Loading...
07/20/2004 City CouncilJuly 20, 2004 The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:02 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 Mauri Moore, Councilmember Peggy Pritchard Olson, Councilmember Dave Orvis, Councilmember Richard Marin, Councilmember Deanna Dawson, Councilmember 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA STAFF PRESENT David Stern, Chief of Police Duane Bowman, Development Services Director Dan Clements, Administrative Services Director Kathleen Junglov, Asst. Admin. Services Dir. Jennifer Gerend, Economic Development Dir. Rob Chave, Planning Manager Dave Gebert, City Engineer Sandy Chase, City Clerk Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst. Jeannie Dines, Recorder At Councilmember Moore's request, the Council agreed to allow a second opportunity for audience comment following Agenda Item #7. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, FOR APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS Council President Plunkett requested Item I be removed from the Consent Agenda. Change to COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, FOR Agenda APPROVAL OF THE REMAINDER OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: (A) ROLL CALL Appro76p04Ve (B) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JULY 6, 2004. Minutes (C) APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #72418 THROUGH #72571 FOR THE WEEK OF Approve JULY 5, 2004, IN THE AMOUNT OF $102,891.36. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS Claim Checks #72583 THROUGH #72726 FOR THE WEEK OF JULY 12, 2004, IN THE AMOUNT OF $143,902.77. Claims for (D) ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES FROM LINDA LACY oama =es ($356.75) AND MARIE SUE TOMLINSON (AMOUNT UNDETERMINED). Community Services Dept. (E) COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT QUARTERLY REPORT. Office (F) REPORT ON REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR OFFICE SUPPLIES AND Supplies FURNISHINGS AND AWARD OF CONTRACT TO BOISE OFFICE SOLUTIONS. Contract Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 20, 2004 Page 1 100" Ave. w i(G) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES Stabilization AGREEMENT WITH REID MIDDLETON, INC. FOR DESIGN OF THE 100�H AVENUE Stabilization WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY STABILIZATION PROJECT. Snohomish Regional (H) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT Drug task Force ESTABLISHING SNOHOMISH REGIONAL DRUG TASK FORCE, FISCAL YEAR 2004- 2005. Comm 3508 (J) ORDINANCE NO. 3508 AMENDING THE EDMONDS CITY CODE BY THE REPEAL Commission on Compensation AND REENACTMENT OF CHAPTER 10.80 FORMERLY ENTITLED CITIZEN'S of Elected COMMISSION ON SALARIES OF ELECTED OFFICIALS IN ORDER TO RENAME IT Officials THE CITIZENS' COMMISSION ON COMPENSATION OF ELECTED OFFICIALS. Ord# 3509 Credit Cards (K) ORDINANCE NO. 3509 AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF ECC 3.04.080 CREDIT CARDS, AND ECC 3.04.090 RULES AUTHORIZED. Ord# 3510 Correct Scrivener (L) ORDINANCE NO. 3510 AMENDING ECDC 16.20.050(E) AND (F) DEALING WITH Errors re: AMATEUR RADIO ANTENNAS AND WAIVERS FOR TECHNOLOGICAL AND Amateur Radio Antennas IMPRACTICALITY IN ORDER TO CORRECT CERTAIN SCRIVENERS ERRORS, WITHOUT ALTERING THE SUBSTANCE OF THE REGULATIONS. Item L• Proposed Resolution Supporting Edmonds Night Out on August 5, 2004. Council President Plunkett commented Edmonds Night Out was an opportunity for the community to get together with the Police Department to discuss crime prevention methods. He read Resolution No. 1068 in support of Edmonds Night Out on August 5, 2004 Res# 10G8 Edmonds ght out COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DAWSON, FOR APPROVAL OF ITEM I. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The item approved is as follows: (I) RESOLUTION NO. 1068 SUPPORTING EDMONDS NIGHT OUT ON AUGUST 5, 2004. 3. PRESENTATION BY HAROLD W. HUSTON PRESIDENT OF THE EDMONDS POLICE Edmonds Night Out i FOUNDATION ON EDMONDS NIGHT OUT Harold Huston, President of the Edmonds Police Foundation, recognized members of the Police Foundation in the audience. He distributed the proposed budget for Edmonds Night Out, explaining that due to budget cuts in the Police Department, the event will utilize volunteers. At Council President Plunkett's request, Mr. Huston explained prior to budget cuts in the Police Department, 2-3 Police Department employees were assigned to work with the Police Foundation to put on the Night Out event. As a result of recent budget cuts, the Edmonds Police Foundation took over the event and titled it Edmonds Night Out. He noted Night Out promoted safety and education for youth as well as families and provided an opportunity for neighbors to meet neighbors. He commended the Police and Fire Department, noting they were the best of anywhere he had lived. Council President Plunkett asked whether the Police Foundation had been in the community raising funds for the event. Mr. Huston answered yes. Promoting 4. AGREEMENT WITH EDMONDS POLICE FOUNDATION TO PROVIDE $1000 FOR Edmonds PROMOTING THE EDMONDS NIGHT OUT. fight Out COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DAWSON, TO ALLOCATE $1,000 FROM THE COUNCIL CONTINGENCY FUND FOR PROMOTING THE EDMONDS NIGHT OUT. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 20, 2004 Page 2 Sound Transit 5. PRESENTATION BY SOUND TRANSIT ON PHASE 2 PLANNING Phase 2 Planning Sheila Dezarn, Manager Policy and Planning, Sound Transit, explained Sound Transit's goal was to build a regional high capacity transit system. She described efforts to build the system in phases, explaining Sound Move was Phase 1 and Phase 2 would be the next step in transit improvements. Phase 2 built on a decade of planning and policy decisions as well as the successes of Phase 1. She noted 50% of the state's population was located within Sound Transit's boundaries and Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) projects another 1 million will be living in this region in the next 30 years. She described Sound Transit's mission to build a regional transit system that connects people and jobs through the most congested corridors, supports growth management, supports economic vitality and helps preserve communities and the environment. Ms. Dezarn described progress on Sound Transit's mission including carrying over 8 million people last year and a 25% increase in