Loading...
07/28/1998 City Councilpprove Minutes pprove Claim Warrants laim for Damages eral d EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES JULY 289 1998 The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Barbara Fahey in the Library Plaza Room, 650 Main Street, followed by the flag salute. ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Barbara Fahey, Mayor Gary Haakenson, Council President Dave Earling, Councilmember John Nordquist, Councilmember Michael Plunkett, Councilmember Dick Van Hollebeke, Councilmember Thomas A. Miller, Councilmember ABSENT Jim White, Councilmember 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA STAFF PRESENT Paul Mar, Community Services Director Robin Hickok, Police Chief Brent Hunter, Human Resources Director Rob Chave, Planning Manager Sandy Chase, City Clerk Lynne Hann, Recorder COUNCILMEMBER VAN HOLLEBEKE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER EARLING, FOR APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED. 2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COUNCILMEMBER VAN HOLLEBEKE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, FOR APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED. The agenda items approved are as follows: (A) ROLL CALL (B) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JULY 21, 1998 (C) APPROVAL OF CLAIM WARRANTS #25650 THRU #26493 FOR THE WEEK OF JULY 20, 1998, IN THE AMOUNT OF $205,059.39. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL WARRANTS #21162 THRU #21362 FOR THE PERIOD JULY 1 THRU JULY 15, 1998, IN THE AMOUNT OF $475,335.37. (D) ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM VICTOR CHYNOWETH ($29,000) (E) REPORT ON GENERAL FUND FINANCIAL POSITION FOR THE PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30,1998 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 28, 1998 Page 1. Meadow- (F) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE ale PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH R. W. BECK AND ASSOCIATES Drainage FOR THE MEADOWDALE DRAINAGE INVESTIGATION PROJECT Meadow- dale Storm (G) AUTHORIZATION TO CALL FOR BIDS FOR THE 1998 NORTH MEADOWDALE Drainage STORM DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT i1 Ord. 3218 (I) ORDINANCE NO. 3218 AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 8.16.030 OF THE Speed EDMONDS CITY CODE TO ADDRESS SPEED LIMIT CHANGES ON MAIN STREET Limit FROM NINTH AVENUE TO ONE BLOCK EAST OF NINTH AVENUE, 220TH STREET Changes SW FROM THE EASTERN CITY LIMITS TO SR 99, 238Ttt STREET SW BETWEEN SR 99 AND SR 104, 244TH STREET SW BETWEEN SR 99 AND SR 104 BY AMENDING SUBPARAGRAPH 4,8 AND 1.0 THEREOF AND ADDING NEW SUBPARAGRAPH 12 Ord. 3219 Rezone (1) ORDINANCE NO. 3219 REZONING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 617- 17 -627 627 DAYTON STREET FROM MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RM -1.5) TO Dayton St. COMMUNITY BUSINESS (BC) rd. 3220 Rezone (J) ORDINANCE NO. 3220 REZONING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 22815 2815 EDMONDS WAY FROM MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RM -1.5) TO PLANNED Edmonds BUSINESS (BP) Way Ord. 3221 (I) ORDINANCE NO. 3221 REZONING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 8517 - Rezone 8529 238TH STREET SW FROM SINGLE - FAMILY (RS -8) TO MULTIFAMILY 8517-8529 RESIDENTIAL (RM -3) 381' St. Ord. 3222 (L) ORDINANCE NO. 3222 REZONING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 23726 Rezone 100TH AND 10014 238T'r STREET SW FROM SINGLE - FAMILY (RS -8) TO 3726 NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS (BN) 100'" & 10014 380' St. J. PUBLIC HEARING - REVIEW OF THE ROLE OF THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD Hearing — ole of Planning Manager Rob Chave explained the matter was previously discussed at the May 26, 1998 . City e ADB Council meeting, and it was decided to get feedback from the Architectural Design Board (ADB), the Planning Board and the Hearing Examiner regarding the future role of the ADB prior to holding a public hearing on this issue. He explained the City periodically explores the design review process and did so two years ago as a result of regulatory reform legislation. During that review, it was determined the ADB could maintain the role of evaluating applications while meeting the legislative requirements of holding only one hearing, which, in some cases, is conducted at the Hearing Examiner level. Mr. Chave pointed out the ADB, the Planning Board and the Hearing Examiner all concur that design review is a very important factor in the development process, and the Architectural Design Board should have more interaction with the development community, policy makers, staff and the public. All agreed the role of the ADB could not be changed without first revising many relating ordinances and policies. The three groups were also supportive of strengthening the development code with. additional design guidance and standards, which would give additional clarity on the expectations of the City regarding development. During the May 26 discussion, it was suggested that design review occur earlier in the process through a pre - application meeting between staff and applicant. Mr. Chave explained pre - application meetings do Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 28, 1998 Page 2 take place and are encouraged by staff; however, these, meetings are not currently mandatory. He stated if an applicant does not elect to have a pre- application meeting, much of the information and reaction regarding design review could occur much later in the process and may result in unnecessary delays. Mr. Chave pointed out staff is looking at ways to implement and encourage communication at an earlier stage of the process. Mayor Fahey invited public comment and reminded speakers to limit their discussion to three minutes and to provide testimony specifically on the issue being considered. Carreen Nordland - Rubenkonig, 19505 81st Place West, Edmonds, commented she has served on the Architectural Design Board for the past year and supports retaining the Board in its current capacity and makeup. She observed the Board has had positive impact on the City's environment for over 20 years. Ms. Nordland- Rubenkonig explained how the Board works, how it addresses concerns not specifically detailed in the Code and how it is responsive to the community. She pointed out during the period May 1997 through April 1998 ADB reviewed 34 applications, of which three were denied and 31, or over 90 percent, were approved. Of those approved, 20 contained conditions to modify the proposal to meet specific concerns. Of those denied, one proposal was revised and resubmitted for approval at a later date. Ms. Nordland - Rubenkonig stated when current codes do not contain specific information, the Board uses