Loading...
03/28/2006 City CouncilEDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES March 28, 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 Franciesca Bulaelac, Student Representative 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 Kathleen Junglov, Asst. Admin. Services Dir. Rob Chave, Planning Manager Stephen Koho, Treatment Plant Manager Rich Lindsay, Parks Maintenance Manager Dave Gebert, City Engineer Jeannine Graf, Building Official Frances Chapin, Cultural Services Manager 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 Marin requested Item D be removed from the Consent Agenda. COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, FOR APPROVAL OF THE REMAINDER OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: (A) ROLL CALL Approve 3/21/06 (B) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MARCH 21, 2006. Minutes Approve Claim (C) APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #86689 THROUGH #86884 FOR MARCH 23, 2006, IN Checks THE AMOUNT OF $520,005.63. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSITS AND CHECKS #42728 THROUGH #42788 FOR THE PERIOD OF MARCH 1 THROUGH MARCH 15, 2006, IN THE AMOUNT OF $820,966.78. Quit Claim Deed - -23031 (E) ACCEPTANCE OF A QUIT CLAIM DEED AT 23031 HIGHWAY 99 (ARMADILLO Hwy 99 STORAGE) FROM SHIOMI INVESTMENTS, LLC. Quit Claim Deed- 20506, (F) ACCEPTANCE OF A QUIT CLAIM DEED AT 20506 AND 20512 82 "D AVENUE WEST 20512 82" Ave FROM VIKING PROPERTIES, LLC. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 28, 2006 Page 1 Influent and Effluent Pit ITEM D: REPORT ON FINAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR THE INFLUENT AND EFFLUENT Replacement PUMP VFD REPLACEMENT PROJECT AND COUNCIL ACCEPTANCE OF PROJECT Councilmember Marin wanted to highlight that this project went very well and came in significantly under budget. He thanked those involved in the project. _iii _ � ♦� � � � ♦i� / _i�1 1 �' _iii _ �� _ 1 � i. �i i� i• L1%WW11V4kX11UJ= I I Did § 1 mul Lei 1 nohomish Co. Tourism 3. PRESENTATION BY SNOHOMISH COUNTY TOURISM BUREAU. 1T 3ureau Jennifer Owen, Visitor Services Manager, Snohomish County Tourism Bureau, provided the Snohomish County Tourism Bureau's 2005 annual report, explaining the Tourism Bureau was the tourism promotion organization for Snohomish County. She provided statistics regarding tourism in Snohomish County including an 11% growth in tourism in 2005 for a total economic impact of $1.75.3 million. She described requests for information generated by advertisements, increasing traffic to the SnohomishCounty.org, SnohomishCountyWeddings.com and Rooms @Par.com websites, visits to the Visitor Centers, and increases in off - season program bookings and hotel occupancy. She commented on the impacts of tourism in Snohomish County on restaurants, transportation, fuel, retail stores, recreation and entertainment, and grocery stores as well as on jobs and local and state taxes. She provided examples of advertisements the Bureau placed in meeting planner, reunion and group tour - related publications advertisements and displayed the group tour guide and meeting and event guide. She commented on familiarization tours and sales missions the Bureau provided. She described trade shows that Bureau staff attended that generated leads, assistance staff provided to groups with their conference needs, and meeting planner bids the Bureau prepared for group business. She reported on lost convention business in 2005 and displayed a graph illustrating the economic impact of hotel room nights. She reported the economic impact of sports related bookings in 2005. Ms. Owen displayed examples of magazine advertisements and identified several magazines where ads were placed that generated numerous requests for information in 2005. She commented on distribution and publication of the Visitors Guide, seasonal calendar of events, and hiking guides. She described public relation and media efforts, volunteer hours and services provided at Visitor Centers and donations from area businesses. She described the Bureau's community relation efforts during 2005 that included countywide tourism - related programs, newcomer business tours and slide shows, training for new visitors programs at outlet centers, participating as a donation site for Toys for Tots, and serving on a number of boards and committees. Councilmember Moore anticipated Edmonds Crossing and the Edmonds Center for the Arts would increase interest in Edmonds as a tourist destination. She asked where most visitors to Snohomish County were from. Ms. Owen answered visitors came from throughout the world; most visitors were from within the State, and most international visitors were from Canada. Councilmember Moore asked what activity other than conventions attracted the most visitors to Snohomish County. Ms. Owen stated the most popular attraction was the Future of Flight /Boeing Tour. Councilmember Moore asked whether there was planning occurring in Snohomish County related to the 2010 Olympics in BC. Ms. Owen answered the Bureau was participating in planning at the state level. She noted there would be increased interest in training facilities in the years prior to the Olympics. Councilmember Moore looked forward to when the largest tourist attraction in Snohomish County was Edmonds. Ms. Owen advised shopping was also an important tourism draw noting the great shopping in Edmonds. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 28, 2006 Page 2 01d Woodway 4. DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING THE PURCHASE OF OLD WOODWAY Elementary ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PROPERTY School Council President Dawson recapped the action the Council took at the special Council meeting on Saturday, March 25. The City Council voted to make an offer to the Edmonds School District to purchase 5.5 acres of the old Woodway Elementary School site and as part of the offer requested the District give the City until the end of the year to identify funding to purchase the additional 5.5 acres of the site. She advised the City would not hear from the District until after the March 31 deadline. Streetscape 5. REVIEW OF STREETSCAPE PLAN UPDATE Plan. Update Cultural Services Manager Frances Chapin explained the original Public Urban Design and Street Tree Plan, adopted in 2002, was renamed the Streetscape Plan. The Plan was upgraded in response to the update of the Comprehensive Plan and new concepts such as the 4th Avenue Art Corridor and the International District on Hwy. 99. She advised the consultants, CREA Affiliates, who created new appendices for 4th Avenue Arts Corridor, Hwy. 99, wayfinding signage, and a prototype of improvements for major /gateway intersections, would make a presentation at the public hearing on the Streetscape Plan. She noted updates to the original document were minor; the new materials were contained in the appendices prepared by CREA Affiliates. Ms. Chapin described the public process for the Plan update including four public meetings, staff meetings with the Parking Committee, Highway 99 Task Force, and the Downtown Edmonds Merchants Association, and four updates to the Planning Board including a public