ridership this year over last year. She described investments that are already paying off including a 27% increase in ridership between Everett -Lynnwood to Seattle, a 25% increase in ridership between Everett and Bellevue, and more than 250,000 Snohomish County riders this year. Ms. Dezarn explained of the $1.5 billion already invested, one of the guiding principles was subarea equity — money collected in Snohomish County is spent only on Snohomish County projects. She described Sound Transit investments in Snohomish County including improvements and expansions in Sounder commuter rail service, construction of additional parking at stations, express bus service and HOV direct access ramps. She explained the Sounder service operated on tracks owned by Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF). Last year, after extended negotiations with BNSF, Sound Transit agreed to pay BNSF $258 million over four years for BNSF to create capital facilities and provide easements to allow Sound Transit to operate their trains in perpetuity on those lines without impeding freight traffic. She anticipated the upgrades to the system would be complete by late 2007. Ms. Dezarn described special event Sounder service to Seahawks and Mariner games, efforts to develop a joint ticket program with Amtrak, and ability to provide service between Everett and Tacoma and all stops in between when upgrades are complete. She described Sound Transit investments in Edmonds including the Edmonds station. There is currently a temporary platform in Edmonds and one round trip train to Seattle per day. Plans are underway to expand the service to two round trips per day by 2005 and to four round trips per day by 2007. Sound Transit is also working with the City and WSDOT on incorporating a permanent station at Edmonds Crossing. She described efforts to develop a Sounder station and pedestrian bridge in Mukilteo including efforts to construct a temporary station to allow service to begin as soon as possible. Ms. Dezarn explained Sound Transit's efforts to update their Long Range Plan will include consideration of population and employment, land use, travel corridors and trip patterns, and other regional transit studies since the plan was adopted. She noted PSRC studies forecast I-5 getting worse, 30% growth in travel on I-5 between Seattle and Everett and quadruple the need for transit between Seattle and Snohomish County by 2030. She explained the effort to set priorities for Phase 2 will include conversations with the public to set priorities, public meetings/forums this fail, and coordination with local governments. Input from Snohomish County has included when light rail would be extended into Snohomish County, encouragement for a "starter" light rail line from Everett to Lynnwood, interest in expanded express bus and Sounder service, coordinating with local land uses, and bus service on SR 527. Ms. Dezarn reviewed the Phase 2 timeline (Summer 2004 — Fall 2005) including working with local partners to develop Phase 2 alternative packages for each subarea, beginning public review of packages, involving all citizens/stakeholders in setting priorities and making trade-offs and drafting a new Plan Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 20, 2004 Page 3 (Spring 2005). She noted the timing of a public vote on Phase 2 improvements had not yet been determined. Mayor Haakenson referred to Ms. Dezarn's comment that BNSF would complete the improvements in late 2007 and asked whether that included the double tracking. Val Davie, Project Manager for the Edmonds Station, explained that although Sound Transit reached agreement with BNSF to operate Sounder on their tracks, it did not include a schedule of improvements. Sound Transit is responsible for providing permits for the improvements, but BNSF determines the schedule for completing the improvements. The 2007 completion date was an estimate based on work that is underway on the Seattle to Tacoma segment. Because BNSF does not typically bring on extra crews, it was anticipated the improvements in this area would not begin before the end of 2005. Councilmember Marin inquired about the Edmonds station. Ms. Davie answered Sound Transit has always been supportive of the Edmonds Crossing project and considers themselves a potential partner in that project. She explained the new Edmonds station would be an interim station with components that could be moved to the Edmonds Crossing site when it was developed. Due to the uncertain timeline for development of the Edmonds Crossing project and because the existing station can only accommodate one or possibly two round trips per day, Ms. Davie explained Sound Transit's plan was to provide an interim station at the Edmonds/Amtrak station to accommodate the four round trips per day. Councilmember Wilson asked whether the increased number of trains per day was dependent on the completion of the double tracks. Ms. Davie answered no, the increase in the number of trips was dependent on Sound Transit's acquiring the permits for the improvements, it was up to BNSF to determine whether the existing tracks could support the increased trips. The agreement was that Sound Transit would provide the pen -nits for the improvements and BNSF would determine when and how the improvements were made. 5�t117 i �1►[�19CKi7►� iu 191►Y K� Mixed use GayLynn Beighton, 6307 147th Street SW, Edmonds, a commercial real estate broker who had Buildings - brokered 60-80 commercial leases in the city and chaired the Chamber's Economic Development First Floor Ceiling Committee for the past four years, concluded that the ceiling heights in the beautiful new buildings Height constructed in Edmonds over the past 5-10 years were not conducive to retail uses. She noted a number of buildings had been vacant for an extended period of time and many ultimately become office space. She recalled Councilmembers asking her to brainstorm how to enhance economic development, noting retail businesses were a good way to add to the sales tax revenue collected by the city. She summarized it would be a boost to the downtown if mixed use buildings were allowed 2-3 extra feet so that retail tenants would be interested in leasing the space. Newspaper Ray Martin, 18704 94 h Avenue W, Edmonds, commented on two different stories regarding Articles re: Councilmember Moore that appeared in local newspapers by two different reporters. He