the Comprehensive Plan to guide their decisions. She explained the brightness of neon, whether signs create visual clutter, aesthetics created by building materials or designs and new business uses in transitional zoning areas are some of the issues considered by the ADB. The community and neighbors attend many ADB meetings to offer input on various applications. She stated the Board is responsive to that involvement and this process allows for decision- making on behalf of the community and provides an equitable method of reviewing development applications. Mayor Fahey recognized the time and energy given by volunteers who serve on the Architectural Design Board and thanked them for their efforts. Mayor Fahey asked Carreen Nordland - Rubenkonig to discuss how the Board differentiates between subjective and objective opinions and the way in which they avoid making arbitrary interpretations of the code, which could be challenged in court, when reviewing an application. Carreen Nordland - Rubenkonig explained in the year she has served on the Board, staff has always given strong direction to refer to regulations and specifically explain code interpretations when making decisions. Applicants are asked to provide samples when the Board is considering whether colors or materials are appropriate as defined in the code. After deliberations, at least four of the seven members must agree, and this improves the consistency with which the Board makes its decisions. Ray Albano, 20916 76th Avenue W, #1, Edmonds, disagreed and stated he is opposed to retaining the Architectural Design Board. He explained when the Council first appointed the Board, there was a majority of the Council that felt there was a need for this Board, however, not all Councilmembers were in agreement. He cited instances when the ADB took more than two hours discussing the direction of a sign, and stated it took �ine months to have trees removed because the Board was concerned the trees were considered old growth timber. A forester was hired to prove the trees were not in the old growth category. He also expressed frustration with having to obtain Board decision regarding the planting Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 28, 1998 Page 3 width of the trees after approval was received from the City. Another applicant was required to submit 15 color samples for Board consideration before given approval to paint his building. Mr. Albano stressed the ADB ordinance is too general and the Board can become a run -away grand jury and pointed out the greatest cause of lack of economic development during the la4 ten years has been the ADB. The Board should be discontinued or the ordinance should be redefined. 'i He also explained the state has development regulations that should be used. Mr. Albano mentioned he would have additional comments at the next hearing. Council President Haakenson advised there was not a second hearing scheduled on this matter and asked for clarification as to when the instances cited by Mr. Albano had occurred. Ray Albano responded the situations he cited occurred between four and seven years ago. Dave Dolacky, 556 Seamont Lane, Edmonds, explained he has not had personal involvement with the Architectural Design Board but supports keeping the Board in some form. He stressed without such a Board, the citizens will have additional frustrations because they will be unable to effectively provide input on the ways in which to make or keep Edmonds special. Karen Wiggins, 152 3rd Avenue So., Edmonds, commented the ADB should be either abolished or drastically modified to eliminate subjectivity and be allowed to vote only on codified issues. She pointed out staff is competent and pre- application meetings should take place to reduce the possibility of additional expenditures required later in the process. Mayor Fahey explained that the next speaker to have signed in is John Bissell. While John Bissell is a former member of the Planning Department staff, he is also a citizen of Edmonds and will be speaking in that capacity. John Bissell, 8630 217th Street SW, Edmonds, stressed the need for economic development and ways the City can identify and accomplish their development goals. He cited other cities' design review and SEPA processes and the factors influencing their development, which are different than those in Edmonds. The character of Edmonds is the most important factor affecting economic development, and the design guidelines, enforced by the Architectural Design Board, is currently how that character is maintained. Mr. Bissell pointed out the seven - member, quasi-judicial Board is able to make consistent interpretations of the design guidelines more effectively than staff members, and because of this, the guidelines can be slightly more relaxed, which is of benefit to the applicant. He mentioned one way to speed up the ADB process is to remove the responsibility for SEPA review from the Board through code amendments. Alan Lawrence, 107 5th Avenue No., Edmonds, explained he owns the Edward Jones office and encouraged the City to explore ways to allow businesses to install signs and paint buildings through use of staff approvals. He expressed frustration in dealing with the ADB in its current form and outlined three instances in which he has gone before the Board and has then had to appeal, or is appealing, each of those decisions to the City Council. Mr. Lawrence stated his past experience with this Board is reflective of their current approach. He explained he was required to spend additional money to bring alternatives to the Board for the Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 28, 1998 Page 4 attachment of a satellite dish to his building and none of those alternatives were approved. He also cited issues regarding illuminated signs that have been denied by the ADB and felt those decisions were inappropriate. Mr. Lawrence commented if the ADB is retained, their role should be greatly modified. Mayor Fahey asked whether Mr. Lawrence's appeals to the City Council were upheld. Mr. Lawrence stated both previous appeals were upheld and the third one has not yet come before the City Council. Barry Birch, 20905 Woodlake Drive, Edmonds, explained he served on the Architectural Design Board for eight of the 24 years he has resided in Edmonds, and the job is difficult and thankless due to negative reaction from business people and developers. He urged the City to carefully select Boardmembers who are professionals in the fields they represent, and commented the Planning staff needs to have more information to be effective when dealing with developers and business owners. He also suggested more administrative and staff interaction and communication within the Planning Department and advised streamlining the functions of that department. Mr. Birch