Loading...
04/01/2003 City CouncilEDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES April 1, 2003 Following a Special Meeting at 6:45 p.m. for an Executive Session regarding a legal matter, the Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m. by Mayor Haakenson in the Council Chambers, 250 5h Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Gary Haakenson, Mayor Dave Earling, Council President Jeff Wilson, Councilmember Michael Plunkett, Councilmember Lora Petso, Councilmember Dave Orvis, Councilmember Richard Marin, Councilmember Deanna Dawson, Councilmember APPROVAL OF AGENDA STAFF PRESENT David Stern, Chief of Police John Westfall, Fire Marshal Duane Bowman, Development Serv. Director Noel Miller, Public Works Director Rob Chave, Planning Manager Dave Gebert, City Engineer Don Fiene, Assistant City Engineer Steve Bullock, Senior Planner Scott Snyder, City Attorney Sandy Chase, City Clerk Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst. Jeannie Dines, Recorder COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, FOR APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA AS PRESENTED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS Councilmember Petso requested Item F be removed from the Consent Agenda. COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, FOR APPROVAL OF THE REMAINDER OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: Approve (A) ROLL CALL /24/03 Minutes (B) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MARCH 24, 2003. pprove 3/25/03 (C) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MARCH 25, 2003. Minutes (D) APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #61725 THROUGH #61813 FOR THE WEEK OF pprove Claim MARCH 24, 2003, IN THE AMOUNT OF $286,988.31. Checks Public (E) REPORT ON FINAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR THE PUBLIC WORKS VACTOR Works STATION CANOPY PROJECT AND COUNCIL ACCEPTANCE OF PROJECT. actor Station Canopy Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 1, 2003 Page 1 0 1 ar emorial (G) AUTHORIZATION FOR THE MAYOR TO SIGN A LETTER AGREEING TO PLACE A US ARMY ARTIFACT ON CITY PROPERTY IN ORDER TO ENHANCE THE WAR MEMORIAL. ing ty Week (H) PROCLAMATION IN HONOR OF BUILDING SAFETY WEEK, APRIL 6-12,2003. Item F: Authorization for Mavor to Sian the Final Plat of the Garden Cottages. a Six -Lot Plat and Planned Residential Development Located at 614 Bell Street. The Site is Zoned Multifamilv Residential (RM -1.5) Applicant: Garbe/Weller Construction. File No. PRD- 2002 -102 and P- 2002 -103 Councilmember Petso recalled when this PRD was originally discussed by the Council, she voted against approval as it did not meet the requirements of the ordinance for usable open space. She indicated her plans to vote against approval again tonight. COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, FOR APPROVAL OF ITEM F. MOTION CARRIED (5 -2), COUNCILMEMBERS PETSO AND DAWSON OPPOSED. The item approved is as follows: (F) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN THE FINAL PLAT OF THE GARDEN COTTAGES, A SIX -LOT PLAT AND PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT rd# 3448 LOCATED AT 614 BELL STREET. THE SITE IS ZONED MULTIFAMILY Approving RESIDENTIAL (RM -1.5). APPLICANT: GARBE/WELLER CONSTRUCTION. FILE Final Plat NO. PRD- 2002 -102 AND P- 2002 -103. and PRD to Garden Cottages at ORDINANCE NO. 3448 APPROVING THE FINAL PLAT AND GIVING FINAL PRD 614 Bell St. APPROVAL TO GARDEN COTTAGES FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 614 BELL STREET, EDMONDS, WASHINGTON. Wing 3. CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION OPPOSING NEW LEGISLATION EXPANDING -7�Sataitocin GAMBLING. THE NEW LEGISLATION BEING PROPOSED IS HOUSE BILL 1948: Regarding ALLOWING ELECTRONIC SCRATCH TICKET GAMES AND SYSTEMS Expanding Gambling Councilmember Orvis explained the proposal opposed House Bill 1948 as well as all other bills to expand gambling in the State of Washington. He referred to a memo provided to the Council regarding Senate Bill 6009 permitting multiple daily drawing online games which he translated to be instant keno. He commented that if gambling were expanded via the lottery commission, it was not something a city could ban but would have to accept. City Attorney Scott Snyder advised the City had the ability to ban any form of gambling that the State approved, therefore, if the state authorized the issuance of licenses for a new type of gambling, the City could enact a ban on that form of gambling. Councilmember Orvis indicated he would agree if HB 1948 had specifically addressed video slot machines but what it referred to was electronic scratch games. He noted the change proposed by SB 6009 was to change the rate at which keno drawings were done. Mr. Snyder commented the City would then be banning all scratch tickets and associated revenue. Councilmember Wilson inquired whether bingo would be impacted by the legislation. Mr. Snyder replied the Council could ban bingo if it chose as well as other forms of gambling. He pointed out the city made determinations regarding bingo on a case -by -case basis. Councilmember Wilson noted the resolution appeared to oppose expansion of any and all gambling in the city; bingo typically was operated by a non - profit organization as a fund raising effort. Mr. Snyder agreed, noting there were a variety of state - approved charitable fund raising efforts. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 1, 2003 Page 2 Councilmember Wilson asked whether the Council would be obligated to follow all the "whereas clauses" in the resolution. He noted the resolution would send the impression that the city would not welcome a bingo establishment. Mr. Snyder commented that form of gambling was currently not prohibited by the City; the City only prohibited the expansion of cardrooms. Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of this item: Mary Jo Bevin, 19210 94"' Avenue W, Edmonds, encouraged the Council to support the proposed resolution opposing the expansion of gambling in Washington State. She referred to a memo that enumerated the reasons gambling should not be expanded. She was opposed to supporting the State's budget via the expansion of gambling. Hearing no further public comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public participation portion of this item and remanded the matter to Council for action. Res# 1039 COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, FOR Opposing APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION N0. 