Loading...
10/17/2006 City CouncilEDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES October 17, 2006 The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Haakenson in the Council Chambers, 250 5f' 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 STAFF PRESENT Tom Tomberg, Fire Chief David Stern, Chief of Police Duane Bowman, Development Services Director Dan Clements, Administrative Services Director Brian McIntosh, Parks & Recreation Director Noel Miller, Public Works Director Kathleen Junglov, Asst. Admin. Services Dir. Rob Chave, Planning Manager Stephen Koho, Treatment Plant Manager Dave Gebert, City Engineer Steve Bullock, Senior Planner Scott Snyder, City Attorney Sandy Chase, City Clerk Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst. Jeannie Dines, Recorder Approve 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Agenda 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 MOORE, FOR APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: (A) ROLL CALL Approve 10/3/06 (B) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF OCTOBER 3, 2006. Minutes Approve Claim (C) APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #91183 AND #91189 THROUGH #91425 FOR Checks OCTOBER 5, 2006, IN THE AMOUNT OF $761,443.14. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #91426 THROUGH #91578 FOR OCTOBER 1.2, 2006, IN THE AMOUNT OF $168,084.49. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSITS AND CHECKS IN THE AMOUNT OF $761,825.84 FOR THE PERIOD SEPTEMBER 16 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 2006. Claim for Damages (D) ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM WILLIAM J. AND LINDA A. CHASE ($295.00). Screenings Improvement (E) AUTHORIZATION FOR THE MAYOR TO SIGN CHANGE ORDER #3 WITH HARBOR Project PACIFIC CONTRACTORS IN THE AMOUNT OF $45,081 FOR THE SCREENINGS IMPROVEMENT PROJECT AT THE TREATMENT PLANT. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 17, 2006 Page 1 Make a Difference Day (F) PROCLAMATION IN HONOR OF MAKE A DIFFERENCE DAY, SATURDAY, OCTOBER 28, 2006. surplus City Vehicles (G) AUTHORIZATION TO CONTRACT WITH JAMES MURPHY AUCTIONEERS TO SURPLUS SEIZED AND FORFEITURE CITY VEHICLES. Hearing 3. ANNUAL REPORT OF THE HEARING EXAMINER Examiner Annual. Report Hearing Examiner Ron McConnell reported he had been Edmonds Hearing Examiner for the past 12 years and had made a decision to step down and take more time for retirement. He expressed his willingness to stay until the City had selected a new Hearing Examiner. He voiced his pleasure for the opportunity to work with the Mayor, Council, staff and citizens of Edmonds, commenting he was the Hearing Examiner for a number of cities and Edmonds was one of his favorites. Responding to Councilmember Plunkett, Mr. McConnell noted the changes that would be made in the upcoming code rewrite such as providing tables and matrixes would make the code more user friendly. He suggested allowing administrative decisions on some issues such as simple variances, noting often in those hearings the only ones present were the applicant, staff and himself. He recommended continuing to post public notice on such applications and including a provision for a hearing if a number of citizens wanted to have a hearing. Council President Dawson thanked Mr. McConnell for his years of service to Edmonds. Mayor Haakenson commented the Hearing Examiner's decisions were only as good as the code and expressed his appreciation to Mr. McConnell for his perseverance during the past 12 years, acknowledging at times portions of the code were in conflict. Mayor Haakenson advised approximately a month ago he had requested that a RFP be issued for a Hearing Examiner; Mr. McConnell was welcome to apply but had chosen to retire. He advised the Council would be participating in the interviews. Mayor's 4. TRANSMITTAL OF 2007 -08 BUDGET: MAYOR'S BUDGET ADDRESS Budget Address Mayor Haakenson provided the following budget address: For a number of years we have worked very hard on increasing the planning horizon for Edmonds' finances and programs. This year's budget marks a milestone for us in that it is the first biennial, or two year budget, that the City has prepared. We made the change from an annual to a multi -year budget for a number of reasons, but chief among them was my belief that we need to be fully aware of the down stream impacts that decisions we make today have on our operations and fiscal condition in the future. As I have noted for the past few years, our fiscal outlook is not terribly optimistic. With some relatively minor fee adjustments we will be able to work our way through 2007 with our current programs relatively in tact. However, as I will discuss in greater detail shortly, we will need voter support of an Emergency Medical Services (EMS) levy to retain our existing levels of public safety and other programs and to balance our 2008 budget. A year ago I described the current year's budget as a good news, bad news budget. This is a similar budget. The good news is that City's financial position for 2007 is stable, and will not require staffing or program reductions. By carefully looking at our capital resources, we have been able to drop our street overlay cycle from 75 years to approximately 30. The bad news is that demands for public safety, transportation, and facilities maintenance continue to outstrip our ability to keep up with needs and requests for service. Recall that our present workforce remains at the level it was in 2000. The revenue reductions that State legislative initiatives have imposed Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 17, 2006 Page 2 on cities like Edmonds has quite simply created a situation where our costs and demands for services continue to outstrip our revenues. As an example, during the last five years Police calls for service have grown over 51.6 %, reports taken increased 14.5 %, burglaries are up 129 %, and robberies have increased 275 %. Budget Overview With the exception of transportation services, the 2007 -08 budget is essentially a status quo financial plan. The proposed 2007 budget totals $70.5 million, excluding fund balances. While our major operating entities, the General and Utility Funds are projected to increase by $2.5 million, decreases in several capital funds, including Street Construction ($702,000), Multimodal Transportation ($625,000), and Building Maintenance ($1.1 million) off -set increases elsewhere in the budget. The 2008 spending plan totals $65.9 million, which represents a 6.5% decrease from 2007. Moving on to the General Fund, the source of dollars for City programs such as public safety, parks, and development services, the proposed 2007 budget, excluding fund balance, totals $31.9 million: a 4.8% change from 2006. Looking forward to 2008, the General Fund expenditure budget is projected to grow 4.0 %, to a total of $ 33.2 million. Taxes & Fees The proposed budget does not call for any new taxes or fees. In order to balance the budget and avoid program reductions, I am recommending three fee and tax increases for 2007, and a voter approved EMS property tax levy lid increase effective for 2008. The three 2007 increases are: 1.) Collection of the statutory 1% increase in general property taxes, which brings in $84,600 in additional revenue; 2.) Collection of "banked capacity," remaining from years in which the City collected property taxes below our entitlement (1.64% $138,000) and was approved already by the Council in the 2006 budget when they split that capacity into a two year collection period; and 3.) An increase from the average 5.75% utility tax to the 6% statutory maximum. For 2008 1 am recommending the Council submit a voter approved EMS levy lid lift to voters. This proposition would raise approximately $1.2 million for the 2008 budget, and its passage is a necessity if we are to retain the levels of emergency response currently available to our residents and businesses. I have held off placing this ballot issue before voters for the past two years because we could balance our books in other ways. We will not be able to do this in 2008. I will be working with the Council in the coming months to establish a firm election date, but at this juncture I am favoring a May, 2007 date. Staff has just completed an annual review of our utility rates. For the 2007 -08 time frame I am recommending that our sanitary sewer and storm rates remain at current levels, and that water rates be increased 3% in 2007, and 3% in 2008. The water rate increases are well below inflation levels, and will help us replace our aging infrastructure. Program Changes & Initiatives The proposed budget contains no increase in staffing levels for 2007 or 2008. I am recommending that a police sergeant who had previously been funded as part of a regional narcotics team be absorbed into the police budget. The most significant one -time cost additions include: Police firearms replacement ($35,000), replacement of Fire Unit #481 ($35,000), replacement of the Lifepak 12 Defibrillator /Monitor ($29,000), and replacement of a large format copier ($19,700). A complete list of 2007 -2008 decision packages included in the budget may be found in the budget summary. It is instructive to take a look at what this budget does not fund: additional staffing for our Permitting, Engineering, Facilities, Street and Police Departments. I have not been able to provide funding for the Highway 99 action plan, nor provide the full overtime requests for our Fire and Police. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 17, 2006 Page 3 While there are no major program initiatives scheduled for 2007 or 2008, I have asked staff to begin working on two tasks. First, the City has completed a major up -grade of its systems for billing and paying for services. I have requested that, by mid -year 2007, staff present me with a proposal for discounting utility bills for customers who choose to be billed, and pay, electronically. It makes sense that as we reduce our cost of doing business these savings are passed along to our residents and businesses. Second, if Council approves the budget proposals contained in this document, and voters approve an EMS levy effective in 2008, we will have survived another two years of difficult budgeting. In the 2009 -2010 biennium, however, the budget wolves are right back at our door. I am requesting that, in 2007, my management team and their staffs perform a rigorous review of our business practices, and identify specific ways in which our General Fund expenditures can be reduced by $500,000 annually by 2009. The most favorable time to closely examine how we do business is not when we are faced with immediate budget cuts, but in an orderly, thoughtful fashion before we are in a crisis situation. Closing Comments I would like to thank Councilmembers Dawson and Wambolt for taking the time to participate as members of our budget review committee. Their questions and comments have been excellent, and many have been incorporated into the preliminary budget. My staff and I look forward to working with the Council over the next few weeks, and responding to any budget related question that may arise from you or interested citizens. City Clerk Sandy Chase distributed budget books to the Council. Councilmember Plunkett advised merchants on 5th and on Main Street were looking for $75,000 for lighting. Mayor Haakenson advised that was not included in the budget. Councilmember Plunkett asked whether the Historic Preservation Commission's request for $2,000 was in the budget. Mayor Haakenson replied it was not. Councilmember Plunkett asked whether the removal /replanting of trees on Main that were causing damage was in the budget. Mayor Haakenson responded he believed that was in the budget, commenting that was an ongoing program. Councilmember Plunkett recalled when he joined the Council, Public Safety comprised approximately 48 -49% of the budget; it now comprised approximately 60 %. He inquired if the increase was due to program changes such as paramedics, two -in /two out, or the use of battalion chiefs. Mayor Haakenson responded labor contracts were the biggest contributor to the increase. Councilmember Moore referred to the inclusion of sales tax sourcing in the 2008 budget. Mayor Haakenson relayed Administrative Services Director Dan Clements' assurance the legislature would pass the bill this year. If sales tax sourcing did not pass, that revenue source would need to be revised. Council President Dawson advised a budget work session was scheduled at the October 24 meeting, a public hearing on November 6 and another public hearing and possible adoption of the budget on November 21. In the past the Council had held weekend budget sessions which could be done if the Council found that necessary. She noted the Council could also schedule an additional budget session on November 14 if necessary. AmepPlant 5. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PLANNING BOARD'S RECOMMENDATION OF DENIAL ON A and Rezone - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND REZONE FOR JENNIFER MANTOOTH, 97th Ave w & LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 97TH AVENUE WEST AND 231ST PLACE SOUTHWEST. 23 t st PI sw (FILE NO. CDC -05 -3 AND R- 06 -67) Mayor Haakenson advised this was a Comprehensive Plan amendment which was legislative. If the Council approved the Comprehensive Plan amendment, a hearing on the rezone would follow which was quasi judicial. City Attorney Scott Snyder clarified unless the Comprehensive Plan amendment was approved, the Council could not approve the rezone. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 17, 2006 Page 4 Senior Planner Steve Bullock explained this request had been before the Council previously. The request was a Comprehensive Plan amendment and rezone for properties located at approximately 97th Avenue West and 231 st Place Southwest. He advised the Comprehensive Plan amendment was a map amendment to change this block of seven properties from a single family designation to a multi family medium density designation. Mr. Bullock displayed Comprehensive Plan maps, identifying current development on the property and the potential increase in density if the Comprehensive Plan amendment and rezone were approved. He displayed a map identifying where the properties gained access, explaining the two northern properties gained access from a driveway onto 97th, the next three properties shared a joint driveway accessing onto 97th, one property accessed directly on 97th and the property in the southeast corner accessed onto 231st He referred to three letters that were provided to the Council with regard to this item. Mr. Bullock explained the Planning Board held a hearing, took testimony and deliberated as documented in the Planning Board minutes contained in the packet. The Planning Board voted to unanimously deny the Comprehensive Plan amendment, finding it did not comply with the criteria for approving a Comprehensive Plan amendment. Councilmember Wambolt pointed out there was a gap between 2003 and 2006 and again following the Planning Board's decision in June 2006. Mr. Bullock responded a separate Comprehensive Plan amendment application was submitted in 2002 -2003. That application went through a similar Planning Board and City Council process and was denied. The applicant modified her proposal and submitted it again. He explained the City had a December 31 deadline for submitting Comprehensive Plan amendments. Comprehensive Plan amendments were not subject to the regulatory reform timeline of 120 days; it was a legislative item and was considered with other Comprehensive Plan amendments via an annual process. Councilmember Plunkett pointed out the potential for this amendment to increase the number of dwelling units from 12 to 36. Mr. Bullock clarified the total of 36 units considered the potential of each individual lot. Councilmember Plunkett pointed out the density on one individual lot could not be increased to 36; that amount was only if the density were maximized on every lot. Councilmember Plunkett commented the southeast lot contained a duplex. He asked how many units would be allowed on that lot if the Comprehensive Plan amendment were approved. Mr. Bullock replied if the lot were rezoned to RM 3, three units would be allowed; a rezone to RM 2.4 would allow four units. The applicant has requested RM 2.4 zoning. Councilmember Marin asked what was different about this application and how were they proposing to overcome the obstacles the Council identified previously. Mr. Bullock suggested that question be posed to the applicant. He recalled the applicant previously proposed RM 3 zoning. Councilmember Orvis recalled the last application included the area on the map identified as the triangular area. Mr. Bullock advised a Comprehensive Plan amendment was approved for that area, changing the Comprehensive Plan designation for the lot on Edmonds Way to Edmonds Way Corridor designation and rezoning to RM 1.5. Councilmember Plunkett asked the square footage of the lots along 231st. Mr. Bullock advised they were in the RS -8 zone; the lots ranged in size but are all less than 16,000 square feet and none of the lots were large enough to subdivide. Council President Dawson noted the Comprehensive Plan was amended to reflect RM 1.5 on the triangular property; this request was for RM 2.4. Bullock clarified there were two separate requests, first Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 17, 2006 Page 5 the Comprehensive Plan amendment followed by a rezone. The Comprehensive Plan designation of the triangular property was changed from single family to Edmonds Way Corridor which allowed a range of zoning including RM 1.5. The current request is to change the Comprehensive Plan designation of the identified properties to multi family medium density designation which equates to RM 3 or RM 2.5 zoning. The Council first needed to make a decision with regard to the Comprehensive Plan designation which if approved would lead to the rezone discussion. Council President Dawson asked what Comprehensive Plan designation equated to RM 1.5 zoning. Mr. Bullock answered multi family high density as well as Edmonds Way Corridor. A Comprehensive Plan designation of residential high density equated to RM 2.4 or RM 1.5. Councilmember Plunkett asked if the Council approved the Comprehensive Plan amendment, did the Council have the option to rezone the southeast lot to RM 3 or RM 2.4. Mr. Bullock stated the applicant's request was to rezone to RM 2.4; it was a legislative matter and the Council had the option to approve alternate zoning. Mr. Snyder pointed out the rezone was a quasi judicial decision. The Council could take the action contained in the record and advertised; the Council could not take an action outside the advertised options. Mr. Bullock acknowledged the Council could not rezone to a higher density but could approve a rezone to a lower density. Councilmember Plunkett asked, if in the future all the lots were purchased, could the City stipulate that the entrance to 231St be eliminated. Mr. Snyder answered not as part of this process; access could be conditioned via a contract rezone. He summarized the Council could not impose additional zoning requirements as part of the rezone. Councilmember Wambolt asked why the application was denied previously. Mr. Bullock answered the Planning Board and Council found the Comprehensive Plan amendment request was not consistent with the criteria for an amendment. Once the Comprehensive Plan amendment was denied, the rezone was moot. Councilmember Wambolt noted the current request was to a higher density. Mr. Bullock clarified the Comprehensive Plan amendment request was the same; the zoning density was higher. Councilmember Orvis summarized the Council's options, 1) deny the Comprehensive Plan amendment or 2) approve the Comprehensive Plan amendment and then proceed with the rezone process and accept or deny the proposed rezone. Mr. Snyder clarified the first decision was legislative and at the Council's discretion; the second decision must be based on the record and the rezone criteria. Applicant John Bissell, Higa Burkholder Associates, distributed letters from the first application that were supportive of the first application. He then reviewed the Comprehensive Plan change criteria, advising he would describe how the proposed amendment was in the best interest of the public safety, health and welfare, worked for the neighborhood and was appropriate for the type of use proposed. He displayed an aerial photograph identifying the residential neighborhood to the east of the site that was most likely to be impacted and that had voiced the most opposition at the Planning Board. Using the City's Lidar information, topographical contours were added to the aerial map and their engineer drew a line identifying the top of the slope. He pointed out the houses in the cul -de -sac were above the top of the slope. He explained Edmonds Way was in a canyon, identifying the property on the edge of the slope of the canyon. He displayed a plat map illustrating the line identifying the top of the slope through these and surrounding properties. He summarized to the north and east of these properties, the top of the slope line migrates to the RM zone where a Comprehensive Plan amendment was approved earlier and where multi family development occurred prior to annexation. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 17, 2006 Page 6 He pointed out the Comprehensive Plan designation below the steep slope was Edmonds Way Corridor with the exception of this property. Properties across Edmonds Way to the north were also designated as Edmonds Way Corridor to the top of the slope last year via a Comprehensive Plan amendment. The Edmonds Way Corridor designation was intended to provide a buffer between high traffic levels on Edmonds Way and single family on the plateaus surrounding Edmonds Way with the sides of the canyon buffering the single family from high level traffic along Edmonds Way. Mr. Bissell displayed a comparison of Hwy. 99 and Edmonds Way, pointing out buffering along Hwy. 99 and Edmonds Way except for the subject property, which he noted was contrary to the intent of the Comprehensive Plan throughout the rest of the City. He recalled when displaying the comparison between Hwy. 99 and Edmonds Way at the Planning Board hearing, Mr. Bullock countered there was more commercial use on Hwy. 99. He agreed, pointing out buffering on Edmonds Way was provided via the steep slopes, the topography on Hwy. 99 was flat. He asserted they were similar, comparing traffic volumes — 34,000 average daily trips on Hwy. 99 between SR 104 and 196th and 21,000 average daily trips on Edmonds Way at 95th Place. He summarized 21,000 average daily trips represented high traffic volumes that were not appropriate for single family development. He identified traffic volumes on local access, collector, and arterial streets. Mr. Bissell explained staff recommended denial due to increased traffic from increased density and impact on inadequate roads. He pointed out one single family residence or duplex generated approximately 10 average daily trips, one apartment generated approximately 6.2 average daily trips, and 5.86 average daily trips for a condominium. He summarized the likelihood of increased trips was not great. The total current average daily trips was 124 from these properties, compared to 164 — 188 with apartments or condominiums if the Comprehensive Plan designation and zoning were changed. He summarized the average daily trips would not increase substantially. Mr. Bissell pointed out this site had not been developed as RS -8 although it was zoned RS -8; several of the sites have duplexes that were constructed in Snohomish County and annexed into Edmonds as legal nonconforming. Retaining the RS -8 zoning and single family Comprehensive Plan designation . perpetuates the nonconforming condition. The nonconforming condition was not supported by the topography, location, proximity to high intensity traffic or the marketplace. He