04/24/2001 City CouncilEDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES
April 24, 2001
The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Gary Haakenson in the
Council Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, followed by 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
Christopher Davis, Councilmember
Richard Marin, Councilmember
ALSO PRESENT
Tyler Fisher, Student Representative
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
STAFF PRESENT
John Westfall, Fire Marshal
Greg Wean, Acting Police Chief
Duane Bowman, Development Serv. Director
Stephen Clifton, Community Services Director
Peggy Hetzler, Administrative Services Director
Rob Chave, Planning Manager
Dave Gebert, City Engineer
Scott Snyder, City Attorney
Sandy Chase, City Clerk
Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst.
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, FOR
APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
Councilmember Plunkett requested Item D be removed from the Consent Agenda. Council President
Earling requested Item B be removed.
COUNCILMEMBER MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, FOR
APPROVAL OF THE BALANCE OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows:
(A) ROLL CALL
:Approve (C) APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #47697 THROUGH #47834 FOR THE WEEK OF
Maim APRIL 16, 2001, IN THE AMOUNT OF $176,191.48. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL
Checks DIRECT DEPOSITS AND CHECKS #1785 THROUGH #1007 FOR THE PERIOD APRIL
1 THROUGH APRIL 15, 2001, IN THE AMOUNT OF $769,183.17
Dffice (E) AUTHORIZATION TO ADVERTISE FOR REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) TO
Supplies
upplies PROVIDE OFFICE SUPPLIES, FURNISHINGS, EQUIPMENT AND PRINTING
SERVICES
n #998 (F) RESOLUTION NO. 998 COMMENDING STUDENT REPRESENTATIVE TYLER
dent
FISHER FOR HIS SERVICE
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 24, 2001
Page 1
item B. ApprOV21 of City Council Meetina Minutes of April 17 2001
Council President Earling requested his reference to the old Edmonds-Woodway High School in the third
paragraph on page 14 be changed to the old Edmonds High School.
Approve COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MILLER,
4/17/01 FOR APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEM B AS CORRECTED. MOTION CARRIED
Minutes as
Corrected UNANIMOUSLY. The item approved is as follows:
(B) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF APRIL 17, 2001
all Item D: Reiort_on the General Fund and Other Selected Funds Financial Position for the Ouarter Ending
n Report March 2001
Fund R
Councilmember Plunkett noted the agenda memo indicated General Fund revenues in total exceeded
projections for the quarter by approximately 14%, due primarily to early receipt of property tax revenue.
He requested clarification that although there had been early receipt of property tax revenues during the
first quarter, unanticipated additional revenue was not anticipated from this source by year-end.
Administrative Services Director Peggy Hetzler confirmed property tax revenue was expected to be close
to the projected amounts. She said the early receipt may be due to property owners paying property taxes
early or making late payments.
Councilmember Petso noted the Other Intergovernmental Revenue was $200,000 less than projected.
Ms. Hetzler explained projections were based on the previous year; payment from Fire District #1 for fire
services in the Esperance area was provided during the first quarter in 2000 but was not receiving during
the first quarter this year. Further, payment for security from Stevens Hospital was not received during
the first quarter.
COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, FOR
APPROVAL OF ITEM D. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The item approved is as
follows:
(D) REPORT ON THE GENERAL FUND AND OTHER SELECTED FUNDS FINANCIAL
POSITION FOR THE QUARTER ENDING MARCH 2O01
3. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
(Library Al Rutledge, 7101 Lake Ballinger Way, Edmonds, noted the Town Meeting on Saturday regarding
Annexation library annexation was well attended. He commented the City did not have the same administration as it
had in the past and many City employees have retired over the past four years. He supported annexation
to the Sno-Isle Library District but hoped there was adequate funds in the budget to fund the library if the
annexation vote was not approved.
Parking Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, Edmonds, referred to Agenda Item 8 (Work Session on the
Standards Planning Board Recommendation Regarding Parking Standards for All Zoning Classifications Except the
Library BC Zone), and urged the Council not to reduce parking requirements. He noted many library users at the
.Annexation Town Meeting regarding annexation to the Sno-Isle Library District were not in favor of increased
taxation. He pointed out taxes would increase if annexation to Sno-Isle was approved. Mr. Hertrich
(Marina expressed concern that public participation regarding the purchase of Marina Beach was not advertised
Beach on the April 3 agenda. Yet, public comment was taken and supporters were the only ones who provided
input. He said this item should have been delayed to allow the opportunity for public participation to be
advertised.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 24, 2001
Page 2
in Jack Bevan, 19210 94th W, Edmonds, referred to Dick Beselin's reference to noise during the
istics discussion of the Convention/Conference/Special Events and Performing Arts Center at the April 17
Council meeting and said when Sound Transit was fully operational, there would be 740 sound blasts
from the railroad each day, an amount he felt was too high. He commented when traveling via Amtrak
last year between Chicago and Milwaukee, the Engineer advised him there would not be any whistle
blasts; the crossings had barriers but no whistles.
train Elaine Yard, 9209 Olympic View Drive, Edmonds, voiced her concern regarding train whistles and the
whistles accompanying shaking that occurs as late as 1:30 a.m. She asked whether train speeds, especially late at
night, could be modified.
