04/18/2000 City Council— ___I L.—_ 1
Change to
Agenda
p prove 4/4
inutes
pprove
F!_j
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES
APRIL 18; 2000
The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Gary Haakenson in the
Library Plaza Room, 650 Main Street, followed by the flag salute.
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT STAFF PRESENT
Gary Haakenson, Mayor
Thomas A. Miller, Council President
Dave Earling, Councilmember
Michael Plunkett, Councilmember
Jim White, Councilmember
Lora Petso, Councilmember
.Dave Orvis, Councilmember
Christopher Davis, Councilmember
ALSO PRESENT
Maia Krause, Student Representative
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Robin Hickok, Police Chief
Ray Miller, Development Services Director
Peggy Hetzler, Administrative Services Director
Rob Chave, Planning Manager
James Walker, City Engineer
Brent Hunter, Human Resources Director
Scott Snyder, City Attorney
Linda Hynd, Deputy. City Clerk
Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst.
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
COUNCIL PRESIDENT MILLER MOVED; SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, TO
REVERSE THE ORDER OF ITEMS 5 AND 6. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
COUNCILMEMBER WHITE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, TO
APPROVE THE AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, FOR
APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda
items approved are as follows:
(A) ROLL CALL
(B) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF APRIL 4, 2000
(C) APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #35950 THROUGH #40355 FOR THE WEEK OF
APRIL 3, 2000, IN THE AMOUNT OF $573,272.24. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHEdKS
#35951 THROUGH #40474 FOR THE WEEK OF APRIL 10, 2000, IN THE AMOUNT:- ' F
$430,087.17. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL CHECKS #27916 THROUGH #28024 FOR THE
PERIOD MARCH 16 THROUGH MARCH 31, 2000, IN THE AMOUNT OF $332,947.08:
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 18, 2000
Page 1
arina
Beach (D) REPORT. ON FINAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR THE MARINA BEACH STORM
utfall . OUTFALL REPLACEMENT AND COUNCIL ACCEPTANCE OF PROJECT
uit Claim
eed at (E) ACCEPTANCE OF QUIT CLAIM DEED AT 16414 75"' PLACE WEST FROM
16a1a �sih ARMANDO AND MARIA TERESA "SINA" CHILELLI
2000 Water
Main (F) AUTHORIZATION TO CALL FOR BI'DS FOR THE 2000 WATER MAIN
Replacement REPLACEMENT PROGRAM
Surplus (G) AUTHORIZATION FOR STAFF TO NEGOTIATE THE SALVDISPOSITION OF
Furniture SURPLUS FURNITURE AND OTHER ITEMS FROM OLD PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING
Towing (H) AUTHORIZATION TO ENTER INTO AGREEMENT WITH COMPANIES FOR
Services TOWING SERVICES THAT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE APPLICATION
AND AGREEMENT
Earth Day —
April 22 1 (1) PROCLAMATION IN OBSERVANCE OF EARTH DAY ON APRIL 22, 2000
Reso #981 (,1) RESOLUTION NO. 981 ESTABLISHING A COST RECOVERY PROCESS FOR THE
Cost Recov. APPROVAL, RENEWAL, AND TRANSFER OF TELECOMMUNICATION
Franchise.
Franchises FRANCHISES, AND AMENDING RESOLUTION 967
3. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
C Mayor Haakenson advised Item 5 (Proposed Ordinance Amending the Provision of 'ECDC: Section
18.80.060 Driveway and Curb ,Cut Requirements) was not a public hearing and the public hearing held
on October 5, 1999 regarding the proposed ordinance had been closed. Therefore, audience members
were encouraged to speak regarding that item during Audience Comment. As additional information
including a map would be provided by staff, the public would have an opportunity to speak during that
item but comments could only address the map.
City Attorney Scott Snyder explained a pending appeal would be heard by the Council within the next
month regarding application of the current ordinance. He'recommended the audience avoid discussing
the pending appeal.
Proposed Rob Nelson, 16019 2401' Place SW, Edmonds, referred to the' proposed fire lane between Forest Glen,
Fire lane - Woodway Meadows and the proposed Woodway Highlands, explaining three weeks ago residents sent a
Woodway
Meadows letter to the Mayor regarding concerns with the development and what was occurring on that right-of-
way. He commended Mayor Haakenson for contacting residents immediately, providing contacts in the
City and for the developer. Mr. Nelson said residents had a meeting with the developer today regarding
solutions and changes that could be made. He also thanked Councilmembers White, Plunkett, and Petso.
for looking at the property and providing their support.
South Jan Kavadas, 217 Alder Street, Edmonds, explained the South Snohomish Family Support Center is a
Snohomish
Family locally planned and led center that provides /directs people to social services. The Center is supported via
Support a surcharge on marriage license fees. She explained there is no eligibility requirement for .family support
Center services. The Center also provides classes for children, adults and English as a Second Language
(EASL). There are also support groups and family- oriented activities. Ms..Kavadas said she participates
in the Center to ensure this resource is available to serve South Snohomish County families.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April l8, 2000
Page 2
South Claudia Dickinson, 6309 196th Street SW, Lynnwood, said a parent described the South Snohomish
Snohomish
Family Family Su pp ort Center as a place "where everybody knows your name and awfully g lad you came."
Support This individual also said the Center was a place where connections happened and information provided'
Center to support the entire family, a place of opportunity where things can be made better. She thanked the
Council for their support and confidence in their work over the years. She said the Center strives to live
up to that parent's description because of the important responsibility and challenges families face
raising children. She. said approximately 500 Edmonds families are served by the South Snohomish
Family Support Center each year, connecting to the Center via programs in schools in the Edmonds
School District, churches, apartment complexes and personal contact. The Center seeks to build social
support through community resources for families.
South
Snohomish Virginia Scovel, 19155 1301h Ct NE, Bothell, described success stories at the South Snohomish Family
Family Support Center. She provided calendars and brochures describing the Center. She invited the Council .
Support
Center and public to the Center's open house in June.
Driveway Marcia Fleury, 18004 73rd Avenue W, Edmonds, and property owner of 124 Yd Avenue N, said they
and Curb have had plans into the City for an 8 -unit condominium with commercial space since 1998. She said an
Cut Require-
ments easement was purchased to share a driveway to the south of their property to provide access to their
building but they are unable to use that easement due to Uniform Building Code problems. Since mid -
1999, they have been seeking an access to their building that minimizes alterations from the original
plans approved by the Architectural Design Board (ADB) and most departments. After submitting
several proposals, they have been unsuccessful due to engineering's inability to deviate from the current
code. She said Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 18.80.060, as interpreted, gives the
Engineering Department no discretion or latitude to address. difficult topography or small interior lots.
She said many building lots in the City were on sloping terrain and if access was denied from the street
and only permitted from the alley, many lots were too steep and narrow to comply with the code. She
said their situation fits this example, a sloping interior lot with little street access and an elevated alley.
To further complicate their access, she said the ECDC requires Engineering to view'their entry as a street
and forces them to meet street standards rather than driveway standards. She stressed they cannot
provide access without significantly redesigning the building from its approved plans. If the code could
not be changed, she asked that Engineering be allowed some discretion regarding .building access.
ADB — Joint Carreen Rubenkonig, 19505 81" Place W, Edmonds, Chair of the Architectural Design Board
Meeting on (ADB), thanked the Council for inviting the ADB to the second joint meeting with the Council on May 9.
May 9; and
Design Of utmost importance to the ADB is apprising the Council, particularly new Councilmembers Davis,
Guidelines Petso and Orvis, of a memorandum sent to the Council regarding the ADB'9 position on Cedar River's
report. She said the ADB looked forward to working with the consultant selected.to revise the design
guidelines. She said the ADB was optimistic that improvements in the regulations would assist them in
their decisions.
