Loading...
02/28/2006 City CouncilFebruary 28, 2006 Following a Special Meeting at 6:45 p.m. to meet with Board and Commission candidates, the Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Haakenson in the Council Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Gary Haakenson, Mayor Deanna Dawson, Council President Michael Plunkett, Councilmember Richard Marin, Councilmember Mauri Moore, Councilmember Peggy Pritchard Olson, Councilmember Dave Orvis, Councilmember Ron Wambolt, Councilmember ALSO PRESENT Brandon Schmitt, Student Representative 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA STAFF PRESENT David Stern, Chief of Police Duane Bowman, Development Services Director Dan Clements, Administrative Services Director Brian McIntosh, Parks & Recreation Director Jennifer Gerend, Economic Development Dir. Noel Miller, Public Works Director Rob Chave, Planning Manager Stephen Koho, Treatment Plant Manager Debi Humann, Human Resources Manager Scott Snyder, City Attorney Sandy Chase, City Clerk Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst. Jeannie Dines, Recorder COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, FOR APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COUNCILMEMBER MOORE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, FOR APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: Approve (A) ROLL CALL 2/21/06 Minutes (B) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 21, 2006. Approve Claim (C) APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #86079 THROUGH #86209 FOR FEBRUARY 23, 2006, Checks IN THE AMOUNT OF $794,408.07. Claim for (D) ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM MARY K. GREEN Damages ($1,965.64). Screenings (E) REPORT ON BIDS OPENED FEBRUARY 21, 2006 FOR THE SCREENINGS SYSTEM System IMPROVEMENT PROJECT AND AWARD TO HARBOR PACIFIC CONTRACTORS Improvement FOR THE AMOUNT OF $1,169,531.55, INCLUDING SALES TAX. Resu 1118 (F) RESOLUTION NO. 1118 - THANKING BRANDON SCHMITT FOR HIS SERVICE AS Student Representative EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL STUDENT REPRESENTATIVE. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 28, 2006 Page I Ord# 3584 xvAC (G) ORDINANCE NO. 3584 - HEATING, VENTILATION, AND AIR CONDITIONING Financing (HVAC) IMPROVEMENTS FINANCING ORDINANCE Old woodway Update Regarding the Status of Negotiations with Edmonds School District on the Old Woodway Elementary school site Elementary School Site. Mayor Haakenson advised the District received the City's February 24 letter and have since notified the 23 bidders on the property of the City's desires. At least two developers contacted the City today to inquire how they could make the proposal work and expressing their intent to incorporate the City's desires into their offers to the District. The City has made their wishes known to the District and the Council has not taken any further action at this point. The District will update him during March and Council President Dawson will schedule his updates on future Council agendas. Mayor Haakenson explained there were several options available to the Council if it appeared none of the purchasers were interested in meeting the City's terms. The District would have a good idea of purchasers' interests as March proceeds and the Council could always submit an offer for 1 -11 acres if they chose during the month of March. With regard to the perception that the City was never interested in buying all 11 acres, Mayor Haakenson explained in July 2005 the Council authorized an offer to be made to the District that, 1) asked for a right of first refusal and 2) offered to purchase all 11 acres at 90% of the perceived value. The value was perceived at that time to be $7.5 million; 90% would be approximately $6.75 million. On July 16, 2005, the City received a letter from the District stating, "the District appreciates but is not willing to accept the right of first refusal or the offer put forward by the City to purchase the property at 90% of value." The letter also provided the Council until March 1, 2006 to submit a different plan. Mayor Haakenson summarized the Council had made a good faith effort to purchase the entire 11 acres and to create a park at no taxpayer expense and protect the single family zoning of the neighborhood. He summarized anyone who said the Council had not been proactive with regard to the park acquisition was clearly mistaken. Board and 3. INTRODUCTION OF MAYOR'S APPOINTMENT OF WENDY KENDALL TO THE LIBRARY Commission BOARD, AND INTRODUCTION AND CONFIRMATION OF HOLLY GUENTZ AND GRANT Appointments LINDEN TO THE SISTER CITY COMMISSION. Library Board President James Thyden introduced Wendy Kendall and described her background. He commented although it was a difficult choice due to the number of qualified candidates; the Library Board unanimously selected Ms. Kendall to fill the vacancy on the Board. Ms. Kendall thanked the Council for the opportunity, stating she looked forward to serving on the Library Board. Parks & Recreation Director Brian McIntosh echoed Mr. Thyden's comment regarding the number of qualified candidates. He introduced Holly Guentz and Grant Linden, who were selected to fill vacancies on the Sister City Commission, and described their backgrounds. Ms. Guentz thanked the Council and the Sister City Commission for the opportunity to serve on the Commission, remarking on the value of international exchange. Mr. Linden thanked the Council and the Commission for selecting him to serve on the Sister City Commission, describing the opportunities he had in the past to host adults and children from Hekinan as well as participate in the delegation to Hekinan. COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT, TO CONFIRM THE MAYOR'S APPOINTMENT OF WENDY KENDALL TO THE LIBRARY BOARD, AND HOLLY GUENTZ AND GRANT LINDEN TO THE SISTER CITY COMMISSION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 28, 2006 Page 2 Commission Appointment 4. CITY COUNCIL CONFIRMATION OF A COUNCIL APPOINTED MEMBER OF THE CITIZENS' COMMISSION ON COMPENSATION FOR ELECTED OFFICIALS. Council President Dawson explained every even - numbered year, per Chapter 10.80 of the Edmonds City Code, the Citizens' Commission on Compensation of Elected Officials convened to review the compensation of elected officials. This year, due to the vacancy of one of the Council appointed Commission seats, a selection process occurred and three extremely qualified candidates were interviewed. The Council selected Bob Ledford to fill the vacant position. Council President Dawson introduced Mr. Ledford and described his background. COUNCIL PRESIDENT DAWSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, TO CONFIRM THE APPOINTMENT OF BOB LEDFORD TO THE CITIZENS' COMMISSION ON COMPENSATION FOR ELECTED OFFICIALS. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Student 5. PRESENTATION OF RESOLUTION TO STUDENT REPRESENTATIVE BRANDON SCHMITT. Representative Brandon Schmitt Council President Dawson read Resolution No. 1118 commendin g Brandon Schmitt for his service as the Council Student Representative for the period January — February 28, 2006. Mr. Schmitt thanked the Council for the opportunity and expressed his enjoyment learning about how city government works. 