04/22/2003 City Council[1
Approve
/15/03
Minutes
Approve
Claim
Checks
es# 1040
Commending
Student Rep-
resentative
t v
1041
elopment
ices
artment
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES
April 22, 2003
The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Haakenson in the Council
Chambers, 250 5"' 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
ALSO PRESENT
Michelle Trias, Student Representative
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
STAFF PRESENT
Tom Tomberg, Fire Chief
John Westfall, Fire Marshal
David Stern, Chief of Police
Duane Bowman, Development Serv. Director
Stephen Clifton, Community Services Director
Rob Chave, Planning Manager
Dave Gebert, City Engineer
Steve Bullock, Senior Planner
Scott Snyder, City Attorney
Sandy Chase, City Clerk
Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst.
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON, FOR
APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA AS PRESENTED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, FOR
APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows:
(A) ROLL CALL
(B) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF APRIL 15, 2003
(C) APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #62151 THROUGH #62296 FOR THE WEEK OF
APRIL 14, 2003, IN THE AMOUNT OF $489,817.09. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL
DIRECT DEPOSITS AND CHECKS #35440 THROUGH #35520 FOR THE PERIOD
APRIL 1 THROUGH APRIL 15, 2003, IN THE AMOUNT OF $882,834.44.
(D) RESOLUTION NO. 1040 COMMENDING STUDENT REPRESENTATIVE MICHELLE
TRIAS FOR HER SERVICE.
(E) RESOLUTION NO. 1041 AMENDING THE FEE SCHEDULE FOR THE CITY'S
PLANNING, PUBLIC WORKS, BUILDING AND OTHER FEE STRUCTURES,
INCLUDING A SAVINGS CLAUSE, AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 22, 2003
Page 1
Daof
Remembrance (F) PROCLAMATION IN HONOR OF DAYS OF REMEMBRANCE, "FOR YOUR
Proclamation FREEDOM AND OURS," APRIL 27 — MAY 4, 2003.
3. o Michechelle a PRESENTATION OF RESOLUTION AND PLAQUE COMMENDING STUDENT
Presentation REPRESENTATIVE MICHELLE TRIAS
Trias,
Student Rep. Council President Earling explained the City's Student Representative Program has been in place for 15
years. He read a resolution commending Michelle Trias for her service as Student Representative on the
Edmonds City Council, January — April, 2003.
Ms. Trias thanked the Council for the opportunity to serve as Student Representative, remarking she now
had an even greater respect for the job the Council does.
Scandinavian 4. PROCLAMATION IN HONOR OF THE EIGHTH ANNUAL SCANDINAVIAN FESTIVAL DAY
Festival Day IN EDMONDS, SATURDAY, MAY 3, 2003.
Proclamation
Mayor Haakenson read a proclamation declaring May 3, 2003 as Scandinavian Festival Day in Edmonds.
Bob Stevenson, co- chairman of the festival, advised details regarding the festival were available on the
City's website. He explained the Sons of Norway sponsored four breakfasts each year; the proceeds
from the Scandinavian Festival breakfast go toward their scholarship fund from which they provide two
scholarships each year.
Erlene Stevenson, Zone Director for lodges in four local counties, advised the festival would include
an exhibition of Norwegian folk costumes.
Friends of 5. PROCLAMATION IN HONOR OF FRIENDS OF THE LIBRARY WEEK, APRIL 27 — MAY 3,
he Library 2003
Proclamation
Mayor Haakenson read a proclamation declaring April 27 — May 3 as Friends of the Library Week in
Edmonds. He presented the proclamation to Peggy Pritchard - Olson, President of the Friends of the
Library, who thanked the Council for the proclamation and their support. She noted the Friends of the
Library, established in 1979, have raised $300,000 for the library.
6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Public safety Ron Wambolt, 530 Dayton Street, Edmonds, expressed his thanks to Mayor Haakenson,
Property
vyLi d Lift Tax
Levy Li Councilmembers Dawson and Petso , an g g d Fire Chief Tomber for taking the time to communicate with
him regarding several issues. He agreed with Councilmember Petso's statement last week that the levy
lid lift presented to the voters needed to be bulletproof. Although he agreed with Councilmember Petso's
suggestion to reduce the amount of the levy lid lift, he felt additional reductions could be identified such
as no salary increases other than promotions, a temporary salary reduction for some employees, and
eliminating funding for an additional firefighter as it could be funded from overtime savings. He
disagreed with the analogy made by a citizen last week that the proposed increase equated to the cost of a
daily cup of coffee, pointing out the 23% increase was only in the City's portion of the property tax. He
anticipated the state, county, and school district's portion of property taxes would also increase
particularly when properties were reassessed next year. With regard to the savings from reduced vehicle
license fees, he was willing to return some of the savings but not all.
[Public Safety Al Rutledge, 7101 Lake Ballinger Way, Edmonds, suggested establishing a citizen committee to
Property
Li d Lift p c sa Tax safety payroll.
vy review the City's public a oll.
Li
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 22, 2003
Page 2
Ray Martin, 18704 94th Avenue West, Edmonds, referred to past expenditures such as the City's
get contribution to the children's resource center at Edmonds Community College, the Edmonds Alliance for
Economic Development, and salary increases, noting there did not appear to be any movement toward
altering such expenditures. He alleged there were 50 items in the budget that should be funded only after
the budget for public safety was established. He encouraged the Council to follow the Seattle School
Board's example and have more public discussion regarding the budget.
