Loading...
06/05/2001 City CouncilEDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES JUNE 59 2001 Following a Special Meeting at 6:45 p.m. for an Executive Session regarding a real estate matter, the Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Haakenson in the Council Chambers, 250 5`" Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Gary Haakenson, Mayor Dave Earling, Council President Thomas A. Miller, Councilmember Michael Plunkett, Councilmember Lora Petso, Councilmember Dave Orvis, Councilmember (arrived 7:07 p.m.) Richard Marin, Councilmember STAFF PRESENT Tom Tomberg, Fire Chief Greg Wean, Acting Police Chief Duane Bowman, Development Serv. Director Stephen Clifton, Community Services Director Dave Gebert, City Engineer Jeannine Graf, Building Official Jim Larson, Assistant Admin. Serv. Director Meg Gruwell, Senior Planner Kathleen Taylor, Planner Scott Snyder, City Attorney Sandy Chase, City Clerk Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst. 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA hange to COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, Benda TO ADD "COUNCIL VACANCY" AS AGENDA ITEM 6B AND "DECLARE SURPLUS PROPERTY" AS AGENDA ITEM 6C. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (Councilmember Orvis was not present for the vote.) COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (Councilmember Orvis was not present for the vote.) 2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (Councilmember Orvis was not present for the vote.) The agenda items approved are as follows: Approve (A) ROLL CALL 5/22/01 Minutes (B) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MAY 22, 2001 pprove (C) APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #48229 THROUGH #48479 FOR THE WEEK OF Claim MAY 21, 2001, IN THE AMOUNT OF $386,263.50. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS Checks #48480 THROUGH #48583 FOR THE WEEK OF MAY 28, 2001, IN THE AMOUNT OF $148,845.27 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 5, 2001 Page 1 1 1 Cram National Flag Day b.A.R.E. Role Model Scholarship Recipients Contract Rezone at 551 Elm Wy File No: 2001 -34 3. (D) REPORT ON THE GENERAL FUND AND OTHER SELECTED FUNDS FINANCIAL POSITION FOR THE MONTH ENDING APRIL 30, 2001 (E) REPORT ON BIDS OPENED MAY 22, 2001 FOR THE 2001 STREET OVERLAY PROGRAM AND AWARD OF CONTRACT TO LAKESIDE INDUSTRIES INC. ($892,484.50 Excluding Sales Tax) (F) PROCLAMATION IN HONOR OF NATIONAL FLAG DAY ON JUNE 14, 2001 PRESENTATION OF CERTIFICATES TO THE D.A.R.E. ROLE MODEL SCHOLARSHIP RECIPIENTS Acting Police Chief Wean explained the Youth Services Unit of the Police Department was involved in the D.A.R.E. program. On a quarterly basis, the instructors in the D.A.R.E. program select high school role model students to be involved in the classroom. The Police Foundation established a scholarship program for the youth. Police Foundation President Hank Sitko explained the two youth receiving the scholarships demonstrated the ability to choose to remain drug and alcohol free and contribute to their schools and the Edmonds community. He presented a $1,000 D.A.R.E. scholarship to Rachel Hutchison who attends Edmonds Woodway High School and described her school activities and college plans. Mr. Sitko next presented a $1,000 D.A.R.E. scholarship to Seth Thomas, who attends Edmonds Woodway High School and described his high school activities and college plans. Mr. Sitko explained one of the requirements for receiving the scholarship was to make presentations to sixth graders to convey that high school is a positive experience and that the choices students make in high school need not include drugs, alcohol or violence. Following these presentations, many sixth graders express a desire to be D.A.R.E. role models. Mr. Sitko thanked Seth and Rachel's parents for the fine job they have done raising these outstanding individuals. Councilmembers each congratulated Mr. Thomas and Ms. Hutchison. 4. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE APPLICATION BY INES ANGIONO - FOURNO FOR A CONTRACT REZONE TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 3,485 SQUARE FEET FROM RM -3 TO RM -1.5 TO ALLOW ONE ADDITIONAL RESIDENTIAL UNIT ON HER PROPERTY AT 551 ELM WAY (File No. R- 2001 -34) Mayor Haakenson explained this was a quasi judicial hearing and asked Councilmembers to declare any ex parte communications. There were no disclosures. There were no challenges from the audience regarding the participation of any Councilmembers. Mayor Haakenson advised all Councilmembers would participate in the hearing. Mayor Haakenson advised there was no appellant in this matter, only the applicant. He allowed ten minutes for the applicant's presentation, advising time could be reserved for rebuttal. Senior Planner Meg Gruwell explained the proposed contract rezone was described in Exhibit 2. The applicant's proposal is to restrict development from the two units allowed under the zoning to one additional unit, a total of three on this site. The proposal also includes a restriction to the setbacks to the RM -3 zone setbacks — 15 feet rather than 10 feet. She explained the proposal was not a change in the footprint, only to use the basement as an additional unit. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 5, 2001 Page 2 Ms. Gruwell explained the Planning Board held a public hearing regarding the proposal. There was no public comment. The Planning Board reviewed the proposal and found it met the criteria for a contract rezone and recommended approval. Councilmember Plunkett clarified there was no new construction outside the building. Ms. Gruwell agreed, only remodeling necessary to convert the basement. Council President Earling noted the Planning Board recommended approval but staff recommended denial. Ms. Gruwell explained staff relied heavily on the earlier decision by the Planning Board and Council not to rezone the entire area from RM -3 to RM -1.5 as it did not meet the Comprehensive Plan. Due to the limited scope of this proposal and the buffer provided, staff supported approval of the proposal. Applicant Steven Michael Smith, Lovell Sauerland & Associates, 19400 33rd Avenue W, Ste 200, Lynnwood, requested three minutes be reserved for rebuttal. He explained the proposal was for one additional dwelling unit inside an existing building. In 1966, a building permit was issued for a duplex. A basement storage area was partially converted when Ms. Fourno purchased the property in the early 1990s and she was told it was a 3 -unit building that required minor additions to the lower unit. Ms. Fourno made the necessary changes to the unit and has been renting it for 4 -5 years before the tenant turned her in to the City for a zoning code violation. It was then determined the building had not been legally permitted for three units. Mr. Smith clarified there would be no physical change as a result of approval of the rezone. Although one additional unit would be allowed, it was entirely contained within the existing building that has been functioning as a 3 -unit building for the past several years. He noted there had previously been no problems in the neighborhood with the building operating as three units. He pointed out this was an opportunity for an affordable housing unit close to downtown and services. The benefit of the additional unit could be provided without any impact to the City as no new construction would be required and no additional land would be consumed to provide the unit. He cited the opportunity to provide affordable housing as a public benefit. Mr. Smith explained that in order to address one of the Planning Board's concerns regarding the possibility of expanding beyond three units, the condition to retain the RM -3 setbacks was added. He recalled at the earlier City Council public hearing, several issues were raised as obstacles to approval of the rezone of the entire block. However, the Council minutes indicate compliance with the Comprehensive Plan was not one of the issues raised and the Council Findings indicate the proposal complied with the Comprehensive Plan. It appeared the primary reasons for denying the earlier proposal was worst case scenarios such as a potential to double the density in the area if the entire area were redeveloped, resulting in 49 units versus the current 25 units. There were also significant issues raised regarding the traffic study. He clarified the current proposal would not result in doubling the density in the area and there was no impact associated with the proposed contract rezone. He summarized the proposal met the Comprehensive Plan and the rezone criteria and recommended it be approved. Councilmember Plunkett agreed with Mr. Smith's recollection that the previous proposal met all the criteria except with regard to the surrounding area. Councilmember Plunkett clarified there was no impact to the surrounding area under the current proposal. Mr. Smith agreed. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 5, 2001 Page 3 Ines Angiono - Fourno, 551 Elm Way, Edmonds, explained she purchased the building as a triplex and rented the units as such. When she was cited in 1999 for a zoning violation, she learned the third unit was illegal. She emphasized she was unaware the third unit was not legal. Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. Curt Dunfee, 545 Holly Drive, Edmonds, said he did not plan to speak in opposition to the proposal as he understood the reason for it. He requested the contract rezone be written carefully so there were no opportunities for other parties to cite it as a precedent. Hearing no further comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public participation portion of the public hearing. Councilmember Petso asked how the Council could grant the rezone without establishing a precedent. City Attorney Scott Snyder explained a contract rezone was an agreement proffered by the applicant. As noted in the Planning Board minutes, it was important the Council make its decision based solely on the criteria provided in the Zoning Code and not consider the applicant's personal use and profitability from the property. The best way for the Council to ensure a precedent was not set was to base its decision on the established criteria. As the third unit was illegal, it was not grandfathered when other properties in the neighborhood were. He suggested the Council could make a finding that this property was consistent with the surrounding neighborhood based on other units in the neighborhood and on the rezone application, and avoid the issue of profitability of the property to this property owner. COUNCILMEMBER MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, TO ADOPT THE PLANNING BOARD'S RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THE PROPOSED CONTRACT REZONE, FILE NO. R- 2001 -34, AND DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN ORDINANCE FOR COUNCIL ADOPTION WHICH WILL AMEND THE CITY'S ZONING MAP AND APPROVE THE PROPOSED CONTRACT. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Proposal to Amend 5. PUBLIC HEARING ON A PROPOSAL TO AMEND EDMONDS COMMUNITY CDC 18.70 DEVELOPMENT CODE CHAPTER 18.70 ALLOWING BAY WINDOWS AND OTHER Encroach ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES TO ENCROACH INTO THE RIGHT -OF -WAY (File No. CDC - into the 2001 -53) Right-of- Way Planner Kathleen Taylor stated the issue before the Council was consideration of alternative right -of -way encroachments including bay windows and similar architectural features. She explained the bay windows or architectural features would be limited to the BC zone in the bowl area and would be over the sidewalk, typically at awning level or above. She explained the BC zone was the only zone that allowed buildings to be constructed to the property line. Ms. Taylor explained this issue was presented to Council on April 24, 2001, following a proposal