1039, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE House Bill CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, OPPOSING HOUSE BILL 1948, LEGALIZING THE USE 1948, Legalizing OF VIDEO SLOT MACHINES, AND OPPOSING ALL OTHER FORMS OF EXPANDED he Use of GAMBLING IN WASHINGTON STATE. Video Slot achines Councilmember Petso expressed her appreciation for Councilmember Orvis' effort but explained she refrained from taking a position on issues that were before other decision - making bodies such as the State legislature in this instance. Councilmember Dawson prefaced her remarks that she did not feel video gaming was a good idea and she was not interested in video gaming in Edmonds. However, she was unable to support the proposed resolution, regardless of her personal views regarding video gaming, because the Council resolution was not the proper format for Councilmembers to air personal views. She recalled resolutions were typically enacted regarding non - controversial issues or issues that actually impacted the city. She recalled it was rare that the Council would attempt to forward a message to the State Legislature in this manner, the only recent example being the Brightwater bill. Brightwater had the potential to have a direct impact on the City, however, HB 1948, if enacted, would have no direct impact on Edmonds as the Council could then pass an ordinance banning this type of video gaming which she indicated she would support. Because there would be no direct impact on the City from the legislation, Councilmember Dawson did not find the resolution a proper vehicle for advising the Legislature. With regard to comments that this would have an indirect impact on Edmonds, i.e. cardrooms in Mountlake Terrace cities, she relayed her conversations with the Mountlake Terrace Police Chief who indicated there had not been an increase in crime due to the cardrooms. She took issue with the "whereas clause" in the resolution regarding the increase in crime, domestic violence, etc. as a result of expanded gambling. She objected to presuming what was occurring in adjacent cities who have allowed expanded gambling, noting it was the prerogative of other cities to strive to balance their budgets without cutting services or raising taxes. Councilmember Dawson preferred the Council and the public speak directly to Representatives Cooper and Sullivan prior to proceeding with a resolution. She relayed her conversation with Representative Cooper who indicated the bill was driven by cities located adjacent to tribal games whose businesses were impacted by their inability to compete with tribal casinos. Although she personally did not like video gaming in Washington State or in Edmonds specifically, she pointed out it may assist other cities in balancing their budgets. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 1, 2003 Page 3 1 Councilmember Dawson summarized the resolution was not a proper use of the Council's resolution authority. By endorsing the resolution, the Council was implying it had the moral authority of the community behind it; however, there had not been a public hearing on the issue nor had the subject of the resolution been well publicized. She encouraged the public to share their thoughts regarding video gaming with their Legislators. Councilmember Plunkett pointed out the people of Edmonds did not support gambling in the community in the past or the future and the Council had the right to make that point. Councilmember Wilson agreed with Councilmember Dawson, indicating that although he did not support expanded gambling, he would have preferred to take public testimony before the "whereas clauses" in the resolution were established. There were clauses in the resolution he did not necessarily agree with. MOTION CARRIED (4 -2 -1), COUNCILMEMBERS DAWSON AND WILSON OPPOSED, COUNCILMEMBER PETSO ABSTAINED. 4. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING ON THE SIGNAGE ELEMENT OF THE DRAFT REVISED Signage PROCESS AND GUIDELINES FOR ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW. THE PROPOSAL IS Element of TO AMEND THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE TO PROVIDE DESIGN he Draft Revised STANDARDS AND A STREAMLINED SIGN PERMITTING PROCESS FOR SIGNS. THE rocess and PROPOSAL INCLUDES AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 20.10 (ADB PROCESS AND CRITERIA uidelines CHAPTER) AND 20.60 (SIGN CODE), AS WELL AS A CLARIFICATION TO CHAPTER 19.45 or Archi- (BUILDING SIGN CODE) REGARDING SIGNS WHICH ARE EXEMPT FROM PERMITS. ectural sign view. Planning Manager Rob Chave advised the Council had received, under separate cover, a review of the proposed amendments from the Chamber of Commerce. He explained staff had attempted to combine the comments made over.the past year with the Chamber's comments and recommend new changes to the sign code amendments. Mr. Chave explained the purpose of the amendment was to streamline the permitting process for signs, coordinate design review of signs with building permit review, provide a simple solution for common problems such as the height of a sign on the building face, exempting signage in windows from the total signage calculation, as well as clarify what type of signs were permitted in different locations. Mr. Chave reviewed the new changes including a revision to the table of permitted signs to reflect the pattern of signage approved in recent years rather than the previous table which reflected more of the Architectural Design Board's (ADB) vision for signs, add definitions, add criteria for conditionally permitted signs, and add a process and criteria for modifications approvable by the ADB for unique situations such as a small building on a corner lot with more than one street frontage. Mr. Chave referred to page 11 of the record, Section 20.60.015.B.1 (Any sign permit application that reuuests a modification to anv of the standards prescribed by this chapter. The ADB shall onlv approve modification requests that meet all of the following criteria), recommending the final ordinance require a sign meet either criteria "a" (The request is for signage on a site that has a unique configuration, such as frontage on more than two streets or has an unusual geometric shape;) or criteria "b" (The subject property, building, or business has site conditions that do not afford it the opportunity to provide signage consistent with or similar to other properties in the vicinity) as well as meet both criteria "c" (The design of the proposed signage must be compatible in its use of materials, colors, design and proportions with Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 1, 2003 Page 4 development throughout the site) and criteria "d" (In no event shall the modification result in signage which exceeds the maximum normally allowed by more than 50%). Mr. Chave displayed the newly revised table that reflected the pattern of signage approved in recent years. He highlighted changes made in different zones and for particular sign types. Senior Planner Steve Bullock provided examples of sign types in the community including boxed cabinet signs, internally illuminated signs, individual letter signs, wall mounted signs (non - illuminated, internally illuminated and externally illuminated), free standing signs (monument and pole), reader board signs, and window signs. Mr. Bullock explained the proposed amendments also recommended a change in the allowed sign height. He provided examples of signs that were higher than the code allows (14 feet). He noted it was preferable to allow the design of the building drive the location of the sign rather than an arbitrary 14 foot height limit. Councilmember Petso recalled there were numerous signs that became nonconforming under the previous proposal. She referred to an example Mr. Bullock provided, a building in a Neighborhood Business area with coordinated signs, pointing out that the sign was internally illuminated, not the letters only. She pointed out that although the signage was nicely coordinated, would it become nonconforming under the proposed amendments. Mr. Bullock