CCM in20080225 RM by um21qgL


									                                CITY OF LYNNWOOD
                                   February 25, 2008

10. CALL TO ORDER - The February 25, 2008 Business Meeting of the Lynnwood City
    Council, held in the Council Chambers of Lynnwood City Hall, was called to order by
    Mayor Don Gough at 7:03 p.m. Councilmember Jim Smith led the flag salute.

      ROLL CALL                                       Others Attending:
      Mayor Don Gough                                 Finance Director John Moir
      Council President Loren Simmonds                Assistant Finance Director Heilman
      Council Vice President Ruth Ross                Parks & Recreation Director Sordel
      Councilmember Ted Hikel                         Economic Development Director Kleitsch
      Councilmember Jim Smith                         Fire Chief Olson
      Councilmember Mark Smith                        Community Develop. Director Krauss
      Councilmember Lisa Utter                        Senior Planner Rivera
      Councilmember Stephanie Wright (Excused)        Assistant Finance Director Haugan
                                                      City Attorney Ruark
      Council Assistant Beth Morris                   Project. Tourism Manager Monroe
      Executive Asst. Stephanie Simpson

      Councilmember Lisa Utter congratulated Councilmember Stephanie Wright and her
      husband, Planning Commissioner Chair Richard Wright, on the delivery of their first child.
      Quincy was born on Tuesday, February 19.

      Motion made by Councilmember Utter, seconded by Councilmember Hikel, to provide
      excused absences for Stephanie Wright from the meetings on Tuesday, February 19 and
      Wednesday, February 20. Motion passed unanimously (6-0).


      Councilmember Ted Hikel asked that item A, the Minutes of the Special Work Session of
      1/17/2008, be separated out for a separate vote.

      B.   Business Meeting 02/11/2008
      C.   Work Session 02/19/2008

           Motion made by Councilmember Ruth Ross, seconded by Council President
           Simmonds, to approve the Business Meeting of 2/11/2008 and the Work Session of

           Councilmember Utter referred to the second paragraph from the bottom on page 7 of
           8 on the minutes from 2/11/2008. She requested that the paragraph be replaced with:

City Council Minutes           2/25/2008 Business Meeting                    Page 1 of 14
             “Councilmember Utter suggested that coming from the same philosophical basis
             as Councilmember Smith used to justify the elimination of compact parking
             places, she came to the opposite conclusion that we should not eliminate parking

         Councilmember Mark Smith noted that he had not expressed a philosophical opinion
         about compact parking spaces and asked that the reference to him be removed in
         Councilmember Utter’s amendment. Councilmember Jim Smith suggested the
         following amendments to the existing sentence in lieu of Councilmember Utter’s

            “Councilmember Utter suggested that in her philosophical opinion is we should not
            get rid of compact parking spaces.”

         There was consensus to approve Councilmember Jim Smith’s amendment. Motion
         passed unanimously (6-0) to approve the amendment.

         Motion passed unanimously (6-0) to approve the minutes of the Business Meeting of
         2/11/2008 as amended and the Work Session of 2/19/2008 as presented.

    A.   Special Work Session 01/17/2008

         Motion made by Councilmember Jim Smith to adopt the minutes of the Special Work
         Session of 1/17/2008. Motion seconded by Councilmember Ruth Ross.

         Councilmember Ted Hikel said he had grave reservations about the minutes provided
         to them by Michael Pendleton who was the facilitator at the meeting. In several places,
         unidentified, broad statements are made that appear to be innuendos or opinions.
         Additionally, he noted that there are 25 agreements in the document. When he met
         with Councilmember Utter and Ms. Morris to review these after the last business
         meeting, he had provided some grammatical corrections. Councilmember Utter also
         had added one new agreement to the list that was not in the original text of Mr.
         Pendleton. He called into question as to whether many of these agreements are actually
         action items. Action items can only be taken up at a Council business meeting. He
         suggested that the word Agreement be changed to something less positive.

         Councilmember Utter asked if Councilmember Jim Smith had put the original minutes
         on the floor, as opposed to the revised minutes. Councilmember Jim Smith indicated
         that he had been referring to the original minutes in his motion.