by an applicant. At that time, the Council recommended the Planning Board consider possible tradeoffs for alternative right -of -way encroachments. The Planning Board reviewed the matter on May 23, 2001, and although public discussion was allowed, there were no public comments. She stated the Planning Board considered potential tradeoffs including awnings along 100% of the street frontage and allowing additional landscaping that exceeds the Code requirements. She noted in the BC zone, an applicant was not required to provide any landscaping unless the property abutted a residentially zoned property. Other possible alternatives were extension of the sidewalk, more pronounced cornice, and contrast of the fagade Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 5, 2001 Page 4 or variety of exterior materials used on the building. She said potential tradeoffs were not limited to these items; the Planning Board reviewed these tradeoffs and did not add others. Ms. Taylor explained the Planning Board suggested not requiring any tradeoffs, that building encroachments should be allowed to occur in the right -of -way. The Planning Board's specific conditions are 1) encroachments be limited to building extensions not to exceed 24 inches into the public right -of- way, 2) the encroachments not exceed more than 30% of the facade, and 3) the encroachments not interfere with any pedestrian or vehicular traffic and should occur at an appropriate height limit. She noted the necessary clearance height would need to be determined by staff for inclusion in a code amendment. Ms. Taylor requested the Council address two issues, 1) whether building encroachments should be allowed to occur over the downtown sidewalk areas and 2) under what circumstances should the right -of- way encroachments be allowed. She explained staff was seeking a policy decision from the Council regarding whether a code interpretation or code amendment should be provided by staff. Council President Earling asked why the Planning Board determined it was not appropriate to seek tradeoffs for allowing the encroachment. Ms. Taylor referred to the Planning Board minutes, noting the Planning Board was concerned the tradeoffs may be too expensive for the applicant and the Planning Board liked the appearance of the modulated facade and wanted to encourage its use. Council President Earling inquired whether there was discussion by the Planning Board regarding the additional value the encroachment may bring the property owner. Ms. Taylor noted the encroachment would provide additional value to the public and referred to page 6 of the May 23, 2001 Planning Board minutes. Council President Earling commented the addition of square footage added value to the property owner. Ms. Taylor said this was addressed in the presentation to the Planning Board but the Planning Board found the encroachment would add value to the public due to the added visual interest in the building's appearance. Councilmember Miller questioned whether the Planning Board reviewed other cities' policies regarding encroachments and any compensation provided by developers. Ms. Taylor explained staff reviewed Seattle's Building Code which had lengthy and specific Code requirements addressing right -of -way encroachments including allowed percentages (50% of the facade). Councilmember Miller asked whether Seattle required any developer compensation. Ms. Taylor did not recall anything in Seattle's code addressing compensation. Councilmember Plunkett asked Ms. Taylor to describe the advantages the Planning Board determined would be provided by the variation in the facade. Ms. Taylor referred to page 7 of the May 23, 2001 Planning Board minutes that cited the visual interest the encroachment would provide. The Planning Board specifically considered the photographic examples included in the Council packet. Councilmember Plunkett clarified the Planning Board found the aesthetic value was sufficiently beneficial to the community and that the developer need not provide any additional compensation. Ms. Taylor reiterated the Planning Board's concern that the tradeoffs may be too costly to the developer and they did not want to discourage this type of development from occurring. Councilmember Marin asked whether staff's preference was a code interpretation or code amendment. Development Services Director Duane. Bowman advised the preference would be a code amendment to provide clarification. Ms. Taylor said a code amendment would not require additional Planning Board review as this was a Public Works Code, Title 18. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 5, 2001 Page 5 Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. David Peterson, Executive Director, Edmonds Alliance for Economic Development, 121 5th Avenue N, Edmonds, urged the Council to support the Planning Board's recommendation. He recalled there have been concerns expressed in the past that buildings in Edmonds are similar because the codes require it. He said this proposal did no harm and provided a different/imaginative approach. Tony Shapiro, 600 Main Street, Shapiro Architects, Edmonds, commented his firm was involved in the project that requested permission to use a bay window as proposed in the ordinance. He encouraged the Council to approve the proposal, not specifically for their project, but for Edmonds as a whole. He noted this was only proposed in the BC zone, which has an urban context. Canopies were required or encouraged in the draft design guidelines, and the proposed encroachment would not exceed the canopies referred to in the design guidelines. The calculation of an encroachment 24 inches into the public right - of -way, not to exceed 30% of the fagade, would provide 60 square feet per floor on a 100 square foot fagade for a total of 120 square feet for a 2 -story building. He summarized this was not a significant enhancement to the developer but allowed a more spacious design as