Loading...
07/25/2006 City CouncilEDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES July 25, 2006 The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Haakenson in the Council Chambers, 250 5"' 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 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA STAFF PRESENT David Stern, Chief of Police Duane Bowman, Development Serv. Director Brian McIntosh, Parks & Recreation Director Noel Miller, Public Works Director Rob Chave, Planning Manager Dave Gebert, City Engineer Sandy Chase, City Clerk Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst. Jeannie Dines, Recorder COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT, FOR APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, FOR APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 25, 2006 Page 1 (A) ROLL CALL Approve 7 /18 /06 Minutes (B) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JULY 18, 2006 (C) APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #89459 THROUGH #89645 FOR JUNE 20, 2006 IN Approve Claim THE AMOUNT OF $1,351,097.96. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSITS AND checks CHECKS #43388 THROUGH #43496 IN THE AMOUNT OF $827,109.13 FOR THE PERIOD OF JULY 1 THROUGH JULY 15, 2006. Claim for (D) ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES FROM JAMIE ROSS Damages HALTERMAN ($469.76), ROBERT HENDERSON (AMOUNT UNDETERMINED), DAN AND JANE HINRICHS ($1,500.00), AND JEAN M. MORSE (AMOUNT UNDETERMINED). Community Services R Re (E) COMMUNITY SERVICES QUARTERLY REPORT - JULY 2006 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 25, 2006 Page 1 street Development Services Director Duane Bowman explained the Community Services /Development Vendor Regula- Services Committee discussed this issue at their July 1 I meeting and forwarded a recommendation for the tions Council as a whole to consider the regulations as well as a recommendation for an approval of a potential change in the street vendor regulations to allow the use of trailers. Mr. Bowman explained in the mid- I980s the street vendor ordinance allowed trailers and other structures in the right -of -way, particularly near the ferry holding lanes. Staff experienced some difficulty with enforcement which resulted in the removal of some trailers. In 2004 a regulation was passed that redefined the street vendor regulations and prohibited the use of trailers unless it could be pushed by one person. The City received a proposal from Ricky Andrews, Mill Town Pizza, who is exploring the use of a trailer in the unopened right -of -way on James Street adjacent to the ferry holding lanes to sell pizza, drinks, etc. As the City's existing regulations do not permit the use of a trailer, modification of the street vendor regulations would be required to allow the use of a trailer. Mr. Bowman advised the Council packet contained a vicinity map, an aerial photograph of the ferry holding lanes, the current street vendor regulations and a photograph of the trailer Mr. Andrews was considering using. He recalled consideration had been given to installing pads near the park area for street vendors to address the Health Department requirements for water, waste, etc. Research of this option revealed installation of sewer, water, power, etc. was prohibitively expensive. Councilmember Moore inquired about the push cart required by the current regulations and trailers allowed by the previous regulations. Mr. Bowman answered although the intent of the original ordinance was mobile street vendors, the ordinance was vague and the gap in the regulations allowed the use of trailers. He recalled enforcement action that was necessary to remove a street vendor's trailer. He explained the only business that had succeeded in the area of the ferry holding lanes, Terminal Caffeine, was located on the State right -of -way. He recalled a hot dog vendor who obtained a street vendor license but was unable to sustain the business. For Councilmember Orvis, Mr. Bowman explained if the Council wanted to allow trailers, the definition in the regulations would need to be changed to allow trailers and not just push carts. Councilmember Orvis asked where the trailers would be allowed. Mr. Bowman answered any commercial zone with unopened right -of -way where a trailer could be located. He pointed out the biggest issue street vendors faced was meeting the Health District's water and waste disposal requirements. He noted the location on James had power; water could be an issue, although a vendor could work out an arrangement with an adjacent property owner. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 25, 2006 Page 2 2007 walk -In (F) AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE A 2007 WALK -IN STEP VAN FROM HUSKY Step van TRUCK CENTERS FOR $45,194.68 UTILIZING THE KING COUNTY INTER- GOVERNMENTAL PURCHASING AGREEMENT Skate Park (G) AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE SKATE PARK COMPONENTS FROM Equipment NORTHWEST RECREATION OF WASHINGTON ($81,947.25) Storm Improve- (H) AUTHORIZATION TO CALL FOR BIDS FOR THE 2006 CITYWIDE STORM ment Project IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT (I) PROPOSED ORDINANCE EXTENDING A ZONING MORATORIUM ON THE CG zone ISSUANCE OF DEVELOPMENT PERMITS FOR CERTAIN USES IN THE CG Develop- (GENERAL COMMERCIAL) AND CG -2 (GENERAL COMMERCIAL 2) ZONE ment Permits 3. DISCUSSION REGARDING STREET VENDOR REGULATIONS street Development Services