Loading...
04/18/2000 City Council— ___I L.—_ 1 Change to Agenda p prove 4/4 inutes pprove F!_j EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES APRIL 18; 2000 The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Gary Haakenson in the Library Plaza Room, 650 Main Street, followed by the flag salute. ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT STAFF PRESENT Gary Haakenson, Mayor Thomas A. Miller, Council President Dave Earling, Councilmember Michael Plunkett, Councilmember Jim White, Councilmember Lora Petso, Councilmember .Dave Orvis, Councilmember Christopher Davis, Councilmember ALSO PRESENT Maia Krause, Student Representative 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Robin Hickok, Police Chief Ray Miller, Development Services Director Peggy Hetzler, Administrative Services Director Rob Chave, Planning Manager James Walker, City Engineer Brent Hunter, Human Resources Director Scott Snyder, City Attorney Linda Hynd, Deputy. City Clerk Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst. Jeannie Dines, Recorder COUNCIL PRESIDENT MILLER MOVED; SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, TO REVERSE THE ORDER OF ITEMS 5 AND 6. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. COUNCILMEMBER WHITE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, FOR APPROVAL 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 APRIL 4, 2000 (C) APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #35950 THROUGH #40355 FOR THE WEEK OF APRIL 3, 2000, IN THE AMOUNT OF $573,272.24. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHEdKS #35951 THROUGH #40474 FOR THE WEEK OF APRIL 10, 2000, IN THE AMOUNT:- ' F $430,087.17. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL CHECKS #27916 THROUGH #28024 FOR THE PERIOD MARCH 16 THROUGH MARCH 31, 2000, IN THE AMOUNT OF $332,947.08: Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 18, 2000 Page 1 arina Beach (D) REPORT. ON FINAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR THE MARINA BEACH STORM utfall . OUTFALL REPLACEMENT AND COUNCIL ACCEPTANCE OF PROJECT uit Claim eed at (E) ACCEPTANCE OF QUIT CLAIM DEED AT 16414 75"' PLACE WEST FROM 16a1a �sih ARMANDO AND MARIA TERESA "SINA" CHILELLI 2000 Water Main (F) AUTHORIZATION TO CALL FOR BI'DS FOR THE 2000 WATER MAIN Replacement REPLACEMENT PROGRAM Surplus (G) AUTHORIZATION FOR STAFF TO NEGOTIATE THE SALVDISPOSITION OF Furniture SURPLUS FURNITURE AND OTHER ITEMS FROM OLD PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING Towing (H) AUTHORIZATION TO ENTER INTO AGREEMENT WITH COMPANIES FOR Services TOWING SERVICES THAT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE APPLICATION AND AGREEMENT Earth Day — April 22 1 (1) PROCLAMATION IN OBSERVANCE OF EARTH DAY ON APRIL 22, 2000 Reso #981 (,1) RESOLUTION NO. 981 ESTABLISHING A COST RECOVERY PROCESS FOR THE Cost Recov. APPROVAL, RENEWAL, AND TRANSFER OF TELECOMMUNICATION Franchise. Franchises FRANCHISES, AND AMENDING RESOLUTION 967 3. AUDIENCE COMMENTS C Mayor Haakenson advised Item 5 (Proposed Ordinance Amending the Provision of 'ECDC: Section 18.80.060 Driveway and Curb ,Cut Requirements) was not a public hearing and the public hearing held on October 5, 1999 regarding the proposed ordinance had been closed. Therefore, audience members were encouraged to speak regarding that item during Audience Comment. As additional information including a map would be provided by staff, the public would have an opportunity to speak during that item but comments could only address the map. City Attorney Scott Snyder explained a pending appeal would be heard by the Council within the next month regarding application of the current ordinance. He'recommended the audience avoid discussing the pending appeal. Proposed Rob Nelson, 16019 2401' Place SW, Edmonds, referred to the' proposed fire lane between Forest Glen, Fire lane - Woodway Meadows and the proposed Woodway Highlands, explaining three weeks ago residents sent a Woodway Meadows letter to the Mayor regarding concerns with the development and what was occurring on that right-of- way. He commended Mayor Haakenson for contacting residents immediately, providing contacts in the City and for the developer. Mr. Nelson said residents had a meeting with the developer today regarding solutions and changes that could be made. He also thanked Councilmembers White, Plunkett, and Petso. for looking at the property and providing their support. South Jan Kavadas, 217 Alder Street, Edmonds, explained the South Snohomish Family Support Center is a Snohomish Family locally planned and led center that provides /directs people to social services. The Center is supported via Support a surcharge on marriage license fees. She explained there is no eligibility requirement for .family support Center services. The Center also provides classes for children, adults and English as a Second Language (EASL). There are also support groups and family- oriented activities. Ms..Kavadas said she participates in the Center to ensure this resource is available to serve South Snohomish County families. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April l8, 2000 Page 2 South Claudia Dickinson, 6309 196th Street SW, Lynnwood, said a parent described the South Snohomish Snohomish Family Family Su pp ort Center as a place "where everybody knows your name and awfully g lad you came." Support This individual also said the Center was a place where connections happened and information provided' Center to support the entire family, a place of opportunity where things can be made better. She thanked the Council for their support and confidence in their work over the years. She said the Center strives to live up to that parent's description because of the important responsibility and challenges families face raising children. She. said approximately 500 Edmonds families are served by the South Snohomish Family Support Center each year, connecting to the Center via programs in schools in the Edmonds School District, churches, apartment complexes and personal contact. The Center seeks to build social support through community resources for families. South Snohomish Virginia Scovel, 19155 1301h Ct NE, Bothell, described success stories at the South Snohomish Family Family Support Center. She provided calendars and brochures describing the Center. She invited the Council . Support Center and public to the Center's open house in June. Driveway Marcia Fleury, 18004 73rd Avenue W, Edmonds, and property owner of 124 Yd Avenue N, said they and Curb have had plans into the City for an 8 -unit condominium with commercial space since 1998. She said an Cut Require- ments easement was purchased to share a driveway to the south of their property to provide access to their building but they are unable to use that easement due to Uniform Building Code problems. Since mid - 1999, they have been seeking an access to their building that minimizes alterations from the original plans approved by the Architectural Design Board (ADB) and most departments. After submitting several proposals, they have been unsuccessful due to engineering's inability to deviate from the current code. She said Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 18.80.060, as interpreted, gives the Engineering Department no discretion or latitude to address. difficult topography or small interior lots. She said many building lots in the City were on sloping terrain and if access was denied from the street and only permitted from the alley, many lots were too steep and narrow to comply with the code. She said their situation fits this example, a sloping interior lot with little street access and an elevated alley. To further complicate their access, she said the ECDC requires Engineering to view'their entry as a street and forces them to meet street standards rather than driveway standards. She stressed they cannot provide access without significantly redesigning the building from its approved plans. If the code could not be changed, she asked that Engineering be allowed some discretion regarding .building access. ADB — Joint Carreen Rubenkonig, 19505 81" Place W, Edmonds, Chair of the Architectural Design Board Meeting on (ADB), thanked the Council for inviting the ADB to the second joint meeting with the Council on May 9. May 9; and Design Of utmost importance to the ADB is apprising the Council, particularly new Councilmembers Davis, Guidelines Petso and Orvis, of a memorandum sent to the Council regarding the ADB'9 position on Cedar River's report. She said the ADB looked forward to working with the consultant selected.to revise the design guidelines. She said the ADB was optimistic that improvements in the regulations would assist them in their decisions. In reference to a comment made at the retreat, Ms. Rubenkonig assured the .ADB currently enjoys the ability to hold a preliminary meeting with developers. She referred to the minutes of the last ADB meeting in which Rob Chave indicated the opportunity to interact with applicants early in the process is something that is already allowed with the current process and is something all the boardmembers have talked about over the years, having a desire and an interest in meeting with applicants as early as possible when they are more willing to hear some of the ADB's suggestions and -concerns and make modifications to their designs. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 18, 2000 Page 3 Karen Wiggins, 152 Yd Avenue S, Edmonds, Chair of the Downtow veway n Parking Committee, referred Curb to the proposed. change regarding curb cuts and alley access, and said the alleys in the City were not wide Require- enough (16 feet wide and a two lane roadway must be 24 feet wide), were unsafe, and full of potholes. ts She said the code must be flexible and subject to the conditions of the site. She said the City should not It t t discourage development as the City's tax base was becoming increasingly dependent on property taxes. She supported the proposed ordinance to amend the code. Driveway and Curb Cut Require- Jacque Mayo, 229 Yd Avenue .S, Edmonds, recommended the Council modify ECDC 18.80.060 to ments allow more flexibility due to topographical considerations. Driveway Alvin Rutledge, 7101 Lake Ballinger Way, Edmonds, pointed out. many businesses in the downtown and Curb Cut Require- area are using volunteers. He supported allowing more flexibility for access to businesses in the meets downtown business area., Joan Longstaff, 524 Main Street, Edmonds, urged the Council to support changes to ECDC to allow Driveway . and Curb flexibility and topographical considerations in determining access to property. She agreed the Fleury's Cut Require- situation at 124 3rd Avenue North was difficult as the current code made it impossible for them to ments develop their property. She said access should depend on the location of property; on Main Street, she felt development should be retail frontage that was not disrupted by parking, an admitted disadvantage to her when she chose to develop her lot. She stressed more flexibility was needed in the code. nohom;sh Lester Blume, 19026 Olympic View Drive, Edmonds, distributed information including a Snohomish ounty Tax County. Tax Roll Summary, Snohomish County Revaluation Schedule, Snohomish County Distribution ormation of Taxes, Total Taxes Levied in Snohomish County by All Taxing Districts, Voted Vs. Non -Voted Taxes, and Typical Levy Rates by City and Unincorporated. He corrected a previous statement he made regarding the total taxable, value. of property in the City; it should have been $40,029,000,000. He referred to the Snohomish County Distribution of Taxes, pointing out $554,015,312 in taxes was distributed among various entities. He said last year's report indicated cities received 13.42% of the moneys and this year cities received only 13.18 %. He referred to the list of Voted Vs. Non -Voted Taxes (1964 — 2000), remarking this indicated taxpayers were being forced to pay more non -voted taxes. He referred. to the list of Typical Levy Rates by City and Unincorporated, pointing out some cities' levy rates were higher than Edmonds. Councilmember Earling referred to the Voted Vs. Non -Voted Taxes and asked Administrative Services Director Peggy Hetzler to determine from Snohomish County how much of the increase was due to inflation between 1964 to 2000. Brad Butterfield, 400 Dayton, Edmonds, Chair of the Edmonds Alliance for Economic a Driveway Curb Development (EAED), a letter the EAED submitted to the Council on April 13. The letter and Curb h ( )� p Cut Require- . indicated the EAED Board of Directors voted unanimously to recommend to the City Council that they ments proceed with the recommendations of the Cedar River study regarding changes to the. ADB process. Specifically, the EAED recommended the ADB review be moved to the pre - planning stage of all projects and should include fewer engineering requirements, which would allow both the applicant and ADB flexibility in the design process. The letter stated the EAED had been informed on numerous occasions that the current process was prohibitively expensive and cumbersome and that there were too many requirements and it took too much time to complete. While the EAED supported the effort to evaluate and create better design guidelines for the future, they felt strongly that in the interim the ADB's quasi judicial status could and should be changed to an advisory review that would take place during the pre- Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 18, 2000 Page 4 Superior Charles Warner, 2002188 Ih Avenue W, Edmonds, urged changes in the ECDC not to stop with curb Court cuts. He urged the Council to rethink the City's current strategy that prevents review of a land use Review of decision by the Superior Court. He understood the City had an obligation to defend its decisions Land Use Decisions regarding land -use but said there was no moral prerogative to use taxpayers' moneys to prevent that review. Driveway Doug Dewar, 170 James, Edmonds, encouraged the Council to be more flexible regarding curb cuts. and Curb He said one of the primary results of the Cedar River study was the need to be more flexible.. He said the Cut Require- topography on lots in the City varied greatly from lot to lot and the code should allow, sufficient ments , flexibility to ensure the best product was constructed. He acknowledged a great deal of property would be developed over the next 20 years and flexibility would allow better development. Churches/ Elaine Yard, 9209 Olympic View Drive, Edmonds, said she attended a Planning Board meeting Parking recently and was distressed to hear that there was a letter discussing the problem of parking and churches Issues but that St. Peters by the Sea, 9' Avenue North, had not been included in the previous meetings in February and March. She said when they finally received a notice, the address was 9th Avenue West. She said there were 23 churches in the City and all should be included in any decision- making. She pointed out church members and visitors patronize businesses and park in the City and should have the opportunity to voice their opinions. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 18, 2000 Page 5 planning stages. Mr. Butterfield said the EAED supported the development of new design guidelines due, to their importance but also encouraged the Council to move the ADB's review process to the pre- planning stage and eliminate their quasi-judicial status. Mayor Haakenson, a member of the EAED Board,. said he abstained from the vote Mr. Butterfield referred to in the letter from the EAED to the Council... - Kevin Clarke, 23924 107th Place W, Edmonds, reported a potential resolution had been reached for the Meadows Meadows 20 -foot strip near Woodway Meadows. Several neighbors met with the developer this morning who P y g p g wanted to see the damage they created. Mr. Clarke acknowledged much of the resolution was a result of the Mayor's Office diligence regarding this matter. Mr. Clarke said the developer informed them that the Town of Woodway, as part of the final plat approval, had required them to provide an additional emergency access point as Edmonds may not grant the 20 -foot strip. In addition, Woodway required them to provide an emergency access point that would provide egress for residents out of the development (which Edmonds had not granted) as well as to accommodate bicycle and pedestrian traffic. The developer planned to redo their drawings and take 20 -feet from two lots in the northwest portion of the development that would front on the existing 110th Place Southwest emergency access point. He said the developer would apply for this change with the Town of Woodway and requested Edmonds provide written acceptance from the Fire Marshal of one access point for fire protection. He said the original developer was inflexible regarding the access point but the current developer will request the access be relocated as they do not want to pave a 20 -foot strip that they do not need or that the neighbors do not want paved. He requested the Council work with the Fire Marshal to draft a letter granting this new emergency access. Driveway and Curb . Greg Hoff, 22630 Woodway Park Road, Edmonds, a land owner and business owner in Edmonds, Cut Require - voiced his 'support ort g for changes in the curb cut ordinance. He said allowing staff the flexibility to enhance ents the usability on individual properties on an as- needed basis was critical to increasing the tax base, improving property values, and allowing property to be utilized to its full extent. Superior Charles Warner, 2002188 Ih Avenue W, Edmonds, urged changes in the ECDC not to stop with curb Court cuts. He urged the Council to rethink the City's current strategy that prevents review of a land use Review of decision by the Superior Court. He understood the City had an obligation to defend its decisions Land Use Decisions regarding land -use but said there was no moral prerogative to use taxpayers' moneys to prevent that review. Driveway Doug Dewar, 170 James, Edmonds, encouraged the Council to be more flexible regarding curb cuts. and Curb He said one of the primary results of the Cedar River study was the need to be more flexible.. He said the Cut Require- topography on lots in the City varied greatly from lot to lot and the code should allow, sufficient ments , flexibility to ensure the best product was constructed. He acknowledged a great deal of property would be developed over the next 20 years and flexibility would allow better development. Churches/ Elaine Yard, 9209 Olympic View Drive, Edmonds, said she attended a Planning Board meeting Parking recently and was distressed to hear that there was a letter discussing the problem of parking and churches Issues but that St. Peters by the Sea, 9' Avenue North, had not been included in the previous meetings in February and March. She said when they finally received a notice, the address was 9th Avenue West. She said there were 23 churches in the City and all should be included in any decision- making. She pointed out church members and visitors patronize businesses and park in the City and should have the opportunity to voice their opinions. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 18, 2000 Page 5 riveway Alan Young, 111 Main Street, Edmonds, opposed the change to the curb cut ordinance, primarily due d Curb to the impact of eliminating any parking in downtown Edmonds. He questioned how many spaces would ut Require - ents be eliminated throughout the City by this' change. He agreed there were extenuating circumstances in some situations and said exceptions could be reviewed by the City Council or ADB. He said the alley access provision was instituted to preserve parking in the City. Driveway Brian Benzel,, 111 Main Street, Edmonds, said flexibility in the curb cut ordinance may improve the and Curb situation and urged the Council to consider staff's recommendation to provide flexibility for notice to Cut Require- ments adjacent property owners as well as a review period so that a decision that might affect the neighborhood could include neighborhood involvement and would not be solely a staff decision. Driveway Roger Heitrich, 1020 Puget Drive, Edmonds, pointed out it appeared a hearing. had been held tonight and Curb regarding the curb cut ordinance although it was one - sided. He said it was not intended to be a hearing Cut Require- . g g g g ments and the Council should not make a decision this evening as a public hearing required both sides of the issue be considered. He said the Council should discuss the curb cut issue and consider flexibility but also consider how much flexibility, who would make the decision and what controls /rules /limitation would be on the process. He preferred the Planning Board review this issue. He recommended the issue be addressed on a variance basis with public notification and the ability for challenge and appeal. He said it was very difficult to have a staff decision change as the legal recourses were difficult. He said construction of a curb cut resulted in reduced retail space in the front of the building which he felt should be substituted elsewhere in the building. He also pointed out curb cuts that eliminate parking effect residents throughout the City. He disputed the point that these buildings increase the City's tax base, pointing out only 5% of the building would be retail and the remainder would be condominiums which do not generate sales tax. He reiterated any reduction in the retail area in a building reduced the ability to generate sales tax. He recommended the Council not make a decision tonight and refer the matter to the Planning Board for further discussion. Scandinavian 4. PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING SCANDINAVIAN DAYS Days Mayor Haakenson advised the City would be celebrating its fifth annual Scandinavian Festival on Saturday, May 6`h. He reported many activities were planned throughout the day including the Norwegian pancake breakfast, a troll stroll with street music and an evening concert featuring Dr. George Fiore and the Cascade Symphony Orchestra. I Mayor Haakenson read a Proclamation regarding the Scandinavian Festival Days in Edmonds. and presented it to Bob Stevenson, chairman of the festival, and his wife, Erlene, President of Edmonds Lodge 130. Ms. Stevenson thanked the City for the Proclamation and their support this year and in the. past. She invited the Council and 'public to attend the festival. She described musical events that would occur throughout the day at the Masonic Center from 9:00 a.m. — 3:00 p.m. and the pancake breakfast from 7:00 a.m. — 1:00 p.m. Mr. Stevenson said attendees were encouraged to spend the day in Edmonds; when the festivities at the Masonic center conclude at 3:00 p.m., there would be time for dinner in Edmonds prior to the concert at 7:00 p.m. He said all proceeds from the Festival go to their scholarship fund. During the past several years, they have provided three high school scholarships as well as support for summer language and heritage camps. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 18, 2000 Page 6 5. CONTINUED DISCUSSION ON PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING THE PROVISION OF Driveway EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 18.80.060, DRIVEWAY AND d Curb Cut Require- CURB CUT REQUIREMENTS PARAGRAPH B (5�, DOWNTOWN BUSINESS AREA, TO ments PROVIDE GREATER FLEXIBILITY IN DETERMINING LOCATION OF ACCESS City Attorney Scott Snyder explained this was a legislative decision and not a quasi-judicial hearing and that was -the reason the audience was allowed to speak regarding this issue (under audience comment). He said at the conclusion of the public hearing .in October 1999, the Council closed the public hearing, tabled discussion to a later date and requested information from staff. The purpose of tonight's discussion was to provide that information to the Council, provide an opportunity for the public to testify regarding the new information, and for the Council to continue its deliberation. He said the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine was not applicable to legislative decisions. Councilmember Earling said at the October public hearing, -he supported a broad base discussion regarding the impacts throughout the downtown area. However, as the minutes of that meeting indicate, the discussion focused on a particular property. Due to that focus and because three audience members who provided testimony contributed to his campaign, he chose to step down from the decision although that action was not necessary as it was a legislative hearing. He chose to participate in tonight's legislative decision as the information provided was in a broader context, identifying several properties throughout the downtown area. Mr. Snyder explained, unlike a quasi judicial decision when a Councilmember must be present or have considered the record, on a legislative decision, Councilmembers may consider the'record as well as other information the Councilmember may be aware of. He summarized there was no impediment to Councilmember Earling's participation. City Engineer Jim Walker said although the focus of the October 1999 public hearing was largely regarding one property, there were multiple locations where the restricted access caused problems for property that could only take access from an alley. He displayed a map identifying 37 properties that may encounter difficulties with access. He said many of the situations occurred when there was a significant slope across the property. He said staff did not necessarily agree with some of the sites identified on the map, particularly some on 4' Avenue, as there was not sufficient slope to cause problems. For Councilmember Earling, Mr. Walker identified the Fleury property. Mr. Walker displayed and described a sketch illustrating topography that may make it difficult to provide alley access. Councilmember Petso said she was familiar with a number of buildings in the Fremont area that were designed as Mr. Walker described (parking on the second floor) and asked if that was allowed by the Edmonds code. Mr. Walker answered problems may arise with the building height a� well as the possibility of parking occurring between floors if the alley and street were on different levels. Councilmember Petso asked if fill could be added to make the street and alley levels the same. Mr. Walker answered no. Councilmember Orvis clarified there was no proposal to increase height limits. Mr. Walker agreed, pointing out a property on a slope may have parking in the basement that may not exist on a flat lot. Councilmember Orvis observed the building would not be higher but deeper. Mr. Walker said developers of property on a slope often take advantage of the topography and build a lower level garage. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 18, 2000 Page 7 Councilmember White asked if the rule that required the height be relative to the average of the slope applied to residential development only. Mr. Walker said it applied to commercial also. He said the building could be higher on the downhill side but overall the height must,be 25 feet. .Councilmember Petso said she was told earlier that changes to the ordinance would require another public hearing. She asked it that applied to all changes or only substantial changes. Mr. Snyder advised' the ordinance before the Council was subject to a public hearing in October. If the Council made substantive changes in either a legal requirement or a standard, it would require another public hearing. He said typographical changes or minor changes in language would not, require another public hearing. Councilmember Petso asked Mr. Snyder to review ECDC 18.80.060(B)(5)(a)(ii), observing there was something missing in the wording. Councilmember Petso asked if the Planning Board had reviewed this issue. Mr. Walker answered no, but it had been before the Community Services Committee three times. He said the Planning Board typically had not reviewed revisions to Section 18 or 19 of the ECDC. Councilmember Petso asked what notice provision could be provided without changing the substance of the ordinance. Mr. Walker said Section 20, which addresses staff decisions that require notification, could be modified. Mr. Snyder said the mechanism already existed as any staff decision was required to be in writing and any staff decision was appealable. He said the only question would be to whom notice would be provided. Councilmember Petso asked who would receive notice if Section 20 were revised. Mr. Walker said it would be the same notice as provided for any other public process, notification to property owners within 300 feet as well as published and posted notification. Councilmember Petso asked if there would be the same appeal rights. Mr. Walker said there was a similar appeal process — to the Hearing Examiner and then to City Council. Councilmember Petso observed when action was tabled on October 5; staff was to return with criteria from the Court of Appeals and a notice structure similar to the variance and waiver but said a Court of Appeal's decision was not provided. Mr. Snyder said the Court of Appeals did not provide criteria, only "reasonable person standard." He said the Court of Appeals has chosen to apply the issue of access on a case -by -case, factual basis due to the takings issue. The Court of Appeals declined to give specific guidelines as it was typically a jury issue. Councilmember Petso said the minutes of the October 5, 1999, meeting indicated criterion/examples would be incorporated into the ordinance to provide guidance to the Hearing Examiner and Council regarding the definition of substantial and reasonable. She asked whether that could be done. Mr. Snyder said the ordinance incorporates the criterion that have been provided by the Court of Appeals, addressed in iii and iv, issues relating to other public benefits. He said examples /criterion would limit the use of the word "reasonable" which the Courts have declined to do. Councilmember Petso said the ordinance referred to the purposes of the ECDC, granting a waiver to promote the purposes of the ECDC. She said she was unable to identify a purposes section in the ECDC and asked what that language referred to. Mr. Walker said the Comprehensive Plan, such as the Transportation Element, Utilities Element, which are adopted as part of the ECDC chapter. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 18, 2000 Page 8 Mr. Snyder referred to Councilmember Petso's earlier question regarding ECDC 18.80.060(B)(5)(a)(ii) and recommended the words "restrict such utility" be deleted (the section would then read, "Access from an existing alleyway would substantially impair reasonable access to an abutting public street or utility esmiet sueh utility because of circumstances related to site size, topography or orientation, or For Councilmember Davis, Mr. Snyder explained "reasonable person standard" referred to a value judgment made by a normal, reasonable person in full possession of the facts who was unswayed by a particular prejudice, reasonable under the circumstances. The Court of Appeals has declined to give any specific direction as this relates to the specific utility of a property and whether the governmental restriction reduced the value of the property. He said the Courts have indicated that decision needed to made considering the totality of the circumstances — facts available including the value of the property before, the prior uses of the property, and how the restriction damaged the value of the property. Councilmember White said his concerns regarding "reasonableness" were satisfied as staff would determine whether access was reasonable, upon appeal the Hearing Examiner, Council, Superior Court and ultimately Supreme Court, if necessary, could determine whether it was reasonable. In response to Councilmember White's inquiry regarding Section 18.80.060 (5)(A)(i), Mr. Snyder said the section should state "access to the subject property." Councilmember White asked where in the ordinance it was stated that staff could allow alley access. Mr. Snyder referred to Section B(5)(c) which stated "or other alternative." Mr.. Snyder explained the intent was for there to be a hierarchy - 1) if there was an alley, and if so, does it provide reasonable access; 2) if there was no alley or the alley would not be reasonable, could a common driveway be shared, and 3) another alternative. He said the City's past policy has been to preserve existing on street parking by utilizing existing driveway entrances versus creating new curb cuts. COUNCIL PRESIDENT MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DAVIS, TO EXTEND DISCUSSION OF THIS ITEM FOR 15 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Plunkett observed that in addition to engineering issues, there were also legal reasons.' this change was being considered. Mr. Snyder said every property owner had the right to have reasonable access to their property from abutting city streets. The city could restrict access by exercising reasonable police power (i.e. a barrier that prohibits a left turn). If the ordinance remains unchanged, the City may be faced with inverse condemnation action by property owners in the downtown area because if they do not have reasonable access to their property, they have the right to be compensated for it. Councilmember Petso referred to the comment made by Ms. Longstaff regarding a difference between property on Main Street and 3rd Avenue and preventing curb cuts in the downtown area but allowing curb cuts on a case -by -case basis on Yd Avenue. Councilmember Petso observed the ordinance did not appear to allow a case -by -case discretion. Mr. Snyder said alley access was only currently required in the downtown area. Access could be provided from any abutting street elsewhere in the City. He said the ordinance would provide some staff discretion as well as provide a hierarchy for a decision. Councilmember Petso asked if paragraph IN could be deleted and the Council still make a decision tonight or if that would constitute a substantial change. Councilmember Petso said the language in paragraph iv was incredibly broad and would allow anything, particularly without a definition of the purpose of the ECDC. She said the language in paragraph iv was broader than she wanted to approve at this time. Mr. Snyder said the section could be revised to state, "Providing access from a point other than the alley would promote traffic safety, or othe fvvi e bettor promote the of the Edmonds Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 18, 2000 Page 9 Code." He said the intent of the remaining language was to address situations when the Council may want to. retain the discretion to approve something that might provide some other benefit. He said the section" could also specifically reference the Transportation Element and its. . purposes. Councilmember Petso asked whether it could always be said that providing access from a point other than the alley would promote traffic safety. Mr. Snyder answered yes, given the condition of some of the City's alleys. Councilmember White asked Mr. Walker what paragraph he would rely upon to make a determination whether the alleyway entrance would be required. Mr. Walker said paragraph ii referred to .circumstances related to site size; topography or orientation: If topography of the site made alley access impractical for development, he indicated he could, under paragraph c, consider an existing common driveway or other alternative, provided that the applicant met the criteria of paragraph ii. . COUNCIL PRESIDENT MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DAVIS, TO EXTEND DISCUSSION OF THIS ITEM FOR 20 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED. Mr. Snyder said if the Council wished, the ordinance could be reworded to provide a waiver from a specific requirement. He said the intent was to provide a hierarchy that would result in something other than alley access or a shared driveway access at the conclusion of the process. He explained the intent was for staff to consider a series of alternatives and allow a curb cut only as a last alternative. Councilmember White did not feel the wording in paragraph ii was sufficient. He suggested paragraph i be reworded to read, "No alleyway exists which would provide reasonable vehicular access to -a4et the subject property in the downtown business area; or" Councilmember White said his intent was to leave ii as drafted. Mr. Snyder. said in other areas of the City, the City Engineer grants curb cuts for access to their lots and has fairly broad discretion to determine whether those accesses are placed. In the downtown area, the Council wanted to preserve on- street parking unless there was some problem. Councilmember Earling referred to the comments from Councilmember