Loading...
03/07/2006 City CouncilMarch 7, 2006 Following a Special Meeting at 6:30 p.m. for an Executive Session regarding a real estate matter, 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 Michael Bowker, Intern Franciesca Bulaclac, Student Representative 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA STAFF PRESENT David Stern, Chief of Police Duane Bowman, Development Services Director Dan Clements, Administrative Services Director Noel Miller, Public Works Director Rob Chave, Planning Manager Dave Gebert, City Engineer Damon Roth, Storm Drainage Engineer Don Fiene, Assistant City Engineer Steve Bullock, Senior Planner 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 AS PRESENTED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, FOR APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: (A) ROLL CALL Approve 2i28i06 (B) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 28, 2006. Minutes Approve Claim (C) APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #86220 THROUGH #86364 FOR MARCH 2, 2006, IN Checks THE AMOUNT OF $413,202.59. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSITS AND CHECKS #42668 THROUGH #42727 FOR THE PERIOD OF FEBRUARY 16 THROUGH FEBRUARY 28, 2006 IN THE AMOUNT OF $797,064.34. Claims for I (D) ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES FROM DR. ART ZOLOTH Damages ($1,701.04), JOSH VANKIRK ($2,217.62), AND MARGARET FREIDMANN (AMOUNT UNDETERMINED). Vehicle City Vehicles and ( ) E AUTHORIZATION TO CONTRACT WITH JAMES MURPHY AUCTIONEERS TO Equipment SELL SURPLUS CITY VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 7, 2006 Page 1 [New Student 13. INTRODUCTION OF STUDENT REPRESENTATIVE FRANCIESCA BULACLAC Representative Council President Dawson introduced Franciesca Bulaclac, a student at Arch Bishop Murphy High School in Everett, and described her community and extra - curricular activities. take Ballinger 4. PRESENTATION BY LAKE BALLINGER COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION Community Association Jerry Thorsen, President, Lake Ballinger Community Association, explained the Association had been in existence since 1920 and reactivated in 2004 when they discovered Lake Ballinger had been closed twice by the Snohomish County Health Department as unfit for swimming and human habitation but none of the residents had been notified. The mission of the Association is to contribute to the quality of life by maintenance of the lake as a safe and healthy place for all to enjoy. Mr. Thorsen described concerns regarding water quality, referring to a Seattle Times article that identified Lake Ballinger as one of the most polluted lakes in Western Washington. He described their voluntary monitoring of the lake which included daily counting of geese, rainfall measurements and lake level and weekly measurement of visual pollution, temperature and dissolved oxygen. He explained in 1942 a Superior Court adjudication established lake levels. The adjudication was revisited in 1981 and the Superior Court recognized increasing pollution of the lake and a hypolimnetic system was installed to eliminate phosphates in the lake bottom. Lake Ballinger receives unimpeded inflows from Halls Lake, Chase Lake and Echo Lake of approximately 330 cubic feet per second during storms, yet Lake Ballinger is limited by court order to an exit flow of 60 cubic feet per second which results in flooding. Mr. Thorsen displayed photographs of the algae bloom in August and September that depletes the lake of oxygen, making it detrimental to fish. Decomposition of the material contributes to next year's algae bloom. Another pollutant is fecal coliform from goose droppings. Recent counts found up to 75 geese on the lake per day; each goose creates 3 lbs. of droppings per day. He requested Edmonds participate in the egg addling program that Mountlake Terrace and the Department of Fish and Game are currently doing. He described the Department of Ecology's year -long study of the phosphates and fecal coliform in Lake Ballinger. He displayed a photograph illustrating the usual water level and the level the lake was not to exceed, according to the Superior Court order except once every five years, explaining the lake level exceeded the court - ordered level nine times last year. He displayed several photographs of flooded yards on Lake Ballinger, explaining the root cause of flooding was more water came into the lake during storm events than exited the lake via McAleer Creek. He displayed a photograph of the lake 7.2 inches above the Superior Court- ordered level. He expressed concern with the potential for damage to sanitary sewer lines in and near the lake. Mr. Thorsen recalled in 1993 there was an Interlocal. Agreement between the cities of Edmonds, Mountlake Terrace, Shoreline and Lynnwood and included Mountlake Terrace monitoring the lake. Apparently due to budget shortages, insufficient monitoring has been done to gather data for study. He requested Edmonds encourage the cities to revive the Interloeal Agreement. He recognized Edmonds employees Damon Roth and Don Fiene for their assistance, noting they could only go as far as the Council directed. He expressed the Association's interest in revisiting the Superior Court order to increase the water capacity of the lake by lowering the lake level 12 -18 inches during the rainy season which they believed would eliminate most of the flooding events. He noted Mr. Fiene and Mr. Roth had assisted with an education program to paint notification on storm drains that the water drained to Lake Ballinger. He requested guidance from the Council to the City Attorney and or staff to bring the 1981 Superior Court order up -to -date. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 7, 2006 Page 2 City Engineer Dave Gebert referred to the memorandum he provided the Council that identified issues to be addressed prior to revisiting the court order such as possible constrictions in flow downstream of the weir that may be contributing to the reduced lake outflow. He suggested Edmonds partner with Mountlake Terrace on an engineering evaluation or consultant study to gather data to determine whether lowering the weir would be successful. Assistant City Engineer Don Fiene explained the court order dictates four lake elevations, one for each season as well as dictates the flow rate. He recalled walking the lake following a storm event and finding the water approximately 1 foot over the weir leading them to question whether the weir was controlling the flow. Further investigation indicated culverts downstream may be impacting the flow. He agreed a study was needed to evaluate the situation prior to revisiting the court order. Councilmember Plunkett requested the Association provide their slides in a hardcopy format. He asked staff to identify the problems as staff perceived them and steps to resolve them. He offered the Community /Development