In reference to a comment made at the retreat, Ms. Rubenkonig assured the .ADB currently enjoys the
ability to hold a preliminary meeting with developers. She referred to the minutes of the last ADB
meeting in which Rob Chave indicated the opportunity to interact with applicants early in the process is
something that is already allowed with the current process and is something all the boardmembers have
talked about over the years, having a desire and an interest in meeting with applicants as early as possible
when they are more willing to hear some of the ADB's suggestions and -concerns and make
modifications to their designs.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 18, 2000
Page 3
Karen Wiggins, 152 Yd Avenue S, Edmonds, Chair of the Downtow
veway n Parking Committee, referred
Curb to the proposed. change regarding curb cuts and alley access, and said the alleys in the City were not wide
Require- enough (16 feet wide and a two lane roadway must be 24 feet wide), were unsafe, and full of potholes.
ts She said the code must be flexible and subject to the conditions of the site. She said the City should not
It t
t
discourage development as the City's tax base was becoming increasingly dependent on property taxes.
She supported the proposed ordinance to amend the code.
Driveway
and Curb
Cut Require- Jacque Mayo, 229 Yd Avenue .S, Edmonds, recommended the Council modify ECDC 18.80.060 to
ments allow more flexibility due to topographical considerations.
Driveway Alvin Rutledge, 7101 Lake Ballinger Way, Edmonds, pointed out. many businesses in the downtown
and Curb
Cut Require- area are using volunteers. He supported allowing more flexibility for access to businesses in the
meets downtown business area.,
Joan Longstaff, 524 Main Street, Edmonds, urged the Council to support changes to ECDC to allow
Driveway .
and Curb flexibility and topographical considerations in determining access to property. She agreed the Fleury's
Cut Require- situation at 124 3rd Avenue North was difficult as the current code made it impossible for them to
ments develop their property. She said access should depend on the location of property; on Main Street, she
felt development should be retail frontage that was not disrupted by parking, an admitted disadvantage to
her when she chose to develop her lot. She stressed more flexibility was needed in the code.
nohom;sh Lester Blume, 19026 Olympic View Drive, Edmonds, distributed information including a Snohomish
ounty Tax County. Tax Roll Summary, Snohomish County Revaluation Schedule, Snohomish County Distribution
ormation of Taxes, Total Taxes Levied in Snohomish County by All Taxing Districts, Voted Vs. Non -Voted
Taxes, and Typical Levy Rates by City and Unincorporated. He corrected a previous statement he made
regarding the total taxable, value. of property in the City; it should have been $40,029,000,000. He
referred to the Snohomish County Distribution of Taxes, pointing out $554,015,312 in taxes was
distributed among various entities. He said last year's report indicated cities received 13.42% of the
moneys and this year cities received only 13.18 %. He referred to the list of Voted Vs. Non -Voted Taxes
(1964 — 2000), remarking this indicated taxpayers were being forced to pay more non -voted taxes. He
referred. to the list of Typical Levy Rates by City and Unincorporated, pointing out some cities' levy
rates were higher than Edmonds.
Councilmember Earling referred to the Voted Vs. Non -Voted Taxes and asked Administrative Services
Director Peggy Hetzler to determine from Snohomish County how much of the increase was due to
inflation between 1964 to 2000.
Brad Butterfield, 400 Dayton, Edmonds, Chair of the Edmonds Alliance for Economic
a Driveway Curb Development (EAED), a letter the EAED submitted to the Council on April 13. The letter
and Curb h ( )� p
Cut Require- . indicated the EAED Board of Directors voted unanimously to recommend to the City Council that they
ments proceed with the recommendations of the Cedar River study regarding changes to the. ADB process.
Specifically, the EAED recommended the ADB review be moved to the pre - planning stage of all projects
and should include fewer engineering requirements, which would allow both the applicant and ADB
flexibility in the design process. The letter stated the EAED had been informed on numerous occasions
that the current process was prohibitively expensive and cumbersome and that there were too many
requirements and it took too much time to complete. While the EAED supported the effort to evaluate
and create better design guidelines for the future, they felt strongly that in the interim the ADB's quasi
judicial status could and should be changed to an advisory review that would take place during the pre-
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 18, 2000
Page 4
Superior Charles Warner, 2002188 Ih Avenue W, Edmonds, urged changes in the ECDC not to stop with curb
Court cuts. He urged the Council to rethink the City's current strategy that prevents review of a land use
Review of decision by the Superior Court. He understood the City had an obligation to defend its decisions
Land Use
Decisions regarding land -use but said there was no moral prerogative to use taxpayers' moneys to prevent that
review.
Driveway Doug Dewar, 170 James, Edmonds, encouraged the Council to be more flexible regarding curb cuts.
and Curb He said one of the primary results of the Cedar River study was the need to be more flexible.. He said the
Cut Require- topography on lots in the City varied greatly from lot to lot and the code should allow, sufficient
ments ,
flexibility to ensure the best product was constructed. He acknowledged a great deal of property would
be developed over the next 20 years and flexibility would allow better development.
Churches/ Elaine Yard, 9209 Olympic View Drive, Edmonds, said she attended a Planning Board meeting
Parking recently and was distressed to hear that there was a letter discussing the problem of parking and churches
Issues but that St. Peters by the Sea, 9' Avenue North, had not been included in the previous meetings in
February and March. She said when they finally received a notice, the address was 9th Avenue West.
She said there were 23 churches in the City and all should be included in any decision- making. She
pointed out church members and visitors patronize businesses and park in the City and should have the
opportunity to voice their opinions.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 18, 2000
Page 5
planning stages. Mr. Butterfield said the EAED supported the development of new design guidelines due,
to their importance but also encouraged the Council to move the ADB's review process to the pre-
planning stage and eliminate their quasi-judicial status.
Mayor Haakenson, a member of the EAED Board,. said he abstained from the vote Mr. Butterfield
referred to in the letter from the EAED to the Council... -
Kevin Clarke, 23924 107th Place W, Edmonds, reported a potential resolution had been reached for the
Meadows
Meadows
20 -foot strip near Woodway Meadows. Several neighbors met with the developer this morning who
P y g p g
wanted to see the damage they created. Mr. Clarke acknowledged much of the resolution was a result of
the Mayor's Office diligence regarding this matter. Mr. Clarke said the developer informed them that
the Town of Woodway, as part of the final plat approval, had required them to provide an additional
emergency access point as Edmonds may not grant the 20 -foot strip. In addition, Woodway required
them to provide an emergency access point that would provide egress for residents out of the
development (which Edmonds had not granted) as well as to accommodate bicycle and pedestrian traffic.
The developer planned to redo their drawings and take 20 -feet from two lots in the northwest portion of
the development that would front on the existing 110th Place Southwest emergency access point. He said
the developer would apply for this change with the Town of Woodway and requested Edmonds provide
written acceptance from the Fire Marshal of one access point for fire protection. He said the original
developer was inflexible regarding the access point but the current developer will request the access be
relocated as they do not want to pave a 20 -foot strip that they do not need or that the neighbors do not
want paved. He requested the Council work with the Fire Marshal to draft a letter granting this new
emergency access.
Driveway
and Curb
. Greg Hoff, 22630 Woodway Park Road, Edmonds, a land owner and business owner in Edmonds,
Cut Require -
voiced his 'support ort g
for changes in the curb cut ordinance. He said allowing staff the flexibility to enhance
ents
the usability on individual properties on an as- needed basis was critical to increasing the tax base,
improving property values, and allowing property to be utilized to its full extent.