7. AMENDMENT TOEDMONDS CITY CODE CHAPTER 5.05, ANIMALS, RELATED TO
mend Code DANGEROUS DOGS
hapter
s.os, Police Chief David Stern explained changes made by the State Legislature with regard to dangerous dogs
Animals,
Related to necessitated corresponding changes in the Edmonds City Code.
Dangerous
Dogs
Prosecutor Jeff Goodwin noted the Police Department's primary concern was that the changes were more
difficult under the state statute to declare a dog as a dangerous dog and require the owner to comply with
the City ordinance including special fencing, requirements when taking the dog off their property and
bonding /insurance requirements. The City's ordinance provides an appropriate remedy for individuals
who have a dog that is declared potentially dangerous and based on additional conduct, declared
dangerous. He explained the City retained its definitions, revamping them slightly to ensure they were in
compliance with legal requirements. He advised the remaining changes to the ordinance were
streamlining and clarification of procedures.
Councilmember Petso asked whether the changes included fee increases. Mr. Goodwin answered there
were proposals to increase the penalty for dogs at large.
Councilmember Petso inquired whether the proposed amendment addressed any of the animal control
issues discussed earlier in the year regarding neutering of stray animals. City Attorney Scott Snyder
advised the amendments to the ordinance included the provisions enacted by initiative and were identical
to those approved by the Council. He advised the Public Safety Committee planned to provide
recommendations on cost recovery and implementing the initiative in 2 -3 weeks.
For Councilmember Petso, Mr. Snyder noted the amendments included 1) the provisions of the
spay /neuter policy enacted via the initiative, 2) complied with state law, and 3) increased penalties.
COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, FOR
ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO. 3451. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The ordinance
reads as follows:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE
PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 5.05 RELATING TO ANIMAL CONTROL, CONTAINING A
SEVERABILITY CLAUSE, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME
EFFECTIVE.
Public Safety g' CONTINUED DELIBERATION REGARDING A POTENTIAL PUBLIC SAFETY PROPERTY
Property Tax TAX LEVY LID LIFT
Levy Lid Lift
Council President Earling recalled the Council had an opportunity to discuss this issue at the previous
Council meeting including addressing specific items to be funded via the levy lid lift and an explanation
from staff regarding a reduction in the amount of the levy lid lift by $50,000 to achieve a zero ending
cash balance.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 22, 2003
Page 3
Councilmember Petso referred to Mr. Wambolt's suggestion to eliminate $61,000 for a new firefighter
and fund it via overtime savings. She pointed out the importance of identifying a stable funding source
for a new position. With regard to public comment regarding decisions made in the past on pay
increases, although she attempted in many cases to limit those increases, the fact was that now those
contracts have been signed and increases implemented. She concluded she had been unable to identify
large amounts to eliminate from the levy lid lift and she wanted the services the levy lid lift would
provide such as crime prevention, paramedics, SnoCom, etc.
COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, TO
DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE A PERMANENT PUBLIC SAFETY PROPERTY TAX LEVY LID
LIFT IN THE AMOUNT OF $1.75 MILLION FOR A SEPTEMBER VOTE.
Councilmember Dawson recommended a November ballot rather than a September ballot, pointing out
the November election would cost half as much. She explained a November election would also provide
more time to inform the public regarding the levy lid lift. The more people understood, the more they
would support the levy lid lift. She was opposed to the theory that it was preferable to have the levy lid
lift on a separate election because then only supporters would vote on it. She preferred the public, those
for and against the levy lid lift, vote on this issue. She emphasized the importance of educating the
public regarding the levy lid lift and increasing confidence in government rather than increasing distrust.
She feared that even if the election passed in September, it may generate distrust for those who were not
informed about it. She encouraged the Council to discuss reducing the levy lid lift amount to $1.7
million from $1.75 million, noting that reaching a zero balance may assist in conveying that the City was
asking only for what it needed to fund public safety.
In response to public comment regarding City expenditures, Councilmember Dawson commented the
appropriate time for those discussions was during the budget process. She commented if overtime costs
could be reduced as a result of hiring the additional firefighters, that would certainly be done but it was
not a guarantee. She encouraged the Council to consider a November election and to discuss a $1.7
million levy lid lift amount. She acknowledged that because some funding was based on best estimates,
it may be preferable not to reach a zero ending cash balance but from a public confidence standpoint, it
may be preferable to reduce the levy lid lift amount to $1.7 million and reach a zero ending cash balance.
COUNCILMEMBER DAWSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING,
TO AMEND THE MOTION TO HAVE A NOVEMBER ELECTION.
Councilmember Orvis preferred a September election because it was a leaner ballot as the November
ballot would include the statewide issues and campaigns. Further, he explained a September election
would allow the Council the ability to more effectively communicate the intent of the levy lid lift to the
public.
Councilmember Plunkett spoke in opposition to the motion to have a November election, commenting
this was one of the most important decisions the community would make. He noted the levy lid lift
reflected the spirit and the letter of the initiative process that reduced funding and allowed the community
to vote on whether to increase local taxes to fund services. He preferred citizens have the clearest
opportunity to review the issue which could be accomplished via a September election.
Councilmember Plunkett explained the November election may include 11 other issues. He preferred a
September ballot to allow voters a clear opportunity to make the decision on an important issue such as
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 22, 2003
Page 4
the levy lid lift. Councilmember Plunkett noted another advantage of a September election was it would
provide an opportunity to place the levy lid lift on the November ballot if it failed in September.
Councilmember Petso spoke in support of a November election, noting the cost to run the election was
half as much in November and more people would likely be voting. She noted if the intent of the levy lid
lift was to determine whether citizens were willing to fund public safety, it was reasonable to have the
measure on the election that would likely have an incredible turnout based on the issues Councilmember
Plunkett indicated could potentially be on the ballot. She doubted voters would be confused by a lengthy
ballot. She acknowledged a November election would not allow it to be placed on another ballot later
that year, pointing out it was the Council's responsibility to ensure the levy lid lift was a good proposal.