well as improved visual design. Bruce Nicholson, 9829 Cherry Street, Edmonds, encouraged approval of the proposal. After constructing two buildings in Edmonds, he acknowledged it was extremely difficult to construct a workable 2 -story building, and any additional costs passed onto the developer made constructing a building even more difficult. One of the purposes of the Land Owners group was to create interest in building in Edmonds; the proposed concept would assist with that mission. Without the proposal, the code allowed "plain Jane" buildings to be constructed to the property line with a redundant appearance. Albert Dykes, 9792 Edmonds Way, Edmonds, commented the prevalent residential architectural style in San Francisco, particularly older buildings, contained this type of architecture. San Francisco did not require compensation for this type of architecture as they view it an enhancement to the architectural attractiveness of the city. He strongly supported the proposal, noting it was more beneficial to the community than the minor square footage increase provided to the developer. Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, Edmonds, referred to the Seattle and Edmonds photographic examples in the Council packet, noting there was no comparison between the architecture on the 2 -story Edmonds building and the 3 -4 story building in the Seattle example. He said Edmonds was a 1 -2 story business zone and should not be compared to Seattle or San Francisco. He did not support developers profiting more from a building via an encroachment into the right -of -way unless some compensation was provided. He preferred setbacks for the resident portion of the development be required to provide variety in the building. He summarized the encroachment on the second floor was acceptable if the City received fair compensation for allowing a developer to construct additional square footage. Councilmember Petso commented ordinarily, the Council could not give away any public property because it would be a gift of public funds. She asked whether there was an exception that allowed the Council to give away the space for bay windows, etc. on the second floor of buildings. City Attorney Scott Snyder explained there were two categories of right -of -way, (1) right -of -way in fee (outright ownership), and (2) right -of -way easement where the City had the right to maintain the street and the abutting property owners owned the air rights; the underlying subsurface rights are subject to the City's ability to operate a street, utilities, etc. In the case of a right -of -way easement, the City was allowing the adjacent property owner to utilize what they already owned in the same manner the City allowed abutting property owners to landscape parking strips, erect mailboxes, plant trees, etc. In the case of ownership in fee, it was a legislative determination by the Council whether the use was compatible with use of the Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 5, 2001 Page 6 City's right -of -way, and if so whether there was sufficient public benefit provided. Public benefit includes aesthetic benefit from the use of the City's right -of -way that justifies allowing an adjacent property owner to use the public street. Mr: Snyder explained in most of the downtown area, there were right -of -way easements and allowing property owners this use would not be incompatible with their ownership interest, the City was giving little if anything away. The Planning Board determined there were aesthetic benefits to justify the proposal. If the Council made a legislative finding that the benefit was sufficient to confer benefit to the City, it was doubtful it would be questioned by the State Auditor based on the limited nature of the intrusion in this instance. He said in instances of major intrusions into the public right -of -way that limited the public's ability to use the right -of -way (i.e. sky bridges, etc.), specific consideration should be provided. He suggested staff weigh the benefit the encroachment would provide. In instances of greater use of the public right -of -way, he suggested staff have the use appraised and valued and the benefit to the City considered. Councilmember Petso asked whether the air space above the sidewalks in downtown belonged to the City in most cases. Mr. Snyder explained the downtown streets were platted as part of the original Town of Edmonds and dedicated to the City for public rights -of -way uses, allowing the City to use the right -of- way and franchise their use for utilities. The abutting property owners own the underlying fee interest; therefore, if the property is ever vacated, the property owners have the right to the reversionary interest. Councilmember Petso said the only way the City could give away the air space was if there was a public benefit justifying the gift such as the aesthetic variety. Mr. Snyder said if the City owned this right -of- way in fee, the City had every right to use the right -of -way. In this instance, the City's only use was for right -of -way. Permitting an abutting property owner an encroachment was not incompatible with the public's use and did not diminish the value owned by the city in any significant manner. Council President Earling said although he was interested in this proposal, he disagreed with the Planning Board's determination that tradeoffs were not appropriate. He asked how staff would apply potential tradeoffs. Mr. Bowman answered he would ask that Council allow staff to choose one or more tradeoffs because appropriate tradeoffs would depend on the building design. Council President Earling commented modulation would improve the community enormously and did not want staff to be compelled to require additional tradeoffs if the building already looked great. For Councilmember Orvis, Mr. Snyder clarified in most instances in downtown, the City had the right to operate a street and utilities through the right -of -way but the abutting property owners owned fee interest in the property. He commented as the encroachment would occur above the height of pedestrians and was outside the street right -of -way, there was little impact on the City's ability to operate the street. Councilmember Orvis asked how height limits would be impacted by a code amendment that allowed this type of encroachment. Mr. Bowman answered it would not affect heights. Mr. Snyder said an encroachment permit would describe the air space intruded upon. For Councilmember Orvis, Ms. Taylor explained Mr. Shapiro's example of 120 square feet for the encroachment was specific to his building. The Planning Board's recommendation for 30% of the fagade on the second and third stories could potentially exceed 120 square feet. Councilmember Orvis asked how many additional square feet would be added to a unit. Ms. Taylor said it would be limited but would depend on the percentage of the fagade that was allowed. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 5, 2001 Page 7 Councilmember Marin commented when he worked as a builder, he was amazed at the numerous requirements each municipality had, noting he finally reached the point where if there were additional requirements for an amenity such as a bay window, he would likely eliminate the bay window. He asked whether amenities would be eliminated if developers were asked to provide something in addition. Ms. Taylor said in the proposal under review, the developer already added several items to his proposal. Limiting the requirements and offering flexibility would encourage the developer to provide those items. Mr. Bowman agreed, noting imposing additional conditions may discourage some developers from utilizing the proposed encroachment. Councilmember Marin asked how the scope of tradeoffs could be structured to be minimal enough not to discourage developers. Mr. Bowman said if the Council wished to require tradeoffs, a number of options and flexibility should be provided. Mr. Snyder said Seattle's list included the public's right to use portions of the developer's property for items such as street furniture, a public readerboard /kiosk, public art, etc. He said these were low cost options that provided public benefit. In response to Councilmember Petso's earlier question, Mr. Snyder clarified the City was under no obligation to allow the use of the City's airspace and the Council had a great deal of discretion to determine appropriate tradeoffs. Councilmember Miller asked whether a developer could be required to make a contribution to the purchase of flower baskets to offset the encroachment. Mr. Snyder said an indirect tradeoff would be appropriate. He noted encroachment permits required the maintenance of bonds for the right -of -way encroachment. COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, TO EXTEND DISCUSSION OF THIS ITEM FOR 20 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Councilmember Petso asked why this proposal was being considered independent of the design guidelines. Mr. Bowman answered it was an issue raised as part of a development proposal. There was a provision in the code that allowed encroachment into the public right -of -way and staff was seeking a clarification. Councilmember Petso questioned whether there was any potential for view blockage by allowing the encroachment. Mr. Bowman answered it would be minimal, noting the residential uses were setback from the street. Mayor Haakenson remanded the matter to Council for action. Councilmember Miller recalled Ms. Taylor posed two questions to, 1) whether encroachments should be allowed and 2) under what circumstances should right -of -way encroachments be allowed. He supported the proposed encroachment, noting the Planning Board's record supported the public benefit provided by the proposed encroachment and the Community Development Code contained guidance regarding when such encroachments would be appropriate. His only concern was providing compensation for the use of the City's air rights. He suggested staff draft a code interpretation /amendment that included direct and indirect tradeoffs to provide compensation for air rights. Councilmember Petso agreed with Councilmember Miller that the public was entitled to compensation if the encroachment was allowed although she was unconvinced the benefits of allowing it were significant enough to warrant this effort. If the encroachment was allowed, she wanted to ensure it was not allowed Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 5, 2001 Page 8 in areas where it would contribute to view blockage either from a public area or existing structure. She disagreed with Mr. Peterson's comment that buildings in Edmonds were similar because the codes required it. She agreed with Mr. Nicholson's comment that buildings were similar because the cost of development in the downtown area required developers to construct lot line to lot line with peaked roofs to achieve the additional building height. She was willing to consider a compromise between citizens' rights and the reality of the cost of development. She disagreed that adoption of this amendment would result in significantly more creative buildings. She objected to approving the amendment independent of the design guidelines. Councilmember Marin spoke in favor of allowing encroachments, noting they would add significantly to the appearance and charm of the City. He was opposed to requiring tradeoffs as it would add to the existing perception that Edmonds was a difficult place to build. Councilmember Orvis agreed with Councilmember Marin, noting the encroachment was actually into land owned by the property owner. Unless a compelling reason could be cited for the City's use of the airspace he did not object to allowing the encroachment. He did not agree there was a need for tradeoffs, noting the encroachment would add to the fagade of buildings in the City. Council President Earling observed