07/28/1998 City Councilpprove
Minutes
pprove
Claim
Warrants
laim for
Damages
eral
d
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES
JULY 289 1998
The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Barbara Fahey in the
Library Plaza Room, 650 Main Street, followed by the flag salute.
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Barbara Fahey, Mayor
Gary Haakenson, Council President
Dave Earling, Councilmember
John Nordquist, Councilmember
Michael Plunkett, Councilmember
Dick Van Hollebeke, Councilmember
Thomas A. Miller, Councilmember
ABSENT
Jim White, Councilmember
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
STAFF PRESENT
Paul Mar, Community Services Director
Robin Hickok, Police Chief
Brent Hunter, Human Resources Director
Rob Chave, Planning Manager
Sandy Chase, City Clerk
Lynne Hann, Recorder
COUNCILMEMBER VAN HOLLEBEKE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
EARLING, FOR APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED.
2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
COUNCILMEMBER VAN HOLLEBEKE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
PLUNKETT, FOR APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED. The agenda
items approved are as follows:
(A) ROLL CALL
(B) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JULY 21, 1998
(C) APPROVAL OF CLAIM WARRANTS #25650 THRU #26493 FOR THE WEEK OF
JULY 20, 1998, IN THE AMOUNT OF $205,059.39. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL
WARRANTS #21162 THRU #21362 FOR THE PERIOD JULY 1 THRU JULY 15, 1998, IN
THE AMOUNT OF $475,335.37.
(D) ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM VICTOR
CHYNOWETH ($29,000)
(E) REPORT ON GENERAL FUND FINANCIAL POSITION FOR THE PERIOD ENDED
JUNE 30,1998
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 28, 1998
Page 1.
Meadow- (F) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE
ale PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH R. W. BECK AND ASSOCIATES
Drainage FOR THE MEADOWDALE DRAINAGE INVESTIGATION PROJECT
Meadow-
dale Storm (G) AUTHORIZATION TO CALL FOR BIDS FOR THE 1998 NORTH MEADOWDALE
Drainage STORM DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT i1
Ord. 3218 (I) ORDINANCE NO. 3218 AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 8.16.030 OF THE
Speed EDMONDS CITY CODE TO ADDRESS SPEED LIMIT CHANGES ON MAIN STREET
Limit FROM NINTH AVENUE TO ONE BLOCK EAST OF NINTH AVENUE, 220TH STREET
Changes SW FROM THE EASTERN CITY LIMITS TO SR 99, 238Ttt STREET SW BETWEEN
SR 99 AND SR 104, 244TH STREET SW BETWEEN SR 99 AND SR 104 BY AMENDING
SUBPARAGRAPH 4,8 AND 1.0 THEREOF AND ADDING NEW SUBPARAGRAPH 12
Ord. 3219
Rezone
(1)
ORDINANCE NO. 3219 REZONING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 617-
17 -627
627 DAYTON STREET FROM MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RM -1.5) TO
Dayton St.
COMMUNITY BUSINESS (BC)
rd. 3220
Rezone
(J)
ORDINANCE NO. 3220 REZONING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 22815
2815
EDMONDS WAY FROM MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RM -1.5) TO PLANNED
Edmonds
BUSINESS (BP)
Way
Ord. 3221
(I)
ORDINANCE NO. 3221 REZONING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 8517 -
Rezone
8529 238TH STREET SW FROM SINGLE - FAMILY (RS -8) TO MULTIFAMILY
8517-8529
RESIDENTIAL (RM -3)
381' St.
Ord. 3222
(L)
ORDINANCE NO. 3222 REZONING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 23726
Rezone
100TH AND 10014 238T'r STREET SW FROM SINGLE - FAMILY (RS -8) TO
3726
NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS (BN)
100'" &
10014
380' St.
J.
PUBLIC HEARING - REVIEW OF THE ROLE OF THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD
Hearing —
ole of Planning Manager Rob Chave explained the matter was previously discussed at the May 26, 1998 . City
e ADB Council meeting, and it was decided to get feedback from the Architectural Design Board (ADB), the
Planning Board and the Hearing Examiner regarding the future role of the ADB prior to holding a public
hearing on this issue. He explained the City periodically explores the design review process and did so
two years ago as a result of regulatory reform legislation. During that review, it was determined the
ADB could maintain the role of evaluating applications while meeting the legislative requirements of
holding only one hearing, which, in some cases, is conducted at the Hearing Examiner level.
Mr. Chave pointed out the ADB, the Planning Board and the Hearing Examiner all concur that design
review is a very important factor in the development process, and the Architectural Design Board should
have more interaction with the development community, policy makers, staff and the public. All agreed
the role of the ADB could not be changed without first revising many relating ordinances and policies.
The three groups were also supportive of strengthening the development code with. additional design
guidance and standards, which would give additional clarity on the expectations of the City regarding
development.
During the May 26 discussion, it was suggested that design review occur earlier in the process through a
pre - application meeting between staff and applicant. Mr. Chave explained pre - application meetings do
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 28, 1998
Page 2
take place and are encouraged by staff; however, these, meetings are not currently mandatory. He stated
if an applicant does not elect to have a pre- application meeting, much of the information and reaction
regarding design review could occur much later in the process and may result in unnecessary delays.
Mr. Chave pointed out staff is looking at ways to implement and encourage communication at an earlier
stage of the process.
Mayor Fahey invited public comment and reminded speakers to limit their discussion to three minutes
and to provide testimony specifically on the issue being considered.