Councilmember Marin commented that to ensure the public was confident the Council was only asking
for what was needed to fund public safety, he preferred a $1.7 million levy lid lift.
Council President Earling commented the voters in Edmonds were wise and prudent; voter turnout in the
presidential election was over 80 %. He recalled on many issues, Edmonds citizens did not necessarily
agree with voters in the county or State because they decided the correct answer on their own. He
preferred providing the broadest number of voters an opportunity to participate in the election. Further, it
would allow healthy dialogue during the upcoming Mayor and Council campaigns.
Councilmember Wilson spoke in favor of a November election, preferring to take the time to educate the
voters.
THE VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT CARRIED (5 -2), COUNCILMEMBERS PLUNKETT AND
ORVIS OPPOSED.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, TO
AMEND THE MOTION TO HAVE THE LEVY LID LIFT SUNSET IN FIVE YEARS (RATHER
THAN A PERMANENT LEVY.)
Council President Earling explained one of the criticisms of government was the issue of credibility,
therefore, he preferred the voters have an opportunity to evaluate the value of the levy lid lift at the end
of the five year period.
Councilmember Dawson spoke in opposition to the amendment, noting that if the levy was temporary,
the positions /programs funded via the levy and more would be subject to elimination if another levy lid
lift was not approved. She anticipated the City would lose valuable employees if the funding for these
public safety programs for longer than five years was in question. She commented in her job at the Court
of Appeals, her division was in danger of being cut and many were considering leaving now rather than
waiting until further cuts were made. The levy lid lift would provide complete funding for five years at
which time consideration may have to be given to an increase to keep up with inflation. A temporary
funding source for public safety was dangerous both for public safety and for the community.
Councilmember Petso also opposed the amendment, noting that in addition to job stability, she was
concerned with the impact a temporary funding source would have on hiring for public safety positions.
She questioned whether candidates would be willing to accept a position whose funding source was
unstable. She noted if citizens voted for the levy lid lift it was because they were willing to pay for the
services and because the services were important. Most of the funding in the proposed levy lid lift was
for personnel rather than equipment and a stable, permanent funding source was essential.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 22, 2003
Page 5
Councilmember Orvis also opposed the amendment, pointing out the intent was to stabilize all public
safety not just provide funding for five years. He noted there was already a review built in because
property tax revenue could not be increased more than the 1% cap even if assessments increased,
requiring a review of the levy lid lift amount in five years.
Councilmember Marin commented that although he wanted to avoid any cuts to public safety, it was
important that the Council convey to citizens that they were mindful of their burdens. He acknowledged
the budget process was painful, to maintain the City with diminishing dollars and although he found it
painful to vote for tax increases, they were necessary. He was supportive of a five year levy to allow
citizens to vote on it again in five years.
Councilmember Wilson spoke in opposition to the amendment, pointing out it was in the community's
best interest for the Council to ensure stability for public safety services in the community. He noted the
economy may be similar in five years and additional cuts in the budget at that time, if a levy lid lift did
not pass, would be far more drastic and have a greater impact on the community. He supported
conveying a message that the Council was sincere in their effort to protect the community by providing
the best public safety services possible and provide a stable funding source. He noted the levy lid lift
would not solve all the City's problems and there would be significant revenue issues in coming years.
Councilmember Dawson reminded that the levy lid lift was a floor not a ceiling; the City did not have to
take the complete levy amount each year.
MOTION FAILED (2 -5), COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING AND COUNCILMEMBER MARIN
IN FAVOR.
COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING, TO
AMEND THE MOTION THAT THE LEVY LID LIFT BE $1.7 MILLION (RATHER THAN $1.75
MILLION).
Councilmember Petso commented the additional $50,000 would not "make or break the City finances"
but not asking for more than the City needed would be of some significance to the voters.
Councilmember Marin spoke in favor of the motion, noting that although he would be more comfortable
with the larger amount, it was appropriate to reduce the amount of the levy lid lift to $1.7 million.
MOTION CARRIED (5 -2), COUNCILMEMBERS PLUNKETT AND ORVIS OPPOSED.
Councilmember Dawson clarified the intent was to have the fund be a dedicated fund. Mr. Snyder
recommended that be addressed in a separate action such as a resolution of intent. He clarified the ballot
title was specified by statute, although the descriptive title could describe the purposes for which the
funds would be used.
Council President Earling noted he would vote in favor of the motion, recognizing it was a compromise.
He expressed concern that although the Council has indicated public safety was a high priority, the
motion reflected the Council's effort to allow the voters to decide.
MOTION AS AMENDED (DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE A ]PERMANENT PUBLIC SAFETY
PROPERTY TAX LEVY LID LIFT IN THE AMOUNT OF $1.7 MILLION FOR A NOVEMBER
VOTE) CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 22, 2003
Page 6
9. FIRE CODE PERMITTING FEES INCREASE
e Code
s fitting Fire Marshal John Westfall explained Fire Code permitting fees were administered by the Fire
Department and regulate hazardous activities, processes, storage, and practices mandated by the Uniform
Fire Code (UFC) permitting program. The Development Services permit fees reviewed last week pertain
to review of land use activities and development. He explained the proposed fire code permitting fee
increase would bring the actual cost of the program to the business users.