noted the Mauri Moore Enterprise reported on February 8, 2004 that while she was attending college in Houston working on an English degree and planning to become a teacher, Councilmember Moore got a job as a weekend news writer at a radio station. A visiting ABC correspondent liked her work and told her she should be in New York. On his recommendation and after a telephone interview, she was hired and spent six months producing a radio news show at an ABC affiliate in New York. Next Mr. Martin referred to a June 17, 2004 article in the Edmonds Beacon that reported Councilmember Moore left the University of Houston a few credits shy of her journalism degree to accept a job with a national news organization. Mr. Martin noted there appeared to be conflict between the reports and asked for an explanation. Mayor Haakenson suggested Mr. Martin discuss the matter with Councilmember Moore after the Council meeting. Councilmember Moore commented the reporters were responsible for what they reported. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 20, 2004 Page 4 Purchase of Don Kreiman, 24006 961' Place W, Edmonds, referred to an Edmonds Beacon article regarding a Walker developmentally challenged child that asked for donations to purchase a walker. When he called, Mr. Kreiman reported he learned that more than enough had been donated to purchase the walker. He concluded that although there may be disagreements on some issues, this proved that all Edmonds residents were good people. Development 7. PRESENTATION ON DEVELOPMENT ISSUES IN THE BC ZONE. Issues in the BC zone Administrative Services Director Dan Clements provided a presentation regarding financial future projections for the City. He explained that current projections show short term stabilization until 2007. Continuing long term budget challenges are caused by property tax limitations, elimination of major road improvement revenues and the need to maintain physical assets. He pointed out staffing and service levels were well below 2002 due to $1.4 million in cuts, elimination of over 20 positions, and extending the street overlay cycle to 65 years instead of the 46 year cycle that existed in 2001. Mr. Clements displayed a graph illustrating a five year revenue projection that indicated the budget was stable until 2007 when it began a downward trend. He commented on future budget balancing strategies, noting future budgets would need to be balanced either by increasing revenues, reducing costs or a combination. He pointed out economic development helped by raising the overall tax base and revenues. He provided a list of strategies for increasing annual revenues and for reducing annual costs. Councilmember Marin, a member of the Council Finance Committee, commented on his struggle to balance cuts in service with increases in revenue as both were difficult. He explained this item was an attempt to explore ways to reduce the pressure of deriving the City's major source of revenue from property taxes. Rick Utt, 19427 86th Avenue W, Edmonds, a primarily retail and commercial architect for 25+ years, expressed concern that the retail space in Edmonds was not conducive to healthy retail development. He noted Edmonds, as it was currently developing, was becoming literally and physically top heavy in condominium development. He stressed the need for balance to maintain the character of Edmonds. He questioned as condominium construction continued in the downtown area, where would these residents shop? Thus the need for balance in development to encourage a diverse neighborhood of uses, a neighborhood of single family, multifamily, small commercial, larger commercial — all in keeping with the inherent character of Edmonds. Mr. Utt pointed out the existing zoning resulted in much of the new retail space remaining empty due to the clearances and location off the street. He addressed the issue of floor -ceiling height, displaying a photograph of retail space where the mechanical system was under the floor slab above and a photograph of a new retail/commercial space in Edmonds where the plumbing waste line was visible at the ceiling due to lack of space to cover it. He displayed an example of retail development with a "for rent" sign in the window that did not provide the exposure or scale typically expected for retail development. He displayed an example of a newly developed retail space with 7 foot ceilings which made it difficult to provide lighting and cover mechanical equipment. Using the ceiling of the Council Chambers as an example, he noted the ceiling height could be lowered to approximately 10 feet but the physiological effect would be a compressed/crowded feeling. He stressed the need for proportional scale. Mr. Utt pointed out the lower ceiling height was acceptable for some office uses but was not conducive to retail uses. He noted none of the existing, successful retail in downtown had the ceiling height that was currently being constructed for future retail/commercial development in downtown. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 20, 2004 Page 5 Mr. Utt displayed a drawing prepared as an attempt to illustrate the minimum requirements for a viable, healthy retail/commercial space with residential above. He clarified his intent was not to make a case for building height and/or number of stories, but only to illustrate the minimum first floor requirements. In his drawing, he depicted the minimum height of the lower level from the floor to the underside of the second level floor slab as 12 feet. He stressed 12 feet was the minimum for a viable commercial space, 13 feet would be better and often when there were no height constraints, 15 feet was the desired floor to underside of slab clearance for commercial space. He noted the higher ceiling height was also important in a restaurant to avoid a feeling of being compressed. Mr. Utt summarized for a space to be flexible enough for a variety of uses, a minimum of 12-13 feet of clearance was necessary. He noted for a restaurant, there needed to be adequate space for an oven hood and kitchen mechanical system as well as HVAC systems. Mr. Utt displayed photographs of recently developed retail space with residential uses above in communities similar in size to Edmonds, pointing out the scale of the first floor retail/commercial in comparison to a person standing in front. He commented the mixture of uses that occurred in much of the