Services Committee as a venue for discussion. Mr. Gebert suggested the City would work with Mountlake Terrace to identify a cost sharing /partnership to initiate a study. He did not anticipate the study would be extremely costly and could be funded from the Stormwater Utility. Councilmember Orvis concluded the Association did not feel the lake drained as fast as the court would allow. Mr. Thorsen answered the weir has not been operational for 4 -5 years. Mountlake Terrace indicated a new weir would be provided but that would not address the problem as the bottom of the weir was too high and did not allow the lake to drain. He pointed out it only required a 4 inch increase in the lake level to flood his lawn and his yard was not at the lowest level. Council President Dawson agreed with partnering with Mountlake Terrace. She suggested the South Snohomish Cities consider this issue; Councilmember Olson stated the Association had made a presentation to that group. Council President Dawson requested staff identify the cost of a study. Council President Dawson noted there was public property on the lake in Mountlake Terrace but there was no public property on the lake in Edmonds and asked how this affected the City's ability to participate in egg addling. Mr. Thorsen stated Mountlake Terrace paid $500 per year for egg addling. He requested Edmonds provide similar funding for this activity. Mr. Gebert stated the concern has been the expenditure of public funds for the benefit of private property. Mr. Fiene pointed out there was public property on Lake Ballinger in Mountlake Terrace including a swimming beach. If $500 for egg addling would address the fecal coliform in the lake, Council President Dawson suggested the property owners contribute to the $500 cost. She asked whether it would be problematic for the City to contribute to the cost. City Attorney Scott Snyder offered to research the City contributing to the cost of egg addling. Moratorium on 1 5. PUBLIC HEARING ON ORDINANCE NO. 3582 A ZONING MORATORIUM ON THE Certain Uses in ISSUANCE OF DEVELOPMENT PERMITS FOR CERTAIN USES IN THE CG AND CG -2 the CG and .. 0 �i 11►151.`I "II IIQ M,X" =011►1 &I I I[Q C7_XN M►I 00] 1110 0]0410 7V 7 (:1_\► I 1ZN:711111ZI 1711 9[11117 RESIDENTIAL USES. Development Services Director Duane Bowman explained this was a required public hearing on the moratorium ordinance. The purpose of the public hearing was to gather public testimony that would be forwarded to the Planning Board for their consideration and discussion regarding uses in the CG and CG- 2 zones. He anticipated the Planning Board could complete their review within the time period established by the ordinance. He explained the purpose of the moratorium was to restrict non - retail uses on the ground floor, preserving that area for retail and sales tax - generating uses. Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 7, 2006 Page 3 Don Kreiman, Edmonds, asked whether this would prevent an entirely residential building on Hwy. 99. Hearing no further public comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public hearing. In response to Mr. Kreiman's question, Mr. Bowman responded ground floor residential would not be allowed; mixed use would be permitted above ground floor retail. Councilmember Marin advised the Hwy. 99 Task Force was responsible for bringing this forward to avoid the limited amount of land on Hwy. 99 available for commercial development from being developed in a an unproductive manner. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 6 M011130410901051 Janet Robertson, Edmonds, spoke in regard to the park at the former Woodway Elementary School site. old woodway Elementary She pointed out there were many different concerns, feelings and viewpoints with regard to the site. School Property Although some want a soccer field, she noted soccer fields generate a great deal of traffic and require a lot of maintenance. She urged the Council to plan the details with regard to development of the site and not let hysterical people dictate what was done. She stated one group wanted a 20 -foot asphalt walkway around the 11 -acre perimeter; another wanted a dog park. She pointed out the cost of a fence to separate park users from a dog park and increased police patrols for an 11 -acre park, commenting there was a great deal of activity at the site after dark now. She expressed concern with the blind curve on 104th Avenue W. She recommended the City get rid of the buildings and adequately plan any development at the site. Heather Marks, Edmonds, speaking on behalf of Open Area for Kids (OAK), encouraged the City to Old woodway Elementary leave the 11 acres as they currently exist and either fix up or demolish the buildings. She pointed out this School Property was a beautiful wetland and place for soccer and baseball, noting the site was used more now than it was 20 years ago. She suggested the Council and Edmonds School District meet with representatives of their community as this park was the heart of their community. She cited resources among residents in the area that could assist the City and District with identifying alternate funding sources. She summarized the park did not need to be developed further, it was being well used now. She asked how many in the audience were present because of the park; numerous hands were raised. Old Woodway Elementary Jacqueline Marks, Edmonds, concurred with the remarks made by the previous speakers. School Property Mike Cooper, Edmonds, Chair of the Snohomish County Charter Review Commission, explained charter Review because Snohomish County was a home -rule county, each decade 15 freeholders /commissioners were commission elected to review the charter and place amendments on the ballot. In an effort to gather public input, public meetings will be held throughout the community, the first meeting on the third floor of Edmonds City Hall on Wednesday, March 15 at 6:30 p.m. He invited the Council and public to tell the Commission what they would like to see the Snohomish County charter look like and what amendments they would like on the November ballot. He noted issues had already been raised included increasing the size of the Council, appointed or elected Countywide officials, term limits, and partisan versus non- partisan. He thanked Mayor Haakenson and Senior Executive Assistant Linda Carl for their assistance in scheduling the Charter Review Commission meeting in Edmonds City Hall. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 7, 2006 Page 4 Colin Southeote -Want, Edmonds, referred to a June 10, 2005 headline that the City would buy the old old woodWay Elementary Woodway Elementa ry School fora park, expecting when the Cit y 's bid was rejected there would have school Property been a discussion at a subsequent Council meeting. He urged the Council not to be deceived, beguiled, or seduced, commenting the price of a free park was giving up 7 acres of open space and playing fields for residential development. He questioned how a city that was already short of open space and playfields would allow housing to be building on playfields. He recalled in 1993, before their area was annexed, the City administration was working with the Edmonds School District to preserve the old Woodway Elementary School for playfields. The price of the property at that time was $2 million; today's price is nearly $7 million. He urged the City to purchase all 11 acres. old woodWay Scott Chapman, Edmonds, echoed the comments made with regard to the park. He spoke in support of Elementary the park, explaining when he purchased property behind the park, he was told by the Edmonds School school Property District that the site would become a park. He commented this area was in desperate need of a park and the City should stand by their past commitment to purchase the park. He urged the Council to take whatever steps necessary to purchase the full 11 acres, expressing the community's willingness to consider other funding options. Corinne Beuchet, Edmonds, explained she moved to this area due to the forest and the park and visited old woodWay the ark dail with her dos She commented on the dramatic affect the loss of the forest and open s ace Elementary p y g p school Property would have on the families in the area. John Espy, Edmonds, agreed with the previous speakers that the City should purchase all 1.1 acres. He old WodWay questioned what assurance the City would have that a developer would provide infrastructure and Elementary amenities in the ark and not just hydro-seed the 4 acres. He commented it appeared the City could School Property p J Y pp Y purchase the property but not develop it; he was satisfied with leaving the property as it currently exists until funds were available for developing a park. He concluded the traffic generated by housing on the site would be a detriment to the neighborhood. old woodWay Simone Studer, Edmonds, commented on the traffic that would be generated by development of the old Elementary Woodway Elementary School site. She questioned whether the plan was to retain the single family school Property zoning or allow condominiums or apartments. She pointed out this area needed more parks. She felt the Edmonds School District was asking a lot for the property, particularly in view of how they had neglected the property over the years which she suggested the City consider in negotiating for a lower price. David Page, Edmonds, commented his dock on Lake Ballinger was under water over the holidays. If the Lake sallinger lake had risen another 6- inches several houses' living rooms would have been flooded. He emphasized the critical need to lower the water level of Lake Ballinger. Another long teen issue was oxygenation. He stated there were not toxic pollutants in the lake; wildlife could survive although limited oxygen levels affected the fish. A long term solution would be an oxygenator such as Lake Stevens has. He urged the Council to visit the lake. Lora Petso, Edmonds, commented she had sent the Council numerous emails. She referred to a question . Old Woodway raised in her first email regarding the purpose of the dirt mounds on the park property. She urged the Elementary School Property' Council to have a public discussion regarding the park, a park planned by citizens and staff, not dictated by the financial resources of a developer. She stated the Council had an opportunity to choose their headline, whether it was "city and school district agree to transaction for park, public park planning process to begin," or "Edmonds, first community in 50 years to build houses on playfields." Gary Humiston, Edmonds, explained he lives across the street from the old Woodway Elementary old WoodWay School and monitors the park daily while outside. With regard to the comment that there were dangerous Elementary activities in the ark at night, he had not seen or heard an such activity. He agreed man people used the school Property h g� Y Y• g Y p h Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 7, 2006 Page 5 park daily and it provided a sense of community. He urged the Council to consider purchasing the 11 acres for a park, noting there were many other places for infill development. ola woodway Al Rutledge, Edmonds, submitted additional petitions for a neighborhood park at the old Woodway Elementary Elementary School property. He recalled an agreement with Edmonds School District in March 1997 for sch °ol Property ballfield improvements at Madrona and the old Woodway Elementary School. With regard to Lake Ballinger, he recalled reporting to the Council in 1999 about the goose problem. He suggested Edmonds Lake Ballinger consider efforts to control geese similar to efforts by Renton, Bellevue, and Issaquah. He noted Lake Ballinger residents were assessed $13 per year by Snohomish County for cleaning the lake. Don Kreiman, Edmonds, announced the March 8 Planning Board meeting would include discussion Transportation Budget regarding Funds 112 and 116 as well as the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). He encouraged the public to present their concerns and suggestions regarding funding to the Planning Board. He expressed concern with the limited funding for transportation, noting Edmonds was supposedly pedestrian friendly and walking was the number one recreational activity, yet the City could not afford sidewalks. The transportation budget this year and last contained no funding for sidewalks. He expressed concern with the potential liability created by deteriorating sidewalks downtown, concluding he could live without road overlays but not without sidewalks. He also encouraged the public to provide their opinions when the CIP was presented to the Council on March 21. ola woodway Roger Hertrieh, Edmonds, expressed support for purchasing the 11 acre Woodway Elementary School Elemenrary site. He pointed out the number of people in the audience illustrated that the citizens of Edmonds wanted sch °ol Property the Council to buy all 11 acres. He cautioned the Council not to be persuaded by Mayor Haakenson to purchase only 2 -4 acres on the site. The City could afford to purchase the property; options included the $900,000 collected in REET funds annually or bonding. He questioned whether the $1,000 accompanied the City's 90% bid or whether the Council had done an appraisal on the property. He expressed concern with the Council meeting in Executive Session to discuss the purchase, remarking tonight's update scheduled on the agenda was at the urging of Councilmember Moore to discuss it in open session. He suggested the purchase had not been pursued in the manner it should have after the Council gave direction to the Mayor. 