Loading...
10/03/2006 City CouncilEDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES October 3, 2006 The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Haakenson in the Council Chambers, 250 5`h 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 I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA. STAFF PRESENT David Stern, Chief of Police Duane Bowman, Development Services Director Dan Clements, Administrative Services Director Kathleen Junglov, Asst. Admin. Services Dir. Rob Chave, Planning Manager Dave Gebert, City Engineer Don Sims, Traffic Engineer Debi Humann, Human Resources Manager Scott Snyder, City Attorney Sandy Chase, City Clerk Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst. Jeannie Dines, Recorder Change to Mayor Haakenson requested the addition of a 10- minute Executive Session regarding potential litigation Agenda as Agenda Item 13 and relayed Councilmember Marin's request to add a Proclamation in honor of Live Theater Week, October 16 — 22, 2006, as Agenda Item 4b. COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, FOR APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS Councilmember Wambolt requested Item F be removed from the Consent Agenda. COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, FOR APPROVAL OF THE REMAINDER OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: Approve (A) ROLL CALL 9/26/06 Minutes (B) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 26, 2006. Approve Claim (C) APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #91034 THROUGH #91182 FOR SEPTEMBER 28, Checks 2006 IN THE AMOUNT OF $183,812.56. Taxi License (D) APPROVAL OF TAXI OPERATOR'S LICENSE FOR LOW FARE AIRPORT AND LOCAL FOR HIRE VEHICLES. rtes #1131— (E) RESOLUTION NO. 1131 - OPPOSE INITIATIVE 933 ENTITLED "AN ACT RELATING 10ppose 1 -933 TO PROVIDING FAIRNESS IN GOVERNMENT REGULATION OF PROPERTY." Storm Water Billing (G) PIERCE STORM WATER BILLING ADJUSTMENT djustment Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 3, 2006 Page 1 Non- Item F: Non - Represented 2007 -2008 Compensation Plan Represented Compensation Councilmember Wambolt explained he pulled this item from the Consent Agenda in order to provide Plan further clarification and explanation. As a member of the Council Finance Committee, he voted to recommend that the Council approve budgets for 2007 and 2008 that provide for cost of living increases and merit increases for non- represented employees, a total of approximately 42 employees. Budgeting a 6 -7% pay increase when most industries plan increases of only approximately 4% in 2007 was not pleasing to him. Staff proposed a new policy to replace the current L5 policy but the policy was not accepted by the Council. Staff and the Council. Finance Committee propose a compensation consultant be retained in 2007 to assist with developing a new policy. A variety of goals will be established for the new policy including the development of a policy that focuses on job performance for merit pay rather than inflation as the dominant factor that determines pay increases. Until a new policy can be developed and adopted, the non - represented employees need to be treated fairly; several have not had a pay increase in 2006 because their pay was at the top of the pay range. The reason was because the salary ranges were too narrow, with only a 25% spread from the top to the bottom. As a result the pay ranges do not extend either high enough or low enough. He explained the interim remedy was as proposed in Item F. He requested recommendation #3 be amended to read "a 3% merit pool for employees not at the top of their salary range be established in the 2007 and 2008 budgets" which would allow employees at the top of their salary range to receive cost of living increases in 2007 but not a merit increase. COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, FOR APPROVAL OF ITEM F. Mayor Haakenson clarified the recommended action did not include setting aside $100,000 in the budget for the study. Councilmember Wambolt agreed it did not. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Proclamation - 3. PROCLAMATION IN HONOR OF CHANGE A LIGHT DAY IN EDMONDS OCTOBER 4 2006. Change a Light Day in Edmonds Mayor Haakenson explained global warming would not be stopped overnight. It is a very complicated problem that will take many solutions by many people. A good way to start is to take small steps. As part of the City's energy reduction and climate protection efforts, he proclaimed Wednesday, October 4 as "Change a Light Day" in Edmonds to encourage citizens to take a simple but important step toward reducing energy usage. He explained the energy used in an average home contributes more than twice the greenhouse gas emissions of the average car. This is because the electricity is typically generated by burning fossil fuels, and this burning releases greenhouse gases into our air. By switching the light bulbs used the most to Energy Star bulbs, would do a little bit to help. Mayor Haakenson noted that 20% of the nation's electricity usage is from lighting homes. Last year over 70,000 people nationwide signed a pledge to change one light bulb in their homes to an Energy Star - qualified light bulb. That action avoided using 23 million kWh's of energy and in turn prevented more than 33 million pounds of greenhouse gas emissions. That also saved over $2 million on America's utility bills. If we changed one light bulb for every child in America, we would save enough energy to light more than 15 million homes for an entire year and prevent more than 30 billion pounds of greenhouse gas emissions. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 3, 2006 Page 2 One light bulb changed to an Energy Star bulb will save more than $30 in electricity cost over the life of the bulb and will prevent the release of 450 pounds of greenhouse gases into our atmosphere. The goal of the Change a Light, Change the World campaign is for 500,000 people nationwide to take the online pledge, which can be found on the Energy Star website at www.eiaenry star.gov /cha_eaiight. Mayor Haakenson then read a proclamation declaring October 4, 2006 as Change a Light Day in Edmonds and encouraged citizens to join him in making this pledge to change one light bulb in their homes. He pointed out if everyone changed the five most used bulbs in their homes to florescent bulbs, the amount saved would be equivalent to taking 8 million cars off the road. Proclamation— 4A. PROCLAMATION IN HONOR OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AWARENESS MONTH, OCTOBER Domestic 2006. Violence Awareness Mayor Haakenson read a proclamation declaring October 2006 as Domestic Violence Awareness Month and urging all residents to support the work of the Snohomish County Task Force in serving the needs of families impacted by domestic violence and work toward the elimination of domestic violence in our community. Proclamation- 4B. PROCLAMATION IN HONOR OF LIVE THEATRE WEEK OCTOBER 16 - 22 2006. Live Theatre week Councilmember Marin read a proclamation declaring the week of October 16 - 22, 2006 Live Theatre Week in Edmonds and urged everyone to celebrate the performing arts by attending a performance in a local theater or by taking part in the many activities offered in Seattle and around the region. The proclamation announced a free performance by the Driftwood Players of "The Legend of Sleepy Hollow" on October 19 at 8:00 p.m. at the Wade James Theater and Councilmember Marin encouraged the public to call the theater to obtain free tickets. Two actresses were present who thanked the Council for recognizing Live Theatre Week. McCormick 5. PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT REGARDING A Medical PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT KNOWN AS THE MCCORMICK MEDICAL BUILDING 635 Building, 635 PARADISE LANE. Paradise Lane City Engineer Dave Gebert explained the owner of the property at 635 Paradise Lane was in the process of constructing a private development project known as the McCormick Medical Building. He clarified this was not a medical clinic but a business that was involved in medical equipment. He displayed a vicinity map, identifying the property, Edmonds Way /SR 104 and Paradise Lane. He advised the map included in the agenda memo incorrectly identified the locale of the dental clinic, and displayed a map of the correct location. Mr. Gebert stated the current configuration of the intersection posed unique traffic circulation and safety issues. He identified the slip lane to Paradise Lane from SR 104, the two entrances /exits onto Edmonds Way, the bus stop, the right turn pocket and the area where ferry traffic conflicted with movements at the intersection. During permit review for the McCormick Medical Building, staff recognized the opportunity to cooperate on a project with the developer to improve the configuration of the intersection. Mr. Gebert displayed a drawing of the project concept, explaining it was intended to create a safer and more attractive intersection. Since the public hearing was announced, several concerns were expressed by citizens regarding the intersection, primarily regarding traffic movement, the bus stop and conflicts with ferry traffic at the intersection, issues this project would address. The concept was to eliminate the slip lane, build a small island park, create a more standard right -angle entrance /exit from SR 104, lengthen the Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 3, 2006 Page 3 right turn pocket and combine it with the bus stop and improve signage and control of the ferry traffic to reduce conflicts at the intersection. He explained the details of the design still need to be worked out. Mr. Gebert explained the RCW allowed the City to enter into development agreements with developers. The