Loading...
03/05/1991 City CouncilTHESE MINUTES SUBJECT TO MARCH 19, 1991 APPROVAL EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 5, 1991 The regular meeting of the Edmonds City Council was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Larry Naughten at the Library Plaza Room, 650 Main St., Edmonds. All present joined in the flag salute. PRESENT Larry Naughten, Mayor Jeff Palmer, Council President Steve Dwyer, Councilmember Roger Hertrich, Councilmember Jo -Anne Jaech, Councilmember William Kasper, Councilmember John Nordquist, Councilmember Jack Wilson, Councilmember Kristen Hughes, Student Representative STAFF Jeff Wilson, Current Planning Spvr. Gary McComas, Fire Marshal Dan Prinz, Police Chief Greg Ramsland, Equipment Spvr. Bob Bower, Treatment Plant Sprv. Peter Hahn, Comm. Svc. Director Scott Snyder, City Attorney Jackie Parrett, City Clerk Margaret Richards, Recorder Mayor Naughten announced that an executive session would be held following item #6 on the agenda (review of development fees) to discuss a property matter and a legal issue. CONSENT AGENDA Items (C), (E), (F), (H), (J) and (L) were removed from the Consent Agenda. COUNCILMEMBER NORD- QUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER HERTRICH, TO APPROVE THE BALANCE OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. With regard to Item (I) on the Consent Agenda), Council President Palmer noted that he was a member of the Edmonds Historical Society. MOTION CARRIED. The approved items on the Consent Agenda include the following: (A) ROLL CALL (B) APPROVAL OF_MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 12, FEBRUARY 19, AND FEBRUARY 26, 1991 D) AUTHORIZATION TO INITIATE CONSULTANT SELECTION PROCESS FOR DESIGN OF PUBLIC WORKS FACILITY (G) ADOPTED RESOLUTION 715 APPROVING CITY ENGINEER'S MAP AS OFFICIAL RECORD OF LOCATION AND �-` BOUNDARIES OF PUBLIC PARKS AND AREAS WITHIN 1,000 FEET OF PUBLIC PARKS IN ORDER TO IMPLEMENT ENHANCED PENALTIES FOR UNLAWFUL DRUG ACTIVITIES IN THOSE AREAS L (I) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN FIVE-YEAR LEASE EXTENSION ,FOR EDMONDS MUSEUM w��;�s' (K) AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE LANIER FAXWRITER 4000 FROM STATE CONTRACT FOR PUBLIC WORKS Y/`;�7F� ($2,646.49) AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE EIGHT VEHICLES ON 191 REPLACEMENT PROGRAM ITEM C ON THE CONSENT 1, A ND Councilmember Kasper recalled that the Council had discussed rotating City vehicles from depart- ment to department. He felt that working staff, rather than department heads, should have use of those vehicles. COUNCILMEMBER KASPER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST, TO DISCUSS ITEM (C) ON MARCH 26, 1991. MOTION CARRIED. AUTHORIZATION TO ACCEPT THE LOWEST OUOTE TO CARPET OFFICE AREA IN FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER ($2,183.64, INCLUDING SALES TAX) LITEM (E) ON THE CONSENT AGENDA j �L•L Councilmember Hertrich felt the Council should be provided with the details of the bid documents rather than just the bid prices. Councilmember Nordquist requested that the evaluation sheets be provided to the Council so they could ascertain how Staff arrived at their recommendation. COUNCILMEMBER HERTRICH MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST, TO DISCUSS ITEM (E) ON MARCH 26, 1991. MOTION CARRIED. PROPOSED ORDINANCE EXPANDING AND AMENDING EDMONDS CITY CODE CHAPTER 5.38, OFFENSES AGAINST THE AGENDA!PUBLIC MORALS LITEM (F) ON THE CONSENT Councilmember Dwyer noted that the proposed ordinance will identify a section of Edmonds as a high -risk prostitution area, and he was unsure if some of the residents who live east of Highway 99 on 238th Street would appreciate that designation. Although Councilmember Dwyer approved of the proposed ordinance, he was concerned about passing it without first obtaining a reaction from those residents because it would define a certain part of Edmonds, including single-family and multi -family zones, as being with a high -risk prostitution area. Councilmember Wilson recommended that the proposed ordinance be discussed further at the March 12, 1991 Public Safety Committee meeting. AUTHORIZATION TO CALL FOR BIDS FOR ONE THREE-QUARTER TON PICKUP TRUCK FOR TREATMENT PLANT 6,000) [ITEM (H) ON TRE CONSENT AGENDA] Councilmember Palmer inquired if the vehicle should be included in the replacement program. U Equipment Supervisor Greg Ramsland said the vehicle was not included in the replacement program ;Y/_� because the treatment plant has never been assigned a vehicle, but the truck will be included in the replacement program in the future. COUNCILMEMBER PALMER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DWYER, TO APPROVE ITEM (H). MOTION CARRIED. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN CONTRACT FOR FUNDING WITH PATHWAYS FOR WOMEN TO PROVIDE $30.800 City Attorney Scott Snyder noted that Ann Gordon of Pathways For Women would be at the Council - meeting at approximately 8:30 p.m. to discuss the issue. Mr. Snyder explained that the agreement, as written, dictates that matching funds must be fully committed by June 1, 1991, in order for City funds to be available for the project, but Ms. Gor- don feels she needs the use of City funds to acquire the property and to obtain additional fund- ing. REPORT ON BIDS FOR ELECTROSTATIC ENGINEERING COPIER AND AWARD OF CONTRACT TO KUKER-RANKIN 8,880.60, INCLUDING SALES TAX)IT M L N THE CONSENTAGENDA Item (L) was to be discussed during the executive session. AUDIENCE Mayor Naughten opened the audience portion of the meeting. Tom Petrusi, 7629 - 175th Ave. S.W., said he has not yet arrived at a personal opinion with re- gard to covering of Yost Pool because of the lack of hard data on which to base a decision. He said he has wondered why, when the City has in place a due process to determine the feasibility of both the cost and the need to the community of capital improvements, the Council would see fit not to use that process. Mr. Petrusi questioned how a Councilmember could state on January 22, 1991 that the Council has committed itself to the project and believed there to be no value in remanding the matter to the Planning Board when, up to the present time, no professional feasibility study of any consequence has been completed. Mr. Petrusi referenced a letter to the City Council from a