Loading...
12/12/2006 City CouncilDecember 12, 2006 Following a Special Meeting at 6:30 p.m. for an Executive Session regarding a legal matter, the Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Haakenson in the Council Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Gary Haakenson, Mayor Deanna Dawson, Council President Michael Plunkett, Councilmember Richard Marin, Councilmember Mauri Moore, Councilmember Peggy Pritchard Olson, Councilmember Dave Orvis, Councilmember Ron Wambolt, Councilmember ALSO PRESENT Kisa Nishimoto, Student Representative 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA STAFF PRESENT David Stern, Chief of Police Al Compaan, Assistant Police Chief Stephen Clifton, Community Services Director Dan Clements, Administrative Services Director Noel Miller, Public Works Director Kathleen Junglov, Asst. Admin. Services Dir. Rob Chave, Planning Manager Steve Bullock, Senior Planner Scott Snyder, City Attorney Sandy Chase, City Clerk Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst. Jeannie Dines, Recorder COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, FOR APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS Councilmember Orvis requested Item J be removed from the Consent Agenda and Council President Dawson requested Item K be removed. COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, FOR APPROVAL OF THE REMAINDER OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: Approve A. ROLL CALL 11/21/06 Minutes B. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 21, 2006. Approve 11/28/06 C. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 28, 2006. Minutes Approve I D. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #92491 THROUGH #92652 FOR NOVEMBER 30, Claim Checks 2006, IN THE AMOUNT OF $51.4,720.49, AND #92653 THROUGH #92830 FOR DECEMBER 7, 2006, IN THE AMOUNT OF $433,413.74. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSITS AND CHECKS #44242 THROUGH #44290 FOR THE PERIOD OF NOVEMBER 16 THROUGH NOVEMBER 30, 2006, IN THE AMOUNT OF $757,903.85. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 12, 2006 Page 1 Waterline Replacement E. REPORT ON BIDS OPENED NOVEMBER 30, 2006 FOR THE 2005 WATERLINE Pro ram REPLACEMENT PROGRAM AND AWARD OF CONTRACT TO INTERWEST Intergovern- CONSTRUCTION, INC. ($1,380,020.98). mental Services F. MIKE DOUBLEDAY INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES CONTRACT. Towing Contracts G. POLICE TOWING CONTRACTS FIRST AMENDMENT. Deceased H. CONTRACT FOR DECEASED ANIMAL DISPOSAL SERVICES WITH THE S. MORRIS Animals COMPANY. Services J. Dines I. PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT WITH JEANNIE DINES. Contract Res# 1135 L. RESOLUTION NO. 1135 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, Regional WASHINGTON, ON THE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PACKAGE BEING Transportation DEVELOPED BY THE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION INVESTMENT DISTRICT IN Package CONJUNCTION WITH SOUND TRANSIT, EXPRESSING RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE CITY OF EDMONDS FOR TRANSPORTATION INVESTMENTS IN SNOHOMISH COUNTY. Animal ITEM J: CONTRACT FOR ANIMAL KENNELING SERVICES WITH ADIX'S BED & BATH Kenneling FOR DOGS AND CATS. Services Councilmember Orvis advised he would vote against approving the contract with Adix as he was not comfortable with their adoption process. COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, FOR APPROVAL OF ITEM J. MOTION CARRIED (6 -1), COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS OPPOSED. The item approved is as follows: 0 Ord# 3615 ITEM K: Rezone 546 Paradise Lane CONTRACT FOR ANIMAL KENNELING SERVICES WITH ADIX'S BED & BATH FOR DOGS AND CATS. ORDINANCE NO. 3615 - APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT FOR THE CLOSED RECORD REVIEW HELD ON 1.1/21/06 ON THE APPLICATION BY MICHEL CONSTRUCTION TO REZONE PROPERTY FROM SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RS -6) TO MULTI FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RM -2.4). THE SITE IS LOCATED AT 546 PARADISE LANE. (FILE NO. R- 06 -77) Council President Dawson explained she would not support the proposed ordinance for the same reasons she voted against approving the rezone application at the November 6 public hearing,. Councilmember Orvis advised he also voted no at the November 6 meeting and would not support the proposed ordinance. COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, FOR APPROVAL OF ITEM K. MOTION CARRIED (5 -2), COUNCILMEMBERS PLUNKETT, MARIN, WAMBOLT, MOORE AND OLSON IN FAVOR; COUNCIL PRESIDENT DAWSON AND COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS OPPOSED. The item approved is as follows: K. ORDINANCE NO. 3615 - APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT FOR THE CLOSED RECORD REVIEW HELD ON 11/21/06 ON THE APPLICATION BY MICHEL CONSTRUCTION TO REZONE PROPERTY FROM SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RS -6) TO MULTI FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RM -2.4). THE SITE IS LOCATED AT 546 PARADISE LANE. (FILE NO. R- 06 -77) Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 12, 2006 Page 2 Water Rate 3. WATER RATE INCREASE PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDINANCE Increase Administrative Services Director Dan Clements explained for the past two years Financial Consulting Services Group had been conducting a rate study for water, sanitary sewer and stormwater utilities. A 3% water rate increase was included in the 2007 and 2008 budget with no increase in the sanitary sewer and stormwater rates. The impact on an average residential customer would be approximately $1.45 for the two month billing period in 2007 and $1.49 for the same billing period in 2008. He explained the primary drivers for the rate increase were approximately $4.6 million in water line replacements, $100,000 for replacement of the Five Corners pump station, $100,000 for replacement of a pressure reduction valve, $90,000 for reservoir security and $150,000 for seismic improvements. Councilmember Orvis clarified the 3% increase was on the water portion of the utility only, thus the increase on a resident's total utility bill would be less than 3 %. Mayor Haakenson opened the public hearing. There were no members of the public present who wished to provide testimony and Mayor Haakenson closed the public hearing. Ord# 3616 COUNCILMEMBER MOORE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, FOR Water Rate Increase APPROVAL OF THE WATER RATE INCREASE FOR 2007, ORDINANCE NO. 3616. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Councilmember Moore found it remarkable that the City's infrastructure could be strengthened for approximately 75 cents per month per household. She pointed out the recent flooding illustrated the importance of keeping the City's infrastructure sound. She expressed her appreciation to staff for the proposal. Refurbishment 4. DISCUSSION AND ACTION ON THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD'S FINDINGS of Old M illtown CONCERNING THE PROPOSED REFURBISHMENT OF OLD MILLTOWN LOCATED AT 201 M 5TH AVENUE SOUTH. Mayor Haakenson recalled that following the Council's previous discussion, he had contact with many citizens, the developer, and City staff. City Attorney Scott Snyder suggested he be the clearing house for anyone wanting to discuss the issue as the quasi judicial nature did not allow the Council to talk with citizens. Therefore he recused himself from any discussion of the matter and had not participated in Executive Sessions related to this matter. On the advice of the City Attorney, although he could not vote on the matter, he recused himself, turned the meeting over to Council President Dawson, and left the building. Council President Dawson recalled when the Council previously reviewed the ADB's decision regarding the refurbishment of Old Milltown on October 17, 2006, the Council remanded it back to the ADB to develop specific findings with regard to how the project complied /did not comply with required criteria in the code and the Comprehensive Plan. The ADB held a special meeting on November 30 in response to the Council's remand and after much deliberation and discussion, the project was approved with minor changes. The ADB's recommendation is now before the Council for deliberation and a decision. As this was a quasi judicial matter, under the Appearance of Fairness Act, Council President Dawson asked whether any Councilmember had any conflict or ex parte communication they wished to disclose. Councilmember Plunkett advised he received several emails which he did not open because the subject indicated they were related to this matter. During a telephone call from Roger Hertrich regarding an Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 12, 2006 Page 3 unrelated matter, Mr. Hertrich asked whether he had received the emails. He informed Mr. Hertrich he could not hear any substance from him regarding the matter and ended the conversation. Councilmember Olson advised she received the same emails Councilmember Plunkett received but did not read them. Councilmember Orvis advised he also received the same emails but did not read them. Councilmember Moore advised she received the same emails and did not read