Loading...
06/17/2003 City Counciln �J Approve /3/03 Minutes Approve Claim Checks L EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES June 17, 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 ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT Richard Marin, Councilmember Deanna Dawson, Councilmember 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA STAFF PRESENT David Stern, Chief of Police Duane Bowman, Development Serv. Director Jim Larson, Acting Admin. Serv. Director Rob Chave, Planning Manager Stephen Koho, Treatment Plant Manager Dave Gebert, City Engineer Darrell Smith, Traffic Engineer Steve Bullock, Senior Planner Bob Barker, D.A.R.E. Officer Scott Snyder, City Attorney Sandy Chase, City Clerk Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst. Jeannie Dines, Recorder COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON, FOR APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA AS PRESENTED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS Councilmember Petso requested Item E be removed from the Consent Agenda. COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, FOR APPROVAL OF THE BALANCE OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: (A) ROLL CALL (B) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JUNE 3, 2003 (C) APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #63108 THROUGH #63267 FOR THE WEEK OF JUNE 2, 2003, IN THE AMOUNT OF $216,328.01. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #63268 THROUGH #63415 FOR THE WEEK OF JUNE 9, 2003, IN THE AMOUNT OF $324,907.20. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSITS AND CHECKS #35697 THROUGH #35814 FOR THE PERIOD MAY 16 THROUGH MAY 31, 2003, IN THE AMOUNT OF $785,229.15. (D) REPORT ON BIDS OPENED JUNE 10, 2003 FOR THE ANDERSON CENTER WINDOW REPLACEMENT — PHASE II PROJECT AND AWARD OF CONTRACT TO ARMEX, INC. ($176,657.58, INCLUDING SALES TAX). Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 17, 2003 Page 1 Snohomish Drug al ru (F) AUTHORIZATION FOR THE MAYOR TO SIGN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH g T Force SNOHOMISH REGIONAL DRUG TASK FORCE. 0o St. SW (G) AUTHORIZATION FOR THE MAYOR TO SIGN SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT NO. Improve- 1 TO THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH PERTEET ents ENGINEERING FOR THE DESIGN OF THE 200TH STREET SW IMPROVEMENTS (NINTH AVENUE SOUTH TO 84TH AVENUE WEST) PROJECT. Screening System at ( H ) Q UEST FOR Q AUTHORIZATION TO ADVERTISE FOR RE UALIFICATIONS FOR Treatment PERFORMING AN ENGINEERING EVALUATION OF THE SCREENING SYSTEM AT /ant THE TREATMENT PLANT. es# 1043 Annexation (I) RESOLUTION NO. 1043 SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING ON A CONSOLIDATION of Ballinger ANNEXATION OF THE BALLINGER LIFT STATION SITE Lift Station Item E: Approval of Findings of Fact for a Closed Record Review held before the City Council on May 27, 2003 of an application by Phoenix Development, Inc. for a Planned Residential Development and Formal Plat. Phoenix The site is zoned Single Family Residential (RS -8) and is located at 8512, 8516, 8520 and 8526 Main Street. Development RD (File No. PRD- 2002 -171 and P- 2002 -172. D and d Formal Plat Councilmember Petso indicated her plans to vote against this item as she disagreed with the findings. Councilmember Wilson advised he was absent from the May 27, 2003 meeting and would abstain from the vote. City Attorney Scott Snyder suggested continuing this item as four affirmative votes of the Council were necessary for approval. COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, TO CONTINUE THIS ITEM TO THE JUNE 24 CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The item continued to the June 24 Consent Agenda is as follows: (E) APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT FOR A CLOSED RECORD REVIEW HELD BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL ON MAY 27, 2003 OF AN APPLICATION BY PHOENIX DEVELOPMENT, INC. FOR A PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND FORMAL PLAT. THE SITE IS ZONED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RS -8) AND IS LOCATED AT 8512, 8516, 8520 AND 8526 MAIN STREET. D.A.R.E. 3. INTRODUCTION OF THE RECIPIENTS OF THE EDMONDS POLICE FOUNDATION Role Model EDMONDS - WOODWAY HIGH SCHOOL D.A.R.E. ROLE MODEL SCHOLARSHIP AWARDS. Scholarship Awards Harold Huston, President, Edmonds Police Foundation, expressed his congratulations to Police Chief David Stern, Police Officers and staff for receiving national accreditation. He offered thanks to Sgt. Debbie Smith, Youth Services Unit; Bob Barker, D.A.R.E. Officer; Robin Heslop, Crime Prevention, and Martin Speckmaier, High School Resource Officer. He explained the D.A.R.E. program was a great success due to the support from this team. Mr. Huston stated the Edmonds Police Foundation honored the top two D.A.R.E. Role Models for their dedication to leading a drug and alcohol free lifestyle. Scholastic ability, school activities, and community services were considerations in making the selection. He thanked Nancy Crim and Nancy McDonald for serving on the selection committee. He explained each recipient would receive $1,000 to apply toward his/her college education. He announced the two winners, Grace Woo and Joe Trieu. Ms. Woo commented the D.A.R.E. Role Model Program had been a great experience and an opportunity to work with youth and to compete for the scholarship. She wished luck to future D.A.R.E. Role Models and the D.A.R.E. Program. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 17, 2003 Page 2 Mr. Trieu expressed thanks to the Edmonds Police Foundation and the D.A.R.E. Program for the award. He commented on the positive changes made to the D.A.R.E. Program since sixth grade. He commented on the positive experience he had with the D.A.R.E. Program. Mayor Haakenson expressed the Council's appreciation to the Edmonds Police Foundation. Councilmembers congratulated Ms. Woo and Mr. Trieu. 4. THE FOLLOWING AGENDA ITEM HAS BEEN CONTINUED TO OCTOBER 21,2003: Continued: Rezone of CLOSED RECORD REVIEW OF THE PLANNING BOARD'S RECOMMENDATION TO 10 4h Ave. APPROVE THE REQUEST BY THE EDMONDS PUBLIC FACILITIES DISTRICT FOR A REZONE OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 410 4TH AVENUE NORTH FROM PUBLIC (P) TO RM -1.5 Vacation of a 5. PUBLIC HEARING ON VACATION OF THE EASTERLY HALF OF THE NORTH 120 FEET OF ortion of 7� 7TH AVENUE SOUTH, SOUTH OF FIR Ave. S. Development Services Director Duane Bowman explained the purpose of the public hearing was a proposed street vacation of the east half of the north 120 feet of 7th Avenue South, south of Fir Street. He explained the intent was to clear up an issue created as part of a subdivision approved by the City under Edmonds Short Subdivision File No. S- 23 -89. He explained in late 1986, there was a petition to vacate the north 120 feet of 7`" Avenue. The purpose of the vacation was the city had no use for the right -of- way as there was a stream through the right -of -way. The City's Parks & Recreation Comprehensive Plan identifies a trail in this area to connect the neighborhood to the south to Fir Street; therefore, the City retained a pedestrian easement. He noted the City planned to construct a bridge this summer that spanned the creek, the first step in completing the trail. Mr. Bowman explained in 1987, a 4 -lot subdivision was proposed (File No. S- 23 -89). The property owner at that time, Dwight Jackson, was approached by the City regarding payment for the east half of the right -of -way with the City retaining a pedestrian and utility easement in the vacated right -of -way. The City reduced the value of the compensation due to encumbrance of the easements; however, Mr. Jackson chose not to compensate the City for the vacation. The City then passed a series of ordinances, culminating in Ordinance 2669 that vacated the west half of the right -of -way which was purchased by the adjacent property owner, the Abrahamsons. Mr. Bowman explained when the final subdivision was recorded in December 1991, the eastern half of the right -of -way was included in Lot 1 and the property owners have been paying taxes on the right -of- way since 1991. He noted the Hardys have owned the property since 1993. When the issue was discovered, he met with Mr. Hardy and representatives of the title company and concluded the City had not vacated the right -of -way. Therefore, the purpose of this vacation was to complete the original vacation and rectify the problem created on Lot 1. Mr. Bowman explained the City made a determination in 1987 that the right -of -way was no longer needed although pedestrian and utility easements should be retained. He explained the question before the Council was what compensation should be made for the right -of -way to complete the vacation. He reviewed compensation options, (1) use the current assessed land valuation for a total of $31,050, (2) use the 1993 assessed valuation for a total of $18,468, or (3) use the original 1987 calculation for a total of $5,454. Because the property owner has been paying property taxes on the right -of -way since December 1993 and the previous property owner paid property taxes since 1991, staff recommends the property Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 17, 2003 Page 3 owner compensate the City for the right -of -way at the original value established in Ordinance 2641 or $5,454. He noted pedestrian and utility easements would be retained across the vacated right -of -way. Councilmember Orvis clarified Lot 1 including the right -of -way was 10,000 square feet, which was not a subdividable lot. Mr. Bowman agreed. Councilmember Petso asked why the 1987 calculation should be used when the property owner did not purchase the property until 1993. Mr. Bowman explained the City created the problem by allowing the recording of the short subdivision. He noted a substantial amount would be paid if the matter were required to be resolved via legal action; the staff recommendation was a method of solving the problem and clearing the Hardy's title. He acknowledged it was a policy decision for the Council to make. Councilmember Wilson asked whether the easement the City planned to retain was over the entire width of the right -of -way. Mr. Bowman answered yes. Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. Shirley Abrahamson, 648 1St Street, Edmonds, commented the ordinance did not include the walkway and she wanted to ensure the ordinance included verbiage regarding a 10 foot walkway in the right -of- way. She expressed concern with non - native plantings in the right -of -way, commenting the creek should have the protection provided via native plants. With regard to the cost of the property, she preferred the City not go back further than 1993 when the house was purchased. She noted if the 1987 price was to be used, she would like to have the opportunity to purchase the property. Dave Hardy, Edmonds, commented determining the value of the property was dependent on whether the City wanted to enter into litigation. He pointed out they have paid taxes on property they technically did not own, suggesting that if the City determined the amount of those taxes and reimbursed them, perhaps further consideration could be given to determining the value of the property. He pointed out staff's suggestion was a compromise to avoid litigation