09/19/1994 City CouncilCOUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES
Approved on September 27,1994
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 19,1994
The special Edmonds City Council meeting, set pursuant to notice in the form attached, was called to
order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Laura Hall in the Library Plaza Room, 650 Main Street. The meeting was
preceded by the flag salute.
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Laura Hall, Mayor
John Nordquist, Council President
Barbara Fahey, Councilmember
Steve Dwyer, Councilmember
Michael Hall, Councilmember
Dave Earling, Councilmember
Tom Petruzzi, Councilmember
ABSENT
William J. Kasper, Councilmember
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
CONSENT AGENDA
STAFF PRESENT
Tom Miller, Police Chief
Art Housler, Administrative Services Director
Paul Mar, Community Services Director
Jeff Wilson, Current Planning Supervisor
Jim Walker, Assistant City Engineer
Rhonda March, City Clerk
Christine Laws, Recorder
Councilmember Fahey requested pulling Item B. Council President John Nordquist requested pulling
Items C, to be rescheduled as Item 8, and Item F, to be reset as Item 9.
(A) ROLL CALL
�v (D) AUTHORIZATION TO CALL FOR BIDS TO PURCHASE FENCING FOR THE NEW PUBLIC
WORKS SITE
CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 19, 1994
PAGE 1
i
n, (E) REPORT ON FINAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR THE 1994 CHIP SEAL PROJECT AND
COUNCIL ACCEPTANCE OF PROJECT
,(G) AUTHORIZATION TO SURPLUS TORO REEL MOWER (UNIT 110) AND SELL BY AUCTION
AT JAMES G. MURPHY AUCTION COMPANY
(H) REPORT ON BIDS OPENED SEPTEMBER 6 FOR LIBRARY BRICK SEALING AND AWARD
OF CONTRACTITO GRUND & COMPANY ($11,761.34 INCLUDING SALES TAX)
Councilmember Fahey explained her reason for pulling Item B was with regard to the September 6
meeting minutes. She wished to clarify for the record with regard to her involvement with the
Hotel/Motel Tax Oversight Committee. She indicated she was a part of the preliminary committee to
discuss the formation of the Oversight Committee and not on the Oversight Committee itself.
AUDIENCE
Fred Bell, 21006 - 80th Place (West, as President of the South Snohomish County Historical Society,
spoke on its conducting of the "Edmonds Summer Market" during July, August and September. He
thanked Mayor Hall, the City Council, the Planning Board and all of those who made the Summer
Market a success. He further thanked Al Dykes for allowing the use of his property. He then
introduced Edmonds Summer Market Chairman Bette Bell for a report. It was then suggested by
Uf' Mayor Hall that the next agenda item is the hearing regarding this matter.
HEARING ON PERMITTED USES RELATING TO OPEN AIR MARKET (request from
June 7,1994)
Rhonda March reported that the proposal for the Summer Market had been brought before the Council
a few months ago, and reiterated that it was a great success. It went well for the staff. She further
reported that pursuant to Council wishes this is being brought up for hearing and Council direction on
whether to continue with the project and make it a permanent part of the Code. There was quite a bit
of advertising on the hearing. There are some other issues that need to be addressed further on such as
matters like traffic, but those won't be brought up now unless the Council has specific concerns. She
called the Council's attention to the attachments to the agenda memo, including Exhibit 2 which
showed that the City did bring in revenue on the project.
Councilmember Michael Hall echoed the praise. He felt that it was amazing how many booths there
were since it was the first season. He indicated that the "Municipal Research News" gave a plug for
the new ordinance regarding the Summer Market. He commended the Bells and the South Snohomish
County Historical Society on the success and indicated his desire to see the Market continue.
Jeff Wilson, Current Planning Supervisor, reported he had spoken with Rob Chave, Planning Manager,
and from their perspective there were only two things that the Council might want to consider. One is
CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 19, 1994
PAGE 2
to look at the sponsor portion of it. It was originally defined in the ordinance that, at least for the
temporary duration, it would be non-profit. It was suggested that limiting the type of organization that
can run this type of activity should be adopted on a permanent basis. Secondly, for more variety they
wanted to see some type of inclusion of a Farmer's Market instead of just the sale of goods.
Councilmember Petruzzi stated that, in opening the Market up to other organizations, one of problems
is that a for -profit situation could change the scope. Mr. Wilson indicated that under the present
sponsor provisions as non-profit would limit the scope. He restated that they felt that provision should
become permanent.