         He asked legal counsel if Council was free to make grammatical changes to this
         document. City Attorney Ruark stated that grammatical changes can be made even
         after the minutes are adopted if they are obvious changes that do not change the
         substance. Councilmember Jim Smith agreed that they accept the grammatical changes
         that Councilmember Hikel had suggested. He then suggested that the other additions
         be approved either in full or individually.

City Council Minutes         2/25/2008 Business Meeting                     Page 2 of 14
         Council President Simmonds clarified that there were two sets of minutes – the
         original ones and the strikeout/underlines ones contained in the February 19 Work
         Session packet. This week’s packet referred back to the minutes from the February 19
         Work Session packet. He noted that Mr. Pendleton has served the Council on
         numerous occasions over the last three or four years and frequently uses the word
         Agreement. He suggested that Council not read too much into that. The Council has
         adopted numerous other minutes that Mr. Pendleton has drafted like this. City Attorney
         Ruark clarified that the Council is looking at a document that contains proposed
         minutes in front of them, as opposed to minutes. These should be treated like any other

         Councilmember Jim Smith suggested that the word Agreement referred to a consensus-
         building process in Council’s effort to work better together. They represent agreements
         that the Council has civilly agreed upon.

         Councilmember Jim Smith moved, seconded by Councilmember Lisa Utter, for
         unanimous consent that the Agreements have numbers after them. Motion passed
         unanimously (6-0).

         Councilmember Jim Smith moved that the word Agreement be replaced with
         Consensus. Councilmember Utter thought the word Consensus is an even stronger
         word than Agreement. She noted that they have been using the word Agreement since
         2001 when Mike Pendleton began facilitating the meetings. There was consensus to let
         this motion go.

         Council President Simmonds suggested deleting the word Agreement and leaving a
         listing of follow-up action items. There was not a consensus on this.

         Mayor Gough asked if there was consensus to include the paragraph on page 7, that
         begins, “Agreement Twenty-One: The report back on the Board and Commission . . .”
         Council President Simmonds objected to the inclusion of this because it is not just a
         change in wording, but a total condition. He did not remember this. Councilmember
         Utter said she had two things in her notes that they were going to bring back. Those
         were the Board and Commission Report and the Planning Commission list. She felt
         that it had been an omission on the part of Mr. Pendleton that it was not included in the

         Motion made by Councilmember Utter, seconded by Councilmember Ross, to adopt
         the wording on Agreement Twenty-One. Motion passed 4-2 with Council President
         Simmonds and Councilmember Hikel voting against.

         Mayor Gough referred to page 6, Agreement Seventeen. Councilmember Lisa Utter
         said she proposed this new language because the other language indicates that the letter
         will be sent. The agreement was that it would be put on the Consent Agreement. She
         felt that this clarified it.

City Council Minutes         2/25/2008 Business Meeting                      Page 3 of 14
         Motion made by Councilmember Utter, seconded by Councilmember Mark Smith, to
         approve the wording on Agreement Seventeen in the strikeout version. Motion passed
         5-1 with Councilmember Hikel voting against.

         Councilmember Hikel commented that this lengthy discussion would not be necessary
         if they had a recording of what went on at the meeting.

         Motion passed unanimously (5-1) to approve the minutes of the 1/17/2008 Work
         Session as amended with Councilmember Hikel voting against.



    50.1 Loren Simmonds welcomed Mrs. John Moir, wife of the new finance director, to the
          meeting tonight.
    50.2 Ruth Ross had no comments.
    50.3 Ted Hikel informed Council that Carmelita Rockey Boreing, who ran the Sno-King
          Drive-in Theater, was celebrating her 90th birthday today, but unfortunately is critically
          ill. He asked for special remembrance of her.
    50.4 Mark Smith had no comments.
    50.5. Lisa Utter had no comments.
    50.6 Jim Smith had no comments.


    A. Proclamation: Rotary Club of Lynnwood Boy Scout Troop 304 Day

        Council Vice President Ross read the proclamation designating March 8, 2008 as
        Rotary Club of Lynnwood Boy Scout Troop 304 Day.