improvements inside the right -of -way would be done by the City; improvements on private property would be done by the developer. A portion of the cost of development would increase as a result of the development agreement and others would be reduced. The developer has incurred additional costs to redesign his parking lot as a result of the proposal, but his responsibilities for right -of -way restoration, traffic control, sidewalks, etc. will be reduced. The developer has agreed via the development agreement to contribute $2,400 toward the project. He advised there were sufficient funds in Fund 125 to cover the remainder of the cost of the project. Staff recommends Council authorize the Mayor to sign the development agreement. For Councilmember Plunkett, Mr. Gebert explained in the proposed concept the slip lane would be eliminated and the right -hand turn would be made via the right turn lane at the intersection. Councilmember Plunkett asked how drivers would enter the right turn lane if it were blocked by ferry traffic. Mr. Gebert explained signage would be installed to identify the right turn lane and prevent blockage by ferry traffic. Traffic Engineer Don Sims displayed an updated conceptual plan based on survey data, explaining there would be a dedicated right turn lane that would operate similarly to other right turn lanes when there was no ferry queue. The transit stop would be moved back, away from the intersection to improve sight lines for egress from Paradise Lane. He advised this intersection was identified by WSDOT as a high accident location in 2004; accidents are in the 2 -way left turn lane involving vehicles attempting to access Paradise Lane. Councilmember Plunkett envisioned the presence of a bus would hinder a driver's sight lines when attempting to exit from Paradise Lane to the left. Mr. Sims noted that issue existed today; the proposed project would improve the sight distance by moving the bus stop back. Staff is working with the Police Department and WSDOT to develop improved pavement markings and signage at the intersection. Councilmember Plunkett envisioned ferry traffic would block the entrance to the right turn lane. Mr. Sims acknowledged that was an issue currently for right turns and driveway entrances along the corridor when ferry traffic was backed up. He envisioned when ferry traffic was backed up, a vehicle that wanted to enter Paradise Lane would travel in the left lane and turn right in front of the queued -up vehicles the same way they would enter a driveway in this corridor. He explained the right turn lane was not designed for times when ferry traffic was backed up but intended as a deceleration pocket for vehicles leaving SR 104 and turning right onto Paradise Lane. In the current configuration, vehicles use the slip lane and enter Paradise Lane at a higher rate of speed; the proposed configuration provides a traffic calming element for the neighborhood as it requires vehicles to make the right turn at a slower speed. He acknowledged it was not possible to totally eliminate conflicts with ferry traffic. Councilmember Wambolt asked the cost of the project. Mr. Sims answered it was estimated at $20,000 - $25,000; the developer would contribute $2,400. Funding would be provided via Parks Fund 125 as it would provide a gateway treatment with landscaping. Councilmember Moore asked how buses would reach the bus stop when ferry traffic was backed up. Mr. Sims answered the same way it did today; he was uncertain whether buses currently traveled in the left lane and moved into the right lane to reach the bus stop or if they waited in the ferry queue. Councilmember Moore suggested staff talk to Community Transit to ensure the design was acceptable to them. Mr. Sims pointed out similar conflicts existed with bus stops along the corridor. He agreed staff would confer with Community Transit on the proposed design. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 3, 2006 Page 4 Councilmember Moore pointed out the exit from Paradise Lane on the conceptual drawing was much wider, providing greater flexibility for ingress /egress at Paradise Lane to SR 104. Mr. Sims agreed the single entrance /exit would be wider to allow the design vehicle for a residential neighborhood, a single axle truck such as a garbage truck, UPS truck, etc., to easily negotiate the turn. Councilmember Moore inquired whether the ferry queuing would be eliminated by the Edmonds Crossing project. Mr. Sims answered the significant additional holding lanes at Edmonds Crossing would eliminate ferry queuing into this area for many years. Councilmember Orvis commented it appeared to be easier for pedestrians to reach the bus stop. He asked how many pedestrians used the crosswalk. Mr. Sims answered this transit stop was not heavily used; the intent was to enhance the transit stop. He agreed the proposed intersection improved pedestrian safety as crossing the existing slip lane was more dangerous. Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing, advising the Council received a letter dated October 3, 2006 from Diane and Takashi Nasa, Edmonds, who explained the main safety issue at the intersection was ferry traffic, not the two entrances onto Paradise Lane. Ardell Morgan, Edmonds, opposed the elimination of the sidewalk, currently along the slip lane, pointing out the proposed location of the sidewalk would require pedestrians to cross the street and walk along the outside of the park area facing traffic on SR 104. She commented this configuration was less safe for children. She suggested installing a walkway through the park area and that park area not contain vegetation that blocked sight distances when exiting Paradise Lane. She suggested consideration be given to an alternate access in case of emergency such as at the other end of Paradise Lane. She also suggested signage identifying the entrance to Paradise Lane. Melissa Weakland, Edmonds, pointed out most of the residences were located to the north of Paradise Lane. She agreed with Ms. Morgan's objection to the location of the sidewalk that would require residents to cross the street to reach the sidewalk. She pointed out this would only add to safety concerns. She supported renovating the sidewalks as the existing sidewalks were so overgrown that two people could not walk side -by -side. She requested the configuration of the proposed sidewalk be reevaluated. Joe Scordino, Edmonds, commented on his experience with traffic flows at this intersection with and without ferry traffic. His primary concern was the bus stop in the right turn lane. He noted the difficulty turning right if a bus were at the stop, possibly requiring drivers in the right turn lane to go around the bus into traffic to make a right during peak hour traffic flows. He pointed out the proposed location of the right turn lane was approximately where drivers realized they needed to be in the right lane to reach the ferry. He preferred to retain the current configuration, summarizing the proposed configuration increased rather than decreased safety hazards. COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, TO EXTEND DISCUSSION OF THIS MATTER FOR TEN MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Peter Evich, Edmonds, expressed concern that the proposed park area would affect visibility of drivers exiting Paradise Lane. He stated that signage would not eliminate ferry traffic from blocking the intersection. The only solution would be to have police patrols such as was done in Mukilteo. He suggested speeds in the slip lane could be solved via speed bumps. If the City had not maintained the sidewalk in the past, he questioned why it would be done for a private developer who would increase the traffic to the neighborhood. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 3, 2006 Page 5 Del Skinner, Edmonds, expressed concern that any hesitation by a driver to make a right -hand turn would cause an accident. The existing configuration facilitated an even flow of traffic. He pointed out the number of large trucks in their neighborhood and questioned their ability to make a right turn without entering the oncoming lane. John Heighway, Edmonds, questioned whether sidewalks had ADA access. He referred to the $20,000 - $25,000 estimated cost of the project, expressing a preference to use those funds for the purchase of park property. He commented a right turn lane similar to the right turn lane at Pine Street would be safer than a combined right turn lane/bus stop. He agreed with the need to confer with Community Transit on bus stop configuration. He suggested the City seek WSDOT's input regarding the proposed configuration. Rather than reconfiguring one exit, he recommended the City master plan the north side of SR 104 from Westgate to downtown. He questioned the benefit to the City from the proposed configuration. He also questioned who would maintain the proposed park and the cost of maintenance. Hearing no further public comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public hearing. Mr. Gebert responded to questions raised by the public, explaining all the comments would be considered in the final design. He identified the location of the proposed sidewalk, explaining it would have ADA facilities. He advised consideration could be given to providing a walkway or trail through the park area. With regard to trees /vegetation blocking sight distances, he assured there were specific criteria for vegetation within sight distances. With regard to signage identifying Paradise Lane, he assured signage would be included in the design. With regard to safety for children, the sidewalks would meet the city's standards and include gutters and elevated curbs. With regard to the location of the bus stop, he explained the bus stop would be moved back. Mayor Haakenson asked staff