Thanking 4. PRESENTATION OF PLAQUE AND RESOLUTION TO TYLER FISHER, STUDENT
Student Rep. REPRESENTATIVE
Oyler Fisher
Council President Earling explained there had been a tradition in Edmonds over the past several years of
having a Student Representative on an alternating basis from Edmonds-Woodway and Meadowdale High
Schools. For the past semester, the Council had the privilege of having Tyler Fisher from Edmonds-
Woodway High School participate as the Student Representative. Council President Earling explained
participating as a Student Representative was one of many ways a student could fulfill the requirement
for volunteer hours. Council President Earling read a resolution commending Tyler Fisher for his service
as Student Representative on the Edmonds City Council from January — April 2001.
Student Representative Tyler Fisher thanked the Council for this great experience. He reported he
learned how local government works as well as how important it was to participate in community
decision making. As a result of the experience, he learned he has a responsibility as a citizen in Edmonds
to be active in the community.
Public 5. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING ON A PROPOSED DRAFT ORDINANCE TO ESTABLISH A
Facilities PUBLIC FACILITIES DISTRICT TO STUDY THE MARKET DEMAND AND FEASIBILITY OF,
District
AND POSSIBLY DEVELOP, A CONFERENCE/CONVENTION/SPECIAL EVENTS CENTER,
AND PERFORMING ARTS CENTER WITHIN THE CITY OF EDMONDS
Community Services Director Stephen Clifton explained at the April 17 Council meeting, the Council
continued the public hearing on a draft Public Facilities District (PFD) ordinance until April 24. The
Council directed staff to determine the cost of staff time and resources that may be necessary to assist a
PFD as well as the cost of a market demand and feasibility study for the entire City rather than just the
general downtown business district.
As requested, City staff contacted City representatives in Lynnwood, Vancouver as well as several
consultants. Staff resources were estimated as follows:
Finance Director — an average of 5 —10 hours per week
Legal Assistance — Phase 1 (drafting the PFD chapter and attending meetings, setting up the
PFD, drafting an interlocal with the City, and drafting RFQ documents): 40 — 80 hours or $6,000
- $12,000. A question was raised whether Snohomish County forming a PFD prior to Edmonds
formation of a PFD would preclude the City's PFD from collecting the .033% sales and use tax.
Legal representatives indicated there were no timing provisions in PFD legislation. However, if
Snohomish County did challenge the PFD's receipt of the .033% sales and use tax,
approximately $8,000 - $10,000 for potential litigation may be required.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 24, 2001
Page 3
Phase 2 (subsequent to completion of the market demand and feasibility study): $20,000 -
$22,000 for bond counsel services for additional tax levy (if called for) in the amount of $10
million
Phase 3 (drafting public/private partnership contract documents, condemnation or property
acquisition, construction contracts, etc.): $15,000 - $25,000
+ Economic Development Staff — an average of 20 — 22 hours per week. Mr. Clifton explained
Lynnwood's Economic Development Director spent 56% of his time in 2000 on PFD matters and
an additional 100 hours by other staff members.
Regarding matching funds, Mr. Clifton explained if the PFD was in existence in 2001 and collecting a
sales and use tax, it was estimated the PFD would receive $168,000 with a required local match of
$56,000. If the PFD were formed May through December 2001, approximately $34,469 would be
required in a matching amount.
Regarding the Market Demand and Feasibility Study, Mr. Clifton spoke with two consultants including
PKF who performed the study for Lynnwood. PKF charged the PFD $47,000 and estimated the cost for
a study of the Edmonds general downtown area would be $45,000 - $50,000 and $60,000 - $70,000 for a
City-wide study.
Mr. Clifton noted PFD legislation was relatively new, adopted in 1999, and few cities and/or consultants
have extensive experience with the legislation. Therefore, the above estimates were staff s best guess at
what a PFD might need.
Council President Earling asked the cost if a specific corridor such as Hwy. 99 from the Snohomish/King
County line to 220th were selected. Mr. Clifton said the consultant estimated the cost would be $60,000.
Councilmember Orvis asked if the City's funding of a market demand and feasibility study would be
considered matching funds. Mr. Clifton answered any contribution to the PFD would be considered
matching funds.
Councilmember Petso asked whether the PFD could pay the legal fees necessary to set up the PFD. Mr.
Clifton answered yes, noting in some cities the PFD was using the .033% sales and use tax to pay legal
expenses. Councilmember Petso asked whether staff time could be considered as an in -kind contribution.
Mr. Clifton answered in -kind services were allowed as matching funds.
Councilmember Marin referred to the estimated staff time and asked whether the cost of those hours had
been calculated. He also asked whether City staff could afford that amount of time away from their
regular duties. Mayor Haakenson said staff could not afford that time away from regular duties. Mr.
Clifton said 10 hours per week for the Finance Director represented 25% of her work week; 25% of a
$90,000 salary would equate to approximately $23,000 per year. Mayor Haakenson clarified the
Assistant Finance Director had been replaced recently but the City did not have an Economic
Development Director and Mr. Clifton was already overworked, particularly by his research regarding
establishing a PFD. Councilmember Marin asked how the City would accommodate this additional
burden. Mayor Haakenson said he would deal with it however the Council directed.