        Motion made by Councilmember Hikel, seconded by Councilmember Ross, that the
        Council concur on the Proclamation. Motion passed unanimously (6-0).



    80.1 Michael McCulley said he has several businesses at Alderwood Mall. He complained
         about the fees for business licenses and requested that they be lowered.
         Councilmember Jim Smith said that it is not for Council to make that
         recommendation. It would be up to Community Development to bring that to the
         Council and it would have to relate to all business licenses. Finance Director Vicki
         Heilman explained how the fees were assessed. Mayor Gough explained that that if
         Mr. McCulley would like to raise the issue further, that request should be directed to
         the Council President. City Attorney Ruark added that these fees are set by Council by
         ordinance or resolution and cannot be changed on an individual basis. Council

City Council Minutes          2/25/2008 Business Meeting                       Page 4 of 14
         President Simmonds noted that Vicki Heilman was available to speak with him if he

    80.2 Travis Johnson, 14712 Bothell Way NE, Lake Forest Park, a physical economist with
         the LaRouche PAC, presented a piece of legislation that addressed the sub-prime
         crisis. He discussed factors surrounding this issue and recommended that the City of
         Lynnwood sign a resolution in support of The Homeowners and Bank Protection Act
         of 2007 (distributed to Council at the meeting) Council President Simmonds thanked
         Mr. Johnson for coming and explained the resolution adoption process to him.

    80.3 Stephan Andrew, 14712 Bothell Way NE, Lake Forest Park, an American system
         political economist representing Lyndon LaRouche, spoke about the political situation
         in America. Councilmember Jim Smith objected to the political speech. Mr. Andrew
         discussed the function of banks today and how this relates to the financial situation
         that we are facing. Mayor Gough explained the process for addressing this type of

    80.4 Norman Nelson, 3810 Maple Road, Lynnwood, 98037, spoke regarding sidewalks. He
         presented information about the prices of sidewalks which was different from what
         was stated by the Public Works department. He requested that Council consider the
         sidewalks. He stated that there was a citizen petition presented to the City in February
         2007 regarding this issue. The City said they would make a timely response on this and
         Mr. Nelson did not feel that this has been done.



   Councilmember Jim Smith requested that item H be removed from the Consent Agenda and
   dealt with immediately following the Consent Agenda.

   Council President Simmonds moved for unanimous consent of the following consent agenda

   A. Resolution: Highway 99 Corridor Revitalization Study & Strategies
   Adopt Resolution #2008-02 to move forward with the recommended Highway 99 Corridor
   revitalization strategies as a framework for implementation.

   B. Contract: Authorization to Sign MOU with AFSCME
   Authorize the Mayor to sign a Memorandum of Understanding with AFSCME regarding the
   removal of a position from the bargaining unit.

   C. Medtronic Technical Service Support Agreement
   Approve a new biennial successor service and support agreement with Medtronic Emergency
   Response Systems in the amount of $10,470.96 payable in annual installments of $5,235.48.

   D.   Approve: Questica Budget Software Acquisition

City Council Minutes          2/25/2008 Business Meeting                     Page 5 of 14
   Approve new budget software in the amount of $67,266.75 to help prepare the budget for
   upcoming years. This project is funded in the current 2007/2008 budget.

   E.    Agreement: Joint Marketing Agreement with Edmonds School District for the
         Disposition of Real Property
   Approve the Joint Marketing Agreement with Edmonds School District for the disposition of
   real property at the southwest corner of 196th Street Southwest and 37th Avenue West.

   F.   Interlocal Agreement: Edmonds School District and City of Lynnwood Homeschool
        Swim Program
   Authorize the Mayor to sign an Interlocal Agreement with the Edmonds School District for
   the Edmonds Homeschool Resource Center aquatics program at the Lynnwood pool.

   G. Approve: Recreation Center Renovation Action Plan
   Approve Recreation Center Renovation Action Plan timeline as presented at the February 19
   Work Session.