urged the Council to retain the ADB because it serves a need in the growth process. Mayor Fahey recognized the services of past and present Boardmembers who have volunteered much of their time to help the ADB function and achieve its responsibilities. Bert Loper, 236 Highway 99, Edmonds, expressed frustration with the Architectural Design Board and cited a loss of income due to ADB and staff decisions. He commented he believes the ADB is eliminating development. He also noted that sales of his property have failed due to its Edmonds location. Mr. Loper stated developers would not make applications within Edmonds because of the requirement for ADB review and approval. Tom Tindall, 543 Pine, Edmonds, stated they have two buildings in downtown Edmonds and while his dealings with the Architectural Design Board have been costly and frustrating, urged the City to retain the Board but make changes in its role. He suggested rather than placing emphasis on flowers, the Board work to include additional grass areas to enhance the downtown region and that additional review be given to issues other than development. He also commented aesthetics play a major role in bringing people to the downtown area, and the appearance of 3rd and 5th Avenues should be re- evaluated. Mr. Tindall also recommended membership on the Board be rotated every year to allow for new ideas and concepts. Sandy Tindall, 543 Pine, Edmonds agreed with her husband's comments and reiterated the need for more landscaped areas and a continuation of the village atmosphere in the downtown region. Dave Page, 1233 Olympic View Drive, Edmonds, stated economic development works best when free enterprise is operating without government interference and property is protected. He cited instances within the last 30 years when police powers have been used to solve social problems and explained citizens groups such as the ADB do not have the right to impose rules on business owners. Mr. Page outlined, the costs and time involved dealing with the ADB regarding the color of his building, and that when applications are, delayed because of the ADB review process, the cost to business owners is 16 percent. He commented free enterprise must be allowed to operate if the City is to move forward, and the citizens who care about the City, not the ADB, are responsible for maintaining the beauty of Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 28, 1998 Page 5 Edmonds. He also stressed another layer of bureaucracy is not needed and staff should handle design review issues. Natalie Shippen, 1022 Euclid, Edmonds, explained the original proposal to create the Architectural Design Board was made in 1973 by a successful business owner concerned bout quality growth in Edmonds, and was evaluated by a panel of business people before going to City Council for endorsement. She stated good developers were recognized, but there was concern about the effects of bad developers on those who voluntarily utilize a higher level of standards in their buildings. Ms. Shippen pointed out in a strong Mayor /Council form of government, staff decisions on design review may be more heavily impacted by the political environment than when an independent Board, whose role is to ensure quality development, provides this function. She also suggested the ADB might function better by reducing its size and increasing the number of professional architects who serve on the Board. Albert Dykes, Sunset and Dayton, Edmonds, explained over 14 years many of his tenants have provided negative comments about their dealings with the Architectural Design Board, and stated his own experience with the Board several years ago was also very negative requiring intervention by the Mayor and City Attorney. He commented the nature of the ADB as a citizens group could not be restructured in any way to eliminate subjective decisions, and the Board should be abolished. Mr. Dykes pointed out the professional staff, using design guidelines established by the City Council, could serve the City and guide development in a more effective manner. He also mentioned the City might face legal liability in the future due to the subjectivity of the decisions made by the ADB. Steven Sullivan, 18596 76th Avenue W., Edmonds, stated he has served on the Architectural Design Board since 1993 and is a Washington State licensed architect, a licensed general contractor and a business owner in Edmonds. He stressed there is a need to review all boards and committees on a regular basis, but is opposed to eliminating the ADB, and pointed out this Board, along with all the others functioning for the City, have made Edmonds what it is today. Mr. Sullivan stated while the Board's decisions, like those made by other citizens groups including the City Council, are subjective, they are not arbitrary. He explained taking the design review decisions away from seven people and giving them !to one or two staff members will not eliminate subjectivity and may cause arbitrary decisions.to be made. He also mentioned the addition of more codes would not help create development that takes advantage of the special environment in Edmonds. Gail Sarvis, 1101 12th Avenue No., Edmonds, stated she had very positive experiences dealing with staff when opening her business and recognized John Bissell for his assistance. She explained she was able to obtain her permits without ADB review but felt it serves an important function and provides consistency for the community. Ms. Sarvis suggested the role of the Board be reviewed but should be retained to help keep Edmonds a comfortable, friendly town. Mayor Fahey clarified there. is a procedure now in place which allows staff to work directly with applicants regarding certain signage issues, without the need for ADB approval. John Hardy, manager of property located at 238th and Highway 99, Edmonds, expressed frustration at the time involved in obtaining ADB approval and cited his experience with a storage building on the property he manages. Although he has completed the Board review process, he explained he is now being required to obtain a topographical study, which is very costly and time consuming, and stressed Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 28, 1998 Page 6 1 that the review process should be more streamlined. Mr. Hardy stated time is money for business owners and this situation has resulted in a loss of three potential tenants for the property he manages. Gaylynne Breighton, 6307 147th Street, Edmonds, stated from her view as a real estate professional who deals in commercial property, the current structure of the Architectural Design Board causes too much time delay resulting in too many dollars lost by business owners. She cited experiences of clients who have indicated the ADB process has cost time and money and recommended the City