7. UPDATE ON THE OLD WOODWAY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PROPERTY Old Woodway Elementary School Property Mayor Haakenson explained a couple weeks ago the Council directed him to send a letter to the School District requesting they notify the 23 bidders for the property that the City would like to have a 4 -acre park on the property at no charge, have the park developed at no charge, protect the single family zoning (RS -8) in the neighborhood and not have a developer request more dense zoning. He noted development of 7 acres with RS -8 zoning would be approximately 20 -25 homes. Mayor Haakenson advised several developers had contacted the City to discuss the possibility of providing the land and developing a park. The School District reported several bidders were willing to revise their offers by the end of the month. He requested Administrative Services Director Dan Clements provide the presentation that was provided to the Council in June 2005 regarding acquisition options for the Woodway Elementary School site. Mayor Haakenson clarified the Council submitted an offer for the property at 90% of what the value was perceived to be, $6.7 million, which the District rejected as they felt they could get more. The Council did an appraisal as is required. Councilmember Plunkett asked whether the Council could disclose the appraised value. Mr. Snyder answered it was at the Council discretion although disclosing the appraised value could impair the City's negotiating position. Councilmember Plunkett preferred not to disclose the appraised value without further discussion with Mr. Snyder in Executive Session. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 7, 2006 Page 6 Administrative Services Director Dan Clements provided an update regarding what had changed financially with regard to the Woodway Elementary School property acquisition since last June's white paper on various purchase alternatives. He recalled the initial financing plan for all 11 acres included a potential $800,000 grant from Snohomish County if the original use of these funds for the purchase of 22 acres of wetlands in Meadowdale above Glen's Gulch was not realized. The City was informed these funds have since been allocated to the Meadowdale acquisition. The absence of the grant funds would increase the annual debt service by $64,200 to slightly over $300,000 per year. The purchase pro forma continues to include a potential Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation grant of $500,000 which has not yet been secured. There has also not yet been an estimate secured for hazardous material clean- up. Mr. Clements explained last June it was noted if Real Estate Excise Tax (REST) projection trends were accurate, there should be sufficient funds to finance the full I 1 acres. However, that would leave little for other acquisition projects until after 2014 when City Hall bonds were paid off. The necessity of financing an additional $800,000 to purchase all 11 acres would create, 1) additional financial pressures on Fund 126, 2) result in less flexibility of funding other programs potentially beyond the retirement date of City Hall bonds, and 3) increase the risk of using General Fund dollars to make debt service payments if the real estate market declined more than projected. While still possible to issue 20 -year bonds to finance the purchase of all I 1 acres, Mr. Clements explained the changed financial picture was reason for pause to consider whether this was an appropriate decision. He noted last year the City acquired waterfront property at 264 Beach Place along with a parcel on Shell Creek by heavily leveraging REET dollars. The City would most likely be precluded from similar acquisition in the next 8 -10 years. For Councilmember Moore, Mr. Clements advised Fund 126 was REST 1 which could be used to finance acquisition of parks; REET 2 was dedicated to capital improvements. Councilmember Moore referred to the $1.2 million Mr. Clements budgeted to be obtained from the Snohomish County, advising it was actually $1.4 million which would offset the loss of $800,000 by $200,000. Councilmember Moore asked when the City learned the $800,000 grant had been used to purchase the Meadowdale property. Parks & Recreation Director Brian McIntosh advised Lynnwood and Snohomish County made the purchase last fail; it had been in the works for six years. Councilmember Moore expressed concern that the Council was just now learning those funds were no longer available. She noted 2014 was only eight years away and she found it acceptable to put pressure on REST 1 in exchange for acquiring 11 acres of open space. Councilmember Moore asked whether the timing of the bonds could be structured so that the amount paid was less in the first eight years. Mr. Clements answered a debt service schedule where payments were stepped up in future years was fairly common although the interest rates were higher. Council President Dawson commented REST 1 was dedicated by Council policy to be used solely for property acquisition but State law did not require it be used for that purpose. Mr. Clements agreed. Council President Dawson noted if the Council chose, they could change their policy regarding the use of REST 1 and use the funds for road and /or sidewalk construction. Mr. Clements agreed. Council President Dawson noted a level debt service using REST 1 funds to purchase 11 acres would be $300,000 per year. Councilmember Plunkett commented the Council policy to use REET 1 only for parks acquisition was established prior to the Eyman initiatives. Mr. Clements agreed, recalling the Council reaffirmed that Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 7, 2006 Page 7 policy approximately 11/2 years ago. Councilmember Plunkett commented the City lost approximately $300,000 in annual transportation funds in recent years, increasing the road overlay cycle from 30 years to 75 years. For an audience member, Mayor Haakenson confirmed the reduction in transportation funds was due to Eyman initiatives. Councilmember Moore explained it had been her understanding that the City had some zoning control over the 11 acres because it was designated as park land in the Comprehensive Plan; however, she now understood the underlying zoning was RS -8. Therefore, although the Comprehensive Plan designated it as a park, it was only a park if the park land was purchased as a park, otherwise it was RS -8 zoning. Mr. Bowman explained the property was zoned RS -8, single family minimum lot size 8,000 square feet. The City's Comprehensive Parks Plan designates the property for a park; if the School District wanted to sell the property for development as housing, the purchaser would need to amend the City's Park Plan to remove that designation. If a developer proposed a subdivision that had a public park included, they would not need to change the designation as it would be consistent. Councilmember Moore clarified a developer who wanted to construct all houses on the property would need to request a