   I.    Voucher Approval
   Approve claims and payroll in the amount of $773,209.89 and $990,821.64 respectively, and
   that the lists be made a part of the record of this Council meeting.

   There was unanimous consent to adopt Consent Agenda Items A-G and I.

   H. Council Contingency: Increase for Fireworks Survey
   Approve an additional $3,010.00 increase in the The Gilmore Research Group contract
   bringing the new contract total to $21,185.00

        Motion made by Council President Simmonds, seconded by Councilmember Ruth Ross, to
        adopt item H on the Consent Agenda.

        Councilmember Jim Smith noted that this item is on the agenda later on as a contract. He
        intends to vote against it and therefore, will not be in support of the increase in funding
        on this item.

        Councilmember Utter said she is in support of moving forward with the survey, but she is
        concerned about the allocation of the contingency fund. Her recollection is that the
        remainder of the fund was allocated to the new Community and Human Service program.
        Councilmember Hikel said that the only way to find out what the community truly wants
        is to go ahead with this, but noted that he was dismayed by the cost of the survey. Council
        President Simmonds said that in the adopted budget for 2007-2008 there was $50,000,
        with $25,000 earmarked for each year. Even if the balance of the money was given in
        2007, there is adequate money in 2008 to cover this amount. Director Moir stated that the
        amount was $25,000 for the biennium. Councilmember Hikel asked the attorney if it was
        appropriate to make the motion contingent upon there being funds in the fund. City
        Attorney Ruark indicated that this was acceptable.

City Council Minutes           2/25/2008 Business Meeting                      Page 6 of 14
      Motion made by Councilmember Hikel, seconded by Councilmember Mark Smith, to
      adopt item H, with a condition that the contract be contingent on there being adequate
      funds in the Council contingency fund.

      Mayor Gough expressed concern about signing a contract later tonight with no clear
      understanding of where the money will come from. Councilmember Jim Smith suggested
      tabling this and recommended getting more information on the actual budget numbers.
      Councilmember Mark Smith was opposed to tabling this due to the tight timeframe. If the
      money is not there they will have to bring this back and talk about it. Councilmember Jim
      Smith requested a report from Director Moir regarding allocations from 2007. Mayor
      Gough said he would give a report to the Council on this. Director Moir stated that there
      have been no expenditures made from the $25,000 contingency fund.

      The amendment to the motion was adopted unanimously.

      Upon a roll call vote, the motion passed 5-1 with Councilmembers Ted Hikel, Ruth Ross,
      Loren Simmonds, Mark Smith and Lisa Utter voting in favor and Councilmember Jim
      Smith voting against.

   There was a recess from 8:13 to 8:21 p.m.


      A. Public Hearing Lynnwood Bowl and Skate PUD

          The public hearing was opened at 8:22pm. The Mayor asked if anyone had a conflict
          of interest issue with regard to anyone sitting up on the dais. There were none. He
          then asked if anyone in the audience objected to his or any councilmember’s
          participation in these proceedings for whatever reason. There were no objections.
          Mayor Gough discussed the purpose, process, and order of the hearing. He swore in
          everyone who intended to give testimony. Mayor Gough asked if there had been any
          written materials submitted. There were none.

          Staff Presentation: Senior Planner Gloria Rivera gave the staff presentation as
          contained in the Staff Report.

          PUD Applicants:

          Scott Shapiro, Seattle, WA, stated that he and Jim Potter are the owners of NABE
          and of Lynnwood Bowl and Skate. He spoke in support of the PUD, saying that it is a
          positive development in line with the City’s design standards and regulations. They
          think it will add positive synergies to the existing business and will bring some
          energy and visibility to the street. They are in agreement with the staff’s analysis and

          Public Testimony:

City Council Minutes          2/25/2008 Business Meeting                     Page 7 of 14
          Paul Kim, 6205 200th Street SW, Lynwood, WA 98036, was sworn in by Mayor
          Gough. He is the owner of the business across from the proposed PUD. He requested
          consideration to expand the “safety zone” in front of his business. He is facing
          ongoing difficulty getting in and out of his parking lot from 200th Street. He discussed
          the specifics of the traffic issues in front of his business. He thinks that the proposed
          business would result in even more traffic and more difficulty getting in and out of
          his business.

