Loading...
07/24/2001 City CouncilEDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES July 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 5'h 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 Richard Marin, Councilmember STAFF PRESENT Tom Tomberg, Fire Chief Greg Wean, Acting Police Chief Duane Bowman, Development Serv. Director Stephen Clifton, Community Services Director Peggy Hetzler, Administrative Services Director Noel Miller, Public Works Director Arvilla Ohlde, Parks and Recreation Director Jim Larson, Assistant Admin. Serv. Director Rob Chave, Planning Manager Dave Gebert, City Engineer Don Fiene, Assistant City Engineer Steve Bullock, Senior Planner Zach Lell, City Attorney Sandy Chase, City Clerk Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst. Jeannie Dines, Recorder 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA hange to Benda COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, TO REMOVE AGENDA ITEM #8 (Authorization to Call for Bids for the Incinerator Heat Exchanger at the Treatment Plant) AT STAFF'S REQUEST. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MILLER, FOR APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, FOR APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: Approve (A) ROLL CALL 7/17/01 Minutes (B) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JULY 17, 2001 'Approve (C) APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #49446 THROUGH #49568 FOR THE WEEK OF Claim JULY 16, 2001, IN THE AMOUNT OF $523,502.51. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT Checks DEPOSITS AND CHECKS #2484 THROUGH #2653 FOR THE PERIOD JULY 1 THROUGH JULY 15, 2001, IN THE AMOUNT OF $813,286.18 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 24, 2001 Page 1 ID 215 and 16 (D) APPROVAL OF PROJECT COSTS FOR LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT 215 AND dway 216 I aview entary kay (E) REPORT ON BIDS OPENED DUNE 12, 2001 FOR THE WOODWAY ELEMENTARY c SCHOOL WALKWAY AND SEAVIEW ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TRAFFIC CALMING ing, & AND PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS, AND AUTHORIZATION TO REJECT ALL strian BIDS ct National (F) PROCLAMATION IN HONOR OF NATIONAL KIDS DAY, AUGUST 5, 2001 Kids Day ille Sewwer (G) APPROVE TERMS OF AGREED JUDGMENT AND JUST COMPENSATION FOR Peee Proroj. TEMPORARY EASEMENT IN ASSOCIATION WITH PERRINVILLE SEWER PROJECT eneral Fund (H) REPORT ON THE GENERAL FUND AND OTHER SELECTED FUNDS FINANCIAL POSITION FOR THE MONTH ENDING JUNE 2001 3. PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2001 BUDGET AS A RESULT OF UNANTICIPATED TRANSFERS AND EXPENDITURES OF VARIOUS FUNDS; PROPOSED ORDINANCE TO REPEAL ORDINANCE NO. 2107 RELATING TO THE CUMULATIVE RESERVE FUND; ACCEPT TREASURER'S CERTIFICATION OF SUFFICIENCY RELATING Amend TO THE LOCAL IMPROVEMENT GUARANTY FUND 001 Budget Administrative Services Director Peggy Hetzler explained the first ordinance for Council consideration amends the 2001 budget for supplemental appropriations authorized by the Council during the first half of 2001 and included a number of additional items that represented corrections to the 2001 budget. State law requires budget amendments be authorized by ordinance; the City has traditionally adopted a budget amendment twice each year to capture the changes. Earlier today staff realized one significant item approved by the Council had been omitted from the ordinance; therefore, the Council was provided an amended ordinance. She indicated two revised tables, itemizing the requested changes, were also provided to the Council. Ms. Hetzler referred to Table 1, a compilation of budget amendments previously approved by the Council that provides a description of the item, the date of Council approval, funding source and the amount of the appropriation. The total of previously authorized appropriations was $1,393,330. Of this amount, approximately $1 million represents transfers of funds set aside in various City funds for various purposes that did not require the use of General Fund cash in 2001. She reviewed the transfers including a transfer from the Council Contingency Fund of $200,000 to the General Fund for legal contingencies, $93,000 to the Multimodal Fund for the Pine Street Traffic Study, $200,000 to the Capital Projects Fund for Fire Station 16, $30,000 for an ESA Study and Buildable Lands Inventory, $250,000 in the accumulative reserve fund and $210,000 in the LID Guaranty Fund to the Capital Project Fund for Fire Station 16, and a $34,000 transfer from the Hotel/Motel Tax Fund to the Public Facilities District Fund. A new item was included in Table 1, an appropriation of $220,000 from the Combined Street Construction/Improvement Fund ending cash for the overlay projects approved by the Council at the June 6 meeting. Ms. Hetzler reviewed Table 2, a compilation of corrections to the 2001 budget and one new item. The corrections total $1,883,010. Of this amount $1.8 million relates to transfers and appropriations for the Marina Beach purchase. In the 2001 budget, staff budgeted receipt of an IAC grant in the amount of $900,000 within Fund 125; however, the City's local match of $900,000 was omitted during the budget process. A budget amendment is necessary to transfer IAC grant funding from Fund 125 to Fund 126 and Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 24, 2001 Page 2 authorize the use of ending cash within Fund 126 for the City's match. Although both Fund 125 and 126 receive revenue from Real Estate Excise Tax (REET), they have different allowable uses and the purchase of park property was more appropriately reflected in Fund 126. The remaining corrections include the recognition of $17,000 in Fire Department grants, transfer of budgeting authority for the Domestic Violence Coordinator from the Criminal Justice Fund to the General Fund in the amount of $16,000, authorization to use $10,000 of ending cash within the Firefighters Pension Fund for an actuarial study, and corrections to the Police Department budget in the amount of $9,590 for year 