Loading...
02/27/2001 City Council1 EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES February 27, 2001 The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Gary Haakenson in the Council Chambers, 250 5`" Avenue North, Edmonds, followed by the flag salute. ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Gary Haakenson, Mayor Dave Earling, Council President Thomas Miller, Councilmember (arrived 7:26 p.m.) Michael Plunkett, Councilmember Lora Petso, Councilmember Dave Orvis, Councilmember Christopher Davis, Councilmember Richard Marin, Councilmember 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA STAFF PRESENT Robin Hickok, Police Chief Duane Bowman, Development Serv. Director Stephen Clifton, Community Services Director Arvilla Ohlde, Parks and Recreation Director Rob Chave, Planning Manager Dave Gebert, City Engineer Don Fiene, Assistant City Engineer Sandy Chase, City Clerk Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst. Jeannie Dines, Recorder COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, FOR APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (Councilmember Miller was not present for the vote). 2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, FOR APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (Councilmember Miller was not present for the vote). The agenda items approved are as follows: (A) ROLL CALL Approve /9/01 Minutes (B) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 9 AND 10, 2001 Approve /20/01 (C) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 20, 2001 Minutes (D) APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #46663 THROUGH #46726 FOR THE WEEK OF pprove lain FEBRUARY 19, 2001, IN THE AMOUNT OF $31,840.91. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL Checks DIRECT DEPOSITS AND CHECKS #1420 THROUGH #1501 FOR THE PERIOD FEBRUARY 1 THROUGH FEBRUARY 15, 2001, IN THE AMOUNT OF $750,956.50. laims for (E) ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES FROM WENDEL PARKER amages ($528.82), AND MICHAEL PEDERSON (Amount Undetermined) Station enova- (F) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT Desi n WITH R. W. BECK, INC. FOR LIFT STATION 1 RENOVATION DESIGN Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 27, 2001 Page 1 3. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Mayor Haakenson referred to Item 4, a continued public hearing, explaining the public participation portion of the public hearing had been closed. It was the consensus of the Council to allow additional public comment as the ordinance had been significantly changed. Edmonds Carol Hahn, 1031 2nd Avenue, Edmonds, provided written copies of her comments to the Council. She Tossing— pointed out in the proposed data collection for the Edmonds Crossing — Pine Street Ferry Traffic Study, Pine St. Ferry Traffic there was no control data, only peak -time studies. Without a control or norm, the peak -time study would Study provide incomplete data upon which to make an informed decision. She referred to the SR-104/Pine Street intersection, noting the Exhibit 2 chart omitted several traffic movements possible at the intersection. Ms. Hahn also pointed out several of the Exhibit 2 chart locations proposed to be studied appeared to be only remotely connected to ferry traffic and would not generate statistics pertinent to a ferry traffic study. She noted the intersection of Edmonds Way and Main Street (which did not exist but was actually 5`h and Main) was not impacted by ferry traffic. She asked whether the study would recommend a route of travel for Edmonds Bowl residents to approach the ferry ticket booths if the study determined the intersection should be closed permanently. She said most routes presently lead to Westgate where there is no public U-turn route for those using SR104 to return to ferry ticket booths. She noted there was a route through Woodway but suspected those residents would not want Edmonds ferry traffic in their neighborhood. CH PAC Betty Mueller, 209 Casper Street, Edmonds, addressed the Council. (Verbatim comments are Committee - provided.) I have some questions. I'm addressing the stuff you're doing on the performing arts center Convention and conference center and the rest of that complex. I'd like to know how you got involved in this issue? Center / Performing Why are you spending money and time on a study to develop someone else's property? Do you have a Arts Center plan to have any public hearings? Do the citizens get to vote on the 20 year bond? Mr. Dykes has been Proposal trying to develop this property for some time and both plans have exceeded the height limit. Just who does he represent? There are four other investors with him. Do you know who they are? What percentage does he own? You are aware that Alvin Dykes has filed a lawsuit against the City. This is in connection with the gambling/card tables on this very site. Where does that stand at present? Will that be folded into this complex at a later date, the gambling complex? I am not opposed to a performing arts center or the rest of it, a convention center and hotel, sometime, someplace, whatever. I think we need more public information and I hope that you don't vote yes tonight until you get that. Thank you very much.. Elaine Yard, 9209 Olympic View Drive, Edmonds, questioned whether everyone remembered what a democratic form of government was and the differences between democracy and oligarchy. She read the definitions of democracy and oligarchy from the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. Al Rutledge, 7101 Lake Ballinger Way, Edmonds, suggested the City retain KOMO television host Ken Schram to host a public meeting to discuss the Fire Chief s proposal regarding not hiring people who smoke. CH PAC Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, Edmonds, addressed the Council. (Verbatim comments are Committee - provided.) You're going to consider an hour's worth of conversation over the 3CH PAC Committee. I'm Convention not going to o into an of the items that are on that report because I think you have a lot to talk about. Center/ g g g }' P Performing What I am going to talk about is the information that I got through researching- the minutes. I hope that Ails Center you all get copies of the minutes, September 1, October 6, October 27, November 6, December 8, and roposal December 18. You get as much information or more sometimes by reading the minutes than you do the report. One of the things I noticed was the concept changed halfway through. It began as a convention center and somebody decided halfway through this to throw in an arts center which seemed to add more Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 27, 2001 Page 2 complications to it. About the 27U' of October, Doug Farmen'indicated that according to his preliminary figures using the Lynnwood numbers, which failed, that we would suffer a $1.7 million shortfall. You don't find that in the report in front of you. On November 6, A] Dykes stated that he is the property owner with the final authority on this. He also mentioned parking should probably be on the Diamond lot. Finally, on December 18, Duane Bowman makes the motion. Now you have staff who are support members making the motion that is forwarded to the City Council. I find that really doesn't set well with me. Staff is there for support, not to make the motions. It looks as through staff is running this and not the group, but it's all in appearances possibly. I don't think it's the proper procedure. My concerns are the credentials of the property owner that everyone wants to get in bed with, Mr. Dykes. He states he is the property owner, although we hear other things that maybe he isn't. Has he ever given you credentials that really show he has the authority to deal or is this just a facade and make him important type of thing? There are people that go around representing things that they really aren't. Also, Mr. Dykes, I believe Betty Mueller mentioned, wanted a casino in this area. He's got a lawsuit against the City and recently he was convicted of assault in our City. This is who you want to do business with. I'd suggest you check his credentials. You never want to go into business with somebody unless you really know their background. Again, back about the 271" or sometime in the middle of this, besides the $1.7 million shortfall that was mentioned, it was also mentioned there is a $10-20 million amount needed to cover maintenance and upkeep for a facility like this. I don't know if you find that in your report, but please get the minutes and have a good review of them. They're very interesting. Good luck on your hour's work. Trellises and 4. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING THE PLANNING BOARD'S Arbors RECOMMENDATION TO ADD NEW DEFINITIONS TO EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE CHAPTER 21 FOR TRELLISES AND ARBORS. SPECIFYING LIMITATIONS ON AREA AND HEIGHT Planning Manager Rob Chave stated the revised ordinance includes definitions of arbor, trellis, lattice, and predominantly open. It also confirms the intent to allow arbors up to 9 feet in height and trellises up to 8 feet in height, typical of what is found throughout the City. Trellis is defined in the ordinance as a fence or part of a fence; once the fence with trellis reaches 8 feet there are restrictions regarding the amount of trellis and where it can be located within the setback. Mr. Chave explained he asked the Code Enforcement Officer to take pictures of trellises on top of fences while out in the City. The Officer found there are many fence lines, primarily along rights -of -way or driveways, that have a 5-6 foot fence plus another 2 foot trellis section along the entire length of the fence. Mr. Chave said this ordinance would not address or solve that issue. The ordinance would address a trellis on the top of a fence along a property line that blocked views, etc. He commented the trellises in photographs taken by the Code Enforcement Officer did not have green growth on them, retaining a predominantly open appearance. Mr. Chave recalled some of the concern expressed with trellises was that the greenery on the trellis would create a closed area. The revised ordinance would allow a trellis along only 25% of a property line, requiring trellises be spaced along the fence line. The ordinance would also allow arbors of up to 9 feet in height to be located in setbacks over a gate, walkway, etc. He said arbor structures would be counted in the lot coverage calculation; trellises as part of a fence would not. Councilmember Davis asked how the 25% for trellises was selected, whether it is arbitrary or based on the photographs. Mr. Chave answered the photographs were taken after the revisions were made to the ordinance. Staff determined a trellis with plant material could result in a closed section of fence and that 25% closed would be approximately equivalent to 50% open. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 27, 2001 Page 3 Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. Steve Schroeder, 113 9th Avenue S, Edmonds, spoke in support of an ordinance that would conform the regulations to the practice of the community. He expressed concern with the change made to the Planning Board's proposal, specifically that trellises could not exceed 25%. He circulated a photograph of his home which has a 4'/z foot high fence with lattice and trellis to a height of 8 feet. He said the fence was approximately 6 feet wider than the house and would not block any view that the house did not also block. He said 25% was arbitrary and did not address what exists in the community. He urged the Council to adopt an ordinance similar to the original Planning Board's recommendation so that residents could have attractive structures in front of their homes, particularly on busy arterials. He said their home was on 91h Avenue and the fence/trellis was constructed to mitigate street noise, provide an attractive enclave in front of the house, and provide a sense of privacy from the street. Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, Edmonds, pointed out the ordinance lacked a section that provided protection for neighbors. He said previously a fence permit was required to ensure residents complied with the code but that was eliminated for simplicity. This proposal represented an attempt to make it easier to build a fence higher than the regulations allowed via trellises. He questioned how adjoining neighbors could voice their opinion regarding the structure if they were bothered by it or it blocked views: He said the 2.5% provision would allow a resident to fence all four sides of their property and construct an 8 foot fence/trellis on one side. He said Councilmember Plunkett should not be allowed to vote on this issue due to his previous comments regarding a neighbor he would like to block. Mayor Haakenson asked if the requirement for a fence permit had been eliminated. Development Services Director Duane Bowman answered structures 8-9 feet in height would require a fence permit. Hearing no further public comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public participation portion of the public hearing. Councilmember Petso asked if there was a variance process that would allow the 25% requirement or any other requirement to be exceeded. Mr. Chave answered a variance could be applied for and some had been granted, but it was difficult to meet the variance criteria. Councilmember Petso asked how Mr. Schroeder's fence did not comply with the ordinance and what would need to be done to bring it into compliance. Mr. Chave answered the proposed ordinance would only allow 25% of the fence along a particular property line to have a trellis up to 8 feet in height. In that it appears most of the Schroeder's property line has a fence that exceeds 8 feet, it would not be permitted. He reiterated that the Council's concern at the initial public hearing was vegetation on the trellis that could present a visual barrier. Trellises like the Schroeder's was not unusual throughout the City, it was predominantly open above the main solid portion of the fence. If the Council determined this was appropriate, the Council could allow trellises that were predominantly open along the entire property line along a right-of-way. He said there was some justification for that such as reduction of annoyance from passing traffic, increased privacy, etc. He commented many of the trellises along an entire property line were along a right-of-way. Councilmember Petso asked whether several sections of the trellises on the Schroeder's fence would need to be removed if the Council adopted the proposed ordinance with the 25% provision. Mr. Chave answered yes. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 27, 2001 Page 4 Councilmember Davis clarified a resident could not save up the 25% and place it along one property line. Mr. Chave answered no. Councilmember Davis inquired -what variance criteria would be difficult to meet. Mr. Chave explained for a typical property without unique features, there would be no reason to grant a variance for increased fence height. Councilmember Davis asked whether being located on a busy arterial would qualify for a variance. Mr. Chave said it was possible but a better method would be to define via an ordinance that an exception would be made for fences on arterials. COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, TO EXTEND DISCUSSION OF THIS ITEM FOR FIVE MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Councilmember Plunkett asked why Mr. Hertrich's example would not be applicable under this ordinance. Mr. Chave referred to page 2 of the proposed ordinance, "may be added as a decorative element to a fence so long as the combined length of the trellis (es) constructed facing a property line do not exceed twenty-five percent (25%) of the total length of that property line." Councilmember Plunkett observed this would leave 75% clear. Mayor Haakenson remanded the matter to Council for action. Councilmember Petso commented the ordinance had been improved substantially and thanked staff for the efforts. She said she would not object to creating an exception for predominantly open sections along a right-of-way. COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, FOR