Loading...
11/15/1994 City CouncilApproved City Council mutes Approved 11129/94 EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES November 15,1994 The meeting of the Edmonds City Council 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 Steve Dwyer, Councilmember Dave Earling, Councilmember Barbara Fahey, Councilmember Michael Hall, Councilmember William J. Kasper, Councilmember Tom Petruzzi, Councilmember EllenAnn Chiddix, Student Representative STAFF PRESENT Tom Miller, Police Chief Mike Springer, Fire Chief Art Housler, Administrative Services Director Paul Mar, Community Services Director Chuck Day, Accounting Manager Noel Miller, Supt. of Public Works Jeff Wilson, Current Planning Supervisor Rob Chave, Planning Manager Minh Truong, Accountant Tim Walker, Acting City Engineer Scott Snyder, City Attorney Rhonda March, City Clerk Christine Laws, Recorder Mayor Hall thanked Scout Troop 367 for volunteering to help set up chairs for the Council meeting. Mayor Hall congratulated Councilmember Steve Dwyer on his successful judicial election and introduced him to those in attendance. Mayor Hall then introduced and welcomed student representative EllenAnn Chiddix. APPROVAL OF AGENDA COUNCIL PRESIDENT JOHN NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MICHAEL HALL, TO ADD A NEW ITEM 12, MAKING THE CURRENT ITEM 12 ITEM 13 AND THAT ITEM 12 IS THE AUTHORIZATION TO NEGOTIATE CONTRACT FOR CABLE TV FRANCHISE RENEWAL CONSULTING SERVICES. MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Steve Dwyer indicated there was a memo in the packet requesting the continuance of Item 7. He asked if Staff had a recommendation for a new date. City Attorney Scott Snyder provided two available dates they could make by notice. Approved City Council Minutes November 15, 1994 Page 1 COUNCILMEMBER TOM PETRUZZI MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT JOHN NORDQUIST, TO CONTINUE ITEM 7 OF THE AGENDA TO DECEMBER 20, 1994. MOTION CARRIED. The item continued is as follows: 7. HEARING ON APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION TO GRANT APPROVAL OF A VARIANCE TO INCREASE THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED �0 HEIGHT FOR STRUCTURES AT PROPERTY AT 7222 156TH ST. SW (APPLICANT: CRAIG & LINDA SUMMERS - FILE NO. V-94-156 / APPELLANT: MICHAEL HOUNSHELL, ET AL - FILE NO. AP-94-179) City Attorney Snyder indicated new notices would be going out. COUNCILMEMBER STEVE DWYER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT JOHN NORDQUIST, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED. CONSENT AGENDA Councilmember Tom Petruzzi requested pulling Item G. Councilmember Barbara Fahey requested pulling the November 7 minutes from Item B so that the corrections can be considered before approval. COUNCIL PRESIDENT JOHN NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TOM PETRUZZI, TO APPROVE THE REMAINDER OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED. The agenda items passed are as follows: (A) ROLL CALL (C) APPROVAL OF CLAIMS WARRANTS #9945564 THRU #945698 FOR WEEK OF OCTOBER 31, 1994, AND CLAIM WARRANTS #943965 THRU #9458399 FOR THE WEEK OF NOVEMBER 7, 1994; AND PAYROLL WARRANTS #945599 THRU #945896 FOR THE PERIOD OF OCTOBER 16 THRU OCTOBER 31,1994 D) ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM MATHEW J. AND ANNA L. RINALDI ($3,500+) q (� (E) ORDINANCE NO. 2994 FOR VACATION OF THE EASTERN 150' OF THE PUBLIC v l ALLEY LOCATED BETWEEN 7TH AVE. N. AND 8TH AVE. N., SOUTH OF SPRAGUE �}6 ST. AND NORTH OF EDMONDS ST. / FILE NO. ST-94-121 (from contd. Hearing of November 1,1994) J ORDINANCE NO. 2995 AMENDING EDMONDS CITY CODE SECTION 8.64.060 TO AU IMPOSE LIMITED PARKING ON THIRD AVENUE SOUTH AND FOURTH AVENUE SOUTH, FROM DAYTON STREET TO WALNUT STREET, AND REMOVAL OF LIMITED PARKING ON SECOND AVENUE FROM JAMES STREET TO DAYTON STREET (from Hearing of November 1,1994) (H) APPROVAL OF PETTY CASH EXPENDITURES FOR MONTH OF OCTOBER 1994 i i (1) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN YOUTH GANG TASK FORCE `p INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT Approved City Council Minutes November 15, 1994 Page 2 (3) APPROVAL OF THE FINAL PLAT OF "BOWDOINWOOD" AND AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN FINAL PLAT DOCUMENTS (APPLICANT: RAY JOHNSON / �1 FILE NO. P-92-147) Councilmember Fahey indicated she was responding to a memo stating there were several corrections needed to the minutes of the November 7 meeting. Because of the nature of the changes and the need for time to consider them, she requested that the approval be deferred to November 22. Council concurred. It was further clarified that this was being done with the understanding the November 1 minutes would be approved. Regarding item "G", Councilmember Petruzzi advised the Council that on October 16 and November 1 he had voted against a couple of issues involved with this project. Specifically, there was a SEPA hearing on October 16 at which time he had voted against a motion to approve the proceeding with the development. He thought the development very good for the community, however, he feels the Hearing Examiner erred in overruling Staff regarding Section 18.80.0100. Therefore, he will vote no on this issue this evening as well. COUNCIL PRESIDENT JOHN NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BILL KASPER, TO APPROVE ITEM G. COUNCILMEMBER TOM J PETRUZZI VOTED NO. MOTION CARRIED. The item passed is as follows: (G) APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ON APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION OF 3.2 ACRES IN AN RS-12 ZONE INTO 10 �J ) SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS AT 8511 188TH ST. SW (APPLICANT: HELLEREN DEVELOPMENT CO. / FILE NO. P-94-55 [from Hearing of November 1,1994) AUDIENCE Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, informed the Council that logging was back in force in Edmonds, without permits. He invited the Council to drive up Puget Drive through the canyon. Under the guise of trimming, PUD has entered the City and logged off the whole hillside. Mr. Hertrich feels it will take another 100 years to replace. He doesn't feel there is anything that can be done at the present time. However, Mr. Hertrich feels it inappropriate to log off the big trees an area with slopes as steep and potentially unstable as that hillside. He feels it should fall under a critical areas ordinance and that any future logging in the city should be done with cooperation of the City -- at least someone looking at it before it happens. He thinks PUD gets carried away, has on occasions in the past, and will again. He urged the Council for some consideration in the near future for some sort of ordinance that protects what we have. He thinks there should be stricter rules for these types of endeavors. Mayor Hall indicated PUD would be noticed. Paul Roy, 830 Alder, is a 40 year resident, and this is the first time he has been angry. In June he tried to get a gas meter installed at the top of the hill on Main Street. The gas company told him it would take 4-6 weeks. After six weeks he called inquiring about the permit. After another 34 weeks when he called he was advised that the permit had been terminated because of a moratorium in Edmonds. ft' He spoke with a couple of gentlemen with the Engineering Department and was told there was no moratorium and that the gas company just didn't want to pay up as they had been penalized. They Approved City Council Minutes November 15, 1994 Page 3 were supposed to warn the public, and they didn't. He described the penalization program. Staff referred him to a specific individual at the gas company. In dealings with that individual, it was determined the gas company would not pay more than half of the incurred expenses incurred as a result of late hook-up. The gas company told him the City should inform the public. Mr. Roy agrees as the City is the one that knows the street is going to be paved; the City is supported by taxes of the citizens. Mr. Roy feels the City is profiting by this and that it seems like a scam. Why doesn't the City warn the people? Why should the people expect the gas company to notify them? Mr. Roy thinks the City owes him $400 because of the lack of notification. He cited other instances where inappropriate and expensive hookup charges were in question. Mayor Hall clarified the area in discussion, stated she was uncertain what the problem was, but that they can certainly find out. Mr. Roy said the problem is that the City should warn people. If someone had told him a year ago that they were going to pave the street, and if you want gas in there you better do it then, he would have. Mayor Hall says she will look into what happened as usually everyone on the street is notified. Mr. Roy said last year no one was warned on Main Street and no one was warned on Alder. Mr. Roy stated he is now in need of obtaining a permit for a new furnace. He complained about the length of time it takes to get a permit. Mel Critchley, 705 Driftwood Place, Citizens for Waterfront Access and Safety in Edmonds. He reported he had been at the WLJTC hearings all day and that he found out the RTA is coming here to give a presentation next week. He presented Council with a handout "Community Transit -- the Quickest and Most Efficient Way to Solve Our Transportation Problems". He described the present (� system as being service from Lynnwood Park & Ride to 9th and Stewart as a 29 minute run with 13 intermediate stops. The projected time for the light rail from Lynnwood to Convention Place Station is n 1 35 minutes with 10 intervening stops. Commuter rail from Edmonds will make most stops and will v take 27 minutes. Bus service can be vastly improved over what it is today with upper level loading and HOV lanes dedicated only to buses. He reported the main question raised concerned the fact that these figures are for today and that in the future bus times will be slower. He said the Washington State Q, Department of Transportation is committed to HOV quality travel times to maintain the speeds of the HOV lanes as they exist today. They will not change. He opined that we do not need the trains. With all the talk of the rails, the speed, and the dangers to the environment through possible spills, it is really not necessary because buses are best. A representative of the Edmonds Woodway Key Club submitted to the Council a petition which implores the Council to encourage Yost Park to put up signs in certain areas of the park where there is potential for sexual or physical attack upon young children. He stated there is only one warning sign near the entrance to the park. Mayor Hall thanked him for his work on the petition. Al Rutledge, 7101 Lake Ballinger Way, stated he has put in several proposals for the Council over the last two years. One of those submitted concerns the monorail. He talked to Dick Falkinburg who is trying to put one between Ballard, Rainier Beach, West Seattle, Lake City and coming up to 145th and Meridian. This one would cost $1.3 billion. He indicated a desire on the part of Mr. Falkinburg to talk with the mayor after the elections were completed about continuing this to Edmonds. He indicates 200-235,000 people would be riding this every day. You would not have a place to park your cars. It Approved City Council Minutes November 15, 1994 Page 4 is the reverse of what you are trying to do here. Mr. Rutledge indicated how much complaint there was to traffic jams and the numbers of people traveling and feels the monorail would be the solution. He reiterated the desire to have the mayor/council talk to Mr. Falkinburg. He said this was going to be coming up on the next ballot in Seattle. Mr. Rutledge also discussed the 23¢/gallon gas tax for roads. He said it should be 36¢. As of this morning the state came out and indicated they are going to put a toll on the freeways. One toll location is not far from Edmonds -- on 205th. Because of this you are now 130 short on the roads. Once the election is over, it is Mr. Rutledge's recommendation to talk to Mr. Falkinburg and see about getting something here in Edmonds to transport the people in and out of the city a lot faster. RECOGNITION OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY RECYCLING