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.