ADOPTION OF THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE, CREATING AN EXCEPTION FOR PREDOMINANTLY OPEN SECTIONS ALONG A RIGHT-OF-WAY. Councilmember Miller indicated he would abstain from the vote as he was not present at the February 6 public hearing and had arrived late to tonight's continued public hearing. Council President Earling suggested staff and the City Attorney draft additional language to the ordinance as proposed by Councilmember Petso and place it on a future Consent Agenda. COUNCILMEMBER PETSO WITHDREW HER MOTION WITH THE AGREEMENT OF THE SECOND. Edmonds 5. APPROVAL OF CONSULTANT CONTRACT AWARD FOR THE EDMONDS CROSSING — Crossing — Pine Street PINE STREET FERRY TRAFFIC STUDY Ferry Traffic Study City Engineer Dave Gebert explained on October 17, 2000, a public hearing was held regarding short- term ferry access improvements. On November 6, 2000, Council authorized staff to proceed with a traffic study to address alternatives and impact analysis for Pine Street residents and ferry access traffic. Staff solicited qualifications, interviewed consultants and selected CH2M Hill to conduct the study. He indicated a memorandum in the Council packet described the consultant selection process. Staff and the consultant negotiated the fee and scope of the study. The scope will include coordination of the three technical committee meetings, conducting an origin designation study, developing and evaluating alternative design solutions to implement any solutions, recommending a preferred alternative, and preparing concept designs and cost estimates for the preferred alternative as well as providing assistance for presentations to the Council and public. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 27, 2001 Page 5 Mr. Gebert explained the origin designation surveys would be conducted at up to 15 locations. The original plan was to conduct the surveys at 20 locations but the number was reduced in an effort to reduce the cost. In response to audience comment regarding the locations, he clarified this was an origin destination survey, not a total traffic count. The purpose was to determine where ferry traffic came from and where it was going. The locations identified represent consensus between the City's Traffic Engineer and the consultant regarding the appropriate locations to gather information. He acknowledged this was a tentative list of locations and was subject to the evaluation of the City's traffic model and other available data by the consultant. He referred to a list and map of tentative locations where the origin designation survey counts would be conducted. He explained the survey would be conducted during three time periods, Wednesday afternoon which represented the average weekday PM peak, Friday afternoon which represented the peak weekday PM, and Saturday morning which represented the peak weekend ferry traffic. He reiterated this was an origin designation survey to gather information about where ferry traffic came from and where it was going; peak times were the best times to gather the most data. Mr. Gebert said a fee in an amount not to exceed $93,018 had been negotiated. He acknowledged this fee was considerably higher than the $49,000 estimated by staff in November 2000. He pointed out the origin designation surveys were very labor intensive; therefore, staff considered the amount to be a reasonable estimate considering the amount of work involved. Staff believed this study was an integral part of the Edmonds Crossing project and would provide key information for that project. Staff contacted Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) to seek their authorization to use existing Edmonds Crossing Project grant funds to offset the cost of the study. Unfortunately WSDOT has yet to make a determination regarding use of these funds. If authorization is provided by WSDOT, staff recommends transferring the $49,000 previously authorized by the Council for local match funds to leverage the grant funds. If WSDOT does not authorize the City to use the grant funds, staff recommends the full $93,000 required for the study be allocated from the Council Contingency fund. Mr. Gebert explained there was a limited time in which to complete the traffic study due to WSDOT's project this spring that will include installation of variable message signs on SR-104. The origin destination study needs to be completed prior to that project to avoid the numbers being skewed by that project. He explained the contract cannot be awarded and work begun prior to WSDOT authorization to use the grant funds because the City can only be reimbursed for work performed after the grant was authorized. He recommended staff table the award of this contract until a determination was received from WSDOT regarding use of the grant funds. If WSDOT authorized use of the grant funds within the timeframe necessary to award the contract, staff would place an item on the Consent Agenda authorizing the Mayor to sign the contract, awarding the contract to CH2M Hill, and transferring the previously authorized $49,000 to the Edmonds Crossing Project to be used for a local match. If authorization was not provided by WSDOT prior to the deadline for awarding the contract, staff would return to Council with a recommendation to award the contract funded with $93,000 from the Council Contingency Fund. Councilmember Marin suggested another option may be to delay the project until after the WSDOT project was completed on SR-104. Mr. Gebert answered that was an option although the Council was interested in completing the study to address the Pine Street closure issue. Councilmember Marin inquired how much delay this would create. Mr. Gebert answered it would be several months. He explained the counts during the summer would be skewed by ferry traffic more heavily influenced by tourists, summer usage, etc., and the counts would not be representative of the remainder of the year. Councilmember Petso asked why the $49,000 would be transferred to the Edmonds Crossing Project and whether those funds were available for other City purposes. Mr. Gebert answered matching funds were required for the WSDOT grant and the Edmonds Crossing Project currently lacks sufficient matching Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 27, 2001 Page 6 funds. The $49,000 would allow the City,to leverage the'`gratrtt`funds into more monies that could be used for this study as well as other environmental work being done for the Edmonds Crossing Project. Councilmember Petso referred to the audience question regarding why there was no control data. Mr. Gebert answered the intent was to identify the location where ferry traffic came from and went to, not obtaining total numbers at each location. The best time to collect data was at the time of the highest traffic volumes. Councilmember Petso asked if highest traffic volumes were desired, why wouldn't counts collected in the summer be preferable. Mr. Gebert responded that the intent was the highest representative traffic; summer counts were skewed by tourists and were not representative of the traffic throughout the year. Councilmember Petso inquired about the non-existent intersection at Edmonds Way and Main. Mr. Gebert said that should have been 5th Avenue and Main. Council President Earling inquired about the match. Mr. Gebert answered it was 20/80%. Council President Earling observed the City would transfer $49,000 to the Edmonds Crossing Project to leverage five times the grant funds to be used on the Edmonds Crossing Project. Councilmember Plunkett encouraged staff consider the comments presented by Ms. Hahn. COUNCILMEMBER DAVIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MILLER, TO EXTEND DISCUSSION OF THIS ITEM FOR FIVE MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Councilmember Davis inquired whether there was concern that the signage being installed by WSDOT on SR104 this spring would change traffic patterns and asked whether it would be preferable to do the survey after the project had been completed. Mr. Gebert answered detours would disrupt traffic patterns during WSDOT's