          Senior Planner Rivera stated that the entrance to this proposed site would be adjacent
          to the area that Mr. Kim is referring to and it may need to be reconsidered. Public
          Works Director Krauss concurred with Ms. Rivera. Additionally, he commented that
          Mr. Kim’s concern is coming up late in the process and he’s not sure it’s tied to the
          Lynnwood Bowl and Skate issue. Councilmember Jim Smith felt that this was a
          separate issue from the bowling alley application. Mayor Gough explained this to Mr.
          Kim and directed him to Public Works Director Krauss. Mr. Kim stated that he does
          not have any objection to the PUD project.

          Mayor Gough solicited further public testimony. There was none.

          PUD Applicants Rebuttal: None.
          Staff Testimony in Response to Prior Testimony: None.

          City Council Questions:

          Council Vice President Ruth Ross asked Ms. Rivera if the analysis provided in
          attachment H dated January 11, 2008, on page 90.2A-10-11, is what was used to
          determine parking requirements. Ms. Rivera said this was the applicant’s breakdown
          for the analysis of parking. She stated that the analysis done by staff which was
          requested by the Council, on page 90.2A-14, breaks down current code versus the
          draft code. This is where staff got the requirement for 189 parking spaces. This was
          done based on a combination of the current code and the proposed code.
          Councilmember Ross expressed concerns about using the analysis on page 90.2A-10-
          11 because it is based on assumptions and current conditions. She was pleased that
          staff did not rely solely on this analysis. Councilmember Ross asked how many
          parking spots would remain after the building is constructed. Ms. Rivera replied that
          their proposal states 166 spaces.

          Councilmember Hikel referred to page 90.2A-7, under Analysis. The fourth line
          down refers to 166 stalls for off-site parking. He asked if this should be on-site. Ms.
          Rivera affirmed that it should be corrected to on-site. Councilmember Hikel then
          referred to the second paragraph from the bottom on page 8. He asked for the day and
          the hour the applicant was referring to when they said “the maximum number of
          parking stalls observed to be occupied were 137.” Ms. Rivera did not know.
          Councilmember Hikel asked what options would be available if the parking was
          found to be inadequate. Senior Planner Rivera explained that they might be able to
          work out some shared parking with other businesses in the area. Another option

City Council Minutes         2/25/2008 Business Meeting                       Page 8 of 14
          would be to look at their own operation to try to reduce parking if there are problems
          arising during peak moments.

          Councilmember Hikel asked how the City would police a PUD if that came to pass.
          Ms. Rivera said people would probably complain to the Code Enforcement. She
          stated that staff could do reports to Council on a periodic basis. Councilmember
          Hikel expressed concern about the lower number of required parking spaces. Ms.
          Rivera commented that there are many people who carpool to the Bowl and Skate.
          Community Development Director Krauss added that while there is more traffic in
          the area, he did not think that there is a relationship between that and parking demand
          at this site. He noted that this business has decades of operational experience and the
          basic observed parking demand is the best tool to go by. The requirements for the
          new development are easy to generate. Regarding enforcement tools, the PUD zoning
          is a contract between the property owner and the City. The conditions of the contract
          are enforceable. If a problem does develop they have the ability to go back to the
          property owner to enforce the obligations. Councilmember Hikel asked City Attorney
          Ruark if he was comfortable with that. Mr. Ruark indicated that he was.

          Councilmember Hikel then referred to page A8, which shows the total required
          places would be 189. He stated that there is no recognition of the fact that there is
          also a bar and a café in the bowling alley. Based on personal experience, he
          questioned the contention that most of the people using those are also patronizing the
          bowling alley. He suggested that there may be some crossover uses of the bowling
          alley, café and bar.

          Councilmember Hikel asked if the signage on the current buildings meets the current
          codes or if they are grandfathered in. If they do not meet current codes, he would like
          this requirement to be added. He also wanted to know how much more signage would
          be permitted. Regarding the statement that this would be quality new construction
          and there would be quality businesses coming in, Councilmember Hikel asked how
          this was defined and how it could be controlled.

