The URL can be used to link to this page

2007.04.03 CC Agenda PacketAGENDA Edmonds City Council Meeting Council Chambers 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds April 03, 2007 6:15 D.M. - Executive Session Regarding Legal Matters 7:00 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 March 27, 2007. C. Approval of claim checks #95184 through #95342 for March 29, 2007 in the amount of $202,530.81. D. Report on final construction costs for the 92nd Avenue West/234th Street SW Intersection Safety Improvements project and Council acceptance of project. E. Report on final construction costs for the South County Senior Center Roof Replacement project and Council acceptance of project. F. Report on final construction costs for the South County Senior Center Fire Alarm Renovation project and Council acceptance of project. G. Authorization for Mayor to sign Contract with Edmonds -South Snohomish County Historical Society for the Edmonds Market. H. Authorization to contract with James Murphy Auctioneers to sell surplus equipment. I. Approval of generic interlocal agreement regarding reciprocal services for code -enforcement officers and building officials. J. Proclamation in honor of Days of Remembrance, April 15 - 22, 2007. K. Proposed Ordinance regarding street setbacks and landscape standards in the CG and CG-2 Zone. 3• (s Min) Proclamation in honor of National Telecommunicator's Week, April 8 - 14, 2007. 4• (5 Min) Proclamation in honor of Public Health Week, April 2 - 8, 2007. 5• Proposed Resolution relating to the support and adoption of the Integrated Roads & Transit Plan developed (s Min) by the Regional Transportation Investment District and Sound Transit. 6• Authorization to call for bids for the abatement and demolition of the Old Woodway Elementary School (s Min) located at 23700 104th Avenue West. 7• (60 Second Public Hearing on the Planning Board recommendation to update the Edmonds Community Min) 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). 8• Audience Comments (3 minute limit per person) AgendaQuick©2005 - 2007 Destiny Software Inc., All Rights Reserved Packet Page 1 of 231 (5 Min) Mayor's Comments 10. (15 Min) Council Comments 11. Adjourn AgendaQuick©2005 - 2007 Destiny Software Inc., All Rights Reserved Packet Page 2 of 231 AM-914 Approval of Minutes Edmonds City Council Meeting 2.B. Date: 04/03/2007 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 March 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 Attached is a copy of the draft March 27, 2007 City Council Minutes. 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: 03/29/2007 Date Status 03/29/2007 08:20 AM APRV 03/29/2007 08:29 AM APRV 03/29/2007 09:50 AM APRV Started On: 03/29/2007 08:19 AM Packet Page 3 of 231 EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES March 27, 2007 The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Pro Tem Olson in the Council Chambers, 250 51h Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Peggy Pritchard Olson, Mayor Pro Tem Ron Wambolt, Council President Pro Tem Michael Plunkett, Councilmember Richard Marin, Councilmember Mauri Moore, Councilmember Deanna Dawson, Councilmember Dave Orvis, Councilmember ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT Gary Haakenson, Mayor 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA STAFF PRESENT David Stern, Chief of Police Dan Clements, Administrative Services Director Brian McIntosh, Parks & Recreation Director Noel Miller, Public Works Director Dave Gebert, City Engineer Debbie Dawson, Animal Control Officer Carl Nelson, Chief Information Officer Scott Snyder, City Attorney 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 Council President Pro Tem Wambolt requested Item I be removed from the Consent Agenda and Councilmember Plunkett requested Item G be removed. COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, FOR APPROVAL OF THE REMAINDER OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: A. ROLL CALL B. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MARCH 20, 2007. C. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #95004 THROUGH #95183 FOR MARCH 22, 2007 IN THE AMOUNT OF $833,409.80. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSITS AND CHECKS #44617 THROUGH #44669 FOR THE PERIOD OF MARCH 1 THROUGH MARCH 15, 2007 IN THE AMOUNT OF $909,024.34. D. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES FROM CAROL FRANKLIN (AMOUNT UNDETERMINED) AND TIMOTHY CIPOLLA (AMOUNT UNDETERMINED. E. REPORT ON FINAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR THE EDMONDS MEMORIAL CEMETERY IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT AND COUNCIL ACCEPTANCE OF PROJECT. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes March 27, 2007 Page 1 Packet Page 4 of 231 F. AUTHORIZATION TO CALL FOR BIDS FOR THE 2007 STREET OVERLAY PROGRAM. H. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH MACLEOD RECKORD LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS FOR CONSULTING SERVICES FOR OLD WOODWAY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PARK MASTER PLANNING, DESIGN, AND CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATION SERVICES. J. REPORT ON FINAL PROJECT AND CONSTRUCTION FOR THE CITY BUILDING ENERGY IMPROVEMENTS - PHASE I AND COUNCIL ACCEPTANCE OF PROJECT. K. ORDINANCE NO. 3633 - ADOPTING A NEW SUBSECTION D INTO EDMONDS CITY CODE 8.51.020 DEFINING TEMPORARY EMPLOYEE PARKING PERMIT; ADDING A NEW SECTION 8.51.042 TO CHAPTER 8.51 ECC ENTITLED TEMPORARY EMPLOYEE PARKING PERMIT - VALIDATION REQUIRED. City Attorney Scott Snyder requested a brief Executive Session to discuss the items that were removed from the Consent Agenda. At 7:30 p.m., Mayor Pro Tem Olson recessed the Council to a 15 minute Executive Session to discuss pending/threatened litigation. The meeting was reconvened at 7:19 p.m. ITEM G: AUTHORIZATION TO CALL FOR BIDS FOR THE ABATEMENT AND DEMOLITION OF THE OLD WOODWAY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL LOCATED AT 23700 104TH AVENUE WEST Councilmember Plunkett advised questions had arisen that City Attorney Scott Snyder needed additional time to address. COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, TO DEFER THIS ITEM UNTIL NEXT WEEK. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ITEM I: AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH HOUGH BECK & BAIRD INC. FOR CONSULTING SERVICES TO UPDATE THE EDMONDS PARKS, RECREATION & OPEN SPACE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. Council President Pro Tern Wambolt relayed that at a Port Commission meeting yesterday, citizens and Commissioners expressed dissatisfaction with the restroom facilities along the waterfront. He asked if the scope of this item could include an assessment of the restroom facilities on the waterfront and determine whether additional restrooms were needed. He recalled the Port Commissioners expressed interest in restrooms at the dog park and at Marina Beach. He noted there were also comments that the restroom facilities at the underwater park were not maintained and were in a constant state of uncleanliness. Parks & Recreation Director Brian McIntosh agreed it could include this assessment. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM WAMBOLT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, FOR APPROVAL OF ITEM L MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3. PROCLAMATION IN HONOR OF BOYS & GIRLS CLUB WEEK MARCH 25 - 31 2007 Mayor Pro Tern Olson read a Proclamation declaring March 25 — 31 as Boys & Girls Club week and presented the Proclamation to Bill Dalziel, Boys & Girls Club Director. Mr. Dalziel thanked the Council for their support of Edmonds youth, advising the Boys & Girls Club was part of a larger operation with over 4,000 clubs in the United States. He explained the Boys & Girls Club Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes March 27, 2007 Page 2 Packet Page 5 of 231 had been a member of the Edmonds community since 1968 and currently had five sites — four elementary schools and the Club — that serve approximately 1200 youth per year. The Boys & Girls Club planned to continue to be a part of the community and maintain a positive place for kids. He emphasized adults were role models for youth and the youth were the leaders of tomorrow, future employees, employers, neighbors and families in the community. Mayor Pro Tem Olson commented her nephew had benefited from attending the Boys & Girls Club before and after school programs. 4. ANNUAL REPORT FROM THE SNOHOMISH COUNTY TOURISM BUREAU Amy Spain, Snohomish County Tourism Bureau, provided statistics regarding tourism in Snohomish County including a 10.6% growth in tourism in 2006 for a total economic impact of $746.7 million. She described: • 14,202 requests for information generated by advertisements, • increase in web visitors to Snohomish.org, SnohomishCountyWedings.com and RoomsAtPar, • decreased visits to Visitor Information Centers, • relatively flat off-season program bookings compared to 2005, • increased group and convention room nights, • increased hotel occupancy levels, • increased hotel/motel tax collections, and • increased media coverage. She commented on the impacts of tourism in Snohomish County on restaurants, transportation, fuel, retail stores, recreation and entertainment as well as employment and local and state taxes. Ms. Spain provided examples of advertisements the Bureau placed in meeting planners, reunion and group tour -related publications and displayed the group tour guide and meeting & event guide. She commented on familiarization tours and sales missions the Bureau provided. She described trade shows Bureau staff attended that generated leads, assistance staff provided to groups with their conference needs, and meeting planner bids the Bureau prepared for group businesses. She reported on lost convention business in 2006 and displayed a chart illustrating the economic impact of hotel room nights. She reported on Amtrak's in -kind donation of a companion fair coupon. She also reported on the economic impact of sports related bookings in 2006. Ms. Spain commented on distribution of official visitor guides, season calendars, Farm Trail Guides, and Glimpse of Snohomish County promotional pieces. She described public relation and media efforts, volunteer hours and services provided at Visitor Centers and donations from area businesses. She described decreasing visits to Visitor Centers as the public increased their use of online websites and as communities opened their own Visitor Information Centers. She also described the Bureau's community relation efforts during 2006 that included sponsoring six countywide tourism -related programs as well as participating as a donation site for Toys for Tots and food drives. She summarized tourism was a huge economic driver in Snohomish County tourism and was improving every year. Councilmember Moore inquired about the Bureau's efforts associated with the 2010 Olympics in Vancouver and how Edmonds could participate. Ms. Spain described the SnoGold 2010 effort, a grassroots organization which includes a Tourism Committee that she co-chairs as well as a Communications Committee and a Business Development Committee. The Business Development Committee is working on preparing businesses to accommodate the influx of visitors and how to become suppliers to the needs of the Olympics. The Tourism Committee is preparing an inventory of attractions and special events during the Olympics and Paralympics time period and discussing how to better market Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes March 27, 2007 Page 3 Packet Page 6 of 231 those events nationally. She relayed statistics that the majority of U.S. visitors to the Olympics would be from the western states, many of whom would be driving. She commented on the need to manage expectations, noting although there would be additional visitors, their focus will be reaching BC. Councilmember Moore recalled Idaho benefited greatly from the Olympics in Salt Lake City including hosting foreign teams. She referred to skating rinks in Snohomish County and asked how Edmonds could pursue that effort. Ms. Spain advised of a Community Strategy for Team Hosting Workshop on April 11 at the Everett Event Center. She advised the Business Development Committee is working on hosting teams as well as team demonstrations/exhibitions in Snohomish County. She encouraged anyone interested in being more involved in the SnoGold 2010 to contact her. Councilmember Marin found the presentation impressive, particularly the indication that it was not only hotels that benefited but there was a trickle down effect on communities. Ms. Spain agreed, noting shopping was the top tourist activity and Edmonds was a wonderful destination for shopping as well as walking and art and culture. Councilmember Marin asked her to relay the Council's thanks to her staff and volunteers. Councilmember Dawson thanked Councilmember Moore for raising the issue of SnoGold, recalling the Council discussed that effort at the retreat. She envisioned the City becoming more involved with the Business Development Committee in the fall. 5. REPORT FROM THE COMMUNITY TECHNOLOGY ADVISORY COMMITTEE (CTAC) Bart Preecs, Chair of the CTAC, introduced John Hines and John Gates, members of the CTAC in the audience. He explained there had been a significant citizen effort on the CTAC. He thanked Community Services Director Stephen Clifton, Administrative Services Director Dan Clements, and Executive Assistant Cindy Cruz for their assistance. He also thanked the Council, commenting this was uncharted territory; there was no recipe for developing a broadband system and it took courage and vision for the Council to take a leadership position in this effort. Rick Jenness, CTAC member, presented the CTAC vision, "Build an ultra high speed interactive broadband network, available to every home and business in the City, capable of delivering service from multiple competing servicing providers." He reviewed the benefits of a broadband network that include reduced costs to residents and businesses, providing enhanced public and commercial services along with more service plan choices to citizens, providing increased competition among service providers, creating an economic development magnet for high tech businesses to the City, and stabilizing and enhancing current City revenues from service providers He reviewed an historical timeline: • 2002-2004 — vision evangelized to Mayor and Council • November 2004 — Council creates CTAC • June 2005 — WSDOT deeds 4-mile (from the ferry to Hwy. 99) fiber backbone to the City • December 2005 — City acquires Westin fiber to Snohomish County line 0 November 2006 — City completes WSDOT fiber to Westin fiber link, providing fiber from the ferry terminal to the Westin • December 2006 — City issues RFI to gather information from commercial entities (18 firms express interest) • January 2007 — 12 firms attend vendor pre -bid conference • March 1, 2007 — City acquires first customer to utilize Westin link • March 2, 2007 — City receives eight formal responses to RFI Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes March 27, 2007 Page 4 Packet Page 7 of 231 • March 16, 2007 — City selects four firms for oral presentations (Bechtel/Motorola, DynamicCity, NetRiver/PacketFront, and Nortel) He reviewed a future timeline: April 10 & 11, 2007 — oral presentations by Bechtel/Motorola, DynamicCity, NetRiver/PacketFront, and Nortel April 14, 2007 — Committee completes evaluation of responses May 4, 2007 — Council, Mayor, staff and committee issues Statement of Direction with regard to where the City wants to go next Mr. Jenness explained possible next steps include 1) creating a public entity to begin planning activities who would engage a partner firm, business case development, begin planning a pilot project and 2) expanding the marketing activities of the existing infrastructure to generate additional revenue. Councilmember Moore expressed her gratitude to the citizens serving as volunteers on the CTAC. She found this to be the most important initiative the City has seen in a long time. With regard to what CTAC wanted the Council to do next, she asked if they planned to bring it to the Community Outreach Committee or to the full Council. He commented several Councilmembers attend CTAC meetings, thus they have had good input from the Council. He suggested the process could possibly include discussion by the Finance Committee prior to consideration by the full Council. Mr. Preecs explained the goal had always been not just to establish the infrastructure but to identify how to use that infrastructure to promote civic and cultural aspects of the community as well as the practice of government. Council President Pro Tern Wambolt, who serves on the CTAC along with Mayor Pro Tern Olson, acknowledged when this effort first began he was skeptical until he discovered the members of the CTAC knew what they were doing. He noted the members were very capable people with years of experience who were spending a great deal of their own time on this effort. He expressed his thanks to the CTAC for the time they were donating to the community. 6. PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 5.05 OF THE EDMONDS CITY CODE RELATING TO ANIMAL CONTROL City Attorney Scott Snyder advised this matter was returned to the Council at their direction. He recalled on February 20, the Council directed the preparation of an ordinance that specifically precluded the trapping of pets and companion animals and provided protections with an amendment to provide for a professional trapping option which he assumed from Council discussion would be via the City's Animal Control process. He explained the Council's direction presented several drafting challenges: 1) The difficulty for the City's Prosecutor to prove a pet was intentionally trapped. To address this in the ordinance, he provided a range of penalties. The intentional trapping of a pet by another would be a gross misdemeanor with the penalty of a year in jail and $1000 fine. Negligent confinement, leaving an animal in a trap, would also be a misdemeanor. 2) Imposing criminal penalties on activities that are clearly prohibited under civil laws of the State. The City as a code city has the authority to impose those limitations, if a problem arises, the courts defer to that judgment and findings are rarely overturned. He explained the ordinance would remove the most effective tool that a real property owner had to protect his/her property from trespass. 3) Although the City has 7-day per week animal control coverage, it was not 24-hour a day coverage and the Animal Control Officers also provide services to another City by Interlocal Agreement as well as serve as parking enforcement. He noted both the public and Council have expressed a Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes March 27, 2007 Page 5 Packet Page 8 of 231 concern with releasing an animal from the trap and the possibility of Animal Control Officers leaving a trap unattended for 12-14 hours raised issues. Mr. Snyder explained the ordinance he drafted allowed the City's Animal Control Officers to trap and fulfill their duties with regard to feral cats and injured animals. The ordinance includes an extensive section on the use of private contractors and provides a process for property owners that includes notifying the neighbor if the ownership of the trespassing pet is known, sending a letter to the neighborhood if ownership is unknown, and once that had been accomplished, authorizing property owners to utilize a private contractor list to trap an animal. He noted the process for identifying contractors would be similar to the City's process for identifying towing companies. He pointed out the difficulty of providing trapping as a service under the City's existing levels; the intent of the draft ordinance was to avoid a budgetary impact. He explained after a pet owner was notified their animal was trespassing and did not take reasonable steps to keep the animal at home, the pet owner could be guilty of a civil infraction. He noted although the property owner would have to pay the cost of trapping initially, a judge would have the ability to assess the costs of trapping to the pet owner. Mr. Snyder acknowledged this was much more than the Council asked for; however, the short approach would do nothing more than provide an illusion of control. He advised a more limited version, Version B, was also provided that had no pet owner responsibilities. With regard to a question regarding the definition of pet, Mr. Snyder advised the definition was taken from the Webster's dictionary. He advised that staff s recommendation remains the same, finding there was insufficient public issue to justify regulation and view it as involving the City in essentially a neighbor dispute between a pet owner and a real property owner. To provide a legislative history in the event of a challenge, he requested the Council emphasize in their discussion the public benefit to be obtained and the problem to be solved. Councilmember Dawson commented whether or not the City enacted an ordinance that established the responsibilities of a pet owner, the law still applied and a real property owner could civilly sue a pet owner. Mr. Snyder agreed. Councilmember Dawson noted if the Council did not adopt Version B, they would not be abrogating common law that required people not allow their animals to trespass on another's property. Mr. Snyder agreed. He explained another problem with drafting the ordinance was unless it was a crime for a cat to roam at large, a cat was not doing anything illegal by roaming at large, thus there were constitutional issues with authorizing the City's Animal Control Officer to trap to abate a civil nuisance. It would need to be a criminal or public nuisance to involve Animal Control personnel. Councilmember Dawson recommended if the Council chose to adopt Version B, the portion of the title in Section 5.05.110 "and the abatement of private nuisances" be deleted. Mr. Snyder agreed. Councilmember Dawson commented although this was an issue that did not arise with any frequency, now that it had arisen, she feared the public may believe it was acceptable to trap pets which she did not want to allow. If the Council did not want to allow trapping, she asked whether staff recommended the Council adopt Version A or B. She noted Version A was more detailed and may be overkill and may require more staff time to do an RFQ, etc. Police Chief David Stern recommended the less cumbersome option, Version B. He noted Version A created specific intent crimes that required a particular state of mind at the time the crime was committed. In his experience few prosecutions would occur under that statute. He noted there was no significant history of this type of action in the City, this was the first one he was aware of and the only one the City's 20-year Animal Control Officer was aware of. For Councilmember Dawson, Chief Stern confirmed staff felt Version A which included the ability to contract with a trapping service was unnecessary. In addition, he was only aware of one potential contractor who would qualify to trap animals. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes March 27, 2007 Page 6 Packet Page 9 of 231 Councilmember Dawson asked if there had been instances where a person had intentionally trapped their neighbor's pet for ill intent. She noted trapping and torture of animals was an indicator of more violent behavior. Chief Stern acknowledged there were people without the values most of the community had with regard to pets but that was an infrequent occurrence. Councilmember Dawson commented if someone were intentionally trapping animals, it would be a public safety concern that could be addressed. Chief Stern agreed. Councilmember Marin questioned the merits of option A and B versus an Option D which would be to do nothing and retain the existing provisions. Chief Stern answered due to the infrequent nature of this incident, the existing provisions were adequate to address the situation. He assured staff would carry out whatever direction the Council provided. Animal Control Officer Debbie Dawson answered Animal Control handled a variety of animals including dogs, cats, rabbits, goats, and chickens every day, and all were handled the same within the laws of the City. Any animal running at large was subject to enforcement action. If a person has an animal on their property, they often call Animal Control and they pick up the animal. She summarized their role was to protect pets; if the regulations were not changed, they would continue to pick up all types of pets. Mr. Snyder commented when Mr. Martin first brought his complaints forward, Chapter 50.5 was being amended. There had previously been authorization to provide traps. Staff determined that was no longer in the ordinance and removed the statement from the City's website and stopped providing traps. Councilmember Plunkett commented under Version B very little change would occur other than a person could not trap animals and therefore a person would either call Animal Control or humanely shoo the cat away. He asked whether staff had only been called out once in 20 years to deal with a cat. Chief Stern clarified 40% of the Animal Control calls were in regard to cats, predominately stray cats; this was the first case involving these specific issues. If trapping were prohibited, Councilmember Plunkett did not envision an increase in Animal Control's workload. Chief Stern also did not anticipate any significant increase. Councilmember Plunkett commented in Version B it was still permissible for people to trap stray/feral/wild cats for the purpose of caring for them. Mr. Snyder answered that was allowed in both ordinances. For Council President Pro Tem Wambolt, Chief Stern advised 40% of Animal Control's calls were related to cats, 59% were related to dogs and 1 % to rabbits, goats, guinea pigs, etc. Council President Pro Tern Wambolt assumed some of the calls regarding cats involved a resident complaining about a neighbor's cat in their yard. Chief Stern agreed that did occur. Council President Pro Tern Wambolt assumed staff was able to adequately satisfy the parties involved using the existing ordinance. Chief Stern agreed they were. COUNCILMEMBER DAWSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, FOR APPROVAL OF VERSION B VIA ORDINANCE NO. 3634 WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE LANGUAGE MR. SNYDER AGREED SHOULD BE STRICKEN IN REGARD TO THE ABATEMENT OF PRIVATE NUISANCES. Councilmember Dawson urged the Council to support Version B, agreeing it would be extremely difficulty to prove someone intentionally trapped a neighbors pet. Although it would be a rare occurrence, this was an opportunity for the Council to send a message that trapping a neighbor's pet was not appropriate and that there were other ways to address the issue. She noted a cat leash law was not the issue. As a cat owner herself, she did not allow her cat outside and believed that was a pet owner's responsibility to keep their cat confined due to the dangers to a pet from wild animals. She opined Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes March 27, 2007 Page 7 Packet Page 10 of 231 Version B allowed the Council to send the message that it was not appropriate to trap animals as a form of abatement, whether as part of a neighborhood dispute or in circumstances where the intent was to maliciously harm the pet. She appreciated Mr. Snyder's effort to draft Version A, however, staff did not find that level of detail necessary. Councilmember Marin spoke against the motion, recalling he was the Chair of the Public Safety Committee when this issue arose. The Committee agreed with Chief Stern that it was a dispute between neighbors that did not require amendment of the ordinance and should be addressed on a neighbor -to - neighbor level. He preferred to restore the language in the ordinance regarding property rights and protection of the animal which could have been accomplished by Version C. If Version C could not be adopted, he preferred Version D, do nothing and allow neighbors to settle disputes themselves. Councilmember Plunkett commented although the issue arose via a dispute between neighbors, it did not lessen the opportunity for a public policy to address the issue. He preferred it be addressed via ensuring the humane treatment of pets as well as the rights of property owners and stating the obligations of the Police Department. He summarized there was a public policy issue to be resolved, not a dispute between neighbors. He supported Version B due to the larger legislative and community issue. Councilmember Orvis expressed his support for the motion. He advised trapping was legal now; the Public Safety Committee wanted to regulate it and input from the community indicated a desire to ban trapping. He noted the letters the City received were predominately opposed to trapping of cats including one letter that referred to an incident 20 years ago that lead to community meetings, a situation he wanted to avoid. Council President Pro Tern Wambolt commented he had come full circle on this issue; when this was discussed the last time, he supported staff developing further regulation. He now believed nothing needed to be done. Councilmember Moore spoke in favor of the motion for the reasons Councilmember Dawson stated. She noted this began as a neighborhood dispute but had progressed beyond that and became a policy issue. She regretted the relationship between neighbors had been harmed by this issue. Mayor Pro Tern Olson supported Version D, do nothing, pointing out this had not been a problem in the past. She objected to creating more layers of government, more work for Animal Control and for the Council to micromanage operations. If trapping of cats was rampant, she could support changing the ordinance but noted that did not seem to be the case. Councilmember Dawson commented it appeared the three Councilmembers who did not support the motion were not supportive of trapping animals. Thus the City should prohibit trapping if it was not acceptable to the Council. She reiterated the unlikelihood of prosecutions, but found it an appropriate message to send. She suggested Council President Pro Tern Wambolt and Mayor Pro Tern Olson who did not support trapping, consider supporting the motion to send a message that trapping was not appropriate. Mayor Pro Tem Olson pointed out the property owner who had cats coming into their yard did not get much help from the City to address the issue. Councilmember Moore sympathized with people who had cats coming into their yard. She expressed her dislike for cats, noting there had to be a better way to address that situation. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-3), COUNCILMEMBERS ORVIS, MOORE, DAWSON AND PLUNKETT IN FAVOR AND MAYOR PRO TEM OLSON, COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM WAMBOLT AND COUNCILMEMBER MARIN OPPOSED. The ordinance approved is as follows: Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes March 27, 2007 Page 8 Packet Page 11 of 231 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 5.05 OF THE EDMONDS CITY CODE RELATING TO AN ANIMAL CONTROL BY AMENDING SECTION 5.05.010 TO ADD A NEW DEFINITION FOR "PET" AND ADDING A NEW SECTION 5.05.110 CRIMES RELATED TO THE CONFINEMENT OF ANOTHER'S ANIMAL, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. 7. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Mary Leake Schilder, PAWS, Lynnwood, commended the Council for making great strides in this matter and encouraged them to include an educational component. She described PAWS efforts to educate cat owners about the importance of keeping cats "safety confined" so they did not roam free. She described dangers to free -roaming cats including wild predators, cars, parasites, disease, and cruel people. She advised only 3% of cats turned into shelters as strays were returned to their owners. She noted cats who avoided danger were a threat to birds and small wildlife. She described methods for safely confining cats including an outdoor enclosure, install a special addition to a fence to keep the cat in the yard, walk the cat on a leash, provide enrichment for indoor cats and only allow a cat outside when supervised by a human family member. She advocated proper identification for cats including microchips. She noted as more cat owners realized their responsibility to keep their pets confined, Edmonds would see a decline in neighbor disputes, funds spent on animal control services and more families would enjoy the companionship of their pets. Alvin Rutledge, Edmonds, displayed the 1969 Comprehensive Plan. He advised the Hearing Examiner made a decision against the resident group's appeal; the court case for appeal by the Association, Case No. 07203221, would be heard in Snohomish County on May 1. He recommended the buildings on the former Woodway Elementary School site not be demolished until the court case had been concluded. He referred to a letter sent to Chief Stern regarding problems on the former Woodway Elementary School site and Chief Stem's reply that the Police Department would do their best to patrol the area. He recommended nothing be done with regard to the property until the issues were cleared up. Next he recommended the Council schedule consideration of term limits on an upcoming agenda. He also expressed appreciation to those who supported the Kiwanis Club's food drive last week at Top Foods. Robert Chaffee, MD, Edmonds, commented he was surprised and disappointed that the Council made a decision before discussion with the public. As the Council had eliminated trapping, he recommended instituting a leash law for cats. He cited problems they encountered from cats digging in their garden, leaving surprises, and killing birds. He noted the bigger problem was feral cats, and the Council had eliminated trapping as a method of rehabilitating feral cats. He quoted a policy statement from the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) that encouraged and supported actions to eliminate free roaming, abandoned and feral cats due to the significant impact they had on the mortality of birds, small animals, reptiles, amphibians and fish as well as the spread of disease. The AVMA supported the reduction of the number of free roaming, abandoned and free -roaming cats via humane capture and placement in homes, which he noted was eliminated by the ordinance the Council adopted. The AVMA supports State and local agencies adopting and enforcing ordinances that encourage cats to be kept indoors, in an outdoor enclosure or on a leash. He summarized his goal was not to keep all cats indoors but to control problem cats and their owners and in the long term decrease the number of cats allowed outdoors and help solve the feral cat problem. James Anable, Jr., Edmonds, an attorney practicing animal law in Seattle, spoke on behalf of Robert McCallum. He explained the scope of his practice has included drafting and commenting and suggesting changes to codes at the state and local level. He referred to the common law regarding trespass, recommending the City strike the exclusion of cats from the at -large provision. He circulated several Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes March 27, 2007 Page 9 Packet Page 12 of 231 photographs of Mr. McCallum's experience with cats in his yard. He explained Mr. McCallum kept quail as pets; after having 16 killed last year, he built a protective enclosure. On Saturday he awoke to find a cat trapped inside the enclosure, raising the issue of whether with the adoption of this ordinance Mr. McCallum would be guilty of the criminal offense of trapping a cat. He recommended placing the burden on the pet owner rather than the property owners that experience trespass. He noted a survey of Woodway, Lynnwood and Mountlake Terrace indicated they included cats in the at -large provision. He cited dangers to at -large cats, commenting if the City was concerned with cruelty and animal welfare issues, they would regulate cats the same as other animals. Debbie McCallum, Edmonds, expressed concern with granting cats complete freedom to trespass on neighboring property to engage in behavior that polluted parks and yards with animal waste and depleted wildlife, to engage in the offensive behavior of spraying to mark territory, spreading diseases that can be transmitted via soil, and not requiring licenses and tags. She pointed out citizens did not appreciate their well -tended gardens being compromised by cats or discovering the remnants of a bird or small animal, but most attempted to maintain a harmonious relationship with their neighbors. She explained they asked the neighbor on several occasions to keep their cats from their property and were told to get rid of their bird feeders, that the cats' free reign took precedence, that the quality of the cats lives superseded any damage to their property and because there were no laws, they would have to put up with the cats. She summarized it was appropriate for the City to establish at -large restrictions, fines and license fees to apply to domestic cats. She expressed frustration the Council had taken away a property owner's ability to keep a cat off their property. Robert McCallum, Edmonds, echoed Debbie's comments, finding the public was treated unfairly tonight by not having an opportunity to speak to the Council before the Council made its decision. He referred to the question posed to Animal Control Officer Debbie Dawson, noting when she responded to cat nuisance problems, there was no satisfaction for the property owner because cats were excluded from the at -large provisions. He cited an instance when cats slaughtered his birds in his front yard. He circulated photographs of his yard where they encourage wildlife, birds, and Douglas Squirrels. He questioned his right to request a neighboring property owner keep his cats off his property, explaining he was unsuccessful because there was no law prohibiting them from roaming at -large. He did not advocate trapping cats but questioned how property owners could obtain any satisfaction. He described his efforts to keep the cats off his property, beginning with talking to the neighbor and when that was unsuccessful, setting the trap in accordance with Animal Control's directions. He acknowledged the cat was injured but it was now at home while his birds were dead. He suggested Mayor Haakenson veto the ordinance. Elisabeth Larman, Edmonds, congratulated the Council on making a difficult decision, to prohibit trapping. She commented a property owner raising birds had a responsibility to build an enclosure to protect the birds. She complimented Officer Debbie Dawson, describing her efforts to fine a dog owner whose dog attacked her; the dog is now kept on a leash. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, pointed out the Council failed to enact a cat license and leash law. He recommended equal treatment for dogs and cats. Next, he urged the Council to hold a public hearing with regard to parks and specifically the former Woodway Elementary School site before any building demolition occurred. With regard to the Mayor vetoing the ordinance, he noted Mayor Haakenson could not veto it because he was not present and seemed to be absent quite frequently. He recommended establishing a system for tracking comp time for department directors. With regard to a establishing a broadband system, he did not agree with pursuing such a system due to changes in programs/technology. He questioned whether the CTAC had considered the technology used by Clearwire. Vickie Purretta, Feral Cats Project, commented there were many grassroots organizations involved in trapping feral cats who have spayed/neutered over 30,000 cats. She pointed out there were humane ways Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes March 27, 2007 Page 10 Packet Page 13 of 231 to trap cats, noting that covering the trap served to calm the animal. She was concerned they would be unable to continue their efforts to spay/neuter the large feral cat population, advising there were 720,000 feral cats in the Puget Sound area. She advised she had assisted with trapping animals in Edmonds at no cost to the City. Councilmember Plunkett assured the ordinance the Council passed did not prohibit trapping of feral cats. Mayor Pro Tern Olson advised Mayor Haakenson was absent because he had the flu. 8. INDIVIDUAL COUNCIL REPORTS ON OUTSIDE COMMITTEEBOARD MEETINGS Councilmember Orvis reported the recent meeting of WRIA8/Salmon Recovery Council included election of officers and discussion regarding items that were funded in the past and issues to be resolved by the Legislature. Councilmember Dawson reported SnoCom, the 911 dispatch center for South Snohomish County, was continuing efforts regarding interconnectivity with SnoPak. They have applied for a grant to assist with that effort which they learned recently was the granting agency's top priority. She advised a tentative agreement had been reached in an ongoing lawsuit with past employees of the center regarding overtime. Council President Pro Tern Wambolt reported on the March 12 and March 26 meetings of the Port Commission where they approved a 3-year agreement with Northwest Country Management for continued management of Harbor Square and reviewed their financial results for 2006 which indicated the Port had approximately a $2 million profit last year. He advised Woodway honored the Port for receiving the Marina of the Year award. Mayor Pro Tern Olson reported South Snohomish Cities is holding a dinner on April 26 with the Snohomish County Councilmembers. She urged Edmonds Councilmembers to attend. Councilmember Marin reported the Sound Transit Board was moving toward finalizing the second phase of a ST2 and RTID package and revising their financial policies to allow build out over the next 30 years. He advised Sound Transit was in a public comment period that would help finalize the elements of the final package that will be presented to the voters in November; to date they have received 6,000 comments. He reported the Snohomish County Tomorrow Steering Committee was meeting tomorrow to discuss annexation principles that were developed by a subcommittee. He advised the Hwy. 99 Taskforce did not meet this month, awaiting information from Snohomish County regarding annexation. Councilmember Plunkett reported at the Parking Committee, Municipal Court Judge Doug Fair relayed the difficulty jurors experience with parking downtown. The Council approved a temporary jury parking permit on tonight's Consent Agenda. 9. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Pro Tern Olson thanked staff for their assistance with the retreat, especially Senior Executive Council Assistant Jana Spellman and City Attorney Scott Snyder. 10. COUNCIL COMMENTS Council President Pro Tern Wambolt advised CTAC has considered Clearwire as well as many other past, present and emerging technologies. He encouraged citizens commenting on this topic to obtain additional information. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes March 27, 2007 Page 11 Packet Page 14 of 231 Councilmember Moore referred to the comments by Development Services Director Duane Bowman regarding her remarks about overruns on the 220th Street project. While it was acceptable for citizens to take the Council to task, she found it inappropriate for staff as it was the Council's responsibility to question without receiving an overly sensitive response from staff that questioned the motive or methods. With regard to the 220th Street project, she pointed out the first mistake was to omit the left turn lane, a design fault that was passed by engineers and the contactor accepted responsibility, likely to avoid the loss of future business from the City. The second mistake was using the City's former Traffic Engineer who resigned to work for the contractor which cost the City an additional $140,000. The explanation was he had so much expertise with the project that he was the only one and the best one to finish the project. She questioned what would have happened if he had died, whether the City's engineer would not have been able to step in and manage the construction project. If not, perhaps a change was necessary to ensure every employee had someone who could fill in for them in the case of an emergency. Councilmember Moore commented her questions regarding the 220th Street project were legitimate; it ran over time and over budget. She pointed out the Performing Arts Center cost three times as much and finished on time and on budget, questioning why the City should not expect the same from this project. She concluded the Council should not be disparaged by staff for stating their opinion and how things were done in the City. She suggested the Mayor may want to provide some additional training for Directors. She noted the vast majority of the City's staff were hardworking and loyal; she hoped their loyalty did not drift into unbecoming public challenges of Councilmembers' opinions. Councilmember Moore referred to the Council retreat where the main topic was the City's financial future. The Council was presented with the same projection that has been provided for the past two years, with the same decreasing balance scenario. She explained although the City managed to piece the budget together year after year, the City would soon begin consuming the $2 million reserve which she found was critical to maintain to protect citizens in the case of an emergency. She asked the Council at the retreat to consider creating long term goals/strategic plan/vision. She recommended both the Mayor and the Council have a plan and if their plans did not agree, the Mayor and Council should compromise and reach a consensus on a strategic plan. Councilmember Moore recalled at the retreat the Council was asked to indicate what taxes they wanted to increase and what cuts in services they could accept. She preferred an alternate approach — creating a strategic plan to grow the income of the City in ways that did not burden the taxpayers. She pointed out this was being done throughout Washington; she provided a copy of the Snohomish County Business Journal that recognized the Mayor of Marysville for his vision and strategic planning. She acknowledged the City was in competition for sales tax dollars from surrounding cities. Councilmember Moore concluded the citizens of Edmonds deserved to know the City's plan for the future. She recommended establishing at least a 15-year plan with annual goals so that the Council could report annually on their accomplishments especially if there were cuts in services or increases in taxes. She invited citizens to urge the Council to start working on a strategic plan. She acknowledged because this was an election year it may not be appropriate to begin working on a strategic plan this year, but recommended it begin next year. f � 01110:110 With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 9:35 p.m. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes March 27, 2007 Page 12 Packet Page 15 of 231 AM-918 Approval of Claim Checks Edmonds City Council Meeting Date: 04/03/2007 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 #95184 through #95342 for March 29, 2007 in the amount of $202,530.81. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Approval of claim checks. Previous Council Action N/A 2.C. 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: $202,530.81 Link: Claim cks 3-29-07 Fiscal Impact: Claims: $202,530.81 Attachments Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 Admin Services Kathleen Junglov 03/29/2007 10:37 AM APRV 2 City Clerk Sandy Chase 03/29/2007 10:38 AM APRV 3 Mayor Gary Haakenson 03/29/2007 11:30 AM APRV 4 Final Approval Sandy Chase 03/29/2007 12:42 PM APRV Form Started By: Debbie Karber Started On: 03/29/2007 09:48 AM Final Approval Date: 03/29/2007 Packet Page 16 of 231 vchlist Voucher List Page: 1 03/29/2007 10:45:20AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 95184 3/29/2007 068449 3 GI SPORTS 124109 TENNIS NETS TENNIS NETS 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 409.80 Freight 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 25.00 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 38.26 Total : 473.06 95185 3/29/2007 041695 3M XAM3522 SS11629 STREET - PROTECTIE OVERLAY F STREET - PROTECTIE OVERLAY F 111.000.653.542.640.310.00 438.75 Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.640.310.00 39.06 Total : 477.81 95186 3/29/2007 065052 AARD PEST CONTROL 237574 RODENT CONTROL 2/27/07 RODENT CONTROL 2/27/07 001.000.640.576.800.480.00 73.51 Total : 73.51 95187 3/29/2007 063863 ADVANCED TRAFFIC PRODUCTS 1000021568 STREET - 12" AMBER BALL 12 VOL STREET - 12" AMBER BALL 12 VOL 111.000.653.542.640.310.00 123.85 Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.640.310.00 10.65 Total : 134.50 95188 3/29/2007 071177 ADVANTAGE BUILDING SERVICES 07-97 JANITORIAL SERVICE JANITORIAL SERVICE 411.000.656.538.800.410.23 334.00 Total : 334.00 95189 3/29/2007 069803 AIRVAC 11322 FS 20 - AIR VAC-911 PREFILTERS Page: 1 Packet Page 17 of 231 vchlist Voucher List Page: 2 03/29/2007 10:45:20AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 95189 3/29/2007 069803 AIRVAC (Continued) FS 20 - AIR VAC-911 PREFILTERS 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 75.00 Freight 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 17.00 Total : 92.00 95190 3/29/2007 071571 ALL WIRE ELECTRIC INC 1839 OLD PUBLIC WORKS FIRE ALARM OLD PUBLIC WORKS FIRE ALARM 001.000.651.594.190.620.00 5,880.00 BUILDING PERMIT 001.000.651.594.190.620.00 215.00 Sales Tax 001.000.651.594.190.620.00 523.32 Total : 6,618.32 95191 3/29/2007 069667 AMERICAN MARKETING 6408 BRONZE PLAQUE CAST BRONZE PLAQUE FOR EDW 125.000.640.594.750.650.00 239.40 Freight 125.000.640.594.750.650.00 6.15 Sales Tax 125.000.640.594.750.650.00 21.61 Total : 267.16 95192 3/29/2007 069751 ARAMARK 512-3842342 UNIFORM SERVICES PARK MAINTENANCE UNIFORM SE 001.000.640.576.800.240.00 31.29 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.240.00 2.78 Total : 34.07 95193 3/29/2007 069751 ARAMARK 512-3842344 18386001 Page: 2 Packet Page 18 of 231 vchlist Voucher List Page: 3 03/29/2007 10:45:20AM City of Edmonds Bank code : Voucher front Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 95193 3/29/2007 069751 ARAMARK (Continued) UNIFORMS 411.000.656.538.800.240.00 85.18 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.240.00 7.58 Total : 92.76 95194 3/29/2007 069751 ARAMARK 512-3840994 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: 3 Packet Page 19 of 231 vchlist 03/29/2007 10:45:20AM Voucher List City of Edmonds Page: 4 Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 95194 3/29/2007 069751 ARAMARK (Continued) 512-3840995 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 Total : 45.83 95195 3/29/2007 071124 ASSOCIATED PETROLEUM 556144 FLEET - DIESEL - 181 GAL FLEET - DIESEL - 181 GAL 511.000.657.548.680.340.10 364.48 WA ST SERVICE FEE 511.000.657.548.680.340.10 60.00 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.340.10 4.80 ST EXCISE DIESEL TAX, WA OIL SI 511.000.657.548.680.340.10 64.65 Total : 493.93 95196 3/29/2007 071439 AUTOMATIC ENTRIES INC 16680 SR CENTER- 12 DIP TRANSMITTEF SR CENTER- 12 DIP TRANSMITTEF 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 65.00 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 5.79 Total : 70.79 95197 3/29/2007 070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER 39804 OUT SOURCING OF UTILITY BILLS Page: 4 Packet Page 20 of 231 vchlist Voucher List Page: 5 03/29/2007 10:45:20AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 95197 3/29/2007 070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER (Continued) UB Outsourcing area #500 PRINTIN( 411.000.652.542.900.490.00 36.88 UB Outsourcing area #500 PRINTIN( 411.000.654.534.800.490.00 36.88 UB Outsourcing area #500 PRINTIN( 411.000.655.535.800.490.00 37.00 UB Outsourcing area #500 POSTAGI 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 103.73 Sales Tax 411.000.652.542.900.490.00 3.25 Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.490.00 3.25 Sales Tax 411.000.655.535.800.490.00 3.25 UB Outsourcing area #500 POSTAGI 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 103.74 Total : 327.98 95198 3/29/2007 071581 AVIDEX INDUSTRIES LLC 1024761 INV#1024761 CUST#EDM003 EDMO HITACHI TF4DA-8 8MM LENS 001.000.410.521.210.350.00 445.00 HITACHI HV-D30 VIDEO CAMERA 001.000.410.521.210.350.00 2,188.00 HITACHI 45601 C1 5 POWER SUPPL 001.000.410.521.210.350.00 80.00 Freight 001.000.410.521.210.350.00 7.99 Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.210.350.00 239.44 Total : 2,960.43 95199 3/29/2007 001835 AWARDS SERVICE INC 66782 TROPHIES Page: 5 Packet Page 21 of 231 vchlist Voucher List Page: 6 03/29/2007 10:45:20AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 95199 3/29/2007 001835 AWARDS SERVICE INC (Continued) BASKETBALL TROPHIES 001.000.640.575.510.310.00 59.00 Sales Tax 001.000.640.575.510.310.00 5.26 Total : 64.26 95200 3/29/2007 001527 AWWA 2000551226 AWWA DUES JUNE 01, 2007-MAY < AWWA DUES JUNE 01, 2007-MAY ; 411.000.654.534.800.490.00 1,638.00 Total : 1,638.00 95201 3/29/2007 002258 BENS EVER READY 19231 MAINTENANCE Service vehicles' extinguishers 511.000.657.548.680.480.00 130.00 Service apparatus extinguishers 001.000.510.522.200.480.00 145.00 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.480.00 11.57 Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.200.480.00 12.91 19232 OPS MAINTENANCE Service vehicles' extinguishers 001.000.510.522.200.480.00 505.00 Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.200.480.00 35.60 Total : 840.08 95202 3/29/2007 002343 BILL HATCH SPORTING GOODS 18945-00 SOFTBALLS MEN'S AND WOMEN'S SOFTBALLS 001.000.640.575.520.310.00 1,189.80 Sales Tax 001.000.640.575.520.310.00 104.70 Total : 1,294.50 95203 3/29/2007 002500 BLUMENTHAL UNIFORM CO INC 575167 INV#575167 - SUTTON - EDMONDS Page: 6 Packet Page 22 of 231 vchlist Voucher List Page: 7 03/29/2007 10:45:20AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 95203 3/29/2007 002500 BLUMENTHAL UNIFORM CO INC (Continued) BLACK NYLON GEAR BAG 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 39.95 King County Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.220.240.00 3.52 Total : 43.47 95204 3/29/2007 066578 BROWN AND CALDWELL 1449251 127918 C-161 SCREENING SYSTEM IMPRC 414.000.656.594.320.650.00 3,408.44 Total : 3,408.44 95205 3/29/2007 067084 CALIFORNIA CONTRACTOR SUPPLIES V45206 SPIRAL SCREW EXTRACTORS SPIRAL SCREW EXTRACTORS 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 163.70 Total : 163.70 95206 3/29/2007 071457 CAMPBELL, TOM 3/23/07 Tuition Reimbursement 1/19 - 3/4/07 Tuition Reimbursement 1/19 - 3/4/07 001.000.220.516.100.490.00 387.00 Total : 387.00 95207 3/29/2007 003255 CANINE COLLEGE CANINECOLLEGE7570 DOG OBEDIENCE CLASSES DOG OBEDIENCE CLASS #7570 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 280.00 Total : 280.00 95208 3/29/2007 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY LY104626 2954000 WELDER 411.000.656.538.800.350.00 1,629.75 ADAPTOR/HOLDER/CABLE 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 630.36 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.350.00 182.63 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 18.53 Page: 7 Packet Page 23 of 231 vchlist Voucher List Page: 8 03/29/2007 10:45:20AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 95208 3/29/2007 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY (Continued) LY104673 2954000 C-248 INCINERATOR PROJECT 414.000.656.594.320.650.00 513.94 Sales Tax 414.000.656.594.320.650.00 45.75 Total : 3,020.96 95209 3/29/2007 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY LY104807 ALS SUPPLIES medical oxygen 001.000.510.526.100.310.00 28.84 Freight 001.000.510.526.100.310.00 13.50 Sales Tax 001.000.510.526.100.310.00 3.76 LY104808 ALS SUPPLIES medical oxygen 001.000.510.526.100.310.00 38.46 Freight 001.000.510.526.100.310.00 13.50 Sales Tax 001.000.510.526.100.310.00 4.62 LY104809 ALS SUPPLIES medical oxygen 001.000.510.526.100.310.00 19.23 Freight 001.000.510.526.100.310.00 13.50 Sales Tax 001.000.510.526.100.310.00 2.91 Total : 138.32 95210 3/29/2007 064341 CINGULAR WIRELESS 871860970X03082007 Cell phone Charges Planning Div Cell phone Charges Planning Div 001.000.620.558.600.420.00 29.48 Total : 29.48 Page: 8 Packet Page 24 of 231 vchlist Voucher List Page: 9 03/29/2007 10:45:20AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 95211 3/29/2007 066382 CINTAS CORPORATION 460578415 UNIFORMS Stn 17 - Ops 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 303.06 Stn 17 - ALS 001.000.510.526.100.240.00 303.07 Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 26.98 Sales Tax 001.000.510.526.100.240.00 26.97 460588838 UNIFORMS Stn. 17 - Ops 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 5.09 Stn. 17 - ALS 001.000.510.526.100.240.00 5.09 Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 0.46 Sales Tax 001.000.510.526.100.240.00 0.45 460588857 OPS UNIFORMS Stn. 20 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 126.32 Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 11.24 Total : 808.73 95212 3/29/2007 069457 CITY OF EDMONDS RGG-70022 K9-3 LABOR FOR INSTALLATION/P K9-3 LABOR- 001.000.410.521.260.350.00 4,768.74 Total : 4,768.74 95213 3/29/2007 063902 CITY OF EVERETT 107000544 WATER QUALITY LAB ANALYSIS WATER QUALITY LAB ANALYSIS 411.000.654.534.800.410.00 464.40 Total : 464.40 95214 3/29/2007 019215 CITY OF LYNNWOOD 5237 INV#5237 CUST#47 EDMONDS PD Page: 9 Packet Page 25 of 231 vchlist Voucher List Page: 10 03/29/2007 10:45:20AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 95214 3/29/2007 019215 CITY OF LYNNWOOD (Continued) PRISONER ROOM & BOARD 02/07 001.000.410.523.600.510.00 3,540.00 Total : 3,540.00 95215 3/29/2007 035160 CITY OF SEATTLE 100102 1-218359-279832 2203 N 205TH ST 411.000.656.538.800.471.62 13.57 Total : 13.57 95216 3/29/2007 070231 CNR INC 50616 Labor on S/C x 1237 external call Labor on S/C x 1237 external call 411.000.656.538.800.420.00 125.00 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.420.00 11.13 Total : 136.13 95217 3/29/2007 004095 COASTWIDE LABORATORIES W1764253 FAC MAINT - PAPER FILTERS FAC MAINT - PAPER FILTERS 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 36.00 Freight 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 2.50 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 3.39 Total : 41.89 95218 3/29/2007 064369 CODE PUBLISHING CO 27940 CITY CODE UPDATES Code Supplements 001.000.250.514.300.410.00 1,388.20 King County Sales Tax 001.000.250.514.300.410.00 122.16 Total : 1,510.36 95219 3/29/2007 064369 CODE PUBLISHING CO 28036 ECDC Code books for new planners ECDC Code books for new planners 001.000.620.558.600.310.00 152.32 Page: 10 Packet Page 26 of 231 vchlist Voucher List Page: 11 03/29/2007 10:45:20AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # 95219 3/29/2007 064369 064369 CODE PUBLISHING CO (Continued) 95220 3/29/2007 069983 COMMERCIAL CARD SOLUTIONS 4715630624442994 11 rI7K-STI VZ1ELy8'1;'ZI S 95221 3/29/2007 069983 COMMERCIAL CARD SOLUTIONS 4715630345742425 Description/Account Amount Total : 152.32 CREDIT CARD PURCHASES YOST POOL SUPPLIES:- 001.000.640.575.510.350.00 158.95 ARMY NATIONAL GUARD FLAG FC 130.000.640.536.500.310.00 72.40 DISCOVERY PROGRAM:- 001.000.640.574.350.310.00 59.99 MARINER'S CREDIT CREDIT FOR INCORRECT BILLING 623.200.210.557.210.490.00 -136.00 Total : 155.34 CREDIT CARD PURCHASES Page: 11 Packet Page 27 of 231 vchlist Voucher List Page: 12 03/29/2007 10:45:20AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor 95221 3/29/2007 069983 COMMERCIAL CARD SOLUTIONS Invoice (Continued) 95222 3/29/2007 069983 COMMERCIAL CARD SOLUTIONS 4715630653121287 PO # Description/Account Amount YOST POOL SUPPLIES:- 001.000.640.575.540.310.00 109.13 ADVERTISING FOR WRITE ON THE 123.000.640.573.100.440.00 403.75 FLOWER PROGRAM SUPPLIES FC 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 95.87 CALENDAR FOR OWEN CADDY 001.000.640.574.350.310.00 43.64 GYMNASTICS FIRST AID SUPPLIE; 001.000.640.575.550.310.00 251.39 GENERAL REFERENCE BOOK 001.000.640.576.800.490.00 30.42 RENEWAL OF ARTS NW MEMBER; 117.100.640.573.100.490.00 100.00 SUPPLIES FOR EASTER EGG HUN 001.000.640.574.200.310.00 444.00 WAIST PACKS FOR RANGER-NATI 001.000.640.574.350.310.00 149.94 LISTING IN DIRECTORY OF AMERI 001.000.640.574.100.490.00 350.00 SUPPLIES FOR EGG HUNT 001.000.640.574.200.310.00 148.69 TIDE TABLES FOR DISCOVERY PR 001.000.640.574.350.310.00 10.52 Total : 2,137.35 C/A 4715 6306 5312 1287 Page: 12 Packet Page 28 of 231 vchlist Voucher List Page: 13 03/29/2007 10:45:20AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 95222 3/29/2007 069983 COMMERCIAL CARD SOLUTIONS (Continued) CDW-G Micro-Lilon Battery 001.000.310.518.880.490.00 154.50 CDW-G HP Scan Jet 4370 Photo Sc, 001.000.640.574.200.310.00 127.62 CDW-G APC Replacement Battery 001.000.310.518.880.490.00 135.79 Training - McConnell, Nicole 4/2/07 001.000.310.514.230.490.00 169.00 CDW-G HP Printer Maintenance Kit 001.000.310.518.880.480.00 241.99 CDW-G 4-Port Switch w/cables 001.000.310.518.880.310.00 100.19 CDW-G Internal Hard Drive 001.000.310.518.880.490.00 76.22 Total : 1,005.31 95223 3/29/2007 069983 COMMERCIAL CARD SOLUTIONS 32707 4715 6306 8856 9757 BAROMETER 411.000.656.538.800.310.31 144.83 TRAVEL/BURNS 411.000.656.538.800.430.00 318.10 RESISTOR/MAGNET 411.000.656.538.800.310.22 33.39 TRAVEL FEE/BURNS 411.000.656.538.800.430.00 5.00 Total : 501.32 95224 3/29/2007 069983 COMMERCIAL CARD SOLUTIONS 8901 CREDIT CARD CHARGES Recording doc./Training 001.000.250.514.300.490.00 500.00 Total : 500.00 95225 3/29/2007 069983 COMMERCIAL CARD SOLUTIONS 4715630143817577 ASSOCIATED SPRING - UNIT 117 - Page: 13 Packet Page 29 of 231 vchlist Voucher List Page: 14 03/29/2007 10:45:20AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 95225 3/29/2007 069983 COMMERCIAL CARD SOLUTIONS (Continued) ASSOCIATED SPRING - UNIT 117 - 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 77.10 OLYMPIC TRUCK - UNIT 55 - OUTS 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 31.31 SUMNER TRACTOR PARTS - UNIT 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 277.58 OLYMPIC TRUCK SVC - UNIT 55 - C 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 91.96 MARINE POWER -UNIT M16 - FILTE 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 165.19 LIND ELECTRONICS - UNIT 815 - — 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 105.95 Total : 749.09 95226 3/29/2007 070465 CONTRACT SOLUTIONS GROUP C/O Seminar Registration.lmpr Const C/O Mgmt Registration.lmpr Const C/O Mgmt 001.000.620.532.200.490.00 378.00 Total : 378.00 95227 3/29/2007 070136 CORREIRA, MARK 3/25/07 Tution Reimbursement - 1/3 - 3/18/01 Tution Reimbursement - 1/3 - 3/18/01 001.000.220.516.100.490.00 680.00 Total : 680.00 95228 3/29/2007 063507 COXLEY, BRUCE COXLEY7929 DIGITAL DARKROOM CLASS DIGITAL DARKROOM #7929 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 31.50 Total : 31.50 95229 3/29/2007 071552 CUBBAGE, NANCY CUGGAGE7933 STAINED GLASS CLASS STAINED GLASS MOSAIC SPHERE 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 97.50 Total : 97.50 95230 3/29/2007 071586 CURAFLO PACIFIC NW Bus Lic Refund REFUND OVERPMT OF BUSINESS Page: 14 Packet Page 30 of 231 vchlist Voucher List Page: 15 03/29/2007 10:45:20AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 95230 3/29/2007 071586 CURAFLO PACIFIC NW (Continued) Refund overpmt of Business Lic 001.000.000.257.310.000.00 40.00 Total : 40.00 95231 3/29/2007 067794 DALCO INC 36829 NOZZLE DRAIN/ADAPTER NOZZLE DRAIN/ADAPTER 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 147.69 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 13.14 Total : 160.83 95232 3/29/2007 064422 DEPT OF GENERAL ADMIN 201571141 FAC MAINT - BANDAIDS, HAND SAI FAC MAINT - BANDAIDS, HAND SAI 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 41.50 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 3.49 Total : 44.99 95233 3/29/2007 064531 DINES, JEANNIE 07-2734 MINUTE TAKING 3/20/07 Council Minutes 001.000.250.514.300.410.00 333.20 Total : 333.20 95234 3/29/2007 007252 DUNN, DIANNE DUNN7487 OIL PAINTING CLASSES OIL PAINTING #7487 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 312.00 OIL PAINTING #7486 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 263.25 Total : 575.25 95235 3/29/2007 007675 EDMONDS AUTO PARTS 78014 SUPPLIES PLIERS, ETC. 