Planning Board member in which that member also questioned the posture that the Council has taken with regard to covering Yost Pool. Mr. Petrusi stated that if the Council had followed the due process as established in the City for capital improvements, the Council would be ready at the present time to move forward and, more importantly, would be in a position to make an intelligent decision based on hard, factual data. EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 2 MARCH 5, 1991 Mr. Petrusi said it seemed inconceivable to bypass the Planning Board in this matter when they have tacit authority to review such issues. Councilmember Wilson noted that some members on the Council shared the same sentiment as Mr. Petrusi. Mayor Naughten closed the public portion of the meeting. HEARING ON APPEAL OF ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD DECISION REGARDING ROOFTOP E UIPMENT ON APARTMENT LCONDOMINIUM HERMAN ;FILE S='3-9I%-102-90 n "Current Planning Supervisor Jeff Wilson reported that on January 9, 1991, the Architectural De- sign Board (ADB) granted approval for the placement and screening of a rooftop mechanical unit and associated duct work on top of the building located at 207 - 2nd Avenue North. The ADB spe- cifically approved the proposed duct work screening plan, but the mechanical unit, which projects above the allowable twenty-five foot height limit, requires either a variance from the allowable height limit or a pitched roof over the unit. Mr. Wilson said the builder recently submitted a proposal to the ADB for a pitched roof over the rooftop mechanical unit, and the request is scheduled to be reviewed by the ADB in April. Mr. Wilson noted that the ADB originally approved the appearance of the unit as currently approved, but recognized that the height issue must first be resolved. The applicant's recent ADB application for the pitched roof could technically solve the height issue. Mr. Wilson noted that a copy of the appeal letter, minutes from the January 9, 1991 ADB meeting, the site plan, and the building elevations were included in the Council packets. Mr. Wilson said the appeal was submitted and advertised prior to the applicant's submittal of a pitched roof. A result of the applicant's submittal of a new proposal to the ADB may be that the appeal may not totally be resolved by the Council. In response to Councilmember Hertrich with regard to whether or not the Council should proceed, City Attorney Scott Snyder stated that if the Council were to approve the project, they must deny the appeal that evening and the applicant would have to acquire ADB approval for a pitched roof for the mechanical equipment, but if the Council ruled in favor of the appellant, the issue of a pitched roof would be moot. If the Council delayed the hearing until the issue was heard by the ADB again, he said the question would then become whether the Council would take testimony that evening on the isolated issue or simply continue and hold the hearings together. Mr. Snyder said it was his recollection that there was a question pending before the Council on behalf of the appellants' attorney to conduct a site visit to the appellants' condominium, in which case the Council would have to delay their decision. Councilmember Dwyer inquired if the pitched roof would be under thirty feet. Mr. Wilson replied affirmatively. Councilmember Dwyer inquired if the mechanical equipment would be totally en- closed. Mr. Wilson said he did not know because the final design has yet to be submitted to the ADB. In response to Councilmember Dwyer's question regarding how the code defines a roof, Mr. Snyder said when the Council established the 25 foot height limit, they provided for sloped roofs which could be extended to 30 feet. Mr. Snyder read the definition of a roof as follows: Section 21.85.070 - a roof means the top covering of a building or structure. He said structure is de- fined as a combination of materials attached to the ground or attached to something having a permanent location on the ground. He noted that the City has approved buildings with flat roofs with equipment on top with pitched roofs for the past 15 years. Councilmember Palmer felt the process was very convoluted. It was his opinion that an application should be reviewed and if that application does not meet code requirements, it seemed frivolous to take the application through additional steps in the process. Councilmember Dwyer inquired if the issue could be remanded to the ADB for them to decide which of the two proposals was consistent with the code. Mr.,Snyder said the proposals were not alter- native proposals. He explained that the applicant received approval to cover a portion of the roof but did not submit an application to cover the mechanical equipment.` Councilmember Palmer said he would like to know whether the applicant and appellant were looking to the Council to make a decision on the individual issue or would see merit in joining the two issues. EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 3 MARCH 5, 1991 Doug Herman, 420 - 5th Ave. S., Suite C., Blueprint Homes, applicant, said because Staff is en- forcing the code in a different manner than they have in the past, rooftop mechanical equipment is now required to be screened with a pitched roof. He noted, however, because of the manner in which the code used to be enforced that there is no building in the City with rooftop mechanical equipment that is screened with a pitched roof. Mr. Herman requested the Council to proceed with the hearing. Allen Hendricks, 402 - 5th Ave. S, attorney for the appellants, said he would also like to pro- ceed. In response to Councilmember Hertrich, Mr. Wilson said the appeal is based on the equipment that exceeds twenty-five feet in height. Mr. Snyder said the ADB criteria provides that mechanical equipment or other utility hardware on the roof, grounds, or building should be screened from view. However, anything over 25 feet is subject to the pitched roof requirement. He said the ADB reviews equipment to ascertain if it should be screened but if equipment if over 25 feet, it is Staff's position that it must have a pitched roof. Mr. Herman requested that he be allowed to speak following public testimony. Mr. Hendricks contended that the structure is in violation of both the purpose and criteria set