Director Duane Bowman explained the Community Services /Development Vendor Regula- Services Committee discussed this issue at their July 1 I meeting and forwarded a recommendation for the tions Council as a whole to consider the regulations as well as a recommendation for an approval of a potential change in the street vendor regulations to allow the use of trailers. Mr. Bowman explained in the mid- I980s the street vendor ordinance allowed trailers and other structures in the right -of -way, particularly near the ferry holding lanes. Staff experienced some difficulty with enforcement which resulted in the removal of some trailers. In 2004 a regulation was passed that redefined the street vendor regulations and prohibited the use of trailers unless it could be pushed by one person. The City received a proposal from Ricky Andrews, Mill Town Pizza, who is exploring the use of a trailer in the unopened right -of -way on James Street adjacent to the ferry holding lanes to sell pizza, drinks, etc. As the City's existing regulations do not permit the use of a trailer, modification of the street vendor regulations would be required to allow the use of a trailer. Mr. Bowman advised the Council packet contained a vicinity map, an aerial photograph of the ferry holding lanes, the current street vendor regulations and a photograph of the trailer Mr. Andrews was considering using. He recalled consideration had been given to installing pads near the park area for street vendors to address the Health Department requirements for water, waste, etc. Research of this option revealed installation of sewer, water, power, etc. was prohibitively expensive. Councilmember Moore inquired about the push cart required by the current regulations and trailers allowed by the previous regulations. Mr. Bowman answered although the intent of the original ordinance was mobile street vendors, the ordinance was vague and the gap in the regulations allowed the use of trailers. He recalled enforcement action that was necessary to remove a street vendor's trailer. He explained the only business that had succeeded in the area of the ferry holding lanes, Terminal Caffeine, was located on the State right -of -way. He recalled a hot dog vendor who obtained a street vendor license but was unable to sustain the business. For Councilmember Orvis, Mr. Bowman explained if the Council wanted to allow trailers, the definition in the regulations would need to be changed to allow trailers and not just push carts. Councilmember Orvis asked where the trailers would be allowed. Mr. Bowman answered any commercial zone with unopened right -of -way where a trailer could be located. He pointed out the biggest issue street vendors faced was meeting the Health District's water and waste disposal requirements. He noted the location on James had power; water could be an issue, although a vendor could work out an arrangement with an adjacent property owner. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 25, 2006 Page 2 Councilmember Orvis asked whether the area where street vendor trailers could locate could be restricted. Mr. Bowman agreed the use of street vendor trailer could be limited to certain areas of the City. For Councilmember Wambolt, Mr. Bowman identified the location of Terminal Caffeine on the aerial map, adjacent to the ferry holding lanes, across the street and slightly south of Skippers. He commented street vendors previously walked among the ferry holding lanes, a practice the State no longer allowed for safety reasons. He also identified the site Mr. Andrews was considering. For Councilmember Moore, he identified the location of the pads that City staff was exploring near the park adjacent to the ferry holding lanes. Councilmember Moore asked whether there were other unopened rights -of -way where street vendors could locate. Mr. Bowman answered there were numerous unopened rights -of -way in the City; the most likely location was adjacent to the ferry holding lanes due to the volume of potential customers. Councilmember Moore observed there appeared to be only one unopened right -of -way in the BC zone that would be feasible for a street vendor. Mr. Bowman agreed, pointing out theoretically a street vendor could locate in any unopened right -of -way. Councilmember Moore commented that was already allowed for a street vendor with a push cart. Councilmember Plunkett asked whether consideration had been given to standards for determining whether an unopened right -of -way was appropriate for a street vendor such as traffic, etc. Mr. Bowman answered the primary issue addressed by the code currently was aesthetics, other controlling factors were addressed by the Health District's regulations. Councilmember Plunkett asked whether safety would be a consideration. Mr. Bowman answered yes, for example, a vendor would not be allowed to create a sight distance hazard. Council President Dawson asked whether the intent of the revision would be to allow vendors to leave their facility in place for a period of time. Mr. Bowman answered yes, pointing out the trailer depicted in the Council packet would not be removed and replaced daily; the trailer would remain in place, employees would work from the trailer and maintain consistent hours. He pointed out the importance of consistent hours for such a business to survive. Observing their appeared to be only one good location, Council President Dawson asked how it be determined who could occupy the