needs to be sensitive to the impact of such delays. Ms. Breighton indicated a need to have development occur in a manner which allows the downtown to retain its special character; however, the Board functions should not add layers of frustration for the business owners by requiring plans to be resubmitted several times. She also pointed out the permit process should be streamlined. Council President Haakenson asked if the request for plans to be resubmitted several times had come from the ADB or staff. Gaylynne Breighton clarified her comments were regarding the general permitting process. Council President Haakenson asked if the ADB has required applicants to have architectural drawings changed and resubmitted, and if so, what is the time frame for appearing back before the Board. Gaylynne Breighton stated the ADB has made these requirements but since she had not had personal experience with the Board, could only refer to comments received from clients who have gone through the process and have been frustrated in doing so. Mayor Fahey asked staff to clarify the normal time frames utilized by the Board following audience comments. Finnis Tupper, 711 Daley, Edmonds, explained the Edmonds Community Development Code adopted in 1980 stresses citizen involvement, and to eliminate the Architectural Design Board would put an end to that citizen involvement. He pointed out there is an appeal process for the applicant, which can follow ADB review, and mentioned the potential legal issues discussed earlier have not occurred due to the actions of the Board. Mr. Tupper stated he was in favor of retaining the ADB. Linda Goodrick, 16508 76th Avenue W., Edmonds, commented she is in favor of the process of reviewing the role of the ADB which gives the opportunity for citizens to express their views. She explained she serves as a lay member on the Architectural Design Board and is impressed when observing the deliberations among the professional members of the Board on requests that cannot be specifically answered by an inflexible black- and -white code. She also cited many instances when Boardmembers work hard to help applicants come to a decision that fits within code requirements. Ms. Goodrick recognized the professional skills of the Boardmembers and stated she has not found the Board to make capricious decisions during her tenure. Ms. Goodrick pointed out the population and density pressure is just beginning and cited impacts these factors will have on city codes and economic development and the way Edmonds will look in the future. I Roger Hertrich, 1020 •T'uget Drive, Edmonds, commented business owners and citizens support the role of the Architectural Design Board and explained he has observed the ADB at their meetings and the Board works diligently on solving issues brought before them for review. He complimented the efforts Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 28, 1998 Page 7 of the current Board and pointed out the ADB fills a very important need that should not be taken away from the community. Mr. Hertrick pointed out the Edmonds design review system is easier for developers than similar processes in other communities and with changes made over the past few years, the ADB now has more time to carry out their review procedures for applicants. He also observed this hearing has been a positive exercise in obtaining public input and involvement. I ?+ There were no other members of the public who wished to provide comment. Mayor Fahey closed the audience portion of the hearing. Rob Chave, Planning Manager, provided an overview of the history of the ADB and explained recent changes made that have increased the number of decisions which could be made by staff, and the fact that the number of meetings held by the Board have doubled, allowing more timely review of applications. He referred to audience comments regarding the need to return to the ADB with more information, which occasionally occurs, but stressed that most often approvals can be conditioned to include staff approval of that additional information. He also commented that if substantial information needed for approval is missing from the application documents, it may be necessary for the applicant to make changes before returning to another ADB meeting and the timing depends upon how quickly those modifications can be made. In rare instances, the Board may need to continue a public hearing to allow for substantial changes to be reconsidered. Mr. Chave described the timing involved with public notification and providing the Board with information in advance of the meeting to allow adequate review time. Council President Haakenson thanked members of the audience for attending the hearing and voicing their concerns. He recognized the time members spend volunteering for the ADB and expressed appreciation for those efforts. Mr. Haakenson asked staff to comment on the required topographical survey referred to earlier by Mr. Hardy. Rob Chave commented he would have to research the application, but noted the requirement could be due to drainage conditions or because it is located within an area designated as critical. Council President Haakenson encouraged staff to review Mr. Hardy's application and asked about the average time required for a permit that has to be reviewed by the ADB. Mr. Chave explained the type of project determines the time required. For a large commercial building in the downtown area, for example, regulatory reform regulations require time be allowed for public notification, a public hearing and appeal process as well as the normal review process, and still be completed within 120 days from the date the complete application is accepted by the City. He pointed out the time line is often affected by the amount of work and communication done during the pre - application period. Council President Haakenson asked for an explanation of the process a typical application goes through before a permit is issued. Planning Manager Rob Chave discussed the process for an application for a downtown commercial building when the applicant has attended pre - application meetings with staff, and has been informed of all information required, and explained when the completed application is received by staff, the entire package is routed to various departments to determine completeness. There is a 28 -day period allowed Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 28, 1998 Page 8 0 for staff to determine whether all information has been submitted and the applicant must be informed within that time regarding the completeness of the application. He stated if the application is not complete, a notice is given to the applicant outlining further requirements, and when the application is resubmitted, staff is allowed 14 days to evaluate the additional information. A notice is issued