recommended the application be approved as the Comprehensive Plan and zoning principles support it, traffic impacts would be minimal and the current development already supports RM 3. He concluded the application complied with the criteria and should be approved. Councilmember Moore inquired about access from the property. Mr. Bissell explained one property accessed from 231st, the remainder from 97th. It was not possible to guarantee that as properties redeveloped the same access would be retained. He acknowledged access was the neighborhood's primary concern. It was conceivable that redevelopment could access from 97th but that was unknown. Councilmember Moore asked how many dwelling units existed on the lot in the southeast corner and how many would be allowed if the Comprehensive Plan and zoning were changed. Mr. Bissell answered there were currently two and four would be allowed. Councilmember Plunkett commented the southeast lot could have another family accessing from 231st He asked whether Lot 7 could have an accessory dwelling unit. Mr. Bissell answered any of the single family lots on that street could have an accessory dwelling unit. Councilmember Wambolt asked if there was a traffic signal at 97th and SR 104. Mr. Bissell responded no. Mayor Haakenson opened the public hearing. He advised the Council received three letters, one from Mary McCloskey and Tim Doyle who recommended denial of the Comprehensive Plan amendment, a Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 17, 2006 Page 7 letter from Tom and Lin Hillman recommending approval and a letter from the Lindstrom Family recommending denial. Jacqueline Barnes, Edmonds, advised her property was Lot 1 on 231St. She asserted Ms. Mantooth's property did not belong to the multi family properties but rather to the single family properties. The multi family buffer was the properties that abut the rear of Ms. Mantooth's property. She explained every property on 231St had one residence with the exception of Ms. Mantooth's property which contained a duplex and a detached garage accessory dwelling unit that was built illegally and that Ms. Mantooth was trying to have rezoned so that she could legally rent it. She objected to a multi family zoned property in the middle of their cul -de -sac. She commented on problems with Ms. Mantooth's tenants and multiple vehicles, concluding that allowing increased density would be detrimental to their neighborhood. Tim Doyle, Edmonds, advised his property was Lot 7 on 231St. He suggested the Council look at the line Mr. Bissell depicted, pointing out Ms. Mantooth's property was at the same level on the street as his property, and there was no drop -off. He urged the Council to uphold the Planning Board's decision. Darrell Marmion, Edmonds, suggested the Council, either with staff's assistance or on their own, review the background and history of the previous application. He was disappointed the Council did not review the information provided three years ago. Lin Hillman, Edmonds, commented the proposed amendment appeared to meet the criteria for buffering between very high density, RM 1.5, and single family and that a buffer was an appropriate use for this property. She recalled at the Planning Board hearing, there was a great deal of negativity that could be classified as character assassination rather than based on zoning criteria. She noted there were people in favor of zoning changes, particularly with the GMA requirements to accommodate increased density. She pointed out people living in multi family housing were not "hooligans," many people choose to live in multi family housing and should not be discriminated against. She urged Council to approve the proposed amendment. Jennifer Mantooth, Edmonds, explained last year a Comprehensive Plan amendment changed the designation of the properties on Edmonds Way from single family to Edmonds Way Corridor and rezoned those properties from single family to RM 1.5. That designation and zoning was not in place when she submitted her first application. She requested RM 2.4 zoning as it was the highest density under that Comprehensive Plan designation and RM 2.4 zoning would maximize the opportunity for the seven properties in this area. She pointed out the size of the units were restricted by parking. For example if her property which currently has a duplex and garage guesthouse were rezoned from single family, she would be allowed to add two 1- bedroom units. She noted most of the properties could not add a 2- bedroom unit due to lack of parking. Hearing no further public comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public hearing. Mr. Bullock referred to Findings of Fact and Conclusions contained in a memorandum from the Planning Board to the City Council in 2003 regarding the first application for a Comprehensive Plan amendment that documented the reasons the Planning Board recommended denial. He pointed out the steep grade on 97th, recalling one of the Planning Board's reasons for recommending denial previously was their discomfort with approving a change in the Comprehensive Plan designation and subsequent change in the zoning which would potentially allow additional units on a street as steep as 97th Mr. Bullock pointed out the duplexes located in this area were developed in Snohomish County prior to annexation. Snohomish County has a provision that allows a lot 1 % times the size of the minimum required lot size to have a duplex constructed on the property. Those properties were annexed to the City Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 17, 2006 Page 8 as legal single family with comparable zoning. In regard to Mr. Bissell's assertion that no development had occurred in that area, Mr. Bullock commented all the properties were developed and maintained and the zoning code would not allow additional units. COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT DAWSON, TO DENY THE PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT. Councilmember Marin explained he was uncomfortable approving a change whereby the lot on the southeast corner would encroach into the neighborhood, finding it would change the character of the neighborhood. He retailed the Hwy. 99 Task Force was sensitive to providing a buffer between the commercial and high density zones on the highway and the adjacent residential neighborhood. He pointed out the need to be sensitive to the demarcation between those zones and found this demarcation clumsy as the southeast corner would encroach on the single family neighborhood. Council President Dawson commented it may have been a closer call if the proposed amendment did not include the southeast corner lot that accessed from 231x`. She found the proposed designation inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. She pointed out as developed, these properties provided a buffer. Although a greater level of density may not be detrimental to some of the lots, it was not advisable for all the lots in the proposed area. Councilmember Orvis recalled when the Council reviewed this previously he voted against denial and would do so again. He supported the proposed change, commenting this area was essentially multi family adjacent to an area that was zoned multi family. Councilmember Plunkett appreciated the sentiment of the neighborhood, commenting on recent changes that had occurred in his neighborhood. He explained the proposal would allow the property on the southeast corner which accessed from 231st to increase by one dwelling unit which he did not find would create a situation that failed to meet the Comprehensive Plan criteria. He pointed out GMA required the City to accept more population and additional density and to create more modest income housing. He did not find any argument by the maker of the motion that the proposal did not meet the test. He concluded many of the issues of concern could be addressed in another phase. Councilmember Wambolt agreed it was clearly a single family residential neighborhood. Although only one more unit would be allowed on the lot on the southeast corner, it would make a difference to that neighborhood. He agreed rental units generated more traffic. He pointed out access from 97th onto SR 104 was not very safe. He would support the Planning Board's recommendation to deny the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment. Councilmember Olson commented it may be different if the proposal was for only the lower houses of that area, but changing the Comprehensive Plan designation for the property on the southeast corner would change the neighborhood. She agreed 97th was a very dangerous street and was not appropriate for a great deal of traffic, particularly in poor weather. She planned to support the motion. Councilmember Moore advised she would vote against the motion. Although she agreed with Council President Dawson that there was one property that was questionable, she agreed with Councilmember Plunkett regarding the standards of the Comprehensive Plan and bringing nonconforming uses into conformance. She pointed out the Planning Board found that this would not be detrimental to the public's health, safety or welfare. She noted traffic impacts would not be significant, it represented an appropriate land use and could provide affordable housing via additional rental units. She noted many of the rental units were disappearing and there were good people who needed/wanted rental housing. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4 -3), COUNCIL PRESIDENT DAWSON AND COUNCILMEMBERS WAMBOLT, MARIN AND OLSON IN FAVOR; COUNCILMEMBERS ORVIS, MOORE AND PLUNKETT OPPOSED. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 17, 2006 Page 9 COUNCIL PRESIDENT DAWSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, TO DENY THE REZONE BASED ON THE FACT THAT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT WAS NOT APPROVED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. F,CDC Chapter 6. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PLANNING BOARD'S RECOMMENDATION REGARDING I16.77— MPOR Zone AMENDMENTS TO THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE CHAPTER 16.77 MPOR ZONE Planning Manager Rob Chave explained the Planning Board recommended changes to the existing MPOR zone. He noted there was currently a moratorium on development in the MPOR zone as it was felt during the Council's review of the zone that the standards were vague. The Planning Board was asked to consider the standards. The Planning Board's initial intent was to have the MPOR zone apply to areas of the City in addition to Sunset south of Bell that had a similar need for a transitional zone. During the Planning Board consideration, the property owners and neighbors met and developed a proposal for the Sunset properties only. Their proposal was presented to the Planning Board with a recommendation for approval from staff. Given the difficulties the Planning Board was experiencing developing a zone that would apply to multiple areas of the City, it agreed this was the best proposal. He explained the proposed amendment removed much of the vagueness and instituted specific rules that limited the height to the standard calculation and required 15 foot setbacks from the street and 5 foot side setbacks in an attempt to strike a balance between what could be built on the property and compatibility with the neighborhood. The amendment would allow some office as well as residential development and required parking but also provided some flexibility. Council President Dawson commented this appeared to be an excellent idea that had been worked out among the neighbors. She suggested changing the name from MPOR to Office/Residential (OR) as it no longer required a master plan. Mr. Chave agreed, advising all the provisions requiring a master plan were removed from the ordinance. Councilmember Moore expressed her appreciation to Mr. Chave for this compromise. Mr. Chave answered the neighbors and property owners deserved the credit. Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. He noted the Council . received four emails in support of the amendment from Gail Olson, Eric Sonett, Alan Young and Shaun Drew. Martha Braun, Edmonds, urged the Council to approve the updated language for the MPOR zone and remove the moratorium currently in place on the properties subject to the MPOR zoning. Eric Sonett, Edmonds, thanked everyone involved. He commented it was a pleasure to be at the Council meeting in a non - adversarial role. Harold Huston, Edmonds, recommended revising the language so that the east and west side of the street on Sunset south of Bell Street both were zoned MPOR. He found it appropriate for properties on both the east and west sides of the street to have the same zoning. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, supported the proposal developed by the property owners and neighbors. He suggested removing the MPOR zone from the code and determining an alternate designation insofar as the Planning Board was unable to identify any other suitable locations for the zone in the City. Hearing no further public comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public hearing. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 17, 2006 Page 10 In response to Mr. Huston's comment, Mr. Chave explained the proposed zoning was intended to implement the Comprehensive Plan which targeted a specific area on Sunset for zoning of this type. Mr. Huston's suggestion would require a change to the Comprehensive Plan designation for the east side of Sunset in order to change the zoning in that area. He agreed the Council should remove the moratorium and suggested staff initiate an administrative rezone of the property to the new OR zone. Councilmember Wambolt questioned the use of "transition" in the language, commenting there were other areas in the city where residential and commercial uses abut and there was no transition language. He agreed with the proposal but suggested reference to "transition" be eliminated. Mr. Chave explained the genesis of this zone was recognizing there were significant topographical issues and that some flexibility in use was appropriate but not the traditional commercial uses that would intrude into the residential area. He concluded the zone was a transition in that there was a reduction in the intensity of commercial uses and it maintained setbacks and height limits compatible with single family. Council President Dawson commented the property next to Rory's was zoned BC, however, it was developed residential. She suggested that property could provide a transition and the uses allowed by the OR zoning may be appropriate for that property. Mr. Chave pointed out next week the Council would be discussing downtown zoning; the current plan included that property in the downtown commercial area. To do what Council President Dawson suggested would require a change in the Comprehensive Plan designation. He suggested the Council could refer that to the Planning Board for consideration for a Comprehensive Plan amendment next year. Council President Dawson agreed with Mr. Hertrieh's comment, suggesting the name of the zone be changed to Sunset Avenue Office Residential Zone. Mr. Chave commented the purposes were so specific it was unlikely it would apply elsewhere in the City. COUNCILMEMBER MOORE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, FOR APPROVAL OF THE AMENDED LANGUAGE FOR THE OR ZONE AND DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN ORDINANCE FOR COUNCIL ADOPTION AND DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE APPROPRAITE COUNCIL ACTION TO LIFT THE MPOR ZONING MORATORIUM TO COINCIDE WITH THE ADOPTION OF THE OR CODE AMENDMENT. Councilmember Moore thanked the neighboring land owners for doing the difficult and sophisticated work to reach this agreement and hoped they appreciated staff's professionalism. A 11111111►CAM 9104 MEMO 101111110 COUNCIL PRESIDENT DAWSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, TO REFER TO THE PLANNING BOARD FOR A 2007 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT PROCESS THE PROPERTY ADJACENT TO RORY'S TAVERN FOR CONSIDERATION OF AN APPOPRIATE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION FOR THAT PROPERTY. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mayor Haakenson declared a brief recess. Closed Record 7. Review — Refurbishment of Old Milltown CLOSED RECORD REVIEW OF AN APPEAL BY ELISABETH LARMAN ON THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD APPROVAL OF THE REFURBISHMENT OF OLD MILLTOWN, LOCATED AT 201 5TH AVENUE SOUTH. (FILE NO. APL - 20060003 AND PLN- 20060094) Mayor Haakenson advised a petition was received regarding the above referenced Closed Record Review that was not part of the record and therefore could not be considered by the Council. The petition would be distributed to the Council following the conclusion of the matter. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 17, 2006 Page 11 City Attorney Scott Snyder explained following Regulatory Reform, cities were limited in land use reviews to two hearings — one on the record and one closed record hearing. In this case the open record hearing was held before the Architectural Design Board (ADB) and the Council would conduct a Closed Record Review. The Closed Record Review was limited to the appellant and parties of record who spoke at the ADB. All argument must be based on the ADB record and no new information can be provided. Mayor Haakenson advised the four parties of record are Bob Gregg, Ralph Allen, Betty Larman and Roger Hertrich. In accordance with the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine, Mayor Haakenson asked Councilmembers if they had had any conflicts or exparte communication to disclose. Councilmember Orvis advised Councilmember Wambolt, Councilmember Plunkett and he attended an ACE meeting last Thursday. The discussion of Old Milltown was on the agenda but was moved to the end of the agenda to allow the Councilmembers to leave the meeting before the discussion occurred. Councilmember Plunkett advised he attended the ACE meeting but left before Old Milltown was discussed. He advised when there was some uncertainty regarding whether this would become a quasi judicial matter, Ms. Larman emailed him a question and he replied that the matter had just become quasi judicial and he could no longer discuss it, indicating although it was quasi judicial, the issue would be whether the applicant met the existing design guidelines. They had no further communication. Councilmember Wambolt advised he attended an ADB meeting where this issue arose. On the advice of Mr. Snyder he did not speak with anyone in attendance. Council President Dawson explained when it was unknown whether this would come before the Council, a number of people expressed concern about the building to her. Last night she attended an event where a gentleman relayed a question from a friend that the building would have two additional stories added. She advised him it would not but said she was unable to discuss it further because it was on tonight's agenda. She summarized there had been some general "chatter" expressing concern with the refurbishment of Old Milltown but she did not recall any specifics. Mayor Haakenson asked whether the four Councilmembers felt they had the ability to hear this matter in a fair and impartial manner. Council President Dawson and Councilmembers Wambolt, Orvis and Plunkett indicated they did. Mayor Haakenson asked if there were any challenges from the parties of record to the participation of these four Councilmembers. Roger Hertrich advised he did not challenge the participation of the four Councilmembers but questioned the relationship between Councilmember Moore and Mr. Gregg and invited her to explain. Councilmember Moore responded she could handle the matter in a fair and impartial manner. Mr. Snyder asked Councilmember Moore whether she had any existing financial relationship with Mr. Gregg. Councilmember Moore answered she did not. Mr. Snyder asked whether she had any financial interest in this project. Councilmember Moore responded no. Mayor Haakenson advised all Councilmembers were approved to participate in the Closed Record Review. He established the time limits: 20 minutes for Ms. Larman with the opportunity to save time for rebuttal, the applicant (Mr. Gregg and Mr. Allen) would share 20 minutes, and 3 minutes for Mr. Hertrich. He noted the burden of proof was on the appellant, thus the reason she was allowed rebuttal. Councilmember Plunkett asked whether there had been adequate public hearing on the measurement of the 4,000 square feet. Mr. Snyder suggested that be addressed at the conclusion of the presentations to Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 17, 2006 Page 12 enable him to cite the record. He cautioned about an appearance of unfairness if in questioning or comments a Councilmember appeared to have prejudged an issue. Senior Planner Steve Bullock advised on September 6 the ADB held a public hearing in regard to the refurbishment of the Old Milltown. Notice of the public hearing via advertising the ADB's agenda was provided the same as any project that did not require SEPA review. He noted if a project required SEPA review, there were additional noticing requirements such as posting the site and mailed notice to adjacent property owners. In either case, the project must adhere to the same criteria and a public hearing must be held before the ADB. After hearing testimony from the public and applicant at their September 6 hearing, the ADB found the proposed refurbishment consistent with the provisions of the Edmonds Community Development Code Chapter 10.20 and also the Comprehensive Plan. He referred to pages 10 and 11 of the packet, the portion of the ADB minutes that contained their motion for approval which was approved with a 4 -1 vote. He reiterated the appellant had the burden of proof to show the applicant did not comply with the criteria. Councilmember Wambolt inquired about possible action the Council could take — affirm or overturn the ADB's decision or remand to the Planning Board. Mr. Bullock explained if the Council felt the ADB did not address elements of the approval criteria, it could be remanded with the request that certain items be addressed. He commented a remand could result in a reaffirmation of the Planning Board's original . decision with findings to support those criteria or overturning their original decision. Councilmember Plunkett referred to page 32 of the packet that stated the design of new or renovated buildings in the downtown area should be sensitive to the presence of historic buildings. He asked whether the code contained a definition of historic and whether it referred to historically recognized landmarks or the more common meaning of historic such as character, etc. Mr. Bullock answered this did not refer specifically to historic registered buildings, only the general nature and character of downtown. Councilmember Plunkett asked about the definition of "sensitive," assuming it was the common definition of "to be affected by." Mr. Bullock agreed. Mayor Haakenson reiterated only the four parties of record would be allowed to speak. If the public wanted to comment, Mr. Snyder clarified any general discussion by members of the public who are not parties of record should not occur until after the Council adopted written Findings of Fact. Appellant Elisabeth Layman asked to retain 5 minutes for rebuttal. City Clerk Sandy Chase distributed a handout to the Council and Mr. Gregg that was prepared by Ms. Larman . Ms. Chase noted that Mr. Bullock had reviewed the handout and determined all the information was contained in the record. Ms. Larman explained she was appealing the Old Milltown renovation and minor expansion plan as it was not consistent with the Edmonds Comprehensive Plan Design Guidelines 20.10.070 criteria and the Urban Design guidelines as follows: • Pedestrian Oriented Design — takes away pedestrian gathering places • Massing — fills every square inch of the space • Modulation of walls and roof lines — long unaccented