site. Mr. Bowman answered it would be first come, first serve, whoever applied. Council President Dawson pointed out if the vendor never moved their vehicle, no one else would have an opportunity to use the right -of -way. Mr. Bowman agreed other vendors could not use that particular site; however, there may be adequate space for other vendors in that right -of -way. Council President Dawson expressed concern that whoever paid the minimal permit fee could locate a permanent business on City property for as long as they wished. Mr. Bowman agreed that would be allowed as long as the vendor maintained a valid permit. For Council President Dawson, Mr. Bowman explained in the past, street vendor facilities required review by the Architectural Design Board (ADB) which he recommended is continued. Council President Dawson asked what authority the ADB would have to approve /deny on the basis of aesthetics. Mr. Bowman advised the regulations could include criteria for review. Council President Dawson requested further information regarding the aesthetics before making a decision whether to allow trailers. She asked whether this issue had been considered by the Planning Board. Mr. Bowman answered it was not within the Planning Board's purview as it was a function of the City Clerk to approve street vendor licenses. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 25, 2006 Page 3 Council President Dawson was concerned about allowing construction of a building in the City right -of- way. She asked about other cities' vendor regulations. Mr. Bowman answered he had not researched whether other cities allowed trailers. He noted this was a unique location due to the volume of traffic and high visibility of the area. Council President Dawson commented without adequate regulations, the facility could look like anything and the vendor could sell anything. Mr. Bowman agreed the ordinance did not specify what the vendor sold. Council President Dawson commented if the vehicle /facility were large enough, it could preclude others from using the right -of -way. Mr. Bowman agreed the first vendor could preclude other vendors from having a "front row seat." He advised the permit lasted for one year. As a person who frequently waited in the ferry lanes, Councilmember Olson commented it would be beneficial to have vendors adjacent to the ferry holding lanes. She commented ferry riders often were not aware the wait would be so long. She commented it may be difficult for vendors to operate in that location during winter weekdays due to reduced ferry traffic. Councilmember Moore suggested the Council have an opportunity to ask questions of Mr. Andrews. Councilmember Wambolt commented James Street was a very congested area. He asked how the trailer would be re- supplied and where employees would park. He summarized safety was an issue in that location, particularly with people walking from their cars in the holding lanes to the trailer. He suggested allowing trailers in that location may also be a concern to residents in the area and suggested a public hearing before any change was made to the street vendor regulations. Councilmember Plunkett asked whether direction from the Council to allow "Andrews -like structures" would be sufficient for staff to proceed. Mr. Bowman noted that direction would indicate the Council's desire to allow trailers. Councilmember Moore asked about the number of street vendor applications. City Clerk Sandy Chase answered there was a lot of interest; however, the problem was obtaining permission from adjacent property owners and Washington State Ferries (WSF) discouraged vendors. Councilmember Marin commented he was interested in pursuing revisions to the street vendor regulations and suggested staff explore other cities' street vendor regulations. Mr. Bowman suspected other cities' street vendor regulations were oriented toward carts. He offered to research cities with ferry activity such as Bremerton, Kingston, etc. Council President Dawson asked what direction staff was seeking. Mr. Bowman answered specific direction was preferable. For example, if the Council wanted to limit the location where a trailer could be located. He reiterated the Community Services /Development Services Committee supported the concept of allowing a trailer at the James Street location. He sought direction from the Council whether the use of trailers should be limited to certain areas. Council President Dawson asked what issues prompted the revisions of the street vendor regulations in the past. Mr. Bowman answered the 2004 revision was initiated by staff as a result of the difficult experience with removing abandoned trailers. Staff's thinking at that time was push carts would eliminate enforcement action when street vendors essentially abandoned their trailers. Council. President Dawson observed the intent of the 2004 revisions was to allow for carts that were removed on a daily basis. Mr. Bowman commented a cart could be left overnight as the ordinance did not require it be removed. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 25, 2006 Page 4 Council President Dawson asked whether staff had the same concerns they expressed in 2004. Mr. Bowman answered yes, staff's recommendation to the Community Services /Development Services Committee was not to change the street vendor regulations. Council President Dawson asked whether street vendors must comply with sign regulations. Mr. Bowman answered yes, emphasizing the biggest hurdle street vendors encountered were the Health District's regulations. Mr. Andrews has obtained the Health Department's trailer concept. Councilmember Olson suggested staff research Bainbridge Island's regulations, recalling there were trailer -like structures near their ferry holding lanes. Councilmember Moore asked whether the applicant would be given an opportunity to speak to the Council. Council President Dawson commented this item was not noticed as a public hearing and there may be others who are interested in this issue. Mr. Bowman suggested if the Council was interested in revising street vendor regulations to allow trailers, staff could draft a proposed ordinance and the Council could hold a public hearing on the proposed ordinance. Council President Dawson observed the Council was interested in exploring revisions, exploring other cities' street vendor regulations, and holding a public hearing. Councilmember Moore asked Mr. Bowman what Mr. Andrews said about the aesthetics of his trailer. Mr. Bowman answered Mr. Andrews said he would do whatever the City wanted. Councilmember Moore asked how Mr. Andrews planned to deliver pizza to the trailer. Mr. Bowman answered Mr. Andrews indicated he would cook the pizza at his business and transport it to the trailer. He also proposes to place a skirt around the trailer to hide the wheels and make it look less like a trailer. Councilmember Moore asked where his employees would park. Mr. Bowman advised he had not discussed that with Mr. Andrews. Councilmember Moore asked how portable the trailer would be. Mr. Bowman advised the trailer could be moved rapidly if necessary. Councilmember Plunkett supported staff developing a broad ordinance and obtaining information from other cities for a public hearing. Councilmember Olson inquired about Mr. Andrews' winter hours. Mr. Bowman advised Mr. Andrews planned to operate seven days a week with consistent hours. It was the consensus of the Council to have staff prepare a draft ordinance, research how other cities address street vendor regulations, particularly with regard to trailers, and schedule a public hearing on the ordinance as soon as possible. 4. DISCUSSION REGARDING PUGET SOUND REGIONAL COUNCIL (PSRC) VISION UPDATE DRAFT EIS Puget Planning Manager Rob Chave advised the deadline for comments on the PSRC draft EIS, the vehicle Sound PSRC was using to lead the discussion on the update, was the end of July. He advised Snohomish County Regional Tomorrow (SCT) would be discussing their collective response at their July 26 meeting. He referred to council Vision the comment letters contained in the Council packet, one from the City and one from SCT. He explained Update ti ff both letters offered concerns and identified issues a needed e addressed as we as Draft that dd t bdd d well expressed P Rzs support for the process. He emphasized the need not to lose track of the multi- county policies that were adopted via the PSRC and applied to the four counties in the region. He noted in addition to the regional 2020 plan, there were multi- county policies that each jurisdiction must acknowledge and reflect in their Comprehensive Plans. As this process continued, the multi- county policies would be provided along with Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 25, 2006 Page 5 the supplemental EIS which would contain a preferred alternative. He recalled PSRC explored four alternatives in the EIS; the final alternative would be a combination of the four. He clarified at the time the supplemental EIS was issued, there would be a preferred alternative and a mechanism for ensuring the alternative was implemented in jurisdictions via the multicounty policies. Councilmember Orvis recalled when PSRC made the presentation regarding the Vision 2020 update, he inquired about the possibility of moving the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). He asked whether that had been addressed in the City's letter. Mr. Chave answered no, advising SCI's letter adequately addressed the UGB. If the Council wished, the UGB could also be addressed in the City's letter. Councilmember Wambolt commended Mr. Chave on the letter, finding it identified all the key issues. He expressed concern with the tone of SCI's letter that Snohomish County was not being allocated enough growth with no mention that Edmonds would get too much growth. Mr. Chave acknowledged it was difficult to draft a letter that applied county -wide. SCI's point was that two of the alternatives envisioned the 2040 population of Snohomish County at or below Snohomish County's projections for 2025. SCI's concern was if historical growth continued, the vision would not adequately plan for the growth that was likely to occur. For Councilmember Wambolt, Mr. Chave explained the Office of Financial Management (OFM) was the state agency that prepared and distributed population projections to each county. That county projection became the amount each local jurisdiction must use in its local planning. SCT was the vehicle that Snohomish County used to get each jurisdiction to identify population planning targets. Councilmember Plunkett asked the amount of people projected to live in Snohomish County in the next 5 -15 years. Mr. Chave answered the most recent plans envision a population of 914,000 by 2025; population in 2006 is approximately 670,000. Councilmember Moore commended Mr. Chave on the letter. She asked for further