Carreen Nordland - Rubenkonig, 19505 81st Place West, Edmonds, commented she has served on the
Architectural Design Board for the past year and supports retaining the Board in its current capacity and
makeup. She observed the Board has had positive impact on the City's environment for over 20 years.
Ms. Nordland- Rubenkonig explained how the Board works, how it addresses concerns not specifically
detailed in the Code and how it is responsive to the community. She pointed out during the period May
1997 through April 1998 ADB reviewed 34 applications, of which three were denied and 31, or over 90
percent, were approved. Of those approved, 20 contained conditions to modify the proposal to meet
specific concerns. Of those denied, one proposal was revised and resubmitted for approval at a later
date.
Ms. Nordland - Rubenkonig stated when current codes do not contain specific information, the Board uses
the Comprehensive Plan to guide their decisions. She explained the brightness of neon, whether signs
create visual clutter, aesthetics created by building materials or designs and new business uses in
transitional zoning areas are some of the issues considered by the ADB. The community and neighbors
attend many ADB meetings to offer input on various applications. She stated the Board is responsive to
that involvement and this process allows for decision- making on behalf of the community and provides
an equitable method of reviewing development applications.
Mayor Fahey recognized the time and energy given by volunteers who serve on the Architectural Design
Board and thanked them for their efforts.
Mayor Fahey asked Carreen Nordland - Rubenkonig to discuss how the Board differentiates between
subjective and objective opinions and the way in which they avoid making arbitrary interpretations of the
code, which could be challenged in court, when reviewing an application.
Carreen Nordland - Rubenkonig explained in the year she has served on the Board, staff has always given
strong direction to refer to regulations and specifically explain code interpretations when making
decisions. Applicants are asked to provide samples when the Board is considering whether colors or
materials are appropriate as defined in the code. After deliberations, at least four of the seven members
must agree, and this improves the consistency with which the Board makes its decisions.
Ray Albano, 20916 76th Avenue W, #1, Edmonds, disagreed and stated he is opposed to retaining the
Architectural Design Board. He explained when the Council first appointed the Board, there was a
majority of the Council that felt there was a need for this Board, however, not all Councilmembers were
in agreement. He cited instances when the ADB took more than two hours discussing the direction of a
sign, and stated it took �ine months to have trees removed because the Board was concerned the trees
were considered old growth timber. A forester was hired to prove the trees were not in the old growth
category. He also expressed frustration with having to obtain Board decision regarding the planting
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 28, 1998
Page 3
width of the trees after approval was received from the City. Another applicant was required to submit
15 color samples for Board consideration before given approval to paint his building.
Mr. Albano stressed the ADB ordinance is too general and the Board can become a run -away grand jury
and pointed out the greatest cause of lack of economic development during the la4 ten years has been the
ADB. The Board should be discontinued or the ordinance should be redefined. 'i He also explained the
state has development regulations that should be used. Mr. Albano mentioned he would have additional
comments at the next hearing.
Council President Haakenson advised there was not a second hearing scheduled on this matter and asked
for clarification as to when the instances cited by Mr. Albano had occurred.
Ray Albano responded the situations he cited occurred between four and seven years ago.
Dave Dolacky, 556 Seamont Lane, Edmonds, explained he has not had personal involvement with the
Architectural Design Board but supports keeping the Board in some form. He stressed without such a
Board, the citizens will have additional frustrations because they will be unable to effectively provide
input on the ways in which to make or keep Edmonds special.
Karen Wiggins, 152 3rd Avenue So., Edmonds, commented the ADB should be either abolished or
drastically modified to eliminate subjectivity and be allowed to vote only on codified issues. She pointed
out staff is competent and pre- application meetings should take place to reduce the possibility of
additional expenditures required later in the process.
Mayor Fahey explained that the next speaker to have signed in is John Bissell. While John Bissell is a
former member of the Planning Department staff, he is also a citizen of Edmonds and will be speaking in
that capacity.
John Bissell, 8630 217th Street SW, Edmonds, stressed the need for economic development and ways
the City can identify and accomplish their development goals. He cited other cities' design review and
SEPA processes and the factors influencing their development, which are different than those in
Edmonds. The character of Edmonds is the most important factor affecting economic development, and
the design guidelines, enforced by the Architectural Design Board, is currently how that character is
maintained.
Mr. Bissell pointed out the seven - member, quasi-judicial Board is able to make consistent interpretations
of the design guidelines more effectively than staff members, and because of this, the guidelines can be
slightly more relaxed, which is of benefit to the applicant. He mentioned one way to speed up the ADB
process is to remove the responsibility for SEPA review from the Board through code amendments.
Alan Lawrence, 107 5th Avenue No., Edmonds, explained he owns the Edward Jones office and
encouraged the City to explore ways to allow businesses to install signs and paint buildings through use
of staff approvals. He expressed frustration in dealing with the ADB in its current form and outlined
three instances in which he has gone before the Board and has then had to appeal, or is appealing, each of
those decisions to the City Council.
Mr. Lawrence stated his past experience with this Board is reflective of their current approach. He
explained he was required to spend additional money to bring alternatives to the Board for the
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 28, 1998
Page 4
attachment of a satellite dish to his building and none of those alternatives were approved. He also cited
issues regarding illuminated signs that have been denied by the ADB and felt those decisions were
inappropriate. Mr. Lawrence commented if the ADB is retained, their role should be greatly modified.
Mayor Fahey asked whether Mr. Lawrence's appeals to the City Council were upheld.
Mr. Lawrence stated both previous appeals were upheld and the third one has not yet come before the
City Council.