Superior Charles Warner, 2002188 Ih Avenue W, Edmonds, urged changes in the ECDC not to stop with curb
Court cuts. He urged the Council to rethink the City's current strategy that prevents review of a land use
Review of decision by the Superior Court. He understood the City had an obligation to defend its decisions
Land Use
Decisions regarding land -use but said there was no moral prerogative to use taxpayers' moneys to prevent that
review.
Driveway Doug Dewar, 170 James, Edmonds, encouraged the Council to be more flexible regarding curb cuts.
and Curb He said one of the primary results of the Cedar River study was the need to be more flexible.. He said the
Cut Require- topography on lots in the City varied greatly from lot to lot and the code should allow, sufficient
ments ,
flexibility to ensure the best product was constructed. He acknowledged a great deal of property would
be developed over the next 20 years and flexibility would allow better development.
Churches/ Elaine Yard, 9209 Olympic View Drive, Edmonds, said she attended a Planning Board meeting
Parking recently and was distressed to hear that there was a letter discussing the problem of parking and churches
Issues but that St. Peters by the Sea, 9' Avenue North, had not been included in the previous meetings in
February and March. She said when they finally received a notice, the address was 9th Avenue West.
She said there were 23 churches in the City and all should be included in any decision- making. She
pointed out church members and visitors patronize businesses and park in the City and should have the
opportunity to voice their opinions.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 18, 2000
Page 5
riveway Alan Young, 111 Main Street, Edmonds, opposed the change to the curb cut ordinance, primarily due
d Curb to the impact of eliminating any parking in downtown Edmonds. He questioned how many spaces would
ut Require -
ents be eliminated throughout the City by this' change. He agreed there were extenuating circumstances in
some situations and said exceptions could be reviewed by the City Council or ADB. He said the alley
access provision was instituted to preserve parking in the City.
Driveway Brian Benzel,, 111 Main Street, Edmonds, said flexibility in the curb cut ordinance may improve the
and Curb situation and urged the Council to consider staff's recommendation to provide flexibility for notice to
Cut Require-
ments adjacent property owners as well as a review period so that a decision that might affect the neighborhood
could include neighborhood involvement and would not be solely a staff decision.
Driveway Roger Heitrich, 1020 Puget Drive, Edmonds, pointed out it appeared a hearing. had been held tonight
and Curb regarding the curb cut ordinance although it was one - sided. He said it was not intended to be a hearing
Cut Require- . g g g g
ments and the Council should not make a decision this evening as a public hearing required both sides of the
issue be considered. He said the Council should discuss the curb cut issue and consider flexibility but
also consider how much flexibility, who would make the decision and what controls /rules /limitation
would be on the process. He preferred the Planning Board review this issue. He recommended the issue
be addressed on a variance basis with public notification and the ability for challenge and appeal. He
said it was very difficult to have a staff decision change as the legal recourses were difficult. He said
construction of a curb cut resulted in reduced retail space in the front of the building which he felt should
be substituted elsewhere in the building. He also pointed out curb cuts that eliminate parking effect
residents throughout the City. He disputed the point that these buildings increase the City's tax base,
pointing out only 5% of the building would be retail and the remainder would be condominiums which
do not generate sales tax. He reiterated any reduction in the retail area in a building reduced the ability
to generate sales tax. He recommended the Council not make a decision tonight and refer the matter to
the Planning Board for further discussion.
Scandinavian 4. PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING SCANDINAVIAN DAYS
Days
Mayor Haakenson advised the City would be celebrating its fifth annual Scandinavian Festival on
Saturday, May 6`h. He reported many activities were planned throughout the day including the
Norwegian pancake breakfast, a troll stroll with street music and an evening concert featuring Dr. George
Fiore and the Cascade Symphony Orchestra.
I
Mayor Haakenson read a Proclamation regarding the Scandinavian Festival Days in Edmonds. and
presented it to Bob Stevenson, chairman of the festival, and his wife, Erlene, President of Edmonds
Lodge 130.
Ms. Stevenson thanked the City for the Proclamation and their support this year and in the. past. She
invited the Council and 'public to attend the festival. She described musical events that would occur
throughout the day at the Masonic Center from 9:00 a.m. — 3:00 p.m. and the pancake breakfast from
7:00 a.m. — 1:00 p.m. Mr. Stevenson said attendees were encouraged to spend the day in Edmonds;
when the festivities at the Masonic center conclude at 3:00 p.m., there would be time for dinner in
Edmonds prior to the concert at 7:00 p.m. He said all proceeds from the Festival go to their scholarship
fund. During the past several years, they have provided three high school scholarships as well as support
for summer language and heritage camps.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 18, 2000
Page 6
5. CONTINUED DISCUSSION ON PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING THE PROVISION OF
Driveway EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 18.80.060, DRIVEWAY AND
d Curb
Cut Require- CURB CUT REQUIREMENTS PARAGRAPH B (5�, DOWNTOWN BUSINESS AREA, TO
ments PROVIDE GREATER FLEXIBILITY IN DETERMINING LOCATION OF ACCESS
City Attorney Scott Snyder explained this was a legislative decision and not a quasi-judicial hearing and
that was -the reason the audience was allowed to speak regarding this issue (under audience comment).
He said at the conclusion of the public hearing .in October 1999, the Council closed the public hearing,
tabled discussion to a later date and requested information from staff. The purpose of tonight's
discussion was to provide that information to the Council, provide an opportunity for the public to testify
regarding the new information, and for the Council to continue its deliberation. He said the Appearance
of Fairness Doctrine was not applicable to legislative decisions.
Councilmember Earling said at the October public hearing, -he supported a broad base discussion
regarding the impacts throughout the downtown area. However, as the minutes of that meeting indicate,
the discussion focused on a particular property. Due to that focus and because three audience members
who provided testimony contributed to his campaign, he chose to step down from the decision although
that action was not necessary as it was a legislative hearing. He chose to participate in tonight's
legislative decision as the information provided was in a broader context, identifying several properties
throughout the downtown area. Mr. Snyder explained, unlike a quasi judicial decision when a
Councilmember must be present or have considered the record, on a legislative decision,
Councilmembers may consider the'record as well as other information the Councilmember may be aware
of. He summarized there was no impediment to Councilmember Earling's participation.
City Engineer Jim Walker said although the focus of the October 1999 public hearing was largely
regarding one property, there were multiple locations where the restricted access caused problems for
property that could only take access from an alley. He displayed a map identifying 37 properties that
may encounter difficulties with access. He said many of the situations occurred when there was a
significant slope across the property. He said staff did not necessarily agree with some of the sites
identified on the map, particularly some on 4' Avenue, as there was not sufficient slope to cause
problems. For Councilmember Earling, Mr. Walker identified the Fleury property.
Mr. Walker displayed and described a sketch illustrating topography that may make it difficult to provide
alley access.
Councilmember Petso said she was familiar with a number of buildings in the Fremont area that were
designed as Mr. Walker described (parking on the second floor) and asked if that was allowed by the
Edmonds code. Mr. Walker answered problems may arise with the building height a� well as the
possibility of parking occurring between floors if the alley and street were on different levels.
Councilmember Petso asked if fill could be added to make the street and alley levels the same. Mr.
Walker answered no.
Councilmember Orvis clarified there was no proposal to increase height limits. Mr. Walker agreed,
pointing out a property on a slope may have parking in the basement that may not exist on a flat lot.