AWARD TO STEVE FISHER, RECYCLING COORDINATOR Mayor Hall introduced Steve Fisher, "The Recycling Guy", and recognized his receipt of a Snohomish County 1994 Amazing Recycler of the Year in the Professional Category award. Mayor Hall followed her comments by reading her commendation. She indicated Mr. Fisher was hired in 1992, with funding assistance by Snohomish County, to inform, educate, and involve our citizens in a recycling program. Mr. Fisher successfully initiated new programs and contributed to ongoing recycling programs in the city, such as the "Ask the Recycling Guy" article in the Edmonds Newspaper, Household Hazardous Materials Collections, Christmas Tree Recycling with Boy Scouts, Worm Bin and Compost Bin programs for residents and schools, has increased recycling opportunities for single and multifamily properties, published the "Get a Grip" booklet on waste reduction and recycling, and more. Mayor Hall then commended Mr. Fisher specifically for his receipt of the Snohomish County 1994 Amazing Recycler of the Year in the Professional Category award which recognized his overall outreach and public education efforts to the citizens of Edmonds. Mayor Hall stated that Mr. Fisher truly "walks the talk" on both a personal and professional level by continually demonstrating less wasteful ways and by promoting the purchase and use of recycled -content products. Mr. Fisher thanked Mayor Hall for her commendation, showed off his Snohomish County plaque and gave a brief plug for some of the things he is doing. He then presented Council with reusable lunch bags to go with the reusable tote bags presented previously. i PUBLIC HEARING ON 1995 BUDGET There were no speakers who wished to address the 1995 budget, so the hearing was closed. HEARING ON PROPOSAL FOR ANNEXATION BY ELECTION METHOD FOR THE PERRINVILLE AREA / V Jeff Wilson, Current Planning Supervisor, stated the issue before the Council was whether or not they wished to adopt a resolution to initiate an open election method annexation concerning that the unincorporated area commonly known as Perrinville. Perrinville is located between Edmonds and Lynnwood north of Olympic View Drive and to the East of approximately 76th. He gave a brief history of the issue. Over the past several years Staff has received numerous requests to be annexed Approved City Council Minutes November 15, 1994 Page 5 into the City of Edmonds. On several occasions Staff has prepared annexation petitions based on the assessed valuation method. However, due to varying reasons, primary of which is the size of the area, the petition method proved to be difficult to administer. On September 21, 1994, an open house was held in Perrinville in an effort to respond to the continued interest. The open house was attended by over 70 people from the Perrinville area. It was an informal setting, and interested parties had the opportunity to obtain answers to their questions. In addition, a straw poll was held to determine what level of interest in annexation existed in the room at the end of the meeting. Results were very encouraging, with over 60% of the respondents favoring annexation. Mr. Wilson also acknowledged receiving additional petitions from residents supporting annexation and asking for Council approval. Staff went through the various steps by which an annexation could be processed. From a staff perspective, it is felt that an election method annexation, one which could be on the ballot sometime after the first of the year, would be of the greatest benefit to the citizens of the area because it could be processed in an expeditious manner and in order to support their requests for annexation. Mr. Wilson reiterated Staffs recommendation to adopt the presented resolution, which if adopted by Council, will be the first step in beginning the process. Other steps are involved. Adoption of the resolution would not mean the matter would be decided tonight. This would only begin the process and allow notification of Snohomish County Boundary Review Board of intent to process an annexation. Then the process will begin on bringing about an election date when citizens of the area could vote on the issue of whether annexation was in their best interests. Councilmember Fahey indicated she favors annexation, but asked for clarification of information presented. She asked for the total population of the area and was advised by Mr. Miller that the approximate population is 600. Councilmember Fahey asked how strong the opposition was, if there was any. Mr. Wilson said it was probably about 60-61% in favor, approximately 15% opposed and about 25% undecided on the issue. Councilmember Fahey asked further if the proposed annexation area would include all of the unincorporated area of the county that was in that area or if there would still be some left out of the annexation. Mr. Wilson stated it was all included. Councilmember Fahey asked if Mr. Wilson had any idea of the cost of the election process. City Clerk Rhonda March responded that, based on information received, the cost would be dependent upon size, but for tonight's purposes it was estimated the cost would be $3-5,000 for a mail -in ballot. Councilmember Fahey asked if that number was calculated into the 1995 budget or if it were something that would have to be taken into consideration. Mr. Wilson indicated it was not presently in the budget and would have to be taken into consideration. To assist the residents of the Perrinville area in annexing to the city in as expeditious a manner as possible, Staff is proposing that the City initiate an election method annexation process with the adoption of the resolution prepared by the City Attorney and marked Exhibit 2 to the agenda packet materials. Adoption of the resolution with the concurrent direction to Staff to prepare the necessary annexation material for the Boundary Review Board could lead to a mail ballot on the question within approximately six months. Approved City Council Minutes November 15, 1994 Page 6 Councilmember Dwyer stated that the area appears to be almost totally single-family residential with a small commercial zone. He declared it common knowledge that residential areas do not pay for themselves. He cited that as a reason for Mukilteo's present difficulties. Councilmember Dwyer said that it looked like an area would be taken it that would produce a net loss to the City. Given that it is almost certain that ultimately the area will end up going to one city or the other, he suggested that the City sit back and let this area go to Lynnwood which is more suited to spread that loss over the city. Mr. Wilson said there had been discussion over where this area would go. It was his understanding there was a gentlemen's agreement that the City of Lynnwood would look to the City of Edmonds to annex it. The City of Lynnwood had a representative at the open house. They did not speak in opposition to it, but expressed one small reservation and that was that they felt the commercial property located on the south side of Olympic View Drive should go into the City of Lynnwood rather than to the City of Edmonds as part of the overall annexation. It was acknowledged this was because of the ability to make money. Otherwise, it is Mr. Wilson's understanding that the City of Lynnwood has no interest, desires or designs for annexation within this area with the exception of the small commercial area. Mr. Wilson further advised Councilmember Dwyer that what allowed Staff to really work on this issue with the citizens of that area was that there was a very strong desire and preference on the part of the people of that area interested in annexation to come into Edmonds rather than having the option of going into Lynnwood. Councilmember Dwyer asked if the area had Edmonds or Lynnwood mailing addresses. Mr. Wilson indicated they were Edmonds addresses. He further stated that the other issue which really drives annexation for a number of its residents is that currently it is all on septic systems and does not have sanitary sewer service. A number of residents expressed they would rather pay for connection to a sewer than face the cost of replacing a drain field. He discussed the possibility of the residents having to face the costs twice if they replace a drain field now and then hook up to sewer in five years. As discussed at the open house, this area will probably have sewers developed through the Local Improvement District process, and it would not be economical for them to have to go through both of those exercises in possibly a short period of time. Councilmember Dwyer stated there was no county wastewater treatment plant. He asked if this area were to go on sewers, if its flow would go to the Lynnwood treatment plant or the Edmonds treatment plant. Mr. Wilson relayed his understanding it would go to the Lynnwood plant. He reminded the Council that Edmonds owns a portion of the capacity of that plant and they are now trying to determine if the capacity owned is sufficient to cover that without having to purchase any additional capacity or deal with that issue. They are awaiting the final numbers from the City of Lynnwood in order to validate some of the initial findings. Councilmember Dave Earling followed up on what Councilmember Dwyer had been asking. The Council has already considered one annexation this year, we have listened to this proposal and have a couple of others to listen to also. Councilmember Earling asked what level of analysis is being used with all the annexations with regard to potential need for additional staffing in areas such as police and fire. Mr. Wilson responded that each of the departments was represented at the open house for Approved City Council Minutes November 15, 1994 Page 7 questions. Police and Fire are well aware of the potential annexation, and they have done a preliminary analysis of what the effects would be if an annexation were to occur, if there were any staffing issues. All appropriate divisions have had an opportunity to look at the annexation under consideration, have had the information regarding the boundaries, have had an opportunity to look at the streets. In the case of Engineering and Public Works, they were involved in the discussion of the issues related to potential for Local Improvement Districts and providing sewer services in the area. They have not yet come back with hard numbers, but some preliminary information is developed. Councilmember Earling stated he thought before we get into a series of disjoined annexations, Council get some sense from Staff about staffing needs relating to these annexations so that Council can get a better feel for the income and expense potentials. Jeff Wilson advised the Council that the election process can be initiated in one of two ways: 1) by a petition, meeting Boundary Review Board requirements, which is signed by 101/o of the registered voters of the last general election; or 2) the Council can adopt a resolution to initiate the annexation process which is the one presently in front of the Council. Mr. Wilson indicated that the petition received would appear to also meet at least the minimum qualifications under the RCWs in order to initiate an election method of annexation if it were to take the petition route. It was felt that the resolution method would be the most expeditious way of assisting the people interested in the annexation. The public portion of the hearing was opened. Howard Hance, 7530 - 181st Place SW, unincorporated Snohomish County, indicated he would like it to stay that way. He said he was opposed to the annexation. He said over the past few years both Edmonds and Lynnwood have tried to incorporate this area, and it has been voted down each time. He said the reason was because of revenue which he calls taxes. He pays taxes to the state and to the county and is not interested in paying more taxes to the city. He says he has no problem being on a septic system. He does not want to be assessed $10-20,000 to put in a sewer he doesn't want. He acknowledged Snohomish County might consider this an improvement which would raise his taxes again. He feels the proposal would cost him money and reduce his standard of living. David Clobes, 18431 Homeview Drive, Edmonds, introduced