Fire Marshal Westfall stated the proposed ordinance addressed 1) UFC permits, 2) certain Edmonds City
Code licenses that required Fire Department safety investigations, and 3) a request to exempt City
Departments and agencies from the fees. There were approximately 46 hazardous storage /processes
required to be regulated by the Fire Department via the UFC such as repair /garage activities, welding,
places of assembly, and dry cleaning plants. He explained the UFC required these hazardous
processes /storages have an annual renewal permit and an annual inspection conducted by the Fire
Department. He advised there were presently about 175 Fire Code permits in the City and 125 were
collected upon. The current UFC permit fee, in place since 1972, was $5; the proposed fee was $30
which would cover the actual cost of administering the program. He noted the $30 was derived via a $25
labor cost for a fire inspection (1/2 hour of a $50 per hour labor cost) and a $5 administration fee.
Regarding certain Edmonds City Codes that required Fire Department safety investigations, Fire Marshal
Westfall explained these licenses included public amusement, cabaret, adult entertainment, and aircraft
landing permit. Each license was required for a single event or an ongoing annually renewable licensed
activity. He noted the business license would be unaffected. He explained the fee structure for these
licenses varied based on the activity. He proposed the fee be increased by $30 in addition to the existing
fee. He noted the $30 was derived via a $25 labor cost for a fire inspection (1/2 hour of a $50 per hour
labor cost) and a $5 administration fee. He recommended the current $10 fireworks permit be increased
to $30. He advised any inspection beyond one hour would be calculated at the per hour charge.
With regard to the fee exemption for City departments, Fire Marshal Westfall explained that currently all
non - profit and governmental entities were exempt including churches, the Port, library, Senior Center,
etc. He recommended this be revised to exempt only City departments and divisions. The proposed fee
would be $30, a $25 labor cost for a fire inspection (1/2 hour of a $50 per hour labor cost) and a $5
administration fee.
Councilmember Petso asked whether the proposed fee increases would create a financial hardship for any
events /institutions. Fire Marshal Westfall did not anticipate the typical $30 annual fee would create any
undue hardships.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN,
FOR APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE NO. 3452.
For Councilmember Marin, City Attorney Scott Snyder explained the Finance Department had
established rates of pay for all City employees. If an inspection extended beyond '/2 hour, it would be
billed at a prorated fee based on the established hourly rate.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The ordinance approved reads as follows:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE
PROVISIONS OF ECC 5.27.060 PERMIT FEES; AMENDING ECDC 19.75.060 PERMITS;
AMENDING CHAPTER 19.75 TO ADD A NEW SECTION 19.75.065 CHARGE FOR FIRE
INSPECTION; AMENDING ECC 4.32.040 POLICE AND FIRE INVESTIGATION — APPROVAL
TO ADD A NEW SECTION C RELATING TO FIRE INSPECTION CHARGE; AMENDING
CHAPTER 4.48 CABARET DANCES TO ADD A NEW SECTION ECC 4.48.025 RELATING TO
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 22, 2003
Page 7
FIRE INSPECTION CHARGES; AMENDING ECC 4.52.070 INVESTIGATION AND
APPLICATION TO ADD A NEW SUB- SECTION (C) RELATED TO FIRE INSPECTION FEES;
AMENDING CHAPTER 4.80 AIRCRAFT LANDING PERMITS TO ADD A NEW SECTION
4.80.060 INSPECTION CHARGES, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME
EFFECTIVE.
Mayor Haakenson declared a brief recess.
Planned 10. WORKSHOP ON PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY
Residential DEVELOPMENT CODE REGARDING PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS (PRDS)
Development
(PRD) Planning Manager Rob Chave explained this was a workshop to discuss the proposed amendments to the
PRD code recommended by the Planning Board. He explained the intent was to describe the impact of
development via a standard subdivision, the current PRD code, and the proposed (amended) PRD code.
Mr. Chave displayed the following chart:
Example: R -12 Zone
Standard Subdivision
Current PRD Code
Proposed PRD
amendments
Theoretical Maximum #
Subtract roads, then
Gross lot area divided
Net lot area (achieved
of Lots
12,000 square foot lots
by 12,000 square feet
via subtracting 15%
from available lot area)
divided by 12,000
square feet
External Buffer
No
Yes - setbacks
Yes —
Required?
(design driven
setbacks s ecified
Usable Open Space
No
Yes - 10%
Yes —
Required?
if more than five lots
10% or 500 s uare feet
Mr. Chave explained there were additional restrictions proposed in the amendments for usable open
space which did not allow critical areas to be counted as usable open space and, if the lot size was
reduced, the difference between the minimum lot size allowed by the zone and the lot size would need to
be provided in usable open space (for example in an R12 zone where the lot was 8,000 square feet, the
additional 4,000 would need to be set aside in usable open space for each lot reduced).
Council President Earling inquired about the rationale for using net lot area versus gross lot area. Mr.
Chave explained several methods of determining density were presented to the Planning Board with pros
and cons for each. The Planning Board's intent was to develop a formula that was comparable to what a
standard subdivision could achieve in the same zone. He recalled staff suggested to the Planning Board
establishing a maximum density in each zone, then the lot size would be immaterial as the maximum
density that could be achieved would not vary by development method. However, the Planning Board
preferred to take the same approach for a PRD as a standard subdivision and deduct the equivalent road
area (15 %) before calculating the number of lots.
Council President Earling commented the net affect could be the elimination of one building site, a
concept he would not support because it increased the cost of housing by requiring a developer to
increase the price of the remaining properties in the development. Mr. Chave commented deducting a
straight percentage for roads would be in the developer's favor in some instances and not in others. He
pointed out the interaction between zoning, density, open space set asides, critical areas, etc. in
determining the number of lots.