2000 carry -forward items that were omitted from the 2001 budget. Ms. Hetzler explained Table 2 included one new item; an additional $30,000 appropriation. from Ending Cash Balance in the Combined Street Construction/Improvement Fund for one overlay project not included in the original $220,000 approved by the Council on June 6. The total of the supplemental appropriations in Tables 1 and 2 is $3,276,340. Of this amount, the impact to the General Fund is a -' revenue increase of approximately $307,000 and an expenditure increase of $337,000 for a net increase to the 2001 General Fund budget of only $30,000. Ms. Hetzler advised the materials distributed to the Council also included a revised Exhibit 3, a summary of the amendments required to adjust the various funds to accomplish the necessary appropriations. The total of Exhibit 3 is $3,363,360, which is $86,000 more than the appropriations in Tables 1 and 2. She explained a phenomenon in governmental accounting requires double counting of expenditures and revenues when they involve transfers between two funds. The materials include a table illustrating the affects of the double accounting and reconciling Tables 1 and 2. Ms. Hetzler explained Exhibit 4 was an ordinance repealing the Cumulative Reserve Fund and authorizing the transfer of the fund balance of $250,000 to the Capital Projects Fund for Fire Station 16. Exhibit 5, also related to Fire Station 16, is a certification from her, as the City's Treasurer, that the City's Local Improvement Guaranty Fund has sufficient cash balance to allow the transfer of $210,000 to s the Capital Projects Fund. 010 Staff recommends Council approval of the ordinance amending the 2001 budget, approval of the ordinance to repeal the Cumulative Reserve Fund, and approval of the Treasurer's Certification of Local Improvement District Guaranty Fund. Councilmember Petso observed approximately $600,000 had been transferred from the Council Contingency Fund. She inquired how much remained in the Council Contingency Fund. Ms. Hetzler answered approximately $236,000. Councilmember Petso inquired about the new street overlay project in the amount of $30,000. Development Services Director Duane Bowman answered the appropriation was for 12`h Place N, the first alternate on the City's overlay projects. Staff discovered barricades had been erected to pave that roadway but it was actually the first alternate. Because the neighborhood's expectations were raised that the roadway would be paved, it was determined the overlay could be done using the balance of the 112 Fund. He noted the condition of the roadway justified the overlay. Councilmember Petso inquired about the Firefighters Pension Fund actuarial evaluation. Ms. Hetzler advised this was done every three years and had been erroneously omitted from the 2001 budget. Councilmember Petso asked why funding for the Domestic Violence Coordinator was moved from the Criminal Justice Fund to the General Fund. Ms. Hetzler answered the funding would still come from Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 24, 2001 Page 3 Criminal Justice Fund. Judge White requested the funding be moved to the General Fund, separating it from the municipal court budget to avoid any appearance of conflict of interest. Councilmember Plunkett asked why the Council was only learning of the Fire Department grants now and why they had not been presented previously to the Finance or Public Safety Committee. Fire Chief Tom Tomberg explained grant awards have not been brought to the Public Safety committee in the past. He noted staff is often not aware of grants when the budget is compiled; when grants become available, staff takes advantage of the opportunity and applies for the grant. Councilmember Plunkett questioned why the grants were not presented to the Council as they occurred over the past six months. Chief Tomberg explained budget amendments are done twice a year. Ms. Hetzler responded the grants could be handled in that manner; the City has typically amended the budget twice a year to reflect increased revenue. The 2001 budget is being amended to show the grant revenue and to amend the Fire Department budget to allow them to expend the funds. She explained the items in Table 1 required specific Council action; the Fire Department grants did not. Councilmember Plunkett asked where in the budget amendment the other grants the City received were reflected. Ms. Hetzler answered the Fire Department grants were the only unbudgeted grants, the other grants the City has received were included in the budget. Mayor Haakenson opened the public comment portion of this item. There were no members of the public present who wished to address the Council regarding this item. Mayor Haakenson closed the public comment portion. COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MILLER, FOR APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE NO. 3369, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 3336 AS A RESULT OF UNANTICIPATED TRANSFERS AND EXPENDITURES OF VARIOUS FUNDS. Councilmember Petso commented the mid -year budget adjustment always resulted in some surprises. She suggested the Council consider having the Finance Committee review the amendments prior to presenting them to the Council. This would allow the Council adequate time to have staff address any concerns. Councilmember Plunkett supported the motion and concurred with Councilmember Petso's suggestion to have the amendments reviewed by the Finance Committee in the future. He preferred something more than just a list of items that had no supporting details in the packet and that had not been previously reviewed by the Council or a Council committee. Councilmember Miller pointed out the. budget amendment had been a Consent Agenda item in the past. He concurred with the suggestion to have the Finance Committee review the amendments. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The ordinance approved is as follows: rd# 3369 Amend 2001 ORDINANCE NO. 3369 OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING Bud et ORDINANCE NO. 3336 AS A RESULT OF UNANTICIPATED TRANSFERS AND EXPENDITURES OF VARIOUS FUNDS, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, FOR APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE NO. 3370, REPEALING THE PROVISIONS OF ORDINANCE NO. 2107 AND THE CUMULATIVE RESERVE FUND AND TRANSFERRING THE BALANCE OF THE FUND TO THE GENERAL FUND. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 24, 2001 Page 4 rd# 3370 Repeal Ord #2107, Cumulative Reserve Fund Accept Treasurer's Certification Regarding Sufficiency f LID uaranty and Councilmember Petso reiterated her concern with repealing the Cumulative Reserve Fund. She pointed out the Cumulative Reserve was an important part of the City's financial reserves and the transfer would drop the City below the level desired for a City of Edmonds' size. She was also concerned with transferring the Cumulative Reserve in view of the transfer of approximately $600,000 from the Council Contingency Fund. Mayor Haakenson asked Ms. Hetzler to address Councilmember Petso's comment that this dropped the City below the required reserve funds for a City of Edmonds size. Ms. Hetzler explained the recommendation by the Government Finance Officers Association is that cities maintain emergency reserves in the approximate amount of 5% of General Fund expenditures. Edmonds is funded in excess of 5%, approximately at 6.5%. MOTION CARRIED (5-1), COUNCILMEMBER PETSO OPPOSED. The ordinance approved is as follows: ORDINANCE NO. 3370 OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, REPEALING THE PROVISIONS OF ORDINANCE NO. 2107 AND THE CUMULATIVE RESERVE FUND FOR GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES NO. 002 CREATED THEREBY, TRANSFERRING THE BALANCE OF SUCH FUND TO THE GENERAL FUND, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, TO ACCEPT THE TREASURER'S CERTIFICATION REGARDING THE SUFFICIENCY OF LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT GUARANTY FUND TO ALLOW FOR THE TRANSFER OF EXCESS LID GUARANTY FUNDS TO THE GENERAL FUND. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. National National KidsDay, August 5 (Consent Agenda Item K) Kids Day Mayor Haakenson explained because America doesn't currently designate an official day to celebrate kids, four youth -serving organizations — Boys & Girls Clubs of America, 4-H, KidsPeace, and YMCA — have united to establish National KidsDay as a new national tradition. The National KidsDay Alliance encourages children and adults to share in relationship -building activities that create positive memorable experiences on National KidsDay and beyond. National KidsDay will take place every year on the first Sunday in August, beginning this year on August 5. The long-term goal is to place National KidsDay on the national calendar. Mayor Haakenson advised a Proclamation in honor of National KidsDay would be presented to the Boys & Girls Club on July 27 at their Olympic Games ceremony. Parks and Recreation Director Arvilla Ohlde recognized Julie Barris and Karen Pearson, Boys & Girls Club, who asked that she stress National KidsDay was an opportunity for children and parents to spend meaningful time together. 4. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, Edmonds, agreed with Councilmember Petso's suggestion and said ewspaper Councilmembers should not vote in favor of items that "did not come down right from staff." He icles referred to a newspaper article provided to the Council regarding the Everett waterfront and urged the Planned Council to read the Herald on a regular basis as it contained a great deal of information such as the Residential Public Facilities District Everett is forming. Regarding the Council's work session on the Planning Develop- ment p � � evement PRD P Board's recommendation to revise the Planned Residential Development rovisions,.Mr. Hertrich Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 24, 2001 Page 5 said the biggest fear with PRD's was the 'p6ssibility of shifting buildings from steep slopes to a line of buildings that can potentially block views. He said the proposed ordinance would result in major changes such as allowing attached structures, change the bulk and standards of buildings, and increase density. He urged the Council to consider why the PRD ordinance was originally established versus the current goal of inviting developers to use the ordinance. He pointed out the existing PRD ordinance only allowed a PRD with five or more lots; the proposed revisions would allow a PRD with two or more lots. He urged the Council to carefully consider the proposed changes. Mayor Haakenson referred to Mr. Hertrich's comment that Councilmembers should not vote for items that did not come down right from staff, explaining in the six years he has been in the City, this was the correct way staff has presented budget amendments. Mr. Hertrich responded that if the Council did not like the procedures, they should vote no to affect change. 5. REPORT FROM THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE ON A NEW SPECIAL EVENT — "HOT Chamber of AUTUMN NIGHTS" Commerce - ew Special Event Shari Nault, Executive Director, Greater Edmonds Chamber of Commerce, recognized the members of the Hot Autumn Nights committee in the audience. She explained the Chamber wanted to put on a new event to attract visitors and residents to downtown retail and services, to showcase Edmonds restaurants who will be serving in front of their locations, tap a new demographic market, and to augment the Taste of Edmonds revenue (which provides 60% of the Chambers operating budget). Ms. Nault described characteristics of typical classic car show participants and spectators. She explained the goal was to host a premiere, upscale event and attract a different crowd that may not have participated in Edmonds events in the past. Jim Meisenburg, Chair of Hot Autumn Nights, described the logistics of the Classic Car Show to be held on September 8 including the itinerary for the event, street closure, downtown street festivities, cruise to the Port, and dance. He