Councilmember Orvis observed the building would not be higher but deeper. Mr. Walker said
developers of property on a slope often take advantage of the topography and build a lower level garage.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 18, 2000
Page 7
Councilmember White asked if the rule that required the height be relative to the average of the slope
applied to residential development only. Mr. Walker said it applied to commercial also. He said the
building could be higher on the downhill side but overall the height must,be 25 feet.
.Councilmember Petso said she was told earlier that changes to the ordinance would require another
public hearing. She asked it that applied to all changes or only substantial changes. Mr. Snyder advised'
the ordinance before the Council was subject to a public hearing in October. If the Council made
substantive changes in either a legal requirement or a standard, it would require another public hearing.
He said typographical changes or minor changes in language would not, require another public hearing.
Councilmember Petso asked Mr. Snyder to review ECDC 18.80.060(B)(5)(a)(ii), observing there was
something missing in the wording.
Councilmember Petso asked if the Planning Board had reviewed this issue. Mr. Walker answered no, but
it had been before the Community Services Committee three times. He said the Planning Board typically
had not reviewed revisions to Section 18 or 19 of the ECDC.
Councilmember Petso asked what notice provision could be provided without changing the substance of
the ordinance. Mr. Walker said Section 20, which addresses staff decisions that require notification,
could be modified. Mr. Snyder said the mechanism already existed as any staff decision was required to
be in writing and any staff decision was appealable. He said the only question would be to whom notice
would be provided.
Councilmember Petso asked who would receive notice if Section 20 were revised. Mr. Walker said it
would be the same notice as provided for any other public process, notification to property owners within
300 feet as well as published and posted notification. Councilmember Petso asked if there would be the
same appeal rights. Mr. Walker said there was a similar appeal process — to the Hearing Examiner and
then to City Council.
Councilmember Petso observed when action was tabled on October 5; staff was to return with criteria
from the Court of Appeals and a notice structure similar to the variance and waiver but said a Court of
Appeal's decision was not provided. Mr. Snyder said the Court of Appeals did not provide criteria, only
"reasonable person standard." He said the Court of Appeals has chosen to apply the issue of access on a
case -by -case, factual basis due to the takings issue. The Court of Appeals declined to give specific
guidelines as it was typically a jury issue.
Councilmember Petso said the minutes of the October 5, 1999, meeting indicated criterion/examples
would be incorporated into the ordinance to provide guidance to the Hearing Examiner and Council
regarding the definition of substantial and reasonable. She asked whether that could be done. Mr.
Snyder said the ordinance incorporates the criterion that have been provided by the Court of Appeals,
addressed in iii and iv, issues relating to other public benefits. He said examples /criterion would limit
the use of the word "reasonable" which the Courts have declined to do.
Councilmember Petso said the ordinance referred to the purposes of the ECDC, granting a waiver to
promote the purposes of the ECDC. She said she was unable to identify a purposes section in the ECDC
and asked what that language referred to. Mr. Walker said the Comprehensive Plan, such as the
Transportation Element, Utilities Element, which are adopted as part of the ECDC chapter.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 18, 2000
Page 8
Mr. Snyder referred to Councilmember Petso's earlier question regarding ECDC 18.80.060(B)(5)(a)(ii)
and recommended the words "restrict such utility" be deleted (the section would then read, "Access from
an existing alleyway would substantially impair reasonable access to an abutting public street or utility
esmiet sueh utility because of circumstances related to site size, topography or orientation, or
For Councilmember Davis, Mr. Snyder explained "reasonable person standard" referred to a value
judgment made by a normal, reasonable person in full possession of the facts who was unswayed by a
particular prejudice, reasonable under the circumstances. The Court of Appeals has declined to give any
specific direction as this relates to the specific utility of a property and whether the governmental
restriction reduced the value of the property. He said the Courts have indicated that decision needed to
made considering the totality of the circumstances — facts available including the value of the property
before, the prior uses of the property, and how the restriction damaged the value of the property.
Councilmember White said his concerns regarding "reasonableness" were satisfied as staff would
determine whether access was reasonable, upon appeal the Hearing Examiner, Council, Superior Court
and ultimately Supreme Court, if necessary, could determine whether it was reasonable. In response to
Councilmember White's inquiry regarding Section 18.80.060 (5)(A)(i), Mr. Snyder said the section
should state "access to the subject property."
Councilmember White asked where in the ordinance it was stated that staff could allow alley access. Mr.
Snyder referred to Section B(5)(c) which stated "or other alternative." Mr.. Snyder explained the intent
was for there to be a hierarchy - 1) if there was an alley, and if so, does it provide reasonable access; 2)
if there was no alley or the alley would not be reasonable, could a common driveway be shared, and 3)
another alternative. He said the City's past policy has been to preserve existing on street parking by
utilizing existing driveway entrances versus creating new curb cuts.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DAVIS, TO
EXTEND DISCUSSION OF THIS ITEM FOR 15 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Plunkett observed that in addition to engineering issues, there were also legal reasons.'
this change was being considered. Mr. Snyder said every property owner had the right to have
reasonable access to their property from abutting city streets. The city could restrict access by exercising
reasonable police power (i.e. a barrier that prohibits a left turn). If the ordinance remains unchanged, the
City may be faced with inverse condemnation action by property owners in the downtown area because if
they do not have reasonable access to their property, they have the right to be compensated for it.
Councilmember Petso referred to the comment made by Ms. Longstaff regarding a difference between
property on Main Street and 3rd Avenue and preventing curb cuts in the downtown area but allowing curb
cuts on a case -by -case basis on Yd Avenue. Councilmember Petso observed the ordinance did not appear
to allow a case -by -case discretion. Mr. Snyder said alley access was only currently required in the
downtown area. Access could be provided from any abutting street elsewhere in the City. He said the
ordinance would provide some staff discretion as well as provide a hierarchy for a decision.
Councilmember Petso asked if paragraph IN could be deleted and the Council still make a decision
tonight or if that would constitute a substantial change. Councilmember Petso said the language in
paragraph iv was incredibly broad and would allow anything, particularly without a definition of the
purpose of the ECDC. She said the language in paragraph iv was broader than she wanted to approve at
this time. Mr. Snyder said the section could be revised to state, "Providing access from a point other
than the alley would promote traffic safety, or othe fvvi e bettor promote the of the Edmonds
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 18, 2000
Page 9
Code." He said the intent of the remaining language was to address situations
when the Council may want to. retain the discretion to approve something that might provide some other
benefit. He said the section" could also specifically reference the Transportation Element and its. .
purposes.
Councilmember Petso asked whether it could always be said that providing access from a point other
than the alley would promote traffic safety. Mr. Snyder answered yes, given the condition of some of the
City's alleys.
Councilmember White asked Mr. Walker what paragraph he would rely upon to make a determination
whether the alleyway entrance would be required. Mr. Walker said paragraph ii referred to
.circumstances related to site size; topography or orientation: If topography of the site made alley access
impractical for development, he indicated he could, under paragraph c, consider an existing common
driveway or other alternative, provided that the applicant met the criteria of paragraph ii. .
COUNCIL PRESIDENT MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DAVIS, TO
EXTEND DISCUSSION OF THIS ITEM FOR 20 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED.
Mr. Snyder said if the Council wished, the ordinance could be reworded to provide a waiver from a
specific requirement. He said the intent was to provide a hierarchy that would result in something other
than alley access or a shared driveway access at the conclusion of the process. He explained the intent
was for staff to consider a series of alternatives and allow a curb cut only as a last alternative.
Councilmember White did not feel the wording in paragraph ii was sufficient. He suggested paragraph i
be reworded to read, "No alleyway exists which would provide reasonable vehicular access to -a4et the
subject property in the downtown business area; or" Councilmember White said his intent was to leave
ii as drafted.