          Councilmember Mark Smith referred to the Analysis on page 90.2A-7, which states
          that the applicant is proposing 166 stalls and 20 of those would be allocated to the
          retail store, leaving 146 remaining. On page 90.4A-8, the table shows staff’s
          requirement of 189 total spaces with 16 stalls being allocated to the retail area. The
          applicant’s letter explains the reason for this reduction. Ms. Rivera affirmed this.

          Councilmember Mark Smith referred to Mr. Shapiro’s statement on page 90.2A-11
          that “they would only need 137 stalls if every portion of our facility was filled to
          100% capacity.” He asked Mr. Shapiro if he has ever witnessed 137 filled stalls. Mr.
          Shapiro said he has not seen it in the two years that they have owned the property.

          Councilmember Mark Smith expressed concern about the front yard setback and
          landscape requirements on page 90.2A-6. With the reduction of the setback to 10 feet,
          he wondered if that was wide enough to accommodate a bike lane. Director Krauss
          was not certain if this had been considered. Councilmember Mark Smith said he was

City Council Minutes         2/25/2008 Business Meeting                      Page 9 of 14
          generally in favor of building up to street frontage as a way to encourage pedestrian
          use of the city, but wanted to make sure that bike lanes were considered. Director
          Krauss indicated they would need to check on that information and could bring it
          back. Councilmember Mark Smith said he would like to have that information before
          he voted on this.

          Councilmember Jim Smith stated he had a great amount of respect for Mr. Potter. He
          summarized what he saw as the proposal – putting a building in the parking lot of the
          bowling alley right next to the street, relaxing setbacks to nearly nothing, relaxing
          landscaping requirements, parking reductions, and shared parking. The reason the
          Council has generally been given for doing a PUD has been that it is innovative or
          has special features. He wondered what the City was getting for all these
          accommodations that they are making. Sr. Planner Rivera replied that the building
          fronting the sidewalk is something that starts creating a more viable, interesting
          development on the streets. This project will provide landscaping to the west and the
          east. What will be achieved is something that gets the passersby more involved with
          the development projects.

          Councilmember Jim Smith asked what else they were getting. Director Krauss
          discussed the unique characteristics of the Bowl and Skate building and parking lot.
          The developer has indicated a desire to keep it operational yet make better utilization
          of the property. The Highway 99 study talks about eliminating or trying to eliminate
          the parking lots along sidewalks, bringing buildings out to the street, and making it a
          more human scale. This PUD would create a new building that would bring new
          businesses to the city, making utilization of what staff believes is under-utilized
          parking. To do this requires the use of the PUD process because it requires some
          deviation from the code. In the future some of the probable code amendments coming
          out of the Highway 99 study are going to mean you don’t need to do a PUD to do
          those kinds of things.

          Councilmember Jim Smith said he is still not convinced that this is the best solution.
          He expressed several concerns about the parking. He worried about setting a
          precedent with this parking requirement reduction. He stated that he has been at the
          parking lot when it was packed and has also seen signs at Hong’s Restaurant next
          door that warn people not to park in the bowling alley parking lot or they will be
          towed. He also cautioned against assuming that business for the Bowl and Skate
          would not increase. If it is a matter of preserving a historic building it is a different
          issue. If the reason is just for creating a building in the parking lot it does not seem
          reason enough.

          Councilmember Jim Smith continued to discuss the number of parking stalls,
          beginning with the historic numbers to the present and the proposed numbers. He
          referred to the table on page 90.2A-8 which states the total number of required spaces
          as 189. He reiterated that the bar and café are not taken into consideration. He
          attested that he has been many times in the past to the bowling alley just for drinks. It
          and the café have been and are destination spots. He discussed potential parking
          conflicts in the evening hours with the retail businesses. Ms. Rivera stated that there

City Council Minutes          2/25/2008 Business Meeting                      Page 10 of 14
          is a certain amount of retail usage allowed for at night. Councilmember Smith asked
          where the number of 212 stalls came from in 1972 by the Board of Adjustment. Ms.
          Rivera was not sure, but noted that their decisions were based off of testimony of the
          operator, at that time, of how the businesses were operated. Councilmember Jim
          Smith noted that 212 stalls plus the 20 additional stalls would be 222 stalls, which is
          a long way from the proposed 166 stalls. He stated that he felt this made a joke of the
          PUD process and makes it useless. He was in support of having something creative
          here, but did not think this was it.