Comprehensive Plan amendment to remove the park designation. Council President Dawson explained a rezone would not be required to develop the property RS -8. If there was no park, a Comprehensive Plan amendment would be required. Mr. Bowman explained a public park would need to be included in order to be consistent with the Parks Plan. Mr. Snyder commented any park mitigation, either dollars or dedication, would be limited to the impacts determined under SEPA. The purchase /funding of the park was the City's responsibility to the extent it was a general need of the City in excess of the impact created by the development. He clarified — if you want it, you'll need to pay for it. Mr. Snyder explained the City could not take property by simply designating it park land. A developer was obligated to mitigate the impact on the parks system from the number of units in the development which would be determined via SEPA; 25 houses would not create a great impact on the system. Councilmember Wambolt explained the City had actually lost in excess of $2 million annually as a result of the three Eyman initiatives. Mr. Clements agreed, noting the loss in transportation funds was approximately $300,000, but additional funds were lost that could have been allocated to transportation funding. Mayor Haakenson explained the offer the City made to the School District for all 11 acres was significantly over the appraised value and that offer was rejected by the District. In response to Ms. Petso's question regarding the dirt on the property, Mayor Haakenson explained the School District authorized a construction firm to store dirt on the site. Councilmember Moore explained it was her understanding if the City submitted an offer to the School District for the 11 acres, even if the City thought it was a full price offer, the School District could reject it outright and take the highest bidder who could be a developer that wanted to construct all houses on the property. The outcome was that a developer could put all houses there and the City would have to buy the park land from the developer. She emphasized it was a gamble for the City to submit a full -price offer because the price was unknown. She was heartbroken that the Council and the District could not work together to determine what would be a full -price offer and that the District was unable to give the City a break on the price. She now understood and appreciated the Council's position in recent weeks. Council President Dawson explained the City also offered to purchase the right of first refusal from the School District — pay the District for that privilege and then match the best offer submitted for the 11 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 7, 2006 Page 8 acres — which the District rejected. She provided assurance the Council was trying its best to ensure there was a park in that area. She advised another update was scheduled on the March 21 agenda. scoutTrnop Scout Troop Introduction 367 Councilmember Marin introduced Scout Troop 367 who were attending the Council meeting working on their Citizenship merit badge. 8. PRESENTATION ON DESIGN GUIDELINES PROPOSAL BY THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN Design I BOARD Guidelines Council President Dawson advised a public hearing on the design guidelines was scheduled for March 21; no action would be taken by the Council tonight. Jason Anderson, President, Architectural Design Board (ADB), explained the ADB was tasked with reviewing the design guidelines; the draft design guidelines were contained in the Council packet. He explained the previous design guidelines were somewhat piecemeal and the proposed draft was a more uniform document that removed details, making them more ambiguous which would allow a designer /developer to be creative with their solutions. He relayed that the ADB wanted issues dictated by the code to be contained in the code rather than the design guidelines. City Attorney Scott Snyder explained a 1993 court of appeals decision struck down Issaquah's design guidelines as lacking sufficient standards to inform a developer of their obligations He explained this was particularly relevant to Edmonds as the City's design guidelines were written by the same attorney as Issaquah's and were identical. At the time the solution was to begin adopting design guidelines to fill the gap. He clarified the main point of Anderson v. Issaquah was a city had an obligation to inform a developer of their obligations. In a footnote, the court cited a Texas case that utilized pictures, the reason the City's design guidelines contained a lot of pictures. From 1993 — 1999, the City began the gradual process of filling in the gap by adopting pictures and guidelines with numbers. In 1999 the City hired Cedar River Consultant Group to perform a study. Issues raised by the Cedar River study included the timing of design review, lack of a positive role for the ADB and recognition that there were inadequate design review guidelines. One of the main questions asked of the Council and ADB in 1999 was whether they wanted to use the Seattle process. He explained the Seattle ADB was comprised of architects, engineers and professionals who meet and collaborate with neighborhoods and developers. The design guidelines proposed by the ADB contained a checklist that he recognized from the Seattle process. At the time of the Cedar River Study, the ADB and Council advised staff and Cedar River it was more important to retain the current Edmonds process whereby the ADB was a quasi judicial decision - making body. To do that under Anderson v. Issaquah, the ADB must have clear criteria on which to act. In the Seattle process, which is similar to the draft design guidelines proposed by the ADB, at the beginning of a project the ADB identifies what criteria the project would need to meet as well as engages in a collaborative effort with citizens and the developer. The developer then makes their investment, does their design and presents it at which point the project is a staff decision. Staff reviews the list and determines whether the developer met the criteria. He noted that was a collaborative, upfront design process that allowed the ADB to have a voice in the design of the building which he suggested may result in a better design product but was not a quasi judicial process under Anderson v. Issaquah. From 2000 -2002, the City, staff and consultants proceeded on the assumption that the ADB would remain the review body and the design consultant developed specific design criteria. The design guidelines recommended by the ADB tonight have come full circle. He noted the ADB has been consistent, Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 7, 2006 Page 9 expressing their dissatisfaction with the process and desire for a greater role in design. However, if the intent was to have a design board that was a regulatory entity, there