Mr. Snyder. said in other areas of the City, the City Engineer grants curb cuts for access to their lots and
has fairly broad discretion to determine whether those accesses are placed. In the downtown area, the
Council wanted to preserve on- street parking unless there was some problem.
Councilmember Earling referred to the comments from Councilmember Petso and Ms. Longstaff
regarding retail development on Main Street versus 3rd Avenue. He pointed out a few years ago, no one
would have imagined retail at the corner of 2nd and Main or retail frontage on 3' just north of. Claire's
Pantry. He cautioned the Council not to try to image how the City might develop over the next 20 years
and preferred the Council establish policy direction. Councilmember Earling suggested paragraph iv
refer to the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan rather than the ECDC. He was also
interested in providing neighborhood notice.
Councilmember Davis. asked how many parking spaces would be lost if the 37 properties identified on
the map were allowed curb cuts. Mr. Walker estimated 40, rioting it was difficult to determine exactly,
as much would depend on how driveways were positioned with regard to other driveways. He said there
were approximately 400 -500 parking spaces in that area.
Councilmember Davis asked if the additional parking provided on -site would justify the curb cut. Mr.
Walker answered parking would be gained but a use would also be established creating a need for the
parking. He assumed if the code requirements were correct, the need for parking and the parking
provided would balance. Mr. Walker said as site development triggers a SEPA process, consideration
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 18, 2000
Page 10
has been given to whether mitigation could be required for the lost parking (i.e. an in- lieu -of- parking
fee).
Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of this item.
Alan Young, 111 Main Street, Edmonds, recalled. one situation that resulted in the loss of nine parking
spaces not including the curb cut. He asked how the in- lieu -of- parking fees were spent, commenting
parking has not been replaced. He stressed new construction often eliminates spaces in addition to on-
street parking lost as a result of the curb cut. He pointed out visitors to condominium projects create a .
further need for parking. He disagreed with Mr. Walker's estimate regarding the number of parking
spaces that would be lost.
Brad Butterfield, 400 Dayton, Edmonds, said a parallel parking space was approximately 20 feet in
length and a curb cut was approximately 16 — 24 feet; therefore a curb cut equals approximately one
vehicle. He explained a property he is currently developing at 210 5`' Avenue has one curb cut but would
also provide 40 on -site, parking spaces. He agreed with Mr. Walker's statement that the engineering
standards were intended to balance the need for parking with the parking provided . but said in many
instances, more off - street, on -site parking was provided than would be eliminated by one curb cut. He
pointed out this issue was restricted to only the BC zone. He referred to Mr. Young's comment
regarding visitors, pointing out there were commercial and residential mixes in the BC zone and most of,
the commercial space was empty after 5:00 p.m., providing adequate parking space for visitors. He said
he created the list of 37 properties in the BC zone where the topography of the alley was higher than the
street access. He said property owners want their parking to be subterranean and envisioned it would be J
difficult to get the ADB to approve parking on the second or third floor of a structure. He summarized
the proposed code changes were important and needed to be approved.
Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, Edmonds, said references to the ECDC were the most important,
part of any decision; if that portion was eliminated, the ability for a proper decision was eliminated. He
said one parking space did not equate to one curb cut due to the restricted parking zones on either side of
the driveway. He estimated a curb cut likely equaled 2+ parking spaces depending on the location. He
suggested some of the information provided to the Council was biased and recommended the Council
make a decision at a later date.
Charles Warner, 20021 88 'h Avenue W, Edmonds, referred to the comment regarding eliminating on
street parking and replacing it on -site, pointing out that put public parking into private ownership, likely
with restrictions such as to be used by patrons only. He said the availability . of public parking in the
downtown core was really the issue. Businesses adjacent to newer buildings were likely to have
problems with parking if their existing public parking was removed and replaced with restricted on -site
parking. He questioned the City's control over the availability of parking once it was placed on private
property. He appreciated Councilmember Earling's concern regarding public notice but was uncertain if
it would have much impact if the Council did not allow issues to be reviewed further after a decision had
been made.
Albert Dykes, 110 Sunset Avenue N, Edmonds, supported changes in the ECDC that would allow more
flexibility in addressing variances in topography of property in the commercial zone. He observed there
had been a great of emphasis on the loss of parking. He referred to Mr. Young's comment regarding the
loss of nine parking spaces, pointed out those spaces were on private and not public property: He said
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 18, 2000
Page 11
due to the inflexibility of the current code, even if a property in the commercial zone had a curb, cut, they
would be prevented from using it if the property had alley access.
Kevin Clarke, 100 2 "d Avenue S, Ste. 320, Edmonds, President of Clarke Consulting Group, said: he
did not represent any client regarding .this issue but related two circumstances, one when he testified as
an expert witness in Superior Court and Federal Court relating to condemnation matters and said unless
the City made this change, a case for inverse condemnation could be made. Second, he was recently
involved with a partition action of four interior lots that fronted on the street and also had an alley. In an
effort to divide the lot equally, one was to be accessed from the street and the other from the alley; the
diminution in value associated with the alley access was considerable. He said alley access was an
inferior physical and economic layout and there was no way to create the highest value for a property by
accessing from the alley if there were topography issues.
Al Rutledge, 7101 Lake Ballinger Way, Edmonds, said there was no parking problem in the downtown
area. He reiterated this issue had not beeil reviewed by the Planning Board.
Bill Borger, 751 Laurel Street, Edmonds, urged the Council to adopt the proposed change, pointing out
it would be a great help to the City and to,others who are anxious to live here.
Mayor Haakenson closed the public participation portion of this item.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DAVIS, TO
EXTEND DISCUSSION OF THIS ITEM FOR 10 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED.
Mr. Snyder explained the ordinance was originally recommended by staff to avoid an inadvertent inverse
condemnation of properties once it was discovered that topography problems would prevent reasonable
access to property. In response to a concern raised over the loss of public on- street parking, he said it
was important to differentiate between public problems and those created by a developer. He cautioned
the Council not to pass public problems that were unrelated to development on to a developer. He said
the loss,of public parking was not the problem, the problem was lack of reasonable public parking in the
entire downtown area. He said the City had a number of tools for providing public parking, including an
effort to locate a parking structure in the downtown area. If inadequate parking was proposed by a
development, the City could reconsider the amount of parking a development was required to provide,
require payment of an in -lieu parking fees that would .contribute to the construction of a parking
structure, and staff was researching an increase in mitigation fees, so that parking could be provided. He
said the City had an obligation to have the parking structure on the CIP so that funds raised via. the in-
lieu-of-parking fee could be used`to replace parking.
Mr. Snyder outlined the changes suggested by the Council:
• Change "possible" to "impossible" in the third WHEREAS on page 1.
• Revise paragraph i to read, "No alleyway exists which would provide reasonable vehicular
access to the subject property; or"
• Revise paragraph ii to read, "Access from an existing alleyway would substantially impair
reasonable access to ,an abutting public street or utility because of circumstances related to site
size, topography or orientation, or"
• Revise paragraph iv to, read, "Providing access from a point other than the alley would promote
traffic safety or otherwise better promote the purposes of the Transportation Element of the
Comprehensive Plan."
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 18, 2000
Page 12
Add the following sentence to page 3, "The City Engineer's decision to approve alternative
access shall be processed in accordance with the provisions of ECDC 20:95.050."
Mr. Snyder explained ECDC 20.95.050 referred to the noticing of staff decisions where notice was
required. It was the same process for lot line adjustments, home use occupations, guest houses, etc. and "
provided posted and written notice to property owners within 300 feet. He pointed out the Mayor's name
on page 3 would also be,changed.