agreed the awning was illuminated and some of the awning material allowed light to shine through. If a change were requested after the adoption of the amendments, an opaque material would be required for most of the awning and light allowed to shine through only the letters. Councilmember Petso referred to another example, a cabinet sign in the downtown area that was internally illuminated, asking whether that sign would become nonconforming. Mr. Bullock answered if it were internally illuminated, it likely would become nonconforming. Councilmember Petso recalled the amendment required gas station signs located in neighborhood commercial areas or downtown be located on the building although most gas station signs were located on the awning. Mr. Bullock explained by code definition, any structure with a roof was a building, thus a gas station awning was a building. Councilmember Petso referred to the code language which indicated a sign could not be mounted on or under an attached awning. Mr. Bullock acknowledged the language may need to be clarified; the intent was to ensure signs under awnings or on the face of the awning in downtown were not illuminated and that any illuminated sign be located on the face of the building. Councilmember Petso referred to page 11 of the record, Section 20.60.015.B.1, criteria d (In no event shall the modification result in signage which exceeds the maximum normally allowed by more than 50016), suggesting the words "square footage" be inserted following "maximum." Mr. Chave agreed the addition of "square footage" was appropriate. If a number of existing businesses' signs became nonconforming, Councilmember Petso recalled the Chamber of Commerce proposed that rather than waiting for a nonconforming sign to be replaced due to damage, etc., a schedule be established that required compliance in a certain number of years such as ten. She noted that was not accomplished via the proposed ordinance. Mr. Bullock explained this was addressed by the nonconforming chapter of the code and would require additional review /amendment. This issue was not addressed as it was not seen as within the original scope of the amendments. Staff attempted to accommodate the Chamber's comments via the modification process with the ADB rather than the Hearing Examiner. He noted staff was committed to working with the Chamber, at the Council's direction, to amend the nonconforming chapter. Mr. Chave advised the Planning Board planned to review the non - conforming chapter. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 1, 2003 Page 5 Councilmember Petso commented if the Council adopted an ordinance that resulted in a business' sign becoming nonconforming, they may not be subject to the 50% rule very long as the nonconforming provisions would be reviewed shortly. Mr. Chave advised the only time the potential for altering a sign under the nonconforming sign chapter arose was if a significant change were made such as removing a sign and erecting a new sign. He advised the nonconforming provisions did not apply when a sign was refaced, the letters changed, etc. City Attorney Scott Snyder said if the Council wished to adopt an amortization schedule, it would require notification of property owners and an opportunity for property owners to appeal, approximately a 12 -18 month process. Councilmember Orvis inquired whether the 50% rule applied to damage to the sign or the site. Mr. Bullock answered to the sign. He commented that since 1991 there had been only one instance where a sign had to be brought into compliance and there had not been any instances where a sign was damaged so extensively it was required to be brought into compliance. Councilmember Orvis asked whether the proposed amendments would create more opportunity for requiring signs be brought into compliance. Mr. Bullock agreed there would be some increase. With regard to amortization, Councilmember Plunkett asked whether that would be a process of notifying business owners that they had to change their sign within a certain period of time. Mr. Bullock answered yes. Councilmember Plunkett asked whether that issue would be addressed separately from the proposed amendments. Mr. Bullock answered yes. Councilmember Plunkett inquired whether the proposed amendments were complete and staff could return with a final ordinance. Mr. Bullock answered yes. Councilmember Wilson referred to Section 20.60.020.J (Sign height shall be determined as follows). He asked whether Item 1 (For attached signs, sign height is the vertical distance from the midpoint of the top of the sign to the finished grade) would be necessary if the maximum height for signs were eliminated. Mr. Bullock agreed it could be deleted. Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. He advised the Council had received letters from Chris Guitton and Jack Winters. Chris Guitton, Chamber of Commerce Director, 1012 View Land Way, Edmonds, advised 19 volunteers participated in the Chamber's review of the proposal; most were Edmonds residents who did not look at the proposal with a business at any cost viewpoint but an interest in improving the appearance of the City. Therefore, their proposal was a compromise that was not always favorable to business. He supported the recommendations staff provided with two exceptions. First, as the proposed amendments would make many signs nonconforming, the Chamber was concerned that a business could be forced to remove and replace a damaged sign before the nonconforming provisions were addressed. He recommended the nonconforming provisions be reviewed as soon as possible. Second, the Chamber supported not requiring ADB review for signage for a building facing several streets but preferred it be evaluated by City staff. He submitted revised language for Section 20.60.025.A.1. Bruce Sagor, 9790 Edmonds Way, Edmonds, commented his store recently relocated from Firdale Village and erected a new cabinet sign as well as a sign in the window. He noted they were in the process of seeking approval for product signage in the window. Although it was his intent to conform to the wishes of the City, he suggested allowing A -frame signs on the street. Zill Schirazi, 9790 Edmonds Way, Edmonds, expressed his support for the proposed amendments to the sign code. He suggested A -frame signs be allowed for new businesses for a 1 -2 month period. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 1, 2003 Page 6 Bill McNeil, 1620 9th Avenue N, Edmonds, commented he was proposing a business in a unique location which the sign code did not address, a business facing three streets. He noted the proposed amendments would solve his problem regarding signage and allow him to complete the project. Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, referred to Section 20.60.030.B which described the maximum height of any attached sign in the BN, BC, CW, and CG zones. He noted 14 feet had been the standard for a long time although he acknowledged that occasionally there was a need to adjust the height. He preferred adjustments be made in degrees based on t/z or 1 foot, however, the proposed language would allow the height of the sign to be determined by the height of the face of the building. He predicted buildings would then be designed to get the sign as high as possible. Hearing no further comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public participation portion of the hearing. Councilmember Plunkett referred to Mr. Guitton's comment regarding signs that were damaged prior to the nonconforming provisions being amended. He asked whether new standards could be retroactive. Mr. Snyder agreed that was a possibility as was an interim zoning ordinance or a moratorium to allow repairs to be held until the nonconforming provisions were amended. He explained if a moratorium were established, if a sign were damaged, it could not be repaired until the nonconforming provisions were amended. The disadvantage of establishing an interim zoning ordinance was that it could allow signs to be replaced until the nonconforming provisions were amended, possibly resulting in the City losing the opportunity to eliminate an undesirable sign. An amortization schedule established a useful life for a sign and allowed businesses to retain their signage for its normal useful life. He noted these were three different options that required Council direction. Councilmember Plunkett proposed an amendment to Section 20.60.025.A.1 regarding allowed sign area in business and commercial zone districts (BN, BC, CW, and CG). Mr. Chave offered to draft language to address the Chamber's intent regarding allowed square footage. Councilmember Petso recalled the sign code allowed A -frame signs 60 days a year. Mr. Chave answered that was only in the Downtown and Waterfront zones. Councilmember Petso asked whether A -frame signs could be added to other zones in the matrix with the criteria that they be allowed for only 60 days. Mr. Chave noted there was other language in the sign code that would also need to be amended. Councilmember Petso referred to Mr. Hertrich's comment regarding the height of signs, asking whether language could be drafted to retain the sign height as close to 14 feet as was appropriate for the building or establish a maximum height. Mr. Bullock referred to examples where the sign was centered in the sign band where the top of the sign was 21 -22 feet. He assured staff would continue to require signs be centered within the vertical sign band of a building. He noted buildings were typically designed with a sign band which would be used to determine the sign location rather than the overall height of the building. Mr. Chave suggested referencing criteria regarding proportionality, etc. In response to Councilmember Petso's question regarding A -frame and sandwich -board signs, Mr. Snyder explained that although sandwich board signs were difficult to enforce, there was some predictability in the downtown area where lot lines typically extended to the street and the sign could be placed in front of the business. However, in other areas where stores were part of a mall, staff would need to develop language that ensured the signs were in close proximity to the store and not at the curb or on the right -of -way. Mr. Chave recalled in the Downtown and Waterfront area, there were typically individual properties that could accommodate a sandwich board sign in front of the business. This was seen as different from shopping malls which do not have individual frontage. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 1, 2003 Page 7 Councilmember Petso commented the need for an A -frame sign may be greater in vehicle - oriented shopping malls. She supported the use of a temporary A -frame sign. Mr. Chave advised that was a Council policy decision. Mayor Haakenson recalled during previous discussions regarding sandwich board signs, the issue was enforcement and the City did not have the staff to enforce which signs had been displayed for 60 days. If the Council wanted to reopen that discussion, he recommended the discussion also include funding for another staff position. Councilmember Wilson referred to the definition of a boxed cabinet sign, questioning the specificity of the terms of "Plexiglas /lexan" and suggested broadening the definition. Mr. Chave and Mr. Snyder agreed. Councilmember Wilson recalled when the discussion regarding signs first arose, the intent was to consider a small element of the sign code and not rewrite the entire chapter, specifically how to simplify the sign review process. He was concerned that substantive elements of the code were now being rewritten, and asked whether it was staff's intent to have the Planning Board review substantive elements of the sign code in the future to address other outstanding issues. Mr. Chave agreed, noting it was Development Services Director Duane Bowman's intent over the next few years to rewrite the City's development code. He noted the first issues to be addressed were process and nonconforming uses. The Council could direct the Planning Board to consider the sign code as a higher priority. Councilmember Orvis asked the disadvantage of a moratorium or interim zoning ordinance to accommodate businesses whose sign was damaged beyond 50% prior to the City's nonconforming provisions being revised. Mr. Snyder explained the purpose of making something nonconforming was to get rid of it. He noted signs that were the most troublesome were those that were high, bright, close to the street, or that the neighborhood found disruptive. COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, TO EXTEND THIS ITEM FOR 10 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Council President Earling referred to option 1 in the staff report, a phase -in of changes to the city's sign regulations with a first phase that changed the process for approving signs along with minor amendments that address current regulatory problems such as window signs and the 14 -foot height restrictions, and a second phase where the Council directed staff and the Planning Board to work on a comprehensive review of the city's sign standards. He asked what a reasonable amount of time would be for the Planning Board to bring the sign code back. Mr. Chave explained option 1 would not include the revisions to the matrix. If the Council was comfortable with the amendments that had been proposed, that was adoptable as an ordinance. If the Council wanted the Planning Board to do a comprehensive review of the standards in the sign code, 1- I'I /2 years would be required to complete that task. Rather than returning the issue to the Planning Board for 1'/2 years, Councilmember Petso suggested staff return to the Council with more specific language regarding the 14 foot height limit, consideration of A- frame signs on a temporary basis, and identify the number of signs that would become nonconforming. COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED TO HAVE STAFF TWEAK THE LANGUAGE AS DIRECTED BY COUNCIL AND BRING IT BACK TO COUNCIL ONE MORE TIME. MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND, Councilmember Orvis suggested the Council adopt the ordinance following another iteration that included the changes described by Councilmember Plunkett. He also favored adopting an interim zoning Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 1, 2003 Page 8 ordinance to ensure businesses with nonconforming signs could replace them while the nonconforming provisions were being reviewed. He supported the expansion of A -frame signs within the BN zone. Councilmember Plunkett suggested staff