Barry Birch, 20905 Woodlake Drive, Edmonds, explained he served on the Architectural Design
Board for eight of the 24 years he has resided in Edmonds, and the job is difficult and thankless due to
negative reaction from business people and developers. He urged the City to carefully select
Boardmembers who are professionals in the fields they represent, and commented the Planning staff
needs to have more information to be effective when dealing with developers and business owners. He
also suggested more administrative and staff interaction and communication within the Planning
Department and advised streamlining the functions of that department. Mr. Birch urged the Council to
retain the ADB because it serves a need in the growth process.
Mayor Fahey recognized the services of past and present Boardmembers who have volunteered much of
their time to help the ADB function and achieve its responsibilities.
Bert Loper, 236 Highway 99, Edmonds, expressed frustration with the Architectural Design Board and
cited a loss of income due to ADB and staff decisions. He commented he believes the ADB is
eliminating development. He also noted that sales of his property have failed due to its Edmonds
location. Mr. Loper stated developers would not make applications within Edmonds because of the
requirement for ADB review and approval.
Tom Tindall, 543 Pine, Edmonds, stated they have two buildings in downtown Edmonds and while his
dealings with the Architectural Design Board have been costly and frustrating, urged the City to retain
the Board but make changes in its role. He suggested rather than placing emphasis on flowers, the Board
work to include additional grass areas to enhance the downtown region and that additional review be
given to issues other than development. He also commented aesthetics play a major role in bringing
people to the downtown area, and the appearance of 3rd and 5th Avenues should be re- evaluated.
Mr. Tindall also recommended membership on the Board be rotated every year to allow for new ideas
and concepts.
Sandy Tindall, 543 Pine, Edmonds agreed with her husband's comments and reiterated the need for
more landscaped areas and a continuation of the village atmosphere in the downtown region.
Dave Page, 1233 Olympic View Drive, Edmonds, stated economic development works best when free
enterprise is operating without government interference and property is protected. He cited instances
within the last 30 years when police powers have been used to solve social problems and explained
citizens groups such as the ADB do not have the right to impose rules on business owners. Mr. Page
outlined, the costs and time involved dealing with the ADB regarding the color of his building, and that
when applications are, delayed because of the ADB review process, the cost to business owners is 16
percent. He commented free enterprise must be allowed to operate if the City is to move forward, and
the citizens who care about the City, not the ADB, are responsible for maintaining the beauty of
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 28, 1998
Page 5
Edmonds. He also stressed another layer of bureaucracy is not needed and staff should handle design
review issues.
Natalie Shippen, 1022 Euclid, Edmonds, explained the original proposal to create the Architectural
Design Board was made in 1973 by a successful business owner concerned bout quality growth in
Edmonds, and was evaluated by a panel of business people before going to City Council for
endorsement. She stated good developers were recognized, but there was concern about the effects of
bad developers on those who voluntarily utilize a higher level of standards in their buildings.
Ms. Shippen pointed out in a strong Mayor /Council form of government, staff decisions on design
review may be more heavily impacted by the political environment than when an independent Board,
whose role is to ensure quality development, provides this function. She also suggested the ADB might
function better by reducing its size and increasing the number of professional architects who serve on the
Board.
Albert Dykes, Sunset and Dayton, Edmonds, explained over 14 years many of his tenants have
provided negative comments about their dealings with the Architectural Design Board, and stated his
own experience with the Board several years ago was also very negative requiring intervention by the
Mayor and City Attorney. He commented the nature of the ADB as a citizens group could not be
restructured in any way to eliminate subjective decisions, and the Board should be abolished. Mr. Dykes
pointed out the professional staff, using design guidelines established by the City Council, could serve
the City and guide development in a more effective manner. He also mentioned the City might face legal
liability in the future due to the subjectivity of the decisions made by the ADB.
Steven Sullivan, 18596 76th Avenue W., Edmonds, stated he has served on the Architectural Design
Board since 1993 and is a Washington State licensed architect, a licensed general contractor and a
business owner in Edmonds. He stressed there is a need to review all boards and committees on a
regular basis, but is opposed to eliminating the ADB, and pointed out this Board, along with all the
others functioning for the City, have made Edmonds what it is today. Mr. Sullivan stated while the
Board's decisions, like those made by other citizens groups including the City Council, are subjective,
they are not arbitrary. He explained taking the design review decisions away from seven people and
giving them !to one or two staff members will not eliminate subjectivity and may cause arbitrary
decisions.to be made. He also mentioned the addition of more codes would not help create development
that takes advantage of the special environment in Edmonds.
Gail Sarvis, 1101 12th Avenue No., Edmonds, stated she had very positive experiences dealing with
staff when opening her business and recognized John Bissell for his assistance. She explained she was
able to obtain her permits without ADB review but felt it serves an important function and provides
consistency for the community. Ms. Sarvis suggested the role of the Board be reviewed but should be
retained to help keep Edmonds a comfortable, friendly town.
Mayor Fahey clarified there. is a procedure now in place which allows staff to work directly with
applicants regarding certain signage issues, without the need for ADB approval.
John Hardy, manager of property located at 238th and Highway 99, Edmonds, expressed frustration
at the time involved in obtaining ADB approval and cited his experience with a storage building on the
property he manages. Although he has completed the Board review process, he explained he is now
being required to obtain a topographical study, which is very costly and time consuming, and stressed
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 28, 1998
Page 6
1
that the review process should be more streamlined. Mr. Hardy stated time is money for business owners
and this situation has resulted in a loss of three potential tenants for the property he manages.