described the location of the car registration, car staging holding area, viewing, announcements/awards, microbrew, and food service. He described facilities for the event and services such as clean-up, security, and insurance. Council President Earling asked about the insurance for the event. Ms. Nault explained the Chamber had a major insurance policy as well as a rider for additional events. Water 6. PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA) Quality REQUIRED WATER QUALITY BROCHURE Brochure Councilmember Marin explained the Public Health Board had a discussion regarding water quality and communities who have a difficult time getting good water. He was aware residents of Edmonds received a brochure from the City describing the water quality and suggested Public Works Director Noel Miller make a presentation to the Council regarding water quality. Mr. Miller explained the annual water quality report was sent to all the City's water customers during May. He advised additional copies of the report are available from the City. He explained over the past three years, all community water suppliers in the United States serving 15 or more customers have been required to annually publish and distribute a water quality report also known as a Consumer Confidence Report. This report was mandated by U.S. Congressional legislation under the 1996 Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments. Final EPA rules and regulations were published in the August 19, 1998, Federal Register. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 24, 2001 Page 6 The report requires community water suppliers to tell their customers that their drinking water meets state and federal health standards or why it does not. It also provides information on the types of water served (such as groundwater, surface water, or from another system) and the name and location of its source; regulated and unregulated contaminants that have been detected in the water during the year, their concentration and the allowable federal or state standard; disinfection by-products or microbial contaminants, their concentrations and standards; and several other requirements. Edmonds' annual cost to prepare and mail this report is approximately $6,000. Staff has made the decision to keep the cost as low as possible, yet provide the required information in a readable and interesting format. Large water suppliers such as the City of Everett and Seattle Public Utilities have gone to greater efforts and expense in the creation of their water quality reports because they are the major water suppliers in King and Snohomish County. Edmonds water customers are very fortunate to be supplied by water coming from relatively isolated areas of the Cascade Mountains. Mr. Miller displayed a map identifying the isolated location of the Spada Reservoir in the Sultan Basin. He explained Edmonds has a secondary water source from the Seattle supply system, a backup source for the Ballinger and downtown bowl area. Olympic View also uses Seattle as their primary supply source. Councilmember Marin commented the City was in an enviable position to have two excellent water suppliers and the City could choose its supplier based on quality and price. He complimented the Water Department for the outstanding job they do. Lift Station 7, AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN ADDENDUM NO. 1 TO THE PROFESSIONAL NO. I SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH R. W. BECK FOR THE LIFT STATION NO. 1 PROJECT Protect Assistant City Engineer Don Fiene explained earlier this year, staff selected R. W. Beck as the consultant for the improvements for the Lift Station No. 1 project. Lift Station No. 1, located on Sunset Avenue, is the City's oldest and largest lift station, approximately 43 years old and accepts drainage from approximately 800 acres. He circulated a photograph of the location of Lift Station No. 1. Mr. Fiene pointed out the difficulty in obtaining parts for the Lift Station and said it is undersized, resulting in raw sewage overflows approximately twice a year. After R. W. Beck was selected, staff realized that due to the complexity of the project and the number of alternative solutions, the project needed to be split into two phases, preliminary design and final design. Staff and the consultant considered several alternatives during the preliminary design and agreed on a solution that involves variable frequency drive pumps and an expanded wet well. Although this solution is not the least expensive to construct, the life cycle costs (energy, maintenance, etc.) are the least expensive. The next phase will be final design of the project. Councilmember Petso observed the life cycle costs of the preferred alternative were approximately $500,000 lower and inquired as to how the cost savings occurred. Mr. Fiene explained there are lower energy costs with variable frequency drive pumps due to cycling and they are also easier to maintain. COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO SIGN ADDENDUM NO. 1 TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH R. W. BECK IN THE AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $125,380 FOR THE PHASE 2/FINAL DESIGN OF THE LIFT STATION NO. 1 RENOVATION PROJECT. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 24, 2001 Page 7 Councilmember Marin commented he visited Lift Station No. 1 and was amazed at the volume the lift station handles. He agreed the wiring in Lift Station No. 1 � wag, antiquated and woefully in need of renovation. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 8. AUTHORIZATION TO CALL FOR BIDS FOR THE INCINERATOR HEAT EXCHANGER AT THE TREATMENT PLANT This item was removed from the agenda at the request of staff. Planned 9. WORK SESSION ON THE PLANNING BOARD'S RECOMMENDATION TO AMEND Residential COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE CHAPTER 20.35 (PLANNED ment RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT) AND TITLE 21 (DEFINITIONS), PROVIDING FOR NEW PURPOSES, STANDARDS, CRITERIA, AND A REVISED REVIEW PROCESS FOR APPROVING PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS (File No. CDC-2000-132) Senior Planner Steve Bullock explained the Planning Board began reviewing the City's Planned Residential Development (PRD) ordinance over two years ago. Their goal was to broaden the applicability of the PRD provisions and to change the title from Planned Residential Development to Planned Unit Development (PUD) that could be applied to residential, commercial and/or mixed use development. During the Planning Board's review of local and nationwide ordinances, it became apparent this was too big an undertaking. In late fall 2000, Planning Board and staff made a decision to scale their review down and focus on the PRD ordinance and later develop Master Plan developments that would address commercial and potential mixed -use developments. Mr. Bullock explained one of the goals of the Planning Board was to develop a PRD ordinance that was easy for applicants to determine how the process worked. The layout of the current ordinance makes it difficult for applicants and staff to decipher. Another goal was to broaden the applicability of the PRD as it pertained to residential development. The current PRD ordinance applies only to projects of five or more lots. However, a majority of the projects in the City are four lots or less and often on lots with critical areas that limit development of the site. The proposed ordinance would allow an applicant to propose a PRD for a smaller development such as 2-4 lots, which is not currently allowed. The benefit would be that staff could work with the applicant to allow the applicant to achieve the allowed density but in a manner that clusters the development on the portions of the site that are not environmentally sensitive. A third goal of the Planning Board was to make the PRD process less onerous. The current process requires review by the Architectural Design Board (ADB) and a recommendation by the Hearing Examiner to the City Council for preliminary approval. Once preliminary approval is granted, the applicant completes the conditions of the preliminary approval and returns to the City Council for final approval. Mr. Bullock explained the final approval determined whether the applicant had complied with the conditions but the Council did not have an opportunity to make changes. The Planning Board's recommendation is for site plans (single family development) and site plans/building plans (attached buildings) to be reviewed by the ADB early in the process. The Hearing Examiner would then review the proposal for preliminary approval. Once the conditions of the preliminary approval have been completed, the applicant would apply for final approval. If the PRD was applied for concurrent with a formal plat (subdivision of five or more lots), because the Code already requires formal plats to be approved by the Council, both the PRD and formal plat would require approval by the City Council. All Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 24, 2001 Page 8 other projects would be administratively reviewed for final approval. He commented this was similar to short plat approvals. Mr. Bullock referred to the comparison in the Council packet of the existing PRD chapter to.the proposed PRD ordinance and invited Council comment. He explained the City received two letters, one from the Master Builders Association and one from Lighthouse Cottages and Homes. Both letters were supportive of the PRD ordinance. The Master Builders Association originally had concern with draft language in the ordinance that states the plat must be recorded prior to sale of the property. Mr. Bullock said this language was in response to existing state law; City Attorney Scott Snyder contacted the Master Builders Association and addressed their concern. The Planning Board held two public hearings, took testimony and responded to testimony. The Planning Board unanimously recommends approval of the proposed draft. Mr. Bullock advised the purpose of tonight's discussion was to address Council questions/concerns/requests for modification and schedule a public hearing on the draft ordinance. Councilmember Petso clarified a PRD was a method of altering the existing zoning and development standards in exchange for providing a benefit. Mr. Bullock agreed. Councilmember Petso asked whether the proposed ordinance would allow a PRD to be used to request greater density than the underlying zoning would permit. Mr. Bullock explained the existing PRD ordinance required developers to deduct the property dedicated to roads from the gross lot area and divide the net lot area by the underlying zoning. He noted because PRD's vary in the amount of property dedicated to roadways, it is often difficult to determine the number of lots that would be allowed. Under the proposed ordinance, the PRD was an incentive that allowed a developer to divide the total lot area by underlying zoning to determine the number of lots. Therefore, staff and the Planning Board do not consider it a change in density as it would result in the same underlying density. Councilmember Petso asked if there were other opportunities for increased density other than "special needs housing". Mr. Bullock answered no. Councilmember Petso used an example of a property that was half wetlands where four houses could be constructed if the property were dry but where only two houses could be constructed under the existing regulations. She asked whether, under the proposed ordinance, the wetlands would work in the property owner's favor, allowing four houses on the dry portion of the property. Mr. Bullock answered that was potentially correct although it would be reviewed on a case -by -case basis. Councilmember Petso asked what the public benefit of that would be. Mr. Bullock answered there were GMA mandates for the City to meet housing requirements while maintaining the character and ambiance of the City. He said the PRD allowed the City to achieve both. Councilmember Petso concluded the only benefit of allowing four houses on the dry portion of the property would be that it assisted the City with GMA compliance. Mr. Bullock clarified the proposed PRD ordinance included criteria (related to public benefit) that must be met for the PRD to be approved. He noted in order to approve a PRD, an applicant must meet some of the decision criteria in Section 20.35.050, criteria that is in addition to what would be required from a typical subdivision. Councilmember Petso recalled only one PRD had been approved since she had been on the Council and the criteria it met was open space, yet the open space primarily consisted of a fenced retainage pond that had little or no public benefit. She asked if fenced retainage ponds would continue to be counted as beneficial open space. Mr. Bullock answered a percentage requirement for dedicated open space was part of the criterion. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 24, 2001 Page 9 Councilmember Petso asked whether the proposed ordinance would allow duplexes or flats in single family residential areas. Mr. Bullock answered yes, attached dwelling units would be permitted in single family zones under some circumstances. He explained on a property with a significant portion of critical area, it was desirable to cluster dwelling units away from that area. He referred to a table on page 3 of the draft ordinance that defined the area of land defined as a critical area and/or its buffer and the permitted types of dwelling units (attached housing, up to two units per building, is allowed if the critical area on the property is greater than 25% of the lot area). He said design review of the project would require the attached units have a single family appearance. Councilmember Petso asked whether the ordinance could be used to allow an increase/change in the building height limit. Mr. Bullock answered no, referring to Section 20.35.030 "Modification of Standards," stating if the item was not mentioned specifically, it could not be modified. He noted a previous draft of the ordinance included a statement that heights could not be modified; that could be added if the Council desired. Councilmember Petso asked whether the proposed ordinance would allow construction of row housing and if so, to what extent. Mr. Bullock answered attached homes were only permitted in single family areas when the percentage of the site dedicated to critical areas exceeded 25%. Councilmember Petso noted this could not be more than a duplex. Mr. Bullock agreed. Councilmember Petso asked whether the ordinance included a provision for a public hearing and if so, at what stage would it be held and for what size development. Mr. Bullock answered the Hearing Examiner's review includes a public hearing, therefore, all PRD's would have a public hearing with the Hearing Examiner regardless of the size of the PRD. Councilmember Petso noted the Planning Board minutes reflect a concern with the criteria and public benefit; one Planning Boardmember asked who the public was that received the benefit, the future residents of the neighborhood or the existing neighbors. Mr. Bullock explained the Planning Board determined both would be recipients of the public benefit. All single family development in the City is currently exempt from the design review process, however, any PRD development would have design review with the ADB for at least its site design and possibly site design and building design. This would promote attractive, good quality development that fit the character of the neighborhood. He said staff and the Planning Board are also looking ahead to compliance with the Endangered Species Act (ESA); one of the ways to address this is by reducing impervious surface. PRDs provide a tool for reviewing projects and potentially modifying road standards, compressing building areas, etc. which allow more of the site to remain in its natural state. This would be beneficial to future residents of the development as well as the community as a whole. Councilmember Petso requested staff provide the minutes of all Planning Board discussion. She noted there did not appear to be any Planning Board discussion regarding eliminating the five lot minimum. Mr. Bullock recalled that had been discussed by the Planning Board. Councilmember Petso commented that under the existing regulations, a resident on a larger lot could subdivide and build one new house in addition to the existing house. Under the proposed PRD ordinance, the same resident could potentially subdivide and create two new units. Mr. Bullock agreed there would be a potential for that to occur. Under the proposed ordinance, the density would be determined by dividing the total lot area by the density allowed by the underlying zoning and rounding to the nearest whole number. Councilmember Petso expressed concern that this could occur throughout an entire neighborhood of larger lots, increasing the density and changing the character of the neighborhood. She suggested a provision be included that prevented this from occurring. She cited the area between Westgate Elementary and Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 24, 2001 Page 10 Westgate Chapel as an example. Mr. Bullock commented the lots in that area are only large enough for subdivision into one additional lot. Because each lot is only large enough for one additional lot, it would require the combination of several to achieve an additional dwelling unit. Mr. Bullock noted the minutes from the Planning Board's public hearings were in the Council packet. There was no public comment at the second Planning Board public hearing. Councilmember Plunkett asked how large a lot needed to be to create a PRD. Mr. Bullock answered a lot would need to be large enough to be subdivided into two lots. For example in an RS8 zone, the lot would need to be a minimum of 16,000 square feet or at least 40,000 square feet in an RS20 zone. Responding to Councilmember Plunkett's question, Mr. Bullock explained the City currently was not in danger of not meeting its growth targets but the City also did not want to limit its options for achieving its