to identify the location of the bus stop and the right turn lane and explain how they would not conflict. Mr. Gebert identified the location of the turn lane and the current and proposed bus stop location, explaining the bus stop would be moved back so that there would be room for the turn lane in front of the bus stop. With regard to the comment about why do this project for a private developer, Mr. Gebert explained this concept was developed by staff when reviewing the private development and was not proposed by the developer. City Attorney Scott Snyder explained the City could only require a developer to mitigate off - site impacts they created. Staff's proposal would reroute mitigation funds to a project they viewed as an improvement. In response to the comment about the turn accommodating large vehicles, Mr. Gebert explained the radius was designed to accommodate large trucks such as garbage trucks, etc. With regard to the use of Fund 1.25 to purchase park property, he advised Fund 125 was designated for park improvements and was not available for park acquisition; Fund 126 was used for park acquisition. The Parks & Recreation Director participated in the development of this concept, would be involved in the design and approved the use of Fund 125 for development of this island park. The Parks Department would maintain the vegetation. Mr. Sims assured the primary reason for this project was to improve pedestrian and vehicular safety; the secondary reason was the park area. He explained eliminating high speed slip lanes was a common practice in the industry to improve vehicular and pedestrian safety. He acknowledged there was the potential for conflict between a bus at the bus stop and a vehicle turning right that did not exist today, however, the other benefits of the project outweigh that potential conflict. Their research indicated 35 right turns during the peak hour, thus the potential for conflict was minimal. Moving the bus stop back would allow vehicles to make right turn in front of the bus similar to how right turns occurred on Hwy. 99 currently. He assured WSDOT had been contacted regarding the project and was supportive. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 3, 2006 Page 6 Councilmember Orvis asked how the mitigation funds would be used if this project were not constructed. Mr. Gebert answered there would be no mitigation funds provided; the developer would be required to install frontage improvements. Councilmember Marin agreed with the importance of a sidewalk wide enough to accommodate two pedestrians walking side -by -side on a street with higher speeds. He recommended coordinating this project with Community Transit in the event they would prefer to move the bus stop to the south away from the right turn lane. Mr. Gebert agreed, reminding this was in the conceptual stage; Community Transit would be involved in the final design concept. For Councilmember Plunkett, Mr. Gebert clarified the Council was being asked to approve a development agreement between the City and the developer that attaches the concept. Mr. Snyder read from the development agreement, Paragraph 6.3 Obligations of the City, "The City agrees to develop and construct the walkway and right -of -way improvements. The final design of the parkway improvements, sidewalk and intersection shall be at the sole discretion of the City and the design shown may be altered in whole or in part in accordance with a conditioned approval by the State, so long as the intersection redesign and pocket park are developed which substantially comply with the purposes of this Agreement." Mr. Gebert then identified the current location of the bus stop. Councilmember Plunkett observed the concept would create a conflict between a bus and a vehicle making a right turn where no conflict currently existed. Mr. Sims explained the existing transit pull out would be lengthened and the bus stop relocated further south to create a shared transit pullout and right turn lane. He commented 20,000 vehicles per day used SR 104, there were approximately 35 vehicles utilizing the right turn lane during the peak hours, thus the conflict was only a potential for those 35 vehicles. Councilmember Plunkett acknowledged it was a small number and may be a commonly occurring situation in other areas but it was not common at this intersection. Mr. Sims agreed that situation did not exist at that intersection today. Councilmember Plunkett observed if a bus was at the bus stop, a vehicle intending to enter the right turn lane to access Paradise Lane would instead make their right turn from SR 104. Mr. Sims answered that would be one solution. If the bus was signaling to leave, the driver could pull in behind the bus and utilize the right turn lane. Councilmember Plunkett pointed out making a right turn from SRI 04 if the bus was at the stop would require a driver to slow considerably. Mr. Sims responded the intent was to locate the bus stop as close to the beginning of the turn lane as possible. Councilmember Plunkett asked whether the developer had agreed to this concept. Mr. Sims answered yes, the $2,400 he would provide would be in lieu of frontage improvements. Councilmember Plunkett asked if the developer preferred this concept to the existing situation. Mr. Gebert answered the developer was present and could be asked that question; he believed he viewed it as beneficial as it created an attractive entrance. He reiterated the primary purpose of the proposal was to improve safety and create a pocket park. The developer had been very cooperative in redesigning his parking lot. COUNCILMEMBER MOORE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT, TO EXTEND DISCUSSION OF THIS ITEM FOR TEN MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Councilmember Olson referred to the comment that this was a high accident area and asked what type of accidents had occurred. Mr. Sims explained it was classified as a high accident location by WSDOT; the accidents occurred in the 2 -way left turn lane. This project would potentially improve sight lines by moving the bus stop back and improving egress from Paradise Lane. He advised there were no accidents associated with the slip lane. The high accident location was not the primary reason for the project. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 3, 2006 Page 7 Councilmember Moore stated it appeared the City was trying to fix a WSDOT problem. Mr. Sims stated this concept was developed before this was identified by WSDOT as a high accident location. Councilmember Moore asked if any accidents had occurred at the Paradise Lane intersection. Mr. Sims explained the accidents occurred on SR 104 but involved vehicles ingressing /egressing Paradise Lane, and estimated there were 3 -4 accidents in the past 5 years. Councilmember Moore asked if there had been a study of what problem needed to be solved. Mr. Sims reiterated this was not a high accident mitigation project, it was intended to address potential accidents and conflicts with the slip lane. Slip lanes are an old highway design style with high speeds into a residential neighborhood. Councilmember Moore noted testimony indicated the current situation worked adequately and she questioned why the City would spend money to create a pocket park on a highway that one developer found attractive. Mr. Gebert explained it was not intended to make it attractive for the developer; it was intended to create an entrance /gateway to the City. Councilmember Moore questioned if the Council's vision was to create a gateway in this location. She agreed with one of the speakers' suggestions to master plan that side of the street. She questioned why this project needed to proceed now. Mr. Gebert explained the developer redesigned his parking lot to coordinate with this City project. If the City's project did not proceed, the developer would redesign his parking lot to coordinate with the slip lane, limiting opportunities to install the island park in the future. Councilmember Moore asked whether this pocket park existed in the Parks Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Gebert was not certain, commenting there was landscaping and a signage in this area currently. Councilmember Moore commented the development of streetscapes as gateways was an issue the Council needed to discuss holistically. Councilmember Moore asked if there were grant funds available for intersection safety improvements. Mr. Gebert answered he was not aware of any grants and staff had not applied for a grant for this project. Councilmember Moore pointed out the drawing appeared to eliminate the existing curb cut at 639 Paradise Lane. Mr. Gebert answered the location of the access road was incorrectly depicted on the map. Councilmember Moore referred to the development agreement, which indicated by agreeing to the development agreement, the City agreed to develop and construct the walkway and right -of -way improvements shown on Attachment A. Mr. Snyder reiterated the subsequent language stated the design was at the City's sole discretion. The purpose of the development agreement was to transfer funds that the developer would otherwise spend on frontage improvements. He pointed out if the Council chose to make this improvement in the future, they would not have the developer's contribution and would likely need to redo his frontage improvements as well as fund a new egress for him. Councilmember Moore questioned how the shared right turn laneibus stop was safer than the existing situation. Mr. Sims acknowledged that conflict was the one negative of the proposed project; he felt the other benefits such as eliminating the high speed slip lane entrance into Paradise Lane and providing a safer pedestrian crossing outweighed potential conflicts between a bus and a vehicle making a right