Loading...
05/09/2000 City CouncilEDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES MAY 99 2000 Following a Special Meeting at 6:40 p.m. to interview two candidates for the Architectural Design Board, the Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Haakenson in the Library Plaza Room, 650 Main Street. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Gary Haakenson, Mayor Thomas A. Miller, Council President Dave Earling, Councilmember Michael Plunkett, Councilmember Jim White, Councilmember Lora Petso, Councilmember Dave Orvis, Councilmember Christopher Davis, Councilmember 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA STAFF PRESENT Steve Bullock, Senior Planner Sandy Chase, City Clerk Jeannie Dines, Recorder COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS PRESENTED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COUNCIL PRESIDENT MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, FOR APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: (A) ROLL CALL pprove 5/2 (B) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MAY 2, 2000 Minutes (C) APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #35956 THROUGH #40898 FOR THE WEEK OF pprove MAY 1, 2000, IN THE AMOUNT OF $339,366.96. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL CHECKS Ciaim #28165 THROUGH #28276 FOR THE PERIOD APRIL 16 THROUGH APRIL 30, 2000, IN Checks THE AMOUNT OF $364,260.80 Purchase (D) AUTHORIZATION, FOR MAYOR TO SIGN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH. THE Computer/ OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE COURTS TO PURCHASE A Printer NOTEBOOK PERSONAL COMPUTER AND PRINTER FOR MUNICIPAL COURT JUDGE Confirm 3. CONFIRMATION OF APPOINTMENTS TO THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD Appoint- ments to COUNCIL PRESIDENT MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, DB TO CONFIRM THE APPOINTMENT OF ROB MICHEL AND SHAWN MAHONEY TO THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 9, 2000 Page 1 1 �1 nt 4. JOINT MEETING WITH THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOAR eting th ADB Architectural Design Board members present were Carreen Nordling Rubenkonig (Chair), Tom Bykonen, Shawn Mahoney and Rob Michel. Ms. Rubenkonig advised Linda Goodrick was unable to attend tonight's meeting and had forwarded a letter for Council review. Ms. Rubenkonig said Lisa Raflo was unable to attend due to a work conflict. Councilmember Miller thanked Ms. Rubenkonig for suggesting a joint meeting between the Architectural Design Board (ADB) and the Council to discuss issues that arose following the most recent staff report on the Cedar River Report as well as the Council's acceptance of that report, and actions promised by staff that had not yet been accomplished. Ms. Rubenkonig distributed a letter prepared by Linda Goodrick. Ms. Rubenkonig next explained the ADB was required by code to have certain representation, Shawn Mahoney represented the architect position, Tom Bykonen represented the design professional /structural engineer, she represented the planning position, Rob Michel represented the builder, and Linda Raflo represented the landscape architect/historical preservation professional. She explained only the two citizen positions, Linda Goodrick and Jim Chalupnik, were required to be City residents. Ms. Rubenkonig advised the ADB submitted a memorandum to the City Council and Planning Board in response to the consultant's recommendations for changes within the ADB. The most important item in the memo was the ADB's support for the consultant's Scope of Work addressing revisions to the design guidelines. She said the design guidelines were the ADB's biggest concern in applying the codes. The ADB supported having the guidelines in one place as the guidelines were currently in several different places which made it difficult for applicants as well as the ADB. She emphasized the importance of the ADB being able to justify their decisions due to their quasi judicial standing. She was pleased the Scope of Work for Cascade Collaborative made that a priority. When the design guidelines were approved, Ms. Rubenkonig indicated the ADB would like to have time, to work with them. She referred to the sign code revisions which resulted in a higher threshold of review and, as a result, far fewer signs were reviewed by the ADB and more are reviewed by staff. She anticipated the revision of the design guidelines would provide similar relief. Council President Miller observed the Action Item Timeline (Design Review Recommendations and Implementation Scheduled) developed by staff included immediate implementation of an interim checklist as well as numerous other items to be implemented in mid to late 1999. He noted the implementation scheduled was 8 -10 months behind schedule. Responding to questions from Council President Miller, Ms. Rubenkonig explained currently a preliminary meeting could be conducted with the applicant but it was their choice, the code did not require them to attend a preliminary meeting with the ADB. She said the City of Redmond, who has the same quasi judicial status, requires a preliminary meeting. She said more intensive dialogue occurs at the preliminary meeting so that at the final hearing the project could almost be placed on the Consent Agenda if no changes had been made. She commented this would save time for the ADB. Senior Planner Steve Bullock said the City Attorney indicated the ADB would be prejudicing themselves if a preliminary meeting with the applicant was required and then the applicant returned for final approval. He explained the current process allowed, at the applicant's request, ADB review of Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 9, 2000 Page 2 conceptual plans. The ADB encouraged this to occur and staff also