Loading...
03/04/2003 City CouncilEDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES March 4, 2003 Following a Special Meeting at 6:45 p.m. to interview candidates for the Sister City Commission, the Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Haakenson in the Council Chambers, 250 5b' 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 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA STAFF PRESENT David Stern, Chief of Police Duane Bowman, Development Serv. Director Stephen Clifton, Community Services Director Arvilla Ohlde, Parks and Recreation Director Noel Miller, Public Works Director Dave Gebert, City Engineer Brian McIntosh, Assistant Parks and Rec. Dir. 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 PLUNKETT, FOR APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA AS PRESENTED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS Councilmember Mann requested Item D be removed from the Consent Agenda. COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, FOR APPROVAL OF THE REMAINDER OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: pprove (A) ROLL CALL /25/03 inutes (B) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 25, 2003. pprove ]aim (C) APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #61142 THROUGH #61298 FOR THE WEEK OF hecks FEBRUARY 24, 2003, IN THE AMOUNT OF $476,685.89. Mid- (E) REPORT ON BIDS OPENED FEBRUARY 20, 2003 FOR THE MID- WATERFRONT waterfront WALKWAY/BULKHEAD PROJECT AND AWARD OF CONTRACT TO BOSS Walkwa ulkhead CONTRACTORS, A JOINT.VENTURE ($1,306,356.54, INCLUDING SALES TAX). 76'h Ave. W (F) REPORT ON FINAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR THE SOUTH 761" AVENUE WEST Pavement PAVEMENT REHABILITATION (SR104 TO SR99) PROJECT AND COUNCIL Rehabilita- ACCEPTANCE OF PROJECT. on Project Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 4, 2003 Page 1 our Water stem (G) AUTHORIZATION TO ADVERTISE FOR STATEMENTS OF QUALIFICATION FROM jects CONSULTANTS FOR THE DESIGN OF FOUR WATER SYSTEM PROJECTS. d" (II) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN ADDENDUM NO. 2 TO THE a PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH REID MIDDLETON INC. FOR THE kwa alk-wa y/ � ulkhead MID - WATERFRONT WALKWAY/BULKHEAD PROJECT FOR CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATION SERVICES. Item D: Confirmation of the Mayor's Appointment to the Sister City Commission of Jim Corbett (Position Sister city #4) Keiko Frank (Position #5), Manoi Joseph (Position #6) and Vera Pameoreiou (Position #9). Commission ennt ts Councilmember Marin explained he pulled this item from the Consent Agenda to call attention to the four outstanding candidates that the Council interviewed for the Sister City Commission. He described each candidate's background and expressed his appreciation for their willingness to serve. COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, FOR APPROVAL OF ITEM D. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The item approved is as follows: (D) CONFIRMATION OF THE MAYOR'S APPOINTMENT TO THE SISTER CITY COMMISSION OF JIM CORBETT (POSITION #4), KEIKO FRANK (POSITION #5), MANOJ JOSEPH (POSITION #6), AND VERA PAPAGEORGIOU (POSITION #9). Sister City 3. ANNUAL REPORT OF THE SISTER CITY COMMISSION ommission Urt nual Lawrence Cretin, Sister City Commission Chair in 2002, introduced the current Chair Bryan Bechler. Mr. Bechler presented the 2002 Report of the Commission, explaining the 12- member Edmonds Sister City Commission has been providing the kind of cultural exchange opportunities that foster understanding and friendship between Edmonds and Hekinan for the past 14 years. Historically, the Commission's focus has been arranging annual home stay opportunities between students and adults in Hekinan and in the Edmonds area and creating cultural exchanges of art, education and professional development. During this association, there have been many other activities and projects to broaden community awareness on both sides of the Pacific. The Commission expressed its gratitude to the many families providing home stay opportunities and activities that help make these programs successful. Mr. Bechler described several of the activities and projects the Commission has been involved in, including the student delegation to Hekinan, painting and textiles, an Edmonds exhibit at the Hekinan Maritime Science Museum, student delegation from Hekinan, adult delegation from Hekinan, physicians visit, street signs, quilt project (presenting a quilt to the City), and providing assistant English teachers. Mr. Bechler extended the Commission's appreciation to Mayor Haakenson, the City Council and all City departments for their support of Sister City program activities. 4. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE SIGNAGE ELEMENT OF THE DRAFT REVISED PROCESS AND Signage GUIDELINES FOR ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW. THE PROPOSAL IS TO AMEND Element of Revised THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE TO PROVIDE DESIGN STANDARDS Process for AND A STREAMLINED SIGN PERMITTING PROCESS FOR SIGNS. THE PROPOSAL Architectural INCLUDES AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTERS 20.10 (ADB PROCESS AND CRITERIA Design eview 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 Planning Manager Rob Chave advised this was a continued review and public hearing for the signage element of the Development Code. He explained this was a follow -up to the design guidelines developed Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 4, 2003 Page 2 by the City over the past several years. The Planning Board has reviewed a number of proposed changes including changes to the sign code. Following the public hearing on the design guidelines in 2002 and considering whether