them. Councilmember Wambolt advised he received one email which he forwarded to Mr. Snyder. He received two telephone calls from Mr. Hertrich, one encouraging him to obtain the tapes of the ADB meeting because there was content not included in the meeting minutes, and the second asking whether he received the emails. Council President Dawson advised she received an email from Councilmember Wambolt regarding the emails Mr. Hertrich referred to. She also received the same emails other Councilmembers received. She received emails from Finis Tupper regarding the timing of the ADB hearing which she discussed with Mr. Snyder. She summarized none of these affected her ability to make a fair and impartial decision. She asked whether the Councilmembers felt they could proceed and make a fair and impartial decision. Councilmembers Plunkett, Olson, Orvis, Moore and Wambolt answered yes. Council President Dawson asked whether there were any objections to any Councilmember's participation based on their disclosures. A member of the audience began to object and Council President Dawson clarified only parties of record could voice an objection. Mr. Snyder listed the parties of record as Mr. Gregg, the applicant; Mr. Hertrich; and Ms. Larman. He explained under State Statute only the people who participated in the initial hearing were parties of record. Council President Dawson asked Mr. Snyder to describe the procedural challenges made at the ADB meeting. Mr. Snyder explained Ms. Larman, Mr. Hertrich and Mr. Gregg raised objections to staff in three categories: 1. Public notification of the special meeting — RCW 42.30.080 establishes the requirements for a special meeting. Staff and the City Clerk provided an affidavit to the Council showing the postings and that notice was provided. Mr. Snyder explained a special meeting notice required only minimal notice; 24 hours in advance of a meeting to parties who have requested special notice and to the parties of record. It was not a generalized notice nor was it the same as notice of application; it was very specific notice and only matters listed on the notice could be considered at the special meeting. 2. References made at Council hearing or at the ADB to matters outside the record. Mr. Gregg provided an extensive list via email to Mr. Bullock. He advised the findings the Council adopted for remand to the ADB limited matters to the four elements stated in Ms. Layman's initial complaint to the Council. The items raised at the Council outside the appeal were not considered or used by the Council in its remand decision. Ms. Larman and Mr. Hertrich in separate communications made specific complaints regarding reference by the Chairman during the ADB's deliberations to a walking tour brochure of historic buildings in Edmonds. As this was not contained in the original record, he recommended the Council by motion exclude it from consideration. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 12, 2006 Page 4 COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, TO EXCLUDE THE BROCHURE REGARDING HISTORIC BUILDINGS IN EDMONDS. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Ms. Larman and other citizens who were not parties of record alleged the doors to City Hall were locked. He provided an affidavit from Diane Cunningham, the Planning Administrative Assistant, stating she staffed the door from 5:30 — 6:30 p.m. He noted approximately 25 -30 people attended the ADB meeting and members of the Council were also in the building for other reasons. There was no direct evidence that the door was locked and Ms. Larman was not in the country at the time. He advised if true, it would be a violation of the Open Meetings Law but it was outside the scope of this proceeding. Any person who was excluded had the right to bring a separate legal challenge to invalidate the proceeding. He outlined the two options for the Council, 1) remand to the ADB to hold a new deliberation or 2) proceed with considering the matter. Council President Dawson asked Councilmembers who were in the building that night to comment. Councilmember Olson advised she arrived at approximately 6:15 p.m. for a South Snohomish Cities meeting at 6:30 p.m. and was at the door admitting people and recalled Diane Cunningham was also there. She advised there were people who arrived after 6:30 for the South Snohomish Cities meeting who were able to get in. Couneilmembers Marin and Moore advised they also attended the South Snohomish Cities meeting. Councilmember Wambolt was also at the meeting and agreed with Councilmember Olson's description. Mr. Snyder advised this was a matter for Council discretion whether to proceed or remand to the ADB. The only direct evidence was that the door was open. Council President Dawson advised that barring any evidence other than that the door was unlocked, the Council would proceed. Mr. Snyder reviewed issues contained in a complaint submitted by Mr. Hertrich, first whether the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan and zoning ordinance had been complied with in regard to square footage. He recalled a question was raised at the first hearing whether the square footage of new construction was less than the SEPA threshold and therefore properly noticed. The second issue was a challenge to the information in the record; the ADB's recommendations as based on staff notification and decision rather than a direct square footage measurement. He suggested the Council address this during its deliberations — whether there was sufficient evidence. The third issue Mr. Hertrich raised was the ADB confirmed by their comments that the building was boxy, long, and monotonous and that the ADB redesigned the building. Mr. Snyder advised the ADB could condition approval and the Council on appeal, under Chapter 20.05.040, had the right to affirm, modify or reverse the actions of the Hearing Examiner or ADB. Again, he recommended this be addressed during the Council's deliberations. The fourth issue raised by Mr. Hertrich was the ADB's decision was in error because new information was accepted. He referred to the Council's motion to exclude evidence regarding the walking tour. He suggested the Council's deliberations and Findings of Fact address these issues. He summarized the matter was before the Council for a final decision and the record was closed. Councilmember Wambolt asked whether the application would be handled differently if the square footage of new construction was over 4,000. Mr. Snyder answered there would be a different hearing process, different public notification and different land owner notification. Council President Dawson remanded to Council for deliberation. COUNCILMEMBER MOORE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, TO APPROVE THE ADB'S RECOMMENDATIONS AS WRITTEN. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 12, 2006 Page 5 Councilmember Plunkett recalled at the October 17 meeting his focus was on the historic preservation aspect. The existing code requires an application be sensitive to the historic character of downtown; however, as much as he would like to hold an applicant to the term "sensitive" it was an inexact, undefined word. He recalled he also referenced open space at the October 17 meeting and via discussions with Mr. Snyder, realized the standards for open space also were not sufficient. He referred to ECDC 20.10.070 which requires long, massive, unbroken design of buildings be avoided. He recalled asking the applicant whether the proposal reduced or maintained open space and found it decreased the amount of open space. He referred to existing open space on 5th Avenue and on Dayton that had been moved out to the sidewalk. He noted this was important under 20.10.070 as it increased the long, massive, unbroken lines of the building. For that reason, he found the application failed to meet the expectations of the code and he would not support the motion. Councilmember Orvis referred to the criteria that long, massive, unbroken design of buildings be avoided. He referred to page 40 of the packet which illustrated the north side of the existing building and the proposed building, noting the existing building appeared to be two buildings, one with a flat roof and the other a taller building with a pitched roof. The drawing of the proposed building appeared to be a two - floor, single color building with a continuous flat roof, that actually concealed the alley. The photograph and drawing on page 41 of the existing building illustrated the bay window that broke up the fagade had been eliminated in the proposed building. He concluded the building design was long and unbroken. Councilmember Wambolt observed the ADB's deliberation on December 1 was more comprehensive and allowed him to determine he could not support the motion. He objected to the massing of the building and agreed with the ADB's minority report authored by Mr. Michel who voted against approval because of the massing. He disagreed with the three ADB members who supported the proposal and did not believe there was massing. He noted the proposal to fill in the west side of the building along 5`h would make it 70% longer than it was today with less modulation via the removal of the bay window. He preferred adding more modulation