to the applicant if the application is complete. Mr. Chave explained at this point in the process a hearing date is set and a notice of pending development is published in the newspaper and mailed to all property owners within 300 feet of the project. The public hearing is held, usually during the ADB review process, and that hearing along with the appropriate time allowed for appeal and the final decision all must be completed within the 120 days allowed. He pointed out the amount of work and communication done prior to the acceptance of the complete application will often determine how much of the 120 -day period will be needed. He also commented the 120 days cannot be extended without applicant agreement and that staff makes every effort to schedule the matter for appropriate agendas as soon as possible in the process. Councilmember Van Hollebeke asked for a definition of SEPA. Rob Chave explained SEPA stands for the State Environmental Protection Act which sets thresholds and requires that if any of those thresholds are exceeded, the applicant must produce an environmental checklist which outlines the specifics of the project, the impacts that are likely to occur as a result of the development, and what measures will be taken to mitigate these impacts. The City must then review the checklist, allow for public comment, and issue a determination on the significance the project will have on the surroundings, citing whether the project has significant enough impact to require additional conditions or the completion of an Environmental Impact Statement. Council President Haakenson said he has received several citizen complaints regarding timeliness issues for the permit process and asked for an explanation of the time requirements of the SEPA process. Mr. Chave stated the SEPA requirements must be completed before the ADB can review the application and the environmental significance of the project could impact the total time required to obtain a permit. Council President Haakenson asked for clarification about whether there is a time delay related to the ADB review process or a time delay caused by the City's process before an application reaches the Board. Mr. Chave discussed the City's review process and explained SEPA requires a different level of review and because a determination cannot be made until all information has been submitted, it is not reviewed until after a complete application has been turned in and accepted. COUNCILMEMBER EARLING MOVED TO EXTEND DISCUSSION OF THIS ITEM FOR 15 ADDITIONAL MINUTES. COUNCILMEMBER VAN HOLLEBEKE SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED. Mayor Fahey explained two letters had been submitted for the record; one from Lisa Raflo, an ADB member, who opposes g�liminating the Board, and one from Rob Morrison recommending the ADB be eliminated and a substit4 a process be implemented to maintain oversight responsibilities. Councilmember Nordquist cited two comments by audience members; one regarding the subjective nature of ADB decisions and the other challenging the selection of the Boardmembers. He asked for Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 28, 1998 Page 9 staff clarification on the training provided to ADB, both for new members as well as on -going instruction for those already serving on the Board. Mr. Chave explained staff meets with new Boardmembers and provides all relevant documentation as well as an explanation about the structure of the Board and its meetings. He me�tioned other training is also provided periodically such as a short course in planning which will be offered to Boardmembers in August, and explained this training will be helpful to members of all boards rather than just the ADB. Councilmember Plunkett stated he has received a suggestion to initiate a pre - application process that would either be done prior to or as a substitution for the ADB review, and asked Mr. Chave to comment on this recommendation. Rob Chave commented he was not familiar with the suggestion to substitute a pre - application process for the ADB review, but explained that the pre - application conference is not mandatory at this time. He stated when applicants attend such a conference, more information is shared and concerns expressed, which helps resolve potential problems earlier in the process before the application reaches Board review. Councilmember Plunkett asked if a pre- application conference process would help to eliminate problems and delays that occur during the ADB review. Mr. Chave explained the current pre - application conference assists the applicant and staff in identifying and discussing issues. He pointed out, however, by solving problems, the conference could potentially result in more complete information being available for the Board and therefore, make the review process proceed in a more timely manner. Mayor Fahey clarified that approvals or conditional approvals made by the ADB are generally based upon decisions related to the project and how it fits within the codes of the City, according to the knowledge of the Boardmembers and in response to comments provided by citizens. She stressed none of that could happen in a pre - application process because of the lack of a public hearing. Mr. Chave agreed and commented the Board decisions must be made based upon the information they are given to consider. Mayor Fahey remanded the matter to Council for deliberation. COUNCILMEMBER EARLING MOVED TO CONFIRM THE IMPORTANCE OF THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD TO THE COMMUNITY OF EDMONDS AND AUTHORIZE THE ADMINISTRATION TO SEEK REQUESTS FOR PROPOSALS FOR A CONSULTANT TO WORK WITH STAFF, THE ADD, CITY COUNCIL AND CITIZENS TO FURTHER REFINE POLICY, GUIDELINES AND TIMELINES RELATED TO THE ADD PROCESS. COUNCILMEMBER HAAKENSON SECONDED THE MOTION. Councilmember Earling pointed out there are many differing opinions regarding the future of the Architectural Design Board and that citizens appear to be in support of the Board but feel there should be revisions to its process. After reviewing minutes and letters from the Planning Board, the Hearing Examiner, the Architectural Design Board and citizens, he stated there is much support for retaining the ADB as an integral part of the community. Mr. Earling recalled audience comments outlining frustrations in working through the City's process -and stated there is an obvious need to review and meet Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 28, 1998 Page 10 deadlines and timelines by staff and the ADB. He also commented guidelines used by staff need to be reviewed as well in order to make more complete information available to the ADB. Mr. Earling cited the City of Seattle's decision to implement a design review board and stated other cities utilize such a review board process as well in order