walls and roof lines • Materials for the era — unspecified metals, fiberglass and unspecified tiles instead of brick • Historic character and respect for its surroundings — no respect for history or neighboring structures She enumerated other discrepancies and questions as follows: • Parking spaces — there is at least one less parking space than required by the guidelines Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 17, 2006 Page 13 • Lack of clarity for the planned use of the northwest corner of the building — what will be the use of that space in that part of the building? • Partial development of a larger property — only the north portion of the Old Milltown property is shown in this proposal. Why is the Old Milltown complex allowed to be presented with no indication of plans for the entire complex? She displayed a drawing of Old Milltown as it currently exists. She provided the following citations from Section 4 of the Urban Design Guidelines of the Downtown Activity Center: • Historic Resources: "building should be sensitive to the presence of historic buildings" • Downtown Character: "reinforce historic character and pedestrian orientation" • Shapes and Forms: "buildings should avoid large massive roof and modulation on both street frontages." • Materials: "should complement what is used in the vicinity." • Size, height, bulk and massing: "large building masses should be subdivided vertically and /or horizontally..." • Streetscape: "Encourage the placement of street furniture and awnings over the public right -of- way." • Rehabilitation and Continuing Use: "Rehab of existing buildings is encouraged." With regard to historic resources, she referred to Urban Design Guideline page 23 (1)(2), recalling the slide in Mr. Allen's presentation entitled "A Sense of History" that was blank. She recalled he told ADB members that that information would be filled later and he mentioned adding a bronze plaque at a later date. She noted the addition of a bronze plaque did not give a building a sense of history, what gave a building a sense of history was respecting the shapes, size, volume, materials, decorative elements, colors and styles of a certain period. While she applauded exposing the original concrete beam construction, the new building, because of its exaggerated linear shape, use of modern materials that were not in existence in the 1900s and its massive building design did not complement or fit in well with the surrounding older, smaller structures. With regard to shapes and forms, she displayed a comparison of the existing and proposed Old Milltown north, west and south rooflines. She referred to Urban Design Guidelines page 25 (C & D) which state, "however the building forms are employed; buildings should avoid long unbroken roof and wall lines. Where buildings are located on corner lots, the shape and form of the building should accent the corner. Buildings on corner lot must be designed to provide visual interest and modulation on both street frontages." She referred to a statement in the ADB staff report, "some elements of the current version of the building that people identify with are proposed to be removed, the second story bays at the corner of 5th and Dayton, a portion of the building that did not have a second story is proposed to be filled in. The hip roof that covers a good portion of the building will be removed." She summarized the developer's plan as reported by staff was not contested by either the planning department or the ADB. With regard to materials, she referred to Urban Design. Guidelines page 24, item 2B, pointing out the developer failed to bring samples of any of the materials and the ADB failed to ask for them. For example they did not provide samples of the unspecified steel channel cornice, metal awnings over entrances, fiberglass awnings, tiles, or color scheme and color charts. She displayed several elevation drawings identifying the location of these materials. She found this extremely unusual in a project's architectural presentation. She recalled during rebuttal of her statement regarding the overuse of stucco, Mr. Gregg stated that he did not like stucco, did not use it himself and there was no stucco on the building (page 10 of the ADB minutes). She noted there was extensive use of stucco on the building. With regard to size, height, bulk and massing, Ms. Larman explained on the 5"' Avenue side, the space between the existing 2 -story pavilions that are framing the building both at the corner of Dayton and at Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 17, 2006 Page 14 the courtyard are going to be filled with a 2,367 square foot addition that would come to within 16 inches of the facade edge on 5th Avenue. The original streetscape would be replaced with a massive frontage on both 5th and Dayton. She opined that 16 inches was not enough of a setback for a visual break in the massing of the 5th Avenue fagade. On the Dayton side, the building extended out to the sidewalk, completely eliminating any modulation or variety. The massing of the new building went against the guidelines and creates 2 -story full size walls on all sides of the building, a fact the ADB did not question. She referred to the statement on page 2 of the ADB staff report that indicated there was no change in site organization, explaining an examination of the floor plans revealed the site organization had been significantly changed since almost all the setbacks and pedestrian gathering spaces have been eliminated in the new building's plan. This fact was not questioned by the ADB members. With regard to rehabilitation and continuing use, Ms. Larman noted in various documents, the project was referred to as a renovation or refurbishment; however, Mr. Bullock has stated the proposal is to gut the building entirely and refurbish it (reference draft ADB minutes page 6). Other than the poured concrete beams, nothing will remain of the original building which she asserted did not represent a refurbishment. She noted the dictionary definition of refurbishment was "to brighten up." She referred to a floor plan for the second floor (slide 7b), identifying a 1500 square foot space and questioning whether this was added space. The project would be considered a major project and require three additional parking stalls if that was usable space. She noted the total declared added square footage was 3,556 square feet. She pointed out the 1500 square foot area was not well enough described in the cross section plan provided by the developer. She quoted from the ADB staff report, "However, all new buildings or additions to old buildings will need to provide 1 parking stall for every 500 square feet of new commercial area over and above what parking they have on site. In this case, the applicant will have to show as part of their building permit that they are providing an additional 7 parking stalls over what is already provided on site." She noted the submitted floor plans only contained 6 parking stalls. This fact was not questioned by the ADB members. Ms. Larman summarized she had clearly shown this new building went against many of the Edmonds Comprehensive Plan and Urban. Design Guidelines. The building did not conform to the guidelines for pedestrian oriented design as it takes away pedestrian gathering places (ECP Land Use 1, Site Design Building Setbacks page 38), massing — it fills every square inch of the space (ECP Land Use, Building Height, page 40), modulation of walls and roof lines — long monotonous and unaccented walls and rooflines (ECP page 41), materials for the era — unspecified metals, fiberglass and tiles instead of brick (ECP page 39 and 42), and historic character and respect for its surroundings — no respect for history nor neighboring structures (Urban Design Guidelines page 23). She invited the Council to find the answers to the questions regarding the square footage of added usable space as well as the missing seventh parking space. She asserted Mr. Gregg appeared to be phasing the development of Old Milltown and was showing only the north portion of his property in this proposal. She questioned why Old Milltown would be allowed to be presented as a minor project with indication of plans for future development. She asked the City Council to return the plans for Old Milltown to the City planners for correction and adherence to the guidelines by Mr. Gregg before being presented again to the ADB for their approval. She asked that the City Council request the City planners ask Mr. Gregg to produce a cross section of the northeast corner of the building on Dayton that clearly illustrated the use of the building at the fagade. She asked that the ADB request Mr. Gregg produce sample boards of all finishing materials for the building and the needed color schemes and charts and that they reflect the history and age of the building. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 17, 2006 Page 15 She requested the Council approve this appeal of the ADB Decision — Old Milltown Refurbishment and send this project back to the ADB, requiring that they apply their own rules to every project equally. Councilmember Plunkett asked Ms. Larman to identify the pedestrian gathering spaces that were being eliminated and asked whether there would be less sidewalk space. Ms. Larman referred to drawing 7a, a floor plan of the first floor, pointing out on Dayton, the building was recessed 8 feet from the sidewalk. She identified "nooks and crannies" on the Dayton elevation which the applicant's proposal eliminated and along 5th Avenue where the building would be a solid wall at the sidewalk. Councilmember Plunkett referred to Ms. Larman's letter which asserted the project was over 5,000 square feet. She state it would be over 5,000 square feet if the 1500 square foot area on the second floor was included. That space was not declared as added space. She recalled Mr. Bullock stated Mr. Gregg planned to install a facade but that area would be empty space. She found that highly unusual, questioning the retail space on the first floor having a 2' /z story ceiling. Councilmember Plunkett suggested Mr. Gregg testify whether there would be a second floor in that location. Mr. Snyder cautioned those assurances could not be made at this level as no new information could be added to the record. Councilmember Plunkett asked in what way the proposal was not sensitive to the presence of historic buildings. Ms. Larman answered materials and size of the building in comparison to other buildings in the area particularly on Dayton. Councilmember Plunkett asked if the building materials did not replicate the historic character. Ms. Larman commented the proposed building did not fit well with the buildings in the vicinity. Applicant Bob Gregg displayed a picture of the existing Old Milltown and the proposed refurbishment. With regard to color, he pointed out there was no color pallet in the code that identified permitted colors other than a statement that garish colors should try to be avoided. The proposed materials replicated the historic nature of the building better than the current status of the building. He commented Old Milltown was a 100 -year old building that did not meet any of the City's existing codes or the new Design Guidelines regarding storefronts along the street. The building was a poured -in -place garage that was used as an automotive shop, a bus barn and other industrial uses; a 1978 remodel added pseudo - Victorian elements. He commented the building was just old and weird enough to be charming. He recalled one ADB member asked why they were not demolishing the building and his response was that few poured - in -place concrete buildings remained where the imprint of the rough -sawn boards was visible in the concrete and where the concrete was bowed as a result of the boards bowing. With regard to the building materials, he pointed out thin, fake brick was added in the late 1970s. He proposed the use of a natural sandstone material that was used a great deal in the 1900s. He pointed out the mechanical