          Councilmember Lisa Utter thinks that this building will energize the street. She
          expressed concern for pedestrian safety from the end of the raised walkway at the
          bowling alley to the skating rink and out to 202nd. She wondered if there had been
          consideration for requiring a raised pedestrian walkway back in that area. Ms. Rivera
          indicated that this could be addressed as the plan is developed. Councilmember Utter
          asked if any traffic studies were done related to this. Ms. Rivera said there were not.
          Mr. Shapiro added that during public sessions, the door between the Bowl and Skate
          is open. If it is a special event, then it is sometimes closed. Councilmember Utter
          asked if they expected more people to use the 202nd exit/entrance since they are
          cutting down the number of entrances on the north. Mr. Shapiro explained that it
          depends where people are headed. Councilmember Utter remarked that she has
          always felt that the pedestrian safety issues were inadequate on the skating side.

          Councilmember Jim Smith asked that this be discussed further at a work session and
          that the information they had requested be provided.

          Audience Comments:

          Mr. Shapiro discussed the calculations using five stalls for lane for the bowling alley.
          This formula is from the American Planning Association. He noted that bowling
          alleys almost always have food and beverage so this would be factored into that. Most
          people who come to the bowling alley come in carpools.

          Regarding benefits to the community, the empty parking lot is a good place for a
          brand new building on the streetscape providing an amenity for people in our
          community. Even though they are asking to have less landscaping than you would
          have normally, they are actually increasing the amount of landscaping on the north
          part of the parking lot. Additionally, there will be landscaping done around the
          building and near the residential development to the east. One of the setbacks is an
          accommodation to future growth in the City of Lynnwood by putting the building
          back from where it is now because of potential widening of the street. He and his
          partner believe that this is a creative, aesthetic solution for the property. The addition
          of the retail building as an additional revenue source on the north part of their lot
          makes continued use of the bowling alley and roller rink financially feasible. They are
          very concerned that what they create is beneficial to their existing business.

          Council Discussion:

City Council Minutes          2/25/2008 Business Meeting                     Page 11 of 14
          Motion made by Councilmember Mark Smith to approve the PUD with the staff
          recommended conditions as included on page M1-64 of the January 22 Work Session
          agenda. The motion died for lack of a second.

          Mayor Gough noted that there are also additional restrictions stated in the Staff

          Motion made by Council President Simmonds to continue this matter to an upcoming
          Business Meeting.

          Councilmember Jim Smith asked City Attorney Ruark if they could continue this
          hearing to a future meeting and still discuss it in a work session before then. City
          Attorney Ruark replied that they could not discuss it in a work session while the
          hearing is still open. Mayor Gough explained that they could receive information
          without having discussion that would allow them to come back into the hearing to
          address that.

          Councilmember Jim Smith asked if the City would be deeded the 10 feet of right-of-
          way. Director Krauss said he would like to get more information on this, but it could
          be a possibility. Councilmember Jim Smith felt this was very important to discuss
          that. He also suggested the possibility that Hong’s and the Bowl and Skate might be
          able to have a shared parking relationship in the future when the road is widened.
          Finally, he wanted a better understanding of what remedies for parking problems
          would be.

          Motion made by Council President Simmonds, seconded by Councilmember Hikel,
          that the public hearing involving Lynnwood Bowl and Skate PUD be continued to the
          March 10 Business Meeting.

          Mayor Gough stated that if there is something to be provided by staff in answering
          the questions, it will be provided to all parties in the record, so that the conversation
          can be continued on March 10.

          Motion passed unanimously (6-0).