himself as one of the small business people working in Perrinville. He has lived in Edmonds for about 21 years. He started a business in 1983 and tried to get a business license, and it wasn't remotely possible. He subsequently bought a house where Olympic View Drive meets Homeview Drive. What started as a hobby now has play equipment throughout a substantial territory covering numerous states. He expressed the feeling he is torn. He would like sewers. However, what his brother has gone through in the last few weeks trying to get a license frightens him because if it happened to him he would go out of business. He and his associate applied for a business license, were shut down in less than a week and told they had to come up with about $100,000 in improvements in the building and that they couldn't open until the improvements were made. That amounts to telling them that if it had a fire they would have to rebuild their house before they get their job back. He stated he has dealt with numerous agencies and has been audited four times in the last two years. He likes what he does -- provides most of the day cares in Approved City Council Minutes November 15, 1994 Page 8 Western Washington with play equipment because his prices are about half of everyone else's. He has also saved Mukilteo School District 50% over the next lower bidder. He has a chemistry degree and went to medical school, but he enjoys what he is doing and feels he is successful at it. He wants to keep his business. He doesn't know whether it would survive an annexation. The previous trouble regarding manufacturing on the premises has been resolved. He manufactures in Perrinville, but he sells his play equipment from his home which is not acceptable in Edmonds. He again expressed that he is torn, but said he had to agree with the previous speaker in that he would prefer Edmonds not annex the area. Paul Tomlin, 7530 - 184th Place SW, favors annexation. His concern is getting sewers in the area. He expressed the opinion that dealing with a septic system that doesn't work is not fun, and if you have to have a septic system repaired or worked on, it is just as expensive as a sewer system. He stated if you haven't yet had the problem, you will. He next discussed population density which he doesn't see changing whether they are in the City of Edmonds or not. It is growth. Addressing Councilmember Dwyer's concerns, he said they were informed at the September meeting that fire protection -- they are served right now by the Blue Ridge Station -- would not change. They were informed by the Police Chief that there would probably not be any requirement for additional policemen for that area. Mr. Tomlin doesn't think it would be that much of a difference or burden on the City of Edmonds to provide services to that area. He participated in doorbelling and signature collection in favor of this resolution. As to the question of whether people wanted to be in Edmonds or Lynnwood, it was overwhelmingly Edmonds. He thinks the area would be a good and welcome addition for the City of Edmonds. Kenneth Case lives in the area under discussion and favors annexation with reservations. He said the previous speaker eluded to some studies about the lack of increased police and fire cost for that type of protection. He acknowledged several attempts to annex them into one city or the other and, as is the case with three choices, it is difficult to get a majority of people to agree to either Edmonds or Lynnwood or to staying like they are. One problem voiced in the past Mr. Case would like addressed is the sewer system they hooked up to (providing they got sewers) was overtaxed already. Is there any problem with that at this point if we were annexed into the city and did instigate the installation of sewers. Mayor Hall said that was something that could be determined for him. Councilmember Dwyer stated that we had the answer available. He said both Lynnwood and Edmonds within the last decade upgraded their treatment plants. In that was the density of the region because the Edmonds treatment plant is more than Edmonds but is Mountlake Terrace and other areas. Lynnwood is more than just Lynnwood. Any houses that exist or that could be platted were figured into both of those facilities. Councilmember Dwyer explained that his question to Mr. Wilson was with regard to Edmonds ownership in the Lynnwood plant which is available to service present Edmonds residents and whether we would have to buy more of the plant thus adding a cost that would have to be spread out over other Edmonds rate payers or whether our ownership was sufficient that this area could come in. Plant capacity is certain, ownership interest is what we need to find out about. Approved City Council Minutes November 15, 1994 Page 9 Colin Thompson lives at 18329 - 72nd Avenue West, in the area being considered for annexation. He also favors annexation. He is tired of his street being used as a drag strip. The speed limit that is supposed to be 25 mph is more like 45. He discussed some of the response time problems with the Snohomish County Sheriffs Office. From the discussion with the Edmonds Police at the September meeting, its response time is much better than the County's. He indicated as well that this area was condemned under building regulations. He cannot improve his property at all. He can add all additional bathrooms he desires, but cannot add anything that resembles a family room, den or bedroom. He would like to see that changed and feels the Council is his only hope. Dick Sherwood, 18411 - 74th Place West, is a 20+ year resident of Perrinville. He confirmed he has an Edmonds mailing address, and there is concern over septic systems which eventually will fail. He thinks this is the most important item, and the one of most interest in being annexed by Edmonds. He stated he doesn't know the tax structure as Councilmember Dwyer pointed out. There is a possibility they would cost money. The indication he received from the meeting was that the taxes in Edmonds are less than what they are in the county. He also understood that no additional police or fire would be needed, and that District No. 1 would continue to cover the area. He doesn't think anyone is trying to push Perrinville on to Edmonds, but that that is their choice. He indicated they have felt part of Edmonds as long as he's been there. He advised Council he has spoken with former Mayor Naughton several years ago, and the main problem Mr. Naughton had indicated as existing was the treatment plant. Mr. Sherwood thinks a lot of people are in favor of the annexation, and he would like to see them get to go forward in the most expeditious manner. He asked the Council to consider this very seriously. He would not want them to become part of Edmonds to become a burden, but to be paying members proud to be there. Chuck Breckenridge, 7015 Olympic View Drive, expressed his concern that with the annexation a lot of apartment complexes will go up. Another concern is the traffic issue. He indicated there was a problem presently, and he is concerned that there will be additional traffic concerns brought about. To him, increased traffic and new apartments would mean it was time to move. Pat Hekeran owns the triangle shaped area in the woods with her father and brother, and they don't want to be annexed. If annexed, the price of the sewers will be phenomenal in view of the amount of frontage they have. She also expressed similar concerns over traffic and apartments. Tom Saxon, 7508 Ridge Way, is a 28 year resident with an Edmonds mailing address. He indicated he is in favor of giving the citizens a chance to vote on the annexation issue. He was involved in an attempt to get annexed into Edmonds 15-20 years ago, but it didn't happen. He confirmed that sewers are the big issue to drive the annexation. He felt it could effect property values if they decided to sell. He urged Council to vote in favor of the resolution. Craig Ehar, 69th Avenue West, Edmonds, said they are looking at around $10,000 for sewers. The estimate on a drain field is about $5-6,000. After that initial cost they would not have to be putting out any monthly fees. He has two small children, and if annexation and sewers occurred they would have to leave which would mean selling a house just recently refinanced and buying a new house at potentially higher cost and interest. He is against the annexation. Approved City Council Minutes November 15, 1994 Page 10 The public portion of the hearing was closed. Jeff Wilson clarified that annexation does not automatically mean that there has to be sewers installed. Right now you cannot have sewers unless annexed into the City. If annexed, it would provide the opportunity to the citizens, should they desire, to put in a sewer system. It was reiterated that at the September meeting it was stated that any Local Improvement District to put in sewer systems does not have to encompass the entire area -- it can be small portions or the entire area depending on which areas want to have and support that service. With regard to the question of land use, the area is predominantly single-family with a very small commercial area at the corner of Olympic View Drive and 76th. That is currently in the County's plans. The City would not see any need or reason to change that land use pattern. It is a well -established single-family area, and it is not the City's intent to change any land use patterns in various established single-family neighborhoods, and for the small amount of vacant property that is there, it is not in the City's interest or the residents' interest to try to look at that and change to multifamily. We would look at that and hold the line trying to maintain that area as a very strong single-family area. Councilmember Petruzzi indicated he had heard a mixed reaction from the audience. From Council standpoint, he listened to what Councilmembers Dwyer and Earling said about the cost to the City versus what the income will be. He doesn't think there are answers to that yet. He stated his understanding that Mr. Wilson had indicated Staff is working on it and trying to get their hands around it. He does not think it in the best interests of anyone for the Council to move forward this evening and vote on the resolution. He indicated he could not vote on a resolution this evening without having the rest of those facts. He expressed a desire to have factual cost information in order to vote on the resolution. Councilmember Dwyer clarified his question was not to disparage the area, but to express legitimate concerns. He agrees with Councilmember Petruzzi that Council must be comfortable with the initial determination that there is nothing bad in this for the folks who are already in Edmonds. Once it gets past that, if it comes down to the question of letting democracy play out, that is how he would be inclined -- to let those in the area decide. What is needed is to make that initial finding insofar as it effects those already living in Edmonds and any down sides. He thinks they probably will find there is no down side. He briefly reiterated fire and police concerns. He agrees on the need to be certain about costs to insure no negative impact on current residents. Jeff Wilson asked the Council for direction regarding their questions. Councilmember Petruzzi indicated Staff had done a very good job of addressing questions at the September Perrinville meeting. He suggested Staff make a presentation to Council of an estimated cash flow, what kind of revenue will we generate and what are the anticipated allocated costs. Some increases are to be expected. He indicated a desire to have Staff back right after first of the year so as to not hang the people out to dry indefinitely because Council is currently in a budget mode. Mayor Hall asked Council President Nordquist to set a date. She suggested to Staff that based on the history of the annexation just completed, it should not be difficult to pull together that information. Approved City Council Minutes November 15, 1994 Page 11 Because Councilmember Earling was out of the meeting at the time, and at least three members that want to move forward COUNCIL PRESIDENT JOHN NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY 1� COUNCILMEMBER TOM PETRUZZI, TO RECESS THIS HEARING UNTIL JANUARY 10,1995. MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Michael Hall mentioned the airingof the Council meetings on cable television and g found the area was not serviced by Chambers Cable. He indicated his desire to suggest those interested in the annexation should invite their neighbors to watch Chambers Cable for this issues. Mayor Hall called a five minute recess at 8:20 p.m. Mayor Hall reconvened the meeting at 8:32. She reminded those in attendance that Item 7 was deleted, and that Item 8 was now to be discussed. .)