needed to be clear design criteria that established who, what, when and where a developer was supposed to do so that when/if a project was appealed, the ADB had the tools /criteria to determine whether the project met the criteria (the Anderson test). The other method, which he assured was equally valid, was to have the ADB at the front of the process where they worked collaboratively with neighbors and developers, completed the checklist and had a greater impact on design at a point when the developer did not have a great deal invested in design. Regardless of the approach, whether design guidelines in the code or a collaborative design, for anything that must be done such as 12 -15 foot first floor ceiling heights, retail space downtown, massing, sidewalk orientation, setback for third floors, there would need to be clear criteria. He noted the design guidelines proposed by the ADB reflected "should" rather than "shall" and state that each project would face different design realities. He noted this was not a process to turn something down. If the Council was interested in a collaborative process, the must -baves and shalls could be contained in the zoning ordinance for each zoning district. If the desire was to retain Edmonds' way of doing things with appeals that come to the Council on closed record appeal, there needed to be more clear, concise, enforceable design guidelines such as were developed by the Planning Board. He pointed out under Anderson v. Issaquah a city had to tell a developer what to do and in order to deny a project, the reviewing body needed to be able to identify what criteria they failed to meet. Council President Dawson asked why the Council rejected changing the role of the ADB in 1999, noting at least five of the current Councilmembers were not on the Council at that time. Mr. Snyder recalled there were several factors, 1) a desire to maintain the current Edmonds way where the ADB was the design body and citizens had the opportunity to bring meaningful appeals of projects, 2) the concerns of a number of area developers such as Rob Michel and an architect, Tony Shapiro, who testified that a change in the process would bog down review and delay development. Council President Dawson commented Mr. Michel, a member of the ADB, may have changed his mind in that the ADB was suggesting this different process. Mr. Snyder answered he was unsure whether the ADB understood the implications of the design guidelines they proposed. The design guidelines proposed by the ADB would work with the ADB at the start of the process. Mr. Snyder relayed that Councilmember Plunkett had forwarded a copy of the ADB- proposed design guidelines to Municipal Research whose planning consultant indicated the design guidelines were reasonable. When he explained where in the process the Edmonds ADB came, Municipal Research understood the dilemma. Mr. Snyder referred to the checklist in the design guidelines proposed by the ADB, explaining if the ADB was at the front of the process, the checklist would be completed at that time. He questioned when the checklist would be completed if the ADB was at the end of the process. Council President Dawson commented there appeared to be a policy decision to be made; if the Council accepted the design guidelines proposed by the ADB, the role of the ADB would need to be changed by moving them to the front of the process. If the ADB were to retain their current role in the process, design guidelines such as the Planning Board recommended that contained more details /standards that could be applied in a quasi judicial setting would need to be adopted. Mr. Snyder agreed, pointing out the details could also be added to the code rather than in the design guidelines and the ADB recommended design guidelines utilized at the front of the process. Council President Dawson suggested the Council be provided the Cedar River Study prior to the public hearing to assist them with determining the policy direction and would allow the public to comment on which method they preferred. She clarified the design guidelines the ADB recommended could not be utilized as the process currently exists. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 7, 2006 Page 10 Councilmember Plunkett recalled at the retreat the Council got the impression that the design guidelines proposed by the ADB would not work; however, tonight Mr. Snyder had inferred they were upholdable if applied correctly. Mr. Snyder explained the ADB's approach would work if the ADB was up front in the process because the ADB could use the generalizations and checklist to work with the developer and the public to set specific standards for the project. The ADB's approach did not work in the existing process. His reaction at the retreat, when he first saw the design guidelines proposed by the ADB and in view of the Council's 2000 decision to retain the ADB in their existing role, was that they were not workable unless the Council revisited their policy decision. Councilmember Plunkett referred to Mr. Snyder's comment that having the ADB and residents involved up front in the process would result in better designed buildings. Mr. Snyder answered it would provide the flexibility for better design. Councilmember Plunkett commented the Council, staff and citizens were interested in well designed buildings. He asked whether there was an appeal to the Hearing Examiner on either path. Mr. Snyder explained the Seattle approach included a series of community meetings, the ADB set the design criteria guidelines for a project which citizens or the developer may appeal to the Hearing Examiner or Council. The final approval by staff is also appealable. He analogized the final approval to a subdivision process; all the action was during the preliminary plat, once the preliminary plat was approved, it was appealable but it was via review of a checklist that did not allow any discretion. He suggested the first process put a premium on citizens paying attention because by the time building permits were being issued and a project reached final approval, it would be too late to have any meaningful input. Councilmember Plunkett commented the essence of having the ADB upfront in the process was to allow citizen involvement. Councilmember Orvis commented if the ADB were moved upfront in the process, there was no opportunity late in the process for a citizen challenge but they could challenge whether the "must- haves" had been met. Mr. Snyder reiterated the Council had much more power legislatively than quasi judicially. He recommended the Council identify any "must- haves" in the Code. Councilmember Orvis noted the Council could also define bulk standards in the zoning code. Mr. Snyder agreed, explaining it did not matter whether the specifics were in the design guidelines or the zoning code. Councilmember Moore asked who was at the end of the process if the ADB was upfront in the