forth by the ADB. Mr. Hendricks submitted copies of Chapter 20.10 to the City Clerk (marked Exhibit 1) for distribu- tion to the Council, noting that the purpose of that section is to minimize incompatible and un- sightly surrounds. Mr. Hendricks referred to Chapter 20.10.70, noting that it specifies that the building shall be designed to comply with the purposes of that chapter to avoid conflicts with the existing and the planned character of the nearby area, and that all elements of building design shall form an integrated development harmonious in scale, lines and mass. Mr. Hendricks said the structures on the building in question clearly do not fall within the criteria and purposes of the ADB ordinance nor do they comply with the spirit of the City's height ordinance. He pointed out that the structures were built without a permit or approval from the ADB. Mr. Hendricks said he contacted the Building Official because the appellants were concerned about the project proceeding without ADB approval, and the Building Official contacted Mr. Herman and the developer by letter, advising them they were proceeding at their own risk. Mr. Hendricks said an architect looked at the building in question, and it was the architect's opinion that the equipment could be reassembled in such a way that would not necessitate recon- struction of the building. Mr. Hendricks submitted a letter to the City Clerk (marked Exhibit 2) from the architect, John Farrens, stating his opinion. Mr. Hendricks felt the developer should be denied approval and be required to redesign the roof- top to conform with the purposes and criteria of the ADB ordinance. Gerry Bookey, 200 - 2nd Ave. N., #303, Harbormaster Condominium, clarified that some of the resi- dents of the Harbormaster Condominium were the appellants and not the Harbormaster Condominium Association. Mr. Bookey said he had deep concerns over the appearance of the building in question because the roof is aesthetically inconsistent with a residential area. He said there was no question in his mind that surrounding property values have been reduced by the unsightliness of the rooftop equip- ment. Mr. Bookey reiterated that the structure and the rooftop equipment were constructed without a permit. He said the architect for the building had explained that the change in the rooftop was precipitated by an error in the original design relative to the overall height of the building. Mr. Bookey said he did not believe the neighborhood should have to live with the architect's mistakes, and the mistakes should be corrected and paid for by the person or persons responsible. EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 4 MARCH 5, 1991 Mr. Bookey reviewed the chronology of events that took place from the. time the project received initial approval until the ADB approved the rooftop items presented to them and the appeal of that decision. Mr. Bookey invited the Council to view the building in question from any level of the Harbormaster Condominium. Mr. Bookey was concerned that a precedent will be set if the rooftop equipment is allowed to remain as it is presently constructed. Councilmember Palmer noted that the builder has indicated that substitute equipment could be placed on the roof that would be under the height limit, but masking that equipment could result in more view blockage. Councilmember Palmer inquired if the appellants would accept additional view blockage. Mr. Bookey said the appellants would have to see the proposed design before re- sponding to that issue. Don Goodson, 200 - 2nd Ave. S., #F201, referred to the photographs in the Council packets. He said that is the view from his living room. Mr. Snyder noted that Mr. Herman's testimony would be limited to rebutting evidence presented by the public if he chose to give testimony following public input. Mr. Herman decided to present his testimony before public input. Mr. Herman said he has been a builder for twenty years, served on the ADB for eight years, and was Chairman of the Snohomish County Master Builders. Mr. Herman pointed out that the skylight is the largest structure on the roof but approval of that structure was not appealed. Mr. Herman said he did apply for a permit for the rooftop equipment but it is being held by the City at the current time. He reiterated that the mechanical equipment had to be constructed on the roof because an error was made in the height calculations. He said the skylight was built in accordance with City code. He noted that the skylight is 30 feet in height and the rooftop equip- ment is below 30 feet. Mr. Herman submitted a large photograph of his project under construction to the City Clerk (marked Exhibit 3) for circulation to the Council. The photograph was taken from the Harbormaster condominium. Mr. Herman said he and the architect met with representatives of the Harbormaster Condominium, and he took photographs of the building in question from the condominium. Mr. Herman said the roof is not completed yet but when the silver coating is applied, the patchwork appearance of the roof will vanish and the roof will look more uniform. In response to the appellants'. concerns regarding their property values, Mr. Herman said the building in question is valued at $1,000,000, and he believed the value of surrounding property would increase. Mr. Herman said the view from the condominium would not change significantly if the rooftop equip- ment were removed because the most prominent structure on the roof is the skylight, which was constructed in compliance with the code and will remain. Mr. Herman noted that the Harbormaster condominium was constructed under a previous code and was allowed to be 35 feet in height. He said the, residents of. the condominium look down upon the building in question because is was constructed under the 25 foot height limit. Councilmember Palmer observed that the equipment on the roof on the north elevation of the build- ing in question is visible to the condominium residents. Mr. Herman said that equipment will be screened. Councilmember Jaech inquired if a permit was obtained to construct the rooftop equipment. Mr. Herman said a building permit was applied for and a separate permit is not needed for rooftop equipment. Councilmember Jaech inquired about the letter from the Building Official. Mr. Herman explained that