-HEARING ON APPEAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ISSUED FOR A STREET MAP AMENDMENT AND VARIANCE OF THE PROPOSED 12-UNIT MULTIFAMILY l DEVELOPMENT AT 8104 242ND ST. SW (APPLICANT: ROBERT KOO - FILE NOS. V-94-117 AND ST-94-118 / APPELLANT: NANCY VLCEK - FILE NO. AP-94-161) City Attorney Scott Snyder swore in those eight individuals who expressed interest in speaking and giving testimony. Jeff Wilson as the City's SEPA responsible official stated the applicant, Mr. Koo, has submitted two applications -- a variance application to modify setback areas for the purpose of parking construction and a request to amend the City's Official Street Map to reduce the designated future right-of-way at the front of the property from 60' down to 50'. The variance application itself does not necessitate that the project undergo SEPA environmental review, but the fact that the project is a 12-unit multifamily development does require that the City go through an environmental analysis. Also, since the applicant asked for revision of the City's Official Street Map and since that document is part of the City's Comprehensive Plan it is also something that requires environmental review. On September 9 the City received an appeal of the Environmental Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) basically concluding that the proposed project development would not have potential significant adverse environmental impact to or in the city. As part of the application, there was review of the proposed site plan, an environmental checklist is submitted as well as Engineering doing an analysis of the potential traffic impacts as part of their normal review of the project development. It was concluded that the potential traffic developed by the project would not have an adverse impact on the city street system, that even with a reduction in the right-of-way width to a 50' right of way, Engineering concluded that the remaining right-of-way would be of sufficient width and dimension in order to accommodate the traffic that would be created not only by the project but by future developments that would occur in the neighborhood. The property is currently zoned as multifamily. They looked at the long term at what would happen in that neighborhood if all the properties were developed as multifamily. Could the traffic system in that area handle the congested traffic? Through Approved City Council Minutes November 15, 1994 Page 12 that analysis it was concluded that it could and, therefore, it was determined that there would not be an impact created by the reduction from 60' to 50' because there would still be adequate right-of-way to service the project. Mr. Wilson's analysis also concluded that there would not be any other negative impacts created by this project on the environment that would need to be mitigated or of a significant nature that would require the issuance of an environmental impact statement. The hearing on the appeal was held before the Hearing Examiner on October 6. After listening to the testimony and reviewing the documentation, the Hearing Examiner issued his recommendation to the Council on October 19 to deny the appeal citing that the project itself, the reviews, and the findings and conclusions were appropriate. The Hearing Examiner also indicated the project had still to go through the street map amendment process as well as the Architectural Design Board review, and there would be other adequate opportunities to address other issues that were not appropriate during the environmental review stages. Mr. Wilson called Council's attention to the Hearing Examiner's recommendations in their agenda packet. Councilmember Bill Kasper would like to see maps that can be read. Mr. Wilson indicated the problem in this particular instance is that there are other discretionary permits that may or may not come to the Council on appeal. What is being reviewed is the content of the environmental review and not the project itself. The project is subject to further reviews in various processes as well as through the Architectural Design Board review, both of which decisions are appealable to the Council. We are not reviewing project layout or design, but potential impacts created by a 12-unit project accessing off of the street they are requesting as well as a request to reduce the right-of-way. Councilmember Fahey asked about page 8, number 3, section b. It was indicated that the variance request is based on special circumstances relating to the reduction in lot size due to the taking by the state for a highway and that it was Staffs feeling that if the number of units were scaled back, the effect would be negligible. Councilmember Fahey asked for expansion. Mr. Wilson said he could not expand on the variance aspects of the proposal in terms of their justification. He understands his role in this review as being to analyze potential impacts of a 12-unit project irrespective of whether or not they applied for any variances or any other discretionary permits from the City. It was confirmed this question would be raised in the variance process. Council President Nordquist asked if they had taken into consideration other neighboring properties and their impact on the particular culdesac. He thinks a contract rezone is in existence at the top of hill. Across the street there is a major commercial site that may be opened up. Have those come into consideration on the impact on this road? Mr. Wilson said that in the engineering analysis they looked at all those issues to determine what the existing conditions are as well as future development that could occur because of the underlying zoning. They would look at the capacity the street would have to have in order to handle the future development. They concluded even with the reduction of the right-of-way width, it doesn't necessarily mean a reduction in the street width. There would still be sufficient street capacity to handle the traffic generated based on the existing street plan. Council President Nordquist expressed concerns with Councilmember Kasper in that the map does not give the full impact on that culdesac. There are other factors on the head of that street that are going Approved City Council Minutes November 15, 1994 Page 13 to have as much impact. He asked if Mr. Wilson had anything Council could look at. Council President Nordquist stated that at the head of 242nd, only have two large sections, Sections 2 and 3. Section 2 is a major commercial development; Section 3 has a contractwne on it for multiple development. Has that street impact been taken into consideration? City Attorney Scott Snyder indicated that the information at the Council's disposal by memory is not necessarily in the record. He stated that since Council requires information from Staff to confirm the information you just stated, we either continue the hearing to get it or direct Staff to get it and come back. It is on the record and in the files at the Planning Commission. It is not on the record of this proceeding. If you are talking about the impact on that road, you might want to consider that at the same time. Councilmember Kasper asked if the Hearing Examiner had any information not available to Council. Mr. Wilson indicated the Hearing Examiner had the same information. City Attorney Snyder reminded Council that the Hearing Examiner is required to give substantial weight to the findings of the responsible official. All testimony at a SEPA hearing is required to be sworn. No one other than the applicant and staff member appear, so there was no record upon which he could make a decision other than that which he entered. If the Council is uncomfortable with the maps or require more information from the Staff, there is a small likelihood that Council will continue this matter to get that information. The question is if you want to do that now so that that information is on the record and both the applicant and the appellant know what information they will be required to respond to, or go ahead and hold the public hearing and then allow them to respond a second time once you get that information. Mr. Wilson referred to Exhibit 2 which is a copy of the zoning map identifying the zoning designations for the property. There is also a copy of the Official Street Map which is on page 48 of the packet which indicates the existing rights -of -way widths as well as potential future rights -of -way width under the Official Street Map. Councilmember Hall stated he was in favor of going on with the hearing. He felt Attachment 11, page 48, to be quite a detailed map. He would like to hear public opinion on this issue. He doesn't like people being given notice of a hearing and coming out, only to not have the hearing. Councilmember Hall asked Mr. Wilson to point out the location of the property on Attachment 11 which was done. The property is identified as McAleer. The majority of the property is located to the center of that area. Councilmember Kasper asked how the project was laid in there as there were no.drawings. Councilmember Petruzzi indicated that since there were quite a few people at the meeting, the Council should continue with the hearing. He suggested it may be that at the end of the hearing they will ask for a continuance to get more information and for action. Approved City Council Minutes November 15, 1994 Page 14 Appellants Bill and Nancy Vlcek were represented before the Council by Bill Vlcek, 8001 - 242nd Street S.W. At the Mayor's suggestion, Mr. Vlcek reserved three minutes for rebuttal. There were a couple of issues raised in Mrs. Vlcek's appeal. One was the variance in the setback requirements and the fact that special circumstances exist because the state reduced the size of the lot when SR 104 was constructed. He indicated compensation was paid for that land so granting a variance under those circumstances would be paramount to double; compensation for the acquisition of the property. Also, the City's development standards state that a variance is appropriate if there is strict application of specific provisions of Chapters 16 and 17 of the Development Code which could unduly burden one property more than another. He does not believe that is the case in this situation. He believes the purpose and intent of the variance is to allow regional development to occur that would otherwise be denied. Mr. Vlcek said that the situation that exists on the SEPA action is such that there are several different things going on. He believes this can not be restricted to one issue. He thinks you have to look at all the items together in order to make an informed decision. If you don't do that, it is very easy to grant something that appears to have no impact but in reality the cumulative effect of all actions taking place may have an effect. Mr. Vlcek submitted their concern for traffic increases in the culdesac. He thinks the traffic on the street is double what you have on a normal street with two accesses. All of the traffic is going to go by each of the houses down the street from that development. Their concern is not to limit the development of the property, but to make sure it is appropriately sized and not allowed to be larger than what the property should afford. He then responded on previous comments about not wanting to change the nature of the neighborhood. Multifamily units being added in here are out of character with what is provided. He says there is a lack of consideration for pedestrian safety. He passed around a couple of photographs that show the street in general. One of the photos shows another multifamily development at the top of the hill. He believes