to maintain a sense of continuity in their communities. He stressed the need for a consultant to review the process and develop the policies and guidelines to make the system more workable for the applicant, and pointed out neither ADB members nor staff have the time to carry out such a review and make recommendations for change. He, also stressed the importance of this review and recommendation process for the community, based upon citizen and staff testimony. Councilmember Earling advised that this review process is a major undertaking and may take a consultant approximately six to nine months to complete, at a cost of $30,000 to $40,000. He recommended the money for the consultant costs be taken from the Council Contingency Fund and stated there is money available in that Fund, according to Art Housler, Finance Director. Mr. Earling pointed out there is a reason Edmonds looks different than other neighboring communities, and most citizens are proud of that difference. He stated there is a pulse that moves this community and the ADB is part of that pulse. Council President Haakenson responded that there is a definite need for design review in Edmonds and stated he is respectful of the comments from citizens regarding the subjective nature of ADB decisions that probably were made some time ago. With recent staff and ordinance modifications, he pointed out there are fewer negative experiences with the review process carried out by the current Board, although there will always be some who are frustrated with the system. 'Mr. Haakenson stressed his concern is with the time required to move through the City's permit process and would like the consultant to make recommendations to shorten the time frame and streamline this process. He pointed out the ADB may not be the cause of delays talked about by citizens and he would like the consultant to establish the reasons for these delays. Councilmember Earling explained his motion included the recommendation for the consultant to further refine policy, guidelines and timelines. Council President Haakenson commented he is in favor of the motion if these items can be addressed by the consultant. Councilmember Van Hollebeke thanked those who participated in this hearing, which is a clear demonstration of the commitment of the citizens, and commented he is in favor of the motion. As former chairman of the Alliance for Economic Development, he pointed out the concerns of many members of that organization have to do with the ability to establish appropriate business sites in Edmonds and the timeliness for accomplishing this as a critical part of operating a successful business. Mr. Van Hollebeke explained he supports the concept of maintaining the beauty and integrity of Edmonds as well as recent changes, which have made the ADB process more acceptable for applicants. He cited his own experience with ADB several years ago and explained at that time, the process delayed the opening of his business and added to his costs, however, with changes that have been implemented, that same application would not have to go before the ADB today. He spoke in favor of the motion and Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 28, 1998 Page 11 stated he also supports having the consultant review and make recommendations on ways to streamline the review process and reduce the time it now takes to obtain a permit. Councilmember Miller also spoke in favor of the motion and explained he has studied this issue and has heard from citizens that people come to this community because of its unique chalueter, particularly with its location on the waterfront. He stressed he is sensitive to the fact that bureaucracy that government creates can grow without a rational process to contain it, and recognized that anytime there is a body making decisions there will be subjectivity. Mr. Miller commented he was pleased the motion speaks to retaining as well as reviewing the. permit process. Councilmember Nordquist stated he still supports the Architectural Design Board, which has changed a great deal over the years. He complimented citizens for taking part in the hearing, and spoke in favor of the motion so that changes and corrections could be made to help eliminate subjectivity and assist applicants with the permit process. Council President Haakenson complimented staff and media on notification of the hearing. Mayor Fahey asked Councilmember Earling to restate the motion. *Moti on COUNCILMEMBER EARLING MOVED TO CONFIRM THE IMPORTANCE OF THE amended ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD TO THE COMMUNITY OF EDMONDS AND on AUTHORIZE THE ADMINISTRATION TO SEEK REQUESTS FOR PROPOSALS FOR A 10/20/98. CONSULTANT TO WORK WITH STAFF, THE ADB, CITY COUNCIL AND CITIZENS TO The word FURTHER REFINE POLICY, GUIDELINES AND TIMELINES RELATED TO THE ADB "confirm" PROCESS. COUNCILMEMBER HAAKENSON SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION was changed CARRIED. to "affirm ". Mayor Fahey noted the vote was unanimous with Councilmember White being absent. A five minutes recess was then taken. uman 4. IMPLEMENTATION OF HUMAN RESOURCES STUDY RECOMMENDATIONS esources tudy Mayor Fahey explained there were a number of recommendations made as a result of the Human Resources Study and a few have not yet been implemented. She reviewed changes that have been implemented in areas of training, goal setting and methods of operation which are more customer oriented, and explained there have been programs started on improving supervisory skills as well and that many of these changes have been the result of the Total Quality Management program. Mayor Fahey stressed there is now an emphasis on being more flexible and more responsive to citizen needs, and also pointed out technological advances have been implemented resulting in considerable savings of time and energy for staff. She outlined staffing changes that have been made as well. Mayor Fahey explained the position being considered for implementation, as a result of the Human Resources Study, is the Director of Development Services which includes overseeing engineering, planning, permitting and code enforcement functions of the City, and pointed out this ties in with the need to refine the permitting process which was discussed earlier. She stated the position could be implemented in November with a cost of slightly over $15,000, which could be financed through unanticipated revenues from permit fees. She also commented the 1999 budget could also support this Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 28, 1998 Page 12 position through additional permitting fees and the need for more extensive services resulting from newly annexed areas. Mayor Fahey stated the Human Resources Committee reviewed this recommendation and suggested it be brought to the full Council for