Bette Bell repeated that the Summer Market was a very successful event. The museum made some
money, the merchants in the area have seen an increase in business on Saturdays, and the Tourist
Information Center has had more traffic. By merchant request the hours for the Market were extended
from 2:00 to 3:00, and the Market continued through September. There were three types of vendors,
produce, crafters and antique dealers. Produce was a top priority and will continue to be, but because
of the late start and the number of Saturday markets in the Puget Sound area, there were not as many
as hoped: They are joining the Washington State Farmer's Market Association. It is hoped that next
year, with early advertising, more produce vendors will participate. The quality of the crafters was
generally high. Natural attrition weeds out those who do not meet the desired standards. The white
elephant table sponsored by the museum was an important source of revenue and proved to be a
meeting place for the community. Perhaps. next year a local coffee shop can have a spot for coffee and
croissants. Expansion is not anticipated at this time. They would rather increase quality as opposed to
quantity. She encouraged the Council to continue the revisions in the last ordinance regarding the $50
fee and the $5 per vendor for the summer and not for the day. If the fee was required every Saturday,
she doesn't think they would have the participation necessary.
Councilmember Fahey thanked and congratulated the staff on its accommodation of the group and
asked Rhonda March if the money received came anywhere close to covering the costs. Ms. March's
response was that it did not. The costs this year were development costs and more in the line of
administrative costs.
Mayor Hall indicated she had taken part in all but one of the Saturdays. She indicated that even in the
rain, people were shopping. She had comments from people both pro and con, but generally everyone
was very pleased. She thanked the Bells for their efforts.
:: <` < .:...::«i > . > :> >:: T<>M''E S;COED.. '.... .ER
CC £ L:::E S fiT.:,Yt N.:..::: ......:... %....:.:...._..............................................:..:::::::::::::::::::::::..::::::::::::::::::.::::
(ARD<TO
BARBS :I"AHY >:THAT:THCS:I`IEMBE::FOtF:>T.<...T.. ................
a:..:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.::::::::.:::::::.:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.........................:..:.::::::.::::.::::::::.
.::::::.>:: <: :::::. : > ..... » ><'I :< <U 'r> .......A
. Sl':A✓:;i:;iill�... .:..: :::::C;I :: :;: L..'ii:; ;;ll i"i .... �
MO:' O : C' �. •.:: , ... i'::::i::::":'::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::. ?�k' <:"::::'.;:::':4:':::;:;:':'; ':z.:>: :::::i :....: ;.I .. I I ;;.:': ' ::::i 2:;�:::::i:::
...'iT.........::..::..::.:::;.:::::..:::
HEARING ON PROPOSED VACATION OF THE EASTERN 150 FEET OF THE PUBLIC
ALLEY LOCATED BETWEEN 7T$ AVENUE NORTH AND 8TH AVENUE NORTH,
SOUTH OF SPRAGUE STREET AND NORTH OF EDMONDS STREET (PETTITONER:
SPENCER & GLORIA FRAZER/FILE NO. ST-94-121)
CITY COUNCIL APPROVED KIMMS
SEPTEMBER 19, 1994
PAGE 3
Jeff Wilson, Current Planning Supervisor, indicated this is a vacation request that basically effects
approximately the east 150 feet of the public alley located between 7th Avenue North and 8th Avenue
North. It is the first vacation request since the vacation ordinance the Council adopted about a year
ago, so it will be new to everyone. It is also the first vacation request where compensation will be paid
of up to one-half of the appraised value of the alley He called the Council's attention to the appraisal in
their packets. The petition was submitted to the City Clerk who certified the petition as having the
required number of property owner signatures. On August 23 the City Council adopted Resolution
798 setting the hearing date, and this is the first public hearing date on the matter. The proposed
vacation has undergone technical review by the Departments/Divisions of the City Fire Department,
Public Works Division, Engineering Division and Parks & Recreation Division, and no opposition was
posed. There are no public utilities located within the alley to be vacated. It appears that the alley will
not prohibit access to any of the abutting properties. They have reached the conclusion, based on the
topography of the alley, that it probably could not be developed as a public right of way in the future or
as an alley going all of the way through. They have concluded that the vacation of the alley would not
be detrimental to the general public interest. It is their recommendation that the Council support the
vacation request subject to compensation in the amount of one-half of the appraised value. Their
recommendation is that the sum be set at $7,500.
Scott Snyder, City Attorney, asked if the staff recommended that the City reserve subsurface utility
easement across the alley. Mr. Wilson indicated that there had been no comments indicating that
should be a requirement imposed upon the project.
Councilmember Petruzzi asked if there was a list of appraisers the City required be used. Mr. Wilson
replied in the negative. He believes that according to the ordinance, the applicant and petitioner have
the ability to choose their appraiser as long as they are MAI certified. He thinks it would be judicious
for the City to have a list of approved appraisers.
