Loading...
06/07/2011 City CouncilEDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES June 7, 2011 At 6:00 p.m., Mayor Cooper announced that the City Council would meet in executive session regarding labor negotiations. He stated that the executive session was scheduled to last approximately one hour and would be held in the Jury Meeting Room located in the Public Safety Complex. No action was anticipated to occur as a result of meeting in executive session. Elected officials present at the executive session were: Mayor Cooper, and Councilmembers Peterson, Petso, Buckshnis, Wilson, Plunkett, Bernheim and Fraley- Monillas. Others present were Attorneys Jeff Taraday and Rosa Fruehling- Watson, Human Resources Director Debi Humann, Public Works Director Phil Williams, and City Clerk Sandy Chase. At 7:00 p.m., City Clerk Sandy Chase announced to the public in the Council Chambers that an additional 15 minutes would be needed in executive session. At 7:16 p.m., Ms. Chase announced that an additional 15 minute extension was needed; and, at 7:35 p.m., Ms. Chase announced an additional 15 minute extension. The executive session concluded at 8:00 p.m. The regular City Council meeting was called to order at 8:06 p.m. by Mayor Cooper in the Council Chambers, 250 5`h Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Mike Cooper, Mayor Strom Peterson, Council President Steve Bernheim, Councilmember D. J. Wilson, Councilmember Michael Plunkett, Councilmember Lora Petso, Councilmember Adrienne Fraley- Monillas, Councilmember Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember ALSO PRESENT Peter Gibson, Student Representative 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA STAFF PRESENT Stephen Clifton, Community Services/Economic Development Director Phil Williams, Public Works Director Carrie Hite, Parks & Recreation Director Rob Chave, Planner Michael Clugston, Associate Planner Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Sandy Chase, City Clerk Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED (6 -0). (Councilmember Fraley - Monillas was not present for the vote.) 2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED (6 -0). (Councilmember Fraley - Monillas was not present for the vote.) The agenda items approved are as follows: A. ROLL CALL B. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MAY 24, 2011. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 7, 2011 Page 1 C. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #125649 THROUGH #125741 DATED MAY 26, 2011 FOR $552,328.51, AND CLAIM CHECKS #125742 THROUGH #125806 DATED JUNE 2, 2011 FOR $246,445.78. APPROVAL OF THE REISSUANCE OF PAYROLL CHECK #50451 FOR THE PERIOD MAY 1, 2011 . THROUGH MAY 1.5, 2011 . IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,21.5.98, AND PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSIT AND CHECKS #50452 THROUGH #50496 FOR THE PERIOD MAY 16, 2011 THROUGH MAY 31, 2011 FOR $652,610.22. D. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF A CLAIM FOR DAMAGES SUBMITTED BY ROBERT FISHER ($750,000.00). E. AUTHORIZATION FOR THE MAYOR TO SIGN CITY OF EDMONDS LODGING TAX COMMITTEE TOURISM PROMOTION AGREEMENT AWARDING THE SNOHOMISH COUNTY VISITOR'S BUREAU $6,000 FOR TOURISM PROMOTION AND SUPPORT OF VISITOR SERVICES TO PROMOTE EDMONDS. F. AUTHORIZATION FOR THE MAYOR TO SIGN CITY OF EDMONDS LODGING TAX COMMITTEE TOURISM PROMOTION AGREEMENT AWARDING THE EDMONDS VISITOR'S CENTER $2,500 FOR TOURISM PROMOTION AND SUPPORT OF VISITOR SERVICES TO PROMOTE EDMONDS. G. AUTHORIZATION FOR THE MAYOR TO SIGN CITY OF EDMONDS LODGING TAX COMMITTEE TOURISM PROMOTION AGREEMENT AWARDING THE EDMONDS CENTER FOR THE ARTS $10,000 TO ATTRACT VISITORS TO EDMONDS THROUGH ADVERTISING AND PROMOTING DOWNTOWN EDMONDS AND ANNUAL CULTURAL EVENTS/FESTIVALS IN THEIR 2011/2012 SEASON BROCHURE. BOARD. 3. ANNUAL REPORT FROM THE EDMONDS LIBRARY BOARD. Mark Ayers and Roy Smith were present representing the Library Board. Mr. Ayers explained he was impressed with the stewardship provided the by the Sno -Isle Library, but the library is a collaboration between Sno -Isle and the City. The City has made several improvements to the building including moving one of the book return bins, improving patrons' access and the efficiency of the library. He invited the public to the renaming of the library ceremony on June 21. Lesly Kaplan, Managing Librarian, explained the library has had a tremendous year. She highlighted 2010 statistics for the Edmonds Library from the Sno -Isle Library's annual report including 241,609 visitors. She explained the entire Sno -Isle collection of books, DVDs, newspapers, talking books, etc. are accessible either at the Edmonds Library or by request. The library also offers access to numerous licensed data bases. She used three words to describe the library: • Freedom to question; access to ideas and thoughts; and provide a diversity of opinions and be open to all people. • Hope to learn more; find the truth; dream; doors are open to inquiry; and everyone is welcome. • Opportunity to find new pathways; expand the mind; and fly into a place you might not know about in a book. Ms. Kaplan commented on the new library catalog, Polaris, that replaced the former 20 -year old system. Polaris includes a separate children's catalog to allow children to focus on the resources available to them. The library provides a variety of programs including staff trained to provide technical assistance. Visitors to the library can get up to 2 hours of free computer time to use data bases, email, job search, etc. WiFi is also available at the library. There are special resources for children at the library including preschool computers that contain educational software. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 7, 2011 Page 2 She commented on the Reading with Rover program that encourages children to read by reading to a dog. The library also has a teen area and offers after -hours gaming nights with electronic games and food. The library has an area with books for sale by the Friends of the Edmonds Library; the funds provide money for programs at the library. She commented on the ability to place a hold on items in the library's collection for pick up at the Edmonds Library. Ms. Kaplan provided several photographs of the library including a puppet theater in the children's area, the view from the library, and comfortable chairs. The Library has been focusing services this year to do the best for the demographic and recently changed their hours, opening at 9:00 a.m. Monday — Saturday, closing at 8:00 p.m. Monday — Thursday, 6:00 p.m. Friday and 5:00 p.m. Saturday. Sunday hours are 1:00 — 5:00 p.m. She summarized a broad base of information was available at the library and she encouraged everyone to visit the library. Councilmember Buckshnis commented the library is always busy when she visits to water the plants for the Floretum Garden Club; it is a wonderful resource. Ms. Kaplan reminded of the library renaming ceremony on Tuesday, June 21 at 5:00 p.m. to honor Peggy Pritchard Olson. Mayor Cooper will cut the ribbon, and Sno -Isle Library Director Jonalyn Woolf -Ivory and former Mayor Haakenson will speak. 4. PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING THE PLANNING BOARD'S RECOMMENDATION ON PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO ECDC 18.05 AND 20.50 CLARIFYING DEFINITIONS AND PROCESSES FOR REGULATION OF WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES (FILE NO. AMD- 2010 - 0004). Associate Planner Michael Clugston explained the Council asked the Planning Board to consider wireless regulations in early 2010. The Planning Board spent approximately one year reviewing the existing code in Chapter 18.05 regarding unzoned right -of -way as well as Chapter 20.50 regarding wireless on zoned parcels. After a number of meetings, it became clear a new framework was needed to integrate the codes and include a number of updates identified during the review process. He provided the new framework for the proposed regulation that includes new siting standards, new permitting requirements, review timeframes, and divides wireless facilities into three categories, 1) building - mounted facilities, 2) structure- mounted facilities and 3) ground- mounted facilities. Mr. Clugston reviewed proposed prohibitions: • Guyed or lattice towers in the City • Monopoles in • Residential zones • Rights -of -way • Public and Open Space zones • Downtown Waterfront Activity Center as identified in the Comprehensive Plan Additional design standards were added regarding: 0 Co- location • Noise • Business license • Signage • Temporary parking • Finish • Design • Color Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 7, 2011 Page 3 • Lighting • Advertising • Equipment enclosure • RF compliance • Landscaping and screening Mr. Clugston reviewed wireless location preferences, advising wireless providers must demonstrate during the application process how a location meets their needs and if co- location is not proposed, why not: L Co- location of wireless antennas at existing wireless sites without an increase of height 2. Co- location at an existing site where additional height is necessary over existing 3. Placing antennas on a replacement pole or structure 4. Placing antennas on a new pole or structure altogether He provided photographs of existing building- mounted facilities and described regulations for building - mounted facilities: Downtown Waterfront Activity Center • No extra height allowed • Antennas flush - mounted to building • Existing over - height buildings allowed All other locations • 9 -feet extra allowed • Integrate antenna appearance • Equipment cabinet and cabling must be screened or painted to match Mr. Clugston displayed photographs of existing structure - mounted facilities and described regulations for structure - mounted facilities: • Includes utility pole retrofit language from ECDC 18.05: 1.5 foot separation distance, wood poles required • Allow extra 6 feet for antennas • Equipment cabinet, antennas and cabling must be screened or painted to match Mr. Clugston displayed photographs of monopole facilities. Regulations regarding monopoles include: • Least preferred alternative • Location restricted • Equipment cabinet and cabling must be screened or painted to match • Conditional Use Permit (Type III -B) required if height proposed is in excess of underlying zone • Must meet setbacks of underlying zone; exception possible if new location retains existing trees and open space, provides better screening, or moves facility further from residentially -zoned property Mr. Clugston reviewed proposed permitting for wireless facilities: • Specific application requirements • Type of permit depends on type of facility • Building permit — co- location • Engineering right -of -way permit — retrofits • Conditional Use Permit (Type 11 for utility pole retrofits, Type 11 -B for monopole exceeding height requirement of underlying zone • Specific timeframes identified • Design review with every application Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 7, 2011 Page 4 SEPA, as required by RCW Co- location encouraged through simpler permit process When this issue was presented previously at the May 3 meeting, the Council inquired about parking and providing additional screening for monopole facilities. With regard to parking, Mr. Clugston explained the applicant will be required to identify parking. With regard to using tree -like camouflage to obscure monopole installations, he explained monopoles are the least preferred alternative and providers must attempt to co- locate first. The proposed code identifies the finish of the pole, stating the monopole shall either maintain a galvanized steel finish or, subject to any applicable standards of the FAA or FCC, be painted a neutral color to reduce its visual intrusiveness. The definition of monopole allows antennas to be internally or externally mounted. He envisioned in a well treed area, a green or brown pole would blend better. He explained there are companies that provide camouflage to disguise monopoles as trees. The agenda memo included links to several companies who provide that option. He was not aware of any projects in Washington. He suggested the Council consider whether all monopoles should be required to provide tree camouflage, only in certain areas or not at all. Councilmember Plunkett expressed his preference for a monopole that looked like a tree. He asked whether the Council was voting on the amendments to the code now. City Attorney Jeff Taraday responded this presentation is to obtain public and Council feedback and staff will ultimately present an ordinance to the Council for action. Councilmember Buckshnis agreed with Councilmember Plunkett's suggestion to have monopoles camouflaged as trees. Mayor Cooper opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. Richard Busch, Attorney, President, NW Wireless Association, explained the Association works with local jurisdictions to develop new land use codes for wireless communication facilities. He provided a series of "bold" statements: 1) 1 think these things (cell phones) are going to catch on, 2) Today's users want to make and receive calls where they live, work, play and commute, 3) Need antennas in order to make and receive calls, and 4) Antennas (or screening ) must be visible. The wireless industry tries to work with local jurisdictions on the best way to deploy these facilities in communities to provide coverage. He provided a list of factors to be considered in the design of cell sites including coverage objectives. He expressed support for public policy that encourages well integrated sites; sites that have little negative reaction. They have worked with the Planning Board over the past year to incorporate that objective. He also supported a less burdensome review and approval process for sites with little negative reaction in order to encourage carriers to propose that type of facility. He provided several photographs of well integrated sites. The industry agrees monopines should be an option but not required in all instances. A monopine in a park is appropriate but on Hwy. 99 it would not be appropriate. Ron Meckler, Consultant to the wireless industry, disclosed he has an application under consideration by the City. The proposed amendments will allow new facilities to meet customers' needs and freedom to better integrate with the current landscape and cityscape. He referred to a reference in the code to lease of City property for wireless facilities, agreeing that was an option for locating facilities. He expressed support for 20.50.030 that allows an exemption for maintenance, advising facilities are being modernized and antennas replaced to include and enhance data. He suggested the Council consider deleting the prohibiting of monopoles on public and open space properties. A monopine could work well and integrate into the landscape in a heavily treed area. He pointed out as the landlord, the City can negotiate the lease and require a monopine and/or specific location. Al Rutledge, Edmonds, did not support allowing lease of City property for wireless facilities due to potential liability. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 7, 2011 Page 5 Mayor Cooper closed the public participation portion of the public hearing. Councilmember Petso relayed her concern with parking at wireless facilities. She asked whether a pole could be prohibited if there is no parking available at the proposed site. Mr. Taraday responded the proposed regulations state any application must demonstrate there is sufficient space for temporary parking for regular maintenance of the proposed facility. Implicit in that statement is that if sufficient space cannot be demonstrated, the application will not be approved. He asked whether Councilmember Petso's interest was for temporary parking to be more clearly defined as on -site and off the right -of -way. Councilmember Petso did not want parking in a person's landscaping or the traffic lane to be considered sufficient temporary parking. Mr. Taraday was uncertain how vehicles that stop in the right -of -way for a short period of time are regulated currently. Public Works Director Phil Williams explained vehicles currently access public and private utilities in the right -of -way. They do not have designated parking for their vehicles which he acknowledged can be awkward at times. Utilities are required to submit a traffic control plan for work on arterials. In residential areas, the street is available for parking and vehicles can park there without special provisions. In some areas, the right -of -way may extend close to a resident's property and they may view it as their own property and landscape it. The utility vehicle may be aware of the right -of -way line and park in the landscaped area of the right -of -way although that is not preferred. The proposed amendment requires a provider to identify parking whether it is via an arrangement with a private property owner, in an unimproved section of right -of -way, or on the street where on- street parking is available. If their intent is to park in the travel lane, they will be required to submit a traffic control plan. Council President Peterson pointed out monopoles are not allowed in single family residential zones which may alleviate Councilmember Petso's concerns regarding parking on landscaping. COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO APPROVE THE RECOMMENDED ACTION, DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE THE ORDINANCE WITH THE PROPOSED CHANGES UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED BY THE PLANNING BOARD. Councilmember Plunkett was supportive of monopoles where appropriate such as on Hwy. 99 as well as the opportunity for monopines when appropriate. COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO ALLOW MONOPOLES AND /OR MONOPINES WHEN NECESSARY AND APPROPRIATE AS DETERMINED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL. Councilmember Buckshnis referred to language in the proposed regulations that the City Council may consider additional locations for monopoles. She asked whether monopoles /monopines would require review by the City Council. Mr. Clugston answered monopoles are location restricted and not allowed in public /open space zones or residential zones. A monopole would require a conditional use permit (CUP) which is reviewed by the Hearing Examiner. Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether Councilmember Plunkett's intent was to have Council review first. Councilmember Plunkett answered that was his intent; if a monopine is allowed in certain locations, there will be some judgment required regarding where a monopole or monopine could be located and he preferred that judgment be made by the Council. Mr. Taraday explained under the proposed regulations, Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 7, 2011 Page 6 monopoles would not be allowed in parks. A monopine could potentially be a requirement for a park -like setting on private property. He asked if it was Councilmember Plunkett's intent to allow monopines in public parks but not allow monopoles in parks. Councilmember Plunkett answered that was his intent. He preferred to allow the Council to have a say regarding a monopine because he did not know what it would look like or if the Council would like the appearance. Planner Rob Chave suggested adding criteria to the Hearing Examiner process that for a monopole located in a wooded setting, a monopine may be appropriate. With regard to parks and open space, the Council would be the proprietor and the Council could make that decision as the landowner. Councilmember Plunkett acknowledged a monopole may be appropriate in some areas. He preferred the Council have the option to review any monopines. He was uncertain whether he wanted to vest that subjective opinion with the Hearing Examiner. Mr. Chave commented on the difficulty of providing guidance to an applicant without criteria. Mr. Taraday emphasized the need to provide enough guidance to an applicant regarding the regulation; without sufficient guidance, the regulation can be void for vagueness. He suggested providing pictures or some idea of what a monopine should look like. The regulation cannot state monopines would be allowed if the Council likes how they look. Council President Peterson suggested separating public /open spaces. He agreed a monopine may be appropriate in a wooded area. The question then is what is considered a wooded area. Mr. Clugston responded there is no definition of wooded area. Most such areas would be zoned public or open space. Council President Peterson asked whether a CUP process would allow staff or the Hearing Examiner to consider whether the location was in a wooded area. Mr. Taraday suggested a definition be developed for a wooded area such as if the site plan reflects the monopole will be surrounded on three sides by mature trees, the City will require the monopole be painted green or brown to blend with the surroundings. Mr. Clugston agreed the regulation needed to be specific enough so that the provider had an idea of what to expect. His research did not find any good examples of monopines and some municipalities actually prohibit them. He was unable to find any design standards in the municipalities that allow monopines. Council President Peterson asked if Council review would be problematic due to FCC mandates. Mr. Taraday suggested posing that question to Mike Bradley, a member of their legal team. As long as there are sufficiently definite standards to guide discretionary decision - making, it does not matter whether the discretionary decision is made by the Hearing Examiner or the City Council. The key is sufficiently definite standards to guide that decision making to avoid a case -by -case determination. Councilmember Wilson asked whether a Council decision based on decision criteria would be a quasi judicial process. Mr. Taraday answered yes. Councilmember Wilson observed monopoles cannot be sited in open space or parks. He agreed with the intent of Councilmember Plunkett's amendment but was uncertain regarding its application. Edmonds is nearly built out and if monopoles are not allowed in parks, there were few other heavily wooded areas in Edmonds. He summarized it was a good principle but likely would not be applicable in many cases. Mr. Clugston responded the Planning Board envisioned monopoles would disappear over time as technology changes. Councilmember Plunkett commented his amendment was a solution looking for a problem. COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT WITHDREW HIS AMENDMENT WITH THE AGREEMENT OF THE SECOND. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 7, 2011 Page 7 5. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION TO AMEND EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC) SECTION 16.45.020 TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED STREET SETBACKS IN THE BN ZONE FOR THE WESTGATE COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL CENTER FROM TWENTY (20) TO EIGHT (8) FEET ALONG SR -104 AND FROM TWENTY (20) FEET TO FIVE (5) FEET ALONG MOTH AVENUE WEST, THE AMENDMENT IS RECOMMENDED TO SUNSET ONE YEAR AFTER ADOPTION. Planning Manager Rob Chave explained this issue arose due to a development proposal as well as consideration of the Comprehensive Plan and work done by the UW and Cascade Land Conservancy regarding Westgate and Five Corners. The current development proposal at Edmonds Way & 100`n Avenue locates the building inside the property surrounded by parking and drive aisle due to the required building setback. He provided a diagram of a building under the current BN zoning: • Requires buildings to be set back 20 feet from property street fronts which pushes buildings into the site • Encourage placement of parking or drive aisles between building and street • Building poorly relates to the street front and discourages pedestrian access Mr. Chave provided a diagram of a building with reduced setbacks: • Building relates to street front • Reduces traffic vs. pedestrian conflicts • Provides opportunity for enhanced street front and pedestrian amenities • Improves parking configuration and parking The Planning Board's focus was on the Westgate area due to the UW study of that area and the specific proposal. He provided an aerial photograph of Westgate and photographs of the traditional strip mall produced via a 20 -foot setback with sidewalk, parking and drive aisle in front of the building. He provided photographs of the southwest corner of Edmonds Way & 100`" where there is a traditional strip mall design on the 100 "' Avenue side and a reduced setback on the Edmonds Way side. He noted the Starbucks building is non - conforming under the current regulations. The Planning Board recommended a reduced setback in the BN zone within the Westgate Community Center as designated in the Comprehensive Plan. He relayed language in the Comprehensive Plan regarding the Westgate Community Center: • C.2. Provide for transit and pedestrian access in addition to the need to accommodate automobile traffic. • CA. Provide pedestrian walkways and transit connections throughout the community commercial area, assuring connections to nearby residential neighborhoods Mr. Chave also referred to design objectives for site design and parking in the Comprehensive Plan that favors pushing parking away from the street, moving buildings closer, improving pedestrian access from the street by locating buildings closer to the street, defining the street edge, etc. The Comprehensive Plan also contains design objectives for building entry and setbacks that also encourages the creation of a pedestrian friendly environment. He summarized there is ample language in the Comprehensive Plan to support the proposal. He relayed responses to a question in the UW Westgate survey: Imagine you are walking down the sidewalk approaching the site, what type of interface from the sidewalk would you like to have with the businesses: 1. Asphalt business fronts (2 responses) 2. Business fronting on the street (2 responses) Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 7, 2011 Page 8 3. Businesses fronting on street with business activity on the street (17 responses) Mr. Chave displayed designs from the UW Design Workshop that moved buildings closer to the sidewalk and right -of -way. He relayed the Planning Board's recommendation: applicable only to the Westgate Community Commercial area, a minimum 8 -foot street setback along SR104 and 5 -foot street setback on 100`" Avenue West with a sunset date of one year after approval. Councilmember Petso asked where the setback was measured from. Mr. Chave answered the property line. Councilmember Petso pointed out the ordinance states street. Mr. Chave clarified it is a street setback; the definite of setback in the code refers to property line. Councilmember Petso referred to the Planning Board's motion that included reference to findings of fact and conclusions and attachments to the staff report but those were not included in the Council packet. Mr. Chave answered he assumed that was the discussion and statements made by staff as reflected in the Planning Board minutes. There were no formal findings of fact and conclusions as it was not a quasi judicial matter. Councilmember Petso explained the Comprehensive Plan language with regard to this area of Westgate refers to providing service and shopping for regional traffic. She asked whether moving the buildings to the street front and concealing parking would discourage people from stopping. Mr. Chave answered no; moving building closer to the sidewalks increases the visual connection with businesses. Otherwise the reliance is on signage and the City's signage regulations encourage lower level, less obtrusive signage. Due to parcel sizes in Westgate, there is unlikely to be a wall of buildings and instead buildings will be interspersed with parking. He cited the Bartell development as an example of a building with some parking in front and some in back. Councilmember Petso commented if Bartell were located at the street, passersby would not know there additional parking was. Mr. Chave explained developments would have an obvious entry point with some parking and a larger parking area as one continues onto the site. Councilmember Fraley- Monillas observed the UW study will be presented next week. Mr. Chave explained the UW will be presenting a progress report/decision point to the Council and asking the Council to refer it to the Planning Board for the formal review process. The UW study goes further than what the Planning Board proposes. Councilmember Bernheim asked whether the UW had been asked to comment on the proposal. Mr. Chave relayed they felt reducing setback and moving buildings closer to the sidewalk was an improvement. They do not want to see buildings separated from the street by drive aisles. Councilmember Bernheim asked if there were design requirements for the area along SR104 imposed by the State that prevents buildings from locating less than 10 feet from SR104. Mr. Chave answered only if there were a sight distance issue but that was more likely to be related to obstructions such as telephone poles rather than buildings. The proposed amendments are to establish minimum setbacks, not required setbacks. Councilmember Bernheim asked if there were sidewalk standards on SR104. Mr. Chave answered the City's standards on SR104 include a required 5 -foot landscape strip along the roadway. The Comprehensive Plan and code require 5 -10 foot wide sidewalks. Councilmember Bernheim asked how that corresponded to the 5 -foot setback from the property line. Mr. Chave answered there is generally some space within the right -of -way, usually approximately 10 feet devoted in part to landscaping and the sidewalk. The 5 -foot and 8 -foot setback provides more room on the property side to enhance the space for pedestrian use and activity. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 7, 2011 Page 9 Councilmember Plunkett commented he was not concerned about a spot zone because this would apply to other properties. However, a fair reading of the materials would reveal it is done for one property. He asked if a precedent was being set. Mr. Taraday answered yes and no; this is a legislative decision. A developer could propose a similar legislative fix to the Council in the future, an ability developers have always had. It is no secret this is being done on an interim basis due to the UW planning process that is underway and a potential project. There is legitimate concern that a new development could occur that is counter to future public policy. From that standpoint it may be a welcome precedent. He envisioned the City would encourage developers to propose a change if the development they are planning is counter to the vision being developed. Mr. Chave pointed out this change was proposed by staff, not the developer. Councilmember Plunkett asked if approving the amendment would be easier for a developer who wanted to do something different than the existing code to request a change and threaten a lawsuit if the change were not allowed due to the precedent that was set. Mr. Taraday was not concerned about the threat of a lawsuit in this context because this is purely legislative decision- making. Councilmember Plunkett clarified the Council could approve this legislative change and deny another proposed legislative change in the future because it is legislative. Mr. Taraday agreed. Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether consideration was given to a development agreement for this parcel rather than the proposed one -year change to the BN zone. Mr. Chave answered a development agreement can limit what the code allows but cannot change the standards. A development agreement could not be used to provide the change to the minimum setback in the current BN code. Councilmember Buckshnis anticipated the UW study will be presented to the Council within a month. Mr. Chave answered it will be presented in two weeks. Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether SR104 and/or 100`h Avenue were expected to be widened in the future. Mr. Chave relayed neither Washington State Department of Transportation nor the City has any plan to acquire additional right -of -way. Councilmember Buckshnis stated there is the street with a 5 or 10 foot sidewalk and a 5 or 8 foot setback. Mr. Chave pointed out the setback is from the property line; current information indicates the sidewalks are located in the right -of -way. He clarified there is an existing 5 -7 foot sidewalk, remaining right -of -way, and then the 5 or 8 foot setback. Councilmember Buckshnis asked why the Planning Board chose 5 feet on one street and 8 feet on the other. Mr. Chave answered the initial proposal was 5 -foot setback. The Planning Board wanted to increase it slightly to 8 feet on SR104 because it is a principle arterial, has more lanes, and a 5 mph higher speed limit; therefore, they felt slightly more space would be appropriate for safety. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if a consistent setback of 8 feet would be better visually. Mr. Chave stated one was north -south and the other east -west and the difference would likely be unnoticeable. Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether the standards would revert to current standards after one year. Mr. Chave answered yes. He noted that if the codes were changed as a result of the UW study during that time the existing code would be repealed. The Planning Board wanted to accommodate this request in the short term and provide time to consider alternatives. Councilmember Buckshnis summarized she supported the amendments in principle but would like to see the UW study. Councilmember Petso asked if there were other properties in the Westgate area in the application or pre - application process. Mr. Chave answered the only one is a bank building to the east on SR104 near the car wash. Councilmember Petso asked if that project would be governed by this ordinance and also have the 8 -foot setback. Mr. Chave answered yes. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 7, 2011 Page 10 Councilmember Plunkett asked if a development agreement would accomplish the same thing. Mr. Chave explained development agreements can restrict what is done in a zone but cannot permit something that the zone does not allow. A required setback cannot be reduced via a development agreement unless the code is amended to allow a reduction via a development agreement. Councilmember Plunkett asked whether a development agreement could be crafted and then the code amended. Mr. Chave answered that would require creating new zone language which requires Planning Board review and recommendation to the Council. Councilmember Plunkett referred to page 14 of the June 4, 2011 minutes where Mr. Clifton agreed "it was a matter of timing; a developer wants to acquire the site and is unwilling to wait until the Westgate and Five Corners studies are complete." Councilmember Plunkett summarized the ordinance with a sunset date is being done because the developer does not want to wait. Mr. Chave answered when the interim zoning ordinance was proposed, staff feared the developer would not be willing to wait for the Planning Board /Council process. The developer has gone through all the initial steps and is awaiting the results of the Council's decision. When the developer will apply is unknown. Councilmember Plunkett summarized if the developer is unwilling to wait, they can apply under the existing BN regulations. Community Services /Economic Development Director Stephen Clifton explained at the time he made the comment referred to by Councilmember Plunkett, that was the direction the client gave to the architect. Staff initiated the interim request, not the developer. He asked them to wait until the process was completed; they are patiently waiting but it is unknown how long they will actually wait before applying. Mr. Chave relayed staff's understanding that the developer can make the site work either way. There are benefits of waiting to the City as well as the developer; for example the proposed ordinance improves the circulation on the site for the developer. Mayor Cooper opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. Al Rutledge, Edmonds, observed the proposed project qualified for a Conditional Use Permit. He commented on traffic speeds on SRI 04, fearing a reduced setback would affect public safety. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, commented that the Westgate corridor is described in the Comprehensive Plan as a key transportation corridor, an entry to downtown and the corridor should resemble a landscaped boulevard and median. When the interim ordinance was proposed, there was reference to Comprehensive Plan policy C.2.13, improved pedestrian access to the street by locating buildings closer to the street, but the dimensions are not defined. He stated the 5 -foot setback was arbitrarily selected by staff and arbitrarily modified by the Planning Board without consideration of the effect. During the presentation to the Planning Board, a question was raised regarding the location of right -of -way width which staff was unable to answer. Staff has yet to provide any drawings identifying the location of the right -of -way. SR104 is a major transportation corridor and provisions should be made for future expansion. He encouraged good planning rather than a legislative fix for one customer. He considered this a spot zone. He cited the lack of a traffic study for this proposed ordinance as well as the UW study. He commented on the importance of public involvement, yet property and business owners were not consulted regarding what they feel is good economic development. Although the Comprehensive Plan refers to pedestrian access, he doubted this commercial area that was accessed primarily by cars would be dependent on pedestrians. Mayor Cooper closed the public participation portion of the public hearing. COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO TABLE THIS MATTER UNTIL WE HAVE COMPLETE RIGHT -OF -WAY SURVEYS AND THE WESTGATE STUDY. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (3 -3 -1), COUNCILMEMBERS PETSO, BUCKSHNIS AND PLUNKETT VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS BERNHEIM AND WILSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON VOTING NO; AND COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY - MONILLAS ABSTAINING. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 7, 2011 Page 11 Council President Peterson recalled when this was proposed previously, one of the concerns was that it circumvented the process by avoiding review by the Planning Board. The Planning Board has now reviewed it expeditiously. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM, TO APPROVE THE RECOMMENDED ACTION, DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE AN ORDINANCE. Councilmember Bernheim was tentatively in favor of the motion. He liked sunset dates on legislation, explaining it did not mean the regulation expired on the sunset date; the Council had the opportunity to allow it to expire or vote to extend it. If the proposed ordinance was effective it could be adopted into code. He did not envision the proposed ordinance was the solution to Westgate but supported allowing buildings closer to the street and placing the parking lot behind the building. He summarized Westgate is a car zone and the sidewalks are not maintained well by the property owners. He agreed the process had been improved due to the review by the Planning Board. The ordinance applies only to the Westgate area and there is sufficient space for safety. He thanked the public for the comments they provided him, noting most were opposed. Councilmember Petso expected if the Council approved this ordinance, the rush to the permit counter would begin and all the applications will be vested. However, if accidents increase due to decreased sight distance once the first building is constructed, nothing can be done for the life of the building. She stated land use decisions are difficult to undo and should not be adopted with the intent of changing them later. She remarked all the comments she received from the public were opposed to this proposal. With regard to the impetus to move building toward the street, she pointed out the UW survey does not include an option for parking lots behind nicely landscaped buffers or beautifully landscaped buffered areas adjacent between the sidewalk and the building. The choices were asphalt business fronts, businesses fronting on the street or businesses fronting on the street with business activity on the street. None of those options constitute a public mandate to move the building closer to the street at this intersection. In Councilmember Petso's opinion, the proposed amendments do not comply with the Comprehensive Plan that calls for this district to cater to regional traffic, neighborhood scale and design character. In all the other neighborhood zones, buildings are setback from the road. Businesses downtown are constructed at the street front but the speed limit is not 35 mph. She concluded the proposed amendments did not comply with serving regional traffic or creating a neighborhood design character, the section of the Comprehensive Plan that she confirmed with the City Attorney today is applicable to the Westgate Community Commercial area. She preferred to wait until the UW study was completed. She relayed this concept was attempted in Snohomish, placing a mini -mart at the corner with the parking and gas pumps behind on a main corner. The mini -mart went out of business because patrons went to the 7- Eleven across the street because they could see the parking and gas pumps. She urged the Council not to make this change until the UW study was completed and to ensure it made commercial sense. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO EXTEND THE MEETING 30 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Councilmember Buckshnis agreed in concept with the proposed amendments but preferred to wait until the UW study was completed. She had concerns with safety and traffic. Councilmember Fraley- Monillas advised she abstained from the previous vote because she cannot hear when Councilmembers do not speak into their microphones. Although this is an interesting, well thought out proposal, she wants to hear what the UW study produced before any decisions are made particularly when their report will be provided in two weeks. She anticipated being able to make a decision regarding this proposal soon after the results of the UW study are presented. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 7, 2011 Page 12 Council President Peterson agreed the timing of this proposal was not perfect; it would be ideal if the UW study had been presented to the Council first. There is the potential to alter development on this corner for the next 50 years or continue with the existing strip mall type development. To Councilmember Petso's concerns regarding sight distance, he pointed out traffic studies including sight distance studies are part of the permit process. He disagreed that this proposal would create an unsafe situation or that it would create a rush of permits. Council President Peterson relayed that the people he talked to are in favor of this proposal. He summarized that although the timing was not perfect, Councilmembers are elected to make decisions even if the timing is not perfect. The Council needs to make a decision using the information available from the UW study, the Economic Development Commission and staff. This one year ordinance provides an opportunity to improve the corner, move away from a strip mall type design and he anticipated the Council will have regrets if the proposed amendments are not approved. Student Representative Gibson asked how a 5 -8 foot setback would be unsafe for drivers. In downtown Seattle and the U- District there are alleys with a 4 -foot setback and they have adequate sight distance. To Student Representative Gibson's point, Councilmember Wilson pointed out there are more cars exiting the ferry in Edmonds than any other route in the State. He recalled when this was proposed as an interim ordinance, he made an amendment to set the maximum height in the BN zone to 10 feet to ensure there were only beautiful 10 -foot buildings in the BN zone. He supported this proposal because it was better than the existing. He feared the Council would not take action after the UW study is completed and he preferred this proposal to the existing regulations. He expressed support for the motion. Councilmember Fraley- Monillas agreed with Councilmember Wilson but did not think there was any rush to change the regulations. She preferred to delay a decision to allow comparison of the proposal with the UW study. She did not think it was crucial to make a decision tonight on a proposal that will affect a gateway intersection. Councilmember Plunkett commented if the developer felt it was best to build the project under the existing code, they would have submitted an application. Because that had not happened, he assumed the developer felt it would be better to move the building toward the street. He preferred to wait until the UW study was completed. To the comment regarding there is no rush, Council President Peterson pointed out the developer has already waited more than a month since the interim ordinance was presented. To a developer, time is money and any delay costs them money. Perhaps the reason the developer is willing to wait is because they are interested in being a good community partner. He reiterated in a perfect world the UW study would have been completed first. He urged the Council to make a decision tonight so that the developer does not submit their application tomorrow and build a strip mall -type project that the Council will regret. He feared if the motion failed tonight, the developer will not have enough faith to wait another 1 -2 months for the Council to reach a consensus. Councilmember Wilson explained he did not support a motion to table in order to allow this discussion to occur. He agreed with waiting two weeks until the UW study is presented to the Council. COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO POSTPONE THIS MATTER UNTIL AFTER THE STUDY IS PRESENTED ON JUNE 21 AND TAKE THE MATTER UP AGAIN ON JUNE 21. MOTION CARRIED (5 -2), COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON AND COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM VOTING NO. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 7, 2011 Page 13 6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Richard Kaden, Edmonds, referred to Code 17.60.040, Vehicles in Residential Zones. His neighbors and he shared a hammerhead driveway. One resident has elected to leave an inoperable vehicle, at one time unlicensed, on his side of the property but in front of their driveway. He provided photographs taken in January and June 2011 showing the vehicle has not moved. The resident claims Section E of 17.60.040 does not require the vehicle to be moved. The car has three flat tires and an inoperable right front window which resulted in rainwater entering the vehicle. In February a cover was placed over the vehicle which does not allow code enforcement to review the situation. Section E states the vehicle needs to meet two of the requirements to be classified as a junk vehicle; prior to the last change in the code, there was reference to a 3 -year or older vehicle. The cover over the car allows the car to remain for two years until an emission inspection is required. He requested the City reconsider paragraphs A and E of 17.60.040 to provide clarity. Olive Anne Kaden, Edmonds, described their concerns with a large chicken coop and a large pen on a neighbor's property, the nuisance of the noise and disease potential to humans from the Avian Flu. She relayed Code Enforcement Officer Mike Thies' indication that there are two parts of the code he can enforce, 1) the 5 -foot setback from the fence, 2) the 3 chicken limit. She explained their house and a neighbor's house have 15 -foot setbacks and very small backyards. She relayed Mr. Thies' suggestion that consideration be given in the code to the size of the lot and the placement of the chicken coop /pen. Their bedroom window and patio are close to the property line. She requested the Council consider adding language to the regulations regarding placement of chicken coops /pens. She complimented Mr. Thies, advising she called Friday with a complaint and he came out today. She agreed the car her husband referred to has been an ongoing problem. Al Rutledge, Edmonds, reported on the redistricting meeting he attended in Everett. He advised the redistricting meetings are televised. Input regarding redistricting will be accepted until July at 360 -786- 0046 or via email at contact @redistricting.wa.gov. He was disappointed more people did not attend the redistricting meeting. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO EXTEND THE MEETING FOR 15 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED (6 -1), COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM VOTING NO. 7. REPORT ON YOST POOL. Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite explained when the process for repairs to Yost Pool was expedited, she promised to provide a report to the Council. The repairs have been made and the pool is operational. The repair was included in the 2011 Capital Improvement Program; $120,000 was allocated from REST 125. A contractor was selected from the Small Works Roster. The low bid/contract with contingency was awarded to Orca Pacific for $103,678. The project was completed on time and on budget. Parks Maintenance Manager Rich Lindsay was the project manager. Ms. Hite described the repairs: • Complete replaster • Replacement of 6 existing race lines • Added 6 new race lines, added functionality • Fingertip tile repair Unforseens in the process included: • ADA lift broken, will be replaced tomorrow at cost of $14,000 which below the $120,000 budget • Spa leaking, needs to be repaired Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 7, 2011 Page 14 She provided several photographs of the pool during repairs and when the repairs were completed. The pool opened free to the public this weekend with a can of food; approximately 200 visited. The grand opening was Monday, June 6. Ms. Hite reviewed short and long term actions: • Short term/immediate actions: • ADA lift broken, being repaired tomorrow • Spa leaking, needs to be repaired • Long term needs: • Boiler needs to be replaced in next 2 -3 years, operating very inefficiently • Bathhouse/locker room structure needs to be updated and/or replaced Ms. Hite reviewed 2010 Year End Operating Costs/Revenues: • Revenues: $141,425 • Expenses: $207,456 • Expenses minus maintenance staff: $166,515 • Operational subsidy: $25,000- 66,000 Ms. Hite explained maintenance staffing is very thin; they are allocated seasonally to the pool but they work year - round. If the pool were closed, there would not be a huge savings because the maintenance staff would still be needed. Ms. Hite relayed future options: • Rebuild with same footprint: $1 million cost • Build out options from Aquatic Feasibility Study • Continue to repair: 1. New Boiler: $80,000 2. Re- Plaster: $ 150,000 every 7 -10 years. 