Gaylynne Breighton, 6307 147th Street, Edmonds, stated from her view as a real estate professional
who deals in commercial property, the current structure of the Architectural Design Board causes too
much time delay resulting in too many dollars lost by business owners. She cited experiences of clients
who have indicated the ADB process has cost time and money and recommended the City needs to be
sensitive to the impact of such delays. Ms. Breighton indicated a need to have development occur in a
manner which allows the downtown to retain its special character; however, the Board functions should
not add layers of frustration for the business owners by requiring plans to be resubmitted several times.
She also pointed out the permit process should be streamlined.
Council President Haakenson asked if the request for plans to be resubmitted several times had come
from the ADB or staff.
Gaylynne Breighton clarified her comments were regarding the general permitting process.
Council President Haakenson asked if the ADB has required applicants to have architectural drawings
changed and resubmitted, and if so, what is the time frame for appearing back before the Board.
Gaylynne Breighton stated the ADB has made these requirements but since she had not had personal
experience with the Board, could only refer to comments received from clients who have gone through
the process and have been frustrated in doing so.
Mayor Fahey asked staff to clarify the normal time frames utilized by the Board following audience
comments.
Finnis Tupper, 711 Daley, Edmonds, explained the Edmonds Community Development Code adopted
in 1980 stresses citizen involvement, and to eliminate the Architectural Design Board would put an end
to that citizen involvement. He pointed out there is an appeal process for the applicant, which can follow
ADB review, and mentioned the potential legal issues discussed earlier have not occurred due to the
actions of the Board. Mr. Tupper stated he was in favor of retaining the ADB.
Linda Goodrick, 16508 76th Avenue W., Edmonds, commented she is in favor of the process of
reviewing the role of the ADB which gives the opportunity for citizens to express their views. She
explained she serves as a lay member on the Architectural Design Board and is impressed when
observing the deliberations among the professional members of the Board on requests that cannot be
specifically answered by an inflexible black- and -white code. She also cited many instances when
Boardmembers work hard to help applicants come to a decision that fits within code requirements.
Ms. Goodrick recognized the professional skills of the Boardmembers and stated she has not found the
Board to make capricious decisions during her tenure.
Ms. Goodrick pointed out the population and density pressure is just beginning and cited impacts these
factors will have on city codes and economic development and the way Edmonds will look in the future.
I
Roger Hertrich, 1020 •T'uget Drive, Edmonds, commented business owners and citizens support the
role of the Architectural Design Board and explained he has observed the ADB at their meetings and the
Board works diligently on solving issues brought before them for review. He complimented the efforts
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 28, 1998
Page 7
of the current Board and pointed out the ADB fills a very important need that should not be taken away
from the community. Mr. Hertrick pointed out the Edmonds design review system is easier for
developers than similar processes in other communities and with changes made over the past few years,
the ADB now has more time to carry out their review procedures for applicants. He also observed this
hearing has been a positive exercise in obtaining public input and involvement. I ?+
There were no other members of the public who wished to provide comment. Mayor Fahey closed the
audience portion of the hearing.
Rob Chave, Planning Manager, provided an overview of the history of the ADB and explained recent
changes made that have increased the number of decisions which could be made by staff, and the fact
that the number of meetings held by the Board have doubled, allowing more timely review of
applications. He referred to audience comments regarding the need to return to the ADB with more
information, which occasionally occurs, but stressed that most often approvals can be conditioned to
include staff approval of that additional information. He also commented that if substantial information
needed for approval is missing from the application documents, it may be necessary for the applicant to
make changes before returning to another ADB meeting and the timing depends upon how quickly those
modifications can be made. In rare instances, the Board may need to continue a public hearing to allow
for substantial changes to be reconsidered.
Mr. Chave described the timing involved with public notification and providing the Board with
information in advance of the meeting to allow adequate review time.
Council President Haakenson thanked members of the audience for attending the hearing and voicing
their concerns. He recognized the time members spend volunteering for the ADB and expressed
appreciation for those efforts. Mr. Haakenson asked staff to comment on the required topographical
survey referred to earlier by Mr. Hardy.
Rob Chave commented he would have to research the application, but noted the requirement could be
due to drainage conditions or because it is located within an area designated as critical.
Council President Haakenson encouraged staff to review Mr. Hardy's application and asked about the
average time required for a permit that has to be reviewed by the ADB.
Mr. Chave explained the type of project determines the time required. For a large commercial building
in the downtown area, for example, regulatory reform regulations require time be allowed for public
notification, a public hearing and appeal process as well as the normal review process, and still be
completed within 120 days from the date the complete application is accepted by the City. He pointed
out the time line is often affected by the amount of work and communication done during the pre -
application period.
Council President Haakenson asked for an explanation of the process a typical application goes through
before a permit is issued.
Planning Manager Rob Chave discussed the process for an application for a downtown commercial
building when the applicant has attended pre - application meetings with staff, and has been informed of
all information required, and explained when the completed application is received by staff, the entire
package is routed to various departments to determine completeness. There is a 28 -day period allowed
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 28, 1998
Page 8
0
for staff to determine whether all information has been submitted and the applicant must be informed
within that time regarding the completeness of the application. He stated if the application is not
complete, a notice is given to the applicant outlining further requirements, and when the application is
resubmitted, staff is allowed 14 days to evaluate the additional information. A notice is issued to the
applicant if the application is complete.
Mr. Chave explained at this point in the process a hearing date is set and a notice of pending
development is published in the newspaper and mailed to all property owners within 300 feet of the
project. The public hearing is held, usually during the ADB review process, and that hearing along with
the appropriate time allowed for appeal and the final decision all must be completed within the 120 days
allowed. He pointed out the amount of work and communication done prior to the acceptance of the
complete application will often determine how much of the 120 -day period will be needed. He also
commented the 120 days cannot be extended without applicant agreement and that staff makes every
effort to schedule the matter for appropriate agendas as soon as possible in the process.