Councilmember Steve Dwyer asked if they were looking at half of the appraised value or half of what
was appraised. Mr. Wilson answered that the alley segment appraised at $15,000, and the ordinance is
set up for compensation of up to one-half of the appraised value, and that is just for that segment.
Councilmember Fahey asked if the properties involved gain access by going up Sprague and off 7th
Avenue. Mr. Wilson responded there was a series of long driveways that use the right-of-way and
connect down to the developed part of the right-of-way; it does not go all of the way through. Where
it stops, people have developed their driveway from that point on up. Councilmember Fahey
questioned whether when the alley was vacated that property would become part of all of those lots.
Mr. Wilson stated that the Assessor's Office would need to determine from where the right-of-way
originated. Once the City vacates the property, the ordinance would be forwarded to the Assessor's
Office which would determine to whom the property would go.
The public portion of the hearing was opened by Mayor. Hall. First to speak was Spencer Frazer as
one of the petitioners. He explained that for over 30 years part of their driveway has been on the City
right-of-way. At Councilmember Dave Earling's request, he pointed out on the map where his
property is located. Mr. Frazer went on to explain that directly adjacent to the driveway is an almost
CITY COUNCII, APPROVED MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 19, 1994
PAGE 4
vertical slope held together by ivy and old timbers. Because of erosion the driveway has broken up and
needs to be replaced. The petitioners asked the City if they would be willing to put in a retaining wall.
They were told that if it were to be done, it would be up to the Frazers to do so, and that if they were
to do anything they would have to file for vacation of the alleyway. The slope presents a problem that
needs to be addressed, and the petitioners are willing to take on the burden of doing so. At
Councilmember Hall's request, Mr. Frazer pointed out on the map where the slip is located. Landscape
Architect Glen Tekagi presented pictures of the area which City Clerk Rhonda March logged in.
Lynnette Callahan, 739 Sprague Street, stated that she is a lifetime resident of Edmonds and grew up
on Sprague Street. She has watched houses go up that have impeded the passageway to the upper part
of 9th Avenue going to Yost Park. She says this alleyway is the only way to get from Sprague Street
unless you go an extra 2/3 to 3/4 mile out of the way. She regularly sees people using this route to get
to Yost Park. She expressed concern for vacating this property for $7,500 when other cities are
spending millions of dollars to obtain rights -of -way for bicycles and footpaths. She felt it made no
sense to give it up when, once given up, it would be very difficult to get back. She doesn't see it
utilized for road traffic, but feels it well suited for bicycles and foot traffic, even with its slope. She
feels it would be shortsighted of Edmonds to give up this future aspect with no appreciable gain.
Attorney Matt Hendricks, 18601 - 78th Place West, spoke on behalf of Mery Hennum. He pointed
out his client's property (Lot 1). Her property directly abuts the alleyway under discussion. Ms.
Hennum doesn't feel it complies with the city ordinances. He indicated that while the City says the
vacation is not detrimental to the public interest, he agrees with Ms. Callahan that it is not in the public
interest. Ms. Hennum's objection is a financial reason. Under state law when a city vacates, the
property is split down the middle and half given to each side. He believes the slope is directly on his
client's property. He indicated his belief that his client should not be subjected to additional property taxes for the approximately 65' x 71/i piece. He believes it is a private interest being benefited. It is
essentially allowing an improvement on the petitioners' driveway. The slope would be squarely on the
71/Z that would be deeded to his client. He questioned whether this was a first step in a greater
development on this property that sits directly below his client's property. He requested the vacation
be denied.
Jay McGinnis, 736 Sprague, says he lived in the house Mr. Frazer owns and is familiar with the
erosion. He is unfamiliar with the use of this alleyway to go to Yost Park; there is no way to walk
through that property as it is steep, drops ofl; and is full of shrubs.
After Mr. Snyder's point of order regarding the number of times a party can speak, Ms. Callahan stated
that the alleyway is not being maintained by the City and that as a walkway it is difficult, but used.
Mr. Frazer indicated he has never seen people use this area as a walkway. He stated he believed that
there is some confusion of the area of vacation because of the location of the sign. He feels that to the
casual observer, it would appear to be up Sprague rather than the alley. He reiterated that they are
addressing the slope problem and are taking on a substantial financial burden because it will benefit
their yard and access. He went on to state that they are planning a beautification project and have no
intent to do a greater development. He also pointed out that the appraisal also said this particular
location was unbuildable.
CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 19, 1994
PAGE 5
Councilmember Hall and Councilmember Fahey requested clarification of the photographs.
Councilmember Fahey was concerned that if, in fact, the timbers are on part of the area to be vacated
that would wind up being Ms. Hennum's, how he was going to be get access to fix the property. Mr.
Frazer indicated that it was his understanding that if they purchased the vacated alleyway, it would
become their property and not be split.
Councilmember Hall suggested that the matter of any split should first be clarified.
City Attorney Snyder stated that when the City vacates a piece of property, it relinquishes its rights,
does not give a deed, and the property goes where state law indicates it should go. If the Council
passes the ordinance to vacate, it would give the parties 90 days in which to research where this
property is to go. If they cannot make an arrangement or choose not to pay the money, after 90 days
the resolution lapses and the City Council is not obligated to go forward with the vacation.
Councilmember Dwyer asked City Attorney Snyder if in terms of the Council's ability, would it have
discretion to do what it wants or if this was a situation where someone has a right. He asked if there
were certain criteria that must be met. Mr. Snyder indicated that the discretion of the City Council is to
determine if the public interest is to be served. The Council has a great deal of discretion and can
consider not only current use but what might occur in the future.
Councilmember Petruzzi asked if the attorney's comment that there would be a 50/50 split between the
applicant and his client was an accurate statement. Mr. Snyder responded that that was the general
rule under state law. The fact that the lots are uniform indicates that this alley was probably established
by plat. It was probably part of the same development. He indicated he didn't know if the larger lots
were congregations or part of a single addition. If this was all dedicated as part of the original town,
then the general rule would apply. The City doesn't warrant title. It is up to the property owner to
investigate that before they file their application.
Councilmember Petruzzi indicated his belief that Mr. Frazer was not aware of this. Otherwise, he
didn't think it would make much sense to pay $7,500 with the chance the neighbor would not allow
him on their property.
Mr. Snyder said that because one of Ms. Hennum's concerns was having to pay additional property tax,
it was possible she could sign a quit claim deed to the person having to write the check for the taxes
and that might resolve both interests.
Councilmember Hall asked what would happen if they vacated the applicant's half of the alley and left
the alley next to Ms. Hennum's property alone. He stated that it looked like the retaining wall would
be on the petitioner's half of the alley. He stated he would not want to be quit claiming any property.
He also stated he did not see this property being used as a walkway. Councilmember Petruzzi
indicated he did not disagree, but pointed out that was not what Mr. Frazer had requested.
Councilmember Hall thought that the vacation was one of Mr. Frazer's options because he couldn't put
up a retaining wall. If he doesn't have to do the whole vacation to do the retaining wall, perhaps the
Council could vacate only that portion and not effect Ms. Hennum's property.
CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 19, 1994
PAGE 6
Mr. Wilson brought up that part of the reason for the change in the ordinance was to avoid the
vacating of portions of rights -of -way. He again brought up the issue of the 90-day window and the
fact that the vacation is not final until the Council adopts the ordinance.
Councilmember Hall brought up the question of excise tax liability if it turned out that the vacation _split
the property between Mr. Frazer and Ms. Hennum.. With regard to the issue of vacating only a portion
of an alley, Councilmember Hall indicated that is what they were being asked to do anyway, with no
guarantee that the other property owners would want to vacate a portion as well.
Mr. Snyder confirmed that any transfer from one private party to another would require excise tax
payment. However, a transfer from the City to a private party is exempt. Mr. Snyder suggested the
matter be continued to allow the parties to research whether they want to proceed.
> M PEI : ;`.:: � > .. ,;:, > D >D `: <>... l�
...:. :.>:.>:.>::::.
€JOiN:ITORO UTS`>'0:CONT+3<'I"ISH1AiN1.;UN"i'II>{TCi TEA::::.>:''HE.
Q::::::.,.....::.::.::.:.:::::::.::.:::.:::.::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.................:.......::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.:::::::::::::.:.............
;``0``
>: A .SCUSSIOriSSO'fH'>CAItii......ME
PXTIE�,�:C)T:AT: ': Q�l''7:ZAWN:...:...:..:.............:.:.:::::::::::::::::.:::.:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.:::::::.
V.
HEARING ON APPEAL OF THE HEARING EXAMINER'S APPROVAL OF A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT LOCATED AT
23910 - 74TH AVENUE W. (Applicant: William Landcaster and C. D. Coff felt / File No.
AP-94-144; Applicant: Antonia Bryant / File No. CU-94-108) -
Before starting this discussion, Councilmember Petruzzi disclosed that the loan on this property is held
by his employer, Washington Mutual. He felt he could play an effective part. There were no
objections to his participation.
