The URL can be used to link to this page

2007.03.06 CC Agenda PacketAGENDA Edmonds City Council Meeting Council Chambers 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds March 06, 2007 7:00 p.m. - 10:00 p.m. Call to Order and Flag Salute 1• Approval of Agenda 2• Consent Agenda Items A. Roll Call B. Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of February 27, 2007. C. Approval of claim checks #94507 through #94671 for March 1, 2007 in the amount of $225,518.00. Approval of payroll direct deposits and checks #44567 through #44616 for the period of February 16 through February 28, 2007 in the amount of $784,837.01. D. Council confirmation of 2007 members of the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee. E. Authorization to call for bids for the 164th Street SW Walkway and the 74th Place West Drainage Improvements Projects. F. Authorization to contract with James Murphy Auctioneers to sell surplus City vehicles and equipment. G. Purchase (1) one new catch basin cleaner truck using Washington State Purchasing Contract #07005 for the Public Works Storm Water Division. H. Contract for Animal Kenneling Services with Adix's Bed & Bath for Dogs and Cats. 1• Proposed Ordinance amending Edmonds City Code 8.51.030, Commute Exemption from Three -Hour Parking Limits, relating to the display of the Employee Parking Permit. 3• (5 Min) Proclamation in honor of Port of Edmonds Day, March 7, 2007. 4• (20 Project update and authorization for Mayor to sign Supplemental Agreement No. 6 to the Professional Min) Services Agreement with Perteet, Inc. for Design of 220t Street SW Improvements (9th Avenue South to 84th Avenue West) Project. 5. (45 Public Hearing on the Planning Board recommendation to update the Edmonds Community Development Min) Code with new Design Guidelines and a new "up -front" design review process applicable to specific districts (initially limited to Downtown and Highway 99). 6• Audience Comments (3 minute limit per person) 7. (5 Min) Mayor's Comments 8. (15 Min) Council Comments 9• Adjourn AgendaQuick©2005 - 2007 Destiny Software Inc., All Rights Reserved Packet Page 1 of 195 AM-869 Approval of Minutes Edmonds City Council Meeting 2.13. Date: 03/06/2007 Submitted By: Sandy Chase, City Clerk's Office Time: Consent Department: City Clerk's Office Type: Action Review Committee: Action: Agenda Memo Subiect Title Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of February 27, 2007. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff It is recommended that the City Council review and approve the minutes. Previous Council Action N/A Narrative A copy of the draft minutes is attached. Revenue & Expenditures Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: Draft Minutes Form Routing/Status Route Inbox Approved By Seq 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 3 Final Sandy Chase Approval Form Started By: Sandy Chase Final Approval Date: 03/01/2007 Date Status 03/01/2007 10:51 AM APRV 03/01/2007 10:54 AM APRV 03/01/2007 10:55 AM APRV Started On: 03/01/2007 10:47 AM Packet Page 2 of 195 EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES February 27, 2007 Following a Special Meeting at 6:45 p.m. to interview an Arts Commission candidate, the Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Haakenson in the Council Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Gary Haakenson, Mayor Peggy Pritchard Olson, Council President Michael Plunkett, Councilmember Richard Marin, Councilmember Mauri Moore, Councilmember Dave Orvis, Councilmember Ron Wambolt, Councilmember ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT Deanna Dawson, Councilmember 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA STAFF PRESENT Gerry Gannon, Assistant Police Chief Duane Bowman, Development Services Director Stephen Clifton, Community Services Director Dan Clements, Administrative Services Director Kathleen Junglov, Asst. Admin. Services Dir. Rob Chave, Planning Manager Dave Gebert, City Engineer Don Sims, Traffic Engineer Frances Chapin, Cultural Services Manager Sandy Chase, City Clerk Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst. Jeannie Dines, Recorder COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: A. ROLL CALL B. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 20, 2007. C. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #94366 THROUGH #94503 FOR FEBRUARY 22, 2007 IN THE AMOUNT OF $517,224.00. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSITS AND CHECKS #44519 THROUGH #44565 FOR THE PERIOD OF FEBRUARY 1 THROUGH FEBRUARY 15, 2007 IN THE AMOUNT OF $766,144.76. D. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM DARROL HAUG (AMOUNT UNDETERMINED). 3. CONFIRMATION OF MAYOR'S APPOINTMENT OF GREG BANASEK TO THE ARTS COMMISSION. Cultural Services Manager Frances Chapin introduced Greg Banasek and described his background. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 27, 2007 Page 1 Packet Page 3 of 195 COUNCILMEMBER MOORE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, TO CONFIRM THE APPOINTMENT OF GREG BANASEK TO THE ARTS COMMISSION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Banasek thanked the Council for the opportunity to serve on the Arts Commission. Mayor Haakenson thanked him for volunteering to serve. 4. 2007 LIMITED OBLIGATION BOND SALE. Administrative Services Director Dan Clements introduced the City's Financial Advisor Allen Dashen, A. Dashen & Associates. Mr. Dashen displayed a graph of interest rate trends for the past year and since 1987, commenting interest rates had not been this low since the pre -President Nixon days. He reviewed a list of purposes for the $5,230,000 bond sale, noting only a small amount was General Fund moneys with most paid by utilities and other sources. Mr. Dashen explained the City applied for a rating on the City's bonds from Moody's Investors Service who confirmed the City's Al rating on Limited Tax Bonds and confirmed the AA3 rating for voted bonds. He noted this placed the City's rate in the top tier of cities in Washington State. He relayed comments made by Moody's including strong tax base appreciation in affluent community just north of Seattle; City's financial operations are well managed, benefiting from a combination of spending practices and healthy revenue growth; and favorable comments about fund balances. Mr. Dashen explained the bonds were structured to be "bank qualified" which results in a lower interest rate to the City, approximately 4% lower. The bonds mature over 20 years and were sold through a competitive bid process with firms nationwide bidding on the City's bonds. The City received 11 bids; PNC Capital Markets was the winning bidder. He displayed a list of bidders, noting 2-3 were within .01 % of each other. He reviewed the source and uses of the funds, advising the net from the sale was $5,205,734. He recommended approval of the sale resolution. COUNCILMEMBER MOORE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, FOR APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. 1142. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The resolution reads as follows: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ACCEPTING THE BID OF PNC CAPITAL MARKETS LLC FOR $5,230,000 PAR VALUE LIMITED TAX GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS, 2007, OF THE CITY; FIXING THE INTEREST RATES AND MATURITY SCHEDULE ON THOSE BONDS; AND PROVIDING FOR OTHER MATTERS PROPERLY RELATING THERETO. 5. ANNUAL REPORT FROM THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION. Historic Preservation Commissioners Steven Waite, Rob Van Tassell, Norma Bruns, Christine Deiner- Karr, and Barbara Kindness introduced themselves. (Commissioners Brian Hall and Deborah Binder were absent.) Commissioner Kindness advised the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) meets the second Tuesday of each month in the Fourtner Room of City Hall. She advised the meetings were open to the public and they encourage attendance and participation from interested citizens. Councilmember Plunkett is the Council liaison on the Commission and staff assistance is provided by Rob Chave and Diane Cunningham. Commissioner Kindness invited the Chair of each of the Commission's four subcommittees to report on their activities. Commissioner Van Tassell reported the Planning Committee's recent efforts focused on Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 27, 2007 Page 2 Packet Page 4 of 195 the downtown core, which they called the heritage neighborhood area, and providing guidance for design with regard to historic preservation. Their efforts resulted in a draft document that had been circulated to the Council's Community Services/Development Services committee and the public. The next step would be to share the draft with the Planning Board and the City Attorney before presenting it to the Council for codification. The Planning Committee also developed the Commission's Strategic Plan. Commissioner Kindness advised Commissioner Waite, Chair of the Incentives Committee, also developed the walking tour. Commissioner Waite explained one of the challenges for the Incentives Committee was convincing building owners to retain their structures as they had the right to demolish their structure. He noted buildings on the Historic Register were community assets and part of a collection of structures and sites that created Edmonds' image. Incentives for structures on the Historic Register could include an expedited permit process or a reduction in permit fees. The Committee has also been reviewing the International Existing Building Code which has been adopted in other cities. Commissioner Waite described the walking tour attended by Councilmembers, ADB and Planning Board Members, staff and the public to look at existing buildings in the City and point out architectural characteristics that define the City. He offered to conduct another tour in the spring. He advised there were buildings in the community that represent each decade from 1890. Commissioner Deiner-Karr, Chair of the Registration Committee, referred to a list of applications for registration that have been submitted. She explained five private property applications were submitted in 2006; one of the properties, the August Johnson House, which has been reviewed and approved by the HPC and the Planning Board, would be presented to the Council for approval in the near future. In addition, ten properties that are already on the State Historical Register have submitted applications as part of the expedited process for registering properties on the State and National Registers. The Commission hopes to have these properties through the registration process by the end of the first quarter in 2007. Once these properties were approved, she advised plaques would be installed on the properties. Commissioner Kindness advised 83 properties in the downtown core met the criteria for historic preservation. Once these initial properties were approved, the Commission planned to encourage other property owners to apply for designation. Commissioner Bruns reported the primary purpose of the Community Outreach and Education Committee was to educate the public about the existence of the HPC as well as its mission and purpose. Deborah Binder, a member of the committee, raised over $4,000 to produce the walking tour brochure that highlights 27 historic and architectural sites in the downtown core. The brochure has been well received and is available at local Snohomish County tourist information offices. Work has begun on a companion brochure that will help Edmonds residents understand why and how to register their properties. This brochure is funded by a grant from the Washington State Historic Preservation Office. Commissioner Bruns advised the committee organized a day at the Edmonds Summer Market where they connected with residents and distributed brochures. They plan to do this again in 2007. The committee also wrote several articles in the local newspaper about the HPC's work. Commissioner Bruns advised she is the representative from the Edmonds South Snohomish County Historic Society. She suggested a joint meeting to address the difference between the museum's activities and the HPC's activities. Councilmember Moore asked the difference between the Edmonds South Snohomish County Historic Society and the HPC. Commissioner Bruns explained the Historic Society operates the museum and may put up plaques. She summarized the Historic Society's focus was sites versus individual residences. She relayed the Historic Society planned to fund a plaque for Holmes Corner. Commissioner Waite commented the Historic Society was a repository of information, items and photographs versus the HPC Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 27, 2007 Page 3 Packet Page 5 of 195 which was a City Commission charged with placing buildings and sites on the Edmonds Historic Register. He assured a property added to the Edmonds Historic Register could be easily removed from the register; however, being on the register could provide certain benefits via local government. For Councilmember Moore, Commissioner Waite described benefits of being on the Edmonds Historic Register which include freezing the value of any improvements for ten years. There are also tax credits available from being on the National Register. He explained being on the Edmonds Historic Register was an honorarium that illustrated the property owners' interest in historic preservation and may increase the structure's value. Councilmember Moore asked whether the 83 structures that met the Commission's criteria were all in the downtown core. Commissioner Kindness advised they were. Commissioner Waite noted these included commercial buildings as well. Commissioner Kindness advised the advisory board identified over 1000 properties that were over 50 years old. The survey only detailed the downtown area and identified 83 properties. Commissioner Deiner-Karr advised the 83 properties also included structures less than 50 years old that were architecturally unique. She noted there were also properties for which an application had been submitted that were not on the list but research found they had historically unique character. Councilmember Moore asked whether the owners of the 83 properties had been notified their property was identified on the survey. Commissioner Deiner-Karr advised some had been contacted; a notification strategy was being considered. Councilmember Plunkett recognized Historic Preservation Commissioners for their specific efforts and thanked the Council for providing the funds for the survey of downtown properties and funds for plaques. Councilmember Plunkett referred to the Edmonds Historic Preservation Commission Conceptual Design Standards for possible Heritage Neighborhood provided by the Historic Preservation Commission, advising these were design standards, not guidelines as the intent was to codify the standards for the BD 1 zone so that new construction or renovation was required to meet historic standards. He noted the design standards were the result of the work of Mark Hinshaw as well as Rob Chave. Councilmember Plunkett referred to the comment in the Planning report that the next step in the process was to share the draft with the Planning Board, expressing concern with the possibility of forwarding the draft to the Planning Board before the Council approved the concept. Commissioner Van Tassell commented the intent of the presentation to the Community Services/Development Services Committee was to obtain input from the Council. He urged the Council to provide additional feedback. Councilmember Plunkett preferred the Council approve the concept before the draft was forwarded to the Planning Board. Commissioner Waite envisioned workshops with the Planning Board as well as input from the public. Councilmember Marin recalled the draft was presented to the Community Services/Development Services Committee and after further review, he was prepared to provide feedback. He was satisfied with forwarding the Design Guidelines for Building Design (pages 5-14) to the Planning Board immediately. Recognizing the need for incentives to encourage property owners to register their properties, he suggested the next priority for the Commission be to finalize a recommendation on incentives, present it to the Community Services/Development Services Committee, then to the Council and then to the Planning Board. He was uncomfortable with the first four pages of the draft code language. Due to the shift of the ADB review to the beginning of the process, he was not comfortable with having two Historic Preservation Commissioners be voting members on the ADB but did not object to two Commissioners serving in an advisory role on the ADB. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 27, 2007 Page 4 Packet Page 6 of 195 With regard to the language requiring HPC review of demolition applications, Councilmember Marin noted this review was too late in the process. He preferred property owners be encouraged to preserve their buildings via incentives for registry. He was satisfied with the language regarding dimensions. Councilmember Plunkett asked staff to speak to design guidelines versus design standards. Planning Manager Rob Chave recalled the Commission's feeling was that these items were important enough that all buildings in the downtown core should respond to them and therefore were more appropriate as standards in the code. He agreed with the suggestion for Historic Preservation Commissioners to advise the ADB, noting the logistics would need to be worked out. Mr. Chave advised the demolition standards required further review by the City Attorney which could be accomplished during the Planning Board's review. He noted the draft was primarily a HPC product and had not had a detailed review by staff. For Councilmember Plunkett, Mr. Chave advised the entire document could be forwarded to the Planning Board for review or forward only pages 5-14 and after further refinement, forward pages 1-4. Councilmember Wambolt was comfortable with forwarding the design standards developed by Mr. Hinshaw and refined by Mr. Chave to the Planning Board, suggesting the document prepared by ACE accompany the design standards. Council President Olson suggested as ACE was not a City organization, the information prepared by ACE could be provided to the Planning Board for their deliberations. Councilmember Wambolt agreed as long as the Planning Board reviewed the information. Councilmember Plunkett was reluctant for the Council to forward the ACE document as well as the first four pages of the discussion document to avoid the appearance that the Council was endorsing it in concept. He noted ACE or any other individual or group could submit information to the Planning Board. He supported forwarding the Historic Design Standards to the Planning Board. Councilmember Marin agreed the ACE material should not accompany the design standards and suggested ACE provide the material to the Planning Board. Councilmember Moore asked what happened if the Council did not act on the design standards tonight. Commissioner Van Tassell answered forwarding one without the other would be out of context. He preferred the documents be forwarded to the Planning Board together as one document. Councilmember Orvis inquired about the provision to relocate a historic building. Commissioner Van Tassell answered the August Johnson House was an example of an opportunity for a house to be moved to an appropriate location and remain on the registry. Councilmember Orvis asked if the building could be moved outside the Heritage Neighborhood. Commissioner Van Tassell answered yes, which would allow construction of a new building on the site. Councilmember Orvis asked whether dimensional waivers would be addressed by grandfathering. Commissioner Van Tassell answered a house that was out of compliance may be required to be brought into compliance when improvements were made. Commissioner Waite advised the City Attorney was drafting verbiage regarding non-compliance. He advised this provision would allow improvements to a structure without penalty. Councilmember Orvis agreed there appeared to be issues on the first four pages that needed to be addressed. He preferred the members representing the HPC on the ADB be voting members. He recommended withholding the dimensional section to ensure historic issues were mitigated. He preferred the Council address these issues before forwarding them to the Planning Board but was comfortable forwarding the design standards section to the Planning Board. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 27, 2007 Page 5 Packet Page 7 of 195 Councilmember Plunkett observed the design standards on pages 5-14 were code and pages 1-4 were policy. The Planning Board could begin reviewing the design standards while the Council discussed the policy issues further. He preferred the Council discuss the policy issues further before forwarding them to the Planning Board. Councilmember Moore noted the usual process was for the Planning Board to do this preliminary work and gather public input. She preferred the entire document be forwarded to the Planning Board at once. Councilmember Wambolt understood from the HPC that the first four pages were a work in progress and the Commission needed to answer the questions posed in the document before the Council could deliberate on it. Commissioner Van Tassell commented the intent of tonight's meeting was not to discuss the document but rather to present the HPC's work. For Councilmember Moore, Mr. Chave explained the design guidelines developed by the ADB were more general in nature and addressed many areas in the City; the HPC's design standards were tailored to a specific district. He recalled the intent was as design standards for individual neighborhoods/districts were developed, the ADB's review would occur at the beginning of the process. The new design review process that would be presented to the Council next month included an up -front design review and identification of which areas it would apply to. The draft identified the Hwy. 99 CG zones as well as downtown. That could also include these design standards for a portion of downtown. Councilmember Moore asked if the HPC was comfortable with the entire document. Commissioner Van Tassell stated there were still many questions to be answered in the draft discussion document. Councilmember Marin suggested adding "BD I" and "preserve and mimic historic architectural design elements and provide a mechanism to participate in the review of proposed projects" to the first paragraph of the Purpose section. He explained the intent was to encourage the preservation of buildings with historical architectural significance and if the owner was not interested in preserving the building, require that they mimic the architectural features of a good downtown. Whether that isolated a period of 1890 to 1930 was not as important because the elements identified in design standards that made a good downtown in 1930 also made a good downtown retail core today and in the future. With the addition, he supported forwarding the purpose section to the Planning Board to provide context for the design standards. Council President Olson asked when the Planning Board could begin reviewing the design standards. Mr. Chave answered the Planning Board would begin their review when the Council referred it. Council President Olson was concerned with slowing the process. Mr. Chave asked whether the Council wanted the HPC to do further refinement and return it to the Council or forward it to the Planning Board. Councilmember Moore commented the intent was always for the Arts Corridor to be different from the downtown zones. She suggested consideration be given to how the design standards would apply to the Arts Corridor, acknowledging it may require coordination with the Arts Commission. COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, TO FORWARD TO THE PLANNING BOARD THE HISTORIC DESIGN STANDARDS WITH THE PURPOSE PREAMBLE AS AMENDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN. Councilmember Moore advised she would not support the motion as the HPC requested more time to work on the document. Councilmember Plunkett commented the portion the HPC wanted to work on was the discussion document, the Commission and Mr. Chave were comfortable with forwarding the historic design standards to the Planning Board. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 27, 2007 Page 6 Packet Page 8 of 195 Commissioners agreed with forwarding the design standards to the Planning Board with revised purpose statement, noting the remainder of the draft discussion document was still under construction. Mayor Haakenson was concerned the Planning Board would review the design standards and then later receive the discussion/policy portion of the document. Councilmember Plunkett pointed out the Planning Board could begin their review of the design standards, noting there were still policy issues to be resolved. He was concerned with forwarding the policy issues to the Planning Board before the Council had reached a consensus on those concepts. Councilmember Moore preferred to complete both documents before forwarding them to the Planning Board. The Planning Board had many other items they were working on. Mayor Haakenson advised the Planning Board had recently prioritized their schedule for the next five months. Commissioner Kindness advised the subcommittee could complete the first four pages at their next meeting. Councilmember Plunkett commented his concern was it had taken three months to get to this point and was concerned there would be further delay. He was frustrated with the pace and with the number of unanswered questions on the first four pages. If the policy portion could be returned to the Council within a month, he was comfortable with forwarding the entire document to the Planning Board at one time. Councilmember Orvis observed there were two different documents, design standards and implementation, and did not think they necessarily needed to be forwarded to the Planning Board at the same time. Councilmember Moore and Council President Olson supported allowing the HPC additional time to complete their work and forward both parts to the Planning Board at one time. Councilmember Marin was anxious to move forward but was willing to allow the HPC more time. COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT WITHDREW HIS MOTION WITH THE AGREEMENT OF THE SECOND. Councilmember Plunkett clarified his expectation was the HPC's review would be completed in 30 days and if not, he wanted the design standards to be forwarded to the Planning Board. Councilmembers discussed whether to forward the document to the Planning Board or return it to the City Council to resolve the policy issues and agreed the HPC would return to the full Council with the intent of reviewing and forwarding the document to the Planning Board that night. 6. PRESENTATION OF HIGHWAY 99 TRAFFIC CIRCULATION AND SAFETY STUDY REPORT. THE HIGHWAY 99 TASK FORCE WILL ALSO BRIEF COUNCIL ON POTENTIAL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECTS UNDER STUDY. Councilmember Marin advised the intent of the Hwy. 99 Taskforce's work was to provide synergy and momentum to attract projects to the Hwy. 99 corridor that would enhance the neighborhood and the City in general. Traffic Engineer Don Sims explained there were 35,000 vehicle trips per day in the Hwy. 99 corridor, predicted to increase to 50,000 vehicle trips per day in the next 20 years. He advised it was a challenging corridor for pedestrians and was extensively used by transit. Mr. Sims introduced Dan Hansen, Perteet Engineering, who reviewed the project development process which included review of existing conditions, identification of deficiencies, technical workshops, development of alternatives, evaluation of alternatives and final recommendations. He reviewed project Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 27, 2007 Page 7 Packet Page 9 of 195 goals which included evaluating transportation needs, considering potential redevelopment, prioritizing a list of projects, identifying projects for early implementation and adoption by the City Council. He displayed a map of the SR99 study area from SR104 to 2121h along the Hwy. 99 corridor and one block on each side. He displayed an aerial map of the existing land uses that include multi family housing, hospital, commercial and car dealerships. He identified the level of service (LOS) at intersections, noting there were several at LOS E and F, the worst being 220th. Mr. Hansen explained there were few opportunities for pedestrians to cross the corridor; there were no crossings between 224th and 238th. He noted there were multi family developments in this area as well as numerous transit users who were stranded on one side of the road without a crossing, necessitating they cross at unsignalized intersections. He displayed a chart illustrating accident data for the corridor, advising there had been approximately 600 accidents in a three year period. He reviewed collisions by type at 220th Street SW, at 224th, at 76th, and along the corridor. Mr. Hansen explained the SR99 Technical Advisory Committee was comprised of staff from Edmonds, Lynnwood, Mountlake Terrace, Shoreline and WSDOT. The Committee participated in design workshops and developed a list of project alternatives. He described the Committee's review of the effectiveness of the ten alternatives based on political feasibility and acceptance; reduction of travel time; improvement in vehicle safety; transit passenger access, convenience and safety; bicycle access, convenience and safety; aesthetics/quality of user experience; neighborhood impacts; environmental impacts; and project costs and benefits. Mr. Hansen reviewed the following eight recommended projects: 1. Traffic Signal at SR99 & 228th Street SW and 76th Street improvements 2. Capacity improvements at SR99 & 212th Street SW 3. Capacity improvements at SR99 & 2161h Street SW 4. Continuous illumination 5. Right turn pocket at 220th Street SW 6. SR104 to 238th Street SW safety improvements 7. 220th to 224th median and safety improvements 8. 2341h to 238th median and safety improvements Mr. Hansen explained two other projects, a traffic signal at 240th Street SW and a traffic signal at 2341h Street SW, were considered but not recommended. He noted the SR99 BRT Study recommended a stop at 220th which was being pursued by Community Transit. He identified next steps that include incorporating the projects into the CIP, the City proceeding with 30% design and applying for regional grant funding. Councilmember Marin explained the intent of the Hwy. 99 Taskforce was to identify impediments to development while being sensitive to adjoining neighborhoods. The intent was to advance some of the projects identified via the traffic study to the CIP and fund them to a 30% design level so that they were ready to compete for grant funding. Councilmember Marin displayed a preliminary sketch of the Magic Toyota property, pointing out a multi- story parking structure on the south end of the property that would allow the dealership to accomplish the necessary amount of space. He noted this was the same dealer who developed a flagship US dealership in Bellevue and planned to do a similar development in Edmonds. He noted car dealerships generated a substantial amount of the City's tax revenue. One of the challenges of developing property on Hwy. 99 in the Edmonds area was there were few large parcels and many of the developments needed more property. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 27, 2007 Page 8 Packet Page 10 of 195 Councilmember Marin introduced property owner Dale Behar who described his plans to develop the property on the corner of 220th and Hwy. 99. Mr. Behar explained the site is approximately 6.5 acres and contains 4-5 occupied buildings. He displayed a rendering of their vision, advising they hoped to begin construction in 2009. The project is 460,000 square feet total; 100,000 square feet on the ground floor for retail/restaurants, approximately 100,000 square feet of office space and approximately 300,000 square feet of apartments. When the project is complete, there will be 350-400 residents and a daily workforce of 700-800. He plans to develop the site with a new cutting edge, green, transit -oriented project. He expects between 8,000-9,000 visitors per day, noting providing parking for that volume is daunting, thus they need help from transit. He envisions investing upward of $120 million and expect to open the development in 2010 with occupancy occurring in 2010-2011. Mr. Behar described benefits of the project including an opportunity for longer hours for retailers due to workforce arriving early and residential users later which resulted in more profitability for retailers and more sales tax for the City. He explained they were in negotiations with Community Transit for a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) stop, envisioning the BRT stop and the transit -oriented development as flagships for the nation. He noted the sustainability they planned to market for the development had previously only been done for luxury projects. He acknowledged they had no commitment from Community Transit with regard to the BRT stop, and without a BRT stop, the project would be different than proposed. Mayor Haakenson asked Mr. Behar to describe where he wanted the BRT stop to be, the use of each of the buildings on the site, and underground parking. Mr. Behar explained in talking with Community Transit, the bus stop may be located on the southern edge of the property to provide more space from the intersection. The small building near the bus stop would contain a coffee shop/restaurant for transit users. He described their plans to provide a readerboard in each building displaying next bus information, commenting Community Transit did not think this was necessary as the buses would run very frequently. He described proposed uses on the site including the coffee shop/restaurant near the bus stop, a bookstore/coffee shop, Starbucks, sit-down restaurant, commercial uses, medical office building, and possibly a bicycle barn in the rear adjacent to the interurban trail. He also described underground parking, accessed from 220th, that would be provided via taking advantage of the natural slope. Councilmember Moore commented this was the most exciting thing she had heard in the past three years and thanked Mr. Behar for working with the Hwy. 99 Taskforce. She asked whether he was working with Community Transit on commuter parking. Mr. Behar advised they were not currently planning any commuter parking. He noted additional parking would require extensive excavation and considerable expense. The parking they planned to provide would serve the residents, workforce and customers. He noted building parking was one of the most expensive components of this project. Councilmember Moore recalled Sound Transit was always concerned with whether their riders could park. For Councilmember Moore, Mr. Behar advised this project on the southeast corner of the Hwy. 99 & 220th intersection was entirely within the Edmonds city limits. With regard to the transit arrival time clock, Councilmember Moore commented she recently returned from Washington DC and although the trains arrive frequently, there was a countdown clock. Mr. Behar advised they would like to have a countdown clock in the lobby of the residential building, office and in retail spaces, noting it would provide shoppers more freedom. Councilmember Marin displayed photographs of buses proposed for the BRT service, noting they had wheel skirts so that they resembled a light rail -type train and wide doors to allow passengers to enter and exit at the same time at three different locations on the bus. Community Transit recently approved the sale of fare media at the station rather than on the bus. He displayed a drawing of the Swift Station concept, advising BRT would compliment Route 101 with very frequent service. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 27, 2007 Page 9 Packet Page 11 of 195 Councilmember Marin advised next Stevens Hospital would describe plans for their campus. Mike Carter, Stevens Hospital Chief Executive Officer, stated they were very excited to have begun the planning process for the next addition to Stevens Hospital. Thirty days ago they began the process for a Master Site Facilities Plan and hired Callison Architects to assist them. He introduced Bob Hutnik, Callison Architects, and Sarah Zabel, Vice President Campus Development. Polly Pool, Stevens Hospital, a participant on the Hwy. 99 Taskforce, advised 2006 marked the year that Stevens Hospital successfully completed a 2-year turnaround effort as well as launched a new era of leadership and strategic thinking, planning and action. The 3-year Strategic Plan, coupled with their 2007 Business Plan had a component that was key to this discussion — to initiate an aggressive time table and planning effort to replace, expand, modify and maintain Stevens Hospital campus facilities to meet the community's needs. She described their efforts to fix up the facilities including power washing and scrubbing of the building exterior, painting internal accent colors in public corridors and several outpatient treatment areas, redecorating physician -occupied spaces, and replacing tired flooring on the first floor of the east building utilizing color points to facilitate wayfinding. Ms. Pool displayed an aerial photograph of the Stevens Hospital campus and described the launch of the Master Site Facilities Planning process that included Callison Architects walking all the buildings and the campus to identify strengths, weaknesses and opportunities. The next step is considering the campus and building needs and uses through the eyes of community stakeholders. She displayed a comparison of tax support for hospital districts via bond/levy rates, commenting the Stevens Hospital bond would be retired in a few years, currently assessed at a rate of 10 cents per $1,000 of assessed value. She summarized the Master Site Facilities Plan process identified the vision for the future, Stevens Hospital would seek to partner with the community for support of the vision — to be a trusted and financially strong provider of high quality healthcare services who collaborates with others to creatively respond to healthcare needs in a diverse community. She hoped to bring their depiction of the vision to future work sessions upon completion of the Master Site Facilities Plan in order to share their vision and make a compelling case for needs, development, replacement and/or building on the Stevens Hospital campus. Councilmember Marin summarized the vision was to transform the community hospital into a regional facility. He hoped this presentation demonstrated interest in development in the Hwy. 99 corridor. Councilmember Moore commented Stevens Hospital was an asset to the area and she looked forward to supporting them in the future. She complimented Councilmember Marin for his original request to fund the study and his efforts on the Hwy. 99 Taskforce, noting this was the result of very hard work. COUNCILMEMBER MOORE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT, TO APPROVE THE REPORT AND THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE HIGHWAY 99 TRAFFIC CIRCULATION AND SAFETY STUDY. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 7. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Dave Page, Edmonds, commented the Hwy. 99 report was an example of partnering with private enterprise. Speaking on behalf of the Lake Ballinger Community Association, he described problems with flooding, and a bigger problem caused by pollutants from the over 2,000 storm drains that flow into Lake Ballinger from Lynnwood, Edmonds, Mountlake Terrace, and Shoreline. He referred to the dead zone in Lake Ballinger each summer due to the pollutants. He noted development on Hwy. 99 presented a great opportunity to address pollutants that flow into Lake Ballinger. He noted Mountlake Terrace, Shoreline and Edmonds funded a study to address the problem; Lynnwood which is accountable for Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 27, 2007 Page 10 Packet Page 12 of 195 approximately 22% of the pollutants, did not participate in the study. He noted the importance of educating the public that the storm drains flowed into Lake Ballinger. He also noted the Lake was eligible for state and federal grants to address stream and lake pollutants. He advised he was speaking to all the City Councils whose storm drains flowed into Lake Ballinger. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, referred to the picture on the front of the Historic Design Standards that portrayed a three story building although the Council had recently approved regulations allowing only two stories. He noted pages 5, 7, 8 and 9 also portrayed three story buildings. He concluded this provided the wrong impression for developers and he suggested the pictures be revised. Next he pointed out the detail regarding his concern with ADB Chair Utt's conduct had been omitted from the minutes of the February 20 Council meeting. He requested the minutes be revised. 8. INDIVIDUAL COUNCIL REPORTS ON OUTSIDE COMMITTEE/BOARD MEETINGS Council President Olson reported the Community Technology Advisory Committee meeting was postponed to March 20. Councilmember Moore reported she was on the Board of Trustees for Edmonds Community College and had a meeting with legislators in Washington DC where they lobbied for money for community colleges nationwide, statewide and specifically for Edmonds Community College. She also reported the Community Outreach Committee received a report from the CTAC Committee, made a decision to include senior activities on Channel 21, is working with Edmonds School District and Edmonds Community College regarding ideas for Channel 21, and is working on a mission statement. Councilmember Plunkett reported the Parking Committee was discussing fine levels for parking violations and signs to direct visitors to parking. Councilmember Plunkett explained he was anxious to forward the historic design standards to the Planning Board as the standards and process concepts were unchanged since December. In January the Commission discussed historic districts and in February the Commission toured downtown. He was frustrated with the delay as applications for new buildings and renovations downtown continued to be submitted. He looked forward to further review in 30 days. Councilmember Marin reported Sound Transit and RTID were conducting public outreach that included five open houses to explain the November joint ballot. He invited the public to attend the open house at the Lynnwood Convention Center on March 15 where graphics and charts of Sound Transit and RTID's plans would be displayed. Councilmember Wambolt reported the Port Commission continued their support of economic development via helping finance the Bird Fest. They also authorized the Executive Director to seek State emergency disaster assistance for December storm damage. He asked whether the City had applied for any disaster relief funds. Mayor Haakenson advised the City had not had a great deal of storm -related damage but had applied for emergency funds to cover storm -related staff overtime. Councilmember Wambolt reported the Port planned to hold a retreat at the Port of Bremerton on April 24-25. Councilmember Orvis reported the Salmon Recovery Council, formerly WRIA 8, elected officers and discussed the potential for State funding. He noted funding was currently provided by King County Conservation district, a levy on King County citizens. Next, Councilmember Orvis reported on the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee meeting that included discussion of better -than -average projected revenues, reviewed current expenditures which include a great deal of advertising and discussed seeking cost estimates for advertising in local brochures. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 27, 2007 Page 11 Packet Page 13 of 195 9. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Haakenson commented on the large number of cell phones ringing during tonight's Council meeting, commenting there may need to be a sign posted on the door reminding the public to turn off their cell phones. Mayor Haakenson complimented the Council for serving on outside regional committees, commenting on the importance of those regional relationships to the City. Mayor Haakenson found it gratifying to finally have Mr. Behar's project talked about publicly, noting it had been discussed for the past couple years. He remarked projects like that along with the waterfront redevelopment created exciting times for Edmonds. 10. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Moore noted Councilmembers never have an opportunity to discuss topics for new business. She suggested discussing at the retreat the addition of an agenda item where Councilmembers could discuss new business. Next, Councilmember Moore reiterated her request for Council President Olson to define the role of the Council on the Historic Preservation Commission. Councilmember Moore advised next week's Council meeting would include a public hearing on the ADB's design guidelines and the Historic Preservation Commission is developing historic design standards for the downtown area as well as a design review process. She suggested after the ADB design guidelines are reviewed, the Historic Preservation Commission's design standards be incorporated. Councilmember Wambolt commented Old Milltown was at a stage where the developer could proceed as there had not been any appeals. He referred to a quote from a citizen in last week's Enterprise that getting the city sued did not protect the city's interests. He was confident there was no current Councilmember who would allow the intimidation of a possible lawsuit to cause them to make what they believed to be the wrong decision. The Council's decision on Old Milltown was what the majority of citizens wanted and the right decision. The result would be a building that was not long, boring and monotonous like the original proposal; the end result was clearly worth the time and agony the Council went through. Councilmember Wambolt referred to another citizen letter in the February 16 edition of the Enterprise, stating Councilmember Wambolt admitted absolute total surprise of the lawsuits. Councilmember Wambolt clarified he was not surprised when he was not told the truth and may be naive to expect anything more from some people. For Councilmember Plunkett, Mayor Haakenson advised there had not been any appeals on the second Old Milltown application. Councilmember Plunkett commented that because there was a lawsuit pending, the Council needed to be careful what they said about it. Mayor Haakenson agreed Councilmembers needed to be careful not to talk about the first application. 11. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 9:35 p.m. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 27, 2007 Page 12 Packet Page 14 of 195 AM-872 Claim Checks and Payroll Direct Deposits and Checks Edmonds City Council Meeting 2.C. Date: 03/06/2007 Submitted By: Debbie Karber, Administrative Services Submitted For: Dan Clements Time: Consent Department: Administrative Services Type: Action Review Committee: Action: Approved for Consent Agenda Agenda Memo Subiect Title Approval of claim checks #94507 through #94671 for March 1, 2007 in the amount of $225,518.00. Approval of payroll direct deposits and checks #44567 through #44616 for the period of February 16 through February 28, 2007 in the amount of $784,837.01. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Approval of claim checks and payroll direct deposits and checks. Previous Council Action N/A Narrative In accordance with the State statutes, City payments must be approved by the City Council. Ordinance #2896 delegates this approval to the Council President who reviews and recommends either approval or non -approval of expenditures. Revenue & Expenditures Fiscal Impact Fiscal Year: 2007 Revenue: Expenditure: $1,010,355.01 Fiscal Impact: Claims $ 225,518.00 Payroll $ 784,837.01 Link: Claim cks 3-1-07 Attachments Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 Admin Services Kathleen Junglov 03/01/2007 02:16 PM APRV 2 City Clerk Sandy Chase 03/01/2007 02:22 PM APRV 3 Mayor Gary Haakenson 03/01/2007 02:27 PM APRV 4 Final Approval Sandy Chase 03/01/2007 03:44 PM APRV Form Started By: Debbie Karber Started On: 03/01/2007 02:00 PM Final Approval Date: 03/01/2007 Packet Page 15 of 195 vchlist Voucher List Page: 1 03/01/2007 1:57:13PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 94507 2/27/2007 001702 AWC EMPLOY BENEFIT TRUST Feb, March 2007 MEDICAL PREMIUMS FOR GRADIA Gloria Gradias Medical, Dental and 811.000.000.231.510.000.00 1,532.86 James A Bailey Medical, Dental and 811.000.000.231.510.000.00 1,451.88 Total : 2,984.74 94508 3/1/2007 065052 AARD PEST CONTROL 237825 1-13992 PEST CONTROL 411.000.656.538.800.410.23 57.50 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.410.23 5.12 Total : 62.62 94509 3/1/2007 066054 ADIX'S BED & BATH FOR DOGS AND MARCH 2O07 MARCH 2O07 KENNELING SERVICE MARCH 2O07- 001.000.410.521.700.410.00 1,895.07 Total : 1,895.07 94510 3/1/2007 064286 ADVANCE DOOR SYSTEMS INC 8197 PLAZA RM - CIRCUIT BOARD EXCF PLAZA RM - CIRCUIT BOARD EXCF 001.000.651.519.920.480.00 233.75 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.480.00 20.81 Total : 254.56 94511 3/1/2007 069667 AMERICAN MARKETING 6286 PLAQUE CAST BRONZE PLAQUE: BUSS 127.000.640.575.500.310.00 127.90 Freight 127.000.640.575.500.310.00 5.90 Sales Tax 127.000.640.575.500.310.00 11.77 Total : 145.57 Page: 1 Packet Page 16 of 195 vchlist 03/01/2007 1:57:13PM Voucher List City of Edmonds Page: 2 Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 94512 3/1/2007 069751 ARAMARK 512-3823124 UNIFORM SERVICES PARK MAINTENANCE LAUNDRY SE 001.000.640.576.800.240.00 35.46 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.240.00 3.16 Total : 38.62 94513 3/1/2007 069751 ARAMARK 512-3818651 18386001 UNIFORMS 411.000.656.538.800.240.00 85.06 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.240.00 7.57 Total : 92.63 94514 3/1/2007 069751 ARAMARK 512-3807374 PW MATS Page: 2 Packet Page 17 of 195 vchlist Voucher List Page: 3 03/01/2007 1:57:13PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor 94514 3/1/2007 069751 ARAMARK Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount (Continued) PW MATS 001.000.650.519.910.410.00 1.38 PW MATS 411.000.652.542.900.410.00 5.24 PW MATS 111.000.653.542.900.410.00 5.24 PW MATS 411.000.654.534.800.410.00 5.24 PW MATS 411.000.655.535.800.410.00 5.24 PW MATS 511.000.657.548.680.410.00 5.26 WATER UNIFORM SVC 411.000.654.534.800.240.00 11.75 Sales Tax 001.000.650.519.910.410.00 0.12 Sales Tax 411.000.652.542.900.410.00 0.47 Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.900.410.00 0.47 Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.410.00 0.47 Sales Tax 411.000.655.535.800.410.00 0.47 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.410.00 0.47 Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.240.00 1.03 512-3816759 FLEET UNIFORM SVC FLEET UNIFORM SVC 511.000.657.548.680.240.00 17.40 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.240.00 1.55 Page: 3 Packet Page 18 of 195 vchlist Voucher List Page: 4 03/01/2007 1:57:13PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor 94514 3/1/2007 069751 ARAMARK Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount (Continued) 512-3816760 PW MATS PW MATS 001.000.650.519.910.410.00 1.38 PW MATS 411.000.652.542.900.410.00 5.24 PW MATS 111.000.653.542.900.410.00 5.24 PW MATS 411.000.654.534.800.410.00 5.24 PW MATS 411.000.655.535.800.410.00 5.24 PW MATS 511.000.657.548.680.410.00 5.26 WATER UNIFORM SVC 411.000.654.534.800.240.00 8.00 Sales Tax 001.000.650.519.910.410.00 0.12 Sales Tax 411.000.652.542.900.410.00 0.47 Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.900.410.00 0.47 Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.410.00 0.47 Sales Tax 411.000.655.535.800.410.00 0.47 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.410.00 0.47 Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.240.00 0.70 Page: 4 Packet Page 19 of 195 vchlist Voucher List Page: 5 03/01/2007 1:57:13PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor 94514 3/1/2007 069751 ARAMARK Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount (Continued) 512-3816761 STREET/STORM UNIFORM SVC STREET/STORM UNIFORM SVC 411.000.652.542.900.240.00 3.24 STREET/STORM UNIFORM SVC 111.000.653.542.900.240.00 3.24 Sales Tax 411.000.652.542.900.240.00 0.29 Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.900.240.00 0.29 512-3818650 FAC MAINT UNIFORM SVC FAC MAINT UNIFORM SVC 001.000.651.519.920.240.00 33.69 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.240.00 3.00 512-3821766 FLEET UNIFORM SVC FLEET UNIFORM SVC 511.000.657.548.680.240.00 43.90 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.240.00 3.91 Page: 5 Packet Page 20 of 195 vchlist Voucher List Page: 6 03/01/2007 1:57:13PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor 94514 3/1/2007 069751 ARAMARK Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount (Continued) 512-3821767 PW MATS PW MATS 001.000.650.519.910.410.00 1.38 PW MATS 411.000.652.542.900.410.00 5.24 PW MATS 111.000.653.542.900.410.00 5.24 PW MATS 411.000.654.534.800.410.00 5.24 PW MATS 411.000.655.535.800.410.00 5.24 PW MATS 511.000.657.548.680.410.00 5.26 WATER UNIFORM SVC 411.000.654.534.800.240.00 8.00 Sales Tax 001.000.650.519.910.410.00 0.12 Sales Tax 411.000.652.542.900.410.00 0.47 Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.900.410.00 0.47 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.410.00 0.47 Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.240.00 0.70 Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.410.00 0.47 Sales Tax 411.000.655.535.800.410.00 0.47 Page: 6 Packet Page 21 of 195 vchlist Voucher List Page: 7 03/01/2007 1:57:13PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 94514 3/1/2007 069751 ARAMARK (Continued) 512-3821768 STREET/STORM UNIFORM SVC STREET/STORM UNIFORM SVC 411.000.652.542.900.240.00 3.24 STREET/STORM UNIFORM SVC 111.000.653.542.900.240.00 3.24 Sales Tax 411.000.652.542.900.240.00 0.29 Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.900.240.00 0.29 512-3821774 REFUND OVERCHARGE FOR SERA REFUND OVERCHARGE FOR SERA 411.000.654.534.800.240.00 -120.00 Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.240.00 -10.68 512-3823125 FAC MAINT UNIFORM SVC FAC MAINT UNIFORM SVC 001.000.651.519.920.240.00 33.69 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.240.00 3.00 Total : 143.97 94515 3/1/2007 071124 ASSOCIATED PETROLEUM 555130 FLEET INVENTORY - 120 GAL DIES FLEET INVENTORY - 120 GAL DIES 511.000.657.548.680.340.10 236.30 WA ST SVC FEE 511.000.657.548.680.340.10 60.00 WA OIL SPILL RECOVERY TAX, Wi 511.000.657.548.680.340.10 42.86 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.340.10 4.80 Total : 343.96 94516 3/1/2007 064343 AT&T 7303860502001 425-744-6057 PUBLIC WORKS Page: 7 Packet Page 22 of 195 vchlist 03/01/2007 1:57:13PM Voucher List City of Edmonds Page: 8 Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 94516 3/1/2007 064343 AT&T (Continued) Public Works Fax Line 001.000.650.519.910.420.00 2.01 Public Works Fax Line 111.000.653.542.900.420.00 7.63 Public Works Fax Line 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 7.63 Public Works Fax Line 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 7.63 Public Works Fax Line 511.000.657.548.680.420.00 7.63 Public Works Fax Line 411.000.652.542.900.420.00 7.63 Total : 40.16 94517 3/1/2007 064343 AT&T 425-771-0152 STATION #16 FAX STATION #16 FAX 001.000.510.522.200.420.00 27.24 425-774-0944 STATION #20 FAX STATION #20 FAX 001.000.510.522.200.420.00 29.47 Total : 56.71 94518 3/1/2007 070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER 39429 OUT SOURCING OF UTILITY BILLS Page: 8 Packet Page 23 of 195 vchlist Voucher List Page: 9 03/01/2007 1:57:13PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor 94518 3/1/2007 070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount (Continued) UB Outsourcing area #100 PRINTIN( 411.000.652.542.900.490.00 89.60 UB Outsourcing area #100 PRINTIN( 411.000.654.534.800.490.00 89.60 UB Outsourcing area #100 PRINTIN( 411.000.655.535.800.490.00 89.87 UB Outsourcing area #100 POSTAGI 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 251.67 UB Outsourcing area #100 POSTAGI 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 251.67 Sales Tax 411.000.652.542.900.490.00 7.89 Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.490.00 7.89 Sales Tax 411.000.655.535.800.490.00 7.90 39450 OUT SOURCING OF UTILITY BILLS UB Outsourcing area #800 PRINTIN( 411.000.652.542.900.490.00 109.81 UB Outsourcing area #800 PRINTIN( 411.000.654.534.800.490.00 109.81 UB Outsourcing area #800 PRINTIN( 411.000.655.535.800.490.00 110.13 UB Outsourcing area #800 POSTAGI 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 307.87 UB Outsourcing area #800 POSTAGI 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 307.87 Sales Tax 411.000.652.542.900.490.00 9.58 Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.490.00 9.58 Sales Tax 411.000.655.535.800.490.00 9.86 Page: 9 Packet Page 24 of 195 vchlist Voucher List Page: 10 03/01/2007 1:57:13PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor 94518 3/1/2007 070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount (Continued) 39493 OUT SOURCING OF UTILITY BILLS UB Outsourcing area #600 PRINTIN( 411.000.652.542.900.490.00 30.89 UB Outsourcing area #600 PRINTIN( 411.000.654.534.800.490.00 30.89 UB Outsourcing area #600 PRINTIN( 411.000.655.535.800.490.00 30.97 UB Outsourcing area #600 POSTAGI 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 89.99 UB Outsourcing area #600 POSTAGI 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 89.99 Sales Tax 411.000.652.542.900.490.00 2.69 Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.490.00 2.69 Sales Tax 411.000.655.535.800.490.00 2.78 39515 OUT SOURCING OF UTILITY BILLS UB Outsourcing area #400 PRINTIN( 411.000.652.542.900.490.00 123.33 UB Outsourcing area #400 PRINTIN( 411.000.654.534.800.490.00 123.33 UB Outsourcing area #400 PRINTIN( 411.000.655.535.800.490.00 123.69 UB Outsourcing area #400 POSTAGI 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 346.40 UB Outsourcing area #400 POSTAGI 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 346.39 Sales Tax 411.000.652.542.900.490.00 10.76 Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.490.00 10.76 Sales Tax 411.000.655.535.800.490.00 11.07 Page: 10 Packet Page 25 of 195 vchlist Voucher List Page: 11 03/01/2007 1:57:13PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 94518 3/1/2007 070305 070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER (Continued) Total : 3,147.22 94519 3/1/2007 012005 BALL AND GILLESPIE POLYGRAPH 2O06278 INV#2006278 - EDMONDS PD PRE -EMPLOY SCREENING EXAM 001.000.410.521.400.410.00 175.00 Freight 001.000.410.521.400.410.00 6.00 2006279 INV#2006279 - EDMONDS PD PRE -EMPLOY SCREENING EXAM 001.000.410.521.400.410.00 175.00 Freight 001.000.410.521.400.410.00 6.00 Total : 362.00 94520 3/1/2007 070992 BANC OF AMERICA LEASING 9465974 COPIER MAINT COPIER MAINT 001.000.230.512.500.480.00 188.55 Total : 188.55 94521 3/1/2007 002079 BANK & OFFICE INTERIORS 383663 INV#383663 SALES ORDER#22374( SLIDER PLATFORM 001.000.410.521.400.350.00 217.16 INSTALLATION 001.000.410.521.400.350.00 81.94 Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.400.350.00 59.53 5-SHELF BOOKCASE 001.000.410.521.400.350.00 369.74 Total : 728.37 94522 3/1/2007 002258 BENS EVER READY 19153 INV#19153 EDMONDS PD Page: 11 Packet Page 26 of 195 vchlist Voucher List Page: 12 03/01/2007 1:57:13PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 94522 3/1/2007 002258 BENS EVER READY (Continued) SERVICE CALL 001.000.410.521.220.480.00 31.00 SERVICE/RECHARGE EXTINGUISF 001.000.410.521.220.480.00 38.00 Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.220.480.00 6.14 Total : 75.14 94523 3/1/2007 068032 BLANCH, ANN BLANCH7617 TAIJIQUAN TAIJIQUAN #7617 001.000.640.575.540.410.00 72.00 Total : 72.00 94524 3/1/2007 002500 BLUMENTHAL UNIFORM CO INC 551282-81 CM 551282-81 EDMONDS PD CREDIT FOR EMBLEM SEWING 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 -4.00 King County Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 -0.35 556141-80 CM #556141-80 EDMONDS PD CREDIT FOR SEWING EMBLEM 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 -8.00 King County Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 -0.70 558221-04 INV#558221-04 EDMONDS PD - FOI BALLISTIC VEST - FOLEY 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 649.95 King County Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 57.20 558221-80 CM 558221-80 EDMONDS PD S CREDIT FOR SEWING EMBLEM 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 -8.00 King County Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 -0.70 Total : 685.40 Page: 12 Packet Page 27 of 195 vchlist Voucher List Page: 13 03/01/2007 1:57:13PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 94525 3/1/2007 066578 BROWN AND CALDWELL 1448523 C-249 C-249 PROCES CONTROL IMPROV 414.000.656.594.320.650.00 6,349.55 Total : 6,349.55 94526 3/1/2007 067084 CALIFORNIA CONTRACTOR SUPPLIES V37507 GLOVES/SPOTLIGHT GLOVES/SPOTLIGHT 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 276.60 Total : 276.60 94527 3/1/2007 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY LY 103703 WATER - CARBON DIOXIDE, HAZM WATER - CARBON DIOXIDE, HAZM 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 38.13 Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 3.39 Total : 41.52 94528 3/1/2007 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY LY103942 ALS SUPPLIES medical oxygen 001.000.510.526.100.310.00 27.14 Freight 001.000.510.526.100.310.00 0.68 Sales Tax 001.000.510.526.100.310.00 2.48 Total : 30.30 94529 3/1/2007 066382 CINTAS CORPORATION 460566917 UNIFORMS Volunteers 001.000.510.522.410.240.00 46.36 Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.410.240.00 4.12 460566918 UNIFORMS Stn. 16 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 108.57 Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 9.66 Page: 13 Packet Page 28 of 195 vchlist Voucher List Page: 14 03/01/2007 1:57:13PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 94529 3/1/2007 066382 CINTAS CORPORATION (Continued) 460567962 UNIFORMS Stn 17-ALS 001.000.510.526.100.240.00 101.09 Stn 17-Operations 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 101.09 Sales Tax 001.000.510.526.100.240.00 9.00 Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 8.99 460567981 UNIFORMS Stn. 20 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 123.97 Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 11.03 460572147 UNIFORMS Volunteers 001.000.510.522.410.240.00 46.36 Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.410.240.00 4.12 460572148 UNIFORMS Stn. 16 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 106.82 Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 9.51 Total : 690.69 94530 3/1/2007 066070 CIT TECHNOLOGY FINANCIAL 8761326 COPIER LEASE PW copier lease for PW 001.000.650.519.910.450.00 512.62 Total : 512.62 94531 3/1/2007 069457 CITY OF EDMONDS Olson-Wambolt Dinner Dinner for Wambolt- Pritchard Olson 1 Dinner for Wambolt- Pritchard Olson 1 001.000.110.511.100.430.00 83.52 Page: 14 Packet Page 29 of 195 vchlist Voucher List Page: 15 03/01/2007 1:57:13PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 94531 3/1/2007 069457 069457 CITY OF EDMONDS (Continued) Total : 83.52 94532 3/1/2007 019215 CITY OF LYNNWOOD 5155 INV#5155 CUST#45 EDMONDS PD NEXTEL PHONES - JANUARY 2007 104.000.410.521.210.420.00 57.60 Total : 57.60 94533 3/1/2007 070424 CM HOSKINS COMPANY 43641 0000034652 C-161 SCREENINGS SYSTEM IMPF 414.000.656.594.320.650.00 40.51 Sales Tax 414.000.656.594.320.650.00 3.56 Total : 44.07 94534 3/1/2007 004095 COASTWIDE LABORATORIES w1753467 OPS SUPPLIES Stations' supplies 001.000.510.522.200.310.00 257.47 Freight 001.000.510.522.200.310.00 2.50 Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.200.310.00 22.88 Total : 282.85 94535 3/1/2007 069983 COMMERCIAL CARD SOLUTIONS 4715630345742425 CREDIT CARD PURCHASES Page: 15 Packet Page 30 of 195 vchlist Voucher List Page: 16 03/01/2007 1:57:13PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor 94535 3/1/2007 069983 COMMERCIAL CARD SOLUTIONS Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount (Continued) PLANTS 001.000.640.576.810.310.00 58.69 GYMNASTICS SUPPLIES 001.000.640.575.550.310.00 64.19 NEWSLETTER PRINTING 123.000.640.573.100.490.00 293.76 NEWSLETTER PRINTING 117.100.640.573.100.310.00 13.69 GYMNASTICS EQUIPMENT 001.000.640.575.550.350.00 805.00 PLANTS 001.000.640.576.810.310.00 22.45 GYMNASTICS EQUIPMENT:- 001.000.640.575.550.350.00 2,488.70 SEEDS 001.000.640.576.810.310.00 25.70 PAPER FOR BROCHURES 001.000.640.574.100.310.00 90.46 GYMNASTICS SUPPLIES 001.000.640.575.550.310.00 61.75 ADMISSION TO FLOWER SHOW:- 001.000.640.576.800.490.00 34.00 TRAINING FOR MARILYN GONZALI 001.000.640.575.550.490.00 98.00 ADMISSION TO FLOWER SHOW:- 001.000.640.576.800.490.00 51.00 Page: 16 Packet Page 31 of 195 vchlist Voucher List Page: 17 03/01/2007 1:57:13PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor 94535 3/1/2007 069983 COMMERCIAL CARD SOLUTIONS Invoice (Continued) 4715630624442994 94536 3/1/2007 069983 COMMERCIAL CARD SOLUTIONS 4715630197999875 4715630653121287 PO # Description/Account Amount CREDIT CARD PURCHASES SEATTLE MARINER TICKET DEPO; 623.200.210.557.210.490.00 306.00 SISTER CITY MEMBERSHIP TO ED 623.200.210.557.210.490.00 155.00 SISTER CITY - PAYMENT TO CHAN 623.200.210.557.210.490.00 80.00 MEADOWDALE PRESCHOOL SUPF 001.000.640.575.560.310.00 453.91 YOST POOL SWIM PLATFORMS 001.000.640.575.510.350.00 948.63 FOLDERS AND BINDER 001.000.640.574.100.310.00 18.63 Total : 6,069.56 C/A 4715 6301 9799 9875 Tully's/Refreshments Broadband Ven 001.000.310.514.100.310.00 81.79 C/A 4715 6306 5312 1287 WFOA - Membership Junglov 001.000.310.514.230.490.00 50.00 CDW - DVD-RW Ram Drive 001.000.310.518.880.490.00 127.35 Experts Exchange LLC 001.000.310.518.880.490.00 109.45 CDW - Data Cable 001.000.310.518.880.490.00 47.90 Miscrosoft - Phone support while sen 001.000.310.518.880.480.00 245.00 CDW-G HP Office Jet 7310 001.000.310.518.880.350.00 419.51 CDW-G Ethernet Switch 001.000.310.518.880.490.00 105.63 Total : 1,186.63 Page: 17 Packet Page 32 of 195 vchlist Voucher List Page: 18 03/01/2007 1:57:13PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 94537 3/1/2007 069983 COMMERCIAL CARD SOLUTIONS 4715 6306 8856 9757 TRAINING/HALL TRAINING/HALL 411.000.656.538.800.490.71 199.00 PDA REPLACEMENT BATTERY/HAI 411.000.656.538.800.310.41 59.00 PUBLICATION/SLENKNER 411.000.656.538.800.310.11 50.00 Total : 308.00 94538 3/1/2007 068815 CORRECT EQUIPMENT 7915 LIP SEAL LIP SEAL 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 27.35 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 5.98 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 2.93 Total : 36.26 94539 3/1/2007 068161 COSCO/FEDERAL FIRESAFETY INC 100004956 FIRE MONITORING SVC FOR PW- FIRE MONITORING SVC FOR PW- 001.000.651.519.920.480.00 393.25 Total : 393.25 94540 3/1/2007 063507 COXLEY, BRUCE COXLEY7930 DIGITAL CAMERA CLASS NEW DIGITAL CAMERA? NOW WF 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 227.50 Total : 227.50 94541 3/1/2007 005965 CUES INC 263400 SEWER - CABLE ASSEMBLY, CABL SEWER - CABLE ASSEMBLY, CABL 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 557.59 Freight 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 4.31 Sales Tax 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 49.47 Page: 18 Packet Page 33 of 195 vchlist Voucher List Page: 19 03/01/2007 1:57:13PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 94541 3/1/2007 005965 CUES INC (Continued) 263401 SEWER - CABLE TOW SEWER - CABLE TOW 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 23.52 Freight 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 5.29 Sales Tax 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 2.56 Total : 642.74 94542 3/1/2007 068190 DATEC INC 101245 INV#101245 CUST#6875 EDMONDE EXTENDED WARRANTY - LAPTOP! 001.000.410.521.220.350.00 4,200.00 Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.220.350.00 369.60 Total : 4,569.60 94543 3/1/2007 061570 DAY WIRELESS SYSTEMS - 16 133743 UNIT M17 - MASTER INTERCOM - F UNIT M17 - MASTER INTERCOM - F 511.100.657.548.680.350.00 2,423.68 Freight 511.100.657.548.680.350.00 6.70 Sales Tax 511.100.657.548.680.350.00 216.30 Total : 2,646.68 94544 3/1/2007 068734 DEPT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRIES 2/23/2007 Time loss overpayment for M. Beard, Time loss overpayment for M. Beard, 001.000.510.522.200.110.00 114.99 Total : 114.99 94545 3/1/2007 064531 DINES, JEANNIE 07-2724 MINUTE TAKING 2/6 and 2/20 Council Minutes 001.000.250.514.300.410.00 249.20 Total : 249.20 94546 3/1/2007 060933 DYNAMIC LANGUAGE CENTER 200977 INTERPRETER FEES Page: 19 Packet Page 34 of 195 vchlist Voucher List Page: 20 03/01/2007 1:57:13PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 94546 3/1/2007 060933 DYNAMIC LANGUAGE CENTER (Continued) INTERPRETER FEES 001.000.230.512.500.410.01 80.78 200978 INTERPRETER FEES INTERPRETER FEES 001.000.230.512.500.410.01 118.28 200979 INTERPRETER FEES INTERPRETER FEES 001.000.230.512.500.410.00 71.20 200980 INTERPRETER FEES INTERPRETER FEES 001.000.230.512.500.410.01 71.20 Total : 341.46 94548 3/1/2007 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 1-00575 CITY PARK CITY PARK 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 50.26 1-00825 BRACKETT'S LANDING RESTROO� BRACKETT'S LANDING RESTROOl\ 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 393.40 1-00875 SPRINKLER SPRINKLER 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 20.64 1-02125 CITY PARK SPRINKLER METER CITY PARK SPRINKLER METER 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 20.64 1-03900 SPRINKLER SPRINKLER 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 20.64 1-05125 SPRINKLER SPRINKLER 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 20.64 1-05285 GAZEBO IRRIGATION GAZEBO IRRIGATION 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 20.64 Page: 20 Packet Page 35 of 195 vchlist Voucher List Page: 21 03/01/2007 1:57:13PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 94548 3/1/2007 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION (Continued) 1-05340 CORNER PARK CORNER PARK 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 20.64 1-05650 EDMONDS CITY PARK EDMONDS CITY PARK 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 20.64 1-05675 PARKS MAINTENANCE SHOP PARKS MAINTENANCE SHOP 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 459.47 1-05700 EDMONDS CITY PARK EDMONDS CITY PARK 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 20.64 1-09650 CORNER PARK CORNER PARK 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 20.64 1-09800 SW CORNER SPRINKLER SW CORNER SPRINKLER 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 20.64 1-10780 PLANTER PLANTER 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 20.64 1-16130 CORNER PLANTER ON 5TH CORNER PLANTER ON 5TH 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 20.64 1-16300 CORNER PARKS CORNER PARKS 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 20.64 1-16450 CITY HALL TRIANGLE CITY HALL TRIANGLE 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 37.15 1-16630 6TH & MAIN PLANTER BOX 6TH & MAIN PLANTER BOX 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 20.64 Page: 21 Packet Page 36 of 195 vchlist Voucher List Page: 22 03/01/2007 1:57:13PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 94548 3/1/2007 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION (Continued) 1-17475 5TH & DAYTON ST PLANTER 5TH & DAYTON ST PLANTER 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 20.64 1-19950 PINE STREE PLAYFIELD PINE STREE PLAYFIELD 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 42.58 1-36255 WATER 1141 9TH AVE S 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 20.64 2-25150 9TH & CASPER ST (WEST PLANTE 9TH & CASPER ST (WEST PLANTE 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 20.64 2-25175 9TH & CASPER ST (EAST PLANTEF 9TH & CASPER ST (EAST PLANTEF 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 20.64 2-28275 SPRINKLER SPRINKLER 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 20.64 2-37180 MINI PARK MINI PARK 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 29.06 6-00025 CITY MARINA BEACH PARK CITY MARINA BEACH PARK 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 38.85 6-00200 CITY FISHING DOCK & RESTROON CITY FISHING DOCK & RESTROON 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 73.39 6-00410 BRACKETT'S LANDING SOUTH BRACKETT'S LANDING SOUTH 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 80.91 6-00475 MINI PARK MINI PARK 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 204.72 Page: 22 Packet Page 37 of 195 vchlist Voucher List Page: 23 03/01/2007 1:57:13PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 94548 3/1/2007 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION (Continued) 6-01250 CITY PARK BALLFIELD CITY PARK BALLFIELD 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 62.76 6-01275 CITY PARK PARKING LOT CITY PARK PARKING LOT 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 292.01 6-02125 PINE STREET PLAYFIELD PINE STREET PLAYFIELD 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 67.47 6-02900 ANDERSON CULTURAL CENTER (: ANDERSON CULTURAL CENTER (: 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 59.22 6-03000 CIVIC CENTER PARKING LOT SPR CIVIC CENTER PARKING LOT SPR 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 114.22 6-03275 HUMMINGBIRD HILL PARK HUMMINGBIRD HILL PARK 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 38.85 6-03575 CITY MAPLEWOOD PARK CITY MAPLEWOOD PARK 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 71.42 6-04400 SEAVIEW PARK SPRINKLER SEAVIEW PARK SPRINKLER 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 59.22 6-04425 WATER 8100 185TH PL SW 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 124.08 6-04450 SIERRA PARK SIERRA PARK 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 88.46 6-07775 WATER 24100 78TH PL W 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 76.13 Page: 23 Packet Page 38 of 195 vchlist Voucher List Page: 24 03/01/2007 1:57:13PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 94548 3/1/2007 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION (Continued) 6-08500 YOST PARK SPRINKLER YOST PARK SPRINKLER 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 287.90 6-08525 YOST PARK POOL YOST PARK POOL 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 62.27 Total : 3,205.96 94549 3/1/2007 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 6-01127 WWTP WATER WWTP WATER 411.000.656.538.800.473.64 38.85 6-01130 WWTP WATER WWTP WATER 411.000.656.538.800.473.64 11.45 6-01140 WWTP WATER WWTP WATER 411.000.656.538.800.473.64 402.64 Total : 452.94 94550 3/1/2007 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 2-26950 LIFT STATION #3 LIFT STATION #3 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 42.01 4-34080 LIFT STATION #14 LIFT STATION #14 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 20.64 6-02735 PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX -POLICE PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX -POLICE 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 496.77 6-02736 PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX -FIRE LI PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX -FIRE LI 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 6.54 6-02737 PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX -FIRE PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX -FIRE 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 72.72 Page: 24 Packet Page 39 of 195 vchlist Voucher List Page: 25 03/01/2007 1:57:13PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 94550 3/1/2007 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION (Continued) 6-02738 PUBLIC SAFETY IRRIGATION PUBLIC SAFETY IRRIGATION 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 59.22 6-02825 LIBRARY & SPRINKLER LIBRARY & SPRINKLER 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 438.54 6-02875 ANDERSON CULTURAL CENTER (F ANDERSON CULTURAL CENTER (F 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 11.45 6-02925 ANDERSON CULTURAL CENTER ANDERSON CULTURAL CENTER 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 479.10 6-04127 Fire Station #16 Fire Station #16 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 248.43 6-04128 fire sprinkler-FS #16 fire sprinkler-FS #16 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 6.54 6-05155 Public Works Bldg Public Works Bldg 001.000.650.519.910.470.00 46.55 Public Works Bldg 111.000.653.542.900.470.00 176.89 Public Works Bldg 411.000.654.534.800.470.00 176.89 Public Works Bldg 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 176.89 Public Works Bldg 511.000.657.548.680.470.00 176.89 Public Works Bldg 411.000.652.542.900.470.00 176.87 Page: 25 Packet Page 40 of 195 vchlist Voucher List Page: 26 03/01/2007 1:57:13PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 94550 3/1/2007 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION (Continued) 6-05156 Public Works Fire Detector Public Works Fire Detector 001.000.650.519.910.470.00 0.82 Public Works Fire Detector 111.000.653.542.900.470.00 3.11 Public Works Fire Detector 411.000.652.542.900.470.00 3.11 Public Works Fire Detector 411.000.654.534.800.470.00 3.11 Public Works Fire Detector 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 3.11 Public Works Fire Detector 511.000.657.548.680.470.00 3.08 Total : 2,829.28 94551 3/1/2007 069055 EHS INTERNATIONAL INC. 24305 FAC - MOLD ASSESSMENT ON CO FAC - MOLD ASSESSMENT ON CO 116.000.651.519.920.410.00 1,097.00 Total : 1,097.00 94552 3/1/2007 066759 EMER NORTHWEST 1362 ALS REPAIRS & MAINT 2007 Stretcher maint agreemt 001.000.510.526.100.480.00 756.00 Sales Tax 001.000.510.526.100.480.00 67.28 Total : 823.28 94553 3/1/2007 009815 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC 0082247 SEWER INVENTORY - S-CPLGCON SEWER INVENTORY - S-CPLGCON 411.000.000.141.150.310.00 97.46 S-PLUG-06-020 411.000.000.141.150.310.00 53.34 Sales Tax 411.000.000.141.150.310.00 13.42 Page: 26 Packet Page 41 of 195 vchlist Voucher List Page: 27 03/01/2007 1:57:13PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 94553 3/1/2007 009815 009815 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC (Continued) Total : 164.22 94554 3/1/2007 069956 FIRE COM 79731 UNIT 475 - INTERCOM & RECORDE UNIT 475 - INTERCOM & RECORDE 511.100.657.548.680.350.00 855.00 Freight 511.100.657.548.680.350.00 8.88 Total : 863.88 94555 3/1/2007 070271 FIRST STATES INVESTORS 109764 TENANT 101706 03/07 4th Avenue Parking Lot Rent 001.000.390.519.900.450.00 300.00 Total : 300.00 94556 3/1/2007 070855 FLEX PLAN SERVICES INC 85465 Section 132 plan fees - October 200E Section 132 plan fees - October 200E 001.000.220.516.100.410.00 44.50 Total : 44.50 94557 3/1/2007 071520 FREUND, LITE FREUND7553 VOICE CLASSES LET YOUR VOICE BE THE STAR!- 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 333.20 Total : 333.20 94558 3/1/2007 061589 GALLS INC 5874551500013 WATER/SEWER - MINI MAG-LITES WATER/SEWER - MINI MAG-LITES 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 29.97 WATER/SEWER - MINI MAG-LITES 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 29.97 Freight 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 5.50 Freight 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 5.49 Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 3.16 Sales Tax 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 3.15 Page: 27 Packet Page 42 of 195 vchlist Voucher List Page: 28 03/01/2007 1:57:13PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 94558 3/1/2007 061589 061589 GALLS INC (Continued) Total : 77.24 94559 3/1/2007 067232 GERRISH BEARING COMPANY 2070469-01 SOLID SEALS SOLID SEALS 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 35.43 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 6.19 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 3.66 Total : 45.28 94560 3/1/2007 012199 GRAINGER 9292969921 C/A 837944131 MOTORIZED DAMPER 411.000.656.538.800.310.22 682.35 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.22 60.73 Total : 743.08 94561 3/1/2007 012199 GRAINGER 9300304954 FAC - WINDOW FAN FAC - WINDOW FAN 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 71.33 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 6.28 Total : 77.61 94562 3/1/2007 071391 GRAY & OSBORNE INC 06713.00-5 E6DA.Services thru 02/13/07 E6DA.Services thru 02/13/07 125.000.640.594.750.650.00 21,150.71 Total : 21,150.71 94563 3/1/2007 012370 GREENSHIELDS INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY SI-15284 2332 RATCHET 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 153.67 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 13.22 Total : 166.89 Page: 28 Packet Page 43 of 195 vchlist Voucher List Page: 29 03/01/2007 1:57:13PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 94564 3/1/2007 012845 HARBOR SQUARE ATHLETIC CLUB 2007DUES 2007 EDMONDS PD MEMBERSHIP 7 MEMBERSHIPS @$80/MONTH 001.000.410.521.400.410.00 6,720.00 Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.400.410.00 598.08 Total : 7,318.08 94565 3/1/2007 060985 HARRINGTON INDUSTRIAL PLASTICS 00784540 036570 C-161 SCREENING SYSTEM IMPRC 414.000.656.594.320.650.00 190.62 Sales Tax 414.000.656.594.320.650.00 16.79 Total : 207.41 94566 3/1/2007 006030 HDR ENGINEERING INC M-177694 EDMONDS STAGE 2 DBPR - — EDMONDS STAGE 2 DBPR - — 411.000.654.534.800.410.00 7,753.31 Total : 7,753.31 94567 3/1/2007 069332 HEALTHFORCE OCCMED 1030-78 Drug screening services - 12.28.06 Drug screening services - 12.28.06 111.000.653.542.900.410.00 85.00 Total : 85.00 94568 3/1/2007 067099 HOLLEMAN, JOHN 30 LEOFF 1 Reimbursement LEOFF 1 Reimbursement 009.000.390.517.370.230.00 1,062.00 Total : 1,062.00 94569 3/1/2007 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 1031112 6035322502670205 HOSE REELS 130.000.640.536.500.310.00 22.96 Sales Tax 130.000.640.536.500.310.00 2.02 Page: 29 Packet Page 44 of 195 vchlist Voucher List Page: 30 03/01/2007 1:57:13PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 94569 3/1/2007 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES (Continued) 1031113 6035 3225 0267 0205 REBAR 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 20.52 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 1.81 1042362 6035 3225 0257 0205 PVC UNIONS, SHOVEL, STAKE, ET 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 46.20 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 4.07 1042366 6035 3225 0267 0205 HOSES, ETC. 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 107.63 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 9.47 3050267 6035322502670205 SUPPLIES 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 39.82 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 3.50 5031861 6035 3225 0267 0205 PAPER FILTERS 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 44.91 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 3.95 9043366 6035 3225 0267 0205 PVC BUSHINGS, ETC. 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 8.40 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 0.74 Total : 316.00 94570 3/1/2007 071512 HUNT, TRACIE HUNT0222 REFUND REFUND CREDIT ON ACCOUNT 001.000.000.239.200.000.00 48.00 Page: 30 Packet Page 45 of 195 vchlist 03/01/2007 1:57:13PM Voucher List City of Edmonds Page: 31 Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 94570 3/1/2007 071512 071512 HUNT, TRACIE (Continued) Total : 48.00 94571 3/1/2007 068157 HYDRAFLO INC 7351 WATER INVENTORY - W-HYDM&Hi WATER INVENTORY - W-HYDM&Hi 411.000.000.141.140.310.00 27.72 W-HYDM&H-929-030 411.000.000.141.140.310.00 20.00 W-HYDM&H-929-020 411.000.000.141.140.310.00 11.55 Total : 59.27 94572 3/1/2007 070864 IDEARC MEDIA CORP 440008454897 Directory Listings P&R Directory Listings P&R 001.000.390.528.800.420.00 111.50 Total : 111.50 94573 3/1/2007 070042 IKON FINANCIAL SERVICES 72089643 COPIER LEASE COPIER LEASE- 001.000.640.574.100.450.00 326.70 Total : 326.70 94574 3/1/2007 070042 IKON FINANCIAL SERVICES 72067349 INV#72067349 ACCT#467070-COME COPIER RENTAL 2/13-3/12/07 001.000.410.521.100.450.00 821.73 ADDITIONAL COPIES 001.000.410.521.100.450.00 395.00 Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.100.450.00 108.31 Total : 1,325.04 94575 3/1/2007 006841 IKON OFFICE SOLUTIONS 16150727 INV#16150727 CUST#202924 EDMC Page: 31 Packet Page 46 of 195 vchlist Voucher List Page: 32 03/01/2007 1:57:13PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 94575 3/1/2007 006841 IKON OFFICE SOLUTIONS (Continued) LABOR - REPAIR CLERKS FAX 001.000.410.521.110.480.00 131.00 FAX ROLLER 001.000.410.521.110.480.00 23.45 MATERIAL HANDLING FEE 001.000.410.521.110.480.00 9.95 Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.110.480.00 2.97 Total : 167.37 94576 3/1/2007 061546 INDUSTRIAL CONTROLS SUPPLY 700439 SEWER - LS 14 - SUPPLIES SEWER - LS 14 - SUPPLIES 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 68.00 Sales Tax 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 6.05 700491 SEWER - LS 14 - AUX CONTACT SEWER - LS 14 - AUX CONTACT 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 40.80 Sales Tax 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 3.63 Total : 118.48 94577 3/1/2007 069349 INTERNATIONAL CODE COUNCIL INC 0259581-IN Supplies Graf Bldg Week Supplies Graf Bldg Week 001.000.620.558.800.310.00 32.66 Total : 32.66 94578 3/1/2007 071513 IQ & IAM IQ&IAM0222 REFUND REFUND OF CREDIT ON ACCOUNT 001.000.000.239.200.000.00 420.00 Total : 420.00 94579 3/1/2007 015233 JOBS AVAILABLE 705034 Transportation Engineer, #07-07 ad Transportation Engineer, #07-07 ad 001.000.220.516.100.440.00 132.60 Page: 32 Packet Page 47 of 195 vchlist Voucher List Page: 33 03/01/2007 1:57:13PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 94579 3/1/2007 015233 015233 JOBS AVAILABLE (Continued) Total : 132.60 94580 3/1/2007 068737 JOHNSON ROBERTS & ASSOC 106358 INV#106358 EDMONDS PD PRE -OFFER PHQ COLLINS, COMP' 001.000.410.521.100.410.00 24.00 Freight 001.000.410.521.100.410.00 1.50 Total : 25.50 94581 3/1/2007 065397 JOHNSON, ANDREW AJOHNSON0207 GYM MONITOR GYM MONITOR @ FAC FOR 3 ON' 001.000.640.575.520.410.00 110.00 Total : 110.00 94582 3/1/2007 070359 JOHNSON, DOUG REC # 129903 RETURN HYDRANT DEPOSIT - - RETURN HYDRANT DEPOSIT - - 411.000.000.245.110.000.00 950.00 Total : 950.00 94583 3/1/2007 063493 JOHNSTONE SUPPLY 1310697-00 CITY HALL - PROTREAT CITY HALL - PROTREAT 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 53.76 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 4.73 Total : 58.49 94584 3/1/2007 015270 JONES CHEMICALS INC 335778 HYPOCHLORITE SOLUTION HYPOCHLORITE SOLUTION 411.000.656.538.800.310.53 2,959.11 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.53 260.40 Total : 3,219.51 94585 3/1/2007 071517 JTM CONSTRUCTION CST #00208238 REF OF OVERPMT OF BUS LIC Refund of overpayment of business 001.000.000.257.310.000.00 40.00 Page: 33 Packet Page 48 of 195 vchlist Voucher List Page: 34 03/01/2007 1:57:13PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 94585 3/1/2007 071517 071517 JTM CONSTRUCTION (Continued) Total : 40.00 94586 3/1/2007 070019 JUDICIAL CONF REGISTRATION 040907 REGISTRATION FEE FOR COURT " REGISTRATION FEE FOR COURT " 001.000.230.512.501.490.00 45.00 Total : 45.00 94587 3/1/2007 016600 KROESENS INC 73445 OPS UNIFORMS BC badge 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 111.70 Freight 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 6.00 Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 10.36 73884 UNIFORMS Kuhn coat,boots, etc. 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 462.30 Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 40.68 74947 UNIFORMS Lucas shirts/nametags 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 114.00 Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 10.03 Total : 755.07 94588 3/1/2007 064953 KRUGMIRE, DAVID 510-1532 TRAINING MISC Inspector I exam fee 001.000.510.522.400.490.00 170.00 Total : 170.00 94589 3/1/2007 017050 KWICK'N KLEEN CAR WASH 684158 INV#684158 EDMONDS PD - DECEI 3 CARWASHES @ $5 001.000.410.521.220.480.00 15.00 38 CARWASHES @ $2.50 001.000.410.521.220.480.00 95.00 Page: 34 Packet Page 49 of 195 vchlist 03/01/2007 1:57:13PM Voucher List City of Edmonds Page: 35 Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 94589 3/1/2007 017050 017050 KWICK'N KLEEN CAR WASH (Continued) Total : 110.00 94590 3/1/2007 006048 L N CURTIS & SONS 2046361-00 UNIT 476 - BASE ASSEMBY UNIT 476 - BASE ASSEMBY 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 43.00 Freight 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 10.80 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 4.73 Total : 58.53 94591 3/1/2007 068549 LAW OFFICE OF LANCE R FRYREAR CR18689 PUBLIC DEFENDER PUBLIC DEFENDER 001.000.390.512.520.410.00 200.00 CR18788 PUBLIC DEFENDER PUBLIC DEFENDER 001.000.390.512.520.410.00 200.00 Total : 400.00 94592 3/1/2007 069594 LINK PIPE INC 4860 SEWER - SEWER PIPE W/G 200 SEWER - SEWER PIPE W/G 200 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 4,362.20 Freight 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 142.46 Total : 4,504.66 94593 3/1/2007 018760 LUNDS OFFICE ESSENTIALS 093283 SUPPLIES SUPPLIES 001.000.230.512.501.310.00 15.42 Total : 15.42 94594 3/1/2007 018760 LUNDS OFFICE ESSENTIALS 093347 BUSINESS CARDS DEV SVCS AND Page: 35 Packet Page 50 of 195 vchlist Voucher List Page: 36 03/01/2007 1:57:13PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 94594 3/1/2007 018760 LUNDS OFFICE ESSENTIALS (Continued) 250-00137 Business Cards:- 001.000.620.558.800.310.00 19.17 250-00137 Debbie Johnson 001.000.640.574.100.310.00 19.17 250-00137 Vicki Barokas 001.000.640.574.100.310.00 19.16 Sales Tax 001.000.620.558.800.310.00 1.71 Sales Tax 001.000.640.574.100.310.00 3.41 Total : 62.62 94595 3/1/2007 018980 LYNNWOOD HONDA CM504519 CORRECTION - PD TWICE 2/1/07 2 CORRECTION - PD TWICE 2/1/07 2 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 23.96 Total : 23.96 94596 3/1/2007 065829 MARTINSON, LINDA MARTINSON8232 BELLY DANCE CLASSES BELLY DANCE #8232 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 176.40 BELLY DANCE #7577 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 470.40 Total : 646.80 94597 3/1/2007 020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO 59420840 123106800 PRESSURE REGULATOR 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 276.32 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 6.48 59421317 123106800 PULLER HOOK 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 21.90 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 5.81 Page: 36 Packet Page 51 of 195 vchlist Voucher List Page: 37 03/01/2007 1:57:13PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 94597 3/1/2007 020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO (Continued) 59560863 123106800 STEEL CABINET 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 688.94 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 136.18 59626918 123106800 O RING 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 4.44 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 4.33 Total : 1,144.40 94598 3/1/2007 068910 MEDTRONIC PHYSIO-CONTROL CORP PH140143 ALS REPAIR/MAINT 2007 Maint Agreemt 001.000.510.526.100.480.00 3,394.30 Sales Tax 001.000.510.526.100.480.00 298.70 Total : 3,693.00 94599 3/1/2007 070315 NATIONAL FIRE INFO COUNCIL INC 510-0995 PREVENTION MISC FM Mar'07-'08 mbrshp fee 001.000.510.522.300.490.00 75.00 Total : 75.00 94600 3/1/2007 071514 NELSON, LORI NELSON0222 REFUND REFUND OF CREDIT ON ACCOUNT 001.000.000.239.200.000.00 18.00 Total : 18.00 94601 3/1/2007 067098 NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS 832127721-028 INV#832127721-028 EDMONDS PD CELL PHONES 2/18-3/17/06 001.000.410.521.220.420.00 1,445.82 Total : 1,445.82 94602 3/1/2007 024960 NORTH COAST ELECTRIC COMPANY S1306562.001 2091 Page: 37 Packet Page 52 of 195 vchlist Voucher List Page: 38 03/01/2007 1:57:13PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 94602 3/1/2007 024960 NORTH COAST ELECTRIC COMPANY (Continued) SWITCH 411.000.656.538.800.310.22 228.60 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.22 19.66 Total : 248.26 94603 3/1/2007 068663 NORTHERN ENERGY PROPANE 130713 SEWER DEPT - LIFT ST 12 - PROPS SEWER DEPT - LIFT ST 12 - PROPS 411.000.655.535.800.320.00 177.61 Sales Tax 411.000.655.535.800.320.00 15.27 130714 SEWER - LIFT ST 10 - PROPANE SEWER - LIFT ST 10 - PROPANE 411.000.655.535.800.320.00 130.19 Sales Tax 411.000.655.535.800.320.00 11.20 Total : 334.27 94604 3/1/2007 066391 NORTHSTAR CHEMICAL INC 0076588 SODIUM BISULFITE SODIUM BISULFITE 411.000.656.538.800.310.54 255.00 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.54 22.70 Total : 277.70 94605 3/1/2007 063511 OFFICE MAX CONTRACT INC 302237 SUPPLIES SUPPLIES 001.000.230.512.501.310.00 221.16 Total : 221.16 94606 3/1/2007 063511 OFFICE MAX CONTRACT INC 189929 Jump drive - Cindy Cruz Jump drive - Cindy Cruz 001.000.610.519.700.490.00 23.99 King County Sales Tax 001.000.610.519.700.490.00 2.12 Page: 38 Packet Page 53 of 195 vchlist Voucher List Page: 39 03/01/2007 1:57:13PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 94606 3/1/2007 063511 063511 OFFICE MAX CONTRACT INC (Continued) Total : 26.11 94607 3/1/2007 063511 OFFICE MAX CONTRACT INC 650155 OFFICE SUPPLIES EXPANDING FILES 001.000.640.574.100.310.00 22.64 King County Sales Tax 001.000.640.574.100.310.00 1.91 712028 OFFICE SUPPLIES APPPOINTMENT BOOK 001.000.640.574.100.310.00 5.77 King County Sales Tax 001.000.640.574.100.310.00 0.51 768421 OFFICE SUPPLIES BINDERS, CARD GUIDE 001.000.640.574.100.310.00 15.20 King County Sales Tax 001.000.640.574.100.310.00 1.25 785939 MERCHANDISE CREDIT CREDIT FOR APPT BOOK 001.000.640.574.100.310.00 -5.77 King County Sales Tax 001.000.640.574.100.310.00 -0.51 935231 OFFICE SUPPLIES STAPLER, BINDER CLIPS 001.000.640.574.100.310.00 20.89 King County Sales Tax 001.000.640.574.100.310.00 1.75 974834 OFFICE SUPPLIES TAPE, SHEET PROTECTORS 117.100.640.573.100.310.00 12.39 King County Sales Tax 117.100.640.573.100.310.00 1.01 Total : 77.04 94608 3/1/2007 063511 OFFICE MAX CONTRACT INC 065347 Address labels, highlighters, letter Page: 39 Packet Page 54 of 195 vchlist Voucher List Page: 40 03/01/2007 1:57:13PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 94608 3/1/2007 063511 OFFICE MAX CONTRACT INC (Continued) Address labels, highlighters, letter 001.000.310.514.230.310.00 66.82 King County Sales Tax 001.000.310.514.230.310.00 5.88 101790 ORIGINAL INV #857137 12/06/06 Return toner no longer have copier 001.000.310.514.230.310.00 -151.41 King County Sales Tax 001.000.310.514.230.310.00 -13.33 119845 Keyboard P&R Keyboard P&R 001.000.640.574.200.310.00 42.15 White Board Markers, wipes, 001.000.310.514.230.310.00 30.73 King County Sales Tax 001.000.640.574.200.310.00 3.71 King County Sales Tax 001.000.310.514.230.310.00 2.70 306205 Adding machine tape & Copy paper Adding machine tape & Copy paper 001.000.310.514.230.310.00 181.44 King County Sales Tax 001.000.310.514.230.310.00 15.97 316072 Flash Drive Flash Drive 001.000.310.514.100.310.00 110.08 King County Sales Tax 001.000.310.514.100.310.00 9.69 Total : 304.43 94609 3/1/2007 063511 OFFICE MAX CONTRACT INC 086423 520437 VISITORS REGISTER BOOK 411.000.656.538.800.310.41 17.12 King County Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.41 1.42 Page: 40 Packet Page 55 of 195 vchlist Voucher List Page: 41 03/01/2007 1:57:13PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 94609 3/1/2007 063511 063511 OFFICE MAX CONTRACT INC (Continued) Total : 18.54 94610 3/1/2007 063511 OFFICE MAX CONTRACT INC 252983 Office Supplies -DSD Office Supplies -DSD 001.000.620.558.800.310.00 240.53 Total : 240.53 94611 3/1/2007 063511 OFFICE MAX CONTRACT INC 269095 OPERATIONS SUPPLIES stations' supplies 001.000.510.522.200.310.00 40.34 Freight 001.000.510.522.200.310.00 1.00 King County Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.200.310.00 3.55 Total : 44.89 94612 3/1/2007 063511 OFFICE MAX CONTRACT INC 146562 INV#146562 ACCT#520437 250POL 12 DOZEN PENS - PATROL & OFFI, 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 75.62 TYPEWRITER RIBBON 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 4.64 X-9 PAPER 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 179.34 120 MINUTE AUDIO TAPES 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 12.15 INDEX TABS 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 2.27 LASER LABELS 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 20.07 SELF -INKING STAMP 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 4.77 King County Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 26.31 Page: 41 Packet Page 56 of 195 vchlist Voucher List Page: 42 03/01/2007 1:57:13PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 94612 3/1/2007 063511 OFFICE MAX CONTRACT INC (Continued) 314155 INV#314155 ACCT#520437 250POL CD JEWEL CASE - 100 PACK 001.000.410.521.910.310.00 30.99 HP HIGH YIELD CARTRIDGE - PATI 001.000.410.521.220.310.00 180.07 LABELS FOR DYMO LABELER 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 105.51 King County Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.910.310.00 2.73 King County Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.220.310.00 15.85 King County Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 9.28 Total : 669.60 94613 3/1/2007 025889 OGDEN MURPHY AND WALLACE 656309 Council Attny Profes Sery for 1/2007 Council Attny Profes Sery for 1/2007 001.000.110.511.100.410.00 5,485.00 Total : 5,485.00 94614 3/1/2007 026830 PACIFIC PLUMBING SUPPLY 07237346 100361 C-161 SCREENING SYSTEM IMPRC 414.000.656.594.320.650.00 164.03 Freight 414.000.656.594.320.650.00 5.00 Total : 169.03 94615 3/1/2007 069611 PACIFIC POWER TECH LLC 1-03186-0 UNIT 476 - HYCON ELEMENT UNIT 476 - HYCON ELEMENT 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 350.00 Freight 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 18.70 Total : 368.70 94616 3/1/2007 066817 PANASONIC DIGITAL DOCUMENT COM 9465969 ADMIN LEASE Page: 42 Packet Page 57 of 195 vchlist Voucher List Page: 43 03/01/2007 1:57:13PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 94616 3/1/2007 066817 PANASONIC DIGITAL DOCUMENT COM (Continued) Admin copier mo. lease 001.000.510.522.100.450.00 137.06 Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.100.450.00 12.20 Total : 149.26 94617 3/1/2007 027165 PARKER PAINT MFG. CO.INC. 513475 LIBRARY - BASE PAINT, MASKING LIBRARY - BASE PAINT, MASKING 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 46.63 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 4.15 513740 FAC - PAINT AND SUPPLIES FAC - PAINT AND SUPPLIES 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 39.15 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 3.49 515076 FAC - BASE PAINT FAC - BASE PAINT 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 6.23 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 0.55 Total : 100.20 94618 3/1/2007 070931 PATTON BOGGS LLP 024108 Jan 07 DC LOBBYIST FOR JANUARY 2007 Jan 07 DC Lobbyist Charges 001.000.610.519.700.410.00 4,000.00 Total : 4,000.00 94619 3/1/2007 069944 PECK, ELIZABETH PECK7526 STRETCH & SCULPT STRETCH & SCULPT #7526 001.000.640.575.540.410.00 168.00 Total : 168.00 94620 3/1/2007 071519 PERFORMANCE WAREHOUSE INC 485402017 UNIT 50 & 81 - SUPER Z LT Page: 43 Packet Page 58 of 195 vchlist Voucher List Page: 44 03/01/2007 1:57:13PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 94620 3/1/2007 071519 PERFORMANCE WAREHOUSE INC (Continued) UNIT 50 & 81 - SUPER Z LT 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 101.90 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 8.97 Total : 110.87 94621 3/1/2007 008400 PETTY CASH - EPD PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT/P( Page: 44 Packet Page 59 of 195 vchlist Voucher List Page: 45 03/01/2007 1:57:13PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor 94621 3/1/2007 008400 PETTY CASH - EPD 94622 3/1/2007 008350 PETTY CASH - PARKS & REC Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount (Continued) FUEL/PICK UP PRISONER 001.000.410.521.210.430.00 12.01 COOKIES/TAC MTG 02/21/07- 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 19.97 2/13OTTLES LOTION- 001.000.410.521.910.310.00 8.34 BOTTLED WATER- 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 27.84 PRINTER CARTRIDGE- 001.000.410.521.310.310.00 21.73 ALARM SENSOR BATTERIES 001.000.410.521.210.310.00 18.28 MARKERS AND BUNGEE CORDS- 001.000.410.521.220.310.00 34.05 HI -LITER PIPES FOR- 001.000.410.521.310.310.00 30.47 STOCK PAPER- 001.000.410.521.300.310.00 7.21 AA BATTERIES 001.000.410.521.220.310.00 10.41 COOKIES/POLICE FOUNDATION 0' 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 13.98 COOKIES/TAC MTG 01/17/07 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 11.47 PARKING/ACOP GANNON- 001.000.410.521.400.430.00 18.00 THOMAS BROTHERS MAP- 001.000.410.521.210.310.00 42.37 WHITE BOARD- 001.000.410.521.700.310.00 8.69 Total : 284.82 PCASH0223 PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT Page: 45 Packet Page 60 of 195 vchlist Voucher List Page: 46 03/01/2007 1:57:13PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor 94622 3/1/2007 008350 PETTY CASH - PARKS & REC 94623 3/1/2007 008475 PETTY CASH - PUBLIC WORKS Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount (Continued) TACKS 117.100.640.573.100.310.00 2.11 MEADOWDALE PRESCHOOL BIRTI 001.000.640.575.560.310.00 9.89 SISTER CITY STAMPS & PRINTING 623.200.210.557.210.490.00 22.95 SISTER CITY PARKING/ADULT DEL 623.200.210.557.210.430.00 13.00 MEADOWDALE PRESCHOOL SUPF 001.000.640.575.560.310.00 32.60 MEADOWDALE PRESCHOOL PICTI 001.000.640.575.560.490.00 6.39 MEADOWDALE PRESCHOOL SUPF 001.000.640.575.560.310.00 38.44 PARKING FOR PARK MAINTENANC 001.000.640.576.800.430.00 15.00 Total : 140.38 02/01-02/23/07 PARKING FOR MEETING - N MILLE Page: 46 Packet Page 61 of 195 vchlist Voucher List Page: 47 03/01/2007 1:57:13PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor 94623 3/1/2007 008475 PETTY CASH - PUBLIC WORKS Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount (Continued) PARKING FOR MEETING - N MILLE 001.000.650.519.910.430.00 3.00 PW POSTAL SCALE 001.000.650.519.910.310.00 18.90 PW POSTAL SCALE 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 18.90 PW POSTAL SCALE 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 18.90 PW POSTAL SCALE 411.000.652.542.900.310.00 19.58 PW POSTAL SCALE 111.000.653.542.900.310.00 19.58 PW POSTAL SCALE 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 19.58 PW POSTAL SCALE 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 19.59 LABEL MAKER AND TAPE FOR FA( 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 57.09 UPS FEES FOR SAFETY FILM RETI 001.000.651.519.920.420.00 6.35 MILEAGE FOR JAN 07 - S FISHER 411.000.654.537.900.430.00 44.62 CROSS CONNECTION SUB COMMI 411.000.654.534.800.490.00 10.00 LITES FOR LIFT ST 3 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 2.38 FLAG SEMINAR DONUTS FOR PW 411.000.652.542.900.310.00 4.38 FLAG SEMINAR DONUTS FOR PW 111.000.653.542.900.310.00 4.38 FLAG SEMINAR DONUTS FOR PW 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 4.38 FLAG SEMINAR DONUTS FOR PW 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 4.36 Page: 47 Packet Page 62 of 195 vchlist Voucher List Page: 48 03/01/2007 1:57:13PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor 94623 3/1/2007 008475 PETTY CASH - PUBLIC WORKS 94624 94625 3/1/2007 070881 PIPE TOOL SPECIALTIES Invoice (Continued) 1309 3/1/2007 029012 PONY MAIL BOX & BUSINESS CTR 150449 150583 150792 PO # Description/Account PW TABLE FOR POSTAGE SCALE 001.000.650.519.910.310.00 PW TABLE FOR POSTAGE SCALE 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 PW TABLE FOR POSTAGE SCALE 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 PW TABLE FOR POSTAGE SCALE 411.000.652.542.900.310.00 PW TABLE FOR POSTAGE SCALE 111.000.653.542.900.310.00 PW TABLE FOR POSTAGE SCALE 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 PW TABLE FOR POSTAGE SCALE 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 JEANS 07 - L MCMURPHY 411.000.654.534.800.240.00 Total SEWER TV TRUCK TRACKS SEWER TV TRUCK TRACKS 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 Freight 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 Total FLEET POSTAGE - AKRON BRASS FLEET POSTAGE - AKRON BRASS 511.000.657.548.680.420.00 WATER POSTAGE - RADIX CORP WATER POSTAGE - RADIX CORP 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 FLEET POSTAGE - LIND ELECT FLEET POSTAGE - LIND ELECT 511.000.657.548.680.420.00 Amount 2.28 2.28 2.28 2.37 2.37 2.37 2.36 97.62 389.90 478.50 5.11 483.61 22.80 24.51 19.64 Page: 48 Packet Page 63 of 195 vchlist Voucher List Page: 49 03/01/2007 1:57:13PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 94625 3/1/2007 029012 PONY MAIL BOX & BUSINESS CTR (Continued) 150883 STREET POSTAGE - DIALIGHT CO! STREET POSTAGE - DIALIGHT COi 111.000.653.542.640.480.00 12.14 150927 WATER/SEWER - DEPT OF L&I WATER/SEWER - DEPT OF L&I 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 4.95 WATER/SEWER - DEPT OF L&I 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 4.94 151169 WATER/SEWER POSTAGE - DEPT WATER/SEWER POSTAGE - DEPT 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 5.36 WATER/SEWER POSTAGE - DEPT 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 5.36 151407 WATER/SEWER POSTAGE - DEPT WATER/SEWER POSTAGE - DEPT 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 5.60 WATER/SEWER POSTAGE - DEPT 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 5.60 151615 FLEET POSTAGE - KUSTOM SIGN/ FLEET POSTAGE - KUSTOM SIGN/ 511.000.657.548.680.420.00 12.49 151631 SEWER POSTAGE - CUES WEST SEWER POSTAGE - CUES WEST 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 9.77 151687 WATER/SEWER POSTAGE - DEPT WATER/SEWER POSTAGE - DEPT 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 5.43 WATER/SEWER POSTAGE - DEPT 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 5.43 FLEET POSTAGE - SONETICS COF 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 8.35 151873 SEWER POSTAGE - CUES WEST SEWER POSTAGE - CUES WEST 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 314.55 Page: 49 Packet Page 64 of 195 vchlist Voucher List Page: 50 03/01/2007 1:57:13PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 94625 3/1/2007 029012 PONY MAIL BOX & BUSINESS CTR (Continued) 151950 WATER POSTAGE- LEATHERMAN WATER POSTAGE- LEATHERMAN 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 7.82 152000 WATER/SEWER POSTAGE - DEPT WATER/SEWER POSTAGE - DEPT 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 4.95 WATER/SEWER POSTAGE - DEPT 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 4.94 152133 FLEET POSTAGE - OLYMPIC TRUC FLEET POSTAGE - OLYMPIC TRUC 511.000.657.548.680.420.00 7.89 Total : 492.52 94626 3/1/2007 067263 PUGET SAFETY EQUIPMENT COMPANN 0014030-IN EDMCITW CAL GAS 411.000.656.538.800.310.22 199.00 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.22 16.72 Total : 215.72 94627 3/1/2007 046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY 7918807004 YOST POOL YOST POOL 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 114.33 Total : 114.33 94628 3/1/2007 046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY 0101874006 LIBRARY LIBRARY 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 419.34 2753166004 PUBLIC SAFETY-POLICE,CRT & CC PUBLIC SAFETY-POLICE,CRT & CC 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 663.12 Page: 50 Packet Page 65 of 195 vchlist Voucher List Page: 51 03/01/2007 1:57:13PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 94628 3/1/2007 046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY (Continued) 2776365005 Public Works Public Works 001.000.650.519.910.470.00 59.96 Public Works 111.000.653.542.900.470.00 227.83 Public Works 411.000.654.534.800.470.00 227.83 Public Works 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 227.83 Public Works 511.000.657.548.680.470.00 227.83 Public Works 411.000.652.542.900.470.00 227.84 2986629000 LIFT STATION #13 LIFT STATION #13 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 90.29 3689976003 200 Dayton St -Vacant PW Bldg 200 Dayton St -Vacant PW Bldg 411.000.654.534.800.470.00 577.70 5903085008 FLEET Fleet 7110 210th St SW 511.000.657.548.680.470.00 1,321.83 6439566008 PUBLIC SAFETY -FIRE