first floor retail/commercial space in other communities was possible because the developer was able to provide the necessary height to accommodate a variety of uses. He noted the higher first floor ceiling height also allowed tall windows and an inviting atmosphere. He noted retail/commercial uses prefer an open, exposed environment as pedestrians are more likely to enter a space that they have the ability to scope out from the street. Mr. Utt displayed a photograph of a new development in Edmonds, noting the dimensions and scale was not very comfortable and psychologically it did not feel inviting. He compared this to the bank across the street that had high ceilings, a large entry, and large windows that was very inviting. Crossing the street, he noted it almost appeared a pedestrian needed to stoop over to enter the retail. He noted that retail was not inviting and did not have the sidewalk scale that made retail space comfortable to shoppers. Mr. Utt pointed out the need to change the zoning to encourage viable retail/commercial development while maintaining the character of Edmonds and addressing the realities of development and what spaces work. He encouraged the Council to allow flexibility. He noted that in an effort to keep retail small, development was being limited and dead space was being built as a result. In response to past comments about the view of downtown from above, Mr. Utt displayed examples of roof gardens, commenting on the opportunity it would provide to enhance the building scape. Although there were opportunities, the current code did not allow the stairwell or elevator shaft to extend high enough to allow the roof to be usable. He reiterated the importance of providing opportunity and flexibility in the code. Bob Gregg, 16550 76tb Avenue W, Edmonds, described his experience with developments in Mukilteo, Kirkland, Seattle, Edmonds, Oregon and California. Although his portion of the presentation was regarding challenges in Edmonds, he also wanted to comment on what was great about Edmonds. He commended the Planning, Engineering and Building Departments, Architectural Design Board, Planning Board, City Council and Mayor for their accessibility, open mindedness and willingness to change. Mr. Gregg identified issues that challenge developers including ambiguities in the codes and policies, varying standards between the Architectural Design Board and planning process, quantity versus quality of testimony at public hearings, unpredictable fees, substantial increases in some fees, due process with regard to engineering, Building Department code interpretations, and reliance on conceptual drawings when the developer's intent was not to exactly duplicate the colors, etc. of the structure depicted in the drawing. He provided an example of an artist's conceptual rendering of a building that was later used to Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 20, 2004 Page 6 require the trim colors depicted in the drawing be duplicated. He pointed out the need for a process similar to a second opinion. Mr. Gregg relayed an audience member's comment when the speakers were announced that none were citizens. He corrected that statement, pointing out all the speakers were citizens. He assured that developers wanted to see Edmonds redeveloped in a manner that retained all the charm that other residents wanted but he did not want to retain buildings that did not reflect quaint Edmonds charm. He pointed out there were a number of undeveloped/under-developed buildings that have outlived their life span that could be properly and tastefully redeveloped. Mr. Gregg noted one of his buildings was cited as a bad example earlier in the presentation. He explained despite the location at 5t" & Walnut, it was not targeted for retail; the old parking code only allowed uses of 1:800 parking and the only allowed use was service with no customers. He noted that had since been changed but that building had not been designed as retail. He agreed with the comment that pedestrians had to step down to the entry, the windows were not big enough and the ceiling height was not high enough. He summarized if the goal was to encourage retail, changes were necessary that would allow development of sites for retail. Mr. Gregg encouraged the city to give consideration to style, modulation, decks, materials, weather proofing, and ventilation. Mr. Gregg commented on the following developer considerations: mixed use is a tough sell, commercial space is high risk, property sizes are too small, ceiling heights are too low, lack of national tenants, not enough new shoppers/buyers, too many vacancies. He noted national tenants draw a circle around a town and consider the density, population, demographics, and family income; in Edmonds, there was only a half -circle due to the waterfront. Brad Butterfield, 654 5th Avenue S, Edmonds, a partner in Taylor Gregory Butterfield Architects, President of Hammerworks Construction and developer in the Edmonds BC zone. He estimated they had developed 10-12 mixed use projects in Edmonds and pulled 30-35 developer service permits in the BC zone in the past 25 years. He displayed a photograph of the Edmonds waterfront at the turn of the century and a photograph of the waterfront today, 100 years later. He recalled a conversation with a Councilmember at a post -election night celebration regarding codes and development in Edmonds and the Councilmember's comment that Edmonds did not want to become like Lynnwood. After giving the statement considerable thought, he did not believe Edmonds would become like other small communities because Edmonds was a unique city. He noted Edmonds had a downtown where people lived and worked in the same neighborhoods, a dynamic that provided Edmonds' energy and sense of community. He noted the downtown did not clear out at 5:00 p.m. due to opportunities to walk, eat and socialize into the evening. He noted many cities were trying to create this environment; a place where people live and work in the same neighborhood and Edmonds already had it. Mr. Butterfield commented Edmonds had struggled for a number of years with how to handle growth due to the diverse opinions and citizens who speak passionately about their feeling with regard to change and growth. He pointed out the need for downtown business that had up-to-date, good, physical space so that they could be competitive with their markets in other