Jeff Wilson, Current Planning Supervisor, provided the following historical summary: The Planning
Division received an appeal by William Landcaster and C. D. Coffelt of the Hearing Examiner's
decision on the application by Antonia Bryant (File No. CU-94-108)granting a Conditional Use Permit
for an "Accessory Dwelling Unit" on property located at 23910 - 74th Avenue West. The application
submitted included a request for a waiver of the minimum two year ownership/residency requirement
based on financial hardship. The two criteria upon which a waiver may be granted are financial
hardship and for a family member. The application had been reviewed by the Planning Division, and a
report was filed recommending denial. He Hearing Examiner issued his decision waiving the two year
ownership/residency requirement due to a financial hardship on the applicant and granting approval of
the Conditional Use Permit. The primary policy issue which the staff had identified was the fact that
the applicant's property had a recorded restriction stating that the second dwelling unit on the site could
not be used as an accessory dwelling unit. This restriction was placed on the property when a new
house was built on the premises, the accessory unit having been the original house. The Bryants
disclosed in their purchase of the property the intent of having her parents live there and rent part of it
in order to have sufficient funds to cover the mortgage on the property. The City could not reach a
conclusion of financial hardship. It was felt that, because of the recorded restriction, any person
purchasing the house should have known that they would have needed to contact the City first to find
CITY couNcEL APPROVED MINUTES
SUMMER 19, 1994
PAGE 7
out how the restriction could be waived and what options were available for that. This situation was in
the reverse --the property was purchased, the unit was rented out, and it was brought to the City's
attention through a code enforcement action. The matter was brought to the City's attention through a
complaint filed with the City that the second unit was being rented out without benefit of an approved
permit. Mr. Wilson recommended that the Council uphold the appeal and overturn the decision of the
hearing Examiner and requested direction on the policy regarding financial hardship as this particular
case is the first to request this particular waiver.
Antonia Bryant, 23910 - 74th Avenue West, began her presentation by asking if she could reserve five
minutes for rebuttal. She indicated she noticed the original appeal had changed since submission of her
original materials. She went on to clarify her position. She indicated it was not correct that the
property was purchased with the intent to rent -- her parents were to live with them. It was not until
three months after the purchase that they found themselves in the position of needing a renter. She
read the definition of "financial hardship" including the fact that the hardship was not anticipated at the
time of purchase of the subject site or the time of the applicant's initial residence, whichever occurs
first. She described why the property classifies as an accessory dwelling unit. She stated that the
property had not changed in appearance since purchase, nor had the accessory dwelling been altered to
accommodate a renter. She stated she did not understand why her neighbors were upset about her
wanting to rent out the addition, self-contained dwelling on the property when another neighbor had
been renting a basement apartment since 1989. The accessory dwelling is only seen from their
driveway. She explained they had no alternative but to rent. The property was purchased with the
understanding her parents were to live with them. They were not told of the restriction. Nothing has
changed since the decision of the Hearing Examiner to allow conditional use. Without it, they will lose
the property. She asked that the Council not override the Hearing Examiner decision.
Councilmember Dwyer asked for the reason the family members were not living in the accessory
dwelling. Ms. Bryant stated that younger sibling and her daughter lived with her parents in Ballard.
Her sister was supposed to have been in a reconciliation in South America which would have enabled
her parents to rent out their home and live with the Bryants. That did not happen, she is still living
there, and they need to stay there to help her.
Councilmember Petruzzi questioned Ms. Bryant regarding the square footage of the accessory
dwelling and the main dwelling. She responded the accessory dwelling was approximately 1,000
square feet, and the main dwelling encompassed about 2,500 square feet. He asked if they had anyone
other than those mentioned living with them, to which she replied in the negative.
City Attorney Snyder asked for the date of purchase. Ms. Bryant advised him that the property was
purchased on November 7, 1993.
Councilmember Petruzzi asked if her parents ever moved into the dwelling. They had not. He asked
when she found out they were not going to be able to move in. She replied in January 1994. He
further asked when they were supposed to move in. Ms. Bryant stated they were to move in when her
sister moved out of the country, which didn't happen. He asked when the property was rented and was
told it was in March.
CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES
SEPTEMEER 19,1994
PAGE 8
Councilmember Fahey asked if there was a plan that her parents were to help with additional income.
Ms. Bryant said that that plan was stated when they went through the loan application.