rather than removing modulation, finding the same for the Dayton side of the building due to the elimination of the open space on the first level and the addition of a second level on the northeast corner. He concluded the building would look more like it did in 1913 when it was renovated; what people liked was the appearance of the building as it had existed since being renovated in 1973. He did not support the motion. Councilmember Moore commented it was not a matter of what people liked, it was a matter of whether the proposal complied with the law. She noted the minority on the ADB was only one member; the remainder of the members agreed that every criterion in the code had been met. She encouraged the Council to uphold the law and approve the application. Councilmember Olson commented the ADB stated the proposed project avoids long, massive, unbroken and monotonous facades. Facades are broken up by new windows and doors in addition to variations in building material used on the exterior. Windows are used and arranged in such a way to allow light and air into the occupants of the project. Different styles of windows are used to add variety to the fagade but are used in such a manner to add symmetry and balance to the fagade. There are planter boxes on the street level to allow for landscaping while still enhancing the pedestrian experience on the street level. She pointed out three ADB members found the proposal was not massive. She agreed with Councilmember Moore, Councilmembers could not vote based on their personal opinion whether they liked a building; the decision must be based on whether it complied with the code. Councilmember Marin was troubled that the applicant was being penalized by the size of the lot; a building on a larger lot would naturally be bigger. He objected to the requests to reduce the mass by cutting the building into small pieces. He noted the applicant was attempting to remodel and retain a landmark building; one of the options was to demolish the building. He found the applicant's proposal Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 12, 2006 Page 6 reasonable and that it addressed the issues of breaking up the length and height of the building with interesting architectural features. Councilmember Moore agreed with Councilmember Marin, pointing out that in addition to lacking a definition of open space and sensitive to historic character, the City did not have a definition of massing; therefore that was not adequate to reject an application. With regard to Councilmember Orvis' comment that the building appeared to be all one color (page 40), Councilmember Moore noted it was a black & white picture. She objected to making an important decision on redevelopment in the downtown area of a 2 -story building that would revitalize the retail core based on a black & white artist's rendering. Councilmember Wambolt disagreed with Councilmember Marie's comment that some Councilmembers wanted the building broken up into smaller buildings, noting he had not heard that statement made. He pointed out it was possible to provide the appearance of small buildings. He concluded the Council was complying with the law when stating the building was too massive and referenced ECDC 20.10.070(4) which states 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 and to provide space for landscaping and recreational facilities. He found the proposal to be a long, massive, unbroken, monotonous building. Councilmember Moore referred to the portion of the code regarding light and air to residents of the building, noting there was plenty of light and air reaching the residents. Council President Dawson commented her perspective had not changed as a result of the ADB's review; she did not find the proposal complied with the code. She referred to ADB Member Michel's comments on page 89, finding the building long and monotonous. She noted the question before the ADB and the Council was not how the design could be tweaked to comply but whether the proposal complied with the code. She referred to the criteria that long, massive, unbroken or monotonous buildings be avoided, finding the proposal did not comply with that criterion. She disagreed that a building of this size could not be designed to avoid monotony, noting the photographs of the existing building illustrated a building that was not monotonous or too massive and had excellent modulation. She did not support the motion. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (3 -4), COUNCILMEMBERS MARIN, OLSON AND MOORE IN FAVOR; COUNCIL PRESIDENT DAWSON AND COUNCILMEMBERS WAMBOLT, PLUNKETT AND ORVIS OPPOSED. COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, TO DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE FINDINGS OF FACT TO AFFIRM THE APPEAL AND REVERSE THE FINDINGS OF THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD BASED ON FAILURE TO MEET THE CRITERIA IN ECDC 20.10.070 WITH REGARD TO LONG, MASSIVE, UNBROKEN AND MONOTONOUS BUILDINGS. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4 -3), COUNCIL PRESIDENT DAWSON AND COUNCILMEMBERS PLUNKETT, WAMBOLT, AND ORVIS IN FAVOR; COUNCILMEMBERS OLSON, MARIN, AND MOORE OPPOSED. Council. President Dawson declared a brief recess and Mayor Haakenson returned to the dais. Downtown i 5. CONTINUED COUNCIL DELIBERATION AND ACTION ON THE PUBLIC HEARING HELD Business Zones ON SEPTEMBER 18 2006 ON THE DRAFT "BD - DOWNTOWN BUSINESS ZONES" INTENDED TO BE APPLIED TO THE DOWNTOWN AREA TO IMPLEMENT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. Planning Manager Rob Chave pointed out the Council was in continued deliberation on the BD zones as well as the downtown plan language amendments. He recommended once the Council completed their discussion regarding the BD zones, they revisit the plan language to ensure it was consistent. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 12, 2006 Page 7 COUNCILMEMBER MOORE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, TO ADOPT THE PLAN AS PRESENTED. Councilmember Plunkett proposed allowing drive -up windows as a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) downtown. He recalled the Council's preference not to allow any more drive -ups and suggested uses such as pharmacies or banks have the opportunity to persuade the Council and community that they should be allowed a drive -up via a CUP. He concluded the result would be there would not be any more drive -up windows downtown unless the applicant met the burden of proof via a CUP process. COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT DAWSON, TO AMEND THE PLAN TO ALLOW DRIVE -UPS DOWNTOWN AS A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. Mayor Haakenson pointed out CUPs were reviewed by the Hearing Examiner. Councilmember Moore advised she would not support the amendment, recalling the original intent was to make the downtown pedestrian friendly. The Planning Board also expressed concern with conflicts between curb cuts /cars and pedestrians. She preferred there eventually be no drive- throughs in the downtown core. She noted this core was a small area and there were other zones that allowed drive -in businesses. Council President Dawson commented there may be circumstances where a drive -in may be beneficial. She noted there were existing businesses downtown with drive- throughs that worked well. She agreed with requiring stringent regulation via a CUP. She expressed support for the motion. MOTION CARRIED (6 -1), COUNCILMEMBER MOORE OPPOSED. Councilmember Plunkett noted art galleries were slated for the 4th Avenue corridor; he preferred they be allowed in all BD zones. COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, TO ALLOW ART GALLARIES AND MUSEUMS OF LOCAL CONCERN AS AN OUTRIGHT PERMITTED USE IN THE DOWNTOWN ZONE. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Councilmember Orvis referred to his previous presentation illustrating his concern with the proposed height exceptions. COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT DAWSON, TO AMEND THE PLAN AS FOLLOWS: 1) DELETE 16.43.030.C.5a REGARDING HEIGHT EXCEPTION FOR BUILDING CORNICES, 2) DELETE 16.43.030.C.5b REGARDING HEIGHT ROOF OR DECK RAILINGS, 3) CHANGE 16.43.030.5c TO INSERT THE WORD "SINGLE" BEFORE "DECORATIVE ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENT," 4) DELETE 16.43.030.C.5d REGARDING PITCHED ROOFS, AND 5) DELETE 16.43.030.C.5e. Councilmember Orvis explained the intent of the amendment was to eliminate all exceptions except the current exceptions for pipes, chimneys and elevator penthouses and allow an exception for a single architectural element. Councilmember Marin advised he would vote against the motion, expressing concern that eliminating the exceptions removed options for designing an interesting looking building and would result in buildings that all looked the same. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 12, 2006 Page 8 Councilmember Moore did not support the amendment, finding it too restrictive. She commented it was the Council's intent to provide flexibility in the code so that architects and builders could submit their concepts to the ADB for review. Councilmember Olson recalled staff developed the exceptions as a compromise to higher buildings but allow for interesting design such as a roof garden and a parapet. She agreed the proposed amendment was too restrictive as it would eliminate that opportunity. Councilmember Moore noted none of the proposed amendments had been through a public hearing like all the other concepts had been. If the Council was interested in eliminating height exceptions, the Council should approve the plan with the exceptions and then seek the public's input regarding further changes. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4 -3), COUNCIL PRESIDENT DAWSON AND COUNCILMEMBERS PLUNKETT, ORVIS AND WAMBOLT IN FAVOR; COUNCILMEMBERS MOORE, MARIN AND OLSON OPPOSED. Councilmember Orvis referred to the direction given to the Planning Board with regard to 30 -foot building height in the retail core with a maximum of two floors and requiring a 15 -foot first floor. He recalled the 30 -foot building height was allowed with a 15 -foot first floor to accommodate two stories on a site that sloped down. He noted the proposed ordinance did not contain the two floor criteria. He recalled a citizen questioned why 30 feet was necessary for 3 additional feet on the first floor, suggesting for the additional 3 feet on the first floor a building height of 28 feet be allowed. COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT DAWSON, TO CHANGE 16.43.030.0.2 TO READ, "WITHIN THE BDI, THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT IS 28 FEET. Councilmember Moore found this the most onerous of Councilmember Orvis' amendments, pointing out a 28 -foot building height negated nearly three years of work. She recalled the Planning Board's first recommendation was 33 feet with a 12 -foot first floor which the Council rejected. The 30 -foot building height with a 15 -foot first floor, which has had four public hearings versus Councilmember Orvis' amendment which has had none, was a compromise she supported. She found it ill advised, unfair and illogical to arbitrarily eliminate 2 feet from the building height from the most expensive commercial area in the City and an area that was vital to the City's economic development with no public or Planning Board input. Councilmember Moore pointed out the Chanterelle building was 33 feet tall; a proportion that gave it charm, grace and historic significance. If the Council wanted to prohibit buildings such as that, it would be advisable to get some public input. With regard to two stories versus three stories, she noted there had not been any evidence presented in the past three years that two stories were better or more attractive than three. The evidence provided actually said redeveloping to two stories was not economically feasible. The Council decided on a 30 -foot maximum building height; what happened within the building envelope should be determined by design guidelines and the ADB, property owner and architect. She preferred to step -back the third floor or anything over 25 feet to protect the pedestrian scale of narrow streets and preserve the continuous commercial experience. She did not support the proposed amendment. Mayor Haakenson agreed there had not been any public hearing or public input on changing the height limit to 28 feet. From staff's perspective, changing the maximum building height to 28 feet negated the last two years of work. He agreed with Councilmember Moore that changing the height limit tonight was ill conceived and ill advised. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 12, 2006 Page 9 Councilmember Wambolt concurred the Council had agreed to a 30 -foot building height and he would not support the amendment. Council President Dawson commented the issue of building height had been discussed a lot and there had been a great deal of public input. She recalled the consultant recommended 25 -feet in the BD1 zone. If the intent was to preserve buildings like Chanterelle, she preferred to preserve existing buildings in the BD 1 such as Chanterelle. She commented higher building heights in the fountain square area that made redevelopment economically feasible would result in existing buildings being demolished and new buildings constructed. However, a lower building height such as suggested by Councilmember Orvis' amendment of 28 feet was more likely to result in redevelopment that maintained existing structures in the BD1 zone. She agreed if the first floor ceiling height was increased from 12 feet to 15 feet, the maximum building height should only be an additional 3 feet. She concluded this was the best way to preserve the historic character of the BD zone. She found the 28 -foot building height a compromise; she preferred a 25 -foot building height. She expressed her support for the amendment. Councilmember Marin commented on the Port Commissioners' reference to mixed signals they received from the Council with regard to building heights for Harbor Square redevelopment, noting this was another example of the Council sending mixed signals. He did not support the proposed amendment. Councilmember Moore commented no one had ever said they wanted to preserve all the buildings in downtown Edmonds; there were many that were inadequate and did not meet fire or building codes, many were cinder block construction and there was nothing charming, historic or beautiful about them. She had heard people say they were interested in preserving the charm of downtown. She reiterated there had been no public input on 28 -foot building heights. She recommended the change to 28 feet be considered as a future amendment after the plan had been approved. Councilmember Wambolt recalled the direction the Council gave to the Planning Board at the March 28 meeting was 15 -foot first floor ceiling heights and a maximum of two floors in the retail core and a 30- foot building height. Council President Dawson pointed out she voted against providing that direction to the Planning Board. Councilmember Plunkett commented heights from 25 to 33 feet had been discussed for the past three years. He did not agree there had not been adequate public input just because there had not been input on this specific amendment. He was satisfied with the amendment, finding the citizens' had provided adequate input over the past three years. Mayor Haakenson agreed there had been enough public comment on height limits; however, the Council's direction to the Planning Board was a 30 -foot height limit and tonight was the first time a height of 28 feet had been discussed. Council President Dawson pointed out the direction to the Planning Board included a requirement for two stories which was not included. She concluded 28 feet was viewed by at least three Councihnembers as a compromise to requiring two stories. Councilmember Wambolt pointed out the packet contained his proposed amendment regarding two stories. Councilmember Olson referred to staff's comment in the agenda memo that a 28 -foot height limit would not allow a building like Chanterelle. She concluded even staff had concerns with this amendment. She did not support the proposed amendment. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 12, 2006 Page 10 UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (3 -4), COUNCILMEMBERS ORVIS AND PLUNKETT AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT DAWSON IN FAVOR; COUNCILMEMBERS OLSON, WAMBOLT, MOORE AND MARIN OPPOSED. Councilmember Orvis noted the code contained an open space requirement but the threshold was 12,000 square feet; he proposed a threshold of 6,000 square feet. COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT DAWSON, TO AMEND 16.43.030.E TO START OUT BY SAYING "FOR BUILDINGS LARGER THAN 6,000 SQUARE FEET..." Councilmember Moore commented there had not been any public input on this amendment; therefore, she could not support it. MOTION FAILED (2 -5), COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT DAWSON IN FAVOR; COUNCILMEMBERS PLUNKETT, MARIN, WAMBOLT, MOORE AND OLSON OPPOSED. COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, TO AMEND 16.43.030.C.2 TO READ: "WITHIN THE BDI ZONE THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT IS 30 FEET WITH NO MORE THAN TWO FLOORS ABOVE THE STREET LEVEL AND THE GROUND FLOOR MUST BE AT LEAST 15 FEET IN HEIGHT." Councilmember Orvis commented this would restore the original intent of the direction to the Planning Board; therefore, he would support the proposed amendment. Councilmember Moore asked staff to comment on the proposed amendment. Mr. Chave commented overall this would not have an effect except in a small portion of the BD on 5th where there is an uphill slope. In that area it may be possible to get an extra floor with a 30 -foot building height. He noted that was the reason for discussing step- backs. Councilmember Moore expressed concern with the use of stories and floors interchangeably. City Attorney Scott Snyder advised definitions were the next task in the code rewrite. He envisioned the language two floors above street level and the ground floor must be 15 feet in height could be read as ground floor synonymous with the street level and two floors above that which he was certain was not Councilmember Wambolt's intent. Councilmember Moore commented for that reason and others, she would not support the amendment. Council President Dawson preferred staff's recommendation regarding step backs with regard to how the streetseape looked. She did not support the motion as currently worded. MOTION FAILED (2 -5), COUNCILMEMBERS WAMBOLT AND ORVIS IN FAVOR; COUNCILMEMBERS PLUNKETT, MOORE, OLSON, AND WAMBOLT, AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT DAWSON OPPOSED. COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, IN THE TABLE OF PERMITTED USES, DELETE "NEW" FROM AUTOMOBILE SALES AND SERVICE. Councilmember Wambolt pointed out this would allow the sale of used vehicles in addition to new. He noted automotive sales and service was not allowed in the BDI, BD4 or BD5 zones but was allowed in the BD2 and BD3 zones. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 12, 2006 Page 11 Council President Dawson proposed the step -back rules in the BD 1 be consistent with the step back rules in the other areas so that the building did not have the appearance of additional height. Her concern was that there was the ability in the BDI to have buildings that are and appear to be taller than the rest of downtown, something she found surprising in the fountain square area. She referred to staff's note in the packet that as an alternative to a 28 -foot height limit in the BDI zone and to address the concern about the interaction of slope and building height, the Council could establish a step -back rule for the BDI zone, requiring a step -back for any portion of the building that exceeded 30 feet above the street or 30 feet above average grade. Although she was still uncomfortable with a 30 -foot building height, she found this an acceptable compromise. COUNCIL PRESIDENT DAWSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, TO ADD THE BDI ZONE TO THE STEP -BACK RULES IN 16.43.030.C.3. Councilmember Marin advised he would support the amendment but did not believe it would ever be used as that area was fairly level. A tel I I [11110M 19 71IIIliI►/_ \►161 [1100 1` Councilmember Wambolt pointed out 16.43.030.C.2 had to be changed as the existing wording, the maximum height may be increased to 30 feet when the ground floor is at least 15 feet in height, was misleading because the ground floor in the BDI was required to be 15 feet. Mr. Chave explained the reason it was worded that way was the base height was 25 feet. Mr. Snyder pointed out that wording was necessary to prevent an existing building that was remodeled less than 50% of its value from increasing the building height without increasing the first floor height. MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED (6 -1), COUNCIL PRESIDENT DAWSON OPPOSED. COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, TO DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN ORDINANCE FOR COUNCIL ADOPTION TO LIFT THE MORATORIUM ON CERTAIN DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS IN THE BC ZONE. Citing the Council's recent quasi judicial review of a building that many people had feelings about and the Council's inability to overturn the ADB's recommendation based on historical character because the City's standards relied on the term "sensitive" which was a general term and difficult to enforce, Councilmember Orvis suggested the Council begin a process that involved the Historical Preservation Commission (HPC) to develop historical standards for buildings in the BD zone. Mayor Haakenson suggested Councilmember Orvis' concept would need to be separate from the current moratorium. Councilmember Orvis was concerned with lifting the moratorium on the BDI, expressing interest in a moratorium on development in the BDI until a historical review process could be developed to ensure new buildings in BDI zone had a historical flavor via either maintaining the existing historical building or redeveloped to look like a historical building. Mayor Haakenson suggested the proper process would be to lift the current moratorium and adopt a new moratorium on the BDI zone for historical purposes. Mr. Snyder suggested if the motion passed, another motion could be made directing him to draft another moratorium on the BDI zone. He pointed out that would be a broader moratorium; the one proposed to be lifted was only on development over 25 feet. Mayor Haakenson asked how long the City could continue to have a moratorium. Mr. Snyder answered it had been a long time, a duration he was not comfortable with. He suggested lifting the current moratorium and as Councilmember Orvis described, Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 12, 2006 Page 12 establish a moratorium on the issuance of all building permits for new construction and demolition permits in the downtown area. Council President Dawson asked when the current moratorium ended. City Clerk Sandy Chase advised it had been extended recently and expired May 17. Mayor Haakenson explained Councilmember Marin's motion was to repeal the current moratorium; Councilmember Orvis' suggestion was for a different moratorium with a different legislative rationale. MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCIL PRESIDENT DAWSON OPPOSED. Councilmember Orvis explained his hope was that the Council would direct the HPC to develop ordinances to hold buildings in the BD1 to tighter historical standards than currently existed; the moratorium would protect the buildings in the BD 1 zone until the ordinances could be adopted. He hoped this could be done in a timely manner so that the moratorium would be short lived. COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT DAWSON, THAT THE COUNCIL DIRECT THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION TO DEVELOP ORDINANCES THAT HOLD BUILDINGS TO TIGHTER HISTORICAL STANDARDS. Councilmember Moore commented she did not understand what the tighter historical standards would be and again, this suggestion needed public input. She pointed out a moratorium was a very serious thing and she did not believe anyone would file an application for a building in the BD1 because of the restrictions the Council placed on that zone. She emphasized the term "historic" needed to be defined before a moratorium was adopted as historic was something more than nostalgic. Council President Dawson clarified the motion was for the HPC to begin working on historic standards and did not include a moratorium. She supported the concept of historic preservation downtown to ensure the buildings the community believed were historic were preserved. She expressed her support for the motion. Mayor Haakenson assumed whatever the HPC developed would be forwarded to the Planning Board for their consideration. Council President Dawson agreed it would have to be reviewed by the Planning Board. Councilmember Moore commented she misunderstood the motion to include a moratorium. Councilmember Orvis commented that would be his next motion. Councilmember Plunkett agreed specific language needed to be developed so that the community was satisfied that new construction and remodeled structures met historic standards that reflected the character and the will of the community. That could be achieved via the HPC developing language for input by the Council and review and hearings by the Planning Board. He expressed his support for the motion. Councilmember Marin commented the work of the HPC to date made it optional for the property owner to have their building declared historic and providing the owner with options. He was hesitant to support the motion as worded in the fear it would lock owners in and tell them what they could /could not do with their building. Councilmember Plunkett commented the intent of the motion was not to establish an historic district such as Pioneer Square in downtown Seattle. He agreed the only process for historic structures today was voluntary; the motion addressed specific design guidelines so that new construction or a remodel would meet the intent of sensitive to historic character. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 12, 2006 Page 13 Councilmember Moore commented the Council still had not passed design guidelines although they had been a Council priority for some time. She questioned how a process to develop historic design guidelines would be dovetailed with the design guidelines that were already in process. Councilmember Plunkett was hopeful they would dovetail, that would be a good objective. The HPC's objective would be to move as fast as possible. For Councilmember Moore, Mr. Chave advised the Planning Board was holding a hearing tomorrow night. Councilmember Moore envisioned those design guidelines would come to the Council before the HPC could begin their work and if the HPC developed historic design guidelines, the process would need to begin again. Councilmember Wambolt indicated he would support the motion due to his belief the issue of historic buildings needed to be reviewed because most citizens had a different ideas of what it meant — they believed historic buildings were protected and that the owner could not demolish a building designated as historic. Councilmember Orvis agreed it would be preferable if the processes dovetailed. If a conflict arose between the design guidelines, his preference would be to side with the historic standards due to the importance of preserving the historic nature of downtown. He pointed out