clarification regarding regional governance issues referred to in the last paragraph of the letter. Mr. Chave answered the primary regional governance issue he was referring to was the multi- county planning policies as they guide how the plan would be implemented in the region. He explained currently GMA encourages a collaborative approach and jurisdictions' Comprehensive Plans were assumed to be consistent with GMA. He recalled PSRC's indication that the 2020 update would not contain specific targets for each jurisdiction. The concern would be if that changed, and specific numbers were contained in the multi- county planning policies. He stressed the importance of tracking the regional governance issues. Councilmember Moore referred to the next to the last paragraph regarding Edmonds' aging infrastructure and increasingly limited options for funding, expressing her hope that PSRC would consider those issues in the update. Mr. Chave acknowledged any concentration of growth would require serious infrastructure improvements which would be difficult for local jurisdictions to fund. Councilmember Moore asked Mr. Chave to elaborate on the last bullet in the letter regarding actions the City has completed to increase density and improve housing affordability. Mr. Chave answered the Housing Element listed several actions. For example the density cap in the downtown BC zone, one unit per 1500 square feet was removed. He explained the density cap resulted in very large, expensive dwellings. Removing the density cap allowed height, bulk, parking, etc. would control the number of residential units. Other actions the City has taken include the sliding parking regulations and senior housing regulations. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 25, 2006 Page 6 Councilmember Moore asked how successful these measures have been in improving housing affordability. Mr. Chave answered government regulations by themselves were not enough. He referred to a recent Seattle Times article regarding housing affordability region -wide. He noted although housing costs have escalated tremendously, incomes have not escalated in a similar manner which has a greater impact on affordability than government action. He acknowledged housing affordability was a concern and the City was doing what they could to reduce costs of development and streamline permit processes but there was a limit to what governmental regulations could do. Council President Dawson expressed her appreciation for the letter Mr. Chave drafted, commenting it captured the Council's comments and concerns. She commented SCI's letter and the City's letter would provide a good prospective of concerns county -wide and for Edmonds. She pointed out the importance of individual cities providing specific comments. Mr. Chave suggested the City may want to include in its letter SCI's comments regarding shared values. The Council agreed to include that information in the City's letter. 5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Natalie Shippen, Edmonds, understood Snohomish County voters would be asked in November 2007 to raise sales tax and Motor Vehicle Excise Tax to assist with funding a new ferry terminal. Plans envision two ferry terminals in Edmonds, one slip at Pt. Edwards and retention of the old terminal as a back -up. The total cost of Edmonds Crossing would be $167,100,000 if built at one time and $171,300,000 if phased as proposed. The voters will be asked to approve $123,400,000 or 75% of the total cost. She relayed a still unanswered question, how Edmonds calculated the amount to ask Snohomish County voters to provide. She referred to a recent Sound Transit meeting and discussion regarding the exactness of the figures, how to provide information to the public, and the need for transparency and conservative figures. She requested the Council direct staff to provide an answer to her question regarding how the amount was determined. Don Kreiman, Edmonds, described his recent vacation in Colorado where he visited several old mining towns with 2 -story structures constructed in the late 1800s and early 1900s. He commented although tourists flocked to these towns and the stores /restaurants catered to the tourists' needs, they did not address the residents' needs. He pointed out one of the best things about Edmonds was the friendly people who walked, visited local stores and made it a good place to live. He noted the buildings in the mining towns, although historic, were too old to accommodate residential units above. He supported smart development, commenting if downtown were not allowed to change and keep up with the times, it would become a tourist town, which he did not want to happen. Ray Martin, Edmonds, shared his experience observing the variance for the Five Corners PRD. He recalled Councilmember Orvis' question of staff regarding variances and staff's response that everything was fine. He noted if the inquiry was in regard to individual resident's variance requests, staff was correct; however, everything was not fine with regard to variances in PRDs. He objected to the need for 18 variances for the 26 -unit Five Corner PRD immediately following approval of the PRD. He advised an evening meeting regarding the variances was rescheduled for a daytime meeting without notice to the public. He advised of his plans to continue his comments at a future Council meeting. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, commented on the City's failure to pursue SAFETEA -LU funding for sidewalks and walkways and their apparent preference to use REST funds. Next, he referred to a difference of opinion he had with Development Services Director Duane Bowman with regard to the location of Hindley Creek. Mr. Hertrich contacted Edmonds School District suggesting they correct their environmental checklist with regard to the location of the creek. He concluded developers must comply Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 25, 2006 Page 7 with all regulations, but apparently when the City and the School District were involved in a joint project, the regulations did not apply. He referred to the open stream next to the playground that should have been considered. 6. CODE INTERPRETATION REGARDING SINGLE FAMILY HOMES IN THE BC ZONE Planning Manager Rob Chave explained the way code interpretations were done in the City was when Interpre- staff issued a code interpretation that was substantial /significant, it was forwarded to the City Council to tation on Single provide the Council an opportunity to raise any issues with staff. As a result of an interpretation made Fa HoomesYin approximately 1'/2 weeks ago, Council President Dawson expressed interest in having a policy discussion BC zone with regard to the issues in that code interpretation. Mr. Chave relayed his discussion with City Attorney Scott Snyder who urged the Council when discussing the code interpretation not to make a connection to the existing permit. Mr. Chave advised this was a building permit for an addition to a single- family home in the BC zone. They did not rely on this interpretation when they applied; they applied under the existing code. Staff issued a correction notice and they will potentially need to change their plans. In discussing the issue with Mr. Snyder and staff, it may be necessary to change how setbacks are applied in the BC zone. Mr. Chave explained the issue as follows: existing setback for buildings in the BC are zero; buildings can be constructed to the lot line. However, the historic interpretation has been the language for single family refers to RS -6 zone which requires a single family house to be set back from the property line, even though a larger building would not be required to be set back. He noted this interpretation provided somewhat of an incentive to demolish a house rather than add on. He referred to the City's adopted historic preservation regulations that support retaining existing homes. He referred to the counter argument that business zones were intended to preserve land for business use and single family homes in business districts reduced the land available for business purposes. He noted another counter argument would be the possibility that because of views, people may want to build new homes in an area intended to be a business zone. He noted if the City allowed its business zone to erode over time, there arose the potential need to rezone other areas for business use. To ensure it was clear this interpretation was not running with a permit application, Mr. Snyder recommended rescinding the interpretation, which was done this afternoon; thus, the Council no longer had a code interpretation for review but still had the policy question. Mr. Chave reviewed the Council's options: concur with the code interpretation and reissue the interpretation or adopt an interim zoning ordinance. Another option would be to allow the existing code and historical interpretations to continue with no change. The Council could also provide direction to the Planning Board to consider this issue. He noted the Planning Board was holding a public hearing on July 26 regarding downtown zoning. Testimony the Planning Board has received has included concern with regard to existing homes in commercial zones. Council President Dawson explained if there was to be a change in an interpretation such as the interpretation staff made 1' /z weeks ago, Mr. Snyder suggested that be addressed by the Council legislatively rather than staff altering their interpretation of the existing code. She relayed Mr. Snyder's recommendation that the City's code be clarified with regard to the Council's intent regarding the treatment of single family homes in the BC zone. Her understanding was the reason for the interpretation was a desire to preserve existing homes in the BC zone and allow houses in the BC that were damaged to be rebuilt and not treated as a nonconforming use. However, there was not an intent to encourage building of new homes in the BC zone as the intent of the BC zone was businesses. She was concerned someone would purchase a lot in the BC zone with an existing house, demolish the house and construct a McMansion. She preferred if existing houses in the BC zone were demolished, they be redeveloped with Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 25, 2006 Page 8 a business. She commented on the very large houses that could be constructed in the RS -6 zone with the existing setbacks. Council President Dawson summarized the intent of the code and the prior interpretation was to retain the existing homes in the BC zone and allow them to be rebuilt/improved but not to encourage the construction of new single family homes in the BC zone. Councilmember Plunkett referred to page 3 of staff's memo, pointing out staff was proposing a change, a new interpretation. Mr. Chave agreed. Councilmember Plunkett expressed interest in allowing