For Councilmember Marin, Mr. Chave explained the road area deducted from the lot area in a standard
subdivision varied. The Planning Board preferred the deduction of a percentage for road area versus
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 22, 2003
Page 8
[1
1
L
deducting the actual road area (such as in a subdivision) in PRDs to avoid manipulation of the road
design to limit the road area.
Council President Earling referred to the table, inquiring whether the provision that allowed modification
in the external buffer via the current PRD code was to allow more clustering in instances where there
were steep slopes which would not be allowed if there were prescribed setbacks. Mr. Chave
acknowledged there would be an interaction between critical areas, slopes, etc. in determining the
setbacks under the current PRD code.
Mr. Snyder explained the primary reason for that change was the frequent comments that there were no
criterion for determining what setbacks should be and there was nothing in the current ordinance that
prohibited the use of critical areas or other buffering as part of the setback. The amendments reflected
the front and rear setback that would occur in a standard subdivision. Mr. Chave explained under the
proposed PRD code, it would be more difficult to modify the external buffer and may require a variance,
whereas the current PRD code allowed design reasons to be considered when modifying the setback.
Councilmember Wilson referred to Mr. Chave's explanation that under the proposed amendments, any
reduction in lot size would need to be made up in usable open space, inquiring whether clustered lots
would typically be utilized to protect a critical area. He asked whether it was counterproductive to
require the additional land be provided in usable open space if the intent of the smaller lot was to protect
a critical area. Mr. Chave stated that was an example of competing goals — providing usable open space
for residents versus protecting critical area that do not lend themselves to usable open space. Under the
proposed amendment, critical areas could not be included in the density calculation of the development.
Mr. Snyder stated the requirement for any reduction in lot size to be made up in usable open space was
the result of many comments that PRDs should reflect development in the neighborhood.
Mr. Chave reviewed two examples of applying a standard subdivision, the current PRD code, and
proposed PRD code to two sites. He displayed the following chart that illustrated the result of each
development method:
Example #1:
3.2 acre parcel zoned
Standard Subdivision
Current PRD Code
Proposed PRD
RS -12
amendments
Theoretical Maximum #
10
12
9
of Lots
External Buffer
No
.67 acre
.67 acre
Required?
29,000 square feet
29,000 square feet
Usable Open Space
No
.32 acres
.32 acre
Required?
(13,940 square feet )
(13,940 square feet
Total Property Set-
Voluntary
— 1 acre
— 1 acre
Aside
31 % of roe
31 % of property
Actual # Lots Feasible
10
12
9
If Commonly Held
Open Space
Senior Planner Steve Bullock reviewed the following example, a site that was approved as a PRD
(Meadowdale Heights) on a six acre site in an RS -20 zone. He advised the City's files included a
preliminary subdivision plan for the development as a result of previous discussions regarding the site.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 22, 2003
Page 9
Example #2•
6 acre parcel zoned
Standard Subdivision
Current PRD Code
Proposed PRD Code
RS -20
Theoretical Maximum #
12
12
11
of Lots
External Buffer
No
0.77 acre
1.25 acres
Required?
33,500 square feet
(54,400 square feet
Usable Open Space
No
0.61 acre
0.61 acre
Required?
(26,572 square feet )
(26,572 square feet
Total Property Set-
Voluntary
— 1.4 acres
— 1.9 acres
Aside
(23% of roe
31% of property)
Actual # Lots Feasible
12
12
11
If Commonly Held
Open Space
Mr. Bullock explained the PRD retained a substantial amount of mature vegetation that would not be
protected via a standard subdivision. He pointed out in this instance, although the usable open space
required was the same as under the current PRD code, because the 12,000 square foot lots were 8,000
square feet under the minimum required lot size of 20,000 square feet, the total property set aside was
increased.
Mr. Bullock recalled when the current ordinance was adopted, there was discussion regarding PRDs
versus standard subdivisions and the desire to encourage a developer to propose the best possible design
solution from a traffic access and circulation perspective and not manipulate the property lines to result
in the most lots. He commented on the difficulty of requiring a developer to first design their road
system and then determine the number of lots that could be developed on the remaining property because
the design of the subdivision then tended to minimize road area to allow as many units as possible and
may result in an inefficient road system.
Mr. Snyder noted the last example was somewhat misleading because although correct under the City's
current zoning, after the next Comprehensive Plan update, the majority of property in the City would
need to be zoned for at least four units per acre. He noted that following the Comprehensive Plan update,
the City would not have zoning that required 20,000 square foot lots except in very environmentally
sensitive areas, thereby eliminating the substantial set -aside as a result of the smaller lots.
Mr. Chave commented when staff was preparing examples, they found in many instances the new
amendments may result in a reduction in the number of lots allowed in a PRD below the number allowed
in a standard subdivision, bringing into question whether the amendments would result in a usable PRD
ordinance. He noted that by incorporating all the suggestions, the Planning Board was attempting to
respond to all the concerns, but the combination of all the suggestions was problematic.
Responding to Councilmember Plunkett, Mr. Chave explained the Planning Board's focus was external
buffer, internal open space (clustering), and density. With regard to density, the Planning Board wanted
to ensure a PRD would not be construed as an increase in density. Another solution would be to, rather
than rely on a minimum lot size per zoning classifications to determine density, establish a maximum
density for each zone. Under that scheme, a PRD would not be viewed as something different but as an
alternate form of subdivision. Under that scheme, there were many ways of calculating density, all
equally defensible under the code. For example, the current code calculated density via dividing the
minimum lot area into the total property available. If that was defined as the density, it was no longer a
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 22, 2003
Page 10
rezone but a way to develop under the zone. The Planning Board chose to subtract a 15% factor for
roads although staff cautioned it would be problematic under certain circumstances. He noted staff had
not been able to provide any examples to the Planning Board.