the City is holding the permit that the mechanical contractor applied for until the conclusion of the hearings. Councilmember Jaech requested clarification from the City Attorney because she said it appeared to her that the letter from the Building Official stated that the equipment was installed without a permit. Mr. Snyder explained that the building code provides that the project must be to EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 5 MARCH 5, 1991 compliance with all required approvals of the City. He noted that the rooftop equipment was not approved as part of the original ADB approval, and the Building Official stated in his letter that the rooftop equipment will have to be removed if ADB approval is not obtained. Councilmember Hertrich inquired if a screen could be constructed around the entirety of the build- ing to provide continuity rather than individual pitched roofs. Mr. Herman replied affirmative- ly. He reminded Councilmember Hertrich that the roof will be more continuous once the silver coating is applied. Mayor Naughten opened the public portion of the hearing. James Murphy, 200 - 2nd Ave. N., #205, said it seemed to him that the rooftop equipment and struc- tures were an afterthought. Mr. Murphy urged the Council to look at the building in question from the interior of the Harbormaster Condominium. Mr. Murphy felt that any addition or change to the roof would only add to the problem and would be an eyesore not only for.the neighborhood but for the entire community. Sydney J. Stevenson, 200 - 2nd Ave. N., #203, said the rooftop equipment is unsightly. He invit- ed the Council to view the equipment from his residence. Mr. Stevenson approximated the skylight to be five and a half feet in height. He said he did contest that structure when it was first built. Marilyn Van den Biesen, 200 - 2nd Ave. N., clarified that the photographs in the Council packets were taken from unit 201 of the Harbormaster Condominium, from 208 2nd Ave. N, unit 1 (the Puckett residence), and at 3rd Avenue North and Bell Street at approximately 4-1/2 feet above the sidewalk. Ms. Van den Biesen said the skylight was depicted as being considerably smaller than it is rela- tive to the size of the building in the original plans. Ms. Van den Biesen urged the Council to make an on -site visit before making any decision. Councilmember Hertrich inquired if the skylight was also a subject of the appeal. Mr. Snyder replied negatively. He said the skylight is vested in -so -much as it complied with the original approval and the appeal encompasses only the duct work. Ethel McNamara, 200 - 2nd Ave. N., #103, said she looks up to structures on the building in ques- tion that she thinks of as a dog run and a chicken coop. Peggy Harris, 721 Sprague St., said she has long been involved in the beautification of Edmonds. She said she looked at the subject building from the Van den Biesen residence, and it looked like a hodgepodge of afterthoughts to her. Ms. Harris felt the Council would be setting a precedent if they allow the building to stand as it exists. Merle Christensen, 701 - 12th Ave. N., said she has viewed the subject building from the Van den Biesen residence and it is a mess. She was hopeful that the Council would set a good precedent when making their decision. Peter Beck, 718 Spruce St., ADB member, said the project was originally presented to the Board with the duct work incorporated in the overall plan and it received ADB approval. He said the project has become a "problem", and he did not believe the City should live with that problem. Mr. Beck said he abstained from the final vote to approve the rooftop equipment because there was a lot of dissension amongst the neighbors. Councilmember Dwyer asked Mr. Beck his perception of why the Board ultimately approved the roof- top equipment. Mr. Beck said the Board was tired of reviewing the project and was frustrated with Staff's failure to enforce the code. Councilmember Palmer inquired if the Board approved the project with the duct work on the ground. Mr. Beck said the original plan depicted a small courtyard that incorporated the air conditioning unit in the lower level. He said the Board only concerns itself with the aesthetic quality of a project and not the mechanical make-up because they expect Staff to insure that those elements comply with the code. EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 6 MARCH 5, 1991 Joe Wagner, 114 - 2nd Ave. S., said he lives in a condominium that was constructed last year that was approved with the duct work on the roof. He felt the building in question was an improvement to the community. Mr. Wagner did not feel it was a problem to anyone in the City other than the residents of the Harbormaster Condominium. Jean Puckett, 228 - 2nd Ave. N., recalled that the architect for the project testified at the second to the last ADB meeting on the matter that they were proceeding with construction at their own expense and without a permit for rooftop venting. In response to Mr. Wagner's comment that the building in question is only a problem to the.resi- dents of the Harbormaster Condominium, Ms. Puckett said at least other twelve people have' made comments Ao her about the unsightliness of that building. Ms. Puckett said she was in complete agreement with the people who were opposed to the project. She invited the Council to view the building from her residence. Mayor Naughten closed the public portion of the hearing. Mr. Herman said the skylight on the building in question is 30 feet in height. He noted that the ADB allowed the building to be 30 feet in height subsequent to approving the skylight. Mr. Herman said he could construct a parapet around the entire building but he was unsure what it would accomplish because it would diminish the view even further. Mr. Herman reiterated that a permit was applied for to construct the building, but it is being retained by the City until the hearing is concluded Councilmember Hertrich commented that even with removal of the duct work, the skylight will re- main to be the highest structure on the roof. He wondered if the roof would be less objection- able if the skylight were removed. Mr. Snyder said that would be a question to pose to the appli- cant. He noted, however, that the skylight is vested and the applicant would have an excellent