costs. Rosemary Specht, 7th & Fir, Edmonds, hoped the area would be cleaned up, a sidewalk installed, and the water protected. Mayor Haakenson noted the Council received a letter from Nicki Skotdal, 645 1St Street, Edmonds, who wants development limited to what would benefit the community access and viewing. Hearing no further public comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public hearing. Councilmember Plunkett requested staff respond to public comments regarding protecting water, sidewalks, and non - native plantings, and requested staff review the cost again with emphasis on potential legal costs. He questioned whether legal costs could potentially exceed the $5,000 price for the property. Mr. Bowman agreed there was potential for litigation to resolve the issue, possibly exceeding the $5,000 price. With regard to the public's comments, he noted there was a 5 foot pedestrian easement on the Abrahamson's half of the right -of -way and there would be a 5 foot pedestrian easement on the Hardy's half of the right -of -way. The bridge portion of the walkway was being constructed this summer and the method of linking the trails would be determined at a later date. With regard to non - native plants, he advised staff could discuss appropriate plant materials with Mr. Hardy. With regard to water protection, Mr. Bowman agreed there was a stream present, however, nothing that has been proposed via this action would impact the stream. He was uncertain about the meaning of the comment to protect the water other than the ability to view the water which was considered an amenity of walking in that area. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 17, 2003 Page 4 Councilmember Plunkett observed staff planned to be sensitive to water issues, staff planned to consider appropriate plantings, staff's recommendation regarding the cost was the most appropriate calculation, and the proposal would result in considerable improvement via the pedestrian and utility easement. Councilmember Petso referred to Ms. Abrahamson's comment that if the property were sold for $5,000, she would like to have an opportunity to purchase it and asked whether that was a possibility. Mr. Bowman answered when a right -of -way was vacated, half went to each abutting property owner and the Hardys were willing to purchase their half of the right -of -way. Mr. Snyder explained this issue could be resolved via a quiet title action between the City and the title company. If the City won, the City would be subject to a claim from the property owner for negligent provision of planning information because the lot the property owner purchased was not the same size as the lot approved by the City in the subdivision and it would be a nonconforming lot. Therefore, he concluded, the price of winning would be high although covered by the City's insurance. Councilmember Petso observed that in order for Ms. Abrahamson to purchase the property, the City would need to go through litigation and then make it available and the alternative was to vacate the easement for one of the three prices to Mr. Hardy. Mr. Snyder agreed, noting this was a vacation as well as a settlement of an existing claim. If the City did not settle in the manner the title company envisioned, the cost of litigation could be anticipated. Councilmember Petso questioned whether Ms. Abrahamson, as an adjacent property owner, would have the opportunity to purchase the property if the City proceeded with litigation. Mr. Snyder commented if the property were sold to Ms. Abrahamson, the City would have a bigger problem with the current claim with the current property owner. Councilmember Wilson asked whether staff had calculated how much property tax the Hardys may have paid since the property was purchased. Mr. Bowman answered he attempted that calculation but was unable to obtain the necessary information. Councilmember Wilson asked whether the Hardys have had use of the property since purchasing it. Mr. Bowman answered they have various plantings on the property and have landscaped along the bank which is also part of the right -of -way. Councilmember Wilson concluded the Hardys have had use of the property while paying the property taxes on it. Mr. Bowman agreed, noting they have not done any substantial improvements in that area. Councilmember Wilson asked whether the residence could have been constructed any closer to the stream with the additional property. Mr. Bowman answered the house was constructed to the maximum setback. He identified Lot 1 and the 20 -foot private utility easement which would prevent the house from expanding any closer to the creek. Councilmember Wilson noted there were different methods of calculating the value of vacated property, with and without the encumbrance of easements. He asked whether the proposed price was for encumbered or unencumbered property. Mr. Bowman answered it used the formula for encumbered property, the same formula in Ordinance 2641 which established a formula for valuation on the property. Councilmember Wilson summarized if the property were vacated, the City retained significant rights over the area due to the stream and the pedestrian and utility easements and the applicant did not gain the ability to construct a larger structure. Mr. Snyder explained when the City vacated property, rather than selling the property, the action removed an easement on the finding that the City had no public use or necessity for the property. He noted the City could simply vacate the property and the City would not have a choice whether to sell it to Ms. Abrahamson as determined by the action of State statute, equal halves to abutting property owners. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 17, 2003 Page 5 Council President Earling commented this was a common sense issue; the City made a mistake and it should not cost the property owner $18,000 - $31,000 to rectify the mistake. COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, TO DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN ORDINANCE VACATING THE EASTERLY HALF OF THE NORTH 120 FEET OF 7TH AVENUE SOUTH, SOUTH OF FIR STREET REQUIRING $5,454 IN COMPENSATION. Councilmember Petso commented there may be reason to not require the property owner to pay to rectify the City's mistake but the matter should be handled equitably. She noted the property was now valued at $31,000 and the City was proposing to vacate it for $5,000 which in many other contexts would be an illegal gift of public funds. The reason the City was allowed to do this was it could be viewed as litigation avoidance. She preferred requiring $18,000 in compensation as an appropriate price under the circumstances, a better compromise between $31,000 and $5,000. MOTION CARRIED (4 -1), COUNCILMEMBER PETSO OPPOSED. Mr. Snyder clarified the action would also include the reservation of the pedestrian and walkway easement. Council President Earling agreed. Proposed 6. PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE REGULATION OF SIGNAGE IN Revisions to EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE CHAPTERS 20.10, 20.60 AND 19.45. THE Regulation ol COUNCIL IS ALSO CONSIDERING ALTERNATE APPROACHES TO NONCONFORMING Signage SIGNS, AND MINOR CHANGES TO THE REGULATION OF REAL ESTATE SIGNS, AS PART OF THESE AMENDMENTS. Planning Manager Rob Chave explained the only changes to the ordinance tonight were to real estate signs. The primary change was that off -site directional real estate signs would be limited to one per intersection and could not be fastened to a traffic control device, fence, tree, shrub, etc. There was also a change to the time restriction, reducing the time when directional real estate signs be removed following the close of a sale from ten days to seven days. He commented the public hearing was not limited only to the amendment to real estate signs; the ordinance also streamlined the sign approval process, resulting in few signs that would be reviewed by the Architectural Design Board and allowing approval by staff in conjunction with building permits, eliminating the two step process of design approval followed by a building permit for a sign. He noted this would result in a more streamlined permitting process and much less frustration for business owners. He explained there were also guidelines added to the sign code that indicated by district the type of signs that would be permitted. Mr. Chave explained staff did a quick windshield survey to determine the type of signs and the affect of the locational criteria in the new sign ordinance. He advised their survey was conducted along Main Street and Fifth Avenue as that area would not be allowed to have new pole signs or boxed cabinet signs. He explained a boxed cabinet was a box that contained wording inside. Some cabinet signs were not boxes such as individual letter signs would be permitted via the ordinance as would decoratively shaped signs. Whether the Council chose to adopt one of the new options with regard to nonconforming signs or under the City's nonconforming sign provisions, a business name would be allowed to be changed on a boxed cabinet. He noted their survey which counted businesses along Fifth and Main but did not include Old Mill Town, revealed approximately 184 businesses, 200 signs and 9.5% cabinet signs or approximately 19 signs. He noted 11 of the 200 signs were pole signs or approximately 5.5 %. He concluded even along the main streets of Edmonds, a minority of the signs would be affected. Mr. Chave explained the Council had several options to consider for nonconforming signs, first retain the existing rules, which may require a sign be replaced if improvements were made over 25% of the value Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 17, 2003 Page 6 or the building expanded. He noted most businesses that changed tenants did not encounter a problem altering the existing signage. A second option would be to ignore non - conformities created by the amendments and allow the business owner to replace /change the sign not in conformance with the new provisions but at their own risk in the event the nonconforming provisions were not changed in the future; the sign could be in violation in the future. The third option would establish a new test for signs that were made nonconforming by the 2003 amendments and those signs would have a new set of non- conformity rules. Mr. Chave advised the option to suspend the nonconforming provision, while providing relief, also provided uncertainty with regard to nonconforming signs. The more expansive definition was problematic in that it created a two -part test, requiring staff to determine whether the sign was nonconforming under the old rules and second whether it was nonconforming under the 2003 amendments, potentially leading to confusion regarding the nonconforming status of a sign. Staff's belief was that the existing nonconforming provisions provided most business owners relief from most problems with nonconforming signs. Councilmember Plunkett recalled 4 -5 years ago the Council addressed real estate A -board signs and questioned whether that was what was considered an off - premises sign. Mr. Snyder explained A -board signs were addressed as temporary signs in the A -frame section of the sign code. The directional signs staff referred to were the small signs on ground stakes directing potential buyers to a