flexibility for older structures and asked whether the proposed new interpretation resolved Council President Dawson's concerns. Mr. Chave explained it could create the potential situation she described; someone could build a new home that did not observe the traditional. RS -6 setbacks. Councilmember Plunkett suggested staff allow flexibility without unintended consequences. Mr. Chave agreed that was the difficulty; non - conforming rules were very strict. When a property owner wanted to add on to an existing home, they were frequently at or inside the RS -6 setbacks. He welcomed any guidance the Council wished to provide, particularly with regard to homes in the 4th Avenue Corridor. He noted there had been testimony to the Planning Board from homeowners downtown concerned about their ability to reconstruct if their home were destroyed by fire. Councilmember Plunkett observed the Council supported handling this legislatively, relieving the non- conformance burden without unintended consequences. Mr. Chave agreed if the Council provided general direction, staff could work with Mr. Snyder to develop 1 -2 alternatives that would address existing homes within existing setbacks but not open the floodgates to no restrictions. Councilmember Orvis agreed, suggesting staff prepare an ordinance that would allow retention of existing older homes and adding on to existing homes within their established setbacks without allowing the construction of McMansions. Councilmember Moore agreed with Council President Dawson, and Councilmembers Plunkett and Orvis, commenting she was particularly concerned about retaining houses in the 4th Avenue Arts Corridor. Councilmember Marin agreed with the previous comments, pointing out the Council wanted to promote businesses in the BC zone, not drive out existing residences, and not expand the opportunity for existing residences to be enlarged. Councilmember Olson agreed with the previous comments. Councilmember Wambolt agreed with the points made by Councilmember Marin. He asked whether these issues were being considered by the Planning Board. Mr. Chave acknowledged the Council was not required to address this issue. It was presented to the Council because it was an issue that arose a number of times and was an important policy issue. He concluded it would be helpful for the Planning Board to have input from the Council with regard to the policy. Councilmember Plunkett disagreed with Councilmember Marin's comment about not allowing any expansion, expressing interest in allowing some expansion to allow existing residences to remain economically viable. Mr. Chave clarified the Council direction appeared to be limiting expansion. Council President Dawson commented if there were single family homes in the BC zone, she wanted them to look like single family homes; however, the proposed interpretation appeared to do the opposite. She concluded the Council wanted to preserve historic single family homes in the BC zone but not allow Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 25, 2006 Page 9 construction of new single family homes in the BC zone. She expressed her appreciation to Mr. Chave Mayor for his assistance with this discussion. Comments 7. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Haakenson had no report. Council Reports 8. INDIVIDUAL COUNCIL REPORTS ON OUTSIDE COMMITTEE /BOARD MEETINGS Council President Dawson wished Councilmember Marin a Happy Birthday on July 30. Council President Dawson, Chair of the SnoCom Board, explained over the years there had been a great deal of discussion with regard to SnoCom working with SnoPak while still retaining their autonomy. In her new position with Snohomish County, she serves as the County's representative on the SnoPak Board of Directors which allows her to bridge the gap between the two Centers. One of the issues the Boards have been discussing and preparing for is upgrading their CAD systems in a manner that would allow the two centers to better communicate with each other. The Boards plan to hold a joint meeting to discuss technologies and governance issues. She expressed her thanks to the Chair of the SnoPak Board, Murray Gordon, for his assistance. Councilmember Wambolt reported he was unable to attend the recent Port meeting as he was out of town. He asked whether staff would provide a response to Ms. Shippen's questions. Mayor Haakenson offered to confer with Community Services Director Stephen Clifton. Councilmember Plunkett reported the Historic Preservation Commission was considering 8 -10 properties for historic designation. The Parking Committee planned to meet in a few weeks; one of the topics of discussion would be the request made to the Council that residents be allowed to park downtown after 6:00 p.m. Councilmember Moore reported the Community Outreach Committee's next meeting is August 3 when they will discuss a possible partnership with the high school and the best use of channel 21. With regard to the questions posed by Mr. Hertrich, she asked for a report on why the City did not apply for SAFETEA -LU funds. Mayor Haakenson referred to the report provided by City Engineer Dave Gebert, noting the City had applied for those funds in the past. With regard to Henley Creek, Mayor Haakenson explained what Mr. Hertrich referred to was a request for matching funds by a PTA a few months ago to improve the playfields at Edmonds Elementary. In their application, the school district indicated there was