Councilmember Plunkett commented the concerns raised by Councilmember Marin did not need to be
resolved tonight. Mr. Clifton said if the Council wanted the market demand and feasibility study to begin
soon, City staff would need to oversee the RFQ process, therefore, some staff time would need to be
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 24, 2001
Page 4
dedicated to that task. He said if the study did not begin until the PFD was formed, City staff would only
need to oversee the contracting for the study. Councilmember Plunkett commented the Council could
form the PFD tonight and address the staffing issues in the near future. Mr. Clifton agreed, however,
depending on when the Council wanted the study to begin would determine the amount of staff time
necessary. He commented delaying the onset of the study until the PFD would further reduce the one
year, eight months before construction must begin.
Councilmember Petso asked whether additional staff would be necessary to form the PFD or staff would
be taken away from other important duties. Mayor Haakenson answered if Council wanted staff to
perform these tasks, a list of projects and staff working on those projects would be provided and Council
could choose.
Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the continued public hearing. He read an
email received from the Fine Arts Center of Edmonds, signed by Michael Smith, urging the Council
to approve the PFD.
Mayor Haakenson also read a letter from Darlene McLellan, 22615 92"d Avenue W, Edmonds, that
said the feasibility study for several locations throughout the City provided an opportunity to have
answers resolved for the community. She noted a study of the entire City was not prudent but supported
a study area broader than shown in the current proposal. She recommended consideration be given to the
old Woodway High School site. She said the Cultural Arts Plan, currently under revision, would provide
an adequate list of sites to be considered. The development of a PFD to implement a study was the most
reasonable format for the community. She referred to the comment made last week regarding not moving
ahead precipitously and recalled numerous processes and years of study that described Edmonds as an
arts community, commenting this may be the time to see if it really was. She urged the City to use this
opportunity to address issues in a timely manner. She said approval of the formation of a PFD should be
with a view to the long-range potential of a project, not just the results of the feasibility study.
Natalie Shippen, 1022 Euclid, Edmonds, did not support conducting a market demand and feasibility
study, pointing out it had been done exhaustively before and failed twice when presented to the public.
She referred to the study conducted for the Cascade Arts District and an architectural study conducted for
the Puget Sound Christian College for renovation of the existing junior high auditorium, noting the 3CH
PAC Committee did not examine these two studies. She read from the Cascade Arts District study that
there was little or no current need for a convention center since there were not enough hotel/motel rooms
in the area to attract large conventions and that even in the major convention cities, business was
accommodated in the host hotel rather than in a public facility. The study also indicated that with few
exceptions cities and communities with a varied menu of performances and strong performing arts
infrastructure have devoted attention to the nurturing and cultivation of the program base first with
facility development following, not leading programs. The study further stated good productions could
be staged in marginal or quite poor facilities but when facilities were developed first with inappropriate
attention to the available program base, facility management was under intense pressure to fill the empty
program calendar to avoid public criticism and ease financial pressures.
As the three minutes allotted for public comment had expired, Mayor Haakenson requested Ms. Shippen
summarize her comments. Ms. Shippen commented the study conducted for the Cascade Arts District
cost $260,000.
Council President Earling asked when the study for the Cascade Arts District was conducted. Ms.
Shippen answered 1985. She recommended the 3CH PAC Committee review the report.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 24, 2001
Page 5
Al Rutledge, 7101 Lake Ballinger Way, Edmonds, representing the Kiwanis Club, spoke in support of
the proposal to establish a PFD and recommended a representative from the Kiwanis be included on the
board.
Nancie Wood, 19107 Ocean Avenue, Edmonds, spoke in support of the formation of a PFD. She said
the PFD legislation was innovative and would allow the community to proceed in an orderly manner
through the process toward feasibility and eventually a facility. She telephoned approximately 20 people
today, music teachers, dancers, organists, etc., and although most did not know about this issue until she
described it, they concurred with the formation of a PFD. She said everyone thought of Edmonds as an
artists' community and the PFD would provide an opportunity to see if it really was and to provide a
facility to support the arts.
Leigh -Ann Hafford, 18425 High Street, Edmonds, spoke in support of the development of a PFD. She
encouraged the Council to consider the location and not extend the study to too many locations. She
preferred the facility be located in downtown Edmonds because Edmonds' downtown could become
more vibrant in the future and Hwy. 99 had its own character. She encouraged the Council to think of the
future, 25+ years ahead, because the feasibility study would show whether the area could support a
facility that promoted arts.
Joan Longstaff, 524 Main Street, Edmonds, encouraged the Council to establish the PFD. Although
Edmonds was known as an arts community, she said it did not support arts. She agreed the study did not
need to encompass the entire City but possible locations such as Hwy. 99 corridor and the downtown
corridor should be identified for study.
GayLynn Beighton, 6307 1471h Street SW, Edmonds, Chair of the Economic Development Committee,
Greater Edmonds Chamber of Commerce, said the Chamber Board supported the formation of a PFD to
study the market demand and feasibility of a Conference/Convention/Special Events/Performing Arts
Center in the City. The Chamber recommended the study not be limited to the bowl area but include the
entire city limits. The Chamber also requested the consulting firm selected have current regional
experience in this discipline.
J. B. Halverson, 1042 Third Avenue S, Edmonds, said this was an opportunity to affect change in a
positive way for the community, and would be foolish not to take that opportunity. She referred to
Everett was an example of a city that had a vibrant downtown 30 years ago that did not remain vital
although there were many opportunities. Conversely, Seattle, when they had the opportunity to host the
Worlds Fair in the 1960s, built a remarkable venue in spite of negative reaction to the project. She noted
downtown Edmonds was a jewel and urged the Council to form the PFD and focus the study on the
downtown core.
Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, Edmonds, referred to the two negative examples that had been
mentioned, program base and Lynnwood's study, noting that although Lynnwood had more space and
more money, the proposal failed. He referred to Councilmember Plunkett's comment that the issues did
not need to be resolved tonight, noting if the program began, the Council must determine how it would be
funded, particularly in view of the City's budget problems. He guaranteed the proposal would not
succeed unless the City was willing to endorse 70-foot high rise buildings in downtown Edmonds. If the
study was to be conducted, he supported studying the entire City. He cautioned that a vote in favor of
"Mr. Dykes' 70-foot high buildings" was a vote for a Councilmembers' demise in the election because
they would be labeled "high rise."
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 24, 2001
Page 6
Elaine Yard, 9209 Olympic View Drive, Edmonds, commented the newspaper reported Lynnwood
recently finished a study regarding a convention center that indicated it was too expensive. She noted
Lynnwood had a broader tax base than Edmonds. She suggested Edmonds and Lynwood jointly develop
a convention center on Hwy. 99. She said possibly a joint venture could have enough programs and
enough funding.
Quentin Clark, 19423 861h Avenue W, Edmonds, spoke in support of the formation of a PFD for the
purpose of initiating a study. He described his involvement in the community including serving on the
3C14PAC committee, the Chamber of Commerce's Economic Develop Committee and owning and
operating a business. He said without knowing the facts, the Council could not make an informed
decision and the PFD would assist with obtaining the facts. This was a rare window of opportunity
because a funding mechanism was available, there was a cooperative spirit at the Port and transit systems
as well as cooperation from the private sector. He recommended the study consider a broader area than
just the Al Dykes' property but said Mr. Dykes' property may be the best opportunity and it provided the
necessary link with the downtown and waterfront. The study should be confined to the bowl area as the
downtown area would draw visitors but other areas would not. He shared the frustration with numerous
studies and lack of follow-through, pointing out the need to follow through with recommendations made
by the PFD. He said there was adequate time to complete this project and urged the City to take the
necessary risk to take positive action toward the long-term economic vitality of the City.
Tony Shapiro, 600 Main Street, Edmonds, said the prospect of a regional center was very enticing and
could enhance the City dramatically. He pointed out major hurdles the City faced, primarily schedule,
location and cost. He said 18 months to break ground was exceedingly tight as design and decision -
making often take approximately as long as construction. For a $30 million project, one could anticipate
24 months for construction and a like amount of time for design and decision. He said the time necessary
to form the PFD as well as the design process was a major hurdle. He questioned whether the City was
able to absorb the cost of establishing the PFD. He recognized staffs time was very short and questioned
how additional burdens could be placed on existing staff with the current funding. Regarding the
location, he said downtown was already somewhat vibrant but the only sites were the Al Dykes property
and the Puget Sound Christian College. He pointed out concerns with the Dykes' property particularly
for performing arts and hotel due to acoustics. He said the City's ability to obtain a quiet zone was
extremely remote due to safety problems at the crossings. Even if the City was able to obtain a quiet
zone, the vibrations from the trains would be difficult to overcome. He supported broadening the scope
of the study to areas outside the bowl.
Helen Wilkins, 9029 240th Street SW, Edmonds, Artistic Director of Olympic Ballet, encouraged the
Council to form a PFD and move forward with Edmonds' image. She said Olympic Ballet has been
forced to perform in Bellevue, Seattle and Everett, often to sold -out theaters of 4500 seats, due to poor
facilities in Edmonds.
Rich Demeroutis, 921 Pine Street, Edmonds, asked what the parameters were for the feasibility study.
He reiterated the time frame for this project was very short, noting it seemed the process was set up to
fail so that the Dykes' property would be the only one viable option since he already had drawings
prepared. He requested the feasibility study address building a structure within the existing height limits
and setbacks as well as the feasibility of the facility being self-sufficient. He noted the newspaper article
regarding Lynnwood's study indicated these facilities did not make much money. If a study was
conducted, he recommended it consider the entire City.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 24, 2001
Page 7
Councilmember Orvis supported forming a PFD with Council President Earling's suggestion. He said
this was a good opportunity and provided sufficient accountability and flexibility. He said directing
funds that the State already collected back to Edmonds to study economic and cultural development was
a good idea. Regarding accountability, he said the members of the PFD were appointed by the Council
and Mayor, would be required to request matching funds, and would need voter approval for any bonds.
He supported expanding the study to Hwy. 99 as this provided sufficient flexibility to enable the success
of the PFD and provide the ability to form a proposal that would garner the support of the public.
Council President Earling commented there was a tradition in the northwest to plan forever and seldom
do anything. He said forming the PFD would allow planning to continue and perhaps move toward
potential action. He supported using the sales and use tax that was already being collected to fund the
study. He noted the study cited by Ms. Shippen was conducted 16 years ago and the dynamics in the City
have changed. The study will determine whether the dynamics have changed sufficiently that such a
facility would be feasible. If the Council approved the formation of the PFD, he recommended the
Council discuss how to fast track as many tasks as possible.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MILLER, TO
APPROVE ORDINANCE NO. 3358 WITH THE ADDITION TO EXPAND THE STUDY AREA
FROM THE DOWNTOWN BUSINESS AREA AND THE OLD EDMONDS HIGH SCHOOL SITE
TO INCLUDE THE BUSINESS CORRIDOR ON HWY. 99 BETWEEN 220TH AND THE
SNOHOMISH/KING COUNTY LINE.