6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS eighborhood Al Rutledge, Edmonds, submitted additional petitions for the neighborhood park at the former Woodway Park Petition Elementary School site and expressed the hope that a solution could be developed to retain the park. Next he suggested the City contact Snohomish County with regard to doing something more with the 120 acre Southwest County Park. Old Woodway Ray Martin, Edmonds, expressed concern that there had been little discussion regarding the 11 acres Elementary School Site available for purchase in the south end of the city although the citizens of Edmonds would likely support a park in that location. Referring to Mayor Haakenson's comment about the City's desires, Mr. Martin found the proposal for a four acre park and seven acres of development unacceptable. He preferred the City submit a bid to the School District to purchase the property and encouraged the District to be more receptive to the City's offer in view of future levy elections. He objected to "secret negotiations," pointing out the only discussions that needed to be secret were regarding the price. He recommended holding a public hearing so that citizens could express their desires. He noted if the City purchased the property, a portion could be sold at a profit in the future. "Thank You" to Council Alex Riggs, Edmonds, commented the Council likely received a lot of complaints and he wanted to thank the Council for the work they do. He expressed his faith in the Council's abilities. old wooaway Roger Hertrieh, Edmonds, referred to Mayor Haakenson's statement last week regarding parks, what Elementary the Council proposed and the non - answers provided in response to Couneilmember Moore's question school site regarding the Council making an offer on the 11 acre parcel. Mr. Hertrieh asserted the City had funds to purchase the property in the Parks Fund and additional funds were available via grants. He pointed out the District was obligated to deal with the City first but the City needed to submit an offer. Mr. Hertrieh questioned what Mayor Haakenson wanted to do with the remaining land, possibly he had a developer friend or other plans for the park. Building 7. WORK SESSION ON BUILDING HEIGHTS IN THE BC ZONE Heights in the BC Zone Council President Dawson envisioned this as an opportunity to get ideas on the table following up on last week's presentations and for the Alliance of Citizens for Edmonds (ACE) and the Chamber to provide Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 28, 2006 Page 3 their observations as well as comments from Couneilmembers regarding areas of common ground and areas of differences. She advised the Council may not reach a final decision tonight. ACE declined to provide further comments. Strom Peterson, representing the Chamber of Commerce, observed from the presentations last week, it was clear there were more areas of agreement than disagreement which the Chamber found very encouraging and hoped the Council would take advantage of this window of opportunity to resolve the issue now. He listed some issues common to all presentations — establishing and maintaining a healthy business climate, maintaining the character and charm of downtown, encouraging pedestrian access and activity, providing adequate parking, incentives in exchange for additional height, third floor setback to preserve the 2 -story look, preservation of historic structures, creating good design guidelines without further delay, requiring quality commercial space, increasing sales tax revenue to reduce the reliance on property taxes and mitigation such as setbacks and open space. Mr. Peterson explained after carefully analyzing their position to remove impediments to reaching a solution, the Chamber found only two core issues essential to their membership — economic viability and quality retail space. Other than a 12 -foot minimum finished first floor ceiling height, the Chamber did not have a hard and fast position on building heights and did not object to 2 -story buildings if they could be economically viable. The Chamber felt the marketplace would resolve that issue; if builders could profitably build a 2 -story structure they would. Although the Chamber believed 2 -story buildings were highly problematic from a financial standpoint, they were willing to allow the principals of economics to answer that question and hoped the Council was open to that approach. He recalled there appeared to be consensus on 12 -foot first floor ceiling heights on the ground level. Mr. Peterson recalled there was some interest expressed by the Council in less than 12 -foot first floor ceiling heights particularly in areas outside the retail core. The Chamber requested the Council take note of the fact that any building constructed today would last 40 -60 years and undoubtedly change uses over that time. If first floor heights were reduced on the premise that it would only be office use, that would preclude the space from ever being used for viable retail purposes. He noted it was not in anyone's best interest to build structures with inflexible future uses. He also recalled discussion regarding the importance of design guidelines and concurred this was a key issue, noting everyone favored attractive, well - designed buildings in the BC zone due to its contribution to quality of life and economic viability. With regard to parking, Mr. Peterson pointed parking requirements significantly affected the overall financial viability of a project and to some extent determined the size of buildings developed and the need to consolidate lots due to the space required for underground parking. If the issue of massive, block -long developments was a concern, he urged the Council to consider the financial viability and parking standards for smaller lots such as the now vacant AM -PM gas station. In conclusion he urged the Council to seize the opportunity to reach consensus on the issue of building heights, recognizing there must be some compromise from all involved to reach the economically healthy, aesthetically pleasing result that all wanted to see. Council President Dawson observed the Architectural Design Board (ADB) would be presenting the Council with the revisions to the design guidelines following their meeting tomorrow. Acknowledging that design guidelines, building heights and first floor ceiling heights were connected, she asked how specific the direction the Council provided to the Planning Board needed to be. Development Services Director Duane Bowman answered the more detailed, the better. He noted the Council's approach to date had been to define the height and fix everything to fit within that height limit. It would be preferable to identify the desired amenities and determine a viable building height to accommodate those. He agreed there appeared to be consensus by the Council regarding a 12 -foot first floor ceiling height. He Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 28, 2006 Page 4 anticipated if the Council's direction was vague, the Planning Board's response would be similar to what they provided previously due to the amount of time the Planning Board spent on that process. Councilmember Plunkett commented the reality was that the Council would start with a building height which he speculated would be 25 +5 feet. He preferred to provide the Planning Board more information rather than specific numbers to allow them more flexibility to make a recommendation that reflected the desires expressed by the Chamber and ACE. Mr. Bowman agreed the more information the Council could provide, the better. With regard to major policy issues, he noted it was helpful to the Planning Board if the Council provided specific direction. He recalled the Planning Board spent a great deal of time on the issue of building heights including evaluating