project. He said there was not a concern that ferry patterns would be altered permanently. Councilmember Marin asked if it would be helpful in obtaining authorization from WSDOT to use the grant funds if the funds were transferred to the Edmonds Crossing Project this week. Mr. Gebert answered staff could inform WSDOT that the matching funds were available. If the Council transferred the funds and authorized award of the contract tonight in the amount of $49,000, staff could proceed with awarding the contract as soon as WSDOT authorized use of the grant funds. Staff would only then need to return to Council if WSDOT did not authorize the use of the grant funds. Mayor Haakenson remanded the matter to Council for action. COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, TO TAKE ACTION AS STAFF RECOMMENDED TONIGHT, BRINGING THIS ISSUE BACK ON THE CONSENT AGENDA AFTER NEGOTIATIONS WITH WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION HAVE BEEN CONCLUDED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. tanning 6. RECOMMENDATION REGARDING ONE-YEAR REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD ON oard One - Review ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS ccessory elling Planning Manager Rob Chave explained the Planning Board reviewed the City's experience with is accessory dwelling units during the year following Council adoption of amendments to the accessory dwelling units ordinance. He recalled the ordinance provided an amnesty period for illegal accessory Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 27, 2001 Page 7 dwelling units to register with the City, established new regulations that streamlined the process, and provided more criteria regarding what constituted an accessory dwelling unit and how they could fit into a neighborhood. He explained the City only received 24 applications during the past year; two-thirds were for attached accessory dwelling units and one-third for detached accessory dwelling units. Of the 24, 17 were registered during the amnesty period and 7 applications were processed for accessory dwelling units outside the amnesty period. He said 23 of the accessory dwelling units already existing, only one was newly created. Mr. Chave said the Planning Board felt accessory dwelling units were one way for the City to meet its affordable housing requirements while minimizing impacts on single family development. He said if the Council was willing, the Planning Board would be very interested in considering detached accessory dwelling units for inclusion in the City's code. Councilmember Plunkett observed this might result in two studies of the same issue. The State requires under GMA that the City report to GMA by November 2002 regarding buildable lands, requiring staff study density, housing and population. He questioned whether staff and the Planning Board would be studying the same thing. Mr. Chave said essentially the Planning Board did both. In light of the City's experience with the new accessory dwelling unit regulations, if the Council wanted to fast -track the discussion of detached accessory dwelling units, it could be undertaken right way. If the Council wanted to proceed more slowly, the City could wait until the research for the buildable lands report was conducted. Councilmember Petso asked if any complaints regarding parking, nuisance, etc. had been received for an accessory dwelling unit. Mr. Chave answered not that he was aware of. Councilmember Miller asked the potential negative impacts of amending the ordinance to allow detached accessory dwelling units. Mr. Chave answered the concern would be a property owner taking advantage of the regulations to construct a duplex or a second dwelling unit. The Planning Board would need to ensure detached accessory dwelling units were accessory units to the primary residence. The Planning Board was interested in allowing detached accessory dwelling units, not a second dwelling on the property. Councilmember Davis asked how representative the 24 registered accessory dwelling units were of the total number of accessory dwelling units. Mr. Chave recalled when the permit history was reviewed, it was estimated there were approximately 60 accessory dwelling units in existence. Councilmember Marin asked whether the seven detached accessory dwelling units that attempted to register could easily be brought into compliance. Mr. Chave answered yes, they were accessory to the main residence. Councilmember Marin inquired what direction the Planning Board was seeking. Mr. Chave answered the Planning Board recalled the Council did .not want to permit detached accessory dwelling units initially and they did not want to study the issue if the. Council was not interested in permitting detached accessory dwelling units. Council President Earling recalled he had a concern with detached accessory dwelling units when attached accessory dwelling units were considered and he continued to have a concern. Councilmember Petso agreed with Council President Earling. The concept of a large accessory dwelling unit at the edge of a property that would have a greater impact on a neighboring property was a concern to her and she was uncertain whether an ordinance could be drafted to address this. Councilmember Plunkett agreed with Council President Earling and Councilmember Petso. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 27, 2001 Page 8 Mayor Haakenson remanded the matter to Council for action. Councilmember Davis commented that last year he was agreeable to the attached accessory dwelling units but was concerned with detached accessory dwelling units. Councilmember Orvis agreed. COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, TO TABLE THE PLANNING BOARD'S REVIEW OF DETACHED ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS. MOTION CARRIED. (The vote was 6-1, Councilmember Marin opposed.) CH PAC 7• REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION FROM THE CONVENTION, CONFERENCE Committee CENTER/HOTEL, PERFORMING ARTS CENTER COMMITTEE OCH PAC COMMITTEE) Report — onvention, Conference Community Services Director Stephen Clifton explained the intent of this item was to provide the Center/Hotel Council an opportunity to discuss whether they are supportive of the City Center Convention Hotel and Performing Performing Arts Center (3CH PAC) Committee's recommendation that the City's explore the feasibility rals Center of developing a performing arts center and convention/conference center. He emphasized the recommendation was not Council's or staffs but the collection of individuals on the 3CH PAC Committee. He also pointed out the process was not staff driven. Further, the recommendation was the committee was requesting the Council explore the feasibility of developing a convention center, not developing a convention center. Mr. Clifton said at one time two separate committees were exploring the possibility/feasibility of 1) developing a conference/convention center and private hotel and 2) developing a performing arts center. The two committees were combined into one and the renamed Committee met for the first time on September 11, 2000. During several meetings, the committee discussed numerous issues including marketing demand, feasibility, financing mechanisms, types and sizes of conference and performing arts facilities, adjacent noise impacts, location, public facility district legislation and other issues. At the invitation of the committee, Greg Easton, principle of Property Counselors, attended some of the meetings. Property Counselors is an economic consulting firm and provides services such as market and feasibility analysis with specialized expertise in convention centers and performing arts centers. Mr. Easton presented information on specific functions of each type of facility in addition to answering questions from committee members. On December 18, 2000, the committee voted to recommend the Council consider a concept to utilize the area between Dayton and Main Streets and SR104 to Railroad Avenue in addition to possibly using other properties in the vicinity for the purpose of developing a Performing Arts Center for 800-1000 patrons and a Conference/Convention/Special Events Center for 500-600 attendees. In order to successfully attract attendees, an adjacent 200 unit hotel would need to be financed and constructed by the private sector. Mr. Clifton referred to the 3CH PAC Committee report provided in the Council packet. He highlighted the issue of market demand, stating it would be necessary at some point to prepare a report/study on the potential market demand, containing analysis of existing and future supply of and demand for similar facilities. The report should also contain a full financial assessment including construction costs. Information gathered would assist in evaluating development options. In 2000, the South Snohomish Public Facilities District received a final report on the potential market demand for a meeting facility to be located in Lynnwood. If a consulting firm were hired to perform a similar study in the Edmonds area, the cost could be as much as $40,000 and take 4-6 months to hire a consultant and perform the work. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 27, 2001 Page 9 One question asked by committee members was how to finance the study and possibly the facility. The cost associated with building such facilities would be in the tens of millions of dollars; an exact amount cannot be determined until a full market/feasibility study has been prepared. Mr. Clifton reported it was unlikely any entity had the funds to exclusively invest in this type of project. Thus it would be necessary to identify various forms of financing. As part of researching financing options/mechanisms, the committee requested staff research legislation that allowed cities to create a Public Facility District (PFD). He explained a 1999 State law allowed cities and counties to establish PFDs which are specifically authorized to acquire, construct, own, finance and operate one or more regional centers. A regional center is defined as a convention, conference or special events or any combination of facilities and parking. He pointed out in order to meet the definition of a regional center, a facility must 1) serve as a convention, conference or special events center, 2) serve a regional population, and 3) exceed $10 million in construction improvements or rehabilitation costs. There is an unanswered question of whether a performing arts center would meet the definition of a special events center or regional center; however, by combining this use with a convention center, it may be possible for the entire project to meet the definition as allowed under PFD legislation. He explained a PFD was a separate legal entity that offered funding opportunities related to construction and operation of a facility. PFDs operate under the same public meeting laws and public disclosure and record keeping requirements as any public agency. A PFD must also hold regular public meetings, make decisions in public, and take public testimony. A PFD can also provide independent oversight of a project in development, thus removing the City from this responsibility. According to RCW, a PFD is allowed to collect .033% sales and use tax without voter approval only if a PFD commences construction of a new regional center before January 1, 2003. However, a recent Department of Revenue interpretation now allows a City to collect the .033% prior to construction for preliminary and due diligence activities. This would allow a PFD to use the .033% sales and use tax to pay for a market demand and feasibility study. He pointed out the .033% sales and use tax was not a tax increase but a shift in funds. The State currently collects a sales and use tax; the PFD legislation allows the State to return the .033% sales and use tax for the amount collected in within a PFD. This could be described as a credit against the State's sales and use tax. In order to collect the tax, the PFD must also collect a matching amount equal to 1/3 of the amount collected by the PFD. He referred Councilmembers to further information regarding the 1/3 matching amount in attachments 6, 7, 8 and 9. Mr. Clifton said if a PFD were in existence today and collecting the sales and use tax during 2001, it was estimated they would collect approximately $168,000. A local match of 1/3 or $56,204 must be provided to the PFD as required by the legislation. The local match may include cash, in kind contributions, land donation, and amounts attributed to private sector partners. PFDs also have the ability to impose admission taxes and facility vehicle parking charges without voter approval as well as a .2% sales and use tax with voter approval. PFDs may also issue obligation bonds in the amount of .5% without voter approval and 1.25% with voter approval. Regarding direct and indirect financial benefits, Mr. Clifton explained a convention/conference/special events center was typically driven more by economic needs than public need while an arts center was typically driven more by public need than economic needs. A successful convention/conference/special events center could become a strong economic engine for the local economy; however, performing arts centers could also have direct and indirect economic benefits. These two facilities also have the ability to compliment one another. Direct and indirect economic benefits to the local community from a special events or performing arts center would be better defined upon completion of a market demand/feasibility study. Mr. Clifton explained the market demand and feasibility study prepared for Lynnwood showed a direct/indirect financial benefit of $9 million and $20 million respectively if the convention center were Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes. February 27, 2001 Page 10 built. These amounts are offset by the need for Lynnwood to subsidize the center $300,000 per year after the third year (considered the year of stabilization). Mr. Clifton described other issues of concern raised by the committee included zoning and building height, parking, train whistles and vibration, hotel rooms and highway access, and Port of Edmonds proximity to the site. He explained in order to locate a facility on the site indicated in the recommendation, the City would have to grant a rezone of the property to P (Public). The existing height limit on the property is 25 feet with an additional 5 feet for pitched roofs. Structures are allowed up to 60 feet in height with approval of a Conditional Use Permit if the new Community Facilities regulations are adopted. Estimated heights of the proposed facility are 50-70 feet because conference and exhibition staging and performing arts centers require greater heights. Regarding parking, he explained in order to utilize available land, structured parking would be the most likely method of parking. The 3CH PAC Committee also discussed the possibility of constructing parking above future parking lots used for Sound Transit and Amtrak. A significant concern of committee members was the level and frequency of train whistles and their. potential negative impact to and interruptions of performances and meetings taking place in either facility. He described federal regulations that require lead locomotives to have audible warning devices at least 100 feet ahead of the locomotive. The vibration created by passing trains was also a concern of the committee. There are methods for insulating against noise and vibration but this will add to development costs. In order to operate a successful conference/convention/special events center, there was a need for adequate hotel rooms in close proximity to the center. This was emphasized by Greg Easton and in a report on potential market demand for a meeting facility to be located in Lynnwood. According to the report, proximity to hotel rooms was important for the success of a convention center. According to the report's highlights, success was dependent on visibility from and accessibility to highways and proximity to a substantial hotel inventory. Further, meeting planners would give preference to facilities that were connected to or directly adjacent to hotels with sufficient capacity