turn. He noted if there were higher traffic volumes turning right, this would not be a recommended solution. Councilmember Moore asked whether there were any accidents related to the slip lane into Paradise Lane. Mr. Sims answered there had been no accidents. Staff viewed this as an opportunity to design this intersection to current traffic design standards. If the intersection was designed today, it would not have the high speed slip lane and would be designed as the concept proposed. COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSEN, TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO SIGN THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 3, 2006 Page 8 Councilmember Wambolt advised he would oppose the motion, commenting the amount of improvement was illusive. He also objected to spending $20,000 - $25,000 to develop this small park area, remarking this was not his concept of a park. Councilmember Orvis advised he would not support the motion. Although he would favor the proposal if he lived on Paradise Lane, he would defer to the residents of that area who did not support the proposal. Councilmember Plunkett recognized Mr. Sims' and Mr. Gebert's efforts to maximize an opportunity. He disagreed the benefits outweighed the potential conflicts, preferring the straight entrance to Paradise Lane from SR 104 to a 90- degree turn. He preferred the existing intersection that did not have a conflict with the bus stop. He noted vehicles using the slip lane avoided what was identified as a high accident location. For those reasons, he did not support the proposed concept, although he was willing to consider other options with fewer conflicts. Council President Dawson advised she would not support the proposed project until Community Transit had been consulted. Councilmember Marin advised he supported the proposal as it would address safety concerns. He was persuaded by the fact that this intersection would not be designed this way today but would be designed as staff proposed. Councilmember Olson agreed with Councilmember Marin's comment about how the intersection would be designed today. Further, the project would slow vehicles on Paradise Lane. She noted without this project, the sidewalks were not likely to be improved. She suggested staff return the proposal to the Council after conferring with Community Transit. Councilmember Moore commented sidewalks could be improved without this project. Her primary concern was with the bus /auto conflict in a location where there was currently no conflict. She did not review the proposal as an improvement to the intersection and it did not fit her concept for a park. She preferred the Council establish a plan for gateways /entrances to the City rather than doing it piecemeal. MOTION FAILED (2 -5), COUNCILMEMBERS MARIN AND OLSON IN FAVOR; COUNCIL PRESIDENT DAWSON AND COUNCILMEMBERS ORVIS, PLUNKETT, MOORE, AND WAMBOLT OPPOSED. Mayor Haakenson asked staff to comment on the time considerations if the Council was willing to consider an alternate design. Mr. Gebert advised the project was under construction; he would speak with the developer but envisioned the likely outcome would be the developer would proceed with the frontage improvements. 6. PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO EDMONDS CITY CODE CHAPTER No 22 0th St SW Parking on 22 8,64.030, SECTION 13, PROHIBITING PARKING AT ALL TIMES ON BOTH SIDES OF 220TH Between 100th STREET SW FROM 100TH AVENUE W TO 84TH AVENUE W, AND UPDATING REFERENCE Ave W & 84th TO A CERTAIN STREET TO REFLECT CORRECTION IN NAME. Ave W City Engineer Dave Gebert advised construction of the 220th Street project was substantially complete. The project included construction of sidewalks and bike lanes on both sides as well as two 11 -foot wide vehicle travel lanes and left turn pockets at select intersections. He displayed a photograph illustrating a vehicle parked adjacent to the travel lane in the bike lane. He explained the planning of the 220th Street project included numerous public workshops and consideration of several alternatives. It was recognized at that time that the bike lanes would eliminate Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 3, 2006 Page 9 on- street parking where it previously existed. He explained bike lanes and sidewalks were an important component of the City's non - motorized transportation infrastructure. The 220th Street project received $4 million in State and federal grants and Public Works Trust Fund loans; installation of sidewalks and bike lanes on both sides was a requirement of the grant funding. Widening 220th to accommodate parking in addition to bike lanes and sidewalks would have made the project prohibitively expensive. Mr. Gebert referred to concerns submitted by Dan Lida to the Council Public Safety Committee whose primary concern was the loss of parking and requested the Council consider allowing parking in certain situations such as on one side of the street, at certain times and/or by special permit and issuance of traffic cones. Mr. Gebert reiterated, as the photograph illustrated, there was no space for a vehicle to safely park on 220th at any time. The City's parking code currently prohibited parking on 220th in certain locations but not in the area of this project. He advised the proposed ordinance would amend the code to prohibit parking on 220th between 84th Avenue West and 100th Avenue West. Staff recommends approval of the proposed ordinance. Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. Don Lamey, Edmonds, commented the elimination of on- street parking had reduced property values in this area and turned 220th into a speedway. He suggested on- street parking would slow traffic speeds. He commented the light at the corner of 84th and 100th for pedestrian crossing was four seconds long. He doubted anyone rode a bicycle on this street; children riding their bikes rode on the sidewalks. He recommended something be done to slow the traffic and allowing on- street parking was one method. Don Kreiman, Edmonds, expressed support for the recommended action. An avid cyclist, prior to this project he never rode on 220th as he found it too dangerous. It was now a very safe place to ride a bicycle. Robert Bretz, Edmonds, expressed his support for the proposed ordinance, advising he often rode his bicycle in the bike lane with his dog on a leash on the sidewalk. He opined property values on 220th had likely increased due to the improvements. Hearing no further comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public hearing. COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT DAWSON, FOR APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE NO. 3605. Councilmember Marin commented on the potential for a vehicle parked on the street to be hit by another vehicle in the travel lane. He pointed out the grant funding for this project required the City install sidewalks and bike lanes on both sides. Councilmember Moore expressed support for the ordinance, commenting this was a great start to providing bike lanes in the City. She commented if there were concerns with speed on 2201h that was a separate issue. Council President Dawson expressed support for the ordinance, advising the Council had already approved the project that included sidewalks and bike lanes on both sides and there was not enough space for on- street parking. Councilmember Wambolt also supported the ordinance, although he had empathy for residents along 220th who wanted to park in front of their home. He pointed out there were many areas of the City where it may not be appropriate to park in front of one's home such as on an arterial street. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 3, 2006 Page 10 MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The ordinance approved reads as follows: Ord# 3605 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE No Parking on PROVISIONS OF ECC 8.64.030 SECTION 13; PROHIBITING PARKING AT ALL TIMES ON 220th sw BOTH SIDES OF 220TH STREET SW FROM 100TH AVENUE W TO 84TH AVENUE W; UPDATING REFERENCE TO A CERTAIN STREET TO REFLECT CORRECTION IN NAME; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. At Mayor Haakenson's request, Mr. Gebert explained the design as constructed did not include a left turn lane for traffic traveling south on 9th and turning left onto 220th. Modifications will be necessary to include a left turn lane which unfortunately will require widening the street and reconfiguring the sidewalks. He acknowledged this was an unfortunate situation but the best approach was to fix it. Councilmember Plunkett asked why a left turn lane was not included in the original design and what the cost would be to construct it now. Mr. Gebert answered that was a topic of discussion with the designer. Staff feels it is a design error and the designer should bear the cost; the cost sharing is being negotiated. Port of 7 PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY OF EDMONDS Edmonds COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ADOPTING THE PORT OF EDMONDS STRATEGIC PLAN AND Strategic Plan MASTER PLAN. and Master Plan Chris Keuss, Executive Director, Port of Edmonds, advised the Strategic Plan was reviewed and adopted by the Port Commission in April 2005 and the Master Plan was reviewed and approved by the Port Commission in June 2005. The Planning Board reviewed both plans earlier this year. The Strategic Plan includes the Port's mission statement, strategic actions, budget and financial information, history and current operations, and the Port's current capital program. The Master Plan includes the Port's vision, guiding principles, features and programs, and elements of the Master Plan. He displayed a vicinity map of the Port property, identifying the marina, the boundaries of the Port, the Harbor