no creek or wetland. Mr. Hertrich disagreed with Mr. Bowman's determination that Henley Creek was located within a pipe and that there were no wetlands. Councilmember Moore relayed a comment by a business owner that highlighted the City's anti - business reputation. She offered to provide the full story to individual Councilmembers and did not identify the business owner publicly due to his fear he would encounter further difficulty from City Hall. She explained staff was reported to have acted without regard to common courtesy, timeliness, and common sense. She pointed out as part of their support of economic development, the Council wanted to retain . strong retail, however, the policies may not be carried out by staff. She noted some staff members may believe they are not allowed to make common sense decisions and as a result may jeopardize a good business. She relayed that one employee was reported to have said to a business owner, "it's not your opinion that counts, it's mine," noting that attitude was not business friendly. She asked for a review of how staff was trained to make decisions. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 25, 2006 Page 10 Councilmember Moore referred to Seattle Mayor Nickels' website which describes the Kyoto agreement that Mayor Haakenson signed last year. She urged residents to volunteer for the committee the Mayor has established. She listed 12 actions in the agreement that communities could take to meet Kyoto targets: 1. Inventory global warming emissions in City operations and in the community, set reduction targets and create an action plan. 2. Adopt and enforce land -use policies that reduce sprawl, preserve open space, and create compact, walkable urban communities; 3. Promote transportation options such as bicycle trails, commute trip reduction programs, incentives for car pooling and public transit; 4. Increase the use of clean, alternative energy by, or example, investing in "green tags ", advocating for the development of renewable energy resources, and recovering landfill methane for energy production; 5. Make energy efficiency a priority through building code improvements, retrofitting city facilities with energy efficient lighting and urging employees to conserve energy and save money; 6. Purchase only Energy Star equipment and appliances for City use; 7. Practice and promote sustainable building practices using the U.S. Green Building Council's LEED program or a similar system; 8. Increase the average fuel efficiency of municipal fleet vehicles; reduce the number of vehicles; launch an employee education program including anti - idling messages; convert diesel vehicles to bio- diesel; 9. Evaluate opportunities to increase pump efficiency in water and wastewater systems; recover wastewater treatment methane for energy production; 1.0. Increase recycling rates in City operations and in the community; 11. Maintain healthy urban forests; promote tree planting to increase shading and to absorb CO2; and 12. Help educate the public, schools, other jurisdictions, professional associations, business and industry about reducing global warming pollution. With regard to #8, she recalled seeing a City vehicle idling while staff completed their work and asked whether idling vehicle had been addressed. She asked for a report on the efforts the City has taken with regard to these actions. Councilmember Olson reported the SeaShore Transportation Forum was working on an agreement that would allow all participating cities to vote unless a group requesting information wanted only the original cities (Seattle, Shoreline, Lake Forest Park and King County) to vote. Next, she reported the South Snohomish Cities group was addressing Low Density Multifamily Residential (LDMR) that was occurring in unincorporated Snohomish County. She acknowledged this was not a problem in Edmonds but it was for other cities who border unincorporated Snohomish County as their standards were less restrictive and allowed these open -air condominiums to be constructed 10 units /acre with drive aisles instead of streets, no parking, etc; Bothell allows 8 units /acre. She advised a resolution would be presented to the Council in the near future. She reported the South Snohomish Cities group was also planning a dinner with the legislators and representatives from South Snohomish cities to discuss legislative issues prior to the session. Councilmember Orvis reported he attended the Hotel /Motel Tax Advisory Commission meeting where they discussed how to spend hotel /motel tax and agreed to distribute the funds in the same manner as last year. He also reported on the WRIA 8 meeting where they approved an Interlocal Agreement regarding how a quorum was determined. They also discussed the allocation of funds for King County Conservation District. One of the projects that was funded was assisting Issaquah with the purchase of 7.8 acres along Issaquah Creek. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 25, 2006 Page 11 Councilmember Marin reported some citizens took exception to Sound Transit's advertising campaign related to the "Creature from the Black Lagoon" that referred to "the creature from Edmonds" (and other cities). Sound Transit planned to modify the billboards to refer to "the creature from I -5." He relayed Sound Transit's apology. 9. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 8:50 p.m. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 25, 2006 Page 12