Councilmember Plunkett asked whether the proposed amendments were actually the Planning Board's
recommendations for an effective PRD code or was it the Planning Board's response to the comments.
Mr. Chave answered the Planning Board wanted to have a workable PRD ordinance and was frustrated
that the current PRD code was viewed as a rezone. The Planning Board's intent was to develop a PRD
code that provided an alternate, routine form of development.
Councilmember Wilson commented the Comprehensive Plan currently identified PRDs as a method for
infill development for the City to meet its growth targets under GMA. Mr. Chave agreed.
Councilmember Wilson commented by not allowing an increase in density in an effort to eliminate the
rezone conflict, the PRD chapter should be density neutral, allowing the same development under a PRD
as under a standard subdivision with the PRD providing some flexibility. Mr. Chave agreed the primary
purpose was to encourage infill development and it should be density neutral — consistent with the
underlying zoning.
Councilmember Wilson noted the proposed ordinance was not density neutral and resulted in fewer lots
than developing a standard subdivision as illustrated in the two examples. Mr. Chave commented staff
was somewhat surprised that the result was fewer lots under the proposed PRD code than under a
standard subdivision. Councilmember Wilson asked whether the Planning Board or staff considered that
if the proposed PRD code were adopted, the City's Comprehensive Plan would need to be adjusted with
regard to how the density targets would be accommodated. He questioned whether up- zoning would be
required in some areas to compensate. Mr. Chave agreed if infill development did not occur as indicated
in the Comprehensive Plan, it would necessitate reconsidering goals and policies in the Comprehensive
Plan. Mr. Snyder agreed increased density would be the likely outcome. He commented the intent of the
amendments was to incorporate as many of the ideas that have been raised as possible and the result was
an unintended consequence — losing sight of the goal of the PRD ordinance.
For Councilmember Wilson, Mr. Snyder referred to the language in the ordinance regarding open space
set -aside when the lots are smaller than the underlying zoning, "Clustered developments which reduce lot
size shall provide usable open space at least equal to the total area by which lot size has been reduced
and in no event less than ten percent of the gross lot area or 500 square feet in size, whichever is
greater."
Councilmember Orvis indicated his understanding was that the City had the capacity to meet its GMA
goals with the current zoning. Mr. Chave agreed the current capacity was adequate to meet current
growth targets.
Councilmember Marin suggested further amendments be made that resulted in parity /density neutral
between a PRD and a subdivision.
Councilmember Petso referred to amendments that the Council found had merit such as eliminating the
possibility for attached units in single family zones, the required pre - application meeting, and notice of
neighborhood meeting. Councilmember Petso recalled there was a great deal of public testimony that
appeals should be before the Council rather than Superior Court, a process she also preferred.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 22, 2003
Page 11
Councilmember Dawson asked whether the examples provided included critical areas. Mr. Chave
answered no. He explained the current PRD code gives credit for critical areas. Under the proposed
PRD code, there was no credit for critical areas. When critical areas exist, the result was then more units
under the current PRD code and fewer units under the proposed PRD code than a standard subdivision.
Councilmember Dawson noted the reason a developer would pursue a PRD even if the density was
reduced was if the lots could not be developed via a standard subdivision. Mr. Chave noted a reasonable
use exception or variance from critical area setbacks would likely be pursued to maximize use of the land
while retaining a minimal amount of critical areas. The intent of the PRD code was to eliminate that
concept.
Mr. Snyder requested the Council provide direction regarding key issues such as the net lot calculation
method. Mr. Chave explained one of the questions was whether there was a particular percentage related
to usable open space or when there were critical areas present, was it less important to have usable open
space and more important to retain critical areas. Another question was how density was calculated,
whether to subtract roads in PRDs the same as standard subdivisions or calculate density via gross
property area. He noted there needed to be a balance; if additional protection for critical area was
required and additional open space set - asides, there needed to be an incentive. Otherwise, as the
examples indicate, absent an incentive, there would be no PRDs developed.
Councilmember Dawson noted a majority of the Council, which she indicated did not include herself,
preferred the Council not make the final decision on PRDs, which could not occur if it was a rezone and
increased density over a standard subdivision could be achieved. Thus the result had to be fewer lots in a
PRD than in a standard subdivision or it was a rezone that required the Council make the decision. Mr.
Snyder explained if a minimum density per zone were established, it would be the same regardless of the
development method.
Councilmember Wilson asked which method would provide greater tree retention, a standard
subdivision, the current PRD code or the proposed PRD code. Mr. Chave answered a PRD would
provide more protection via clustering.
Councilmember Wilson referred to the first example, noting the PRD would mandate certain levels of
protection versus a standard subdivision in which the Council did not require as much as recommended
in the Hearing Examiner process. He recalled he was a staff person who presented the subdivision in the
first example to the Council; staff attempted to provide protection for the neighborhood by preserving
more trees, but the result via the Council process was to require fewer protections. He summarized there
was not always more protection provided via Council review on appeal. He commented if that
development had occurred under a PRD, there may have been more trees retained than were retained
under a standard subdivision.
Councilmember Wilson asked how the 10% open space requirement in the proposed PRD code was
determined. Mr. Chave answered 10% was the amount in the current PRD code. Councilmember
Wilson observed the result of the requirements in the proposed PRD code was that more common open
space must be provided if units were clustered. He questioned why more open space than the 10% was
proposed to be required for a development with smaller lots that were clustered to preserve a critical area.