the importance of the City's historical character to economic development. Councilmember Moore agreed with better defining historic standards. She pointed out the downtown had been developed over decades and only a few buildings could be identified as having a historic look. She would support the motion so that the HPC could hear from the public what they believed was historic and why. Councilmember Olson recommended this effort be fast- tracked and incorporated into the design guidelines currently being processed. Mr. Snyder pointed out the motion did not refer to a specific zone. Councilmember Orvis advised his intent was to limit it to the BD1 zone. Mr. Snyder inquired whether his intent was only architectural features. Councilmember Orvis clarified his intent was an open -ended process for the HPC to determine how the history of downtown could be preserved. Councilmember Marin questioned what date would be frozen as "historic." He pointed out in Pioneer Square, there were a sufficient number of buildings constructed in that era that satisfied an architectural style and it was appropriate to freeze that time. Conversely, Edmonds' downtown has evolved over a long period of time. He objected to freezing buildings that were no longer viable. Mayor Haakenson . clarified the motion was for the HPC to study historic buildings and what historic buildings mean and make a recommendation to the Planning Board. Mr. Chave commented if the Council charged the HPC with analyzing options for preserving downtown, there were many different options. He suggested the HPC decide on an approach and present it to the Council before forwarding it to the Planning Board to develop ordinances. Mayor Haakenson restated the motion as follows: DIRECT THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION TO COME BACK TO THE COUNCIL WITH A RECOMMENDATION REGARDING HOW THEY WOULD PROCEED WITH HISTORIC PRESERVATION IN THE BDI ZONE. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 12, 2006 Page 14 Mr. Snyder asked whether Councilmember Orvis was interested in a moratorium on building and demolition permits and if so, in what zones. Councilmember Orvis answered building and demolition permits in the BD zone. Mr. Snyder commented there were other vesting requirements in the code; he clarified Councilmember Orvis did not want any vested right to demolish or construct a building in the BD zone. Councilmember Orvis agreed that was his intent. COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, TO DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO DRAFT AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A MORATORIUM ON BUILDING PERMITS AND DEMOLITION PERMITS IN THE BD1 ZONE WITH THE VESTING PROVISIONS OUTLINED BY MR. SNYDER. Councilmember Marin indicated he could not support the motion because the historic preservation provisions currently in place allowed a person to decide whether or not they wanted to utilize the tools available to a historic building. The proposed motion would handcuff those property owners. Councilmember Plunkett expressed his support for the motion, pointing out he did not want anything to occur in the downtown core until the community had an opportunity to define historically sensitive so that buildings would be designed and constructed to those standards. Councilmember Moore pointed out the most important issues were design guidelines and economic development. She recalled Councilmembers Plunkett and Orvis voted against development on Hwy. 99 and were not in favor of much development in neighborhood centers and asked where they planned to support economic development in Edmonds. She noted the budget kept increasing, tonight water rates were increased and it would get worse unless there was some economic development in the City. She summarized the more moratoria the Council enacted and the longer they dragged their feet, the longer it would be before any economic development occurred and the more property taxes would increase or services would decrease. She would not support the proposed moratorium, commenting it was doubtful any applications would be Bled for redevelopment in the downtown area in view of the restrictions the Council placed on development. She reiterated the need for design guidelines. Mayor Haakenson commented the Council had had a moratorium in this area for a long time and if this motion passed, there would be another moratorium on a section of downtown for another reason. He asked at what point someone would reach the point of saying enough's enough. Council President Dawson suggested Mr. Snyder provide any legal advice to the Council in Executive Session. Mr. Snyder suggested he address the process and offered to describe the risks in Executive Session. He pointed out the moratoria were two separate issues and would need separate legislative findings and reasons. The first moratorium was a result of the Bauer decision and a consistent interpretation of the 25+ foot height limit. That was overturned by the court and a moratorium was put in place on construction over 25 feet until that issue was addressed. This was a different moratorium, enacted for different reasons in a different geographical area. He offered to prepare a memorandum for discussion in Executive Session . before the next Council meeting. Councilmember Plunkett commented some believed that preserving the charm and character of downtown was economic development. He pointed out the General Fund budget had increased $1.0 million in the past ten years, sales tax revenues had increased from $2.4 million to $5.4 million in the past ten years, and merchants' gross receipts over the past ten years have doubled from $30 million to $60 million, all without taller buildings. That additional revenue and economic development was from preserving the charm and character of the community. He summarized that was good policy, good economic development and what the people of Edmonds wanted. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 12, 2006 Page 15 Councilmember Olson expressed concern that there were more and more empty spaces downtown. She found the moratorium onerous as a property owner with a building that was not historic such as a cement cinderblock building, could not do anything with the moratorium in place. Council President Dawson agreed with Councilmember Plunkett regarding economic development, commenting people came to downtown to shop because of its historic nature. She agreed there were some buildings downtown that were not historic but she preferred to error on the side of protecting too much versus protecting too little. She commented the recent process illustrated the code did not provide clear guidance on being sensitive to historic structures and did not require redevelopment to be sensitive to existing structures. She noted that came as a surprise to many although that was certainly the intent of the drafters of the original code, to preserve the historic nature of the downtown area. She discounted the concern with enacting a brief moratorium while the HPC developed language regarding historic preservation, anticipating it may only require tightening up design guidelines to define sensitive to historic structures. She pointed out there was currently nothing in the code that prevented the demolition of Old Milltown; if the Council cared about preserving that structure, a moratorium was necessary until it could be determined how historic structures could be preserved. Councilmember Olson observed the original moratorium was only supposed to be for a few months and ended up being two years. She emphasized moratoria had a huge impact on property owners because they could not do anything with their property while the moratorium was in place. She objected to enacting a moratorium that had such a large impact on property owners and not seeking input from the public and the property owners. She concluded enacting moratoria often had unforeseen consequences. Councilmember Wambolt indicated he was not comfortable voting on this motion tonight. He suggested further discussion occur in Executive Session. Mr. Snyder agreed the risks could be discussed in Executive Session. He recalled Washington Cities Insurance Authority's (WCIA) indication that moratorium were the largest source of municipal liability and as such asked to be notified of any moratoria. The Council's direction was to prepare an ordinance to impose a moratorium for Council consideration at the next meeting. A public hearing must then be held within 60 days and the moratorium was limited to six months absent Council action to extend it via separate action. He clarified regardless of the Council's action tonight, applications for permits could be accepted until the Council passed the moratorium ordinance. Council President Dawson pointed out the moratorium could be lifted by the Council at any time during the process. The moratorium would assist in preserving existing buildings until language could be developed with regard to historic preservation. Councilmember Wambolt asked whether construction could begin on the AM -PM property. Mr. Snyder answered anyone with a vested permit right who had filed a fully complete building permit or filed a fully completed demolition permit or had vested under the ADB vesting process could continue with construction. Anyone could file any of those permits until the Council imposed a moratorium via ordinance. He summarized the motion instructed him to draft an ordinance and did not do anything legislatively. Mayor Haakenson asked whether the Bank of Washington had filed any building permits. Mr. Chave answered they received a Conditional Use approval for a drive -in; he was not certain whether they had submitted for a building permit. For Mayor Haakenson, Mr. Snyder explained any individual could vest by filing a permit under the current ordinances at any time until a moratorium was enacted. Mayor Haakenson commented realistically no one could design a building and apply for a building permit in a week's time unless they happened to be ready to go. Mr. Snyder advised the City's building code had a Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 12, 2006 Page 16 specialized vesting permit procedure to allow individuals who were concerned about an avenue for vesting their right. Councilmember Plunkett advised the HPC had already drafted a recommendation in anticipation of the Council's frustration with the word sensitive. The HPC's intent was to vet their recommendation with Mr. Snyder and Mr. Chave and then bring them to the Council. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (3 -4), COUNCIL PRESIDENT DAWSON AND COUNCILMEMBERS ORVIS AND PLUNKETT IN FAVOR; COUNCILMEMBERS WAMBOLT, MARIN, OLSON AND MOORE OPPOSED. Mr. Chave referred to revised language that was distributed to the Council, explaining the intent was to ensure the language was aligned with decisions made with regard to downtown zoning. He referred to page 38, vehicular access and parking, and suggested the second sentence be eliminated. He noted this language was provided by the Planning Board consistent with their recommendation there be no drive - through businesses, and that there also not be any new curb cuts downtown. Since the Council allowed the potential for new drive -in businesses downtown, that language should be removed. He advised the revisions would require Council adoption of an ordinance. Council President Dawson suggested language strongly discouraging new curb cuts except when a CUP was granted for a drive- through. Council President Dawson suggested the Council read through the changes for discussion and adoption next week. G��II 7 i �1►[�19[K�]u iu 191►Y Ky Alan McFarland, Edmonds, commented one of the City's greatest draws was Old Milltown, particularly Old Milltown th the south half bordering on 5 Avenue South, which filled the need for asit -down place where residents and visitors could talk, eat, hang out and enjoy this unique space. Besides being a fun place to go, it brought a lot of tourist dollars to the City. He emphasized the south end of Old Milltown was too wonderful in its present state for the Mayor, Council, Planning Board or ADB to allow its present footprint to be changed and "Greggorize" it. He envisioned if it were destroyed, residents and visitors would lose one of the single most important historic attractions in downtown. He urged the Council to slow down, do it right and involve the public in maintaining this unique piece of history. suitdings in Don Kreiman, Edmonds, provided numerous photographs that illustrated the Council's legacy, eed of photographs of several buildings on 5th Avenue and on Main Street that needed revitalization. He also Revitalization provided photographs of the unsightly condition of the rear of several of the same buildings. He pointed out the action the Council took tonight would allow these conditions to continue. He displayed photographs of other areas that were not being developed due to restrictive codes including the former Albertson's store, the strip mall across the street, a vacant lot on Sunset and Firdale Village. He provided a photograph of a ravine in his neighborhood that was cleared and filled and replaced with houses. He urged the Council to be leaders so that their legacy would be meaningful. old Milltown Bob Gregg, Edmonds, thanked the Council for culminating a lengthy process, commenting his feeling was "win some, lose some." He noted the process over the last three months for Old Milltown had been a lightning rod for bringing the community together to develop ideas. He pointed out what was historic needed to be resolved, whether it was 1913 or 1978. He commented as a result of Council comments regarding the loss of open space, they were willing to make revisions to retain that gathering space, but the quasi judicial process did not allow any dialogue. Mr. Snyder cautioned the Findings of Fact had not yet been adopted with regard to the Council's decision on Old Milltown. Mr. Gregg offered to meet with staff after next week. He advised the moratorium which he believed was aimed at 201 5th Avenue was unnecessary as he was willing to work with the City. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 12, 2006 Page 17 [November 30 Lynn McFarland, Edmonds, reported the November 30 ADB meeting was poorly run and the Chair was ADB Meeting rude and threatening and his behavior was beyond belief. She did not feel he was a person that should be in a position of public trust, recalling he even invited a person who disagreed with him to go outside to settle it. She requested something be done to remove Mr. Utt from the ADB. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, recalled a question was raised at the ADB with regard to phasing and how Old Milltown Roger square footage of the remainder of Old Milltown would be considered. The answer was there were no rules with regard to phasing. Staff would determine whether the new square footage constituted phasing and whether the two together resulted in a larger square footage, creating more requirements. The answer also revealed there was no time requirement. He requested the Council create a new rule regarding phasing that included a time limit to ensure the decision was not left to staff. He preferred the entire Old Milltown project had been done under a master plan so that the entire renovation could be reviewed at one time. Next, Mr. Hertrich expressed concern with the material choices on the exterior of the building under construction by Mr. Gregg, recalling it was originally brick and now included brick, shingle, horizontal and vertical siding. He suggested Mr. Gregg revisit the design. Concerns re: James Clauson, Edmonds, commented he had participated in 21 jurisdictions over the past 39 years and Development had never heard a Councilperson state what Council President Dawson did, that the financial in Downtown opportunities of some property owners would be limited, a statement that was supported by Councilmember Orvis, Plunkett and Wambolt. He asked whether this was getting close to a Council taking, the Council ruling out any development in a major section of downtown that encompassed many properties. City Attorney Scott Snyder answered he did not understand Council President Dawson or any other Councilmembers to say that. The Council expressed a desire to take a legislative action but not any plans to take any property. Any action the Council took would be in conformance with the requirements of State law, the Comprehensive Plan, and zoning code. Any citizen who did not agree with the Council's actions could appeal in Superior Court or to the Growth Management Hearings Board. Any zoning moratoria would also be subject to challenge and must be enacted with appropriate legislative findings and an opportunity for public hearing. Anderson 7. AUTHORIZATION FOR THE MAYOR TO SIGN A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT Center Seismic WITH REID MIDDLETON INC. FOR THE FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER Structural SEISMIC STRUCTURAL RETROFIT PROJECT -PHASE 2- DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION Retrofit DOCUMENTS IN THE AMOUNT OF $169,299. Public Works Director Noel Miller explained in 2002 following the Nisqually earthquake, staff applied for a FEMA grant; the cost estimate at that time was $860,000. Unfortunately due to the number of grant requests, the project was not funded. In 2005 when staff was notified of another grant opportunity, the cost estimate was revised to slightly over $1 million. Unfortunately the FEMA cost estimating methodology did not allow for the normal practice of a construction contingency for project escalation due to inflation or unforeseen conditions. Once the City received the grant, Reid Middleton was selected to begin pre - design work of developing an engineering approach and a revised cost estimate. Typically a 30% construction cost contingency is added to a project; thus there is a strong likelihood the project will cost $1.5 million. Mr. Miller pointed out the seismic retrofit included strengthening the roof which requires removal of the existing roof, eliminating the need to replace the roof in the future, a cost of approximately $250,000. Approximately three weeks ago Mayor Haakenson, Administrative Services Director Dan Clements, Parks Director Brian McIntosh, and he met to discuss the project. They concluded there was good value and benefit to the community from this project. There are sufficient funds in the Parks Improvement Fund 125 to finance the project. He relayed staff's recommendation to authorize a professional services Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 12, 2006 Page 18 contract with Reid Middleton for the design of the Frances Anderson Center seismic structural retrofit project. Once the design was complete, staff would return to the Council prior to going out to bid. COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT, TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO SIGN A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH REID MIDDLETON, INC. FOR THE FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER SEISMIC STRUCTURAL RETROFIT PROJECT — PHASE 2 — DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS IN THE AMOUNT OF $169,299. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 8. REPORT ON CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS Community/ Community/Development Services Committee Development v S ervices ices Councilmember Plunkett reported the Committee continued their discussion regarding temporary sign Services Committee regulations. The matter was referred to the full Council for further discussion. Finance Finance Committee committee Councilmember Wambolt reported the Committee discussed the utility tax ordinance which was recommended as a Consent Agenda item for December 12. The Committee also discussed Mike Doubleday's intergovernmental contract and recommended approval of the contract and a 3.3% increase as a consent item. Public safety Public Safety Committee committee Councilmember Marin reported the Committee had a follow -up discussion regarding court security; a tentative solution has been reached and the matter was left to Judge Fair and the President of the Edmonds Police Officers Association. The Committee had its final discussion on barking dogs and concluded there were adequate mechanisms in place. With regard to cat enforcement, the Committee requested the City Attorney draft language for the Committee's review to protect adjacent property owners, the animal and the owner. The Committee then discussed and recommended approval of a professional services contract with Jeannie Dines, discussed and recommended approval of four police towing contracts, and discussed and recommended approval of a contract with S. Morris Company for deceased animal disposal; these items were approved on tonight's consent agenda. The final item was consideration of the contract for animal kenneling services with Adix's Bed and Bath for Dogs and Cats. Following discussion it was agreed to forward the contract to Council with no recommendation as a consent item and Councilmember Orvis could pull the item to voice his opposition. EMS Biue 9. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Ribbon committee Mayor Haakenson requested Council President Dawson appoint Councilmembers to a EMS Blue Ribbon Hearing Committee and a panel to interview candidates for the Hearing Examiner position. Councilmember Examiner Wambolt volunteered to serve on the EMS committee. Interview Panel Mayor Haakenson explained on September 3 Jay Clements, the son of Administrative Services Director Dan Clements, was gunned down in a yard in Brier. The suspect arrested in that shooting has been in jail in Snohomish County awaiting trial in March under $1 million bail. He was astounded to learn that the Superior Court Judge reduced the suspect's bail to $250,000 and allowed him to go home for the holidays to be with his family after overwhelming evidence showed he committed this act and he admitted to firing a gun into a crowd of 50 people. The suspect was placed on home detention and ordered not to have any contact with visitors or phone calls but computer access or text messaging was not addressed. The suspect's mother told the Judge her son did not commit this crime and believed he would be found innocent. Mayor Haakenson commented while he was happy for the suspect's mother that her son would be home for the holidays, he emphasized Jay Clements was never coming home for the holidays. He was appalled and astounded that the judicial system allowed this to happen. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 12, 2006 Page 19 10. COUNCIL COMMENTS Court security Council President Dawson referred to Councilmember Marin's report regarding court security, advising that issue had been resolved. She recalled the court's position was that security was within the court's budget and a court hiring decision, it was within the court's responsibility to make this decision. Mr. Snyder suggested a professional services contract between the court and whomever the court chose to contract with for security services. She relayed this was satisfactory to the Edmonds Police Officers Association. Council President Dawson requested Councilmembers contact her this week regarding participating on the EMS Blue Ribbon Committee and a panel to interview candidates for the Hearing Examiner position. Councilmember Orvis thanked the Council for their patience during his multiple amendments. Councilmember Moore suggested the public correspond with the judge who reduced the bail for the suspect in the murder of Jay Clements and planned to write him herself. Councilmember Wambolt provided an update on the Harbor Square redevelopment. He reported Al Harbor square Dykes, the owner of the old Safeway property, convened a meeting of his group; representatives of the Redevelo went Port, Mayor Haakenson, Community Services Director Stephen Clifton, and he also attended the meeting as well as a consultant who talked about the redevelopment of the property. He explained the property owners were hesitant to divulge the details of their discussion and the only way he could participate was by signing a non - disclosure agreement which would limit what information he could relay to the Council. He relayed Mr. Snyder's advice that he could not sign a non - disclosure agreement. Mayor Haakenson relayed his conversations with Mr. Snyder and his concern with signing a confidentiality agreement. While he was in a different position than Councilmember Wambolt who was on the committee to report to the Council, Mr. Snyder felt if Mayor Haakenson signed a confidentiality agreement, he would be required to recuse himself from any further discussion. He advised Mr. Snyder was still studying the issue. Councilmember Wambolt reported he was pleased with what he heard at the meeting; Mr. Dykes was proceeding in the right direction. Mayor Haakenson was impressed with the consultant's ideas for amenities and concepts, particularly since he had only had three weeks to review the property. If the other consultants were anything like this one, the project was going in the right direction. Councilmember Plunkett asked whether Mayor Haakenson and staff would be involved in secret conversations with the property owners. Mayor Haakenson advised Mr. Dykes and the Port Commissioners were trying to create a concept that they would then present to the public. He noted one of Councilmember Wambolt's options was to stay on the committee although he could not report to the Council and it may impact his ability to vote on future development. He noted Councilmember Marin and others who served on the Hwy. 99 taskforce had made decisions regarding that area and were not required to recuse themselves. He concluded the process seemed to be on the right track and a "quiet period" to allow the property owners to develop a plan was not unreasonable. Councilmember Wambolt agreed. Mayor Haakenson pointed out if the development were proposed as a contract rezone, it would be reviewed by the Council. So. Snohomishl Councilmember Olson reported the South Snohomish Cities, comprised of a representative of the Port and cities City Councilmembers from eight cities, met recently with Snohomish County Executive Aaron Reardon. She thanked the Edmonds Councilmembers who also attended the meeting. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 12, 2006 Page 20 Councilmember Marin volunteered to serve on both the EMS Blue Ribbon Committee and the panel to interview candidates for the Hearing Examiner position. At the request of Student Representative Kisa student Rep. Nishimoto who had to leave early, he advised the Edmonds - Woodway High School food drive had been Report extended to December 14. Last weekend they held a 24 -hour food drive at Top Foods, raising $900 and collecting 2,000 cans. Their toy drive ends tomorrow; toys will be donated to the Ryder House and the food will be donated to Edmonds Food Bank. Mayor Haakenson added that Meadowdale High School was also conducting a food drive. cities & ToWns Mayor Haakenson advised next week's agenda included a presentation from the Cities and Towns Legislative legislative committee regarding a legislative agenda for the cities and towns in Snohomish County. He committee had made presentations to Lynnwood, Mukilteo and Woodway Councils. He noted it was appropriate for the cities in Snohomish County to come together to do work in Olympia to counteract the work done by King County and Pierce County. 11. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:10 p.m. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 12, 2006 Page 21