Councilmember Plunkett observed the Council's action to form a PFD would move toward what most
citizens want - to enhance the economic and cultural environment.
Mr. Snyder commented the portion of Council President Earling's motion to expand the study area could
be accommodated by the provision in the ordinance that allowed the Council to authorize further study.
He noted there were several blanks in the ordinance for the name of the PFD and blanks for the funds the
Council committed in cash. Council President Earling asked whether the Council could authorize an
amount tonight and amend that amount in the future. Mr. Snyder answered yes, commenting the first
actions would be to form the charter for the PFD and an interlocal agreement that provided additional
funding.
Council President Earling said the intent of his motion was the insertion of $34,000 for the first year's
funding in paragraph 4 on page 4. Mayor Haakenson asked whether a funding source needed to be
identified. Mr. Snyder answered not at this time; that could be addressed at mid -year budget revisions.
Councilmember Marin commented that amount was available from the hotel/motel tax fund. Mr. Snyder
said that would require the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee's recommendation. Councilmember Petso
offered to request the Committee provide that recommendation.
Council President Earling proposed the PFD be named the Edmonds Public Facilities District.
Councilmember Davis voiced his support for forming a PFD, recalling his original concern with forming
a PFD was forming an entity the Council could not control. He said the ordinance contained mechanisms
that allowed the PFD to be controlled via the City's provision of matching funds, the City's permitting
requirements and the requirement for voter approval of any financing obligations that may be necessary.
He supported the formation of a PFD as it supported the recommendations of the Hyatt Palma study. He
was also in support of expanding the study area to include Hwy. 99.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 24, 2001
Page 10
MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER PETSO OPPOSED. The ordinance approved
reads as follows:
1 lishing ORDINANCE NO. 3358 OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS WASHINGTON, CREATING A PUBLIC
. ublio31FACILITIES DISTRICT PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 165, LAWS OF 1999, STATE OF
Facilitics WASHINGTON, INCLUDING THE AUTHORITY TO ACQUIRE, CONSTRUCT, OWN,
District FINANCE, AND OPERATE A REGIONAL CENTER, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME
SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE AND EXPANDING THE STUDY AREA TO INCLUDE THE
HWY. 99 BUSINESS CORRIDOR FROM 220TH STREET SW SOUTH TO THE
KING/SNOHOMISH COUNTY LINE AND INCLUDING $34,000 FOR THE FIRST YEAR
FUNDING AND NAMING THE PUBLIC FACILITIES DISTRICT THE EDMONDS PUBLIC
FACILITIES DISTRICT
Council President Earling expressed his appreciation for staff's efforts to prepare the requested
information so quickly. He noted a series of actions would be necessary to expedite the project in view
of the 18 month timeline. He offered to work with Mayor Haakenson and staff to develop a schedule
with recommendations for timing of various tasks.
Mayor Haakenson declared a brief recess.
Wunicipal 6• UPDATE ON MUNICIPAL URBAN GROWTH AREAS [MUGA] AND SOUTHWEST COUNTY
Urban URBAN GROWTH AREA PLANNING PROCESS
3rowth
areas Development Services Director Duane Bowman provided an update regarding the Municipal Urban
Growth Area (MUGA) process, which the City was working on cooperatively with Snohomish County
Tomorrow. He displayed a map from the City's Comprehensive Plan that identified the urban growth
areas and the City limits and described changes that had occurred on the map since its adoption in 1997,
including annexations in the Esperance area and in the Perrinville area.
Mr. Bowman explained the Norma Beach — Picnic Point area to the north had been the subject of
discussion twice in the past. In 1991, a petition was submitted by residents of that area expressing
interest in annexing to the City. The City's analysis of the area concluded that while there was a balance
of revenue to expenditures, there were several reasons not to annex the area. These included
topographical reasons, Lund's Gulch physically separates the area from Edmonds and the area must be
accessed from Lynnwood. Further, a large portion of the area was similar to the Meadowdale area and
there were concerns with infrastructure, steep slopes, storm drainage, etc. Therefore, in 1991, the
Council rejected annexation of the area. In 1997, the Council again considered the area and concluded
although the City needed to be aware of growth in the area, it was not reasonable to annex the area.
The only remaining MUGA was a small area in the Perrinville area that was being discussed by Edmonds
and Lynnwood to determine which jurisdiction should annex the area. Snohomish County Tomorrow
will be notifying property owners in that area of the MUGA process to inform them of the planning
efforts. He said staff would return to the Council later this year to discuss this MUGA further.
For Councilmember Plunkett, Mayor Haakenson said the Perrinville MUGA was comprised of two
commercial property owners. Councilmember Plunkett asked how much influence property owners had
in determining which city their property was annexed to. Mr. Bowman answered the property owner
would have a voice in the process; the Snohomish County Boundary Review Board determined the issue
of annexation. Edmonds controlled three legs of the intersection; there was logic in having the fourth leg
under the control of the same entity. However, Lynnwood could make the argument that Lynnwood
surrounded the property on two sides and therefore the properties should be annexed to Lynnwood.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 24, 2001
Page 11
Councilmember Plunkett asked whether the Boundary Review Board would honor the preference of a
property owner to be annexed to a particular city. Mr. Bowman answered that would be at the Boundary
Review Board discretion. If the property owners petitioned the City to be annexed, the Council could
accept the petition and proceed through the annexation process. Lynnwood could challenge that action,
thus the reason for working cooperatively with Lynnwood via the MUGA process to resolve issues.