to accommodate the majority of attendees. The 3CH PAC Committee recognizes that if a PFD were formed and a convention/conference/special events center built, the facility would have to host smaller events than Lynnwood is proposing. This is due to the fact that Edmonds currently only has 92 known hotel rooms. In order to host conferences of up to 600 attendees, a new privately financed and constructed 200 unit hotel would have to be constructed. There was discussion among the 3CH PAC Committee members regarding whether the Port of Edmonds would want to be involved in this project or contribute toward the creation of the facility. If so, Port Commissioners would want to see what was being proposed. Mr. Clifton summarized timing was critical; the Council should determine soon whether to establish a PFD and whether to develop a convention/performing arts center. It was the Committee's understanding that failure to begin construction before January 1, 2003 would result in the PFD having to terminate the collection of the .033% sales and use tax beyond this date. If there was interest in determining the future market of such a facility, either the City or the PFD could undertake the responsibility of hiring a consultant to perform that study. If the Council decided to form a PFD prior to performing a market demand study, it would take some time to form the PFD and begin collecting funds to operate, thus slowing down the process. Responding to Mayor Haakenson's question, Mr. Clifton assured it was not staff s recommendation, it was the Committee's recommendation. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 27, 2001 Page 11. Councilmember Miller explained he was the driving force behind the 3CH PAC Committee. He acknowledged the work done by Councilmembers Petso and Plunkett and several members of the committee in the audience. Councilmember Miller explained the driving issue was his and other Councilmembers' interest in bringing economic vitality to the downtown business district as well as the opportunity to explore a partnership with a private property owner in the area described by Mr. Clifton. He said in the process of the Committee's discussions, it became apparent there were a number of funding mechanisms as well as other uses that could be funded via a PFD such as a pool. He encouraged the Council to consider including the entire downtown business district or even the entire City as part of the market demand study. Councilmember Davis asked how the leadership of a PFD was selected. Mr. Clifton explained the PFD Board was comprised of five members appointed by the legislative body (the Council). Two of the members could be at -large and three of the members must be recommended by local organizations (Chamber of Commerce, Arts Community, etc.). Councilmember Davis asked if the matching funds could be staff time. Mr. Clifton answered yes, pointing out a Lynnwood employee worked 50% for the PFD and 50% for the city and the Finance Director and City Attorney were allowed to assist the PFD. Council President Earling asked how the size of the study area would impact the cost of the market demand study. Mr. Clifton answered the boundaries of a PFD were the City's boundaries. The larger the area to be studied, the more expensive the study would be. The $40,000 in the Committee's recommendation would fund a market demand study of the specific area. Council President Earling said he supported a broader range of choices and preferred the market demand study include the downtown business district. Councilmember Petso asked whether the funds collected would need to be returned if a facility were not constructed. Mr. Clifton answered no, referring to a letter from the State Auditor that states should the entity determine the creation of a regional center or other allowable activity is not going to occur, the entity should cease collecting the sales and use tax. All sales and use tax funds expended until that date would not be questioned in an audit so long as the funds were spent toward the allowable activities. Councilmember Petso recalled the funds must be expended toward an allowable activity, therefore, using all the funds to study a performing arts center or a pool may be problematic as it is uncertain whether . either a performing arts center or pool would qualify as a regional center. Mr. Clifton referred to a memo from Foster Pepper & Shefelman, Attorneys at Law, that suggests adding sports facilities, entertainment facilities and museums to the definition of regional center. He said this could be interpreted that Foster Pepper & Shefelman does not feel sports facilities, entertainment facilities or museums meet the current definition. Councilmember Petso asked if there was any legislative effort underway to add those uses. Mr. Clifton answered none that he was aware of. Councilmember Petso asked whether the City lost control once the PFD was formed. For example, if a performing arts center were constructed, could the City require the PFD to provide preference to the City's art organizations. Mr. Clifton said Foster Pepper & Shefelman concurred with his interpretation, that the requirement for the center to serve a regional population would preclude their giving preference to local organizations. Councilmember Petso commented the City would have only the advantage of the center's location but no other advantage in terms of use of the facility. Mr. Clifton assured the facility would be available for local organizations; it was only that preference could not be given to local organization over regional activities. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 27, 2001 Page 12 Councilmember Petso recalled an audience comment related to the PFD's ability to issue a bond without voter approval. Mr. Clifton responded the PFD could issue bonds in the amount of .5% of the PFD's assessed value (the City's assessed value) without voter approval. He said he would contact Administrative Services Director Peggy Hetzler to determine what that amount would be. Councilmember Petso asked whether a PFD formed to develop a convention and performing arts center could ultimately result in a PFD for a pool by the end of the process or if the PFD could be restricted in the type of regional center it was pursuing. Mr. Clifton answered the PFD would be an autonomous and separate entity once established that could be sued, enter into contracts, etc. separate from the City. He emphasized it would be important for the Council to select boardmembers who embraced the Council's vision to prevent the PFD from moving in another direction. The City could enter into a legal contract at the time the PFD was formed to ensure the boardmembers followed the Council's vision. Councilmember Petso recalled the committee did not have one vision but there were a variety of visions. She said if the PFD were formed now, it would be difficult to obligate boardmembers to a particular vision since a single vision had not yet been established. Mr. Clifton agreed. Councilmember Plunkett said the Council could vote to form a PFD without directing it include any elements. Mr. Clifton cautioned when a PFD was formed, their responsibility would be to consider the feasibility and construct a regional center. Councilmember Plunkett said unless the Council provided direction, the PFD ,Board would ultimately decide what to study. Mr. Clifton agreed that was correct if the Council allowed them to do so. However, he cautioned against it. Councilmember Orvis asked who would issue the PFD bonds that did not require voter approval. Mr. Clifton explained the PFD would issue the bonds separately from the City and would not impact the City's debt capacity. Councilmember Orvis observed the revenue sources available to the PFD could be used to pay off the bonds. Councilmember Orvis asked what taxing authority the PFD had. Mr. Clifton explained without voter approval, the PFD could impose a 5% admissions tax on admissions paid to the regional center and a 10% tax on vehicle parking charged at parking facilities owned or leased by the PFD. With voter approval, the PFD may impose a .2% sales and