communities. He referred to the need for successful businesses in Edmonds to maintain the vibrant nature of the city that all residents loved as well as sensitive and well -thought-out development to continue to enhance the community. He requested the Council prioritize specific recommendations and send them to the Planning Board for future public comment and review so that the city could continue to grow in a positive direction. Quentin Clark, 19423 86th Avenue W, Edmonds, a consultant, resident and Chair of the Chamber of Commerce Economic Development Committee, noted building heights and ceiling height had been a major topic of conversation at the Chamber Economic Development Committee. He stated the Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 20, 2004 Page 7 Committee's desire was that due diligence be given to the process. He read a letter addressed to Mayor Haakenson and Council President Plunkett that stated following a review conducted by the Chamber Economic Development Committee, the Chamber Board of Directors voted unanimously on the following recommendation: that the City Council direct the Planning Board to study the effects and/or issues of the first floor ceiling heights in the BC zone and building design as a means of ensuring and improving the economic vitality of the downtown area. The letter, signed by Dave Arista, President of the Greater Edmonds Chamber of Commerce, urged the City Council to consider the recommendation. Councilmember Moore thanked those who made presentations, noting it was an important time for Edmonds and an important time to be asking these questions due to the top priority of economic development. There had been a great deal of changes in the state in the past 15-20 years and much of the development in Edmonds was pre Tim Eyman initiatives, pre Growth Management Act and pre 9/11 and it was time to reassess. Councilmember Marin referred to a book by MIT professor Alan Jacobs, "Great Streets," who has studied what constitutes a great street, a reference that is used extensively by planners throughout the world. He noted the book did not include formulas that some people prefer; the book refers to scale and proportion. He referred to the comment made by one of the presenters regarding walking, talking and socializing, noting those concepts were discussed throughout the book in the context of what constituted a street that people wanted to be on and much of the focus was on the interaction between businesses on the first floor and pedestrians. As to how economic development could enhance the City's tax base and reduce the dependence on property taxes was explored, he noted another key element was ensuring what was developed was socially acceptable and an enhancement to the community. It was his hope that this topic could be forwarded to the Planning Board, indicating the Chairman Jim Young had expressed interest in studying this issue. Darrell Marmion, 750 Edmonds Street, Edmonds, a property owner in the BC zone, was concerned that this item had the aura of a public hearing although it was not advertised as such. Although he found the presentation interesting, one piece that was missing that would add credibility was a dissenting opinion. He commented there appeared to be two important issues, first floor height and consistent application of rules. With regard to first floor ceiling heights, he pointed out one solution was development of one story buildings rather than three story buildings in a 25 foot height restriction with a 5-foot allowance for modulation. A 2-story building that would accommodate the 12-13 foot first floor ceiling height was in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan stated the goal for downtown was 2-story buildings, however, the majority of the projects approved by the Architectural Design Board were 3-story buildings. He questioned how this was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. He recommended the community first revise the Comprehensive Plan if desired in a manner that everyone agreed to and not just those with a financial interest. He concluded it was up to the Council to ensure they were getting an accurate reading of what all citizens wanted, not just those who made the most noise. Mayor Haakenson clarified the Council was not required to take any public comment as this item was intended as public education. If the Council forwarded the matter to the Planning Board, there would be ample opportunity to speak to the issue as well as when the issue was returned to the City Council. Ray Martin, 18704 94t`' Avenue W, Edmonds, commented 2-story buildings worked but were not as economically valuable to the developer and property owner as a 3-story building. He saw this as another attempt to push building heights. He pointed out the sea breeze that drew in cool air to the city could be blocked by high buildings. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 20, 2004 Page 8 Bruce Nicholson, 9829 Cherry Street, Edmonds, commented in the business sector this would be referred to as an inward, downward spiral; it would be difficult to make ends meet if the present status were maintained. He referred to an office building he constructed on 4`t' Avenue, pointing out three 8 foot floors for a total of 24 feet did not allow adequate space for the building infrastructure. With regard to one and two-story buildings, he pointed out the need to provide off. -street parking. He commented the building he constructed was a substandard building constructed in accordance with the city's requirements and had 7'6" ceilings in the structure. As a 58-year resident of the City, he attested that the Council and residents have caused this problem; the residents by not wanting the community to change. He noted many businesses have left the city because the environment was not conducive to business and the net result was a lack of revenue to support the city. Mr. Nicholson challenged the Council with the difficult decisions regarding what was good for the city. He noted some residents may berate the Council because of what they think is good for the city but the Council needed to consider what was necessary to enhance the city's economic viability. He summarized the importance of economic enhancement, doing what was necessary to generate revenue in the city as increased fees were not the solution. John Bissell, 8630 217Ih Street, Edmonds, a land use