process. Mr. Snyder answered that was up to the Council; in Seattle it was a staff decision because at that point it became an administrative decision and not a discretionary decision. He noted any staff decision was appealable; however, it would be difficult to win an appeal on a design approval unless one of the requirements was not met. Councilmember Moore asked where in the code the "must- haves" would be. Mr. Snyder answered in the past they have been in the design guidelines, but they could be in the bulls standards for each zone, recognizing that there may be, over time, different standards for different zones. He noted that was the value of public input, developing criteria specific to each zoning district. Councilmember Marin asked whether the upfront method assumed a tightly written code. Mr. Snyder answered a tightly written code would ensure the "must- haves" were met. Mr. Bowman supported having the most important issues codified so that the ADB knew a project must have those elements and could work with a developer on other issues. The stronger the requirements, the more likely a developer would submit an application that contained all those elements. Councilmember Marin asked how tightly written the City's code was. Mr. Bowman answered it was not tightly written, explaining during the rewrite of the code, some sections such as the design guidelines Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 7, 2006 Page I I could be adopted sooner than the overall code. Mr. Snyder noted the rewrite was explicating the status quo and not creating new policy. Council President Dawson remarked some of the frustration with the existing ADB process and the Council's review of decisions was the list of amenities developers could choose from. She preferred to identify what elements were required rather than choosing from a list. If the Council wanted to move the ADB to the start of the process, the make -up of the ADB could be changed to include more community members for example. Mr. Snyder agreed the make -up of the ADB was at the Council's discretion; the ADB was not a state required board. He noted the more the City's code was explicated, the more likely the result would be a standard, cookie - cutter approach. Council President Dawson noted the ADB at the front of the process would provide more flexibility. Council President Dawson suggested the Public Outreach Committee consider having notices for ADB review displayed on Channel 21. Mr. Snyder pointed out ADB review only applied to major projects that required SEPA — over 4,000 square feet or 4+ units. Councilmember Olson asked if moving the ADB to the front of the process and tightening the code would eliminate some of the problems that have arisen over the past couple years such as a developer that put a great deal of time and money into a project and having their project denied at the last minute. Mr. Snyder explained one of the purposes of GMA and Anderson v. Issaquah was to provide developers certainty. Councilmember Olson commented if the ADB were at the front of the process, the public would have more input at the beginning rather than at a point when it was more difficult to affect the outcome. Mr. Anderson advised the ADB's agenda was currently already posted on Channel 21. He advised two of the seven ADB members were community members. When the Council tasked the ADB with reviewing the design guidelines, it was his understanding the Council wanted the professionals /community members on the ADB to determine what needed to be added /subtracted to the design guidelines to address the gaps. He referred to ADB Member Michael Lowell's July 2005 memo to the Council regarding the role of the ADB to which the Council provided no direction. As a result, the ADB assumed their role was not changing and the design guidelines were intended to assist staff and developers. He questioned why the proposed design guidelines necessitated the ADB being upfront in the process, finding the design guidelines were essentially the same without the numbers that the professionals preferred be in the code. Council President Dawson clarified the guidelines proposed by the ADB would not pass the Anderson v. Issaquah test with the ADB in their current role; they were acceptable if the role of the ADB were changed. Mr. Snyder explained the checklist in the design guidelines that the ADB proposed was great but if an applicant designed their building and came to the ADB at the end of the process, when was the checklist completed and what criteria did staff use to complete the checklist? He noted the checklist was completed collaboratively in the Seattle process where the ADB was at the beginning. He reiterated the design guidelines proposed by the ADB did not contain any "shalls," only "shoulds" and stated that each site would face different design criteria. As a document to provide final decision - making criteria, it failed the Anderson v. Issaquah test. He found it a wonderful document if it were utilized as in Seattle to help develop design criteria for each project in a collaborative manner. Mr. Snyder commented the reason the design guidelines were developed was because the requirements were not in the code. Mr. Anderson relayed the ADB's recommendation that the requirements be in the code and not in the design guidelines. Councilmember Marin statted this may need to be a 2 -step process; put the design guidelines proposed by the Planning Board in place now, keep the ADB at the end and work over the next 2 years to incorporate the important elements in the code that would support the ADB moving upfront in the process. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 7, 2006 Page 12 Councilmember Moore clarified Mr. Anderson wanted the design guidelines proposed by the ADB adopted but the ADB kept at the end of the process. Mr. Anderson agreed, commenting the proposed design guidelines were viewed as a tool for the ADB, developers and staff to facilitate better design. Councilmember Plunkett commented on the research he had conducted by a Municipal Research attorney as well as by a planner, pointing out Mr. Anderson would need to demonstrate to the Council something that outweighed what the attorneys had determined. He thanked the ADB for their efforts, commenting the result would be better designed buildings. Council President Dawson advised the Council would hold a public hearing on March 21 and she urged the public to provide comment for the Council's consideration. She advised there now appeared to be a third option, pass the design guidelines recommended by the Planning Board and then determine whether to change the process. She encouraged the Council to consider what role they wanted for the ADB. She anticipated some Council action on March 21_ Councilmember Orvis was intrigued by moving the ADB upfront in the process, remarking some of his objections to recently constructed