use tax which would be a tax increase (opposed to the .033% sales and use tax which was a credit). The PFD also had the ability to issue General Obligation Bonds in the amount of .5% of the PFD's assessed value without voter approval and 1.25% with voter approval. Councilmember Davis inquired whether there were any significant costs associated with the formation of a PFD. Mr. Clifton answered yes, because they would undertake activities to consider the feasibility and market demand, conduct meetings and research, etc. Funding for those activities could be provided via a loan, a grant, contributions from the private sector, etc. Councilmember Davis asked if the City would be responsible for providing start-up costs. Mr. Clifton said the City would not necessarily be responsible but the PFD would need start-up costs from some source. He was uncertain how the PFD would acquire funds without some entity providing assistance until they could begin collecting the .033% sales and use tax. He said it may be possible to have the PFD repay the City for funding the cost of the feasibility and market demand study or other start-up costs. In order to do that, the City would need to enter into an interlocal agreement with the PFD to ensure repayment of any monies provided the PFD. Councilmember Davis inquired how much that would be. Mr. Clifton answered Lynnwood provided their PFD $25,000. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 27, 2001 Page 13 Councilmember Davis asked if the PFD could be dissolved if the Council was not satisfied with their work. Mr. Clifton answered yes. Councilmember Davis asked if the City would be responsible for the PFD's liabilities if it were dissolved. Mr. Clifton answered it was his understanding the City would not be responsible as the PFD was a separate entity. The PFD would be entirely independent of the City with the exception of the Council enacting legislation to establish the PFD and having the ability to terminate the PFD. Councilmember Petso asked whether Councilmembers could serve on the PFD board. Mr. Clifton answered no, RCW 35.57.010(A) states the appointed boardmembers shall not be members of the legislative authority of the city or town. He said this was created specifically to avoid conflicts of interest. Councilmember Petso asked if City staff could serve on the board. Mr. Clifton answered Lynnwood placed their Finance Director on the board. Councilmember Petso asked what happened if the Council did not agree with the PFD, if the regional facility that was envisioned at the beginning was small meeting center with no exhibition center and no need to exceed height limits and the PFD determined the property be more efficiently utilized if the height limits were increased. Mr. Clifton answered the height limits could only be exceeded if the City granted a rezone and conditional use permit. If the City did not approve a rezone and conditional permit, because the proposed structure must comply with the existing regulations, the project would likely come to an end. Councilmember Marin asked who paid the PFD's remaining obligations if a decision was made to terminate the district, thereby eliminating their revenue source. Mr. Clifton said it would not be the City's obligation as the City would not be liable for the PFD's actions. He was uncertain who would incur the outstanding debt if the PFD were terminated. Councilmember Orvis questioned how the repayment of bonds could be guaranteed without a steady income. Mr. Clifton answered the debt service would be paid by revenue from the facility. The PFD would be required to show there was a source of revenue available to repay the bonds. Mayor Haakenson remanded the matter to Council for action. Councilmember Marin said although he would like to support this type of facility but planned to vote against it because he was unwilling to increase building heights, did not support imposing new taxes without voter approval and said the project had .questionable viability. He pointed out Oak Harbor and Lynnwood's investigation of such a facility indicated it was not a viable project. He was also concerned with building in an area that was previously a_saltwater marsh that was drained and filled 50 years ago, likely not in accordance with today's standards. He did not support funding a feasibility study until the viability of the project could be justified. He recalled staff mentioned if this project were successful it could provide an engine for economic growth; he questioned the outcome if it was not successful. Council President Earling suggested the City Attorney draft a document that outlined what the PFD might look like if the Council chose to empower it and hold a public hearing on that document. He said the Council was not in a position to make a judgment tonight, particularly in light of the variety of issues facing the community that are equally as important such as how to fund the library, whether to build a swimming pool, extensive street overlay needs throughout the City, wiring for the Frances Anderson Center, and other capital and repair needs throughout the City. He emphasized the Council had not yet prioritized these issues. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 27, 2001 Page 14 Councilmember Plunkett also supported holding a public hearing. He suggested the City Attorney draft an ordinance creating the PFD and bring �it to the Council for a�public hearing. Councilmember Marin agreed with Council President Earling's suggestion. Councilmember Davis also agreed the public needed to weigh-in on this. He said establishing a priority for capital spending was a necessary component of this discussion. Councilmember Orvis agreed with holding a public hearing. He was reluctant to create the PFD without establishing a vision, although he liked the concept of using a PFD to assist with the development of a convention center or pool. He shared Councilmember Marin's concerns, pointing out he too was unwilling to change height limits. He would also be reluctant to support any project that enhanced the ability to establish cardrooms in the City. Councilmember Petso said the 3CH PAC Committee requested the Council consider the concept of a performing arts/convention center and consider forming a PFD. She said the intent to hold a public hearing fulfilled the desires of the committee. She suggested the public hearing consider the issues separately. She preferred the public hearing include staff input in the form of a cover memo regarding what was being considered and why their input was being requested. She expressed concern citizens may miss opportunities for public comment if they were only provided the ordinance forming a PFD. Councilmember Miller appreciated Councilmembers Marin and Orvis' reluctance to move forward due to risks, pointing out many activities required risks. He pointed out the City had struggled with economic vitality for years and he viewed the PFD as a viable tool for economic viability. He suggested a draft ordinance establishing a PFD for the downtown business district be developed to incorporate a market demand feasibility study and consider potential sites including the site the committee reviewed for a potential conference/convention/performing arts center. He also supported holding a public hearing. COUNCILMEMBER MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, TO DEVELOP A DRAFT ORDINANCE FORMING A PUBLIC FACILITIES DISTRICT AND TO PERFORM A MARKET ANALYSIS AND FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR THE DOWNTOWN BUSINESS DISTRICT AND HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING THE DRAFT ORDINANCE AND THE LOCATION OF THE STUDY AREA. Councilmember Davis asked if the PFD would be limited to the property mentioned or if other properties could be investigated. Councilmember Miller said the PFD would be citywide; his proposal was to study the market demand of business in the downtown business district to include the site the committee examined. Councilmember Marin inquired why the Hwy. 99 area was excluded from the market demand study and feasibility study even though there was a high-rise