most Councilmembers were in favor of allowing encroachments to add architectural interest. He requested staff develop a list of direct and indirect tradeoffs for further Council discussion. He said although it could be argued the encroachments were one way of providing increased architectural interest, the items provided on the list of tradeoffs would also enhance the experience. Councilmember Plunkett was encouraged by the number of Councilmembers who supported the concept of encroachments and who felt there was sufficient public benefit without requiring tradeoffs. He referred to the photograph of Old Mill Town, commenting it was one of the most interesting buildings in the City. He found it beneficial to allow the more interesting fagades that would result from the proposed amendment. He was reluctant to consider tradeoffs. Mr. Bowman offered to provide two proposals, with and without tradeoffs. 6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Yes for Edmonds Al Rutledge, 7101 Lake Ballinger Way, Edmonds, thanked the volunteers who assisted on the Yes for ibrary the Edmonds Library Committee, particularly the Olsen family. In addition, he cautioned the City to Committee keep abreast of public safety contract negotiations in Seattle to avoid losing Edmonds officers to the Seattle Police Department. Mayor Haakenson announced the Yes for the Edmonds Library Committee asked him to express thanks to Mr. Rutledge for his work on the committee, and the Mayor presented him with a plaque as a token of their appreciation. Executive Les Blume, 19026 Olympic View Drive, Edmonds, said Bill 1384 regarding how public agencies Sessions conduct Executive Sessions was passed recently by the Legislature. He provided the telephone number (800 -562 -6000) for anyone wanting further information. Pumping of Elaine Yard, 9209 Olympic View Drive, Edmonds, expressed concern with dumping of yard debris Yard Debris that has occurred on Olympic View near South County Park. She said recently large pieces of debris Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 5, 2001 Page 9 were in the northbound lanes of Olympic View Drive creating a driving hazard. She encouraged the City to determine who was doing the dumping and to prevent a serious accident from occurring. Diving Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, Edmonds, referred to a sign he observed on the ferry dock, "No IF,�ett hin 300 Diving within 300 Feet" recalling Senator Paull Shin discussing a bill with the Council that prohibited of Ferry swimming and diving within 300 feet of ferry docks. He questioned whether this eliminated the ability to k dive on the north side of the ferry dock where the diving park is located. Mayor Haakenson indicated staff would research Mr. Hertrich's question. 6B. COUNCIL VACANCY ouncil acancy Council President Earling advised Chris Davis' resignation created a vacancy on the Council. He explained the filing period for Council positions was approaching, including the seat previously held by Councilmember Davis and he was inclined to allow the electorate to fill the Council position. If the Council accepted Councilmember Davis' resignation tonight, the Council would have until September 5 to fill the position. If the City Council took no action, the decision goes to the County Council who would have an additional 90 days to review the issue, until December 5. Placing the position on the November ballot would result in a replacement being selected by the electorate by mid - November. He said the Council could reconsider its decision if necessary following filing week for vacant Council positions in mid -July. He explained if the Council made an appointment, it would likely not occur until mid -July. Councilmembers Orvis and Marin concurred with the process described by Council President Earling. Councilmember Plunkett said several community members have requested a Councilmember be appointed to ensure a full Council. He noted the Council must weigh a full Council against the appearance or outright advantage an appointed Councilmember has in an election. He supported filling the position via an election, noting the new Councilmember would be on the Council in time to discuss the 2002 budget. It was the consensus of the Council to allow the electorate to fill the vacant Council position. 6C. DECLARESURPLUSPROPERTY eclare COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, TO Surplus ASK THAT A RESOLUTION BE PREPARED TO DECLARE TWO SITES AS SURPLUS AND Property ADVERTISE FOR A PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING THE POTENTIAL SALE OF THE PROPERTIES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Fire Station 7. FIRE STATION 16 CONSTRUCTION PLANS 16 Construction Plans Mayor Haakenson explained when voters approved the Public Safety bond in 1996, approximately $1.5 million was earmarked to build a new fire station to replace the outdated and earthquake- damaged station 16 at Five Corners at an undisclosed new site. These dollars were designated to build the new station; there was no plan or allowance to purchase the land. From the $1.5 million designated for the new station, $500,000 was used to purchase land located on 196`h street on which to build the station. That left a balance of $1 million for construction. Five years later, as the City prepares to build the station, construction costs have escalated; CPI alone would have increased the cost of the station to $1.8 million. It appears that in 2001 dollars, it will cost about $2.25 million to create the station that voters approved $1.5 million to build five years ago. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 5, 2001 Page 10 Mayor Haakenson proposed the Council begin the process of building the station at once with the award of a contract to TCA Architecture in the approximate amount of $135,000. Their scope of work would include: design work, cost estimating, permitting and taking the project to bid. Their portion of the work is estimated to take from now through January 2002 when the project would go to bid. The only expense staff anticipates will occur during this time is TCA's contract in the approximate amount of $135,000. The task before the Council, however, is to find the necessary $1.25 million to facilitate the construction of the new station. Mayor Haakenson explained he would suggest some opportunities to earmark additional funds for the project, commenting it required creative thinking to develop these funding sources but they are all viable and he hoped the Council would agree to their use. Mayor Haakenson explained the Council approved the addition of $200,000 in the 2001 budget for the possible addition of paramedic services during 2001. It now appears that won't happen until 2002 and this can be a budgeted item in the 2002 budget. He requested the Council reassign the $200,000 in the Council contingency fund, originally earmarked for paramedic services, to Fire Station 16 construction. There are several pieces of surplus property that are City- owned, including the piece upon which the current fire station is located. He said the sale of these properties could bring in excess of $500,000 and the proceeds used for construction. The City has a small reserve fund (approximately $250,000) that has been in place for many years that was established to ensure that the City didn't run out of money while property tax revenues were trickling in. This is separate from the emergency reserve fund and neither Administrative Services Director Peggy Hetzler nor he saw the need to keep the fund in place. This fund could be transferred to the fire station construction fund with Council approval. Additionally, the City has an LID Guaranty Fund that receives interest and other earnings on outstanding LIDS. State law dictates the City must keep 10% of the outstanding LID bonds in this fund and the City may transfer any excess to the General Fund. This fund's current balance is $480,000, and the City only needs $270,000 to accommodate state law. Therefore, an additional $210,000 is available for the fire station construction. With these items, the City would still be approximately $90,000 short of the estimate. He offered the Council could earmark that amount from the projected increase in 2002 tax revenue from the utility tax. Mayor Haakenson noted this was over and above what was already projected from the 2001 rate increases. Two weeks ago, at least three Councilmembers made reference to the 2001 utility tax revenue as a possible source for funding the fire station. That amount is estimated to be approximately $200,000. As stated that night, Mayor Haakenson indicated he had no intention of using that revenue for the fire station as staff had already presented Council with an option for those funds. He noted the fire station could be completed without the use of the 2001 utility tax revenue. He further suggested the Council continue down the original path for using that revenue source, infrastructure improvements that need to be done. On June 26, Council will receive a presentation on additional information requested two weeks ago surrounding the infrastructure needs. Mayor Haakenson explained if the fire station construction project began immediately and went to bid on January 1, 2002, a contractor could be selected and construction begun during March/April 2002 with Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 5, 2001 Page 11 completion on October 1, 2002. He urged the Council to accept the proposed plan and provide direction to begin the process that would lead to the construction of Fire Station 16 on 196th Street. For Councilmember Orvis, Assistant Administrative Services Director Jim Larson described the location of the various funds, noting a budget adjustment would be necessary for some of the transfers. Mayor Haakenson advised they could be included in upcoming mid -year budget adjustments. Councilmember Petso asked if there was actually $1 million in the bond funds at this time. Mayor Haakenson advised the balance was between $880,000 and $1,110,000 because the amount fluctuated on a daily basis. If additional funds were needed at the end of the project, he would inform the Council. Councilmember Petso noted tonight's claims included three more bills for the building totaling approximately $30,000. She questioned when the construction costs would be paid in total. Mayor Haakenson advised there were sufficient funds to pay bills for the Public Safety building. Councilmember Petso questioned whether additional bills would be forthcoming and whether funds in excess of those outlined would be necessary. Mayor Haakenson indicated that would depend on the court's decision but the remaining $1 million would be used for the fire station. Councilmember Miller commented this action was long overdue and he appreciated Mayor Haakenson taking the lead on this issue. COUNCILMEMBER MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, TO APPROVE THE TRANSFER OF FUNDS AS REQUESTED TO FUND STATION 16. Councilmember Petso indicated although she would like to move forward with this action tonight, she would have preferred the motion had been to authorize the Mayor to enter into the $135,000 contract and allow the Council and Mayor to further consider the funding sources. She recalled the Council discussed the property tax reserve fund at the retreat and determined the emergency reserve fund was lower than the percentage Ms. Hetzler recommended unless additional funds were added. Councilmember Petso preferred to identify another method of funding the fire station than dropping reserves below the percentage commonly recommended. She preferred the cumulative property tax reserve fund be eliminated by transferring those funds into the City's reserve fund. She said this would require the Council identify another $250,000 which she felt could be done using utility tax revenues without