Councilmember Van Hollebeke asked for a definition of SEPA.
Rob Chave explained SEPA stands for the State Environmental Protection Act which sets thresholds and
requires that if any of those thresholds are exceeded, the applicant must produce an environmental
checklist which outlines the specifics of the project, the impacts that are likely to occur as a result of the
development, and what measures will be taken to mitigate these impacts. The City must then review the
checklist, allow for public comment, and issue a determination on the significance the project will have
on the surroundings, citing whether the project has significant enough impact to require additional
conditions or the completion of an Environmental Impact Statement.
Council President Haakenson said he has received several citizen complaints regarding timeliness issues
for the permit process and asked for an explanation of the time requirements of the SEPA process.
Mr. Chave stated the SEPA requirements must be completed before the ADB can review the application
and the environmental significance of the project could impact the total time required to obtain a permit.
Council President Haakenson asked for clarification about whether there is a time delay related to the
ADB review process or a time delay caused by the City's process before an application reaches the
Board.
Mr. Chave discussed the City's review process and explained SEPA requires a different level of review
and because a determination cannot be made until all information has been submitted, it is not reviewed
until after a complete application has been turned in and accepted.
COUNCILMEMBER EARLING MOVED TO EXTEND DISCUSSION OF THIS ITEM FOR 15
ADDITIONAL MINUTES. COUNCILMEMBER VAN HOLLEBEKE SECONDED THE
MOTION. MOTION CARRIED.
Mayor Fahey explained two letters had been submitted for the record; one from Lisa Raflo, an ADB
member, who opposes g�liminating the Board, and one from Rob Morrison recommending the ADB be
eliminated and a substit4 a process be implemented to maintain oversight responsibilities.
Councilmember Nordquist cited two comments by audience members; one regarding the subjective
nature of ADB decisions and the other challenging the selection of the Boardmembers. He asked for
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 28, 1998
Page 9
staff clarification on the training provided to ADB, both for new members as well as on -going instruction
for those already serving on the Board.
Mr. Chave explained staff meets with new Boardmembers and provides all relevant documentation as
well as an explanation about the structure of the Board and its meetings. He me�tioned other training is
also provided periodically such as a short course in planning which will be offered to Boardmembers in
August, and explained this training will be helpful to members of all boards rather than just the ADB.
Councilmember Plunkett stated he has received a suggestion to initiate a pre - application process that
would either be done prior to or as a substitution for the ADB review, and asked Mr. Chave to comment
on this recommendation.
Rob Chave commented he was not familiar with the suggestion to substitute a pre - application process for
the ADB review, but explained that the pre - application conference is not mandatory at this time. He
stated when applicants attend such a conference, more information is shared and concerns expressed,
which helps resolve potential problems earlier in the process before the application reaches Board
review.
Councilmember Plunkett asked if a pre- application conference process would help to eliminate problems
and delays that occur during the ADB review.
Mr. Chave explained the current pre - application conference assists the applicant and staff in identifying
and discussing issues. He pointed out, however, by solving problems, the conference could potentially
result in more complete information being available for the Board and therefore, make the review
process proceed in a more timely manner.
Mayor Fahey clarified that approvals or conditional approvals made by the ADB are generally based
upon decisions related to the project and how it fits within the codes of the City, according to the
knowledge of the Boardmembers and in response to comments provided by citizens. She stressed none
of that could happen in a pre - application process because of the lack of a public hearing.
Mr. Chave agreed and commented the Board decisions must be made based upon the information they
are given to consider.
Mayor Fahey remanded the matter to Council for deliberation.
COUNCILMEMBER EARLING MOVED TO CONFIRM THE IMPORTANCE OF THE
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD TO THE COMMUNITY OF EDMONDS AND
AUTHORIZE THE ADMINISTRATION TO SEEK REQUESTS FOR PROPOSALS FOR A
CONSULTANT TO WORK WITH STAFF, THE ADD, CITY COUNCIL AND CITIZENS TO
FURTHER REFINE POLICY, GUIDELINES AND TIMELINES RELATED TO THE ADD
PROCESS. COUNCILMEMBER HAAKENSON SECONDED THE MOTION.
Councilmember Earling pointed out there are many differing opinions regarding the future of the
Architectural Design Board and that citizens appear to be in support of the Board but feel there should be
revisions to its process. After reviewing minutes and letters from the Planning Board, the Hearing
Examiner, the Architectural Design Board and citizens, he stated there is much support for retaining the
ADB as an integral part of the community. Mr. Earling recalled audience comments outlining
frustrations in working through the City's process -and stated there is an obvious need to review and meet
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 28, 1998
Page 10
deadlines and timelines by staff and the ADB. He also commented guidelines used by staff need to be
reviewed as well in order to make more complete information available to the ADB.
Mr. Earling cited the City of Seattle's decision to implement a design review board and stated other
cities utilize such a review board process as well in order to maintain a sense of continuity in their
communities. He stressed the need for a consultant to review the process and develop the policies and
guidelines to make the system more workable for the applicant, and pointed out neither ADB members
nor staff have the time to carry out such a review and make recommendations for change. He, also
stressed the importance of this review and recommendation process for the community, based upon
citizen and staff testimony.
Councilmember Earling advised that this review process is a major undertaking and may take a
consultant approximately six to nine months to complete, at a cost of $30,000 to $40,000. He
recommended the money for the consultant costs be taken from the Council Contingency Fund and stated
there is money available in that Fund, according to Art Housler, Finance Director.