house. Councilmember Plunkett suggested adding language to clarify the two types of off - premise real estate signs, directional signs and A -frame signs used for open houses. Mr. Snyder agreed. He noted some intersections in the City may have a number of directional signs, each relating to a different house. He clarified the ordinance was referring to one sign per house per intersection. He suggested some identification be required on the sign with regard to which house it referred to. Councilmember Wilson suggested the ordinance include a definition of three types of real estate signs, 1) the yard sign, 2) the A -frame open house sign, and 3) the small directional signs. He inquired whether under the current nonconforming provisions, a property owner would be prohibited from replacing the face of a cabinet sign. Mr. Chave answered typically under the current nonconforming language, unless there was a change of use, the sign face could be replaced. Councilmember Wilson asked whether staff could recall any change of use that resulted in a problem. Mr. Chave answered neither Mr. Bullock nor he could recall a situation where the nonconforming provisions were invoked to require a sign be replaced with a different sign. Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, Edmonds, stated in the past the height and other sign restrictions for signs in the Downtown and BN zones were similar as many of the BN zones were located in proximity to neighborhoods. However, the proposed amendments treat the downtown area differently. He referred to Section 20.60.020.M.3, which states, "Internally illuminated signs in the Downtown area and the Neighborhood Commercial areas must be mounted on the wall of the building. They may not be mounted on or under an attached awning." He noted the BN zone was omitted from Section 20.60.020.M.5 which states, "Internally illuminated signs in the Downtown area shall not be permitted to be higher than 14 feet in height." He suggested the Downtown area and BN zones be treated the same by including the BN zone in Section 20.60.020.M.5. He expressed concern with the potential for a very high sign if there was no height limitation on signs in the BN zone, noting the impact was particularly noticeable when the sign was illuminated. He questioned whether a false front such as an old western motif would be considered a wall and the sign allowed to be mounted on the high wall. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 17, 2003 Page 7 Hearing no further public comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public hearing. Councilmember Petso asked whether the sign code would prevent an illogical sign height, such as designing a building in a peculiar manner and mounting a sign at the highest level. Mr. Chave advised the sign height was coordinated with the face of the building. Councilmember Petso observed as written, the sign code would allow a sign mounted on a tall false front or a condominium/office building with the sign mounted at the top of the building. Mr. Chave agreed. Councilmember Petso referred to Section 20.60.030, noting there was a different maximum height of sign for wall signs versus projecting signs and the provision for wall signs required they be consistent with Section 20.60.020.A but the projecting signs did not require consistency with Section 20.60.020.A. Mr. Chave stated Section 20.60.020.A describes the location of a sign relative to the roof line of a building. Councilmember Petso inquired whether there would be any difficulty with Mr. Hertrich's suggestion to limit internally illuminated signs in BN zones as well as Downtown. Mr. Chave answered the primary difficulty would be with the distribution of BN zones; for example, Westgate was zoned BN and there were numerous signs as well as buildings that exceeded that height. Councilmember Wilson inquired about the height of the Bartell Drug sign. Mr. Chave stated it was higher than 14 feet; he was uncertain of the exact height. He assumed Bartell Drug received a variance to install their sign. Councilmember Wilson asked whether a business that received a variance retained those privileges if the code were later changed. Mr. Snyder answered variances were rights personal to property and generally if the rights increased, the property owner could enjoy the increased rights; if the rights decreased, the property owner was protected by the variance as a nonconforming right. Councilmember Wilson inquired whether there were any restrictions regarding light from a sign leaving the property. Mr. Chave answered illumination from signs could not be directed away from the building. Councilmember Wilson asked whether it would be feasible to limit the light source from signs so that it did not exceed an acceptable level as it left the property. Mr. Chave answered there were general code provisions regarding that issue but it could be addressed in more detail with the complete review of the sign regulations. With regard to the western false fronts, Mr. Snyder pointed out any new building would require ADB review which would identify the placement of a sign. Given the wording of the code and the provisions in the code with regard to view protection, he noted it would be unlikely that a tall false front would be approved. Mr. Chave pointed out the sign code allowed staff to refer a sign to the ADB if it was felt not to meet the intent of the code. Mayor Haakenson remanded the issue to Council for action. Councilmember Orvis supported the implementation of Option B (adopt the enhanced ordinance in Exhibit 2 which implements Option 1 for nonconforming signs including direction to staff to forbear from action on signs made nonconforming) with the staff recommendations as well as language defining real estate directional signs. COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, TO DIRECT STAFF TO BRING BACK LANGUAGE FROM OPTION B WITH STAFF'S CHANGES PLUS LANGUAGE CLEARLY IDENTIFYING REAL ESTATE DIRECTIONAL SIGNS AND LIMITING THEM TO ONE PER INTERSECTION AND REQUIRING THEIR REMOVAL SEVEN DAYS AFTER THE CLOSING OF A SALE. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 17, 2003 Page 8 Councilmember Plunkett agreed Option B was the best action with regard to nonconforming signs. He agreed with adding a definition and limitations on directional signs, noting there had been concern with the number of directional signs realtors place at each intersection making them advertising rather than directional. Councilmember Petso expressed concern with the number of signs that would become nonconforming with the adoption of the ordinance. She recalled staff surveyed only two streets in the downtown area and found 30 businesses whose signs would become nonconforming if the Council adopted the proposed amendments. She suggested a superior approach to streamlining the process for sign review would be to establish an ideal matrix that allowed a "plain and simple sign" to utilize the streamlined process and a sign that was "something else" would be required to follow the more involved process. She explained this approach would not result in nonconforming signs and would not prohibit any existing signs, but rather not allow the streamlined process for some new signs. Councilmember Wilson noted the approach suggested by Councilmember Petso would be a substantial change and the more appropriate time to consider it was when the complete sign code was reviewed. He commented it likely would be difficult to achieve unanimity regarding what was a good - looking sign that could have the streamlined review and what signs were not. The intent of the proposed amendments were to streamline the process without reviewing the entire code. He suggested adding the following as a definition for real estate directional signs to Section 20.60.005: "a real estate directional sign is a sign displaying a directional arrow and company name and/or logo for purposes of directing the public to real property which is for sale or for rent." He also suggested staff develop a definition for real estate A- frame open house signs, noting the definition for "real estate sign" appeared to refer to the sign posted on the subject property. He also suggested staff consider the industry standard with regard to size, location, etc. of real estate directional signs. Councilmember Wilson noted although the ordinance was not perfect and more work needed to be done on the sign code, additional changes were more appropriately accomplished via the Planning Board and public participation at the Planning Board and Council levels. He agreed with Councilmember Petso's suggestion for a more streamlined process for signs on which the Council could reach unanimity and require a more involved process for signs with issues. The addition of the definition including size for real estate directional signs and open house A -frame signs was accepted by Councilmembers Orvis and Plunkett as a friendly amendment to the motion. Council President Earling agreed with the proposed changes to the real estate signs, noting the success of the policy was up to the real estate industry. He expressed doubt that real estate agents would write the address of the property on each sign they placed in the City. He agreed with the requirement to have directional signs removed seven days following the close of the sale. He suggested drafting a letter to real estate offices in South Snohomish County to inform them of the changes to the City's sign code and encourage them to self - police enforcement. Councilmember Wilson suggested staff provide a report to the Community Services/Development Services Committee in six months to provide feedback regarding the results of the changes which would allow the Council to provide additional direction regarding amendment to the sign code. Mayor Haakenson restated the motion as follows: Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 17, 2003 Page 9 TO DIRECT STAFF TO BRING BACK LANGUAGE FROM OPTION B WITH STAFF'S CHANGES PLUS LANGUAGE CLEARLY IDENTIFYING REAL ESTATE DIRECTIONAL SIGNS AND LIMITING THEM TO ONE PER INTERSECTION AND REQUIRING THEIR REMOVAL SEVEN DAYS AFTER THE CLOSING OF A SALE, ADD THE FOLLOWING AS A DEFINITION FOR REAL ESTATE DIRECTIONAL SIGNS TO SECTION 20.60.005: "A REAL ESTATE DIRECTIONAL SIGN IS A SIGN DISPLAYING A DIRECTIONAL ARROW AND COMPANY NAME AND /OR LOGO FOR PURPOSES OF DIRECTING THE PUBLIC TO REAL PROPERTY WHICH IS FOR SALE OR FOR RENT," DIRECT STAFF TO DEVELOP A DEFINITION FOR REAL ESTATE A -FRAME OPEN HOUSE SIGNS AND CONSIDER THE INDUSTRY STANDARD WITH REGARD TO SIZE, LOCATION, ETC. OF REAL ESTATE DIRECTIONAL SIGNS MOTION CARRIED (4 -1), COUNCILMEMBER PETSO OPPOSED. 7. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE SIX -YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PLAN. Six Year Transportation mprovement Traffic Engineer Darrell Smith reviewed the 2004 -2009 Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP). He 'an explained the TIP was a framework of potential projects over the six year period. He assured that no funds had been appropriated for the projects and each project would require Council approval. He explained the State required the City to update the TIP annually by July 1. The TIP contained all regionally significant projects the City planned to undertake over the next six years; Edmonds has traditionally included all transportation projects in the TIP whether they are regionally significant or not. He explained all jurisdictions' TIPS were then used to create a statewide TIP. Mr. Smith explained the TIP was required to be financially constrained in the first three years; the last three years are not required to be financially constrained. Additional projects were included in the last three years of the TIP as a project must be on the TIP to be eligible for State and Federal grants. He explained the TIP was reorganized this year, listing the projects in the same order as the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for ease of comparison. He noted the CIP was financially constrained over all six years and was a more accurate indicator of projects to be undertaken over the next six years. Mr. Smith advised the projects in the first three years of the 2004 -2009 TIP totaled $6,038,000 not including Edmonds Crossing projects; projects in the last three years total $17,338,000 not including Edmonds Crossing projects. Many of the projects must receive grant funding in order to be constructed. Mr. Smith reviewed the following completed projects that were removed from the TIP: • 76th Avenue Overlay from SR 104 to Hwy. 99 • 76"' Avenue Rockery Replacement • 74`h Place Bank Stabilization • Citywide Guardrail Replacement • Fire Station 16 Emergency Signal • Fire Station 20 Emergency Signal Mr. Smith reviewed the following new projects that were added to the TIP: • 5`h & Main Crosswalk Rehabilitation • 76th Avenue Walkway (Meadowdale Beach Road to North Meadowdale Road) • Meadowdale Beach Road Walkway • Puget Drive Walkway • 9th Avenue & Caspers Walkway • ADA Curb Ramp Improvements • Pedestrian Lighting Citywide Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 17, 2003 Page 10 Mr. Smith reviewed projects that would be funded if the RTID was approved by voters: • Edmonds Crossing - $154 million • 84`h Avenue Improvements (238`h to Five Corners) — $5 million • 238h Street Improvements (SR 104 to 84"' Avenue) — $1 million Mr. Smith reviewed the impacts of I -776 on the TIP: • Citywide Bikeway Projects — unfunded • Citywide Walkway Projects —unfunded • Citywide Signal Controllers — unfunded • Neighborhood Traffic Calming — unfunded • School Zone Improvements — unfunded • Street Overlays Delayed 2 -3 Years Mr. Smith advised staff's recommendation was for the City Council to approve the Six Year TIP and direct the City Attorney to prepare a draft resolution adopting the Six Year TIP and place the item on the Consent Agenda for the June 24 meeting. Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, Edmonds, noted I -776 was a disaster for the City as illustrated by the amount of unfunded projects in the TIP. He recommended the City identify funding for some of the basic projects; in the meantime since there were not many projects underway, he suggested utilizing the services of Snohomish County Traffic Engineers and eliminating the City's Traffic Engineer position. Hearing no further public comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public hearing. Councilmember Plunkett expressed the Council's thanks to Mr. Smith for the presentation regarding the TIP and expressing his approval for the projects that were added to the TIP. COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING, TO DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO DRAFT A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE SIX YEAR TIP AND PLACE THE ITEM ON THE COUNCIL CONSENT AGENDA FOR JUNE 24, 2003. Councilmember Wilson spoke in favor of the motion, advising that Mr. Smith was able to update the TIP to include several walkway projects following his presentation of the TIP to the Community Services/Development Services Committee. Councilmember Wilson noted that it was via Mr. Smith's efforts that the City obtained grant funding for several transportation projects. He recognized Mr. Smith for his efforts to identify solutions to pedestrian issues near the Frances Anderson Center. He concluded that eliminating the Traffic Engineer position would be a great disservice to the community due to Mr. Smith's assistance with getting projects funded and constructed. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 8. AUDIENCE COMMENTS There were no members of the audience present who wished to address the Council. 9. REPORT ON THE CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS OF JUNE 10, 2003 ance Finance Committee mmittee Councilmember Orvis reported the Committee discussed the creation of a new position, Court Probation Officer, and approved the item for presentation to the full Council. The Committee then discussed the Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 17, 2003 Page I I refinancing of the Public Safety bonds. He explained in 1996 the voters approved bonds to finance the Public Safety buildings. Staff plans to consider refinancing the bonds on June 22, lowering the amount needed to service the bonds, resulting in a slight decrease in property taxes. Public Safety Public Safely Committee Committee Councilmember Plunkett explained Edmonds, along with other South Snohomish County cities, coordinate with Snohomish County on a Snohomish Regional Drug Task Force Contract. The City provides $8,090 per year to participate in this cost effective partnership. The Committee recommended the contract be placed on the Consent Agenda and it was approved tonight. ommunity Community Services /Development Services Committee Services / Councilmember Wilson reported the Committee reviewed the findings of the Downtown Parking Study Development and discussed issues such as developing a uniform parking standard for the entire downtown area, Services p g P g ommittee considering grandfathering existing uses, etc. He noted questions were raised regarding whether the information in the report was complete and the consultants were asked to provide additional detail in response to the questions that were raised. The Committee then discussed detention ponds and concerns with the spread of the West Nile Virus. He explained that although there have not been any reported cases of West Nile Virus, Councilmember Marin planned to provide Public Works Director Noel Miller with contacts at the Heath District in an effort to develop a proactive approach. The Committee was also provided a presentation regarding the Six Year TIP. The Committee supported the TIP and earlier on the agenda, the Council approved the drafting of a resolution adopting the 2004 -2009 TIP. 10. MAYOR'S REPORT Mayor Haakenson had no report. 