson inquired whether there was the potential for a developer's credit to be greater than the amount they owed in Traffic Impact Fees resulting in the City owing the developer. City Attorney Scott Snyder stated the Council had the ability and authority to accept or not accept dedications; as the Council approved any development project, if the Council had a concern that a proposed dedication to public use was not preferable to the payment of Traffic Impact Fees, the Council could decline to accept the dedication. He noted there was no authority that required the City to return any access payment. He assured as any case law arose, Ogden Murphy Wallace would inform the Council and staff. He noted this issue related to State and Federal Constitutional provisions that a city could not require dedications in excess of the impact a development had on a community. Councilmember Wilson referred to Section 18.82.080, establishment of Impact Fee accounts, inquiring whether the accounts would be established based on benefit areas or one account where all Traffic Impact Fees would be collected. Mr. Smith answered there would be one zone for the entire City. Mr. Snyder referred to Section 18.82.090 which required that the City be able to show the funds were expended for the specific development activity that was identified via the SEPA or development process. Although there would be only one zone, he noted the City would be required to track the improvements for which the funds were collected as well as expenditures. Councilmember Dawson suggested adding a sentence to Section 18.82.050 such as "in no event shall the amount of the credit result in a refund of monies to the developer." Mr. Snyder clarified Councilmember Wilson's concern was that the sum of the value of a dedication by a developer compelled by the City and the Traffic Impact Fees did not exceed the impact. Council President Plunkett inquired whether adoption of the Traffic Impact Fee ordinance was time sensitive. Mr. Smith answered there was time for staff to make the proposed changes and place the ordinance on the Consent Agenda. Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. Brian Perry, Master Builders Association, 335 116t" Ave SE, Bellevue, advised they were initially concerned with portions of the ordinance that appeared to charge twice for inflation; their concerns had been alleviated by the changes proposed by staff. The Master Builders Association agreed development should pay for their impact and found the ordinance acceptable with the changes proposed by staff. He thanked Mr. Smith for his assistance on this issue. Hearing no further public comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public participation portion of the public hearing. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DAWSON, TO ACCEPT THE ORDINANCE CONCEPTUALLY AND HAVE IT RETURNED FOR APPROVAL ON THE CONSENT AGENDA. Councilmember Dawson commented this was a sensible ordinance that balanced the needs of growth and development against the need for adequate services to support growth. The proposed Traffic Impact Fees were significantly less than some other cities, thus it was not an overly egregious burden on development. Councilmember Wilson agreed the proposed Traffic Impact Fees were very fair and equitable and would not be an excessive burden. He noted the Traffic Impact Fees collected would assist the City in addressing transportation improvements and would allow the City to collect funds for projects to address issues created by development. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 6, 2004 Page 4 MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. [and Clearing 4. PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO EDMONDS COMMUNITY Exemptions DEVELOPMENT CODE CHAPTER 18.45 REGARDING LAND CLEARING EXEMPTIONS AND and Fines FINES. Development Services Director Duane Bowman explained a recent incident exposed holes in the City's codes with regard to fines and process, specifically in Title 18.45. He noted the proposed ordinance would address those loopholes by amending the exemptions found under Section 18.45.030, amend the violations and penalties found under Section 18.45.070 by removing the $10,000 ceiling and creating an increased fine for clearing in a critical area or critical area buffers, add a new Section 18.45.035 establishing a procedural exemption for Architectural Design Board approved projects, and add a new Section 18.45.080 authorizing additional remedies. Mr. Bowman summarized the fines were currently $1,000 per day and $500 per tree with a ceiling of $10,000; that ceiling has been removed. In addition a new section has been added that addressed clearing in critical areas and critical area buffers that has a $3,000 per day and $1,500 per tree fine. Councilmember Wilson clarified the exception in Section 18.45.035 did not allow a developer to clear just because they received Architectural Design Board (ADB) approval, they could only clear if it was approved by the ADB. Mr. Bowman answered the section indicated a developer did not need to go through the land clearing process if they had had ADB review but the standards, requirements and penalties under that chapter would apply to any violations. Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. There were no members of the public who wished to address the Council. COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON, TO Ord. #3507 APPROVE ORDINANCE NO. 3507 AMENDING CHAPTER 18.45. MOTION CARRIED Land clearing UNANIMOUSLY. The ordinance approved is as follows: Exemptions and Fines AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING ECDC CHAPTER 18.45 BY THE AMENDMENT OF SECTION 18.45.030 EXEMPTIONS, 18.45.070 VIOLATIONS AND PENALTIES, BY THE ADDITION OF NEW SECTIONS 18.45.035 PROCEDURAL EXEMPTION AND 18.45.080 ADDITIONAL REMEDIES AUTHORIZED, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. 5. CLOSED RECORD REVIEW OF AN APPEAL OF THE HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION Appeal of TO APPROVE THE PUBLIC FACILITIES DISTRICT'S REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE Hearing Examiner PERMIT (CUP) FOR A MASTER PLAN FOR THE OLD EDMONDS HIGH SCHOOL SITE. Decision re: THIS CUP INCLUDES DEMOLITION OF SOME BUILDINGS ON THE SITE AND CUP for PFD CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW PARKING STRUCTURE AND MEETING ROOM ON THE Master Plan NORTH PORTION OF THE SITE. THE EXAMINER'S DECISION ALSO APPROVED A PHASE ONE DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION WHICH ALLOWS A SURFACE PARKING LOT AND REFURBISHMENT OF THE EXISTING AUDITORIUM AND GYMNASIUM BUILDINGS. (APPELLANT: NATALIE SHIPPEN / FILE NOS. ADB-01-04, CU-04-02, AND AP-04-74) As this was a quasi judicial matter, Mayor Haakenson invited Councihnembers to disclose any conflicts or ex parte communications under the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine. He recommended Councilmembers disclose any donations to the Edmonds Center for the Arts. Councilmember Dawson inquired how the fact that the City was a partner in this project impact the Council's ability to participate in this process. She noted it could be argued that the City's allocation of funds for this project put the Council in a tenuous position making a decision given the financial impact a Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 6, 2004 Page 5 decision could have on the project. City Attorney Scott Snyder advised when the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine included a provision that did not allow a challenge that would disqualify the Council as a whole. He explained the Council made the decisions with regard to funding the project in its corporate capacity and while an argument could be made, it could not be the basis to disqualify the Council from hearing the issue under the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine. Councilmember Dawson clarified that challenge could be raised, but all Councilmembers would be removed and then reinstated. Mr. Snyder confirmed the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine could not be used to destroy a quorum or the ability of a Board or Council to hear a matter. Councilmember Orvis disclosed he read Ms. Shippen's letter to the editor. Councilmember Wilson indicated he could not recall whether he made a contribution to the Edmonds Center for the Arts. Council President Plunkett inquired whether a donation from a member of the Public Facilities District (PFD) should be disclosed. Mr. Snyder answered the Council's adopted procedures, not State law, required disclosure of campaign contributions. Council President Plunkett disclosed that Terry Vehrs, a member of the PFD Board, contributed $100 to his campaign in 2001 and $200 in 2002. Councilmember Dawson advised parties of record, Betty Mueller, contributed to and assisted with her campaign and Norma Bruns, Ray Martin and Natalie Shippen may have contributed to her