          Mayor Gough announced that the hearing was continued at 9:54. Testimony is
          anticipated relative to answers to questions in additional information provided by
          staff and/or anyone else who has testified.


   Motion made at 9:55 p.m. by Council President Simmonds that the Business Session
   continue until items 90.4 A and B and item 100 on New Business are dealt with.
   Councilmember Ross seconded the motion. Motion carried 5-1.


City Council Minutes          2/25/2008 Business Meeting                     Page 12 of 14
      A. Approve: Fireworks Survey Questionnaire; Authorize Phase II of the Study

          Motion made by Councilmember Utter, seconded by Councilmember Ruth Ross, to
          approve the Fireworks Survey Questionnaire and authorize Phase II of the Study.

          Councilmember Hikel moved to amend by indicating the Alternate Wording A on
          question 2 on the bottom of the first page of the document handed out. The motion
          was seconded by Councilmember Utter. The motion to amend passed unanimously

          Councilmember Mark Smith moved to amend that on the second paragraph on the
          first page of the Fireworks Survey, the underlined wording that describes the
          boundaries of the City of Lynnwood be included. The motion was seconded by
          Councilmember Utter. There was unanimous consent to approve the amendment.

          There was consensus to include question 12 in the survey under the main motion.

          Councilmember Jim Smith commented he is in support of a survey, but does not feel
          this one is adequate. He is concerned that people have not been educated well enough
          about what is currently allowed and also that there is no place in the survey to get
          feedback about what ought to be done.

          Motion approved 5-1 with Councilmember Jim Smith voting against.

      B. Summit Follow-Up Letters

          Motion made by Councilmember Utter, seconded by Councilmember Ruth Ross, to
          approve the follow-up Summit letter on E3 of the February 19 packet to Mayor

          Councilmember Utter stated that she wanted “December” to be behind them.

          Councilmember Hikel read a lengthy statement (Attached).

          Councilmember Mark Smith called for the question. Since this request was not in the
          form of a motion, Mayor Gough allowed the discussion to continue.

          Councilmember Jim Smith stated that the Council tried to deal with this quietly
          amongst themselves, but the teamwork within the Council was not working. The
          majority of the councilmembers wanted to go ahead and quietly put this on the
          Consent Agenda. That was objected to. Regardless of what happened in December,
          the Council tried to do this in a professional, respectful and courteous way. He stated
          that the Council did not go into executive session. He said that the real problem here
          is among members of the council that are lacking respect for fellow councilmembers.
          In regards to the tape recorder, tape recordings are not required at work sessions. At
          the meeting in December, the Council simply asked for a little time to discuss
          amongst themselves in a casual manner. He objected to assertions that they were

City Council Minutes         2/25/2008 Business Meeting                     Page 13 of 14
           trying to have secret meetings and noted that the meeting was still open to the public.
           Regarding assertions that councilmembers were trying to get “points” he stated that
           those members that spoke up at the December meeting spoke up with concerns that
           they had and he supports them.

           Councilmember Mark Smith moved the previous question, seconded by
           Councilmember Jim Smith. Motion carried 5-1.

           Motion passed 4-2 to approve the motion to send the letter.

           Mayor Gough stated that when he receives the letter he is reserving the opportunity to

           Motion made by Councilmember Utter, seconded by Councilmember Ruth Ross, to
           approve letter #2 to the department heads, on E4 of the February 19 meeting. Motion
           passed unanimously (6-0).

       C. Discussion: Mandatory Garbage Collection – Moved to future meeting with date to
          be determined.
       D. Executive Session – None
       E. Discussion: Residential Property Upkeep – Moved to future meeting with date to be


    Councilmember Jim Smith moved that the City of Lynnwood contact the South Snohomish
    County State Legislators and express our strong opposition to Senate House Bill 2938 (Fire
    District Commissioner Annexation Reform) and respectfully ask them not to support it. The
    motion was seconded by Councilmember Ted Hikel. The motion carried 5-1.



The meeting was adjourned at 10:20 p.m.

                                                    Don Gough, Mayor

John Moir
Finance Director

City Council Minutes          2/25/2008 Business Meeting                     Page 14 of 14

To top