review. She explained ultimately this will result in implementation of the position designated as Assistant to the.Mayor; however, she pointed out that position could be phased in at a later time and the Community Services Director position could be maintained during this period. Council Miller stated it was his understanding, from discussions at the recent Human Resources Committee meeting, that this recommendation was to come back to that Committee for further deliberation and recommendation at their August meeting before being brought to full Council for discussion and action. Mayor Fahey explained her understanding was that the Human Resources Committee requested the recommendation be brought to full Council. Council President Haakenson reminded the Council that their preference has been to have issues like this brought forth with committee recommendations, but suggested that because this item is on the agenda the Council should move forward with their discussion. He pointed out the strengths and weaknesses of adding this position as outlined in the information provided in the packet. Councilmember Nordquist agreed with Councilmember Miller and stated it was his understanding this would be discussed further by the Human Resources Committee at their August meeting before being brought to the Council for action. Councilmember Van Hollebeke reminded the Council there was previous support for this position and stressed the need for assistance for the Mayor in keeping up with the many demands of the job. He commented by adding this position, the duties of the Mayor would become more manageable. Mayor Fahey emphasized the recommendation being considered is not implementation of the position of Assistant to the Mayor but rather the Director of Development Services position. She referred to discussion in the Human Resources Study under II -10 regarding the need to create this position. Mayor Fahey apologized for any misunderstanding this proposal has caused. Council President Haakenson spoke in favor of implementing the Development Services Director position; however, it ultimately triggers the creation of the Assistant to the Mayor position and stated it is difficult to approve one without discussing the other at the same time. Mayor Fahey stressed the option of retaining the Community Services Director position for another year exists so that the Assistant to the Mayor position could be phased in at a later time. Councilmember Miller spoke in favor of proceeding with the proposal as outlined in the Study and asked for recommendations as to how the Assistant to the Mayor position would be phased in. He pointed out the previous Mayor was an advocate for this position as well and stated an obvious need exists. Councilmember Plunkett asked for clarification if Councilmember Miller would prefer the issue be returned to the Human Resources Committee. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 28, 1998 Page 13 Councilmember Miller pointed out Councilmember White attended the Human Resources Committee meeting, and it would be helpful to have his input; however, he felt a decision could be made at this time I by full Council. Councilmember Nordquist reviewed discussion held by the Human Resources (committee and pointed out the role of the Committee was to make recommendations to the Council and' additional discussions were necessary before moving the proposal to full Council. Councilmember Miller agreed but stated it appeared other Councilmembers would prefer acting on the proposal since it is on their agenda. Councilmember Plunkett stated he is not in a hurry to make a decision on this issue and if it requires more discussion of the Human Resources Committee before making a recommendation, he would support that action. Council President Haakenson stressed the importance of quickly returning the proposal to Council. Councilmember Van Hollebeke asked about the Committee's meeting schedule and if they could meet within the next two weeks. Councilmember Miller stated no meeting is scheduled at this time but that they could meet if members were available. Councilmember Earling spoke in support of the proposal and suggested Councilmembers describe any issues which they feel should be discussed by the Human Resources Committee when formulating their recommendation. Mr. Earling asked for clarification on the way citizens can be assured the City isn't developing additional layers of bureaucracy by adding these positions to staff. Councilmember Plunkett asked the Human Resources Committee to consider ways of adding the Development Services Director position without requiring the addition of the Assistant to the Mayor position. Council President Haakenson suggested if the Human Resources Committee is supportive of the proposal to implement the Director of Development Services position, it would be helpful if they would evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the concept of adding the Assistant to the Mayor position and make recommendations as to how these positions should be filled when the time comes. Mayor Fahey commented a meeting of the Human Resources Committee would be scheduled so that these issues can be discussed and recommendations brought back to full Council for consideration. Museum 5. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN LEASE AGREEMENT WITH EDMONDS -SOUTH Lease SNOHOMISH COUNTY HISTORICAL SOCIETY Mayor Fahey explained this is part of a long -range strategic plan to evaluate all non - profit organizations that operate as arms of the City and utilize City facilities in order to provide their services. Lease agreements have been reviewed as well as levels of maintenance which is required and the amount of money generated by each facility. All leases, except the one for the museum, are renewable every five years and require $1.00 per year payment, and she pointed out the City provides routine maintenance for these facilities but not major capital improvements: All the organizations, except the museum, have been Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 28, 1998 Page 14 paying for their own utility usage and after discussion with the museum, they agreed to include payment of their utility costs in this new five -year agreement, which takes effect in 1999. Councilmember Earling thanked the Mayor for implementing the change that requires these organizations to make a small contribution to the citizens by paying part of the expenses incurred by their operations. COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST MOVED TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO SIGN THE LEASE AGREEMENT WITH THE EDMONDS -SOUTH SNOHOMISH COUNTY HISTORICAL SOCIETY. COUNCILMEMBER MILLER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED. 6. MAYOR'S REPORT Fountain at 5` and Mayor Fahey explained the fountain located at 5th and Main was severely damaged in an accident and ain St. has been temporarily replaced by a gazebo that was installed by a movie company while filming in downtown Edmonds. She stressed this is a temporary structure and while there have been many citizen comments received about the replacement of the fountain, a decision has not yet been made about what will be constructed in that area. Mayor Fahey stated the original fountain is part of the City's art inventory, and there is an ordinance in place which allows for the de- commissioning of artwork; however, she pointed out a Commission has been created to study this issue and is currently assessing the alternatives. She explained when a recommendation is made, any replacement artwork will have to go through the jury process before selection is made. She also commented that negotiations are in process with the movie company to determine if the gazebo can be left at that site at least until a decision is made for replacement. 