Councilmember Marin asked whether there were any negative aspects to annexing the MUGA near
Perrinville. Mr. Bowman answered no, but it was necessary to work cooperatively with Lynnwood.
Mayor Haakenson recalled 3-4 years ago, the property owners petitioned to annex to Edmonds but the
Boundary Review Board rejected the annexation because Lynnwood opposed it.
lRight-of- 7. WORK SESSION ON RIGHT-OF-WAY ENCROACHMENTS
L
oach-Develo ment Services Director Duane Bowman explained City staff and the Architectural Design Board
s p
(ADB) recently reviewed a preliminary land use application for a mixed -use building in the downtown
area that presented an alternative way of viewing right-of-way encroachments. The proposed method has
not be utilized since the late 1970's with the development of Old Mill Town which has bay windows and
turrets that project over the right-of-way, a method that has not been consistently applied via right-of-way
encroachments in recent years. The proposal includes projections into the right-of-way for awning and
bay windows. He requested the Council indicate whether staff should develop a policy interpretation of
the Community Development Code that would allow encroachment into the right-of-way above the first
floor for items such as bay windows.
Mr. Bowman displayed a photograph of a building in Seattle with bay windows projecting over the
sidewalk. He displayed a photograph of Old Mill Town, which has bay windows on the upper floor. He
displayed a preliminary drawing of the proposed project, identifying the location of bay windows and
awnings. He noted the ADB reviewed the preliminary drawings and was excited about the design
concept and how the building fagade had been broken up. He displayed an elevation of the proposed
project, identifying the bay windows that would project over the public right-of-way. He referred to
information in the Council packet from the Engineering and Building Divisions that indicated they
supported the concept.
Mr. Bowman explained if the Council were interested in staff developing a policy interpretation and
criteria, it would only apply to the downtown area as this was the only zone that allowed projection into
the right-of-way.
Councilmember Petso asked the difference between a policy interpretation and a code amendment. Mr.
Bowman answered when the Development Code was revised, a code amendment for this issue would
also be included. Councilmember Petso asked whether that would require Planning Board review. Mr.
Bowman answered yes. City Attorney Scott Snyder advised encroachment permits were different than
typical zoning restrictions. This was the use of a public asset and the Council had nearly unlimited
legislative discretion. In this instance, the Council was not being asked to establish a zoning rule but a
rule to assist staff in determining what the applicant should provide in return for the encroachment
permit. Mr. Bowman said the Council packet outlined some trade-offs under consideration such as
additional sidewalk.
Councilmember Petso asked what the public benefit would be for allowing a building to project over the
sidewalk. Mr. Bowman answered the trade-offs would be the benefit as well as the attractive building
that would be constructed as a result. Councilmember Petso observed buildings could be constructed to
the property line in the BC zone, and questioned how the City would prevent applicants from maximizing
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 24, 2001
Page 12
their floor space by building the entire wall to that level. Mr. Bowman said in this instance only
encroachments such as bay windows would be allowed, not the entire facade. He said the code currently
allowed awnings and small architectural features. Mr. Snyder explained the provision for an
encroachment permit already existed to allow awnings, theater marques, window boxes, etc. He said as
buildings could be constructed to the lot line, the proposal would result in a building with a square
footage larger than the lot size.
For Councilmember Orvis, Mr. Bowman explained the proposal would result in a minor increase in floor
area and would not increase the building height.
Councilmember Marin supported the preparation of a code interpretation to allow encroachment into the
right-of-way without any trade-offs. He said trade-offs were unnecessary as the encroachment would
provide creativity in the design that would add variety and interest to the structure.
Council President Earling said he was interested in the concept, noting it had been said that buildings in
Edmonds were boring. This was one way to add architectural interest to the community without the
usual fate of blocking someone's view. He was also interested in investigating trade-offs that could be
provided.
Councilmember Plunkett questioned why this was being presented to the Council rather than
incorporated in the revision of the Design Guidelines. Mr. Bowman said the intent of this presentation
was to determine whether the Council supported this concept. If so, it could be incorporated into the
Design Guideline review or a code interpretation prepared which could be used when reviewing the
proposed project.
For Councilmember Miller, Mr. Bowman said amendments to the code required a public hearing process.
Councilmember Miller was interested in pursuing this concept as well as trade-offs that could be
provided such as landscaping, sidewalks, etc. He did not support establishing an in -lieu -of fund. Mr.
Bowman said an in -lieu -of fund was not one of the trade-offs under consideration.
Councilmember Davis commented this was an intriguing idea that would add architectural interest to the
downtown but he supported the City receiving something in return for the use of the public right-of-way.
Councilmember Orvis agreed this would enhance building design but preferred the Planning Board
consider appropriate trade-offs.
Mr. Bowman said staff recommended preparation of a code interpretation, which was an appealable
decision. He asked whether the Council wanted staff to prepare the interpretation and present it to the
Council for review and comment or have the matter referred to the Planning Board for recommendation.