point on appeal. COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PALMER, TO REOPEN THE HEARING. MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Hertrich inquired if the applicant would consider scaling the skylight down and constructing a flat roof so the roof is more continuous. Mr. Herman said he would have to speak with the owner about removing the skylight. He noted that the top of the HVAC equipment will provide harmonious lines. He said the skylight will be twice as large because it must be covered and blend with the roof line. Mr. Herman said the equipment will probably not be noticeable when the silver coating is applied. Councilmember Wilson asked how the amended plans to place the duct work on the roof, rather than in the courtyard, were presented to the ADB. Mr.. Herman said an applicant must present a propos- al to the ADB to put screening over rooftop equipment but only has to submit a proposal for me- chanical equipment to the Building Department to obtain a permit. Councilmember Wilson inquired what proposal was originally presented to the ADB. Mr. Beck said the ADB was presented with a building with no structures on the roof other than three pitched roofs. Mr. Beck questioned the ability of a builder to construct additional structures without first obtaining approval. Mr. Snyder said ADB provisions require that any substantial change to a design be submitted to the ADB for review and approval. He said Staff determines whether or not any change is substantial. Councilmember Palmer said it appeared to him that the original drawings were not complete. He inquired if Staff made a determination that whatever change was made to the original plans was not substantial. Mr. Snyder replied negatively. He said the ADB approved the original design, but there was a subsequent change in the design which was implemented without ADB approval. Staff found those changes to be substantial and initiated enforcement proceedings which, in turn, initiated the second set of applications. Councilmember Palmer inquired if the ADB had complete drawings, including rooftop structures, upon their second review. Mr. Snyder said they had everything with the duct work but did not have plans that included the HVAC equipment. EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 7 MARCH 5, 1991 Councilmember Kasper inquired why the skylight was so high. Mr. Herman said the dining room is located beneath the skylight, and the skylight was designed to create a view. He noted that the height of the skylight was necessitated by the requirement to have a 4:12 pitched roof. Council - member Kasper inquired if the height of the skylight could structurally be reduced. Mr. Herman replied affirmatively. He noted, however, that a reduction in the height would require a vari- ance to construct a flat roof instead of a pitched roof, as required by code. Mayor Naughten closed the public portion of the hearing. Councilmember Jaech said she was involved in the process that established the height limitation. She noted that the additional height above the twenty-five foot limit was never meant to accommo- date living space. Councilmember Kasper concurred. Councilmember Palmer recommended that the Council make an on -site visit, as well as view the building in question from the Harbormaster Condominium. Mr. Snyder advised the Council to continue the hearing to a date certain if the Council wished to make an on -site visit. For the benefit of the audience, he said the Council could not take any evidence or consider any verbal comments while making that visit. Mr. Hendricks said he was willing to facilitate the site trip. Councilmember Wilson requested Mr. Hendricks to contact the Council Assistant to make arrangements. COUNCILMEMBER KASPER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JAECH, TO CONTINUE THE COUNCIL DISCUSSION TO APRIL 9, 1991 TO ALLOW COUNCIL TO MAKE A SITE TRIP. MOTION CARRIED. The meeting recessed at 9 p.m. and reconvened at 9:05 p.m. WITH PATHWAYS FOR WOMEN TO PROVIDE $30.800 IN MAILMINb rUNUJ rUK LUFQ1KUl.1IUN Ur KLbIULNIIAL )MtL[tK rAWL11T rUK nUMLLZO I-AMiLItZi LI1L J N THE C NS N AGENDA Ann Gordon, Pathways For Women, on behalf of the Board of Directors, expressed deep appreciation for the City's willingness to support the project. Mr. Gordon was unclear whether the Council wanted to use City funds for acquisition of the build- ing or construction of the project. She said that the contract is drafted so that the funds are to be used before June 1, 1991 for construction. She explained that construction cannot begin before July 1 because Block grant funds are not available until after July 1. However, she said acquisition of the building would take place before June 1. City Attorney Scott Snyder noted that paragraph 2 of the contract states, "...if sufficient funds have been obtained by June 1, 1991 from other public and private sources to complete construction of the residential structure":. He said Pathways For Women only has to obtain written commitments for money to acquire the land and not to construct the project. Councilmember Dwyer said the issue of whether the City's funds will be used for acquisition or construction was not of concern to the Council. He said what was important to the Council was an assurance that the City's money will be used to shelter homeless people. If the proposed project does not come to fruition, he said the City would like to know that by a certain date so it can redirect City funds to shelter homeless people. Ms. Gordon said she must obtain a local commit- ment in order to receive the $350,000 from the Washington State Housing Trust Fund. She said she was hoping to raise $175,000 from local governments in South Snohomish County primarily because the Snohomish County Trust Fund is also asking for a local commitment. Ms. Gordon said the City could leave the City's money pending for construction contingent upon project funding available by July 1 or allow the funds to be available sooner for acquisition. Councilmember Dwyer in- quired if acquisition would take place at a time when it may not be known if resources had been obtained to complete the project. Councilmember Jaech inquired when Ms. Gordon would know for certain that the necessary commit- ments had been obtained and the project would proceed. Ms. Gordon said she did not