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 25.98 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 2.31 Page: 15 Packet Page 31 of 231 vchlist Voucher List Page: 16 03/29/2007 10:45:20AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 95235 3/29/2007 007675 EDMONDS AUTO PARTS (Continued) 78150 SUPPLIES SUPPLIES 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 15.23 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 1.36 Total : 44.88 95236 3/29/2007 007775 EDMONDS CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 11427 Chamber annual banquet Chamber annual banquet 001.000.210.513.100.490.00 40.00 Total : 40.00 95237 3/29/2007 070683 EDMONDS MAIL & PARCEL 9972 UPS/ BROWN & CALDWELL UPS/ BROWN & CALDWELL 411.000.656.538.800.420.00 25.65 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.420.00 2.28 Total : 27.93 95238 3/29/2007 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 3-38565 WATER BILL 18410 92ND AVE W 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 20.64 Total : 20.64 95239 3/29/2007 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 3-01808 LIFT STATION #11 LIFT STATION #11 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 22.41 3-03575 MEADOWDALE CLUB HOUSE MEADOWDALE CLUB HOUSE 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 179.82 3-07525 LIFT STATION #12 LIFT STATION #12 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 68.56 Page: 16 Packet Page 32 of 231 vchlist Voucher List Page: 17 03/29/2007 10:45:20AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 95239 3/29/2007 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION (Continued) 3-07709 LIFT STATION #15 LIFT STATION #15 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 20.64 3-09350 LIFT STATION #4 LIFT STATION #4 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 89.80 3-09800 LIFT STATION #10 LIFT STATION #10 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 31.26 3-29875 LIFT STATION #9 LIFT STATION #9 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 38.34 6-02735 PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX -POLICE PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX -POLICE 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 517.67 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 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 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 562.71 Page: 17 Packet Page 33 of 231 vchlist Voucher List Page: 18 03/29/2007 10:45:20AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 95239 3/29/2007 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION (Continued) 6-04127 Fire Station #16 Fire Station #16 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 237.98 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 49.16 Public Works Bldg 111.000.653.542.900.470.00 186.81 Public Works Bldg 411.000.654.534.800.470.00 186.81 Public Works Bldg 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 186.81 Public Works Bldg 511.000.657.548.680.470.00 186.81 Public Works Bldg 411.000.652.542.900.470.00 186.83 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 : 3,363.77 95240 3/29/2007 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 023463 Canon 5870 Copier Maint. - 2/7- 3/7/1 Page: 18 Packet Page 34 of 231 vchlist Voucher List Page: 19 03/29/2007 10:45:20AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 95240 3/29/2007 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES (Continued) 95241 3/29/2007 071583 FAIRCHILD, PATRICK 95242 3/29/2007 009815 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC 023464 1 �AZ:iI:Z: PO # Description/Account Amount Canon 5870 Copier Maint. - 2/7- 3/7/1 001.000.610.519.700.480.00 2.34 Canon 5870 Copier Maint. - 2/7- 3/7/1 001.000.220.516.100.480.00 2.34 Canon 5870 Copier Maint. - 2/7- 3/7/1 001.000.210.513.100.480.00 2.35 Sales Tax 001.000.610.519.700.480.00 0.21 Sales Tax 001.000.220.516.100.480.00 0.21 Sales Tax 001.000.210.513.100.480.00 0.21 Canon 5870 Copier Maint. - 2/7 - Canon 5870 Copier Maint. - 2/7 - 001.000.610.519.700.480.00 19.72 Canon 5870 Copier Maint. - 2/7 - 001.000.220.516.100.480.00 19.72 Canon 5870 Copier Maint. - 2/7 - 001.000.220.516.100.490.00 19.72 Sales Tax 001.000.610.519.700.480.00 1.76 Sales Tax 001.000.220.516.100.480.00 1.76 Sales Tax 001.000.220.516.100.490.00 1.75 Total : 72.09 EXPENDABLE TOOLS exercise equipment-Ops 001.000.510.522.200.359.00 1,000.00 exercise equipment-ALS 001.000.510.526.100.359.00 500.00 Total : 1,500.00 Page: 19 Packet Page 35 of 231 vchlist Voucher List Page: 20 03/29/2007 10:45:20AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 95242 3/29/2007 009815 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC (Continued) WATER SUPPLIES - U BRANCH TE 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 323.68 Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 28.80 Total : 352.48 95243 3/29/2007 070271 FIRST STATES INVESTORS 5200 117392 TENANT #101706 4TH AVE PARKIN April 07 4th Avenue Parking Lot Rent 001.000.390.519.900.450.00 300.00 Total : 300.00 95244 3/29/2007 010600 FOG TITE INC 235611 WATER METERS - M-METER-01-01 WATER METERS - M-METER-01-01 411.000.000.141.170.310.00 2,060.00 Sales Tax 411.000.000.141.170.310.00 181.28 Total : 2,241.28 95245 3/29/2007 063137 GOODYEAR AUTO SERVICE CENTER 077860 FLEET INVENTORY - TIRES FLEET INVENTORY - TIRES 511.000.657.548.680.340.30 1,121.07 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.340.30 99.78 077944 UNIT 89 - SCRAP TIRE DISPOSAL UNIT 89 - SCRAP TIRE DISPOSAL 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 38.00 077950 UNIT 81 & 89 - 5 TIRES EACH UNIT 81 & 89 - 5 TIRES EACH 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 706.32 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 62.86 Page: 20 Packet Page 36 of 231 vchlist Voucher List Page: 21 03/29/2007 10:45:20AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 95245 3/29/2007 063137 GOODYEAR AUTO SERVICE CENTER (Continued) 078070 UNIT 123 - TIRES UNIT 123 - TIRES 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 353.16 FLEET INVENTORY - TIRES 511.000.657.548.680.340.30 1,061.11 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 31.43 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.340.30 94.44 Total : 3,568.17 95246 3/29/2007 012199 GRAINGER 9326216133 SUPPLIES BARRICADE TAPE 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 150.00 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 13.20 Total : 163.20 95247 3/29/2007 066066 GRUNDFOS CBS INC 1900008195 1900002527 PUMP PARTS 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 1,674.00 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 147.31 Total : 1,821.31 95248 3/29/2007 068302 HALFON CANDY COMPANY 134002 EGG HUNT CANDY EGG HUNT CANDY 001.000.640.574.200.310.00 215.72 Total : 215.72 95249 3/29/2007 070515 HARLEY DAVIDSON OF SEATTLE 127253 UNIT 100 - TOP FLT HINGE PLATE, UNIT 100 - TOP FLT HINGE PLATE, 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 183.36 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 16.32 Page: 21 Packet Page 37 of 231 vchlist Voucher List Page: 22 03/29/2007 10:45:20AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 95249 3/29/2007 070515 HARLEY DAVIDSON OF SEATTLE (Continued) 127262 UNIT 100 - BACKING PLATE UNIT 100 - BACKING PLATE 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 2.80 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 0.25 129046 UNIT 100 - RH REAR HEATSHIELD UNIT 100 - RH REAR HEATSHIELD 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 52.00 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 4.63 Total : 259.36 95250 3/29/2007 069332 HEALTHFORCE OCCMED 1030-80 Drug/Alcohol Testing Services - 2/15) Drug/Alcohol Testing Services - 2/15) 111.000.653.542.900.410.00 85.00 Total : 85.00 95251 3/29/2007 013140 HENDERSON, BRIAN 36 LEOFF 1 Reimbursement LEOFF 1 Reimbursement 009.000.390.517.370.230.00 104.00 Total : 104.00 95252 3/29/2007 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 1033982 6035 3225 0267 0205 BUTANE, ETC. 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 17.94 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 1.58 2035300 6035 3225 0267 0205 SCREWS 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 23.93 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 2.11 Page: 22 Packet Page 38 of 231 vchlist Voucher List Page: 23 03/29/2007 10:45:20AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 95252 3/29/2007 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES (Continued) 2043953 6035 3225 0267 0205 SUPPLIES 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 33.88 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 2.98 2066899 6035 3225 0267 0205 SOLDER SUPPLIES, CLOTH, ETC. 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 32.87 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 2.89 44119 6035 3225 0267 0205 CLEANER 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 5.97 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 0.53 4585521 6035 3225 0267 0205 POWER CLEANER 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 22.97 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 2.02 5044532 6035 3225 0267 0205 BASIN KITS, ETC. 125.000.640.594.750.650.00 494.86 King County Sales Tax 125.000.640.594.750.650.00 43.55 6036220 6035 3225 0267 0205 SUPPLIES 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 11.78 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 1.04 9034245 6035 3225 0267 0205 MOSS ROOF, SCREWS 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 62.88 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 5.53 Page: 23 Packet Page 39 of 231 vchlist Voucher List Page: 24 03/29/2007 10:45:20AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 95252 3/29/2007 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES (Continued) 9037244 6035 3225 0267 0205 POLY SHEETS 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 382.65 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 33.67 9045944 6035 3225 0267 0205 ADAPTERS, SPRINKLER, DRAIN C) 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 46.40 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 4.08 Total : 1,236.11 95253 3/29/2007 071578 HORIZON VIEW WINDOWS AND DOOR! Bus Lic Refund REFUND OVERPMT OF BUS LICEN Refund overpmt of Business License 001.000.000.257.310.000.00 40.00 Total : 40.00 95254 3/29/2007 070864 IDEARC MEDIA CORP 440008505087 C/A 430001405909 SnoKing-Seattle P&R 001.000.390.528.800.420.00 111.50 Total : 111.50 95255 3/29/2007 070864 IDEARC MEDIA CORP S/P2940246 CUSTOMER # S114983 3/2007 Superpages.com/basic e-com 001.000.390.528.800.420.00 69.90 Total : 69.90 95256 3/29/2007 070042 IKON FINANCIAL SERVICES 72750762 INV#72750762 ACCT#467070-COME COPIER RENTAL 03/13-04/12/07 001.000.410.521.100.450.00 821.73 ADDITIONA IMAGES 001.000.410.521.100.450.00 262.92 Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.100.450.00 96.54 Total : 1,181.19 Page: 24 Packet Page 40 of 231 vchlist Voucher List Page: 25 03/29/2007 10:45:20AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 95257 3/29/2007 067066 IMSA NW CONFERENCE M JOHNSON/G EVANS 2 IMSA 2007 CONFERENCE REGIS 2 IMSA 2007 CONFERENCE REGIS 111.000.653.542.900.490.00 500.00 Total : 500.00 95258 3/29/2007 069040 INTERSTATE AUTO PART WAREHOUSE 437643 SHOP SMALL TOOL - TAPE MEASI SHOP SMALL TOOL - TAPE MEASI 511.000.657.548.680.350.00 22.99 UNIT 11 - LED 36 HL PERM MN 511.100.657.548.680.310.00 320.00 UNIT 12 - LED 36 HL PERM MN 511.100.657.548.680.310.00 320.00 UNIT 16 - LED 36 HL PERM MN 511.100.657.548.680.310.00 320.00 UNIT 21 - LED 36 HL PERM MN 511.100.657.548.680.310.00 320.00 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.350.00 2.05 Sales Tax 511.100.657.548.680.310.00 113.92 438016 FLEET SHOP SUPPLIES - AUTO CE FLEET SHOP SUPPLIES - AUTO CE 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 47.26 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 4.21 Total : 1,470.43 95259 3/29/2007 065397 JOHNSON, ANDREW AJOHNSON0307 GYM MONITOR GYM MONITOR FOR 3 ON 3 BASKE 001.000.640.575.520.410.00 110.00 Total : 110.00 95260 3/29/2007 066913 KDL HARDWARE SUPPLY INC 322753 PS - CABINET LOCKS AND SPRING Page: 25 Packet Page 41 of 231 vchlist Voucher List Page: 26 03/29/2007 10:45:20AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 95260 3/29/2007 066913 KDL HARDWARE SUPPLY INC (Continued) PS - CABINET LOCKS AND SPRING 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 105.60 Freight 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 4.62 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 9.70 Total : 119.92 95261 3/29/2007 060132 LAB SAFETY SUPPLY 1009268473 5556482-1 FACE SHIELD 411.000.656.538.800.310.12 70.40 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.12 10.12 Total : 80.52 95262 3/29/2007 067631 LODESTAR COMPANY INC 14142 2795 HVAC MAINTENANCE 411.000.656.538.800.480.21 1,096.14 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.480.21 97.56 14215 2795 FILTERS 411.000.656.538.800.480.21 -449.58 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.480.21 -40.01 Total : 704.11 95263 3/29/2007 018950 LYNNWOOD AUTO PARTS INC 513628 UNIT 20 - FUEL FILTER, OIL FILTEF UNIT 20 - FUEL FILTER, OIL FILTEF 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 49.55 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 4.41 Page: 26 Packet Page 42 of 231 vchlist Voucher List Page: 27 03/29/2007 10:45:20AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 95263 3/29/2007 018950 LYNNWOOD AUTO PARTS INC (Continued) 513691 UNIT 86 - TRANS FILTER UNIT 86 - TRANS FILTER 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 8.11 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 0.72 513860 UNIT 400 - OIL FILTER UNIT 400 - OIL FILTER 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 5.44 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 0.48 513887 UNIT 400 - BRAKE PADS UNIT 400 - BRAKE PADS 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 19.29 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 1.72 514081 UNMIT 123 -FUNNEL UNMIT 123 -FUNNEL 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 3.97 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 0.35 514108 UNTI 475 - SUPPORTS UNTI 475 - SUPPORTS 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 63.33 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 5.64 514238 UNIT 117 - WINDSHIELD WIPERS UNIT 117 - WINDSHIELD WIPERS 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 14.97 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 1.33 514452 UNIT 124 - EXH WRAP 2X50 BL UNIT 124 - EXH WRAP 2X50 BL 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 52.99 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 4.72 Page: 27 Packet Page 43 of 231 vchlist Voucher List Page: 28 03/29/2007 10:45:20AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 95263 3/29/2007 018950 LYNNWOOD AUTO PARTS INC (Continued) 514499 UNIT 26 - BULBS, AIR FILTER UNIT 26 - BULBS, AIR FILTER 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 53.47 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 4.76 514652 UNIT 124 - EXP PLUGS UNIT 124 - EXP PLUGS 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 1.27 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 0.11 515261 UNIT 55 - AIR FILTER UNIT 55 - AIR FILTER 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 42.49 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 3.78 515575 UNIT 717 - PTEX DEFOG REPAIR UNIT 717 - PTEX DEFOG REPAIR 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 8.99 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 0.80 515731 UNIT 84 - LAMPS UNIT 84 - LAMPS 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 34.10 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 3.03 515746 UNIT 815 - SERPENTINE BELT UNIT 815 - SERPENTINE BELT 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 45.13 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 4.02 515760 UNIT 114 - LAMPS, SWITCH UNIT 114 - LAMPS, SWITCH 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 33.53 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 2.98 Page: 28 Packet Page 44 of 231 vchlist Voucher List Page: 29 03/29/2007 10:45:20AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 95263 3/29/2007 018950 018950 LYNNWOOD AUTO PARTS INC (Continued) Total : 475.48 95264 3/29/2007 018980 LYNNWOOD HONDA 559477 SUPPLIES SPOOLS 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 46.76 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 4.16 Total : 50.92 95265 3/29/2007 060855 LYNNWOOD TROPHY CENTER 16541 PLAQUE FOR LYNNWOOD RETIRE PLAQUE FOR LYNNWOOD- 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 67.95 Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 6.05 Total : 74.00 95266 3/29/2007 061900 MARC 0325218-IN 00-0902224 DRY LUBE 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 61.50 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 5.53 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 5.97 Total : 73.00 95267 3/29/2007 020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO 61284266 123106800 C-248 INCENERATOR PROJECT 414.000.656.594.320.650.00 104.08 Freight 414.000.656.594.320.650.00 5.62 61289770 123106800 GLOVES/SAFETY FITTINGS/VOLTF 411.000.656.538.800.310.12 257.77 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.12 6.00 Page: 29 Packet Page 45 of 231 vchlist Voucher List Page: 30 03/29/2007 10:45:20AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 95267 3/29/2007 020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO (Continued) 61333360 C-248 INCINERATOR PROJECT C-248 INCINERATOR PROJECT 414.000.656.594.320.650.00 235.43 Freight 414.000.656.594.320.650.00 12.35 61483998 123106800 FLUORESCENT LIGHTS 411.000.656.538.800.310.22 1,706.78 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.22 87.80 61532449 123106800 FIBER WELDING BLANKET 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 144.74 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 6.47 61544272 123106800 ADJUSTABLE STOOL 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 426.38 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 25.04 Total : 3,018.46 95268 3/29/2007 020900 MILLERS EQUIP & RENT ALL INC 42101 EXPENDABLE TOOLS saw blades 001.000.510.522.200.359.00 49.28 Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.200.359.00 4.39 Total : 53.67 95269 3/29/2007 021983 MOTOR TRUCKS INC 110104572 UNIT 22 - SWITCH UNIT 22 - SWITCH 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 37.21 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 3.20 Page: 30 Packet Page 46 of 231 vchlist Voucher List Page: 31 03/29/2007 10:45:20AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 95269 3/29/2007 021983 MOTOR TRUCKS INC (Continued) 110105161 UNIT 22 - EXCHANGE DIFF FOR Sb UNIT 22 - EXCHANGE DIFF FOR S� 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 7.96 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 0.68 Total : 49.05 95270 3/29/2007 062381 MUNICIPAL RESEARCH SERVICE CTR 2960 MUNICIPAL CODE HOSTED Host City code on MRSC site 001.000.250.514.300.480.00 350.00 Total : 350.00 95271 3/29/2007 065508 NAMOA FALK NAMOA CONF - E.FALK/EDMONDS FALK/REGISTRATION- 001.000.410.521.400.490.00 140.00 HARBINSON NAMOA CONF/2007DUES - S.HARE HARB I N SO N/REG I STRAT I O N- 001.000.410.521.400.490.00 140.00 HARBINSON/2007 DUES 001.000.410.521.400.490.00 30.00 Total : 310.00 95272 3/29/2007 064570 NATIONAL SAFETY INC 0194208-IN WATER/SEWER SUPPLIES - VEHIC WATER/SEWER SUPPLIES - VEHIC 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 33.95 WATER/SEWER SUPPLIES - VEHIC 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 33.95 Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 2.99 Sales Tax 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 2.98 Page: 31 Packet Page 47 of 231 vchlist Voucher List Page: 32 03/29/2007 10:45:20AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 95272 3/29/2007 064570 NATIONAL SAFETY INC (Continued) 0194881-IN WATER/SEWER - COVERALL, HAR WATER/SEWER - COVERALL, HAR 411.000.654.534.800.240.00 55.83 WATER/SEWER - COVERALL, HAR 411.000.655.535.800.240.00 55.82 Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.240.00 4.92 Sales Tax 411.000.655.535.800.240.00 4.91 Total : 195.35 95273 3/29/2007 070109 NAUTILUS ENVIRONMENTAL LLC 1768 BIOASSAY TESTILNG BIOASSAY TESTILNG 411.000.656.538.800.410.31 400.00 Total : 400.00 95274 3/29/2007 024302 NELSON PETROLEUM 0323887-IN FLEET INVENTORY - FILTERS, MP( FLEET INVENTORY - FILTERS, MP( 511.000.657.548.680.340.40 116.79 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.340.40 10.04 0324157-IN FLEET INVENTORY - 186 GAL 15/41 FLEET INVENTORY - 186 GAL 15/41 511.000.657.548.680.340.21 966.52 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.340.21 83.12 0324605-IN FLEET INVENTORY - FILTERS FLEET INVENTORY - FILTERS 511.000.657.548.680.340.40 54.48 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.340.40 4.68 Total : 1,235.63 95275 3/29/2007 065779 NEWMAN TRAFFIC SIGNS INC TI-0173325 SIGN BLANKS Page: 32 Packet Page 48 of 231 vchlist Voucher List Page: 33 03/29/2007 10:45:20AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 95275 3/29/2007 065779 NEWMAN TRAFFIC SIGNS INC (Continued) SIGN BLANK 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 24.50 Freight 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 14.12 Total : 38.62 95276 3/29/2007 067098 NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS 832127721-029 INV#832127721-029 EDMONDS PD CELL PHONES 03/18-04/17/06 001.000.410.521.220.420.00 1,461.58 Total : 1,461.58 95277 3/29/2007 063034 NORTH CENTRAL LABORATORIES 214952 13465 BOD STANDARD/BOD SEED/MARK 411.000.656.538.800.310.31 263.70 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.31 8.62 Total : 272.32 95278 3/29/2007 061013 NORTHWEST CASCADE INC 0441438 HONEY BUCKET RENTAL HONEY BUCKET RENTAL:- 001.000.640.576.800.450.00 132.20 0441439 HONEY BUCKET RENTAL HONEY BUCKET RENTAL:- 001.000.640.576.800.450.00 138.02 Total : 270.22 95279 3/29/2007 025690 NOYES, KARIN 000 00 464 PB Minutes 3/14/07 PB Minutes 3/14/07 001.000.620.558.600.410.00 390.00 000 00 466 Verbatim Transcripts R-06-95 3/14/21 Verbatim Transcripts R-06-95 3/14/21 001.000.620.558.600.410.00 390.00 Total : 780.00 95280 3/29/2007 063511 OFFICE MAX CONTRACT INC 754454 Office Supplies - Mayor, CS, HR Page: 33 Packet Page 49 of 231 vchlist Voucher List Page: 34 03/29/2007 10:45:20AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor 95280 3/29/2007 063511 OFFICE MAX CONTRACT INC 95281 3/29/2007 063511 OFFICE MAX CONTRACT INC Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount (Continued) Office Supplies - Mayor, CS, HR 001.000.220.516.100.310.00 27.27 Office Supplies - Mayor, CS, HR 001.000.610.519.700.310.00 27.26 Office Supplies - Mayor, CS, HR 001.000.210.513.100.310.00 27.27 King County Sales Tax 001.000.220.516.100.310.00 2.40 King County Sales Tax 001.000.610.519.700.310.00 2.40 King County Sales Tax 001.000.210.513.100.310.00 2.40 Total : 89.00 680762 Wireless Mouse Wireless Mouse 001.000.310.518.880.310.00 57.50 King County Sales Tax 001.000.310.518.880.310.00 5.06 798519 Manilla files, notebooks, wall clips, Manilla files, notebooks, wall clips, 001.000.310.514.230.310.00 249.94 King County Sales Tax 001.000.310.514.230.310.00 22.00 Page: 34 Packet Page 50 of 231 vchlist Voucher List Page: 35 03/29/2007 10:45:20AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 95281 3/29/2007 063511 OFFICE MAX CONTRACT INC (Continued) 816519 CDs CDs 001.000.310.514.230.310.00 15.81 Labels 001.000.310.514.100.310.00 14.58 Freight 001.000.310.514.230.310.00 0.52 Freight 001.000.310.514.100.310.00 0.48 King County Sales Tax 001.000.310.514.230.310.00 1.39 King County Sales Tax 001.000.310.514.100.310.00 1.29 Total : 368.57 95282 3/29/2007 063511 OFFICE MAX CONTRACT INC 794398 OFFICE SUPPLIES Office Supplies 001.000.250.514.300.310.00 170.88 King County Sales Tax 001.000.250.514.300.310.00 15.04 844609 OFFICE SUPPLIES Office supplies 001.000.250.514.300.310.00 138.92 King County Sales Tax 001.000.250.514.300.310.00 12.23 Total : 337.07 95283 3/29/2007 063511 OFFICE MAX CONTRACT INC 611089 Office Supplies DSD Office Supplies DSD 001.000.620.558.800.310.00 624.94 Total : 624.94 95284 3/29/2007 063511 OFFICE MAX CONTRACT INC 852378 INV#852378 ACCT#520437 250POL Page: 35 Packet Page 51 of 231 vchlist Voucher List Page: 36 03/29/2007 10:45:20AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 95284 3/29/2007 063511 OFFICE MAX CONTRACT INC (Continued) LEGAL HANGING FOLDERS 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 28.56 10 DOZEN PENS FOR PATROL 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 60.70 King County Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 7.86 Total : 97.12 95285 3/29/2007 063511 OFFICE MAX CONTRACT INC 716500 PW ADMIN SUPPLIES - COLOR INN PW ADMIN SUPPLIES - COLOR INN 001.000.650.519.910.310.00 64.96 King County Sales Tax 001.000.650.519.910.310.00 5.71 Total : 70.67 95286 3/29/2007 026200 OLYMPIC VIEW WATER DISTRICT 07-03 WATER METER INSTALLATION INVENTORY FOR INSTALLING 3/4" 130.000.640.536.500.310.00 288.50 Total : 288.50 95287 3/29/2007 002203 OWEN EQUIPMENT COMPANY 00045064 UNIT 55 - HEX HEAD CAP SC, THIN UNIT 55 - HEX HEAD CAP SC, THIN 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 11.28 Freight 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 45.03 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 4.96 00045216 SEWER INVENTORY - S-CPLG-01-( SEWER INVENTORY - S-CPLG-01-( 411.000.000.141.150.310.00 96.42 Freight 411.000.000.141.150.310.00 11.55 Sales Tax 411.000.000.141.150.310.00 9.50 Page: 36 Packet Page 52 of 231 vchlist Voucher List Page: 37 03/29/2007 10:45:20AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 95287 3/29/2007 002203 OWEN EQUIPMENT COMPANY (Continued) 00045260 UNIT 55 - VALVE SOLENOID UNIT 55 - VALVE SOLENOID 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 637.36 Freight 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 51.77 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 60.64 Total : 928.51 95288 3/29/2007 027060 PACIFIC TOPSOILS 42582 STORM DUMP FEES STORM DUMP FEES 411.000.652.542.320.490.00 89.13 42600 STORM DUMP FEES STORM DUMP FEES 411.000.652.542.320.490.00 66.84 Total : 155.97 95289 3/29/2007 066817 PANASONIC DIGITAL DOCUMENT COM 9538533 ADMIN LEASE copier lease 001.000.510.522.100.450.00 137.06 Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.100.450.00 12.20 Total : 149.26 95290 3/29/2007 069873 PAPE MACHINERY INC 913854 UNIT 24 - WATER PUMP, KIT UNIT 24 - WATER PUMP, KIT 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 322.20 Freight 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 7.52 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 29.01 Total : 358.73 95291 3/29/2007 071488 PARENTMAP 307725 CAMP AD Page: 37 Packet Page 53 of 231 vchlist Voucher List Page: 38 03/29/2007 10:45:20AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 95291 3/29/2007 071488 PARENTMAP (Continued) CAMP AD IN SUMMER MAP 001.000.640.574.200.440.00 578.00 Total : 578.00 95292 3/29/2007 070931 PATTON BOGGS LLP Feb 2007 DC LOBBYIST FOR FEBRUARY 20C DC Lobbyist for February 2007 001.000.610.519.700.410.00 4,000.00 Total : 4,000.00 95293 3/29/2007 069944 PECK, ELIZABETH PECK7528 FITNESS & CHILDRENS CLASSES STRETCH & SCULPT #7528 001.000.640.575.540.410.00 134.40 WIGGLES & GIGGLES #7503 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 382.20 Total : 516.60 95294 3/29/2007 063951 PERTEET ENGINEERING INC 22036-000041 E1BA.Thru 02/25/07-Street/OVWSD E1BA.Thru 02/25/07-Street/OVWSD 112.506.630.595.330.650.00 39,595.80 E1BA.Thru 02/25/07-Water 412.100.630.594.320.650.00 821.87 E1BA.Thru 02/25/07.Storm 412.200.630.594.320.650.00 4,592.31 E1BA.Thru 02/25/07.Sewer 412.300.630.594.320.650.00 251.16 Total : 45,261.14 95295 3/29/2007 029012 PONY MAIL BOX & BUSINESS CTR 153142 INV#153142 ACCT#2772 EDMONDE RETURN TASER TO MFG 001.000.410.521.100.420.00 8.31 153284 INV#153284 ACCT#2772 EDMONDE MAIL MOTORCYCLE HELMET 001.000.410.521.100.420.00 20.97 Total : 29.28 95296 3/29/2007 029117 PORT OF EDMONDS C/A 04646 03/15/07 Participation in the Waterfront Page: 38 Packet Page 54 of 231 vchlist Voucher List Page: 39 03/29/2007 10:45:20AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 95296 3/29/2007 029117 PORT OF EDMONDS (Continued) Participation in the Waterfront 001.000.240.513.110.410.00 5,346.20 Total : 5,346.20 95297 3/29/2007 065105 PORT SUPPLY 4392 UNIT 55 - ANCHORS UNIT 55 - ANCHORS 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 14.75 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 1.31 5225 UNIT M16 - COTTER PIN, FASTENE UNIT M16 - COTTER PIN, FASTENE 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 2.53 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 0.22 Total : 18.81 95298 3/29/2007 069378 PRATTO SALES INC 11817 SHOP EQUIPMENT - SAMSON ELE SHOP EQUIPMENT - SAMSON ELE 511.000.657.548.680.350.00 240.00 Freight 511.000.657.548.680.350.00 12.75 Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.350.00 21.49 Total : 274.24 95299 3/29/2007 064088 PROTECTION ONE 1988948 FAC 24 HR & FIRE alarm monitoring for F 001.000.651.519.920.420.00 183.00 291104 CITY PARK BLDG - REPLACE BATI CITY PARK BLDG - REPLACE BATI 001.000.651.519.920.480.00 188.00 Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.480.00 16.73 Total : 387.73 Page: 39 Packet Page 55 of 231 vchlist Voucher List Page: 40 03/29/2007 10:45:20AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 95300 3/29/2007 065579 QUIKSIGN 55377 Sign install S2006-152 (Webber) Sign install S2006-152 (Webber) 001.000.620.558.600.410.00 169.73 Total : 169.73 95301 3/29/2007 031194 RED WING SHOES IVC00023875 OPS UNIFORMS Hills boot repair 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 114.85 Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.200.240.00 10.22 Total : 125.07 95302 3/29/2007 062657 REGIONAL DISPOSAL 3003823-C STORM - STREET SWEEPING - SE, STORM - STREET SWEEPING - SE, 411.000.652.542.320.490.00 903.93 Sales Tax 411.000.652.542.320.490.00 32.54 Total : 936.47 95303 3/29/2007 071476 REMINGTON ARMS CO 41547332 INV#41547332 ACCT#LOCALLETAX 870 MAG SPRING 7-SHOT 001.000.410.521.400.310.00 5.65 1187 MAG EXT SWIVEL ASSB PART 001.000.410.521.400.310.00 218.55 Freight 001.000.410.521.400.310.00 8.00 Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.400.310.00 20.66 Total : 252.86 95304 3/29/2007 068483 RH2 ENGINEERING INC 44658 E3JC.Services thru 02/25/07 E3JC.Services thru 02/25/07 412.100.630.594.320.650.00 1,287.20 Total : 1,287.20 95305 3/29/2007 068484 RINKER MATERIALS 9412323649 WATER/SEWER PATCHING -ASPH, Page: 40 Packet Page 56 of 231 vchlist Voucher List Page: 41 03/29/2007 10:45:20AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 95305 3/29/2007 068484 RINKER MATERIALS (Continued) WATER/SEWER PATCHING -ASPH, 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 120.00 WATER/SEWER PATCHING -ASPH, 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 120.00 Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 10.56 Sales Tax 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 10.56 Total : 261.12 95306 3/29/2007 066111 SAFETY TRAINING ASSOCIATES 2251 FLAGGER & TRAFFIC CONTROL TI FLAGGER & TRAFFIC CONTROL TI 411.000.654.534.800.490.00 450.00 7 SEWER DEPT 411.000.655.535.800.490.00 350.00 7 STREET DEPT 111.000.653.542.900.490.00 350.00 7 STORM DEPT 411.000.652.542.900.490.00 350.00 Total : 1,500.00 95307 3/29/2007 071573 SANDERLIN, CLIFF Rec#043291 Refund of City Surcharge Sanderlin c Refund of City Surcharge Sanderlin c 001.000.000.321.930.000.00 15.00 Total : 15.00 95308 3/29/2007 071007 SAWDON, MANDY SAWDON0324 ANDERSON CENTER GYM MONITC ANDERSON CENTER GYM MONITC 001.000.640.574.100.410.00 48.00 Total : 48.00 95309 3/29/2007 068489 SIRENNET.COM 0058310-IN UNIT 476 - STROBE/REFLECTOR Page: 41 Packet Page 57 of 231 vchlist Voucher List Page: 42 03/29/2007 10:45:20AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 95309 3/29/2007 068489 SIRENNET.COM (Continued) UNIT 476 - STROBE/REFLECTOR 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 173.60 Freight 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 13.50 0059091-IN UNIT 720- 4 OUTLET POWER SWII UNIT 720- 4 OUTLET POWER SWII 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 199.80 Freight 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 13.50 0059310-IN UNIT 485 - ALTERNATING FLASHEI UNIT 485 - ALTERNATING FLASHEI 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 42.50 Freight 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 11.50 0059396-IN UNIT 476 - 2 CLEAR NON OPTIC LE UNIT 476 - 2 CLEAR NON OPTIC LE 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 58.00 Freight 511.000.657.548.680.310.00 11.50 Total : 523.90 95310 3/29/2007 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 2450016544 UTILITY BILLING 18500 82ND AVE W 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 87.73 3570014369 UTILITY BILLING 8030 185TH ST SW 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 270.82 Total : 358.55 95311 3/29/2007 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 280018309 958-001-000-8 WWTP ELECTRICITY 411.000.656.538.800.471.61 29,448.89 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.471.61 1,766.93 Page: 42 Packet Page 58 of 231 vchlist Voucher List Page: 43 03/29/2007 10:45:20AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 95311 3/29/2007 037375 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 (Continued) Total : 31,215.82 95312 3/29/2007 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 2070015082 LIFT STATION #7 LIFT STATION #7 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 167.03 2480017397 200 Dayton St -Vacant PW Bldg 200 Dayton St -Vacant PW Bldg 411.000.654.534.800.470.00 808.88 2540012560 LIFT STATION #4 LIFT STATION #4 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 433.43 2790022228 SIGNAL LIGHT SIGNAL LIGHT 111.000.653.542.640.470.00 51.38 2880027277 SEAVIEW RESERVOIR SEAVIEW RESERVOIR 411.000.654.534.800.470.00 27.31 3350014902 SIGNAL LIGHT SIGNAL LIGHT 111.000.653.542.640.470.00 41.35 3720012057 LIBRARY LIBRARY 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 2,451.89 4210013902 SIGNAL LIGHT SIGNAL LIGHT 111.000.653.542.640.470.00 51.07 4330014129 SIGNAL LIGHT SIGNAL LIGHT 111.000.653.542.640.470.00 320.57 Page: 43 Packet Page 59 of 231 vchlist Voucher List Page: 44 03/29/2007 10:45:20AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 95312 3/29/2007 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 (Continued) 4840011953 Public Works Public Works 001.000.650.519.910.470.00 102.81 Public Works 111.000.653.542.900.470.00 390.68 Public Works 411.000.654.534.800.470.00 390.68 Public Works 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 390.68 Public Works 511.000.657.548.680.470.00 390.68 Public Works 411.000.652.542.900.470.00 390.70 5360023807 SIGNAL LIGHT SIGNAL LIGHT 111.000.653.542.630.470.00 16.17 5390028164 PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 5,725.59 5410010689 CITY HALL CITY HALL 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 2,818.93 Total : 14,969.83 95313 3/29/2007 038410 SOUND SAFETY PRODUCTS 2253415-01 UNIFORM/SEBERS UNIFORM/SEBERS 411.000.656.538.800.240.00 218.05 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.240.00 18.75 Total : 236.80 95314 3/29/2007 038410 SOUND SAFETY PRODUCTS 4107521-01 STORM - ANNUAL JEANS - J WAR Page: 44 Packet Page 60 of 231 vchlist Voucher List Page: 45 03/29/2007 10:45:20AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 95314 3/29/2007 038410 SOUND SAFETY PRODUCTS (Continued) STORM - ANNUAL JEANS - J WAR 411.000.652.542.900.240.00 142.50 Sales Tax 411.000.652.542.900.240.00 12.68 4109049-01 SEWER DEPT - UNIFORM - JEANS SEWER DEPT - UNIFORM - JEANS 411.000.655.535.800.240.00 163.25 Sales Tax 411.000.655.535.800.240.00 14.53 Total : 332.96 95315 3/29/2007 060371 STANDARD INSURANCE CO 3/21/07 Disability premiums Disability premiums 001.000.390.519.900.490.00 121.50 Total : 121.50 95316 3/29/2007 040917 TACOMA SCREW PRODUCTS INC 10508268 SUPPLIES SECURITY CHAINS 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 209.27 Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 18.63 Total : 227.90 95317 3/29/2007 071577 TAYLOR, KATHLEEN 3/7-3/19/07 Planning Const Sery 3/7-3/19/07 Planning Const Sery 3/7-3/19/07 001.000.620.558.600.410.00 2,600.00 Total : 2,600.00 95318 3/29/2007 070578 TEL WEST COMMUNICATIONS 827254 C/A 20044 PR1-1 City Phone Service 3/21-4/21/ 001.000.390.528.800.420.00 837.01 Total : 837.01 95319 3/29/2007 009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY 1487523 NEWSPAPER ADS Design Guidelines Hearing 001.000.250.514.300.440.00 63.36 Page: 45 Packet Page 61 of 231 vchlist Voucher List Page: 46 03/29/2007 10:45:20AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 95319 3/29/2007 009350 009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY (Continued) Total : 63.36 95320 3/29/2007 071445 THE WHISTLESTOP DANCE COMPANY WHISTLESTOP0326 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES DANCE RESIDENCY WITH DEBBIE 117.100.640.573.100.410.00 850.00 Total : 850.00 95321 3/29/2007 070040 TOTAL RECLAIM INC 47840 Recycle of electronic & computer par Recycle of electronic & computer par 001.000.310.518.880.490.00 60.50 47841 Recycle of electronic & computer par Recycle of electronic & computer par 001.000.310.518.880.490.00 366.75 Total : 427.25 95322 3/29/2007 070774 ULINE INC 18082199 INV#18082199 CUST#2634605 EDM 2 BUNDLES #20 