return with the recommendations as outlined by Councilmembers Petso and Orvis. Councilmember Marin indicated he was satisfied with the amendments proposed on pages 7, 11, and 12. COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON, TO DIRECT STAFF AND THE CITY ATTORNEY TO DRAFT AN ORDNANCE WITH THE CHANGES ON PAGES 7, 11, AND 12. Councilmember Marin detailed the changes: • Page 7 — change Plexiglas / lexan to generic language rather than brand names • Page 11 — staff's recommendation to require either 1 a or b and require both c and d • Page 12 —remove Item J1 • Page 11 —add "square feet" in B.l.d after "maximum" • Page 15 — add additional criteria regarding sign height • Page 11 — strike "more than two streets" in B.1.a Mayor Haakenson suggested staff prepare an ordinance for Council adoption and the Council could propose amendments to the ordinance at that time. Discussion followed regarding the process for staff returning an ordinance to the Council. MOTION FAILED (2 -5) COUNCILMEMBERS MARIN AND WILSON IN FAVOR, COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING, COUNCILMEMBERS PLUNKETT, ORVIS, PETSO, AND DAWSON OPPOSED. Mr. Chave suggested staff provide Councilmembers a clean copy that included the changes proposed for the first and the second public hearings and Councilmembers could propose additional changes. Mayor Haakenson clarified this would be a new agenda item, not a continued public hearing. Mayor Haakenson inquired how many in the audience were present for each of the next agenda items. As the majority of the audience was present for Agenda Item #7, Mayor Haakenson suggested moving up Agenda Item 7. to heaAgg enda COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, TO MOVE AGENDA ITEM 7 TO AGENDA ITEM 4A. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mayor Haakenson declared a brief recess. 20 St. sw 4A. STATUS REPORT ON THE 220TH STREET SW IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Improvement Project Traffic Engineer Darrell Smith introduced Dan Hansen, Perteet Engineering, and Rich Perteet, principal owner of Perteet Engineering. Dan Hansen, Perteet Engineering, explained this project was a safety improvement project due to an increasing traffic accident rate, sight distance issues, inadequate pedestrian facilities, and numerous children walking in the area to Westgate Elementary School. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 1, 2003 Page 9 Mr. Hansen explained the project cost was $4.1 million, with a large portion of the funding from State Transportation Improvement Board (TIB), as well as federal funds, storm drainage utility funds, and the Public Works Trust Fund. He displayed and reviewed design criteria for the roadway, highlighting the sidewalk width and posted speed limit (30 mph). Mr. Hansen explained a value engineering study was completed recently by a third party engineer who concurred with the preliminary design. He described the public involvement program that included two open houses and a two -day design charrette. He explained the ideas the public provided at the design charrette were incorporated into three conceptual designs. Concerns expressed by citizens included loss of privacy and buffer from the road, keeping vehicle speeds down, safer pedestrian crossings, safety accessing mailboxes, maintaining driveway access, and keeping utilities within the right -of -way. Mr. Hansen displayed and described the roadway section that resulted from the design charrette, two driving lanes, two bicycle lanes, sidewalks on both sides and landscaping where feasible. He described how bicycle lanes improve safety by providing a buffer between pedestrians and vehicles, provide a refuge for the postal vehicle when delivering mail, improve sight distance at driveways, and separate the modes of transportation. The bicycle lanes on 220" were identified in the 2000 Bikeway Comprehensive Plan from 9t' to Hwy. 99. He noted current Association of State Highways and Transportation Organizations require a 5 -foot minimum width for bicycle lanes. He explained the TIB funding required sidewalks and bicycle lanes on both sides of the roadway throughout the project. If the project failed to meet that criteria, the TIB funds would not be provided. Mr. Hansen explained the project would also include clustering mailboxes that were currently scattered. The Postmaster donated the locking, clustered boxes which will be located on both sides of the street, eliminating the need to cross the road to reach the mailbox. A permanent radar speed sign would also be installed as part of the project, in advance of the school zone. He noted a recent study indicated the signs were effective in reducing vehicle speeds. He described the addition of a pedestrian crossing at 96th, an actuated crossing with in- pavement lighting and overhead illumination. Mr. Hansen explained that although both the intersections at 84th and at 9t'' operated at a level of service F and both met the signal warrant requirements, there were more accidents at 84th (13 in a three year period versus nine at 9th). He explained 84th would be constructed under the current funding and 9`t' would be added as an alternate to the project. Mr. Hansen explained that significant relocation of utilities would occur in conjunction with the project including PSE, Comcast, Olympic View, PUD, and Verizon. He noted PUD and Verizon posed the largest challenge due to significant overhead lines. Mr. Hansen described improvements at key intersections including 9th Avenue S, 96th Avenue, 950' Avenue, 90th Avenue and 84th Avenue W. He also reviewed the proposed schedule for the project with construction occurring in summer 2004. Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing Harry Shelton, 21925 95th Avenue W, Edmonds, noted traffic on 220th had increased tremendously in the past 44 years. He expressed his support for the proposed project, noting his concerns have been addressed by staff. He appreciated the process that allowed residents to express their views. He recommended Edmonds coordinate with Olympic View regarding drainage on 220th at 951''. As his backyard would be two feet below the road level, he was concerned with the loss of privacy and the Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 1, 2003 Page 10 possibility of runoff from 220'h into his backyard. He recommended the arrow directional sign at the end of 95"' on the north side of 220''' be retained. John Larpenteur, 20423 81" Avenue W, Edmonds, concurred the improvements on 220th were very necessary. He supported the plan as proposed with bicycle lanes and sidewalks, noting bicycle lanes provided a buffer between vehicles and pedestrians. Noel Putaansuu, 9509 217th Street SW, Edmonds, spoke in support of the proposed project. As a bicycle and unicycle rider, he was not comfortable riding on 220"' due to the narrowness of the street. He pointed out that under the current conditions, motorists could not pass bicyclists on 220t1i and children must either walk in the street or in the brush to reach the school. He concluded the project would be beneficial to the city and provide more flexibility for alternate transportation methods in the future. Lisa Sundbom, 9815 220th Street SW, Edmonds, commented that although she supported the sidewalks and bicycle