Councilmember Petso preferred it be referred to the Planning Board for recommendation as that would
provide an opportunity for public input on appropriate trade-offs. Mr. Bowman clarified staff was not
proposing a code amendment. If Planning Board's review was desired, staff would draft a code
amendment and present it to the Planning Board for review. He explained the code allowed staff to make
an interpretation of the code; this concept was a policy issue that staff deemed appropriate for Council
consideration.
Councilmember Petso asked whether staff's interpretation would be tied to the proposed project. Mr.
Bowman said it was connected to the issue, not the project. He said if the Council authorized staff to
prepare a code interpretation, it would be done without public input although the interpretation could be
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 24, 2001
Page 13
appealed. Councilmember Petso was opposed to moving forward without a public hearing before the
Council or Planning Board. Councilmember Davis agreed a public hearing was appropriate.
It was the consensus of the Council to refer the matter to the Planning Board.
tesidential 8, WORK SESSION ON THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION REGARDING
Larking RESIDENTIAL PARKING STANDARDS FOR ALL ZONING CLASSIFICATIONS EXCEPT THE
tandards BC ZONE
Planning Manager Rob Chave advised a public hearing was held before the Planning Board and a
recommendation forwarded to the Council. He advised a public hearing was scheduled for May 14 and
invited Council to provide any concerns/questions prior to the public hearing.
Mr. Chave explained the City received a request from a development proponent that indicated the City's
parking standards were in variance to others in the region. Staff researched the issue, including a
national survey done by the American Planning Association of 160+ jurisdictions, and discovered the
City's standards were backward. Single family development throughout the country had higher parking
standards than multifamily; Edmonds, however, is the reverse. The City's standards currently require
only one space for a single family home and two for every multifamily unit. The national data supported
a graduated scale based on the number of bedrooms.
After reviewing local and national data, Mr. Chave explained staff developed a graduated scale for
multifamily development to require 1.2 spaces for a studio apartment, 1.5 spaces for a one bedroom unit,
1.8 spaces for a two bedroom unit, and 2.0 spaces for three or more bedrooms. He said none of the codes
addressed visitor parking, likely because the ratios include visitor parking. He said the only example of
visitor parking standards was a community in California that required two spaces per unit and one visitor
parking space for every two units.
Mr. Chave advised staff also recommended the parking standards for single family be raised to two
spaces. He recalled the code had been revised recently to allow tandem parking for single family homes
(i.e. a garage with a space in front). He said raising the standard would impact homes that had a garage
fronting on the street, making that a legal nonconforming use. He said new single family development
would be required to provide two onsite parking spaces. He commented new single family development
rarely had less than a 2-car garage.
As a parking study was budgeted for the downtown area in 2001, the Planning Board recommended
delaying any change to the parking standards in the downtown business area (BC and CW zones) at this
time until the parking study was completed.
Mr. Snyder recommended the proposed amendment be revised to indicate "the parking standard shall be
rounded to the nearest whole space." Mr. Chave agreed that would be appropriate, noting Planned
Residential Development was allowed to round either up or down. He requested the Council indicate
their preference regarding rounding the parking standard. Councilmember Miller suggested using the
IRS rule, rounding 1.4 or less to the lower whole and rounding 1.5 to the higher whole space. Mr. Chave
agreed.
Pefinitiono 9. WORK SESSION ON THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION REGARDING
Street CHANGING THE DEFINITION OF STREET
Planning Manager Rob Chave explained a street was currently defined as an access or easement that
served four or more lots but this definition did not coincide with other sections of the code. For example,
street standards address 1-2 lots, 3-4 lots and 5-9 lots. Similarly, short subdivisions are five or more lots
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 24, 2001
Page 14
and there are some subdivisions in the City with four lots. As a result, the subdivision was served by a
street rather than an access easement. Public Works and Engineering Divisions did not favor public
streets serving small, limited developments that did not connect to other streets. The existing definition
of a street was also difficult to administer and confusing to applicants. He noted there was a current
Engineering policy that an access serving five or more lots was considered a public street. Therefore,
staff recommends changing the definition of a street to mean a public or private right-of-way or access
easement that provides vehicle access to five or more lots.
Council President Earling asked whether the proposed change had been discussed with the development
community. Mr. Chave answered this issue has arisen on a number of occasions, typically regarding
setbacks. The existing code requires development adjoining a street to have a street setback but
development adjoining an access easement did not require a street setback. He was confident developers
who were frustrated by the setback requirements would view this change as a benefit. He said the
proposed change has been mentioned to several developers at the counter and they were supportive of it.
Councilmember Marin expressed his support for the proposed change.
Mr. Chave advised a public hearing regarding the proposed change was scheduled for May 14.
10. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
4,pril21 Mayor Haakenson thanked the citizens who attended the Town Meeting at the Edmonds Theater on
rown Saturda Aril 21 to discuss libra annexation.
l�Ieetin Y� p rY
nonds Mayor Haakenson advised the Edmonds Crossing Oversight Committee would be meeting on Thursday,
ssing April 26 at City Hall. He noted there was a great deal of new information for the committee to discuss
:rsight includingpositive action regarding the cleanup of the Unocal site.