campaign. Councilmember Orvis noted some of the parties of record may have contributed to his campaign; he recalled Betty Mueller contributed $100 to his first Council campaign. Council President Plunkett advised Betty Mueller contributed to his campaign in 1997 but had not contributed since. Councilmember Olson disclosed Terry Vehrs and Barb Fahey each contributed $250 to her campaign. Mayor Haakenson advised since there were six Councilmembers voting, there was the potential he would vote in the event of a tie. He disclosed Chris Guitton, Dave Farling, Terry Vehrs contributed to his campaign and he has donated to the Edmonds Center for the Arts. Councilmember Wilson disclosed PFD Board Member Dave Earling contributed to his campaign. Councilmember Marin disclosed Mr. Farling contributed to his campaign and he contributed to Mr. Earling's campaign. Council President Plunkett advised he contributed to Mr. Earling's campaign. Mr. Snyder clarified the Council's rules asked that the Council make a good faith effort to list contributions in excess of $250. He clarified the requirement was contributions that were made to the Council. He explained the intent of the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine was to identify issues that may appear to a reasonable member of the public to be unfair, thus Mayor Haakenson's request that Councilmembers disclose donations to the Edmonds Center for the Arts. He clarified the PFD was an entity separate from the City under State law and was not controlled by the Council. Mayor Haakenson inquired whether any Councilmember was uncomfortable making a decision in this matter. No Councilmember indicated they were uncomfortable making a decision. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 6, 2004 Page 6 Mayor Haakenson inquired whether there were any challenges to his participation or the participation of any Councilmember. Darrell Marmion, 750 Edmonds Street, Edmonds, pointed out the City had a vested interest in the project and he questioned the jurisdiction of the Council to hear the appeal. Mr. Snyder explained a hearing body did not have the ability to address challenges to its jurisdiction. He acknowledged it was an irresolvable conflict; the City Council who allocated funds to the PFD also hires and contracts with the Hearing Examiner. He suggested the Council proceed as it was the jurisdictional body charged with hearing the matter. He noted that issue could be raised on appeal and the court would determine who to remand the issue to for decision. Councilmember Dawson noted if the Council could not hear the issue, who could other than a court and there was always the ability to appeal to court. Mr. Snyder agreed, noting this matter came to the Council as an appeal on the record where only argument on information in the record was permitted. If the matter was appealed further, the Court would review it under the Land Use Petition Act (LUPA). Mayor Haakenson reviewed time limits for each party, indicating the PFD would have 20 minutes with time for rebuttal, the appellant, Ms. Shippen would have 20 minutes with no rebuttal and staff and Council would have 20 minutes and the three minute rule would apply to comment from parties of record. (A revision was made later in the meeting in the order of presentation and providing Ms. Shippen opportunity for rebuttal.) Senior Planner Steve Bullock advised the PFD submitted an application for the Edmonds Center for the Arts as two separate applications: (1) a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for the Master Plan development of the site that requested height and lot coverage provisions and the ultimate configuration of the site, and (2) a Design Review Application for design of Phase 1 improvements. Because the PFD applied for the applications at the same time, a consolidated permit process was allowed including one public hearing which was held before the decision maker with the broadest authority. In this instance, the Hearing Examiner has the broadest authority to make decisions on both CUP applications and Design Review Applications. The design review element of the project was reviewed by the Architectural Design Board (ADB) who forwarded comments to the Hearing Examiner. The Hearing Examiner held a public hearing on May 20, 2004, took public testimony on the design review elements of Phase 1 and the Master Plan and issued his decision on June 1. Mr. Bullock referred to the site plan on page 50 of the record that illustrated the PFD's proposal with demolition of the original high school building on the northern portion as well as the gymnasium. Those structures are proposed to be replaced with a surface parking lot in Phase 1; there is also construction of a small addition on the north side of the existing auditorium building to provide restrooms and other features to improve the function of the building. He referred to drawings on pages 69 — 85 illustrating Phase 1 site plan improvements and restoration of the auditorium and remaining gymnasium. Brent Carson, Buck and Gordon, representing the PFD, pointed out the applicant presented their case to the Hearing Examiner and the Hearing Examiner issued a decision for approval which has now been appealed by Ms. Shippen. He noted as the appellant, Ms. Shippen should present her case regarding why the Hearing Examiner was wrong and she should be provided opportunity for rebuttal as it was her burden of proof and the PFD's presentation should follow Ms. Shippen's. Mayor Haakenson declared a brief recess to allow him to confer with Mr. Snyder. Upon reconvening the meeting, Mayor Haakenson agreed Ms. Shippen should present her argument next and would have the right to rebuttal. Mr. Snyder clarified Ms. Shippen had the burden of persuasion; burden of proof Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 6, 2004 Page 7 required additional evidence. In this instance evidence had already been provided at the initial hearing, this was a hearing on the information in the record. Appellant Natalie Shippen, 1.022 Euclid, Edmonds, commented the consolidated permit process placed a citizen who was not an attorney in a bind. She noted the design review was a legislative matter and she decided she would not be drawn into a legal approach or legal jargon and would make her case that it was a poor design. She stressed she was not trying to prove anyone wrong, it was simply a poor design. Ms. Shippen distributed materials describing the site in more detail which she indicated she had provided to the Hearing Examiner including an artist's rendering of the auditorium as it might appear if there were any pictures prior to construction of the music building and a parking study done by the PSCC. Mr. Snyder and Mr. Carson agreed this was not new information. Ms. Shippen asked to save 10 minutes for rebuttal. She referred to the diagram of the site and the issue of lot coverage. She noted the City Code allowed maximum lot coverage of 35%; the applicant's proposal indicates 52% lot coverage although the SEPA report indicates coverage of 62%. She asserted the coverage must actually be at least 85% as the entire area north of the auditorium would be parking lot at the beginning and parking garage later. Ms. Shippen noted the confusion began with what was the site. She referred to page 108 of the record, the SEPA questionnaire, which in Item g inquires what percent of the site would be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction and the answer was approximately 68% of the newly developed site. She concluded this answer was not responsive to the SEPA question as the entire site represented the site. She noted there were no square footage figures in the information provided but it appeared the coverage was much greater than 62%. Ms. Shippen found the Master Plan very unusual because usually a plan described how the project would look when completed, which she noted was not provided via this Master Plan. She noted there was no landscaping or open space and the site would be more crowded with the new development than it was currently. Ms. Shippen noted there were no cost estimates provided in the file because none were presented at the only public hearing or provided in the information presented to the Hearing Examiner. Therefore, she noted, the City Council had no way to evaluate Phase 1 expenditures. Ms. Shippen pointed out Phase 1 did not require more parking because there was no change of use, but it was proposed on page 64 of the record that 90 parking spaces would be provided on site. She noted construction of the parking lot at a cost of $181,000 would require demolition of all buildings north of the auditorium at a cost of $550,000. She concluded the PFD was expending $731,000 in Phase 1 to build an unneeded parking lot. In order to create the unneeded parking lot, the allowed lot coverage exceeded the code requirement by nearly 100%. She estimated the actual lot coverage was likely 80-85% of the site. Ms. Shippen noted the Hearing Examiner's decision indicated the lot coverage shall not exceed 52% and shall not include portions of the parking garage that have a landscaped terrace. She commented that logic appeared to indicate the garage, however tall would have no lot coverage if the top floor was a roof garden. She pointed out improvements to the theater were sacrificed to create the unneeded parking lot; improvements such as theater systems, lighting, sound systems and balcony seating. The funds for demolition of the buildings on the northern portion of the site to create the unneeded parking lot/garage could be used to remove the unsightly music practice building. She concluded a completed theater and a fully restored historic monument were sacrificed to build an unneeded parking lot in Phase 1. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 6, 2004 Page 8 Ms. Shippen advised the total cost of Phase 1 was $15-$16 million; the PFD has collected $9.5 million in the form of taxes, bonds, Edmonds cash, City REST, sale of property and interest. She noted there was a $5.5 million deficit that was to be collected via government grants and private contributions which she alleged had not materialized. She concluded fundraising was a problem. She expressed concerns that portions of the project that were delayed and may never be completed. Ms. Shippen summarized the Council had a choice — use the available funds to complete the theater and fully restore the exterior of the historic monument by removing the music practice building in Phase 1 or use the funds to construct an unneeded parking lot in Phase 1. She preferred a complete theater and a renovated exterior of the historic monument in Phase 1 before anything else was done and then proceed to Phase 2. Councilmember Wilson inquired whether Ms. Shippen was asking the Council to pass a judgment on the applicant's construction phasing and demolition schedule. Ms. Shippen answered she was asking that the Council deny the request for a CUP which she addressed in detail in her July 1, 2004 letter to the Council, direct that the music practice building be demolished in Phase 1 and delete construction of the parking lot from Phase 1. Councilmember Wilson clarified Ms. Shippen was asking the Council to pass judgment regarding the applicant's phasing of the project. Ms. Shippen noted all she wanted the Council to do was pass judgment on the design. If the Council did not find it was a good design, the parking lot should be omitted in the first phase to allow completion of the theater and not approve the CUP which was related to the parking lot. Councilmember Wilson observed Ms. Shippen's testimony appeared to relate to where the PFD obtained their funds, the amount they have obtained, how the funds were spent on construction and the phasing of the construction. He found very little of Ms. Shippen's testimony related to the design. He requested clarification regarding what Ms. Shippen wanted the Council to consider. Ms. Shippen explained removing the music practice building would contribute to the beauty of the historic monument. She questioned whether a good historic monument could be achieved if the music practice building were retained. She questioned whether the interior of the theater should be completed in Phase 1 or as part of future phases. She noted these were design factors. Leaving the interior of the theater half finished was not a desirable design and the Council should want the interior and exterior completed. She questioned whether a parking garage that would be 47 feet high in the front and 25 in the rear was a good design feature for a performing arts center. She noted an art design should not include parking on a valuable site just because the neighbors wanted it. Councilmember Dawson asked for clarification regarding what Ms. Shippen wanted the Council to review. Ms. Shippen stated there was a design problem and it was up to the Council to determine whether this was a good design for a center for the arts. There were two elements of the Master Plan, Phase 1 and Phase 2, that retained the music practice building and constructed a parking lot in Phase 1 and a parking garage ultimately. She suggested a determination regarding the parking garage would come later but the Council should determine whether a parking lot was desirable on the site. She stated her preference for the ADB to have discussed the design, noting their minutes do not reflect any discussion regarding design. She was appalled that the ugly music practice building would be retained when the intent was to create an aesthetic art center. The creation of the parking lot was contrary to the code which encouraged retention of open space. Another option would be to demolish the buildings and install landscaping. Councilmember Dawson asked if there was anything specific about the ADB approval aside from the parking lot that violated the code or design guidelines. Ms. Shippen noted the ADB was established to avoid elected officials making aesthetic judgments. The consolidated permit process put a legislative matter into a judicial setting; she preferred the ADB discuss aesthetics which they had not in this instance; Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 6, 2004 Page 9 the only aesthetics the ADB discussed were the parking lot and it's landscaping. Ms. Shippen noted her appeal listed all the areas of the code that the Council should consider in their deliberations. Councilmember Wilson asked Ms. Shippen to identify in the record where she raised concern with the type of building material, colors, etc. used on the parking garage or the design of the garage. Ms. Shippen responded she just disliked the parking garage out of hand regardless of the material; it was massive and overwhelmed the site. The code directed the Council to consider the scale which she found inappropriate for the site. Councilmember Wilson asked whether Ms. Shippen's concern was that the parking garage overwhelmed open space on the site. Ms. Shippen answered that the parking garage overwhelmed what could be open space on the site. Councilmember Wilson inquired whether she had addressed the relationship of the garage to the size and scale of the other structures remaining on the property. Ms. Shippen answered the parking garage was too big, it was 47 feet high and of unknown width as there were no dimensions provided. Councilmember Wilson explained he was trying to determine what Ms. Shippen's concerns where other than with the PFD's business plan. He clarified the applicant was an entity separate from the city with their own rights and responsibilities as an applicant. He inquired whether Ms. Shippen's issues were design -related and which design -related elements she had raised in the hearing process. Ms. Shippen reiterated her concern that retaining the music practice building ruined the historic monument, the parking lot was unnecessary as there was plenty of existing parking, and not providing parking would allow for more open space on the site. She preferred open space on the northern portion of the site if the buildings were to be demolished. Councilmember Orvis pointed out the criteria for approving a CUP included visual character and traffic impacts. After considering the comments Ms. Shippen made today as well as to the Hearing Examiner, it appeared she did not object to a 60-foot height and she found it acceptable to reduce on -site parking which he found would have a negative impact on traffic. He noted Ms. Shippen's requests were more similar to requests made by applicants for a CUP. Ms. Shippen agreed she recommended the PFD be allowed to construct a 60-foot fly loft. Councilmember Orvis noted Ms. Shippen found a 60-foot height acceptable for visual character but a 47 foot height was not. Ms. Shippen noted 47 feet was the height of the parking garage; only the fly loft portion of the structure would be 60 feet. Councilmember Orvis noted the parking garage was part of Phase 2. Ms. Shippen agreed it was confusing; her appeal listed the pertinent areas of the code that should be considered. She refused to provide testimony before the Council in legalese as this was a legislative matter and only because of the consolidated permit had this become a judicial matter. Parties of Record Mr. Snyder recommended the Council take testimony from parties of record other than representatives of the PFD who were represented by counsel and would make a coordinated presentation. Ray Martin, 18704 94th Avenue W, Edmonds, referred to page 39 of the record (Planning Department's Findings, Conclusions and Recommendations) that state "not detrimental" and page 14 of the Hearing Examiner's decision which stated the proposed height of 47 feet and increase in lot coverage allowed will not be detrimental to any adjacent properties in that the current buildings are already at that height and the site already has approximately 50% lot coverage. He indicated a few days ago, he measured the buildings himself. Mr. Carson objected to the introduction of any new material. Mr. Snyder cautioned Mr. Martin that any testimony must be argument from the record from the previous proceeding. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 6, 2004 Page 10 Mr. Martin indicated he measured the building to check the accuracy of the Hearing Examiner's information. Mr. Snyder interrupted that Mr. Martin could not advise of his findings when he measured the building because that was new information. Mr. Martin questioned the Hearing Examiner's finding that the existing buildings on the northern portion of the site were 47 feet tall, pointing out that, most of the buildings were 20-30 feet tall. He questioned whether the future widening of 7th Avenue that would likely be necessary to accommodate the 250 car parking lot would be detrimental. He agreed with the suggestion to raise the performing arts portion for the purpose of better acoustics but not with allowing 47 foot heights elsewhere on the site. He agreed with Ms. Shippen that the planning was terrible and consideration needed to be given to whether the Council wanted a parking lot rather than a performing arts center. He referred to the indication that it would not be advisable to use both the performing arts center and the meeting room at the same time for traffic reasons. He estimated the lot coverage would be nearly double with the proposed development. Norma Bruns, 960 5ti' Avenue S, Edmonds, expressed her support for Ms. Shippen's appeal, indicating how difficult it was for a citizen to appeal particularly when the PFD had staff and an attorney. She reiterated the comments she made to the Hearing Examiner, that a ten year period for a CUP was not appropriate. She commented Phase 2 to be the least attractive as she found it obscene to site a parking garage in that location. She regretted that the Historic Commission did not devote more time to the historical aspect and it saddened her that a building constructed in 1910 was proposed to be demolished. She agreed with Ms. Shippen that it was more important to make a first class art center than worry about parking and suggested delaying Phase 2. Roger Hertrieh, 1020 Puget Drive, Edmonds, inquired whether he was a party of record. Mayor Haakenson advised him he was not. Mr. Snyder explained Mayor Haakenson was referring to a list of parties of record on page 16 of the record. Mr. Snyder read from Section 20.05.040 Appealed Hearing Examiner Action that indicates those persons who are entitled to appear or are parities of record are the applicant, anyone who has submitted a written document to the city concerning the application prior to or at the hearing or anyone testifying on the application. Mr. Snyder noted Mr. Hertrieh was listed as having requested a copy of the report but not having presented testimony or a document to the Hearing Examiner at the hearing. Mr. Hertrieh assumed anyone who attended the meeting and signed up but did not speak would be a party of record. Mr. Snyder stated that was not the way the City's ordinance or State law read. COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, TO EXTEND THIS ITEM FOR 30 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Applicant Brent Carson, Buck & Gordon, representing the Edmonds Public Facilities District, noted the ADB did review this matter and recommend its approval. The Hearing Examiner took testimony, reviewed the criteria based on staff s recommendation and public testimony, and made a final decision to approve. He explained this matter was now on appeal to the Council to determine whether the Hearing Examiner was in error, therefore, the Council must first consider what issues were raised on appeal. He noted the appeal claimed there was no evaluation of the criteria and that the proposal did not meet the criteria; however, the appeal provided no argument regarding why it did not meet the criteria. He reiterated the proposal was fully evaluated and did meet the criteria. Mr. Carson referred to the written response from Ms. Shippen dated July 1, 2004. He expressed his objection to that letter due to his belief it raised issues beyond the scope of the appeal. He noted additional issues were raised today that were not raised in the appeal statement or in the written argument letter dated July 1, 2004. He noted parties of record also testified regarding issues that were not raised in the appeal and asked that those not be considered by the Council in its deliberation. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 6, 2004 Page I I Mr. Carson explained there was a proposal by the Edmonds PFD and the burden was on the appellant to prove why the Hearing Examiner was in error, why the design did not meet the design criteria and why the CUP with the request for increased height and lot coverage should not be approved. He noted Ms. Shippen argued there were no criteria and it was only a matter of aesthetics and how it looked and asked the Council to use their judgment. Mr. Carson explained the decision was based on specific criteria and it was not within the Council's prerogative just to say they didn't like the design. Although some Councilmembers may prefer the music building be demolished, that was not what the applicant requested and under design review criteria, the Council could not impose an obligation to demolish a building that was not proposed for demolition. Mr. Carson noted the design review criteria was reviewed with regard to the music building and although the music building may not be aesthetically pleasing to Ms. Shippen, it was a building constructed 50 years ago and was part of the existing site. He noted not only did it comply with the design review standards but was a useful building for music rehearsals. With regard to parking, he noted the applicant wanted to comply with the parking standards as promised in their SEPA checklist and as promised to the community. Therefore, he found no basis under design review to challenge the issue of providing parking, particularly since there were no specific challenges to the design of the parking lot or landscaping in the parking lot. The parking was critical to achieving support for this project in the community. With regard to a ten year Master Plan, Mr. Carson noted it had been done in the past. He assured there would be design review in the future for the conference center with parking below that would address issues such as materials, modulation, scale, and setback. The sole issue with regard to the Phase 2 CUP was whether the existing heights on the site should be allowed in the future and the PFD's proposal was not to exceed that height and the same with lot coverage. He noted the PFD needed adequate time for fundraising as well as the certainty of establishing the standards for future design; the CUP was requested now to confirm the availability of the proposed design envelope for future design. With regard to testimony provided tonight, Mr. Carson noted for the first time Ms. Shippen has raised the issue of lot coverage which was not in the appeal or supplemental appeal submitted July 2, 2004. He requested that challenge be stricken even though the record clearly demonstrated compliance with lot coverage. He noted Ms. Shippen referred to the SEPA report that addresses impervious surface, clarifying impervious surface and lot coverage were separate calculations. The comments with regard to costs, phasing, etc. were not germane to the appeal. He referred to statements that the ADB did not review the design, clarifying the ADB did review the design but due to the consolidated CUP and design review it was consolidated for decision by the Hearing Examiner with a recommendation from the ADB. Councilmember Dawson noted the wisdom of how the PFD spent its money as well as other issues raised in the challenges were not before the Council. With regard to the CUP, she understood the rationale for requesting the CUP at this time, but questioned how the Council could determine whether a CUP was appropriate when there was no design for the building. She found it difficult to approve the CUP without that information. She disagreed that the project should automatically be allowed the increased height and lot coverage due to what currently existed on the site. She noted if that was the Council's intent, grandfathering would be allowed for buildings that were demolished and replaced. She concluded the size of the existing buildings was not a basis for granting a CUP. She asked how the Council could determine whether the proposal met the CUP criteria when they did not know what it looked like. Mr. Carson referred to the criteria on page 38 of the record, the staff report to the Hearing Examiner, which listed the criteria for a CUP for height. He noted the existing CUP authorized the use; the only issue relevant to the CUP was the height and lot coverage. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 6, 2004 Page 12 Mr. Carson noted the first criteria addressed the impact that the proposal, building envelope no greater than the existing height and lot coverage no greater than the existing lot coverage, on the visual and aesthetic character of the neighborhood. He noted the Hearing Examiner considered whether having a building of the same height and lot coverage adversely impacted or complied with the visual character of the neighborhood and concluded if it was consistent with the existing height and lot coverage, it met the criteria. With regard to the specifics of the design, that issue would appropriately be addressed during design review. The existing buildings and their relationship to the neighborhood demonstrate why retaining that height and lot coverage met the criteria. Councilmember Dawson noted it was not the same lot coverage but was slightly larger lot coverage. Because a building may be the same height and the same size did not mean one building would not have more impact on the visual and aesthetic character of a neighborhood. Mr. Carson clarified the issue was not design or bulk but rather height because that was the only criteria on which the CUP was being granted. Councilmember Dawson pointed out the Council was being asked to address the visual and aesthetic character and she questioned how the Council could determine the visual and aesthetic impact on a neighborhood when they did not know what the building looked like. Mr. Carson noted if the building met the design review criteria when it came back, that was the City's protection. The CUP did not address design review, it was specifically related to how the height impacted the visual character. Councilmember Dawson observed this was essentially meaningless because if the proposal was the same height as the existing building, it automatically met the visual and aesthetic character. Mr. Carson noted if the record presented some contrary evidence why a building of that height given the existing buildings did not meet the criteria, he may have been able to argue from that point of view but that was not in the record. Councilmember Dawson pointed out the record states the existing building is 47 feet high but did not state whether that was the highest point or whether the entire building was 47 feet high and there was no information regarding what the new building would look like or what portions would be 47 feet high. It was impossible to compare the existing building to the proposed new building because there was little information regarding either in the record. The record was under -developed and she questioned whether the applicant met the burden of proof to the Hearing Examiner. Mr. Carson explained the Hearing Examiner indicated they met the burden of proof and it was up to Ms. Shippen to show that they had not. He encouraged the Council to look at this like height limits within a zoning code and design review as an aesthetic criteria and consider whether this was an envelope that could work. The Council had the protection of design review to address the details of compatibility of design. Councilmember Dawson questioned how a parking garage could be compatible with a neighborhood particularly when the proposal was to replace a historical building with a parking garage. Why does the building need a CUP and why could it not be constructed to code with a height of 25 feet. Mr. Carson answered given the PFD's desire for a multi -use facility and needs for parking and space for community events, it was the applicant's conclusion the envelope of 47 feet would allow them to meet those needs. Councilmember Dawson questioned why a 25 foot height limit was not adequate. Mr. Carson answered the 47 foot height was necessary to meet the parking and proposed programming for the facility. Councilmember Dawson noted the additional parking was needed due to the events center aspect. Mr. Carson acknowledged the facility at the top of the parking structure was included in the calculation for the parking. He noted the PFD promised the community that they would not increase on -street parking via existing parking lots and parking at the facility. He noted that without that commitment, it was doubtful the PFD would have received as much support. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 6, 2004 Page 13 Councilmember Dawson questioned whether the parking structure was needed to provide parking for the performing arts facility or whether the facility atop the parking structure generated the need for additional parking. Mr. Carson answered parking for the improvements in Phase 1 were met via surface parking and the additional parking was for the convention/meeting portion of the facility. Councilmember Dawson asked about the ability to do underground parking to allow a 25-foot structure. Councilmember Dawson questioned the basis for granting the CUP. Mr. Carson referred to the five criteria for granting a CUP. Councilmember Dawson concluded the criteria appeared to be meaningless, noting that because the site did not have any natural vegetation, the proposal did not need to meet that criteria. Mr. Carson disagreed, noting the Hearing Examiner examined the criteria and determined the proposal met the criteria. Councilmember Dawson noted under Mr. Carson's argument, any structure could be demolished and a parking garage constructed as long as it was the same bulk and height of the existing structure. Mr. Carson clarified this was a criteria within the P zone and was uncertain whether it applied elsewhere in the City. Councilmember Wilson referred to page 65 of the record, a site phase of Phase 1 development that illustrated the existing buildings — the auditorium, music building, gymnasium — and to the north the parking area. He referred to faint lines on the drawing, questioning whether they represented the footprint of the existing building. Mr. Bullock answered it was. Councilmember Wilson observed the mass of the existing building on the east elevation was wider than the proposed parking facility. He asked whether the footprint of the parking facility was the same footprint of the parking structure. Sherrill Myers, LMN Architects, answered the proposal was the new mass would be less wide than the existing building and would conform with setbacks in the code without modification. Councilmember Wilson referred to the criteria that refers to the impact of the proposal on the visual and aesthetic character of the neighborhood. He noted the parking facility and parking structure would be less of a fagade mass on the east elevation in the north -south direction than currently existed. Mr. Myers agreed, pointing out they have proposed a zoning envelope, not a building design. Councilmember Wilson noted the record referred to a 47 foot height of the buildings to be demolished and that the gymnasium to the west was approximately 25 feet over the datum point. He observed the largest mass of the existing building was along the east elevation. Mr. Myers agreed the maximum roof height of the existing school building, 47 feet, was located in the middle portion of the east half. Councilmember Wilson referred to page 65 of the record and asked the applicant to indicate whether the record identified the portion that would be 47 feet tall. Mr. Myers answered that information was not in the record. Councilmember Wilson concluded somewhere north of the existing auditorium was a structure that was up to 47 feet high. Councilmember Wilson referred to page 53 of the record, the parking analysis for Phases 1 and 2, that indicated no parking was required for Phase 1 but also indicating Phase 1 would provide 90 on -site parking spaces. Councilmember Wilson asked how the requirement for zero parking was determined. Mr. Carson answered the SEPA and traffic study discussed existing parking and page 140 of the record stated Phase 1 did not entail a change of use; therefore there was no requirement to provide off-street parking. He reiterated the PFD's commitment to providing parking. Councilmember Wilson stated zero required parking spaces was a procedural determination rather than what the code would require for the facility. Mr. Carson agreed, noting if the PFD chose, they would not need to provide any parking and the City could not have imposed parking requirements under the code. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 6, 2004 Page 14 Councilmember Wilson commented that if the PFD demolished the auditorium building and built a new structure, the required parking would be 179 spaces for a 500 seat theater. The zero parking requirement was because it was an existing building and the use was not changing. The parking in Phase 2 was necessary to meet the needs in Phase 2 as well as the convention center on the north side. COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, TO EXTEND THIS ITEM FOR 20 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Responding to Councilmember Dawson, Mr. Myers answered that due to the size and scale of the conference/meeting facility and the amount of parking to accommodate that use, they tried to identify the physical dimensions that could be accomplished in the design process. Although the PFD would have preferred more height, they agreed to retain the same heights to avoid blocking any views of Puget Sound. Councilmember Dawson noted the Hearing Examiner's decision stated the height of a parking garage/meeting structure shall not exceed the height of the current high school building. She questioned whether this meant at no point could the new building be higher than it was at that point in the old building and whether the intent was to make the new building look the same as the old building in terms of height and scale. Mr. Myers stated their intent was a reasonable height that would allow neighborhood residents to continue to enjoy their views which lead to the determination that the maximum height of the new development not exceed the existing development. Mr. Carson pointed out the Hearing Examiner's decision stated the height of the parking garage/meeting room shall not exceed the height of the current high school building and required confirmation of the heights of the existing high school. Councilmember Dawson reiterated her question regarding how the Council could determine whether the building would be aesthetically compatible with the existing development if they did not know the dimensions of the building. Mr. Snyder read from Section 16.80.030 Site Development Standards that states although each public use will undergo extensive use by the ADB in light of its relationship to surrounding neighbors, there will be certain minimum development standards to be used in the design of these facilities. This section also stated the standards may be subject to a grant of variance under provisions of another section. He noted the height section stated the maximum height of a building in the zone shall be 25 feet unless a CUP has been obtained. A CUP for additional height may permit additional structures up to an additional height of 60 feet. He noted it was clear from the language that a request for height was prospective and could be used in future design and the ordinance anticipated ADB review of the design factor. He noted the Council's concern could be addressed via the wording of the conditions. For Councilmember Dawson, Mr. Snyder explained a property owner had a right to use their property in accordance with their common law property rights, zoning statutes were a derogation of those rights. If the statues were ambiguous, the property owner must be allowed to do what they had a right to under common law. The ordinance anticipated public agencies in the P zone may request flexible height limits to be used in future design subject to ADB review, thus there was no requirement to provide a design at this time. Although he understood the frustration of applying the criteria absent a design, he suggested this matter may be better addressed via the Council deliberation and motions to clarify the conditions. Councilmember Dawson noted she was concerned that she was missing something in the record because there was little discussion regarding the criteria in the record before the Hearing Examiner. Rebuttal Ms. Shippen referred to page 167, response to her appeal by Buck & Gordon, and her request to demolish the music practice building via her reference to the Downtown Edmonds Guidelines that state new or renovated buildings when built adjacent to one of these historic resources shall be compatible with and not overwhelm the historic resource. She noted the PFD indicated to the Hearing Examiner they planned to renovate the music practice building although she did not believe it was compatible and would overwhelm the historic resource. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 6, 2004 Page 15 Ms. Shippen recalled she requested at the Hearing Examiner meeting that consideration be given to demolition of the music practice building and the response was the PFD wanted to demolish the space but it was too expensive. She pointed out a source of funds for demolishing the music practice building would be not constructing the parking lot and parking lot landscaping. Ms. Shippen noted she had eight days from the time of the public meeting to review architectural designs and submit information to the Hearing Examiner. She submitted what information she could and at each opportunity she submitted additional information. She urged the Council to consider lot coverage, noting it would cover more than the 35% that the City preferred and more than the 52% the applicant stated they would cover and it would cover more than the 62% shown in the SEPA statement. It was difficult to quantify the lot coverage as there were no measurements provided. Mr. Bullock referred to Councilmember Dawson's concerns with the Hearing Examiner's conditions and the envelope of the proposed building. He noted the first condition of the CUP states future site plans shall be generally consistent with the site plan indicated in the Master Plan which illustrates the parking structure in the northern portion of the site. He referred to the site plan on page 52 of the record and the Master Plan on pages 45 — 53. Mr. Marmion raised a point of order regarding staff s presentation. Mayor Haakenson advised it was normal procedure. Mr. Snyder cautioned Mr. Marmion he was not a party of record and had no procedural role in the matter. Mr. Bullock referred to the site plan on page 52, explaining it was part of the Master Plan and illustrated the parking garage structure including that the eastern 1/2 to 2/3 was at the maximum height of 47 feet and the western 1/3 to 1/2 was 25 feet. He noted the Hearing Examiner's conditions established the heights and did not allow the buildings to exceed the established height. In response to comments by the appellant and the parties of record, Mr. Bullock clarified there was a difference between lot coverage and impervious surface. The PU zone allowed for 35% lot coverage and 25 foot height but provided a provision for expanding the height and lot coverage via the CUP process. In this instance, the matter was reviewed by staff and the Hearing Examiner and ultimately approved. Mr. Snyder indicated he earlier read the section regarding flexible lot coverage and height provisions because that was what the Council was being asked to approve. If the Council was not satisfied that the conditions clearly established an envelope and limit, he suggested it be addressed via motion. He noted the Council, if they denied the appeal, would be granting that the height of any parking garage or meeting structure would not exceed the height of the current high school building as determined by reference to a fixed point. He noted that would set a height limit, otherwise the building envelope, bulk standards and setbacks would be used in accordance with normal provisions of the code in effect on the date approval was granted. The Hearing Examiner's conditions also established a maximum lot coverage. Councilmember Dawson commented there was nothing in the record with regard to compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and one of the requirements for granting a CUP was consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. She did not have issue with the consistency of Phase 1 but with whether granting a CUP for additional height and lot coverage was consistent. Mr. Snyder referred to pages 3 and 4, Ms. Shippen's appeal, where she lists a series of Comprehensive Plan provisions asserting they have not been met. He noted that was the framework of the appeal; the Council was limited to determining whether there was compliance with the provisions in the record. Councilmember Dawson asked whether there was anything in staffs response that indicated whether Phase 2 was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. She understood how Phase 1 complied with regard Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 6, 2004 Page 16 to retention and rehabilitation of historic buildings and landmarks in the City but noted Phase 2 included demolition of historic structures for a parking garage. She questioned how that furthered the goals of historic preservation. Mr. Bullock noted that although the Comprehensive Plan had plenty of detail, it was often very general in its direction and it was difficult to apply goals and policies that were not crafted for a particular development. Mr. Snyder referred Councilmember Dawson to pages 166 — 168, the applicant's response and their citations to the portions of the Comprehensive Plan upon which they relied to respond to Ms. Shippen. Councilmember Dawson noted there was no reference to the compatibility of Phase 2 to the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Carson stated Ms. Shippen cited the beautification