HARDWARE BAGS 001.000.410.521.910.310.00 38.00 Freight 001.000.410.521.910.310.00 19.63 Total : 57.63 95323 3/29/2007 061192 UNITED PIPE & SUPPLY 7375613 IRRIGATION SUPPLIES ROTORS 125.000.640.594.750.650.00 181.80 Freight 125.000.640.594.750.650.00 8.51 Sales Tax 125.000.640.594.750.650.00 16.75 Total : 207.06 95324 3/29/2007 068724 US HEALTHWORKS MED GROUP OF W 0169798-WA DOT, COC DOT - S LONG DOT, COC DOT - S LONG 411.000.655.535.800.410.00 61.00 Total : 61.00 95325 3/29/2007 064198 UZ ENGINEERED PRODUCTS 93346115 76870 Page: 46 Packet Page 62 of 231 vchlist Voucher List Page: 47 03/29/2007 10:45:20AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 95325 3/29/2007 064198 UZ ENGINEERED PRODUCTS (Continued) DRILL TAPS/LUBRICANT/TAP TOOI 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 741.32 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 65.96 Total : 807.28 95326 3/29/2007 011900 VERIZON NORTHWEST 425-771-1124 CITY PARK MAINTENANCE BLDG-E CITY PARK MAINTENANCE BLDG-E 001.000.640.576.800.420.00 51.56 Total : 51.56 95327 3/29/2007 011900 VERIZON NORTHWEST 425-AB8-1176 CITY PARK T1 LINE City Park T1 Line 3/16-4/16/07 001.000.310.518.880.420.00 407.57 Total : 407.57 95328 3/29/2007 011900 VERIZON NORTHWEST 425-774-0944 FS #20-FAX LINE FS #20-FAX LINE 001.000.510.522.200.420.00 48.04 425-NW4-3726 FRAME RELAY FOR FS #20 & SNO, FRAME RELAY FOR FS #20 & SNO, 001.000.510.528.600.420.00 247.00 Total : 295.04 95329 3/29/2007 011900 VERIZON NORTHWEST 425-206-8379 MEADOWDALE COMMUNITY CLUB MEADOWDALE COMMUNITY CLUB 001.000.651.519.920.420.00 14.88 425-712-0417 TELEMETRY STATIONS TELEMETRY STATIONS 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 27.53 TELEMETRY STATIONS 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 27.53 Page: 47 Packet Page 63 of 231 vchlist Voucher List Page: 48 03/29/2007 10:45:20AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 95329 3/29/2007 011900 VERIZON NORTHWEST (Continued) 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 10.43 P/W FIRE ALARM, FAX LINE & 2 SF 111.000.653.542.900.420.00 52.12 P/W FIRE ALARM, FAX LINE & 2 SF 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 42.74 P/W FIRE ALARM, FAX LINE & 2 SF 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 42.74 P/W FIRE ALARM, FAX LINE & 2 SF 511.000.657.548.680.420.00 60.46 425-775-2455 PUBLIC SAFETY FIRE ALARM PUBLIC SAFETY FIRE ALARM 001.000.651.519.920.420.00 47.49 Total : 325.92 95330 3/29/2007 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS 2122462056 965420720-00001 PRETREATMENT/CELL 411.000.656.538.800.420.00 36.18 Total : 36.18 95331 3/29/2007 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS 364280677-00001 360-929-3167 cell phone- Jim Kammerer 411.000.652.542.900.420.00 0.69 cell phone- Jim Kammerer 111.000.653.542.900.420.00 0.69 469985965-1 425-870-0617 Cell phone -Jim Waite 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 29.21 Cell phone -Jim Waite 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 29.20 470091643-00001 425-238-8846 cell phone -Tod Moles 411.000.652.542.900.420.00 35.40 Page: 48 Packet Page 64 of 231 vchlist Voucher List Page: 49 03/29/2007 10:45:20AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 95331 3/29/2007 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS (Continued) 470103273-00001 425-238-5456 cell phone -Mike Johnson 111.000.653.542.900.420.00 29.58 670091643-00001 425-327-5379 cell phone -unit #77 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 32.69 769986915-01 425-231-2668 cell phone -water lead 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 39.79 770096328-00001 425-238-8252 cell phone -Dave Sittauer 511.000.657.548.680.420.00 1.49 Total : 198.74 95332 3/29/2007 071579 VIASYS NEUROCARE GROUP Bus Lic Refund REFUND OVERPMT OF BUS LICEN Refund overpmt of Business License 001.000.000.257.310.000.00 40.00 Total : 40.00 95333 3/29/2007 071584 VILLALOBOS, JOEL VILLALOBOS0307 FIELD ATTENDANT SOFTBALL FIELD ATTENDANT @ N 001.000.640.575.520.410.00 132.00 Total : 132.00 95334 3/29/2007 071580 WASHINGTON ALARM INC Bus Lic Refund REFUND OVERPMT OF BUS LICEN Refund overpmt of Busines License 001.000.000.257.310.000.00 40.00 Total : 40.00 95335 3/29/2007 070264 WASHINGTON OAKES RETIREMENT 37 Assisted Living Care (Jim Martin) Assisted Living Care (Jim Martin) 009.000.390.517.370.230.00 3,850.00 Total : 3,850.00 95336 3/29/2007 065035 WASHINGTON STATE PATROL F0600768 TRAINING MISC Page: 49 Packet Page 65 of 231 vchlist Voucher List Page: 50 03/29/2007 10:45:20AM City of Edmonds Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 95336 3/29/2007 065035 WASHINGTON STATE PATROL (Continued) Boyle, Hunter, Krug m ire, Petrel I a 001.000.510.522.400.490.00 400.00 Total : 400.00 95337 3/29/2007 071359 WASSER CORPORATION 108100 564 PAINT 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 79.63 Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 7.01 Total : 86.64 95338 3/29/2007 026510 WCIA 700605-002 E7FB.Hinrichs Cl No GCO25231 E7FB.Hinrichs Cl No GCO25231 412.200.630.594.320.650.00 240.00 Total : 240.00 95339 3/29/2007 069691 WESTERN SYSTEMS 10001656 STREET - VISOR 12 POLY TUNNEL STREET - VISOR 12 POLY TUNNEL 111.000.653.542.640.310.00 78.60 Freight 111.000.653.542.640.310.00 5.70 Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.640.310.00 7.25 Total : 91.55 95340 3/29/2007 068611 WHEATLAND FIRE EQUIP CO 422161 EXPENDABLE TOOLS Batteries 001.000.510.522.200.359.00 41.59 Freight 001.000.510.522.200.359.00 6.44 Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.200.359.00 3.71 Page: 50 Packet Page 66 of 231 vchlist 03/29/2007 10:45:20AM Voucher List City of Edmonds Page: 51 Bank code : front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 95340 3/29/2007 068611 WHEATLAND FIRE EQUIP CO (Continued) 97319 EXPENDABLE TOOLS Returned 2 Strmlight Stinger Batterie 001.000.510.522.200.359.00 -17.00 Sales Tax 001.000.510.522.200.359.00 -1.76 Total : 32.98 95341 3/29/2007 065036 YOAKUM, ANDRE 3/23/07 Tuition Reimbursement 1/19/07 - 3/4, Tuition Reimbursement 1/19/07 - 3/4, 001.000.220.516.100.490.00 387.00 Total : 387.00 95342 3/29/2007 070432 ZACHOR & THOMAS PS INC 230 MAR-07 RETAINER Mar-07 Retainer 001.000.360.515.230.410.00 6,000.00 Total : 6,000.00 159 Vouchers for bank code : front Bank total : 202,530.81 159 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers : 202,530.81 Page: 51 Packet Page 67 of 231 AM-908 2. D. 92nd Avenue West/234th Street SW Intersection Project Edmonds City Council Meeting Date: 04/03/2007 Submitted By: Conni Curtis, Engineering Submitted For: Dave Gebert Time: Consent Department: Engineering Type: Action Review Committee: Action: Agenda Memo Subiect Title Report on final construction costs for the 92nd Avenue West/234th Street SW Intersection Safety Improvements project and Council acceptance of project. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Council accept the 92nd Avenue West/234th Street SW Intersection Safety Improvements project. Previous Council Action On August 22, 2006 Council awarded a contract for the 92nd Avenue West/234th Street SW Intersection Safety Improvements project to Dennis R. Craig Construction, Inc. in the amount of $47,880. On February 20, 2007, Council appropriated an additional $11,000 from the Street Construction/Improvement Capital Fund H 2 cash balance for the project. Narrative The 92nd Avenue West/234th Street SW Intersection Safety Improvements project is complete. The project was designed by Earth Tech, inspected and accepted by Staff. Project Budget - $86,000 Project Costs: Contractor (Dennis R. Craig Construction, Inc.) - $81,643 Testing (HWA Geosciences) - $1,048 Advertising - $330 Total Project Costs - $83,021 Staff recommends that Council accept the project. Revenue & Expenditures Fiscal Impact Attachments No file(s) attached. Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 Engineering Dave Gebert 03/27/2007 10:39 AM APRV 2 Development Services Duane Bowman 03/27/2007 10:52 AM APRV 3 Public Works Noel Miller 03/27/2007 12:13 PM APRV 4 City Clerk Sandy Chase 03/27/2007 02:31 PM APRV 5 Mayor Gary Haakenson 03/27/2007 03:40 PM APRV 6 Final Approval Sandy Chase 03/28/2007 09:15 AM APRV Form Started By: Conni Curtis Started On: 03/26/2007 11:45 AM Final Approval Date: 03/28/2007 Packet Page 68 of 231 AM-909 2.E. South County Senior Center Roof Replacement Project Edmonds City Council Meeting Date: 04/03/2007 Submitted By: Conni Curtis, Engineering Submitted For: Dave Gebert Time: Consent Department: Engineering Type: Action Review Committee: Action: Agenda Memo Subiect Title Report on final construction costs for the South County Senior Center Roof Replacement project and Council acceptance of project. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Council accept the South County Senior Center Roof Replacement project. Previous Council Action N/A Narrative The South County Senior Center Roof Replacement project is complete. The project was designed, inspected and accepted by Staff. Project Budget - $65,000 Project Costs: Contractor (SQI, Inc.) - $23,538 Advertising - $443 Total Project Costs - $23,981 This project was funded by a HUD Community Development Block Grant. Staff recommends that Council accept the project. No file(s) attached. Revenue & Expenditures Fiscal Impact Attachments Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 Engineering Dave Gebert 03/27/2007 10:24 AM APRV 2 Development Services Duane Bowman 03/27/2007 10:52 AM APRV 3 Public Works Noel Miller 03/27/2007 12:13 PM APRV 4 Parks and Recreation Brian McIntosh 03/27/2007 12:36 PM APRV 5 Development Services Duane Bowman 03/27/2007 01:00 PM APRV 6 Public Works Noel Miller 03/27/2007 02:54 PM APRV 7 City Clerk Sandy Chase 03/27/2007 03:20 PM APRV 8 Mayor Gary Haakenson 03/27/2007 03:40 PM APRV 9 Final Approval Sandy Chase 03/28/2007 09:15 AM APRV Form Started By: Conni Curtis Started On: 03/26/2007 12:00 PM Final Approval Date: 03/28/2007 Packet Page 69 of 231 AM-910 2.F. South County Senior Center Fire Alarm Renovation Project Edmonds City Council Meeting Date: 04/03/2007 Submitted By: Conni Curtis, Engineering Submitted For: Dave Gebert Time: Department: Engineering Type: Action Review Committee: Action: Agenda Memo Subiect Title Report on final construction costs for the South County Senior Center Fire Alarm Renovation project and Council acceptance of project. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Council accept the South County Senior Center Fire Alarm Renovation project. Previous Council Action On July 18, 2006, Council awarded a contract for the South County Senior Center Fire Alarm Renovation project to ABSCO Alarms, Inc. Narrative The South County Senior Center Fire Alarm Renovation project is complete. The project was designed, inspected and accepted by Staff. Project Budget - $45,000 Project Cost: Contractor (ABSCO Alarms, Inc.) - $43,056 This project was funded by a HUD Community Development Block Grant. Staff recommends that Council accept the project. Revenue & Expenditures Fiscal Impact Attachments No file(s) attached. Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 Engineering Dave Gebert 03/27/2007 10:29 AM APRV 2 Development Services Duane Bowman 03/27/2007 10:53 AM APRV 3 Planning Department Rob Chave 03/27/2007 03:13 PM APRV 4 Parks and Recreation Brian McIntosh 03/27/2007 03:19 PM APRV 5 Development Services Duane Bowman 03/28/2007 06:57 AM APRV 6 Public Works Noel Miller 03/28/2007 07:36 AM APRV 7 City Clerk Sandy Chase 03/28/2007 09:15 AM APRV 8 Mayor Gary Haakenson 03/28/2007 10:09 AM APRV 9 Final Approval Sandy Chase 03/29/2007 08:27 AM APRV Form Started By: Conni Curtis Started On: 03/26/2007 12:06 PM Final Approval Date: 03/29/2007 Packet Page 70 of 231 AM-911 Edmonds Market Contract Edmonds City Council Meeting Date: 04/03/2007 Submitted By: Renee McRae, Parks and Recreation Time: Consent Department: Parks and Recreation Type: Action Review Committee: Action: Approved for Consent Agenda Agenda Memo Subiect Title Authorization for Mayor to sign Contract with Edmonds -South Snohomish County Historical Society for the Edmonds Market. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Authorize the Mayor to sign the Edmonds Market contract. Previous Council Action Narrative There are no significant changes to the 2007 contract. Link: 2007 Market Contract Revenue & Expenditures Fiscal Impact Attachments Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 03/28/2007 09:15 AM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 03/28/2007 10:09 AM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 03/29/2007 08:27 AM APRV Form Started By: Renee McRae Started On: 03/28/2007 07:58 AM Final Approval Date: 03/29/2007 2.G. Packet Page 71 of 231 CONTRACT CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON AND EDMONDS-SOUTH SNOHOMISH COUNTY HISTORICAL SOCIETY May 5-October 6, 2007 The following is an agreement between the CITY OF EDMONDS (hereinafter referred to as the "City"), and the EDMONDS-SOUTH SNOHOMISH COUNTY HISTORICAL SOCIETY (hereinafter referred to as the "Historical Society"). WHEREAS, the Edmonds South County Historical Society has operated in the past a spring and summer market providing a marketplace for Edmonds residents to display their wares which uniquely promotes artists and other small business persons and their products; WHEREAS, the City Council finds that in addition to providing an opportunity for economic development and a recreational resource to the citizens of Edmonds, the event promotes tourism to the community and could provide an initial springboard for the development of a small business; WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the considerations the City provides are more than adequately recompensed by the promises of the Historical Society and the public benefit to be derived from this agreement; NOW, THEREFORE, 1. Responsibilities of CitX. 1.1 Garden Market (May 5, 12, 19, 26 and June 2, 9, 16, 23, 30): City shall provide up to 40 parking spaces located on the south and west sides of the police parking lot for farmer/producer based vendors. 1.2 Summer Market: City shall provide use of the right of way, Bell Street between 5th and 6th Avenues and 5th Avenue between Bell and Main Streets, by the Historical Society for the "Summer Market" event, each Saturday (Exceptions: 1. No Summer Market during Taste of Edmonds, Saturday August 11. 2. On Saturday, September 8, the Car Show will utilize Fifth Avenue North from Main Street to the alley south of the Museum) beginning July 7 through October 6, 2007. 1.3 All use and configuration of tents and other temporary facilities used in this event shall be inspected and reviewed prior to the event by City Fire Marshal or designated representative, in accordance with the provisions of the Open Air Market Ordinance. Tarps, tents, canopies and covers shall be tested and labeled for fire resistance. Also, provisions of State and local law shall be adhered to insure that no lasting or permanent damage shall be done to any public facility or property. The Fire Marshal and City in accordance with its lawful authority under statute and ordinance may use its discretion to cancel such event or to prohibit the attendance of the general public in certain areas. 1.4 City shall install Summer Market banners as provided by Historical Society at approved sites. Historical Society shall obtain a Street Banner Permit. Packet Page 72 of 231 1.5 City shall install appropriate "No Parking Saturdays" signage on both 5th Avenue South and Bell Streets in mid -June and provide portable street barriers. 2. Historical Society promises in consideration of the use of the facilities and services above described: 2.1 Set up hours begin at 6:00 a.m. on Saturdays on 5th Avenue and 7:00 a.m. on Saturdays on Bell Street. ❖ During the Garden Market, the sections of the Police parking lot not used by the Market will be reserved for police parking only. Parking restrictions will be posted and vendor and customer parking will not be allowed in this area. Violators may be towed at their own expense. ❖ For Summer Market - parking restrictions shall be posted indicating violators will be towed. Police Department will attempt to notify owners. If not located by 6:30 a.m. on 5th Avenue and 7:30 am on Bell Street, police will proceed to have violating vehicles towed. ❖ For Summer Market street barricades are in place at 6:00 a.m. on Saturday and removed by 5:00 p.m. (Exception: September 8 if Market stays open until 5 p.m. for Car Show). ❖ Historical Society shall obtain necessary Street Use Permits for Summer Market. 2.2 The Historical Society shall provide a Certificate of Insurance evidencing commercial general liability insurance written on an occurrence basis with limits no less than $1,000,000 combined single limit per occurrence and $5,000,000 aggregate for personal injury, bodily injury and property damage. City shall be named as an additional insured on the Commercial General Liability insurance policy and a copy of the endorsement naming City as additional insured shall be attached to the Certificate of Insurance. The insurance policy shall contain a clause stating that coverage shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respects to the limits of the insurer's liability. The City shall be named as an insured on the Historical Society's General Liability insurance policy. The insurance policy shall contain, or be endorsed to provide that the Historical Society's insurance coverage shall be primary insurance. Any insurance, self- insurance, or insurance pool coverage maintained by the City shall be in excess of the Historical Society's insurance and shall not contribute to it. The Historical Society shall provide a certificate of insurance evidencing the required insurance before using the property described herein. Insurance shall be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best rating of not less than A:VII. 2.3 Historical Society shall defend, indemnify and hold the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers harmless from any claims, injuries, damages, losses or suits including attorney fees, arising out of or in connection with the performance of this Agreement, including actions or inactions of persons participating or providing services in the event or from spectators, citizens, and other persons attending the events, except for injuries and damages caused by sole negligence of City. 2.4 Neither Historical Society nor any officer, agent, or employee shall discriminate in the provision of service under this contract against any individual, partnership, Packet Page 73 of 231 or corporation based upon race, religion, sex, creed, place of origin, or any other form of discrimination prohibited by federal, state or local law. 2.5 In addition, the parties acknowledge that pursuant to the provisions of Initiative 901 as codified in Chapter 70.160 RCW (herein after the "smoking ban"), smoking is prohibited in indoor areas, within 25 feet of vents or entrances and in outdoor areas where public employees of the City, and employees of any vendor at the event or of the contracting organization are required to be. This general description of the provisions of the initiative is included for the purpose of reference and is not intended to expand or contract the obligations created by the smoking ban. The Historical Society warrants that it will comply with the smoking ban and will utilize the services and advice of the Snohomish County Health District in assuring compliance during the event described in this agreement. 2.6 Historical Society agrees to the following days and general operating hours: Garden Market: May 5, 12, 19, 26 and June 2, 9, 16, 23, 30 Summer Market: Saturdays, July 7, 2007 — October 6, 2007 (No Market August 11, due to Taste of Edmonds). Historical Society agrees to the following hours of operation: Garden Market and Summer Market open: 9:00 a.m.-3:00 p.m. (Exception September 8 when Market may remain open for the car show) Set up: 6:00 a.m.-9:00 a.m. (6:00 a.m start on 5th Avenue; 7:00 a.m. start on Bell Street) Takedown: 3:00 p.m.-4:30 p.m. 2.7 City shall have no responsibility or liability for the provision of security services nor shall it be liable for any loss or damage incurred by Historical Society or the participants in this event. 2.8 Historical Society shall provide fire watch for all times in and around the booths and displays open to the general public as part of this event. 2.9 Historical Society shall provide sufficient portable sani-cans. Sani-cans will be discretely placed at a location(s) to be agreed upon by the City and the Historical Society. The City agrees to allow the use of one space in the parking lot south of City Hall to be used for the placement of two sani-cans for the length of the "Summer Market" (July 7 to October 6, 2007). Individual vendors are responsible for packing out all of their own garbage. Historical Society may deposit up to six (6) thirteen gallon bags of garbage generated in their area in dumpster west of City Hall. 2.10 Upon the completion of the event, Historical Society shall make adequate provisions for the cleanup and restoration of all sites rented or provided under terms of this agreement. 2.11 Historical Society shall pay City all permit fees, in accordance with provisions of open air market, Ordinance #3015, for the above -mentioned facilities use and services at least ten (10) days prior to the event. Packet Page 74 of 231 2.12 Colored flags or banners may not be placed in the existing holes in the public sidewalk designated for the American flag program. 3. Sole Agreement; Amendment. This written agreement shall be and is the sole understanding of the parties. No prior oral written representation or understanding shall alter the terms of this contract unless specifically incorporated by reference and attached hereto. All amendments to this contract shall be in writing signed by both parties and made prior to the date which they support to be effective. DATED this day of 2007. CITY OF EDMONDS: EDMONDS-SOUTH SNOHOMISH COUNTY HISTORICAL SOCIETY: Mayor Gary Haakenson By: Its: Date: ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED : Sandra S. Chase, City Clerk CITY ATTORNEY: W. Scott Snyder Packet Page 75 of 231 AM-916 Authorization to Sell Surplus Equipment Edmonds City Council Meeting Date: 04/03/2007 Submitted By: Kim Karas, Public Works Submitted For: Noel Miller 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 equipment. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Recommend that the City Council consent to sell surplus equipment through James Murphy Auctioneers, as we have done in previous years. Previous Council Action Narrative The following equipment has been declared surplus by the Public Works Department in the 2007 budget year: Nine (9) Light Fixtures One (1) Antifreeze Recycler One (1) Root Foamer Unit # 99-SWR Revenue & Expenditures Fiscal Impact Fiscal Year: 2007 Revenue: $400.00 Expenditure: None Fiscal Impact: Salvage value. No file(s) attached. Attachments Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 03/29/2007 09:16 AM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 03/29/2007 09:17 AM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 03/29/2007 09:50 AM APRV Form Started By: Kim Karas Started On: 03/29/2007 09:04 AM Final Approval Date: 03/29/2007 2.H. Packet Page 76 of 231 AM-920 2.I. ILA Template Edmonds City Council Meeting Date: 04/03/2007 Submitted By: Linda Carl, Mayor's Office Submitted For: Gary Haakenson Time: Consent Department: Mayor's Office Type: Action Review Committee: Action: Agenda Memo Subiect Title Approval of generic interlocal agreement regarding reciprocal services for code -enforcement officers and building officials. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Please approve the attached template for future use. Previous Council Action None. Narrative Attached is a copy of a generic interlocal agreement regarding reciprocal services for code -enforcement officers and building officials. This fonn was drafted by City Attorney Scott Snyder to be used in the event the City of Edmonds or a neighboring city requires an independent investigation and review by an experienced planner, code enforcement officer, or building official in order to avoid any appearance of favoritism or impropriety. Link: ILA -Template Revenue & Expenditures Fiscal Impact Attachments Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 03/29/2007 12:42 PM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 03/29/2007 12:50 PM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 03/30/2007 08:24 AM APRV Form Started By: Linda Carl Started On: 03/29/2007 12:24 PM Final Approval Date: 03/30/2007 Packet Page 77 of 231 Template INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT This agreement is entered into this day of , 20, by and between the City of Lynnwood, Washington (hereinafter "Lynnwood") and the City of Edmonds, Washington (hereinafter "Edmonds") in consideration of the mutual benefits to be derived, the promises set forth herein and the authorization of Chapter 39.34 RCW, also known as the Interlocal Cooperation Act. WHEREAS, the parties maintain planning departments which utilize code enforcement officers and building officials; and WHEREAS, from time to time, matters may arise within each City which require an independent investigation and review by an experienced planner, code enforcement officer or building official in order to avoid any appearance of favoritism or impropriety; and WHEREAS, the parties wish to provide for reciprocal services to the other at the cost of service provision; NOW, THEREFORE The parties agree as follows: 1. Statement of Purpose. The purpose of this Agreement is to have in place a standing relationship through which the cities may avoid the appearance of unfairness or conflict in the administration of their respective codes. To that end, this Agreement provides for the review of code enforcement or similar actions by the staff of one city in order to avoid the appearance of conflict or impropriety. 2. Term. The term of this Agreement shall be indefinite. During that term, the finance department of each city shall maintain a list of employees, their hourly rate and an appropriate overhead factor intended to recapture the cost of benefits and necessary facilities which they may use in the course of their duties. Copies of rates for 2007 are attached as Exhibits A and B. This agreement may be terminated upon thirty (30) days written notice by either party, provided, however, that termination shall not invalidate the obligation of the requesting party to pay for services rendered to the date and termination. 3. Triggering of Provisions. At the request of the Mayor of one party, the Mayor of the other may, at his or her sole discretion, designate an employee or employees to take any and all necessary actions to process, review and consider any complaint or code enforcement procedure through and under the codes of the requesting party. The administering party shall keep hourly records of all time expended and provide monthly billings of charges and services to the finance department of the requesting party. 4. Compensation. The administering parry shall bill the requesting parry for the actual cost of services rendered on a monthly basis. The administering parry shall invoice the requesting party after the first of each month with sufficient information regarding service { WSS656381.DOC;1/00006.900000/} 1 Packet Page 78 of 231 provision, to satisfy all audit requirements, including, but not limited to, actual service hours. Payment shall be made by a check payable to the administering parry and mailed to that party within thirty (30) calendar days after receipt of the invoice. 5. Performance of Services. The employees of the administering parry shall perform building inspection, planning and code enforcement services in accordance with the ordinances of the requesting party. The employee shall obey, uphold and enforce the laws of the City, the State of Washington and the constitution of the State of Washington and the United States of American at all times. Prosecution and/or code enforcement processes shall be undertaken in accordance with the ordinances, court and administrative processes of the requesting party. 6. No Special Duty Created. Nothing herein shall be interpreted to create any special relationship with any parry or duties to protect any specific persons from harm or injury. 7. Nondiscrimination. Neither party shall discriminate on the basis of race, color, sex, religion, national origin, creed, age or the presence of any sensory, mental nor physical handicap. 8. Liability. Each party shall be responsible and liable for the consequences of any act or failure to act on the part of itself, its employees and its agents. Each party shall be responsible for its own negligence; neither party shall indemnify nor hold the other parry harmless. 9. Notices. All notices and other material to be delivered under this agreement shall be in writing and shall be delivered or mailed to the following addresses: City of Lynnwood Attn: City of Edmonds 121 5th Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 Attn: Or such other addressee as either party may, from time to time, designate in writing. 10. Entire Agreement. No modification or amendment of this agreement shall be effective unless in writing and signed by an authorized representative of the parties. This agreement contains the entire agreement between the parties and may not be enlarged, modified, or altered except in writing signed by the parties. 11. Provisions Required Pursuant to Chapter 39.34 RCW. a. No separate legal or administrative authority is created by this agreement b. No joint or cooperative undertaking other than that specified herein is established and no joint or cooperative financing or budget is required. C. No separate legal entity is established pursuant to this agreement. I WSS656381.DOC;1/00006.900000/ 2 Packet Page 79 of 231 d. No real or personal property shall be acquired, held or disposed of pursuant to this agreement. 12. Recording. This agreement shall be filed with the Snohomish County Auditor at the joint expense of the parties. DATED this day of , 20 CITY OF EDMONDS Mayor Gary Haakenson ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: Sandra S. Chase, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: W. Scott Snyder, City Attorney CITY OF LYNNWOOD I WSS656381.DOC;1/00006.900000/ 3 Packet Page 80 of 231 AM-915 2.3. Days of Remembrance proclamation Edmonds City Council Meeting Date: 04/03/2007 Submitted By: Linda Carl, Mayor's Office Submitted For: Gary Haakenson Time: Consent Department: Mayor's Office Type: Information Review Committee: Action: Agenda Memo Subiect Title Proclamation in honor of Days of Remembrance, April 15 - 22, 2007. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Previous Council Action Narrative The U. S. Congress established the Days of Remembrance as our nation's annual commemoration of the victims of the Holocaust and created the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum as a permanent living memorial to those victims. In accordance with its Congressional mandate, the Museum will again lead the nation in the annual Days of Remembrance of the Victims of the Holocaust. This year's observances will take place from Sunday, April 15 through Sunday, April 22, 2007. The Day of Remembrance, Yom Hashoah, is April 15. The Museum has designated "Children in Crisis: Voices from the Holocaust" as the theme for the 2007 Days of Remembrance. All Jews were targeted for death, but children were among the most vulnerable victims of the Nazi regime and its collaborators. The very young, like the very old, were often the first victims in the ghettos of German-occupied Eastern Europe. Many children died from lack of food, clothing, and shelter, as well as from diseases that flourished in the unsanitary and overcrowded conditions imposed in the ghettos. As part of the "Final Solution," the Nazis targeted children for death as so-called "useless eaters," incapable of exploitation as forced laborers. Children were frequently among the first to be murdered when the Germans and their collaborators sought to destroy a Jewish community. Upon arrival at Auschwitz and other killing centers, most children were sent straight to their deaths in the gas chambers. Jewish children also perished attempting to evade or resist the Germans and their allies. Only a small fraction of European Jewish children survived the Holocaust, many because they were hidden. With identities disguised, and often physically concealed from the outside world, these young people faced constant fear and danger. Theirs was a life in shadows, where a careless remark, the murmurings of inquisitive neighbors, or a denunciation could lead to discovery and death. Most of these "hidden" children survived the Holocaust because they were protected by people and institutions of other faiths. Revenue & Expenditures Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: proclamation Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 03/29/2007 09:50 AM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 03/29/2007 11:30 AM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 03/29/2007 12:42 PM APRV Form Started By: Linda Carl Started On: 03/29/2007 08:53 AM Final Approval Date: 03/29/2007 Packet Page 81 of 231 City of Edmonds * Office of the Mayor Days of Remembrance "CIVI&-en of Crisis: Voices from the Holocaust" Apfil 15 - 229 2007 Whereas, The Holocaust was the state -sponsored, systematic persecution and annihilation of European Jewry by Nazi Germany and its collaborators between 1933 and 1945. Jews were the primary victims (six million were murdered); Gypsies, the handicapped, and Poles were also targeted for destruction or decimation for racial, ethnic, or national reasons. Millions more, including homosexuals, Jehovah's Witnesses, Soviet prisoners of war, and political dissidents also suffered grievous oppression and death under Nazi tyranny; and Whereas, the history of the Holocaust offers an opportunity to reflect on the moral responsibilities of individuals, societies, and governments; and Whereas, we, the people of the City of Edmonds, should always remember the terrible events of the Holocaust and remain vigilant against hatred, persecution, and tyranny; and Whereas, we, the people of the City of Edmonds, should actively rededicate ourselves to the principles of individual freedom in a just society; and Whereas, the Days of Remembrance have been set aside for the people of the city of Edmonds to remember the victims of the Holocaust as well as to reflect on the need for respect of all peoples; and Whereas, pursuant to an Act of Congress (Public Law 96-388, October 7, 1960) the United States Holocaust Memorial Council designates the Days of Remembrance of the Victims of the Holocaust to be Sunday, April 15 through Sunday, April 22, 2007, including the international Day of Remembrance known as Yom Hasfioafi on April 15. Now, therefore, I, Gary Haakenson, Mayor of the City of Edmonds, do hereby proclaim the week of Sunday, April 15 through Sunday, April 22, 2007, as Days of Remembrance in memory of the victims of the Holocaust, and in honor of the survivors, as well as the rescuers and their liberators, and further proclaim that we, as citizens of the city of Edmonds, should strive to overcome intolerance and indifference through learning and remembrance. Gary as tri, ayor March 28,7 G:\Prorlaiaai\Dayso(Remembi.uirco7.doc Packet Page 82 of 231 AM-923 2.K. CG and CG-2 Zone -Street Setbacks and Landscape Standards Edmonds City Council Meeting Date: 04/03/2007 Submitted By: Rob Chave, Planning Submitted For: Rob Chave Time: Consent Department: Planning Type: Action Review Committee: Action: Agenda Memo Subiect Title Proposed Ordinance regarding street setbacks and landscape standards in the CG and CG-2 Zone. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Approve the proposed ordinance (Exhibit 1). Previous Council Action City Council held an initial public hearing on November 6, 2006, and followed up with a second hearing on January 2, 2007, on proposed amendments to the CG and CG2 zones. During the January 2nd meeting, the Council approved the new code language for the CG and CG2 zones. Narrative After its public hearing on January 2, 2007, City Council approved proposed amendments recommended by the Planning Board to the City's CG and CG2 zones. The draft code language has been put in ordinance form for adoption by Council (see Exhibit 1). Revenue & Expenditures Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: Exhibit 1: Proposed ordinance Link: Exhibit 2: Council minutes Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 03/29/2007 04:08 PM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 03/30/2007 07:29 AM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 03/30/2007 08:24 AM APRV Form Started By: Rob Chave Started On: 03/29/2007 03:51 PM Final Approval Date: 03/30/2007 Packet Page 83 of 231 0006.900000 WSS/gjz 1/3/07 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE TO REPEAL CHAPTER 16.60 RELATING TO GENERAL COMMERCIAL ZONES, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed suggested changes to the CG and CG2 Zones; and WHEREAS, following public hearing and with the recommendation of its Planning Board, the City Council finds it to be in the public interest to amend the requirements applicable to the General Commercial zones; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The Edmonds Community Development Code Chapter 16.60 General Commercial: CG and CG2 Zones is hereby repealed and reenacted to read as follows: Chapter 16.60 CG — GENERAL COMMERCIAL: CG AND CG2 ZONES Sections: 16.60.000 CG and CG2 zones. 16.60.005 Purposes. 16.60.010 Uses. 16.60.015 Location standards for sexually oriented businesses. 16.60.020 Site development standards — General. 16.60.030 Site development standards — Design Standards. 16.60.040 Operating restrictions. {WSS649269.DOC;1/00006.900000/} -1- Packet Page 84 of 231 16.60.000 CG and CG2 zones. This chapter establishes the general commercial zoning district comprised of two distinct zoning categories which are identical in all respects except as specifically provided for in ECDC 16.60.020(A). 16.60.005 Purposes. The CG and CG2 zones have the following specific purposes in addition to the general purposes for business and commercial zones listed in Chapter 16.40 ECDC: A. Encourage the development and retention of commercial uses which provide high economic benefit to the city. Mixed use and transit -oriented developments are encouraged which provide significant commercial uses as a component of an overall mixed development scheme. B. Improve access and circulation for people by encouraging a development pattern that supports transit and pedestrian access. Improve vehicular circulation and access to support business and economic development. C. Provide and encourage the opportunity for different sections along the Highway 99 corridor to emphasize their unique characteristics and development opportunities rather than require the corridor to develop as an undifferentiated continuum. New development should be high -quality and varied — not generic — and include amenities for pedestrians and patrons. D. Encourage a variety of uses and building types. A variety of uses and building types is appropriate to take advantage of different opportunities and conditions. Where designated in the Comprehensive Plan, the zoning should encourage mixed use or taller high-rise development to occur. E. Encourage development that is sensitive to surrounding neighborhoods. Protect residential qualities and connect businesses with the local community. Pedestrian connections should be made available as part of new development to connect residents to appropriate retail and service uses. F. New development should be allowed and encouraged to develop to the fullest extent possible while assuring that the design quality and amenities provided contribute to the overall character and quality of the corridor. Where intense development adjoins residential areas, site design (including buffers, landscaping, and {WSS649269.DOC;1/00006.900000/} -2- Packet Page 85 of 231 the arrangement of uses) and building design should be used to minimize adverse impacts on residentially -zoned properties. G. Upgrade the architectural and landscape design qualities of the corridor. Establish uniform signage regulations for all properties within the corridor area which provide for business visibility and commerce while minimizing clutter and distraction to the public. Make the corridor more attractive and pedestrian - friendly (e.g., add trees and landscaping) through a combination of development requirements and — when available — public investment. H. Within the Corridor, highrise nodes designated in the Comprehensive Plan should provide for maximum economic use of suitable commercial land. Highrise nodes should be: Supported by adequate services and facilities; Designed to provide a visual asset to the community through the use of distinctive forms and materials, differentiated facades, attractive landscaping, and similar techniques. Designed to take advantage of different forms of access, including automobile, transit and pedestrian access. Designed to provide adequate buffering from lower intensity uses and residential neighborhoods. 16.60.010 Uses. A. Permitted Primary Uses. 1. All permitted or conditional uses in any other zone in this title, except as specifically prohibited by subsection C of this section or limited by subsection D of this section; 2. Any additional use except as specifically prohibited by subsection C of this section or limited by subsection D of this section; 3. Halfway houses; 4. Sexually oriented businesses, which shall comply with the location standards set forth in ECDC 16.60.015, 16.60.015, the development regulations set forth in Chapter 17.50 ECDC, and the licensing regulations set forth in Chapter 4.52 ECC. {WSS649269.DOC;1/00006.900000/} -3- Packet Page 86 of 231 B. Permitted Secondary Uses. 1. Off-street parking and loading areas to serve a permitted use. 2. Storage facilities or outdoor storage areas secondary or integral to a permitted primary use, such as storage or display areas for automobile sales, building materials or building supply sales, or garden/nursery sales. Such outdoor storage or display areas shall be designed and organized to meet the design standards for parking areas for the CG zone, contained in this Chapter. C. Prohibited Uses. 1. Residential Uses located within the first or second story of any structure, in areas designated "Highway 99 Corridor" or "High-rise Node" on the comprehensive plan map. There are two exceptions to this prohibition: a. Residential uses may be allowed as part of large-scale mixed use developments, as described in Section 16.60.020.B; and, b. Residential uses are allowed on the second floor of buildings that are not located in areas designated as "High-rise Node" on the comprehensive plan map and which are not located on lots that have frontage on Highway 99. 2. Mobile Home parks. 3. Storage facilities or outdoor storage areas intended as a primary use, not secondary to a permitted commercial or residential use. Automobile wrecking yards, junk yards, or businesses primarily devoted to storage or mini storage are examples of this type of prohibited use. D. Uses Requiring a Conditional Use Permit. Aircraft landings as regulated by Chapter 4.80 ECC; 16.60.015 Location standards for sexually oriented businesses. All sexually oriented businesses shall comply with the requirements of this section, the development regulations set forth in Chapter 17.50 ECDC, and Chapter 4.52 ECC. The standards established in this section shall not be construed to restrict or prohibit the following activities or products: (a) expressive dance; (b) plays, operas, musicals, or other dramatic works; (c) classes, {WSS649269.DOC;1/00006.900000/} Q Packet Page 87 of 231 seminars, or lectures conducted for a scientific or educational purpose; (d) printed materials or visual representations intended for educational or scientific purposes; (e) nudity within a locker room or other similar facility used for changing clothing in connection with athletic or exercise activities; (f) nudity within a hospital, clinic, or other similar medical facility for health -related purposes; and (g) all movies and videos that are rated G, PG, PG-13, R, and NC-17 by the Motion Picture Association of America. A. Separation Requirements. A sexually oriented business shall only be allowed to locate where specifically permitted and only if the following separation requirements are met: 1. No sexually oriented business shall be located closer than 300 feet to any of the following protected zones whether such protected zone is located within or outside the city limits: a. A residential zone as defined in Chapter 16.10 ECDC; b. A public use zone as defined in Chapter 16.80 ECDC. 2. No sexually oriented business shall be located closer than 300 feet to any of the following protected uses whether such protected use is located within or outside the city limits: a. A public park; b. A public library; C. A nursery school or preschool; d. A public or private primary or secondary school; e. A church, temple, mosque, synagogue, or other similar facility used primarily for religious worship; and f. A community center such as an amusement park, public swimming pool, public playground, or other facility of similar size and scope used primarily by children and families for recreational or entertainment purposes; g. A permitted residential use located in a commercial zone; h. A museum; and i. A public hospital or hospital district. {WSS649269.DOC;1/00006.900000/} -5- Packet Page 88 of 231 3. No sexually oriented business shall be located closer than 500 feet to any bar or tavern within or outside the city limits. B. Measurement. The separation requirements shall be measured by following a straight line from the nearest boundary line of a protected zone specified in subsection (A) of this section or nearest physical point of the structure housing a protected use specified in subsection (A) of this section, to the nearest physical point of the tenant space occupied by a sexually oriented business. C. Variance From Separation Requirements. Variances may be granted from the separation requirements in subsection (A) of this section if the applicant demonstrates that the following criteria are met: 1. The natural physical features of the land would result in an effective separation between the proposed sexually oriented business and the protected zone or use in terms of visibility and access; 2. The proposed sexually oriented business complies with the goals and policies of the community development code; 3. The proposed sexually oriented business is otherwise compatible with adjacent and surrounding land uses; 4. There is a lack of alternative locations for the proposed sexually oriented business; and 5. The applicant has proposed conditions which would minimize the adverse secondary effects of the proposed sexually oriented business. D. Application of Separation Requirements to Existing Sexually Oriented Businesses. The separation requirements of this section shall not apply to a sexually oriented business once it has located within the city in accordance with the requirements of this section. 16.60.020 Site development standards — General. A. Table. Except as hereinafter provided, development requirements shall be as follows: {WSS649269.DOC;1/00006.900000/} Packet Page 89 of 231 Minimum Minimum Maximum Minimum Minimum Street Side/Rear Maximum Floor Lot Area Lot Width Setback Setback Height Area CG None I None 1 4'2 None' 60'3 None CG2 I None I None 1 4'2 1 None' 1 75'3 1 None 1 Fifteen feet from all lot lines adjacent to RM or RS zoned property regardless of the setback provisions established by any other provision of this code. 2 Street setback area shall be fully landscaped. 3 None for structures located within an area designated as a high-rise node on the Comprehensive Plan map. B. Mixed Use Developments. 1. A mixture of commercial and residential uses, including residential uses located on the first or second floors of buildings, may be permitted for developments meeting the following requirements: a. The proposed development's combined site area is at least two (2) acres. b. Floor area equivalent to the combined total leaseable area of the first (ground) floor for all buildings located on the site is devoted to commercial use. This commercial floor area may be provided in any manner desirable on -site, except that for all buildings oriented to and facing frontage streets, the street -facing portions of the ground floor shall be occupied by commercial uses. Parking area(s) are excluded from this calculation. This requirement is not intended to require commercial uses facing service drives, alleys, or other minor access easements that are not related to the main commercial streets serving the site. 16.60.030 Site development standards — Design Standards. Design review by the Architectural Design Board is required for any project that includes buildings exceeding 60 feet in height in the CG zone or 75 feet in height in the CG2 zone. Projects not exceeding these height limits may be reviewed by staff as a staff decision. Regardless of what review process is required, all projects proposed in the CG or CG2 zone must meet the design standards contained in this section (16.60.030). A. Screening and Buffering 1. General {WSS649269.DOC;1/00006.900000/} -7- Packet Page 90 of 231 a. Retaining walls facing adjacent property or public rights - of -way shall not exceed seven feet in height. A minimum of four feet of planted terrace is required between stepped wall segments. b. Landscape buffers are not required in land use zones with no required building setback. c Tree landscaping may be clustered to block the view of a parking lot, yet allow visibility to signage and building entry. d. Landscape buffers shall be integrated into the design and layout of water detention and treatment elements, to minimize the physical and visual impacts of the water quality elements. e. All parking lots are required to provide Type V interior landscaping. f. Type I landscaping is required for commercial, institutional and medical uses adjacent to single-family or multi -family zones. The buffer shall be a minimum of ten feet in width and continuous in length. g. Type I is required for residential parking areas adjacent to single-family zones. The buffer shall be a minimum of four feet in width and continuous in length. h. Type I landscaping is required for office and multi -family projects adjacent to single-family zones. The buffer shall be a minimum of four feet in width and ten feet in height and continuous in length. i. If there is a loading zone and/or trash compactor area next to a single-family or multi -family zone, there shall be a minimum of a six-foot high concrete wall plus a minimum width of five feet of Type I landscaping. Trash and utility storage elements shall not be permitted to encroach within street setbacks or within setbacks adjacent to single family zones. Mechanical equipment, including heat pumps and other mechanical elements, shall not be placed in the setbacks. j. Landscape buffers, Type 1, shall be used in parking areas adjacent to single-family zones. k. When no setback is otherwise required, Type III landscaping three feet in width and continuous in length is required between uses in the same zone. 2. Parking Lots Abutting Streets. {WSS649269.DOC;1/00006.900000/1 Packet Page 91 of 231 a. Type IV landscaping, minimum four feet wide, is required along all street frontages. b. All parking located under the building shall be completely screened from the public street by one of the following methods: i. Walls, ii. Type I planting and a grill that is 25 percent opaque, iii. Grill work that is at least 80 percent opaque, or iv. Type III landscaping. B. Access and Parking 1. Not more than 50% of total project parking spaces may be located between the building's front facade and the primary street. 2. Parking lots may not be located on corner locations adjacent to public streets. 3. Paths within Parking Lots a. Pedestrian walkways in parking lots shall be delineated by separate paved routes that are approved by federal accessibility requirements and that use a variation in textures and/or colors as well as landscape barriers. b. Pedestrian access routes shall be provided at least every 180 feet within parking lots. These shall be designed to provide access to on -site buildings as well as pedestrian walkways that border the development. C. Pedestrian pathways shall be six feet in width and have two feet of planting on each side or have curb stops at each stall in the parking lot on one side and four feet of planting on the second side. i. Parking lots shall have pedestrian connections to the main sidewalk at a minimum of every 100 feet. 4. Bonus for Parking Below Grade a. For projects where at least 50% of the parking is below grade or under the building, the following code requirements may be modified for the parking that is provided below -grade or under - building. — The minimum drive aisle width may be reduced to 22 feet. {WSS649269.DOC;1/00006.900000/} Packet Page 92 of 231 The maximum ramp slope may be increased to 20% — A mixture of full- and reduced -width parking stalls may be provided without meeting the ECDC requirement to demonstrate that all required parking could be provided at full -width dimensions. 5. Drive -through facilities such as, but not limited to, banks, cleaners, fast food, drug stores, espresso stands, etc., shall comply with the following: a. Drive -through windows and stacking lanes shall not be located along the facades of the building that face a street. b. Drive -through speakers shall not be audible off -site. C. Only one direct entrance or exit from the drive -through shall be allowed as a separate curb cut onto an adjoining street. All remaining direct entrances/exits to the drive -through shall be internal to the site. 6. Pedestrian and Transit Access a. Pedestrian building entries must connect directly to the public sidewalk and to adjacent developments if feasible. b. Internal pedestrian routes shall extend to the property line and connect to existing pedestrian routes if applicable. Potential future connections shall also be identified such that pedestrian access between developments can occur without walking in the parking or access areas. C. When a transit or bus stop is located in front of or adjacent to a parcel, pedestrian connections linking the transit stop directly to the new development are required. C. Site Design and Layout 1. General. If a project is composed of similar building layouts that are repeated, then their location on the site design should not be uniform in its layout. If a project has a uniform site layout for parking and open spaces, then the buildings shall vary in form, materials, and/or identity. The following design elements should be considered, and a project shall demonstrate how at least 5 of the elements were used to vary the design of the site: a. building massing and unit layout, {WSS649269.DOC;1/00006.900000/} -10- Packet Page 93 of 231 b. placement of structures and setbacks, C. location of pedestrian and vehicular facilities, d. spacing from position relative to adjoining buildings, e. composition and types of open space, plant materials and street trees, f. types of building materials and/or elements h. roof variation in slope, height and/or materials. 2. Individuality for Particular Structures a. If a project contains several new or old buildings of similar uses or massing, incorporate two of the following options to create identity and promote safety and feeling of ownership: i. Individual entry design for each building. ii. Create variety in arrangement of building forms in relation to site, parking, open spaces, and the street. iii. Create variety through facade materials and organization. iv. Create variety through roof forms. V. Vary the size/mass of the buildings so they are not uniform in massing and appearance. 3. Lighting a. All lighting shall be shielded and directed away from adjacent parcels. This may be achieved through lower poles at the property lines and/or full "cut off' fixtures. b. Parking lots shall have lighting poles with a maximum of 25 feet in height. C. Pedestrian ways shall have low height lighting focused on pathway area. Pole height shall be a maximum of 14 feet although lighting bollards are preferred. d. Entries shall have lighting for safety and visibility integrated with the building/canopy. {WSS649269.DOC;1/00006.900000/} -11- Packet Page 94 of 231 A Building Design and Massing 1. Buildings shall convey a visually distinct `base' and `top'. A `base' and `top' can be emphasized in different ways, such as masonry pattern, more architectural detail, step backs and overhangs, lighting, recesses, visible `plinth' above which the wall rises, storefront, canopies, or a combination thereof. They can also be emphasized by using architectural elements not listed above, as approved, that meet the intent. 2. In buildings with footprints of over 10,000 square feet, attention needs to be given to scale, massing, and fagade design so as to reduce the effect of large single building masses. Ways to accomplish this can include articulation, changes of materials, offsets, setbacks, angles or curves of facades, or by the use of distinctive roof forms. This can also be accomplished by using architectural elements not listed above, as approved, that meets the intent. Note that fagade offsets or step -backs should not be applied to the ground floor of street -front facades in pedestrian -oriented zones or districts. 3. Alternatives to massing requirements may be achieved by: a. Creation of a public plaza or other open space may substitute for a massing requirement if the space is at least 1,000 sq. ft. in area. In commercial zones, this public space shall be a public plaza with amenities such as benches, tables, planters and other elements. b. Retaining or re -using an historic structure listed on the National Register or the Edmonds Register of Historic Places. Any addition or new building on the site must be designed to be compatible with the historic structure. 4. To ensure that buildings do not display blank, unattractive walls to the abutting streets or residential properties, walls or portions of walls abutting streets or visible from residentially - zoned properties shall have architectural treatment applied by incorporating at least four of the following elements into the design of the fagade: a. Masonry (except for flat concrete block) b. Concrete or masonry plinth at the base of the wall C. Belt courses of a different texture and color d. Projecting cornice {WSS649269.DOC;1/00006.900000/} -12- Packet Page 95 of 231 e. Projecting metal canopy f. Decorative tilework g. Trellis containing planting h. Medallions i. Artwork or wall graphics j. Vertical differentiation k. Lighting fixtures in. An architectural element not listed above, as approved, that meets the intent. 16.60.040 Operating restrictions. A. Enclosed Building. All uses shall be carried on entirely within a completely enclosed building, except the following: 1. Public utilities; 2. Off-street parking and loading areas; 3. Drive-in business; 4. Secondary uses permitted under ECDC 16.60.010.B; 5. Limited outdoor display of merchandise meeting the criteria of Chapter 17.65 ECDC. 6. Community -oriented Open Air Markets or Seasonal Farmers Markets. 7. Outdoor dining meeting the criteria of Chapter 17.75 ECDC. Section 2. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifi- cally 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. {WSS649269.DOC;1/00006.900000/} -13- Packet Page 96 of 231 APPROVED: 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. f WSS649269.DOC;1/00006.900000/} -14- Packet Page 97 of 231 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 THE PROVISIONS OF THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE TO REPEAL CHAPTER 16.60 RELATING TO GENERAL COMMERCIAL ZONES, 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 92007. CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE {WSS649269.DOC;1/00006.900000/} -15- Packet Page 98 of 231 BD zones, the residential parking requirements may need to be reconsidered. Mr. Chave commented most jurisdictions in the Puget Sound area have maximum parking requirements rather than minimums and in most downtown zones there were still parking requirements for residential uses, it was only in the BD1 that there was not. Councilmember Dawson suggested staff provide the information for the next packet if possible. She requested staff also address Mr. Hertrich's questions whether businesses with existing parking would no longer be required to provide parking. Mayor Haakenson asked whether the Council intended to take public comment when this item was discussed again. The Council agreed they would. Mr. Snyder asked for direction regarding the two story language, commenting that was a significant drafting issue that he could not complete in time for next week's packet but could include it in the packet in two weeks. He proposed reviewing the approach used by neighboring communities and providing the Council with a number of alternatives. He commented defining story and limiting to two stories was fairly straightforward; however, identifying an approach that addressed the downslope was a much more extensive project. Councilmember Dawson requested staff provide language that has worked in other cities with regard to the definition of story. Councilmember Marin requested staff research ceiling plate versus floor -to -floor. Councilmember Wambolt suggested obtaining input from builders and developers with regard to Councilmember Orvis' proposal. Councilmember Dawson suggested Mr. Snyder define story, noting at least four Councilmembers were interested in limiting buildings to two stories in the BD1. Council President Olson encouraged builders and developers to provide comment on anything in the ordinance. Moratorium in 9. PROPOSED ORDINANCE REPEALING ORDINANCE NO. 3608 ESTABLISHING A Central MORATORIUM WITHIN THE CITY'S CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT. Business District COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, TO TABLE THIS ITEM FOR TWO WEEKS. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. CG and CG-2 10. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION REGARDING one STREET SETBACKS AND LANDSCAPE STANDARDS IN THE CG AND CG-2 ZONE. Mayor Haakenson relayed staff s recommendation on this item: Direct the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance to implement the proposed code language changes as shown in Exhibit 1. Planning Manager Rob Chave advised at the request of the Council, the Planning Board considered street setbacks and landscape standards in the CG and CG-2 zones, specifically a conflict between the old street setbacks requirements in the CG zones and the landscaping standards. Following their review and public testimony, the Planning Board recommended the changes on pages 5 and 6 in the proposed ordinance. The Planning Board's recommendation was that the minimum street setback be reduced to 4 feet to be consistent with the landscape standards and that paragraph A on page 5 and paragraph F on page 6 be removed which were also inconsistent with the standards. He noted protections for adjacent residential properties had not been altered; the only change was to the street setback. Councilmember Dawson recalled this arose due to car dealerships that were unable to display vehicles so that they were visible from the street and the proposed amendments were intended to correct that problem. Mr. Chave agreed. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 2, 2007 Page 9 Packet Page 99 of 231 Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. Al Rutledge, Edmonds, reported he attended the Planning Board hearing and agreed with the Planning Board's recommendation for a 4-foot street setback. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, questioned changing the entire zone for one use and suggested changing the requirements only for auto sales. He noted setbacks were important adjacent to residential uses, questioning why there was less setback requirements for a commercial building adjacent to residential than an office building adjacent to residential. Hearing no further public comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public participation portion of the hearing. Councilmember Moore asked staff to address Mr. Hertrich's comments. Mr. Chave answered the Planning Board discussed having a different standard for auto uses and concluded if the landscape and setback requirements were appropriate for auto sales, they were appropriate for other uses as well. He noted the development scheme along Hwy. 99 had changed substantially over the years; the right-of-way was essentially built out and there were a number of pedestrian improvements in the right-of-way and it was not reasonable to require a substantial setback from the sidewalk. COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, TO DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN ORDINANCE TO IMPLEMENT THE PROPOSED CODE LANGUAGE CHANGES AS SHOWN IN EXHIBIT 1. Councilmember Marin commented the Hwy. 99 Taskforce had been searching for impediments to development and this was one of them. He noted although the City used to require landscaping along the edge of a property, the market had changed and it was now common to distribute landscaping throughout the property versus having it all in front. He concluded this change was appropriate for the entire zone. Councilmember Moore pointed out without the car dealerships on Hwy. 99, the City would not have experienced the increase in sales tax revenue. She assumed this would be confirmed by Administrative Services Director Dan Clements who was developing information on what areas of the City generated the most sales tax revenue as auto sales on Hwy. 99 were one of the City's key revenue sources. Councilmember Wambolt commented another important reason for this change was the auto dealers needed the space to comply with the manufacturer's square footage requirement. Without this change, some of the largest sales tax generators would be forced to move out of Edmonds. Councilmember Dawson commented this was a great example of the public raising an issue and the Council taking action to refer it to the Planning Board for a recommended change. She expressed her appreciation to staff for being open to considering this change. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (Councilmember Plunkett left the meeting at 8:33 p.m.) 11. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Southwest Al Rutledge, Edmonds, provided an update on the Southwest Neighborhood Park, advising the Neighborhood Park Group neighborhood group appealed the DNS on the old school building on the site. sound Transit Natalie Shippen, Edmonds, asked how much Snohomish County residents would pay for Sound Transit andRT1D projects. She recalled the estimate for the RTID projects was $1.75 billion but did not recall an estimate Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 2, 2007 Page 10 Packet Page 100 of 231 AM-917 3. Telecommunicator's Week Proclamation Edmonds City Council Meeting Date: 04/03/2007 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 National Telecommunicator's Week, April 8 - 14, 2007. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Previous Council Action Narrative The President and Congress have established the second week of April as National Telecommunicator's Week to honor the men and women who staff our 9-1-1 centers and provide 24-hour emergency communications for our citizens. The 9-1-1 call -takers and dispatchers are our unseen first responders. In Snohomish County, SNOPAC and SNOCOM are the two 9-1-1 centers and provide invaluable service to our citizens by being the vital link for law enforcement, fire, and medical personnel. Deanna Dawson, Chair of the SNOCOM Board of Directors, will read the proclamation. Revenue & Expenditures Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: Proclamation Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 03/29/2007 09:50 AM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 03/29/2007 11:30 AM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 03/29/2007 12:42 PM APRV Form Started By: Linda Carl Started On: 03/29/2007 09:22 AM Final Approval Date: 03/29/2007 Packet Page 101 of 231 r1orriamati IOIU City of Edmonds • Office of the Mayor National Telecommunicator's Week Apiil8 - 149 2007 Whereas, Congress and the President of the United States of America have established the second week of April as National Telecommunicator's Week; and Whereas, emergencies can occur at anytime requiring sheriff, police, fire, or emergency medical services; and Wherzeas, the two 9-1-1 centers in Snohomish County, SNOCOM and SNOPAC, provide twenty-four emergency communications for Snohomish County residents and emergency responders; and Whereas, the call -takers and dispatchers at SNOCOM and SNOPAC are the first and most critical contact our citizens and residents have with emergency services, although rarely appreciated because they are not physically at the scene of an emergency; and Whereas, the 9-1-1 call -takers and dispatchers at SNOPAC and SNOCOM are the driving force behind our county's emergency services and are an invaluable contribution to our daily lives; and Whereas, our 9-1-1 dispatchers are the single vital link for law enforcement, fire, and medical personnel by monitoring their activities by radio, providing them information, and ensuring their safety; and Whereas, the critical functions performed at SNOPAC and SNOCOM include those activities performed by technical, operations, and support personnel; and Whereas, these public safety telecommunicators answer our calls for assistance when we dial 9-1-1 and are our unseen first responders; and Whereas, we rely on their knowledge, compassion, understanding, professionalism, and patience as they make critical decisions, obtain information, and quickly dispatch needed aid. Now, therefore, 1, Gary Haakenson, Mayor of the City of Edmonds, proclaim the week of April 8-14, 2007, as "National Telecommunicator's Week" and ask the citizens of Edmonds to join me in honoring these outstanding individuals. This week is a time for all people in Snohomish County to show our appreciation and to recognize that our health, safety, and well-being are dependent upon'the commitment of public safety telecommunicators and support staff. X�M4,t� Gary aak n, yor Marc 28,s 07 CAProclaim\telecommunicators 07.doc Packet Page 102 of 231 AM-919 4. Health Week Proclamation Edmonds City Council Meeting Date: 04/03/2007 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 Public Health Week, April 2 - 8, 2007. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Previous Council Action Narrative Each year, the first full week in April is designated as National Public Health Week, giving an opportunity to recognize the many contributions of public health to improving the health status and well-being of our population. This year Public Health Week is April 2 — 8, 2007. Revenue & Expenditures Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: Proclamation Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 03/29/2007 10:27 AM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 03/29/2007 11:30 AM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 03/29/2007 12:42 PM APRV Form Started By: Linda Carl Started On: 03/29/2007 10:09 AM Final Approval Date: 03/29/2007 Packet Page 103 of 231 r1orrIantation City of Edmonds • Office of the Mayor Public Health Week April 2 — 8, 2007 WHEREAS, The City of Edmonds has long been a valued ally of the Snohomish Health District; and WHEREAS, Snohomish Health District's mission is to improve the health of individuals, families, and communities through disease prevention, health promotion, and protection from environmental threats; and WHEREAS, Food safety is fundamental to the well-being of all citizens; and WHEREAS, Snohomish Health District's food safety program has twice won national honors for innovation and continued excellence in food safety; and WHEREAS, The citizens of Edmonds, their guests and visitors enjoy safe food from over 190 food establishments located in Edmonds. NOW, THEREFORE, I, Gary Haakenson, Mayor, do hereby proclaim the week of April 2 — 8, 2007 as Public Health Week in Edmonds in recognition of our public health department's effort to protect the well-being of our citizens. I Gao Ha nson, Mayor March 29, 007 _ Packet Page 104 of 231 AM-913 S. Integrated Roads & Transit Plan Resolution Edmonds City Council Meeting Date: 04/03/2007 Submitted By: Sandy Chase, City Clerk's Office Submitted For: Councilmember Richard Marin Time: 5 Minutes Department: City Clerk's Office Type: Review Committee: Action: Agenda Memo Subiect Title Proposed Resolution relating to the support and adoption of the Integrated Roads & Transit Plan developed by the Regional Transportation Investment District and Sound Transit. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Previous Council Action Narrative Councilmember Marin requested that the attached resolution be placed on the April 3 Agenda for the consideration of the City Council. Revenue & Expenditures Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: Roads & Transit Resolution Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 03/29/2007 08:16 AM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 03/29/2007 08:18 AM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 03/29/2007 08:27 AM APRV Form Started By: Sandy Chase Started On: 03/29/2007 07:59 AM Final Approval Date: 03/29/2007 Packet Page 105 of 231 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON RELATING TO THE SUPPORT AND ADOPTION OF THE INTEGRATED ROADS & TRANSIT PLAN DEVELOPED BY THE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION INVESTMENT DISTRICT AND SOUND TRANSIT WHEREAS, Sound Transit is the designated provider of high capacity transit infrastructure and services to meet regional public transportation needs in the central Puget Sound area; and WHEREAS, the Regional Transportation Investment District is charged with developing a transportation investment plan for improving significant highways and bridges in the central Puget Sound area; and WHEREAS, during the 2006 legislative session, the Washington State Legislature found that investments in both transit and road improvements are necessary to relieve traffic congestion and improve mobility, and required Sound Transit and the Regional Transportation Investment District submit to the voters a transportation plan in November of 2007 which address these goals; and WHEREAS, Sound Transit is approaching completion or the voter approved Sound Move plan and as a result has prepared a new draft package of high capacity improvements which builds upon existing Sound Move investments by providing 42 miles of new light rail corridors and service, expanding commuter rail and regional express bus service, 10,000 new park and ride spaces and studies future extension of light rail in the region; and WHEREAS, the Regional Transportation District has prepared a "Blueprint for Progress" which focuses on corridors where the value of existing state and local investments can be significantly increased by completing additional improvements in that corridor and where important time -sensitive corridor improvements that were not funded or have not been adequately funded by state or local investments including the SR 520 bridge, 1405 and SR 167 interchange, Cross Base Highway, and SR 9 widening project; and WHEREAS, Sound Transit and the Regional Transportation Investment District have worked jointly over the past year to develop the first ever integrated set of highway, bridge and transit improvements for the central Puget Sound region; and Packet Page 106 of 231 WHEREAS, the benefits of the integrated Roads and Transit plan will move more people faster through the regions most congested corridors; improve and maintain the region's road system; provide fast and reliable mass transit; connects the population and employment centers of the region; and WHEREAS, the transportation projects proposed in the Roads & Transit package are the top priorities for the region and fix the historic under funding of regional transportation needs. THEREFORE, be it resolved that the City Council of the City of Edmonds, Washington supports the Roads & Transit investments and revenue sources developed by the Regional Transportation Investment District and Sound Transit. ADOPTED this day of April, 2007. ATTEST: CITY CLERK SANDRA S. CHASE Packet Page 107 of 231 AM-922 Old Woodway Elementary School Abatement & Demolition Edmonds City Council Meeting Date: 04/03/2007 Submitted By: Brian McIntosh, Parks and Recreation Time: 5 Minutes Department: Parks and Recreation Type: Action Review Committee: Action: Approved for Consent Agenda Agenda Memo Subiect Title Authorization to call for bids for the abatement and demolition of the Old Woodway Elementary School located at 23700 104th Avenue West. 6. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Council authorize Staff to call for bids for the abatement and demolition of the Old Woodway Elementary School located at 23700 104th Place West. Previous Council Action Purchase of property for the purpose of establishing a neighborhood park. This Consent item was deferred from March 27, 2007. Narrative Development of comprehensive specifications for the abatement of hazardous materials and the demolition of the school buildings have been completed. Shortly after the purchase of this site by the City the consulting firm EHS International conducted abatement surveys to determine locations of hazardous materials and two underground storage tanks (UST's). Using this survey, specifications for the safe removal and disposition of these materials were developed by the consultant. On November 3, 2006, an engineering firm, Reid Middleton, was selected to prepare specifications for the demolition of the buildings and work with EHS International to incorporate the abatement, UST removal, and building demolition into one set of specifications. Staff and consultants felt that this project is of significant scope and will attract larger demolition companies with in-house abatement divisions. Funding for this project is included in the adopted 2007 capital budget for Fund 125 (REET2 - Parks Improvement) No file(s) attached. Revenue & Expenditures Fiscal Impact Attachments Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 03/29/2007 02:53 PM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 03/29/2007 02:56 PM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 03/30/2007 08:24 AM APRV Form Started By: Brian McIntosh Started On: 03/29/2007 01:52 PM Final Approval Date: 03/30/2007 Packet Page 108 of 231 AM-924 New Design Guidelines and an "Up -front" Review Process Edmonds City Council Meeting Date: 04/03/2007 Submitted By: Rob Chave, Planning Submitted For: Rob Chave Time: 60 Minutes Department: Planning Type: Action Review Committee: Action: Agenda Memo Subiect Title Second 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 Adopt the proposed ordinance (Exhibit 1). 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 held a public hearing on March 6, 2007 (see Exhibit 7 for Council minutes). Exhibit 6 contains a more detailed history on this subject. Narrative Following the public hearing on March 6, 2007, staff has worked to update the draft code language recommended by the Planning Board to show how changes discussed by Council on March 6th could be incorporated into a final ordinance. The modified draft ordinance is contained in Exhibit 1, while Exhibit 2 contains the ADB's design guidelines referenced as "Exhibit A" in the draft ordinance. A memo from City Attorney Scott Snyder discussing the changes reflected in the draft ordinance is contained in Exhibit 3. For your reference, Exhibit 4 contains a copy of the Planning Board recommended code changes from the March 6, 2007, Council hearing, showing the further mark-ups (in bold type) discussed in Mr. Snyder's memo. As noted during the March 6, 2007, public hearing, 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. 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 Packet Page 109 of 231 chart in Exhibit 5 summarizes and compares the proposed "new" or "up -front" design review process with the current one employed by the city. Staff will attempt to provide a little more detailed comparison of the two processes -- especially time considerations -- during the staff presentation preceding the hearing on April 3rd. 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 in the middle of pages 6 and 7 (see Exhibit 4) 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 interpretation and application. The Planning Board also sought to add some clarification to the "long, massive..." building criterion in the middle of page 6 (see Exhibit 4). Exhibits 7, 8 and 9 contain relevant minutes from the Planning Board and City Council. As a follow-up to the March 6, 2007, hearing, staff checked with a number of cities on their experiences with design review. In general, we found the following: Several cities, including Mercer Island, Issaquah, and Seattle, employ some variation of an "up front" design review process, using it to review more general design features as proposed under Edmonds' new process. They all report success in influencing the ultimate design of projects. Cities such as Mukilteo and Bothell employ a form of design review as a staff decision accompanying building permits. However, the "design review" described is based on more general plan policies or guidance, and is not as thorough or as consistently applied as in a typical design review process. Nonetheless, these cities are also happy with their process. Snohomish employs design review only for buildings in its downtown historic district. While they recommend that applicants seek design review early, there is no requirement that they do so. Revenue & Expenditures Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: Exhibit 1 - Proposed Ordinance Link: Exhibit 2: Ordinance Exhibit A - ADB design guidelines Link: Exhibit 3 - Scott Snyder Memo Link: Exhibit 4 - Code language with mark-up Link: Exhibit 5: Process diagrams Link: Exhibit 6: Design guidelines history Link: Exhibit 7: Council minutes from 3/6/2007 Link: Exhibit 8: Plannina Board minutes Link: Exhibit 9: City Council minutes Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 03/30/2007 08:54 AM APRV 2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 03/30/2007 09:24 AM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 03/30/2007 10:46 AM APRV Form Started By: Rob Chave Started On: 03/29/2007 04:05 PM Final Approval Date: 03/30/2007 Packet Page 110 of 231 ORDINANCE No. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE BY THE REPEAL AND RE-ENACTMENT OF CHAPTER 20.10 RELATING TO DESIGN REVIEW, THE ENACTMENT OF A NEW CHAPTER 20.11 GENERAL DESIGN REVIEW, A NEW CHAPTER 20.12 DISTRICT -BASED DESIGN REVIEW, REPEALING AND RE-ENACTING CHAPTER 20.13 LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS, ADOPTING NEW DESIGN GUIDELINES; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds has for many years regulated certain aspects of architectural design through a review process; and WHEREAS, with the input and recommendations of the City's Planning Board and Architectural Design Board and after numerous public hearings, the City Council deems it to be in the public interest to amend its design provisions to: a. revise the criteria for the existing program; b. adopt updated design guidelines, thereby continuing the process of providing greater specificity to the City's code in conformance with state law; C. to establish a new process for upfront design review and input in the City's design review process and to create the opportunity for neighborhood -based design; NOW THEREFORE THE CITY COUNCIL DEEMS IT TO BE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST TO MAKE THE FOLLOWING CHANGES TO THE CITY'S DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS: (WSS656510.D0C;1/00006.900000/) Page 1 Packet Page 111 of 231 Section 1. The Edmonds Community Development Code Chapter 20.10 Architectural Design Review is hereby repealed and in its place enacted a new Chapter 20.10 Design Review to read as follows: Chapter 20.10 DESIGN REVIEW Sections: 20.10.000 Purposes. 20.10.010 Types of design review. 20.10.020 Scope. 20.10.030 Approval required. 20.10.040 Optional pre -application. 20.10.045 Augmented architectural design review applications. 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 (WSS656510.DOC;1/00006.900000/) Page 2 Packet Page 112 of 231 properties that do not have specifically adopted design guidelines or standards. Projects 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. 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 20.10.0103, 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, 20.11, and 20.12. 20.10.020 Scope. A. Design review is intended to apply to all development, except for those developments specifically exempted from review under ECDC 20.10.0103, below. "development" 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. 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. Signs that meet all of the standards contained in Chapter 20.60 ECDC. 7. Underground utilities. (WSS656510.DOC;1/00006.900000/) Page 3 Packet Page 113 of 231 20.10.030 Approval required. A. Development. Unless exempted under ECDC 20.10.010.B, 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 design review approval. B. Bond. The city may require that a bond be posted under Chapter 17.10 ECDC to ensure the satisfactory installation of site improvements. 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]. Section 2. The Edmonds Community Development Code is hereby amended by the adoption of a new Chapter 20.11 General Design Review. 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. {WSS656510.DOC;1/00006.900000/} Page 4 Packet Page 114 of 231 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 Environmental 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). When design review is required by the ADB, 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. 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 decision -making authority. c. Applications that are subject to project consolidation as required by ECDC 20.90.010(B)(2) but in which all decision - making authority is exercised both by staff pursuant to this chapter, Chapter 20.13 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 under ECDC 20.90.010(B)(2) that are not subject to a public hearing by the ADB under 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. 4. Notwithstanding 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 shall be a recommendation to the City Council. {WSS656510.DOC,•1100006.900000/) Page 5 Packet Page 115 of 231 B. Notice. Public notice by mail, posting or newspaper publication shall only be required for applications that are subject to environmental review under Chapter 43.21C RCW, in which case notice of the hearing shall be provided in accordance with Chapter 20.91 ECDC. 20.11.020 Findings. A. Criteria and Comprehensive Plan. The proposal is consistent with the criteria listed in 20.11.030 in accordance with the techniques and objectives contained in the Urban Design chapter of the Community Culture and Urban Design Element of the Comprehensive Plan. The City has the obligation to provide specific direction and guidance to applicants. The Urban Design chapter has been adopted to fulfill the City's obligations under Washington State case law. The Urban Design chapter shall be used to determine if an application meets the general criteria set forth in this chapter. In the event of ambiguity or conflict, the specific provisions of the Urban Design chapter shall control. B. Zoning Ordinance. The proposal meets the bulk and use requirements of the zoning ordinance, or a variance or modification has been approved under the terms of this code for any duration. The finding of the staff that a proposal meets the bulk and use requirements of the zoning ordinance shall be given substantial deference and may be overcome only by clear and convincing evidence. 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. IWSS656510.DOC,-1100006.9000001) Page 6 Packet Page 116 of 231 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 building is found to be long, massive, unbroken or monotonous. 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. Architecturally detailed entries; iv. Appropriate landscaping; v. The use of multiple materials. 5. All signs should conform to the general design theme of the development; 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 shall be provided to enhance the building design and other site improvements. 3. Landscape treatment 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, 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 shall be the minimum necessary for safety and security. Excessive brightness shall be avoided. All lighting shall be low-rise and directed downward onto the site. Lighting standards and patterns shall be compatible with the overall design theme. C. Other Criteria. (WSS656510.DOC;1/00006.900000/} Page 7 Packet Page 117 of 231 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. 20.11.040 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 20.11.010; or (3) anyone testifying on the application at the hearing identified in ECDC 20.11.010. 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 making substantial progress relative to the conditions adopted (WSS656510.DOC;1100006.9000001) Page 8 Packet Page 118 of 231 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 Required). Section 3. The Edmonds Community Development Code is hereby amended by the addition of a new Chapter 20.12 District -Based Design Review to read as follows: 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 (WSS656510.DOC;1100006.9000001) Page 9 Packet Page 119 of 231 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 snake 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 36.70B.080 commences with the application for Phase 1 of lit public hearing. The 120-day time period is suspended, however, while the applicant further develops their application for Phase 2 of the public hearing. This suspension is based upon the finding of the City Council, pursuant to RCW 36.70B.080, that additional time is required to process this project type. The City has no control over the length of time needed or taken by an applicant to complete its application. B. Continued public hearing (public hearing, Phase 2). The purpose of the continuance is to permit the applicant to design or redesign his initial conceptual design to address the input of the public and the ADB by complying with 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 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 applicant may reapply at any time. Such reapplication 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. (WSS656510.DOC;1/00006.9000001) Packet Page 120 of 231 Page 10 D. The process is schematically represented by the following flow chart. Proposed New Review Process SEPA determination Cesign Chec'xlist }� established 1 Required First ADB Public �Al�•0 Meeting w/ADB 0 Hearing i`. (Hearing Phase 1) Phase 2 Rppea(?_ Application to Now�r;., City Conceptual Detailed Design ( Design __�------L—� lI Redesign ` J Yes ' — — — — — — (Optional] — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Project Project Denied Approved 20.12.010 Applicability. Review. The architectural design board (ADB) shall review all proposed developments that require a threshold determination under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) using the process set forth in ECDC 20.12.020, below. All other developments may be approved by staff using the process set forth in ECDC 20.12.030, below. When design review is required 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 Design Review by the Architectural Design Board. A. Public hearing — Phase 1. Phase 1 of the public hearing shall be scheduled with the Architectural Design Board (ADB) as a public meeting. Notice of the 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 identify 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 (WSS656510.DOC;1100006.9000001) Page 11 Packet Page 121 of 231 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 shall be incorporated, whether proposed in light of the specific characteristics of a particular tract of land or on an ad hoc basis. 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 environmentally critical areas within a 200 foot radius of the site including, but not limited to, surrounding building 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 surrounding buildings 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 identifying how the proposed project meets the specific (WSS656510.DOC,•1100006.9000001) Page 12 Packet Page 122 of 231 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 l 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 any design or redesign needed to address the input of the public and ADB during Phase 1 of the public hearing by complying with the prioritized checklist. 6. 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 public hearing has been completed and a final decision rendered. B. Continued public hearing — Phase 2. 1. An applicant for Phase 2 design review shall submit information sufficient to evaluate how the project meets the criteria identified by the ADB during Phase 1 of the public hearing 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 building 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. An annotated checklist demonstrating how the project complies with the specific criteria identified by the ADB. g. Optional: Generalized building floor plans may be provided. 2. Staff shall prepare a report summarizing the project and providing any comments or recommendations regarding the annotated checklist provided by the applicant under (WSS656510.DOC;1100006.9000001) Page 13 Packet Page 123 of 231 20.12.020.B.1.f, as appropriate. 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: a. Zoning Ordinance. The proposal meets the bulk and use requirements of the zoning ordinance, or a variance or modification has been approved under the terms of this code for any duration. The finding of the staff that a proposal meets the bulk and use requirements of the zoning ordinance shall be given substantial deference and may be overcome by clear and convincing evidence. The proposal meets the relevant district -specific design objectives contained in the Comprehensive Plan C. Design Criteria. The proposal satisfies the specific checklist criteria identified by the ADB during Phase 1 of the public hearing under Chapter 20.12.020.A, above. When conducting 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. Projects may be consolidated in accordance with RCW 36.70B.110 and the terms of the Community Development Code. 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. The staff s determination shall be purely ministerial in nature and no discretion is granted to deviate from the requirements imposed by the ADB and the Edmonds Community Development Code. The staff process shall be akin to and administered in conjunction with building permit approval, as applicable. Written notice shall be provided to any party of record (as developed in Phase 1 and 2 of the public hearing) who formally requests notice as to: (WSS656510.DOC;1100006.9000001) Page 14 Packet Page 124 of 231 1. Receipt of plans in a building permit application or application for property development as defined in ECDC 20.10.020, and 2. Approval, conditioned approval or denial by staff of the building permit or development approval. 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 evaluate 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 bulk and use 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 When conducting its review, city staff 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. 20.12.070 Design Guidelines, Criteria and Checklist. A. In conducting its review, the ADB shall use the design guidelines and design review checklist as contemporaneously adopted in the Design Guidelines. (WSS656510.DOC;1100006.9000001) Page 15 Packet Page 125 of 231 B. Additional Criteria. Design review shall reference the specific criteria adopted for each area or district. 1. Criteria to be used in design 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. b. (Reserved.) 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 addressing the Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center and Highway 99 Corridor. 20.12.080 Appeals. A. Design review decisions by the ADB pursuant to ECDC 20.12.020.B 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 building permit or development 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 application at the hearing identified in ECDC 20.12.020.B. 20.12.090 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 (WSS656510.DOC;1100006.9000001) Page 16 Packet Page 126 of 231 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 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 Required). Section 4. The Edmonds Community Development Code is hereby amended by the repeal of Chapter 20.12 Landscaping Requirements and the enactment in its place of a new Chapter 20.13 Landscaping Requirements to read as follows; Chapter 20.13 LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS Sections: 20.13.000 Scope. 20.13.010 Landscape plan requirements. 20.13.015 Plant schedule. 20.13.020 General design standards. 20.13.025 General planting standards. {WSS656510.DOC;1/00006.900000/} Page 17 Packet Page 127 of 231 20.13.030 Landscape types 20.13.040 Landscape bonds. 20.13.000 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 20.11.010. 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 20.11.000. 20.13.010 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 20.13.015); C. Location of all trees and shrubs to be planted; D. Three sets of landscape plans drawn to a scale of 1" = 30' or larger (e.g., V = 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; I. Parking layout, including circulation, driveway location, parking stalls and curbing (see ECDC 20.13.020(D)); J. Grading shown by contour lines (minimum five-foot intervals), spot elevations, sections or other means; K. Location of irrigation system (see ECDC 20.13.020(E)). (WSS656510.DOC1100006,9000001) Page 18 Packet Page 128 of 231 20.13.015 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 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. 20.13.020 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. {WSS656510.DOC,•1100006.9000001) Page 19 Packet Page 129 of 231 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):l(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. (WSS656510.DOC;1/00006.900000/} Page 20 Packet Page 130 of 231 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 A. Blank Building Walls. 1. Blank building walls should be softened by landscaping. 2. Landscaping should include trees and shrubs — mostly evergreen. 3. Trees should be planted an average of 20 feet on center either formally 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. Plantings may be in informal or formal arrangements (see ECDC 20.13.020(A) and (B)). 3. Landscaping should be planted in all areas except service areas. 4. Planting areas should be at least four feet wide. 20.13.030 Landscape types 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 height, and planted at intervals no greater than 20 feet on center; and 2. Shrubs, a minimum of three and one-half feet in height and other plant 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 (WSS656510.DOC;1100006.9000001) Page 21 Packet Page 131 of 231 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 ground cover must be planted so that the ground will be covered within three years. b. 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 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 produce a visual barrier at least three and one-half feet in height. D. Type IV Landscaping. Type IV landscaping is intended to provide visual relief where clear sight is desired to see signage or into adjacent space for safety concerns. 1. Trees are 25 feet on center and deciduous also required 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 (WSS656510.DOC;1100006.9000001] Page 22 Packet Page 132 of 231 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 any 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. 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. g. Shade trees are required at the rate of a minimum of one per planter and/or one per 150 square feet of planter. 20.13.040 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. IWSS656510.DOC,•1100006.9000001) Page 23 Packet Page 133 of 231 Section 5. In aid of the design review criteria established pursuant to Chapters 20.10, et seq., ECDC, the Urban Design chapter is hereby adopted in that form shown on the attached Exhibit A. Such exhibit is incorporated by this reference as fully as if herein set forth. These criteria shall be applied in accordance with the provisions of ECDC Chapter 20.12.070A. The City Clerk and Planning Department shall maintain copies for the public and shall make the standards available online. Section 6: Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance. Section 7. 