Square complex, Admiral Way, Dayton Street, railroad right -of -way, former US West parcel the Port purchased, and a parcel behind the Richards building jointly owned by the City and Port for fishing pier parking. He identified facilities on Port property including the Landing building that houses Arnie's Restaurant, the Port Administration building, Anthony's Restaurant, dry stack facility, docks and marina. He advised the Port had approximately 730 boats in wet moorage and 300 boats in dry storage. He reviewed the Port's mission - to operate the Port on behalf of the residents of the Port District; be a responsible financial steward; be a responsible environmental steward; provide and foster quality services and facilities for tenants and the boating community; play a leadership role in ensuring that the waterfront is a vibrant, active centerpiece for the Edmonds and Woodway communities; provide opportunities in economic development; and communicate openly, frequently and consistently with Port District residents and tenants. Mr. Keuss reviewed the seven elements of the Port's Master Plan: North boardwalk improvements - improvements made in the past several years including view cutouts, benches, tables, planters. Consideration is being given to widening the boardwalk in the future, installing a landscape buffer and relocating the refuse containers into enclosures. Mixed use area - currently used for parking and the Port Administration building. The Edmonds Yacht Club has proposed a new building on this site; the Port is working on a lease agreement with the Yacht Club. The timeline for construction would be 2009. Review and possible approval is scheduled on the Port Commission's October 9 agenda. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 3, 2006 Page 11 • Mixed Use area — currently the northeast gravel parking lot /open storage area. If the Yacht Club facility is constructed, this area would be developed for parking, as a community use facility or for Port programs. • Mixed Use area (south) — currently used for parking for Anthony's and for dry storage. Possible future uses include parking, marine retail /marine services, or Port programs. • Dry Storage expansion — currently no immediate need for expansion but with a marketing program, the Port Commission felt could be a need for expansion. Currently used for parking. • Restroom complex — new facility to house restrooms, laundry facility, and storage lockers with possible funding in 1 -2 years via IAC grants. • Public Plaza — permit process completed last year. Converts 12 -13 parking spaces behind the Edmonds Yacht Club and Anthony's into a landscaped public use area. Project delayed last year due to funding and a legal dispute. Discussion is scheduled on the Port Commission's October 9 agenda. One element of the project, the weather center, has been completed. Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, posed several questions: were there any plans to expand the Port's boundaries by acquiring additional property, the Port's plans for the old ferry dock if the ferry moved, the status of moving Admiral Way onto the Port property, and whether there were any plans for a small boat ramp. He recommended the Master Plan designate an emergency access route and suggested an emergency access route be a priority for the Fire Chief. John Heighway, Edmonds, recommended in order to improve the view of the skyline from the ferry, buildings not have flat roofs regardless of the height. Hearing no further comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public hearing. In response to questions raised by the public Mr. Keuss advised the Port had no plans to expand their current boundaries. With regard to the old ferry dock, he recalled in the Downtown Waterfront Plan when the ferry terminal was moved, a portion of the existing dock was removed. He noted some consideration has been given to day moorage in that location. With regard to relocating Admiral Way, he advised research indicated the expense outweighed the benefit. In response to the question about a small boat ramp, Mr. Keuss explained the Port partnered with the State in the 1980s to build the existing sling launch. A ramp was not feasible at this time as it required a considerable amount of land as well as an increase in parking to accommodate vehicles and trailers. Mr. Keuss advised emergency access across the railroad tracks was an important issue to the Port Commission and City staff and it was anticipated it would be addressed via the Edmonds Crossing which may include a pedestrian crossing and a railroad crossing further south. With regard to the skyline, he advised buildings would be constructed in accordance with the City's codes. Mayor Haakenson advised the new fire boat, moored at the Port, had the same equipment as an aid unit and the firefighters could cross a stalled train to reach the Port to provide aid as well as fight fires. Mr. Keuss advised the Port had an Interlocal Agreement with the City to provide personnel and a vehicle when the train was stopped to assist with getting personnel and equipment across the tracks. COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, TO APPROVE THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS AND DIRECT STAFF TO INCLUDE THEM IN THE ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE 2006 AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mayor Haakenson declared a brief recess. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 3, 2006 Page 12 Neighborhood g, PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY OF EDMONDS Business Districts COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ADOPTING AMENDED GOALS AND POLICIES FOR NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS DISTRICTS INCORPORATING SPECIFIC PROPOSALS FOR THE FIRDALE AND FIVE CORNERS NEIGHBORHOOD CENTERS Council President Dawson advised the Council was emailed additional information but may not have had time to review it in detail. She suggested staff make their presentation and the Council take public comment but no action be taken until the Council had an opportunity to review all the materials. Planning Manager Rob Chave explained this effort was initiated by the City's Economic Development Director Jennifer Gerend last year. She held several public workshops in January 2006 to assess uses in the Firdale Village and Five Corners commercial centers and initiate discussion regarding future development. She followed up with workshops in April 2006 that focused on draft Comprehensive Plan policies that were reviewed at a Planning Board public hearing in June 2006. Her intent was a neighborhood planning process to develop a vision for the commercial centers. Mr. Chave explained what prompted this issue was many of the neighborhood centers in Edmonds and throughout the region were established as strip mails; however, more recent developments reflect a significant change in what neighborhood centers provide. Property owners have also expressed interest in considering what could be developed in the neighborhood centers. He advised the Comprehensive Plan amendments recommended by the Planning Board were intended to provide a way to include neighborhood -based plans in the City's Comprehensive Plan and provide a framework for follow -up zoning and land use. The next phase would include more detailed discussions with the neighborhood about design, uses, arrangement of buildings, setbacks, heights, etc. That process would begin next year if the Comprehensive Plan amendments are approved. Mr. Chave provided questions posed at the workshops: Q2: Many new developments in the region provide a mix of uses... assuming that traffic and parking improvements were made, do you believe that a mix of uses should be encouraged? Q3: What should be the range of building stories above ground level retail /service uses? Q4: Some cities offer a height incentive, such as an extra story, if a builder provides a special benefit in the project such as a percentage set aside for public art, environmentally friendly design, public gathering spaces, or affordable /middle income housing. Should this concept be incorporated? Mr. Chave displayed and reviewed the survey results: Five Corners Q2: Mix of Uses? Q3: Max # Stories Q4: Height Incentive? Responses 66 Responses 70 Responses 65 Yes 56 Median 3.0 Yes 44 No 10 Average 2.9 No 21 Firdale Village Q2: Mix of Uses? Q3: Max # Stories Q4: Height Incentive? Responses 33 Responses 38 Responses 30 Yes 21 Median 4.0 Yes 18 No 12 Average 3.5 No 12 Next Mr. Chave compared the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment to the survey results: Plan vs. Survey Firdale Village Five Corners Mix of Uses? Plan: Yes Plan: Yes Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 3, 2006 Page 13 Survey: Yes Survey: Yes Building Heights? Plan: 4 Plan: 4 Survey 3.5 -4 Survey: 3 Incentive for added floor? Plan: Yes Plan: Yes Survey: Yes Survey: Yes Councilmember Orvis pointed out the question regarding building heights offered a range of building stories above the ground floor: 1 -2, 3 -4, 5 -6 and 7 -8. Mr. Chave explained in tabulating the data, staff used the highest number in the range, assuming the response meant up to the higher number. Councilmember Moore asked what would happen if the Comprehensive Plan amendments were approved, noting zoning would follow as well as design guidelines, ADB review of any proposals, etc. Mr. Chave agreed, explaining the intent of the draft language was to provide a policy framework for the next steps to prevent rehashing the same issues again. He acknowledged the difficult part would be the zoning and design issues as there were a variety of opinions. Although it was clear that residents wanted the neighborhood centers improved, the specifics would be more difficult. Councilmember