pedestrian oriented buildings, the Heartland study and financial feasibility of redeveloped buildings and developed a recommendation that included 33 -foot building heights. Councilmember Plunkett pointed out some new ideas had been presented regarding the viability of 2- story buildings. Mr. Bowman acknowledged the Planning Board could consider that information but it was possible they would reach the same conclusion. City Attorney Scott Snyder emphasized the need for the product to have sufficient detail. He noted although a viable political solution may utilize words /concepts that everyone felt good about such as preserve the historic ambiance of Edmonds, unless the Council and Planning Board were willing to put feet, inches, pictures, etc. to that wording, it only deferred the potential squabbles to the first public hearing. His focus would be on what the words mean. He pointed out the problems that have occurred over the past ten years were due to design guidelines and a zoning ordinance created in a different era when cities and design boards had much more latitude to make hometown decisions, to define in a public hearing process what hometown atmosphere or historic ambiance meant — those days are gone. Councilmember Marin commented at last week's meeting he spoke from his background in marketing, tonight he spoke from has background as a builder. He pointed out requiring a 12 -foot first floor ceiling height and limiting building heights to 25 +5 feet would effectively eliminate a third floor as there was no physical way to construct e floors within 30 feet if one floor was required to have a 12 -foot ceiling height. He summarized if the Council wanted to require a 12 -foot first floor ceiling height, there was no need to discuss modulation or incentives or third floor setback because a third floor would not be possible. Councilmember Wambolt disagreed, noting buildings on the east side of 5th could get enough height for a third floor, referring to Mr. Gregg's building that was 36 feet on the front as an example. Councilmember Orvis disagreed with Councilmember Marin's premise, pointing out that slopes changed the dynamic and viability of projects. He pointed out only a 4 -foot elevation was needed on a lot to achieve a third floor. He acknowledged downhill lots would have 2 -story fronts. He referred to the Cooperstone building, commenting if the code were changed to allow condominiums in the back of the first floor, three floors of residential could be achieved versus the existing two floors of condominium. He agreed with Councilmember Marin's premise with regard to level lots, noting there were not a lot of level lots in the city. Councilmember Marin questioned whether the vision was to have 3 -story buildings on one side of 5th and 2 -story buildings on the other side due to the sloped lots on one side. Council President Dawson responded that was already the nature of how buildings were constructed, her preference would be all 2- story buildings but she was willing to compromise. Councilmember Moore commented the only mixed use developer in Edmonds was in the audience, noting the Council were not experts. If the Council's intent was 25 +5 feet, she preferred to vote tonight, Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 28, 2006 Page 5 however, she did not think that was the whole issue. She acknowledged the efforts of ACE, the Chamber, and numerous citizens who submitted letters. Councilmember Moore suggested the Council consider a model used by other cities as a compromise — create a committee with two members from the Chamber, two members from ACE, two from the Planning Board, two Councilmembers and Mr. Chave who would attempt to reach a compromise in 90 days on design guidelines, zones, heights, etc. She did not support a one size - fits -all approach to heights, preferring a mix of two and three story buildings. She reiterated Councilmembers were not experts and should focus on policy and other important issues facing the City. She suggested this approach be discussed at the retreat. Councilmember Plunkett agreed it was difficult for the Council to determine the appropriate amount of setback for a third floor but he could make a decision on fundamental principals such as building heights and first floor ceiling heights. Once the Council made decisions on those fundamental principles he preferred to forward the issue to the Planning Board, rather than a committee. He found Councilmember Moore's suggested approach to be in essence what the Planning Board did, noting even if a committee reached a compromise, it would still require review and recommendation by the Planning Board. Councilmember Moore responded the Planning Board had been working on this issue for two years and the Council had not accepted their recommendation. There were also members of the public who were opposed to the Planning Board's recommendation and the committee would provide a means for including them in the process. Councilmember Orvis preferred to forward the matter to the Planning Board. He pointed out the need to provide specific direction so that the Planning Board did not waste their time. Councilmember Moore commented the Council had a lot of opinions and she found it difficult to weigh information that some Councilmembers presented as fact due to their lack of expertise. Mayor Haakenson recommended this approach be discussed at the retreat. Council President Dawson found Councilmember Moore's idea intriguing and suggested getting feedback from staff and the Planning Board whether that approach would usurp the Planning Board's role. She suggested the Council identify issues on which there was a consensus. Councilmember Wambolt provided his observations from the presentations last week and what he had learned since, believing that the area within the BC zone where most were passionate about limiting to 2- stories and 25 feet was a very small retail area — Main Street from 6th to 3rd and 5th Avenue from Bell to Walnut. He noted supporters of taller buildings routinely referenced the Heartland study as corroboration that three stories were needed for economically viable building projects, whereas opponents of three story buildings in the retail area felt the Heartland study mistakenly used land costs of $80 /square foot for buildings with two and three floors. He disagreed with this finding, noting less would be paid for property that allowed only a 2 -story building. He acknowledged building costs were rising but the market value of condominiums grew faster than construction materials. Councilmember Wambolt referred to Mr. Hinshaw's comment that developers did not do a good job on mixed use projects; they were either good at commercial or residential but seldom both. He referred to evidence of this including the large number of buildings in downtown with two floors of condominiums, undesirable first floor heights and below street level entrances. He did not support requiring all buildings in the BC zone to be mixed use. Although it was often said that taller buildings were necessary to provide the higher ceilings required by restaurants and two floors of condominiums; he found most condominium owners did want restaurants in their building. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 28, 2006 Page 6 Councilmember Wambolt recalled a comment from the public last week that the widely acclaimed Mill Creek Town Center did not have residences above the businesses. He supported moving away from redevelopment that meant demolishing and rebuilding to redevelopment via refurbishing. To accomplish that, he suggested consideration be given to a moratorium on ECDC 17.40.020 in the BC zone, the section of the code that prevented extensive restoration of non - conforming buildings. He provided examples of economically viable extensive restorations — 5t' Avenue Bar & Grill, Shell Creek Restaurant, Girardi's, Arista Wine Cellars, and C'est la Vie. He preferred not to allow the fragile retail area to become a haven for speculative redevelopment although it should be welcomed in other zones. Councilmember Wambolt referred to comments that the downtown has lost pharmacies, supermarkets and hardware stores because short buildings did not provide enough density to support the businesses. The reality was the downtown population had increased as a result of single family being replaced with condominiums. The real reason those local businesses left was because they were no longer able to compete with large stores. He referred to a market area diagram provided by Councilmember Marin last week that indicated Edmonds' market area was reduced by the Puget Sound to the west and shopping attractions to the east, pointing out the lack of market area to the west was a plus for Edmonds as the Sound, mountain and ferry views attracted visitors to the retail area. He concluded any action that Council took needed to focus on retaining the magnetic force of the downtown and not facilitate its demise. Councilmember Moore commented what Mr. Snyder said earlier applied to many of Councilmember Wambolt's statements such as how to define "preserve what we have." She agreed with many of the statements Councilmember Wambolt made but was unsure whether they were fact or feelings or could be defined. Councilmember Wambolt clarified it meant preserve the existing 2 -story downtown. He acknowledged his comments were a philosophical statement that would need to be quantified. Councilmember Moore pointed out there were also 3 -story buildings downtown. Councilmember Wambolt noted there were few 3 -story buildings in the core retail area. Council President Dawson suggested scheduling a presentation regarding design guidelines next week. She suggested the Council identify issues on which there was consensus. The Council agreed with requiring 12 -foot ceiling heights on the ground floor. There was also consensus that requiring building /roofline modulation should not be an incentive for additional height. She asked whether there was consensus that a setback should be required for any third stories. Councilmember Marin agreed that it may be possible to achieve a third floor on the east side of the street using a hypothetical slope such as provided in Councilmember Orvis' presentation. However, the reality was that there was little slope in the retail core area. Thus if the height limit were not allowed to be above 30 feet in that area, there was no possibility for a third floor. Council President Dawson asked whether the Council supported a one - size - fits -all building height in the BC zone or whether there should be a lower building height in the downtown retail core and a requirement for two stories. Councilmember Orvis observed under the current direction there was an option between 12 and 15 -foot first floor ceiling heights. He preferred to require a 15 -foot first floor ceiling height which would guarantee a 2 -story building. Councilmember Moore responded that may sound good; she envisioned the potential for a legal challenge if buildings were limited to two stories, particularly in view of the farm bureau initiative. Mr. Snyder answered it would depend on how quickly the Council and Planning Board could take action before an initiative occurred. Councilmember Marin expressed his ongoing support for increasing the first floor ceiling height. He reiterated if the building height was limited to 25-+-5 with a 12 -foot first floor ceiling height, the building could only be two stories and he preferred to allow the builder /architect /engineer to determine the best Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 28, 2006 Page 7 first floor height. He noted the key to this discussion was not the height but what made a good retail space and to date builders had been deciding what made a good retail space rather than the retailer. Councilmember Olson relayed a comment made to her husband by Comstock Jewelers that without a 15- foot ceiling height, they could not have installed their HVAC system. She suggested requiring a minimum 12 -foot first floor ceiling height. Council President Dawson asked the Council to consider whether they wanted to preclude lot- line -to -lot line development, a practice that raised the issue of massing. She also asked whether the Council wanted to consider a maximum number of stories regardless of the slope. Councilmember Olson suggested the Council also consider parking requirements particularly on smaller lots. Council President Dawson commented it may be advantageous to reduce parking requirements for single lot development. Councilmember Marin commented the principle of not allowing lot- line -to -lot line development seemed interesting but had the potential to be another reduction for property owners, particularly if the ability to have a third floor was eliminated. He noted a setback of three feet between buildings was not enough space to prevent creating a safety hazard. He did not support introducing space between buildings. Councilmember Moore agreed, recalling the Council was told it was better to have lot - line -to -lot line development in a commercial zone. Further, setbacks between buildings was essentially useless space. She supported establishing a maximum number of stories. Council President Dawson asked whether the Council wanted to differentiate between the downtown retail /commercial zone and other parts of the BC zone. Councilmember Wambolt favored lot- line -to -lot line development for the reasons mentioned by Councilmember Moore but wanted restrictions on the width of a building to avoid buildings that were three lots wide. With regard to Councilmember Orvis' suggestion regarding 15 -foot first floor ceiling heights, he preferred to provide disincentives for mixed use to avoid one floor of retail and one floor of condominiums. He did not support requiring a 15 -foot first floor ceiling height throughout the BC zone due to energy costs although he noted that may be appropriate for retail. Councilmember Orvis commented he was suggesting 15 -foot first floor ceiling heights only in the retail core area and 12 -foot first floor ceiling heights outside that area. With regard to building widths, Councilmember Marin commented on the necessity to aggregate parcels, a concept that was encouraged on Hwy. 99 to attract certain businesses. He noted aggregation of parcels was often necessary for redevelopment to meet the parking requirements. He did not support limiting the ability to aggregate and develop several parcels. Council President Dawson referred to Councilmember Wambolt's comment that he supported lot- line -to- lot line development but wanted to limit building width. She noted one of the ways to discourage development on aggregated lots may be to waive some of the parking requirements. Councilmember Wambolt responded he found some aggregation of lots acceptable such as two lots. Councilmember Marin objected to the reference to "mass" over the past two years as a derogatory term and to people calling Mr. Gregg's building ugly. He found Mr. Gregg had done a great job of dressing up the building with modern design techniques. With regard to massing, he noted one person may like a small building and others like bigger buildings. He had a similar concern with people who objected to flat roofs, commenting flat roofs were a basic design concept in any downtown across the country. Councilmember Moore agreed with Councilmember Marin, massing was in the eye of the beholder. She questioned why the Gregory had to be one large building and why it could not have been two buildings. She concluded she was unable to comment further on restricting massing without additional information. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 28, 2006 Page 8 With regard to 30 versus 33 foot building heights, Councilmember Olson favored a 2 -story look in the downtown with a setback on the third floor. She was pleased some compromise was being reached but found the fight over an additional 36 inches silly. She noted parking had a big impact on development in the 5th & Main area. Councilmember Orvis commented he still favored modulation as one of the incentives for an additional 5 feet. He referred to the three maps, basic height limits, lot orientation for height determination and zoning /use districts, suggesting the maps be consolidated to reflect heights in zone districts. Councilmember Plunkett suggested the Council develop a method of manifesting consensus, commenting it was imperative to forward this to the Planning Board in view of the upcoming property rights initiative. As incentives for additional height were likely to be guided by the design guidelines, Council President Dawson recommended the Council review the design guidelines that would be presented by the ADB next week and schedule a final vote on building heights and incentives for the Planning Board's review on the March 21 agenda. She noted several of the issues would also be discussed at the Council retreat. Councilmember Marin reiterated his request to see the changes made to the design guidelines as tracked changes. Mayor Haakenson explained all reference to numbers for heights, setbacks, etc. had been removed from the design guidelines as the ADB felt the numbers should be in the code and not the design guidelines. He suggested as an exercise at the retreat Councilmembers bring photographs of retail centers downtown they liked to facilitate a discussion of the pros and cons of 2 -story appearance, massing, building height, lot - line -to -lot line development, ceiling heights, etc. Economic 8. CONTINUED DISCUSSION AND POTENTIAL ACTION ON THE ECONOMIC Development DEVELOPMENT ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. Element Economic Development Director Jennifer Gerend explained the Economic Development Element would be forwarded to the Planning Board and then back to the Council. She suggested the Council provide direction to the Planning Board regarding the element. She anticipated a March 22 public hearing at the Planning Board. Council President Dawson recalled when the Council previously reviewed the Economic Development Element, Councilmembers were asked to provide recommended changes for Council review which Councilmember Plunkett had done. She was comfortable with incorporating Councilmember Plunkett's suggested changes and forwarding the element to the Planning Board. Councilmember Moore objected to some of Councilmember Plunkett's requested changes, noting some appeared to be rewriting history. She referred to a memo from Planning Manager Rob Chave that stated just because you don't agree with something a study said does not mean it wasn't in the study. Council President Dawson commented it was not rewriting history, there was not a need to focus on certain language and removing the language Councilmember Plunkett suggested did not change what the report said but changed the tenor of the element. She asked whether Ms. Gerend objected to Councilmember Plunkett's suggestions. Councilmember Olson agreed with removing the "head in the sand" language and " Hyett Palma recognized the escalating debate back in 1999 about keeping the downtown the same versus pursuing economic development" but objected to removing the Hyett Palma conclusion regarding increasing the height limit to 35 feet and adding design guidelines. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 28, 2006 Page 9 Councilmember Marin reminded this issue arose from his request that the element reference the Hyett Palma study along with other studies that had been done. His intent was not to extract from the study, only mention it. He was comfortable with removing the language as suggested by Councilmember Plunkett. Councilmember Moore agreed with removing the inflammatory language but not with removing Hyett Palma's conclusions. She commented that although Councilmember Plunkett took issue with some of Hyett Palma's conclusions, others may not. Ms. Gerend explained the intent was not to include inflammatory rhetoric but summarize past studies. Her understanding was that the Hyett Palma study was a major community planning effort. She noted the inclusion of the Hyett Patina conclusions in the element did not mean the Council supported their conclusions and perhaps made the Council appear more deliberative. She agreed with removing "head in the sand" language but recommended retaining Hyett Palma's conclusion regarding increasing the height limit to 35 feet and adding design guidelines. COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, TO STRIKE THE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS FROM THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ELEMENT, "HYETT PALMA RECOGNIZED THE ESCALATING DEBATE BACK IN 1999 ABOUT KEEPING THE DOWNTOWN THE SAME VERSUS PURSUING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ", "THE HEAD IN THE SAND APPROACH WILL ONLY RESULT IN A DOWNTOWN THAT WILL NOT STAY THE SAME OR FLOURISH TO BE MORE ATTRACTIVE," AND "INCREASING THE HEIGHT LIMIT TO 35 FEET," AND FORWARDING THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ELEMENT TO THE PLANNING BOARD. Councilmember Moore explained that although she supported forwarding the Economic Development Element to the Planning Board, she would vote against the motion due to her preference to include Hyett Palma's conclusion regarding 35 -foot building heights. Councilmember Olson advised she would also vote no due to her objection to changing history; the document accurately reflected Hyett Palma's conclusions. MOTION CARRIED (5 -2), COUNCILMEMBERS MOORE AND OLSON OPPOSED. Mayor Haakenson declared a brief recess. ECDC Rewrite 9. WORK SESSION ON PROCESS AND PROCEDURE FOR THE REWRITE OF THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC) Development Services Director Duane Bowman explained one of the first sections that required revision was Title 20, the process and procedures section. He posed a fundamental question, what role did the Council want to play in the process? He referred to a survey of the City's "Decision Processes" that listed type of decision, decision - maker, whether a public hearing was required, whether public notice was required, appeal process and decisions, pointing out the Council acted as the appellate body via a closed record review on certain decisions. He explained State law allowed only one open record hearing, hence the Council's closed record review on appeal. Mr. Bowman explained the current process was fraught with, in his opinion, serious flaws with accepting oral argument on closed record reviews. He recalled the awkward situation that arose when trying to prevent speakers from entering new evidence