7. COUNCIL REPORT Human Council President Haakenson commented on the discussion on the Human Resources .Study and stressed Study its time to make decisions on these recommendations without further delays. He suggested Councilmembers advise the members of the Human Resources Committee of any concerns so that action can be taken promptly. Mayor Fahey pointed out it is not her intention to place another layer of bureaucracy between citizens and the Mayor's Office. The Assistant to the Mayor will work in tandem with the Mayor and will not be empowered to make decisions or perform executive functions, but will be an assistant to help facilitate the functions of that office. Councilmember Miller reported on the Human Resources Committee and pointed out the proposal discussed is the last of a number of recommendations made in the Human Resources Study. Excused COUNCILMEMBER EARLING MOVED TO EXCUSE COUNCILMEMBER MILLER FROM Absence THE JULY 21, 1998 MEETING. COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, WITH COUNCILMEMBER EARLING ABSTAINING. Councilmember Plunkett announced the formation of a new sub - committee for parking and explained Parking omm. this committee is rese Archin g parking alternatives for the City, including the possibility of a parking garage located under the public safety building parking area. He pointed out funding is being explored with the possibility of an LID and in -lieu of fees being utilized and a recommendation will be made in the near future. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 28, 1998 Page 15 Councilmember Van Hollebeke thanked Mayor Fahey and Councilmember Nordquist for acting as City representatives during their recent trip to anniversary festivities in Hekinan. xcused COUNCILMEMBER VAN HOLLEBEKE MOVED TO EXCUSE COUNCILMEMBER bsence NORDQUIST FROM THE JULY 21, 1998 MEETING. COUNCILMEMBER MILLER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED. ister city Councilmember Nordquist thanked the Council for the opportunity to represent them in Japan and gave a ekinan, brief description of the trip's activities and the people he met. Mr. Nordquist also complimented Mayor Pa pan Fahey on the professional manner in which she conducted business there on behalf of the City and thanked the entire delegation for traveling to Japan as well. He also commented that a delegation from Hekinan will be coming to Edmonds in October, which will give the City an opportunity to extend the sister city relationship with the people of Hekinan. Mayor Fahey complimented Councilmember Nordquist on remarks given during the luncheon in Hekinan and pointed out the importance of having a member of the delegation speak who had the experience and knowledge of Councilmember Nordquist. With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 9:50 p.m. BARBARA S. FANEY, MAYOR SANDRA S. CHASE, CITY CLERK Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 28, 1998 Page 16 J LL AGENDA EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL Tkoov Plaza Meeting Room - Library Building 650 Main Street 7:00 -10:00 p.m. J U LY 28, 1998 SPECIAL MEETING 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 JULY 21, 1998 (C) APPROVAL OF CLAIM WARRANTS #25650 THRU #26493 FOR THE WEEK OF JULY 20, 1998, IN THE AMOUNT OF $205,059.39. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL WARRANTS #21162 THRU #21362 FOR THE PERIOD JULY 1 THRU JULY 15, 1998, IN THE AMOUNT OF $475,335.37. (D) ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM VICTOR CHYNOWETH ($29,000) (E) REPORT ON GENERAL FUND FINANCIAL POSITION FOR THE PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30, 1998 (F) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH R.W. BECK AND ASSOCIATES FOR THE MEADOWDALE DRAINAGE INVESTIGATION PROJECT (G) AUTHORIZATION TO CALL FOR BIDS FOR THE 1998 NORTH MEADOWDALE STORM DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (H) PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 8.16.030 OF THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE TO ADDRESS SPEED LIMIT CHANGES ON MAIN STREET FROM NINTH AVENUE TO ONE BLOCK EAST OF NINTH AVENUE, 220TH STREET SW FROM THE EASTERN CITY LIMITS TO SR99, 238TH STREET SW BETWEEN SR99 AND SR104, 2447" STREET SW BETWEEN SR99 AND SR104 BY AMENDING SUBPARAGRAPH 4, 8 AND 10 THEREOF AND ADDING NEW SUBPARAGRAPH12 (1) PROPOSED ORDINANCE REZONING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 617 -627 DAYTON STREET FROM MULTI - FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RM -1.5) TO COMMUNITY BUSINESS (BC) (J) PROPOSED ORDINANCE REZONING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 22815 EDMONDS WAY FROM MULTI - FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RM -1.5) TO PLANNED BUSINESS (BP) (K) PROPOSED ORDINANCE REZONING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 8517 -8529 238TH STREET SW FROM SINGLE - FAMILY (RS -8) TO MULTI- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RM -3) (L) PROPOSED ORDINANCE REZONING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 23726 100TH AND 10014 238TH STREET SW FROM SINGLE - FAMILY (RS -8) TO NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS (BN) 3. (90 Min.) PUBLIC HEARING - REVIEW OF THE ROLE OF THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD 4. (20 Min.) IMPLEMENTATION OF HUMAN RESOURCES STUDY RECOMMENDATIONS CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA JULY 28, 1998 Page 2 of 2 5. (5 Min.) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN LEASE AGREEMENT WITH I DMONDS -SOUTH SNOHOMISH COUNTY HISTORICAL SOCIETY lq 6. (5 Min.) MAYOR'S REPORT 7. (15 Min.) INDIVIDUAL COUNCIL REPORTS/UPDATES ON RESPECTIVE BOARD MEETINGS �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 32. Delayed telecast of this meeting appears the following Wednesday, Friday and Monday at noon on Channel 32.