STATION PUBLIC SAFETY -FIRE STATION 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 1,337.88 6490327001 ANDERSON CENTER ANDERSON CENTER 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 5,003.99 8851908007 LIFT STATION #8 LIFT STATION #8 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 54.66 9919661109 FIRE STATION #20 FIRE STATION #20 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 690.98 Page: 51 Packet Page 66 of 195 vchlist Voucher List Page: 52 03/01/2007 1:57:13PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 94628 3/1/2007 046900 046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY (Continued) Total : 11,358.91 94629 3/1/2007 071007 SAWDON, MANDY SAWDON0224 GYM MONITOR ANDERSON CENTER GYM MONITC 001.000.640.574.100.410.00 48.00 Total : 48.00 94630 3/1/2007 061482 SEA -WESTERN INC 113513 OPS PROTECTIVE CLOTHING Helmet & 9 pair suspenders 001.000.510.522.200.250.00 362.00 Freight 001.000.510.522.200.250.00 7.50 Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.200.250.00 32.52 Total : 402.02 94631 3/1/2007 065977 SERVICE ELECTRIC COMPANY INC 905370 EDM002 METER E UTILITY SERVICE 411.000.656.538.800.480.22 3,000.00 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.480.22 267.00 Total : 3,267.00 94632 3/1/2007 070115 SHANNON & WILSON INC 57644 E4FC.Old Woodway Infiltration Analy E4FC.Old Woodway Infiltration Analy 412.200.630.594.320.650.00 6,776.39 Total : 6,776.39 94633 3/1/2007 071509 SHARPE MIXERS 41693 48856 MIXER 411.000.656.538.800.310.22 1,688.00 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.22 26.23 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.22 150.23 Page: 52 Packet Page 67 of 195 vchlist Voucher List Page: 53 03/01/2007 1:57:13PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 94633 3/1/2007 071509 SHARPE MIXERS (Continued) 41819 48856-P MOTOR 411.000.656.538.800.310.22 191.00 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.22 9.74 Total : 2,065.20 94634 3/1/2007 071518 SHERIN, DAVID Trf Rvw Refund Traf Impact Analysis Fee Refund Traf Impact Analysis Fee Refund 001.000.000.343.200.000.00 40.00 Total : 40.00 94635 3/1/2007 068489 SIRENNET.COM 0057427-IN UNIT 117 - BATTERY STICK, SWIT( UNIT 117 - BATTERY STICK, SWIT( 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 127.00 Freight 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 11.50 Total : 138.50 94636 3/1/2007 036950 SIX ROBBLEES INC 14-163573 UNIT 124 - RUBBER WHEEL CHOC UNIT 124 - RUBBER WHEEL CHOC 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 35.40 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 3.04 Total : 38.44 94637 3/1/2007 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 2710014701 MAPLEWOOD HILL PARK MAPLEWOOD HILL PARK 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 28.28 5680012803 BALLINGER PARK IRRIGATION BALLINGER PARK IRRIGATION 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 30.96 Total : 59.24 94638 3/1/2007 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 150004628 958-001-000-8 Page: 53 Packet Page 68 of 195 vchlist Voucher List Page: 54 03/01/2007 1:57:13PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 94638 3/1/2007 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 (Continued) WWTP ELECTRICITY 411.000.656.538.800.471.61 30,664.92 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.471.61 1,839.90 Total : 32,504.82 94639 3/1/2007 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 112-000-511-9 22000 84TH AVE W Traffic Signal 220th St SW & 84th Av 111.000.653.542.640.470.00 68.94 2060014392 SIGNAL LIGHT SIGNAL LIGHT 111.000.653.542.640.470.00 29.26 2060015456 STREET LIGHT STREET LIGHT 111.000.653.542.640.470.00 29.74 2960019335 LIFT STATION #3 LIFT STATION #3 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 152.70 3380016422 SCHOOL FLASHING LIGHT SCHOOL FLASHING LIGHT 111.000.653.542.640.470.00 27.79 4220016176 STREET LIGHT STREET LIGHT 111.000.653.542.630.470.00 191.12 4430018418 STREET LIGHT STREET LIGHT 111.000.653.542.640.470.00 91.05 4670302498 Lift Station #6 100 Pine St Lift Station #6 100 Pine St 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 386.20 4680011956 TRAFFIC SIGNAL TRAFFIC SIGNAL 111.000.653.542.640.470.00 156.65 Page: 54 Packet Page 69 of 195 vchlist Voucher List Page: 55 03/01/2007 1:57:13PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 94639 3/1/2007 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 (Continued) 4860014960 STREET LIGHT STREET LIGHT 111.000.653.542.640.470.00 172.60 5450011118 SIGNAL LIGHT SIGNAL LIGHT 111.000.653.542.640.470.00 153.95 7060000275 Fire station #16 Fire station #16 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 28.67 Total : 1,488.67 94640 3/1/2007 038413 SOUND TRACTOR IN58894 PARTS MOWER PARTS 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 215.10 Freight 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 18.79 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 20.11 Total : 254.00 94641 3/1/2007 046200 STATE OF WASHINGTON R&J RetngRlse E2BA/c095 96th Ave W Ped Imp - E2BA/c095 96th Ave W Ped Imp - 112.200.630.595.330.650.00 15,410.70 E2BA/c095 96th Ave W Ped Imp - 412.200.630.594.320.650.00 4,737.10 E4FE/c185 96th Ave W Storm Imp - 412.200.630.594.320.650.00 3,697.10 Total : 23,844.90 94642 3/1/2007 009400 STELLAR INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY INC 2528095 WATER - WHISK BROOMS WATER - WHISK BROOMS 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 20.34 Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 1.75 Page: 55 Packet Page 70 of 195 vchlist Voucher List Page: 56 03/01/2007 1:57:13PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 94642 3/1/2007 009400 STELLAR INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY INC (Continued) 2528096 WATER - TOOLS - TUBING CUTTEI WATER - TOOLS - TUBING CUTTEI 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 69.11 Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 5.94 Total : 97.14 94643 3/1/2007 040250 STEUBER DISTRIBUTING 136814 WATER DEPT - FELCO FOLDING S WATER DEPT - FELCO FOLDING S 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 41.90 Freight 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 6.10 Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 4.08 Total : 52.08 94644 3/1/2007 040430 STONEWAY ELECTRIC SUPPLY 907416 PS - 130 V LAMPS PS - 130 V LAMPS 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 17.39 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 1.55 Total : 18.94 94645 3/1/2007 065133 SUDDEN PRINTING 16616 PREVENTION SUPPLIES paper 001.000.510.522.300.310.00 9.81 Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.300.310.00 0.87 Total : 10.68 94646 3/1/2007 068619 SWENSON, LINDA 1149 CRAZE COVER PHOTOA MAY - AUGUST 2007 - 001.000.640.574.200.490.00 141.67 Total : 141.67 94647 3/1/2007 040916 TC SPAN AMERICA 38619 GYMNASTICS T-SHIRTS Page: 56 Packet Page 71 of 195 vchlist Voucher List Page: 57 03/01/2007 1:57:13PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 94647 3/1/2007 040916 TC SPAN AMERICA (Continued) GYMNASTICS BIRTHDAY PARTY T• 001.000.640.575.550.310.00 168.75 Sales Tax 001.000.640.575.550.310.00 15.02 Total : 183.77 94648 3/1/2007 009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY 1479622 NEWSPAPER AD Design guidelines hearing 001.000.250.514.300.440.00 60.48 Total : 60.48 94649 3/1/2007 027269 THE PART WORKS INC 199872 FAC - SIDE MOUNT OPERATOR TN FAC - SIDE MOUNT OPERATOR TN 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 1,499.40 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 131.95 200307 PW - VALVE REPAIR KIT, FROST F PW - VALVE REPAIR KIT, FROST F 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 221.60 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 19.50 Total : 1,872.45 94650 3/1/2007 068249 TRAUTMANN MAHER & ASSOCIATES 2/20/07 MEBT accounts - February 2007 MEBT accounts - February 2007 001.000.220.516.100.410.00 78.00 Total : 78.00 94651 3/1/2007 042800 TRI-CITIES SECURITY 12937 MCH - KEYS MCH - KEYS 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 13.50 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 1.20 Total : 14.70 94652 3/1/2007 068724 US HEALTHWORKS MED GROUP OF W 0158951-WA WATER - 1 DOT, SEWER - 3 DOT Page: 57 Packet Page 72 of 195 vchlist Voucher List Page: 58 03/01/2007 1:57:13PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 94652 3/1/2007 068724 US HEALTHWORKS MED GROUP OF W (Continued) WATER - 1 DOT, SEWER - 3 DOT 411.000.655.535.800.410.00 174.00 WATER - 1 DOT, SEWER - 3 DOT 411.000.654.534.800.410.00 58.00 Total : 232.00 94653 3/1/2007 044300 US POSTAL SERVICE PO BOX 2008 2007 ANNUAL RENTAL FEE FOR Pi 2007 ANNUAL RENTAL FEE FOR Pi 411.000.654.534.800.450.00 434.00 2007 ANNUAL RENTAL FEE FOR Pi 411.000.655.535.800.450.00 434.00 Total : 868.00 94654 3/1/2007 011900 VERIZON NORTHWEST 425-AB8-1176 CITY PARK T1 LINE City Park T1 Line 2/16-3/16/07 001.000.310.518.880.420.00 406.61 Total : 406.61 94655 3/1/2007 011900 VERIZON NORTHWEST 425-712-0423 03 0260 1032797592 07 AFTER HOURS PHONE 411.000.656.538.800.420.00 58.77 425-NW 1-0060 03 0210 10795694130 10 BPS TELEMETRY 411.000.656.538.800.420.00 41.02 425-N W 1-0155 03 0210 1099569419 02 TELEMETRY 411.000.656.538.800.420.00 215.74 Total : 315.53 94656 3/1/2007 011900 VERIZON NORTHWEST 425-206-7147 LIBRARY SCAN ALARM LIBRARY SCAN ALARM 001.000.651.519.920.420.00 14.84 425-206-8379 MEADOWDALE COMMUNITY CLUB MEADOWDALE COMMUNITY CLUB 001.000.651.519.920.420.00 14.84 Page: 58 Packet Page 73 of 195 vchlist Voucher List Page: 59 03/01/2007 1:57:13PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor 94656 3/1/2007 011900 VERIZON NORTHWEST Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount (Continued) 425-712-0417 TELEMETRY STATIONS TELEMETRY STATIONS 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 27.79 TELEMETRY STATIONS 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 27.79 425-712-8251 P/W FIRE ALARM, FAX LINE & 2 SF P/W FIRE ALARM, FAX LINE & 2 SF 001.000.650.519.910.420.00 10.42 P/W FIRE ALARM, FAX LINE & 2 SF 111.000.653.542.900.420.00 52.11 P/W FIRE ALARM, FAX LINE & 2 SF 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 42.73 P/W FIRE ALARM, FAX LINE & 2 SF 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 42.73 P/W FIRE ALARM, FAX LINE & 2 SF 511.000.657.548.680.420.00 60.44 425-775-1534 TELEMETRY LIFT STATIONS TELEMETRY LIFT STATIONS 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 159.56 TELEMETRY LIFT STATIONS 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 296.32 425-775-2455 PUBLIC SAFETY FIRE ALARM PUBLIC SAFETY FIRE ALARM 001.000.651.519.920.420.00 47.37 425-775-7865 Radio Line between Public Works & I Radio Line between Public Works & I 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 50.13 425-776-3896 FRANCES ANDERSON FIRE ALARM FRANCES ANDERSON FIRE ALARA 001.000.651.519.920.420.00 114.72 Page: 59 Packet Page 74 of 195 vchlist Voucher List Page: 60 03/01/2007 1:57:13PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 94656 3/1/2007 011900 VERIZON NORTHWEST (Continued) 425-RTO-9133 Public Works Connection to 911 Public Works Connection to 911 001.000.650.519.910.420.00 5.48 Public Works Connection to 911 111.000.653.542.900.420.00 20.81 Public Works Connection to 911 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 20.81 Public Works Connection to 911 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 20.81 Public Works Connection to 911 511.000.657.548.680.420.00 20.81 Public Works Connection to 911 411.000.652.542.900.420.00 20.78 Total : 1,071.29 94657 3/1/2007 011900 VERIZON NORTHWEST 425-NW4-3726 FRAME RELAY FOR FS #20 & SNOi FRAME RELAY FOR FS #20 & SNOI 001.000.510.528.600.420.00 247.00 Total : 247.00 94658 3/1/2007 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS 364280677-00001 360-929-3167 cell phone- Jim Kammerer 411.000.652.542.900.420.00 1.85 cell phone- Jim Kammerer 111.000.653.542.900.420.00 1.85 470091643-00001 425-238-8846 cell phone -Tod Moles 411.000.652.542.900.420.00 38.80 470103273-00001 425-238-5456 cell phone -Mike Johnson 111.000.653.542.900.420.00 29.59 670091643-00001 425-327-5379 cell phone -unit #77 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 110.26 Page: 60 Packet Page 75 of 195 vchlist Voucher List Page: 61 03/01/2007 1:57:13PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 94658 3/1/2007 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS (Continued) 769986915-01 425-231-2668 cell phone -water lead 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 40.93 Total : 223.28 94659 3/1/2007 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS 2115395097 Bldg - Cell 1/19 to 2/18/2007 Bldg - Cell 1/19 to 2/18/2007 001.000.620.524.100.420.00 60.04 Total : 60.04 94660 3/1/2007 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS 2114546049 INV#2114546049 ACCT#764226609- SWAT BUS PHONE 001.000.410.521.220.420.00 1.90 Total : 1.90 94661 3/1/2007 070597 VISICORE LLC 362 Laber to install data line at PW for Laber to install data line at PW for 001.000.310.518.880.410.00 610.99 Sales Tax 001.000.310.518.880.410.00 53.80 Total : 664.79 94662 3/1/2007 061195 WARD, JIM BOOTS 2007 BOOT ALLOWANCE 2007 - J WAR[ BOOT ALLOWANCE 2007 - J WAR[ 411.000.652.542.900.240.00 157.32 Total : 157.32 94663 3/1/2007 070264 WASHINGTON OAKES RETIREMENT 31 Assisted Care living - J. Martin Assisted Care living - J. Martin 009.000.390.517.370.230.00 3,850.00 Total : 3,850.00 94664 3/1/2007 065982 WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY E0009269 Reg fee Graf Emerg Prep 4/10/07 Reg fee Graf Emerg Prep 4/10/07 001.000.620.524.100.490.00 225.00 Page: 61 Packet Page 76 of 195 vchlist Voucher List Page: 62 03/01/2007 1:57:13PM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 94664 3/1/2007 065982 065982 WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY (Continued) Total : 225.00 94665 3/1/2007 071524 WESTERN ITE 2/13/07 Transportation Engineer, #07-07 ad Transportation Engineer, #07-07 ad 001.000.620.532.200.440.00 235.50 Total : 235.50 94666 3/1/2007 068150 WESTERN TIRE CHAIN 20769 OPS EXPENDABLE TOOLS tire chain cross links 001.000.510.522.200.359.00 378.00 Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.200.359.00 32.51 Total : 410.51 94667 3/1/2007 049905 WHITNEY EQUIPMENT CO INC 0027698-IN 0024593 DO CARTRIDGE 411.000.656.538.800.310.22 1,113.00 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.22 13.98 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.22 100.30 Total : 1,227.28 94668 3/1/2007 071523 WSH&LA 28807 Display Ads Display Ads 120.000.310.575.420.440.00 2,733.33 Total : 2,733.33 94669 3/1/2007 060474 WSHNA 2007 DUES 2007 ANNUAL DUES - EDMONDS P 2007 ANNUAL DUES- 001.000.410.521.220.490.00 25.00 Total : 25.00 94670 3/1/2007 045565 WSPCA BINKLEY REGISTRATION - L.BINKLEY - EDM L. BINKLEY/REGISTRATION- 001.000.410.521.400.490.00 225.00 Page: 62 Packet Page 77 of 195 vchlist 03/01/2007 1:57:13PM Voucher List City of Edmonds Page: 63 Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 94670 3/1/2007 045565 WSPCA (Continued) HAWLEY 2007 DUES & REGISTRATION/S.HA 2007 DUES/S.HAWLEY 001.000.410.521.260.490.00 35.00 S. HAW LEY/REG ISTRATI ON- 001.000.410.521.400.490.00 225.00 MCCLURE REGISTRATION - J.MCCLURE - ED J. MCCLURE/REG ISTRATION- 001.000.410.521.400.490.00 225.00 Total : 710.00 94671 3/1/2007 070432 ZACHOR & THOMAS PS INC 225 Monthly Retainer Monthly Retainer 001.000.360.515.230.410.00 6,000.00 Total : 6,000.00 164 Vouchers for bank code : front Bank total : 225,518.00 164 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers : 225,518.00 Page: 63 Packet Page 78 of 195 AM-864 2. D. LTAC Confirmation Edmonds City Council Meeting Date: 03/06/2007 Submitted By: Linda Carl, Mayor's Office Submitted For: Linda Carl Time: Consent Department: Mayor's Office Type: Action Review Committee: Action: Agenda Memo Subiect Title Council confirmation of 2007 members of the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Please approve the membership for 2007. Previous Council Action Narrative The membership for the LTAC is renewable annually at the beginning of each calendar year. All 2006 members have requested to be reappointed for this year, except Cami Smith, who recently resigned. The members requesting reappointment are: Jan Conner, Harbor Inn Chris Burdett, Colliers International Hotels Hellon Wilkerson, Maple Tree B&B Roberta McBride, Cascade Symphony Frances Chapin, Edmonds P&R program Dave Orvis is the chair and Council representative on the committee. Cami's position will replaced by another individual who represents a "user" of the lodging tax. No file(s) attached. Revenue & Expenditures Fiscal Impact Attachments Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 02/27/2007 10:04 AM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 02/27/2007 11:41 AM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 02/28/2007 10:19 AM APRV Form Started By: Linda Carl Started On: 02/27/2007 09:34 AM Final Approval Date: 02/28/2007 Packet Page 79 of 195 AM-868 2. E. 164th St SW Walkway/74th PI W Drainage Improvements Edmonds City Council Meeting Date: 03/06/2007 Submitted By: Dave Gebert, Engineering Time: Consent Department: Engineering Type: Action Review Committee: Action: Approved for Consent Agenda Agenda Memo Subiect Title Authorization to call for bids for the 164th Street SW Walkway and the 74th Place West Drainage Improvements Projects. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Council authorize Staff to call for bids for the 164th Street SW Walkway and the 74th Place West Drainage Improvements projects. Previous Council Action NA Narrative Design for the 164th Street SW Walkway project is complete. The adopted 2007 capital budget includes $270,000 for construction of this project in Fund 132, Parks Construction Fund. Construction is planned for this summer, 2007. Subsequent to preparation of the 2007-2008 capital budget, the Public Works Department identified an emergent drainage problem on 74t Place West at Meadowdale Beach Road. Design of a solution for this problem is nearing completion and the preliminary estimated construction cost is $100,000. The location of this project is near the 164th Place SW Walkway project and the nature of construction is similar. Staff has determined that it makes sense to include both these projects in the same construction contract. Funding for the 74th Place West Drainage Improvements project is not included as a specific project in the 2007-2008 adopted capital budget, since this project is an emergent requirement identified by Public Works after preparation of the budget. However, $70,000 is included in the 2007 capital budget for general Meadowdale drainage projects, and there is sufficient cash balance in Fund 412 for utilities capital projects. Staff will request that Council appropriate funds for this project after receipt of bids. Revenue & Expenditures Fiscal Impact Attachments No file(s) attached. Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 Development Services Duane Bowman 03/01/2007 09:40 AM APRV 2 Parks and Recreation Brian McIntosh 03/01/2007 09:43 AM APRV 3 Public Works Noel Miller 03/01/2007 04:00 PM APRV 4 City Clerk Sandy Chase 03/01/2007 04:02 PM APRV 5 Mayor Gary Haakenson 03/01/2007 04:07 PM APRV 6 Final Approval Sandy Chase 03/01/2007 04:09 PM APRV Form Started By: Dave Gebert Started On: 03/01/2007 09:29 AM Final Approval Date: 03/01/2007 Packet Page 80 of 195 AM-863 2. F. Surplus City Vehicles & Equipment Edmonds City Council Meeting Date: 03/06/2007 Submitted By: Kim Karas, Public Works Submitted For: Dave Sittauer, Fleet Manager Time: Consent Department: Public Works Type: Action Review Committee: Action: Approved for Consent Agenda Agenda Memo Subiect Title Authorization to contract with James Murphy Auctioneers to sell surplus City vehicles and equipment. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff It is recommended that the City Council authorize Public Works to contract with James Murphy Auctioneers to sell surplus City vehicles and equipment, as has been done in previous years. Previous Council Action Narrative The following vehicles are in the process of being replaced and have become surplus in the 2007 budget year. Unit # & Dept Model VIN # Miles Pol-Police 1999 Grand Prix 1G2WJ52M5XF343001 68,000 482-Fire 2000 Ford Expedition 1FMPU16L9YLB67778 58,000 481- Fire 1999 Ford Expedition 1FMPU18L6XLA73028 73,000 35-Building 1993 Ford Taurus IFALP57UIPG274622 33,000 37 - Engineering 1993 Ford Taurus IFALP57UIPG274621 54,500 75 — Parks 1992 Chevy Pickup 1GTGC24K9NE517997 44,000 111- Parks 1992 John Deere Tractor M00318XIO3891 54-Street 1993 Asphalt Roller 0673601614 13-Cemetary 1992 GMC Flatbed IGDJL34KXNE542172 51,000 24 — Storm 1999 International Vactor 1HTGGAHT3XH659607 4500 Hrs. 26-Storm Street Sweeper J8DM7AlU5R3200712 50,000 53-Parks Ford Backhoe C754433 3100 Hrs. 62-Street 1993 Interstate Trailer IJKTDT20XPA100002 65-Sewer 1990 Chevrolet Pickup 1GCGC24K4LE242911 87,000 467-Fire 1995 Chevrolet Caprice 1G1BL52P6SR123588 70,500 68-Sewer 1993 Ford F-7000 1FDYF70J7PVA12934 6600 Hrs. 99-Sewer Root Foamer 382 73 — Street 1998 Wacker Asphalt Roller 769301684 Po2-Fleet 1 1999 Pontiac Grand Prix 1G2WJ52M5XF304702 84,000 464-Fire 1 1985 Chevrolet Pick Up 1GCGC24M9FJ185764 58,000 For the past 12 years, the city has utilized the services of James Murphy Auctioneers to sell the City's surplus vehicles. This has proven to be a cost effective method. No file(s) attached. Revenue & Expenditures Fiscal Impact Attachments Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 02/28/2007 10:18 AM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 02/28/2007 10:21 AM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 02/28/2007 03:16 PM APRV Packet Page 81 of 195 Form Started By: Kim Karas Started On: 02/26/2007 08:43 AM Final Approval Date: 02/28/2007 Packet Page 82 of 195 AM-867 Purchase Catch Basin Cleaner Truck Edmonds City Council Meeting 2.G. Date: 03/06/2007 Submitted By: Kim Karas, Public Works Submitted For: Dave Sittauer, Fleet Manager Time: Consent Department: Public Works Type: Action Review Committee: Action: Approved for Consent Agenda Agenda Memo Subiect Title Purchase (1) one new catch basin cleaner truck using Washington State Purchasing Contract #07005 for the Public Works Storm Water Division. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff It is recommended that the City Council authorize staff to purchase (1) one Vactor Catch Basin Cleaner Truck From Owens Equipment utilizing pricing contained in the Washington State Purchasing Contract # 07005. Previous Council Action Narrative Storm Water Division Unit #24, a 1999 International Vactor is budgeted to be replaced in fiscal year 2007 utilizing the existing 511 B-Fund vehicle replacement monies and the salvage value of the existing truck. Revenue & Expenditures Fiscal Impact Fiscal Year: 2007 Revenue: $296,000.00 Expenditure: $289,651.77 Fiscal Impact: 511 Replacement B-Fund Attachments Link: Truck Contract price Proposal of March 1, 2007 Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 03/01/2007 01:27 PM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 03/01/2007 01:30 PM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 03/01/2007 01:30 PM APRV Form Started By: Kim Karas Started On: 02/28/2007 04:24 PM Final Approval Date: 03/01/2007 Packet Page 83 of 195 City of Edmonds Public Works Department 7110 - 210th St. SW Edmonds, WA 98026 March 01, 2007 To: Mr. David Sittauer Fleet Maintenance Manager New 2007 Vactor Proposal New Vactor Model 2110J6 $230,739.00 WSDOT Base Bid Price Contract No 07005 Additional Options: Debris Body Striker Plate 250.00 Fan Flush Out System 385.00 Rodder Pump Drain Ball Valves 375.00 Cordless Remote Control for Boom 3,610.00 Vactor Lube Manifolds 1,765.00 1500 Gallons Fresh Water Capacity 3,165.00 3" Drain Valve Located @ Rodder Pump 330.00 Multi -Flow Rodder Pump System 4,370.00 Accumulator System for Water System 2,150.00 Whelen LED Arrow Board 2,900.00 Front & Rear LED Strobes 1,000.00 2007 International Model 7600 6x4 103,350.00 Stock Chassis Husky Trucks Sub Total Additions $123,650.00 City of Edmonds Vactor 2110J6 Packet Page 84 of 195 Option Deletions: Folding Pipe Racks Street Side/Curbside 600 ` x 1" ID Rodder Hose Bid Supplied Chassis IH 7600 6x4 Tandem Sub Total Deletions Price Summary 1,288.00 696.00 86,913.00 $88,897.00 Vactor Proposal Summary City of Edmonds Vactor model 2110J6 Base Bid Additional Options Sub Total Deletions Sub Total WA Tax (9.1%) Total: $230,739.00 123,650.00 $354,389.00 ( 88,897.00) $265,492.00 24,159.77 $289,651.77 Note: Lead time is estimated to be between 110-210 days after receipt of International Cab & Chassis. We appreciate the opportunity to provide The City of Edmonds this Vactor 2100 Proposal. Sincerely, Glenn Irwin Owen Equipment Vactor/Elgin Territory Manager BKM/Kent — 800.422.2059 Cell #253.249.6369 girwin@owenequipment.com City of Edmonds Vactor 2110J6 2 Packet Page 85 of 195 City of Edmonds Vactor Standard Equipment/Options Inventory Vactor Model: New 2007 Series 2110J6 Debris Body/Accessories 10 cubic yard debris body capacity Power up and down debris hoist - 50 degree dump angle Debris body splash shield 3 & 9 o'clock Hydraulic flat rear door locks with open/close Rear door decant screen Debris body flusher system Debris body striker plate Dual 10" stainless steel ball shut-off system 6" butterfly rear door drain with 30' lay flat discharge hose Includes back flush connect Water Tank/Accessories 1500 gallon fresh water capacity -aluminum tanks Low water warning light located at front hose reel 25' of hydrant fill hose 2" y-type water filter strainer located at hydrant fill/curbside 3" y-type filter strainer located at pump inlet 3" drain gate valve at water pump inlet Two spare filter strainers 2" & 3" Water Pump/Accessories 80 GPM/2000 PSI Vactor Water System Multi -flow water system with nozzle rack Handgun assembly with retractable reel mounted on the front bumper street side 50' of %2" hose Water system Accumulator Rodder pump drain ball valves Front & rear stainless steel quick disconnects Rodder Pump Mounted Behind Rear Bumper Vacuum System/Accessories City of Edmonds Vactor 2110J6 Packet Page 86 of 195 Twin Stage Fan System with Fluid Coupler John Deere Auxiliary Engine Vacuum breaker system with on/off switch located at hose reel and Hand held & wireless remote pendant controls Electronic chassis engine throttle locate at front hose reel on/off switch Fan Flush Out System Boom/Accessories 8' hydraulic telescoping/rotating boom 23' reach of center line/424 square feet of work coverage Wire Less remote boom control Joy stick boom controls located at front hose reel front Remote control pendant with 30' of cord with front plug One 8" x 3' aluminum pipe section Two 8" x 5' aluminum pipe sections One 8" x 6.5" aluminum pipe sections One 8" x 6.5" catch basin nozzle Five 8" quick clamps Stationary Pipe Racks Located On Water Tanks and Rear Door Hose Reel/Accessories Front mounted telescoping/rotating hose reel Hose reel capacity of 600' Front operator controls Manual hose level dual wind guide system One hose footage counter 600' of 1" ID rodder hose, operating pressure of 2500PSI and burst pressure of 6500PSI Three multi -purpose nozzles Safety/Warning Lights Whelen LED Arrow Board Model TA1664H5 Hand held spot light with front plug Electronic back up alarm Vactor module circuit breakers LED strobe lights front & rear Tool box storage space City of Edmonds Vactor 2110J6 4 Packet Page 87 of 195 20 Cubic feet tool box storage space Misc. Options/Accessories Vactor body Lube Manifolds Hydraulic tank isolation valves Flexible hose guide/tiger tail Three multi -purpose nozzles rated 80 GPM @ 2000 PSI One Vactor operations/service manual Paint Vactor module to be painted White Match International Cab & Chassis Training On site field operations/service training Warranty One year bumper to bumper Vactor module Five years debris body Ten years aluminum water tanks International Truck Chassis New 2007 International Cab & Chassis Truck Model 7600 SFA 6x4 Cat C-13 Allison Automatic World 4000 RDS Husky Truck Center City of Edmonds Vactor 2110J6 Packet Page 88 of 195 AM-870 Animal Kenneling Services Edmonds City Council Meeting Date: 03/06/2007 Submitted By: Al Compaan, Police Department Department: Police Department Review Public Safety Committee: Action: Approved for Consent Agenda Agenda Memo Subiect Title Contract for Animal Kenneling Services with Adix's Bed & Bath for Dogs and Cats. Time: Consent Type: Action Recommendation from Mayor and Staff The Police Department recommends City Council approval of this item, authorizing the Mayor to sign the contract. The City Attorney has approved as to form and content. 2.H. Previous Council Action The Adix contract was previously reviewed by Public Safety Committee on December 5, 2006 and was approved by City Council on December 12, 2006. Since then, a recalculation of the monthly amount due Adix was made, thereby necessitating the contract coming back to City Council. Narrative City Council previously approved the Adix contract at the December 12, 2006 meeting. Since that time, further discussion took place between Adix, the animal disposal vendor, and the cities of Edmonds and Mountlake Terrace. All are contractual partners and all are inter -related through the terms of the Adix contract, the animal disposal contract, and the interlocal agreement that Edmonds has providing animal control services to the city of Mountlake Terrace. Bottom line is that the Adix contract being brought back to City Council this evening is exactly the same as the Adix contract approved by City Council on December 12, 2006, with the exception that the monthly fee due Adix has increased from $1,789.66 to $1,856.26. This is a difference of $66.60 per month. After considering the interface between the aforementioned contracts and the interlocal, Edmonds' net costs between revenue generated by the interlocal and expenses of Adix and animal disposal will be a wash. So this minor revision to the Adix contract ends up amounting to a technical correction/change with no added fiscal impact to Edmonds. Link: Adix Contract Revised 3-1-07 Revenue & Expenditures Fiscal Impact Attachments Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 03/01/2007 01:27 PM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 03/01/2007 01:30 PM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 03/01/2007 01:30 PM APRV Form Started By: Al Compaan Started On: 03/01/2007 11:55 AM Final Approval Date: 03/01/2007 Packet Page 89 of 195 CONTRACT FOR ANIMAL KENNELING SERVICES THIS CONTRACT is made between the City of Edmonds, Washington, hereafter referred to as "City", and Adix's Bed and Bath for Dogs and Cats, Inc., hereafter referred to as "Adix". WHEREAS, the City has determined by ordinances to regulate animals within the city limits, including the licensing and preventing the running at large of animals and preventing animals from becoming nuisances, and WHEREAS, Adix is a corporation duly organized under the laws of the State of Washington, and WHEREAS, the City has no animal kenneling services of its own, and WHEREAS, the City and Adix desire to enter into a contract defining the rights and responsibilities of Adix and the City with respect to animal kenneling, NOW, THEREFORE, In consideration of mutual covenants herein contained, ADIX and the City have mutually agreed and do hereby agree as follows: 1. Undertakings of Adix. 1.1 Adix will furnish animal kenneling services to the City. Animal kenneling services shall include kenneling and holding animals at the facility operated by Adix, releasing animals to owners, cooperating with the temporary transfer of animals to a veterinarian designated by the City for the purpose of spaying or neutering, and disposing of animals in a responsible and lawful manner, including adoption of animals not claimed by owners after the period prescribed by ordinance and this agreement. Adix shall maintain established hours of operation for the general public pursuant to the terms of this contract. Hours are Monday through Saturday 9 AM to 5 PM and Sunday 2 PM to 5 PM, excluding previously designated holidays being observed by Adix. In addition, Adix is closed for lunch between 12:30 PM and 1:30 PM Monday through Saturday. 1.2 Adix agrees to accept animals brought to Adix by Lynnwood Animal Control under mutual aid when Edmonds has no Animal Control on duty. Mutual Aid for the purposes of this contract means only those animals that have been picked -up in Edmonds by Lynnwood Animal Control. { WSS560829.DOC;1/00006.900000/} 1 Packet Page 90 of 195 1.3 Unclaimed or unadoptable animals will be humanely euthanized and disposed of off -site. To provide proper paper trail, requests by Adix pursuant to this section for euthanasia of Adix animals will be made in writing. The disposal fee is the responsibility of the City. Disposal within the terms of this contract also includes disposal of dead animals that are picked up by the City as part of its animal control services or animals that die in Adix's care. 1.4 Adix agrees to abide by and strictly follow any and all procedures of Chapter 5.05 of Edmonds Municipal Code, as now and hereafter amended, regulating animals, particularly as they relate to the length of impoundment before disposing of any animals. Adix and the City agree that Chapter 5.05, as now or hereafter amended, shall be incorporated by reference herein and shall be part of this contract as if set forth in full herein. 1.5 Adix agrees not to release any kenneled animal to any person until Adix is reasonably satisfied that the person has paid all applicable license, kenneling, and other fees to the appropriate agency, including the City. The City shall be responsible for the preparation of all reporting, fee collection and any accounting relating to such reporting and collecting. 1.6 Except as provided in paragraph 1.4 above, Adix agrees not to dispose of any animal before seventy-two hours upon receipt of receiving said animal from the City, excluding previously designated holidays being observed by Adix, nor shall Adix release any animal which has not been either spayed or neutered by a veterinarian in accordance with procedures established by the City or has been designated by an agent of the City or such veterinarian as an inappropriate candidate for surgery, as such term is defined in Chapter 5.05. Licensed, tagged, or identifiable animals will be held for ten days by Adix. Animals held under RCW 16.52.085 will be held for fifteen business days. 1.7 If not claimed by an owner during the applicable holding period, an animal shall immediately become the property of Adix. Disposition of the animal is then at Adix's discretion provided, however, that: 1.7.1 Adix shall not dispose of the animal while any legal proceedings are pending or in contravention of any court order. 1.7.2 Any animal designated as an inappropriate candidate for surgery which is released for adoption shall be released subject to the payment of a $50 deposit. Such deposit shall be remitted to the City and a receipt provided to the adopter, who shall present the receipt to Adix at the date of release of the adopted pet. The purpose of such deposit is to ensure that the animal will be spayed or neutered by a veterinarian in accordance with Chapter 5.05. {WSS560829.DOC;1/00006.900000/} 2 Packet Page 91 of 195 1.7.3 Any animal which has been spayed or neutered at the cost of the City shall be subject to payment of a fee of $50 when sold by Adix. Any charge for adoption by Adix shall be in addition to this amount. The purpose of this fee is to partially reimburse the City for the cost of spaying or neutering. The Parties acknowledge that spaying and neutering enhances the value of the animal which has become the property of Adix. Upon payment of the fee to the City, a receipt shall be provided to the adopter, who shall present the receipt to Adix at the date of the release of the adopted pet. 1.8 Adequate records of all fees and deposits charged pursuant to paragraphs 1.6.2 and 1.6.3 above shall be kept by the City. All funds shall be remitted by the adopter to the City. 1.9 The Parties have stipulated that the annual fee set forth in paragraph 2 below is intended to provide for ten dog runs, inclusive of both the impounds of the City and of Mountlake Terrace impounds, so long as the City continues to provide animal control services for Mountlake Terrace, and with the understanding that up to two dogs may be kenneled per run at any given time. The City agrees to compensate ADIX for any additional runs utilized to kennel dogs for the City at the rate of $15 per day, such rate to be charged in addition to the annual fee set forth in paragraph 2. 1.10 Adix and the City agree to work collaboratively on promoting adoptions of those animals brought to Adix by the City. Adoptions shall be made in as timely a manner as possible and an animal's time in shelter shall be kept to a minimum. 2. Undertakings of the City. In consideration of the services performed, the city shall pay to Adix the sum of $1,856.26 per month, increased in 2008 and 2009 by an amount equivalent to the June Seattle -Tacoma -Bremerton CPI-U for the preceding year, PROVIDED, HOWEVER, that the renewal of the Agreement is subject to an appropriation by the Edmonds City Council for future annual terms. If the City Council fails to appropriate funds for kenneling services, this Agreement shall expire at the end of the last term for which an appropriation has been made. This charge is based upon certain assumptions regarding the number of dogs and cats to be kenneled and the recovery time necessary following spaying or neutering before an animal may be adopted or otherwise released. ( WSS560829.DOC;1/00006.900000/) 3 Packet Page 92 of 195 3. Indemnity. Adix agrees to indemnify, reimburse, save and hold harmless the City for any claim, loss damage, expense or liability to the City which the City may incur by reason of any act of Adix in performing this contract. Adix further agrees to procure and maintain an insurance policy or policies protecting Adix and their officers and employees against any loss, liability or expense whatsoever from personal injury, death, property damage or otherwise arising or occurring in connection with the performance of this contract. Said policy or policies shall be written by a responsible insurance company or companies satisfactory to the City and shall include general liability for personal injury and/or property damage in an amount not less than $500,000 for each person or occurrence. The insurance policy or policies shall further provide that the same shall not be reduced or cancelled without at least twenty days prior notice to the City, shall name the City as additionally insured and shall be primary to any other such insurance maintained by the City. A copy of all such insurance policies shall be submitted to the city within five days of the execution of this Agreement, and current proof of insurance shall be submitted to the City as the policy periodically renews. To the extent necessary to enforce this indemnification agreement, Adix waives its immunity under Title 51 of the Revised Code of Washington. 4. Independent Contractor. Adix is and shall be considered an independent contractor. All persons performing services under this agreement shall be employees of Adix and are not employees of the City. Adix agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the City of Edmonds, its officers, agents, and employees from any cost, claim, or liability arising out of the employment of individuals by Adix. Adix shall have entire control and direction of its business operations and kenneling services, subject only to the conditions and obligations established by this agreement. 5. Expiration, Notice. In the event that the period covered by this contract shall expire without the benefit of a new agreement, the rate scheduled then in effect as of the date of contract expiry shall continue until such time as Adix and the City agree to an amended rate schedule, provided that either party may, upon one hundred eighty days advance written notice, issue notice of termination, which shall not require cause, and after expiry of notice, the contract shall be of no further force or effect. Either party may terminate this agreement immediately for cause upon the deposit of written notification in the U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, addressed to the regular mailing address of each party. The regular mailing address of the Parties shall be: City of Edmonds c/o Sandy S. Chase, City Clerk 121 Fifth Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 Adix's Bed and Bath for Dogs and Cats c/o Lynn Adix 21100 72nd Avenue West Edmonds, WA 98026 {Ws5560829.DOC;1/00006.900000/1 4 Packet Page 93 of 195 6. Entire Agreement; Amendment, Attorneys' Fees. This Agreement contains all the understandings between the Parties and is intended to operate as such and may only be modified in writing signed by both Parties hereto. In the event of a dispute over any part or portion of this agreement, the party prevailing upon its claim or claims shall also be awarded reasonable costs and reasonable attorney's fees. 7. Term. This Agreement shall have a three year term commencing on January 1, 2007. EXECUTED this day of CITY OF EDMONDS Mayor Gary Haakenson ATTESTED/AUTHENTICATED Sandy S. Chase, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM W. Scott Snyder, City Attorney 20 ADIX'S BED AND BATH FOR DOGS AND CATS, INC. In Adix's Bed and Bath for Dogs and Cats, Inc. { W SS560829.DOC;1/00006.90000U1} Packet Page 94 of 195 5 AM-854 2.I. Display of Downtown Employee Parking Permits Edmonds City Council Meeting Date: 03/06/2007 Submitted By: Sandy Chase, City Clerk's Office Time: Consent Department: City Clerk's Office Type: Action Review Committee: Action: Agenda Memo Subiect Title Proposed Ordinance amending Edmonds City Code 8.51.030, Commute Exemption from Three -Hour Parking Limits, relating to the display of the Employee Parking Permit. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Approve the ordinance amending Edmonds City Code 8.51.030 relating to the display of the Employee Parking Permit to allow for displaying the permit on the rear window of a vehicle. Previous Council Action N/A Narrative The City Clerk's Office issues parking permits to downtown businesses for their employees. The City Code currently requires the permits to be displayed by hanging the permit from the rear-view mirror or placing the permit on the dashboard. Several requests have been received for the city to offer a parking permit "sticker" that could be placed on a window. At times, users have forgotten to display the parking permit as required by the current Code and have received tickets. By permanently placing a permit on a window, this no longer becomes an issue. In addition, Parking Enforcement staff approached the City Clerk's Office requesting that a change be considered in the Code allowing for a permit to be displayed on the rear window of the driver's side of the vehicle. With the current use of a parking enforcement vehicle, it is more efficient for staff to view the permit when it is placed on the rear window. A draft ordinance was prepared allowing for a parking permit "sticker" to be displayed on the rear window (driver's side). A copy of the ordinance is attached as Exhibit 1. The ordinance was considered by the Downtown Edmonds Parking Committee on January 9, 2007. The Committee recommended approval of the ordinance. A copy of the minutes is attached as Exhibit 2. Link: Exhibit 1 - Ordinance Link: Exhibit 2 - Parking Comm Minutes Revenue & Expenditures Fiscal Impact Attachments Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 Development Services Duane Bowman 02/28/2007 02:34 PM APRV 2 City Clerk Sandy Chase 02/28/2007 02:36 PM APRV 3 Mayor Gary Haakenson 02/28/2007 03:01 PM APRV 4 Final Approval Sandy Chase 02/28/2007 03:16 PM APRV Form Started By: Sandy Chase Started On: 02/20/2007 10:14 AM Final Approval Date: 02/28/2007 Packet Page 95 of 195 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING EDMONDS CITY CODE 8.51.030, COMMUTE EXEMPTION FROM THREE-HOUR PARKING LIMITS, RELATING TO THE DISPLAY OF THE EMPLOYEE PARKING PERMIT, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. WHEREAS, the display of parking permits is intended to be in a manner that is convenient for citizens and allows parking enforcement to easily view the permit; and WHEREAS, a new style of permit is being purchased to allow citizens to hang the permit from the rear-view mirror or place a sticker on the rear window; and WHEREAS, the use of a parking enforcement vehicle now allows for viewing the permit from the driver's side of the vehicle; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. ECC 8.51.030 Commute exemption from three-hour parking limits is hereby amended to read as follows: 8.51.030 Commute exemption from three-hour parking limits. A. The three-hour parking time limits for streets identified in subsection (B) of this section shall not apply to motor vehicles that satisfy the following criteria: 1. The motor vehicle displays a current employee parking permit in either of the following ways: (a) hang the permit from the rear-view mirror of the vehicle, or (b) place the permit sticker on the outside of the rear window, upper corner of driver's side. 0014_854_Draft Parking Permit Ordinance.doc - I - Packet Page 96 of 195 Section 2. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifically delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum, and shall take effect five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the title. I_I»00Aa�7i MAYOR GARY HAAKENSON ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: W. SCOTT SNYDER FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: ORDINANCE NO. 0014_854_Draft Parking Permit Ordinance.doc - 2 - Packet Page 97 of 195 SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. of the City of Edmonds, Washington On the day of , 2007, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed Ordinance No. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting of the title, provides as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING EDMONDS CITY CODE 8.51.030, COMMUTE EXEMPTION FROM THREE-HOUR PARKING LIMITS, RELATING TO THE DISPLAY OF THE EMPLOYEE PARKING PERMIT, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this day of , 2007. CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE -3- Packet Page 98 of 195 Draft Minutes DOWNTOWN EDMONDS PARKING COMMITTEE January 9, 2007 Edmonds City Hall — Fourtner Room Committee Present: Karen Wiggins, Chair Duane Bowman, Director, Dev. Service Dept Gerry Gannon, Asst Chief, Police Department Don Kreiman, Member Pamela LeMay, Edmonds Conference Center Michael Plunckett, Councilmember Don Sims, Traffic Engineer Guests Present: Ron Wambolt, Councilmember 1. Call to Order: Meeting was called to order at 3:35pm. Debbie Dawson, Senior Animal Control Officer, was welcomed to the committee. 2. Approval of Minutes for December 5, 2006: No additions/corrections; minutes approved as written. 3. Public Comments/Correspondence: Officially None Gerry mentioned that an out-of-town friend indicated that he had "no trouble finding parking." 4. Review of Rideshare and Employee Parking Permits: 2 Rideshare and 309 Employee 2007 Parking Permits have been issued. 5. Review of Parking Violations: 2,099 tickets were issued in 2006. 6. Discussion of Restricted Parking Areas: Duane distributed Chapters 8.48 (Parking), 8.51 (Edmonds Employee Permit Parking Program), 8.52 (Residential Parking Zone Regulations), 8.56 (Regulating Traffic on Certain Highways) and 8.60 (Enforcement) of the Edmonds City Code. Discussions included reexamining the number (currently 3) of residential permits issued per household and parking in the public right of way. Packet Page 99 of 195 Action Items: Duane will check with the City Clerk to find out how many residential and visitor permits have been issued including the zone of the resident and the number issued to that resident. He will email to the committee prior to the next meeting. At a future meeting, the committee may discuss raising the cost of the permits. 7. Transit Shelter Update: Don reported that he was still trying to meet with transit officials. He indicated that no new shelters have been added and will bring any new developments to future meetings. Debbie shared concerns a disabled rider has with the stop at 5t"/Walnut. Action Item: Don will check with transit officials about extending the bus stop to address the disabled rider's concerns. He will also attempt to notify this rider of the city's actions in addressing the concern. 8. Parking Study and Remaining Action Items: Duane distributed the "City of Edmonds Comprehensive Downtown Parking Study." Attention was paid to the recommendations on page 2 Action Items: Duane will check with the City Clerk to find out what action as been taken about "converting the 4t" Street lot from a monthly to a three-hour parking zone" and revenue that is generated in that location. Don will come up with recommendations for "improving the signage to the Public Safety building parking lot." Debbie will research the ticket fine structure of other municipalities in response to "increase the cost of a parking violation in the three-hour zone for a non -downtown worker to $30." Don and Duane will do a follow-up to the parking study and determine the amount of funds that might be available in "Fund 112." 9. Other: Gerry asked the committee to reconsider the request that had been made by City Clerk Sandy Chase regarding revision of the City Code relating to the display of Employee Parking Permits. Debbie explained that Sandy's request would assist in proper enforcement. It was MSP to support her request. Action Item: Debbie will inform Sandy and have her add to the council's consent agenda. K Packet Page 100 of 195 Don and Pam described concerns regarding parking enforcement that came up at the January DEMA (Downtown Edmonds Merchants' Association) meeting. Action Item: Pam will contact the DEMA Chair and encourage her to invite a parking enforcement officer to a future meeting. Meeting adjourned at 4:55pm. Respectfully submitted by Pam LeMay, Recording Secretary N Packet Page 101 of 195 AM-874 3. Port of Edmonds Proclamation Edmonds City Council Meeting Date: 03/06/2007 Submitted By: Linda Carl, Mayor's Office Submitted For: Gary Haakenson Time: 5 Minutes Department: Mayor's Office Type: Information Review Committee: Action: Agenda Memo Subiect Title Proclamation in honor of Port of Edmonds Day, March 7, 2007. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Please join the Mayor in recognizing March 7 as Port of Edmonds Day in honor of the accomplishments the Director, Commissioners, and Port staff achieved over the last 10 years to make this the premiere port in the nation. Previous Council Action Narrative In honor of the Port of Edmonds' prestigious "Marina of the Year" award for 2006 from Marina Dock Age magazine, the Mayor is proclaiming Wednesday, March 7, 2007 as Port of Edmonds Day. Link: Proclamation Revenue & Expenditures Fiscal Impact Attachments Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 03/02/2007 09:04 AM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 03/02/2007 09:08 AM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 03/02/2007 09:21 AM APRV Form Started By: Linda Carl Started On: 03/02/2007 08:55 AM Final Approval Date: 03/02/2007 Packet Page 102 of 195 City of Edmonds • Office of the Mayor Port of F,dmonds Day March 7 2007 WHEREAS, The Port of Edmonds was named the 2006 Marina of the Year by Marina Dock Age magazine, the industry's leading national publication; and WHEREAS, The Port received this prestigious award based on its growth and development, sound management practices, successful marketing efforts, outstanding customer service, environmental stewardship, and contributions to the industry and the community; and WHEREAS, Director Chris Keuss, Port Commissioners, and Port staff are to be commended for their hard work and exemplary efforts in making the Port of Edmonds the best in the country; and WHEREAS After the snowstorm of 1996, which caused heavy damage and posed substantial challenges, 'the Commissioners and staff worked to not only recover from the disaster, but also to transform the marina into a premier destination spot; and WHEREAS, A new weather center, a beautifully designed boardwalk, and an outstanding marketing program have attracted boaters and non -boaters alike and created a wonderful amenity to our community and a source of enjoyment for all our citizens; and WHEREAS, The City of Edmonds thanks the Port for their cooperation, diligence, vision, and success in creating the country's number -one marina within the heart of Edmonds. NOW, THEREFORE,1, Gary Haakenson, Mayor, proclaim March 7, 2007 as Fort of E&nonds Da, yf in honor of the Port's 2006 Marina of the Year award, and urge all citizens to join me in congratulating the Port's Commissioners and staff on creating this exceptional facility, Gary HaalkqAson, Mayor March 1, W07 C:\PtwInim\ POrtodEdmonds07 Packet Page 103 of 195 AM-862 4. 220th St SW Improvements/Supplemental Agreement Edmonds City Council Meeting Date: 03/06/2007 Submitted By: Dave Gebert, Engineering Time: 20 Minutes Department: Engineering Type: Action Review Committee: Action: Agenda Memo Subiect Title Project update and authorization for Mayor to sign Supplemental Agreement No. 6 to the Professional Services Agreement with Perteet, Inc. for Design of 220th Street SW Improvements (9th Avenue South to 84th Avenue West) Project. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Council authorize the Mayor to sign Supplemental Agreement No. 6 to the professional services agreement with Perteet, Inc. in the amount of $48,771 for additional construction administration and construction engineering support services for the 220th Street SW improvements project. Previous Council Action On June 7, 2005 Council awarded a construction contract to Marshbank Construction in the amount of $4,322,113.73 for the 220th Street SW improvements project. On June 20, 2006, Council authorized the Mayor to sign Supplemental Agreement No. 5 to the professional services agreement with Perteet in the amount of $44,286 for additional construction administration and construction engineering support services for this project. On November 21, 2006, Council approved the 2006 Final Budget Amendment, including a budget amendment for the 220th Street SW improvements project. Narrative Project Update: Construction of the 220th Street SW improvements project was substantially completed and the road was opened to traffic in July 2006. Since July 2006, the contractor has completed landscaping, modular block walls, fencing, property restoration, and other details. Completion of this project marks a significant improvement to 220th Street SW and completion of a project that has been a high priority for the City of Edmonds for many years. The construction included: • Reconstruction and widening of the road from 84th Ave West to 9th Avenue South. • Grading to improve visibility and safety • Sidewalks and bike lanes on both sides • Left turn pockets at selected intersections (9th, 96th, 95th and 84th) • Traffic signals at 84th Avenue West and at 9th Avenue South • Lighted pedestrian crossing at 96th Avenue West • Permanent radar speed signs • Landscaping behind the sidewalk at selected locations • Associated relocation and installation of utilities. Construction funding included $3.26 million in State and Federal grants, $400,000 in low -interest Public Works Trust Fund loans, and approximately $700,000 in reimbursement from funding partners including the Olympic View Water and Sewer District, Edmonds School District, and the City of Edmonds water, sewer and storm utilities. Other partners who participated through in -kind contributions included Snohomish County PUD, Puget Sound Energy, Verizon, Comcast and the U.S. Post Office. The construction contract for this project is a unit price contract. The contract was bid and awarded based upon estimated quantities for over 140 bid items, and the total final contract amount is based upon actual final quantities of work installed at the bid unit prices. Although final project closeout actions remain to be completed, work on project closeout is sufficiently complete that we are now able to estimate a final total project construction cost, including construction administration and engineering, right of way acquisition, public art, and miscellaneous other minor costs. As is typical in construction contracts like the 220th Street SW improvements project, actual quantities have varied from estimated quantities, and construction change orders have increased the cost as construction progressed. Some of the revenues into the project budget have also increased. Project Construction Budget: As summarized in Attachment 1, the total project construction budget, including grants, loans, reimbursable amounts and other funding sources, authorized by Council in June 2005 was $5,075,650. This budget included Packet Page 104 of 195 construction contract, contingency, construction administration and engineering, public art, right of way acquisition and miscellaneous other minor costs. On November 21, 2006, Council approved the 2006 Final Budget Amendment, including an increase in 2006 capital project expenditures in Fund 112 for this project, which increased the overall project construction budget for the 220th Street SW Improvements project to $5,689,510. Included in the revised budget are increased revenues from reimbursable partners in the project (Olympic View Water & Sewer District and Edmonds School District) to pay for change orders for requested scope increases for their elements of the project. Increased revenues also included $282,453 in Traffic Impact Fees ($277,011) and sidewalk "in -lieu" payments ($5,442) from private development projects not included in the construction budget authorized by Council in June 2005. Project Construction Cost: Also as indicated in Attachment 1, the estimated final total project construction cost is approximately $5,405,000, including construction, construction administration and engineering, right of way acquisition, public art, and miscellaneous other minor costs. As noted above, actual quantities have varied from estimated quantities (some have been greater and some have been less than estimated quantities), and construction change orders have increased the cost as construction progressed. There have been several significant items that have caused the overall project construction cost to increase over the original construction budget authorized by Council in June 2005. These items included the following (as summarized in Attachment 2): 1. Construction Contract Cost: a. Scope increase requested by reimbursable project partners. Through their interlocal agreements for the project, Olympic View Water and Sewer District requested a change order for the addition of a Pressure Reducing Valve Vault at the cost of $30,198, and the Edmonds School District requested paving and other playground improvements at Westgate Elementary School at a cost of $67,724. The City has been reimbursed for these costs. b. A change order was required at a cost of $29,913 to provide a left turn pocket on 9th Ave S. for vehicles turning left onto 220th Street SW. The City has been reimbursed for this cost by the design engineering consultant. c. A change order was required for additional storm drainage improvements at a cost of $41,641 to address pending and related drainage issues on abutting private properties caused by changes in the grade of 220th Street SW and which could not be identified during the design. d. The quantity of modular block walls required was underestimated by 1902 square feet. This resulted in a cost increase of $34,227 from the bid amount of $163,260 to an actual total of $197,487. There were a number of locations where the design did not anticipate modular block walls would be required, but they were determined to be needed when grading was completed and the new road and sidewalk were constructed. e. The contract included time -and -materials bid items for property restoration, erosion control, and unforeseen site conditions with an estimated amount of $75,000 provided in the bid documents. This amount proved to be underestimated and actual cost ($169,540) exceeded the estimated amount by $94,540. Examples of work in this item included regrading of private property to blend into new street and driveways, special driveway treatments to match existing, fence restorations, resolving underground utility conflicts, silt fencing and other erosion control measures, and removal of obstructions and debris not shown on plans. f. The most significant single item of cost increase ($330,695) was in traffic control. Traffic control is paid on a unit price per hour, as required by WSDOT on projects with Federal grant funds. The estimated number of traffic control hours for the contract bid amount was based upon totally closing the road to all but residents, as was our original plan. However, this proved to be impractical due to the number of drivers who continually disregarded traffic barricades, which necessitated implementation of increased and continuous traffic control to ensure safety of workers and the public. In addition, the project duration was extended by delays in Verizon relocating their lines and other excusable delays, which also necessitated increased traffic control hours. This cost increase is partly reimbursed by the project funding partners on a prorated basis. 2. Construction administration and engineering. In January 2006, the City's Traffic Engineer, who had been the project manager for this project for the prior 4 1/2 years, resigned to take a position with the project's design engineering consultant. To maintain continuity on this major project, it was determined to be in the best interest of the City to increase the consultant's scope of services for the remainder of the project to include the majority of the project management duties previously performed by the City's Traffic Engineer prior to his resignation, thus enabling him to continue performing these duties in his new capacity with the consultant. This resulted in an unanticipated additional project management cost of approximately $140,000. This cost increase is also partly reimbursed by the project funding partners on a prorated basis. Supplemental Agreement No. 6: The 220th Street SW improvements project was designed by Perteet, Inc. On March 22, 2005, Council authorized the Mayor to sign Supplemental Agreement No. 3 to Perteet's professional services agreement for Perteet to provide construction administration and construction engineering support services. Subsequently, Council authorized the Mayor to sign Supplemental Agreements No. 4 and No. 5 to the professional services agreement for additional construction administration and construction engineering support services for this project. A significant portion of the additional construction administration and construction engineering support services was to increase the scope of services provided by Perteet for the remainder of the project to include the majority of the duties previously performed by the City Traffic Engineer. Packet Page 105 of 195 The scope of services and budget for the original contract and supplemental agreements executed to date anticipated an average of 20 hours per week being spent on City project administration through August 2006, and a total of an additional 60 hours from September through December 2006 for project closeout. The actual effort required has been significantly more to ensure completion of all construction requirements, negotiate final quantities with the contractor, complete project documentation for WSDOT audit, and other project closeout requirements. It is now anticipated that the remaining project closeout actions will require continued support from Perteet through approximately June 2007. Supplemental Agreement No 6 is to compensate Perteet for the effort required over and above that anticipated in the previous supplemental agreements as well as the estimated additional effort required through project closeout. Because this project is being funded in part by the Federal government, the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) requires the use of their Local Agency Standard Consultant Agreement form, rather than the City's standard Professional Services Agreement form. The proposed supplemental agreement has been reviewed and approved by the City Attorney and is provided as Attachment 3. There is sufficient funding available in the approved project budget to award this supplemental agreement Revenue & Expenditures Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: Final Cost vs. Budget Link: Cost Increases Link: Supplemental Agmt 6 Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 Development Services Duane Bowman 02/26/2007 01:06 PM APRV 2 City Clerk Sandy Chase 02/26/2007 01:49 PM APRV 3 Mayor Gary Haakenson 02/26/2007 01:51 PM APRV 4 Final Approval Sandy Chase 02/26/2007 02:03 PM APRV Form Started By: Dave Gebert Started On: 02/26/2007 08:31 AM Final Approval Date: 02/26/2007 Packet Page 106 of 195 220th Street SW Improvements - Construction - Estimated Final Cost vs. Budget Date: February 22, 2007 Construction Contract Construction Contingency Construction Administration/Engineering 1%Art Misc Other (Total Construction Cost Funds Sources: Fund 112 TIB (State) STP (Fed) PWTF Loan School District OVWSD Reimbursement Share Traffic Impact Fees Sidewalk in -lieu payments Miscellaneous Other Grant/Loan/Reimburse/Transfer Subtotal Fund 112 Cash Fund 112 Subtotal Other Funding City Storm Utility Share (412-200) City Sewer Utility Share (412-300) City Water Utility Share (412-100) Other Funding Subtotal Total Notes: 1. Amount authorized by budget amend 11/21/06. 2. Estimated final amount as of 11/2/06 Estimated Final Authorized Budget Revised Budget Amount as of 6/7/05 11/21/06 (Note 1) February 2007 $4,322,114 $4,980,400 Note 2 $4,945,000 $432,211 $281,858 $300,000 $400,000 Note 2 $430,000 $5,000 $4,769 Actual $4,769 $500 $12,000 Note 2 $15,000 $10,483 $10,483 Actual $10,483 $5,070,308 $5,689,510 $5,405,252 $2,760,000 $2,760,000 $2,760,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 $5,000 $68,000 Note 2 $67,724 $82,050 119,000 Note 2 124,800 $0 $250,000 Note 2 $277,011 $0 $5,442 Note 2 $5,442 $5,000 31,100 Note 2 31,063 $3,752,050 $4,133,542 $4,166,040 798 000 $1,030,368 Note 2 $743,262 $4,550,050 $5,163,910 $4,909,302 $412,600 $412,600 Note 2 $409,790 $29,000 $29,000 Note 2 $17,740 84 000 $84,000 Note 2 $68,420 $525,600 $525,600 $496,950 $5,075,650 $5,689,510 $5,405,252 Packet Page 107 of 195 220th Street SW Improvements - Construction Significant Cost Increases Item Amount Reimbursed? Construction Contract: Change orders: OVWSD PRV Vault $30,198 Yes School District Playground $67,724 Yes 9th Ave Left Turn Lane $29,913 Yes Add'I Storm Drainage $41,641 Yes, storm utility Modular Block Walls $34,227 No Property Restoration, Erosion $94,540 No Control & Unforeseen Conditions Traffic Control $330,695 Partially, prorated Construction Admin & Engineering $140,000+/- Partially, prorated Packet Page 108 of 195 AdMIL _•A Washington State Department of Transportation Su lemental A regiment p� 9 Organization and Address Perteet, Inc. Number 6 2707 Colby Avenue, Suite 900 Everett, WA 98201 Original Agreement Number 3128 Phone: (425) 252-7700 Project number Execution Date Completion Date: E1 BA I June 30, 2007 Project Title New Maximum Amount Payable 220th St. S.W. Improvements Project $ 672 415 (9th Avenue South to 84th Avenue West) Description of Work Provide for additional construction management services for the 200th Street Improvement Project. The Local Agency of CITY OF EDMONDS desires to supplement the agreement entered into with _ PERTEET, INC. and executed on June 27, 2002 and identified as Agreement No. 3128 All provisions in the basic agreement remain in effect except as expressly modified by this supplement. The charges to the agreement are described as follows: Section 1, SCOPE OF WORK, is hereby changed to read: See attached Exhibit B, Scope of Services Section IV, TIME FOR BEGINNING AND COMPLETION, is amended to change the number of calendar days for completion of the work to read: June 30, 2007 Section V, PAYMENT, shall be amended as follows: The additional services as described in Exhibit B attached will cause an increase of Forty -Eight Thousand Seven Hundred Seventy-one Dollars ($48,771) for a new contract maximum of Six Hundred Seventy -Two Thousand Four Hundred Fifteen Dollars ($672,415) as set forth in the attached Exhibit D-1, and by this reference made a part of this supplement. If you concur with this supplement and agree to the changes as stated above, please sign in the appro spaces below and r to this office for final action. By: By: Consultant Signature Approving Authority Signature Date DOT Form 140-063 EF Page t Revised 9/2005 \\Storage\Projects\Trans_Design\22036-Edmonds_220th\Contract\220th Supp 6.doc Packet Page 109 of 195 Exhibit "B" 220th Street SW Improvements Project (91h Avenue South to 841h Avenue West) Supplemental Agreement No. 6 SCOPE OF SERVICES Introduction This supplemental agreement provides for additional oversight services and final closeout for the 2201h Street improvement project. This supplement is necessitated by the unanticipated level of effort that is being spent on managing the construction contact. All provisions in the Engineering Consulting Agreement remain in effect except as expressly modified by this supplement. The changes to the agreement are described as follows: Phase IV — City Project Administration City Coordination/Oversight: Provide additional project oversight and coordination duties for the City of Edmonds to ensure that construction is completed in accordance with contract requirements and that engineering and record documentation is in compliance with Federal, State and City of Edmonds funding requirements. The original contract and supplements anticipated an average of 20 hours a week being spent of City Project Administration through August 2006, and a total of an additional 60 hours from September through December 2006 for project closeout. The actual work effort being performed has averaged approximately 20 hours per week worth of effort through November 2006. This supplement covers work performed from January 1, 2006 through the WSDOT audit in December 2006, and any necessary follow on project and contract close out actions estimated to be required through approximately June 2007. The additional duties may include: • Perform material testing reviews • Review field note records, inspectors daily reports, and other project documentation • Assist with constructability issues • Act as liaison with citizens on construction related issues • Prepare construction contract change orders • Prepare monthly pay application, and negotiations of final pay application • And prepare miscellaneous WSDOT/FHWA/TIB/PWTF funding documentation • Ensure completion of punchlist and project documents required by construction contractor • Prepare project and contract closeout documentation DOT Form 140-063 EF Page 2 Revi Pa 99 b \\Storage\Projects\Trans_Design\22036-Edmonds_220th\Contract\220th Supp 6.doc Packet Page 11 S of 195 Project: 220th St. S.W. Improvements Project Client: City of Edmonds Classification Hours Rate Senior Project Manager 350 x $47.12 TOTAL DSC OVERHEAD (OH COST - including Salary Additives): OH Rate x DSC 165.7% FIXED FEE (FF): IiF Rate X (DSC + OH) 30% REII 4BURSABLES: TOTAL EXPENSES GRAND TOTAL: PREPARED BY: Dan Hansen x $ 16,492.00 = $ x $ 16,492.00 = $ Cost 16,492.00 16,492.00 27,331.00 4,948.00 48,771.00 DATE: February 7, 2007 DOT Form 140-063 EF Page 3 Revised 9/2005 \\StorageTrojects\Trans_Design\22036-Edmonds_220th\Contract\220th Supp 6.doc Packet Page 111 of 195 AM-871 S. Design Guidelines / New "Up -front" Design Review Process Edmonds City Council Meeting Date: 03/06/2007 Submitted By: Rob Chave, Planning Submitted For: Rob Chave Time: 45 Minutes Department: Planning Type: Action Review Committee: Action: Agenda Memo Subiect Title Public Hearing on the Planning Board recommendation to update the Edmonds Community Development Code with new Design Guidelines and a new "up -front" design review process applicable to specific districts (initially limited to Downtown and Highway 99). Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Approve the Planning Board recommendation and direct the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance for Council adoption. Previous Council Action City Council referred the development of a new "up front" design review process and accompanying design guidelines to the Planning Board on June 6, 2006. The Council reviewed the Planning Board recommendation on February 6, 2007, and set March 6, 2007, for a public hearing. See Exhibit 4 for a more detailed history on this subject. Narrative The Planning Board has completed its review and recommendation on a new design review process which would move the ADB to the front of the process. A public hearing was held on December 13, 2006, and the Board completed its recommendation in January. Exhibit 1 contains the Planning Board recommended code language that would implement the new design review process together with the new ADB-developed design guidelines contained in Exhibit 2. Under the proposal, there would be two options for design review. ECDC 20.10.060 probably describes it best: There are two types of design review, (1) general design review subject to the provisions of Chapter 20.11 ECDC, and (2) district -based design review subject to the provisions of Chapter 20.12 ECDC. District -based design review is applicable when an area or district has adopted design guidelines or design standards that apply specifically within that area or district. General design review applies to areas or properties that do not have specifically adopted design guidelines or standards. "General design review" is essentially design review as it has been done for many years in Edmonds. The new "up front," district -based process is intended to be applied to more and more areas of the city, eventually entirely replacing the current system as more specific design standards are incorporated into the city's codes and neighborhood -based plans. Note that the ADB guidelines contained in Exhibit 2 would only be used in the "up front" design review process. The new district -based design review process would use a two -phased public hearing for major projects. The preliminary meeting with the ADB (when the checklist discussion is held) is "Phase 1" of the public hearing, while the next meeting with the ADB to review the project concept for compliance with the ADB guidelines is considered to be a continuation of the public hearing (termed "Phase 2" of the public hearing). This is to avoid any hint of the two-part meeting as comprising two separate public hearings on the same proposal. Note that this is supported by the fact that there is only one opportunity for appeal — after Phase 2 has been completed. Projects that do not require review by the ADB (e.g. projects that don't exceed SEPA thresholds) would be reviewed by staff in conjunction with a building permit application, making sure that the project complies with all design standards adopted in city codes. The new design chapters also incorporate the new landscaping standards taken from the 2001 draft design guidelines. These are mainly reflected in the five landscape "types" included in ECDC 20.13. Also included in the new design review process are the design guidelines and design checklist developed by the ADB. The flow chart in Exhibit 3 summarizes and compares the proposed "new" or "up -front" design review process with the current one employed by the city. Note that the current design review process and standards have generally been retained in ECDC 20.11, with a few exceptions. The "view" provisions highlighted at the top of pages 6 and 7 have been the subject of a moratorium on their application during the design review process, and have been recommended for deletion by the Planning Board as being too vague in both their Packet Page 112 of 195 interpretation and application. The Planning Board also sought to add some clarification to the "long, massive..." building criterion at the bottom of page 5. Exhibits 5 and 6 contain relevant minutes from the Planning Board and City Council, respectively. Revenue & Expenditures Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: Exhibit 1: Planning Board code recommendation Link: Exhibit 2: ADB Design Guidelines Link: Exhibit 3: Process Diagrams Link: Exhibit 4: Design Guidelines History Link: Exhibit 5: Planning Board minutes Link: Exhibit 6: City Council minutes Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 03/01/2007 01:48 PM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 03/01/2007 02:16 PM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 03/01/2007 03:44 PM APRV Form Started By: Rob Chave Started On: 03/01/2007 01:05 PM Final Approval Date: 03/01/2007 Packet Page 113 of 195 Chapter 20.10 ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW Sections: 20.10.000 Purposes. 20.10.010 Types of design review. 20� 10010 20.10.020 Scope. ` 0.1� 10��20.10.030 Approval required. 20.10.040 Optional pre -application. 20.10.045 Augmented architectural design review applications. 701 n 050 Rii nrnnorli pro 20 1 n 060 Gin-limy- 7n 1 n 070 Criteria 20.10. A�T�+i��Or%a Of 20.10. nszn Annool- 20 10nQn � tenon of �nnrni�l 20.10.000 Purposes. In addition to the general purposes of the comprehensive plan and the zoning ordinance, this chapter is included in the community development code for the following purposes: A. To encourage the realization and conservation of a desirable and aesthetic environment in the city of Edmonds; B. To encourage and promote development which features amenities and excellence in the form of variations of siting, types of structures and adaptation to and conservation of topography and other natural features; C. To encourage creative approaches to the use of land and related physical developments; D. To encourage the enhancement and preservation of land or building of unique or outstanding scenic or historical significance; E. To minimize incompatible and unsightly surroundings and visual blight which prevent orderly community development and reduce community property values. [Ord. 3461 § 1, 2003]. 20.10.010 Types of design review. A. There are two types of design review, (1) general design review subject to the provisions of Chapter 20.11 ECDC, and (2) district -based design review subject to the provisions of Chapter 20.12 ECDC. District -based design review is applicable when an area or district has adopted design guidelines or design standards that apply specifically within that area or district. General design review applies to areas or properties that do not have specifically adopted design guidelines or standards. Protects may undergo either district -based design review or general design review, but not both. B. District -based design review applies to the following areas or districts: 1. The downtown Edmonds business districts (BD zones) located within the Downtown/Waterfront Activity Center as shown on the City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan Map. Design Review draft / 2006.12.13 Page l Packet Page 114 of 195 2. The general commercial (CG and CG2) zones located within the Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center or the Highway 99 Corridor as shown on the City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan Map. C. General design review applies to all areas of the city not specifically designated for district -based design review under ECDC 20.10.010.13, above. D. The exemptions established pursuant to ECDC 20.10.010(B) shall apply to all types and phases of design review under ECDC Chapters 20.10, 20.111 and 20.12. 20.10.010-020 Scope. A This nhapter appliesDesign review is intended to apply to all development, except for those developments specifically exempted from review under ECDC 20.10.010.13, below.eermitteid pr'R;aFy and senenrdaFy Uses in RS SiRgle_Fam y Residential district . r. ieleves in C?M_Multiple Residential districts "Ddevelopment" MeaRS includes any improvement to real property open to exterior view, including but not limited to buildings, structures, fixtures, landscaping, site screening, signs, parking lots, lighting, pedestrian facilities, street furniture, use of open areas (including parks, junk yards, riding academies, kennels and recreational facilities), mobile home and trailer parks, whether all or any are publicly or privately sponsored. De„elepmeRt !lees Ret innlurde i R dererei Rd i itilities B. Exempt development. The following types of development are exempt from design review: 1. Parks developed under a master plan approved by the Edmonds City Council. 2. Permitted primary and secondary uses in RS-Single-Family Residential districts. 3. Detached single family homes or duplexes in RM-Multiple Residential districts. 4. Additions or modifications to structures or sites on the Edmonds Register of Historic Places which require a certificate of appropriateness from the Edmonds Historic Preservation Commission. 5. Fences that do not require a separate development permit. 6. Sians that meet all of the standards contained in Chanter 20.60 ECDC. 7. Underground utilities. 20.10.02-0-030 Approval required. A. Development. 4e-Unless exempted under ECDC 20.10.010.13, no city permit or approval shall be issued for, and no person shall start any development, or substantially change any development, until the development has received desian review aDDroval. arnhiteGt Ural rdesiGR board (ADD) er the -- - -------------- Design Review draft / 2006.12.13 Packet Page 115 of 195 Page 2 feGtprmRt .. that *RVE)'Ve Materia'S, ferMS and repetitiGR ef - .. five er mere ReW .. SpaGes. 3. FeRGes that de net require a separate develepmeRt permit. 4. ..S that meet all of the StandardS GeRta"Red Chapter 20.60F=GDG. B. Permits. Van AWD ax Vwn.. .. . gx,fol fix ._ 00 B. :• •. The city maV require that a •• • be posted under Chapter1 ECDC to ensure the satisfactorv• of • • 20.10.040 Optional pre -application. The applicant may submit the plans required in ECDC 20.95.010 in preliminary or sketch form, so that the comments and advice of the architectural design board may be incorporated into the final plans submitted for application. [Ord. 3461 § 1, 2003]. 20.10.045 Augmented architectural design review applications. At the option of the applicant, an augmented ADB application to vest rights under the provisions of ECDC 19.00.025 may be submitted. Such applications may not be submitted in conjunction with the concept review provided for by ECDC 20.10.040. The application shall be processed in all respects as a regular application for review but vesting rights shall be determined under the provisions of ECDC 19.00.025. The architectural design board shall not be required to, and shall not, consider the application of vesting rights or the interpretation of ECDC 19.00.025 and any appeal with respect thereto shall be taken only as provided in that section. [Ord. 3461 § 1, 2003]. Design Review draft / 2006.12.13 Packet Page 116 of 195 Page 3 Chapter 20.11 GENERAL DESIGN REVIEW Sections- 20.11.010 Review Procedure — General Design Review. 20.11.020 Findings. 20.11.030 Criteria. 20.11.040 Appeals. 20.11.050 Lapse of approval. 20ry 10.050 20.11.010 Review procedure — General Design Review. A. Review. The architectural design board (ADB) shall review all proposed developments that require a threshold determination under the State Enivronmental Policy Act (SEPA). All other developments may be approved by staff according to the requirements of ECDC 20.95.040 (Staff Decision — No Notice Required). The -When design review is required bV the ADB, the staff shall review the application as provided in ECDC 20.95.030, and the director of COMM development services — or his designee — shall schedule the item for a meeting of the ADB. The role of the ADB shall be dependent upon the nature of the application as follows: 1. The ADB shall conduct a public hearing for the following types of applications: a. Applications that are not subject to project consolidation as required by ECDC 20.90.010(B)(2). b. Applications that are subject to project consolidation as required by ECDC 20.90.010(B)(2) but in which the ADB serves as the sole decisionmaking authority. c. Applications that are subject to project consolidation as required by ECDC 20.90.010(B)(2) but in which all decisionmaking authority is exercised both by staff pursuant to this chapter, Chapter 204220.13 ECDC and by the ADB. The ADB shall act in the place of the staff for these types of applications. 2. The ADB shall review a proposed development at a public meeting and make a recommendation to the hearing examiner to approve, conditionally approve, or deny the proposal for projects subject to project consolidation =- required byunder ECDC 20.90.010(B)(2) that are not subject to a public hearing by the ADB subsection (A)(1) of this section. The hearing examiner shall subsequently hold a public hearing on the proposal. 3. The ADB under subsection (A)(1) of this section and the hearing examiner under subsection (A)(2) of this section shall approve, conditionally approve, or deny the proposal. The ADB or hearing examiner may continue its public hearing on the proposal to allow changes to the proposal, or to obtain information needed to properly review the proposal. See ECC 3.13.090 regarding exemptions from review required by this chapter. Design Review draft / 2006.12.13 Packet Page 117 of 195 Page 4 4. Notwithstanding the requirements of this section to the nentrory any contrary requirement, for a development in which the City is the applicant, the action of the ADB under subsection (A)(1) of this section and the hearing examiner under subsection (A)(2) of this section the Gity serves as the applicant shall be a recommendation to the Eity GE)LI R4City Council. B. Notice. Public notice by mail, posting or newspaper publication shall only be required for applications that are subject to environmental review under Chapter 43.21 C RCW, in which case notice of the hearing shall be provided in accordance with Chapter 20.91 ECDC. Be�Te ADB ma rervi�a that a heRd he posted QerChapter v § 1, 004. 20.1020.11.020 Findings. The board shall make the following findings before approving the proposed development: A. Comprehensive Plan. The The proposal is consistent with the design objectives contained in the Urban Design chapter of the Community Culture and Urban Design Element of the comprehensive plan and other adopted „it„ pelieie-s. B. Zoning Ordinance. That the staff has found that the proposal meets the requirements of the zoning ordinance, or the city has approved a variance or a modification under the zoning ordinance. C. Criteria. That proposal as approved or conditionally approved satisfies the criteria and purposes of this chapter. 20.''� 10:0?0 20.11.030 Criteria. A. Building Design. No one architectural style is required. The building shall be designed to comply with the purposes of this chapter and to avoid conflict with the existing and planned character of the nearby area. All elements of building design shall form an integrated development, harmonious in scale, line and mass. The following are included as elements of building design: 1. All exterior building components, including windows, doors, eaves, and parapets; 2. Colors, which should avoid excessive brilliance or brightness except where that would enhance the character of the area; 3. Mechanical equipment or other utility hardware on the roof, grounds or buildings should be screened from view from the street level; 4. Long, massive, unbroken or monotonous buildings shall be avoided in order to comply with the purposes of this chapter and the design objectives of the Comprehensive Plan.te allow light and air to enni pants of the development and to provide Age for lands----d rreeGreatmenel llties This criterion is meant to describe the entire building. All elements of the design of a building including the massing, building forms, architectural details and finish materials contribute to whether or not a buildina is found to be long, massive, unbroken or monotonous. Design Review draft / 2006.12.13 Packet Page 118 of 195 Page 5 a. In multi family (RM) or commercial zones, selections from among the following or similar features are appropriate for dealing with this criterion: i. Windows with architectural fenestration: ii. Multiple rooflines or forms; iii. Architecturallv detailed entries: iv Appropriate landscaping; v. The use of multiple materials. 5. All signs should conform to the general design theme of the development; 6 Size and height b ii gS should be n�A�le with theGhara Gte v�rcc�rr y � .- �rivura�� rcrr uracc and -e-X+S views of . B. Site Treatment. The existing character of the site and the nearby area should be the starting point for the design of the building and all site treatment. The following are elements of site treatment: 1. Grading, vegetation removal and other changes to the site shall be minimized where natural beauty exists. Large cut and fill and impervious surfaces should be avoided. 2. Landscape treatment should shall be provided to enhance the building design and other site improvements. 3. Landscape treatment should shall be provided to buffer the development from surrounding property where conflict may result, such as parking facilities near yard spaces, streets or residential units, and different building heights, design or color. 4. Landscaping that could be damaged by pedestrians or vehicles should be protected by curbing or similar devices. 5. Service yards, and other areas where trash or litter may accumulate, should shall be screened with planting or fences or walls which are compatible with natural materials. 6. All screening should be effective in the winter as well as the summer. 7. Materials such as wood, brick, stone and gravel (as opposed to asphalt or concrete) may be substituted for planting in areas unsuitable for plant growth. 8. Exterior lighting should shall be the minimum necessary for safety and security. Excessive brightness should shall be avoided. All lighting should shall be low-rise and directed downward onto the site. Lighting standards and patterns should shall be compatible with the overall design theme. C. Other Criteria. 1. Community facilities and public or quasi -public improvements should not conflict with the existing and planned character of the nearby area. 2. Street furniture (including but not limited to benches, light standards, utility poles, newspaper stands, bus shelters, planters, traffic signs and signals, guardrails, rockeries, walls, mail boxes, fire hydrants and garbage cans) should be compatible with the existing and planned character of the nearby area. Design Review draft / 2006.12.13 Packet Page 119 of 195 Page 6 .. . 20.1020.11.040 Appeals. A. All design review decisions of the hearing examiner are appealable to the city council as provided in ECDC 20.105.040(B) through (E). B. All design review decisions of the ADB are appealable to the city council as provided in ECDC 20.105.040(B) through (E) except that all references to the hearing examiner in ECDC 20.105.040(B) through (E) shall be construed as references to the ADB. C. Persons entitled to appeal are (1) the applicant; (2) anyone who has submitted a written document to the city of Edmonds concerning the application prior to or at the hearing identified in ECDC '4�020.11.010; or (3) anyone testifying on the application at the hearing identified in ECDC 20� 1O.05o20.11.010. 20rv-Tv=vzO-20.11.050 Lapse of approval. A. Time Limit. Unless the owner submits a fully completed building permit application necessary to bring about the approved alterations, or if no building permit application is required, substantially commences the use allowed within 18 months from the date of approval, ADB or hearing examiner approval shall expire and be null and void, unless the owner files a fully completed application for an extension of time prior to the expiration date. For the purposes of this section the date of approval shall be the date on which the ADB's or hearing examiner's minutes or other method of conveying the final written decision of the ADB or hearing examiner as adopted are mailed to the applicant. In the event of appeal, the date of approval shall be the date on which a final decision is entered by the city council or court of competent jurisdiction. B. Time Extension. 1. Application. The applicant may apply for a one time extension of up to one year by submitting a letter, prior to the date that approval lapses, to the planning division along with any other supplemental documentation which the planning manager may require, which demonstrates that he/she is Design Review draft / 2006.12.13 Page 7 Packet Page 120 of 195 making substantial progress relative to the conditions adopted by the ADB or hearing examiner and that circumstances are beyond his/her control preventing timely compliance. In the event of an appeal, the one-year extension shall commence from the date a final decision is entered in favor of such extension. 2. Fee. The applicant shall include with the letter of request such fee as is established by ordinance. No application shall be complete unless accompanied by the required fee. 3. Review of Extension Application. An application for an extension shall be reviewed by the planning official as provided in ECDC 20.95.040 (Staff Decision — No Notice Reguired)CDC 20.95.050 (S-wtafrDeGOSOOcr Net+Ee od) [Ord. 3 ��e�l,l l �c.ra7—.�-r6, 20031. Design Review draft / 2006.12.13 Packet Page 121 of 195 Page 8 Chapter 20.12 DISTRICT -BASED DESIGN REVIEW Sections: 20.12.005 Outline of Process and Statement of Intent. 20.12.010 Applicability. 20.12.020 Design Review by the Architectural Design Board. 20.12.030 Design Review by Staff. 20.12.040 Findings. 20.12.050 Criteria. 20.12.080 Appeals. 20.12.090 Lapse of approval. 20.12.005 Outline of Process and Statement of Intent. The Architectural Design Board (ADB) process has been developed in order to provide for public and design professional input prior to the expense incurred by a developer in preparation of detailed design. In combination, Chapters 20.10 and 20.12 are intended to permit public and ADB input at an early point in the process while providing greater assurance to a developer that his general project design has been approved before the final significant expense of detailed project design is incurred. In general, the process is as follows: A. Public hearing (Phase 1). The applicant shall submit a preliminary conceptual design to the City. Upon receipt, staff shall provide full notice of a public hearing, noting that the public hearing shall be conducted in two phases. The entire single public hearing on the conceptual design shall be on the record. At the initial phase, the applicant shall present facts which describe in detail the tract of land to be developed noting all significant characteristics. The ADB shall make factual findings regarding the particular characteristics of the property and shall prioritize the design guideline checklist based upon these facts, the provisions of the City's design guideline elements of the Comprehensive Plan and the Edmonds Community Development Code. Following establishment of the design guideline checklist, the public hearing shall be continued to a date - certain requested by the applicant, not to exceed 120 days from the meeting date. The 120-day city review period required by RCW #### commences with the application for Phase 1 of ht public hearing. The 120-day time period is suspended, however, while the applicant further develops their application for Phase 2 of the Dublic hearina. Continued Dublic hearina (public hearina. Phase 2). The Dumose of the continuance is to permit the applicant to design or redesign his initial conceptual design to comply with the input of the public and the ADB in light of the prioritized design guideline checklist criteria. When the applicant has completed his design or redesign, he shall submit that design for final review. The matter shall be set for the next available regular ADB meeting date. If the applicant fails to submit Design Review draft / 2006.12.13 Page 9 Packet Page 122 of 195 his or her design within 180 days, the staff shall report the matter to the ADB who shall note that the applicant has failed to comply with the requirements of the code and find that the original design checklist criteria approval is void. The aDplicant may reaDDly at anv time. Such reaDDlication shall establish a new 120- day review period and establish a new vesting date. C. After completing the hearing process, the final detailed design shall be presented to the City in conjunction with the applicable building permit application. The City staff's decision on the building permit shall be a ministerial act applying the specific conditions or requirements set forth in the ADB's approval, but only those requirements. A staff decision on the building permit shall be final and appealable only as provided in the Land Use Petition Act. No other internal appeal of the staff's ministerial decisions on the building permit is allowed. D. The process is schematically represented by the following flow chart. Proposed New Review Process SEPA delerminalign Ues�gn Cttecklisl rr osiaulished , Requered First ADB Puhlk 1 �I Meeting wl ADB (Hearing Phase 1) Hearing Phase i Appear Nog Conceptual ❑etailea E esign C Design ■ 7 1 Redesign - — —L — L Yes I I — — (Optional) — — — .� � � I------------------- Prolect Project Denied AI ...... d SFaH partrtk review & Deafgn Decisir. 20.12.010 Applicability. Review. The architectural design board (ADB) shall review all proposed develoaments that reauire a threshold determination under the State Enivronmental Policy Act (SEPA) using the process set forth in ECDC 20.12.020, below. All other develoaments may be aDDroved by staff usina the Drocess set forth in eCDC 20.12.030. below. When desian review is reauired by the ADB under ECDC 20.12.020, the staff shall review the application as provided in ECDC 20.95.030, and the director of development services — or his designee — shall schedule the item for a meeting of the ADB. 20.12.020 Desiqn Review by the Architectural Design Board. A. Public hearing — Phase 1. Phase 1 of the public hearing shall be scheduled with the Architectural Desian Board (ADB) as a Dublic meetina. Notice of the Design Review draft / 2006.12.13 Packet Page 123 of 195 Page 10 meeting shall be provided according to the requirements of ECDC 20.91.010. This notice may be combined with the formal Notice of Application required under ECDC 20.90.010, as appropriate. 1. The purpose of Phase 1 of the public hearing is for the ADB to identifty the relative importance of design criteria that will apply to the project proposal during the subsequent design review. The basic criteria to be evaluated are listed on the Design Guidelines Checklist contained within the design guidelines and ECDC 20.12. The ADB shall utilize the urban design guidelines and standards contained in the relevant city zoning classification(s), any relevant district -specific design objectives contained in the Comprehensive Plan, and the relevant portions of ECDC 20.12 and 20.13, to identify the relative importance of design criteria; no new, additional criteria proposed in light of the specific characteristics of a particular tract of land or on an ad hoc basis shall be incorporated. 2. Prior to scheduling Phase 1 of the public hearing, the applicant shall submit information necessary to identify the scope and context of the proposed development, including any site plans, diagrams, and/or elevations sufficient to summarize the character of the project, its site, and neighboring Property information. At a minimum, an applicant shall submit the following information for consideration during Phase 1 of the public hearing: a. Vicinity Plan showing all significant physical structures and environmentallv critical areas within a 200 foot radius of the site includina. but not limited to. surroundina buildina outlines. streets driveways, sidewalks, bus stops, and land use. Aerial photographs may be used to develop this information. b. Conceptual site plan(s) showing topography (minimum 2-foot intervals), general location of building(s), areas devoted to parking, streets and access, existing open space and vegetation. All concepts being considered for the property should be submitted to assist the ADB in defining all pertinent issues applicable to the site. c. Three-dimensional sketches, photo simulations, or elevations that depict the volume of the proposed structure in relation to the surroundina buildinas and improvements. 3. During Phase 1 of the public hearing, the applicant shall be afforded an opportunity to present information on the proposed project. The public shall also be invited to address which design guidelines checklist criteria from ECDC 20.12.070 they feel are pertinent to the project. The Phase 1 meeting shall be considered to be a public hearing and information presented or discussed during the meeting shall be recorded as part of the hearing record. 4. Prior to the close of Phase 1 of the public hearing, the ADB shall identify the specific design guidelines checklist criteria — and their relative importance — that will be applied to the project during the project's subsequent design review. In submitting an application for design review approval under Chapter 20.12 ECDC, the applicant shall be responsible for Design Review draft / 2006.12.13 Packet Page 124 of 195 Page 11 identifying how the proposed proiect meets the specific criteria identified by the ADB during the pre -application meeting. 5. Following establishment of the design guidelines checklist, the public hearing shall be continued to a date certain, not exceeding 120 days from the date of Phase 1 of the public hearing. The continuance is intended to provide the applicant with sufficient time to prepare the material required for Phase 1 of the public hearing, including and design or redesign needed to adequately address the input of the public and ADB during Phase 1 of the public hearing_ 5. Because Phase 1 of the public hearing is only the first part of a two-part public hearing, there can be no appeal of the design decision until Phase 2 of the Dublic hearina has been completed. B. Continued public hearing — Phase 2. 1. An applicant for Phase 2 desian review shall submit information sufficient to evaluate how the project meets the criteria identified by the ADB during Phase 1 of the public heairnq described in Chapter 20.12.020.A, above. At a minimum, an applicant shall submit the following information for consideration during Phase 2 of the public hearing: a. Conceptual site plan showing topography (minimum 2-foot intervals), general layout of building, parking, streets and access, and proposed open space. b. Conceptual landscape plan, showing locations of planting areas identifying landscape types, including general plant species and characteristics. c. Conceptual Utility plan, showing access to and areas reserved for water, sewer, storm, electrical power, and fire connections and/or hydrants. d. Conceptual Building elevations for all building faces illustrating building massing and openings, materials and colors, and roof forms. A three-dimensional model may be substituted for the buildina elevation(s). e If more than one development concept is being considered for the property, the submissions should be developed to clearly identify the development options being considered. f. Optional: Generalized building floor plans may be provided. 2. Staff shall DreDare a report summarizina the Droiect and evaluatina how it has addressed each of the design guidelines criteria identified by the ADB in Phase 1 of the public hearing. The report shall be mailed to the applicant and ADB at least one week prior to the public hearing. 3. Phase 2 of the public hearing shall be conducted by the ADB as a continuation the Phase 1 public hearing. Notice of the meeting shall be provided according to the requirements of Chapter 20.91 ECDC. During Phase 2 of the public hearing, the ADB shall review the application and identify any conditions that the proposal must meet prior to the issuance of any permit or approval by the city. When conducting this review, the ADB shall enter the following findings prior to issuing its decision on the proposal: Design Review draft / 2006.12.13 Packet Page 125 of 195 Page 12 a. Zoning Ordinance. That the proposal meets the requirements of the zoning ordinance, including the guidelines and standards contained in the relevant zoning classification(s). b. Design Guidelines. That the proposal meets the relevant district - specific design objectives contained in the Comprehensive Plan c. Design Criteria. That the proposal satisfies the specific checklist criteria identied by the ADB during Phase 1 of the public hearing under Chapter 20.12.020.A, above. When conductina its review. the ADB shall not add or impose conditions based on new, additional criteria proposed in light of the specific characteristics of a particular tract of land or on an ad hoc basis. 4. Project consolidation. [Note: City Attorney may need to include additional language as appropriate here.] C. Effect of the decision of the ADB. The decision of the ADB described above in ECDC 20.12.020(B) shall be used by staff to determine if a project complies with the requirements of these chapters during staff review of any subsequent applications for permits or approvals. [Note: City Attorney is developing a revision for the above section which describes the requirements and content of the decision.] 20.12.030 Design Review by city staff. A. Optional pre -application meeting. At the option of the applicant, a pre - application meeting may be scheduled with city staff. The purpose of the meeting is to provide preliminary staff comments on a proposed development to assist the applicant in preparing an application for development approval. Submission requirements and rules of procedure for this optional pre -application meeting shall be adopted by city staff consistent with the purposes of this Chapter. B. Application and staff decision. 1. An applicant for design review shall submit information sufficient to evalute how the project meets the criteria applicable to the project. Staff shall develop a checklist of submission requirements and review criteria necessary to support this intent. When design review is intended to accompany and be part of an application for another permit or approval, such as a building permit, the submission requirements and design review may be completed as part of the associated permit process. 2. In reviewing an application for design review, Staff shall review the project checklist and evaluate whether the project has addressed each of the applicable design criteria. Staff shall enter the following findings prior to issuing a decision on the proposal: a. Zoning Ordinance. That the proposal meets the requirements of the zoning ordinance, including the guidelines and standards contained in the relevant zoning classification(s). b. Design Guidelines. That the proposal meets the relevant district - specific desian obiectives contained in the Comprehensive Plan Design Review draft / 2006.12.13 Packet Page 126 of 195 Page 13 When conductina its review, citv staff shall not add or imoose conditions based on new, additional criteria proposed in light of the specific characteristics of a particular tract of land or on an ad hoc basis. 20.12.070 Design Guidelines, Criteria and Checklist. A. In conducting its review, the ADB shall use the design guidelines and design review checklist adopted by Ordinance #, as amended [insert reference to ADB Design Guidelines here — note that Design Guidelines Checklist is included — 22 pages total]. B. Additional Criteria. Design review shall reference the specific criteria adopted for each area or district. 1. Criteria to be used in desian review for the downtown Edmonds business districts (BD zones) located within the Downtown/Waterfront Activity Center as shown on the City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan Map include the following: a. Design objectives for the Downtown Waterfront Activity Center contained in the Edmonds Comprehensive Plan. 2. Criteria to be used in design review for the general commercial (CG and CG2) zones located within the Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center or the Highway 99 Corridor as shown on the City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan Map include the following: a. Design standards contained in ECDC 16.60 for the General Commercial zones. b. Policies contained in the specific section of the Comprehensive Plan addressina the Medical/Hiahwav 99 Activity Center and Highway 99 Corridor. 