lanes, she was concerned with children bicycling down the steep hill and possibly entering 9th Avenue. She suggested the bike lane turn onto 98th. She commented on the aspects of the project that were being constructed to qualify for the funding, suggesting sidewalks were only necessary on one side rather than both sides. Pat Sundbom, 9815 2201h Street SW, Edmonds, expressed concern with children using the bike path on the steep portion of 220th and possibly entering 9t'' Avenue. She suggested that having the bike lane turn on 98th may make it safer for children. Roy Chapel, 23417 93rd Avenue W, Edmonds, supported the proposed design which considered pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles. He commented that in his travels, he often requests a copy of cities' bicycle map. He noted some cities have excellent, safe places to ride and recommended that be Edmonds' goal. Kevin O'Leary, 9809 220th Street SW, Edmonds, explained when this process began, he contacted all residents on 2201'' and determined everyone supported curbs, gutters, and sidewalks but this would be the only stretch of roadway in the city with a designated bike path. He noted other bike paths such as on 9`h only had signage indicating where the bike path began. He noted residents supported the pedestrian lighted crossing. He disagreed there was a sight distance problem from his driveway and did not want vegetation on his property removed to improve sight distance. He preferred to retain the 4 -way stop at 84t'', noting it functioned well. He expressed concern with accepting the grant funds for this project when the funds may be better spent on other transportation projects or other state funded items. Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, Edmonds, commented he lived on a two -lane road similar to 220'1' that was widened to three lanes, two travel lanes and a middle turn lane. The middle turn Iane was an island for residents when entering/exiting the roadway from their driveways. He suggested a continuous center lane be constructed on 220th, noting a compromise could be a bike lane on only one side. Hearing no further public comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public participation portion of the public hearing. Mayor Haakenson commended Perteet Engineering for the public participation process they conducted. In response to skepticism that the $2.4 million in TIB funds would be jeopardized if the bike lanes were not included, he contacted TIB who indicated the 220th Street project was the lowest rated project to be funded with 2003 funds. Edmonds' 220'h Street project rated 64 points, the next project rated 63, the Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 1, 2003 Page 11 next 62, three at 61 and the next at 60, none of which were funded. TIB explained bike lanes scored points in both the mobility and multimodal categories; combined with the elimination of the 2 -way left turn lanes, elimination of the bike lanes would have cost the project two points in mobility and two points in multimodal for a total of a four point reduction. A two point reduction would drop the project below the funding level and jeopardize the $2.4 million in TM funds. As the score of the projects immediately below the 2206' Street project indicate, six other projects would qualify for those funds if the 220th Street project fell below the funding cutoff. Mayor Haakenson emphasized the need to include the bike lanes to qualify for the TIB funds, noting without the TIB funds, the project could not be constructed. With regard to drainage, Mr. Smith stressed the importance of a well operating closed drainage system as was proposed. Curblines would collect the water , routing it into a closed system, thereby eliminating open ditches. With regard to comments regarding the protection of residents' privacy and the value of their homes, he emphasized they were working hard on that issue and would continue to address it. Mr. Smith noted that although the TIB had strict standards, it was also better from an engineering standpoint to have sidewalks on both sides rather than not have sidewalks at all. With regard to the continuous left turn lane, he explained the original project included a continuous left turn lane and he agreed it would make the project statistically safer. However, because constructing a continuous left turn lane throughout the project required a great deal of right -of -way and resulted in severe impacts on adjacent property owners, left turn lanes were proposed to be located in areas of the project that were most susceptible to accidents. Councilmember Petso inquired whether there were other designated bike lanes in the city. Mr. Smith answered there were three classes of bike lanes, 1) bike route signs on wide roadways, 2) the pedestrian/bicycle oriented interurban trail, and 3) bicycle lanes such as on 208"'. Councilmember Petso asked whether there were any methods to slow bicycle riders on a hill. Mr. Smith commented middle school youth, teens, and adults were comfortable using bike lanes; however, younger children typically used the sidewalk. He commented the grade of the hill was being modified at 92nd and on 220th at 90'. He concluded no, there were no methods of slowing bicycle riders on a hill. Councilmember Petso asked why the signal at 84th was necessary, noting the 4 -way stop appeared to work. Mr. Smith answered the signal would improve safety as signals were statistically much safer than an all -way stop. He noted here were 13 accidents at the intersection of 84" over the last three years. Further, the intersections of 84th and 9`h were at level of service F which designated failure. He noted the 4 -way stop may function well for a few more years; however, during peak periods now, frustration at the 4 -way stop was increasing which may result in increased accidents. With regard to the arrow directional sign referred to by Mr. Shelton, Mr. Smith assured that would be retained. Councilmember Petso asked about Mr. Shelton's concerns regarding the impact to the privacy of his backyard. Mr. Smith advised the roadway at Mr. Shelton's property would be raised. Due to earthwork occurring there that would impact Mr. Shelton's fence, the fence would likely need to be rebuilt at a higher elevation which would protect his privacy. Councilmember Marin commented that when Mayor Haakenson, Councilmember Plunkett and he attended one of the community meetings, he was impressed with the involvement of the neighbors. He commended staff and Perteet for incorporating the wishes of all the residents. For Councilmember Wilson, Mr. Smith confirmed that both 84th and 9th functioned at level of service F and the city's adopted standard was level of service D. Councilmember Wilson asked whether the Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 1, 2003 Page 12 addition of a signal would raise the level of service of both intersections. Mr. Smith answered one intersection improved to level of service A and the other to level of service B. He explained TIB policies required infrastructure funded via their grants comply with 20 year growth requirements, therefore, the design must accommodate that level of service for more than 20 years. Councilmember Wilson commented constructing the improvement now would result in the