buildings downtown could be resolved via bulk standards. With regard to the third alternative, Councilmember Plunkett asked staff to explain why having the ADB upfront in the process could not be enacted sooner. Councilmember Olson was also intrigued by having the ADB upfront in the process as an opportunity to get better designed buildings via a collaborative effort at the beginning of the design process. Mr. Bowman assumed what the Council wanted for the public hearing was input from the community regarding the ADB review process, design guidelines and whether the ADB should be a collaborative, upfront process or the quasi judicial decision -maker at the end of the process. Council President Dawson commented the reason the Council decided at the retreat to hold a public hearing was their intent to adopt design guidelines than continuing to postpone. Mr. Bowman advised comments at the public hearing could also identify features to be incorporated into the design guidelines. Mr. Bowman suggested staff's presentation review the history, identify all options and take public comment. Mr. Snyder reiterated regardless of where they were, in the design guidelines or in the code, the City needed to have specific design criteria. If the Council wanted to adopt the design guidelines proposed by the ADB, the procedure would need to be changed. He suggested the Council first identify the design criteria they wanted implemented and then where in the code they would be located. Councilmember Plunkett suggested at the public hearing staff provide the history and the two paths as well as a timeline of what it would take to put the ADB at the front of the process. Mr. Snyder volunteered to make a presentation to the ADB to describe his concerns and ensure that the ADB understood the choices. The Council agreed it would be appropriate for Mr. Snyder to meet with the ADB. 9. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Haakenson advised of the upcoming Mayor's Neighborhood Tour where he would hold meetings Mayor's i i at eight locations during March and April beginning at 7:00 p.m. He advised there would be no agenda or Neighborhood topic, just an opportunity for citizens to tell him what was on their minds. He advised citizens would be Tour receiving a mailer this weekend with all the locations. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 7, 2006 Page 13 With regard to the City's adopted city, Bay St. Louis, Mississippi,Mayor Haakenson advised the City had AdoptedSt u,5 adopted a family, a couple in their 70s, who lost everything to Hurricane Katrina and were currently Family living in a FEMA trailer in their driveway. Their 1,100 square foot home was stripped to the studs during the hurricane; a roof was being installed this week and it was estimated approximately $25,000 was needed to rebuild their home. Mayor Haakenson advised he had received donations from City Hall employees and both Edmonds Rotary Clubs. Anyone interested in donating could make out a check to the City of Edmonds Katrina Relief Fund and mail it to his office. He noted the beauty of this effort was the money would go directly to the reconstruction of the adopted family's home. 10. COUNCIL COMMENTS City Council Council President Dawson reported the Council had a great retreat, a very positive experience. She Retreat acknowledged some Councilmembers went to the retreat thinking it might not be a positive experience due to the tension on the Council but the result could not have been more positive. She noted citizens would have been surprised to see how on the same page Councilmembers were. She was encouraged and excited to be working with the Council, Mayor and staff in the coming year, anticipating it would be a very productive year. Councilmember Orvis thanked former Councilmember Dick Van Hollebeke for facilitating the Council retreat. Council President Dawson agreed Mr.Van Hollebeke was very helpful. Councilmember Plunkett welcomed Student Representative Franciesca Bulaclac, anticipating she would be a great asset to the Council. Councilmember Moore commented she had written a three page plea to the Council with regard to the Old Woodway purchase of the 11-acre Woodway Elementary School property; however, the discussion in Executive Elementary School Property Session made her unwilling to gamble on losing park land. She found it heartbreaking that it took this long to learn all the information and that it was so difficult for two government agencies to work together, noting the people who lost in the end were the citizens. Councilmember Wambolt concurred with Council comments about the retreat, finding it very productive. He commended Mr. Van Hollebeke for facilitating and Council President Dawson for her leadership. Councilmember Olson concurred it was a great retreat. She thanked, Senior Executive Council Assistant Jana Spellman and Minute Taker Jeannie Dines for their efforts. Student Representative Bulaclac commented it was a great honor to work with the Council and she looked forward to fulfilling her duties as Student Representative. 11. ADJOURN With no further business,the Council meeting was adjourned at 9:32 p.m. GARY HAAKENSON, MAYOR SANDRA S. CHASE, CITY CLERK Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 7,2006 Page 14 Alth AGENDA i'�zi EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex 250 5th Avenue North 7:00 - 10:00 p.m. MARCH 7, 2006 6:30 p.m. - Executive Session Regarding a Real Estate Matter 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 28, 2006. C. Approval of claim checks #86220 through #86364 for March 2, 2006, in the amount of $413,202.59. Approval of payroll direct deposits and checks #42668 through #42727 for the period of February 16 through February 28, 2006, in the amount of $797,064.34. D. Acknowledge receipt of Claims for Damages from Dr. Art Zoloth ($1,701.04), Josh VanKirk ($2,217.62), and Margaret Friedmann (amount undetermined). E. Authorization to contract with James Murphy Auctioneers to sell surplus city vehicles and equipment. 3. ( 5 Min.) Introduction of Student Representative Franciesca Bulaclac. 4. (15 Min.) Presentation by Lake Ballinger Community Association. 5. (15 Min.) Public Hearing on Ordinance No. 3582, a zoning moratorium on the issuance of development permits for certain uses in the CG and CG-2 zones: storage, mini- storage, mobile home parks or manufactured housing communities, and mixed use development applications which include ground floor residential uses. 6. Audience Comments (3 minute limit per person)* *Regarding matters not listed on the Agenda as Closed Record Review or as Public Hearings. 7. (15 Min.) Update on the old Woodway Elementary School property. 8. (45 Min.) Presentation on Design Guidelines proposal by the Architectural Design Board. 9. ( 5 Min.) Mayor's Comments 10. (15 Min.) Council Comments ADJOURN 'arkin f nd 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.