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. APPROVED: MAYOR GARY HAAKENSON ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: W. SCOTT SNYDER (WSS656510.DOC;1/00006.900000/) Page 24 Packet Page 134 of 231 FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: ORDINANCE NO. {WSS656510.DOC,•1/00006.9000001j Page 25 Packet Page 135 of 231 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 THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE BY THE REPEAL AND RE-ENACTMENT OF CHAPTER 20.10 RELATING TO DESIGN REVIEW, THE ENACTMENT OF A NEW CHAPTER 20.11 GENERAL DESIGN REVIEW, A NEW CHAPTER 20.12 DISTRICT -BASED DESIGN REVIEW, REPEALING AND RE-ENACTING CHAPTER 20.13 LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS, ADOPTING NEW DESIGN GUIDELINES; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; 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 (WSS656510.DOC;1100006.9000001) Page 26 Packet Page 136 of 231 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 137 of 231 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 138 of 231 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 139 of 231 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 140 of 231 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 141 of 231 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 142 of 231 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 143 of 231 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 144 of 231 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 145 of 231 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 146 of 231 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 147 of 231 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 148 of 231 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 149 of 231 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 150 of 231 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 151 of 231 • 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 152 of 231 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 153 of 231 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 154 of 231 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 155 of 231 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 156 of 231 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 157 of 231 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 158 of 231 DEN 1�PHY f�CE P. L. L. C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW MEMORANDUM DATE: March 29, 2007 TO: Mayor Gary Haakenson and Edmonds City Council, City of Edmonds FROM: W. Scott Snyder, Office of the City Attorney RE: Design Review Process I have made some limited changes in response to Council and Citizen comments. They are shown in bold format — there have so many changes and while it is easy to show them, it is difficult at times to track the source. I know of four that may be of particular interest. First, in Section 20.11.020A, I have updated the criteria to reflect several concepts. As you know, the City has the obligation under Anderson v. Issaquah to provide specific design direction and to avoid general terms. The urban design guidelines were adopted to do just that. Comments at the public hearing, as well as comments both by the Architectural Design Board members and citizens, indicate that there is still not a clear understanding that the detail is in the design guidelines which explicate or flesh out the more general design criteria. Therefore, Section A combines references to the Comp Plan and design criteria and provides direction regarding how they are to be applied. As you know from past discussions, the subordination of the general provisions to the specific detail meets the City's obligations to provide direction to developers and other applicants. In subsection B of the same section, I have added language to reflect how common, in reality, compliance with the zoning code is determined. As you know from recent hearings, the staff reviews whether an application complies with the City's setback and other bulk -and -use requirements. In the typical case, that is the only detailed review of zoning code compliance that is done. The standard which is included is the same as is provided in the code for deference to the SEPA Responsible Official. Once the staff determination is made, the applicant or the public can certainly challenge any provision, but it must do so by "clear and convincing evidence." In Sections 20.12.005(A) and 20.12.020(A)(5), language has been added to provide latitude to the applicant to turn the design plans around as quickly or slowly as their needs dictate. A Member of the International Lawyers Network with independent member law firms worldwide 1601 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2100 • Seattle, WA 98101-1686 • 206.447.7000 • Fax: 206.447.0215 • Web: www.omwlaw.com { E)MI0160t.900000/1 Mayor and Edmonds City Council March 29, 2007 Page 2 At section 20.12.005(B), you will note a change to provide a clearer statement regarding what information an applicant is to provide when he or she brings their revised plan back to the Board. The purpose of the process is to comply with the specific items on the checklist which, in turn, is based on public and board input. By reversing the clauses, I hope the sentence is made more clear. The applicant does not have to comply with each and every comment of the public, but must comply with those that are incorporated in the final checklist. Again, this is a specificity issue. In response to Councilmembers' concerns regarding notice, language was added to Section 20.12.020(C) to provide both notice of plan receipt and of permit issuance to parties of record who request it. This will allow for public comment and effective notice if anyone wishes to challenge permit issuance by LUPA appeal. Finally, a question was raised regarding whether an applicant is entitled to substantially all the benefits of the bulk standards of the zoning code or all of the benefits. After discussion with staff, we thought it most accurate to retain the "substantial" language. A good example is that if every applicant was entitled to utilize the full benefits of the bulk standards of the zoning code, every building constructed would be lot line to lot line with a flat roof, i.e., the largest box that fits on the site. A modulated roofline will, by definition, not fully utilize the height and bulk available to a project. The remaining changes were grammatical rather than substantive. I would be happy to answer any questions that you may have. If you have any questions, please let me know. WSS/nkr { "ME)OQ10JGU 900000/} 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� 10020 20.10.030 Approval required. 20.10.040 Optional pre -application. 20.10.045 Augmented architectural design review applications. 701 n 050 Review proved ire 701 n 060 Cindinrvs 701 n 070 Grntena 20.10.075 AppkatieR of GFiteri..Tia Examples. 701n 080 Appeals 201 n pan Lapse of approval 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. Projects 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. {WSS655754.DOC,1100006.900000/)Design Review draft /2006.12.13 313012007 Packet Page 161 of 231 Page I 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.B, 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, 20.11, and 20.12. 20.10.04-0-020 Scope. A This shaptor appliesDesign review is intended to apply to all development, except for those developments specifically exempted from review under ECDC 20.10.010.6, below.permitte d primary and SeGondary uses iR IRS SiRglo_Family Residential districtl rii rl 3xes in RM_Multiple Residential districtC "sdevelopment" means 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. Development does RGt underground utilifies,. 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 Cnuncil_ 2. Permitted Drimary and secondary uses in RS-Sinale-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. 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. arnhiteGtUral docent, hoard tong\ or the .. {WSS655754.DOC,1100006.900000/)Design Review draft /2006.12.13 313012007 Packet Page 162 of 231 Page 2 Remodels feetprint •• e'Ve materials, fGrMS and repetitiGR -- lets that -- .. five er ... .. 3. FeRGes that de ROt require a separate develepmeRt permit. 4. SigRS that meet all of the StandardS GGRtaiRed_0F=GDG. B. Permits. LI Vwn-&Tro..nved—e _ ... gxiol fix ._Q-4--QAW-41- B. :• • The city maV reguire•• • 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]. {WSS655754.DOC,1100006.900000/)Design Review draft /2006.12.13 313012007 Packet Page 163 of 231 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. 20.10 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 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 28.1220.13 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 as required-byunder ECDC 20.90.010(B)(2) that are not subject to a public hearing by the ADB as re y-under 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. {WSS655754.DOC,1100006.900000/)Design Review draft/2006.12.13 313012007 Packet Page 164 of 231 Page 4 4. Notwithstanding the req iiremeRts ref this seGtiOR to the GeRtrary 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 r,it„ serves as the applicant shall be a recommendation to the Eity GE)UR6ICity 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. G. R�Te ADB may require that a heard be posted under Chapter 17.10 20.100.11.020 Findings. The board shall make the following findings before approving the proposed development: A. Criteria and Comprehensive Plan. The proposal is consistent with the criteria listed in 20.11.030 in accordance with the techniques and objectives contained in the Urban Design chapter of the Community Culture and Urban Design Element of the Comprehensive Plan. The City has the obligation to provide specific direction and guidance to applicants. The Urban Design chapter has been adopted to fulfill the City's obligations under Washington State case law. The Urban Design chapter shall be used to determine if an application meets the general criteria set forth in this chapter. In the event of ambiguity or conflict, the specific provisions of the Urban Design chapter shall control. B. Zoning Ordinance. The proposal meets the bulk and use requirements of the zoning ordinance, or a variance or modification has been approved under the terms of this code for any duration. The finding of the staff that a proposal meets the bulk and use requirements of the zoning ordinance shall be given substantial deference and may be overcome only by clear and convincing evidence. {WSS655754.DOC,1100006.900000/)Design Review draft /2006.12.13 313012007 Packet Page 165 of 231 Page 5 20.1�—rO2O.11.O3O 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 Plante allew light and air to enni panto of the 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 building is found to be long, massive, unbroken or monotonous. a. In multi family (RM) or commercial zones, selections from among the followina or similar features are aaaropriate for dealina with this criterion: i. Windows with architectural fenestration; ii. Multiole rooflines or forms: iii. Architecturally detailed entries; iv Appropriate landscaping; v. The use of multiple materials. 5. All signs should conform to the general design theme of the development; C, Size and height of buildings should he oomnatihle with the nharonter andexisting views of the S FM Riling area. 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 sad shall be provided to enhance the building design and other site improvements. 3. Landscape treatment sad 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. {WSS655754.DOC,1100006.900000/)Design Review draft /2006.12.13 313012007 Packet Page 166 of 231 Page 6 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 sheuld 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. 3 B iildinnc taller than two steries shall he reviewed to determine the extent to which Gk views frem S irrei incline property.StaRtial ImneQl eniol height [Ord Q461 i. 1 n-rrpv� rt �gn �T-v-r�, 1 .. _ ...e ■- ME _ r . r r . 2-0.1020.11.040 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 20.10.05020.11.010; or (3) anyone {WSS655754.DOC,1100006.900000/)Design Review draft /2006.12.13 313012007 Packet Page 167 of 231 Page 7 testifying on the application at the hearing identified in ECDC 20.10.05020.11.010. 0.05020.11.010. 20.''� 1020.11.050 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 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)ECDC2-0.95.050-(Staff DerisieR N0tiGe Required). [Ord 34�120031 {WSS655754.DOC,1100006.900000/)Design Review draft /2006.12.13 313012007 Packet Page 168 of 231 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 Desian Review by the Architectural Desian 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 36.70B.080 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 public hearing. This suspension is based upon the finding of the City Council, pursuant to RCW 36.70B.080, that additional time is required to process this project type. The City has no control over the length of time needed or taken by an applicant to complete its application. Continued Dublic hearina (public hearina. Phase 2). The purpose of the continuance is to permit the applicant to design or redesign his initial conceptual design to Gemply w0taddress the input of the public and the ADB by complying {WSS655754.DOC,1100006.900000/)Design Review draft /2006.12.13 313012007 Packet Page 169 of 231 Page 9 with 4' 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 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 applicant may reapply at any time. Such reapplication 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 Cityin 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 aDDeal of the staff's ministerial decisions on the buildina permit is allowed. D. The Drocess is schematically rearesented by the followina flow chart. Proposed New Review Process SF Pig. defer Uesign L'necklist esta hushed Required First ADB Pu61rc Apph=ion to Pertnll ARproued }, —► Meeting M ADB IIHearirvg Appen N ! City - (Hearing Phase 1) Pnase 2 Conceptual Detailed Design I I Design Yes Redesign ` — — — idptional)— — — — - I 9 I I I i--——————————————— -- Project Protect O@Hied Apj--d 20.12.010 Applicability. Review. The architectural desian board (ADB) shall review all DroDosed developments that require a threshold determination under the State Enivronmental Policy Act (SEPA) using the process set forth in ECDC 20.12.020 below. All other developments may be approved by staff using the process set forth in eECDC 20.12.030, below. When design review is required 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 meetina of the ADB. {WSS655754.DOC,1100006.900000/)Design Review draft /2006.12.13 313012007 Packet Page 170 of 231 Page 10 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 Design Board (ADB) as a public meeting. Notice of the 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 uidelines and standards contained in the relevant city zoni 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 shall be incorporated, whether proposed in light of the specific characteristics of a particular tract of land or on an ad hoc basis"tee +neer-perated. 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 environmentally critical areas within a 200 foot radius of the site including, but not limited to, surrounding building 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 surrounding buildings 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 {WSS655754.DOC,1100006.900000/)Design Review draft /2006.12.13 313012007 Packet Page 171 of 231 Page 11 importance — that will be applied to the project during the proiect's subsequent design review. In submitting an application for design review approval under Chapter 20.12 ECDC, the applicant shall be responsible for identifying how the proposed project meets the specific criteria identified by the ADB during the pre -application meeting. 5. Followina establishment of the desian auidelines 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 ate -any design or redesign needed to adeq atel L address the input of the public and ADB during Phase 1 of the public hearing by complying with the prioritized checklist. 56. 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 public hearing has been completed and a final decision rendered. B. Continued public hearina — Phase 2. 1. An applicant for Phase 2 design 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 building 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. An annotated checklist demonstrating how the project complies with the specific criteria identified by the ADB. fq. Optional: Generalized building floor plans may be provided. 2. Staff shall prepare a report summarizing the project and evaluatingheyv it has addressed each of the design guidelines Criteria identified by the ADB in Phase 1 of the public heaFoR v.providing any comments or recommendations regarding the annotated checklist provided by the {WSS655754.DOC,1100006.900000/)Design Review draft /2006.12.13 313012007 Packet Page 172 of 231 Page 12 applicant under 20.12.020.B.1.f, as appropriate. 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: a. Zoning Ordinance. The proposal meets the bulk and use requirements of the zoning ordinance, or a variance or modification has been approved under the terms of this code for any duration. The finding of the staff that a proposal meets the bulk and use requirements of the zoning ordinance shall be given substantial deference and may be overcome by clear and convincing evidence. That the nrenesal meets the rervi iirements of the ZGRiRQ erdmRaRne *RGlu dmRq the rri mdelines and p DeswQR G uideld es—.Th—tThe proposal meets the relevant district - specific design objectives contained in the Comprehensive Plan c. Design Criteria. That-4The proposal satisfies the specific checklist criteria identied by the ADB durina Phase 1 of the public hearina under Chapter 20.12.020.A, above. When conductina its review. the ADB 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. 4. Proiect consolidation. Projects may be consolidated in accordance with RCW 36.70B.110 and the terms of the Community Development Code. [Note: Gity Attorney may ,TeerJ�Tnlurl additional lann9uen�? nrenriate hero 1 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. The staff's determination shall be Purely ministerial in nature and no discretion is granted to deviate from the requirements imposed by the ADB and the Edmonds Community Development Code. The staff process shall be akin to and administered in conjunction with building permit approval, as applicable. Written notice shall be provided to any party of record (as developed in Phase 1 and 2 of the public hearing) who formally requests notice as to: 1. Receipt of plans in a building permit application or application for property development as defined in ECDC 20.10.020, and 2. ADDroval. conditioned aaaroval or denial by staff of the buildina ermit or development approval. {WSS655754.DOC,1100006.900000/)Design Review draft /2006.12.13 313012007 Packet Page 173 of 231 Page 13 20.12.030 Desiqn 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 bulk and use requirements of the zoning ordinance, including the guidelines and standards contained in the relevant zoning class ification(s). b. Design Guidelines. That the proposal meets the relevant district- soecific desian obiectives contained in the Comprehensive Plan When conductina its review. city 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 conductina its review. the ADB shall use the desian auidelines and design review checklist as contemporaneously adopted in the Design Guidelines. by QrdmnanGe * as amended [insert reference to DB [lesinn ter„-,��,��T�� G mdelines here note that Design G h- delines (`henLlist is }innli ilJolJ Hones �. B. Additional Criteria. Design review shall reference the specific criteria adopted for each area or district. 1. Criteria to be used in design 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 obiectives for the Downtown Waterfront Activity Center contained in the Edmonds Comprehensive Plan. b. (Reserved.) {WSS655754.DOC,1100006.900000/)Design Review draft /2006.12.13 313012007 Packet Page 174 of 231 Page 14 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 MaD include the followina: a. Design standards contained in ECDC 16.60 for the General Commercial zones. b. Policies contained in the specific section of the Comprehensive Plan addressing the Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center and Hiahwav 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 building permit or development 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 20.12.020.13; or (3) anyone testifying on the application at the hearing identified in ECDC 20.12.020.B. 20.12.090 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 Dlannina division alona with anv other suDDlemental 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 {WSS655754.DOC,1100006.900000/)Design Review draft /2006.12.13 313012007 Packet Page 175 of 231 Page 15 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 Required). {WSS655754.DOC,1100006.900000/)Design Review draft /2006.12.13 313012007 Packet Page 176 of 231 Page 16 Chapter 20.1220.13 LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS* Sections: 20.1220.13.000 Scope. 20.1220.13.010 Landscape plan requirements. 20.1220.13.015 Plant schedule. 20.1220.13.020 General design standards. 20 12 025 cc ee g 20.�0 20.13.025 General planting standards. 20.13.030 Landscape types 20 12 035 Parking lot interior IandSGaPiPg 20.1220.13.040 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 20.1020.11.010. 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 20.1020.11.000. 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 20.1220.13.015); 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; {WSS655754.DOC,1100006.900000/)Design Review draft /2006.12.13 313012007 Packet Page 177 of 231 Page 17 I. Parking layout, including circulation, driveway location, parking stalls and curbing (see ECDC 20.122O.13.O2O(D)); J. Grading shown by contour lines (minimum five-foot intervals), spot elevations, sections or other means; K. Location of irrigation system (see ECDC 20.122O.13.O20(E)). 20.1220.13.015 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 fee -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. 28a220.13.O20 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. [WSS655754.DOC;1100006.900000/]Design Review draft /2006.12.13 313012007 Packet Page 178 of 231 Page 18 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. {WSS655754.DOC,1100006.900000/)Design Review draft /2006.12.13 313012007 Packet Page 179 of 231 Page 19 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 2O.13.O2O(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 {WSS655754.DOC,1100006.900000/)Design Review draft /2006.12.13 313012007 Packet Page 180 of 231 Page 20 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 produce 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 sight is desired to see signage or into adjacent space for safety concerns. 1. Trees are 25 feet on center and deciduous also required 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 sauare feet. Planters shall be soread throuahout the parking lot. {WSS655754.DOC,1100006.900000/)Design Review draft /2006.12.13 313012007 Packet Page 181 of 231 Page 21 Shade trees are reauired at the rate of a minimum of one planter and/or• - per 150 square feet of • . A. ParkiRg Lot •_ • .• St.4, ed areuRdof parkiRg lets (see additiORal requiremeRt fOr parkiRg lots abUttiRg streets, below). This strop iS Ret required where paFkiRg iS eRGlesed withiR a buildiRg. 2. Where a parking let abuts aRy street, a landsGaped area ef • feet OR _ rMznT M.— • .• •_ • • •• • ••_ r I • 21• • _ WZ- MM"MMANIM I VMS• • . • • MjhwNW B. .•. Areas1. . . Gf r . . •SGFeeR E)f . _ . • . G. SeFViGe Area. • 1 1 . 01 • . • • • {WSS655754.DOC,1100006.900000/)Design Review draft /2006.12.13 313012007 Packet Page 182 of 231 Page 22 �6� Ilk N • ..MMUMMME1. . ... . r ..FEMMEMMI. uMl• 0111111 lip Ile • . • 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. {WSS655754.DOC,1100006.900000/)Design Review draft /2006.12.13 313012007 Packet Page 183 of 231 Page 23 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 184 of 231 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 185 of 231 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 186 of 231 impractical at that stage to have someone else manage the project. Councilmember Dawson referred to the additional $140,000 that would be paid to Perteet Engineering, expressing concern with a firm the City contracted with hiring one of the city's employees and then charging more. She acknowledged it was legal but did not seem quite right. Mr. Gebert commented this illustrated the value of in-house staff. Councilmember Wambolt shared Councilmember Dawson's frustration, noting it was common in private industry. Mr. Snyder commented it was legal because there were no State Statutes that prohibited civil servants from contracting with another agency for a period of time after leaving the City's employ. He noted the Council could consider such a provision. Councilmember Moore requested this topic be placed on a future agenda. Council President Olson asked whether not utilizing Mr. Smith as a consultant would have slowed the project and increased costs. Mr. Gebert remarked he would hate to think how the project would have been managed without Mr. Smith due to his 4%2 years of background and knowledge of the project. He noted it would not have been realistic for the new Traffic Engineer to take over the project management. He concluded although it was more expensive, it was the right thing to do. Councilmember Plunkett acknowledged Mr. Smith's assistance at community meetings and his institutional knowledge of the project; however, he would like to have this concept reviewed. As four Councilmembers questioned the concept, he requested it was added to the retreat agenda. COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON, TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO SIGN SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT NO. 6. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. [Design 15. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION TO UPDATE THE uidelines 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). Planning Manager Rob Chave provided a 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. As the City's ordinance was similar to the ordinance addressed in that case, some revision to the City's ordinance was felt to be necessary. In 1999 the City Council 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 for the design review to occur at the beginning. In 2000 the City hired Cascade Design to develop design guidelines. The Planning Board completed an extensive review process as well as public hearings and forwarded a recommendation with specific guidelines to the City Council. In 2002-2003, the Council reviewed the design guidelines, concluding the proposed design guidelines were too specific and referred the design guidelines to committee. The committee removed a portion related to signs and that portion was adopted in 2003. In 2004-2005, the City embarked on an extensive update of the Comprehensive Plan. During that process, design objectives were adopted. At the conclusion of the Comprehensive Plan process in 2005, the Council also had a series of discussions with urban design expert Mark Hinshaw that focused on downtown. Mr. Hinshaw provided several ideas for enhancing the City's guidelines specific to downtown. Following additional meetings with the Council, Planning Board and Architectural Design Board (ADB) in 2006, the ADB agreed an upfront design review process was appropriate. The Council Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 6, 2007 Page 5 Packet Page 187 of 231 agreed and forwarded the process to the Planning Board. The Planning Board has completed its review and forwarded a recommendation to the Council for this new process. Mr. Chave displayed a diagram of the current design review process in which design review occurs late in the process. The problem with the existing process was by the time design review at the ADB occurs, the applicant has a detailed design on which they have expended a great deal of time, money and effort, making it difficult for the ADB to convince them to modify their design to any significant degree. He displayed a diagram of the proposed new design review process where design review occurs at the beginning. The new process would use a two -phased public hearing for major projects. At Phase 1 of the public hearing, the ADB reviews a checklist with the applicant to determine what aspects of the design criteria checklist needed to be addressed by the design of the project. Public input would also occur at this time. 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 or "Phase 2" of the public hearing. Any appeal would also occur at this stage. At the completion of Phase 2, the applicant using the conceptual design proceeds with detailed design work to obtain a building permit. Staff then reviews the plans against the design review conditions established by the ADB as well as the City's codes. He anticipated this would streamline the process as the design parameters would be established upfront. The Planning Board recommendation contains the current process as the default. The same design review applies; however, the new process would be applied to districts or sections of the City as specific design code requirements, standards, etc. were adopted such as had been done for Hwy. 99 and downtown. He summarized this new process would apply initially to those two areas. He noted the new process also incorporates the new landscaping standards taken from the 2001 draft design guidelines. Mr. Chave reviewed a comparison of the current process and the proposed new process: Current process New Process General design review Section 20.11 District Based Section. 