an area should be paved for on -street parking and/or pedestrian facilities. Mr. Vlcek stated his desire to see the engineering analysis discussed earlier. When they had requested information, they did not receive anything regarding traffic counts or any analysis they had on the street. Mr. Vlcek reiterated that the appeal they are making is not to stop this development from occurring, but requests that the development not be granted beyond what is appropriate to the scale of the neighborhood and beyond what is appropriate for the amount of land, taking into consideration the setbacks that are on the record which should be enforced. Mr. Vlcek reserved his remaining five minutes. For the record, City Attorney Snyder addressed Mr. Vlcek. He reminded Mr. Vlcek that they had the burden of proof of showing by substantial and competent evidence that the responsible official is wrong. He asked Mr. Vlcek what information they wished produced through the environmental process that is not now available. Mr. Vlcek responded they wished the traffic analysis and engineering analysis. Mr. Vlcek believes that the environmental analysis that is being performed now is premature. He thinks it should be done after it is understood what other variances are required and what the impact of those variances are. Mr. Snyder asked if Mr. Vlcek was suggesting that a process of scoping occur where all of the impacts of a proposed development process would be looked at. Mr. Vlcek does not feel scoping is appropriate. He is suggesting there are cumulative impacts that are not being Approved City Council Minutes November 15, 1994 Page 15 considered, and decisions being made here without the knowledge of all the other impacts. Mr. Snyder asked Mr. Vlcek about the cumulative impacts to which he was referring. Mr. Vlcek said that, for example, there was a desire to see a site plan so that you can understand what number of units will be allowed in; there was a traffic analysis that was discussed. Mr. Vlcek does not believe those types of analyses can be made until you understand what variances are going to be granted and the magnitude of the development. The primary impacts mentioned were traffic and pedestrian. Applicant Robert Koo stated he thought he was the only one confused about this issue. He had been informed he did not really have to make a presentation tonight as this hearing had nothing to do with what he intended to do. Mr. Koo believes that technically he can put 13 units on this property. He asks that everybody understands what we decide tonight we are to vote for. He presented a map to the City Clerk for distribution to Council. If that map shows true and the City can prove that boundary line was to stop at a particular point, Mr. Koo will lose only about 300 square feet. The rear setback became street setback because of SR 104. Rather than put parking on the side setback, he thought it more appropriate to put the parking on the rear setback, without using all 15'. Mr. Koo then discussed some of the relative cost issues facing him. He further indicated this process had been going on since June, and it was looking like next spring or summer before he could continue with his project. The public portion of the hearing was opened. Alexander Bogaard, 8027 - 242nd Street SW, lives directly opposite the proposed project. He asked if he was correct in assuming that in order for an individual to bring forward a proposition to change a setback that they would have to obtain petitions from those who are affected by those changes. City Attorney Snyder indicated that if this were a vacation of an existing or dedicated right-of-way that would be required. This is a planned line right-of-way and a variance can be initiated by any individual. Mr. Bogaard indicated he had come prepared to discuss other issues of concern than environmental. His chief concerns were traffic and noise pollution. He manages a 25-unit townhouse complex. On average, he says, you are looking at two vehicles per unit without counting visitors. He thinks that with an area that already has a speeding problem because of the apartment complex at the top of the hill, this extra traffic will cause additional problems. Regarding the issue of noise pollution, he stated that Mr. Koo's property backs up to SR 104. The way the existing structure sits on the lot, behind the structure there is a row of trees which act as a buffer. He sees no noise buffer remaining if the project is allowed. He asked when the appropriate time would be to bring up these issues. City Attorney Snyder indicated the items could be addressed during the Architectural Design Board and variance review processes. He further indicated that the City Ordinances require notices be mailed to those who live within 300' of those initiating the proceeding. Mr. Snyder asked Mr. Wilson if he had a schedule of those hearings. Mr. Wilson responded that it depends on what happens as a result of this hearing as the others could not be scheduled until this hearing had been finalized. Debbie Slothaug, 8010 - 242nd Street SW, has lived in the same house for 15 years. She says that two four-plexes and one nine -unit apartment have gone in at the top of the hill since she has lived there. She feels the police activity has increased over the last three years. She brought Council's attention to the fact there existed a blue tarp city at the top of this road containing old, non -working vehicles. She expressed concern she could not even leave her door open during the summer because of the current Approved City Council Minutes November 15, 1994 Page 16 traffic noise. She has offered the police use of her property to set up radar which has been done periodically. She cited some traffic concern examples. Her major complaints deal with traffic and garbage. She says they are looking to move now because of some of the things going on. This area was a single-family neighborhood. Ms. Slothaug asked if their property value will decrease because they can't sell it as a single-family home. She thinks 15 years of equity is going backwards. She asked if this would devalue her property. She thinks it will be because people do not want to buy where there is crime or police constantly patrolling the neighborhood. Debbie Vining, 8026 - 242nd Street, lives next door to the proposed project on the East side. Her main concern is the traffic. She thinks there will be a big impact on the street as it is a culdesac. She is also concerned over the property variance and removing the trees on SR 104 as it effects noise levels. She is concerned about the property line which would put the project 10 feet from her bedroom. Ms. Vining feels that the closeness and the removal of the trees equate to a privacy invasion. She said she bought her home as a single-family residence in an area where it was safe to raise her children. She is concerned about what the project may do to the value of her home. She is unhappy about this and had she known this could happen she would not have purchased there. She thinks if she were to decide to sell, such a sale would be difficult and she could lose money. She doesn't want to see the single-family nature of the neighborhood changed. Rick Hagaman, 127 NW 136th, Seattle, spoke as a friend of Ms. Vining's. He thinks the reports obtained so far on the street impact are wrong and must be looked at carefully before someone is hurt. He also stated that the design of the project taking all of the trees out of the area would be contraindicated in an area where all the neighbors have nice shrubs. He stated that Mr. Koo's tenant with one family is parking in Debbie's front garden and asked where 12 families would park. He stated there is not enough room to provide parking. He said it is not the intent of the community to see how much can be packed into one small area. Mr. Hagaman feels that Edmonds' reputation as a quality place to live is at stake. He asked the Council to vote for the appeal. Chris Sticket, 8027 - 242nd Street SW, was sworn in by City Attorney Snyder. Ms. Sticket stated her feeling that the issue in this matter is quantity. She discussed how much traffic would be increased. She requested a decision of the Council to preserve the integrity of the single-family residence character and preserve the pre-existing integrity. She also indicated she would like to have sidewalks and less congestion, noise and traffic. Rick Hagaman, 137 NW 136th, Seattle, asked how they go about changing zoning to recapture single- family residence. Mayor Hall suggested he come to the City offices and talk to anyone in the Planning Department. City Attorney Snyder indicated that meetings involving the land use element of the Comprehensive Plan would be a good venue. Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, was sworn in. In looking at the Attachment 11 map, there are the words "Lake" and "McAleer". He assumed that Burlington Coat Factory takes up the area in Section 2 where "Lake" is. He asked if Section 3 was developed and how it was zoned. Jeff Wilson responded that the east half of the McAleer property is zoned RM-3 multifamily. The west half of that is zoned CG all the way to Highway 99 on North to 240th Street. The majority of that section is encompassed Approved City Council Minutes November 15, 1994 Page 17 by the Burlington Northern Coat Factory. In response to Mr. Hertrich's next question, Mr. Wilson said that a portion of eastern half is developed. Mr. Hertrich feels it doesn't seem prudent to change the right-of-way requirements if you are going to be serving future uses in that McAleer section. That houses a good number of units which would then exit out this street past these people's homes. You certainly don't want to have a reduced right-of-way smaller than a normal street. He hadn't heard testimony as to the number of total future units that would be served off the road and whether those total future units would be served by substandard roads. In rebuttal, Mr. Vlcek indicated he felt the concerns were pretty well summarized by those in the community. Those living adjacent to this property are concerned with the site plan that has been put forward where there will be no buffers between their home and this property. He thinks the right-of- way should be preserved to the width that is shown on the City Street Map and that due consideration should be given to providing pedestrian and parking facilities in front of this project. Councilmember Petruzzi asked Mr. Vlcek about his wife's comments in the last paragraph of her letter and indicated they sound like they should be heard at a variance hearing. He specifically questioned her suggestion for a reduced development. He asked if she was aware that Mr. Koo could build an 11-unit complex. Mr. Vlcek stated they realized it is zoned for multifamily and that while they would prefer single-family, they are not objecting to that. They are asking that the project be appropriately sized, which they feel would be 10-units or fewer. They think that is needed in order to protect the neighbors, and provide buffers, parking, etc. Councilmember Petruzzi indicated W. Vlcek had raised a number of good issues. The only problem Councilmember Petruzzi sees is the forum. Mr. Vlcek reiterated his belief this decision should be made after the size of the development is known and after the decisions are made on any other variances. The public portion of the hearing was closed. Mr. Wilson stated that in terms of the environmental analysis, the maximum development that could be developed based on the application submitted is 12 units. While Mr. Koo suggested he could go as high as 13, the environmental review was done on the basis of 12. Any increase in that would require a review and an amendment to the existing environmental review, with a new determination issued. A lot of questions raised are good issues and should be brought up during the variance review process as well as the decision on the street map amendment. Those are the two discretionary permits that will decide whether or not variances should or should not be granted. This hearing is to determine whether or not the impact created by the 12-unit project would have a significant adverse environmental impact. The traffic