Mayor Haakenson remanded the matter to Council for deliberation.
Ord #3302
Driveway COUNCIL PRESIDENT MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT,
and Curb FOR ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO. 3302 AS AMENDED.
Cut Require-
ments Councilmember Petso agreed there were instances when size, topography or orientation should be
considered but pointed out paragraph iii and iv went far beyond that and the City would not be limiting
curb .cuts to only the properties identified on the map. She stressed the ordinance "would give it to
everybody" which she felt was a mistake. She said anyone who wanted to build on their property could
,easily hire an attorney who could argue that providing access from a point other than the alley would
promote traffic safety and they .would not need topography, size or other problems to meet the
conditions. She recommended - paragraphs iii and iv be deleted as they were so vague and general that
they would allow curb cuts throughout the district.
Councilmember Plunkett observed the Council could not make ordinances "lawyer proof' and needed to
fall back on the test of reasonableness. In light of the legal reason to move forward with this change as
well as engineering and. economic reasons, he supported the ordinance as written.
Councilmember Orvis indicated he would support the ordinance, observing if the ordinance was not
changed, inverse condemnation could result in a great deal of cost to the City. He said the current
ordinance appeared to discourage underground parking and he felt it was reasonable to put parking
underground whenever feasible.
Councilmember Earling said it was a fundamental property right to have reasonable access to property.
He said although an attorney may seek relief that cannot be envisioned tonight, he said the City Attorney
had only provided "strong language" a few times in the eight years he had been on the Council. He
referred to quotes Mr. Snyder made at the October 5, 1999, meeting (contained in the staff report),
"...property owners are entitled to commercially reasonable access..." and "if a property owner is
deprived of commercially reasonable access, the additional development costs, property values, etc.
could be the City's responsibility." Councilmember Earling said it was clear from those comments that
the Council must act to avoid lawsuits.
MOTION CARRIED. (The vote was 6 -1; Councilmember Petso opposed.)
Mayor Haakenson declared a brief recess.
DB Design 6 INTERVIEW FINALISTS FOR ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD DESIGN GUIDELINES
Guidelines CONSULTANT
Consultant
Interviews Planning Manager Rob Chave'advised two firms had responded to the Request for Proposals (RFP), the.
first to be interviewed was Cascade Collaborative. Due to the late hour, Council President Miller
encouraged the presenters to be brief.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 18, 2000
Page 13
I
Eric Schmidt, Principle, Cascade Collaborative, introduced Jennifer Mundee, a Senior Associate, and
Dennis Tate, an Architect, and explained they have worked together for the past'six years doing urban
design development plans throughout the northwest. He circulated boards illustrating /describing their
past work as well as illustrations regarding how they.might assist with the parking issue, taken from the
Bainbridge Island code and development regulations that they have worked on from 1995 to the present.
He referred to a list of 21 plans they have developed over the past five years to illustrate the amount of
work they have accomplished regarding this issue and a list of five cities where they have developed
their design development codes as well as participated in ongoing work at those cities' requests. He said
the documents produced for those five cities were award - winning documents, receiving awards from
AIA, APA and Sunset Magazine.
Mr. Schmidt reiterated they have ongoing work with many of the cities they have worked. with in the
past. He said they were interested in working with Edmonds over the long term. He said part of their
track record was their ability to assist on many different levels.
Mr. Schmidt reviewed the process they envisioned over the four months to achieve the goal of
developing standards that could resolve some of the issues that have arisen in the past such as the parking
problem the Council reviewed tonight. He said they read through the documents that were in need of
flexibility and diversity. He pointed out the importance of balancing design input with development
reality. He described their ability to work with developers in determining how the design guidelines
impact their projects (in University Place and Bainbridge Island). He commented Bainbridge Island was
also considering how to develop a parking structure in their downtown core.
In reviewing the documents provided to them, Mr. Schmidt said they determined a great deal of
simplification needed to occur. That would be accomplished via a kick -off meeting with staff prior to
'the first public forum to identify strategies to streamline the process, determine what regulations were
redundant, determine which regulations could be deleted and determine what regulations, in their
experience, needed to be added to make the document easier for the .development community to
understand.. Draft regulations would be reviewed with staff and taken to the public for a discussion
regarding the regulations. The formal documents and revisions would then be drafted through the end of
the 4 -month process.
Mr. Schmidt displayed a matrix that covered all the design requirement elements that currently exist in
the code. He said the matrix would include mandatory items for each subarea followed by an option
menu for issues such as access, parking, buffers, setbacks, open space, water quality, building forms,
building usage, etc. He explained this was a method for simplifying the process; a method that was easy
for developers to understand and a method he used for seven years at the: Boston Redevelopment
Authority. He said this method was, used in four of the cities in which they have developed design
development plans.
Councilmember Plunkett explained the Edmonds ADB was a quasi-judicial board that reviewed plans at
the end of the process. He asked Mr. Schmidt if he envisioned design guidelines having anything to do
with whether the ADB was involved in the pre - approval process or at the end as a quasi-judicial body.
Mr. Schmidt said the design regulations would not control how /when the board acted. He said the ADB
should act sooner rather than ,later but the design regulations would be a document the ADB used in the
process and the zoning code would establish when in the process they reviewed projects. He said a
change in the zoning code would be necessary to change the quasi-judicial status of the ADB.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 18, 2000
Page 14
Council President Miller asked how the stakeholders would be involved in rewriting the regulations. Mr.
Schmidt answered the same stakeholders that Cedar River identified in the Design Review Study would
be used to test the general ideas before they were presented to the general public at a public forum. He
said there would be two public forums, as identified in the scope of work, one early in the process to
identify which guidelines were redundant, new regulations to be added, etc. and a second public forum
where the new regulations would be presented.
For Council President Miller, Mr. Schmidt said the draft regulations would be reviewed with staff for
unintended consequences before they were presented to the public.
Councilmember Earling observed the staff of Cascade Collaborative were busy people and inquired
about their time availability. Mr. Schmidt said Ms. Mundee, Mr. Tate and his time had already been
blocked out for this project and they could start tomorrow or next week. Councilmember-Earling
recalled one of their resumes referred to design of ,four elementary schools. Mr. Schmidt said they
worked on Chase Lake Elementary, Meadowdale Elementary, Thorndyke Elementary (Tacoma) and
Alderwood Elementary.
Councilmember White asked what would be presented at the public forums and who they envisioned
would be present. Mr. Schmidt answered it would be a workshop format, they would have boards similar
to those displayed tonight and graphics describing the existing and proposed regulations. He explained
Mr. Tate and Ms. Mundee's forte was their ability to "draw on their feet" so there would be, an
opportunity to illustrate responses to questions regarding modulation, setback, etc. He said the meeting
would be opened with a preliminary discussion regarding the intent for the workshop and then break into
groups to discuss specific issues —Ms. Mundee would address issues regarding the public realm such as
the streetscape, the urban design, curb cuts, and parking, Mr. Tate would address architecture,
modulation, setback, roof forms and other aspects of the building,, and he would address policy
regulations and how it integrated with the Comprehensive Plan.
Councilmember White explained in Edmonds there was a general ordinance structure that indicated roof
heights not exceed 25 feet but a 5 -foot increase was permitted under certain conditions. However, the
height sometimes starting at 30 feet and modulated down, and other times it started at 25 feet and
modulated up to 30 feet. He asked how they would address that. Mr. Schmidt said one of their proposals
was to consider not only the vertical setback but also horizontal. He said it would be their hope that the
regulations would allow staff to choose whether there would be a vertical setback or a horizontal setback
and.not both. He said they would develop a defined graphic illustrating the point at which the evaluation
was established and the exceptions. He said most regulations they have developed allowed a 546ot
flexibility from the underside of the ceiling on the top floor.