20.12 ADB and public input at the end of the process ADB and public input at the beginning of the process Guidance from criteria in 20.11.030, tweak Guidance from the ADB design guidelines and the recommended by the Planning Board to address checklist long, monotonous walls paragraph Zoning bulk standards Zoning bulk standards and applicable adopted district -based design standards Comprehensive Plan design objectives Applicable Comprehensive Plan design objective Mr. Chave summarized the existing process was retained as the default; the new process would be applied in areas where specific design standards had been developed. He pointed out the Historic Preservation Commission was in the process of developing standards that could be applied to one or more areas of the downtown, focusing on the retail core. As those were a separate process and it was uncertain when they would be complete, he recommended not delaying the establishment of the upfront process until they were completed. Those standards would supplement the existing downtown design standards. He noted ACE had also submitted some suggested design recommendations related to downtown. He suggested they be combined with the standards being developed by the Historic Preservation Commission. Councilmember Plunkett asked whether ADB review occurred at the beginning and the end of the new process. Mr. Chave referred to the diagram of the new process, identifying the ADB review at the beginning of the process where they would address the general parameters of design, making decisions Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 6, 2007 Page 6 Packet Page 188 of 231 regarding what criteria were important and how they should be applied in the project. He noted the ADB's input would occur early in the design before building plans were developed. Currently much of the detail was developed before the ADB review. For Councilmember Plunkett, City Attorney Scott Snyder advised at the second phase of the public hearing the ADB would establish specific design criteria and approve the checklist. He clarified the biggest risk in the ADB review was subjective/ad hoc decisions to deny or grant projects based on someone's feeling about an applicant or the way a building looked. The decision must be based on specific design criteria. The problem with the existing process was the public often did not have an opportunity to comment until the design was "cast in stone" and their objections are often with aesthetic elements upon which specific design guidance is not provided. The intent was to allow public input to influence the design process before the building was designed. Staff approval at the end of the process was similar to a building review process; specific conditions were developed, generalized design criteria were specified and staff would have a list of 30-40 elements as well as code requirements with which to review the proposed design. The intent was to eliminate the implication/reality that decisions were made based on subjective or generalized feelings rather than criteria. Councilmember Plunkett observed the preliminary ADB hearing was for discussion and the second was the formal ADB hearing. Mr. Chave explained Phase 1 was to discuss the criteria and look generally at the site and identify what was important to address such as adjacent buildings, slopes, etc. and developing the checklist. Based on that discussion, the applicant would refine their ideas and return to the ADB at Phase 2 with one or more concepts and obtain a decision regarding the general design of the project. Any appeal would also occur at this point. Councilmember Plunkett asked whether Phase 2 was quasi judicial. Mr. Snyder answered the entire process was quasi judicial with appeal to the City Council. Councilmember Plunkett asked whether there was a firewall between the phases. Mr. Snyder explained the ADB holds a two-part hearing that is entirely quasi judicial. They would not hear an appeal of the decision as they were involved in the decision. There was still opportunity for a LUPA appeal at the end of the process to Superior Court. Councilmember Orvis asked whether the standard for commercial transparency that currently existed had been removed. Mr. Chave answered there were no standards in the code, there were only guidelines that were vague and not well defined. Guidelines provide flexibility; as long as the applicant met the intent, it was approvable. Mr. Snyder commented as design standards for the neighborhood districts were developed, there was the potential for neighborhoods to establish criteria that must be met. He used the example of where entrances were located; although of great importance on Hwy. 99 and downtown, it may be less important in a neighborhood business area. Mr. Chave recalled there was a requirement for window transparency in the BD 1 zone. Councilmember Orvis asked how that could be expanded to the Arts Corridor. Mr. Chave answered that would need to be addressed via a separate process, either by amending the BD zones or possibly via incorporating it into the standards being developed by the Historic Preservation Commission. Councilmember Marin commented the upfront design review process was not a new model; it was being used successfully by other cities. Mr. Chave agreed it was used by Seattle and the Cedar River study identified several cities utilizing the upfront process. Councilmember Moore supported developing standards by neighborhood/district as it allowed neighborhoods more control. With regard to the appeal to the Council, as the project at that point would not have detailed drawings, she asked what the Council would be reviewing. Mr. Chave answered the Council would be provided building massing, site plan, elevations, etc. but not be to the degree of detail Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 6, 2007 Page 7 Packet Page 189 of 231 necessary for a building permit, they would be more conceptual. He acknowledged there was a balance — enough to know what a project looked like without requiring so much time and effort that the design was locked in. The intent was to consider major issues that people cared about such as the location of the building on the site, rooflines, entries, etc. Councilmember Moore asked if a LUPA appeal would be filed at that point. Mr. Snyder advised once the conditions were established by the ADB, the appeal would be to the Council. The preamble described how the process worked. He pointed out each property and its surroundings were unique; the design review process provided an opportunity to develop the checklist and prioritize the guidelines with regard to the building and its surroundings. The detailed design of the building would be left to the developer, thus the importance of developing specific conditions that could be applied in the second phase. Councilmember Wambolt commented the criteria still seemed very subjective; for example the criteria to address long, massive unbroken, monotonous buildings was multiple rooflines or forms, architectural detailed entries, appropriate landscaping, and windows with architectural fenestration. He asked whether the applicant could be provided input at Phase 1 regarding how to address a long, unbroken or monotonous building. Mr. Chave pointed out the statement regarding long, massive, unbroken or monotonous in Section 20.11 was in the existing process; that wording did not appear in the new upfront process. Mr. Snyder explained the applicant would present information regarding the neighborhood, lot, etc. and a general description of their design and the ADB, based on the guidelines developed by the neighborhood, would specify techniques in the conditions and the applicant would return with a more specific design for staff review. Mr. Snyder commented Anderson v. Issaquah was in regard to unconstitutional vagueness. An ordinance could be unconstitutional on its face or as applied. The City has created guidelines to provide techniques for a developer to use to address the generalized criteria. Even with that protection, an ordinance could be unconstitutionally vague as applied if the hearing body ignored detail in the guidelines and for example identified a building as monotonous without considering whether the guidelines were applied. Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, commented under the existing process, an early review was available although it was optional. He noted a developer who had built in the City for a long time may not need the early review versus a developer new to the City who may need the early review. Because the new process had more meetings and the ADB only met once a month, he anticipated the process would be slower than the existing process for a developer who was familiar with the City. He inquired whether the public had an opportunity to provide input at the Phase 1 hearing. Similar to the optional review in the existing process, he suggested holding an informal meeting with the applicant, a couple of ADB members and a member of the Historic Preservation Commission that was advertised to the public. He used the renovation of Old Milltown as an example and the question regarding the square footage of new building that determined whether SEPA was required. He asked what opportunity the public had for input once the detailed plans were submitted. He objected to staff making more decisions in the proposed process, opining that staff needed to be supervised by the public. He preferred the quasi judicial portion of the hearing remain where it was in the existing process to allow the public to analyze project details. Tony Shapiro, Edmonds, commented on the inability for government to flow with the natural sequence of the design process. He anticipated the sequence as proposed would make it very challenging to keep the natural momentum of a project under design. He stated a conceptual design to a developer may be simplistic bubble diagrams, not elevations. He found it counterproductive to have a long review sequence at the beginning of process, anticipating the end result would be mediocre architecture. He anticipated elevations would not be provided at the initial hearing. He suggested an applicant be allowed to submit Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 6, 2007 Page 8 Packet Page 190 of 231 materials, meet with the ADB the following week, the ADB provide their input and the applicant incorporate the design guidelines and ADB recommendations and return with more detailed drawings at a hearing that would be advertised to the public. He was concerned with the amount of time this design review process would consume. Bob Gregg, Edmonds, expressed support for the proposed process. He referred to the letter he submitted from Dennis Reynolds, the attorney who tried the Anderson v. Issaquah case who they invited to assist them in reviewing the proposed process. He highlighted several suggested changes including eliminating the statement "long, massive, unbroken or monotonous" from Section 20.11 and addressing a conflict in wording on pages 9 and 12 — page 9 states "to comply with the input of the public and ADB" and page 12 states "adequately address the input of the ADB," stating his preference for the latter wording. On page 7 of the design guidelines, he pointed out the box and convex awning should be allowed and awnings should be allowed above or below the transom depending on the grade. On page 11 he recommended changing the sentence, "Design Review should not result in gny sigHifie reduction in actual bulk and scale." He advised the materials he submitted contained additional revisions. He summarized the two step process that invited input early in the process and using that to create the final design would serve the public well by allowing them to have input before a developer had designed a building in detail. He urged the Council to adopt the proposed new process. Don Kreiman, Edmonds, commented as a community activist, he was proud of his neighborhood; however, his neighborhood was deteriorating including an unoccupied and obsolete strip mall. He supported the proposed process because it allowed him to be part of the process at the beginning. Using a custom designed product as an example, he explained only after the specifications had been agreed to was the product designed. The proposed process would involve the architect, staff and the public at the beginning and if the public was part of the process of creating the design guidelines and reviewing proposals, they would be happy to tell developers what aspects they felt were most important. He suggested increasing the notification to more than just property owners with a 300 foot radius. Scott Schlumberger, Edmonds, agreed with the design review process upfront although he had concerns with the process as outlined. He recommended SEPA occur earlier in the process. He suggested the design guidelines provided flexibility and streamlining, noting design departures were an important part of design guidelines. He questioned the time to prepare the staff report between Phases 1 and 2, anticipating four months could elapse between the phases. He suggested consideration be given to a method to accomplish the steps more quickly such as staff making a threshold determination at the counter. He concluded longer lead times led to higher costs which affected the ability to provide affordable housing as well as developers' interest in building in Edmonds. Councilmember Moore inquired about a threshold determination. Mr. Schlumberger suggested a threshold determination could be made at the counter, noting it currently took months. He pointed out a completeness letter was required to be provided in 29 days; they submitted an application on December 7 and received a completeness letter last week. He viewed the design guidelines as a new attitude of collaboration between the building community and planning/permitting department. Rob Michel, Edmonds, suggested staff work with the development community who would be using the proposed process to ensure it worked for them and for the public. He pointed out the diagram of the proposed process did not match the text in the code and there were no timelines associated with each step. He noted there was the potential for a long time between Phase 1 and 2 as the applicant was required to submit their response to input provided at the first meeting and then staff prepared a report to the applicant and ADB. He suggested that report also be provided to the public. He suggested very tight timelines be established. He pointed out a SEPA appeal would require another hearing as could an appeal to the City Council, a total of four hearings in the proposed process. He recommended staff prepare Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 6, 2007 Page 9 Packet Page 191 of 231 examples of what they expected developers to provide at each hearing, noting conceptual drawings meant different things to different people. He referred to the arduous requirement to provide a site plan that includes every significant building within a 200-foot radius, suggesting an aerial photo would be sufficient due to the difficulty in determining what was considered a significant building. He preferred the public have opportunity to review final drawings because final drawings may be different than conceptual drawings. He noted the text in the code also did not state what the developer did after the Phase 2 hearing. Finis Tupper, Edmonds, commented when the ADB was originally formed in the late 70s, it was an aesthetics board whose goal was high quality development in Edmonds. He expressed concern with the proposed process, pointing out the detailed plans were never presented to the public. He referred to a recent contract rezone for a single family lot in the BC zone that included specific requirements, commenting none of the specific conditions of the contract rezone were met in the final development. He acknowledged the public's ability to file a LUPA appeal, yet once the hole was dug and the building extended 15 feet into the single family zone, the public had no recourse. He acknowledged this may be an issue for the State Legislature. He provided another example of a contract rezone for a PRD that reduced lot sizes from 12,000 square feet to 8,000 square feet. Although the materials repeatedly stated 24 houses would be built, 4 additional houses were allowed. He expressed concern about the public not seeing the details. Hearing no further public comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public hearing. In response to Mr. Hertrich's comment regarding the optional preliminary review, Mr. Chave explained it was extremely rare for a developer to request a preliminary review. That preliminary review tends to occur with major projects that have the most architects and engineers involved because they realized it was to their advantage to get as much input as possible before beginning their design. Staff tends not to get requests for preliminary review for projects done by smaller developers who may feel they cannot afford the time for that review. With regard to the comment about SEPA thresholds, Mr. Chave explained the SEPA determination must be made before the ADB's decision so that the developer and public knew early on whether SEPA applied. If a project were to be reviewed by the ADB based on false information that SEPA did not apply, the applicant would risk starting over when he learned SEPA was required. With regard to Mr. Shapiro's comments regarding design sequence and flow, Mr. Chave explained the intent was for the design review to occur very early in the process at the conceptual stage. Although the proposed process required the developer to get involved with the City much earlier than they had before, the intent was to fit into the design process versus having it back loaded. With regard to comments about elevations, Mr. Chave referred to packet page 13 which contained a short list of what an applicant needed to do for Phase 1. Although an elevation was mentioned as one of the items, it only needed to depict the volume of the proposed structure in relation to the surrounding buildings and improvements — it was not a detailed elevation. He compared this to the language on the next page, the elevations for Phase 2 portion of the hearing which required elevations for all building faces illustrating building massing and openings, materials and colors, and roof forms. The more detailed elevations were provided in the second phase. With regard to Mr. Gregg's suggestions, Mr. Chave commented they could be reviewed along with the language to be developed by the City Attorney. With regard to Mr. Kreiman's suggestion to increase the 300-foot notice, Mr. Chave pointed out in addition to the 300-foot notice, notice was published in the newspaper as well as posted in several locations. Residents could also inform others in their neighborhood who were beyond the 300-foot radius. Extending the notice requirement would have a significant impact on the City's budget as the City bore the cost of mailings. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 6, 2007 Page 10 Packet Page 192 of 231 Mr. Chave agreed with Mr. Schlumberger's comment about providing more flexibility via the ADB design guidelines. He agreed the SEPA determination needed to be done early but disagreed it could be done at the counter as there were mailing requirements based on the determination, etc. With regard to Mr. Schlumberger's suggestion about design departures, Mr. Chave recalled the Cedar River study suggested the City consider design departures which had been successfully used in Seattle. He noted design departures could work with an upfront design guidelines process but would be more problematic with standards. He suggested after the City had some experience with this process, consideration be given to design departures. With regard to Mr. Michel's comments about the diagram versus the text, he explained the intent was to have the two be consistent. He agreed with Mr. Michel's suggestion to mail the report to the public, noting although the code did not currently require it, that was staff s practice. With regard to Mr. Michel's concern with it being an open-ended process, Mr. Chave explained Regulatory Reform dictated a 120 day timeline within which the City was required to reach a decision. The biggest determinant of the amount of time between the Phase 1 and Phase 2 hearing was how long the applicant took to develop a design for ADB consideration. In response to Mr. Tupper's comment on the need for detail, Mr. Chave remarked on the conundrum of how much detail to require versus how much influence the ADB and public could have on the design before the details were developed. The only way detail worked was with the ADB at the end of the process such as in the current process which was counter to the intent of the proposed new process. COUNCILMEMBER MOORE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, TO EXTEND DISCUSSION OF THIS ITEM FOR 20 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mayor Haakenson referred to the comment that the ADB met only once a month but had previously met twice a month and the suggestion that a smaller group of ADB members conduct the first review. Mr. Chave stated historically the ADB met twice a month and that could be considered again. The risk with a subcommittee of the ADB was there were different perspectives and different fields of expertise among ADB members. He offered to inquire about the ADB's availability for two meetings a month. Mr. Snyder agreed with providing written notice of final plans to the public. He urged caution regarding expectations, explaining the reason the upfront design process was proposed was to allow developers to get specific direction before developing final designs. Therefore the conceptual drawings may differ from the final design if all the specific conditions of approval are met. He clarified it was not design by committee or the public designing a building, it was about the developer meeting specific conditions established from existing guidelines and codes with the input of the public and ADB. It was also not whether someone liked or did not like a building; marketability was the developer's right/risk. With regard to Mr. Tupper's comment about how design review was conducted in the 70s and 80s, that process was no longer available. Councilmember Marin commented there did not seem to be much debate about the design guidelines themselves, the concerns were with the upfront process. If the Council approved the Planning Board's recommendation and directed the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance, it could be scheduled as a discussion item on the Council agenda in two weeks. He suggested in the meantime, if there were funds available, hiring a consultant to update the Cedar River study particularly what cities were successfully utilizing the upfront process. He suggested staff could then contact those cities with regard to specifics on how the process was working. He was also concerned with the amount of time that would elapse between the first meeting and the second meeting. He asked if these efforts could be accomplished in the next two weeks. Mr. Chave answered not by hiring a consultant due to the time that required; staff could attempt Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 6, 2007 Page 11 Packet Page 193 of 231 to contact some of the cities. He pointed out another city's process would not exactly mirror the proposed process. Councilmember Marin wanted assurance the proposed process would not extend into four months and that the two-step process could occur fairly quickly. Mr. Chave reiterated it would depend primarily on the applicant. He pointed out the current ADB process was also governed by the 120 day requirement. He acknowledged the design review would be earlier but did not anticipate the new process would take more time than the current process and actually should be shorter. Councilmember Marin commented although he liked the proposed process, he wanted assurance regarding how it worked in other cities. Mr. Chave agreed staff could do some investigation. Councilmember Plunkett asked how design departures would be integrated. Mr. Chave suggested gaining some experience with the process as proposed to determine whether it provided enough flexibility and revisit it after a year. He commented design departures were not easy to craft as parameters were required with regard to when they were appropriate, on which aspect of the design would they be allowed, etc. Councilmember Plunkett referred to Mr. Chave's comment that the issues outlined in Mr. Gregg's email could be addressed by Mr. Snyder, observing most appeared to be policy issues. Mr. Chave advised he did not have Mr. Gregg's written comments; his response was to Mr. Gregg's verbal comments. He offered to have staff address in writing at the time an ordinance was presented the other issues Mr. Gregg raised. With regard to box awnings, he recalled discussions with Mark Hinshaw related to downtown commercial that indicated the ends of box awnings obstructed the view of hanging signs. Councilmember Plunkett asked staff to comment on the 4-page letter from Davis Wright Tremaine. Mr. Snyder answered much of it was chapter and verse of what had been said before. There were some comments regarding the ACE comments that may require Council consideration. He clarified the adopted design guidelines were intended to be a way of explicating the generalized code requirements. David Wright Tremaine was suggesting they be specifically referenced. With regard to design departures, Mr. Snyder explained there were two kinds of design departures — variances and incentives. The intent was very specific design guidelines and requirements; if a design departure was not to do something that was required, that would constitute a variance. If the departure was to substitute something for another requirement or an incentive, the best place to develop those was via the neighborhood process. Councilmember Dawson agreed with Councilmember Marin's suggestion with regard to additional information regarding the timeline. She asked if staff believed the proposed process would take the same amount of time as the existing process. Mr. Chave answered the proposed process should be quicker, due in part to the checklist the ADB developed. Another thing that would speed up the process was it dealt with conceptual issues rather than specific drawings. Councilmember Dawson anticipated concern by developers with a project that would sail through the old process but now must contend with the new process. Mr. Chave stated the maximum time under the existing process and new process was 120 days. Councilmember Dawson was concerned with the two-phase process taking longer and suggested establishing a reasonable amount of time for staff s review. Mr. Chave offered to provide a more detailed diagram comparing the existing process versus the new process. Councilmember Dawson referred to the comment about what materials they would provide at each phase, suggesting staff develop examples. Councilmember Dawson asked if providing the final report to all parties of record was required by the code. Mr. Chave answered that was staff's current practice but it was not required. Councilmember Dawson commented it would be appropriate to include it in the code. Mr. Snyder suggested notice be in Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 6, 2007 Page 12 Packet Page 194 of 231 the form of an offer to view the plans at City Hall as copying drawings for a large project may be quite burdensome. Councilmember Dawson agreed, asking whether there was an opportunity for the public to provide comment. Mr. Chave advised the public could always make comments; he was hesitant to codify that to avoid the impression it was a formal comment period. Councilmember Dawson asked whether there was the ability to have a formal comment period. Mr. Snyder cautioned against anything that looked like multiple hearings on the same project. Development Services Director Duane Bowman explained typically a building permit application went through multiple reviews — an initial review, review of comments and final review. He suggested if information was to be provided to the public, applicants could be required to submit electronic drawings of the building exterior elevations at the time of building permit that could be viewed online. He advised the public could also view the plans at City Hall; however, they may not always be readily available as they were being reviewed by staff. He cautioned against another de facto public hearing. Councilmember Wambolt echoed the concern that the public would not see the detailed design at the public hearing. This was a concern to citizens because under the existing process, the public hearing was held after the detailed design was created, yet many buildings when constructed did not look like the plans. The public wanted to know that what they saw was really what was built. Mr. Chave responded the most practical solution was the additional notice when final plans were available. He commented if the Council increased the notice requirement, staff would return with a request to increase the fee. Mr. Snyder commented the electronic drawings should include a link to the ADB's decision so that the public could identify which of the ADB's conditions were not met. COUNCILMEMBER MOORE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, TO EXTEND DISCUSSION OF THIS ITEM FOR 20 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Councilmember Moore expressed interest in considering design departures in 6-12 months. Mr. Chave suggested 12 months. Councilmember Moore agreed with the suggestion to research other cities' experience with the upfront process. Councilmember Marin stated the proposed recommended action was to approve the Planning Board recommendation and direct the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance for Council adoption. He was interested in moving the process forward, acknowledging there were some questions remaining. He asked if the Council could provisionally approve the Planning Board recommendation and direct the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance for further Council discussion and adoption. Mr. Snyder advised allowing two weeks for him to prepare the ordinance would also allow staff the time needed to respond to Council questions/requests. The ordinance could then be scheduled on the agenda for further discussion. Councilmember Plunkett suggested keeping the public hearing open to allow the public another opportunity to comment once the additional information was provided. COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, TO PROVISIONALLY APPROVE THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION AND DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN ORDINANCE FOR FURTHER COUNCIL DISCUSSION AND ADOPTION AND CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING. Councilmember Moore asked whether members of the public who spoke during the public hearing could be invited to provide further comment. Mr. Snyder advised the public hearing had been closed. The public hearing could be reopened or a new public hearing scheduled. Councilmember Dawson suggested scheduling another public hearing which would allow the public to comment on the information that would be provided by staff. She expressed her support for the motion inasmuch as it required staff provide further information. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 6, 2007 Page 13 Packet Page 195 of 231 Council President Olson suggested scheduling the ordinance on the April 3 agenda as the March 20 agenda was already full and the animal control ordinance was scheduled on the March 27 agenda. Councilmember Moore requested Mr. Snyder also address the inconsistency in the wording. Councilmember Plunkett expressed concern with the provisional approval as he was uncertain whether he would ultimately support the ordinance. His intent was to move it forward for further discussion. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Sound Transit Don Kreiman, Edmonds, Chair of the Citizen Transportation Advisory Committee, explained the Open House mission of the Committee was to educate their neighbors about transportation issues. He invited the public to take the bus to the Sound Transit open house at the Lynnwood Convention Center on March 15 from 4:30 — 7:30 p.m. As he began to describe Sound Transit's proposal, Mr. Snyder advised the Council adopted a procedure that prevented comment on a ballot measure. Mr. Kreiman advised buses to the open house would leave the Edmonds library at 3:56 (accompanied by Councilmember Marin, who also serves as Sound Transit and Community Transit Boardmember) and 4:26 p.m. (accompanied by Hank Moravec, Citizen Transportation Committee Member) Parking was available at the City's municipal lot, the library, or near City Hall. The bus fare is $1.25 for adults and $0.50 for seniors and riders must have exact change. For further information, he invited the public to contact Mr. Moravec at 425-771-2751. rimai control Ray Martin, Edmonds, commented overlapping responsibilities between departments resulted in poor ssues organization and poor results. He explained animals were addressed in Chapter 17 - Code Enforcement as well as in Chapter 5 - Public Safety. He recommended combining the responsibility in one department, preferably a separate animal department under the Police Chief. He described a complaint he filed with code enforcement regarding 25 quail being raised in a residential neighborhood. The Code Enforcement Officer referred his complaint to Police Chief Stern who referred it to the Animal Control Officer. His most recent request was answered by Chief Stern stating there was no violation of Chapter 5.05 as quail were not poultry or domestic animals and the correct definition would seem to be wild animals, technically upland game birds. The limit of five animals referred to domestic animals but his complaint would be referred to Code Enforcement as they enforced Chapter 17. Chief Stern advised should there be a violation of Chapter 5.05 staff would take appropriate action. Mr. Martin responded if quail were wild birds, then Chapter 5.05.131, which prevented a person from owning a wild animal, had been violated and he requested the City take appropriate action. loth St. SW Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, referred to Supplemental Agreement No. 6 with regard to the 2201h Street mpreovements SW improvements project, suggesting the Council review the numbers again. He found the numbers rojastounding as well as the practice of paying an employee who left the City s employ more via a consultant contract. The overruns on the project were due to the Traffic Engineer as well as inflation due to the delay in Verizon moving their poles. He suggested many of the cost increases could have been anticipated, particularly with the delay. He also questioned the amount of City engineering time that had been expended on this project in addition to the outside engineering. He summarized the significant increases warranted further discussion as well as criticism regarding how the contract was handled. 7. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Acceptance of Ma Haakreported Parks & Recreation Director Brian McIntosh, Councilmember Dawson and he Check from Co. Mayor enson or Park in accepted a check from Snohomish County Executive Aaron Reardon today for $1.2 million for the park in South Edmonds South Edmonds. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 6, 2007 Page 14 Packet Page 196 of 231 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 197 of 231 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 198 of 231 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 199 of 231 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 200 of 231 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 201 of 231 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 202 of 231 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 203 of 231 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 204 of 231 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 205 of 231 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 206 of 231 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 207 of 231 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 208 of 231 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 209 of 231 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 210 of 231 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 211 of 231 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 212 of 231 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 213 of 231 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 214 of 231 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 215 of 231 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 216 of 231 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. AD13 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 217 of 231 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 218 of 231 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 219 of 231 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 220 of 231 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 221 of 231 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 222 of 231 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 223 of 231 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 224 of 231 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 225 of 231 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 226 of 231 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 227 of 231 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 228 of 231 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 229 of 231 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 230 of 231 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 231 of 231