hearing. She advised this was an opportunity for the Council to ask questions with regard to the update. Council President Dawson asked who prepared the sketches in the document. Ms. Chapin answered the consultant used in the original 2002 version had the sketches prepared. Councilmember Olson commented on the difficulty with watering new trees and asked how that would be addressed on 4`h Avenue. Ms. Chapin answered there was a very narrow public right -of -way on 4th Avenue. The proposal was a curbless street with areas designated for planting /irrigation along the corridor. Because the City did not have the staff to maintain street trees, the public assists with maintenance of the trees in front of their homes. Councilmember Moore expressed enthusiasm for this beautification program and inquired regarding the next steps. Ms. Chapin advised the next step was a public hearing at the Council level. Once the Plan was approved, there were some elements the Parks & Recreation Department would begin to address such as wayfinding signs. The Plan provides a vision for short, intermediate and long term improvements in the 4th Avenue Corridor. Short term improvements could include visually identifying the corridor via the use of wayfinding signs, temporary lighting and/or arts elements in anticipation of the opening of the Edmonds Arts Center. Intermediate steps include keeping a group of businesses and residents working on the Plan such as identifying funding sources. She noted the grant obtained by Economic Development Director Jennifer Gerend for construction of lighting, signage, art and hardscape on Hwy. 99. Councilmember Moore asked if staff would pursue grants once the Council adopted the Plan. Ms. Chapin advised the Plan did not contain construction -level documents; staff would research funding opportunities but further construction -level planning would be necessary before a concept could be implemented. Councilmember Plunkett expressed interest in a funding plan for the Streetscape Plan. Ms. Chapin offered to provide for the public hearing the funding sources identified by the consultant, noting those sources would change over time. Councilmember Plunkett asked whether the Plan would be integrated into the Capital Improvement Plan. Ms. Chapin responded that was at the Council's discretion. Council President Dawson advised a public hearing on the proposed Streetscape Plan was scheduled for May 16. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 28, 2006 Page 3 Building Height 6. DISCUSSION ON BUILDING HEIGHT VERIFICATION. Verification Building Official Jeannine Graf explained this presentation was to describe how heights were verified in the field during construction. She provided the definition of height in the Edmonds Community Development Code 21.40.030, "Height means the average vertical distance, from the average level of the undisturbed soil of the site covered by a structure, to the highest point of the structure." She explained the Code also exempts specific appurtenances such as church steeples, elevator penthouses, chimneys, vent pipes and stand pipes. Ms. Graf pointed out key words in the height definition, "average level of the undisturbed soil," explaining the definition in ECDC 21.40.30 requires a developer use the smallest rectangle that encloses the building and the four corners of the rectangle to determine the average level. Another word was "undisturbed soil," which the Code defines as the site condition before site work begins. She explained the applicant measured the undisturbed grade elevation at each corner of the smallest rectangle that enclosed the building in order to determine average level as measured from a datum point. Ms. Graf reported the definition of undisturbed soil in ECDC 20.105.010 states the Building Official shall require a datum or point of reference from which height is measured. Datum points were limited to fixed points of reference in the public way that would not be disturbed during construction such as a street monument, sewer manhole cover, fire hydrant, etc. Ms. Graf described how undisturbed soil was measured on site to determine the average level, explaining step one was for the applicant to select a datum point. In her example, a sewer manhole cover was selected. In step two the applicant /contractor stakes the smallest rectangle that encloses the building. She noted the garage was included because it was attached to the residence but the patio and deck were not because they did not have a roof. In step three a transit is used to measure the difference in elevation from the top of the datum point to the undisturbed soil at the four staked corners. In her example, the four staked building rectangle elevations were added together (100 + 100 + 1.10 + 110 = 420) and then divided by 4 to determine the average level of undisturbed soil (420/4 =105). In her example the average level of 105 was 5 feet higher in elevation than the manhole cover. Given elevation 105, the maximum height of this single family zoned example is 25 feet above elevation 105 which is elevation 130 or 30 feet above the datum point. She displayed an example of the approved plot plan with height calculations and typical elevation view. Ms. Graf then described how the City's Field Inspector verified height compliance, explaining the inspector first reviewed the plot plan identifying the datum point. The inspector then set his transit on the datum point and measures from the optic to the top of the manhole, then to the side of the building, and then to the top of the building. Councilmember Orvis asked who determined the elevation of the average level. Ms. Graf answered the applicant. Councilmember Orvis noted Ms. Graf's explanation of verifying the distance between the average level and the top of the building assumed the average level was correct. Ms. Graf acknowledged the City relied on the true and accurate plot plan submitted by the applicant; staff did not do a pre - inspection to verify original grades. Councilmember Orvis inquired about the public's recourse for questioning the elevation. Ms. Graf answered there was a provision in the code that addressed sites altered by grading, cutting or filling that made it the responsibility of the Building Official to determine the correct lot elevation. In that situation the applicant was encouraged to have a geotechnical engineer do site borings to determine the original grade. The Code also allowed the site contours to be reconstructed by the Building Official to coincide Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 28, 2006 Page 4 with adjoining topography to determine the undisturbed soil elevations. Aerial photographs from the mid -1980s would assist with determining original grades and lidar photographs would assist in the future. For zero lot line development, the Code requires the use of the elevation of the surface of the sidewalk, alley or soil at the property line or nearest intersection of the sides of the building to determine original grade. Councilmember Orvis noted that would be the recourse for the property owner, and asked what recourse the public would have. Ms. Graf answered the determination would be made by the