20.12.080 Appeals. A. Design review decisions by the ADB pursuant to ECDC 20.12.020.13 are appealable to the city council as provided in ECDC 20.105.040(B) through (E) except that all references to the hearing examiner in ECDC 20.105.040(B) through (E) shall be construed as references to the ADB. These are the only decisions by the ADB that are appealable. B. All design review decisions of the hearing examiner are appealable to the city council as provided in ECDC 20.105.040(B) through (E). C. Design review decisions by staff under the provisions of ECDC 20.12.030 are only appealable to the extent that the applicable permit or approval is an appealable decision under the provisions of the ECDC. Design review by staff is not in itself an appealable decision. D. Persons entitled to appeal are (1) the applicant; (2) anyone who has submitted a written document to the City of Edmonds concerning the application prior to or at the hearing identified in ECDC 20.12.020.B; or (3) anyone testifying on the apDlication at the hearina identified in ECDC 20.12.020.B. 20.12.090 Lapse of approval. A. Time Limit. Unless the owner submits a fully comDleted buildina Dermit application necessary to bring about the approved alterations, or if no building Design Review draft / 2006.12.13 Packet Page 127 of 195 Page 14 permit application is required, substantially commences the use allowed within 18 months from the date of approval, ADB or hearing examiner approval shall expire and be null and void, unless the owner files a fully completed application for an extension of time prior to the expiration date. For the purposes of this section the date of approval shall be the date on which the ADB's or hearing examiner's minutes or other method of conveying the final written decision of the ADB or hearing examiner as adopted are mailed to the applicant. In the event of appeal, the date of approval shall be the date on which a final decision is entered by the city council or court of competent jurisdiction. B. Time Extension. 1. Application. The applicant may apply for a one time extension of up to one year by submitting a letter, prior to the date that approval lapses, to the planning division along with any other supplemental documentation which the planning manager may require, which demonstrates that he/she is making substantial progress relative to the conditions adopted by the ADB or hearing examiner and that circumstances are beyond his/her control preventing timely compliance. In the event of an appeal, the one-year extension shall commence from the date a final decision is entered in favor of such extension. 2. Fee. The applicant shall include with the letter of reauest such fee as is established by ordinance. No application shall be complete unless accompanied by the reauired fee. 3. Review of Extension Application. An aoolication for an extension shall be reviewed by the planning official as provided in ECDC 20.95.040 (Staff Decision — No Notice Reauired). Design Review draft / 2006.12.13 Packet Page 128 of 195 Page 15 Chapter 20.1220.13 LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS* Sections: 2�220.13.000 Scope. 244220.13.010 Landscape plan requirements. 244220.13.015 Plant schedule. 244220.13.020 General design standards. 20�0 20.13.025 General planting standards 20.13.030 Landscape tVDeS 2�220.13.040 Landscape bonds. 20.1220.13.000 Scope. The landscape requirements found in this chapter are intended for use by city staff, the architectural design board (ADB) and the hearing examiner, in reviewing projects, as set forth in ECDC' .010. The ADB and hearing examiner shall be allowed to interpret and modify the requirements contained herein; provided such modification is consistent with the purposes found in ECDC 24.-020.11.000. 20.1220.13.010 Landscape plan requirements. The applicant has the option of submitting a preliminary landscape plan to the architectural design board prior to final approval. The preliminary landscape plan need not include the detail required for final approval, although areas of proposed landscaping should be shown. Final project approval cannot be given until the final landscape plan is submitted and approved. The following items shall be shown on any final landscape plan submitted to the ADB for review: A. Name and address or location of the project; B. All plant material identified by botanical and common name — genus, species and variety (see ECDC .�;. p�, ,.015); C. Location of all trees and shrubs to be planted; D. Three sets of landscape plans drawn to a scale of I" = 30' or larger (e.g., 1" = 20', 1" = 10', etc.). Plan should include a bar scale for reference. See "Checklist for Architectural Design Review" items (on architectural design board brochure) for required number of other plans; E. Scale of the drawing, a north arrow and date of the plan; F. All property lines, as well as abutting streets and alleys; G. Locations, sizes and species of existing trees (six inches in caliper or more) and shrubs. Trees and shrubs to be removed must be noted. Natural areas should be designated as such; H. Any proposed or existing physical elements (such as fencing, walls, building, curbing, and signs) that may affect the overall landscape; Design Review draft / 2006.12.13 Page 16 Packet Page 129 of 195 I. Parking layout, including circulation, driveway location, parking stalls and curbing (see ECDC 29.1220.13.020(D)); J. Grading shown by contour lines (minimum five-foot intervals), spot elevations, sections or other means; K. Location of irrigation system (see ECDC 204220.13.020(E)). 2-0.1220.13.015 Plant schedule. A. The plant schedule shall indicate for all plants the scientific and common names, quantities, sizes and spacing. Quantities are not required on a preliminary landscape plan. A preliminary plan may also indicate shrubs as masses rather than showing the individual plants. The final plan must show individual shrubs and quantities. B. Minimum sizes at installation are as follows: • one and three quarters inches caliper street trees; one and one-half inches caliper other deciduous trees; • eight feet minimum height vine maples and other multi -stemmed trees; • six feet minimum height — evergreen trees • eighteen feet -inches minimum height for medium and tall shrubs — small shrub = less than three and one-half feet tall at maturity — medium shrub = three and one-half to six feet tall at maturity — large shrub = more than six feet tall at maturity C. Maximum size: Species approved within a landscape plan shall have a growth pattern in scale with the development and be consistent with the preservation of significant views and height limit for the zoning district. D. Maximum spacing: — large shrubs = six feet on center — medium shrubs = four and one-half feet on center — small shrubs = three feet on center E. Groundcover is required in all planting bed areas as follows: — one gallon 30 inches on center — four -inch pots 24 inches on center — two and one -quarter -inch pots 15 inches on center — rooted cuttings 12 inches on center All groundcover shall be living plant material approved by the ADB. 20.1220.13.020 General design standards. A. Preference shall be given an informal arrangement of plants installed in a variety of treatments that will enhance building designs and attractively screen parked vehicles and unsightly areas, soften visual impact of structures and enhance views and vistas. Design Review draft / 2006.12.13 Packet Page 130 of 195 Page 17 B. A formal arrangement may be acceptable if it has enough variety in layout and plants. Avoid continuous, long, unbroken, straight rows of a single plant where possible. C. Existing vegetation that contributes to the attractiveness of the site should be retained. Existing significant trees and shrubbery (six-inch caliper or more) must be shown on the proposed landscape plan and saved and incorporated into the landscape plan, if they are reasonably attractive and of good quality. D. Extruded curbs four to six inches are required where landscaping meets paved areas. Wheelstops will be required as needed, and must be affixed permanently to the ground. E. Automatic irrigation is required for all ADB-approved landscaped areas for projects which have more than four dwelling units, 4,000 square feet of building area or more than 20 parking spaces. F. All planting areas should be at least four feet wide between curbs. G. Deciduous or broadleaf evergreen trees should be planted at least four feet from curbs, especially in front parking stalls. Where possible, coniferous trees should be planted at least seven feet from curbs. H. All plants shall be compatible with the character and climate of the Pacific Northwest. Shrubs and/or groundcover are required to provide 75 percent ground coverage within three years. I. Berms or mounds should be no steeper than 3(H):1(V). Any slopes steeper than 3:1 (2:1 is maximum permitted by the city for fill slopes) need erosion control netting or other erosion control methods in planting areas not covered by grass (e.g., rockery). J. Landscaping must be provided in adjacent rights -of -way between property line and curb or street edge and shown on the landscape plan. K. Street trees must be planted according to the city's street tree plan. Contact the planning division for details. L. Street trees should be installed within four feet of either side of the property line. M. Landscaping should be tall enough to soften any dumpster enclosures located in planting areas. N. Trees and very large shrubs should be planted at least five feet from any water/sewer lines. Landscape plantings shall reflect consideration of plantings in relation to utility lines. O. Utility boxes should be screened with landscaping without blocking access. P. Species approved within a landscape plan shall have a growth pattern in scale with the development and be consistent with the preservation of significant views and height limit for the zoning district. 20.13.025 General planting standards. [Note: was formerly 20.12.0301 A. Blank Building Walls. 1. Blank building walls should be softened by landscaping. 2. Landscaping should include trees and shrubs — mostly evergreen. Design Review draft / 2006.12.13 Packet Page 131 of 195 Page 18 3. Trees should be planted an averaae of 20 feet on center either formal or in clusters. B. Foundation Planting. 1. Trees and shrubs should soften the building elevation and soften the transition between the pavement and the building. 2. Plantinas may be in informal or formal arranaements (see ECDC 20.13.020(A) and (B)). 3. Landscaping should be planted in all areas except service areas. 4. Plantina areas should be at least four feet wide. 20.13.030 Landscape types [Note: from 2001 Guidelines] A. Type I Landscaping. Type I landscaping is intended to provide a very dense sight barrier to significantly separate uses and land use districts. 1. Two rows of evergreen trees, a minimum of ten -feet in height and planted at intervals of no greater than 20 feet on center. The trees must be backed by a sight obscuring fence, a minimum of five feet high or the required width of the planting area must be increased by ten feet; and 2. Shrubs a minimum of three and one-half feet in height planted in an area at least five feet in width, and other plant materials, planted so that the ground will be covered within three years; 3. Alternatively, the trees and shrubs may be planted on an earthen berm at least 15 feet in width and an average of five feet high along its midline. B. Type II Landscaping. Type II landscaping is intended to create a visual separation between similar uses. 1. Evergreen and deciduous trees, with no more than 30 percent being deciduous. a minimum of six feet in heiaht, and Dlanted at intervals no reater than 20 feet on center: and 2. Shrubs. a minimum of three and one-half feet in heiaht and other Dlant materials, planted so that the ground will be covered within three years. C. Type III Landscaping. Type III landscaping is intended to provide visual separation of uses from streets, and visual separation of compatible uses so as to soften the appearance of streets, parking areas and building elevations. 1. Evergreen and deciduous trees, with no more than 50 percent being deciduous, a minimum of six feet in height, and planted at intervals no greater than 30 feet on center; and 2. If planted to buffer a building elevation, shrubs, a minimum of three and one-half feet in height, and living ground cover planted so that the ground will be covered within three years; or 3. If planted to buffer a parking area, access, or site development other than a building, any of the following alternatives may be used unless otherwise noted: a_. Shrubs_, a minimum of three and one-half feet in height and living around cover must be Dlanted so that the around will be covered within three years. Earth -mounding, an average of three and one-half feet in height, planted with shrubs or living ground cover so that the ground will be Design Review draft / 2006.12.13 Packet Page 132 of 195 Page 19 covered within three years. This alternative may not be used in a Downtown or Waterfront areas. c. A combination of earth mounding, opaque fences and shrubs to Droduce a visual barrier at least three and one-half feet in heiaht. D. Type IV Landscaping. Type IV landscaping is intended to provide visual relief where clear siaht is desired to see sianaae or into adiacent sDace for safe concerns. 1. Trees are 25 feet on center and deciduous also reauired and the trunk shall be free of branches below six feet in height.. 2. Plant materials which will cover the ground within three years, and which will not exceed three and one-half feet in height. E. Type V Landscaping. Type V landscaping is intended to provide visual relief and shade in parking areas. 1. Required Amount. a. If the parking area contains no more than 50 parking spaces, at least 17.5 square feet of landscape development must be provided as described in paragraph B below for each parking stall proposed. b. If the parking area contains more than 99 parking spaces, at least 35 square feet of landscape development must be provided as described in paragraph B below for each parking stall proposed. c. If the parking area contains more than 50, but less than 100 parking spaces, the Director — or his designee — shall determine the required amount of landscaping by interpolating between 17.5 and 35 square feet for each parking stall proposed. The area must be landscaped as described in paragraph B below. 2. Design. a. Each area of landscaping must contain at least 150 square feet of area and must be at least four feet in anv direction exclusive of vehicle overhang. The area must contain at least one tree a minimum of six feet in height and with a minimum size of one and one-half inches in caliper if deciduous. The remaining ground area must be landscaped with plant materials, decorative mulch or unit pavers. b. A landscaped area must be placed at the interior ends of each parking row in a multiple lane parking area. This area must be at least four feet wide and must extend the length of the adjacent parking stall. c. Up to 100 percent of the trees proposed for the parking area may be deciduous. d. Bioswales integrated into parking lot designs are strongly encouraged. [Note: e, f, and q are from existing ADB code standards] e. The minimum area per planter is 64 square feet. f. The maximum area per planter is 1,500 for parking lots greater than 12,000 square feet. Planters shall be spread throughout the parking lot. Design Review draft / 2006.12.13 Packet Page 133 of 195 Page 20 Shade trees are reauired at the rate of a minimum of one planter and/or• - per 150 square feet of • , A. ParkiRg Lot •_ A Minimum five feet e ,, ed aFOURd the perimeter of all parkiRg lots (see additiOrlal requiremerlt fOr parkiRg lots abUtt!Rg Streets-, below). This strip is not required where parkiRg .. 2. Where a parkiRg lot abuts any street, a larldsGaped area ef • fe ote: moved to 20.13.025' • am .. •M SOMMONIFSTS• Design Review draft / 2006.12.13 Packet Page 134 of 195 Page 21 B. Fer lots 6,000 te 12,000 feet, five the parkiRg with square as G. Fer lets 000 feet peFGeRt of vehiGle parkiRg with square er mere iR area, D. F. The 00 fer lets seveR perGeRt ef thaR 12,000 maxomum area per plaRter parkiRg 1. 1 arger areas are desirable, but that - r greater -VVIIIIx'V - • - - - - - - 20.1220.13.040 Landscape bonds. A. An itemized cost estimate, covering landscaping and irrigation, must be submitted for use in determining the landscape bond amount. The city will use this estimate to set the amount of the landscape performance bond. B. A performance bond will be required for release of the building permit. This bond will be used to cover installation of required landscaping, fences or screening for service areas. C. Landscaping must be installed prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy (for multiple family and single tenant commercial buildings) or a certificate of completion (for multiple tenant commercial buildings). D. Once the landscaping has been installed, a 15 percent maintenance bond is required for release of the performance bond. Any plants that die within two years of installation must be replaced before the maintenance bond can be released. Upon inspection and approval, the maintenance bond may be released after two years. Design Review draft / 2006.12.13 Page 22 Packet Page 135 of 195 Applying the Design Guidelines When designing projects and issuing permits for new developments, applicants and City staff will rely on these guidelines to help define specific design conditions that will be required for project approval. As these design guidelines get applied to particular development projects, some important things to remember are: 1. Each project is unique and will pose unique design issues. Even two similar proposals on the same block may face different design considerations. With some projects, trying to follow all of the guidelines could produce irreconcilable conflicts in the design. With most projects, reviewers will find some guidelines more important than others, and the guidelines that are most important on one project might not be important at all on the next one. The design review process will help designers and reviewers to determine which guidelines are most important in the context of each project so that they may put the most effort into accomplishing the intent of those guidelines. 2. Project must be reviewed in the context of their zoning and the zoning of their surroundings. The use of design guidelines is not intended to change the zoning designations of land where projects are proposed; it is intended to demonstrate methods of treating the appearance of new projects to help them fit their neighborhoods and to provide the Code flexibility necessary to accomplish that. Where the surrounding neighborhood exhibits a lower development intensity than is current zoning allow, the lower -intensity character should not force a proponent to significantly reduce the allowable size of the new building. 3. Many of the guidelines suggest using the existing context to determine appropriate solutions for the project under consideration. In some areas, the existing context is not well defined, or may be undesirable. In such cases, the new project should be recognized as a pioneer with the opportunity to establish a pattern or identity from which future development can take its cues. In light of number 2 above, the site's zoning should be considered an indicator of the desired direction for the area and the project. 4. Each guideline includes examples and illustrations of ways in which that guidelines can be achieved. The examples are just that — examples. They are not the only acceptable solution. Designers and reviewers should consider designs, styles and techniques not described in the examples but that fulfill the guideline. 5. The checklist which follows the guidelines (Checklist) is a tool for determining whether or not a particular guideline applies to a site, so that the guidelines may be more easily prioritized. The checklist is neither a regulatory device, nor a substitute for evaluating a sites conditions, or to summarize the language of examples found in the guidelines themselves. Page 1 of 22 Revised by ADB 3/1/06 Packet Page 136 of 195 Considering the Site Edmond's Land Use Code sets specific, prescriptive rules that are applied uniformly for each land use zone throughout the city. There is little room in the Code's development standards to account for unique site conditions or neighborhood contexts. A project architect can read the Code requirements and theoretically design a building without ever visiting the site. However, to produce good compatible design, it is critical that the project's design team examine the site and its surrounding, identify the key design features and determine how the proposed project can address the guidelines' objectives. Because they rely on the project's context to help shape the project, the guidelines encourage an active viewing of the site and its surroundings. For a proposal located on a street with a consistent and distinctive architectural character, the architectural elements of the building may be key to helping the building fit the neighborhood. On other sites with few attractive neighboring buildings, the placement of open space and treatment of pedestrian areas may be the most important concerns. The applicant and the project reviewers should consider the following questions and similar ones related to context when looking at the site: ■ What are the key aspects of the streetscape? (The street's layout and visual character) ■ Are there opportunities to encourage human activity and neighborhood interaction, while promoting residents' privacy and physical security? ■ How can vehicle access have the least effect on the pedestrian environment and on the visual quality of the site? ■ Are there any special site planning opportunities resulting from the site's configuration, natural features, topography etc.? ■ What are the most important contextual concerns for pedestrians? How could the sidewalk environment be improved? ■ Does the street have characteristic landscape features, plant materials, that could be incorporated into the design? ■ Are there any special landscaping opportunities such as steep topography, significant trees, greenbelt, natural area, park or boulevard that should be addressed in the design? ■ Do neighboring buildings have distinctive architectural style, site configuration, architectural concept? Page 2 of 22 Revised by ADB 3/1/06 Packet Page 137 of 195 Design Guidelines Checklist This checklist is intended as a summary of the issues addressed by the guidelines. It is not meant to be a regulatory device or a substitute for the language and examples found in the guidelines themselves. Rather, it is a tool for assisting the determination about which guidelines are the most applicable on a particular site. A. Site Planning NIA Lower Priority Higher Priority 1. Reinforce existing site characteristics ❑ ❑ ❑ 2. Reinforce existing streetscape characteristics ❑ ❑ ❑ 3. Entry clearly identifiable from the street ❑ ❑ ❑ 4. Encourage human activity on street ❑ ❑ ❑ 5. Minimize intrusion into privacy on adjacent sites ❑ ❑ ❑ 6. Use space between building and sidewalk to provide security, privacy and interaction (residential projects) ❑ ❑ ❑ 7. Maximize open space opportunity on site (residential projects) ❑ ❑ ❑ 8. Minimize parking and auto impacts on pedestrians and adjoining property ❑ ❑ ❑ 9. Discourage parking in street front ❑ ❑ ❑ 10. Orient building to corner and parking away from corner on public street fronts (corner lots) ❑ ❑ ❑ B. Bulk and Scale NIA Lower Higher Priority Priority 1. provide sensitive transitions to nearby, less- ❑ ❑ ❑ intensive zones Page 3 of 22 Revised by ADB 3/1/06 Packet Page 138 of 195 C. Architectural Elements and Materials NIA Lower Priority Higher Priority 1. Complement positive existing character and/or respond to nearby historic structures ❑ ❑ ❑ 2. Unified architectural concept ❑ ❑ ❑ 3. Use human scale and human activity ❑ ❑ ❑ 4. Use durable, attractive and well -detailed finish materials ❑ ❑ ❑ 5. Minimize garage entrances ❑ ❑ ❑ D. Pedestrian Environment N/A Lower Priority Higher Priority 1. Provide convenient, attractive and protected pedestrian entry ❑ ❑ ❑ 2. Avoid blank walls ❑ ❑ ❑ 3. Minimize height of retaining walls ❑ ❑ ❑ 4. Minimize visual and physical intrusion of parking lots on pedestrian areas ❑ ❑ ❑ 5. Minimize visual impact of parking structures ❑ ❑ ❑ 6. Screen dumpsters, utility and service areas ❑ ❑ ❑ 7. Consider personal safety ❑ ❑ ❑ E. Landscaping N/A Lower Higher Priority Priority 1. Reinforce existing landscape character of ❑ ❑ ❑ neighborhood 2. Landscape to enhance the building or site ❑ ❑ ❑ 3. Landscape to take advantage of special site ❑ ❑ ❑ conditions Page 4 of 22 Revised by ADB 3/1/06 Packet Page 139 of 195 A-1: Responding to Site Characteristics The siting of buildings should respond to specific site conditions and opportunities such as non -rectangular lots, location on prominent intersections, unusual topography, significant vegetation and other natural features. Explanations and Examples Site characteristics to consider in project design include: 1) Topography • Reflect, rather than obscure, natural topography. For instance, buildings should be designed to "step up" hillsides to accommodate significant changes in elevation. • Where neighboring buildings have responded to similar topographic conditions in their sites in a consistent and positive way, consider similar treatment for the new structure. • Designing the building in relation to topography may help to reduce the visibility of parking garages. 2) Environmental constraints • Site buildings to avoid or lessen the impact of development on environmentally critical areas such as steep slopes, wetlands and stream corridors. 3) Solar orientation • The design of a structure and its massing on the site can enhance solar exposure for the project and minimize shadow impacts on adjacent structures and public areas. 4) Existing vegetation • Careful siting of buildings can enable significant or important trees or other vegetation to be preserved. 5) Existing structures on the site • Where a new structure shares a site with an existing structure or is a major addition to an existing structure, designing the new structure to be compatible with the original structure will help it fit in. A-2: Streetscape Compatibility The siting of buildings should acknowledge and reinforce the existing desirable spatial characteristics of the right-of-way. Explanation and Examples The character of a neighborhood is often defined by the experience of traveling along its streets. We often perceive streets within neighborhoods as individual spaces or "rooms. How buildings face and are set back from the street determine the character and proportion of this room. Page 5 of 22 Revised by ADB 3/1/06 Packet Page 140 of 195 A-3: Entrances Visible from the Street Entries should be clearly identifiable and visible from the street. Explanation and Examples Entries that are visible from the street make a project more approachable and create a sense of association among neighbors. A-4: Human Activity New development should be sited and designed to encourage human activity on the street. Explanation and Examples Livelier street edges make for safer streets. Ground floor shops and market spaces providing services needed by residents can attract market activity to the street and increase safety through informal surveillance. Entrances, porches, awnings, balconies, decks, seating and other elements can promote use of the street front and provide places for neighborly interaction. Siting decisions should consider the importance of these features in a particular context and allow for their incorporation. Also, architectural elements and details can add to the interest and excitement of buildings and spaces. Elements from the following list should be incorporated into all projects. Projects in pedestrian oriented areas of the City should include an even greater number of these details due to the scale of the buildings and the proximity of the people that will experience them. ■ Lighting or hanging baskets supported by ornamental brackets ■ Belt courses • Plinths for columns ■ Kickplate for storefront window ■ Projecting sills ■ Tilework ■ Transom or clerestory windows ■ Planter box ■ Variations in applied ornament, materials, colors or trim. ■ An element not listed here, as approved, that meets the intent. Page 6 of 22 Revised by ADB 3/1/06 Packet Page 141 of 195 In pedestrian oriented areas, ground floor commercial space is encouraged to be at grade with the sidewalk. If the entrance can not be located at the grade of the sidewalk, special care must be taken to ensure that ° there is both a visual and physical connection between the pedestrian way and the entrance that enhances the pedestrian orientation of the building. The ground level fagades of buildings that are oriented to street fronts in the CW, BC, BN, and BP zones shall have transparent windows to engage the public. To qualify as transparent, windows shall not be mirrored or darkly tinted glass, or prohibit visibility between the street and interior. Where transparency is not Canopy provided, the fagade shall comply with the guidelines under section D2, 'Blank Walls,' on page 17. Recessed entry In the Downtown Commercial Core Taller bay The ground level fagades of buildings that are oriented to streets should have a substantial amount of transparent windows, especially in the retail core. A primary function of the pedestrian oriented retail core is to allow for the visual interaction between the walking public and the goods and services businesses located on the first floor are providing. To qualify as transparent, windows shall not be mirrored or darkly tinted glass, or prohibit visibility between the street and interior. Where transparency is not provided, the fagade shall comply with the guidelines under section D2, 'Blank Walls,' on page 17. Buildings that are entirely residential do not have a specific transparency requirement. However, all - residential buildings shall be treated as if they have blank walls facing the street and must comply with the guidelines under the section 'Treating Blank Walls'. That portion of Ground level spaces that opens up to the sidewalk through means of sliding or roll up doors shall be considered to comply with any transparency " requirements regardless of the amount of glass in the opening. 5 f Awnings are encouraged along pedestrian street fronts. They may be structural (permanently attached to and part of the building) or non-structural (attached to the building using a metal or other framework). To enhance the visibility of business signage retractable awnings are encouraged and should be open -sided. Front valances are permitted and signage is allowed on valances, but not on valance returns. Marquee, box, or convex awning shapes are not permitted. Awnings should be located within the building elements that frame storefronts, and should not conceal important architectural details. Awnings should also be hung just below a clerestory or "transom" window, if it f.r Page 7 of 22 Packet Page 142 of 195 Revised by ADB 3/1/06 exists. Awnings on a multiple -storefront building should be consistent in character, scale and position, but need not be identical. Non-structural awnings should be constructed using canvas or fire-resistant acrylic materials. Shiny, high -gloss materials are not appropriate; therefore, vinyl or plastic awning materials are not permitted. Structural Awnings should be designed to incorporate natural light. Artificial lighting should only be used at night. Signage should be designed to integrate with the building and street front. Combinations of sign types are encouraged which result in a coordinated design while minimizing the size of individual signs. Blade or projecting signs which include decorative frames, brackets or other design elements are encouraged. This type of detail is consistent with the design elements mentioned above that enhance the interest of the area. Use graphics or symbols to reduce the need to have large expanses of lettering. Signage in the "Arts Center Corridor" defined in the Comprehensive Plan is required to include decorative sign frames or brackets in its design. Instead of broadly lighting the face of the sign, signage should be indirectly lit, or backlit to only display lettering and symbols or graphic design. Signage should be given special consideration when it is consistent with or contributes to the historic character of sites on the National Register or the Edmonds Register of Historic Places A-5: Respect for Adjacent Sites Buildings should respect adjacent properties by being located on their sites to minimize disruption of the privacy and outdoor activities of residents in adjacent buildings. Explanation and Examples One consideration is the views from upper stories of new buildings into adjacent houses or yards, especially in less intensive zones. This problem can be addressed in several ways. ■ Reduce the number of windows and decks on the proposed building overlooking the neighbors. ■ Step back the upper floors or increase the side or rear setback so that window areas are farther from the property line. ■ Take advantage of site design which might reduce impacts, for example by using adjacent ground floor area for an entry court. ■ Minimize windows to living spaces which might infringe on the privacy of adjacent residents, but consider comfort of residents in the new building. ■ Stagger windows to not align with adjacent windows. Page 8 of 22 Revised by ADB 3/1/06 Packet Page 143 of 195 A-6: Transition Between Residence and Street For residential projects, the space between the building and the sidewalk should provide security and privacy for residents and encourage social interaction among residents and neighbors. Explanation and Examples The transition between a residential building and the street varies with the depth of the front setback and the relative elevation of the building to the street. A-7: Residential Open Space Residential projects should be sited to maximize opportunities for creating usable, attractive, well -integrated open space. Examples and Explanations Residential buildings are encouraged to consider these site planning elements: ■ Courtyards which organize architectural elements, while providing a common garden or other uses. ■ Entry enhancement such as landscaping along a common pathway. A-8: Parking and Vehicle Access Siting should minimize the impact of automobile parking and driveways on the pedestrian environment, adjacent properties and pedestrian safety. Explanation and Examples Techniques used to minimize the impacts of driveways and parking lots include: ■ Locate surface parking at rear or side lots. ■ Break large parking lots into smaller ones. ■ Minimize number and width of driveways and curb cuts. ■ Share driveways with adjacent property owners. ■ Locate parking in lower level or less visible portions of site. ■ Locate driveways so they are visually less dominant. Access should be provided in the following order of priority: i) If there is an alley, vehicular access should use the alley. Where feasible, the exit route should use the alley. ae 5•{ ,yyF,r A Ogra '.WA /N Page 9 of 22 Revised by ADB 3/1/06 Packet Page 144 of 195 ii) For corner parcels, access should be off the secondary street rather than the primary street. iii) Share the driveway with an adjacent property. This can be a driveway with two-way traffic. iv) A driveway serving a single project is the least preferred option. Drive -through facilities such as, but not limited to, banks, cleaners, fast food, drug stores, espresso stands, etc., should comply with the following: i) Drive -through windows and stacking lanes shall not be located along the facades of the building that face a street. ii) Drive -through speakers shall not be audible off -site. iii) The entrance and exit from the drive -through shall be internal to the site, not a separate entrance and/or exit to or from the street. A-9: Location of Parking on Commercial Street Fronts Parking on a commercial street front should be minimized and where possible should be located behind a building. Explanation and Examples Parking located along a commercial street front where pedestrian traffic is desirable lessens the attractiveness of the area to pedestrians and compromises the safety of pedestrians along the street. A-10: Corner Lots Building on corner lots should be oriented to the corner and public street fronts. Parking and automobile access should be located away from corners. Explanation and Examples Corner lots offer unique opportunities because of their visibility and access from two streets. Page 10 of 22 Revised by ADB 3/1/06 Packet Page 145 of 195 B-1: Bulk, and Scale Compatibility Projects should be compatible with the scale of development anticipated by the applicable Land Use Policies for the surrounding area and should be sited and designed to provide a sensitive transition to near -by, less intensive zones. Projects on zone edges should be developed in a manner that creates a step in perceived bulk, and scale between anticipated development potential of the adjacent zones. Explanation and Examples For projects undergoing Design Review, the analysis and mitigation of bulk and scale impacts will be accomplished through the Design Review process. Careful siting and design treatment based on the technique described in this and other design guidelines will help to mitigate some bulk and scale impacts; in other cases, actual reduction in the bulk and scale of a project may be necessary to adequately mitigate impacts. Design Review should not result in significant reductions in a project's actual bulk and scale. Bulk and scale mitigation may be required in two general circumstances: 1. Projects on or near the edge of a less intensive zone. A substantial incompatibility in scale may result from different development standards in the two zones and may be compounded by physical factors such a s large development sites, slopes or lot orientation. 2. Projects proposed on sites with unusual physical characteristics such as large lot size, or unusual shape, or topography where buildings may appear substantially greater in bulk and scale than that generally anticipated for the area. Factors to consider in analyzing potential bulk and scale impacts include: ■ distance from the edge of a less intensive zone ■ differences in development standards between abutting zones (allowable building width, lot coverage, etc.) ■ effect of site size and shape ■ bulk and scale relationships resulting from lot orientation (e.g. back lot line to back lot line vs. back lot line to side lot line) ■ type and amount of separation between lots in the different zones (e.g. separation by only a property line, by an alley or street, or by other physical features such as grade changes). In some cases, careful siting and design treatment may be sufficient to achieve reasonable transition and mitigation of bulk and scale impacts. Some techniques for Page 11 of 22 Revised by ADB 3/1/06 Packet Page 146 of 195 achieving compatibility are as follows: ■ use of architectural style, details (such as roof lines or fenestration), color or materials that derive from the less intensive zone. (See also Guideline C-1: Architectural Context.) ■ creative use of landscaping or other screening ■ location of features on -site to facilitate transition, such as locating required open space on the zone edge so the building us farther from the lower intensity zone. ■ treating topographic conditions in ways that minimize impacts on neighboring development, such as by using a rockery rather than a retaining wall to give a more human scale to a project, or stepping a project down a hillside. ■ in a mixed -use project, siting the more compatible use near the zone edge. In some cases, reductions in the actual bulk and scale of the proposed structure may be necessary in order to mitigate adverse impacts and achieve an acceptable level of compatibility. Some techniques which can be used in these cases include: ■ articulating the building's facades vertically or horizontally in intervals that conform to existing structures or platting pattern. ■ increasing building setbacks from the zone edge at ground level ■ reducing the bulk of the building's upper floors ■ limiting the length of, or otherwise modifying, facades ■ reducing the height of the structure ■ reducing the number or size of accessory structures. C-1: Architectural Context New buildings proposed for existing neighborhoods with a well-defined and desirable character should be compatible with or complement the architectural character and siting pattern of neighboring buildings. Explanation and Examples Paying attention to architectural characteristics of surrounding buildings, especially historic buildings, can help new buildings be more compatible with their neighbors, especially if a consistent pattern is already established by similar: ■ building articulation ■ building scale and proportion ■ or complementary architectural style • or complementary roof forms ■ building details and fenestration patterns ■ or complementary materials Even where there is no consistent architectural pattern, building design and massing can be used to complement certain physical conditions of existing development. In some cases, the existing context is not so well-defined, or may be undesirable. In such cases, a new project can become a pioneer with the opportunity to establish a pattern or identity from which future development can take its cues. In most cases, especially in the downtown commercial area, Buildings shall convey a visually distinct 'base' and 'top'. Abase' can be emphasized by a different masonry Page 12 of 22 Revised by ADB 3/1/06 Packet Page 147 of 195 pattern, more architectural detail, visible 'plinth' above which the wall rises, storefront, canopies, or a combination. The top edge is highlighted by a prominent cornice, projecting parapet or other architectural element that creates a shadow line. Architectural Features Below are several methods that can help integrate new buildings into the surrounding architectural context, using compatible: architectural features fenestration patterns, and building proportions. Building Articulation Below are several methods in which buildings may be articulated to create intervals which reflect and promote compatibility with their surroundings: ■ modulating the facade by stepping back or extending forward a portion of the facade ■ repeating the window patterns at an interval that equals the articulation interval ■ providing a porch, patio, deck or covered entry for each interval ■ providing a balcony or bay window for each interval ■ changing the roofline by alternating dormers, stepped roofs, gables or other roof elements to reinforce the modulation or articulation interval ■ changing the materials with a change in the building plane ■ providing a lighting fixture, trellis, tree or other landscape feature with each interval C-2: Architectural Concept and Consistency Building design elements, details and massing should create a well-proportioned and unified building form and exhibit an overall architectural concept. Buildings should exhibit form and features identifying the functions within the building. In general, the roofline or top of the structure should be clearly distinguished from its facade walls. Explanation and Examples This guideline focuses on the important design consideration of organizing the many architectural elements of a building into a unified whole, so that details and features can be seen to relate to the structure and not appear as add-ons. The other objective of this guideline is to promote buildings whose form is derived from its function. Buildings which present few or no clues through their design as to what purpose they serve are often awkward architectural neighbors. For example, use of expansive blank walls, extensive use of metal or glass siding, or extremely large or small windows in a residential project may create architectural confusion or disharmony with its neighbors. Conversely, commercial buildings which overly mimic residential styles might be considered inappropriate in some commercial neighborhoods. I top middle base Page 13 of 22 Packet Page 148 of 195 Revised by ADB 3/1/06 Often times, from an architectural design perspective buildings will convey a visually distinct 'base' and 'top'. A 'base' can be emphasized by a different masonry pattern, more architectural detail, visible 'plinth' above which the wall rises, storefront, canopies, or a combination. The top edge is highlighted by a prominent cornice, projecting parapet or other architectural element that creates a shadow line. Other architectural features included in the design of a building may include any number of the following: ■ building modulation or articulation ■ bay windows ■ corner accent, such as a turret ■ garden or courtyard elements (such as a fountain or gazebo) ■ rooflines ■ building entries ■ building base Architectural details may include some of the following: ■ treatment of masonry (such as ceramic tile inlay, paving stones, or alternating brick patterns) ■ treatment of siding (such as wood siding combined with shingles to differentiate floors) ■ articulation of columns ■ sculpture or art work ON ■ architectural lighting�� if ■ detailed grilles and railings ■ special trim details and moldings ■ a trellis or arbor 0 top 0 ase Page 14 of 22 Packet Page 149 of 195 Revised by ADB 3/1/06 C-3: Human Scale The design of new buildings should incorporate architectural features, elements and details to achieve a good human scale. Explanation and Examples The term "human scale" generally refers to the use of human -proportioned architectural features and site design elements clearly oriented to human activity. A building has a good human scale if its details, elements and materials allow people to feel comfortable using and approaching it. Features that give a building human scale also encourage human activity. The following are some of the building elements that may be used to achieve better human scale: ■ pedestrian -oriented open space such as a courtyard, garden, patio, or other unified landscaped areas ■ bay windows extending out from the building face that reflect an internal space such as a room or alcove ■ individual windows in upper stories that o are approximately the size and proportion of a traditional window o include a trim or molding that appears substantial from the sidewalk o are separated from adjacent windows by a vertical element ■ windows grouped together to form larger areas of glazing can have a human scale if individual window units are separated by moldings or jambs ■ windows with small multiple panes of glass ■ window patterns, building articulation and other treatments that help to identify individual residential units in a multi -family building ■ upper story setbacks ■ a porch or covered entry ■ pedestrian weather protection in the form of canopies, awnings, arcades or other elements wide enough to protect at least one person • visible chimneys C-4: Exterior Finish Materials Building exteriors should be constructed of durable and maintainable materials that are attractive even when viewed up close. Materials that have texture, pattern, or lend themselves to a high quality of detailing are encouraged. Explanation and Examples The selection and use of exterior materials is a key ingredient in determining how a building will look. Some materials, by their nature, can give a sense of permanence or can provide texture or scale that helps new buildings fit better in their surroundings. Materials typical to the northwest include: Page 15 of 22 Revised by ADB 3/1/06 Packet Page 150 of 195 • clear or painted wood siding • shingles ■ brick ■ stone • ceramic and terra-cotta tile Many other exterior building materials may be appropriate in multifamily and commercial neighborhoods as long as the materials are appropriately detailed and finished, for instance, to take account of the northwest's climate or be compatible with nearby structures. Some materials, such as mirrored glass, may be more difficult to integrate into residential or neighborhood commercial settings. D-1: Pedestrian Open Spaces and Entrance Convenient and attractive access to the building's entry should be provided. To ensure comfort and security, paths and entry areas should be sufficiently lighted and entry areas should be protected from the weather. Opportunities for creating lively, pedestrian -oriented open space should be considered. Explanation and Examples If a building is set back from the sidewalk, the space between the building and public right-of-way may be conducive to pedestrian or resident activity. In business districts where pedestrian activity is desired, the primary function of any open space between commercial buildings and the sidewalk is to provide visual and physical access into the building and perhaps also to provide a space for additional outdoor activities such as vending, resting, sitting or dining. Street fronts can also feature art work, street furniture and landscaping that invite customers or enhance the building's setting. Where a commercial or mixed -use building is set back from the sidewalk a sufficient distance, pedestrian enhancements should be considered in the resulting street front. Examples of desirable features to include: ■ visual and pedestrian access (including barrier -free access) into the site from the public sidewalk ■ walking surfaces of attractive pavers ■ pedestrian -scaled site lighting ■ areas for vendors in commercial areas ■ landscaping that screens undesirable elements or that enhances the space and architecture ■ signage which identifies uses and shops clearly but which is scaled to the pedestrian ■ site furniture, artwork or amenities such as fountains, benches, pergolas, kiosks, etc. Examples of features to avoid are: ■ asphalt or gravel pavement ■ adjacent unscreened parking lots ■ adjacent chain -link fences ■ adjacent blank walls without appropriate screening Page 16 of 22 Revised by ADB 3/1/06 Packet Page 151 of 195 The following treatment of entrances can provide emphasis and interest: ■ special detailing or architectural features such as ornamental glazing, railings and balustrades, awnings, canopies, decorative pavement, decorative lighting, seats, architectural molding, planter boxes, trellises, artwork signs, or other elements near the doorway. ■ visible signage identifying building address ■ Higher bay(s) ■ Recessed entry (recessed at least 3 feet) ■ Forecourt D-2: Blank Walls Buildings should avoid large blank walls facing the street, especially near sidewalks. Where blank walls are unavoidable they should receive design treatment to increase pedestrian comfort and interest. Explanation and Examples A wall may be considered "large" if it has a blank surface substantially greater in size than similar walls of neighboring buildings. The following examples are possible methods for treating blank walls: ■ installing vertical trellis in front of the wall with climbing vines or plants materials ■ setting the wall back and providing a landscaped or raised planter bed in front of the wall, including plant materials that could grow to obscure or screen the wall's surface ■ providing art (mosaic, mural, decorative masonry pattern, sculpture, relief, etc.) over a substantial portion of the blank wall surface ■ employing small setbacks, indentations, or other means of breaking up the wall's surface ■ providing special lighting, a canopy, horizontal trellis or other pedestrian -oriented features that break up the size of the blank wall's surface and add visual interest ■ An architectural element not listed above, as approved, that meets the intent D-3: Retaining Walls Retaining walls near a public sidewalk that extend higher than eye level should be avoided where possible. Where higher retaining walls are unavoidable, they should be designed to reduce their impact on pedestrian comfort and to increase the visual interest along the streetscapes. Page 17 of 22 lighting fixture opaque glass medallion windows proiecting cornice masonry belt course metal canopy - recess # plinth Blank walls shall be treated with architectural elements to provide visual interest. Packet Page 152 of 195 Explanation and Examples The following are examples of methods to treat retaining walls: ■ any of the techniques or features listed under blank walls above • terracing and landscaping the retaining walls ■ substituting a stone wall, rockery, modular masonry, or special material ■ locating hanging plant materials below or above the wall D-4: Design of Parking Lots Near Sidewalks Parking lots near sidewalks should provide adequate security and lighting, avoid encroachment of vehicles onto the sidewalk, and minimize the visual clutter of parking lot signs and equipment. Explanation and Examples The following examples illustrate some considerations to address in highly visible parking lots: Treatment of parking area perimeter ■ the edges of parking lots pavement adjacent to landscaped areas and other pavement can be unsightly and difficult to maintain. Providing a curb at the perimeter of parking areas can alleviate these problems. Security lighting ■ provide the appropriate levels of lighting to create adequate visibility at night. Evenly distributed lighting increases security, and glare -free lighting reduces impacts on nearby property. Encroachment of cars onto the sidewalk without wheel stops or a low wall, parked cars can hang over sidewalks. One technique to protect landscaped and pedestrian areas from encroachment by parked cars is to provide a wide wheel stop about two feet from the sidewalk. Another technique is to widen a sidewalk or planting bed basically "building in" a wheel stop into the sidewalk or planting bed. This is more durable than wheel stops, does not catch debris and reduces tripping hazards. Signs and equipment ■ reduce sign clutter by painting markings on the pavement or by consolidating signs. Provide storage