portions of the design guidelines could be added to the code, the sign code was the most logical to consider for amendment. He noted this was also appropriate because the sign code had not had a major overhaul, particularly the process, since approximately 1982. Mr. Chave explained the proposed amendments were primarily to the process, removing as many reviews as appropriate from bodies such as the Architectural Design Board (ADB) that did not require their review and refer them to staff. The benefits of this process were that it cleared the ADB's agenda, providing them time to review larger projects and also streamlined and sped up the approval process. He explained the amendments included a number of process improvements and an effort to include the design guidelines considered last year in the code text as they relate to signs. With regard to process improvements, this was primarily the ability to refer approval to staff versus the ADB. He explained staff review would occur concurrently with building permits. An exception to that would be if staff determined, via guidance provided in the code, that a certain type of sign might not fit the development pattern of the area, the sign could be referred to the ADB. He noted most signs would be approvable as part of the building permit process and not require additional delay for ADB review. Mr. Chave directed the Council's attention to page 10 of the draft code amendment, that identified four circumstances under which previous Councils determined the ADB must review signs, 1) any sign permit application associated with a variance application, 2) any sign permit application that requests approval for the posting and display of more than two permanent signs, 3) any sign permit application for an identification structure as defined by this chapter, and 4) any sign permit application that requires a street use permit (i.e. signs hanging under an awning over the sidewalk). He explained that after public testimony, the Council may determine these circumstances did not warrant mandatory ADB review and staff requests the Council consider eliminating some or all of these from mandatory review. Senior Planner Steve Bullock explained when the ADB and Planning Board discussed design review, they developed a matrix of the ADB's policy for reviewing signs in different areas of the City. He displayed and reviewed a matrix that summarized the types of signs permitted in each neighborhood/district within the city. He recalled most of the direction for the matrix was provided by the ADB and the Planning Board was supportive of the matrix. He identified one of the more controversial sign types, internal illumination, explaining that by not allowing internally illuminated signs in some areas did not mean a sign could not be illuminated, it was to avoid signs where the light source was inside, behind the letters and shining through a semi - transparent plastic face that caused the sign to glow. The ADB was supportive of directed lighting shining at the sign but that was not considered an internally illuminated sign. Mr. Chave commented that in developing the matrix, the ADB took a more visionary approach than their actual approvals. For example, the matrix did not permit internally illuminated signs in the downtown area, at Westgate, neighborhood commercial areas, or for any business uses that could be conditionally approved in a multifamily zone and only conditionally approved along Hwy. 99. He noted in actual practice, along Hwy. 99, over 90% of the signs were internally illuminated, many of which had been approved by the ADB in the past. For the downtown area, there were some internally illuminated signs, but the ADB had been fairly consistent in the past 5 -7 years not allowing internally illuminated signs in downtown. He noted internally illuminated signs have been approved fairly consistently in the Westgate and other neighborhood commercial areas. Mr. Bullock recalled when the Council last reviewed this issue, staff was asked to develop a list of businesses with internally illuminated signs. As this list immediately grew very large, the focus was on Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 4, 2003 Page 3 the Westgate area. He displayed photographs of signs in the Westgate area, noting numerous internally illuminated signs. He described individual letter signs and cabinet signs using the signs depicted in the photographs. He explained in order to encourage the use of individual letters, applicants were allowed to calculate the area of the signs via the individual letters versus the area of cabinet signs, which often resulted in a sign that may be incrementally larger than a cabinet sign but still within the allowed sign area. He noted staff and the ADB agreed an individual letter sign was a higher quality and better looking sign aesthetically than a cabinet and encouraged applicants to use individual letter signs. Mr. Bullock referred to reader boards on the matrix, noting in most areas they were not allowed other than conditionally allowed along the Hwy. 99 area and Westgate. He noted the most requests for reader boards were for schools and churches which were typically not along Hwy. 99 or at Westgate and more likely were a business use in an RM zone or in neighborhood commercial. He noted this could possibly be addressed via a footnote on the matrix that indicated this type of use could be conditionally considered. Mr. Bullock referred Item 4 of 20.60.025.4, total maximum permanent sign area. He explained there were a number of items that regulated signs, but the biggest control was sign area which was nearly always based on the size of the building. He noted another limitation on signs was the limitation on the number of signs and ADB review has been required for