He suggested the provision be revised to include the 10% minimum usable open space but not require the
difference between the required lot size and the developed lot size be added to usable open space.
Council President Earling commented in the first example, three lots would be eliminated via the
proposed PRD code versus developing a standard subdivision, resulting in a minimum loss to the
developer of $270,000 - $300,000 which the developer must obtain from the sale of the remaining
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 22, 2003
Page 12
properties. He noted in that scenario, rather than $350,000 houses, the cost of the houses would be
$380,000 - $390,000. In the second example, where one lot was eliminated, instead of $350,000 houses,
the cost of the houses would be $360,000 - $365,000. He summarized the proposed PRD code increased
housing costs, a result that was unacceptable to him.
Council President Earling concluded the current PRD code appeared to be preferable than the proposed
PRD code. He agreed with eliminating the possibility of attached units in single family zones, requiring
the pre - application meeting, having the Hearing Examiner make the decision on preliminary PRDs, and
requiring appeals on PRDs go to Superior Court.
COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, TO
EXTEND THIS ITEM FOR 10 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Councilmember Petso did not agree that the loss was three houses but only one house by going from 10
dwelling units to 9. Although it would be preferable to have the number of lots that could be achieved be
equal in a subdivision and PRD, she agreed the provisions should not make it less beneficial to develop a
PRD. She asked whether the difference between standard subdivision and PRD would be addressed via
Councilmember Wilson's suggestion to eliminate the requirement to make up the difference in lot sizes
in usable open space. Mr. Chave answered yes in some instances and no in others.
Councilmember Petso suggested incorporating Councilmember Wilson's suggestion and retaining the
remaining provisions, recalling the buffers and setbacks were often needed because of clustering. Mr.
Chave noted the proposed PRD code had improved language regarding the intent of the external buffers.
If the Council's intent was to retain some design flexibility, the two could be combined in a final
ordinance. Councilmember Petso suggested the Council adopt the proposed PRD code, with appeal to
the Council, and incorporating Councilmember Wilson's suggestion regarding the open space — requiring
10% or 500 square feet whichever was greater.
Councilmember Marin concurred with eliminating the possibility of attached units in single family zones,
requiring the pre - application meeting, and making PRD development density neutral with a standard
subdivision.
All Councilmembers agreed on eliminating the possibility of attached units in single family zones and
requiring the pre - application meeting.
Councilmember Plunkett suggested staff, Mr. Snyder, and Council President Earling develop a decision
mechanism for Council review.
Councilmember Dawson agreed with the suggestion to establish a maximum density for each zone and
preferred the Council make the decision on PRDs. She cautioned the Council about having someone
other than the Council make the decision on PRDs, because under the existing law, it still looked like a
rezone.
For Councilmember. Petso, Mr. Snyder explained calculating a maximum density per acre for each zone
regardless of the development method. He noted in this manner, the code was neutral and it was the
characteristics of the lot and development plan that resulted in any differences.
Councilmember Petso did not agree with this method of calculating density as it included critical area
that could not be included in a standard subdivision. She recalled this was the basis for a number of
complaints regarding the PRD code as it resulted in too many houses for the property. She preferred to
deduct a percentage for roads, noting that although a PRD may not result in the same number as could be
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 22, 2003
Page 13
achieved via a standard subdivision, it was closer than if there was no deduction for roads at all such as
the current PRD code. She reiterated her suggestion to use the proposed PRD code and incorporate
Councilmember Wilson's suggestion to eliminate the unintended consequence. She also supported the
appeal to Council for the reasons indicated by Councilmember Dawson and the public.
Councilmember Plunkett suggested staff prepare a draft ordinance based on Council President Earling's
proposal and Councilmembers could present further amendments. A majority of the Council agreed.
Councilmember Marin requested staff indicate whether this would result in parity with maximum number
of lots that could be achieved via a standard subdivision. Mr. Chave suggested staff provide the
examples again using the new proposal as well as one example with a critical area.
It was agreed Councilmembers would provide proposed amendments to staff prior to consideration of the
ordinance so that the amendments could be included in the Council packet for review.
Signage 11. WORKSHOP ON PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE SIGNAGE ELEMENT OF THE DRAFT
Element of
Draft he Draft R VISED PROCESS AND GUIDELINES FOR ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW
Revised
Process and Planning Manager Rob Chave advised the changes requested by the Council during the previous
Guidelines discussion were incorporated into the draft but the draft did not include an changes based on the
Architectural � j' g
Design Chamber of Commerce's comments regarding two street frontages or non - conforming signs.
Review
Councilmember Wilson stated the original intent of reviewing these provisions in the sign chapter was to
clarify /simplify the process for applying for a sign permit and were not intended to be substantive
changes to the sign code. He found the draft acceptable with two minor changes, first in the sign matrix,
he suggested conditionally allowing internally illuminated signs in downtown with the requirement that
internally illuminated signs would not be permitted above 14 feet above finished floor /grade of the
building. Councilmember Wilson explained the downtown was a bowl visible from the surrounding hills
and was intended to be pedestrian oriented, therefore signs needed to be at pedestrian level and not as
visible from the surrounding hills. Second, with regard to the nonconforming provision, he suggested
incorporating language that would stay any enforcement of any sign made nonconforming by the
adoption of the ordinance until the City reviewed the sign code in totality.
Councilmember Marin agreed with Councilmember Wilson's suggestion to stay enforcement.
Councilmember Dawson also agreed with Councilmember Wilson's suggestion, noting she was opposed
to any further substantive changes as that was not the purpose of the ordinance., She was also opposed to
making any changes to the nonconforming provisions as that was an issue for future discussion.