planner, applauded the Council for bringing this issue forward. With regard to 2-story buildings as a solution, he pointed out economic development required people which necessitated at least two stories of residential over commercial space that must have at least 12-foot ceilings. One-story buildings with 16 foot ceilings did not provide residents to shop downtown. He pointed out 5th and Main contained four buildings with 10-12 foot ceilings that could accommodate viable businesses. The code currently allowed a 300% floor area ratio and the four buildings were at a 100% floor area ratio, making it likely those buildings would redevelop sometime in the future. He noted if those buildings were redeveloped under the current code, they would not be retail spaces but likely would be office spaces in the future. He pointed out a worse problem in the future if the code were not changed would be what replaced the existing retail uses in downtown. Don Kreiman, 24006 96th Place W, Edmonds, expressed his support for the Chamber's recommendation. He pointed out the recommendation was not to change anything, only to study the issue via the Planning Board where everyone would have an opportunity to have their say. He noted there were four stakeholders in this issue, the developers who need to be allowed to make a profit, the citizens of Edmonds who want an attractive downtown, the downtown merchants who need to remain profitable, and the property owners who should be allowed to develop their property. He pointed out the importance of all being willing to compromise. He agreed the future of the city was dismal if changes were not made. He urged the Council to follow the Chamber's recommendation. Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, Edmonds, commented low ceiling heights were created in an effort to achieve a 3-story building with two floors of condominiums. Higher first floor ceiling heights were necessary to create an environment that was conducive to retail, however, the target for economic development needed to be tourist dollars. He pointed out the importance of development that attracted tourists, noting the city had this ability with the waterfront in conjunction with development. He stated what attracted tourists to the small town environment was low buildings, one and two story buildings, not three story buildings. Tourists need places to walk, gather, and sit as well as a feeling of spaciousness. He disagreed increasing building heights was the answer, preferring to increase only the first floor. Council President Plunkett asked Planning Board Chairman Jim Young whether the Planning Board was interested in considering the issue identified in the presentation. Mr. Young answered he was asked by Councilmember Marin if the Planning Board would be willing and he responded yes. Council President Plunkett asked if the Planning Board's intent would be to hold public hearings and make a Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 20, 2004 Page 9 recommendation to the Council. Mr. Young noted a change to the Community Development Code required public hearings. Councilmember Wilson commented although he had no issue with asking the Planning Board to consider first floor ceiling heights, that could be accomplished with no change to the code if the goal was to create first floors that were usable, economically viable. He noted a second phase was what happened to the remainder of the building if the first floor ceiling height was increased. He pointed out the city was in the midst of a Comprehensive Plan update and the most appropriate mechanism for studying this issue was via the Comprehensive Plan update. He noted there were efforts on the Planning Board to consider the BC zone and how it was divided, possibly dividing it into smaller components which would provide more latitude such as increased building heights in some areas but not others. He pointed out there was more flexibility if the issue was considered as part of the overall effort to review the Comprehensive Plan and establish guidelines and policies. He concluded it would be appropriate to have the Planning Board consider this issue in their review/update of the Comprehensive Plan. Councilmember Dawson commented it was unusual to be having this conversation as it appeared to indicate to the public that there was something in the code that precluded higher ceiling heights which she indicated was not true. The issue was the challenges of 3-story buildings in a code with a height restriction designed for 2-story buildings. She pointed out the Comprehensive Plan refers to 2-story buildings or less in the downtown waterfront area. She noted this was where the conflict arose, not that viable commercial space could not be provided, but developers were attempting to construct 3-story buildings when the code was designed for 2-story buildings. Councilmember Dawson agreed it was appropriate to consider whether a minimum height restriction was desirable but cautioned the end result may not be 3-story buildings. The end result may be 2-story buildings, one floor of viable commercial space and one floor of condominiums. She agreed it was appropriate to consider this issue and the Planning Board should be open to all possibilities not just increased height restrictions. She concluded the end result to provide viable retail may be to stop allowing 3-story buildings in a 2-story zone and maintain the current height restrictions. She noted this may be what much of the public was hoping for. Councilmember Orvis spoke in support of increasing the minimum commercial ceiling height but not raising building heights. He suggested the roof modulations be waived in return for higher ceilings. He noted the Spec and MacGregor buildings had 2-foot modulations, both would have benefited from removing the modulation requirement, allowing a 30-foot building and adding the 2-feet to the commercial area. Councilmember Wilson commented times and economies have changed significantly since the Comprehensive Plan was written in the 1980's as have the cost and ability to develop land. If one story commercial was desired, it was important to do the economic analysis to determine whether any redevelopment would occur if only one story commercial was allowed. He anticipated that was not likely to happen because the return on investment for a one story commercial building was not sufficient to cover the improvements. He anticipated this would result in retaining the existing building stock and although this may accomplish some goals to preserve existing heritage and buildings, structures did have a useful life and preserving them beyond their useful life may result in dilapidated, vacant buildings which was counterproductive to development in the downtown. Councilmember Wilson suggested the Planning Board conduct due diligence in studying this issue, looking at the cause and effect of changes or maintaining the current policies. Councilmember Olson agreed the more information that was available, the better the decision. She agreed with forwarding the issue to the Planning Board for study. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 20, 2004 Page 10 Councilmember Marin noted he and all property owners had a vested interest in this issue because of the property taxes they paid. He commented as he approached the time in his life when he would be on a fixed income, he did not like the prospect of paying increased taxes from a smaller income. He agreed that this should be part of the review of the Comprehensive Plan. Planning Board Chair Jim Young asked the Council to provide some specificity with regard to what the Council wanted the Planning Board to look at — economic development, building heights, number of stories, 10 feet versus 12 feet for commercial ceiling heights, and/or how a change would impact economics. Councilmember Wilson commented the Council should not tell the Planning Board what height was appropriate for the first floor. If the Planning Board was to study the issue, it would be important to seek technical information from staff, mechanical contractors, architects, etc. regarding what was necessary to create a first floor space that was usable for retail/commercial activity. He suggested a work session with the Planning Board and City Council to discuss all aspects of the downtown and not just heights and first floor ceiling heights. Council President Plunkett summarized the Council wanted to know the best height for first floor commercial space and how to get it. He suggested the Planning Board examine that and return to the Council. Councilmember Marin commented never in the city's history have 3-story buildings not been allowed. He pointed out that according to the Snohomish County Assessor, property was valued based on highest and best use. He noted a great disservice has been made to the first floor occupants in the past 20-years when buildings have been limited to 30 feet. The first floor had a huge impact on the livability of the city and viability of businesses. He concluded 30 foot building heights may be doing the city and its citizens a disservice as lack of viable retail caused property taxes to continually increase. He suggested the Planning Board determine the minimum ceiling height to ensure it was viable and beneficial to the city. Councilmember Dawson suggested the Planning Board determine whether the city should regulate first floor ceiling heights, noting the city had not regulated minimum ceiling height to date. She questioned whether the Planning Board was a good vehicle for determining the ideal ceiling height in a commercial area as it would depend on the use. She agreed the Planning Board could determine whether the city wanted to regulate first floor ceiling heights and if so, what did that mean to the number of stories that could be constructed in a building. Councilmember Dawson advised that the Comprehensive Plan includes under goals for community commercial areas and neighborhood commercial areas that the goal was to provide for pedestrian scale design of buildings that were 2-stories or less in height and that contained architectural features that promoted pedestrian activity. Councilmember Moore agreed that the Planning Board should consider the optimum ceiling height for the first floor and how to get there. It was essential for all property owners in. Edmonds to ensure economic growth so that the burden was not continually carried by residents. She agreed it may be beneficial to have a joint meeting with the Planning Board. 8. REPORT ON CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS ON JULY 13 2004 Finance Finance Committee Committee Councilmember Orvis reported staff presented several options for increasing revenue in Fund 112 for streets and stormwater projects and recommended the full Council review this topic. The Committee then Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 20, 2004 Page I discussed office supply bids and after reviewing correspondence from City Attorney Scott Snyder, it was the consensus of the Committee to recommend the bid be awarded to the low bidder, Boise Office Solutions. This item was approved as Consent Agenda Item F. Next, the Committee discussed and recommended approval of a change to the name of the Salary Commission. The name change was approved as Consent Agenda Item J. The Committee also reviewed a request from Administrative Services to modify credit card limits; this item was approved as Consent Agenda Item K. Community/ Community Services/Development Services Committee Development Services Councilmember Wilson reported on the Committee's continued discussion regarding Planned Residential Services committee Development (PRD) variances, explaining this arose as a result of a developer's request for 20 height variances following the Council's approval of the PRD. The Committee reviewed a proposed amendment to the PRD ordinance that requires variances to be part of the application process. The Committee asked that the proposed amendment be forwarded to the Planning Board for review and recommendation to the City Council as an immediate solution. The Committee also requested the Planning Board consider additional solutions. The Committee then discussed the definition of family as the current definition in the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) does not allow exchange students. The Committee requested the Planning Board review the definition of family in 2005. Next, the Committee discussed a skate park in downtown including a presentation by an Edmonds- Woodway student who advocated development of a skate park in the downtown area. He noted a downtown skate park was identified in the Parks & Recreation Comprehensive Plan and was included in the CIP. No action was taken and the issue will continue to be studied including potential