a request for more than two signs for a site. He noted this section was changed slightly about 2'/z years ago when some minor adjustments were made to the sign code. Staff concluded that although there were numerous regulations regarding signs, there were also a number of unique circumstances that were not addressed in the code such as a building on a corner or a very large building with multiple tenants. He concluded the limitation on the number of signs per site had become problematic. He referred to the new language proposed by staff in the draft amendment, pointing out another option would be to eliminate any limitation on the number of signs per site. Mr. Bullock explained another potential change would be to eliminate the restriction on sign height. He explained the difficulty with this limitation was that the existing 14 -foot height limit did not relate to the design of the building, for example if the sign band on the building was higher than 14 feet, the 14 -foot height limit would result in the sign not being centered in the sign band. Staff recommended eliminating the 14 -foot height limit and allowing the design of the building to dictate the location of the sign. Mr. Bullock advised the Edmonds Chamber of Commerce's Economic Development Committee would like an opportunity to review the proposed amendments in more detail, therefore, staff suggests taking public comment tonight and holding the record open to allow the Chamber's Economic Development Committee to review the amendments and submit comments before a final ordinance is submitted to the Council by the first meeting in April. Councilmember Petso inquired about a business use in a RM zone with an internally illuminated sign, asking whether the sign would become non - conforming if the matrix were adopted. Mr. Bullock answered there were a number of signs that would become non - conforming via the adoption of the proposed amendments. Those signs would be allowed to be maintained in their current configuration, a new face installed to identify a new business; only structural changes would require it be brought into conformance. Councilmember Petso asked whether a sign that was damaged could be repaired. City Attorney Scott Snyder answered yes, as long as it was not damaged more than 50% of its value. Councilmember Petso referred to page 010 of the packet which described when notice would be provided under the proposed ordinance. She pointed out notice was only required for applications that were Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 4, 2003 Page 4 subject to environmental review. She referred to page 012 which indicated only the applicant or someone who made comment earlier could appeal a decision, noting that unless notice was provided, there would not be anyone who had made comment earlier, essentially eliminating the appeal procedure. Mr. Bullock noted the correction on page 010 was a correction of a scrivener error, explaining it had been staff's practice for a number of years, not to provide notice for small projects, even those sent to the ADB, other than posting of the ADB's agenda. He noted when the ADB code was amended previously, there was an incorrect reference to an environmental impact statement rather than just environmental review. He agreed with Councilmember Petso's comment regarding the appeal because there would not be any notification other than posting of the ADB's agenda. For Councilmember Orvis, Mr. Bullock noted the matrix identified the ADB's policy when reviewing signs currently. The highlighted areas identified what has been done historically versus the ADB's recommendations for those areas. Councilmember Orvis asked whether there were any standards regarding light output for illuminated signs. Mr. Bullock referred to page 018, paragraphs E, F, G, and H which applied to all zones. Councilmember Wilson observed there was no ADB record that described their rationale for not allowing internally illuminated signs in the Hwy. 99 and the Westgate area. Mr. Bullock answered that may be because the ADB's discussion has occurred over a long period of time. He recalled a joint meeting between the Planning Board and ADB when the matrix was created, approximately two years ago. Councilmember Wilson suggested that information be provided if the public hearing was continued as staff requested. Mr. Bullock recalled the ADB felt the Westgate area should have more of a pedestrian feel and that should be reflected in signage that was not internally illuminated. Councilmember Wilson disagreed the Westgate area was a pedestrian oriented corridor. Councilmember Wilson inquired how the ADB determined internally illuminated signs should be conditionally permitted. He referred to the criteria for conditionally approving signs on pages 010 and 011 of the packet, pointing out only three remotely related to signs, most related to building design. He noted if that was the only criteria used to conditionally approving signs, they did not provide any guidance for a decision. He preferred criteria that related specifically to signs. Councilmember Wilson referred to page 012 and appeal procedures, inquiring about the number of sign appeals that have occurred in the past. Mr. Bullock recalled three since 1991, two were reader boards, and the other a determination of whether something was an identification structure or a sign. He recalled two of the three were appealed by the applicant and the third by a concerned neighbor. Councilmember Wilson noted that under the current code, an applicant could appeal a staff interpretation. Mr. Bullock agreed. Councilmember Wilson referred to page 017, the four circumstances under which ADB review was required, recalling staff requested guidance from the Council. Mr. Bullock clarified staff was interested in eliminating some or all these, particularly 2, 3, and 4 as these were generally minor signs and did not warrant automatic review by the ADB. Councilmember Wilson noted the ADB was reviewing signs for aesthetics and not making any recommendation to the Hearing Examiner based on the variance criteria. He noted on occasion the applicant would request the ADB indicate the most appropriate location for the sign on the building, typically for a sign height variance. The ADB would make a recommendation only on the design of the proposal and not on the variance criteria. Such a project would then be reviewed by the Hearing Examiner for compliance with the variance criteria. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 4, 2003 Page 5 Councilmember Wilson inquired whether a sign that required a variance would be reviewed by the ADB or staff. Mr. Bullock answered if the sign complied with the design of the building, staff would make an administrative approval and the project would then be reviewed by the Hearing Examiner for compliance with the variance criteria. Councilmember Wilson asked the City Attorney if there would be a problem with applying aesthetic review of a permit application that required a variance. Mr. Snyder answered they were two different standards of review to reach two separate decisions. First the variance would be reviewed and if approved, a determination made whether it met the aesthetic criteria. Councilmember Wilson suggested the variance be processed first followed by design review of the sign. Mr. Snyder answered they could be processed concurrently with the one conditioned on the other. Councilmember Wilson inquired about reader board sign. Mr. Bullock answered reader boards were not a common application. He recalled the three most recent were an older style white cabinet with individual letters that was approved for Chase Lake Elementary and electronic message centers that were approved for Edmonds - Woodway High School and Westgate Chapel. He recalled there were some features of the electronic message center that the ADB found more desirable. Although, the ADB was concerned that the electronic message boards not become an opportunity for highly movable, changing graphics and made it clear to applicants that while the message could change occasionally, it was not to be a blinking, flashing message. Councilmember Wilson referred to paragraph 4 on page 020, inquiring whether deleting that paragraph would result in any limitation on the number of freestanding signs on a site. Mr. Bullock answered another section of the code limited the number of free standing signs. He assured staff would ensure the site did not have an overly cluttered appearance and if it appeared to have, could forward the application to the ADB. Councilmember Marin indicated he was comfortable eliminating the four items on page 017, removing paragraph 4 on page 020, and removing the 14 -foot height limit. He inquired about Mr. Snyder's reference to damaging a sign more than 50% of the value of the sign. Mr. Bullock advised that information was in the non - conforming section of the code. Mr. Snyder advised a sign damaged over 50% of its value could not be rebuilt or reconstructed except to the extent necessary to protect public safety. Councilmember Marin requested that provision be reviewed in more detail in the future as he found it overly restrictive. Mr. Snyder explained the nonconforming use provisions were very restrictive; only normal maintenance of the sign, change in the name of the business, or an action necessary to preserve public safety was allowed. He explained the nonconforming use provisions were designed to eliminate nonconforming signs. Councilmember Dawson did not object to the nonconforming use provisions, noting the reason the City did not want the sign replaced was to eliminate that type of sign in that neighborhood. She inquired whether the City could allow a school or church to do something that other business would not be allowed to do. Mr. Snyder answered there must be a rational basis for a business distinction although courts deferred a great deal to the Council's legislative discretion. The City has a duty to accommodate religious practice including religious symbols, therefore, the City could provide churches more latitude. He explained the need for an appropriate legislative basis, such as reader boards provide public information. Councilmember Dawson agreed some reader boards may provide public information such as schools and she understood the need to accommodate religious symbols but questioned how that applied to a reader Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 4, 2003 Page 6 board for a church. Mr. Snyder explained places of public assembly may have some reason to advertise events. He noted the problem would be distinguishing /limiting first amendment use for a church if it were permitted for government entities, theaters, etc. Mr. Snyder pointed out one way to address it may be to permit reader boards but couple them with more restrictive provisions regarding glare and light. Councilmember Dawson referred to the proposed amendment to 20.10.020.4 which states signs that meet all of the standards contained in ECDC .20.60 were exempt from ADB and Hearing Examiner review. She noted the reference to ECDC 20.60 may be confusing. Councilmember Dawson referred to signs that were conditionally permitted, noting she had difficulty visualizing why one internally illuminated sign would be approved , and another not approved. She favored including more specific criteria in the code. Mr. Bullock provided an example of a small commercial area on 76"' where both businesses were approved for individual letter signs. A few years later, the owner of one business changed and the