Mr. Schmidt summarized their regulations have been tested in the marketplace by development
specialists. He said they reduced Federal Way's zoning code by 30% and wrote their design guidelines
as well as their bonus program. He said Federal Way's bonus program was reviewed by developers to
ensure the benefits to burdens and they indicated the regulations were a positive benefit. He said the law
firms of Davis Wright Tremain and William Casner Gibbs reviewed their documents (outside of court),
and indicated they have stood the test of a great deal of legal scrutiny. He said developers in cities they
have worked with have returned to request their assistance in drafting regulations for CC &R's for
business parks.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 18, 2000
Page 15
1
Councilmember White asked if any of their projects have specifically addressed the issue of height
limitations. Mr. Schmidt answered the City of SeaTac was the only city in which they did not address
height regulations because. FAA controls their heights regulations. He said some cities have been more
flexible regarding height and stricter on the FARs and the overall development. Mr. Tate said typically
height limits are set by zoning. The design review process provides an opportunity to do design
departures from height limits. He said they could also review the City's zoning code if that was desired.
In response to an earlier question regarding how to reach consensus on design issues, he said they would
work with the community (the general public as well as the development community) to determine the
issues and what they would like to see.
Mr. Schmidt described height regulations he developed for the Boston Commons that related to the
shadow cast by buildings on the Commons.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WHITE, TO
EXTEND THE MEETING UNTIL 11:00 P.M. MOTION CARRIED.
Due to the late hour, Council President Miller encouraged the presenters to be brief.
John Owen, Partner In Charge, Makers, introduced members of their firm, Ben Bengford, Project
Manager, and Thanasorn Kamolratanayothin. He explained they have assisted the City with other
projects and have made design guidelines a specialty of their firm. He explained Mr. Bengford, Ms.
Kamolratanayothin and he had done a number of projects together recently (Newcastle, Black Diamond
and Burien). Mr. Owen said he viewed design guidelines as a .community- building tool —to assist the
city in making decisions about their future. Mr. Bengford, a former permit reviewer for Bonner County,
approached design guidelines from an administrative /regulatory background and Ms. Kamolratanayothin
had graphic and communication expertise.
Mr. Owen said the materials they distributed outlined their experience. He said one of the issues that
arose in the Cedar River Study was that the ADB may focus oil issues that are not as important; some of
the design guidelines they have developed for other cities ensured the design board considered the entire
context of a project. He said there were also several sections of the City that the design guidelines
related to— downtown, neighborhood centers and Highway 99. He said they prepared design guidelines
for several areas in Newcastle that were contained in one document. The other issue that arose in the
Cedar River Study was that several documents are currently used by the ADB and there was a need to
ensure they functioned as a single document.
Mr. Bengford described the process proposed for the project, noting the process includes several items
outlined in the Cedar River report. He said the process would include reviewing existing materials such
as the Comprehensive Plan, design guidelines, etc. to determine how they function and the issues
associated with them as well as conducting interviews with key community members, staff, elected
officials, ADB members and identifying potential outlines and formats for the design guidelines. He said
the first of two public workshops would identify some of the most important issues. He explained the
workshops could include a visual preference surveyor. He identified key decision points /meetings with
staff/ADB during the process. He explained following the first public workshop, an outline /format for
the guidelines would be determined and the draft guidelines prepared including graphics to illustrate
issues in the guidelines. The draft guidelines would be reviewed at a second public workshop. The
guidelines would then be refined utilizing comments from staff, ADB and the public. He said they
would remain involved through the final adoption process. He pointed out their ability to complete the
project within the 120 -day timeframe.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 18, 2000
Page 16
Mr. Owen referred to issues addressed in the Cedar River Study including packaging, facilitating the
process, clarity and graphic communication, code departures (make the development code more flexible
in instances where there was a public benefit), and addressing special districts. He described how they
had addressed similar issues in other cities.
Mr. Owen said they understood the ADB was considering having their review occur prior to submittal,
which would allow the ADB-to provide project direction early on. He said they participated in a similar
process in the City of Seattle, creating a checklist of issues that needed to be addressed in the design..
Councilmember White asked Mr. Owen to describe how the public ,forums would be structured. Mr.
Owen said this would be discussed with staff and the ADB to ensure past efforts were not duplicated. He
said public input was useful to ensure the objectives were correct. This would be accomplished via a
visual preference survey (photographs of actual developments and seek participants' opinions), or the
charette process where participants indicate important issues the design guidelines should address. He
said when developing design. guidelines in other cities, participants have also been asked to bring
photographs of examples they want addressed in the design guidelines. He said the second workshop
would explain what the design guidelines contained and solicit public comment. He said that workshop
could be structured as an open house with stations to address different design issues.
Councilmember White said the materials indicated the public forum would be handled in different ways
depending on the goal. He asked how.the goal of the forum would be determined. Mr. Owen said
information developed via previous interviews would be considered as well as interviews with key
players early in the process. Following the workshop, he explained they typically tabulate the results of
the visual preference survey —what images were preferred and why. They also tabulate comments made
at the charette, which may include a dot exercise to identify important issues.
Councilmember White asked how the format/purpose would be determined. Mr. Owen said they would
first meet with staff and ADB members to outline the approach to the process.' .
Councilmember White said a significant issue in Edmonds was height limits; the height limit was 25 feet
and increases were allowed to 30 feet under certain conditions. He said the question has been whether to
start at 30 feet and modulate down, or start at 25 feet and modulate up to 30 feet. Mr. Owens said they
would provide options to staff and the ADB. He said a view -shed analysis could be done to establish
specific view and height parameters. He said another approach would be a low standardized height limit
with incentives for additional height if, for example, a developer could indicate the location of their
building provided a view corridor. He preferred maintaining a fairly low height and place the burden on
the applicant to indicate his/her project met the intent of the height regulations.
Mr. Owen urged the Council to consider their references, indicating they had done several similar
projects recently. He said they would give this project top priority and had the availability to meet the
timeframe. He looked forward to addressing issues in the community.
Mayor Haakenson observed Makers had done some work for the Port of Edmonds in the past and asked
if they were currently working with the Port. Mr. Owen answered no.
Mr. Chave advised the Council could indicate their choice if there was a clear consensus or could direct
staff to do a detailed reference check.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 18, 2000,
Page 17
I-
I
0
Councilmember Plunkett asked if any other firms responded to the RFP. Mr. Chave answered no other
firms presented proposals.
Councilmember White said he would be interested in references as he felt it was important to know how
the firms worked with other cities' staffs, with stakeholders and with citizens. Although he liked the
resume of the Maker's principle, John Owen, he' said the allocated work hours indicated he would not be
doing a lot on the project. He recalled a reference to Maker's not participating in a court project and
suggested staff follow -up on that issue.
Council President Miller agreed with Councilmember White's request to have staff check references but
preferred the Council indicate which firm staff should pursue. He said he was more impressed with
Cascade Collaborative's process for the redesign of the program. It also appeared they could give more
time to the project and would have a better focus on the community and stakeholders. His preference
was Cascade Collaborative and requested their references be checked prior to final approval.
Councilmember Earling said he had worked with Mr. Owen previously on the Edmonds Waterfront Plan
and Makers also worked on the Mill Creek Town Center which Mill Creek was very happy with. Mr.