Moore referred to Planning Board Member Henderson's comment that the Zoning Code could identify height limitations and the Comprehensive Plan should describe the neighborhood centers as a village -style development and should define village - style. Mr. Chave stated the Board felt the concept of a village was workable but that the specifics could be addressed in the zoning and design standards. For Council President Dawson, Mr. Chave displayed and reviewed the survey form. He offered to provide Councilmembers the raw survey data. For Councilmember Orvis, Mr. Chave explained the draft language for building heights for Five Corners and Firdale Village was up to four stories with incentives for one additional story. Councilmember Orvis noted both were zoned BN currently and asked whether the BN zone had setback and open space requirements. Mr. Chave answered BN had only setback requirements. Councilmember Orvis asked whether residential use was allowed in the BN zone. Mr. Chave responded the residential use allowed in the BN zone was one unit above the commercial development per lot. Councilmember Plunkett asked how much weight Ms. Gerend gave to the survey results in drafting the language. Mr. Chave advised he was unable to answer that question. Councilmember Plunkett asked how much weight the Planning Board gave to the survey results. Mr. Chave was uncertain whether the Planning Board saw the detailed survey data; they reviewed the staff reports, etc. He emphasized this was not a scientific survey, only a survey of those who attended the workshop. Council President Dawson asked how much of the language was written prior to the neighborhood meetings. Mr. Chave advised Ms. Gerend used the surveys provided at the first workshops to draft the language. The language was then presented at the second set of workshops. He referred to the comparison of the Comprehensive Plan language and the survey results, commenting they tracked fairly well. He clarified that the first set of meetings was where surveys were completed; the language was then drafted; the language was presented at the second set of meetings; and followed by Planning Board review. Councilmember Moore commented the Council was being asked to approve language for development of zoning by the Planning Board working with property owners and neighborhoods. She agreed the language was guidance for improving the neighborhood centers; the actual heights could be worked out later although the language did establish an upper limit to heights. She referred to a statement in the proposed amendment regarding Five Corners — development should be oriented to the street and respond Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 3, 2006 Page 14 to the unique character of the intersection, including a planned intersection improvement, asking whether "unique" referred to the intersection or the neighborhood. Mr. Chave answered it referred to the intersection. Although there was agreement at the workshops that the intersection needed to be improved, there was disagreement regarding exactly what should be done. Council President Dawson asked why the term "stories" was used when the Council was told when discussing the downtown zoning that language was unworkable. Mr. Chave agreed "stories" was difficult in code language but was appropriate at the conceptual level in the Comprehensive Plan. Council President Dawson questioned how it was presented to residents at the workshops, noting four stories above a grocery was different than above some other uses. Mr. Chave recalled Ms. Gerend's indication that to encourage a grocery store to locate in a neighborhood center there may need to be some flexibility in the building heights. Mr. Bowman advised he attended the workshops and recalled Ms. Gerend displayed several photographs of mixed used development to provide a visual of the concept. He felt residents understood the concept of stories. Council President Dawson questioned if the residents' vision translated to the draft language. Mr. Bowman stated the draft language was not inconsistent with the residents' vision, pointing out the draft language was presented at the second workshop. The details would be resolved in the code language. Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. He advised the Council received three letters, one from Tony Shapiro, Edmonds, in support of the amendments, a letter from Ron Knowles in support of the amendments which would provide affordable multi family dwellings and business space outside the bowl area, and a letter submitted by Joe Gnagey who saw no need for multi- story commercial /residential space in the Five Corners or Firdale Village areas. Tony Shapiro, Edmonds, commented the vote on this item was an indicator of whether Edmonds was an open, welcoming community or self- centered and inward looking with people more concerned about the past than the future. He pointed out change was a fact of life. He asserted the Council had closed the bowl to new construction; there were areas outside the bowl such as Five Corners and Firdale Village that needed to be redeveloped. Although most people think of Edmonds as downtown, the majority of people who pass through Edmonds see areas outside the bowl where there were dilapidated houses, vacant or rundown commercial areas, etc. He pointed out development occurring around the region such as Mill Creek Town Center where there were multi -story buildings with multi family development abutting the commercial zone. He disagreed taller buildings could not coexist adjacent to residential, pointing out Whistler Village and New Orleans Square in Disneyland as examples. Another factor to consider is residents' children cannot afford to live in downtown Edmonds; enabling land outside the bowl to be developed with 3 -4 story buildings would reduce the proportionate cost of land to a more affordable level. Warren Schweppe, Edmonds, advised he missed the last Planning Board meeting but understood heights as high as 50 feet were discussed. He preferred buildings be no higher than 2 -3 stories or that the 30 -33 foot guideline in downtown be used. He did not want another building like the Gregory. He remarked a good example of appropriate development was the Montclair condominiums which were limited to 2 -3 stories. He summarized he was in favor of progress but it needed to be done the right way. Robert Bretz, Edmonds, was opposed to 45 -50 foot heights in the Five Corners neighborhood, advising the infrastructure was currently overburdened and the proposed zoning changes would increase the burden and bring gridlock at rush hour. Parking was already an issue on 84`h, Main, 212`" and Bowdoin and density in the Five Corners area had increased dramatically in the past five years with the development of the Montclair condominiums, the Madrona Cove PRD, and the condominium on the former fire station property. He noted there is currently no zoning that would provide transition between the proposed high -rise commercial /residential and single family residential although City plans mandate Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 3, 2006 Page 15 transitional zoning to alleviate conflicts. The Five Corners area is very flat with no natural barriers to provide relief from the sight pollution a 45 -foot building would impose on single family residences. Diane Hill, Edmonds, found the survey on height confusing and was certain the average citizen also found it confusing. She objected to the use of the term ground story and floors above and was not certain the survey respondents understood the question. She objected to the use of a range in the survey and staff's decision to use the higher number when tabulating the results. She volunteered to hand - deliver a new survey to every house in the Five Corner's neighborhood. She commented the Five Corners neighborhood was home to two schools and she was concerned with the street becoming a raceway. She recommended if the City wanted to change height limits, it be done citywide, not in just a few neighborhoods. She viewed Montclair as a tastefully done development and would support something like that. She did not support heights above 33 feet including the first floor. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, pointed out a BN zone meant it was located within a residential neighborhood; the intent was to protect the neighborhood. He suggested a property owner in a BN zone, who was restricted by the current regulations to one residential unit above commercial would be satisfied with mixed use without a height increase. He envisioned a property owner would be ecstatic if they could have two stories of residential above commercial and according to downtown studies, the economics would allow for redevelopment. He disagreed that 4 -5 stories were necessary and objected to allowing an additional story for an amenity, commenting the amenities were usually not enough. He disagreed with requiring buildings in the BN zone to be located close to the street with parking behind, suggesting instead to buffer the noise for residences, locating the parking in front and buildings in back. He disagreed with providing an incentive for redevelopment, remarking most people who completed the survey did not realize the building height was number of stories above the ground floor. Don Kreiman, Edmonds, recalled several Councilmembers and Planning Board Members attended the workshops in Firdale Village. Firdale Village was an underutilized facility where numerous businesses have failed due to the poor design. He referred to a nearby ravine where trees were removed to make way for 14 houses on small lots, questioning the amount of tax revenue the City received from that development as well as from an underutilized neighborhood center. He summarized Firdale