damaging the infrastructure plan. As Public Works Trust Fund loans have been applied for many of the infrastructure projects and award of the grants was not made until September and the grants were not funded until the next legislative session, the debt service on the Public Works Trust Fund loans in 2001 would be zero. She said those funds and salary surpluses could make up the deficit created by not using the property tax reserve fund. Councilmember Petso requested the Council only authorize the Mayor to enter into the contract with TCA Architecture and seek Ms. Hetzler's interpretation regarding the property tax reserve fund. Councilmember Petso recalled at the retreat Ms. Hetzler recommended 7' /s percent was the minimum reserve and possibly 10% due to upcoming litigation. It was estimated at that time there was 5 — 7'h percent but the reserve was not increased due to the existence of the cumulative property tax reserve fund. She did not support allocating emergency reserve funds to the fire station and preferred to identify other funding to ensure the City's emergency reserves remained at the appropriate levels. Mayor Haakenson advised the emergency reserve fund was not impacted; this was a separate property tax reserve fund that Ms. Hetzler indicated was not necessary and there was no reason to transfer it into the emergency reserve fund at this time. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 5, 2001 Page 12 Councilmember Plunkett commented the reason construction of Fire Station 16 has taken time was due to the Council's desire to appropriately locate the fire station to provide improved coverage to the City. He supported moving forward with the plan as outlined by Mayor Haakenson. Councilmember Marin supported the proposed plan, commenting the plan allows the City to proceed with construction of a new fire station as voters approved without asking the voters for additional funds. Councilmember Petso indicated the Council could expect her to request funds be added to the emergency reserve fund to bring it up to the appropriate level. Councilmember Petso explained she viewed the transfer as a threat to the emergency reserve as there were two reserve funds, one a cash flow fund (property tax reserve fund) and the other the emergency reserve fund. Although the combined total was approximately the 7' /i and 10% recommended by Ms. Hetzler, the amount in the emergency reserve fund was not sufficient. Therefore, by eliminating the cash flow reserve fund (property tax reserve fund), there was no longer a combined total in the amount recommended by the Finance Director. MOTION CARRIED (5 -1), COUNCILMEMBER PETSO OPPOSED. 8. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Haakenson had no report. 9. COUNCIL COMMENTS sound Councilmember Marin reported he attended the Technical Advisory Committee meeting for the Sound ransit Transit station. An engineering design firm was selected for the track and signal improvements with a station due date of August 5 for their design work. The engineering design firm will begin working with the firm doing the station design whose design work is due mid - August. He expected work would begin on the station in mid -2002. He also noted that Community Transit's recent response to Sound Transit will likely result in commuter bus traffic being routed between the tracks and Skippers, a safer alignment. The subcommittee considering public art for the Sound Transit station was very impressed with the bronze artwork being developed for the station. Medic 7 Mayor Haakenson reported the Mountlake Terrace City Council voted last night to withdraw from Medic 7. The Medic 7 board will await their announcement at the upcoming board meeting. He provided assurance that Medic 7 would continue to provide paramedic services; there would be no changes in the service. The cities of Lynnwood and Edmonds are working on a joint solution to provide paramedic services in the future. With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 9:05 p.m. G RY KENSON, MAYOR �/ e_,Z� SANDRA S. CHASE, CITY CLERK Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 5, 2001 Page 13 1 F, AGENDA EDMON1 S CITY COUNCIL Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex 250 5t" Avenue North . 7:00 - 10:00 p.m. JUNE 512001 6:45 P.M. - Executive Session Regarding a Real Estate Matter 7:00 P.M. - Call to Order Flag Salute 1. Approval of Agenda 2. Consent Agenda Items (A) Roll Call (B) Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of May 22, 2001 (C) Approval of Claim Checks #48229 through #48479 for the Week of May 21, 2001, in the Amount of $386,263.50. Approval of Claim Checks #48480 through #48583 for the Week of May 28, 2001, in the Amount of $148,845.27. (D) Report on the General Fund and Other Selected Funds Financial Position for the Month Ending April 30, 2001 (E) Report on Bids Opened May 22, 2001 for the 2001 Street Overlay Program and Award of Contract to Lakeside Industries Inc. ($892,484.50 Excluding Sales Tax) (F) Proclamation in Honor of National Flag Day on June 14, 2001 3. (10 Min.) Presentation of Certificates to the D.A.R.E. Role Model Scholarship Recipients 4. (20 min.) Public Hearing on the Application by Ines Angiono- Fourno for a Contract Rezone to Rezone Approximately 3,485 Square Feet from RM -3 to RM -1.5 to Allow One Additional Residential Unit on Her Property at 551 Elm Way (File No. R- 2001 -34) S. (40 Min.) Public Hearing on a Proposal to Amend Edmonds Community Development Code Chapter 18.70 Allowing Bay Windows and Other Architectural Features to Encroach into the Public Right -of -Way (File No. CDC - 2001 -53) Page 1 of 2 CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA JUNE 5, 2001 Page 2 of 2 6. Audience Comments (3 Minute Limit Per Person) 7. (20 Min.) Fire Station 16 Construction Plan S. ( 5 Min.) Mayor's Comments 9. (15 Min.) Council Comments 1 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 AT &T Cable, Channel 21.