that is out of view from the sidewalk and adjacent properties for moveable or temporary equipment like sawhorses or barrels. Screening of parking screening of parking areas need not be uniform along the property frontage. Variety in the type and relative amount of screening may be appropriate. screen walls constructed of durable, attractive materials need not extend above waist level. Screen walls across a street or adjacent to a residential zone could also include landscaping or a trellis or grillwork with climbing vines. screening can be designed to provide clear visibility into parking areas to promote personal safety. Page 18 of 22 Revised by ADB 3/1/06 Packet Page 153 of 195 D-5: Visual Impacts of Parking Structures The visibility of all at -grade parking structures or accessory parking garages should be minimized. The parking portion of a structure should be architecturally compatible with the rest of the structure and streetscape. Open parking spaces and carports should be screened from the street and adjacent properties. Explanation and Examples The following examples illustrate various methods of improving the appearance of at - grade parking structures: ■ incorporating pedestrian -oriented uses at street level can reduce the visual impact of parking structures in commercial areas. Sometimes a depth of only 10 feet along the front of the building is enough to provide space for newsstands, ticket booths, flower shops and other viable uses. ■ setting the parking structure back from the sidewalk and installing dense landscaping ■ incorporating any of the blank wall treatments listed in Guideline D-2 ■ visually integrating the parking structure with adjacent buildings ■ continuing a frieze, cornice, canopy, overhang, trellis or other devices at the top of the parking level ■ incorporating into the parking structure a well -lit pedestrian walkway, stairway or ramp from the sidewalk to the upper level of the building ■ setting back a portion of the parking structure to allow for the retention of an existing significant tree ■ using a portion of the top of the larking level as an outdoor deck, patio or garden with a rail, bench or other guard device around the perimeter D-6: Screening of Dumpsters, Utilities, and Service Areas Building sites should locate service elements like trash dumpsters, loading docks and mechanical equipment away from the street front where possible. When elements such as dumpsters, utility meters, mechanical units and service areas cannot be located away from the street front, they should be situated and screened from view and should not be located in the pedestrian right-of-way. Explanation and Examples Unsightly service elements can detract from the compatibility of new projects and create hazards for pedestrians and autos. The following examples illustrate considerations to address in locating and screening service areas and utilities: ■ plan the feature in a less visible location on the site ■ screen it to be less visible. For example, a utility meter can be located behind a screen wall so that it is not visible from the building entrance. ■ use durable materials that complement the building ■ incorporate landscaping to make the screen more effective ■ locate the opening to the area away from the sidewalk. ■ incorporate roof wells, utility rooms or other features to accommodate utility and mechanical equipment needs. Page 19 of 22 Revised by ADB 3/1/06 Packet Page 154 of 195 D-7: Personal Safety and Security Project design should consider opportunities for enhancing personal safety and security in the environment under review. Explanation and Examples Project design should be reviewed for its contribution to. enhancing the real and perceived feeling of personal safety and security within the environment under review. To do this, the question needs to be answered: do the design elements detract from or do they reinforce feelings of security of the residents, workers, shoppers and visitors who enter the area? Techniques that can help promote safety include the 4 following: ■ providing adequate lighting ■ retaining clear lines of site ■ use of semi -transparent security screening, rather than opaque walls, where appropriate ■ avoiding blank, windowless walls that attract graffiti and that do not permit residents or workers to observe the street ■ use of landscaping that maintains visibility, such as short shrubs and pruning trees, so there are no branches below head height ■ creative use of ornamental grille as fencing or over ground floor windows in some locations ■ absence of structures that provide hiding places for criminal activity ■ design of parking areas to allow natural surveillance by maintaining clear lines of sight both for those who park there and for occupants of nearby buildings ■ clear directional signage ■ encouraging "eyes on the street" through placement of windows, balconies and street -level uses ■ ensuring natural surveillance of children's play areas. E-1: Landscaping to Reinforce Design Continuity with Adjacent Sites Where possible, and where there is not another overriding concern, landscaping should reinforce the character of neighboring properties and abutting streetscape. Explanation and Examples Several ways to reinforce the landscape design character of the local neighborhood are listed below: Street Trees / If a street has a uniform planting of street trees, or a distinctive species, plant street trees that match the planting pattern or species. Similar Plant Materials When many lots on a block feature similar landscape materials, emphasis on these materials will help a new project fit into the local context. Page 20 of 22 Packet Page 155 of 195 Revised by ADB 3/1/06 ■ Similar construction materials, textures, colors or elements Extending a low brick wall, using paving similar to a neighbor's or employing similar stairway construction are ways to achieve design continuity. E-2: Landscaping to Enhance the Building and/or Site Landscaping, including living plant material, special pavements, approach, screen walls, planters, site furniture and similar features should be appropriately incorporated into the design to enhance the project. Examples Landscape enhancements of the site may include some of the approaches or features listed below: ■ Soften the form of the building by screening blank" walls, terracing retaining walls, etc. ■ Increase privacy and security through screening and/or sharing. ■ Provide a framework such as a trellis or arbor for plants to grow on. ■ Incorporate a planter guard or low planter wall as part of the architecture. ■ Distinctively landscape open areas created by building modulation. ■ Incorporate upper story planter boxes or roof planters. ■ Include a special feature such as a courtyard, fountain or pool. ■ Emphasize entries with special planting in conjunction with decorative paving and/or lighting. • Screen a building from view by its neighbors, or an existing use from the new building. E-3: Landscape Design to Address Special Site Conditions The landscape design should take advantage of special on - site conditions such as high -bank front yards, steep slopes, view corridors, or existing significant trees and off -site conditions such as greenbelts, ravines, natural areas, and boulevards. Explanation and Examples The following conditions may merit special attention. The examples suggest some ways to address the issue. High Bank Front Yards, Where the building's ground floor is elevated above a sidewalk pedestrian's eye level, landscaping can help make the transition between grades. Several techniques are listed below. ■ rockeries with floral displays, live ground cover or shrubs. ■ terraces with floral displays, ground covers or shrubs. ■ low retaining walls with raised planting strips. ■ stone or brick masonry walls with vines or shrubs. Barrier -free Access Where wheelchair ramps must be provided on a street front, the ramp structure might include a planting strip on the sidewalk side of the elevated portions of the ramp. Page 21 of 22 Revised by ADB 3/1/06 Packet Page 156 of 195 Steep Topography Special plantings or erosion control measures may be necessary to prevent site destabilization or to enhance the visual qualities of the site in connection with a neighborhood improvement program. Boulevards Incorporate landscaping which reflects and reinforces . Greenbelt or Other Natural Setting ■ Minimize the removal of significant trees. ■ Replace trees that were removed with new trees. ■ Emphasize naturalizing or native landscape materials. ■ Retain natural greenbelt vegetation that contributes to greenbelt preservation. ■ Select colors that are more appropriate to the natural setting. On -site Vegetation ■ Retain significant vegetation where possible. ■ Use new plantings similar to vegetation removed during construction, when that vegetation as distinctive. Page 22 of 22 Revised by ADB 3/1/06 Packet Page 157 of 195 Current Process Summary/Suggestions Design Review for Major Projects (Optional) (Optional) SEPA / I I Application to Optional Staf�' Optional ADB Staff Review ADB Public b �l� PreAp Mtg / I Prelim Review r City & Report Hearing J �Y' '---�---' .J Conceptual Detailed Design I I Design • Redesign • I L- — — — — — — — — — — 1 I (Optional) I-------------------- - — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Project Denied Proposed New Review Process SEPA determination Design Checklist ' ' established Design Conditions '7 1 MEN 15-111 Required First ADB Public a,10 Meeting w/ ADB 10 Hearing (Hearing Phase 1) Phase 2 Conceptual Design I I ♦ ''►--L------V — Redesign I�— I— — — —_. (Optional) I I I I I— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Project Denied Packet Page 158 of 195 Appeal? Detailed Design Appeal? N%�>—Nooj Permit Approved Yes Project Approved Design Guidelines History and Timeline 1993 Anderson v. Issaquah court decision. Edmonds' Ordinance is identical to Issaquah's, and has the same problems. 1993-1999 Initial set of Design Guidelines adopted to "fill the gap" created by Anderson v. Issaquah. Goal is to gradually expand detail, and vary guidelines by zone/area of the City 1999 Consultant, Cedar River Associates, completes study of Edmonds' design review process. Consultant recommends change in process, moving design review to the beginning of the process. Emphasizes need for better design guidelines. 2000 Consultant, Cascade Design, drafts design guidelines and process amendments. Accepted by the City Council in November, 2000, for formal city review. 2001-2002 After holding a total of six public hearings, Planning Board recommends design guidelines and implementing code amendments to Council in July, 2002. City Council holds work session and public hearing in Sept -October 2002, and "tables" the guidelines on October 1, 2002. Guidelines are referred to CS/DS Committee on October 29, 2002. 2003 After a recommendation from the CS/DS Committee and a public hearing, City Council adopts updated design standards for signs in July, 2003. 2005 Following adoption of the city's updated comprehensive plan in March, 2005, Council holds discussions in April and May with urban design consultant Mark Hinshaw refining design guidelines for downtown buildings. Council holds joint meeting with ADB on August 23, 2005, and forwards guidelines (including Hinshaw revisions) to ADB for review and recommendation. 2006 ADB reports to Council on March 7, 2006, with its recommendations on design guidelines. Council sets hearing date for March 21, 2006. On June 6, 2006, Council refers proposal for "up front" design review and design guidelines to Planning Board for review. Packet Page 159 of 195 At the direction of the City Council, a consultant, Cedar River Associates, completed a study in 1999 of the city's design review process. Among the study's conclusions was a strong recommendation to adopt updated design guidelines that provided more specific guidance than the inadequate guidelines contained in current city codes. As a result of the Cedar River study, a professional architectural firm (Cascade Design Collaborative) was hired to draft a set of design guidelines. Cascade Design had experience in both public and private development in multiple jurisdictions. The initial set of draft guidelines developed by Cascade Design was accepted by the Council in November 2000 for formal review by the Planning Board. During the Planning Board's review, the Board held 3 joint meetings and work sessions with the ADB, held 6 public hearings, and included thorough involvement by the development community through its stakeholders group. Draft design guidelines for the city were recommended by the Planning Board at the end of 2001, after holding work sessions and public hearings during the previous year. Following their work on the design guidelines, the Planning Board also developed a set of code amendments intended to implement the guidelines and streamline the design review process. This work was completed during the first half of 2002. In October, 2002, after holding its own work session and public hearing, the City Council initially "tabled" the guidelines and code amendments, and ultimately referred the draft guidelines to the Council's Community Services/Development Services Committee for further action. During 2003, portions of the code amendments and guidelines related to signs were considered, resulting in changes to the city's sign code to provide additional guidance and improve the design review process for signage. The City Council formally "untabled" the design guidelines during a joint meeting with the ADB in March, 2004. Additional discussions by Council have occurred since that time, with the most recent discussions indicating an interest in considering the design guidelines further after the Council completed its update of the Comprehensive Plan. In its efforts to implement the comprehensive plan and sort out issues regarding building design and building heights, the City Council has identified adopting a set of design guidelines as a high priority. As noted above, the Planning Board forwarded a draft set of design guidelines at the end of 2001. Design objectives from these original draft guidelines were included as policy statements in the comprehensive plan update adopted earlier this year, with some changes made to more clearly differentiate how downtown design differed from other parts of the city (specifically, a set of objectives were adopted for downtown in the Downtown Waterfront Activity Center section of the document, and a second set of objectives pertaining to other parts of the city were adopted as part of the Community Culture and Urban Design element of the plan). More recent discussions occurred in April and May 2005 with a consultant, Mark Hinshaw of LMN Architects, and resulted in some recommended changes to the draft design guidelines. Mr. Hinshaw suggested that some of the draft guidelines were more appropriately considered code amendments, and that design guidelines should be less lengthy and more focused on critical aspects of design. Mr. Hinshaw also produced some recommended guidelines for downtown buildings. The Council responded favorably to these suggestions, and asked staff to attempt to integrate Mr. Hinshaw's recommendations into the current draft of the city's design guidelines. On August 23, 2005, City Council held joint discussion with members of the ADB on the revised set of design guidelines. The conclusion from this meeting was for the ADB to review the draft design guidelines and provide their recommendations back to the Council. The ADB reported to Council on March 7, 2006, with the ADB recommending a substantially revised set of guidelines. This prompted a discussion on the relationship of design guidelines to the design review process, and the role of the ADB in design review. After a public hearing on March 21, 2006, on June 6, 2006, the City Council referred consideration of an "up front" design review process together with the ADB-drafted design guidelines to the Planning Board for review and recommendation. Packet Page 160 of 195 The Board discussed that age is not the only criteria used to identify structures of historic significance. Mr. Snyder explained that in order to encourage the preservation of truly historic structures, the City must offer incentives to owners who place their properties on the Edmonds Register of Historic Places. Rather than just addressing the preservation of historic structures, most of the staff s comments have been about the reuse of structures in a way that preserves the existing fabric of the community, such as the size of homes, the scale, and the way neighborhoods are put together. He advised that the 1980 code changed a variety of zoning and setback standards by using a cookie -cutter approach. It was assumed that through abatement and very strict non -conforming provisions, things would be get homogenized to look like the conceptual plan. However, because the City is fully built out, the philosophy must be different. They must now consider opportunities for preserving the look, texture and feel of the City as opposed to achieving specific setback requirements. Chair Guenther said they must also consider opportunities to replace existing uses within residential areas with other uses that are vital to the neighborhood. Mr. Snyder said he lives in the central district of Seattle, where many of the structures were previously used for commercial purposes. Now the commercial uses are coming back to the neighborhood. The Board took a break at 9:00 p.m. They reconvened at 9:05 p.m. REVIEW OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE TO AMEND ECDC CHAPTER 20.60 SIGN CODE (FILE NUMBER AMD-2007-2) Mr. McIntosh thanked Chair Guenther for participating on the selection committee for the 6-Year Parks, Recreation and Open Space Comprehensive Plan. Four consulting firms were interviewed. He advised that staff would provide updates to the Board periodically as the project progresses. Mr. McIntosh explained that for several years the community has expressed interest in having a third location to publicize community events. He noted that the City used to have five locations, but now they have only two as a result of the new PUD restrictions. Staff has identified a suitable new site for installing poles for pole -mounted community event banners on the Public Works property on the north side of 212th Street. However, installation has been delayed because the current sign code does not address special situations where poles are located on City property. Mr. McIntosh referred the Board to Page 2 of the proposed ordinance. He advised that, as proposed, the first paragraph of Section 20.60.005 would be added to address community event banners. He explained that the City's current policy for street banners is about 25 years old, so updates would likely be necessary to match the proposed amendment. Board Member Works questioned why "cloth, fabric and canvas" must all be used to describe the types of materials that could be utilized for the banners. Mr. McIntosh said the intent was to include all of the different types of materials that could be used. He agreed that cloth, fabric and canvas are synonymous. He noted that most of the current banners are plastic, with cloth for reinforcement. Mr. McIntosh noted that the proposed sign code amendment requires a public hearing before the Board and a recommendation to the City Council. He requested the Board conduct the public hearing on February 10, and the Board agreed. CONTINUED DELIBERATIONS ON CODE UPDATES REQUIRED TO INTEGRATE GUIDELINES AND REVISED DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS INTO THE DEVELOPMENT CODE (FROM PUBLIC HEARING HELD ON DECEMBER 13, 2006) Mr. Chave referred the Board to the documentation that was attached to memorandums from staff dated January loth and January 24th. He reminded the Board that when they previously held a public hearing and discussed this issue on December 13th, they agreed to have further discussion on the suggestions made by ADB Board Member Utt regarding monotonous buildings. They also agreed to consider applicant submission requirements that could be incorporated into the code. Planning Board Minutes January 24, 2007 Page 8 Packet Page 161 of 195 Mr. Chave explained that when the City Council and Architectural Design Board (ADB) reviewed the Old Mill Town project proposal, they struggled with the issue of long and monotonous buildings. While the City's current code states that long, massive, unbroken or monotonous buildings shall be avoided, the consensus was that the statement was not well defined. In addition, the statement likely means different things in different areas of the City. He suggested it would be appropriate for the Board to consider changes to address this issue as part of their review of amendments required to integrate the design guidelines into the Development Code. Mr. Chave advised that the green document outlines some of the language that had been in previous versions of the design guidelines that talked about long, massive, and monotonous buildings. Staff s goal was to illustrate a few ways to address the issue in the design code. He referred to the proposed language in the middle of Page 2, which provides a list of ways to deal with monotonous buildings. The proposed language at the bottom of Page 2 talks about how the concept could be included in the standards for the downtown business zones. Chair Guenther noted that the proposed new language is similar to the language that was included in the Design Guidelines that were put together by the Board about five years ago. He said he likes the proposed language because it provides a menu of items to use to break up the monotony and provide punctuation. Board Member Works said the proposed language is not clear about whether all of the treatments on the list must be incorporated into a project. She expressed her concern that if a project were required to include all of the elements, a building could become too busy. Commissioner Freeman agreed. Mr. Chave indicated that an applicant would not be required to provide all of the elements on the proposed list. The Board agreed this should be made clearer. Board Member Freeman expressed her concern that the term "monotonous" has gotten the City into trouble in the past. She suggested that the term monotonous be deleted, since it has different meanings to different people. Board Member Freeman referred to Item a.v, which states that exterior walls longer than 50 feet must jog at least 2 feet. She suggested this would be too prescriptive. She asked what buildings currently in downtown Edmonds would be unable to conform to this proposed requirement. She noted that the building across from the post office would not be in compliance with the requirement, yet it is a very nice building. The fagade of the new Edmonds Performing Arts Center also has a smooth curved fagade that is longer than 60 feet. Would the proposed language require a jog in this fagade? Chair Guenther pointed out that a jog is only one of the design elements available to an applicant to break up the monotony of a building. In fact, he suggested it would probably be one of the least used elements. Board Member Young expressed his belief that the language proposed by staff is well written, and it would be easy for the ADB to interpret. It does not state that all of the items must be included in the building design. He stated that monotonous is a fairly easy term for the ADB to enforce, using a variety of the items on the list. He summarized that the proposed language provides ideas for architects to work with, without being so prescriptive that creativity is stifled. Chair Guenther explained that, typically, the rear and sides of a building create the most problem in terms of monotony. Therefore, he suggested that choices for breaking up the building must be simple to apply. Vice Chair Dewhirst pointed out that application of each of the design elements on the list could result in something different for each project. How the design elements on the list are applied is more important than which design elements are utilized. Mr. Chave reminded the Board that the proposed language would only apply to areas that do not require the new upfront ADB process. He explained that the proposed language related to the downtown was provided for possible insertion into the downtown BD zones that were recently adopted by the City Council. In addition, the Historic Preservation Commission is working on some design standards for the downtown zones, and they will report back to the City Council on their progress. Potentially, that material could end up before the Planning Board as a modification or addition to the BD zones. Rather than adding language related to the BD zone at this time, the Board could forward a recommendation to the City Council to insert the language into the BD zones. The Board discussed the possibility of changing the language to make it clear that the list of design elements was provided as examples of elements that could be used to break up blank walls and not all of the design elements on the list must be utilized. The applicant would be able to choose those that are appropriate for their building design. At the suggestion of Planning Board Minutes January 24, 2007 Page 9 Packet Page 162 of 195 Board Member Reed, the Board agreed to change Paragraph A to read, "In RM or Commercial zones, selections from among the following or similar features may be appropriate for dealing with this criterion." The Board agreed to this change. Board Member Freeman referred to Item v, which would require a jog of at least 2 feet for exterior walls longer than 60 feet. She reminded the Board of Mark Hinshaw's December article regarding design standards and guidelines, which states that if numbers are used at all, they should be expressed in ranges to allow for built-in flexibility. She suggested that Item v seems to run counter to what Mr. Hinshaw recommends. The Board agreed to drop Item v from the proposed language. The Board discussed Board Member Freeman's earlier suggestion to delete the word "monotonous." Chair Guenther said the purpose of the section is also to break up buildings so they are not one continuous tone. Therefore, he would like to maintain the word "monotonous." The majority of the Board concurred. Mr. Chave referred the Board to the yellow document, which provides suggested applicant submission requirements to incorporate into the code language for the new upfront design review process, where a two-part hearing would be conducted. Part 1 of the hearing would be very conceptual in nature and would involve coming up with a checklist of criteria that would be important to the project. In Part 2 of the hearing the applicant would come back to the ADB with their alternatives, massing plans, etc. The designs would still be fairly conceptual, but more details would be required. Building plans would come later in the design review process. Vice Chair Dewhirst asked why the applicant submission requirements should be made part of the code. He expressed his concern about including this type of information as code language because changes would require a significant amount of work. Mr. Chave said the original draft did not include a list of the submission requirements. He said the current code structure makes reference to staff adopting, by rule, the specific application requirements, and the City Attorney has indicated it is important to provide a list of at least the minimum application standards. That way, if an applicant challenges the date when their application was completed, the City would be in a much stronger position to defend if they could point to the code and the things an applicant is required to submit. Vice Chair Dewhirst pointed out that there is nothing on the list that would require the applicant to submit information about height or environmentally sensitive areas. The list of required information should also include pedestrian access and connectivity to surrounding properties. Board Member Reed summarized that the list of application submittal requirements identifies the items necessary in order for the ADB to complete their review of the Design Guidelines Checklist found on pages 3 and 4 of the Draft Design Guidelines. Board Member Reed recalled ADB Board Member Utt's suggestion that a list of application submission requirements should be created. He reminded the Board that they agreed to postpone forwarding a recommendation to the City Council to allow staff to propose a list of submission requirements for the Board to consider for inclusion in the draft code language. The Board discussed that, as proposed by staff, only a vicinity plan and a conceptual site plan would be required for the Part 1 Hearing. Submission of 3-dimensional sketches would be optional. They discussed that without requiring more information, it would be difficult for the ADB to determine which guidelines are most applicable, especially those related to architectural elements and materials, pedestrian environment, and landscaping. Mr. Chave noted that, at the time of a Part 1 Hearing, the applicant would not likely be at the stage of even having a sketch of the building design. Hopefully, they are considering multiple options for design and have not come up with a solution. Chair Guenther said that a conceptual site plan would at least identify the footprint, the location of parking and sidewalks, etc. If the intent is to allow an applicant to present multiple schemes, they would have to submit multiple conceptual site plans, as well. Mr. Chave pointed out that while an applicant would only be required to submit one vicinity plan, they would have to provide a conceptual plan for all concepts being considered. The Board agreed that a 3-dimensional sketch should also be required. They also agreed that the required vicinity plan should identify all environmentally sensitive features. Mr. Chave explained that it was difficult for the staff to identify what the minimal submittal requirements for the Part 2 Hearing should be. They tried to figure out the minimum information required without the applicant going to so much trouble that they become locked into a specific design. Mr. Chave said staff proposes that a conceptual utility plan be required to show access to areas reserved for water, sewer, storm, electrical power, and fire connections and/or hydrants. The goal is to get the applicants to start thinking about how they will deal with utilities without getting into the detailed Planning Board Minutes January 24, 2007 Page 10 Packet Page 163 of 195 design. The danger is that as applicants get further into their plans, they might find that some of the initial utility ideas won't work. He noted that how utilities are brought onto the site has a lot to do with how a site is designed and how buildings are oriented. Board Member Young suggested that requiring a conceptual utility plan might not be necessary. With the exception of recycling and garbage, the utilities would not be visible after construction has occurred. These issues should be adequately addressed by the project architect and submitted to the City for review, so there would be no need for the ADB to be involved. Mr. Chave pointed out that if an applicant does not think about how utilities would be brought onto the site, they could end up with a huge conflict that could significantly alter the design. Chair Guenther agreed that a conceptual utility plan would not really contribute to the ADB's evaluation process but is something the architect should consider as part of the design process. Vice Chair Dewhirst suggested the goal is to make sure very basic issues have been considered and their implications on the design have been assessed to avoid significant site design changes later in the design process. Chair Guenther said that in an ideal project, one of the first things an architect would request from the property owner is a survey of the property. He would ask for the contours and the location of curbs, sidewalks, easements, utilities, etc. Instead of requiring a conceptual utility plan, the City could ask for a site survey to answer the basic questions. Board Member Bowman said that having recently remodeled a building in Edmonds, they overlooked a lot and experienced a lot of surprises. If they had been required to provide more detailed information at the beginning of the design review process, many of these items would have been caught. Mr. Chave said the Engineering Department expressed concern that if the City requires an applicant to go through the design review process, they should make sure they are at least thinking about utility issues, etc. Mr. Chave advised that the Engineering Department would be responsible for reviewing conceptual utility plans and providing feedback to the ADB. Board Member Reed pointed out that Item B.1 is the same document in even less detail than what is required in Item A.2. He suggested Item B.1 be changed to require whatever conceptual design was presented at the first hearing. This would eliminate the need for repetition. The remainder of the Board agreed to incorporate this change. Board Member Reed suggested that the title of Item B be changed to "Hearing Part 2 — Conceptual Site and Building Design Approval Conditions." The remainder of the Board concurred. BOARD MEMBER YOUNG MOVED THAT THE CODE UPDATES REQUIRED TO INTEGRATE THE DESIGN GUIDELINES AND REVISED DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS IN THE DEVELOPMENT CODE BE FORWARDED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AS AMENDED, WITH A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL. VICE CHAIR DEWHIRST SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA Mr. Chave requested an opportunity to meet with the Chair and/or Vice Chair to discuss the upcoming extended agenda. The only scheduled item is a public hearing on the proposed amendment to the sign code as discussed earlier in the meeting. They must schedule out the code amendments presented by Mr. Bowman and Mr. Snyder. They must also schedule out the Shoreline Master Plan Program work. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS Chair Guenther did not make any comments during this portion of the meeting. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS Board Member Young noted that the agenda for the January 10th meeting that was cancelled included information about the National Main Streets Conference in Seattle in March. He noted that the City does have some money to pay the registration Planning Board Minutes January 24, 2007 Page 11 Packet Page 164 of 195 THE MOTION CARRIED 3-2, WITH BOARD MEMBERS HENDERSON, REED, AND YOUNG VOTING IN FAVOR AND CHAIR FREEMAN AND BOARD MEMBER GUENTHER VOTING IN OPPOSITION. Mr. Chave advised that this item would go before the City Council for a public hearing sometime in January. Everyone who signed up on the list at the door would be sent a notice. PUBLIC HEARING ON CODE UPDATES REQUIRED TO INTEGRATE DESIGN GUIDELINES AND REVISED DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS INTO THE DEVELOPMENT CODE Mr. Chave referred the Board to the current draft of the revised design review process and the draft design guidelines. He specifically noted the flow chart, which summarizes and compares the proposed "new" or "Up -Front" design review process with the current one employed by the City. Under the proposal, there would be two options for design review: general design review subject to the provisions of Chapter 20.11 and district -based design review subject to the provisions of Chapter 20.12. He explained that "general design review" would essentially be design review as it has been done for many years now. The "district -based design review" is a new process that would be applied to more and more areas of the City, eventually entirely replacing the current system as more specific design standards are incorporated into the City's codes and neighborhood -based plans. He summarized that District -based design review would push the Architectural Design Board review of a project to earlier in the design stage before designs are more final in nature. It would be applicable when an area or district has adopted design guidelines or design standards that apply specifically within the area or district. General design review would apply to areas or properties that do not have specifically adopted design guidelines or standards. Board Member Reed noted that with the existing general design review process, public hearings do not occur at the beginning of the process. Mr. Chave explained that public hearings are required under the existing code for any project that exceeds the SEPA threshold. In order to gain ADB approval under the current review process, an applicant must provide a tremendous amount of design details. Therefore, the public hearing is not conducted until closer to the end of the design process when applicants are typically well along in their design phase. The new process in Chapter 20.12 would place the ADB review before the detailed designs are done. This would allow applicants to talk to the ADB about general issues such as massing before they get too far into the design process. Mr. Chave further explained that the new process outlined in Chapter 20.12 would include preliminary review of simple drawings. The second review would be done when more of the conceptual drawings were available. Board Member Guenther said that, using the new process, a developer would likely come to the ADB with a schematic design to address issues such as massing, access, etc. Mr. Chave added that the applicant could even present multiple options at the preliminary review. Mr. Chave referred the Board to the design guidelines that were created by the Architectural Design Board. He explained that although the document has been ready for Board review and a public hearing since March of 2006, staff has been waiting for direction from the City Council about what the new design review process should be. Al Rutledge said he supports the proposed design review process and the proposed design guidelines. However, he cautioned that the Board should be careful about allowing the City staff to make too many of the decisions without holding public hearings. Rick Utt, Chairman Pro Tem of the Architectural Design Board, referred to the flow chart provided in the Staff Report to illustrate the current and proposed new design review processes. He explained that the new design review process would require applicants to present their plans to the staff and ADB for review early in the design phase when the plans are preliminary. With the current design review process, applicants are typically very far along in the design phase before projects are ever presented to the ADB for review. Oftentimes, they have already hired architects, engineers, landscape architects, etc. and have invested a significant amount of time and money. There is always a significant risk that the Board will not approve the project as presented. As an architect, he said he supports the proposed new design review process, which would be much more efficient. Planning Board Minutes December 13, 2006 Page 13 Packet Page 165 of 195 Mr. Utt reviewed that with the proposed new design review process, an applicant would present conceptual drawings to the ADB for review to identify the building concept and establish the setbacks, bulk, etc. The ADB would conduct a public hearing at which the public would be invited to express their concerns. The ADB would consider these concerns and review the checklist to identify any issues and priorities that must be addressed by the applicant before a final design would be approved by the City. The applicant would be responsible for making the necessary changes to address the issues raised at the first hearing. Another public hearing would be conducted on the more detailed design proposal, and the public would have one more opportunity to provide input. The SEPA Review could then be conducted and the applicants could bring on board their engineers, architects, etc. to complete the final design elements that are required for a building permit. Again, he expressed his belief that the proposed new design review process would be much more efficient. Mr. Utt said he would like a checklist to be added to either the proposed code language or to the design guidelines to standardize the list of materials an applicant must submit for preliminary and final design review. At this time, there is a considerable amount of inconsistency in what is presented to the ADB because there is no criterion to identify what the ADB expects to see with each application. Mr. Chave referred to Chapter 20.11 which states that staff would develop a list of uniform submission requirements. He explained that the City Attorney has said he would prefer this list be included in the code, but the list has not been developed at this point in time. Mr. Utt referred to ECDC 20.13.020.E, which would require irrigation for all ADB-approved landscaped areas for all projects that have more than 4 dwelling units, 4,000 square feet of building area, or more than 20 parking spaces. He proposed that this section be changed to state that irrigation would be.required for all ADB-approved landscaped areas for all projects that exceed the SEPA threshold requirement. The Board concurred with this recommendation. Mr. Utt referred to Page 7 of the design guidelines and noted that a section called "Treating Blank Walls" is referenced twice. However, there is no section in the proposed design guidelines called "Treating Blank Walls." He also referred to Item D-2 on Page 17 of the design guidelines which references Pages 8 and 9 for guidelines for blank walls, He suggested that these two sections be changed to clearly indicate where information regarding "Treating Blank Walls" could be found in the document. Next, Mr. Utt referred to ECDC 20.11.030.A.4 which states that long, massive, unbroken or monotonous buildings shall be avoided. In addition, he noted that the design guidelines speak about monotonous or blank walls, etc. However, nothing specific was provided in either the code language or the design guidelines to indicate what would constitute a long, massive, monotonous building. There is nothing to indicate what the setback requirement should be in order to break up blank walls, either. He suggested that a minimum setback requirement should be identified in either the code or the design guidelines. In addition, criteria to establish what is considered massive or monotonous should also be provided. Board Member Young recalled that he participated on the ADB for six or seven years. During that time, there were no exact numbers to identify what is massive. He suggested that Mr. Utt is looking for a very prescriptive formula that would eliminate the need for an ADB review. Mr. Utt agreed that the code and design guidelines must allow some flexibility, but there must also be some guidance for applying the standards. Board Member Young suggested that Mr. Utt provide some recommended language for the Board to consider. Mr. Utt suggested that verbiage and additional illustrations would be helpful to address the issue. Mr. Chave reminded the Board that the City Council is anxiously awaiting a recommendation from them regarding the design guidelines and the design review process. He suggested the Board could give staff some guidance to tweak the language an then forward it to the City Council for a public hearing. Another option would be to hold off on their recommendation until the Board has had an opportunity to review the updated documents. To address the issue of long, monotonous buildings, Mr. Chave suggested the Board could review the original draft design guidelines that were created in 2001 to see if exact numbers were provided for setbacks, etc. Board Member Guenther referred to the August 2001 draft of the design guidelines, which actually addressed the issue of massing by dividing projects into two different categories, large projects and small projects. 1 Planning Board Minutes December 13, 2006 Page 14 Packet Page 166 of 195 Board Member Reed pointed out that the code language places quite an emphasis on the using the term "shall" instead of "should." However, the design guidelines use more "shoulds" than "shalls." He said he suspects this was done because it is important to provide as much flexibility as possible in the design guidelines. Mr. Utt agreed and explained that the ADB reviewed the document and very specifically considered all of the "shalls" and "shoulds." Where the term "shall" is used, the ADB felt it was important enough to make the provision a definite requirement. Tony Shapira said he welcomes the notion of design review taking place earlier in the process. This would be a more conducive and cost effective way of evaluation and getting City input. Placing ADB review at the end of the sequence consumes a lot of extra time on the part of the applicant. He concluded that he supports the proposed new design review process. THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Board Member Young left the meeting at 10:10 p.m. The Board directed staff to make the changes that were discussed and bring the document back to the Board for final review and action at the January 10, 2007 meeting. Mr. Chave indicated that he would attempt to get the updated draft documents to each Board member in early January. He asked that Board Members provide their final comments to staff as soon as possible so that changes could be made to the documents before the January I Oa' meeting. ELECTION OF OFFICERS The Board agreed to defer the election of officers until the first meeting in January. REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA Chair Freeman advised that final review of the draft design guidelines and design review process documents was scheduled for January 10, 2007. The January 10t" meeting agenda would also include an update on the Shoreline Master Program Project, a review and discussion on the process to develop neighborhood business district zoning to implement neighborhood plans, and a review of the non -conforming regulations. The Board would also elect new officers on January 10th. Board Member Reed asked that staff provide a schedule to outline their plans for reviewing the Edmonds Community Development Code in 2007. Mr. Chave indicated he would ask Mr. Bowman to provide this information to the Board. Board Member Reed asked if it would be appropriate for Board Members to request feedback from City Council Members regarding their position on code rewrite items. Mr. Chave indicated that when Mr. Bowman presents the non -conforming regulations to the Board, he would also provide information regarding the City Council's direction on the matter. However, because the code rewrite is a legislative item, Board Members could solicit comments from City Council Members. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS Chair Freeman referred the Board to an article that was published in the American Planning Association Magazine in December 2006. The article was written by Mark Hinshaw and titled "Re -Forming Regulations: What It Takes to Encourage Downtown Housing. " In the article, Mr. Hinshaw made reference to his work with the City of Edmonds when he stated, "Nothing agitates neighborhood groups more than the prospect of a "tall" building in their vicinity. But height is relative. I once worked with a community where a controversy raged over whether to allow downtown building height to be increased from 30 feet to 33 feet —a difference of three feet? Many vocal citizens feared that the increased height would allow "high rises. " Entire public meetings were devoted to this issue, That city is still locked in verbal warfare today. " In response to this article, Chair Freeman prepared and read the following statement into the record: • i 1 Planning Board Minutes December 13, 2006 Page 15 Packet Page 167 of 195 AUDIENCE COMMENTS There was no one in the audience who expressed a desire to address the Board during this portion of the meeting. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING ON MINOR TEXT AND MAP CORRECTIONS AND UPDATES TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (FILE NUMBER CDC-064) Mr. Chave reminded the Board that, at their last meeting, they continued the public hearing on the minor text and map corrections to update the Comprehensive Plan to allow them to review the updated draft document. He referred the Board to the new draft language, which includes all of the corrections identified by the Board and staff to date. Chair Freeman referred to Item d in the middle of Page 38 and noted that she recommended a new sentence be added to read: "Within the Retail Core, no new curb cuts shall be allowed and there shall be no requirement to provide on -site parking." Mr. Chave also noted that changes were made to the last paragraph on Page 37 (Planned Residential -Office) to address the concerns raised by the Board at the last meeting. John Reed pointed out that the new downtown zoning ordinance is currently in limbo at the City Council level. The City Council would not make a decision on the new ordinance until after the ADB appeal related to Old Mill Town has been resolved. Therefore, he suggested it would be premature for the Board to make a recommendation on the minor amendments to the Downtown Plan and Comprehensive Plan Map. He summarized that it would be difficult for the Board to recommend Comprehensive Plan changes that are consistent before they know what final action the City Council would take on the zoning ordinance related to the proposed new BD zones. Mr. Chave explained that the development regulations currently before the City Council represent a slight modification of the existing Comprehensive Plan language. Since the City is in the process of updating the Comprehensive Plan this year, it would be timely for the Board to forward some draft language for the City Council to consider to make the Comprehensive Plan consistent with the zoning ordinance adopted by the City Council. If the Board were to forward a recommendation to the City Council now, the City Council could hold a public hearing and consider the proposed Comprehensive Plan changes at the same time they are looking at the proposed BD zoning ordinance. If the Board does not forward any Comprehensive Plan adjustments this year and the City Council approves some zoning ordinance changes, the Comprehensive Plan and the zoning ordinance would be inconsistent. Therefore, the development regulations would likely be invalidated. He reminded the Board that the goal is to make the Comprehensive Plan and Development Code language consistent, and the proposed language would give the City Council something that is consistent with the regulations that have already been forwarded to them by the Board. The public portion of the hearing was closed. VICE CHAIR DEWHIRST MOVED THAT THE PLANNING BOARD FORWARD THE MINOR TEXT AND MAP CORRECTIONS AND UPDATES TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (FILE NUMBER CDC-064) TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITH A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL. BOARD MEMBER CASSUTT SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. REVIEW AND DISCUSSION ON CODE UPDATES REQUIRED TO INTEGRATE DESIGN GUIDELINES AND REVISED DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS INTO THE DEVELOPMENT CODE Mr. Chave referred the Board to the current draft of the revised design review process. He explained that revisions and additional organizing and cleaning must still be done before the document could be finalized. He asked that the Board review the document and provide their comments and suggestions. He noted that the City Attorney has not yet provided his comments regarding the proposed language. Mr. Chave suggested the Board could hold a final review of the document at their December 13's meeting and then schedule a public hearing for the first meeting in January. Any conversation about the Planning Board Minutes November S, 2006 Page 2 Packet Page 168 of 195 guidelines, themselves, should include the chair of the Architectural Design Board, since the guidelines were a product of that group. The Board and staff reviewed the document and made the following comments and recommendations: Section 20.10 Board Member Guenther suggested that language be added to this section to emphasize that the time for public comment on an application is during the Architectural Design Board's review. Mr. Chave agreed that language could be inserted to indicate that the Architectural Design Board Review is an opportunity for neighbors to comment on major projects that could potentially have an impact on them. The remainder of the Board agreed that would be appropriate. Board Member Works suggested that the language in Section 20.10.000.A is too vague and doesn't have any real meaning. Chair Freeman agreed that vague statements like this lend to trouble. Mr. Chave agreed to review the Urban Design Guidelines Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan to find improved language to address the intent of this section. Section 20.11 Mr. Chave explained that this section describes the existing design review process. Board Member Works noted that on Page 7 the terms "planning manager" and "planning official" are both used. Mr. Chave agreed to check to make sure the terms are consistently used throughout the document. Board Member Works also pointed out that the words "When general design review is required" should be deleted from Section 20.11.010.A. Chair Freeman referred to Section 20,11.030.A.3 and noted that the word "view" has not been defined. She questioned if this would refer to the view from the street, from an adjacent property, or even from uphill properties. Board Member Cassutt recalled a previous Board discussion that roof top equipment must be screened from any view. Mr. Chave pointed out that if the Board wants to require screening from all views, more height would likely be necessary in order to construct a box around all of the equipment. Board Member Guenther pointed out the operational problems associated with placing roofs on top of mechanical equipment. Mr. Chave agreed and suggested that mechanical equipment only be screened from surrounding streets, etc. Screening the equipment from the view of uphill properties is an entirely different and larger issue. The Board agreed to strike the words "from view" from Section 20.11.030.A.3. Mr. Chave noted that Sections 20.11.030.A.6 and Section 20.11.030.C.3 have been highlighted because they are related to a current City moratorium. He suggested that these two sections relate to view and are extremely problematic. Therefore, they should be either changed or taken out of the document. The Board concurred that the two sections should be deleted from the proposed language. Section 20.12 Board Member Works referred to Section 20.12.090.A and asked if an Architectural Design Board review would ever be mandatory for something that does not require a building permit. Mr. Chave answered that sometimes the Code refers to the Architectural Design Board review even though no permit is required. One example would be applications to install public art. Section 20.13 Mr. Chave explained that staffs intent is to integrate the landscape site development standards for the CG zones into this chapter because they do a much better job of buffering, etc. The current language is just the existing language from the code. Chair Freeman referred to Section 20.13.015.B, which indicates a minimum height requirement of 18 feet for medium and tall shrubs. She suggested the correct number should be 18 inches. Chair Freeman suggested the reference to "significant views" should be taken out of Section 20.13.015.C. Board Member Works agreed and noted that the reference to "enhancing views and vistas" should also be taken out of Section 20.13.020.A. Chair Freeman added that the words "significant views and height limit for" should be deleted from Section 20.13r020.P. Board Member Young pointed out that a professional landscape architect participates as a member of the Architectural Design Board, and applicants are required to present landscape plans that are consistent with the zoning district and then Planning Board Minutes November 8, 2006 Page 3 Packet Page 169 of 195 demonstrate how the plans would work over time. The Board agreed that references to view, as noted earlier by Board Member Works and Chair Freeman, should be eliminated from the proposed language. Chair Freeman referenced Section 20.13.020.E, which requires automatic irrigation for all projects more than four dwelling units, 4,000 square feet of building area, or more than 20 parking spaces. She suggested that this requirement could go against the trend of planting species that are drought resistant. Board Member Cassutt noted that even drought resistant plantings require some water. She noted that automatic irrigation, if done correctly, could actually save water. Board Member Young suggested the word "automatic" be changed to "appropriate." He explained that if appropriate irrigation were required, the Architectural Design Board would require an applicant to show a landscape plan and explain how it would work, and this would include proper plans for irrigation. Mr. Chave expressed his belief that the proper term should be "automatic irrigation" since this would cover a variety of irrigation systems. The majority of the Board concurred. The Board briefly discussed whether or not it would be necessary to hold a workshop discussion regarding the Design Guidelines with the Chair of the Architectural Design Board prior to the public hearing. Vice Chair Dewhirst pointed out that the Architectural Design Board has already signed off on the document, and the Board has not proposed any significant changes. He expressed concern that the Board is not making enough progress on this issue, especially since the Mayor has identified it as a high priority item. Rather than meeting with the Chair of the Architectural Design Board, he urged the Board to get the draft language to the City Council as soon as possible. He urged staff to obtain feedback from the City Attorney soon so that draft language could be completed and prepared for a public hearing. The Board agreed to advertise the issue for a public hearing on December 13, 2006. Mr. Chave indicated that if he receives comments from the City Attorney soon, he would provide an early draft back to the Board so they could provide additional comments for staff to work into the draft language for the public hearing. REVIEW OF CODE REWRITE PROJECT Mr. Bowman provided a brief status report on the code rewrite project, which was recently funded by the City Council. He reported that staff is in the process of reviewing the existing code and formulating revisions. They will incorporate those items the Board has already been working on, as well. The City Attorney would be present at the Board's December 13�' meeting to conduct a workshop discussion regarding proposed changes to the non -conforming regulations. This discussion would be followed closely with a review of the chapter on processes and procedures. Mr. Bowman advised that the City Council has requested staff to bring the code rewrite back to them in sections, and staff plans to run each section through the Planning Board and then forward them to the City Council along with the Board's recommendation. Before final approval is given, staff would conduct a comprehensive review of the entire document to make sure all of the sections are consistent. In addition, he said staff envisions that the rewrite would require renumbering the chapters. For example, the definitions chapter would be moved to the start of the code and the process section would be moved to where Title 17 is now. Staff is considering a process of typing decisions using a table and matrix. An applicant would be able to quickly look at the table to find out what type of process their project would require. He emphasized that the ultimate goal is to make the code easier to enforce and easier for the public to use. Mr. Bowman reported that, during the next month, he would lay out the rewrite process onto the Board's extended agenda. He plans to press forward by presenting one section to the Board per month, and his goal is to move the process along quickly throughout the next year for final adoption by the City Council by the end of 2007. Mr. Bowman advised that staff has proposed 30 pages of suggested code changes, and these would be folded into the rewrite process, as well. In addition, he asked that individual Board Members present specific recommendations for change to staff via email. These comments could then be noted as items for review. The goal is to get the Board through the review process by the end of June 2007. Planning Board Minutes November 8, 2006 Page 4 Packet Page 170 of 195 REVIEW AND DISCUSSION ON CODE UPDATES REQUIRED TO INTEGRATE DESIGN GUIDELINES AND REVISED DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS INTO THE DEVELOPMENT CODE Mr. Chave reported that staff is continuing to work on draft code language to implement the proposed new design review process. He referred the Board to the draft design guidelines and checklist that have been proposed by the Architectural Design Board (ADB). The ADB would use the design guidelines.and checklist in their new "up front" review role. He also referred the Board to the proposed process and the current draft -in -progress of the code amendments. He explained that, essentially, a new code Chapter 20.11 would be inserted for the "district -based" design review process. When not in a design review district, projects would be reviewed under the normal design review process. Eventually, all parts of the City should be incorporated into a design district with appropriate design standards included in City codes. At that point, Chapter 20.11 would become the de -facto design review process for the entire City and Chapter 20.10 would be dropped. Mr. Chave explained that the City's traditional process places the ADB review towards the end of the design review process. The public hearings are also held at the end of the design review process. When extensive changes are identified by the ADB, developers are sometimes required to expend a substantial amount of money to change the designs. The new design review process would place the ADB review earlier in the process. A preliminary review at the start of the design phase would be mandatory for every application. At the preliminary review, the ADB would review the checklist of items and identify those that should be applied to a project and what the priorities should be. After a preliminary discussion between the applicant and the ADB, the applicant would be required to show how they would address the applicable design guidelines. A public hearing would also be conducted as part of the preliminary design review, when changes to the design could be easily made. The checklist items identified by the ADB would be incorporated into the SEPA review. The intent is to integrate the design review and SEPA process together. Once the SEPA determination and ADB conditions have been identified, there would be an opportunity for appeal. Once the appeal period has expired, the applicant would be allowed to proceed directly to the building permit application phase. Staff would then make sure the completed design meets all of the conditions and requirements of the ADB review and the SEPA determination. No new appeals would be allowed at that point. Board Member Guenther asked if the proposed new design review process would be similar to the review process used by other neighboring jurisdictions. Mr. Chave answered affirmatively. Mr. Guenther summarized that with the City's current design review process, all of the design decisions have been made by the architect and his client before the ADB reviews the plans. Having design review occur early in the design process would make it easier for applicants to make changes. While the draft code language is not ready for the Board's review at this time, Mr. Chave said he provided some preliminary language for the Board to review to make sure they are comfortable with the direction staff is heading. Board Member Works asked that staff provide language to clarify the right-hand column on the document titled, "Draft ADB Process." Vice Chair Dewhirst also asked staff to review all of the documents to make sure the terminology is consistent. Although pictures are important to include in the document, Vice Chair Dewhirst suggested it would be inappropriate to use pictures of six or seven story buildings. He encouraged staff to obtain photographs with people in them, too. He summarized that people tend to start with the pictures before they get into the actual language. Therefore, the pictures should communicate what the City intends to do. Chair Freeman agreed and noted that the photograph on Page 11 is of a building that is actually located on Green bake and is not a building design that would be compatible in Edmonds. Mr. Chave suggested that staff provide photographs depicting both small and larger scale buildings. Board Member Guenther asked how the ADB would use the checklist to review applications. Mr. Chave answered that the ADB still has to work out their process for reviewing the applications, but the checklist would be part of their review. Board Member Guenther asked if the ADB would have the discretion to add items to the checklist if applicable. Mr. Chave answered that if there is something exceptional about a project, the ADB could possibly add items to the checklist as long as they can state reasons why it is important. He said he would ask the City Attorney to provide further direction regarding this issue. Vice Chair Dewhirst indicated that he had several comments to make regarding the draft language, but he would forward them to staff for consideration in the new draft. Planning Board Minutes October 11, 2006 Page 8 Packet Page 171 of 195 language as proposed, but include Mr. Chave's additional option for the public to respond to at the September 13t' hearing. They encouraged Mr. Behar to study the issue further, too, and prepare to make some additional comments and suggestions at the hearing. The Board noted the following typographical errors in the proposed language: R The first section on Page I of the proposed BR and BR2 language should be changed from "16.60" to "16.52." ■ On Page 1 of the proposed CG and CG2 language "CC" should be changed to "CG." ■ Delete the words "in multi -family and commercial zones" from Section 16.60.030.D.2. Board Member Works referred to Section 16.60.040 and questioned if auto sales should be listed as an exception, as well. Mr. Chave pointed out that auto sales would be considered outdoor storage. The Board agreed to add "including outdoor storage of automobiles" to Section 16.60.040.A.7, The Board also agreed that wrecking yards should not, be listed as an allowed use in the CG and CG2 zones. Mr. Chave clarified Mr. Underhill's concern about the table in Section 16.52.020. He noted that when development in a BR zone is within 25 feet of a residentially zoned property, the maximum height allowed would be 25 feet. If a building is set back 25 feet, then the maximum height would be 50 feet. Mr. Behar said his architect has requested an opportunity to work with the Planning Department staff to address some of their concerns with Sections 16.60.030.D.] and D.2 before the language is adopted. Board Member Guenther explained that the design guidelines were included in the code language so that staff could use the document as a checklist when reviewing design proposals. However, he recognizes that this does not allow the flexibility that architects like to have. He said that since he has been on the Board, they have had several discussions about whether the code should be more flexible or more prescriptive. The Board has tried to reach an acceptable compromise. However, if the staff is making design decisions, they need specific guidelines. A more flexible code would require more ADB involvement. Mr. Chave encouraged Mr. Behar to forward his architect's suggestions to staff so they could be considered at the next public hearing. The Board took a I0-minute break at 9:00 p.m. They reconvened the meeting at 9:10 p.m. UPDATE AND DISCUSSION ON CODE UPDATES REQUIRED TO INTEGRATE DESIGN GUIDELINES AND REVISED DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS IN THE DEVELOPMENT CODE Mr. Chave advised that staff is in the process of drafting code language to implement the proposed new design review process. He referred the Board to the draft design guidelines proposed by the Architectural Design Board (ADB), and explained that these guidelines would be used by the ADB in their "up front" review role. He also referred the Board to the attached summary of the proposed process. He explained that the intent is to apply more specific design standards throughout the City area -by -area, starting with Highway 99 and downtown Edmonds. Board Member Young asked Mr. Chave to briefly review the proposed review process. Mr. Chave explained that the first thing the ADB would do is work with the applicant to identify the most important design considerations. The applicant would then come back with general forms and site plans to show how they would deal with the issues identified by the ADB. The ADB would establish some conditions that would figure into the staffs review of the project. The applicant would then work on a detailed submission, and staff would review it base on the design standards already in the code and the conditions identified by the ADB. He emphasized that conditions imposed by the ADB would be appealable and must come from code requirements, Comprehensive Plan policies, etc. He explained that the early design stage would involve a dialogue between the ADB and the applicant, and the public would be invited to provide input, as well. The big issues should be dealt with before the designs are solidified. Board Member Young said he would like to know that at some point when a project is discussed in front of the public, the developer would be asked to go through each of the questions identified on the bulleted list on Page 2. Mr. Chave answered that the applicant would be asked to address those items that arc applicable to their project. He summarized that the proposed Planning Board Minutes August 9, 2006 Page 7 Packet Page 172 of 195 Process would be easier to administer and the applicant would have more predictability. In addition, the City would be able to deal with the conceptual issues before the design is tied down. Mr. Chave advised that the Board would discuss the design guidelines and process again on September 27t'. REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA Chair Freeman recalled that the Board previously asked staff to provide a report regarding the impacts of proposed Property Rights Initiative 933. However, this item has not been scheduled on the extended agenda. Mr. Chave reported that the City Attorney has indicated it would be difficult to discuss the impacts without taking a position, and this would not be allowed. The staff obtained materials from the American Planning Association, which provide an analysis of the initiative. These materials would be forwarded to each of the Board Members. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS Chair Freeman requested the Board provide a response to the proposal that was submitted by the 500 Main Street Merchants. She suggested that the Board could offer their support to the group and encourage the City Council to include lighting as part of the Capital Improvement Program {CIP}. Mr. Chave explained that there are actually two ways to get this item before the City Council. It could either be included in the CIP proposal or recommended for funding as part of the budget process. If approved in the budget process, it could be incorporated into the CIP. The Board directed staff to forward a letter to the 500 Main Street Merchants informing them of the process for getting this item before the City Council. The letter should explain that the Board has already reviewed and forwarded a recommendation on the 2007 CIP. Therefore, the merchants could either wait for the next CIP process or approach the City Council with a request that it be funded as part of the 2007 budget. The letter should emphasize that the Board supports the proposal since it would be the first step in providing adequate lighting on Main Street all the way up to the Frances Anderson Center. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS Board Member Crim announced that he recently notified the Mayor that he would resign his position immediately and this would be his last meeting. He said he has enjoyed participating on the Planning Board, ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:29 p.m. APPROVED Planning Board Minutes August 9, 2006 Page 8 Packet Page 173 of 195 Staff is working on proposed amendments that would make the ordinance more enforceable. Board Member Crim suggested that any reference to use be eliminated from the City's definition of "setback." Instead, they should deal with uses in the revised nuisance ordinance. He concluded that it is difficult to regulate uses. Board Member Dewhirst agreed, with the exception of uses such as parking and storage of vehicles, Board Member Cassutt agreed, as well. Board Member Dewhirst reminded the Board that there is a safety issue when vehicles are parked right on the property line and the City should regulate these situations. However, with the trend of smaller lots, the uses will probably be more intense than ever. Other than parking of vehicles, people will want to utilize all of their parcels. Mr. Bowman asked if the Board wanted to allow vehicles to park in the rear yard. Board Member Dewhirst felt this would be okay, as long as it is behind the house and outside of the setback area. Mr. Bowman said some jurisdictions prohibit recreational vehicle parking in front of all residential structures. He said that if the Board opens the door by discussing recreational vehicles as part of their review of the definition of "setback," they should be aware that the issue is controversial. Chair Young recalled Board Member Guenther's comments about safety within the setback areas for fire equipment access and fire safety. Board Members have also raised interesting points about uses that are allowed in the setbacks but intrude on the neighbors. He said that while people pay for their whole lot, they must also avoid imposing a significant impact on their neighbors. He suggested that any use should be allowed in the side yard setback as long as it doesn't bother anyone else. Property owners should not be allowed to construct anything that is much higher than the fence line or that generates a significant amount of noise. However, the fire department must also be able to access the back of the property. The Board discussed whether or not patios and sport courts should be allowed within the setback areas. They agreed that a sport court would have much more impact to adjoining neighbors than a patio would. Mr. Bowman said it is sometimes difficult to distinguish between the two. For example, driveways are allowed within the setbacks, and someone could put up a basketball hoop on the side of the driveway. He questioned if this type of use should be allowed. Chair Young said he feels there is a difference between sport courts and basketball hoops, and sports courts tend to have significantly more impact to surrounding properties. Mr. Bowman summarized that if a use generates a lot of noise or is a safety issue, the Board feels it should not be allowed within a setback. However, he again pointed out that trees are typically preserved in the setback areas, so that is where people want to build tree houses. Chair Young noted that these uses are only dealt with on a complaint basis. If something bothers a neighbor or invades their privacy, it should not be allowed. Mr. Bowman further summarized that the Board wants to move away from uses with some exceptions regarding recreational vehicle parking and fire safety. They would like to allow things that do not impinge on safety and privacy. Mr. Chave said privacy is difficult to define. Mr. Bowman said he would bring back examples of how other jurisdictions define setbacks and what is allowed. Chair Young recalled that several months ago when the Board discussed Ham Radio Antennas, they restricted them from the setback areas. Mr. Bowman said the Hearing Examiner was straight forward in his decision that the tree house should not be allowed, but the City Council applied a different interpretation. The Board members indicated that they did not think tree houses should be allowed within setback areas. Board Member Guenther pointed out that the Board has not really talked about how the topography would affect the uses that are allowed in a setback area. Mr. Bowman said staff would continue to put together the matrix and a draft definition for the Board's next discussion. Before they move into a public hearing, the Board could have further discussion to determine the direction they want to go. UPDATE ON CITY COUNCIL WORK ON DESIGN GUIDELINES Mr. Bowman reported that the City Council has been having roundtable discussions with Mark Hinshaw, the consultant they hired to help them with the Design Guidelines for the downtown area. Mr. Hinshaw reported to the City Council that he Planning Board Minutes May t 1, 2005 Page 6 Packet Page 174 of 195 reviewed the design guidelines that were initially forwarded to the City Council by the Planning Board more than 2'/z years ago. He also reviewed the recent Comprehensive Plan Update and policies. Mr. Bowman advised that at the last meeting, the City Council discussed the direction they would like to go with the new design guidelines. Mr. Bowman said Mr. Hinshaw encouraged the City Council to visit the Fairhaven area of Bellingham. Mr. Hinshaw expressed his belief that this area is similar to Edmonds in topographical features, with a ferry located at the bottom of the slope. It has a clearly historical downtown core and was originally platted just nine years after the City of Edmonds. Mr. Bowman reported that Mr. Hinshaw took the City Council Members and staff members on a tour of the Fairhaven area, and he participated in that tour. He pointed out that the Fairhaven district is laid out similar to Edmonds. To the east is primarily residential development, with views looking to the west onto Bellingham Bay. The downtown commercial area sits at the top of the hill and slopes down into the industrial areas. They have a port, a ferry, and a sewage treatment plant, with residential property to the south. He emphasized, however, that the Fairhaven District has no parking requirements for commercial uses at all, but they do require parking for the residential uses. Mr. Bowman advised that as the City Council and staff visited Fairhaven, they took pictures to illustrate the current situation that exists. He presented a PowerPoint presentation of the pictures they collected and explained various features of the Fairhaven District. He pointed out that the buildings typically have first floor ceiling heights of 12 to 15 feet. He also pointed out the types of storefront treatments that have been used, which are critical to a vibrant retail community. They have large windows and the buildings are constructed right up to the sidewalk. This allows pedestrians to look right into the large windows. He said Mr. Hinshaw recommended that it is important for the commercial buildings in Edmonds to be constructed right up to the sidewalk, as well. However, the City has typically encouraged modulation. He has also suggested that it might be best for the ground floor in the downtown core to be limited to retail space only, since there is only a limited amount of retail space that works well. He showed pictures from Fairhaven to further illustrate this concept. Next, Mr. Bowman provided pictures of new and old buildings that have been built next to each other. He noted that it is often difficult to tell which one is new and which one is old since they typically blend together well. He also pointed out that the streets include an 80-foot right-of-way, which allows for wider sidewalks and the four-story buildings that exist in the area are not over scale. He also pointed out that almost all of the businesses in this district have ornate and unique signs that work well with the buildings. The signs have been staggered and stepped down to address the change in topography. He advised that they also prune their trees from the bottom up to expose the retail area. Mr. Bowman provided pictures to illustrate some of the unique and interesting spaces that have been provided next to the sidewalks using gazebos, fountains, etc. There area numerous opportunities for outdoor dining, but because the sidewalks are wide, these uses do not impede the pedestrian traffic. He also showed several pictures of the village green area, which includes large murals, bocce ball courts, a large screen on the side of the building and a stage area. Mr. Bowman explained that design review for projects in Fair Have is done by staff as an administrative decision, appealable to the Hearing Examiner. Building height is limited to 35 feet, and up to 54 feet with a conditional use permit. If their City Council approves a conditional use permit, it would be appealable to the Superior Court. He said that design guidelines were adopted in 1990, and most of the newer buildings are less than five years old. He showed examples of buildings that were constructed before the design guidelines were implemented and those that were built after. He noted that the newer buildings blend in much better with the older historic structures. He also provided pictures of a mixed -use structure that is currently being built just outside of the historic district. This building will be five stories high, with commercial space on the ground floor. There is no height limit in this area, so approval is based on an administrative decision. To the south of the five -story mixed -use building, a nine -story mixed -use building is being constructed. Their goal is to obtain residential space that would end up supporting the commercial and retail spaces. He noted that Fairhaven only has one vacant space in their downtown area. Mr. Bowman encouraged the Board Members to watch the videotape of the last City Council Meeting, at which they also discussed the building heights and how the City should calculate building heights in the downtown area. He suggested that interested Board Members should also visit the Fairhaven District. Board Members Cassutt, Works and Freeman agreed to meet with Mr. Bowman on Friday, May 20`s, for a tour of the Fairhaven District. APPROVED Planning Board Minutes May 11, 2005 Page 7 Packet Page 175 of 195 Mr. Bowman advised that Mr. Hinshaw discussed the concept of preserving the retail core around the fountain with the City Council. He also recommended that this area be expanded and that the height limit should be 25 feet. In the downtown areas surrounding the fountain area, he recommended that the City Council consider a building height limit of between 33 and 35 feet. In addition, he recommended that the City Council establish a conservation district for the arts area where there are older homes that could be convertedto other types of uses in the future. Board Member Freeman said Mr. Hinshaw also made the statement that he believes "a matter of a few feet is pretty silly." Mr. Bowman said he does not see the City of Edmonds ever allowing four and five -story buildings in their downtown. Mr. Hinshaw is suggesting that they protect the core area, but allow the surrounding areas to be vibrant. He also informed the City Council that if they limit the height in the entire downtown area to 25 feet, everything would come to a screeching halt. Mr. Bowman reported that Mr, Hinshaw's observations were amazingly close to those provided in the Board's original recommendation to the City Council, Again, Mr. Bowman urged the Board Members to watch the videotape of the last City Council Meeting. Board Member Crim suggested, and the remainder of the Commission agreed, that staff should provide each of them with a DVD copy of the meeting. Board Member Crim also requested that staff provide the Board Members with copies of Fairhaven's ordinance and design guidelines. Mr. Bowman recalled the reception the Planning Board received a few months ago by people on both sides of the building height issue. However, the people who are against increased building heights seem to understand Mr. Hinshaw's comments. In fact, he reported that Ron Wambolt has praised Mr. Hinshaw on a number of occasions because he has been fair-minded. Mr. Hinshaw has been well received by both sides. REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA Mr. Chave reviewed that the agenda for the May 25 h meeting would include a public hearing on a rezone request by A.D. Shapiro Architects for Hans Lammersdorf for a rezone of property located on Edmonds Way. A public hearing is also scheduled on the proposed code amendments addressing essential public facilities. If time permits, the Board would also have more discussion regarding various code amendments. Mr. Chave pointed out that a public hearing on the definition of "family" was tentatively scheduled for .Tune 8tn. However, the Board needs further discussion before the hearing could take place. The Board could discuss the various code amendments that they are working on, and they might even have more information from the City Council about where they are headed with the design guidelines. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS Chair Young did not provide any comments during this portion of the meeting. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS Board Member Dewhirst announced that City Council Member Richard Marin was recently chosen to be one of the new Sound Transit Board Members. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:17 p.m. Planning Board Minutes May 11, 2005 Page 8 Packet Page 176 of 195 nterurbanTrail G. AUTHORIZATION FOR CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TO COMMENCE A QUIET Project e ActAction Quiet Title TITLE ACTION IN SNOHOMISH COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT TO QUIET EDMOND'S TITLE TO THE PORTIONS OF PACIFIC NORTHWEST TRACTION COMPANY RIGHT-OF-WAY RECEIVED BY THE CITY FROM THE SNOHOMISH COUNTY PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT NO. 1 BY QUIT CLAIM DEED FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF THE raffic Impact INTERURBAN TRAIL PROJECT WITHIN THE CITY OF EDMONDS. Fee Annual eport H. TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE ANNUAL REPORT. Sister City ITEM E: CONFIRMATION OF SISTER CITY COMMISSION CANDIDATES CLARE LONG Commission AND ELIJAH ZUPANCIC. [Appointments Parks & Recreation Director Brian McIntosh, liaison to the Sister City Commission, introduced Sister City Commission Chair Jeanne Mazzoni. Ms. Mazzoni introduced the two new Commissioners, Clare Long and Elijah Zupancic, and described their backgrounds. Ms. Mazzoni also introduced Sister City Commissioners Jim Corbin and Iyoko Okano in the audience. Mayor Haakenson thanked the Commissioners for volunteering. Greater 3. PROCLAMATION IN HONOR OF THE GREATER EDMONDS CHAMBER OF COMMERCE Edmonds WEEK, FEBRUARY 4-10, 2007. Chamber of Commerce Mayor Haakenson read a Proclamation declaring February 4 — 10, 2007 as Greater Edmonds Chamber of Commerce Week and presented the proclamation to Police Chief David Stern, Chamber President. Chief Stern recognized Chamber members Wayne Purser, Chris Fleck, Dave Arista, Strom Peterson and Ron Clybome who were also present. He also introduced the Chamber's Executive Director Jan Vance and staff member Carolyn LaFave who distributed centennial pins to the Council. Chief Stern explained the pin was commissioned for the 100th anniversary of the Chamber. The Chamber, originally the Board of Trade, began in 1904 and was officially recognized as a Chamber of Commerce on February 6, 1907. He provided highlights of the Chamber's history, remarking from the beginning the Chamber had been a community -oriented organization. In 1907 the Chamber purchased several large parcels of waterfront acreage to induce industry to move to the City. Sales of that parcel and others were used to purchase a 10-acre site for use as a park, known today as City Park. It was also the site of the first 4th of July function in 1907. During the first few years, the Chamber also assisted with transportation in the City; the Chamber paid $400 to secure a railroad spur on Chamber -owned property which resulted in a railroad depot at the intersection of Railroad and James in 1909. In the early 1920s the Chamber worked with the City to obtain an easement for a ferry dock; construction of the dock cost approximately $9,250 and opened on May 16, 1923 with a 12-car, 56-foot boat called the City of Edmonds. In 1960 the Chamber elected Peggy Harris as one of the first women Chamber presidents in the United States. He invited the public to learn more about the history of the Chamber at their 100-year banquet. [Design Review 14. DISCUSSION ON THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION ON THE DESIGN REVIEW Guidelines GUIDELINES. Planning Manager Rob Chave described the history of this issue, explaining in 1993 the court case Anderson v. Issaquah highlighted the need for predicable design standards and a process to be followed. Since the court decision in that case addressed an ordinance essentially copied from Edmonds' ordinance, it was felt necessary to make some revisions to the City's ordinance. In 1999 the City Council Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 6, 2007 Page 2 Packet Page 177 of 195 commissioned a study by Cedar River Associates who addressed the general design guidelines and design process. Their conclusions emphasized the need for design guidelines that were specific enough that developers knew what was expected and a process where design review occurred at the beginning rather than the end to allow influence of the design rather than reacting to a design that was presented. The Council then hired Cascade Design in 2000 to develop design guidelines that could be used by the City. The design guidelines they developed were reviewed by the Planning Board and a recommendation forwarded to the City Council. The Council reviewed the design guidelines in 2002 at which point there was a divergence of opinion; several members of the design community/developers were concerned the proposed design guidelines were too specific and would impinge on design flexibility. The specific design guidelines were then tabled and a portion adopted as part of the update to the sign code in 2003. The remainder of the design guidelines has been on hiatus since then. In 2005 some of the design objectives from the design guidelines developed by Cascade Design were incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan. These include the design objectives in the general design element of the Comprehensive Plan that apply citywide; a second set, more tailored to the downtown area were incorporated into the Downtown Plan. He advised most of the design guidelines were fairly generic, providing some guidance for design review and potentially developing specific regulations. Following the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, there was additional discussion by the Council with an urban design professional Mark Hinshaw whose focus was downtown. Mr. Hinshaw cited the importance of streamlining design review, focusing on what was important, believing that specific guidelines were difficult to draft and could hamper the design process. Mr. Chave noted the exception would be for a very specific theme such as Leavenworth which the Council did not feel was appropriate for Edmonds. Beginning in early 2006 the Council had additional discussion on design guidelines and the design review process. The ADB developed a set of design guidelines for use at the beginning of the process; these guidelines were advisory, less specific with general guidance. After the Council reviewed the design guidelines developed by the ADB, it was agreed they would be best in an upfront, advisory process with the ADB engaging in discussion with an applicant. It was also acknowledged at that time that specific, mandatory standards should be included in the code. In 2006 the Council forwarded the design review process to the Planning Board. The Planning Board spent six months in review and has now forwarded a recommendation to the Council. He noted during this same period, new General Commercial (CG) zones for Hwy. 99 were developed that included design guidance. Those zones were intended to have the new process apply because design guidance had been incorporated into the code which combined with the new design guidelines process upfront with the ADB should enable due process to be applied. The Council also adopted new downtown zoning (BD zones) that have very specific standards for height, bulk, design features, etc. He commented on the development of another set of guidelines by the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC). He advised the HPC planned to make a presentation on specific guidelines for the retail core to Council Committee next week followed by a presentation to the full Council in the future. He advised as design standards were developed area by area or zone -by -zone, the new process would supersede the old process until the old process no longer existed. Mr. Chave displayed a flowchart and described the old process which he noted was back -end loaded. The design review process did not begin until an application was submitted to the City because the process of design review required the applicant to prepare a significant level of detail. By the time an application was submitted, the developer has invested a great deal of time, effort and money into their design. He noted there were optional design review opportunities that some developers took advantage of but some did not. Thus the design review process occurred after the application was submitted and the appeal occurred at the end of the process, just prior to the applicant applying for a building permit. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 6, 2007 Page 3 Packet Page 178 of 195 Under the new process proposed by the Planning Board, Mr. Chave explained the design review process occurred almost entirely at the front of the process. The application to the City with the detailed design occurred after all design issues were resolved, creating a very streamlined process once the design issues had been addressed. The process recommended by the Planning Board was a two-phase public hearing, the first phase would be identifying critical issues the project needed to address; that phase would be advertised with notice to property owners within 300 feet. The applicant would then attempt to address those issues during further development of their design. He emphasized this would occur much earlier than the current process. Under the current process, by the time the applicant approached the City, they had a good idea of the design for the site. The intent of the proposed process was to engage the developer much earlier to identify issues of importance to their project. After the applicant had refined their design, they would come back to the ADB for the second phase of the hearing. At this point their design was still conceptual but with more specifics. At this second phase of the hearing, the ADB would impose conditions they want included in design that would ultimately result in a building permit. Any appeals would occur after the second phase of the hearing. Once all the design issues were resolved, the applicant would develop detailed design for a building permit. At that point staff would ensure the permit submissions were consistent with the ADB's decision. Mr. Chave summarized the Planning Board's recommendation retained the existing design process for most areas of the City but has a new design process that would be applied area -by -area as design guidelines/design standards were developed. The first two areas where the new process would apply were the CG zones on Hwy. 99 and the BD zones in downtown. The design review guidelines also formalize the landscape requirements. Councilmember Orvis asked how the design standards being developed by the HPC would fit into this process. Mr. Chave advised he was the staff person for the HPC, because the guidelines they were developing were very specific, he recommended they be incorporated into the code in the BD zone. Councilmember Orvis asked what an appeal would look like. Mr. Chave answered it would be on the ADB's decision and whatever conditions they imposed on the project. Councilmember Orvis asked how the ADB choosing standards was not in opposition to Anderson v. Issaquah. City Attorney Scott Snyder answered the design guidelines and the checklist were a very extensive list. Because every neighborhood was unique, some factors would not apply to every area. The intent was to tailor the checklist before the application was complete so that the developer knew precisely what issues their design needed to address. Staff s decision was then appealable in the same manner as a building permit via Land Use Petition Act (LUPA) to Superior Court. Councilmember Orvis posed an example, if the ADB identified an issue as a high priority and the applicant believed it was a lower priority, how would such an appeal be resolved. Mr. Snyder answered the Comprehensive Plan, design standards for the zone in concurrence with the general zoning process would be used. He explained one of the primary goals was to give citizens more influence at a stage before the developer had spent a great deal of money and were more likely to listen to the neighborhood's concerns. He emphasized this would require citizens to get involved early in the process because once the specific design was approved, it would be difficult to challenge. Councilmember Marin was pleased with the proposed design guidelines; however, he suggested staff add to the first bullet regarding screening of dumpsters something like "and provide reasonable access for the utility providing service" to ensure the dumpsters were screened as well as accessible. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 6, 2007 Page 4 Packet Page 179 of 195 Councilmember Wambolt asked whether the renovation of Old Milltown would have been reviewed by the ADB or reviewed by staff if this new process had been in effect at the time the project was proposed. Mr. Chave explained under this process, only major projects had the upfront review by the ADB; minor projects that did not exceed the SEPA threshold would not. He explained the reason was if the intent was to apply specific standards to a project such as Old Milltown, the best way was to include those standards in the code. If design relied on a subjective public hearing, there was the danger of the public thinking a decision could be made on something that was outside the code. If the Council felt the standards developed by the HPC were important for buildings to acknowledge and respond to, they needed to be incorporated into the code. He cautioned against subjecting a minor project to a process with no hope of changing the design. Council President Olson advised the HPC would be making a presentation to the Council at the February 27 meeting. She noted it may be a more informal joint discussion around a table. Mr. Snyder agreed with Mr. Chave if the Council wanted an issue addressed, it should be included in the code. Another option would be, in neighborhoods or zone districts that the Council felt were very sensitive, to review everything in that neighborhood or zone. Mr. Chave cautioned reviewing everything assumed there could be an impact on what occurred. Councilmember Dawson suggested the Council may want to consider involving the public for projects in certain zones such as BD 1 even if they could not force a change; some developers may be interested in working with the public and seeking their input. She asked about the timing of the HPC's presentation to the Council and the public hearing on the design guidelines. Mr. Chave advised the Council could have a public hearing on the HPC's recommendations but if their recommendation was to include standards in the code, it would require review by the Planning Board. Mr. Snyder stated the old process would remain in place while neighborhoods developed specific design guidelines. The new process would not affect a neighborhood until specific guidelines were in place. Councilmember Dawson asked for clarification regarding the provision for exempt developments that required structures or sites on the Edmonds Register of Historic Places have a certificate of appropriateness from the Edmonds HPC. Mr. Chave answered for a site on the City's Register of Historic Places, any building permit would require a certificate from the HPC before approval by the City. Councilmember Dawson questioned whether such a structure or site should be exempt from this process or go through both processes. Mr. Chave anticipated the HPC's standards would be specific. He cautioned that because the City's register was voluntary, buildings could be withdrawn from the register. If a building withdrew from the register they would no longer be exempt and would be subject to the design review process. Councilmember Dawson asked whether the proposed design guidelines were clear enough with regard to a structure withdrawn from the register. Mr. Snyder suggested adding a sentence that a project would lose its vesting if withdrawn from the Historic Register. COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT, TO SET THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR MARCH 6, 2007. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Request 5. PROPOSED RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS Moratorium — Condo Related WASHINGTON, RECOMMENDING TO THE SNOHOMISH COUNTY COUNCIL THAT AN Developments/ EMERGENCY MORATORIUM BE ENACTED ON APPLICATIONS FOR CONDOMINIUM- nincorporated RELATED, LOW -DENSITY, MULTIPLE -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS IN THE Edmonds UNINCORPORATED PORTION OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS MUNICIPAL URBAN GROWTH AREA. Council President Olson explained the South Snohomish Cities had been discussing Low Density, Multiple Family Residential (LDMR) Developments for several months. She explained when Snohomish Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 6, 2007 Page 5 Packet Page 180 of 195 permit. Another questionable practice is the requirement that all new businesses submit a floor plan stamped by an engineer or architect. ew Fe Natalie Shippen, Edmonds, advised in the November 2007 election, the Edmonds City Council would erminaly ask the voters of Snohomish County to raise their taxes; if approved the money would be spent to build half of a new ferry terminal in Edmonds. She relayed three questions that were raised by the ballot measure, 1) how much money would voters be asked to approve for the terminal, 2) exactly what portion of a terminal would that amount buy, and 3) what was the total cost of a complete terminal. She explained these questions were posed to the Edmonds City Council because the project on the ballot was the City's project; the ferry system did not request a new ferry terminal in Edmonds, the City did and RTID put the funding on the ballot at the City's request. As the Council was asking the voters to fund half a new terminal, it was their responsibility to explain the details to the voters. She also asked what kind of taxes would voters be asked to approve and the rate of the tax. She commented RTID had three forms of taxation -- sales tax, vehicle license fee, MVET, tolls and local option fuel tax. She recalled in 2003 RTID selected sales tax, license fee and MVET with varying rates. ADB Review $ REPORT ON ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD ADB REVIEW PROCESS AND DESIGN Process and GUIDELINES. Design Guidelines Development Services Director Duane Bowman recalled in March the Council discussed design guidelines. As a result of direction provided by Council, Planning Manager Rob Chave and City Attorney Scott Snyder met with the ADB to discuss the review process and the design guidelines. Mr. Chave advised Mr. Snyder and he met with the ADB, members of the community including Steve Bernheim representing ACE, an architect and a developer. The result of the meeting was consensus to move the ADB to the beginning of the process and using the ADB's recommended guidelines in that process. Mr. Snyder and Senior Planner Steve Bullock developed an outline of the process which was confirmed by the ADB at a subsequent meeting. He noted the design guidelines developed by the ADB would be used to influence the outcome early in the process before a developer was committed to a design. Mr. Chave explained in.order to proceed the Council would need to refer the following items to the Planning Board so that an ordinance could be developed for Council review and approval: 1) outline of revised ADB review process, 2) design guidelines developed by the ADB, 3) guidance on any additional design standards that should be considered for inclusion in the development code such as landscape standards and/or massing. _ Mr. Chave relayed the ADB preference to implement this process in a phased manner rather than citywide, beginning with design guidelines and standards for downtown, followed by Hwy. 99. He noted it may also be possible to develop guidelines and standards in the neighborhood business zones such as Five Corners and Firdale Village. The ADB. preferred to delay development of guidelines and standards for other areas of the City until there had been an opportunity to meet with those areas and develop specific guidelines. Mr. Snyder commented he would draft an ordinance describing the process and criteria for a checklist. He referred to Mr. Shapiro's comments, agreeing generic, one -size -fits -all standards did not result in good design. However, he disagreed with Mr. Shapiro's comment regarding subjective decisions, pointing out that subjective decision -making was contrary to State law and municipalities must develop objective criteria. The proposed process would allow the ADB to use its expertise to work with developers cooperatively early in the process to influence design. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 6, 2006 Page 15 Packet Page 181 of 195 Councilmember Moore asked what interpretations would be left for staff if the ADB was involved early in the process. Mr. Chave answered it would minimize interpretations and in the proposed process, the subjective portion would be at the beginning where the expertise of the ADB could be applied. At the end of the process, the administrative code requirements would be applied. Mr. Snyder explained to take subjectivity out of the process, it would be important for the ADB to render complete written decisions adopting what they have approved. He cautioned if a project met the decisional criteria, the fact that it may be objectionable to neighbors, the public, staff or the Council in some other regard would be beside the point. Mr. Chave envisioned the only portion of the process that would be subjective would be the early meetings when options and alternatives were being discussed which was an appropriate place for subjectivity. When the project proceeded beyond options and alternatives, there would be limited subjectivity and more predictability. Mr. Snyder acknowledged the subjectivity would be the ADB offering their experience and guidance to the developer. If a developer refused and the project met the decisional criteria, it would be approved.. He noted that was the dilemma of architectural design review; if the City had a distinctive design program such as Leavenworth, mediocrity could be legislated, however, it was difficult to legislate outstanding design. He commented on trends in design as an example. Mr. Chave recalled the Planning Board held a public hearing on the downtown zoning regulations; one of their concerns was how the design guidelines fit into the zoning regulations and were uncomfortable proceeding with the zoning absent the design guidelines. One of the benefits of forwarding the design guidelines to the Planning Board was to allow them to consider both. Councilmember Moore recalled a suggestion that the ADB meet more than once a month. Mr. Chave acknowledged that issue would arise and agreed the ADB would need to be more flexible such as establish multiple meeting dates from which a developer could choose. Councilmember Marin recalled one of the reasons for staff s discussion with the ADB was to ensure the ADB was comfortable with moving to the front of the process in an advisory role and no longer having a quasi judicial role. Mr. Chave answered the ADB saw the benefits of moving their review to the front of the process and were interested and excited about working with the new design guidelines. Councilmember Marin asked whether any other issue arose in staffs meeting with the ADB. Mr. Chave responded there was discussion regarding the pros and cons and ultimately everyone agreed this role for the ADB would be beneficial. Mr. Snyder noted the ADB realized that for a period of time they would be creating one system and phasing out another and there would be applications reviewed under the old system while the new system was designed and adopted. Councilmember Marin inquired about the timetable for Planning Board review. Mr. Chave advised the Planning Board held a public hearing on the downtown zoning and would be continuing their discussion at next week's meeting, likely followed by another public hearing. He anticipated the Planning Board could begin discussion regarding the design guidelines next week and hold a public hearing on both in July. He anticipated a 3-4 month review process, acknowledging it would depend on the comments received during the legislative process. Mr. Snyder observed one of the drafting challenges would be to ensure this was a streamlined process that did not add time to the process. Council President Dawson thanked staff and Mr. Snyder for meeting with the Planning Board and engaging in this process. She agreed with phasing the process neighborhood by neighborhood. COUNCIL PRESIDENT DAWSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, TO REFER THE MATTER TO THE PLANNING BOARD FOR REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 6, 2006 Page 16 Packet Page 182 of 195 Council President Dawson advised it was unknown whether the offer would be accepted by the School District. The City planned to ask the District administration to respond to the City by close of business March 23 whether the offer was acceptable and if the offer was not acceptable, the Council would meet again to develop a backup plan. She advised the offer was the maximum amount the Council was comfortable making and if the amount was not acceptable to the District, fewer acres would need to be considered. Councilmember Moore expressed her pleasure with the Council's decision, commenting she supported an effort to acquire the entire 11 acres. She thanked the audience for their support and energy for preserving the 11 acre site. Councilmember Marin commented a park in that area was mentioned in the Comprehensive Plan and it was the intent to have a park in that area. If the District did not accept the City's offer for the entire 1 i acres, it was still the Council's intent to pursue a park in that area. He emphasized for those making offers on the property that the City intended for there to be a park on at least a portion of the site. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Capital 313. THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC HEARING THAT WAS SCHEDULED THIS EVENING WILL BE Improvement RESCHEDULED TO A FUTURE DATE TO BE DETERMINED; PUBLIC HEARING ON THE Program CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (2006-2011) esign 4, PUBLIC HEARING ON DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR MULTI -FAMILY AND COMMERCIAL Guidelines DEVELOPMENT. Planning Manager Rob Chave explained the issue before the Council was a combination of the design guidelines and design process. He pointed out the necessity of discussing design guidelines and the review process together. He explained two separate sets of design guidelines had been developed. The first, recommended by the Architectural Design Board {ADB}, were general in nature and not regulatory. The second set of design guidelines, developed by the Planning Board and augmented by discussions with consultant Mark Hinshaw, had more details/specifics and were potentially regulatory. Mr. Chave provided a brief history of the design guidelines, explaining in 1993 a court case Anderson v. Issaquah ruled that design decisions must be based on specific, measurable, understandable standards. He noted Issaquah's design guidelines replicated Edmonds' design standards in the ADB section of the code. From 1993 to approximately 1999, the City adopted general guidance to defend against issues raised by Anderson v. Issaquah. In 1999 the City received a report from a consultant, Cedar River Associates, who considered the City's design review process and design guidelines and found the process could be improved by moving design review to the beginning of the process so that the ADB could have more influence on the design. Cedar River also recommended the City develop more clear and specific design guidelines. In 2000 the City hired another consultant, Cascade Design Collaborative, who drafted design guidelines. The City Council forwarded those design guidelines to the Planning Board and the Planning Board spent 2001 and 2002 working on the design guidelines and proposing amendments to the design review process. The Council initially tabled the design guidelines, then forwarded the design guidelines to the Community Services/Development Services Committee where the sign portion of the guidelines were removed and ultimately adopted in 2003. Although there have been discussions in the interim, the subject of design guidelines arose during Comprehensive Plan discussions regarding downtown and an effort began again to adopt design Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 21, 2006 Page 3 Packet Page 183 of 195 guidelines. The Council referred the Planning Board's version of the design guidelines to the ADB who recently returned a different set of guidelines that were more general in nature. He explained the purpose of tonight's public hearing was to gather public input on the options as well as the specific guidelines. Mr. Chave reviewed four options, I} ADB as quasi judicial decision maker on major projects with detailed design guidelines. Mr. Chave explained this was essentially the same as the current process with staff making most design review decisions (design review of signs and minor projects) and ADB holding hearings and making decisions on major projects (those exceeding SEPA threshold of four dwellings or 4,000 square feet). The detailed design guidelines would be the design guidelines developed by the Planning Board with Mr. Hinshaw's recommendations. 2) ADB as quasi judicial decision maker on major projects with detailed code provisions, Mr. Chave explained this was a variation on Option 1, the ADB would review major projects but the ADB recommended design guidelines would be used early in the process to provide information to applicants. He noted the ADB's guidelines could not be used as a regulatory tool as they lacked specificity. In this option, the Council would need to identify key design features to be incorporated into the code as standards. 3) ADB at front of process with general design guidelines and detailed code. Mr. Chave explained in this option the ADB's review would be at the beginning of the process where they could hold a public meeting with applicants to discuss design parameters for the site and make recommendations. He noted having the ADB at the beginning of the process would also allow the Board more influence over the project design. He did not anticipate this option would slowthe process but developers would need to become accustomed to the design discussion occurring earlier in the process. Staff would administer the code, making decisions based on the code and the ADB's recommendations. He noted the ADB's recommendations would only be recommendations and staff would rely on the code as a basis for their decision, therefore, it would be important for the Council to identify key design features such as incentives, specific heights, setbacks, etc. to be incorporated into the code. 4) Integrated Design Review (ADB as Design Standards Review Board) Mr. Chave explained in this option design parameters would be incorporated into the code and general guidelines/checklists provided at the beginning of the process. The ADB would review and evaluate approved projects and the code to determine what in the code influenced the design and potentially needed to be changed. Councilmember Moore asked whether Option 4 would be in addition to approved design guidelines. Mr. Chave answered any design parameters the Council felt strongly about needed to be in the code and specific enough for staff to administer. There could also be general guidelines such as were developed by the ADB but they would not be regulatory. Councilmember Moore asked whether it would be possible to have the ADB act as a Design Standards Review Board as well as having the ADB at the front of the process. Mr. Chave answered that was essentially Option 3; noting the amount of time the ADB could devote to reviewing standards would depend on the amount of time they spent on the pre -application review which was dependent on the threshold. If the thresholds were similar to the current, projects that exceeded the SEPA threshold of four dwellings or 4,000 square feet, there were few of those type of projects each year and the ADB would likely have time to review design standards. Councilmember Plunkett clarified Option 1 was the Planning Board's version which some had felt would eliminate creativity and not lead to better designed buildings. Mr. Chave answered that was a judgment Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 21, 2006 Page 4 Packet Page 184 of 195 call; he agreed Option 1 was the Planning Board's version of the design guidelines with Mr. Hinshaw's recommendations. Councilmember Plunkett clarified Option 2 was the ADB version with the ADB recommended design guidelines that City Attorney Scott Snyder indicated would be difficult to defend. Mr. Snyder responded Option 2 assumed more work would be done to establish criteria and priorities. Councilmember Plunkett recalled staff s original opinion regarding the ADB's recommended design guidelines was that they were not legally defensible. Now staff was indicating they could be defensible with additional work. Mr. Snyder acknowledged his original opinion was adopting the ADB recommended design guidelines could put the City at legal risk. They were workable with additional effort. Councilmember Plunkett referred to Option 3, ADB at front of the process with design guidelines and detailed code, and asked whether the detailed code was the Planning Board's recommendation or an updated code. Mr. Chave answered that option assumed the design guidelines recommended by the ADB would be adopted as recommended to be used up front by the ADB to guide a project and not be regulatory. Any critical aspects of design that the Council did not want altered by a project such as setback, height standards, landscaping standards, etc. would be included in the code. Councilmember Plunkett asked whether the detailed code was the Planning Board's version. Mr. Chave answered not necessarily; the Council could select items, either from the Planning Board's recommendations, other sources or by adding specificity to a concept from the ADB's recommended guidelines, that would be adopted in the code. He noted items that were not adopted in the code would not be standards that a project could be required to meet. He summarized the key was to have any design parameters that the Council wanted projects to meet included in the code. Councilmember Plunkett noted Option 4 appeared to eliminate the ADB from the up front process and as well as a quasi judicial decision maker and the ADB essentially became a think tank. Mr. Chave agreed the ADB would be monitoring projects and the code and ensuring the two were compatible. Councilmember Plunkett noted other than managing their time, there was no reason the ADB could not perform the review function in Option 3. Mr. Chave agreed, noting it would depend on the number of projects the ADB reviewed. Councilmember Wambolt asked whether the PIanning Board had reviewed the design guidelines since 2001. Mr. Chave answered the Planning Board had not reconsidered the design guidelines since recommending them to the Council in 2001/2002 and had not reviewed Mr. Hinshaw's recommendations. Councilmember Wambolt asked whether the Planning Board still endorsed the design guidelines they recommended in 2001. Mr. Chave acknowledged it was a moving target; the Planning Board worked on the design guidelines for two years. If the question was whether the Planning Board wanted to review them again, they have said they do not want to. Councilmember Marin recalled one of the conclusions of the Cedar River study was to move the ADB to the front of the process. He was intrigued with having the ADB at the front of the process with the outcome being better design. He asked how long it would take to implement Option 3 if the Council spent 6-8 weeks reviewing the Planning Board version to identify key elements and forwarded those to the Planning Board. Mr. Chave explained Option 3 required modification of the existing process; the more guidance the City Council gave, the less time it would take the Planning Board. Mr. Snyder noted the Cedar River study provided an outline of the process, the process could be designed while the code language was being developed. Council President Dawson observed if the Council was not happy with the design guidelines recommended by the Planning Board in 2001 and wanted design guidelines more like what the ADB recommended, key elements would need to be identified and included in the code. She asked what would Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 21, 2006 Page 5 Packet Page 185 of 195 be done in the meantime and whether the current system could remain in place. Mr. Chave answered the current system was minimal and needed to be expanded. Mr. Snyder noted staff had identified several issues in the code that needed to be addressed. Council President Dawson summarized the amount of detail recommended by the Planning Board was not necessary but some specifics needed to be included in the code. Mr. Chave agreed, noting for example there was little issue with the landscape provisions of the Planning Board recommendations; that section could be considered separately and moved forward. If the Council identified the key elements, staff could develop defensible code language for Council review. Once the Council identified those key elements, the Planning Board's review could be quite rapid. Council President Dawson asked whether Option 3 was the same as Seattle's process. Mr. Chave answered it was similar but much shorter. Council President Dawson asked whether the ADB had the ability to grant incentives. Mr. Chave answered only those that the Council adopted. Mr. Snyder noted the proposed process was much shorter than Seattle's because the ADB did not have that authority. Mr. Chave explained any specific incentives the Council wanted to allow the ADB to grant would need to be identified in the code. Council President Dawson clarified Mr. Snyder's recommendation was if the Council wanted to adopt design guidelines such as the ADB recommended, the ADB would need to be at the front of the process versus as a quasi judicial decision maker. Mr. Snyder answered to adopt what the ADB recommended, their review needed to be at the front of the process. If the ADB was at the end of the process, there was not enough criteria in the design guidelines they recommended on which to base a decision. Council President Dawson commented when the ADB forwarded their recommended design guidelines, they did not anticipate changing their role and she was uncertain whether they would have made the same recommendation if they had been aware it would change their role. She commented it may be beneficial to have Mr. Snyder, the ADB, and members of the development community discuss the ADB's role in the process. Mr. Chave commented Option 3 was similar to Cedar River's recommendation, the difference between that and Seattle's process was Seattle's was a very lengthy process that included multiple meetings with various boards and neighborhood districts. He noted another difference from the current process would be that the ADB's input would occur at the beginning of the process where discussion regarding design rather than review of detailed plans would occur. He noted Option 3 would allow the ADB's expertise at a point in the process when it would do the most good. Mr. Snyder noted the ADB's role in Option 3 would be to influence/encourage good design and not as a regulatory body; projects would not be denied if they did not incorporate the ADB's suggested design elements unless they violated specific code provisions. Council President Dawson commented she also supported the ADB serving as a Design Standards Review Board. Mr. Chave agreed that role would likely also be possible. Mr. Snyder commented for example the ADB could begin to develop individual design standards for each neighborhood district. Councilmember Moore asked at what point would the public's input be in Options 3. Mr. Chave answered it would be at the front of the process at an ADB public meeting. Councilmember Moore asked where else in the process the public could have input. Mr. Chave answered it would be a staff decision which was generally appealable. If the public wanted to influence design, it was best done at the front of the process as it was difficult to influence decisions in the current role of the ADB when developers were committed to a particular design. The purpose of Option 3 was to identify neighborhood issues up front so that alternative designs could be considered. That process was also beneficiaU to applicants as it may reduce the possibility of lengthy appeals that delayed a project. Councilmember Moore commented that even though the ADB would not be a regulatory body in Option 3, it would be a way for the developer to hear the public's concerns. Mr. Chave agreed the key was to do it early enough in the design process so that a developer was not committed to a particular design. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 21, 2006 Page 6 Packet Page 186 of 195 Councilmember Olson noted the ADB's role as the quasi judicial decision maker at the end of the process had not been particularly effective, recalling there had been several buildings that the ADB had to approve because they met the code even though the ADB was not happy with the appearance of the building. Mr. Chave agreed the ADB wanted to influence design but their role at the end of the process has not allowed that. Mr. Snyder observed ADB appeals to the Council or Superior Court were citizen opposition to projects and the ADB approval was one of the necessary administrative remedies they were exhausting. He noted Bauer and other cases were resolved on code provisions and not on design criteria because the design criteria was so vague that the ADB was unable to deny a project on the criteria. As a result the application of the code was taking center stage which was not the intent of the process. Mr. Chave recalled one of Cedar River's observations about Edmonds' process was that the ADB's time was spent on details rather than meaningful aspects of the project. Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. Scott Schlumberger, Edmonds, a real estate investor/developer expressed concern with the amount of design impact and decision -making staff had. He cautioned against developing a checklist of items to be included in a project, noting the more codified the guidelines were, the more cookie -cutter development resulted. A checklist approach may be possible in a master -planned development but it was not effective with infill development such as occurred in Edmonds. He recommended the City consider design departures such as were allowed by Seattle, noting design departures were often important to making a project pencil out. He supported including the development community in the development of a workable process. Al Rutledge, Edmonds, commented on the impact that "zone creep" had on the character of neighborhoods. Several other cities were experiencing the same problems created by zone creep. John Heighway, Edmonds, commented the process was important but the Council needed to address basic issues to keep a system in place to ensure development continued. He suggested as part of the process the Council address the following: basic building blocks, maximum lot size, height limit, incentives for additional height, maximum footprint, percentage of ground floor retail, whether ground floor residential was allowed, and notice of public hearings. Don Kreiman, Edmonds, supported using the ADB before a building was designed as it would provide the neighborhood an opportunity to provide input to the developer and the ADB regarding their preferences before a building was designed. Currently the ADB based its approval of a project on whether it complied with the design guidelines regardless of whether it was a good design. A better way would be to consider what design fit the site, what was a good design for the site and what was acceptable to the public. He displayed photographs of several structures on the west side of 5 h Avenue questioning whether some were the best use of the property. He displayed a photograph of a structure that blocked views and: another where a taller structure would not impact views. He summarized providing the ADB the ability to analyze sites and solicit input from the public at the beginning of the process would assist developers in designing a building that best fit the site and was acceptable to the public. Staff could then determine whether the developer's design complied with the ADB's direction and the code. He concluded a collaborative process would result in less controversy and better design. Tony Shapiro, Edmonds, commented the Council and staff were confusing bulk regulations, generally governed by zoning regulations, with design criteria. He did not support the use of design guidelines to establish essential elements such as height. However, because architectural design was ever -changing, he pointed out the difficulty for cities to establish regulations with sufficient flexibility to respond to changes in architecture. He preferred the ADB provide subjective analysis of projects rather than attempt to codify regulations to respond to every site situation. He supported having the ADB up front in the Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 21, 2006 Page 7 Packet Page 187 of 195 process and public input such as in Option 3. He expressed concern with potential impact on the timing of projects with the ADB early in the process, noting a developer may only have 45-60 days to conduct their initial review on a parcel. He suggested the ADB be incorporated in the pre -application process and encouraged the ADB to meet more frequently than once a month. Jason Anderson, ADB Chair, Edmonds, recommended the ADB have an opportunity to meet with Mr. Snyder and staff before the Council made a decision. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, pointed out the benefits of the ADB meeting with the Planning Board to educate them on design. He recommended the ADB be retained as the quasi judicial decision maker, noting some of the ADB's ideas could be incorporated earlier in the process such as during pre - application meetings. He expressed concern with several photographs/sketches in the ADB recommended design guidelines of buildings that did not conform to the current building height. John Bissell, Edmonds, referred to Mr. Snyder's comment that the ADB would make a recommendation and that a project could not be denied on the basis of design alone. He emphasized Edmonds did not have an intersection of freeways like some cities to bring in economic development; it was only the character of Edmonds that attracted economic development. He noted Option 3 may be workable if the detailed code referred to in Option 3 were developed carefully; if not, Option 2 would be preferable. He noted developers preferred Option 3 due to the amount of time and money developers put into a project to reach the quasi judicial approval process, however, in the best interest of the City it was important to have criteria in the code to support Option 3. He encouraged the Council to pursue Council President Dawson's suggestion to have a joint meeting with developers, the City Attorney, staff and stakeholders. Hearing no further public comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public participation portion of the public hearing. COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT DAWSON, TO EXTEND DISCUSSION OF THIS ITEM FOR TEN MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Councilmember Moore requested staff respond to Mr. Shapiro's comment regarding changing architectural fashions. Mr. Chave agreed designs changed; for example, development in Seattle's Bell Town likely would be recognizable in 20-30 years as building that occurred in 2005-2006. The challenge in developing design guidelines and/or code was to identify the parameters that were the most important such as scale, height, bulk, setbacks, etc. and let the design community determine the building solution to meet those goals. He noted there could be incentives for providing certain elements or the specifics could be codified such as in Leavenworth. He agreed it was important to allow some flexibility but identify specifics with regard to elements that could not be varied. Mr. Snyder commented when developing design criteria, the criteria needed to be specific enough to meet the Anderson v. Issaquah test and not so detailed that the result was a cookie -cutter approach, The Council also needed to balance the development community's desire for design flexibility and potential .for variances with the community's interest in specific bulk standards. Councilmember Moore asked staff to comment on Mr. Shapiro's concern with the potential for Option 3 to delay the initial review period. Mr. Chave answered it was likely the review would occur sooner and would not slow down the process. Staff would need to determine whether the ADB could be incorporated into pre -application conferences; it may depend on a developer's willingness to wait three weeks versus two for the pre -application conference. Mr. Snyder noted if the design input was provided at the beginning of the process, the Council would need to determine what process would occur at the end to F.drnonds City Council Approved Minutes March 21, 2006 Page 8 Packet Page 188 of 195 determine whether the ADB's recommendations were adhered to and whether the ADB's input were recommendations or appealable criteria. Staff has assumed the ADB's input up front would be advisory. Mr. Chave commented if the Council wanted to implement Option 3 and liked the ADB's recommended design guidelines, he recommended they be referred to the Planning Board. The Council may also want to develop a list of elements from the Planning Board's and/or ADB recommended design guidelines to be incorporated into the code. He anticipated staff would develop code language to implement the items the Council wanted incorporated in the code. Councilmember Moore noted the list of elements could be changed at any time. Mr. Chave agreed, stating the Council could request the Planning Board and/or ADB recommend changes each year based on challenges they have encountered with the design guidelines. Councilmember Wambolt asked staff to comment on Mr. Schlumberger's reference to Seattle's use of design departures. Mr. Chave explained Seattle had general design parameters and some ability to alter the code standards was allowed. Mr. Snyder provided an example of a Seattle design departure — altering the height calculation depending on the slope and contour of a lot. Mr. Chave acknowledged many of Seattle's design departures were in regard to height in exchange for varying the building design. He noted that may be the reason the design departure route was less desirable for Edmonds. Councilmember Wambolt referred to Mr. Hertrich's comment regarding pictures/sketches in the design guidelines of buildings that would not be allowed in Edmonds. Mr. Chave commented the design guidelines were originally intended to apply citywide, thus the reason there were a variety of buildings. Councilmember Plunkett commented design departures were not always related to height. Mr. Chave agreed, noting those regarding height were the most powerful departures. He acknowledged there may be opportunity for allowing design departures in Edmonds. Mr. Snyder provided an example such as alternatives for height calculation depending on the side of the street downtown. Mr. Chave provided an example of a decorative turret above the height limit in exchange for setback or open space. Mayor Haakenson remanded the matter to Council for action. Council President Dawson recommended Mr. Chave and Mr. Snyder meet with the ADB and stakeholders including the development community, ACE, and property owners in the area to gather input on the ADB's proposal. Councilmember Moore requested the meeting be well advertised such as advertisement in the newspaper and on Channel 21. COUNCILMEMBER MOORE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT DAWSON, TO ASK THAT MR. SNYDER, MR. CRAVE AND MR. BOWMAN GO TO THE ADB AND DISCUSS THE ROLE OF THE ADB AND INVITE THE PUBLIC TO ATTEND THE MEETING. Mr. Snyder welcomed the public's attendance but recommended staff have a discussion with the ADB and a few stakeholders. Council President Dawson clarified her intent would be a dialogue between staff and representatives from the stakeholder groups and not just a staff presentation and audience members providing 3-minute comments. Councilmember Marin spoke in support of the motion, commenting it appeared the Council was leaning toward Option 3 which may assist with guiding discussion at the meeting toward implementation of that option. Councilmember Olson agreed with Councilmember Marin, suggesting the meeting focus on Option 3, Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 21, 2006 Page 9 Packet Page 189 of 195 MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. uitding 5. DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING BUILDING HEIGHTS IN THE BC ZONE eights in the c zone Development Services Director Duane Bowman reviewed the following list of Council downtown decision points: I , Confirm that the adopted downtown districts are still the ones the Council would like to see. Example: Should there be an area that is optional for commercial development? Should residential use be an allowed use on the first floor? 2. Does the city want first floors in the core area to be retail only and/or 12 - 15 feet in height? Is this "core area" larger than the adopted "Fountain Square" in the Comprehensive Plan but smaller than the adopted "Downtown Mixed Commercial" area? For example, one version of a retail core that's been discussed runs along Main from 3`d to 6 h and along 50' from Walnut to Bell. Does the Council want incentives to achieve first floor ceilings of 15 feet in this "core area'? 3, Confirm that first floor heights in all downtown commercial areas are to be a minimum of 12 feet in height which would allow space to be converted in the future. Confirm that the goal is to have first floors and entries in all commercial areas at street grade. When the street grade is on a slope, the Planning Board will need to develop rules for how the building will maintain a street presence. 5. Confirm that there should be a maximum of two stories at the street, with a possible third story if set back from the street front. 5.a. Do you want buildings to be set back from the street property line in order to have wider sidewalks? 5.b. Do you want additional incentives in exchange for allowing a third floor? Example: additional street -level open space, Should there be smaller buildings downtown? What incentive system could be, used to achieve this? Note: There is an interaction between a building's size and the ability to have underground parking in order to meet existing parking requirements. If the Council wants to encourage smaller buildings through incentives, parking requirements could be waived for commercial space if the building is under a certain size. Larger buildings could be required to undergo more extensive design review. 7. Confirm that there can be exceptions that can extend above the roof of the building such as decorative cornices, parapets, clock towers or other building enhancements? Confirm maximum building height limit. Planning Manager Rob Chave presented a concept staff developed to address height calculation on sloped lots. He displayed an example of a building on a downhill slope and identified the east and south elevations. He explained the current average grade rule for calculating height yielded 25+5 at the top of the building on the east elevation, He noted the height of the structure at the street on the south elevation was less than 25 feet, however, on the west, the building was appropriate 40 feet in height due to the slope on the site. He identified the commercial floor at or below eye level. He summarized the problems with the building were the height at the rear lot line was out of scale with adjoining properties and the location of the commercial floor on the street side was problematic. He explained when staff attempted to develop a rule that would accomplish setbacks as well as tie the building to the street, they found if the height were set at the lower of 25 feet from the street or 30 feet Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 21, 2006 Page 10 Packet Page 190 of 195 acres — which the District rejected. She provided assurance the Council was trying its best to ensure there was a park in that area. She advised another update was scheduled on the March 21 agenda. Scout Troop Scout Troop Introduction 367 Councilmember Marin introduced Scout Troop 367 who were attending the Council meeting working on their Citizenship merit badge. 8. PRESENTATION ON DESIGN GUIDELINES PROPOSAL BY THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN [Design BOARD Guidelines Council President Dawson advised a public hearing on the design guidelines was scheduled for March 21; no action would be taken by the Council tonight. Jason Anderson, President, Architectural Design Board (ADB), explained the ADB was tasked with reviewing the design guidelines; the draft design guidelines were contained in the Council packet. He explained the previous design guidelines were somewhat piecemeal and the proposed draft was a more uniform document that removed details, making them more ambiguous which would allow a designer/developer to be creative with their solutions. He relayed that the ADB wanted issues dictated by the code to be contained in the code rather than the design guidelines. City Attorney Scott Snyder explained a 1993 court of appeals decision struck down Issaquah's design guidelines as lacking sufficient standards to inform a developer of their obligations He explained this was particularly relevant to Edmonds as the City's design guidelines were written by the same attorney as Issaquah's and were identical. At the time the solution was to begin adopting design guidelines to fill the gap. He clarified the main point of Anderson v. Issaquah was a city had an obligation to inform a developer of their obligations. In a footnote, the court cited a Texas case that utilized pictures, the reason the City's design guidelines contained a lot of pictures. From 1993 — 1999, the City began the gradual process of filling in the gall by adopting pictures and guidelines with numbers. In 1999 the City hired Cedar River Consultant Group to perform a study. Issues raised by the Cedar River study included the timing of design review, lack of a positive role for the ADB and recognition that there were inadequate design review guidelines. One of the main questions asked of the Council and ADB in 1999 was whether they wanted to use the Seattle process. He explained the Seattle ADB was comprised of architects, engineers and professionals who meet and collaborate with neighborhoods and developers. The design guidelines proposed by the ADB contained a checklist that he recognized from the Seattle process. At the time of the Cedar River Study, the ADB and Council advised staff and Cedar River it was more important to retain the current Edmonds process whereby the ADB was a quasi judicial decision -making body. To do that under Anderson v. Issaquah, the ADB must have clear criteria on which to act. In the Seattle process, which is similar to the draft design guidelines proposed by the ADB, at the beginning of a Project the ADB identifies what criteria the project would need to meet as well as engages in a collaborative effort with citizens and the developer. The developer then makes their investment, does their design and presents it at which point the project is a staff decision. Staff reviews the list and determines whether the developer met the criteria. He noted that was a collaborative, upfront design process that allowed the ADB to have a voice in the design of the building which he suggested may result in a better design product but was not a quasi judicial process under Anderson v. Issaquah. From 2000-2002, the City, staff and consultants proceeded on the assumption that the ADB would remain the review body and the design consultant developed specific design criteria. The design guidelines recommended by the ADB tonight have come full circle. He noted the ADB has been consistent, Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 7, 2006 Page 9 Packet Page 191 of 195 expressing their dissatisfaction with the process and desire for a greater role in design. However, if the intent was to have a design board that was a regulatory entity, there needed to be clear design criteria that established who, what, when and where a developer was supposed to do so that when/if a project was appealed, the ADB had the tools/criteria to determine whether the project met the criteria (the Anderson test). The other method, which he assured was equally valid, was to have the ADB at the front of the process where they worked collaboratively with neighbors and developers, completed the checklist and had a greater impact on design at a point when the developer did not have a great deal invested in design. Regardless of the approach, whether design guidelines in the code or a collaborative design, for anything that must be done such as 12-15 foot first floor ceiling heights, retail space downtown, massing, sidewalk orientation, setback for third floors, there would need to be clear criteria. He noted the design guidelines proposed by the ADB reflected "should" rather than "shall" and state that each project would face different design realities. He noted this was not a process to turn something down. If the Council was interested in a collaborative process, the must -haves and shalls could be contained in the zoning ordinance for each zoning district. If the desire was to retain Edmonds' way of doing things with appeals that come to the Council on closed record appeal, there needed to be more clear, concise, enforceable design guidelines such as were developed by the Planning Board. He pointed out under Anderson v. Issaquah a city had to tell a developer what to do and in order to deny a project, the reviewing body needed to be able to identify what criteria they failed to meet. Council President Dawson asked why the Council rejected changing the role of the ADB in 1999, noting at least five of the current Councilmembers were not on the Council at that time. Mr. Snyder recalled there were several factors, 1) a desire to maintain the current Edmonds way where the ADB was the design body and citizens had the opportunity to bring meaningful appeals of projects, 2) the concerns of a number of area developers such as Rob Michel and an architect, Tony Shapiro, who testified that a change in the process would bog down review and delay development. Council President Dawson commented Mr. Michel, a member of the ADB, may have changed his mind in that the ADB was suggesting this different process. Mr. Snyder answered he was unsure whether the ADB understood the implications of the design guidelines they proposed. The design guidelines proposed by the ADB would work with the ADB at the start of the process. Mr. Snyder relayed that Councilmember Plunkett had forwarded a copy of the ADB-proposed design guidelines to Municipal Research whose planning consultant indicated the design guidelines were reasonable. When he explained where in the process the Edmonds ADB came, Municipal Research understood the dilemma. Mr. Snyder referred to the checklist in the design guidelines proposed by the ADB, explaining if the ADB was at the front of the process, the checklist would be completed at that time. He questioned when the checklist would be completed if the ADB was at the end of the process. Council President Dawson commented there appeared to be a policy decision to be made; if the Council accepted the design guidelines proposed by the ADB, the role of the ADB would need to be changed by moving them to the front of the process. If the ADB were to retain their current role in the process, design guidelines such as the Planning Board recommended that contained more details/standards that could be applied in a quasi judicial setting would need to be adopted. Mr. Snyder agreed, pointing out the details could also be added to the code rather than in the design guidelines and the ADB recommended design guidelines utilized at the front of the process. Council President Dawson suggested the Council be provided the Cedar River Study prior to the public hearing to assist them with determining the policy direction and would allow the public to comment on which method they preferred. She clarified the design guidelines the ADB recommended could not be utilized as the process currently exists. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 7, 2006 Page 10 Packet Page 192 of 195 Councilmember Plunkett recalled at the retreat the Council got the impression that the design guidelines proposed by the ADB would not work; however, tonight Mr. Snyder had inferred they were upholdable if applied correctly. Mr. Snyder explained the ADB's approach would work if the ADB was up front in the process because the ADB could use the generalizations and checklist to work with the developer and the public to set specific standards for the project. The ADB's approach did not work in the existing process. His reaction at the retreat, when he first saw the design guidelines proposed by the ADB and in view of the Council's 2000 decision to retain the ADB in their existing role, was that they were not workable unless the Council revisited their policy decision. Councilmember Plunkett referred to Mr. Snyder's comment that having the ADB and residents involved up front in the process would result in better designed buildings. Mr. Snyder answered it would provide the flexibility for better design. Councilmember Plunkett commented the Council, staff and citizens were interested in well designed buildings. He asked whether there was an appeal to the Hearing Examiner on either path. Mr. Snyder explained the Seattle approach included a series of community meetings, the ADB set the design criteria guidelines for a project which citizens or the developer may appeal to the Hearing Examiner or Council. The final approval by staff is also appealable. He analogized the final approval to a subdivision process; all the action was during the preliminary plat, once the preliminary plat was approved, it was appealable but it was via review of a checklist that did not allow any discretion. He suggested the first process put a premium on citizens paying attention because by the time building permits were being issued and a project reached final approval, it would be too late to have any meaningful input. Councilmember Plunkett commented the essence of having the ADB upfront in the process was to allow citizen involvement. Councilmember Orvis commented if the ADB were moved upfront in the process, there was no opportunity late in the process for a citizen challenge but they could challenge whether the "must -haves" had been met. Mr. Snyder reiterated the Council had much more power legislatively than quasi judicially. He recommended the Council identify any "must -haves" in the Code. Councilmember Orvis noted the Council could also define bulk standards in the zoning code. Mr. Snyder agreed, explaining it did not matter whether the specifics were in the design guidelines or the zoning code. Councilmember Moore asked who was at the end of the process if the ADB was upfront in the process. Mr. Snyder answered that was up to the Council; in Seattle it was a staff decision because at that point it became an administrative decision and not a discretionary decision. He noted any staff decision was appealable; however, it would be difficult to win an appeal on a design approval unless one of the requirements was not met. Councilmember Moore asked where in the code the "must -haves" would be. Mr. Snyder answered in the past they have been in the design guidelines, but they could be in the bulk standards for each zone, recognizing that there may be, over time, different standards for different zones. He noted that was the value of public input, developing criteria specific to each zoning district. Councilmember Marin asked whether the upfront method assumed a tightly written code. Mr. Snyder answered a tightly written code would ensure the "must -haves" were met. Mr. Bowman supported having the most important issues codified so that the ADB knew a project must have those elements and could work with a developer on other issues. The stronger the requirements, the more likely a developer would submit an application that contained all those elements. Councilmember Marin asked how tightly written the City's code was. Mr. Bowman answered it was not tightly written, explaining during the rewrite of the code, some sections such as the design guidelines Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 7, 2006 Page 11 Packet Page 193 of 195 could be adopted sooner than the overall code. Mr. Snyder noted the rewrite was explicating the status quo and not creating new policy. Council President Dawson remarked some of the frustration with the existing ADB process and the Council's review of decisions was the list of amenities developers could choose from. She preferred to identify what elements were required rather than choosing from a list. If the Council wanted to move the ADB to the start of the process, the make-up of the ADB could be changed to include more community members for example. Mr. Snyder agreed the make-up of the ADB was at the Council's discretion; the ADB was not a state required board. He noted the more the City's code was explicated, the more likely the result would be a standard, cookie -cutter approach. Council President Dawson noted the ADB at the front of the process would provide more flexibility. Council President Dawson suggested the Public Outreach Committee consider having notices for ADB review displayed on Channel 21. Mr. Snyder pointed out ADB review only applied to major projects that required SEPA — over 4,000 square feet or 4+ units. Councilmember Olson asked if moving the ADB to the front of the process and tightening the code would eliminate some of the problems that have arisen over the past couple years such as a developer that put a great deal of time and money into a project and having their project denied at the last minute. Mr. Snyder explained one of the purposes of GMA and Anderson v. Issaquah was to provide developers certainty. Councilmember Olson commented if the ADB were at the front of the process, the public would have more input at the beginning rather than at a point when it was more difficult to affect the outcome. Mr. Anderson advised the ADB's agenda was currently already posted on Channel 21. He advised two of the seven ADB members were community members. When the Council tasked the ADB with reviewing the design guidelines, it was his understanding the Council wanted the professionals/community members on the ADB to determine what needed to be added/subtracted to the design guidelines to address the gaps. He referred to ADB Member Michael Lowell's July 2005 memo to the Council regarding the role of the ADB to which the Council provided no direction. As a result, the ADB assumed their role was not changing and the design guidelines were intended to assist staff and developers. He questioned why the proposed design guidelines necessitated the ADB being upfront in the process, finding the design guidelines were essentially the same without the numbers that the professionals preferred be in the code. Council President Dawson clarified the guidelines proposed by the ADB would not pass the Anderson v. Issaquah test with the ADB in their current role; they were acceptable if the role of the ADB were changed. Mr. Snyder explained the checklist in the design guidelines that the ADB proposed was great but if an applicant designed their building and came to the ADB at the end of the process, when was the checklist completed and what criteria did staff use to complete the checklist? He noted the checklist was completed collaboratively in the Seattle process where the ADB was at the beginning. He reiterated the design guidelines proposed by the ADB did not contain any "shalls," only "shoulds" and stated that each site would face different design criteria, As a document to provide final decision -making criteria, it failed the Anderson v. Issaquah test. He found it a wonderful document if it were utilized as in Seattle to help develop design criteria for each project in a collaborative manner. Mr. Snyder commented the reason the design guidelines were developed was because the requirements were not in the code. Mr. Anderson relayed the ADB's recommendation that the requirements be in the code and not in the design guidelines. Councilmember Marin staffed this may need to be a 2-step process; put the design guidelines proposed by the Planning Board in place now, keep the ADB at the end and work over the next 2 years to incorporate the important elements in the code that would support the ADB moving upfront in the process. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 7, 2006 Page 12 Packet Page 194 of 195 Councilmember Moore clarified Mr. Anderson wanted the design guidelines proposed by the ADB adopted but the ADB kept at the end of the process. Mr. Anderson agreed, commenting the proposed design guidelines were viewed as a tool for. the ADB, developers and staff to facilitate better design. Councilmember Plunkett commented on the research he had conducted by a Municipal Research attorney as well as by a planner, pointing out Mr. Anderson would need to demonstrate to the Council something that outweighed what the attorneys had determined. He thanked the ADB for their efforts, commenting the result would be better designed buildings. Council President Dawson advised the Council would hold a public hearing on March 21 and she urged the public to provide comment for the Council's consideration. She advised there now appeared to be a third option, pass the design guidelines recommended by the Planning Board and then determine whether to change the process. She encouraged the Council to consider what role they wanted for the ADB. She anticipated some Council action on March 21. Councilmember Orvis was intrigued by moving the ADB upfront in the process, remarking some of his objections to recently constructed buildings downtown could be resolved via bulk standards. With regard to the third alternative, Councilmember Plunkett asked staff to explain why having the ADB upfront in the process could not be enacted sooner. Councilmember Olson was also intrigued by having the ADB upfront in the process as an opportunity to get better designed buildings via a collaborative effort at the beginning of the design process. Mr. Bowman assumed what the Council wanted for the public hearing was input from the community regarding the ADB review process, design guidelines and whether the ADB should be a collaborative, upfront process or the quasi judicial decision -maker at the end of the process. Council President Dawson commented the reason the Council decided at the retreat to hold a public hearing was their intent to adopt design guidelines than continuing to postpone. Mr. Bowman advised comments at the public hearing could also identify features to be incorporated into the design guidelines. Mr. Bowman suggested staff's presentation review the history, identify all options and take public comment. Mr. Snyder reiterated regardless of where they were, in the design guidelines or in the code, the City needed to have specific design criteria. If the Council wanted to adopt the design guidelines proposed by the ADB, the procedure would need to be changed. He suggested the Council first identify the design criteria they wanted implemented and then where in the code they would be located. Councilmember Plunkett suggested at the public hearing staff provide the history and the two paths as well as a timeline of what it would take to put the ADB at the front of the process. Mr. Snyder volunteered to make a presentation to the ADB to describe his concerns and ensure that the ADB understood the choices, The Council agreed it would be appropriate for Mr. Snyder to meet with the ADB. 9. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Haakenson advised of the upcoming Mayor's Neighborhood Tour where he would hold meetings ayor's at eight locations during March and April beginning at 7:00 p.m. He advised there would be no agenda or Neighborhood Tour topic, just an opportunity for citizens to tell him what was on their minds. He advised citizens would be receiving a mailer this weekend with all the locations. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 7, 2006 Page 13 Packet Page 195 of 195