Mr. Earling pointed out there is a reason Edmonds looks different than other neighboring communities,
and most citizens are proud of that difference. He stated there is a pulse that moves this community and
the ADB is part of that pulse.
Council President Haakenson responded that there is a definite need for design review in Edmonds and
stated he is respectful of the comments from citizens regarding the subjective nature of ADB decisions
that probably were made some time ago. With recent staff and ordinance modifications, he pointed out
there are fewer negative experiences with the review process carried out by the current Board, although
there will always be some who are frustrated with the system. 'Mr. Haakenson stressed his concern is
with the time required to move through the City's permit process and would like the consultant to make
recommendations to shorten the time frame and streamline this process. He pointed out the ADB may
not be the cause of delays talked about by citizens and he would like the consultant to establish the
reasons for these delays.
Councilmember Earling explained his motion included the recommendation for the consultant to further
refine policy, guidelines and timelines.
Council President Haakenson commented he is in favor of the motion if these items can be addressed by
the consultant.
Councilmember Van Hollebeke thanked those who participated in this hearing, which is a clear
demonstration of the commitment of the citizens, and commented he is in favor of the motion. As
former chairman of the Alliance for Economic Development, he pointed out the concerns of many
members of that organization have to do with the ability to establish appropriate business sites in
Edmonds and the timeliness for accomplishing this as a critical part of operating a successful business.
Mr. Van Hollebeke explained he supports the concept of maintaining the beauty and integrity of
Edmonds as well as recent changes, which have made the ADB process more acceptable for applicants.
He cited his own experience with ADB several years ago and explained at that time, the process delayed
the opening of his business and added to his costs, however, with changes that have been implemented,
that same application would not have to go before the ADB today. He spoke in favor of the motion and
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 28, 1998
Page 11
stated he also supports having the consultant review and make recommendations on ways to streamline
the review process and reduce the time it now takes to obtain a permit.
Councilmember Miller also spoke in favor of the motion and explained he has studied this issue and has
heard from citizens that people come to this community because of its unique chalueter, particularly with
its location on the waterfront. He stressed he is sensitive to the fact that bureaucracy that government
creates can grow without a rational process to contain it, and recognized that anytime there is a body
making decisions there will be subjectivity. Mr. Miller commented he was pleased the motion speaks to
retaining as well as reviewing the. permit process.
Councilmember Nordquist stated he still supports the Architectural Design Board, which has changed a
great deal over the years. He complimented citizens for taking part in the hearing, and spoke in favor of
the motion so that changes and corrections could be made to help eliminate subjectivity and assist
applicants with the permit process.
Council President Haakenson complimented staff and media on notification of the hearing.
Mayor Fahey asked Councilmember Earling to restate the motion.
*Moti on COUNCILMEMBER EARLING MOVED TO CONFIRM THE IMPORTANCE OF THE
amended ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD TO THE COMMUNITY OF EDMONDS AND
on AUTHORIZE THE ADMINISTRATION TO SEEK REQUESTS FOR PROPOSALS FOR A
10/20/98. CONSULTANT TO WORK WITH STAFF, THE ADB, CITY COUNCIL AND CITIZENS TO
The word FURTHER REFINE POLICY, GUIDELINES AND TIMELINES RELATED TO THE ADB
"confirm" PROCESS. COUNCILMEMBER HAAKENSON SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION
was changed CARRIED.
to "affirm ".
Mayor Fahey noted the vote was unanimous with Councilmember White being absent.
A five minutes recess was then taken.
uman 4. IMPLEMENTATION OF HUMAN RESOURCES STUDY RECOMMENDATIONS
esources
tudy
Mayor Fahey explained there were a number of recommendations made as a result of the Human
Resources Study and a few have not yet been implemented. She reviewed changes that have been
implemented in areas of training, goal setting and methods of operation which are more customer
oriented, and explained there have been programs started on improving supervisory skills as well and
that many of these changes have been the result of the Total Quality Management program. Mayor
Fahey stressed there is now an emphasis on being more flexible and more responsive to citizen needs,
and also pointed out technological advances have been implemented resulting in considerable savings of
time and energy for staff. She outlined staffing changes that have been made as well.
Mayor Fahey explained the position being considered for implementation, as a result of the Human
Resources Study, is the Director of Development Services which includes overseeing engineering,
planning, permitting and code enforcement functions of the City, and pointed out this ties in with the
need to refine the permitting process which was discussed earlier. She stated the position could be
implemented in November with a cost of slightly over $15,000, which could be financed through
unanticipated revenues from permit fees. She also commented the 1999 budget could also support this
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 28, 1998
Page 12
position through additional permitting fees and the need for more extensive services resulting from
newly annexed areas.
Mayor Fahey stated the Human Resources Committee reviewed this recommendation and suggested it be
brought to the full Council for review. She explained ultimately this will result in implementation of the
position designated as Assistant to the.Mayor; however, she pointed out that position could be phased in
at a later time and the Community Services Director position could be maintained during this period.
Council Miller stated it was his understanding, from discussions at the recent Human Resources
Committee meeting, that this recommendation was to come back to that Committee for further
deliberation and recommendation at their August meeting before being brought to full Council for
discussion and action.
Mayor Fahey explained her understanding was that the Human Resources Committee requested the
recommendation be brought to full Council.
Council President Haakenson reminded the Council that their preference has been to have issues like this
brought forth with committee recommendations, but suggested that because this item is on the agenda the
Council should move forward with their discussion. He pointed out the strengths and weaknesses of
adding this position as outlined in the information provided in the packet.