zoning area on Hwy. 99 that could accommodate a large structure. Councilmember Miller said there were constraints regarding the studies, money and the intent to tie the downtown business district to Sound Transit access, SR-104, the Port as a possible partner, and sites in that area that needed redevelopment. He supported conducting a feasibility study on other areas if additional funds were available. Councilmember Marin suggested the public be allowed to comment on whether to limit the study to only the downtown business district. Councilmember Plunkett spoke in favor of drafting an ordinance creating the PFD for the downtown business district due to the increased cost of study that included Hwy. 99 and because the City's Comprehensive Plan, downtown waterfront plan, transportation plan and the HyettPalma study all Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 27, 2001 Page 15 address the need to tie downtown to the waterfront. Councilmember Plunkett said the consideration of a convention center began 3-4 years ago when former Councilmember Van Hollebeke suggested utilizing HyettPalma to assist with creating a vision for the City. At a meeting in the theater with 200-250 people in attendance, most people cited the importance of tying the waterfront to the downtown. Councilmember Petso supported seeking comment from the public on a wide range of issues associated with the City Center Convention Hotel and Performing Arts Center. She supported Councilmember Marin's suggestion that the study consider the entire City. Councilmember Orvis supported holding a public hearing on a draft ordinance but preferred the entire City be considered, including Hwy. 99 where increased building heights were allowed that could accommodate a larger facility. He said limiting the study to the downtown area forced a conflict between height limits and development of a performing arts center. Council President Earling suggested although the draft ordinance would indicate a study of the downtown business district, the public hearing notices could indicate the Council's intent to discuss a citywide study. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 8. MAYOR'S REPORT aramedics Mayor Haakenson reported action to bring paramedics into the Edmonds and Lynnwood Fire Departments had been delayed by Lynnwood firefighters' contract negotiations going into arbitration. ommuni Mayor Haakenson advised any citizen could pick-up a copy of the Council packet on Friday afternoons. Facilities He announced at the March 6 meeting, the Council would discuss the Community Facilities Ordinance tbrary which addresses where schools, churches, and government facilities can be located in the City. There vexation were also several library annexation issues on the March 6 Council agenda. esign Mayor Haakenson reported the Planning Board was holding a public hearing during each of the next uidelines three months regarding the Architectural Design Board's design guidelines. He encouraged the public to attend one of those three meetings to comment on the guidelines. When the Planning Board completed that process, they would consider where the ADB review should be in the process. 9. INDIVIDUAL COUNCIL REPORTS/UPDATES ON RESPECTIVE BOARD MEETINGS Excused Absence COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DAVIS, TO EXCUSE COUNCILMEMBER MILLER FROM THE FEBRUARY 6 AND FEBRUARY 20 MEETINGS AS HE WAS OUT OF TOWN ON BUSINESS. MOTION CARRIED. (The vote was 6- 0-1; Councilmember Miller abstained.) Council President Earling reported former Seattle Mayor Charles Royer would chair a committee that Sound would scrutinize the work Sound Transit was doing regarding light rail construction. The committee's charge would be to review the alignment that has been under consideration since November 1999 and make recommendations to the Sound Transit Board. Council President Earling thanked people from Edmonds and throughout the region who continued to voice their support for light rail. He said polling across the region indicated the vast majority support moving forward with light rail as a solution to the area's long term transportation needs. ng Range ask Force Council President Earling appointed Councilmember Marin and himself to the Long Range Task Force. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 27, 2001 Page 16 r x s'. wK n Councilmember Miller expressed his appreciation to the 3CH PAC Committee. He said during the ital discussion, it became apparent there was no planning in place for the prioritization of capital facilities. ilities He encouraged Mayor Haakenson and staff to prepare a preliminary report on strategic capital facilities planning and take it to the Community Services Committee for review. Mayor Haakenson commented the Long Range Task Force planned to undertake this task. ealth I Councilmember Marin reported there were now 11 measles outbreaks to the south and one to the north District (Camano Island). He urged the public to ensure they had the proper immunizations and if they did not, to go to Public Health to be immunized. !Port Master Councilmember Davis reported the Port Master Plan was approved in draft form. He complimented the lan Port staff and commissioners for the work they have done, noting there was a great deal of public input and the plan developed was a good one. He encouraged the public to review the plan. Historical Councilmember Plunkett reported the Historical Preservation Advisory Committee met twice and have Preservation broken into subcommittees to consider historical sites and incentives to encourage building owners to Advisory maintain the historical condition of their buildings. . The Committee will also be surveying the Committee community. An education committee will communicate to property owners and citizens the intent of -historical preservation. Councilmember Plunkett listed the members of the committee, advising the Committee would provide a report to the Council on March 27. snocom Mayor Haakenson reported the SnoCom Board authorized him (as Chair) to sign a contract to begin construction of the new SnoCom facility. With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 9:25 p.m. G Y HA NSON, MAYOR d'.6, ' . 2�4a SANDRA S. CHASE, CITY CLERK Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 27, 2001 Page 17 AGENDA �,- EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL wv Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex 250 5t" Avenue North 7:00 -10:00 p.m. FEBRUARY 27, 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 RETREAT MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 9 AND 10, 2001 (C) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 20, 2001 (D) APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #46663 THROUGH #46726 FOR THE WEEK OF FEBRUARY 19, 2001, IN THE AMOUNT OF $31,840.91. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSITS AND CHECKS #1420 THROUGH #1501 FOR THE PERIOD FEBRUARY 1 THROUGH FEBRUARY 15, 2001, IN THE'AMOUNT OF $750,956.50. (E) ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM WENDEL PARKER ($528.82), AND MICHAEL PEDERSON (Amount Undetermined) (F) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH R.W. BECK, INC. FOR LIFT STATION 1 RENOVATION DESIGN 3. AUDIENCE COMMENTS (3 Minute Limit Per Person) 4. (15 Min.) CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING THE PLANNING BOARD'S RECOMMENDATION TO ADD NEW DEFINITIONS TO EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE CHAPTER 21 FOR TRELLISES AND ARBORS, SPECIFYING LIMITATIONS ON AREA AND HEIGHT 5. (10 Min.) APPROVAL OF CONSULTANT CONTRACT AWARD FOR THE EDMONDS CROSSING - PINE STREET FERRY TRAFFIC STUDY 6. (15 Min.) RECOMMENDATION REGARDING ONE-YEAR REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD ON ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS 7. (60 Min.) REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION FROM THE CONVENTION, CONFERENCE CENTER/HOTEL, PERFORMING ARTS CENTER COMMITTEE (3CH PAC COMMITTEE) 8. (5 Min.) MAYOR'S REPORT 9. (15 Min.) INDIVIDUAL COUNCIL REPORTS/UPDATES ON RESPECTIVE BOARD MEETINGS I 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.