during a closed record review. He noted the danger with that was if new evidence was entered and the Council as the decision -maker relied on that in making their decision, it was grounds for overturning a decision on appeal. If the Council wanted to remain the ultimate appellate body, he recommended changing the way closed record reviews were handled. Specifically he recommended parties of record be required to present written argument in advance of the Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 28, 2006 Page 10 Council's closed record review so that the Council could read the argument based on the record and that oral argument be only a question directed to a party of record on a specific issue in the written information. This would assist in determining whether information provided was new evidence. Mr. Bowman referred to a comparison of why have the Council make decisions and why have a lower level (e.g. Hearing Examiner) make decisions. He did not support the Council acting as an appellate body in quasi judicial matters, preferring the Council focus on establishing policy. He noted courts have changed their position with regard to how cities react to land use decisions, becoming much tougher. He advised WCIA was a strong proponent of using Hearing Examiners due to the difficult position the Council faced in a quasi judicial matter such as the inability to talk with constituents about the matter due to potential conflicts. He preferred the Council establish clear standards /regulations that would be enforced at a lower level. City Attorney Scott Snyder recalled his suggestion that the City Council and Planning Board hear WCIA's land use /quasi judicial presentation; Mr. Bowman had summarized the risk management portion. He reiterated the need to write a tighter code. The need for the Council to sit as the final arbitrator in the past had a tendency with a loose code to invite the Council to resolve neighborhood disputes. As the code got tighter, the less that need arose. In a quasi judicial process the developer had a distinct advantage; they had been working on their proposal for months or years and had invested in experts, whereas many citizens only became sensitized to a project late in the development process. As a result the record was typically pro - development. Mr. Snyder acknowledged citizens' frustration with not being heard in the process, particularly not being heard from until late in the process when there was little the Council could do to supplement the record. The resolution was for the Council to utilize its legislative powers to ensure citizens were heard early and often at a time when the Council could direct staff and consultants to make the record and assist citizens in their presentation. The time for citizens to be heard and have the most effective voice was in the legislative process, not the quasi judicial process. It was difficult for the Council to level the playing field during a closed record review. He agreed it was awkward for staff to interrupt when a citizen was attempting to raise a new point during a closed record review, and it appeared to citizens that an attempt was being made to shut them up at a point when they wanted to be heard. He urged the Council to consider that the most effective way to address their constituents' concerns was via writing a tight code early in the process and not by trying to level the playing field during a quasi judicial proceeding. He pointed out there was always the potential for the Council's decision to be questioned by the court. Mayor Haakenson recalled the public's frustration during quasi judicial matters when they were unable to speak and /or add new information to the record. Although he agreed with Mr. Bowman's preference that the Council not act as the appellate body in quasi judicial matters, he noted a tighter code would reduce the number of quasi judicial appeals. If the Council continued to conduct quasi judicial appeals, perhaps the suggestion regarding written testimony only would eliminate some of the public's frustration. Mr. Bowman explained due to the potential for a court to review the Council's decision, the Council needed to ensure a clean record was maintained. Requiring the submittal of written argument based on the record would assist in maintaining a clean record and reduce the public's and staff's frustration. He recommended writing tight code with clear setting standards. He advised the Council could monitor the Hearing Examiner's decisions as well as set standards with regard to how the Hearing Examiner reported to the Council at the end of the year such as the number of cases, major issues, number of decisions that were reversed, etc. Council President Dawson was intrigued with the suggestion of written argument versus oral argument, noting that was often the case in courts. She asked whether any other jurisdictions required written argument, how it worked, whether there were any difficulties, etc. Mr. Snyder advised several counties Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 28, 2006 Page 11 required written argument. He offered to poll Municipal Research for other examples. Council President Dawson asked whether there were any issues associated with requiring written argument. Mr. Snyder answered no other than a matter of fairness. He explained the intent would be to have the parties review the written argument and raise objections so that the Council and /or staff were not in the position of appearing to favor one side or the other by pointing out problems in the written argument. Council President Dawson inquired about the logistics of that process such as who would rule on the objections. Mr. Bowman agreed tightening the regulations would reduce the number of appeals to the Council and for the appeals that did reach the Council, there would be clear criteria for making a determination. Councilmember Orvis commented many see quasi judicial as a type of decision when it was actually a process applied to several decisions. He found it appropriate to have the Hearing Examiner make the final decision on some types of decisions but preferred the Council be the final decision - making on variances. He referred to Mr. Bowman's comment about setting standards, noting a variance was a process to waive standards. Mr. Bowman recommended clarifying the variance criteria. Councilmember Orvis supported building flexibility into the code in a detailed manner to limit variances. Councilmember Moore supported taking the Council out of the quasi judicial process, finding it odd for the legislative body to be the judge on the code. She was willing to consider having the Council remain as the decision -maker for variances along with tightening the variance criteria. She commented on the difficulty for the Council to be unable to talk to citizens during a quasi judicial matter. Councilmember Marin anticipated the rewrite of the code would include hiring a consultant to assemble elements from the best codes along with Mr. Snyder's legal expertise so that the code rewrite would be the best of the best rather than something cobbled together over decades. He was generally in agreement with Mr. Bowman's recommendation to remove the Council as the decision -maker in quasi judicial matters but reserved the possibility to learn something in the process that would change that. Councilmember Plunkett complimented staff on bringing policy issues encountered in rewriting the code to the Council. In the past the Council was involved in numerous quasi judicial matters