have a date certain when the CDBG grant would be awarded other than some time in July. In addition, she said Snohomish County Trust funds allocated money last year for projects, but those funds are not available yet because of a legal issue. Councilmember Dwyer reiterated that Ms. Gordon was concerned abut construction but the Council was only concerned about the commitments. EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 8 MARCH 5, 1991 Ms. Gordon said she was unsure of the Council's intent at the first presentation but was now clear of their intent. Ms. Gordon requested an extension from June 1 to July 10, 1991. COUNCILMEMBER DWYER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER KASPER, TO APPROVE ITEM (J) WITH AN AMEND- MENT TO THE CONTRACT ON PAGE 2, PARAGRAPH 2, FROM JUNE 1, 1991 TO JULY 10, 1991. MOTION CARRIED. Mr. Snyder noted that paragraph 4 of the contract would also reflect a change in the June 1 date to July 10, 1991. ON PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION REGARDING PROPOSED REZONE OF PROPERTY LOCATED VIEW DR. AND 176TH ST. S.W. - - I� Current Planning Supervisor Jeff Wilson reported that on December 12, 1990, the Planning Board held a hearing on the request of Kenneth Stevenson to rezone property located at Olympic View Drive and 176th St. S.W. from RS-12 to RS-8. The Board voted unanimously to approve the rezone, subject to additional review of the original SEPA determination by Staff. On February 5, 1990, Mr. Wilson said the City issued a supplemental Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (MDNS) with revised conditions that: 1) the applicant dedicate 10 feet of right- of-way along 176th St. S.W., and 2) all access to the properties come off of 176th St. S.W., with no access off of Olympic View Drive. Mr. Wilson noted that a copy of the Planning Board recommendation, the minutes from the Planning Board meeting, the supplemental MDNS, quite claim deed, and a vicinity map were included in the Council packets. Councilmember Palmer referred to page 2 of the Planning Board minutes in which former Planning Division Manager Mary Lou Block noted that the slopes on the property in question were over 15% in some areas and, as a result, the property would fall under the regulations for a landslide hazard area. Councilmember Palmer said one of his concerns was that the lot coverage could be squeezed into a smaller envelope because part of a lot may not be developable due to the slope. He inquired if Staff examined that issue and was comfortable with that use. Community Services Director Peter Hahn said review of a geotechnical engineer will be necessary to certify that the property can be developed in the manner proposed. Councilmember Palmer was concerned that the rezone, if granted, not be the impetus for a series of variance requests. City Attorney Scott Snyder noted that the proposed rezone would be presented to the Council again as a subdivision process, which requires that all lots be buildable. Councilmember Kasper inquired if the City was capable of limiting the number of lots that can be developed on that site. Mr. Snyder said in one sense, the City is not limiting the development on a contract rezone but in another sense, the developer must go through the subdivision or PRO process and satisfy the City that the lots are buildable and, in turn, satisfy the Building Official through the building permit process. Councilmember Dwyer was concerned that the parcel could be developed through the PRD process, forcing the homes closer together because of the sloped area, which could be designated as common area. Mr. Snyder said the Council could proceed in one of two ways: 1) deny the request and indicate that the Council would be considerate of a contract rezone after Councilmember Dwyer's concern had been reviewed through the SEPA process, or 2) approve the rezone with the reservation as to how many residences and/or lot would be placed on the project through the subdivision or PRO process. Councilmember Kasper inquired if the developer could commit to develop not more than three lots. Mr. Snyder said he could commit an offer of contract rezone, but Mr. Snyder pointed out that that issue has not been reviewed by the Planning Board. Kenneth Stevenson, 18403 - 72nd Ave. W., said there will not be enough square footage to develop four lots because of the ten foot dedication along 176th. Mr. Stevenson submitted a drawing to the City Clerk (marked Exhibit 1) for distribution to the Council of a three -lot development that is proposed. Mr. Stevenson noted that there is very little area that is over a 15% slope. Mayor Naughten opened the public portion of the hearing. No input was offered. Mayor Naughten closed the public portion of the hearing. EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 9 MARCH 5, 1991 COUNCILMEMBER DWYER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER KASPER, TO ADOPT THE PLANNING BOARD'S RECOM- MENDATION AND DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE THE NECESSARY ORDINANCE INCORPORATING THE COUN- CIL'S CONCERNS. Councilmember Palmer inquired if the motion included the requirements of the supplemental MONS. Mr. Wilson replied affirmatively. MOTION CARRIED. P REVIEW OF PUBLIC WORKS FUNDING ALLOCATION Community Services Director Peter Hahn reported that when the City began acquiring land for the Public Works Facility, the Council split the cost equally between the General Fund and the Com- bined Utility (Water/Sewer). Several Councilmembers requested that Staff prepare a comprehensive analysis of the actual cost allocation. Since that time, Mr. Hahn said Staff has begun quantify- ing how the actual facility will be used and to which funds those uses would be allocated. By necessity, he said the analysis is only preliminary and cannot be finalized until after design and construction are completed. Mr. Hahn said the analysis revealed that the General Fund allocation will be significantly re- duced from 50% to approximately 21%, which means that the General Fund has "overpaid" for the property acquisition and will be reimbursed from other funds. Mr. Hahn recommended that the Council formally acknowledge the methodology and intent of the financing plan as suggested the following wording for a motion: "The final total costs of the Public Works Operations Facility, including, but