11. COUNCIL COMMENTS Council President Earling advised he had lunch today with former Mayor Larry Naughton who wished Edmonds residents well. Councilmember Petso advised to -date, most of WRIA 8's efforts have consisted of how to distribute King Conservation District funds among jurisdictions in King County and the impact to Edmonds has been minimal. She noted WRIA 8 was now moving toward an actual plan regarding salmon habitat conservation. WRIA 8 recently enhanced the outreach coordinator to market/explain the plan. She recommended a presentation be provided to the Council from the outreach coordinator regarding potential impacts on Edmonds property owners, funding opportunities, and near shore opportunities. Mr. Bowman agreed such a presentation would be appropriate. Historical Councilmember Plunkett announced that on June 12, the Edmonds Historical Preservation Commission Preservation was notified they received a $15,000 grant for historic preservation. He expressed his thanks to the Committee Commission as well as Mayor Haakenson and staff. He explained the grant funds would be used to hire a consultant to do an inventory of potentially historic sites. He explained these sites could then be adopted for recognition as historic sites, making them eligible for incentives to encourage the property owners to maintain the historical integrity of the buildings. He expressed his appreciation to Planning Manager Rob Chave who traveled to Olympia to make the grant presentation. With no f rther business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 8:50 p.m. G ENSON, MAYOR SANDRA S.. CHASE, CITY CLERK Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 17, 2003 Page 12 AGENDA EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex 250 5t" Avenue North, Edmonds 7:00 - 10:00 p.m. JUNE 17, 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 June 3, 2003. (C) Approval of claim checks #63108 through #63267 for the week of June 2, 2003, in the amount of $216,328.01. Approval of claim checks #63268 through #63415 for the week of June 9, 2003, in the amount of $324,907.20. Approval of payroll direct deposits and checks #35697 through #35814' for the period May 16 through May 31, 2003, in the amount of $785,229.15. (D) Report on bids opened June 10, 2003 for the Anderson Center Window Replacement - Phase 11 Project and award of contract to Armex, Inc. ($176,657.58, including sales tax). (E) Approval of Findings of Fact for a closed record review held before the City Council on May 27, 2003 of an application by Phoenix Development, Inc. for a Planned Residential Development and Formal Plat. The site is zoned Single Family Residential (RS -8), and is located at 8512, 8516, 8520 and 8526 Main Street. (File No. PRD- 2002 -171 and P- 2002 -172). (F) Authorization for the Mayor to sign Interlocal Agreement with Snohomish Regional Drug Task Force. (G) Authorization for the Mayor to sign Supplemental Agreement No. 1 to the Professional Services Agreement with Perteet Engineering for the Design of the 220th Street SW Improvements (Ninth Avenue South to 84th Avenue West) Project. (H) Authorization to advertise for Request for Qualifications for performing an engineering evaluation of the screenings system at the Treatment Plant. Page 1 of 2 CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA June 17, 2003 Page 2 of 2 (1) Proposed Resolution setting a public hearing on a consolidation annexation of the Ballinger Lift Station site. 3. (10 Min.) Introduction of the recipients of the Edmonds Police Foundation Edmonds - Woodway High School D.A.R.E. role model scholarship awards. 4. The following agenda item has been continued to October 21, 2003: Closed Record Review of the Planning Board's recommendation to approve the request by the Edmonds Public Facilities District for a rezone of the property located at 410 4t" Avenue North from Public (P) to RM -1.5. 5. (30 Min.) Public Hearing on vacation of the easterly half of the north 120 feet of 7t" Avenue South, south of Fir Street. 6. (60 Min.) Public Hearing on proposed revisions to the regulation of signage in Edmonds Community Development Code Chapters 20.10, 20.60 and 19.45. The Council is also considering alternate approaches to non - conforming signs, and minor changes to the regulation of real estate signs, as a part of these amendments. 1 7. (20 Min.) Public Hearing on the Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program. 8. Audience Comments (3 Minute Limit Per Person)* *Regarding matters not listed as Closed Record Review or as Public Hearings. 9. (10 Min.) Report on the City Council Committee Meetings of June 10, 2003. 10. ( 5 Min.) Mayor's Comments 11. (15 Min.) Council Comments Parking and meeting rooms are accessible for persons with disabilities. Please 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 cable television Government Access Channel 21.