equipment would be screened and 90% of the building would be what currently exists. He pointed out this would be a 2- story, 25 -foot building. The area on the second floor was as shown on the drawing — a 2 -story atrium. He acknowledged it was not where he would plan to have a 2 -story atrium in a new building but that was the nature of a renovation. With regard to his comment about stucco, he clarified his response was to a question whether this would be a stucco box. To his knowledge the building did not have any stucco as they were preserving the existing concrete. However, the new walls which were less than 10 -30% of the linear area would have an application to match the existing concrete which the architect referred to as stucco. Ralph Allen displayed a drawing of the building from above, explaining they were infilling the existing well at the second story level and moving it to within 1.6 inches of the existing front of the building. He displayed a drawing of the existing building and the new building, explaining they planned varied modulation with a lightly arched opening to add variety and relief to the building. The intent was to Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 17, 2006 Page 16 retain the emphasis on the corners. He referred to the saddle approach with the building high on the corners and relief through the middle. He identified an inset deck /exposed veranda that was accessible to the commercial space on the second floor, commenting that approach was sensitive to the existing massing of the building. He identified variation in the cap detail treatment and the solid awning over the corner building elements to further enhance the presence at the corner. The primary retail entry at the corner was maintained and a new entry developed on 5th. He pointed out a series of translucent awnings along 5th which the ADB requested be deepened to provide more effective rain cover. Mr. Allen displayed a view from Dayton, explaining the driving force behind the extension along Dayton was to get enough setback to provide required parking inside the building. He identified the entry into Dayton Avenue lobby to reach the second floor, the entry to the garage and the entry to the retail space. He identified a 5 -6 foot recessed space, commenting that restored some of the exterior pedestrian space on Dayton. He identified the high bay space on Dayton. He pointed out the existing corner entry on 5th & Dayton was retained along with a major awning. He identified the translucent awnings and window box planters on 5th that provided pedestrian scale. He also identified the seven locations for a series of historic plaques that would describe the history of the building and the region. He displayed a rendering of the view of the corner at 5th & Dayton, explaining the multi- colored variegated sandstone would be similar to the original concrete material. He noted the original concrete was cast using sand from the beach. Mayor Haakenson asked Mr. Allen to identify the 1500 square feet area proposed to be an atrium. Mr. Allen referred to the drawing of the second story floor plan, identifying the section of floor that would not be built. The second floor shown in the cross section was cut through the southeast corner of the property, a high bay sawtooth trussed space. He advised this was where the existing antique mall space was located and there were stairs down to Starfeathers. That existing 2 -story space would be retained. Councilmember Orvis referred to the alley on the north side of the building, commenting that the section of the building to the east was currently one story and now would be two stories. He asked what one story portions would become two stories. Mr. Allen answered the front would still be a single story but would be a high bay single story. Councilmember Orvis referred to page 28 of the packet, inquiring about the office lease space on the second floor. Mr. Allen answered that was a different cross section; in that area there would be floor space. COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT, TO EXTEND THIS ITEM FOR 30 MINTUES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Councilmember Plunkett referred to the appellant's illustration that there was a reduction in the pedestrian space. He asked if the applicant agreed the pedestrian spaces on Dayton and 5th would be eliminated by the proposed design. Mr. Allen explained the space on 5th was filled in with retail space and the retail entry became a display window. He identified spaces on Dayton that were left open, an entry portico into the entry space. Other than those areas, he agreed there had been a reduction in pedestrian space. Councilmember Plunkett commented there appeared to be a contradiction between whether the existing structure was historic. He recalled Mr. Gregg's comment that it was not historic compared to Mr. Allen's comment that this was a great, historic building. Mr. Gregg pointed out the property was not on any local, state or federal historic registry, therefore, it was not a historic registered landmark. He acknowledged it was an old building, built in 1910. . With regard to massing and Ms. Larman's assertion that the proposed design filled in every square inch of space, Councilmember Plunkett asked what massing criteria must be met. Mr. Gregg answered the building was in the property- line -to- property line zone. He referred to the criteria in 20.10.070 which he Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 17, 2006 Page 17 noted were very subjective. For example, long massive unbroken or monotonous buildings shall be avoided in order to comply with the purposes of this chapter to allow light and air to occupants of the development, to provide space for landscaping and recreational facilities. The proposed design was not unbroken and was not monotonous. He opined the building would be less monotonous than it was now when the renovation was complete. Councilmember Plunkett asked whether that applied to new construction as well as renovations. Mr. Snyder commented regardless of whether a project was large or small, renovated or new, all projects must meet the same criteria. Councilmember Orvis referred to the question regarding the number of stalls and that the approximately 3600 square feet of new area would require seven parking stalls. He asked where the seventh stall would be placed. Mr. Gregg was not certain that was an ADB issue, but it could be addressed by either reducing the square footage, adding a parking space or acquiring additional parking from the church. He advised if another parking stall was required, it would be provided as the project could not obtain an occupancy permit until adequate parking was provided. Councilmember Plunkett referred to the rendering of the corner and the criteria to be sensitive to surrounding historic structures. He acknowledged the entry was sensitive to what existed but the design guidelines require it be sensitive to the presence of surrounding historic buildings. He asked how the entry was affected by the outside influences of surrounding historic buildings. Mr. Gregg asked what surrounding historic structures Councilmember Plunkett was referring to. Councilmember Plunkett referred to the historic character of buildings from Dayton north toward the fountain. Mr. Gregg asked if he was referring to the Red Twig or the tavern. Mr. Gregg disagreed he was being asked to be sensitive to other historic structures, advising the proposed design was sensitive to the Beeson building. He summarized they complied with the spirit and letter of that requirement. Mr. Snyder referred to Ms. Larman's allegation that material samples were not provided. Mr. Gregg acknowledged neither a color board nor a material board was provided. As they were not part of the record, they did not provide that information tonight. Parties of Record Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, commented this was referred to as a remodel, refurbishment, renovation and a phased job, pointing out the building was actually being gutted out and only a couple wall s /structures retained, creating a new building inside. He noted the new structures were built strong enough to support a third floor. He referred to Figure A30, pointing out there were two openings provided on the Dayton Street side, one for automobiles and another for a service entrance. He suggested that would violate the parking standards as site design standards require curb cuts to be minimized. He suggested those two openings be combined into one, eliminating one curb cut. Mr. Hertrich referred to the drawing that identified the building materials, identifying two doorways, one for parking and the other for service and an area behind that was closed off. He commented the square footage in that area increased the project to over 4,000 square feet in addition to the contested northeast corner. He referred to the drawing of the northeast corner which the applicant assured would be a 2 -story atrium, finding it very unusual to have a 2 -story space over the parking and a first floor commercial space. He noted this was the reason a cross section was requested. With regard to the applicant's assertion that the building was expanded to the street to provide parking, he pointed out the unexcavated area that was part of the north structure could provide additional parking. He viewed the proposed design as an attempt to keep the project as a minor project to eliminate the need for an additional three parking spaces. He commented the additional six parking spaces gave Old Milltown a total of 30 parking spaces; however, most of the spaces were in the south section. He questioned what Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 17, 2006 Page 18 guarantee the City had that the parking spaces in the south section would be retained when that section was renovated. He suggested a development agreement that identified open space, parking, etc. Mr. Hertrich then played an audio recording of the ADB's motion, "I'll make a motion that the design Board approve ADB2006094 with the following conditions: number 1, number 2 and the awnings along 5th Avenue South should be designed to provide sufficient protection for pedestrians and extend 5 -6 feet over the sidewalk at the architect's discretion." The motion was seconded and carried with one member opposed. Mr. Hertrich noted the motion did not reference the Comprehensive Plan. For Councilmember Plunkett, Mr. Hertrich pointed out the recording of the ADB's motion did not state that the Board found the proposal consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; however, the motion printed in the minutes did. He asserted the ADB's motion was not proper and negated the motion. Mr. Snyder answered the matter was on appeal to the Council and it was up to the Council to determine whether the criteria were met. He agreed it was preferable for boards to make a detailed motion that reflected their findings and conclusions. He explained that could be done by incorporating the staff report by reference which the ADB's motion did not appear to do. He advised that could be corrected at this level or the Council could remand the matter back to the ADB. Rebuttal Ms. Larman displayed slide 7b, the second floor drawing, commenting an atrium was usually at the center of a building, a luxurious feature. She found it difficult to believe there was an atrium over a ramp into the parking and over a small retail space. She was not convinced by Mr. Gregg's or Mr. Allen's presentations that the proposal met the ADB's guidelines. She reiterated the proposal eliminated pedestrian spaces and eliminated human scale and sky by adding mass to a building. She acknowledged this was not a historic building, and was originally a very ugly box. She commented the design was now back to a box and although it was not a bad design, it belonged in a strip mall or downtown Bellevue and did not belong in the historic center of Edmonds. She concluded the building could be refurbished to respect the open spaces, setbacks and