locations. The Committee then discussed the city's trash enclosure policy due to staff s desire to have haulers involved in the development of multifamily and commercial projects early in the process with regard to appropriate site and accessibility of trash enclosures. The Committee was supportive of staff finalizing a policy for approval and enforcement of trash enclosures. Public Safety Committee Committee safety Councilmember Olson reported the Committee reviewed the Interlocal Agreement establishing Com Snohomish Regional Drug Task Force 2004-2005 and recommended approval on the Consent Agenda. The Committee then discussed motorized scooters, a difficult issue as solutions needed to be enforceable. An educational pamphlet will be developed and distributed via the City's utility billing system and the Committee recommended forwarding the issue of motorized scooters to the full Council for a public hearing on September 7. Councilmember Olson noted the City's noise ordinance may assist residents who are currently experiencing problems with scooters in their neighborhood. 9. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Haakenson had no report. 10. COUNCIL COMMENTS Council President Plunkett wished Mayor Haakenson a Happy Birthday. PSRC )icon. Development Councilmember Moore reported on the PSRC Economic Development District Board meeting. A District Board consultant was hired on a 12-month contract to initiate action on behalf of cities and towns to stimulate economic development. She also reported on the Port of Edmonds Commission meeting where she made Port District a presentation regarding televising Port meetings. Although the Port is not in a position to televise their meetings nor is the City in a position to assist them, she offered to assist when/if the Port decided to televise their meetings. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 20, 2004 Page 12 In response to a comment made at the July 6 City Council Meeting, Councilmember Marin demonstrated that some people see a glass half filled with water as half full and some see it half empty. Although he saw it as half full, he did not have a problem with someone having a different opinion. He recalled two weeks ago, an audience member chided four Councilmembers for seemingly having made up their minds before a quasi judicial hearing was held. He explained quasi judicial hearings were troubling because the Council was limited to deliberating on material/issues already in the record and nothing more could be added. He explained the Council was provided a packet on the Friday prior to a meeting and he acknowledged that most of the time during his review, he reached some conclusion as to the way he leaned before the matter was presented. He noted he often asks questions of staff prior to the presentation at the Council meeting. Although Councilmembers endeavored to study the materials, he acknowledged argument at a Council meeting has changed his opinion. If someone made reasonable argument, he was prepared to change his mind. He compared the Public Facilities District to a 3/4 full glass, having raised over $12 million of their $16 million goal. He summarized he was unable to vote for an appeal absent reasonable argument. He recalled the Council voted unanimously two weeks ago to deny the appeal because it had no merit. With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 9:42 p.m. Y ENSON, MAYOR GEC. , , e-4� SANDRA S. CHASE, CITY CLERK Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 20, 2004 Page 13 u AGENDA - EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex 250 5' Avenue North 7:00 - 10:00 p.m. J U LY 20, 2004 7:00 p.m. - Call to Order Flan Salute 1. Approval of Agenda 2. Consent Agenda Items (A) Roll Call (B) Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of July 6, 2004. (C) Approval of claim checks #72418 through #72571 for the week of July 5, 2004, in the amount of $102,891.36. Approval of claim checks #72583 through #72726 for the week of July 12, 2004, in the amount of $143,902.77.* *Information regarding claim checks may be viewed electronically at www.ci.edmonds.wa.us (D) Acknowledge receipt of Claims for Damages from Linda Lacy ($356.75) and Marie Sue Tomlinson (amount undetermined). (E) Community Services Department Quarterly Report. (F) Report on Request for Proposals for Office Supplies and Furnishings and award of contract to Boise Office Solutions. (G) Authorization for Mayor to sign the Professional Services Agreement with Reid Middleton, Inc. for design of the 100t' Avenue West right-of-way stabilization project. (H) Authorization for Mayor to sign the Interlocal Agreement Establishing Snohomish Regional Drug Task Force, Fiscal Year 2004-2005. (1) Proposed Resolution supporting Edmonds Night Out on August 5, 2004. (J) Proposed Ordinance amending the Edmonds City Code by the repeal and reenactment of Chapter 10.80 formerly entitled Citizen's Commission on Salaries of Elected Officials in order to rename it the Citizens' Commission on the Compensation of Elected Officials. Page 1 of 2 CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA J U LY 20, 2004 Page 2 of 2 (K) Proposed Ordinance amending the provisions of ECC 3.04.080 Credit Cards, and ECC 3.04.090 Rules Authorized. (L) Proposed Ordinance amending ECDC 16.20.050(E) and (F) dealing with amateur radio antennas and waivers for technological impracticality in order to correct certain scriveners errors, without altering the substance of the regulations. 3. (10 Min.) Presentation by Harold W. Huston, President of the Edmonds Police Foundation, on Edmonds Night Out. 4. (10 Min.) Agreement with the Edmonds Police Foundation to provide $1,000 for promoting the Edmonds Night Out. 5. (20 Min.) Presentation by Sound Transit on Phase 2 planning. 6. Audience Comments (3 Minute Limit Per Person)* *Regarding matters not listed on the Agenda as Closed Record Review or as Public Hearings. 7. (60 Min.) Presentation on development issues in the BC Zone. 8. (15 Min.) Report on City Council Committee Meetings of July 13, 2004. 9. ( 5 Min.) Mayor's Comments 10. (15 Min.) . Council Comments ADJOURN Parking and meeting rooms are accessible for persons with disabilities. Please contact the City Clerk a, '425) 771-0245 with 24 hours advance notice for special accommodations. The Council Agenda as well as G Delayed telecast of the meeting appears on cable television Government Access Channel 21.