not limited to, land acquisition, design, site work, off -site improvements, and construction, will be allocated on the basis of a model which includes at least three elements: 1) actual amount of space use of the facility by each relevant element of the Public Works Division; 2) the actual costs of the spaces occupied by these uses; and 3) funding of each use by the three major City funds (General Fund, Street Fund, and Combined Utility Fund). Furthermore, while it is recognized that such cost accounting cannot be implement- ed until after the facility is constructed and paid for, the City may elect to temporarily fund project costs from any of the funds. Councilmember Hertrich inquired if the allocation of funding would differ if a fire station were constructed on the site. Mr. Hahn replied affirmatively. Councilmember Hertrich inquired if allocation of the funds is based on 100% use of the property. Mr. Hahn said even the unused portions of the property (i.e., buffering) will be identified for a particular use. Councilmember Wilson said the Street fund is also a fragile fund and many street improvements are not being accomplished. He inquired why the Combined Utility Fund could not be used. He said the City cannot afford to rob the Street Fund. Mr. Hahn said that issue was a legal issue and should be addressed by the City Attorney if the Council opted to use the Combined Utility Fund. He noted that not all of the money from the Metro revenues, which will total $10,000,000 at the end of the decade, has to be kept in the Combined Utility FUND. Mr. Hahn said it is the recommendation of Staff to authorize a motion of intent along the lines recommended above. COUNCILMEMBER DWYER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER KASPER FOR DISCUSSION, TO PASS A MOTION OF INTENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RECOMMENDED ACTION AND DIRECT STAFF TO PROVIDE THE COUNCIL WITH A RESOLUTION CONSISTENT WITH THE WORDING SUGGESTED BY STAFF IN THE AFOREMENTIONED PARAGRAPH. Councilmember Kasper inquired if monies would no longer be allocated from the General Fund. Mr. Hahn replied negatively. He said *final allocation of costs will be known only upon completion of the project. MOTION CARRIED WITH COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST OPPOSED. REVIEW OF DEVELOPMENT FEES Community Services Director Peter Hahn noted that the Community Services Department collects a number of fees related to the processing of various permits -and actions related to development, i.e., building permit fees, zoning and planning fees, and public works or engineering fees. Mr. Hahn said building permit fees have been addressed by the Council through the adoption in 1987 of a 100% direct cost recovery ordinance. He said no change is recommended in these fees. EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 10 MARCH 5, 1991 Mr. Hahn said other miscellaneous fees, however, have no consistent cost recovery policy because it is much more difficult to determine the "correct" balance between private and public interests. Mr. Hahn said the total revenue generated by these fees is approximately $32,000 annually and has not increased since 1985. While the revenue is not very high compared with the building permit fees, he said there should be a consistent policy of cost recovery. He suggested that the follow- ing policies be considered: 1) The City should compare i&- development fees to other jurisdictions on a regular basis. 2) The fee levels should reflect inflationary cost increases, at a minimum, from year to year. #) A methodology might be developed for assessing actual costs imposed on the City by these permits. Mr. Hahn said it will take some time to implement items 1 and 3 because the Planning Manager's position is vacant at the present time but in the interim, he recommended that the City implement a 5.5% increase for non -building fees for development related services. Councilmember Hertrich noted that geotechnical fees were not included in the building permit fees that were included in the Council packets. He said the City only recovers 50% of those fees, and he believed recovery should be at 100%. Mr. Hahn reminded Councilmember Hertrich that the Coun- cil had set a policy when the Meadowdale Committee was formed to split the fees 50%. If the Council chose to change that policy, he said they could do so at any time. COUNCILMEMBER HERTRICH MOVED TO RECOVER GEOTECHNICAL FEES BY 100%. MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. City Attorney Scott Snyder noted that the issue was hotly debated by citizens because they were paying $20,000 to $30,000 to have a geotechnical report prepared, and they felt the City should assist in the $2,000 fee for the City to review that report. Councilmember Hertrich requested that he be provided with the amount of money that the City is reimbursed for geotechnical review and how much it expends on those reviews. Councilmember Hertrich believed the City should strive to recover 100% of its costs. Mr. Hahn said some of the activities are related to protecting the public, and those costs are typically not recovered at 100%. COUNCILMEMBER DWYER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER'KASPER, TO AUTHORIZE AN ACROSS-THE-BOARD INCREASE OF 5.5% TO THE NON -BUILDING FEES FOR DEVELOPMENT -RELATED SERVICES. MOTION CARRIED. Mr. Snyder inquired when the Council would like the ordinance to become effective. Councilmember Dwyer replied July 1, 1991. The Council recessed to an executive session at 9:57 p.m. to discuss a legal matter and property matter. The Council reconvened at 10:10 p.m., at which time COUNCILMEMBER JAECH MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER HERTRICH, TO EXTEND THE MEETING TO 10:30 P.M. MOTION CARRIED. With regard to Item (L) on the agenda, REPORT ON BIDS FOR ELECTROSTATIC ENGINEERING COPIER AND AWARD OF CONTRACT TO KUKER-RANKIN ($8,980.60, INCLUDING SALES TAX), the Council had received a challenge to the award which they had discussed in Executive Session. City Attorney Scott Snyder said the staff would prepare a spreadsheet for the meeting of March 19, 1991 and report to the Council regarding the low bidder. COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER KAS- PER, TO CONTINUE THAT ITEM TO MARCH 19, 1991. MOTION CARRIED. MAYOR Mayor Naughten asked how