Councilmember Nordquist agreed with Councilmember Miller and stated it was his understanding this
would be discussed further by the Human Resources Committee at their August meeting before being
brought to the Council for action.
Councilmember Van Hollebeke reminded the Council there was previous support for this position and
stressed the need for assistance for the Mayor in keeping up with the many demands of the job. He
commented by adding this position, the duties of the Mayor would become more manageable.
Mayor Fahey emphasized the recommendation being considered is not implementation of the position of
Assistant to the Mayor but rather the Director of Development Services position. She referred to
discussion in the Human Resources Study under II -10 regarding the need to create this position. Mayor
Fahey apologized for any misunderstanding this proposal has caused.
Council President Haakenson spoke in favor of implementing the Development Services Director
position; however, it ultimately triggers the creation of the Assistant to the Mayor position and stated it is
difficult to approve one without discussing the other at the same time.
Mayor Fahey stressed the option of retaining the Community Services Director position for another year
exists so that the Assistant to the Mayor position could be phased in at a later time.
Councilmember Miller spoke in favor of proceeding with the proposal as outlined in the Study and asked
for recommendations as to how the Assistant to the Mayor position would be phased in. He pointed out
the previous Mayor was an advocate for this position as well and stated an obvious need exists.
Councilmember Plunkett asked for clarification if Councilmember Miller would prefer the issue be
returned to the Human Resources Committee.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 28, 1998
Page 13
Councilmember Miller pointed out Councilmember White attended the Human Resources Committee
meeting, and it would be helpful to have his input; however, he felt a decision could be made at this time I
by full Council.
Councilmember Nordquist reviewed discussion held by the Human Resources (committee and pointed
out the role of the Committee was to make recommendations to the Council and' additional discussions
were necessary before moving the proposal to full Council.
Councilmember Miller agreed but stated it appeared other Councilmembers would prefer acting on the
proposal since it is on their agenda.
Councilmember Plunkett stated he is not in a hurry to make a decision on this issue and if it requires
more discussion of the Human Resources Committee before making a recommendation, he would
support that action.
Council President Haakenson stressed the importance of quickly returning the proposal to Council.
Councilmember Van Hollebeke asked about the Committee's meeting schedule and if they could meet
within the next two weeks.
Councilmember Miller stated no meeting is scheduled at this time but that they could meet if members
were available.
Councilmember Earling spoke in support of the proposal and suggested Councilmembers describe any
issues which they feel should be discussed by the Human Resources Committee when formulating their
recommendation. Mr. Earling asked for clarification on the way citizens can be assured the City isn't
developing additional layers of bureaucracy by adding these positions to staff.
Councilmember Plunkett asked the Human Resources Committee to consider ways of adding the
Development Services Director position without requiring the addition of the Assistant to the Mayor
position.
Council President Haakenson suggested if the Human Resources Committee is supportive of the proposal
to implement the Director of Development Services position, it would be helpful if they would evaluate
the strengths and weaknesses of the concept of adding the Assistant to the Mayor position and make
recommendations as to how these positions should be filled when the time comes.
Mayor Fahey commented a meeting of the Human Resources Committee would be scheduled so that
these issues can be discussed and recommendations brought back to full Council for consideration.
Museum 5. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN LEASE AGREEMENT WITH EDMONDS -SOUTH
Lease SNOHOMISH COUNTY HISTORICAL SOCIETY
Mayor Fahey explained this is part of a long -range strategic plan to evaluate all non - profit organizations
that operate as arms of the City and utilize City facilities in order to provide their services. Lease
agreements have been reviewed as well as levels of maintenance which is required and the amount of
money generated by each facility. All leases, except the one for the museum, are renewable every five
years and require $1.00 per year payment, and she pointed out the City provides routine maintenance for
these facilities but not major capital improvements: All the organizations, except the museum, have been
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 28, 1998
Page 14
paying for their own utility usage and after discussion with the museum, they agreed to include payment
of their utility costs in this new five -year agreement, which takes effect in 1999.
Councilmember Earling thanked the Mayor for implementing the change that requires these
organizations to make a small contribution to the citizens by paying part of the expenses incurred by
their operations.
COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST MOVED TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO SIGN THE
LEASE AGREEMENT WITH THE EDMONDS -SOUTH SNOHOMISH COUNTY HISTORICAL
SOCIETY. COUNCILMEMBER MILLER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED.
6. MAYOR'S REPORT
Fountain
at 5` and Mayor Fahey explained the fountain located at 5th and Main was severely damaged in an accident and
ain St.
has been temporarily replaced by a gazebo that was installed by a movie company while filming in
downtown Edmonds. She stressed this is a temporary structure and while there have been many citizen
comments received about the replacement of the fountain, a decision has not yet been made about what
will be constructed in that area. Mayor Fahey stated the original fountain is part of the City's art
inventory, and there is an ordinance in place which allows for the de- commissioning of artwork;
however, she pointed out a Commission has been created to study this issue and is currently assessing the
alternatives. She explained when a recommendation is made, any replacement artwork will have to go
through the jury process before selection is made. She also commented that negotiations are in process
with the movie company to determine if the gazebo can be left at that site at least until a decision is made
for replacement.
7. COUNCIL REPORT
Human Council President Haakenson commented on the discussion on the Human Resources .Study and stressed
Study its time to make decisions on these recommendations without further delays. He suggested
Councilmembers advise the members of the Human Resources Committee of any concerns so that action
can be taken promptly.
Mayor Fahey pointed out it is not her intention to place another layer of bureaucracy between citizens
and the Mayor's Office. The Assistant to the Mayor will work in tandem with the Mayor and will not be
empowered to make decisions or perform executive functions, but will be an assistant to help facilitate
the functions of that office.