3. Building /Bathhouse reconstruction, add ADA accessibility 4. Add program components With regard to new program components, Ms. Hite referred to the new Lynnwood, Federal Way and Vancouver pools that have zero depth entry, lazy rivers, wave pool, slides, etc. that can operate at zero subsidy due to year -round use. Councilmember Buckshnis thanked Ms. Hite for the information, noting this is the first time information . has been provided and the Council did not even have to ask for it. She inquired about new programs to reduce the subsidy. Ms. Hite explained more swim classes have been added, new race lines will accommodate lap swimmers in the deep end with programming in the shallow end, and more birthday parties and rental times have been added. She was hopeful that increased programming will result in increased revenue in an effort to reach zero subsidy. She noted Yost Pool is competing with the new Lynnwood Pool. Councilmember Wilson agreed Yost Pool has often been a hot topic but he has never had anyone explain the difference between maintenance and general pool operations. Had he understood that limited subsidy, he may have taken a different position in the past. As a father of two young children, he appreciated having specific toddler time in the pool. He inquired about the utility costs to operate the boiler. Ms. Hite responded it takes a great deal of energy to start the boiler and it operates at approximately 60% efficiency which adds to the cost of heating the pool. She favored considering alternative ways to heat the pool. The current annual cost to heat the pool is $14,000; she anticipated the cost could be reduced to $10,000 - $11,000 via a more efficient heating method. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 7, 2011 Page 15 Councilmember Wilson reported when he took his two children to the Lynnwood pool recently, they arrived at 3:20 p.m. for a 3:30 p.m. swim and were turned away because the pool was full. He was invited to purchase an annual pass for $950 which would allow preferred entry. He summarized there is a great demand for pool services. He asked Ms. Hite to comment on the recent meeting regarding a potential public- private partnership for a pool. Ms. Hite reported Councilmember Wilson and she met a few weeks ago with the Harbor Square Athletic Club Director and a private swim club in the area to discuss how to serve the community's needs, lessen the City's subsidy to operate Yost Pool, meet the needs of the private swim club and Harbor Athletic Club and whether a public- private partnership between the three entities made sense. Following that meeting, Harbor Square Athletic Club was interested in further discussions to assist the City in determining how to operate the pool more efficiently but a pool the size of Yost does not provide the profit margin they need. The private swim club is interested in further discussions; she cautioned a public - private partnership with a private swim club will require that the City agree to some exclusive use of the pool. She recommended the City continue operating Yost Pool with the goal of a zero subsidy and continue to engage in discussions about an aquatic component. If Yost cannot be operated with a zero subsidy due to competition from the Lynnwood pool or the footprint does not produce the revenue, there have been suggestions for another "Save Yost Pool" campaign to rebuild the subsidy fund. Councilmember Wilson pointed out one of the questions was how to increase the current four month use of the pool. The Stingray Swim Club currently spends over $200,000 /year in pool rental fees and would be willing to use Yost Pool. The question is then how to operate Yost as a year -round facility and whether an entity like Harbor Square Athletic Club could manage the pool. Ms. Hite explained another change at Yost Pool is the temperature of the water was increased from 81 degrees to 84 degrees. There has been a great response to this change. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO EXTEND THE MEETING FOR 15 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED (6 -1), COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM VOTING NO. 8. REPORT ON FINAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR THE FIVE CORNERS BOOSTER PUMP STATION IMPROVEMENTS AND COUNCIL ACCEPTANCE OF PROJECT. Public Works Director Phil Williams advised this item was scheduled on the CS /DS Committee May 10 Agenda and the Council's May 17 Consent Agenda. It was pulled from the Consent Agenda with a request for further information. The final cost of the project was $1,168,903; the budget when the contract was awarded was $1,103,660, a difference of approximately $65,243. The project had a number of changes; the largest change was due to lead- contaminated soils found around the periphery of the major reservoir at Five Corners, likely the result of sand blasting when it was recoated in 1996. That resulted in significant testing requirements that were additions to the design contract and eventually removal/disposal of lead- contaminated cost. The total cost of that change was $74,000. The Council approved going to bid on this project in 2008. Mr. Williams explained this project included security improvements, seismic upgrades and upgrading the telemetry to more effectively control operations at the Yost, Seaview and Five Corners reservoirs. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO ACCEPT THE PROJECT. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 7, 2011 Page 16 Councilmember Fraley- Monillas asked how the additional $65,000 cost was funded. Mr. Williams answered from the Combined Utility Fund 411. The $65,000 was approximately a 5.9% change between the award and the final construction cost. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 9. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Cooper had no report. 10. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Wilson reported he will be absent from the next Council meeting, representing the City at the Association of Washington Cities annual meeting in Spokane. Councilmember Bernhei n referred to the comments from the Kadens, relaying his understanding of the City's code was that the vehicle must be operable. Mayor Cooper advised Mr. Thies and Mr. Clifton are working on that matter. Councilmember Buckshnis thanked the volunteers and her fellow Rotarians for a very successful Waterfront Festival. She also thanked everyone who assisted with the Hutt Park cleanup. She encouraged other people to participate in the Adopt -a -Park program by visiting Parks and Recreation on the City's website. 11. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:50 p.m. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 7, 2011 Page 17