intersection functioning above the city's standards for at least 20 years. Mr. Smith answered at least 20 years, noting the signal likely would accommodate buildout of that neighborhood. Councilmember Wilson noted the intersection would continue to deteriorate if it remained a 4 -way stop including increased accidents. Mr. Smith agreed, stating the grant scoring considered the accident rate at the intersection of 84th. For Council President Earling, Mr. Smith advised the project was currently at 50% design process and would be receiving the 70% design shortly. Council President Earling asked whether staff was confident regarding the pricing. Mr. Smith answered yes, noting there was approximately a 20% contingency ($500,000). As final design approached, the contingency would likely be reduced. Council President Earling inquired about the number of left turn lanes from 9th to 84th. Mr. Hansen answered they were located at 9th, 96th, 95th, and 84th Council President Earling inquired whether there was a good working relationship with PUD and whether the project was being constructed to meet PUD's timelines or were the two working cooperatively. Mr. Smith answered they are working cooperatively now, acknowledging it has been challenging at times to coordinate schedules. PUD was concerned with the large investment for this proj ect. Development 5. PUBLIC HEARING ON DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT FEES Services Department Development Services Director Duane Bowman explained the purpose of his presentation was to Fees establish permit fees that fully covered the cost of permit review, establish the ability to automatically adjust to reflect labor costs, and review appeal fees. He explained the Development Services Department had three major funding sources, the Combined Utility Fund, permit fees, and the General Fund. The Combined Utility Fund contributed funds toward the Engineering Division for work on utility projects, permit fees are intended to cover the cost of permit review, and the General Fund funded administration, code enforcement, Comprehensive Plan, public information, and intergovernmental activities. Mr. Bowman explained that when faced with the difficult budget process for 2003, the Development Services Department managers met over the past five months to review all the department's activities and developed a methodology for reviewing current fees. All the current fees were reviewed and fees that needed to be lowered, increased, or deleted were identified as well as new fees for services the Development Services Department provides but does not charge for. Staff costs were then established for each permit. Mr. Bowman referred to a table comparing the fees for common permits with other similar jurisdictions, noting it was difficult to compare permit fees between cities due to differences in the calculation. The purpose of his presentation was to illustrate the cost required for Edmonds to process permits. Mr. Bowman projected increased permit fee revenue of $232,963 based on a mid -April implementation. He explained $102,434 of the $232,963 was projected from the new Alley /Sidewalk/Street Disruption fees, a volatile revenue source with no guarantee that amount would be generated. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 1, 2003 Page 13 Mr. Bowman reviewed new permit fees for reviews the city currently does but does not charge for: Alley /Sidewalk/Street Disruption, Critical Area Study Administration fee, Hearing Examiner reconsideration, SEPA traffic impact analysis, side sewer special condition, street use permit and final short subdivision approval. He described a formula used to project the Alley /Sidewalk/Street Disruption fee. He referred to Exhibit 1 in the Council packet that identified all Development Services fees with a comparison of the current fee and proposed new fee. He noted that for building permits, staff recommended using the 2002 amended UBC Table 1 -A without a modifier. Mr. Bowman reviewed lowered permit fees including manufactured coach down from $360 to $245, PRD amendments down from $1000 to $825, Shoreline permits lowered from $1750 to $1600, street vacations down from $2400 to $1510, final subdivisions lowered from $1500 to $930, and preliminary short divisions down from $1200 to $985. Deleted fees were identified on the basis that the fee should no longer be charged as it was consolidated with other permits or it was a fee that was no longer used. Mr. Bowman displayed a comparison of the fees currently charged for appeals and the actual cost of staff time. He noted the staff cost reflected only Development Services Department staff time and costs and not the City Clerk's time. He noted there were no changes proposed to appeal fees other than appeals of the Building Official interpretation and notice of violations which were rare appeals that required a significant amount of staff time. Appeals were typically subsidized as Councils considered them a way for citizens to have access at a lower cost. Mr. Bowman explained current Development Services Department staffing included 24.5 positions and one vacant Plans Examiner position. Three positions were eliminated in 2003. With the increased permit fees, two positions could be restored at a cost of $50,900 for the remainder of 2003. If that were undertaken, he proposed filling the Assistant Planner and Administrative Assistant positions. Given the current budget situation, he noted consideration of those positions could be deferred to the 2004 budget process. Mr. Bowman recommended the Council direct staff to prepare an amendment to Resolution No. 967 adopting revised Development Services Department fees as outlined in Exhibit 1 and providing for an escalator clause to address yearly labor cost increases. Mr. Bowman referred to a letter to the Council from Rob Michel and agreed that increased permit fees were a pass - through cost to housing. However, it became a Council policy decision regarding how to subsidize permit review and whether the fees collected by the Development Services Department should cover the costs of the permit review. Mr. Bowman clarified the Alley /Sidewalk/Street Disruption fee was intended for the downtown area only. Due to the late hour, Council President Earling suggested holding the public hearing and having further Council discussion at the April 22 meeting. Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, Edmonds, suggested staff provide the rationale regarding how the new fees and increased fees were calculated. He noted the fee for Hearing Examiner reconsideration was high enough that it would discourage people from requesting reconsideration. He expressed concern with the proposed escalator clause and preferred any increases include a public hearing process. Mayor Haakenson advised the Council would discuss this issue further at the April 22 Council meeting. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 1, 2003 Page 14 Mr. Bowman explained he distributed the proposed fees to the permit stakeholders group who provided no comments. He noted the permit stakeholders group viewed the fees as a pass - through cost. He requested Councilmembers forward questions regarding specific fees to him prior to the April 22 meeting. 6. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE STORMWATER SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE Stormwater System Development Assistant City Engineer Don Fiene advised the Stormwater System Development charge had been Charge reviewed by the Finance Committee and the Community Services/Development Services Committee who requested it be forwarded to the full Council with a recommendation for approval. Mr. Fiene described the purpose and background for establishing a charge, explaining existing rate payers have paid for the current infrastructure, the charge was effectively a buy -in for new customers, there was already a fee established for the Water & Sewer Utility, and in summary, it provided fairness to current rate payers. He reviewed two methodologies for determining the charge, 1) the buy -in method which resulted in an estimated charge of approximately $428 per unit, and 2) average cost method which resulted in an estimated charge of $616 per unit. Mr. Fiene displayed a comparison of the Stormwater System Development Charge for cities of comparable size, noting the average was $540.09. He reviewed expected annual revenue from the Storm System Development Charge based on the average number of new developments over the past three years, $73,128 if the $428 per ESU charge were adopted, and $105,336 if the $616 per ESU charge were adopted. He noted the expected annual revenue did not include charges at the Unocal site which could total an additional $110,000 to $160,000 over the next five years. Mr. Fiene explained the new revenue could be used to reduce the need to increase rates for current ratepayers; maintain staffing needed to address federal, state and local requirements; maintain and improve storm system infrastructure; maintain current Capital Improvement Program requirements; and to deal with NPDES and ESA related issues. Staff recommended Council approval of the implementation of a storm system development charge using the buy -in method ($428 per ESU) and directing the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance establishing a storm system development charge. Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. There were no members of the public who wished to provide comment. Mayor Haakenson closed the public participation portion of the public hearing. COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, TO APPROVE THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A STORM SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE USING THE BUY -IN METHOD ($428 PER ESU) AND DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A STORM SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 8. AUDIENCE COMMENTS ourth of Chris Guitton, 1012 View Land Way, Edmonds, advised the Chamber had raised $2,000 of the ulyEvents $30,000 total budget for the 4"' of July events. He described funding for events, $8,000 for prizes for the 1500 -2000 children who participate in the children's parade, $12,000 for fireworks and entertainment, and $11,000 for public. safety, cleanup, portable sanitary facilities, etc. He requested the City consider an announcement on Channel 21 requesting financial support. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 1, 2003 Page 15 solution Rod Stout, 17129 72 "d Avenue W, Edmonds, spoke regarding the resolution passed under Agenda Item posing #3, noting it was unfortunate the issue was not presented to the public for comment prior to the Council to islation taking action. He urged the Council to solicit public opinion on issues. He commented that perhaps it was inappropriate for the Council to inject an official opinion regarding legislation that did not specifically impact the citizens. Given the City's financial situation, he questioned why the Council would or should consider taking official action to allow /disallow a potential revenue source prior to requesting a significant tax increase from Edmonds citizens, the levy lid lift. At the least, he recommended citizens be asked at a later date to reaffirm their position on gambling. 9. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Troops Due to a problem with the volume on the video tape at last week's Council meeting, Mayor Haakenson Serving in repeated his comments regarding an email from a resident whose husband was stationed in Kuwait and Iraq who asked that citizens remember him and other families with loved ones serving in the Iraq area. Mayor Haakenson thanked the Lions Club for their impressive display of flags throughout the City in support of the nation, troops, and families. 10. COUNCIL COMMENTS There were no comments made by any Councilmembers. With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m. GAAY H E SON, MAYOR J SANDRA S. CHASE, CITY CLERK Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 1, 2003 Page 16 AGENDA - EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex 2505 th Avenue North 7:00 - 10:00 p.m. APRIL 1, 2003 6:45 p.m. - Executive Session Regarding a Legal Matter* *The Executive Session will be held in the Jury Meeting Room. 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 March 24, 2003. (C) Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of March 25, 2003. (D) Approval of claim checks #61725 through #61813 for the week of March 24, 2003, in the amount of $286,988.31. (E) Report on final construction costs for the Public Works Vactor Station Canopy Project and Council acceptance of project. (F) Authorization for the Mayor to sign the Final Plat of the Garden cottages, a six - lot Plat and Planned Residential Development located a 614 Bell Street. The site is zoned Multifamily Residential (RM -1.5). Applicant: Garbe/Weller Construction. File No. PRD- 2002 -102 and P- 2002 -103. (G) Authorization for the Mayor to sign a letter agreeing to place a US Army artifact on City property in order to enhance the War Memorial. (H) Proclamation in honor of Building Safety Week, April 6 - 12, 2003. 3. (10 Min.) Consideration of a Resolution opposing new legislation expanding gambling. The new legislation being proposed is House Bill 1948: Allowing electronic scratch ticket games and systems.* *Public comment will be invited. Page 1 of 2 L! I CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA April 1, 2003 Paae 2 of 2 4. (so Min.) Continued Public Hearing on the signage element of the draft revised process and guidelines for architectural design review. The proposal is to amend the Edmonds Community Development Code to provide design standards and a streamlined sign permitting process for signs. The proposal includes amendments to Chapters 20.10 (ADB Process and Criteria Chapter) and 20.60 (Sign Code), as well as a clarification to Chapter 19.45 (Building Sign Code) regarding signs which are exempt from permits. S. (30 Min.) Public Hearing on Development Services Department Fees. 6. (15 Min.) Public Hearing on the Stormwater System Development Charge. 7. (45 Min.) Status report on the 220"' Street SW Improvement Project.* *Public comment will be invited. 8. Audience Comments (3 Minute Limit Per Person)* *Regarding matters not listed as Closed Record Review or as Public Hearings. 9. ( 5 Min.) Mayor's Comments 10. (15 Min.) Council Comments ADJOURN 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 as well as a delayed telecast of the meeting appears on AT &T Cable, Channel 21.