and urban design criteria in the Comprehensive Plan; however, the overall site plan proposed parking, design improvements to the existing 1939 theater, therefore their response (on page 166) addressed the preservation of the theater building as overall compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and compliance with the needs of the community today. Councilmember Dawson asked whether there was any other argument with regard to how Phase 2 complied with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Carson answered he did not see the connection between the challenge and that criteria as the challenge to encourage the rehabilitation and restoration of older buildings was an issue associated with demolition in Phase 1. He noted the only challenges were the sections listed by Ms. Shippen, noting that no detail was provided with regarding to the challenges. Councilmember Dawson noted the complication was whether the whole project complied with the Comprehensive Plan or only Phase l and not Phase 2. Mr. Carson stated their position which the Hearing Examiner and staff agreed with was that both phases complied with the Comprehensive Plan. He noted there was not a challenge in Ms. Shippen's argument regarding consistency with the Comprehensive Plan other than was listed in the applicant's response. Councilmember Wilson recalled one of the requests was to have the music building demolished as part of the approval. He questioned whether the Council had the ability to require the demolition of a legal and habitable building. Mr. Snyder answered if the Council believed the proposal failed to comply with the criteria, the Council could deny it. The Council was not in control over the applicant's project other than modifying or adding conditions. Councilmember Wilson referred to Condition 2 of the Hearing Examiner's decision which required confirmation of the height of the existing high school building based on a datum point. He asked if Condition 3 should be clarified to indicate the intent to use the same datum point. Mr. Bullock answered that was what had been proposed to the Hearing Examiner in his staff report and his intent was that the height would not exceed the maximum existing height as measured from the datum point in Condition 2. Councilmember Dawson asked whether it would be sufficient for her to uphold the Hearing Examiner's approval of the CUP if she found that the Master Plan was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan but Phase 2 in isolation was not. She questioned whether she needed to find that Phase 2 was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Snyder noted the Council was being asked via a CUP to provide for enhanced height and lot coverage provisions. The Council's task, based on the record, was to determine whether the proposal met the criteria in the CUP process and the Comprehensive Plan within the limits presented by the appeal document. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, TO EXTEND THIS ITEM FOR 15 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. In response to Mr. Marmion's question regarding staff speaking, Mayor Haakenson clarified the procedures for closed record review allowed a response from staff before remand to the Council. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 6, 2004 Page 17 COUNCIL PRESIDENT PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, THAT THE COUNCIL UPHOLD THE HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION AS SHOWN IN EXHIBIT 2 AND DENY THE APPEAL. Councilmember Marin recalled a number of years ago when he was the President of the Cascade Youth Symphony they used the auditorium due to its convenience and reasonable price. He noted it was not a very good auditorium and as the orchestra grew, they moved because it was not an adequate facility. He noted this building could have been demolished many times in recent years; the PFD's vision was to transform it into something far better than it ever was. Although he had been very skeptical that the PFD would succeed, he was astounded at the progress they have made, the passion of the people involved and the expertise they have gathered to make this a viable product for the community. He expressed his support for denying the appeal and upholding the Hearing Examiner's decision. COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DAWSON, TO ADD TO THE END OF THE HEARING EXAMINER'S CONDITION #3, "AS MEASURED FROM THE SAME FIXED DATUM POINT REFERRED TO IN #2 ABOVE." MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Councilmember Wilson stated his support for the motion as amended. He found it difficult to consider an appeal that referenced code sections but did not provide any substance to support how a project was consistent or inconsistent with the code provision. He noted there was not sufficient information in the record of the appeal or the testimony provided to the Council. While he understood Ms. Shippen felt removal of the music building would further enhance the appearance of the historic structure, he found it difficult to tell a property owner to demolish a legal and habitable building. He noted there were provisions in the code with regard to preserving or enhancing but not demolition. He referred to the goal of retaining buildings with a useful life, pointing out that the music building still had a useful life. He did not find the retention of the music building a reason to deny the CUP. While the record was not as strong as he would have liked, there was enough substantive information in the record to support the Hearing Examiner's decision and nothing in the record supported the issues raised in the appeal. Councilmember Olson expressed her support for the motion. She appreciated the PFD's efforts to provide on -site parking to avoid impacts on area residents. She pointed out the importance of residents being able to park in their neighborhood. Council President Plunkett commented the application complied with all referenced codes as well as the Comprehensive Plan, therefore, met the criteria and he would support the motion. Councilmember Dawson expressed frustration that the appeal was not in the form necessary to review the project in a quasi judicial setting. She acknowledged citizens' frustration with the process, pointing out the Council must follow the framework established for review. She was frustrated that the record was inadequate for a number of reasons. Although this was a very popular project and there were few people questioning it, that should not mean the applicant was granted a CUP without providing the proper grounds for granting it. The record was sketchy regarding how the application satisfied the CUP and why the CUP was necessary. She anticipated the CUP was necessary because to make the project feasible, the conference center needed to be constructed in this matter but there was no information regarding that issue presented to the Hearing Examiner. She noted it was not satisfactorily presented in the records why the lot coverage and height needed to be increased to make this project work, but the appeal did not address those issues. She concluded she would support the motion although she did not believe the Hearing Examiner had had sufficient evidence. Councilmember Orvis expressed his support for the motion, noting this was the first time he could recall. that the Hearing Examiner and applicant were criticized because a building was not high enough, had too much parking, and did not demolish enough of the existing buildings. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 6, 2004 Page 18 1►l130 V MLIE 1_1.77101 M"0115_10 i►l0IW r1` COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PLUNKETT, TO EXTEND THE MEETING FOR 30 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Darrell Marmion, 750 Edmonds Street, Edmonds, noted his objections during the hearing were with the process. He agreed citizens feel helpless as appellants when they were not represented by counsel and were one person against the Council, staff and the applicant. With regard to the Historic Preservation Preservation Commission, he noted the Commission had been working on issues related to nonconforming property. of Non- As the City's code encouraged the elimination of nonconforming properties over time, the Commission Conforming was provided areas of the code that may need revision to encourage reservation of nonconforming Property P y g p g property. He expressed concern that the preceding item would allow a historic building to be demolished and the buildings that replaced it to be the same height. Kjris Lund, Project Manager, Edmonds PFD, offered two corrections to testimony that was provided. First, the PFD planned to complete the interior renovation of the theater that would include equipment, lighting, stage and seating, etc. Second, fundraising efforts were proceeding very well. She looked PFD Pend forward to providing the Council an