open itself to the public. Instead it would be a great big box that would dominate the entire area. She asked the Council to approve the appeal of the ADB Decision for the Old Milltown refurbishment for all the reasons she mentioned in her earlier summary. Council President Dawson asked Ms. Larman to clarify her comment that this was not historic and whether she was referring to the proposal or the existing building. Ms. Larman answered Old Milltown was not on the historic register and the Council had not defined a historic district in Edmonds. She commented it was somewhat the Council's fault as they had made it unclear. She noted the 1973 Old Milltown was historic as that was what most people remembered. In response to Mr. Hertrich's comments about the ADB's motion, Mr. Bullock referred to the recommended motion on page 15 of the packet in the staff report to the ADB. He noted Board Member Kendall referred to Item 1 and 2; beneath Items 1 and 2 and a third paragraph regarding the awning, there was a paragraph that addressed the Comprehensive Plan and other adopted City policies. He recalled Board Member Kendall amended her motion at his prompting to include reference to the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning code. Mr. Snyder cautioned the Council not to make findings that could be perceived as "backdooring" historic preservation requirements when the City's historic preservation registration was an entirely voluntary process. The ADB guidelines refer to surrounding structures but there was nothing in the guidelines that required preservation of a building; the developer could file for a demolition permit at their discretion. He recommended the Council read this section and the use of historic in conjunction with the historic preservation provisions. Councilmember Plunkett asked where in the packet the standards were that related to pedestrian oriented design. Mr. Bullock stated the pedestrian oriented design was referred to in a number of places. The Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 17, 2006 Page 19 ADB's and staff's take in reviewing the project was the orientation of the windows and doors to the stores were to the sidewalk and were designed to encourage interaction between the public sidewalk and the retail uses in the building which they viewed as pedestrian oriented. Councilmember Plunkett observed there was not a more definitive standard with regard to pedestrian orientation. Mr. Bullock agreed. Councilmember Plunkett commented if the Council remanded to the ADB, the project would continue to be worked on. If the Council rejected the appeal, the applicant could reapply. Mr. Bullock agreed. He requested if the Council was considering remanding that they identify what issues they wanted addressed. Mr. Snyder reminded because this was an appeal, the Council was limited to the issues on appeal in a remand. His understood Ms. Larman was asking the Council to remand to address the issues she raised. Councilmember Moore asked staff to address the issue of parking spaces. Mr. Bullock pointed out one of staff's recommended conditions was that the applicant demonstrate with their building permit how they would comply with the parking regulations. That condition was adopted as part of the ADB's motion. Because the square footage of a building could vary slightly between design approval and building permit submittal, staff often deferred the final determination on parking for review with the building permit. He advised the applicant could provide parking via onsite stalls or through lease agreements with other properties with available parking. Council President Dawson commented the record indicated Ms. Larman's testimony before the ADB was asking the ADB to reject the project. She did not read the appeal as a request for a remand but rather that the Council find that it did not conform to the guidelines and therefore would need to be changed and resubmitted to the ADB. Mr. Snyder agreed she raised both issues but recalled Ms. Larman requested a remand several times during her testimony tonight. Council President Dawson concluded the Council was not restricted to only a remand; the Council could state they respectfully disagreed with the ADB's findings and reverse their decision. COUNCILMEMBER MOORE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, TO REJECT THE APPEAL ON THE GROUNDS THAT IT DID NOT MEET THE BURDEN OF PROOF. Councilmember Moore explained the Council could not make a decision based on their own taste, vision of the City or preferences. She did not find Ms. Larman met the challenge of proving the proposal did not meet the guidelines. There was no proof the square footage increased the level of the project. With regard to pedestrian oriented design, she agreed with staff that it was not about the number of square feet of concrete where one could put their feet, pedestrian orientation was what occurred within the 12 -foot area at the street. She noted this project included a lot of large windows which could be viewed as pedestrian oriented as well as window boxes. With regard to massing, she acknowledged the proposal filled every inch of space but that was allowed under the zoning. Modulation of walls and roof lines, she found the building to be accented in both walls and roof. With regard to materials for the era, she noted the applicant had preserved and was replicating the main material of the era and taking off the material that was added in subsequent remodeling. With regard to the historic character and respect for surroundings and Ms. Larman's assertion there was no respect for historic character or respect for neighboring structures, Councilmember Moore commented by preserving, honoring and replicating the large, historic part of the building, the design showed great respect for the surroundings. She noted the surrounding buildings included a brown stucco very modern Windermere building, an empty fenced lot, and the Red Twig Restaurant that had been completed gutted and was now a very modern, beautiful space. Councilmember Marin referred to the list of issues in Ms. Larman's appeal, finding they were all satisfied by the proposal. He indicated he would support the motion. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 17, 2006 Page 20 Councilmember Wambolt indicated he would not support the motion. He pointed out the ADB record was not one of their finest efforts; virtually all they discussed was the awnings. Several of the regular members were absent and the only member of the Board who spoke about anything other than awnings was Rob Michel, the others only spoke about the awnings. With regard to building materials, the ADB had no idea what building materials would be used. He referred to Mr. Gregg's comment that there was no stucco on the building and although there was evidence that there would be stucco on every side of the building, none of the Board Members challenged that statement. He preferred to remand to the ADB. Councilmember Plunkett commented the appellant did not prove that the mysterious 1500 square feet existed. With regard to sensitivity to historic surroundings, Mr. Gregg's comments and the rendering of the building convinced him the proposal was sensitive to historic surroundings. Although he was impressed by Councilmember Moore's definition of pedestrian oriented space, he could not ignore that there was a reduction in pedestrian space. He acknowledged the zone allowed development lot - line -to -lot line but the issue under consideration was the design guidelines not the development code. The applicant acknowledged the building did not meet the urban design guidelines, page 25 C & D - buildings should avoid long unbroken roofs and wall lines. He found the appellant proved the proposal did not meet the standards with regard to pedestrian oriented space and massing. Council President Dawson agreed with Councilmember Plunkett's comments about avoiding unbroken roofs and wall lines and the pedestrian orientation of the site. When considering conformance with surrounding buildings and the historic character of downtown, she pointed out a new building on the site would not need to comply with the historic nature of the existing building. A refurbishment needed to consider the existing character of the building because that was what made this a minor project, that it was only a refurbishment of the existing building. She noted if the building were demolished and a new building constructed, it would be a major project. Therefore the project must consider not only the surrounding buildings but the existing building being refurbished. Council President Dawson commented Mr. Snyder's comment with regard to historic preservation contradicted an earlier statement by Mr. Bullock that historic in this ordinance did not mean historic in the context of the historic preservation ordinance but rather the general nature and character of downtown. She pointed out this ordinance was in place prior to the historic preservation ordinance and did not refer to the historic preservation ordinance nor was it intended to incorporate the historic preservation ordinance. She concluded historic meant something different than being on the historic registry. She agreed with staff that it referred to the general nature and character of downtown. This building was a large part of the character of downtown and although it may be a nice building, it dramatically altered the general nature and character of downtown. She indicated her plans to vote against the motion. Councilmember Olson questioned what the Council wanted done if the project were remanded to the ADB. She found the proposal met the code. Councilmember Marin expressed concern with the concept of a remand. He used the example of the restoration of the USS Constitution and the difficulty determining to what period to restore the ship. He noted this building spent its first 60 years looking like a warehouse, a bus barn, and a poured -in -place concrete structure versus the "cutesy" fagade constructed in the 1970s which represented only a third of the b'uilding's life. Councilmember Moore recalled when the Council passed the height limit in the BC zone, she believed redevelopment in downtown would be impossible. This proposal is a 25 -foot, 2 -story building that currently did not meet any of the City's codes and needed to be brought up to code. There was a property owner who was willing to do this under the current restrictions and the ADB found their proposal met all the City's standards. She agreed the allegation regarding additional square footage had not been proven Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 17, 2006 Page 21 by the appellant. She appreciated Council President Dawson's comments that this was an historic building in terms of the City's character. She appreciated it was an important structure for the City and that many people think of it as historic even though it has been remodeled several times in recent history. She pointed out the proposed project would preserve the historic part of the building and she preferred the design the ADB approved versus restoring it to the old bus barn look. She concluded the appellant did not prove the issues she raised on appeal. UPON ROLL CALL THE MOTION FAILED (3 -4), COUNCILMEMBERS MOORE, MARIN AND OLSON IN FAVOR; AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT DAWSON AND COUNCILMEMBERS ORVIS, PLUNKETT AND WAMBOLT OPPOSED. COUNCIL PRESIDENT DAWSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, TO REVERSE THE DECISION OF THE ADB AND DENY APPROVAL OF THE PROJECT. Council President Dawson found a lack of compliance with the Comprehensive Plan as stated in her earlier comments. Councilmember Wambolt asked the consequence of this action. Mr. Snyder advised the applicant could appeal to Superior Court via a Land Use Petition Act or resubmit their application. Councilmember Wambolt preferred to remand the project back to the ADB to have the Board conduct the due diligence they were responsible for doing. He referred to the written record, asserting