Councilmember Fahey indicated that one of the original provisions was that if it was a family member,
they would be allowed to live in the accessory dwelling anyway. Ms. Bryant indicated she had been
confused by this point because Mr. Wilson had told her that even if her parents were the ones living in
the accessory dwelling, she would have had to file an application anyway. Councilmember Fahey
asked if at the time of the purchase they were asked to sign anything from the Auditor indicating that
they could not rent out the dwelling. They were not.
Council President Nordquist asked if they had received a copy of the title report and if they had read it.
Ms. Bryant indicated they had received one, but that she had not read the entire document. Council
President Nordquist asked the value of the home and was told it was over $325,000. When asked
about what kind of income they had to substantiate, and was advised there had been a substantial down
payment.
William Landcaster, 23911- 79th Avenue West, indicated he and Mr. Coffelt were appealing this issue
because they feel a great deal of the information given the hearing was not given sufficient hearing.
They had done their own analysis and drew the Council's attention to their packet submission. He
asked that the Conditional Use Permit be denied. He stated that the applicant continued to rent after
the notification that they were in error in doing so. They agree with the staffs assertions that the
applicant doesn't meet ECDC § 20.21.005. They felt the applicant showed no understanding of the
restrictions and covenants. Statements were made during the testimony that should have verified what
the staff said --that they had owned the property less than a year, that they knew when they bought it
they couldn't afford it, and that they knew they intended to rent when they bought the property. Mr.
Landcaster further indicated that ECDC has no code provisions to stop rentals or reset the two year
application delay period. This oversight should be corrected. He also pointed out that there were four
signatures on the mortgage loan and deed of trust. Those are the Bryants and her parents. The
validation of financial hardship for all four parties was not mentioned in the hearings. He further
indicated that Washington Mutual does not accept mother-in-law apartment rental agreement plan as
the basis for a home mortgage loan. He went on to describe the income to debt ratio requirements of
Washington Mutual. They had gone through the computations (page 5 of his submission) and
determined they needed an extra $1,550 per month to make the mortgage payment.
Mr. Snyder suggested that due to the length of the written material submitted, that perhaps a five
minute break should be given to allow Ms. Bryant to go through the material.
After the hearing was reconvened, Rebecca Coffee, 23815 - 74th West, stated she had been before the
Council about six years ago when the issue of mother-in-law apartments was discussed as to elderly,
disabled and poor folds. She indicated Mr. Dwyer was City Attorney and he wrote a letter to the
Council and advised that they needed to look at what encompassed a financial hardship. It was
clarified that Mr. Dwyer was a Councilmember and not City Attorney. Penalty for non-compliance
was not addressed. She asked to keep the integrity of the neighborhood and is stated she is afraid they
will lose out to multiple dwellings and their property values will go down. She also said Snohomish
County Superior Court had been asked to review their decision at that time. She stated that when Mrs.
CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 19, 1994
PAGE 9
Hutchinson had built the house she built the accessory dwelling for her mother to live there. She was
given a hard time. She hoped that the Council would be consistent.
Nancy Gilmore, 23828 - 74th Avenue West, said that they live in a single-family area and hoped it
could stay that way. She indicated several houses could be opened up for multi -family use but to do so
would cause increased traffic, increased noise, and other problems.
Councilmember Fahey asked for clarification of the two year requirement. Mr. Wilson gave additional
explanation as to tests used to determine on what conditions rentals could be done.
Antonia Bryant was then provided her remaining five minutes to respond to the exhibit reviewed
during the recess. Ms. Bryant indicated that the packet submitted tonight is overwhelming and cannot
comment on it completely. She stated there are false statements in the packet which she did not make.
She stated they are not trying to destroy the continuity of the neighborhood. We like the
neighborhood. We are trying to survive in the neighborhood and and take great pride in the property.
She stated that yes she was renting out the property for the last six months, yes the City was well
aware of it, she did admit it prior to the first hearing, but she was never told she had to evict her
renters. The renters had a six-month lease and it is not an issue at this point as the six months are past
and they are not there.
APPROVAL OF CONSULTANT AGREEMENT AND FUNDING OF LIMITED SCOPE
CABLE TELEVISION RATE REVIEW
Community Services Director Paul Mar directed Council to the packet which is a consultant agreement
and scope of work to look at the two financial forms submitted by Chambers Cable. He reminded the
Council will be holding a hearing with Chambers Cable on October 4.
Council President Nordquist inquired why Grindle CATV Financial Consulting Services. Paul Mar
responded that the selection was for 1) they have been the consultant for King County and f unifiar
with the submittal by Chambers; 2) in talking with other consultants that Grindle was best able to meet
the time schedule in time for the October 4.
Council President Nordquist inquired whether the previous consultant was contacted regarding this and
Mr. Mar indicated he made the decision. Mr. Mar indicated this is not the franchise renewal.
CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES
SEPTEMIIER 19, 1994
PAGE 10
1KOIA-zi,
Council President Nordquist stated it seems like the Council is wandering off and not included in the
consultant selection process over the last six months or so. We used to meet all the time. It seems like
these things are not coming to the Council anymore, but being made by staff. It is disappointing.
Councilmember Hall commented that he did not feel it is a big issue and will probably save some
money and benefitting by some of the King County consulting fee. What they are giving to King
County, they are giving to us. Councilmember Hall did agree with Council President Hall on other
consultant selection.
Councilmember Hall hoped that this consultant will come up with a methodology to show us how we
could get a rate rebate to our citizens.
Council President Nordquist noted that in the months and years ahead that the franchise process will
not be there because of the technology going through phone lines.
The next item was removed from Consent Agenda for discussion: (C) APPROVAL OF
CLAIMS WARRANTS #944573 THROUGH #944674 FOR THE WEEK OF SEPTEMBER 5,
1994, AND CLAIM WARRANTS #940896 THROUGH #944806 FOR WEEK OF
SEPTEMBER 12,1994
Council President Nordquist indicated that in reviewing the warrant register, some expenses for the
Taste of Edmonds were paid out of the Mayor's Budget. He had discussed this with Art Housler. Art
Housler responded that the Sister City Commission falls under the Mayor's Budget and explained the
process.
Council President Nordquist also noted that there is a new planner on staff which the Council was not
aware of and that it would be nice to receive a memo on new employees.
On cellular phone costs, Council President Nordquist that the City's expenditures are under control and
the record looked good.
The next item was Item (F): REPORT ON WRITTEN QUOTATIONS AND AWARD OF
P CONTRACT TO FRASER BOILER, INC. FOR INCINERATOR EXPANSION JOINT
REPAIR AT THE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT ($16,947.37 INCLUDING SALES
TAX)
CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 19, 1994
PAGE 11
Paul Mar indicated this is part of a continuing series of repairs on the incinerator. The request was
conducted through the Small Works Roster and one responsive proposal was received.
Petruzzi indicated this is an unbudgeted item out of Fund 411 and what will be shorted. It was
indicated this would be funded out of "ending cash balance."
MAYOR
The Mayor reported on the Boundary Review Board Hearing held on September 13 and stated the
City is awaiting the findings with the 120-day condition for the Fire District and the City to come to
agreement Paul Mar added that on October 11, the Boundary Review Board will be issuing a written
decision and staff is awaiting that.
Mayor Hall reviewed correspondence received which included a thank you to the city and Mrs.
Gordon Maxwell on the fish scupture replacement.
She acknowledged a letter from the City of Chelan in regards to the service provided during the fire.
The Mayor referenced a letter she wrote to Burlington Northern regarding the railroad track cross
arms problems observed during the Labor Day weekend.
Mayor Hall reported that she met today with Council Executive Bob Drewel and Councilmembers
Karen Miller and Al Schweppe, State Representative Jeannette Wood, Woodway Mayor Ross Wood,
Lynnwood Mayor Tina Roberts and Mountlake Terrace Mayor Bergh. Issues included the County
imposing a moratorium on adult entertainment, RTA and optional gas tax.
Mayor Hall reported on her attendance to President Clinton's Crime Bill signing at Washington, D.C.
Mayor Hall announced the Memorial Service for Fire Chief Buzz Buzalsky will be held on Saturday,
September 24 at 1:30 p.m. at Holy Rosary Church. The Council was asked to arrive at 1:00 p.m. for
special seating.
It was noted that the City staff will participate in the Chamber of Commerce meeting at 7:30 a.m. at the
School District Board Room on Thursday.
Paul Mar announced the information meeting for the Perrinville area regarding annexation on
Wednesday evening at Seaview Elementary.
CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 19, 1994
PAGE 12
:�•r`n�sa�r
COUNCIL
Councilmember Dwyer commented that the Mayor's letter regarding the Burlington Northern situation
reminded him that a few months ago it was noted the train speed group would have an opportunity to
come to Council. Council President Nordquist indicated this has been scheduled.
Councilmember Earling noted that RTA will be considering potential light rail in Lynnwood and
alternatives as to lesser amounts of tunneling in Seattle, University District and Capital Hill, in
preparation for the meeting on October 28.
Councilmember Fahey reported on the monthly meeting of the Cascade Board, which included
different sitings and desires of other jurisdictions. She said there is a lot of benefit with the Hotel/Motel
Tax but has opened a lot of vying for those monies and efforts towards the performing arts center.