targets to one or two options but preferred to establish a range of options that potential developers could choose from. Councilmember Plunkett asked what other options were available to meet the City's growth targets. Mr. Bullock answered short plats and formal plats, accessory dwelling units (ADU), PRD in single family zones, development or PRD in multifamily zones, and mixed use development in the downtown area. Planning Manager Rob Chave explained GMA requires the City to develop a Comprehensive Plan. When the Comprehensive Plan was developed, one of the primary goals of the Council was to emphasize single family development. Since then, staff has attempted to provide as many opportunities as possible to encourage single family development while preserving the overall density of the zone. The purpose of a PRD is to cluster development away from critical areas but not increase overall density. The past practice of deducting critical areas from the property reduces the overall density on the property and reduces the single family carrying capacity of property in the City. Councilmember Plunkett commented ESA would do likewise. Mr. Chave agreed, commenting there would be more and more pressure to increase buffers and move development away from critical areas, which would be difficult to do without a good PRD process. Councilmember Plunkett summarized that due to ESA there would be less buildable land but more pressure to accept more population on less land. Mr. Chave answered the pressure for the City was to encourage full use of infill areas and .primarily the difficult -to -build sites remain. He agreed most of the development in the City was 2-4 lot subdivisions. Councilmember Plunkett asked whether the State could withhold funds if the City did not meet GMA goals. Mr. Chave answered yes, explaining by the end of 2002, the City must evaluate current population and development trends, and analyze developable areas. If the City found development was not occurring to the degree projected, the City must analyze all development regulations to develop measures to encourage infill development. Therefore, it was very timely to consider the PRD regulations in response to ESA and GMA issues. Councilmember Orvis asked whether ADUs would be permitted in a PRD. Mr. Bullock answered the applicant would be required to go through the same ADU process. Council President Earling requested when this was presented to Council in the future that staff review Section 20.35.050 "Decision Criteria" of PRD to set the context for the PRD discussion. He also asked for sketches of how the home sites could be clustered on a parcel and photographs of how it has been done in other communities. He said sketches/photographs would assist the Council in visualizing the challenges and successes. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 24, 2001 Page 11 COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, TO SET A PUBLIC HEARING DATE. Councilmember Petso indicated she was opposed to the motion and would like to have more work done on the ordinance as she could not yet accept the premise of the revisions. She pointed out the proposal appeared to be fully utilizing wetlands to stay out of trouble with GMA, however, in actuality, a parcel with a wetland became more valuable under the proposed ordinance as now four houses could be sited on a parcel where previously two houses could be sited. She pointed out there was no public benefit to this other than a miniscule attempt to increase density to accommodate GMA. She was content with leaving the wetland and allowing two houses to be sited on the parcel and using other methods to accommodate increased density such as redeveloping under-utilized property on the Hwy. 99 corridor. Councilmember Petso expressed concern with the proposal to allow duplexes or flats in single family zones, particularly the possibility that the density in the Westgate neighborhood could be increased due to the additional units that would be allowed. She pointed out applicants would only be required to meet two of the decision criteria, for example, low income housing and incorporating energy efficient site design of building features. The result was unacceptable to her, low income housing in the backyard of Westgate homes and the density of the neighborhoods multiplied. She said there were likely other ways to achieve development near steep slopes and critical areas and she was unsympathetic that the property owners of these areas were frustrated by the restrictions the sensitive areas create. She said without the changes to the PRD ordinance, the wetland and steeps slopes would still be preserved and the City would preserve its character. She summarized the proposed ordinance had the potential to completely destroy existing neighborhoods. She preferred the Council review the proposed ordinance again prior to scheduling a public hearing. Councilmember Marin spoke in support of the proposed ordinance, noting it provided staff with tools that allowed them to work with a developer to fine-tune a design so that it was advantageous to the City. He also supported holding a public hearing to allow public input from those who are knowledgeable about the issues. Councilmember Plunkett suggested Councilmember Petso draft another version of the ordinance for Council review. Councilmember Petso said she would like to have an opportunity to work with the Planning Board on drafting an ordinance. Councilmember Plunkett suggested Councilmember Petso obtain the Planning Board minutes, meet with Planning Boardmembers, and make revisions by the time the public hearing was held. Council President Earling suggested the Council schedule a public hearing and Councilmember Petso draft amendments. He noted the Council did not need to take action on the ordinance the evening the public hearing was held, the public hearing and/or Council deliberation could be continued. Councilmember Marin commented there appeared to be an underlying issue, whether the current Council agreed with the previous Council's direction to encourage infill development. He encouraged the Council not to structure the PRD ordinance so that it did not allow development. Councilmember Orvis spoke in favor of scheduling a public hearing so that the Council could obtain public input. Councilmember Plunkett spoke in support of holding a public hearing and encouraged Councilmembers to draft amendments for the public hearing. MOTION (TO SET A PUBLIC HEARING FOR AUGUST 28, 2001) CARRIED, COUNCILMEMBER PETSO OPPOSED. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 24, 2001 Page 12 10. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Haakenson had no report. 11. INDIVIDUAL COUNCIL REPORTSIUPDATES ON OUTSIDE COMMITTEEBOARD MEETINGS Snohomish In preparation for the GMA update, Council President Earling reported Snohomish County Tomorrow County was holding a Snohomish County Summit on September 15 at Edmonds Community College from 9:00 Tomorrow a.m. to 2:00 p.m. Elected officials in Snohomish County and representatives from business, labor, education, and environmentalists were invited to attend to discuss the vision for Snohomish County over the next ten years. He encouraged Councilmembers and neighborhood groups to attend. ommumty Council President Earling reported the Community Transit Proposition to increase sales tax by .03% of o ransit 1 /o would be on the September 18 ballot bond issue. The increase would allow Community Transit to fill service voids that were created by the loss of funding due to I-695. Councilmember Marin reported the Technical Advisory Committee for development of the interim Sound Sound Transit station considered designs for a shelter and lighting. The design for the shelters incorporate the Transit g g g• g rP Station wave design of the shelter on the bus stop near Brackett's Landing South. Burlington Northern Sante Fe recently granted an exception that will allow additional space to locate the shelter. Seashore Forum Councilmember Marin reported the SeaShore Forum included an update regarding the study of the I-405 corridor. Councilmember Plunkett requested Mayor Haakenson advise Administrative Services Director Peggy JAmrdinance ending Hetzler and Fire Chief Tom Tomberg that his comments during their presentation tonight was not ne Budget intended to infer that the information or the way it was presented was wrong. He acknowledged the information and the way it was presented was the same as had been done in the past. He agreed it may be appropriate to have the Finance Committee review the information as an interim step before it was presented to the Council. In response to an audience member's comment that a vote was taken based on the ways and means of the presentation, he did not recall any Councilmember voting based on the way the presentation was made. our of Councilmember Orvis thanked Treatment Plant Manager Stephen Koho and Community Services Treatment Director Stephen Clifton for the tour of wastewater treatment plants in King County. He also thanked Plants I Mayor Haakenson for his prompt response to a citizen complaint regarding 12`l' Place. Councilmember Petso reported on the WIRA 8 Forum, commenting the group was heavily dominated by WIRA 8 King County representatives. A part-time Snohomish County staff person has been included in the 2002 orum budget and there is an effort underway to encourage Lynnwood and Mill Creek to join the Forum. She said the role of the group is to gather the necessary planning data to begin science -based salmon recovery. She thanked Councilmembers and staff who have attended WIRA meetings for her. With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 9:05 p.m. SANDRA S. CHASE, CITY CLERK Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 24, 2001 Page 13 AGENDA EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex 250 5' Avenue North 7:00 - 10:00 mm. JULY 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 July 17, 2001 (C) Approval of Claim Checks #49446 Through #49568 for the Week of July 16, 2001, in the Amount of $523,502.51. Approval of Payroll Direct Deposits and Checks #2484 Through #2653 for the Period July 1 Through July 15, 2001, in the Amount of $813,286.18. (D) Approval of Project Costs for Local Improvement Districts 215 and 216 (E) Report on Bids Opened June 12, 2001 for the Woodway Elementary School Walkway and Seaview Elementary School Traffic Calming and Pedestrian Improvements, and Authorization to Reject all Bids (F) Proclamation in Honor of National Kids Day, August 5, 2001 (G) Approve Terms of Agreed Judgment and Just Compensation for Temporary Easement in Association with Perrinville Sewer Project (H) Report on the General Fund and Other Selected Funds Financial Position for the Month Ending June 2001 3. (10 Min.) Proposed Ordinance Amending the 2001 Budget as a Result of Unanticipated Transfers and Expenditures of Various Funds; Proposed Ordinance to Repeal Ordinance No. 2107 Relating to the Cumulative Reserve Fund; Accept Treasurer's Certification of Sufficiency Relating to the Local Improvement Guaranty Fund "Public Comment Will Be Received" . Page 1 of 2 CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA JULY 24, 2001 Page 2 of 2 4. Audience Comments (3 Minute Limit Per Person) 5. ( 5 Min.) Report from the Chamber of Commerce on a New Special Event - "Hot Autumn Nights" 6. ( 5 Min.) Presentation and Discussion on Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Required Water Quality Brochure 7. ( 5 Min.) Authorization for Mayor to Sign Addendum No. 1 to the Professional Services Agreement with R.W. Beck for the Lift Station No. 1 Project S. ( 5 Min.) Authorization to Call for Bids for the Incinerator Heat Exchanger at the Treatment Plant 9. (40 Min.) Work Session on the Planning Board's Recommendation to Amend Edmonds Community Development Code Chapter 20.35 (Planned Residential Development) and Title 21 (Definitions), Providing for New Purposes, Standards, Criteria, and a Revised Review Process for Approving Planned Residential Developments (File No. CDC-2000-132) 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.