Owen also did design work for SnoTran regarding development around transit centers. Councilmember
Earling said he was impressed with the overall quality of Cascade Collaborative. He observed one of the
members had been involved with station development for Sound Transit, experience the City might
benefit from. His preference was Cascade Collaborative but requested that staff check the references of
both firms.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER EARLING, TO
AUTHORIZE STAFF TO CONTRACT WITH CASCADE COLLABORATIVE CONDITIONED
ON A REFERENCE CHECK. MOTION CARRIED.
Mr.. Chave advised references would be checked over the next week and a memo provided to Council
with the results.
Postponed 7. REPORT ON COMMITTEE MEETINGS
Repot[ on
Committee Due to the late hour, this item was postponed to the April 25 meeting.
Meetings
8. UPDATE ON SELF INSURANCE HEALTH BENEFIT FUND
Self
Insurance Human Resources Director Brent Hunter reviewed a graph illustrating administrative. costs, excess loss
Health
Benefit coverage, revenue, claims and cash, pointing out increased claims results in reduced cash. He reported
Fund the cash in the fund was in a severe valley at the present time. The fund experienced its largest claim
month ever in March, $220,000, reducing the cash reserve in the fund to .$84,000. He pointed out when
an entity was self - insured, whenever it made a decision to stop being self - insured, it was still responsible
for any incurred but unpaid claims which could total 2 -3 months claims. Therefore, it was desirable to
have $250,000 in reserves to ensure there was adequate cash to pay incurred but unpaid claims. He said
the City's insurance consultant said that although March was a bad month, he recommended the City
continue with self - insurance.
Mr. Hunter explained the City has one claim of approximately $77,000 and two others in the $355000
range. The City's excess loss carrier will provide reimbursement of the excess amount (over $50,000).
Mr. Hunter displayed and described a comparison of Edmonds self - insurance health insurance costs to
AWC health insurance costs. He said anytime the City made a decision to cease, self- insurance, it would
likely return to AWC.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 18, 2000
Page 18
Councilmember White asked if all the reserves would be used if there was another month like March.
Mr. Hunter said premiums are collected a month in advance so there was actually more than $84,000 in
the reserves. He agreed once the reserves were expended, the fund would be in a deficit.
For Councilmember Plunkett, Mr. Hunter explained the secondary insurance only paid individual claims
in excess of $50,000. He explained any deficit was a City obligation payable from the General Fund:
As the. same product was provided by AWC and ;self- insurance, Councilmember Davis asked why the
City opted to ' become. self-insured. Mr. Hunter said it was anticipated self - insurance would be better than
AWC. It was hoped, there would be extra cash from, self - insurance to put into the LEOFF 1 long -term
care plan. He said self - insurance was a long -term ,proposal; there were other cities that have been self -
insured for ten years and are. in a better position than Edmonds. He explained the City's first year was an
extremely bad year as there were some major claims.
Request for The Council requested a monthly update on the Self-Insurance Health Benefit Fund.
Update on
self Insur. Councilmember White asked how quickly the City could withdraw from self - insurance. Mr: Hunter said
Health the City was on a month -to -month contract with HMA and Safeco. The only long -term contract was
Benefit
Fund with the consultant ($18,000 paid in advance).
Councilmember Davis asked whether the benefits to employees was the same with self - insurance and
AWC.' Mr. Hunter answered yes; the only addition the City made was a $250 wellness benefit added last
year.
9. NUYOR'S REPORT
Earth Day - Mayor Haakenson commented the Council approved a Proclamation in honor of Earth Day, April 22, on
April 22 the Consent•Agenda. He said there were numerous activities planned in the City in celebration of the 30a'
anniversary of Earth Day and encouraged anyone interested in Earth Day activities to contact the Parks
and Recreation Department.
10. COUNCIL REPORTS
In honor of Councilmember Earling's birthday, Council President Miller, on behalf of the Council,
presented him with a plaque bearing his frequently misspelled name "Councilmember Earring."
Councilmember Petso requested items on the agenda not be referred to as discussion when action was
intended/anticipated to be taken. She said this arose following the library discussion and she anticipated
it would arise again following tonight's action. Although the changes the Council suggested to the
ordinance tonight were good, Councilmember Petso said this was the fourth ordinance presented in the.
past four months that had material errors of substance.
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:45 p.m.
GARY HtXEN.SON, MAYOR
`SANDRA S. CHASE, CITY CLERK
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 18, 2000
Page 19
�i
AGENDA
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL
MGM Plaza Meeting Room - Library Building
650 Main Street
7:00 -10:00 p.m.
APRIL 18, 2000
7:00 P.M. - CALL TO ORDER
FLAG SALUTE
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
(A) ROLL CALL
(B) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF APRIL 4, 2000
(C) APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #35950 THROUGH i#40355 FOR THE WEEK OF APRIL 3, 2000, IN
THE AMOUNT OF $573,272.24. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #35951 THROUGH #40474 FOR THE
WEEK OF APRIL 10, 2000, IN THE AMOUNT OF $430,087.17. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL CHECKS
#27916 THROUGH #28024 FOR THE PERIOD MARCH 16 THROUGH MARCH 31; 2000, IN THE
AMOUNT OF $332,947.08.
(D) REPORT ON FINAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR THE MARINA BEACH STORM OUTFALL
REPLACEMENT AND COUNCIL ACCEPTANCE OF PROJECT
(E) ACCEPTANCE OF QUIT CLAIM DEED AT 16414 75TH PLACE WEST FROM ARMANDO AND MARIA
TERESA "SINA" CHILELLI
(F) AUTHORIZATION TO CALL FOR BIDS FOR THE 2000 WATER MAIN REPLACEMENT PROGRAM
(G) AUTHORIZATION FOR STAFF TO NEGOTIATE THE SALEIDISPOSITION OF SURPLUS FURNITURE
AND OTHER ITEMS FROM OLD PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING
(H) AUTHORIZATION TO ENTER INTO AGREEMENT WITH COMPANIES FOR TOWING SERVICES THAT
MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE APPLICATION AND AGREEMENT
(1) PROCLAMATION IN OBSERVANCE OF EARTH DAY ON APRIL 22, 2000
(J) PROPOSED RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A COST RECOVERY PROCESS FOR THE APPROVAL,
RENEWAL, AND TRANSFER OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS FRANCHISES, AND AMENDING
RESOLUTION 967
3. AUDIENCE COMMENTS (3 Minute Limit Per Person)
4. ( 5 Min.) PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING SCANDINAVIAN DAYS
5. (90 Min.) INTERVIEW FINALISTS FOR ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD DESIGN GUIDELINES CONSULTANT
6. (30 Min.) CONTINUED DISCUSSION ON PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF EDMONDS
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 18.80.060, DRIVEWAY AND CURB CUT
REQUIREMENTS, PARAGRAPH B (5), DOWNTOWN BUSINESS AREA, TO PROVIDE GREATER
FLEXIBILITY IN DETERMINING LOCATION OF ACCESS
7. (15 Min.) REPORT ON COMMITTEE MEETINGS
Page 1 of 2
CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA
APRIL 18, 2000
Page 2 of 2
8. (10 Min.) UPDATE ON SELF INSURANCE HEALTH BENEFIT FUND
9. ( 5 Min.) MAYOR'S REPORT
10. (15 Min.) COUNCIL REPORTS
1
Parking and meeting rooms are accessible for persons with disabilities. Contact the City Clerk at (425) 771 -0245 with 24 hours advance
notice for special accommodations. The Council Agenda appears on Chambers Cable, Channel 46 Delayed telecast of this meeting
appears the following Wednesday at noon and 7:00 p.m., as well as, Friday and Monday at noon on Channel 46.