analysis shows that 242nd Street is closed to traffic off of Highway 99. The street system question is whether or not the city's deeded right-of-way should be reduced. Whether that reduction will have an adverse impact that needs to be mitigated in some way is a balancing question of when to make that determination. Part of that question still needs to be answered through the discretionary permit. All these issues brought up are related issues which the Architectural Design Board has standards for, such as minimum amounts of buffering required to separate uses, how do you protect an existing single-family home from a new development, and how do you try to provide some sort of continuity and separation and buffer between the two uses. That occurs at the Architectural Design Approved City Council Minutes November 15, 1994 Page 18 Board review stage. The issue of whether or not there should be granted a variance to the south occurs through the variance stage. Council President Nordquist asked Mr. Wilson regarding page 9. He said this is an environmental petition. Council President Nordquist said Item G is basically recommending reduction of the right-of- way. Mr. Wilson indicated Item G was a comment/response on the issues raised in the appeal letter. Councilmember Petruzzi indicated that if Council President Nordquist and Councilmember Kasper, having raised questions on the map, were satisfied at this point, he would be willing to make a motion. Councilmember Petruzzi expressed his feeling that the issues raised by the neighbors are very substantive and are issues that will require full hearing during the other processes necessary. At that time these issues can be again brought up, with no guarantees for result. A decision must be made on the preponderance of evidence as to whether there is an impact that is so great to deter this project from being built at all. This has not been proven. He agrees with the findings of Staff and the Hearing Examiner, but he recommends that the neighbors pursue the other outlets. X� COUNCILMEMBER TOM PETRUZZI MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MICHAEL HALL, TO DENY THE APPEAL. ROLL CALL WAS TAKEN. COUNCILMEMBER DWYER: YES; COUNCILMEMBER FAHEY: YES; COUNCILMEMBER HALL: YES; COUNCILMEMBER KASPER: NO; COUNCIL PRESIDENT NORDQUIST: NO; COUNCILMEMBER PETRUZZI: YES. MOTION CARRIED 4-2. [Note: Councilmember Earling was not present for this hearing as he was making a presentation at another meeting, and returned for the next agenda item.] Council President Nordquist brought up that there was scheduled a two hour budget session and that there was at least another half hour on agenda items. He acknowledged the presence of various individuals involved and asked Council what they wished to do. Mayor Hall expressed apologies to those in attendance since the agenda had been approved at the meeting's start. Council President Nordquist stated that there have been many times when the budget meeting had to be moved ahead because of some of the things being discussed during the meeting taking a large amount of time and making the meetings last late. He asked for a motion. Councilmember Petruzzi stated he thought that the budget was very important and he did not like making $15 million budget decisions that late at night. COUNCILMEMBER PETRUZZI MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MICHAEL HALL, TO HEAR AGENDA ITEMS 9-12 AND PUSH THE BUDGET FORWARD TO OUR NEXT MEETING, TO BE SCHEDULED UP FRONT. MOTION CARRIED. Next week Council will be dealing with RTA and then the remaining budget items from this week, in order. Approved City Council Minutes November 15, 1994 Page 19 iHEARING ON LAND USE ELEMENT FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ,y Rob Chave, Planning Manager, said this is a first look at some of the land use issues and is a �►" conceptual overview. Staff is still working on the details. This is not a final work, but a preliminary look before the Planning Board hearing process. The most recent hearing was extremely well 8 attended. The received some specific feedback on some small Y p areas where changes were being suggested. [Mayor Hall turned the meeting over to Council President Nordquist so she could converse briefly with Staff.] The overall approach City-wide is to try to retain the existing character and to target some strategic changes. These are mainly based around the waterfront plan and the Highway 99 area. The existing language starts to incorporate some of the ideas of the master plan itself; trying to link some of these measures together, trying to promote better use of transit and connections between mixed use type developments. Council President Nordquist suggested Mr. Chave may wish to comment on the recommended action. Mr. Chave indicated he would also like to receive feedback on whether the Council wanted to start work sessions on the land use element. He asked if they wanted Staff to assemble all of the elements and pass them on or whether Council wanted to start looking at them individually. The waterfront has already been looked at. Land use is expected to be the next largest piece. City Attorney Scott Snyder reminded Council of the December 31 deadline for adoption of the Comprehensive Plan elements. The public portion of the hearing was opened. Peggy LaPlant, 7717 - 224th Street SW, Edmonds, said the comprehensive planning includes planning for urban growth in an area hoped to ultimately be annexed. The County has assured her that the Council is authorized to pre -plan and pre -zone, and that adoption of the Comprehensive Plan will eventually change the current county. This planning includes mixed use, higher density, and commercial development in a corridor that is now zoned single-family residence. She said the City of Edmonds says that it protects neighborhoods, but you have to plan for 6,000+ more residents. She asked when it was planned to let the people in the unincorporated areas know what you are doing. She cited county and city growth projections. Her concern are future costs in the form of taxes and decreased standard of living resulting from more traffic, closer proximity to commercial development, and adjacency to property with split zoning. Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, attended the Planning Board meeting on this Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element. He called Council's attention to page 1 of their packet information regarding the Westgate corridor. He indicated this information is based on the 1988 Westgate study. He advised the Council that the Westgate study was never completed, never went through the proper number of airings, and was never taken apart and put back together again. He said it was probably a lot of policy set out by Staff and never agreed upon. He would like the Council to take that study with a grain of salt. The indications are there are a number of areas that would like to be greater developed in either commercial or multiple, more likely commercial. A lot of this Comprehensive Plan speaks to the strict involvement. If you increase the commercial along Edmonds Way you will provide strict involvement and you will create more interference with the SR 104 multimodal ferry traffic and downtown traffic Approved City Council Minutes November 15, 1994 Page 20 that's coming off of I-5. It is important to keep that corridor opening, so zoning is the most important area Council has to deal with. It was called to his attention by a previous speaker that the hospital corridor map was drawn with straight lines right over the top of residential properties. He doesn't think the involved residents will want to live in Edmonds if they are told that immediately they are going to be faced with development next to their house because it falls within the new zones. He thinks that should be revised and corrected, and if an overlay is to be used, it should be done carefully and not with the idea they won't be able to stop the City from doing what it wants. He stated he doesn't know what it means to say that the downtown area will be provided with greater residential opportunities. There is already zoning to allow multiple or residential above businesses, so how can greater opportunities be provided without a lot of rezoning and increasing density. Mr. Hertrich said it also speaks to preservation. The character of the older homes in the downtown area is enjoyed. What we are seeing is that those falling within the multiple zone are being purchased, torn down, and replaced by something else. Mr. Hertrich proposes Council consider preservation zones in downtown Edmonds, maintain the present setbacks and openness. It will allow people to redevelop that house and remodel it. It might not allow much in terms of increased building, but it certainly will maintain the character of the area. The public portion of the hearing was closed. Rob Chave indicated he was interested in having some substantial preliminary discussion with the Council on the concept, separate of some of the details. Councilmember Kasper commented that responses have been given to people seeking rezone that the Comprehensive Plan needs to be done first. He doesn't see where any of that is being picked up. Specifically, he spoke of the area between 76th West and Highway 99. Mr. Chave indicated those were some of the details to which he referred. Last Wednesday there was a packed house on some of these same issues. Basically what Staff has done is backtrack and picked up some of those rezones that we've seen in the last year or two that had not been confirmed and actually targeted those areas with mailings to advise there was a proposal and interest in changing the land use designation and asking for their input. A lot of interest has been generated. Councilmember Kasper discussed considering shutting down or putting a hold on rezone requests until the Comprehensive Plan is complete. Mr. Chave indicated they are trying to pull the laws together. There has been very little in the way of proposed rezones in the last couple of years. They are trying to deal with the concepts and get those, like the waterfront plan, etc., so the people understand them, then deal with the specific issues that really are area specific. They are trying to deal with those in a more specific way with correct notification given. Councilmember Kasper said he had attended a Planning Commission meeting. In listening to the school district, he didn't feel that the information provided there was anywhere related to what Council has heard from the same people. He asked if Mr. Chave got the feeling these people had maybe Approved City Council Minutes November 15, 1994 Page 21 changed their minds. Mr. Chave said the Master Plans have been heard by the Planning Board, and they are about ready to forward those on to Council. Council should get a pretty detailed look at those shortly. Mr. Chave confirmed for Councilmember Kasper that theirs was more current than what was before Council's preliminary. Councilmember Petruzzi advised Mr. Chave he had received 10-15 calls in the last couple of weeks having to do with the direction the City is taking in rezoning multifamily. People specifically requested if there would be hearings regarding a certain area and asking if the reasons the City is considering granting a variance in this area is because of the need for more multifamily to meet the GMA requirements. Councilmember Petruzzi asked if we were going to, through this process, rezone some single-family areas to multifamily, either high density or medium density. The only ones Mr. Chave is aware of where there are a couple of proposals for changes in land use are the ones the City specifically advertised. Some of the proposals are part of the Westgate study, and those are primarily commercial. There are one or two spots where specific requests have been received from property owners that the City look at no change. They are telling people that if they have an area they want the City to look at, bring it to Staffs attention, the City will advertise, and those are the specific instances that he had mentioned. They are trying to treat the general concept plan separately from some of the area -specific issues which really do not have an