Councilmember Fahey indicated that she would like more information on the cable television during the
special Saturday retreat. The date is pending Councilmember Kasper's return. Paul Mar indicated that
AWC has an upcoming seminar on October 13.
Council President Nordquist asked if there was anything being discussed regarding the hotel/motel tax
and the change of the Everett Giants. Councilmember Fahey doesn't expect any backtracking on the
` Ig� monies allocated to the Everett stadium.
Councilmember Fahey asked how long it takes the Planning Board to make recommendations relating
to the dogs in the park issue. Our citizens want an answer. The Mayor and City Clerk will look into
the scheduling.
Councilmember Hall advised he would not be able to attend the Memorial Service.
Councilmember Hall commended Chuck Day who has achieved "Certified Professional Financial
Officer" and congratulated him on that achievement.
Councilmember Hall commented on the Hospital District ballot issue tomorrow.
Councilmember Hall indicated that tonight would have been the last meeting to be taped; however,
there was a mix up in communicating to the college to be here tonight. The next issue is if it will be
continued and this is scheduled for September 27 discussion.
At 9:40 p.m. the Council recessed to executive session on real estate and personnel matters, and
adjourned from there.
THE ORIGINAL SIGNED COPY OF THESE MINUTES, AS WELL AS A TAPED RECORDING
OF ALL COUNCIL MEETINGS, CAN BE LOCATED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE.
�ONDA J. MA C H CITY CLERK CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES
SEPTENMER 19, 1994
PAGE 13
AGENDA
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL
PLAZA MEETING ROOM - LIBRARY BUILDING
i
7.00 - 10.00 p.m.
SEPTEMBER 19, 1994
SPECIAL MEETING DUE TO PRIMARY ELECTION ON TUESDAY
CALL TO ORDER - 7:00 P.M.
FLAG SALUTE
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
(A) ROLL CALL
(B) APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 6 AND SEPTEMBER 13, 1994
(C) APPROVAL OF CLAIM WARRANTS #944573 THRU #944674 FOR THE WEEK OF SEPTEMBER 5, 1994
AND CLAIM WARRANTS #940896 THRU #944806 FOR THE WEEK OF SEPTEMBER 12, 1994
(D) AUTHORIZATION TO CALL FOR BIDS TO PURCHASE FENCING FOR THE NEW PUBLIC WORKS SITE
(E) REPORT ON FINAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR THE 1994 CHIP SEAL PROJECT AND COUNCIL
ACCEPTANCE .OF PROJECT
(F) REPORT ON WRITTEN QUOTATIONS AND AWARD OF CONTRACT TO FRASER BOILER, INC. FOR
INCINERATOR EXPANSION JOINT REPAIR AT THE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT ($16,947.37
INCLUDING SALES TAX)
(G) AUTHORIZATION TO SURPLUS TORO REEL MOWER (UNIT 110) AND SELL BY AUCTION AT JAMES
G. MURPHY AUCTION COMPANY
(H) REPORT ON BIDS OPENED SEPTEMBER 6 FOR LIBRARY BRICK SEALING AND AWARD OF
CONTRACT TO GRUND & COMPANY ($11,761.34 INCLUDING SALES TAX)
3. AUDIENCE
4. (15 Mln.) HEARING ON PERMITTED USES RELATING TO OPEN AIR MARKET (request from June 7, 1994)
5. (15 Mln.) HEARING ON PROPOSED VACATION OF THE EASTERN 150' OF THE PUBLIC ALLEY LOCATED
BETWEEN 7TH AVENUE NORTH AND 8TH AVENUE NORTH, SOUTH OF SPRAGUE STREET AND
NORTH OF EDMONDS STREET / FILE NO. ST-94-121
6. (30 Min.) HEARING ON APPEAL OF THE HEARING EXAMINER'S APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT FOR AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT LOCATED AT 23910 74TH AVENUE W. (Appellant:
William landcaster and C.D. Coffelt / File No. AP-94-144; Applicant: Antonia Bryant / File No.
CU-94-108)
7. (5 Min.) APPROVAL OF CONSULTANT AGREEMENT AND FUNDING OF LIMITED SCOPE CABLE TELEVISION
RATE REVIEW
8. (5 Min.) MAYOR
9. (15 Min.) COUNCIL
10. (20 Min.) EXECUTIVE SESSION ON A REAL ESTATE MATTER
Parking and meeting rooms are accessible for persons with disabilities. Contact the City Clerk at 771-0245
with 24 hours advance notice for special accommodations. The Council Agenda and delayed telecast of
this Meeting appear on Chambers Cable, Channel 32.