new owner wanted to change the sign to a cabinet sign. As it was a sign replacement, it could have been approved by staff, but because the business wanted to change an established signage design, staff determined the cabinet sign would require ADB review. The applicant could then propose an individual letter sign for administrative review or continue on to the ADB. The applicant chose to have the sign reviewed by the ADB and a compromise solution was reached. Councilmember Dawson observed there may be other circumstances where staff may not be comfortable making a decision for a sign that .was permitted on the matrix. Mr. Bullock answered signs were permitted as long as they were consistent with the design review guidelines, etc. For Councilmember Dawson, Mr. Bullock described a pole sign. She asked why pole signs were not permitted anywhere but Hwy. 99. Mr. Bullock answered the goal was to encourage businesses to use signs that were more attractive and more in keeping with the design of the building and the site such as monument signs. Councilmember Dawson asked whether there would be a lot of nonconforming pole signs. Mr. Bullock agreed there were some. Councilmember Dawson suggested pole signs be conditionally permitted on Hwy. 99. Further, she suggested the Council review the information submitted by the Chamber of Commerce before staff drafts the ordinance. She pointed out the importance of considering the economic impact on businesses and looked forward to obtaining that information from the Chamber of Commerce. Councilmember Orvis commented that when he envisioned amendments being made to the sign code, he did not realize so many existing signs would become nonconforming. Mr. Bullock explained the matrix was an effort to illustrate the current ADB's practice. COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, TO EXTEND THIS ITEM FOR 20 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Councilmember Wilson suggested the matrix have a new category for electronic reader boards. He referred to Section 20.60.020.E, general regulations for permanent signs, suggesting the language be amended as it did not appear to allow any electronic reader boards. He also suggested including a graphic representation in the ordinance of a pole sign and a ground mounted sign and when a pole sign became a ground mounted sign. Council President Earling cautioned the Council against giving direction to staff prior to taking public testimony. Further, if the hearing were extended to receive the Chamber of Commerce's comments, he indicated others should also be allowed to speak. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 4, 2003 Page 7 Mayor Haakenson opened the public testimony portion of the public hearing. Chris Guitton, Executive Director, Edmonds Chamber of Commerce, 1012 Viewland Way, Edmonds, commented the proposed amendments would simplify permits which was good for business. If the Council extended the public hearing to allow the Chamber time to review the proposed amendments, he noted it was unlikely there would be more issues pointed out than had been identified by the Council. He noted the Chamber would likely request more objective criteria to support the conditionally permitted signs. He noted the Chamber would also discuss why neon was different from internal illumination, why an electronic reader board was not considered internal illumination and why those three types of signs were treated differently in the matrix. He summarized a Chamber meeting was scheduled in approximately one week and they would provide comment to the Council before March 20. Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, Edmonds, expressed concern with the potential for clutter if the number of signs on a site were expanded as well as with the potential for bigger and taller signs. He was concerned that if the 14 -foot sign height were eliminated, developers would build the fagade as high as possible. He commented the reasons many cities did not allow internally illuminated signs was in an effort to create a more pleasant environment. He referred to the definition section, expressing concern that there were no definitions for "visual clutter" or "obtrusive or garish." He concluded the proposed amendments were not complete enough and needed a great deal of clarification. Bill McNeil, 1620 9th Avenue N, Edmonds, commented he was in the latter part of the permit process for a new small business that faced 100th Place West, Firdale Avenue, and 238th Street SW. He explained that between the lighting code for exterior building lighting and the building sign code, he could not develop enough signage or lighting to attract customers from the three streets to make it practical to complete the project. He referred to sections of the design guidelines that encouraged signage to be oriented toward cars, and that signage be easily read from passing automobiles. He noted the current sign code allowed one square foot of signage for each linear feet of the wall containing the public entrance. In his case this was 10 square feet. His dilemma was how to open a new business in Edmonds and comply with the design guidelines and expect to draw customers with 10 square feet of signage on a building facing three streets. He hoped via the proposed amendments that a business in the BN zone could have signage facing the street it fronted. Hearing no further comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public testimony portion of the public hearing. Councilmember Petso asked whether the new sign code would be particularly restrictive based on the orientation of businesses or other unique circumstances. Mr. Bullock answered unfortunately the changes proposed in the amendments did not assist Mr. McNeil's situation. He noted one proposed change that may assist Mr. McNeil; in the past sign area included all wall mounted, freestanding, projecting, and window signs, whereas the proposed amendments would not include window signs in the total allowed sign area. The total sign area in a window would still be limited, but it would not be included in the sign area allowed on a building. Mr. Bullock acknowledged Mr. McNeil's situation was unique, an espresso stand which was typically a small building and the code allows signage proportional to the size of a building. He pointed out Mr. McNeil's building was surrounded on three of the four sides by roads and the sign code did not anticipate that circumstance. If the public hearing was continued, Councilmember Wilson requested staff provide a distinction between sign types based on location such as the rationale for limiting sign height. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 4, 2003 Page 8 Councilmember Plunkett inquired whether the City's allowed square footage of signage was more or less than other communities. Mr. Bullock stated a detailed comparison of other jurisdictions was not done. Councilmember Plunkett asked whether other applicants had indicated the total square footage of allowed signage was inadequate. Mr. Bullock acknowledged that had happened. COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING UNTIL APRIL 1, 2003. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Council President Earling clarified that at the April 1 continued public hearing, testimony would be accepted from anyone, regardless of whether they had provided testimony at tonight's public hearing. Official 5. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE APPLICATION BY THE CITY OF EDMONDS FOR AN OFFICIAL Street Map STREET MAP AMENDMENT TO DEPICT THE REALIGNED RIGHT- OF-WAY OF SR 104 Amendment NECESSARY FOR THE EDMONDS CROSSING PROJECT. THE SITE IS ZONED MASTER Realigned PLANNED HILLSIDE MIXED USE (MP). FILE NO. ST -02 -189 -O -W of SR 104 Senior Planner Steve Bullock explained he represented the City from a regulatory and process standpoint, and Community Services Director Stephen Clifton would represent the City as the applicant. Mr. Bullock explained this was a street map amendment to modify the City's Official Street Map to allow for the appropriate amount of right -of -way to be included on the Official Street Map at the junction between the upper and lower yard of the Unocal property to accommodate the Edmonds Crossing project. He displayed a map of the amendment to the Official Street Map, explaining the Official Street Map currently did not designate this area as a planned future right -of -way. In an effort to ensure the Official Street Map was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, Downtown Waterfront Plan, and Transportation Plan, the Official Street Map needed to be amended to include this feature. Mr. Bullock explained a public hearing was held before the Hearing Examiner. The applicant, the property owner, and another interested party expressed concerns to the Hearing Examiner and reached agreement regarding conditions the Examiner should include in any approval recommendation. The Examiner issued his decision, including all the conditions recommended by the applicant, the property owner and the interested party. Staff recommends Council adoption of the Hearing Examiner's recommendation. Councilmember Petso inquired whether the identified right -of -way was sufficient to accommodate any of the ferry terminal concepts. Mr. Bullock answered yes, pointing out the "flare" at the western end to accommodate a potential mid - waterfront alternative. Councilmember Petso referred the Hearing Examiner's Recommendation, where Development Services Director Duane Bowman expressed concern over the timing and said no ideal mechanism exists at this time to address the situation. She inquired about the timing issue referred to by Mr. Bowman. Mr. Bullock answered this was with regard to the Master Plan approved for the Unocal property that approved a new zoning classification and Master Plan for the property. The Master Plan identified this right -of -way but also indicated if the Edmonds Crossing project did not come to fruition, the property owner should have the ability to develop the site without the encumbrance of the planned right -of -way. Councilmember Wilson asked why the Official Street Map was not extended west of the railroad right - of -way. Mr. Bullock was uncertain why that was not done and agreed it probably should be. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 4, 2003 Page 9 Councilmember Wilson asked if anything more needed to be done to accommodate the potential extension of the Edmonds Crossing project in the future. Mr. Bullock recommended that question be directed to Mr. Clifton. Community Services Director Stephen Clifton explained the reasons the Official Street Map stopped at the railroad was due to uncertainty regarding the final alignment. He noted the area depicted for amendment would accommodate the alignment east of the tracks. Councilmember Wilson inquired whether there would be sufficient time in the process to adopt a right - of -way alignment west of the tracks. Mr. Clifton assured there would be adequate time. Councilmember Petso inquired about the timing issue referred to by Mr. Bowman. Mr. Clifton answered the intent was to bring the request to amend the Official Street Map to the Council in 2001 or 2002 but it was determined not to be appropriate as it was not certain which alternative would be selected and because the EIS had languished. He noted only within the past 1' /z years via negotiations with the Port, Tribes, and others, has the alignment west of the tracks become clearer. Thus it was premature to present the proposed Street Map amendment earlier. He noted the modified Pt. Edward alternative was the likely alternative and at the time the Final EIS is issued, another Official Street Map amendment would be requested for the western portion. Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, Edmonds, pointed out the possibility the original ferry terminal location had been eliminated with this right -of -way alignment. He objected to eliminating possibilities at this point as it was premature. Although the modified Pt. Edwards location had been technically identified, he pointed out it was not a guarantee. He preferred to extend the right -of -way toward the original location, the fuel dock location, in an effort to show all possibilities. Councilmember Wilson asked Mr. Hertrich to clarify his comment that this amendment eliminated the original alignment. Mr. Hertrich alleged the right -of -way shown would only service the modified Pt. Edwards site. Hearing no further comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public testimony portion of the public hearing. Mr. Clifton explained the Official Street Map as depicted would not preclude the draft EIS Pt. Edwards alternative referred to by Mr. Hertrich. Mr. Clifton identified the area of the right -of -way that would serve the draft EIS Pt. Edwards alternative. He noted the Official Street Map as depicted was identified as it could accommodate the draft EIS alternative, the mid - waterfront alternative, or the modified Pt. Edwards alternative. The draft EIS alternative would have extended the pier over the railroad tracks and along the existing Unocal pier alignment which was owned by the city, thus there was no threat of a private developer purchasing that land. Councilmember Wilson referred to page 35, the Master Plan Preferred Alternative, inquiring whether this alignment accommodated a terminal extending over the old fuel dock. Mr. Clifton agreed it did. Councilmember Wilson asked whether the SR -104 alignment matched the southern boundaries of the proposed addition to the Official Street Map. Mr. Clifton answered yes. COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, TO UPHOLD THE HEARING EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION AND APPROVE THE STREET MAP AMENDMENT WITH THE CONDITIONS SPECIFIED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 4, 2003 Page 10 6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS th of July Chris Guitton, Executive Director, Edmonds Chamber of Commerce, 1012 Viewland Way, elebration Edmonds, advised the Chamber of Commerce was committed to having a 4`" of July celebration this year. Unfortunately with recent City budget cuts, the Chamber would have to pay for services that they did not previously. He appealed to the residents of the greater Edmonds area to send donations to the Edmonds Chamber of Commerce, PO Box 146, Edmonds, 98020. In an effort to illustrate the City's Chamber Lodging Taxes at work Mr. Guitton advised 10,000 copies of a 2003 calendar of events for the Edmonds Calendar of g g > > p Events area had been published and were available to the public by contacting the Chamber office at 670 -1496. state The City's Lodging Taxes also enabled the Chamber to secure a %2 page of text and photographs in the purism Washington State Tourism Guide. He noted 80,000 copies of the Tourism Guide would be distributed uide throughout the State and West Coast. signs Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, Edmonds, cited the difficulty with freestanding signs along Hwy. 99 not being setback from the shoulder. He reported Lynnwood provided an incentive for setting back freestanding signs, either additional square footage or additional height. He noted signs that were setback took signage away from the travel lane, opened up the view, and made for a more pleasant drive while allowing the business a larger sign. He encouraged staff to consider such an incentive. Next, he pointed out many small delis had neon signs in their windows that they considered temporary but that actually represented a proliferation of signage and did not contribute to the aesthetics of the area. 7. APPROVAL OF RESTORATION OF HUMAN RESOURCES ANALYST POSITION Human Resources Human Resources Director Brent Hunter explained this position in the Human Resources office was Analyst filled at a lower pay level in April 2002 as the new employee needed additional experience. At the time Position that decision was made, the issue was presented to the Council Human Resources Committee to ensure the nature of the request — once the individual was qualified, the salary would be returned to its original level. Mr. Hunter noted this was a prudent measure at that time and, by allowing this individual to be properly trained, saved the City approximately $6,000 - $7,000. Mr. Hunter reported the employee hired in 2000 was now qualified and he requested the position be restored to its original level which would result in a promotion for this employee. Mr. Hunter advised the employee had completed the three years of training, has had exceptional performance evaluations, and had obtained a professional certificate showing her abilities in this area. Mr. Hunter explained the recommended minimum salary level was $47,439 and the maximum $59,298. If approved, the employee would receive a 5% promotional increase, costing the City an additional $2,070 this budget year. Mr. Hunter indicated sufficient funds were available in his budget for this expenditure. Mr. Hunter advised this request was presented to the Finance Committee in March but did not receive their recommendation due to the Finance Committee's concern with the City's future budget uncertainty. In light of the Finance Committee's concern balanced with the commitment made to this employee, Mr. Hunter recommended