that in this instance the ADB did not review the criteria. By contrast, he had attended a number of ADB meetings where they reviewed projects in detail. Councilmember Plunkett acknowledged this was an important building and the redevelopment was important to the community. He hoped the developer would resubmit the project, refining the issues that the Council had identified. He looked forward to someone refurbishing the building. UPON ROLL CALL MOTION FAILED (3 -4), COUNCIL PRESIDENT DAWSON AND COUNCILMEMBERS ORVIS AND PLUNKETT IN FAVOR; AND COUNCILMEMBERS MOORE, MARIN, OLSON AND WAMBOLT OPPOSED. COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, TO REMAND THE PROJECT BACK TO THE ADB FOR A MORE INTENSIVE REVIEW. Councilmember Wambolt preferred to remand versus appeal to the Superior Court, anticipating the issues could be resolved with a closer look at the project. Mayor Haakenson asked the Council to specify what they wanted the ADB to look at. Mr. Snyder commented one issue that was undisputed was that no material samples were provided to the ADB. He suggested on remand the materials be provided for consideration by the ADB in building design criteria Al, regarding the building exterior and A2, regarding color and the criteria regarding surrounding historic structures. Council President Dawson asked whether the Council could remand to the ADB with the caveat they hold another public hearing. Mr. Snyder advised if new information was provided, there would need to be a new evidentiary public hearing. Council President Dawson expressed her support for the motion as long as there would be another public hearing. Councilmember Wambolt commented his primary concern was the materials. He also supported the ADB holding another public hearing. Council President Dawson requested the ADB consider her earlier comments regarding pedestrian friendliness of the site, the unbroken roof and wall lines and historic surroundings. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 17, 2006 Page 22 Councilmember Orvis commented the ADB needed to find that the proposal was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Councilmember Marin hoped via another public hearing, citizens could quantify specifically what they wanted so that ultimately a compromise could be reached similar to the MPOR zone. Councilmember Plunkett commented pedestrian orientation and gathering spaces were more than just the windows and the building. The applicant could not expect to eliminate pedestrian orientation and gathering spaces and still meet that criteria. The applicant admitted the building did not meet the criteria associated with avoiding long unbroken roof and wall lines. Councilmember Olson asked what pedestrian gathering spaces were eliminated. Councilmember Plunkett answered his point was not that the literal space had to be retained but the reduction in open space /gathering space failed to meet the pedestrian oriented standard. Mr. Snyder pointed out there was no criteria that required pedestrian space be retained. He suggested the ADB demonstrate how the proposal related to pedestrian orientation under the guidelines. Councilmember Moore explained the issues for the ADB to consider on remand were the product samples and how the proposal meets pedestrian oriented design and historic character. Mr. Snyder advised he would develop written Findings of Fact and Conclusions that incorporated the Council's comments. The Findings and Conclusions would be presented to the Council for review on a future agenda. At that time the Council could revise the Findings as appropriate. He advised the Council could not talk about the issue until the Findings were adopted. Mayor Haakenson asked if the ADB's decision on remand was appealable to the Council. Mr. Snyder answered yes. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 8. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Council President Dawson cautioned the public not to speak to the Council about Old Milltown due to the remand. Ferry Terminal Natalie Shippen, Edmonds, summarized to date she had described the problems with the proposed ferry terminal to be located at Pt. Edwards including exposure to wind and waves, a distant landing from the terminal building, deep water, and holding lanes accessed via a road designated as a landslide hazard. The next 3 -4 chapters would describe fixes in a section entitled "How Do I Fix Thee, Let me Count the Ways." In Chapter 1, entitled "Suspenders and a Belt, a Fix for Exposure" she relayed captains' concern with landing at Pt. Edwards due to the exposure and their agreement that landings could be possible if there were a belt and suspenders. The belt would be a 600 foot floating breakwater placed south of and parallel to the slips to keep vessels stable while loading and unloading. While the breakwater would provide protection from waves, it would have little effect on wind conditions. Therefore suspenders would be necessary — a third slip oriented into the wind for landings in southwest winds over 20 knots. The third slip would require separate overhead loading and would not be used otherwise due to slower turnaround times. She advised chapter 2 of this section, entitled, `Genie, Minnie Mime Moe, Fixes for a Ferry Pedestrian to Save Them from a Long Line" would be provided next week. Barking Dogs-1 Roger Lee, Edmonds, advised the current dog law did not work for him. He understood he was legally entitled to the quiet enjoyment of his property and should not have to endure dogs barking continually. Animal control offered him a petition whereby enforcement could occur with two other signatures. He Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 17, 2006 Page 23 provided a map of the properties surrounding his house, identifying a significant number of surrounding residences with barking dogs, concluding they would be unlikely to sign the petition. He pointed out it was not right that his piece of mind was at the mercy of dog owners who were irresponsible, rude and socially unacceptable. He urged the City to consider a method other than petitions, suggesting the matter be decriminalized such as traffic citations, whereby when a police officer issued a traffic citation, the person was guilty until he /she proved otherwise. He concluded there was no piece of mind in his neighborhood and he wanted something done about it. Associated to Dave Page, Edmonds, recalled in 1992/1993, he had a 5 -unit PRD approved on 196th. In the process of Delays building those five houses he appeared before the ADB and encountered a 45 day delay that cost him thousands of dollars because one member did not like the landscape plan. He urged the Council to consider the ramifications of a remand on the developers costs. He concluded there was a great deal of money lost due to delays because someone did not do their job. aD$ Pubrc Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, commented it had been an interesting evening and he appreciated the xcaring opportunity to represent Edmonds citizens who were unable to participate in the Closed Record Review. He urged the Council to ensure the new public hearing at ADB was advertised. Next, he commented it was an accident that Ms. Larman and he attended the ADB meeting; he attended because of the playground project and Ms. Larman attended because of her interest in Old Milltown. He referred to the petition and Mayor Haakenson advised the Council would not receive the petition until the matter was resolved. Design Elisabeth Larman, Edmonds, thanked the Council for listening. She wished there was a way she could Guidelines i help the Council tweak the goals and guidelines to make them precise. She recommended the City Elements p g g p y develop a simple plan that recognized much of Edmonds was built between 1890 and 1940 and recognizing there were several styles, each with specific design elements. A list of design elements could then be provided to builders before they began their design. She suggested Friday Harbor and Bainbridge Island had such guidelines. Marketing I James Clauson, Edmonds, suggested that to assist with marketing Edmonds, downtown Edmonds be Edmonds changed to Edmonds Town Center which was a more modern adaptation and would do more for the retail base. He reported his survey of viable retail establishments in Edmonds revealed the third quarter was the best quarter many had had in their existence. He commented on the importance of a synergy such as the Saturday Market. He cited examples of areas with good retail such as Port Townsend and Mill Creek, concluding retail was a winner for the City both in property taxes and sales tax. 9. REPORT ON CITY COUNCI.L COMMITTEE MEETINGS Finance I Finance Committee Committee Councilmember Wambolt reported the Finance Committee reviewed the preliminary 2007 Property Tax Ordinance. It was the consensus of the Committee to forward the item to the full Council without a recommendation at this time until the Council had an opportunity to review the full budget and revenues. The Committee requested staff prepare three ordinances for consideration, 1) with no property tax increase, 2) with a 1 % property tax increase; and 3) with a 1 % property tax increase and use of remaining banked capacity. The committee then discussed sales tax sourcing. Sales tax sourcing would change the collection of sales tax from the point of sale to the point of destination. He advised this would be beneficial to Edmonds; however, even if it was passed by the legislature in 2007, the Department of Revenue would need a year to implement it; therefore, it was unlikely collection would begin in 2008. Public Safety Public Safety committee Councilmember Orvis reported the Committee discussed enforcement options for barking dogs and reviewed several ordinances, focusing on the Mountlake Terrace ordinance. Staff will provide further Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 17, 2006 Page 24 information regarding how that process could be streamlined. The Committee also discussed stray cats. Staff recommended pursuing code language that addressed the timeliness of returning cats to their owners or to animal control. Staff will return with further information regarding this issue. Councilmember Orvis commented as a dog owner, he had a neighbor knock on his door to complain about barking. He took action and kept his dog inside more to ensure he did not disturb the neighbors. He hoped all pet owners would respond similarly to a complaint as pet owners were responsible for their pets. 10. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Haakenson had no report. U. COUNCIL COMMENTS xarbor square Councilmember Wambolt reported the Harbor Square Redevelopment Committee, comprised of Port redevelopment Commissioner Bruce Ferris, Port Executive Director Chris Keuss, Community Services Director Stephen committee Clifton, Development Services Director Duane Bowman and himself, met last week and concluded this project should continue and the public should be heavily involved. He advised nothing would be done until January to allow them to develop tangible information to provide to the public regarding height options along the waterfront. He advised the Committee would be seeking some funding from the City and the Port to hire a consultant to assist with that effort. Councilmember Moore asked to place a resolution on next week's agenda in support of a 4 -year university in the Snohomish, Island and Skagit County area. She advised areas currently being discussed university were Everett and Marysville, the growth area of Snohomish County. The Board of Trustees for Edmonds Community College unanimously supported a 4 -year university. It was the consensus of the Council to schedule a resolution on next week's agenda. Edmonds Councilmember Marin commented the playground at Edmonds Elementary was very impressive and he Elementary was lad the City had been a participant. 12. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 11:17 p.m. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 17, 2006 Page 25