update. At Mayor Haakenson's request, Ms. Lund advised the PFD Raising had raised slightly under $12 million. Of the $6.5 million the PFD anticipated raising from foundations, they had raised approximately $3 million. Parking and Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, Edmonds, recalled there were 248 parking spaces designed for the Traffic impact Edmonds Center for the Arts facility but the surface parking was sufficient for the theater. He of Performing commended Councilmembers Dawson and Wilson for asking questions regarding the parking garage. He Arts Center endorsed the PFD's efforts to pursue the performing arts center, noting he had not envisioned a meeting room as part of the project. He noted the traffic analysis indicated use of the theater at the same time the conference center was being used would overwhelm the parking. He pointed out there had been no discussion regarding where the traffic from the facility would go and the detrimental effect the traffic would have on the neighborhood. He supported providing parking for the theater but did not support a higher building that required more parking. He noted the impact the traffic would have on the neighborhood was not addressed in the CUP process. Compranensivc Don Kreiman, 24006 95`" Place W, Edmonds, pointed out tonight's discussion illustrated the need for a Plan update vision for the community; the City was in the process of updating the Comprehensive Plan, the vision for the community. The Planning Board was holding a series of meetings seeking public input. He was collecting and responding to ideas from citizens, developers and Councilmembers and provided his email address Don3K a)cs.com for them to provide input. He pointed out the City's website had a great deal of background information including the Downtown Edmonds Waterfront Plan, the Critical Areas Update, Design Guidelines, etc. He encouraged citizens to get involved in the Comprehensive Plan update. Mayor Haakenson declared a brief recess. (Councilmember Orvis left the meeting at 10:15 p.m.) Mission, 7. DISCUSSION AND ADOPTION OF CITY OF EDMONDS MISSION VISION VALUES AND Vision, values, 2004 STRATEGIC PLAN and Strategic Plan Due to the late hour and the absence of Councilmember Moore and Councilmember Orvis, this item was postponed until the August 3 meeting. He suggested the Council review the mission and vision developed at the retreat and incorporate public safety values. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 6, 2004 Page 19 F OA- 8. MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF EDMONDS AND egot WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FERRIES DIVISION th Unocal vocal REGARDING NEGOTIATIONS WITH UNOCAL Community Services Director Stephen Clifton explained if the modified Pt. Edwards/Edmonds Crossing project moved forward, it would be necessary to purchase the lower yard of the Unocal site. The Memorandum of Agreement between Edmonds and Washington State Department of Transportation Ferries Division established a process whereby the City served as an agent on behalf of Washington State Department of Transportation Ferries Division as it relates to negotiating with Unocal and real estate matters. City Attorney Scott Snyder clarified the City would be an agent with no financial obligation. COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DAWSON, FOR APPROVAL OF THE MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT AND AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (Councilmember Orvis was not present for the vote.) 9. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Haakenson had no report. 10. COUNCIL COMMENTS 4' of July I Councilmember Dawson thanked the Chamber of Commerce for their efforts on the 4th of July Celebration J celebration. She reported Councilmember Wilson and she had a great deal of fun participating in the parade. Councilmember Wilson echoed Councilmember Dawson's comments with regard to the 4th of July. He relayed his and the crowd's enjoyment of the marching band from Minnesota who participated in the parade and encouraged the City to thank the band for participating. Councilmember Dawson extended thanks to the public safety staff who assisted on 4th of July particularly the Fire Department for the fun events they sponsored at City Park. Strategic Plan Councilmember Olson advised there were copies of the Council's Strategic Plan available at the library. r; r. Councilmember Marin referred to concerns that have been expressed with the noise and safety of s Motorized a scooters. As the Council's liaison to the Health Board, he was tremendously concerned and urged the City to consider this issue. Councilmember Dawson advised scooters would be a topic of discussion at next week's Public Safety Committee meeting. Council President Plunkett encouraged any interested in the topic to attend the Public Safety Committee meeting. With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:25 p.m. G Y6MP-NSON, MAYOR SANDRA S. CHASE, CITY CLERK Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 6, 2004 Page 20 AGENDA EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex 250 51h Avenue North 7:00 - 10:00 p.m. DULY 61 2004 6:30 p.m. -Executive Session regarding real estate matters. 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 June 22, 2004. (C) Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of June 29, 2004. (D) Approval of claim checks #72151 through #72282 for the week of June 21, 2004, in the amount of $308,038.98. Approval of claim checks #72283 through #72417 for the week of June 28, 2004, in the amount of $234,538.33. Approval of payroll direct deposits and checks #38497 through #38645 for the pay period June 16 through June 30, 2004, in the amount of $835,499.57.* *Note: Information regarding claim checks may be viewed electronically at www.ci.edmonds.wa.us. (E) Acknowledge receipt of Claim for Damages from Elizabeth Leckie (amount undetermined). (F) Acceptance of a Quit Claim Deed at 11720 Unoco Rd. from Point Edwards LLC. (G) Acceptance of a Quit Claim Deed at 8114 - 242"d St. SW from Floyd Freimark. (H) Acceptance of a Quit Claim Deed at 8715 Maplewood Ln. from Robert L. Olsen. (1) Report on bids opened June 22, 2004 for the Alder Street Utility Replacement and 231" Place SW Storm Improvements Project and award of contract to Trimaxx Construction, Inc. ($239,784.73). (J) Report on bids opened June 22, 2004 for the 2004 Street Overlay Program and award of contract to Rinker Materials ($449,436.65). (K) Authorization for the Mayor to sign Termination Agreement with the Town of Woodway for Sanitary Sewer Service. (L) Authorization for the Mayor to sign the Settlement Agreement with Point Edwards LLC. Page 1 of 2 CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA July 6, 2004 Page 2 of 2 (M) Authorization for the Mayor to sign an Addendum to Interlocal Operating Agreement #2 Between the City of Edmonds and the Edmonds Public Facilities District. (N) Authorization to surplus and sell five (5) 2001 patrol cars (Units #255, 256, 257, 258, and 260), and one (1) 1999 patrol car (Unit #687) in the amount of $35,500 to Financial Consultants International, Inc. (0) Council approval of contract with SRI Technologies, Inc. for temporary Engineering Inspector. (P) Reappointment of Edmonds Public Facilities District Board Member. 3. (20 Min.) Public hearing on the Traffic Impact Fee Ordinance. 4. (15 Min.) Public hearing on proposed amendments to Edmonds Community Development Code Chapter 18.45 regarding land clearing exemptions and fines. S. (60 Min.) Closed record review of an appeal of the Hearing Examiner's decision to approve the Public Facilities District's request for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for a Master Plan for the old Edmonds High School site. This CUP includes demolition of some buildings on the site and construction of a new parking structure and meeting room on the north portion of the site. The Examiner's decision also approved a phase one design review application which allows a surface parking lot and refurbishment of the existing auditorium and gymnasium buildings. (Appellant: Natalie Shippen / File Nos. ADB-04-01, CU-04-02, and AP-04-74) 6. Audience Comments (3 Minute Limit Per Person)* "Regarding matters not listed as Closed Record Review or as Public Hearings. 7. (15 Min.) Discussion and adoption of City of Edmonds Mission, Vision, Values and 2004 Strategic Plan. 8. (15 Min.) Memorandum of Agreement between the City of Edmonds and Washington State Department of Transportation Ferries Division regarding negotiations with UNOCAL. 9. ( 5 Min.) Mayor's Comments 10. (15 Min.) Council Comments ADJOURN Parking and meeting rooms are accessible for persons with disabilities. Contact the City Clerk at (425) 771-0245 with 24 hours advance notice for special accommodations. The Council Agenda as well as a delayed telecast of the meeting appears on cable television Government Access Cannel 21.