approval of this request. Mr. Hunter summarized this employee had done her part and he requested the City do its part by restoring the position. He explained the employee was doing the work that was required for this pay level. COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING, FOR APPROVAL OF THE RESTORATION OF THE HUMAN RESOURCES ANALYST POSITION. Councilmember Petso commended this employee, noting recent layoffs have made her job even more difficult. She voted against the restoration at the Finance Committee and would vote against it again Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 4, 2003 Page 11 tonight. She pointed out the arrangement was to consider returning this position to the original pay level in 3 -4 years. Only three years have elapsed and she preferred a decision be delayed until the employee's next review in the fall or at the time of the fourth year. She concluded the City was still acting in good faith and she preferred to delay the restoration of the position. Councilmember Marin also commended the employee for her efforts and the value she has to the City. He noted the way the City showed its appreciation was via following through on a commitment. Councilmember Dawson commented the City made a commitment to this employee to restore the salary level of this position once she completed the required training. Councilmember Dawson noted the employee had completed the training which included a great deal of her own time outside the office. Councilmember Dawson agreed although it was not a good time to give an employee a raise, she was reassured by Mr. Hunter's indication that it would not require an additional expenditure from the General Fund budget. She concluded it was important that the City follow through on a promise made to this employee three years ago. Councilmember Dawson noted this was not a guarantee this position would be funded at this level next year. MOTION CARRIED (5 -2), COUNCILMEMBERS PETSO AND ORVIS OPPOSED. 8. MAYOR'S COMMENTS r eof July Mayor Haakenson remarked many may think the City was responsible for the 4th of July fireworks and lebration the parade when, in fact, it has been a Chamber of Commerce event for many years. Mayor Haakenson echoed Mr. Guitton's comments regarding the 4th of July and urged the public to respond to the Chamber's appeal for donations to support the fireworks and parade. He noted it was unfortunate that due to the City's budget cuts, the City was not able to provide the labor they have in the past. 9. COUNCIL COMMENTS emorial Council President Earling reminded the Council and the public of the memorial service for John Wilkins, Service the Director of the Olympic Ballet, on Sunday, March 16. Resolution Council President Earling directed the Council's attention to a proposed resolution provided by Opposing Councilmember Orvis opposing the expansion of gambling in Washington. He urged Councilmembers to Expansion review the resolution and provide feedback to Councilmember Orvis. He noted the resolution would be of ,Gambling in the State forwarded to the Council for action in the future. With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 9:07 p.m. . �? • SANDRA S. CHASE, CITY CLERK Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 4, 2003 Page 12 AGENDA EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex 2505 th Avenue North 7:00 - 10:00 p.m. MARCH 4, 2003 6:45 p.m. - Interview Candidates for the Sister City Commission* *Interviews will be held in the Police Training Room. 7:00 p.m. - Call to Order Flan Salute 1. Approval of Agenda 2. Consent Agenda Items (A) Roll Call (B) Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of February 25, 2003. (C) Approval of claim checks #61142 through #61298 for the week of February 24, 2003, in the amount of $476,685.89. (D) Confirmation of Mayor's appointments to the Sister City Commission of Jim Corbett (Position #4), Keiko Frank (Position #5), Manoj Joseph (Position #6), and Vera Papageorgiou (Position #9). (E) Report on bids opened February 20, 2003, for the Mid - waterfront Walkway /Bulkhead Project and award of contract to Boss Contractors, a Joint Venture ($1,306,356.54, including sales tax). (F) Report on final construction costs for the South 76th Avenue West Pavement Rehabilitation (SR104 to SR99) Project and Council acceptance of project. (G) Authorization to advertise for Statements of Qualification from consultants for the design of four water system projects. (H) Authorization for Mayor to sign Addendum No. 2 to the Professional Services Agreement with Reid Middleton, Inc. for the Mid - waterfront Walkway /Bulkhead Project for construction administration services. Page 1 of 2 CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA March 4, 2003 Page 2 of 2 3. (10 Min.) Annual Report of the Edmonds Sister City Commission. 4. (60 Min.) 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 (ECDC) to provide design standards and a streamlined sign permitting process for signs. The proposal includes amendments to Chapters 20.10 ECDC (ADB Process and Criteria Chapter) and 20.60 ECDC (Sign Code), as well as a clarification to Chapter 19.45 ECDC (Building Sign Code) regarding signs which are exempt from permits. 5. (40 Min.) Public Hearing on the application by the City of Edmonds for an Official Street Map Amendment to depict the realigned right -of -way of SR 104 necessary for the Edmonds Crossing project. The site is zoned Master Planned Hillside Mixed Use (MP). File No. ST -02 -189. 6. Audience Comments (3 Minute Limit Per Person)* *Regarding matters not listed as Closed Record Review or as Public Hearings. 7. (15 Min.) Approval of restoration of Human Resources Analyst position. 8. ( 5 Min.) Mayor's Comments 9. (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.