Councilmember Petso commented the change to 14 feet was a substantive change. She suggested
businesses be allowed to request the 14 foot height under certain circumstances.
Councilmember Orvis asked whether Councilmember Wilson's suggestion would allow any sign made
nonconforming by the proposed ordinance to be rebuilt as is. City Attorney Scott Snyder answered
Councilmember Wilson's suggestion did not address existing nonconforming signs. If the Council
decided to stay enforcement, a property owner whose sign was made nonconforming by the ordinance
was damaged had the decision whether to rebuild the sign as it was or according to the new code. If the
property owner rebuilt the sign the way it was, there would be no enforcement brought, however, the
property owner would take the chance that when the nonconforming use provisions were revised, they
would be required to bring the sign into compliance. He noted another method would be to allow
property owners to rebuild their signs during this interim period.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 22, 2003
Page 14
Councilmember Orvis noted there were three types of signs, conforming, existing nonconforming signs,
and signs that were made nonconforming by the proposed ordinance. He asked whether an interim
ordinance would apply to both existing nonconforming signs and signs that were made nonconforming by
the proposed ordinance. Mr. Snyder answered it could. He noted staff could not recall the last time the
City had attempted to abate a nonconforming sign that was repaired. Under an interim ordinance, if a
sign were rebuilt, the owner would vest the right to continue the sign. Under the proposed ordinance, the
owner would not vest their rights but the City would not pursue enforcement until after further review of
the sign code was completed.
Councilmember Orvis stated his preference for an interim ordinance which would allow a property owner
to replace their sign and vest the right to continue the sign.
Councilmember Plunkett also preferred the interim ordinance.
12. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Haakenson wished Council President Earling a happy birthday on April 23.
13. INDIVIDUAL COUNCIL REPORTS ON OUTSIDE COMMITTEEBOARD MEETINGS
r ound Council President Earling announced a Sound Transit groundbreaking for HOV onramps at the 160
ransit Street Park & Ride and 196`" Street Park & Ride on April 28 beginning at 11:00 a.m. The onramps
would allow buses, vanpools, and carpools to merge into traffic on the inside lane which would reduce
congestion. These projects would provide hundreds of jobs which would assist the local economy.
Council President Earling advised Community Transit and Sound Transit have agreed to participate in
Smart Card technology which would allow a rider to use ferry, commuter rail, and bus with one pass,
providing a seamless system.
Alliance for
Economic Councilmember Plunkett advised a written Edmonds Alliance for Economic Development Quarterly
om
Development Report was available at the Alliance office.
IP f
omonds Councilmember Wilson reported on the Port of Edmonds meeting.
Lodging Tax Councilmember Petso reported the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee was advertising for a new member
Advisory from the hospitality industry. The Committee has selected a member from the recipients group and will
Committee
be presenting both members to the Council for approval in the near future.
Hwy. 99 Councilmember Marin reported the Hwy. 99 task force had presentations from Lynnwood and Shoreline
ask Force and Mill Creek will provide a presentation next month. Next, Councilmember Marin reported he
IHealth accompanied the Snohomish County Health District to Olympia to testify before the State Health Board
ism ct on the 26% reduction in Snohomish County Health District funding since 1997. He pointed out to the
stri
State Health Board that everyone in the State benefits from the efforts of the Health District.
Medic 7 Councilmember Dawson reported the Medic 7 Board voted to dissolve Medic 7 as of June 1, 2003.
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:00 p.m.
,d. L.. 4..W'
SANDRA S. CHASE, CITY CLERK
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 22, 2003
Page 15
-� AGENDA
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL
Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex
250 5t' Avenue North
7:00 - 10:00 p.m.
April 22, 2003
7:00 p.m. - Call to Order
Flag Salute
1. Approval of Agenda
2. Consent Agenda Items
(A) Roll Call
(B) Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of April 15, 2003.
(C) Approval of claim checks #62151 through #62296 for the week of April 14,
2003, in the amount of $489,817.09. Approval of payroll direct deposits and
checks #35440 through #35520 for the period April 1 through April 15, 2003, in
the amount of $882,834.44.
(D) Proposed Resolution commending Student Representative Michelle Trias for
her service.
(E) Proposed Resolution amending the fee schedule for the City's Planning, Public
Works, Building and other fee structures, including a savings clause, and
establishing an effective date.
(F) Proclamation in honor of Days of Remembrance, "For Your Freedom and Ours,"
April 27 - May 4, 2003.
3. ( 5 Min.) Presentation of Resolution and plaque commending Student Representative
Michelle Trias.
4. ( 5 Min.) Proclamation in honor of the Eighth Annual Scandinavian Festival Day in
Edmonds, Saturday, May 3, 2003.
S. ( 5 Min.) Proclamation in honor of Friends of the Library Week, April 27 - May 3, 2003.
6. Audience Comments (3 Minute Limit Per Person)*
*Regarding matters not listed on the Agenda as Closed Record Review or as Public Hearings.
Page 1 of 2
CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA
April 22, 2003
Page 2 of 2
7. (15 Min.) Amendment to Edmonds City Code Chapter 5.05, Animals, related to
Dangerous Dogs.
8. (30 Min.) Continued deliberation regarding a potential Public Safety Property Tax Levy
Lid Lift.
9. (15 Min.) Fire Code permitting fees increase.
10. (60 Min.) Workshop on proposed amendments to the Edmonds Community Development
Code regarding Planned Residential Developments (PRDs).
11. (30 Min.) Workshop on proposed amendments to the signage element of the draft
revised process and guidelines for architectural design review.
12. ( 5 Min.) Mayor's Comments
13. (15 Min.) Individual Council reports on outside committee /board meetings.
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.