Petso and Ms. Longstaff regarding retail development on Main Street versus 3rd Avenue. He pointed out a few years ago, no one would have imagined retail at the corner of 2nd and Main or retail frontage on 3' just north of. Claire's Pantry. He cautioned the Council not to try to image how the City might develop over the next 20 years and preferred the Council establish policy direction. Councilmember Earling suggested paragraph iv refer to the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan rather than the ECDC. He was also interested in providing neighborhood notice. Councilmember Davis. asked how many parking spaces would be lost if the 37 properties identified on the map were allowed curb cuts. Mr. Walker estimated 40, rioting it was difficult to determine exactly, as much would depend on how driveways were positioned with regard to other driveways. He said there were approximately 400 -500 parking spaces in that area. Councilmember Davis asked if the additional parking provided on -site would justify the curb cut. Mr. Walker answered parking would be gained but a use would also be established creating a need for the parking. He assumed if the code requirements were correct, the need for parking and the parking provided would balance. Mr. Walker said as site development triggers a SEPA process, consideration Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 18, 2000 Page 10 has been given to whether mitigation could be required for the lost parking (i.e. an in- lieu -of- parking fee). Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of this item. Alan Young, 111 Main Street, Edmonds, recalled. one situation that resulted in the loss of nine parking spaces not including the curb cut. He asked how the in- lieu -of- parking fees were spent, commenting parking has not been replaced. He stressed new construction often eliminates spaces in addition to on- street parking lost as a result of the curb cut. He pointed out visitors to condominium projects create a . further need for parking. He disagreed with Mr. Walker's estimate regarding the number of parking spaces that would be lost. Brad Butterfield, 400 Dayton, Edmonds, said a parallel parking space was approximately 20 feet in length and a curb cut was approximately 16 — 24 feet; therefore a curb cut equals approximately one vehicle. He explained a property he is currently developing at 210 5`' Avenue has one curb cut but would also provide 40 on -site, parking spaces. He agreed with Mr. Walker's statement that the engineering standards were intended to balance the need for parking with the parking provided . but said in many instances, more off - street, on -site parking was provided than would be eliminated by one curb cut. He pointed out this issue was restricted to only the BC zone. He referred to Mr. Young's comment regarding visitors, pointing out there were commercial and residential mixes in the BC zone and most of, the commercial space was empty after 5:00 p.m., providing adequate parking space for visitors. He said he created the list of 37 properties in the BC zone where the topography of the alley was higher than the street access. He said property owners want their parking to be subterranean and envisioned it would be J difficult to get the ADB to approve parking on the second or third floor of a structure. He summarized the proposed code changes were important and needed to be approved. Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, Edmonds, said references to the ECDC were the most important, part of any decision; if that portion was eliminated, the ability for a proper decision was eliminated. He said one parking space did not equate to one curb cut due to the restricted parking zones on either side of the driveway. He estimated a curb cut likely equaled 2+ parking spaces depending on the location. He suggested some of the information provided to the Council was biased and recommended the Council make a decision at a later date. Charles Warner, 20021 88 'h Avenue W, Edmonds, referred to the comment regarding eliminating on street parking and replacing it on -site, pointing out that put public parking into private ownership, likely with restrictions such as to be used by patrons only. He said the availability . of public parking in the downtown core was really the issue. Businesses adjacent to newer buildings were likely to have problems with parking if their existing public parking was removed and replaced with restricted on -site parking. He questioned the City's control over the availability of parking once it was placed on private property. He appreciated Councilmember Earling's concern regarding public notice but was uncertain if it would have much impact if the Council did not allow issues to be reviewed further after a decision had been made. Albert Dykes, 110 Sunset Avenue N, Edmonds, supported changes in the ECDC that would allow more flexibility in addressing variances in topography of property in the commercial zone. He observed there had been a great of emphasis on the loss of parking. He referred to Mr. Young's comment regarding the loss of nine parking spaces, pointed out those spaces were on private and not public property: He said Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 18, 2000 Page 11 due to the inflexibility of the current code, even if a property in the commercial zone had a curb, cut, they would be prevented from using it if the property had alley access. Kevin Clarke, 100 2 "d Avenue S, Ste. 320, Edmonds, President of Clarke Consulting Group, said: he did not represent any client regarding .this issue but related two circumstances, one when he testified as an expert witness in Superior Court and Federal Court relating to condemnation matters and said unless the City made this change, a case for inverse condemnation could be made. Second, he was recently involved with a partition action of four interior lots that fronted on the street and also had an alley. In an effort to divide the lot equally, one was to be accessed from the street and the other from the alley; the diminution in value associated with the alley access was considerable. He said alley access was an inferior physical and economic layout and there was no way to create the highest value for a property by accessing from the alley if there were topography issues. Al Rutledge, 7101 Lake Ballinger Way, Edmonds, said there was no parking problem in the downtown area. He reiterated this issue had not beeil reviewed by the Planning Board. Bill Borger, 751 Laurel Street, Edmonds, urged the Council to adopt the proposed change, pointing out it would be a great help to the City and to,others who are anxious to live here. Mayor Haakenson closed the public participation portion of this item. COUNCIL PRESIDENT MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DAVIS, TO EXTEND DISCUSSION OF THIS ITEM FOR 10 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED. Mr. Snyder explained the ordinance was originally recommended by staff to avoid an inadvertent inverse condemnation of properties once it was discovered that topography problems would prevent reasonable access to property. In response to a concern raised over the loss of public on- street parking, he said it was important to differentiate between public problems and those created by a developer. He cautioned the Council not to pass public problems that were unrelated to development on to a developer. He said the loss,of public parking was not the problem, the problem was lack of reasonable public parking in the entire downtown area. He said the City had a number of tools for providing public parking, including an effort to locate a parking structure in the downtown area. If inadequate parking was proposed by a development, the City could reconsider the amount of parking a development was required to provide, require payment of an in -lieu parking fees that would .contribute to the construction of a parking structure, and staff was researching an increase in mitigation fees, so that parking could be provided. He said the City had an obligation to have the parking structure on the CIP so that funds raised via. the in- lieu-of-parking fee could be used`to replace parking. Mr. Snyder outlined the changes suggested by the Council: • Change "possible" to "impossible" in the third WHEREAS on page 1. • Revise paragraph i to read, "No alleyway exists which would provide reasonable vehicular access to the subject property; or" • Revise paragraph ii to read, "Access from an existing alleyway would substantially impair reasonable access to ,an abutting public street or utility because of circumstances related to site size, topography or orientation, or" • Revise paragraph iv to, read, "Providing access from a point other than the alley would promote traffic safety or otherwise better promote the purposes of the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan." Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 18, 2000 Page 12 Add the following sentence to page 3, "The City Engineer's decision to approve alternative access shall be processed in accordance with the provisions of ECDC 20:95.050." Mr. Snyder explained ECDC 20.95.050 referred to the noticing of staff decisions where notice was required. It was the same process for lot line adjustments, home use occupations, guest houses, etc. and " provided posted and written notice to property owners within 300 feet. He pointed out the Mayor's name on page 3 would also be,changed. Mayor Haakenson remanded the matter to Council for deliberation. Ord #3302 Driveway COUNCIL PRESIDENT MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, and Curb FOR ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO. 3302 AS AMENDED. Cut Require- ments Councilmember Petso agreed there were instances when size, topography or orientation should be considered but pointed out paragraph iii and iv went far beyond that and the City would not be limiting curb .cuts to only the properties identified on the map. She stressed the ordinance "would give it to everybody" which she felt was a mistake. She said anyone who wanted to build on their property could ,easily hire an attorney who could argue that providing access from a point other than the alley would promote traffic safety and they .would not need topography, size or other problems to meet the conditions. She recommended - paragraphs iii and iv be deleted as they were so vague and general that they would allow curb cuts throughout the district. Councilmember Plunkett observed the Council could not make ordinances "lawyer proof' and needed to fall back on the test of reasonableness. In light of the legal reason to move forward with this change as well as engineering and. economic reasons, he supported the ordinance as written. Councilmember Orvis indicated he would support the ordinance, observing if the ordinance was not changed, inverse condemnation could result in a great deal of cost to the City. He said the current ordinance appeared to discourage underground parking and he felt it was reasonable to put parking underground whenever feasible. Councilmember Earling said it was a fundamental property right to have reasonable access to property. He said although an attorney may seek relief that cannot be envisioned tonight, he said the City Attorney had only provided "strong language" a few times in the eight years he had been on the Council. He referred to quotes Mr. Snyder made at the October 5, 1999, meeting (contained in the staff report), "...property owners are entitled to commercially reasonable access..." and "if a property owner is deprived of commercially reasonable access, the additional development costs, property values, etc. could be the City's responsibility." Councilmember Earling said it was clear from those comments that the Council must act to avoid lawsuits. MOTION CARRIED. (The vote was 6 -1; Councilmember Petso opposed.) Mayor Haakenson declared a brief recess. DB Design 6 INTERVIEW FINALISTS FOR ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD DESIGN GUIDELINES Guidelines CONSULTANT Consultant Interviews Planning Manager Rob Chave'advised two firms had responded to the Request for Proposals (RFP), the. first to be interviewed was Cascade Collaborative. Due to the late hour, Council President Miller encouraged the presenters to be brief. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 18, 2000 Page 13 I Eric Schmidt, Principle, Cascade Collaborative, introduced Jennifer Mundee, a Senior Associate, and Dennis Tate, an Architect, and explained they have worked together for the past'six years doing urban design development plans throughout the northwest. He circulated boards illustrating /describing their past work as well as illustrations regarding how they.might assist with the parking issue, taken from the Bainbridge Island code and development regulations that they have worked on from 1995 to the present. He referred to a list of 21 plans they have developed over the past five years to illustrate the amount of work they have accomplished regarding this issue and a list of five cities where they have developed their design development codes as well as participated in ongoing work at those cities' requests. He said the documents produced for those five cities were award - winning documents, receiving awards from AIA, APA and Sunset Magazine. Mr. Schmidt reiterated they have ongoing work with many of the cities they have worked. with in the past. He said they were interested in working with Edmonds over the long term. He said part of their track record was their ability to assist on many different levels. Mr. Schmidt reviewed the process they envisioned over the four months to achieve the goal of developing standards that could resolve some of the issues that have arisen in the past such as the parking problem the Council reviewed tonight. He said they read through the documents that were in need of flexibility and diversity. He pointed out the importance of balancing design input with development reality. He described their ability to work with developers in determining how the design guidelines impact their projects (in University Place and Bainbridge Island). He commented Bainbridge Island was also considering how to develop a parking structure in their downtown core. In reviewing the documents provided to them, Mr. Schmidt said they determined a great deal of simplification needed to occur. That would be accomplished via a kick -off meeting with staff prior to 'the first public forum to identify strategies to streamline the process, determine what regulations were redundant, determine which regulations could be deleted and determine what regulations, in their experience, needed to be added to make the document easier for the .development community to understand.. Draft regulations would be reviewed with staff and taken to the public for a discussion regarding the regulations. The formal documents and revisions would then be drafted through the end of the 4 -month process. Mr. Schmidt displayed a matrix that covered all the design requirement elements that currently exist in the code. He said the matrix would include mandatory items for each subarea followed by an option menu for issues such as access, parking, buffers, setbacks, open space, water quality, building forms, building usage, etc. He explained this was a method for simplifying the process; a method that was easy for developers to understand and a method he used for seven years at the: Boston Redevelopment Authority. He said this method was, used in four of the cities in which they have developed design development plans. Councilmember Plunkett explained the Edmonds ADB was a quasi-judicial board that reviewed plans at the end of the process. He asked Mr. Schmidt if he envisioned design guidelines having anything to do with whether the ADB was involved in the pre - approval process or at the end as a quasi-judicial body. Mr. Schmidt said the design regulations would not control how /when the board acted. He said the ADB should act sooner rather than ,later but the design regulations would be a document the ADB used in the process and the zoning code would establish when in the process they reviewed projects. He said a change in the zoning code would be necessary to change the quasi-judicial status of the ADB. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 18, 2000 Page 14 Council President Miller asked how the stakeholders would be involved in rewriting the regulations. Mr. Schmidt answered the same stakeholders that Cedar River identified in the Design Review Study would be used to test the general ideas before they were presented to the general public at a public forum. He said there would be two public forums, as identified in the scope of work, one early in the process to identify which guidelines were redundant, new regulations to be added, etc. and a second public forum where the new regulations would be presented. For Council President Miller, Mr. Schmidt said the draft regulations would be reviewed with staff for unintended consequences before they were presented to the public. Councilmember Earling observed the staff of Cascade Collaborative were busy people and inquired about their time availability. Mr. Schmidt said Ms. Mundee, Mr. Tate and his time had already been blocked out for this project and they could start tomorrow or next week. Councilmember-Earling recalled one of their resumes referred to design of ,four elementary schools. Mr. Schmidt said they worked on Chase Lake Elementary, Meadowdale Elementary, Thorndyke Elementary (Tacoma) and Alderwood Elementary. Councilmember White asked what would be presented at the public forums and who they envisioned would be present. Mr. Schmidt answered it would be a workshop format, they would have boards similar to those displayed tonight and graphics describing the existing and proposed regulations. He explained Mr. Tate and Ms. Mundee's forte was their ability to "draw on their feet" so there would be, an opportunity to illustrate responses to questions regarding modulation, setback, etc. He said the meeting would be opened with a preliminary discussion regarding the intent for the workshop and then break into groups to discuss specific issues —Ms. Mundee would address issues regarding the public realm such as the streetscape, the urban design, curb cuts, and parking, Mr. Tate would address architecture, modulation, setback, roof forms and other aspects of the building,, and he would address