'ommiftcc p g g p
11. INDIVIDUAL COUNCIL REPORTSIUPDATES ON OUTSIDE COMMITTEE/BOARD
MEETINGS
'Sound Council President Earling provided an update regarding Sound Transit, noting there had been a great deal
Transit of information in the press recently regarding light rail. One concern frequently expressed in Snohomish
County was that Sound Transit was spending all of Snohomish County's money. He described the
concept of sub -regional equity, which ensured all funds raised in a sub -region would be spent within that
sub -region. He explained the two sub -regions impacted by light rail from SeaTac Airport, the North
King County and South King County sub -regions, were responsible for funding that portion of the plan.
The funds raised in Snohomish County would be used for investments in Snohomish County including a
series of Park and Rides and transit centers that will be constructed over the term of the project, four bus
lines to serve Snohomish County, and the eventual construction of commuter rail on the Burlington
Northern tracks. Tentative plans are to have commuter rail completed within 12-18 months.
Council President Earling explained one of the major issues associated with commuter rail was a $46
million shortfall in the funding created by I-695 which eliminated much of the funding that the
Department of Transportation had allocated for improvements to the rail corridor. A similar shortfall of
$60 million in the south commuter rail corridor (Seattle to Tacoma) was resolved; Sound Transit was in
the process of identifying the necessary $46 million for improvements in the north rail corridor. He
further advised a national executive search was being conducted to replace Sound Transit Director Bob
White who resigned several months ago.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 24, 2001
Page 15
ort of Councilmember Davis reported on a presentation at the Port of Edmonds meeting regarding the selection
?dmonds of an architectural firm to implement the Master Plan. Earlier last week, three architectural firms
presented concepts based on the Master Plan and one firm was selected. He encouraged the public to
visit the Port office to view the conceptual designs on display.
Sound
Transit Councilmember Marin reported on the Sound Transit Station Technical Advisory Committee meeting
Station where four concepts for the lighting and canopy structures of the station were presented. The contractor
Technical will refine the concept based on the committee's input. The meeting also included a presentation on the
Advisory
Committee public art piece being developed for the station.
.Fire Dept. Councilmember Marin reported he recently watched Fire Department extraction training and
rraimng mobilization training (mobilizing in the event of wildfires). He noted Assistant Fire Chief Taylor
organized the training at a cost of approximately $350. However, Assistant Chief Taylor invited other
agencies to participate in the training and the Fire Department collected approximately $1500 from other
agencies for the training exercises. Councilmember Marin noted the Fire Department did this on a
regular basis, generating revenue for additional training, etc. He commended the Fire Department for
their efforts.
�noCom Councilmember Plunkett reported the remodel of SnoCom's emergency response building would be
completed this fall. He invited the public to attend the Edmonds Historical Preservation Advisory
(Historical Committee meeting on Thursday, April 26 at City Hall. He expressed his appreciation to Student
(Preservation
Committee Representative Tyler Fisher for his participation on the Council.
Councilmember Miller thanked the Council for their action to establish a PFD. He requested staff
tailroad prepare a white paper regarding the federal benchmarks to establish a railroad quite zone. He thanked
)uiet Zone Student Representative Tyler Fisher for his contributions, noting not only did he attend most meetings
but stayed until the end of several late meetings.
Student Representative Tyler Fisher thanked the Council for the experience. He hoped the opportunity to
serve as a Student Representative would be offered to other students to allow them to learn about the
community.
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 9:35 p.m.
RY KE SON, MAYOR
SANDRA S. CHASE, CITY CLERK
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 24, 2001
Page 16
` AGENDA
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL
Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex
250 5th Avenue North
7:00 - 10:00 p.m.
APRI L 24, 2001
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 April 17, 2001
(C) Approval of Claim Checks #47697 through #47834 for the Week of April 16,
2001, in the Amount of $176,191.48. Approval of Payroll Direct Deposits and
Checks #1785 Through #1007 for the Period April 1 Through April 15, 2001, in
the Amount of $769,183.17.
(D) Report on the General Fund and Other Selected Funds Financial Position for
the Quarter Ending March 2001
(E) Authorization to Advertise for Request for Proposals (RFP) to Provide Office
Supplies, Furnishings, Equipment, and Printing Services
(F) Proposed Resolution Commending Student Representative Tyler Fisher for His
Service
3. Audience Comments (3 Minute Limit Per Person)
4. ( 5 Min.) Presentation of Plaque and Resolution to Tyler Fisher, Student Representative
5. (60 Min.) Continued Public Hearing on a Proposed Draft Ordinance to Establish a Public
Facilities District to Study the Market Demand and Feasibility of, and Possibly
Develop, a Conference/Convention/Special Events Center, and Performing Arts
Center Within the City of Edmonds
Page 1 of 2
CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA
APRIL 24, 2001
Page 2 of 2
6. (20 Min.) Update on Municipal Urban Growth Areas (MUGA) and Southwest County Urban
Growth Area Planning Process
7. (30 Min.) Work Session on Right -of -Way Encroachments
S. (20 Min.) Work Session on the Planning Board Recommendation Regarding Residential
Parking Standards for All Zoning Classifications Except the BC Zone
9. (10 Min.) Work Session on the Planning Board Recommendation Regarding Changing the
Definition of Street
10. ( 5 Min.) Mayor's Comments
11. (15 Min.) Individual Council Reports/Updates on Outside Committee/Board Meetings
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.