impact on the overall direction of the plan. Councilmember Petruzzi also wished to clarify for the record the answer to the question frequently put to him as to whether Edmonds has sufficient room under current zoning to meet the Growth Management additional 6,000 people. Up to this time, Councilmember Petruzzi has been told the answer was yes. Mr. Chave confirmed that the answer was correct. He also stated that Edmonds is more the example than the opposite. Community Transit and other agencies staff talks with tend to take an example from Edmonds to other jurisdictions to show how mixed use development works, and how transit -oriented land use works. Mr. Chave believes this is borne out when density and land use patterns in town are reviewed. There is no need to up the density as Edmonds already has the density needed to support transit and the other things it is trying to accomplish. Councilmember Petruzzi asked for, and received, confirmation that the maps Council has received showing multifamily high density and multifamily medium density, reflect current zoning. Mr. Chave said that rather than assuming the old Comprehensive Plan was entirely correct and accurate, Staff went back to more of the zoning and development patterns for a couple of reasons: 1) things are fairly stable and there hasn't been much impetus for change in zoning, 2) the law changed. Development pattern tends to be controlled more by zoning. Now, with adoption of the new Plan, it will be more controlled by the Comprehensive Plan and zoning will have to be consistent. Mayor Hall said it took her quite a few months to withstand taking 12,000 population. It was finally agreed upon 6,000. Mayor Hall reminded them that ferry traffic every day is far and above, and that is Edmonds' contribution. COUNCILMEMBER STEVE DWYER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BILL KASPER, TO EXTEND THE MEETING. MOTION CARRIED. Approved City Council Minutes November 15, 1994 Page 22 Councilmember Dwyer followed up what Councilmember Petruzzi said about not patting themselves on the back. He said when this GMA and the others were first coming out he had said that several times. The Council's goal ought to be to not screw up the situation as it exists. Edmonds is a city that has a residential, single-family orientation while still having densities that are at a level high enough that no external force is going to be able to require it to go beyond that. I-Iigh levels of commercial development such as in Lynnwood reduces the overall density. Mayor Hall reported for the public's edification that we took a inventory of the areas zoned multiple that still has existing single-family homes on it. She thinks the public should be made aware of those areas that have been zoned. Mayor Hall thinks it would be wise to have an inventory map of the remaining multiple zones so the public is not alarmed. Mr. Chave indicated Staff has a lot of that information. Councilmember Fahey stated that in looking at the map in front of Council during the last hearing and you start looking at one specific detail and see RM-1.5, then you see RM-2.4, etc. In looking at something very detailed like that and trying to mentally put it into these three maps where you are talking only about multiple family high density and multiple family mid -density, it is almost impossible to put these things into a frame of reference. She cited as an example the overlay of the medical/Highway 99 activity center. It does, in fact, show that it overlaps even an unincorporated area. She says there is no way of knowing whether those density levels are going to be able to house a 12- unit or a 16-unit, or whatever, project to those zones. Mr. Chave indicated they are trying to work out some more detailed language. There will not be a single land use map that is parcel by parcel. What they are trying to do is describe the transition, for example, and with different language describing that single-family is a part of that picture. He is not talking about wholesale changes in zoning. Staff is trying to do a better job of verbally describing how those transitions work and how the actual lay of the land is determined, and in the largest extent about existing patterns and compatible development. Councilmember Fahey indicated her real concern is how someone who is living in a neighborhood or is thinking about buying into a neighborhood and they are buying a house obviously for a single family would have any way of easily knowing that what they are buying is a piece of property that has been zoned for some other use or that contiguous property has been zoned for some other use. She thinks problems seem to arise with lack of information. Mr. Chave stated that the main problem right now is a holdover from the old Comprehensive Plan and is along Highway 99. Staff hasn't really yet well defined some of those transitions, and that is what the Planning Board will be working on in the next week or two. It is not Staffs intention to be indicating that parts of Esperance, for example, are supposed to be multifamily or commercial. The County embarked on a planning process for the unincorporated areas of Southwest County that Edmonds was in which it chose to attempt to participate. The City did not want to start its own process, but will follow up as it is not thought the County has gotten very far. It is not Staffs intent to do a unilateral planning process for Esperance. Staff is going to try to get into a little more detail with regard to that corridor to make sure that people understand it. COUNCILMEMBER MICHAEL HALL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TOM PETRUZZI, FOR APPROVAL OF THE RECOMMENDED ACTION. Approved City Council Minutes November 15, 1994 Page 23 Councilmember Earling indicated the recommended action asked about establishing a process. He pointed out that Councilmember Hall's motion did not establish a process. Councilmember Hall said he felt Staff would give Council input on the process, but he thinks the next step is a public hearing. Mr. Hall suggested it would be fine if Council wanted to instruct Staff as to a process, but he thinks Council should go forward. Councilmember Earling was looking at what Staff had brought up earlier, that being whether to look at this in whole or have it brought to Council in a series of smaller components so that Council will have an opportunity to fully understand the impact of some of decisions it is making. That is what Councilmember Earling would prefer to do. He understood the intent of the motion to just get on with it. So long as getting on with it follows what he just described, he would support the motion; otherwise, he would suggest since this is important, a series of workshops could be set up with Staff bringing forward two or three elements at once for Council to fully discuss and understand before making any decisions. Mr. Chave expressed concern that if Council wants to hold everything until later, it will be all in front of Council, and Council may get lost. He is hoping that Council will attempt to make some time to deal specifically with land use. This will have to be pieced together very rapidly. The Master Plans within a week or so should be before Council. Mr. Chave suggested that in the first part of December, Council should have all the pieces to the land use puzzle in one place at one time. Councilmember Kasper indicated that he asked at the retreat if 6,000 was it. He feels it should be set out up front that 6,000 is the maximum excluding any annexation. He thinks 6,000 should be the maximum Edmonds population and that Council should stand by it. He indicated further that the ratio is pretty well established because the multi is largely built. He stated he is still concerned over the area on Highway 99 and the row of houses north of the hospital sitting there all by themselves. COUNCILMEMBER PETRUZZI SUGGESTED THIS ISSUE COULD BE RESOLVED BY AMENDING THE MOTION. IT CALLS FOR COUNCIL TO HOLD PUBLIC HEARING AND ESTABLISH A PROCESS FOR REVIEWING THE LAND USE ELEMENT. THAT PARTICULAR PROCESS WILL BE ESTABLISHED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. COUNCILMEMBER HALL CONCURRED. Councilmember Dwyer indicated he doesn't think there needs to be another hearing held as much as Council needs to make sure it consents to a majority of the process. Council needs to have these things before it two or three items at a time so Council can discuss it with Staff and amongst themselves rather than have it 15 at a time when all Council will do is receive information and end up overwhelmed with it. He feels Council is looking for Staff to provide a schedule for that process. He doesn't want to put the burden on Staff for the process. He wants to vote for a process that says he is going to get this two or three at a time so it can be discussed. Mr. Chave indicated the pieces Council has available to it now are land use policies and transportation policies it has agreed to work on while the details are with the Planning Board. Council also has the Master Plans which are basically part of the overall land use concept which should be before the Council in the next week or so. These pieces form a lot of the basis for the overall plan. Approved City Council Minutes November 15, 1994 Page 24 Councilmember Petruzzi asked for clarification of the recommended action. The recommendation originally was to hold a public hearing. Mr. Chave indicated he was referring to holding the hearing tonight. The next step is to have some work sessions to start talking about the details. Councilmember Petruzzi suggested withdrawing the motion. Councilmember Hall didn't feel withdrawal of the motion was necessary as it would be made again the same way, and clarification has been made on what the motion is -- Rob is going to bring us back these elements piece by piece to give council a chance to chew on it. Mr. Chave suggested Council President Nordquist could schedule things coming up. Councilmember Petruzzi indicated that if that is what voting yes means, he would be happy to vote that way. MOTION CARRIED. PROPOSED RESOLUTION REGARDING REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION OF / SNOLINE/FORSHEE AREA (FILE NO. AX-94-182) (from November 1 19941 Current Planning Supervisor Jeff Wilson presented the report and displayed an overhead transparency of the proposed annexation area. On November 1, 1994, residents of the "Snoline/Forshee" precincts submitted a petition containing over 100 signatures requesting that the City initiate an annexation of their area. The proposed annexation area is located adjacent to the southeastern area of the City, the SR 104 intersection and the city limits to the east, and also adjacent to the new corporate limits created by the new Aurora Marketplace Annexation. The population is approximately 1,200 with 479 dwelling units within these boundaries. It includes a few commercial parcels; five of the parcels are developed, including Denny's and Arby's. Mr. Wilson stated the proposal is to bring this forward as an election method annexation. By adoption of the resolution, staff will be able to start the process and begin working with the Boundary Review Board and Snohomish County Council for an election early next year. Costs for the annexation election will be in the range of $3,000 - $5,000. In response to City Attorney Snyder's question, it was noted there are 598 registered voters based upon the County Auditor's records. COUNCILMEMBER DWYER MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 801 SET FORTH AS EXHIBIT 3 PREPARED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY TO INITIATE AN ELECTION METHOD ANNEXATION IN THE UNINCORPORATED AREAS COMMONLY REFERRED TO AS "SNOLINE/FORSHEE" AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT 2; AND DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE MATERIAL TO SUBMIT THE ANNEXATION REQUEST w� TO THE SNOHOMISH COUNTY COUNCIL AND BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD, AND U INSERT IN PARAGRAPH 1.3 THE NUMBER OF 598 TO REFLECT THE NUMBER OF REGISTERED VOTERS. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETRUZZI. Under discussion, Councilmember Earling stated that the Council needs some breakdown of benefits and expenses. Jeff Wilson responded that will be part of the analysis and there will be different stages throughout the process that staff will provide Council with information for Council consideration and also for the public's consideration for the decision -making process. Approved City Council Minutes November 15, 1994 Page 25 Councilmember Dwyer expressed his view that the differences in the two proposals is that this area has long been studied and he feels fairly comfortable and understands the mechanism when land annexes to the south of us. The area to the north has another option which is Lynnwood, and we haven't had quite as much information which is the qualitative difference between the two. Councilmember Earling raised the question and wants to be sure that we look at the accumulative effect of all of the annexations. MOTION CARRIED. PROPOSED RESOLUTION REGARDING REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION OF GATE/EATON AREA (FILE NO. AX-94-183) (from November 1,19941 Mr. Wilson also presented this report and displayed the overhead transparency of the area which is in the area of the Eaton/Gate precincts. This annexation is also requested in the form of a petition with close to 100 signatures of residents lying within this boundary. The proposed boundary of the annexation area follows the existing city limits to the north of 220th along the west boundary, and SR 104 as the southern boundary, and follows the 92nd Ave. W. right-of-way from 220th to SR 104 as its eastern boundary. The proposed boundary leaves out only a small portion of the Eaton precinct. The area has an approximate population of 1,000 and 398 residential units. There are 906 registered voters based upon the County Auditor's Office. Included in the packet is a resolution to initiate the process by election method for early next year. COUNCILMEMBER DWYER MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 802 SET FORTH AS EXHIBIT 3 PREPARED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY TO INITIATE AN ELECTION METHOD ANNEXATION IN THE UNINCORPORATED AREA COMMONLY REFERRED TO AS "GATE/EATON" SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT 2; AND DIRECT STAFF 0� TO PREPARE MATERIAL TO SUBMIT THE ANNEXATION REQUEST TO THE SNOHOMISH COUNTY COUNCIL AND BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD, AND INSERT IN PARAGRAPH 1.3 THE NUMBER OF 906 TO REFLECT THE NUMBER OF REGISTERED VOTERS. SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETRUZZI. MOTION CARRIED. AUTHORIZATION TO NEGOTIATE CONTRACT FOR CABLE TV FRANCHISE RENEWAL CONSULTING SERVICES (new item #12) Community Services Director Paul Mar reported on the Consultant Selection Committee meeting, The Committee members consisted of Council President John Nordquist, Councilmember Barbara Fahey and himself. The Committee is recommending that the firm of 3-H Cable Communication Consultants be selected and that staff be authorized to initiate the contract negotiations which will include the scope of work, fee, time schedule and contract itself. COUNCILMEMBER EARLING MOVED TO AUTHORIZE STAFF TO INITIATE CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS AS STATED BY COMMUNITY SERVICES DIRECTOR PAUL MAR WITH THE FIRM OF 3-H CABLE COMMUNICATION CONSULTANTS. COUNCIL PRESIDENT JOHN NORDQUIST SECONDED THE MOTION. Approved City Council Minutes November 15, 1994 Page 26 Paul Mar responded to inquiries as to the firm's location. He indicated the firm is in Auburn and, one of the principals, Miles Overholt, is a resident of Edmonds. Councilmember Petruzzi stated his concern for going out for bids and questioned if we are going to incorporate to do an analysis of another capital expenditure for overbuild or buy out. Council President Nordquist responded that he and Councilmember Fahey had learned that after the first of the year, the industry will change again and the telephone industry is coming in. He noted in the proposal there is a requirement for the consultant to write an RFP to go out for bids. It will be opened up and you will probably see a lot of changes over the next six months. Council President Nordquist commented that we think we have a good proposal. MOTION CARRIED. Paul Mar thanked Council President Nordquist and Councilmember Fahey for their participation in the selection committee. MAYOR Mayor Hall reported that the WUTC hearing went on all day today in the Plaza Meeting room and will continue tomorrow for more testimony. It has been well conducted and well attended. Mayor Hall and Paul Mar, in addition to the WUTC hearing tomorrow, will also appear before the State Transportation Commission in Everett. Mayor Hall referenced her letter in response to the Fire District Attorney of which the Council received a copy. Mayor Hall also noted her memo regarding the Boys and Girls' Club proposal. Councilmember $- 4f, eye( Petruzzi questioned the amount referenced in the 116 Fund and whether that was the same money for the gymnastics program proposed for the Public Works facility. It was indicated it is not and more details will be provided. Mayor Hall reported on the Veteran's Day ceremony which was nicely done. Lt. Col. Bill Crump participated and honored the memory of Ed Scott, who last year was recognized as the oldest living Marine. The Mayor also noted the thank you letter from the Mayor of Bremerton thanking Gary McComas for participating in the fire lieutenant's selection. Mayor Hall acknowledged Bill Moran's letter concerning pigeons. Approved City Council Minutes November 15, 1994 Page 27 COUNCIL Councilmember Earling requested an Executive Session next week on a real estate matter. Councilmember Steve Dwyer indicated he will be submitting his resignation with an effective date. He indicated his last meeting will be January 3. He indicated he has no intention to have anything to do with filling his vacancy and wanted to make sure that everyone knew what was his timetable. i Councilmember Hall commented that for those in the proposed annexation areas which do not receive our council meetings on cable, that the other cable companies be contacted to see if they would provide this service. He felt the cable companies would be open to this suggestion. Councilmember Petruzzi referenced a letter of November 4 from Carol Johnson who was to have been a municipal court juror. When the jurors showed up, they found court was closed. Mayor Hall said this was been rectified and all concerned have been responded to. Councilmember Petruzzi also inquired regarding the attorney for the Aurora Marketplace case and has the money been appropriated. The Mayor stated she will come back for the Council to meet the individual first. Councilmember Fahey reported on last week's Cascade meeting in which a proposal was submitted by Tom Nielsen which would definitely involve the City of Lynnwood and the ^ collection of amusement tax on theaters. She indicated that Lynnwood's thrust seems more to a V" convention center which would be a revenue generating factor rather than a performing arts center. She also commented on Mr. Nielsen's other proposals regarding a bond issue and funding possibilities from the cities' hotel/motel tax. She stated we are back at base one and there is no consensus; also there is discussion there should be a feasibility study which requires money and this would include writing a grant proposal. Councilmember Fahey noted that she has been receiving inquiry on the council vacancy process. Council President Nordquist responded that he will get back next week on this item. Student Representative Ellenann Chiddix asked what happens after a request is made of the Council, such as the presentation by students during the audience participation this evening. City Attorney Snyder responded that the Council has a general policy not to try to respond in the meeting. Mayor Hall said that this can often be handled at the administration level. Meeting adjourned at 10:50 p.m. 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. R ONDA J. MARC CITY CLERK Approved City Council Minutes November 15, 1994 Page 28 AGENDA EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL PLAZA MEETING ROOM - LIBRARY BUILDING 7:00 - 10:00 p.m. NOVEMBER 15, 1994 CALL TO ORDER - 7-00 P.M. FLAG SALUTE l . APPROVAL OF AGENDA 2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS (A) ROLL CALL (B) APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 1 AND NOVEMBER 7, 1994 (C) APPROVAL OF CLAIMS WARRANTS FOR WEEK OF OCTOBER 31, 1994, AND WEEK OF NOVEMBER 7, 1994; AND PAYROLL WARRANTS FOR THE PERIOD OF OCTOBER 16 THRU OCTOBER 31, 1994 (D) ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM MATHEW J. AND ANNA L. RINALDI ($3,500+) (E) PROPOSED ORDINANCE FOR VACATION OF THE EASTERN 150' OF THE PUBLIC ALLEY LOCATED BETWEEN 7TH AVE. N. AND 8TH AVE. N., SOUTH OF SPRAGUE ST. AND NORTH OF EDMONDS ST. / FILE NO. ST-94-121 (from contd. Hearing of November 1, 1994) (F) PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING EDMONDS CITY CODE SECTION 8.64.060 TO IMPOSE LIMITED PARKING ON THIRD AVENUE SOUTH AND FOURTH AVENUE SOUTH, FROM DAYTON STREET TO WALNUT STREET, AND REMOVAL OF LIMITED PARKING ON SECOND AVENUE FROM JAMES STREET TO DAYTON STREET (from Hearing of November 1, 1994) (G) APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ON APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION OF 3.2 ACRES IN AN RS-12 ZONE INTO 10 SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS AT 8511 188TH ST. S.W. (APPLICANT: HELLEREN DEVELOPMENT CO./FILE NO. P-94-55) [from Hearing of November 1, 1994] (H) APPROVAL OF PETTY CASH EXPENDITURES FOR MONTH OF OCTOBER, 1994 (1) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN YOUTH GANG TASK FORCE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT (J) APPROVAL OF THE FINAL PLAT FOR "BOWDOINWOOD" AND AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN FINAL PLAT DOCUMENTS (APPLICANT: RAY JOHNSON/FILE NO. P-92-147) 3. AUDIENCE 4. (5Min.1 RECOGNITION OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY RECYCLING AWARD TO STEVE FISHER, RECYCLING COORDINATOR 5. (SMin.J PUBLIC HEARING ON 1995 BUDGET 6. (15Min.J HEARING ON PROPOSAL FOR ANNEXATION BY ELECTION METHOD FOR THE PERRINVILLE AREA - CONTINUED - EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL AGENDA NOVEMBER 15, 1994 PAGE 2 7. (30Min.1 HEARING ON APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION TO GRANT APPROVAL OF A VARIANCE TO INCREASE THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED HEIGHT FOR STRUCTURES AT PROPERTY AT 7222 156TH ST. S.W. (APPLICANT: CRAIG & LINDA SUMMERS - FILE NO. V-94- 156 / APPELLANT: MICHAEL HOUSHELL, ET AL - FILE NO. AP-94-179) 8. (15Min.J HEARING ON APPEAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ISSUED FOR A STREET MAP AMENDMENT AND VARIANCE FOR THE PROPOSED 12-UNIT MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT AT 8104 242ND ST. S.W. (APPLICANT: ROBERT KOO - FILE NOS. V-94-117 AND ST-94-118 / APPELLANT: NANCY VLCEK - FILE NO. AP-94-161) 9. (IOMin.J HEARING ON LAND USE ELEMENT FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 10. (SMin_J PROPOSED RESOLUTION REGARDING REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION OF SNOLINE/FORSHEE AREA (FILE NO. AX-94-182) [from November 1, 1994] 11. (SM/n.J PROPOSED RESOLUTION REGARDING REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION OF GATEIEATON AREA (FILE NO. AX-94-183) [from November 1, 1994] 12. BUDGET WORK SESSION AS FOLLOWS: A. COMMUNITY SERVICES ADMINISTRATION (I5M/n.J B. PLANNING DIVISION (15M/n.J C. ENGINEERING DIVISION (15M/n.J D. WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT (lSMin.J E. PARKS & RECREATION DIVISION tMM/n./ F. PUBLIC WORKS DIVISION (3OM/n.J (1) PUBLIC WORKS ADMINISTRATION (2) FACILITIES MAINTENANCE SECTION (3) STREET SECTION (4) WATER AND SEWER SECTION (5) EQUIPMENT RENTAL SECTION G. DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED FUNDING OPTIONS (15Min.) FOR RECYCLING COORDINATOR POSITION 13. (SMin-] MAYOR 14. (ISM/nf COUNCIL Parking and meeting rooms are accessible for persons with disabilities. Contact the City Clerk at 7T1-0245 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 evening at 7.00 p.m. on Channel 36, and the following Friday and Monday at noon on Channel 32.