Building Official. She did not recall any challenges, noting most opted to have a geotechnical engineer determine the original grade. Building Heights in the 7 CONTINUED DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING BUILDING HEIGHTS IN BC Zone THE BC ZONE. Planning Manager Rob Chave referred to information provided at the March 21 meeting including downhill and uphill examples of height calculation, noting tonight's packet also contained examples of lot sizes downtown that ranged from 4,800 to 20,000 square feet. He noted the larger lots tended to be multiples of the smaller lots and there were historic and new buildings on smaller as well as larger lots although he acknowledged recent construction had been on larger lots. Mr. Chave displayed a drawing developed by an architect on the Planning Board identifying the components of a building story that depicted a 13 -14 foot first floor, explaining the actual finished ceiling was 3 -4 feet below the ceiling height. He noted commercial spaces generally needed 3 -4 feet between floors for structure, utilities, lighting, duct work, etc. The example depicted a 24 -foot building that could accommodate a 10 -foot second floor atop a 14 -foot first floor although the net area of the lower floor was approximately 10 feet. He pointed out commercial structures frequently opened the utility areas in the ceiling to expose the lighting and /or duct work to increase the ceiling height. He pointed out that with a 15 -foot first floor, the net result would be an 11 -12 foot finished ceiling or higher if the utilities were exposed. A 12 -foot minimum first floor would result in an 8 -9 foot finished ceiling height, slightly higher if the utilities were exposed. He clarified a 12 -foot first floor was not 12 feet from the floor to the ceiling but 12 feet from the floor to the ceiling plate. Mr. Chave displayed a sketch of the Gregory building at 505 5th Avenue S, identifying the slope and average level. He explained the plans for this building extended as high as 36 feet at the street front. He displayed how the proposed rules that required a 15 -foot setback would have affected this building. Mr. Chave displayed a photograph of the Wiggins building at 152 3rd Avenue S, identifying the substantial slope and average grade. This building had parking below with two stories above with offices in front and in the back on the first floor and residential on the second floor. He explained this building utilized a pitched roof to obtain the 25+5 foot limit; however, in order for the upper floor to be usable, the pitched roof depressed the first floor to approximately 81/2 feet and there were significantly higher ceilings on the second floor. If a 12 -foot first floor were required, the first floor would tend to be higher, the second floor would be depressed, and there would not be any opportunity for a pitched roof. He identified where the 15 -foot setback would be required on this building under the proposed rules. Using the historic Chanterelle building at 316 Main as an example, Mr. Chave identified the building height as slightly over 30 feet. He also identified where the 15 -foot setback would be required on that building, noting this building as it currently existed could not be built under the proposed rules. Using the historic Reliable Floor building at 542 Main, Mr. Chave explained the overall height of the building was 41 feet from the average grade to the top. He identified a 25 foot height, noting it was feasible that 2 stories could be achieved but not the decorative feature. He pointed out the setback Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 28, 2006 Page 5 concept worked for newer buildings; however, if there was interest in replicating historic buildings downtown, the Council may want to direct the Planning Board to consider language that defined historic style. He pointed out many of the historic buildings had two floors within the higher height. Councilmember Plunkett referred to his comments at the March 21 meeting that there were properties downtown where if the City required a 12 -foot first floor, only a one story building could be constructed. He asked if staff had determined whether there were sites where that would occur. Mr. Chave answered staff did not have the ability to determine that. Councilmember Plunkett asked whether consideration should be given to an exception to address that issue. Mr. Chave answered if the intent was to ensure 25- feet above the street level but height calculations resulted in under 25 feet at the street, the Council could establish a rule allowing a height of 25 feet from the street up to a certain height from the street front and establish additional conditions. He suggested the Council describe the intent and allow the Planning Board to develop the language. Councilmember Orvis noted the Council could allow an exception from the setback rule for historic structures in the event a historic building was damaged and reconstructed. Mr. Chave answered there were exceptions for historic buildings in the non - conforming provisions. Councilmember Plunkett noted that would also be addressed in the code rewrite. Councilmember Moore recalled staff mentioned the suggested 15 -foot setback was an arbitrary number and asked why 15 -feet was selected if building materials were in 4, 8 and 12 foot dimensions. Mr. Chave answered 15 feet was selected as it was used for setbacks elsewhere in the code. Councilmember Plunkett inquired about waiving the ceiling height requirement if a property owner could prove a building could only be one story if the City required a 12 -foot first floor ceiling height. Mr. Chave answered waiving the ceiling height requirement would reduce the height of the first floor and potentially creating less desirable commercial space. Councilmember Plunkett asked whether staff had considered someone demolishing an historic building such as Reliable Floors building and replacing it with a building with similar historic character. Mr. Chave answered it would be challenging to develop criteria to address that situation. He noted setbacks were appropriate for modern buildings but not if the intent was to provide historic character, thus it may be desirable to provide an exception for historic reproduction. Waiving parking requirements were also a potential tool to encourage historic reproductions. Council President Dawson asked if there was a method to determine the setback distance so that a building appeared to be 2- stories to a pedestrian. Mr. Chave answered it would depend on whether the perspective was from the same side or the opposite side of the street. Council President Dawson suggested the Planning Board consider that. Council President Dawson supported allowing significant restoration of an historic building to encourage its preservation versus allowing someone to demolish an historic building and replace it with a building with historic character. Mr. Chave referred to Mr. Hinshaw's recommendations, noting many of them referred to buildings with the historic character of the Chanterelle building. The Council could require a building without any historic detail to have a setback but if a building incorporated historic features, possibly the setback would not be required. Council President Dawson questioned what the criteria for that would be. Mr. Chave acknowledged good design code would be required. Council. President Dawson noted there may be instances where something other than a setback would be appropriate to obtain additional height and/or areas where the height should be restricted to 25 feet. Mr. Chave cautioned against limiting buildings to 25 -feet in the Fountain Square from the average grade but rather from the street level to ensure the desired result could be attained. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 28, 2006 Page 6 Councilmember Orvis recalled in the Fountain Square there was discussion regarding requiring 15 -foot first floor ceilings, pointing out that would result in a setback on the second floor. As his intent was to setback a third floor, he asked whether the requirement could be to setback only a third floor. Mr. Chave agreed that was possible. Councilmember Plunkett asked whether the code would allow a property owner who was burdened by the 12 -foot first floor height to request a variance. Mr. Chave answered economics was currently not a factor for a variance and it would be likely that such a variance request would argue economics. He did not suggest using the variance process to address that issue, recommending any exceptions be addressed in the code including criteria under which the exception would be allowed. Councilmember Moore asked how building heights would be blended with design guidelines. Mr. Chave answered if the ADB's design guidelines were moved to the front of the process, there would need to be enough specifics such as incentives and/or exceptions in the code. Councilmember Orvis recalled his presentation addressed third floor setback as well as open space to achieve an additional 5 feet in building height. He noted staff s proposal only referred to setback. Mr. Chave agreed, noting open space could be an incentive for reducing parking requirements. Council President Dawson suggested the Council address the decision points provided by staff at the March 21 meeting, first decision point #3, confirm that first floor heights in all downtown commercial areas are to be a minimum of 12 feet in height. Councilmember Marin recalled the Council had discussed a required first floor height in the downtown retail core and allowing it as an option for areas outside the retail core. Council President Dawson recalled part of the discussion was not allowing buildings to be developed in a manner that not accommodate a broader retail area in the future. Councilmember Orvis asked about the ceiling heights in the residential/mixed use area (grey on the Zoning /Use District map) where office was optional, noting if the 1.2 -foot ceiling height was optional in that area, it was likely to be residential. He expressed concern with that area being entirely residential. He preferred to require 12 -foot ceiling heights in that area. COUNCIL PRESIDENT DAWSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO REQUIRE 12 -FOOT FIRST FLOOR CEILING HEIGHTS THROUGHOUT THE BC ZONE SUBJECT TO EXCEPTIONS TO BE DISCUSSED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Next Council President Dawson referred to decision point #4, confirm that the goal is to have first floors and entries in all commercial areas at street grade; Planning Board to develop rules for how the building will maintain a street presence on a slope. COUNCIL PRESIDENT DAWSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, TO REQUIRE FIRST FLOORS AND ENTRIES IN ALL COMMERCIAL AREAS BE AT STREET GRADE. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. With regard to decision point #7, confirm that there can be exceptions that can extend above the roof of the building such as decorative cornices, parapets, clock towers or other building enhancements, Council President Dawson asked how appurtenances were excepted now. Development Services Director Duane Bowman answered it could be via a square footage, maximum height, a percentage of the roofline, etc. If the Council was interested in allowing exceptions, he suggested the Council give the Planning Board direction regarding a percentage of the building, locations on the building, etc. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 28, 2006 Page 7 Councilmember Plunkett preferred the Council indicate to the Planning Board whether they were interested in exceptions for decorative features and make a decision regarding a percentage, etc. when the details were provided by the Planning Board. Councilmember Orvis preferred to only allow what was currently allowed to extend above the height limit. Mr. Bowman advised very little was allowed to extend above the height limit; decorative features were not. Councilmember Olson explained an exception for decorative features was what allowed her to support a 30 -foot building height as it would allow for interesting buildings and avoid all buildings having flat roofs and the same height. She noted such an exception would allow for roof gardens. Councilmember Wambolt expressed interest in having the Planning Board considering exceptions that could extend above the roof of a building. Councilmember Moore was also interested in the Planning Board considering such exceptions, noting an elevator shaft to the roof deck would be important. She asked whether elevator shafts above the building height were currently allowed. Mr. Bowman answered the code did not currently allow an elevator shaft to extend to a height to accommodate a door that opened onto the roof He noted rooftop gardens were a great concept; the difficulty was the International Building Code required a second access off the roof and it could not be via an elevator thus a stairway was required. He noted an elevator penthouse that allowed access to the roof would require an exception. Councilmember Marin supported an exception for features to extend above the roof, noting his goal was to have a formula to limit the feature to ensure it was used to add interest in the building. Councilmember Plunkett inquired about the height of a roof deck railing. Mr. Bowman answered a minimum of 42 inches was required to prevent a fall; specific requirements for the railing were contained in the building code. Councilmember Plunkett referred to staff's reference to a steeply pitched roof as one of the features that could extend above the roof. Mr. Bowman answered that was a separate issue. Mr. Chave advised the Planning Board could provide a menu of decorative features that could extend above the roof and examples of how it could look. Council President Dawson advised she was not interested in anything like an elevator shaft extending above the height limit and was only interested in a decorative feature that added to the building and only with defined limits such as square footage and height. Councilmember Moore agreed it may be problematic if every building had an elevator shaft extending above the roof. Mr. Chave explained currently a portion of the elevator shaft could extend above the building but not enough to allow a door to open onto the rooftop. Council President Dawson commented there may be interest in tightening up allowing elevator shafts to extend above the height limit. If 30 -foot roofs were allowed with a setback, she was not interested in allowing an elevator shaft in the first 25 feet. Mr. Bowman advised that may be problematic but staff would study the issue. COUNCIL PRESIDENT DAWSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, TO DIRECT THE PLANNING BOARD TO CONSIDER SOME TYPE OF EXCEPTION FOR FEATURES THAT EXTEND ABOVE THE ROOF LINE AS WELL AS A FORMULA FOR POTENTIAL EXCEPTIONS. MOTION CARRIED (6 -1), COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS OPPOSED. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 28, 2006 Page 8 Next the Council considered decision point #5, confirm that there should be a maximum of two stories at the street, with a possible third story if set back from the street front. Councilmember Wambolt noted a third floor could only be achieved if the slope allowed; it would not be possible to achieve a third floor on a flat lot. Mr. Bowman agreed it would be problematic on a flat lot. COUNCIL PRESIDENT DAWSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, THAT THE MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT THROUGHOUT THE BC ZONE OF 25 -FEET WITH A POTENTIAL 5 ADDITIONAL FEET FOR SOME INCENTIVES. Councilmember Moore stated because this would limit buildings to two stories, she could support it if parking requirements were waived. Council President Dawson was also interested in exploring parking exceptions. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Councilmember Orvis supported requiring open space as well as setbacks to obtain an additional 5 feet above the 25 -foot height limit. Councilmember Wambolt inquired about the distance of the setback. Council President Dawson answered an appropriate setback would be determined by the Planning Board. Councilmember Moore questioned whether open space was desirable on every building. She supported having the Planning Board consider requiring open space to obtain an additional 5 feet in height as well as develop a definition of open space. Council President Dawson also preferred something in addition to a setback be required to obtain an additional 5 feet in height. COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, TO ALLOW AN ADDITIONAL 5 FEET IN HEIGHT FOR A BUILDING SETBACK. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (5 -2), COUNCILMEMBERS MOORE, OLSON, MARIN, PLUNKETT AND WAMBOLT IN FAVOR; AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT DAWSON AND COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS OPPOSED. Council President Dawson asked whether the Council wanted to consider another method to obtain an additional 5 feet in height. Councilmember Moore suggested the Planning Board explore other features to obtain an additional 5 feet such as public open space but she did not favor requiring two features. She noted allowing developers to utilize other features to obtain an additional 5 feet in height would allow for more variety in building design. COUNCILMEMBER MOORE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO ALLOW AN ADDITIONAL 5 FEET ABOVE THE 25 FOOT HEIGHT LIMIT FOR THINGS OTHER THAN SETBACK SUCH AS OPEN SPACE. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (2- 5), COUNCILMEMBERS MOORE AND OLSON IN FAVOR; AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT DAWSON AND COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, PLUNKETT, WAMBOLT AND MARIN OPPOSED. With regard to decision point #2, whether the city wants first floors in the core area to be retail only and/or 12 - 15 feet in height, Council President Dawson asked whether there was any interest in requiring a taller than 12 -foot first floor height in any portion of the BC zone. Councilmember Moore asked what buildings downtown had 15 -foot ceiling heights. Mr. Bowman advised the Savvy Traveler and the former Arista space had substantial ceiling heights. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 28, 2006 Page 9 For Councilmember Wambolt, Mr. Chave referred to the drawing that identified components of a building story, explaining the 12 -foot or 15 -foot first floor was measured from the floor to the ceiling plate, thus was not a 12 or 15 -foot finished area but reduced by 3 -4 feet for utilities. Council. President Dawson commented if a 1.5 -foot first floor were required a developer could not achieve 2 stories in 25 feet on a flat lot. Mr. Chave explained a 15 -foot first floor with a residential floor above could possibly be accommodated within a 25 -foot building but not two floors of commercial. Councilmember Moore did not support requiring a 15 -foot first floor, preferring it be an option. Councilmember Olson recalled the importance of ceiling heights to attract retail to the space. If a 1.2 -foot first floor was required, the result would be only 10 -foot ceiling heights. Councilmember Orvis commented if the ceiling height was measured from the floor to the ceiling plate, a 15 -foot first floor in the core area was important to achieve adequate ceiling heights. Council President Dawson expressed concern with requiring 15 -foot first floor ceiling heights as it would not accommodate two floors of commercial /retail. Councilmember Wambolt expressed support for requiring a 15 -foot first floor, noting it would allow a two story building. He acknowledged it would not allow two floors of commercial but could accommodate one floor of commercial and a second floor of residential or office. Council President Dawson questioned whether office could be accommodated on a second floor if a 15- foot first floor were required. Mr. Bowman answered it would be possible on sloped lots but would be problematic on flat lots. He referred to the one story buildings west of the theater, explaining that restricting the buildings to 25 feet would limit their ability to obtain a second story. He suggested considering 25 +5 with incentives. Councilmember Moore assumed there would be the option to obtain a 30 foot height in the retail core. If that was not the intent, it was not appropriate to require a 15 -foot first floor. She emphasized if the City wanted good retail space and wanted to require a 15 -first floor, then a 30 -foot overall height must be allowed. Councilmember Moore suggested replicating an historic structure be an exception. Councilmember Orvis suggested allowing an exception to the 25 foot building height for the front of the building in the downtown core if a 15 -foot first floor is provided and the building is only two stories. COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, TO ALLOW A 30 -FOOT BUILDING HEIGHT IN THE RETAIL CORE WITH A MAXIMUM OF 2 FLOORS AND REQUIRING A 1.5 -FOOT FIRST FLOOR. MOTION CARRIED (6 -1), COUNCIL PRESIDENT DAWSON OPPOSED. Council President Dawson referred to the Zoning and Use District map and asked whether the Council was interested in expanding the boundaries of the retail core. Councilmember Moore recalled the experts recommended restricting the retail core to a narrow area. It was the consensus of the Council not to expand the boundaries of the retail core. With regard to the residential /mixed use zone, Councilmember Orvis expressed his opposition to 3- story, lot- line -to- lot -line residential development in that area and suggested it be changed to mixed commercial or multi family. Council President Dawson recalled Councilmember Orvis originally supported residential on the ground floor in the BC zone. Councilmember Orvis clarified he supported residential on the ground floor behind commercial. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 28, 2006 Page 10 Councilmember Moore expressed concern with requiring commercial on the ground floor that far from the retail core. She recalled that area was already developed and unlikely to change in the near future. Mr. Bowman agreed redevelopment in that area was unlikely over the life of the current Comprehensive Plan. Council President Dawson asked whether the requirement could be commercial on the ground floor or require that it look like multi family. Mr. Bowman agreed that could be explored. Mr. Chave suggested development be allowed to the street with commercial space and if not, require open space or additional setback so that it looked like multi family. Mr. Chave advised the intent for that area was not to preclude commercial and to recognize existing residential uses. Councilmember Moore cautioned against over - building commercial space that remained empty, noting limiting buildings to two stories reduced the number of potential residents in the downtown core by half. She referred to the difficulty renting the commercial space in the Cooperstone building because the commercial space was sunken and because it was away from the retail core, noting that space may be more appropriate for residences. Councilmember Orvis supported Mr. Chave's proposal to allow residential in exchange for open space in the residential/mixed use area. COUNCIL PRESIDENT DAWSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, TO DIRECT THE PLANNING BOARD TO DEVELOP SOME WAY IN THE RESIDENTIAL/MIXED USE AREA THAT REQUIRES COMMERCIAL ON THE GROUND FLOOR OR LOOKS LIKE RESIDENTIAL SETBACKS TO AVOID LOT - LINE -TO -LOT -LINE RESIDENTIAL. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Councilmember Moore inquired whether the Council was interested in expanding the residential /mixed use area. Mr. Chave answered that area was established to recognize the large concentration of existing residential uses and the Planning Board's reluctance to reduce the available area for commercial space. Council President Dawson referred to the Basic Height Limits map and an area identified as restricted to 25 feet (east of the Arts Corridor). Mr. Chave answered that was an oversight. Council President Dawson commented it was her preference that this area be limited to 25 -feet. COUNCILMEMBER MOORE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, TO CHANGE THE BUILDING HEIGHT IN THE BLOCK EAST OF THE ARTS CORRIDOR (YELLOW AREA ON THE BASIC HEIGHT LIMITS MAP) TO 25 +5 FEET. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Council President Dawson asked when further specifics regarding the requirements for the 4th Avenue Corridor would be available. Mr. Chave advised the Planning Board would consider the Streetscape Plan in developing concepts. He noted the Historic Preservation Commission discussed incentives for preserving existing historic buildings in that area. COUNCIL PRESIDENT DAWSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, THAT THE PLANNING BOARD CONSIDER THE 4TH AVENUE CORRIDOR SEPARATELY AND NOT HAVE THE SAME RULES THAT WERE APPLICABLE TO THE REST OF THE BC ZONE. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Council President Dawson inquired about the Convenience Commercial area on the Zoning /Use Districts map. Mr. Chave explained this area was distinguished from the mixed commercial not due to height but because it was more auto- oriented, uses that were discouraged in other areas of downtown. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 28, 2006 Page 11 Council President Dawson referred to the Basic Height Limit map and the area designated as 30 feet (purple) with no incentive to achieve that height. It was the consensus of the Council not to distinguish that area from mixed commercial. With regard to waiving parking requirements for commercial space if a building is under a certain size, Council President Dawson observed the Council was interested in that concept but was not certain what the size would be. Mr. Bowman referred to small lots downtown where exceptions to the parking requirements could facilitate redevelopment /renovation of the property. COUNCIL PRESIDENT DAWSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT, TO DIRECT THE PLANNING BOARD TO CONSIDER WAIVING THE PARKING REQUIREMENT ON SMALL LOTS. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Regarding decision point #6, should there be smaller buildings downtown and what incentive system could be used to achieve this, Council President Dawson asked what could be used as an incentive for smaller buildings. Mr. Bowman answered parking requirements and open space requirements could be used to deter /penalize larger buildings. Mr. Chave explained parking requirements drive larger buildings because three stories were necessary to provide parking underneath as well as access to a garage. Councilmember Moore referred to Alexandria, Virginia, where historic buildings covered large lots but were actually smaller, attached buildings. She suggested that was preferable to one large building. COUNCIL PRESIDENT DAWSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO ASK THE PLANNING BOARD TO CONSIDER INCENTIVES FOR SMALL BUILDINGS BY REQUIRING LARGER BUILDINGS PROVIDE SUBSTANTIAL OPEN SPACE OR ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES THAT MADE A LARGE BUILDING NOT APPEAR TO BE ONE MASSIVE BUILDING FOR BUILDINGS ABOVE A CERTAIN SQUARE FOOTAGE. Mr. Chave identified buildings downtown that were large buildings that appeared to be several smaller buildings such as the Beeson Building and Old Mill Town. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Councilmember Moore commented if the height of buildings was limited to 30 feet, consideration needed to be given to waiving commercial parking requirements in the BC zone. COUNCILMEMBER MOORE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, TO DIRECT THE PLANNING BOARD TO STUDY PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR COMMERCIAL SPACE IN THE DOWNTOWN BC ZONE. Council President Dawson commented she was not interested in waiving commercial parking requirements for buildings downtown. Councilmember Plunkett agreed additional consideration would be necessary to ensure buildings were developable within the height limit such as parking requirements, residential behind commercial, etc. MOTION CARRIED (6 -1), COUNCIL PRESIDENT DAWSON OPPOSED. Council President Dawson asked where in the downtown that residential uses should be allowed on the ground floor. Councilmember Orvis expressed support for residential on the ground floor noting otherwise the space was not used. His intent was to have the Planning Board consider expanding the current 30 -foot commercial depth requirement. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 28, 2006 Page 12 COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, TO ASK THE PLANNING BOARD TO DETERMINE THE APPROPRIATE DEPTH FOR COMMERCIAL AND CONSIDER ALLOWING RESIDENTIAL BEHIND. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Councilmember Orvis recalled Councilmember Wambolt's interest in establishing a maximum lot size. Mr. Chave suggested this could be accomplished via additional requirements for a large building and incentives for smaller buildings without risking property rights challenges. Councilmember Marin commented the way the City was originally platted, the lots were tiny. 8. AUDIENCE COMMENTS old woodWay Gary Humiston, Edmonds, was concerned after attending tonight's School Board meeting that the Elementary School District had not yet received the City's new proposal. He asked who the City's point person was School for negotiating with the District with regard to the purchase of the old Woodway Elementary School site. He pointed out the City could have used the past nine months to identify funds for this purchase, noting he had spent four days gathering a significant number of signatures in opposition to developing the property. He concluded it appeared from the School District's financial situation they did not need all the money immediately. He requested the City negotiate a deal with the District that was beneficial to the City and the community. old woodWay Rob Trahms, Edmonds, thanked the Council for their continued attention to the old Woodway Elementary school Elementary School property. He inquired about the timing of the City's offer , noting that although the Council's vote occurred Saturday, March 25, the Edmonds School District reported at their meeting tonight that the District had not yet received the City's offer although the deadline for offers was Friday, March 31. He recommended the Council not wait until the last minute to submit their offer. He requested the Council announce the point person for this negotiation with Edmonds School District. old woodWay Scott Chapman, Edmonds, commented information obtained from the Edmonds School District Elementary indicated the District had been receiving mixed signals from the City since July 2005 regarding the School purchase of the property. He urged the City to secure the opportunity to purchase all 11 acres, acknowledging the terms were yet to be determined. He noted the City and the public had lost over eight months that could have been used for fundraising vital to securing the 11 acres. He thanked the Council for their efforts. Building Height Karen Wiggins, Edmonds, commented the Council's discussion regarding heights did not address the requirement for level entries. Mayor Haakenson advised the Council approved that requirement. Ms. Wiggins expressed concern with requiring a 1.2 -foot ceiling height in areas outside the retail core that were commonly office uses, pointing out office users did not want to pay the additional heating costs for Parking 12 -foot ceilings. Speaking as the Parking Committee Chair, she was concerned with any significant reduction in the parking requirement for commercial space, noting parking throughout the City was occupied and additional commercial space without parking deterred shoppers as well as new tenants. Building Height Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, congratulated the Council on their action and complimented Council President Dawson on her leadership in the height discussion. He expressed concern that the $1.4 million otd woodWay from Snohomish County was for the entire 11 acres of the old Woodway Elementary School site. He Elementary urged the Council to honor the promise made to the residents of the area when they annexed to the City School that this property would be preserved as a park. He suggested the Council's offer to purchase half the site would not be successful and could result in a legal challenge from a developer because the bid process was for 11 acres and only the City submitted a bid for half the property. The City's only remaining option was condemnation, pointing out that fair market value was determined via existing sales not a bidding war. He urged the City to begin the condemnation process to guarantee the City would acquire Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 28, 2006 Page 13 this property. He suggested the Council obtain the advice of real estate experts if they had questions regarding the property's value. old Woodway Al Rutledge, Edmonds, submitted additional petitions in support of a neighborhood park at the old IElementary School Woodway Elementary School property. Recognizing the bid deadline was fast approaching, he recommended the City submit their bid in writing. Next he announced the Kiwanis food drive at Top Food Drive Foods on April 7 and 8. Building Height Ray Martin, Edmonds, recalled proponents of the 33 -foot building heights and 12 -foot first floor stated 33 feet was necessary to achieve three floors, yet tonight staff indicated two stories could be achieved in 25 feet. With regard to the old Woodway Elementary School site, he would be very disappointed if the old Woodway City did not acquire all 11 acres. He supported pursuing condemnation if that was what it took to acquire Elementary all 11 acres. He expressed concern with the fate of downtown if environmentalists were correct and the School sea level rose 20 feet in the next 100 years. Old Woodwa Rick Miller, Edmonds, expressed his appreciation for the Council's efforts this weekend to develop a y Elementary strategy to purchase the old Woodway Elementary School site but was concerned the City's offer would School encounter problems with the School Board. He encouraged the City to develop a plan to purchase all 11 acres at one time, and if adequate funding could not be identified, the City could sell a portion of the property. He requested the Council repeat the update regarding the efforts to purchase the old Woodway Elementary School property as many interested parties were at the School Board meeting when that information was provided. old Woodway Council President Dawson advised the status of the offer to the School District was the same as the Elementary Council's decision on Saturday. The reason the offer had not been submitted was yesterday the District School advised they would not meet tonight in Executive Session to consider the offer if it were submitted by tonight's meeting and that they would not consider the offer until March 31. Therefore, staff was developing the formal, written offer and it was agreed it would be provided for Council review and discussion in Executive Session today so that any questions regarding the offer could be resolved. She advised the Council was in agreement and the offer had not changed. With regard to the City's point person, she advised the person negotiating for the City of Edmonds was Mayor Haakenson. Council President Dawson advised if a situation arose where the School District rejected the City's offer and intended to sell the property to a developer, the City would have no choice but to pursue its power of eminent domain. Mayor Haakenson clarified he negotiated based on guidance provided by the Council. Council President Dawson agreed the Council had provided very clear direction to Mayor Haakenson regarding negotiations and developed a written offer which Mayor Haakenson was authorized to negotiate. 9. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor's Mayor Haakenson advised the Mayor's neighborhood meetings would be held at 7:00 p.m. on March 29 eighborhood at Chase Lake and on March 30 at Maplewood. He commented there was a good turnout at the Meetings neighborhood meetings last week. 1.0. INDIVIDUAL COUNCIL REPORTS ON OUTSIDE COMMITTEEBOARD MEETINGS Public Facilities District Board Councilmember Olson reported the Edmonds Public Facilities District Board reached 50% completion in S. Snohomish the construction of the Edmonds Center for the Arts. Next, she advised the South Snohomish Cities Cities would be meeting Thursday, March 30. And, she invited the public to attend the Wednesday, March 29 Community Community Technology Advisory Committee meeting where the Committee would provide an update on ITechnology I the wireless project. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 28, 2006 Page 14 Councilmember Orvis thanked the Council for a very civil discussion regarding heights. port Councilmember Wambolt reported the Port's March 13 meeting included a presentation from the Yacht Commission I Club who is interested in constructing a new 10,000 - 12,000 square foot 2 -story building estimated to cost $2.25 million. Their primary obstacle is finding a tenant to lease the first floor such as a restaurant. The Port also agreed to hold a retreat on May 30. He reported the Port authorized signing a management agreement with Harbor Square Associates and the Port's purchase of the Harbor Square buildings will close March 30. Councilmember Wambolt reported the March 27 Port meeting was preceded by a joint meeting with the Woodway Town Council. He suggested Edmonds City Council schedule a joint meeting with the Port as plans for redevelopment of Harbor Square progress. The joint meeting with the Port and the Woodway Town Council included discussion regarding Paramount Petroleum's plans to develop the upper Pt. Wells property with residential. During the Port's regular meeting, they signed an Interlocal Agreement with Edmonds to provide moorage for the new fire rescue boat that is under construction. The Port will provide free moorage as well as electricity and a storage facility. old woodway Councilmember Moore requested staff research the potential for a legal challenge if the School District Elementary accepted the City's offer to purchase a portion of the property. In response to Mr. Hertrich's comment School regarding the funds from Snohomish County, she clarified the funds were applicable to the purchase of a smaller acreage. She referred to Mr. Martin's comment about his disappointment if the City did not purchase all 11 acres, agreeing it would be a personal defeat for her due to her devotion to preserving that public land. She reiterated the City retained the right of eminent domain. She recalled last June suggesting the City purchase all I 1 acres and if necessary sell a portion of it, noting now she did not want to sell any part of it. Councilmember Moore explained the difficulty with the City competing with developers was developers bid on the future value of the land; they were bidding based on the assumption the land value would continue to increase every year and on their ability to sell the property when developed. The City did not bid based on the future value of the land, only as it existed as parkland. She recognized the incredible work done by the Council to develop the offer agreed to on Saturday. Building Height Councilmember Moore described finding a memo in her file from June 18, 2004, explaining the reason the height issue had been resolved was the solution accomplished everything she sought in the memo including ways to make good commercial space, how views would be affected, how roof design innovation and roof decks could be accomplished and how the small town quaintness of Edmonds in the downtown core could be preserved. She recognized staff for developing an innovative method of achieving everything she wanted. seashore Councilmember Moore reported the SeaShore meeting included election of leadership and a report on the legislature's decision to force Sound Transit and the Regional Transportation Improvement District (RTID) to go to the ballot together in 2007 and for both to pass for either to be approved. She advised SeaShore was discussing whether cities such as Edmonds should have a vote in the RTID and agreed to send a letter to Seattle and King County regarding that issue. She advised efforts were continuing to develop a transportation forum for Snohomish County. Councilmember Marin reported Snohomish County Tomorrow (SCT) was in the process of updating Snohomish co. Tomorrow Snohomish County's CIP; to date there have been 51 submissions but only three met seven of the eight criteria the County established. SCT has asked Snohomish County to allow them to review the ranking criteria. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 28, 2006 Page 15 Student Representative Bulaclac advised the student Rotary Club was having a food drive on April 1. 11. ADJOURN With no further business,the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:14 p.m. GARY HAAKENSON, MAYOR SANDRA S. CHASE, CITY CLERK Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 28,2006 Page 16 AGENDA EDMt3NDS CITY COUNCIL Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex 250 5th Avenue North 7:00 - 10:00 p.m. MARCH 28, 2005 6:00 p.m. - Executive Session Regarding a Real Estate Matter 7:00 p.m. - Can to Order and Flag Salute 1. Approval of Agenda 2. Consent Agenda Items A. Roll Call B. Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of March 21, 2006. C. Approval of claim checks #86689 through #86884 for March 23, 2006, in the amount of$520,005.63. Approval of payroll direct deposits and checks #42728 through #42788 for the period of March 1 through March 15, 2006, in the amount of$820,966.78. D. Report on final construction costs for the Influent and Effluent Pump VFD Replacement Project and Council acceptance of project. E. Acceptance of a quit claim deed at 23031 Highway 99 (Armadillo Storage) from Shiomi Investments, LLC. F. Acceptance of a quit claim deed at 20506 and 20512 82nd Avenue West from Viking Properties, LLC. 3. (15 Mina Presentation by the Snohomish County Tourism Bureau. 4. (30 Mina Discussion and possible action regarding the purchase of old Woodway Elementary School property. 5. (30 Mina Work session on the Streetscape Plan Update. 6. (15 Min.) Discussion on building height verification. 7. (60 Mina Continued discussion and possible action regarding building heights in the BC Zone. Page 1 of 2 CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA MARCH 28, 2006 I 8. Audience Comments (3 Minute Limit Per Person)* *Regarding matters not listed on the Agenda as Closed Record Review or as Public Hearings. 9. ( 5 Mina Mayor's Comments 10. (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