policy regulations and how it integrated with the Comprehensive Plan. Councilmember White explained in Edmonds there was a general ordinance structure that indicated roof heights not exceed 25 feet but a 5 -foot increase was permitted under certain conditions. However, the height sometimes starting at 30 feet and modulated down, and other times it started at 25 feet and modulated up to 30 feet. He asked how they would address that. Mr. Schmidt said one of their proposals was to consider not only the vertical setback but also horizontal. He said it would be their hope that the regulations would allow staff to choose whether there would be a vertical setback or a horizontal setback and.not both. He said they would develop a defined graphic illustrating the point at which the evaluation was established and the exceptions. He said most regulations they have developed allowed a 546ot flexibility from the underside of the ceiling on the top floor. Mr. Schmidt summarized their regulations have been tested in the marketplace by development specialists. He said they reduced Federal Way's zoning code by 30% and wrote their design guidelines as well as their bonus program. He said Federal Way's bonus program was reviewed by developers to ensure the benefits to burdens and they indicated the regulations were a positive benefit. He said the law firms of Davis Wright Tremain and William Casner Gibbs reviewed their documents (outside of court), and indicated they have stood the test of a great deal of legal scrutiny. He said developers in cities they have worked with have returned to request their assistance in drafting regulations for CC &R's for business parks. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 18, 2000 Page 15 1 Councilmember White asked if any of their projects have specifically addressed the issue of height limitations. Mr. Schmidt answered the City of SeaTac was the only city in which they did not address height regulations because. FAA controls their heights regulations. He said some cities have been more flexible regarding height and stricter on the FARs and the overall development. Mr. Tate said typically height limits are set by zoning. The design review process provides an opportunity to do design departures from height limits. He said they could also review the City's zoning code if that was desired. In response to an earlier question regarding how to reach consensus on design issues, he said they would work with the community (the general public as well as the development community) to determine the issues and what they would like to see. Mr. Schmidt described height regulations he developed for the Boston Commons that related to the shadow cast by buildings on the Commons. COUNCIL PRESIDENT MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WHITE, TO EXTEND THE MEETING UNTIL 11:00 P.M. MOTION CARRIED. Due to the late hour, Council President Miller encouraged the presenters to be brief. John Owen, Partner In Charge, Makers, introduced members of their firm, Ben Bengford, Project Manager, and Thanasorn Kamolratanayothin. He explained they have assisted the City with other projects and have made design guidelines a specialty of their firm. He explained Mr. Bengford, Ms. Kamolratanayothin and he had done a number of projects together recently (Newcastle, Black Diamond and Burien). Mr. Owen said he viewed design guidelines as a .community- building tool —to assist the city in making decisions about their future. Mr. Bengford, a former permit reviewer for Bonner County, approached design guidelines from an administrative /regulatory background and Ms. Kamolratanayothin had graphic and communication expertise. Mr. Owen said the materials they distributed outlined their experience. He said one of the issues that arose in the Cedar River Study was that the ADB may focus oil issues that are not as important; some of the design guidelines they have developed for other cities ensured the design board considered the entire context of a project. He said there were also several sections of the City that the design guidelines related to— downtown, neighborhood centers and Highway 99. He said they prepared design guidelines for several areas in Newcastle that were contained in one document. The other issue that arose in the Cedar River Study was that several documents are currently used by the ADB and there was a need to ensure they functioned as a single document. Mr. Bengford described the process proposed for the project, noting the process includes several items outlined in the Cedar River report. He said the process would include reviewing existing materials such as the Comprehensive Plan, design guidelines, etc. to determine how they function and the issues associated with them as well as conducting interviews with key community members, staff, elected officials, ADB members and identifying potential outlines and formats for the design guidelines. He said the first of two public workshops would identify some of the most important issues. He explained the workshops could include a visual preference surveyor. He identified key decision points /meetings with staff/ADB during the process. He explained following the first public workshop, an outline /format for the guidelines would be determined and the draft guidelines prepared including graphics to illustrate issues in the guidelines. The draft guidelines would be reviewed at a second public workshop. The guidelines would then be refined utilizing comments from staff, ADB and the public. He said they would remain involved through the final adoption process. He pointed out their ability to complete the project within the 120 -day timeframe. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 18, 2000 Page 16 Mr. Owen referred to issues addressed in the Cedar River Study including packaging, facilitating the process, clarity and graphic communication, code departures (make the development code more flexible in instances where there was a public benefit), and addressing special districts. He described how they had addressed similar issues in other cities. Mr. Owen said they understood the ADB was considering having their review occur prior to submittal, which would allow the ADB-to provide project direction early on. He said they participated in a similar process in the City of Seattle, creating a checklist of issues that needed to be addressed in the design.. Councilmember White asked Mr. Owen to describe how the public ,forums would be structured. Mr. Owen said this would be discussed with staff and the ADB to ensure past efforts were not duplicated. He said public input was useful to ensure the objectives were correct. This would be accomplished via a visual preference survey (photographs of actual developments and seek participants' opinions), or the charette process where participants indicate important issues the design guidelines should address. He said when developing design. guidelines in other cities, participants have also been asked to bring photographs of examples they want addressed in the design guidelines. He said the second workshop would explain what the design guidelines contained and solicit public comment. He said that workshop could be structured as an open house with stations to address different design issues. Councilmember White said the materials indicated the public forum would be handled in different ways depending on the goal. He asked how.the goal of the forum would be determined. Mr. Owen said information developed via previous interviews would be considered as well as interviews with key players early in the process. Following the workshop, he explained they typically tabulate the results of the visual preference survey —what images were preferred and why. They also tabulate comments made at the charette, which may include a dot exercise to identify important issues. Councilmember White asked how the format/purpose would be determined. Mr. Owen said they would first meet with staff and ADB members to outline the approach to the process.' . Councilmember White said a significant issue in Edmonds was height limits; the height limit was 25 feet and increases were allowed to 30 feet under certain conditions. He said the question has been whether to start at 30 feet and modulate down, or start at 25 feet and modulate up to 30 feet. Mr. Owens said they would provide options to staff and the ADB. He said a view -shed analysis could be done to establish specific view and height parameters. He said another approach would be a low standardized height limit with incentives for additional height if, for example, a developer could indicate the location of their building provided a view corridor. He preferred maintaining a fairly low height and place the burden on the applicant to indicate his/her project met the intent of the height regulations. Mr. Owen urged the Council to consider their references, indicating they had done several similar projects recently. He said they would give this project top priority and had the availability to meet the timeframe. He looked forward to addressing issues in the community. Mayor Haakenson observed Makers had done some work for the Port of Edmonds in the past and asked if they were currently working with the Port. Mr. Owen answered no. Mr. Chave advised the Council could indicate their choice if there was a clear consensus or could direct staff to do a detailed reference check. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 18, 2000, Page 17 I- I 0 Councilmember Plunkett asked if any other firms responded to the RFP. Mr. Chave answered no other firms presented proposals. Councilmember White said he would be interested in references as he felt it was important to know how the firms worked with other cities' staffs, with stakeholders and with citizens. Although he liked the resume of the Maker's principle, John Owen, he' said the allocated work hours indicated he would not be doing a lot on the project. He recalled a reference to Maker's not participating in a court project and suggested staff follow -up on that issue. Council President Miller agreed with Councilmember White's request to have staff check references but preferred the Council indicate which firm staff should pursue. He said he was more impressed with Cascade Collaborative's process for the redesign of the program. It also appeared they could give more time to the project and would have a better focus on the community and stakeholders. His preference was Cascade Collaborative and requested their references be checked prior to final approval. Councilmember Earling said he had worked with Mr. Owen previously on the Edmonds Waterfront Plan and Makers also worked on the Mill Creek Town Center which Mill Creek was very happy with. Mr. Owen also did design work for SnoTran regarding development around transit centers. Councilmember Earling said he was impressed with the overall quality of Cascade Collaborative. He observed one of the members had been involved with station development for Sound Transit, experience the City might benefit from. His preference was Cascade Collaborative but requested that staff check the references of both firms. COUNCIL PRESIDENT MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER EARLING, TO AUTHORIZE STAFF TO CONTRACT WITH CASCADE COLLABORATIVE CONDITIONED ON A REFERENCE CHECK. MOTION CARRIED. Mr.. Chave advised references would be checked over the next week and a memo provided to Council with the results. Postponed 7. REPORT ON COMMITTEE MEETINGS Repot[ on Committee Due to the late hour, this item was postponed to the April 25 meeting. Meetings 8. UPDATE ON SELF INSURANCE HEALTH BENEFIT FUND Self Insurance Human Resources Director Brent Hunter reviewed a graph illustrating administrative. costs, excess loss Health Benefit coverage, revenue, claims and cash, pointing out increased claims results in reduced cash. He reported Fund the cash in the fund was in a severe valley at the present time. The fund experienced its largest claim month ever in March, $220,000, reducing the cash reserve in the fund to .$84,000. He pointed out when an entity was self - insured, whenever it made a decision to stop being self - insured, it was still responsible for any incurred but unpaid claims which could total 2 -3 months claims. Therefore, it was desirable to have $250,000 in reserves to ensure there was adequate cash to pay incurred but unpaid claims. He said the City's insurance consultant said that although March was a bad month, he recommended the City continue with self - insurance. Mr. Hunter explained the City has one claim of approximately $77,000 and two others in the $355000 range. The City's excess loss carrier will provide reimbursement of the excess amount (over $50,000). Mr. Hunter displayed and described a comparison of Edmonds self - insurance health insurance costs to AWC health insurance costs. He said anytime the City made a decision to cease, self- insurance, it would likely return to AWC. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 18, 2000 Page 18 Councilmember White asked if all the reserves would be used if there was another month like March. Mr. Hunter said premiums are collected a month in advance so there was actually more than $84,000 in the reserves. He agreed once the reserves were expended, the fund would be in a deficit. For Councilmember Plunkett, Mr. Hunter explained the secondary insurance only paid individual claims in excess of $50,000. He explained any deficit was a City obligation payable from the General Fund: As the. same product was provided by AWC and ;self- insurance, Councilmember Davis asked why the City opted to ' become. self-insured. Mr. Hunter said it was anticipated self - insurance would be better than AWC. It was hoped, there would be extra cash from, self - insurance to put into the LEOFF 1 long -term care plan. He said self - insurance was a long -term ,proposal; there were other cities that have been self - insured for ten years and are. in a better position than Edmonds. He explained the City's first year was an extremely bad year as there were some major claims. Request for The Council requested a monthly update on the Self-Insurance Health Benefit Fund. Update on self Insur. Councilmember White asked how quickly the City could withdraw from self - insurance. Mr: Hunter said Health the City was on a month -to -month contract with HMA and Safeco. The only long -term contract was Benefit Fund with the consultant ($18,000 paid in advance). Councilmember Davis asked whether the benefits to employees was the same with self - insurance and AWC.' Mr. Hunter answered yes; the only addition the City made was a $250 wellness benefit added last year. 9. NUYOR'S REPORT Earth Day - Mayor Haakenson commented the Council approved a Proclamation in honor of Earth Day, April 22, on April 22 the Consent•Agenda. He said there were numerous activities planned in the City in celebration of the 30a' anniversary of Earth Day and encouraged anyone interested in Earth Day activities to contact the Parks and Recreation Department. 10. COUNCIL REPORTS In honor of Councilmember Earling's birthday, Council President Miller, on behalf of the Council, presented him with a plaque bearing his frequently misspelled name "Councilmember Earring." Councilmember Petso requested items on the agenda not be referred to as discussion when action was intended/anticipated to be taken. She said this arose following the library discussion and she anticipated it would arise again following tonight's action. Although the changes the Council suggested to the ordinance tonight were good, Councilmember Petso said this was the fourth ordinance presented in the. past four months that had material errors of substance. With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:45 p.m. GARY HtXEN.SON, MAYOR `SANDRA S. CHASE, CITY CLERK Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 18, 2000 Page 19 �i AGENDA EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MGM Plaza Meeting Room - Library Building 650 Main Street 7:00 -10:00 p.m. APRIL 18, 2000 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 4, 2000 (C) APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #35950 THROUGH i#40355 FOR THE WEEK OF APRIL 3, 2000, IN THE AMOUNT OF $573,272.24. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #35951 THROUGH #40474 FOR THE WEEK OF APRIL 10, 2000, IN THE AMOUNT OF $430,087.17. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL CHECKS #27916 THROUGH #28024 FOR THE PERIOD MARCH 16 THROUGH MARCH 31; 2000, IN THE AMOUNT OF $332,947.08. (D) REPORT ON FINAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR THE MARINA BEACH STORM OUTFALL REPLACEMENT AND COUNCIL ACCEPTANCE OF PROJECT (E) ACCEPTANCE OF QUIT CLAIM DEED AT 16414 75TH PLACE WEST FROM ARMANDO AND MARIA TERESA "SINA" CHILELLI (F) AUTHORIZATION TO CALL FOR BIDS FOR THE 2000 WATER MAIN REPLACEMENT PROGRAM (G) AUTHORIZATION FOR STAFF TO NEGOTIATE THE SALEIDISPOSITION OF SURPLUS FURNITURE AND OTHER ITEMS FROM OLD PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING (H) AUTHORIZATION TO ENTER INTO AGREEMENT WITH COMPANIES FOR TOWING SERVICES THAT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE APPLICATION AND AGREEMENT (1) PROCLAMATION IN OBSERVANCE OF EARTH DAY ON APRIL 22, 2000 (J) PROPOSED RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A COST RECOVERY PROCESS FOR THE APPROVAL, RENEWAL, AND TRANSFER OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS FRANCHISES, AND AMENDING RESOLUTION 967 3. AUDIENCE COMMENTS (3 Minute Limit Per Person) 4. ( 5 Min.) PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING SCANDINAVIAN DAYS 5. (90 Min.) INTERVIEW FINALISTS FOR ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD DESIGN GUIDELINES CONSULTANT 6. (30 Min.) CONTINUED DISCUSSION ON PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 18.80.060, DRIVEWAY AND CURB CUT REQUIREMENTS, PARAGRAPH B (5), DOWNTOWN BUSINESS AREA, TO PROVIDE GREATER FLEXIBILITY IN DETERMINING LOCATION OF ACCESS 7. (15 Min.) REPORT ON COMMITTEE MEETINGS Page 1 of 2 CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA APRIL 18, 2000 Page 2 of 2 8. (10 Min.) UPDATE ON SELF INSURANCE HEALTH BENEFIT FUND 9. ( 5 Min.) MAYOR'S REPORT 10. (15 Min.) COUNCIL REPORTS 1 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 appears on Chambers Cable, Channel 46 Delayed telecast of this meeting appears the following Wednesday at noon and 7:00 p.m., as well as, Friday and Monday at noon on Channel 46.