in ADB appeals, which a change in the threshold eliminated. He anticipated tightening the code would reduce the number of quasi judicial matters. Mayor Haakenson commented a black and white code was much better than a gray code. Mr. Bowman explained Mr. Snyder and he could rewrite this section of the code. He assured a consultant would be hired to consider the various zones and uses as well as to cross reference the code. Council President Dawson noted there were certain quasi judicial decisions the Council had to remain involved in such as rezones. Mr. Snyder agreed, advising those were mixed quasi judicial and legislative decisions that under the Planning Enabling Act only the Council could decide. Council President Dawson commented that given there were certain decisions the Council had to remain involved in and others that Councilmembers wanted to remain involved in such as variances, and with the reduced number of matters the Council would be involved in once the code was tightened, she preferred to keep the Council involved in more quasi judicial matters rather than less. Her reason was due to the Council's reversals of Hearing Examiner's decisions in the past and the public's frustration if they could not appeal to the Council at all and had to spend money to appeal to court. With regard to written versus oral arguments, Council President Dawson agreed in certain circumstances it could result in a cleaner record and suggested that as an interim measure. She supported the Council staying involved as the code was tightened so that they were aware of the affect the changes had. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 28, 2006 Page 12 Councilmember Plunkett agreed with the Council remaining in quasi judicial matters, anticipating tightening the code and improving the process would reduce the number of quasi judicial matters. He preferred to continue to allow oral argument. Councilmember Orvis recommended variances and Conditional Use Permits be heard by the Council. He supported the suggestion for written argument in quasi judicial appeals. Councilmember Olson agreed with Mr. Bowman's suggestion to remove the Council from quasi judicial matters. She found the inability to talk with citizens frustrating and difficult to explain to citizens. If the Council wanted to continue to be involved, she supported written argument rather than oral. Councilmember Wambolt recalled citizens' comments that they wanted to be able to appeal to the City Council. Councilmember Moore expressed her willingness to remain involved in quasi judicial, commenting there were not very many. She supported exploring allowing written testimony only and tightening the codes to reduce the number of appeals. Councilmember Marin favored accepting only written testimony provided it was fair for all parties. He agreed the natural consequence of rewriting the code would be a reduction in the number of quasi judicial appeals. Mayor Haakenson summarized the consensus of the Council was to remain in the quasi judicial process, explore written arguments and tighten the code. Mr. Snyder referred to Councilmember Wambolt's comment about citizens wanting to come to the Council and Council President Dawson's reference to the need to enforce the code the way it is written and change the code if necessary. If the Council adhered to that, listened to people who appealed to the Council, enforced the code the way it was written and changed the code if the Council did not like the result, most of the legal issues could be avoided. He explained problems arose when citizens came to the Council alleging the code was not fair and the Council attempted to rewrite the code in the decision - making process — ignoring the code and going with sentiment. He noted that was the issue with the 25 +5 with modulation; as the issue got progressively grayer, the Council ended up legislating via the quasi judicial process. 10. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Haakenson wished Mr. Snyder a Happy Birthday. 11. INDIVIDUAL COUNCIL REPORTS ON OUTSIDE COMMITTEE /BOARD MEETINGS SnoCom Council President Dawson reported the SnoCom Board was moving forward with the SnoPak Board on some contentious issues between the Boards and dispatch issues countywide. The Chairs and Vice - Chairs of the SnoCom and SnoPak Boards and Directors would be meeting to discuss the future of CAD interconnectivity in Snohomish County which would save money for the county as a whole. Public Facilities Councilmember Olson reported the Public Facilities District Board approved an expansion of the District orchestra pit and wings which would allow more entertainment groups to perform at the Edmonds Center for the Arts. She reported the South Snohomish Cities meeting included the Governor's liaison to Cities S0. Snohomish Snohomish and Whatcom Counties; the group provided input regarding issues of concern that he would present to the Governor. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 28, 2006 Page 13 Hwy. 99 Task Councilmember Wambolt reported Stevens Hospital made a presentation to the Hwy. 99 Task Force Force regarding their expansion plans. He reported at their February 13 meeting, the Port Commission agreed Port to proceed with the purchase of the Harbor Square properties and borrow $10 million from Cascade Bank Commission to be repaid over ten years with an interest rate of 7.3 %. The sale is scheduled to close on March 31. The Port will provide the additional $3.5 million. The meeting also included a lengthy discussion regarding changes made to the process used in boatyards by the Department of Ecology that would increase costs for repair and cleaning due to the requirement to protect the soil beneath. Councilmember Wambolt reported the February 27 Port meeting included discussion of a schedule of fees and finalization of the agreement with Harbor Square. Also at the February 27 meeting, Economic Development Director Jennifer Gerend presented the Economic Development Element and residents expressed concern with train whistles. The March 13 Port meeting will include a presentation from Sound Transit and the Port plans to raise the issue of train whistles with Sound Transit. Community Councilmember Moore reported at last week's Community Outreach meeting a decision was made to Outreach advertise for two citizen members. The committee also worked on their 2006 work plan which will include considering how to write guidelines for Channel 21. old wooaway Councilmember Moore explained she had planned to ask for an addition to tonight's agenda to discuss a Elementary ark at the former Woodwa Elementary School site but Council President Dawson advised Mayor school site p y ry � y Haakenson planned to provide a weekly update regarding the park and that Executive Sessions were planned for March 7 and March 21. Although glad the Council was discussing the park, Councilmember Moore preferred it not be in Executive Session due to confusion with the Council's intent. She referred to the letter sent to the Edmonds School District from the Council, asserting its tone precluded a full price offer and stated the City would work with any developer chosen as the buyer of the property and did not reserve the right to make an offer on the 11 acre site during the next 30 days. She recalled the Council's unanimous position in the past to purchase all 11 acres when the funds were available, noting nothing had changed other than some of the county funds were no longer available. She questioned what had changed in the last month to limit the