Village needed to be redeveloped. The surveys revealed what the residents of these neighborhoods wanted. Ted Kim, Edmonds, did not support any additional buildings or increased building height in the Five Corner commercial area as the uncontrolled intersection could not handle any additional traffic. He remarked on the cars that back up at the intersection during rush hour. He concluded additional development would destroy the ambiance of the neighborhood. The reason they moved to Montclair was the ability to walk to nearby stores and services; that ability would be eliminated by increased traffic. John Heighway, Edmonds, advised he attended the Firdale Village meeting and felt Ms. Gerend did a good job. He recalled the people who attended the meeting were local residents and were enthusiastic about redevelopment of Firdale Village. He supported moving forward but with more accurate information. He recalled one of the uses residents attending the Firdale Village meeting were most interested in was a beer pub. He preferred to delay adoption of the amendments if necessary. Kevin Grossman, Shoreline resident and Edmonds property owner, pointed out the difference between a Comprehensive Plan amendment and zoning. The Council was being asked to embrace a big picture concept, not develop the details. The subsequent process would include more specifics about design issues, building appearance, heights, etc. If the Council liked rundown, one story retail centers, he suggested the Council not adopt the proposed amendments. Conversely, he encouraged the Council to support the amendments if they wanted developers to reinvest in these areas so that residents had better retail, better designed structures, etc. He pointed out the proposed amendments would also provide a Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 3, 2006 Page 16 variety of housing options, allowing residents' children and the elderly to continue to live in this community. He referred to the City's obligation under GMA to accommodate increased density, pointing out concentrating density where land use and transportation dovetailed provided synergy for retail and minimized traffic impacts as well as decreased the density in neighborhoods. Brad Butterfield, Edmonds, explained the proposed amendment was the culmination of over 12 months of work by Ms. Gerend, planning staff and the Planning Board. He commented the current BN zoning did not work for many of the large properties at Firdale Village, Westgate, Five Corners and Perrinville. He recalled unanimity among the residents attending the Firdale Village neighborhood meetings that something needed to be done with the buildings in Firdale Village that were constructed in the 1940s. He pointed out the amendments laid the groundwork for sensitive zoning and more neighborhood and Planning Board meetings to discuss how development should occur. He encouraged the Council to adopt the draft amendments to allow the discussion to move forward. COUNCILMEMBER MOORE MOVED, SECONDED BY OLSEN, TO EXTEND THE MEETING FOR 1' /Z HOURS. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Eric Anderson, Edmonds, owner of the Five Corners Shopping Plaza, commented he was the only property owner at the Five Corner's meeting. The proposed amendments were the result of two neighborhood meetings and a year of discussions. He viewed the amendments as a basic proposal that did not obligate the City but would move the issue ahead. If the amendments were adopted, the Planning Board would begin working with property owners and the neighborhood to develop zoning to implement the plan. As a property owner, he assured the current configuration — a strip mall built in the 1960s — was all there would be under the current zoning. The strip mall has had many cosmetic remodels but has reached the end of its economic life. He pointed out every city in the greater Seattle area was developing retail mixed use /urban villages that included housing. If the Council approved the draft amendments, redevelopment could bring that same energy to Five Corners. Cheryl Ahlen, Edmonds, commented she moved to Edmonds because it is quiet and she wanted it to stay that way. If she wanted activity, she could drive to a place nearby where there was activity. She was opposed to a lot of development in Five Corners. Kelly Picasso, Edmonds, commented her neighborhood at 84th & 210th received notice of tonight's public hearing but neither she nor her neighbors were aware of the neighborhood meetings. Although she understood progress was to be expected, she found 4 -5 story buildings at Five Corners incompatible with the neighborhood. She stated because this neighborhood was not in the bowl did not mean it was less worthy of the same small town feel of Edmonds. She was aware mixed use could be done successfully but prefer it respect the residential areas via heights that were sensitive to the surrounding neighborhood. She also pointed out the need for transition, and looked forward to more discussion on this issue. Douglas Alfi, Edmonds, asked how the City planned to accommodate increased heights in Five Corners, commenting additional stories or buildings would increase traffic. He pointed out cars already backed up to the high school on 212th in the late afternoon. Hearing no further comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public hearing. Mr. Chave commented the survey was not scientific, it was only a questionnaire used by Ms. Gerend in drafting the proposed language. He agreed many residents and property owners wanted to move forward with something more positive than currently exists. Councilmember Plunkett referred to comments such as "move forward, this was not locked in stone, future planning could be done down the road, this is just a concept, forward it, more discussion." If that Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 3, 2006 Page 17 was an acceptable premise, he suggested replacing the statement that development should not be more than four stories with mixed use multi floors. Mr. Chave stated leaving the specifics in the language provided additional guidance. Without reference to a number of stories, that issue be rehashed in the future. He noted although the Council heard negative comments tonight, the problem with this process was that the people who were satisfied tended not to continue participating whereas the people with concerns tended to continue with the process to ensure their concerns were addressed. Mr. Chave observed there appeared to be a fair amount of comfort in the survey with the 3 -4 story range although there may have been some misunderstanding regarding whether that was on top of the ground floor. He suggested leaving the language regarding a maximum of four stories and incentives for additional height and allow the next step to determine how that should be arranged. Councilmember Marin suggested establishing three stories as a starting point and a fourth story with incentives. COUNCILMEMBER MOORE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO APPROVE THE PLAN AMENDMENT LANGUAGE AND DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE AN ORDINANCE FOR FORMAL ADOPTION AS PART OF THE 2006 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE. Councilmember Moore explained this concept was a launching pad; it was clear everyone wanted something done in the neighborhoods. The preponderance of evidence in the packet points to the wording the Planning Board forwarded. She acknowledged traffic was bad everywhere, particularly during rush hour. The intent was to develop neighborhoods and villages so that people could walk to local stores and services and not use their cars as much. She acknowledged traffic amelioration would be necessary at Five Corners but that would be discussed as zoning changes were made. To the comments that this was against the concept of Edmonds, she pointed out the concept of Edmonds was ever - changing. She agreed more affordable housing was important, commenting the reason many bought at Montclair was because it was affordable. The proposed neighborhood concept may facilitate more affordable housing that would allow residents' children to remain in the community. She pointed out the housing provided by Montclair was similar to what projections indicate cities needed to provide — housing for the four Ss — singles, single parents, seniors and starter homes. Councilmember Olson advised she attended both the Five Corners meetings and recalled the people were less concerned about heights and more concerned with traffic and were excited about having something done. She agreed traffic as well as other issues would be addressed in the upcoming process. She concluded if Edmonds did not begin making some progress, other cities would pass Edmonds by. Council President Dawson commented the language in the draft amendment and in the survey was confusing. She preferred to have an opportunity to review the survey data. She doubted anyone at the Five Corners meeting was comfortable with a five story building and she was not comfortable with five story buildings at Five Corners, particularly if the plan was to move the buildings toward the street. She was comfortable with moving forward for further discussion if the specific language were removed. Councilmember Orvis opposed the language as written or a range of 4 -5 stories. He agreed with the need for further review. He recognized even a three floor option would create a sizable economic driver. He preferred to take the time necessary to develop specific enough language so that the process could move forward without needing to rehash the number of stories in the future. Councilmember Wambolt advised he attended all the neighborhood meetings and felt perhaps too much weight was being given to the surveys. He recalled leaving the meetings feeling there was no consensus; as many people were in favor of a concept as were against it. He did not believe further review of the Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 3, 2006 Page 18 surveys would be productive. His impression was four total floors, not four floors above the ground level and he did not support allowing a fifth floor with incentives. COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, TO AMEND THE MOTON TO SPECIFY A FOUR FLOOR MAXIMUM AND REMOVE THE INCENTIVE FOR ADDITONAL FLOORS. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4 -3), COUNCILMEMBERS WAMBOLT, MARIN, MOORE, AND OLSON IN FAVOR; AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT DAWSON AND COUNCILMEMBERS ORVIS AND PLUNKETT OPPOSED. UPON ROLL CALL, THE MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED (4 -3), COUNCILMEMBERS MOORE, MARIN, WAMBOLT, AND OLSON IN FAVOR; AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT DAWSON, AND COUNCILMEMBERS PLUNKETT AND ORVIS OPPOSED. Draft°BD— 9. CONTINUED COUNCIL DELIBERATION AND ACTION ON THE PUBLIC HEARING HELD Downtown ON SEPTEMBER 18 2006 ON THE DRAFT "BD - DOWNTOWN BUSINESS ZONES" Business 101i0101ITI1M E/ m.] OVE\» NI11 Din 1LMIweI =011001106111►/_\.7wl_ ICIM1019n1405 I MIN =Ila a 12 -a of.I11►i.`IU Il AD_\►1 Council President Dawson relayed Councilmember Marin's suggestion that due to the late hour and anticipated need for a lengthy discussion, this item be rescheduled. She suggested rescheduling it to the October 24 work session. Councilmember Wambolt agreed. Councilmember Orvis requested Councilmember Plunkett's and his amendments be included in the packet. Councilmember Moore requested this item be scheduled at the beginning of the agenda. Council President Dawson agreed, pointing out it was later on the agenda tonight due to the public hearing that preceded it. She preferred to schedule it on the October 24 week session due to the public hearings on the October 17 agenda. The Council discussed the number of items on upcoming agendas and the possibility of scheduling a special meeting. Mayor Haakenson requested the annual reports from the Public Defender and the Prosecutor be scheduled before this item on October 24. COUNCIL PRESIDENT DAWSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, TO CONTINUE THIS ITEM TO THE OCTOBER 24, 2006 WORK SESSION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Council President Dawson apologized to the audience, advising the Council did not expect the preceding items to be this lengthy. 111�3 11111 11►[11 W90105 i►11040111fy Perry Terminal/ Natalie Shippen, Edmonds, relayed the next chapter of the "Ferry Terminal Farce" ferry tale entitled Edmonds "Where Did the Pilings Go ?" She recalled when the Council asked its consultant about the depth of the Crossing water at the Edmonds Crossing project, they were warned that the water at Edmonds Crossing would be the deepest of the 20 ferry terminals in the State and would push technology to construct landing structures. The water depth was 150 -160 feet deep, the wing walls would be in water 60 -120 feet deep, concrete steel buffers along the east side of the third slip would be in water 120 -200 feet deep, and a total of 306 steel pilings pounded into a steep slope of unknown stability. She summarized the problems with the Edmonds Crossing — an exposed site, a distance between the terminal and the landing that exceeded all pedestrian standards, water depth that pushes technology, and holding lanes on a hillside in a landslide Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 3, 2006 Page 19 hazard zone. She advised the next chapter, "A Belt and Suspenders" would address fix -it schemes to address the problems. She asked if the City had hired a consultant for the next phase. Mayor Haakenson answered no. She asked if the City planned to hire a consultant and the Mayor responded possibly. She asked when and the Mayor answered he did not know. Planned Don Kreiman, Edmonds, posed a series of questions to Councilmembers. To Councilmember Moore Residential Developments whom he recalled had defended trees, woods, and an underground creek, he asked if she planned to do anything about the trees being cut to develop PRDs. Councilmember Moore responded she would look into it. To Councilmember Olson, he asked how she would feel if the trees in the ravine near her home were cut to build a neighborhood with houses too small and lots too close together. To Councilmember Marin, he asked if mixed use residential development on arterials was preferable to everyone driving. To Councilmember Wambolt, he asked if the City received more taxes from mixed use development with retail and condominiums or from individual residential houses. Councilmember Wambolt answered the City received more taxes from mixed use development. To Councilmember Plunkett, who ran a recent PUD campaign that stressed the environment, he asked whether mixed use development supported the environment by not cutting trees as well as getting people out of their cars. Councilmember Plunkett replied he supported the environment. To Councilmember Orvis, he asked if he was aware how many more houses were being constructed in his neighborhood and whether cutting trees increased the value of Edmonds to families. To Council President Dawson, he admired her stand on domestic violence and the need to defend the defenseless. He commented people were spending 40 -50% of their income on housing which may contribute to stress that leads to domestic violence. More affordable housing was needed to reduce this stress. To Mayor Haakenson, who attended eight neighborhood meetings, he invited him to inform the Council if the cutting of trees was an issue in the City. Mayor Haakenson answered the Council received a report of every neighborhood meeting he attended and the issues raised. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, referred to the Paradise Lane proposal, and cautioned the Council to carefully examine any proposal presented on a rush basis. He invited the Council to tour a downtown development, beginning at 5th & Dayton. As he began describing the building and inviting the Council to look at each section of the building, Mayor Haakenson cautioned the Council would be involved in a closed record review of the building in two weeks; therefore, he should not be talking to the Council about it. Mr. Snyder agreed. H. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Haakenson had no report. 12. COUNCIL COMMENTS change a l fight Councilmember Marin commented that in preparation for tonight's proclamation in honor of Change a Day in Light Day in Edmonds, he replaced 750 watts of bulbs in his home with 128 watts. His house currently Edmonds used 40% of the average home's consumption of electricity which would be reduced to 38% with the replacement of these bulbs. His house was now completely converted to florescent bulbs. He invited the public to obtain coupons from the PUD, noting two of the places listed on the reverse where bulbs could be purchased were on Hwy. 99. He reported at last week's Snohomish County Tomorrow meeting there Snohomish was unanimous support of five principles of annexation. He explained the intent of the principles was to County Tomorrow encourage Snohomish County to use adjoining cities' development guidelines so that an area that might eventually be annexed to a city would be developed according to that city's standards. He advised this was an advisory vote that asked Snohomish County to consider the principles. Councilmember Moore directed the public's attention to the three proclamations the Council passed tonight, regarding domestic violence, live theater and changing light bulbs. She planned to begin Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 3, 2006 Page 20 changing light bulbs in her home and suggested Councilmembers report at the next meeting on the number of light bulbs they converted. Mayor Haakenson advised he changed five. Councilmember Orvis advised he had several Energy Star light bulbs in his home, not only because they were good for the environment but because he disliked changing light bulbs and they lasted a long time. Lodging Tax Councilmember Orvis reported the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee allocated funds for the Bird Advisory Festival and the Snohomish County Visitors Bureau. The Committee requested information regarding commiuee why the Visitors Bureau's numbers were declining. The Committee declined a proposal for additional ads for the Waterfront Festival for budget reasons and reduced funding to the Economic Development Director to market the City. He reported Cindi Cruz was leading an effort to redo the rack cards and she was directed to utilize a trifold card that had more pictures of Edmonds. Councilmember Wambolt expressed concern with the number of items on agendas and suggested scheduling additional meetings such as a special meeting on October 30. He pointed out the October 1.7 and October 24 agendas had items scheduled for at least three hours. Councilmember Moore agreed. Mayor Haakenson suggested scheduling discussion items on some Committee nights. Council President Dawson was uncomfortable with scheduling continued deliberation on the draft Downtown Business Zones for a special meeting. Councilmembers Olson and Moore indicated they would be out of town on October 10. Council President Dawson advised she would take scheduling a special meeting under consideration. Executive 13 Session EXECUTIVE SESSION At 11:00 p.m., Mayor Haakenson recessed the Council to a 10- minute Executive Session regarding potential litigation. He advised the Council would adjourn immediately following the Executive Session without taking any action. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 3, 2006 Page 21