encouraged applicants to take advantage of this opportunity. He said many applicants were repeat applicants who were comfortable with the City's codes and processes and did not take advantage of the preliminary meeting. He said staff has not yet completed their analysis of Redmond's process. He felt the more the ADB could review a project in its early stages, the better opportunity they would have to impact the fundamental nature of the site and building design. A preliminary meeting would allow review at a point when the applicant did not feel the cost impact as greatly and thus might be more willing to consider options and alternatives. Ms. Rubenkonig suggested the City Attorney determine how Redmond was able to require a preliminary design meeting while maintaining their quasi judicial status. Ms. Rubenkonig said the ADB concurred with the Planning Board's recommendation that the ADB be given time to implement the revised design guidelines and if a change in the manner in which the ADB operated was necessary, that would be undertaken by the Planning Board so that public hearing could be held rather than the City Council adopting emergency ordinances to change the ADB's nature. Regarding establishing a program for code departures, Ms. Rubenkonig said this would be addressed by the consultant. For example she recalled Ms. Raflo often questioned why the City did not encourage development to be more transit- oriented and allow a development to have less parking by providing incentives. Another example of a code departure would be allowing additional square footage for additional building amenities such as increased articulation. Council President Miller stated his understanding that the ADB concurred with all the recommendations made in the Cedar River study, and emphasized the need to require pre - design submittal of plans. He observed the ADB recommended delaying changes to the design review process such as eliminating the ADB's formal public hearing role. He emphasized that when the Council accepted the Cedar River report, they did not necessarily agree with all recommendations, they were only accepting the report and authorizing payment of the consultants. Councilmember Plunkett asked if any work had been done on adopting interim design guidelines. Ms. Rubenkonig answered the ADB did not currently have the benefit of a design guideline checklist. Councilmember Plunkett asked if there was a need for interim design guidelines in view of the recent contract with the consultant to review this issue. Ms. Rubenkonig answered at this late date, it might be best not to confuse the issue by introducing a design guideline checklist although she said staff could still develop a checklist to assist staff in dealing with applicants in a more standardized manner. Councilmember Plunkett asked staff whether interim guidelines were necessary as indicated in the Cedar River study. Mr. Bullock answered it was staff's intent to produce a guideline checklist; staff could make it a high priority to develop the checklist now and modify it when the design guidelines are revised. Councilmember Plunkett clarified developing interim design guidelines was not necessarily a high priority to him or the Council but a year ago it was the first step and it had not yet been developed. He said it would be up to staff and the ADB to determine whether interim guidelines were necessary. He asked the status of applying the interim checklist to code waivers. Mr. Bullock said the checklist was not used to review code waivers, that was the consultant's terminology. Staff, applicants and the ADB have been diligent in addressing the items the ADB has the ability to modify and require such as landscape requirements and roof height modification for modulated roof design or roof with a pitch of 4 -12 or greater. He said the ADB was diligent in their review of these instances including determining why they would allow it, when they would allow it and under what circumstances they would allow it. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 9, 2000 Page 3 Councilmember Plunkett referred to the ADB's agreement with the recommendation to require a pre - design ADB meeting for major projects, pointing out the City Attorney indicated a requiring a pre - design meeting would prevent the ADB's quasi judicial function. Councilmember Plunkett clarified the ADB would like to have a pre - design meeting required. Ms. Rubenkonig said currently an applicant comes to the ADB with a great deal invested in the design presented to the ADB and any changes creates a hardship for the applicant and places the ADB at a disadvantage by reviewing a design after a great deal of effort has been put into it. Mr. Bykonen agreed when a developer came to the ADB after the project was fairly far along, it was difficult for them to make changes because that affected the developer's schedule as well as their costs. Further, the developer was not motivated to make any changes. However, if suggestions could be made early in the process when only loose drawings had been prepared, this would help the applicant as well as result in a better building. Councilmember Plunkett asked if a threshold for a pre - design meeting was desired. Mr. Bykonen answered yes. Councilmember Plunkett asked if the ADB was waiting for the City to take action to make the pre - design meeting a requirement. Mr. Bullock explained a change to the ADB chapter of the code would be required. For Councilmember Plunkett, Mr. Bullock explained the ADB chapter included a section regarding exemptions /exceptions from ADB review. He said a project was still required to go through design review but was exempted from ADB review and only required administrative approval such as duplexes or minor additions to structures that were still consistent with the