Councilmember Miller reported on the Human Resources Committee and pointed out the proposal
discussed is the last of a number of recommendations made in the Human Resources Study.
Excused COUNCILMEMBER EARLING MOVED TO EXCUSE COUNCILMEMBER MILLER FROM
Absence THE JULY 21, 1998 MEETING. COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT SECONDED THE MOTION.
MOTION CARRIED, WITH COUNCILMEMBER EARLING ABSTAINING.
Councilmember Plunkett announced the formation of a new sub - committee for parking and explained
Parking
omm. this committee is rese Archin g parking alternatives for the City, including the possibility of a parking
garage located under the public safety building parking area. He pointed out funding is being explored
with the possibility of an LID and in -lieu of fees being utilized and a recommendation will be made in
the near future.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 28, 1998
Page 15
Councilmember Van Hollebeke thanked Mayor Fahey and Councilmember Nordquist for acting as City
representatives during their recent trip to anniversary festivities in Hekinan.
xcused COUNCILMEMBER VAN HOLLEBEKE MOVED TO EXCUSE COUNCILMEMBER
bsence NORDQUIST FROM THE JULY 21, 1998 MEETING. COUNCILMEMBER MILLER
SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED.
ister city Councilmember Nordquist thanked the Council for the opportunity to represent them in Japan and gave a
ekinan, brief description of the trip's activities and the people he met. Mr. Nordquist also complimented Mayor
Pa pan
Fahey on the professional manner in which she conducted business there on behalf of the City and
thanked the entire delegation for traveling to Japan as well. He also commented that a delegation from
Hekinan will be coming to Edmonds in October, which will give the City an opportunity to extend the
sister city relationship with the people of Hekinan.
Mayor Fahey complimented Councilmember Nordquist on remarks given during the luncheon in
Hekinan and pointed out the importance of having a member of the delegation speak who had the
experience and knowledge of Councilmember Nordquist.
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 9:50 p.m.
BARBARA S. FANEY, MAYOR
SANDRA S. CHASE, CITY CLERK
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 28, 1998
Page 16
J
LL AGENDA
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL
Tkoov Plaza Meeting Room - Library Building
650 Main Street
7:00 -10:00 p.m.
J U LY 28, 1998
SPECIAL MEETING
7:00 P.M. - CALL TO ORDER
FLAG SALUTE
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
(A) ROLL CALL
(B) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JULY 21, 1998
(C) APPROVAL OF CLAIM WARRANTS #25650 THRU #26493 FOR THE WEEK OF JULY 20, 1998, IN THE
AMOUNT OF $205,059.39. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL WARRANTS #21162 THRU #21362 FOR THE
PERIOD JULY 1 THRU JULY 15, 1998, IN THE AMOUNT OF $475,335.37.
(D) ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM VICTOR CHYNOWETH ($29,000)
(E) REPORT ON GENERAL FUND FINANCIAL POSITION FOR THE PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30, 1998
(F) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
AGREEMENT WITH R.W. BECK AND ASSOCIATES FOR THE MEADOWDALE DRAINAGE
INVESTIGATION PROJECT
(G) AUTHORIZATION TO CALL FOR BIDS FOR THE 1998 NORTH MEADOWDALE STORM DRAINAGE
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
(H) PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 8.16.030 OF THE EDMONDS
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE TO ADDRESS SPEED LIMIT CHANGES ON MAIN STREET FROM
NINTH AVENUE TO ONE BLOCK EAST OF NINTH AVENUE, 220TH STREET SW FROM THE EASTERN
CITY LIMITS TO SR99, 238TH STREET SW BETWEEN SR99 AND SR104, 2447" STREET SW BETWEEN
SR99 AND SR104 BY AMENDING SUBPARAGRAPH 4, 8 AND 10 THEREOF AND ADDING NEW
SUBPARAGRAPH12
(1) PROPOSED ORDINANCE REZONING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 617 -627 DAYTON
STREET FROM MULTI - FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RM -1.5) TO COMMUNITY BUSINESS (BC)
(J) PROPOSED ORDINANCE REZONING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 22815 EDMONDS WAY
FROM MULTI - FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RM -1.5) TO PLANNED BUSINESS (BP)
(K) PROPOSED ORDINANCE REZONING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 8517 -8529 238TH STREET
SW FROM SINGLE - FAMILY (RS -8) TO MULTI- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RM -3)
(L) PROPOSED ORDINANCE REZONING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 23726 100TH AND 10014
238TH STREET SW FROM SINGLE - FAMILY (RS -8) TO NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS (BN)
3. (90 Min.) PUBLIC HEARING - REVIEW OF THE ROLE OF THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD
4. (20 Min.) IMPLEMENTATION OF HUMAN RESOURCES STUDY RECOMMENDATIONS
CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA
JULY 28, 1998
Page 2 of 2
5. (5 Min.) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN LEASE AGREEMENT WITH I DMONDS -SOUTH SNOHOMISH
COUNTY HISTORICAL SOCIETY lq
6. (5 Min.) MAYOR'S REPORT
7. (15 Min.) INDIVIDUAL COUNCIL REPORTS/UPDATES ON RESPECTIVE BOARD MEETINGS
�1
Parking and meeting rooms are accessible for persons with disabilities. Contact the City Clerk at (425) 771 -0245 with 24 hours advance
notice for special accommodations. The Council Agenda appears on Chambers Cable, Channel 32. Delayed telecast of this meeting appears
the following Wednesday, Friday and Monday at noon on Channel 32.