Loading...
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.