City's effort to working with the developer. She did not blame the District for not accepting the City's 90% offer, noting they represented several other cities. Councilmember Moore characterized Mr. Hertrich's comment that Mayor Haakenson had some connection with a developer as outlandish, assuring there was no way Mayor Haakenson would cut any deals. Council President Dawson advised following the March 7 Executive Session the Council could decide to have a discussion in open session. She anticipated discussion at the March 21 meeting as well as an update on negotiations. Councilmember Moore requested clarification regarding what issues could be discussed in Executive Session, noting nearly all aspects were in the open including the prospective price for the property. City Attorney Scott Snyder explained State Statute prevented Councilmembers from revealing confidences. He explained the purpose of Executive Session was to preserve negotiating position so that other parties did not know the Council's bottom line. He noted terms were also an appropriate issue for Executive Session. The Council could give negotiating authority; however, any decision to purchase needed to be made during a Council meeting. If Councilmember Moore wanted to hear from the public, that could be done at any time. The policy issues associated with the purchase such as how much to purchase, etc. was appropriate for a Council meeting. Councilmember Moore requested adding the park at the former Woodway Elementary School site as an Executive Session topic and an agenda item. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 28, 2006 Page 14 Councilmember Plunkett remarked on the continued disconnect and asked whether the Council gave Mayor Haakenson direction to make an offer for all 11 acres and whether the administration had submitted an offer for all 11 acres. Mayor Haakenson answered yes, last July. Councilmember Moore111 recommended the Council again discuss purchasing all 11 acres. Snohomish Co. Councilmember Marin recalled at an earlier Snohomish County Tomorrow meeting, in response to a Tomorrow concern expressed by Mill Creek Mayor Terry Ryan with the disconnect between cities and Snohomish County to facilitate annexations, it was agreed to form a subcommittee to discuss annexations. At the recent Snohomish County Tomorrow meeting, Mr. Ryan presented a report from the subcommittee. Two representatives of Snohomish County expressed the county's willingness to coordinate building standards between cities and the county. Community Councilmember Marin reported one of the frustrations for Community Transit riders was uncertainty Transit regarding bus schedules. He displayed the schedules previously posted at bus stops and described his efforts that resulted in the creation of an improved, moisture resistant schedule. He hoped the improved readability of the schedule would help convert people from driving to riding the bus. StudentStudent Representative Brandon Schmitt commented he was born and raised in Edmonds and had spent Representative time at the fire station with his father who was a firefighter and at Mayor Haakenson's card shop and he had even talked to the Council when he was 7-years old about a crosswalk to his elementary school. He was happy to have had the opportunity to work with the Council, see how the City operated, how much heart went into decisions and to put a face to political signs. Mayor Haakenson remarked it had been a pleasure to have him serve as Student Representative and wished him well in the future. Old Woodway Mayor Haakenson referred to an email he received from the Edmonds School District this afternoon, Elementary stating the District notified the City and others that they were accepting offers on the site through March School Site 31. The District's letter was in response to Mayor Haakenson's request to clarify that the City of Edmonds was also welcome to submit a purchase offer for all or a portion of the old Woodway Elementary School by that date. The letter stated the District's understanding that the City was hopeful that a developer would agree to purchase the entire parcel and donate a portion of the property to the City for a park and in the event no such proposal was received by the District, the City would like an opportunity to submit its own offer. The District expressed their willingness to accept such an offer from the City as long as it was received by the March 31 deadline. The letter stated the District had made several efforts to accommodate the City by delaying their decision and ensuring developers were aware of the City's interest and it was time for the District to move ahead with the property transaction and return to projects prioritized by the District's constituents. Old Edmonds Councilmember Moore requested an update on the old Woodway High School playfields project. Mayor School 'High Haakenson commented it was unlikelythere would not be anyState fundingfor that project. He advised School Playfields Parks&Recreation Director Brian McIntosh could provide an update. 12. ADJOURN With no further business,the Council meeting was adjourned at 9:55 p.m. GARY HAAKENSON, MAYOR SANDRA S. CHASE, CITY CLERK Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 28,2006 Page 15 Mk AGENDA =- EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex 250 5th Avenue North 7:00 - 10:00 p.m. FEBRUARY 28, 2006 6:45 p.m. - Meeting with Board and Commission Candidates 7:00 p.m. - Call to Order and Flag Salute 1. Approval of Agenda 2. Consent Agenda Items A. Roll Call B. Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of February 21, 2006. C. Approval of claim checks #86079 through #86209 for February 23, 2006, in the amount of $794,408.07. D. Acknowledge receipt of Claim for Damages from Mary K. Green ($1,965.64). E. Report on bids opened on February 21, 2006 for the Screenings System Improvement Project and award to Harbor Pacific Contractors for the amount of$1,169,531.55, including sales tax. F. Proposed Resolution thanking Student Representative Brandon Schmitt. G. Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) improvements financing ordinance. 3. ( 5 Mina Introduction of Mayor's appointment of Wendy Kendall to the Library Board, and introduction and confirmation of Holly Guentz and Grant Linden to the Sister City Commission. 4. ( 5 Min.) City Council confirmation of a Council appointed member of the Citizens' Commission on Compensation for Elected Officials. 5. ( 5 Min.) Presentation of Resolution to Student Representative Brandon Schmitt. 6. Audience Comments (3 Minute Limit Per Person)* *Regarding matters not listed on the Agenda as Closed Record Review or as Public Hearings. Page 1 of 2 CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA FEBRUARY 28, 2006 7. (60 Min.) Work session on building heights in the BC Zone. 8. (30 Mina Continued discussion and potential action on the Economic Development Element of the Comprehensive Plan. 9. (45 Mina Work session on process and procedure for the re-write of the Edmonds Community Development Code. 10. ( 5 Min.) Mayor's Comments 11. (15 Min.) Individual Council reports on outside committee/board meetings. ADJOURN Parking and meeting rooms are accessible for persons with disabilities. • Please contact the City Clerk at(425) 771-0245 with 24 hours advance notice for special accommodations. • A delayed telecast of the meeting appears on cable television- Government Access Channel 21. • Visit the city's website at www.ci.edmonds.wa.us to view copies of all documents for this agenda. Page 2 of 2