much longer the Council wished to have the yellow ribbons and flags displayed in the City in view of changes in the Persian Gulf conflict. Councilmember Jaech said they should stay until the troops come home. In view of the return of prisoners of war and rapid changes occurring, there was a consensus to leave them up until Easter. week. Mayor Naughten announced that the Fire Chief screening would begin the following day with the committee reviewing the applications. COUNCIL /Councilmember Palmer observed that the Enterprise newspaper this date carried an announcement of the Mayor's intent to run for a thir term. He said that action is counter to actions the 3. /2A�W_ EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 11 MARCH 5, 1991 Council has taken to -date. He addressed the Mayor, saying "By doing so you have crossed an impor- tant line and placed -yourself at odds with this Council." Councilmember Wilson addressed one of the items discussed in Executive Session. COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST, TO ACCEPT THE OFFER OF THE HUBBARD FOUNDATION (A $50,000 CASH DONATION TO THE CITY OF EDMONDS FOR USE IN ITS PERMANENT CEMETERY ENDOWMENT FUND, PROVIDED THE CITY MATCH THAT AMOUNT BY ALLOCATING FROM ITS BUDGET $50,000 OF ITS OWN MONEY TO THE SAME ENDOWMENT FUND) AND TAKE THE MONEY ($50,000) FROM THE COUNCIL CONTINGENCY FUND, SUBJECT TO A PARAGRAPH IN THEIR LETTER THAT THE ENDOWMENT FUNDS WILL ONLY BE USED FOR MAINTENANCE PURPOSES (THE CITY ATTORNEY WILL DRAFT THE APPROPRIATE DOCUMENT). MOTION CARRIED. , Councilmember Nordquist observed that in the last three or four months there had been flooding of the street by the sewer treatment plant on three occasions. He said the Health District has g-, investigated and their investigation is still ongoing. He said the pipe that apparently goes Qpir�" from the plant to the Sound is not large enough and the pump has not been built yet to pump the effluent to the Sound (it is on gravity flow currently). Councilmember Nordquist said the Health District will be watching to see if it occurs again, and he hoped the pump would be built soon. Councilmember Kasper noted that the consensus was that Edmonds is getting excess flows from Lynn- wood, and he asked why that was. Councilmember Nordquist said the excess flows are going from Lynnwood to Mountlake Terrace to Edmonds. Councilmember Hertrich said there would be a regional gathering of elected officials the follow- ing day in Bellevue (related to PSCOG) and he asked if there was any value in someone attending. The consensus was that there was not. Councilmember Hertrich referred to the February 27, 1991 staff minutes and said he was amazed to read that we have a Consultant Selection Committee with Pat Harris on it regarding a consultant decision for the Southwest County Park Plan. He said he is on the Consultant Selection Committee and he did not receive a notice. Community Services Director Peter Hahn responded that this was not in reference to the City's committee, but that it was a County matter and a County committee to which Pat Harris had been invited to be a member. C �v�COUNCILMEMBER JAECH MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DWYER, TO EXCUSE THE LAST TWO ABSENCES OF COUNCILMEMBER WILSON. MOTION CARRIED. COUNCILMEMBER HERTRICH MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON, TO EXCUSE THE ABSENCE LAST WEEK OF COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST. MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Wilson expressed thanks for the flowers the Mayor had sent him on behalf of the City when he recently lost his father. There was no further business to come before the Council, and the meeting adjourned at 10:25 p.m. THESE MINUTES SUBJECT TO MARCH 19, 1991 APPROVAL. JAC UELINE G."PARRETT, City Clerk �• r LARRY S. NAUGHTEN, Mayor EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 12 MARCH 5, 1991 AGENDA EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL PLAZA MEETING ROOM -LIBRARY BUILDING 7 :0 0 - � 10:00 P.M. MARCH 5, 1991 CALL TO ORDER FLAG SALUTE 1. CONSENT AGENDA (A) ROLL CALL - (B) APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 12, FEBRUARY 19, AND FEBRUARY 26, 1991 (C) AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE EIGHT (8) VEHICLES ON 1991 REPLACEMENT PROGRAM (D) AUTHORIZATION TO INITIATE CONSULTANT SELECTION PROCESS FOR DESIGN OF PUBLIC WORKS FACILITY (E) AUTHORIZATION TO ACCEPT THE LOWEST QUOTE TO CARPET OFFICE AREA IN FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER ($2,183.64, INCLUDING SALES TAX) (F) PROPOSED ORDINANCE 2825 EXPANDING AND AMENDING EDMONDS CITY CODE CHAPTER 5..38, OFFENSES AGAINST THE -PUBLIC MORALS (G) PROPOSED RESOLUTION 715 APPROVING CITY ENGINEER'S -MAP AS OFFICIAL RECORD OF LOCATION AND BOUNDARIES OF PUBLIC PARKS AND AREAS WITHIN 1,000' OF PUBLIC PARKS IN ORDER TO IMPLEMENT ENHANCED PENALTIES FOR UNLAWFUL DRUG ACTIVITIES IN THOSE AREAS (H) AUTHORIZATION TO CALL FOR BIDS FOR ONE (1) THREE-QUARTER TON PICKUP TRUCK FOR TREATMENT PLANT ($169'000) (I) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN FIVE-YEAR LEASE EXTENSION FOR EDMONDS MUSEUM (J) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN CONTRACT FOR FUNDING WITH PATHWAYS FOR WOMEN TO PROVIDE $30,800 IN MATCHING FUNDS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF RESIDENTIAL SHELTER FACILITY FOR HOMELESS FAMILIES (K) AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE LANIER FAXWRITER 4000 FROM STATE CONTRACT FOR PUBLIC WORKS ($2,646.49) (L) REPORT ON BIDS FOR ELECTROSTATIC ENGINEERING COPIER AND AWARD OF CONTRACT TO KUKER-RANKIN ($8,980.60, INCLUDING SALES TAX) . •2. AUDIENCE 3. HEARING ON APPEAL OF ARCHITECTURAL - DESIGN -BOARD DECISION REGARDING (45 MINUTES) ROOFTOP EQUIPMENT ON APARTMENT BUILDING AT 207 SECOND AVE. N. (APPELLANT: HARBORMASTER CONDOMINIUM ASSN./APPLICANT: DOUG HERMAN; FILE AP-3-91/ADB=102-90) 4. HEARING ON PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION REGARDING PROPOSED REZONE OF (20 MINUTES) PROPERTY LOCATED AT OLYMPIC VIEW DR. AND 176TH ST. S.W. (ADDRESSES: 17510 OLYMPIC VIEW DR., 6815 176TH ST. S.W., AND 6831 176TH ST. S.W.) FROM RS-12 TO RS-8 (FILE R-4-90/APPLICANT: KENNETH STEVENSON) 5. REVIEW PUBLIC WORKS FUNDING ALLOCATION (15 MINUTES) 6. REVIEW OF DEVELOPMENT FEES (30 MINUTES) 7. MAYOR 8. COUNCIL THE PUBLIC IS INVITED TO ATTEND