building design.. He said when staff conducted an administrative review and determined the addition was not consistent with the building design, it was forwarded to the ADB for review. He supported the ADB chapter having clearer thresholds regarding when a project required ADB review and when it could be reviewed by staff. Mayor Haakenson encouraged Ms. Rubenkonig to set up a meeting with Council President Miller and him on a monthly basis. Councilmember Earling asked if a schedule for the revisions could be established. Council President Miller suggested Mr. Bullock and Mayor Haakenson develop a schedule that could be reviewed by Council in three weeks. Mr. Bullock agreed to contact Redmond to clarify how their process worked and obtain a copy of their ordinance. Councilmember Plunkett suggested staff begin developing an ordinance requiring pre - design review, an ordinance raising the threshold for review, begin the public hearing process at the Planning Board to eliminate the ADB's quasi judicial role and establish a timeline for the process. Council President Miller suggested staff research these issues and return to the Community Services /Development Services Committee. Mr. Bullock and Ms. Rubenkonig agreed with this approach. Mr. Bykonen said although the ADB had seven professionals, there was only one architect position. The ADB relied heavily on the architect on the board as the remainder of the ADB members were not architects. He said the last architect member resigned in December and the ADB operated without an architect since that time which affected the quality of their reviews. He suggested the addition of another architect position, for a total of eight ADB members, to ensure an architect was always available at Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 9, 2000 Page 4 meetings. He said an eighth member would not change the number needed for a quorum and there were people willing to serve on the ADB. Mr. Michel agreed the addition of another architect to the ADB would be helpful as the majority of the questions were architectural in nature. He said the candidate selected should also be familiar with the ECDC as code - related questions often arise during meetings. Councilmember Plunkett questioned the opportunity for a 4 -4 vote with eight members on the board. Ms. Rubenkonig explained as the Chair, she did not vote unless there is a tie. Mr. Bullock advised a modification to the Edmonds Municipal Code would be required to increase the number of members on the ADB but a public hearing was not required. It was the consensus of the Council to request the City Attorney draft a revision to the Municipal Code and place it on a future Consent Agenda. Ms. Rubenkonig acknowledged there may be some question regarding what occurred with the roof height increase on the Spee building and former ADB Boardmember Oaklief's suggestion that the code be revised. Mr. Bullock displayed a drawing illustrating what is allowed under the current code. He explained the current code allowed buildings in the BC zone to be constructed property line to property line with a height of 25 feet and roofs only may project above 25 feet if they have a pitch of 4 -12 or greater and may project no more than 5 feet over the 25 foot height limit. He said over the years, a typical design has resulted — a building on the property line, 25 feet in height with a roof with a 4 -12 or greater pitch (typically 6 -12) extending to the 30 -foot height limit. He said this was allowed under the current code. Mr. Bullock overlaid Mr. Spee's proposal over what was allowed by the code, explaining Mr. Spee's proposal was a building set back from the property line in several places by 3 feet, 5'/z feet and 8 feet and the top of the roof varied between 28, 29 and 30 feet above grade. Mr. Bullock explained the first floor had an awning, the next two had decks and the roof elements were setback from the property line. The ADB felt the code stressed the approved modulated roof design in the BC zone rather than the 4 -12 pitch. Because the building was setback from the property line and because some elements along the sidewalk such as the solid metal awnings were introduced to reduce the apparent size of the building and break it up into different elements, the ADB felt the proposed design, particularly the roof design, resulted in a more pleasing affect, more architectural variety and less massiveness above the 25 foot height limit when compared to typical buildings in downtown. Mr. Bullock said the top finished floor of the example from the code was slightly lower than the top floor of the Spee building. Mr. Bykonen said the Spee building was a very clever design. He said developers in Edmonds tend to follow the code very literally and buildings have the same roof slope resulting in a sameness of design. This occurred because developers were following the mandates in the code to achieve the additional 5 feet building height. He said not all of the Spee building was 30 -feet in height, much of it was at 28 and 29 feet. He said the end result was the City got a building that was actually lower than if the developer had followed the code (which would allow the entire building to be 30 feet) and the City got a better design. Councilmember Petso expressed concern with how to respond to the next builder who modulated their roof between 25 and 30 feet but did not set the building back from the sidewalk. Mr. Bullock said the ADB was very specific in their reasoning why they approved this modulated roof design and discussed the fact that the building was setback from the property line including that some of the taller elements were setback further than some of the shorter elements. The ADB also had a great deal of discussion regarding the site design in relation to the height. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 9, 2000 Page 5 Ms. Rubenkonig said the record would indicate the ADB's discussion regarding the play and depth and height of the building as well as the setback from the property line. She said the ADB was aware of the need to avoid setting precedence and made it clear why this roof design was considered acceptable and would apply that to the next application. For Councilmember Orvis, Ms. Rubenkonig said she too raised the issue whether the modulation must begin at 25 feet, pointing out. it was not clear in the code. She said how the building was used internally was not an issue the ADB could consider. She said the ADB believed an approved modulation was in the best interest of the City and that beginning the modulation at 25 feet may not result in the best design. Councilmember Davis asked if the ADB were concerned that other buildings would duplicate the Spee design. Mr. Bykonen said the Spee building met the letter of the code and was a creative interpretation of an old, possibly out -dated standard. Councilmember Orvis asked how the code gave the impression that roof height could be exchanged for setback. Mr. Bykonen pointed out the Spee building had a modulated roof design. Councilmember Orvis said a higher roof was allowed in exchange for the setback. Mr. Bykonen said that was the ADB's compromise. Mr. Bullock said there was nothing in the code that indicated additional height would be allowed for a building that was setback. The code left it up to the applicant to develop a creative design to gain the additional 5 feet. The ADB determines whether the design was creative enough to allow the additional 5 feet. The ADB felt this was a modulated roof design and approved the 30 -foot height and their decision had nothing to do with the setback. Councilmember Petso said the code stated the roof only may extend 5 feet above and observed something other than the roof on the Spee building extended above 25 feet. She said if this was how the code was going to be interpreted, it should be revised to delete "roof only" or the code should be enforced. Mr. Bykonen said that was not how the code had been interpreted. Council President Miller recalled one of the dilemmas in interpreting the code was whether building heights began at 25 feet and went up or at 30 feet and went down. He asked if the ADB felt hamstrung by the code. Ms. Rubenkonig said Mr. Spee spent hours before the ADB trying to ascertain whether their proposal would be considered an acceptable design. She agreed the ADB felt hampered by the existing code. Council President Miller suggested the Community Services/Development Services Committee discuss potential language changes to the code to provide the ADB the ability to consider creative designs. He agreed it was important for the Cascade Consortium to consider this issue. Mayor Haakenson advised the ADB members that one of the items on the Community Services/Development Services Committee's agenda was a discussion of roof design. Mayor Haakenson wished Council President Miller a happy birthday on Wednesday, May 100'. Mayor Haakenson adjourned the Council meeting to Committee Meetings at 8:00 p.m. AIRY AK NSON, MAYOR SANDRA S. CHASE, CITY CLERK Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 9, 2000 Page 6 ` AGENDA _ EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL Plaza Meeting Room - Library Building 650 Main Street 7:00 -10:00 p.m. MAY 9, 2000 SPECIAL MEETING 6:40 P.M. — INTERVIEW TWO CANDIDATES FOR THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD 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 MAY 2, 2000 (C) APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #35956 THROUGH #40898 FOR THE WEEK OF MAY 1, 2000, IN THE AMOUNT OF $339,366.96. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL CHECKS #28165 THROUGH #28276 FOR THE PERIOD APRIL 16 THROUGH APRIL 30, 2000, IN THE AMOUNT OF $364,260.80. (D) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH THE OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE COURTS FOR PURCHASE OF A NOTEBOOK PERSONAL COMPUTER AND PRINTER FOR MUNICIPAL COURT JUDGE 3. (5 Min.) CONFIRMATION OF APPOINTMENTS TO THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD 4. (45 Min.) JOINT MEETING WITH THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD ADJOURN TO COMMITTEE MEETINGS The City Council Committee meetings are work sessions for the City Council and staff only. The meetings are open to the public but are not public hearings. The City Council will meet separately as committees in different meeting rooms as indicated below. 5. COMMUNITY SERVICES /DEVELOPMENT SERVICES COMMITTEE (Large Plaza Meeting Room, Library Building, 650 Main Street) (A) DISCUSSION ON IMPACT /MITIGATION FEES FOR DEVELOPMENT (20 Min.) (B) PROPOSED MINOR CODE AMENDMENTS (10 Min.) (C) PRESENTATION ON ROOF HEIGHTS (10 Min.) (D) DISCUSSION ON CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS (CIP) (10 Min.) (E) DISCUSSION OF INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH EDMONDS SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR PLAY FIELD IMPROVEMENTS AT SHERWOOD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL (10 Min.) Page 1 of 2 1 CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA MAY 9, 2000 Page 2 of 2 6. PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE (Small Plaza Meeting Room, Library Building, 650 Main Street) (A) LEASE OF POLICE MOTORCYCLE FROM LYNNWOOD CYCLE BARN (10 Min.) FINANCE COMMITTEE (Room 113, Anderson Center, 700 Main Street) (A) FUNDING TO RESURFACE SECOND AVENUE NORTH FROM MAIN STREET TO BELL STREET (15 Min.) (B) APPROVAL OF PETTY CASH EXPENDITURES FOR THE MONTHAF APRIL 2000 (5 Min.) Parkink,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 appears on Chambers Cable, Channel 46