Loading...
10/21/2003 City CouncilEDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES October 21, 2003 The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Haakenson in the Council Chambers, 250 5t" Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Gary Haakenson, Mayor Dave Earling, Council President Jeff Wilson, Councilmember Michael Plunkett, Councilmember Lora Petso, Councilmember Dave Orvis, Councilmember Richard Marin, Councilmember Deanna Dawson, Councilmember ALSO PRESENT Alex Brent - Fielding, Student Representative 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA STAFF PRESENT David Stern, Chief of Police Duane Bowman, Development Services Director Stephen Clifton, Community Services Director Dan Clements, Administrative Services Director Noel Miller, Public Works Director Rob Chave, Planning Manager Dave Gebert, City Engineer Meg Gruwell, Senior Planner Scott Snyder, City Attorney Linda Hynd, Deputy City Clerk Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst. Jeannie Dines, Recorder COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DAWSON, FOR APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA AS PRESENTED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS Councilmember Wilson requested Item E be removed from the Consent Agenda and Councilmember Plunkett requested Item F be removed. COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, FOR APPROVAL OF THE REMAINDER OF THE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: (A) ROLL CALL (B) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF OCTOBER 7, 2003. (C) APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #65874 THROUGH #66066 FOR THE WEEK OF Approve OCTOBER 6, 2003, IN THE AMOUNT OF $528,398.28. APPROVAL OF CLAIM Claim CHECKS #66068 THROUGH #66210 FOR THE WEEK OF OCTOBER 13, 2003, IN THE Checks AMOUNT OF $373,842.93. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSITS AND CHECKS #36867 THROUGH #36951 FOR THE PERIOD OCTOBER 1 THROUGH OCTOBER 15, 2003, IN THE AMOUNT OF $893,617.90. laim for (D) ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM PAUL ROOTVIK amages ($46,011.25) Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 21, 2003 Page 1 ake a ifference (G) PROCLAMATION IN HONOR OF MAKE A DIFFERENCE DAY — SATURDAY, ay OCTOBER 25, 2003 ynnwood Item G: Authorization for Mayor to Sign an Interlocal Agreement with the City of Lynnwood regarding the Interlocal Unincorporated Island in Perrinville greement Councilmember Wilson explained when the Perrinville annexation was reviewed by the Council in 1995, nnex he was the City staff person working on the annexation via the Boundary Review Board (BRB He onion of ly l� g �' (BRB). errinville explained annexation was requested by the commercial property owner at the Perrinville intersection. When the annexation proceeded to the BRB, the City of Lynnwood opposed it. He expressed concern with Lynnwood's request now for Edmonds to acquiesce to their pursuing annexation, for Lynnwood to extend sewer service and requiring the property to annex into Lynnwood. Councilmember Wilson recalled at the time the single property owner sought annexation to Edmonds and with total disregard to that property owner, Lynnwood opposed the annexation. He referred to several instances where Lynnwood sought annexation across intersections and had taken small portions of commercial property without annexing the adjacent residential property, annexing only the choicest property. He indicated he would not support Lynnwood's effort to annex this property in view of Lynnwood's lack of concern for the property owner's wishes at the time of the previous annexation effort. Councilmember Petso asked if there was any chance that the City could make a case for annexing the property such as better controlled traffic at the intersection, road improvements, etc. Development Services Director Duane Bowman pointed out the reasons for annexation to Lynnwood, noting Edmonds could not provide sewer and there were issues with potential emergency services confusion if Edmonds annexed one corner and the remainder was in Lynnwood. He identified the property, the vacant land at the southeast corner of the Perrinville intersection, noting the remaining developed area was within the City of Lynnwood. He said the City could argue to the BRB regarding annexing the property to Edmonds but their concern would likely be the same as it was in 1995. Councilmember Petso inquired about the cost for the City to argue to the BRB for annexation to Edmonds. Mr. Bowman answered a legal challenge to the BRB would be required. He advised the City of Lynnwood City Council reviewed the Interlocal Agreement at a work session last evening and moved it forward for action on the Consent Agenda at their next meeting. City Attorney Scott Snyder advised an appeal to Superior Court would cost in excess of $10,000. Councilmember Plunkett acknowledged Councilmember Wilson's frustration with Lynnwood, inquiring whether it was best for Lynnwood to annex the property. Mr. Bowman answered although he agreed with Councilmember Wilson in some regard including that Lynnwood has in the past annexed only the commercial area and not surrounding residential areas, in this instance, the logical boundary was the right -of -way and Edmonds could not provide sewer in that area. Councilmember Dawson noted the property owner appeared to support Lynnwood's efforts to annex the property. Mr. Bowman agreed. Councilmember Dawson asked why the property owner now wanted to annex to Lynnwood rather than Edmonds. Mr. Bowman answered the property owner wanted sewers and the only purveyor was Lynnwood. Edmonds initially invoked jurisdiction to allow it to have the opportunity to review and comment on the annexation proposal. However, in order for the property to obtain sewer, they needed to annex into Lynnwood. Councilmember Dawson commented Edmonds was neither willing nor able to provide sewer service to the property. Mr. Bowman answered the logical sewer provider in this area was the City of Lynnwood. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 21, 2003 Page 2 Councilmember Wilson commented the current property owner was not the same property owner who pursued annexation into Edmonds. Mr. Bowman agreed. Councilmember Wilson noted there were instances where Lynnwood's sewer extended into Edmonds and Edmonds' sewer extended into Lynnwood; therefore, sewer service was not a jurisdictional issue. Mr. Bowman agreed, explaining if the area annexed into Edmonds, the property would be within Edmonds but could hookup to the Lynnwood sewer lines in which Edmonds has capacity. Councilmember Wilson acknowledged although this may be the logical direction, his history with the issue did not allow him to agree to the Interlocal Agreement. He reiterated his disappointment with the City of Lynnwood. Mayor Haakenson referred to Exhibit 2, pointing out that although he agreed with Councilmember Wilson, this parcel should be within Lynnwood as it was surrounded by Lynnwood and it was appropriate for 76th and Olympic View Drive to be the dividing line between the cities. COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, FOR APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEM E. MOTION CARRIED (6 -1), COUNCILMEMBER WILSON OPPOSED. The item approved is as follows: (E) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF LYNNWOOD REGARDING THE UNINCORPORATED ISLAND IN PERRINVILLE ommunity Item F: Community Service Department Quarterly Report — October 2003 Services Councilmember Plunkett explained he pulled this item to point out to the audience that 5 -6 major apartment uarterly projects were underway and that every q uarter Community Services Director Stephen Clifton provided eport this report as an update. Councilmember Plunkett asked Mr. Clifton to comment on the occupancy of Fire Station 16 and the clean up of the Unocal upper yard. Mr. Clifton advised a Certificate of Occupancy was issued for Fire Station 16, located at 8429 196"' Street, on October 9, 2003 and staff began occupancy on October 10. In the first week of operation, the facility operated flawlessly and all systems operated efficiently. He advised a full closeout report on Fire Station 16 would be provided to the Council in mid - November. With regard to the Unocal clean -up, Mr. Clifton advised he participates on the Technical Advisory Committee comprised of representatives from the Port, City, Unocal, Department of Ecology, and the Edmonds Citizens Awareness Committee. On October 9, 2003, the Department of Ecology issued a certificate of cleanup for the upper yard which will no longer require any monitoring of the upper yard. He explained efforts were now underway to establish a cleanup standard for the lower yard. Unocal was currently working on interim cleanup actions on the lower yard with cleanup anticipated in 2005. Councilmember Plunkett asked whether a signal would be installed at Fire Station 16. Mr. Clifton answered there would be a signal; on the south side of the station a pedestal had been constructed to support an arm on which an emergency signal would be located. He anticipated the signal would be installed in the next couple weeks. COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, FOR APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEM F. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The item approved is as follows: (F) COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT QUARTERLY REPORT — OCTOBER 2003. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 21, 2003 Page 3 V.peof75"h' 3. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PLANNING BOARD'S RECOMMENDATION TO REZONE AN AREA ALONG THE WEST SLOPE OF 75TH PLACE WEST FROM RS -20 TO RS -12 (15706 16000 75TH PLACE WEST, WEST SIDE ONLY). (APPLICANT: JANET AND GILBERT THIRY / FILE NO. R- 03 -75) As this was a quasi judicial matter, Mayor Haakenson asked whether any Councilmembers wished to make any disclosures. Councilmember Plunkett advised John Quast, one of the signatories to a letter supporting the efforts of Mr. and Mrs. Thiry, had contributed less than $100 to an unrelated campaign. Councilmember Orvis advised he had had conversations with Mr. Quast but not regarding this matter. Mayor Haakenson asked whether there were any challenges to the participation of Councilmembers Plunkett or Orvis. There were no challenges voiced. Mayor Haakenson advised all Councilmembers would participate in the matter. Senior Planner Meg Gruwell displayed a vicinity map and identified the rezone area on 75th Place W. She explained the area was 3.4 acres located on the west side of the street from 15706 to 16000 75t'' Place W. She explained the area was platted in 1904 with 50 -60 foot lots, approximately 9,000 square feet each. The area was annexed in 1953 and the 1954 zoning was RS -20. She noted this area was within the Meadowdale Landslide Hazard Area developed in 1979. She explained the original thought was that retaining large lots would reduce hazards. However, the Critical Areas Ordinance and earth subsidence chapter in the building code provided a number of tools for construction in those areas without relying on large lot zoning. Ms. Gruwell explained the current zoning, RS -20, requires a 20,000 square foot minimum lot size; the proposed zoning, RS -12, requires a 12,000 square foot minimum lot size. Lot width would change from 100 feet in RS -20 to 80 feet in RS -12. The setbacks would remain largely the same; the front and rear would remain 25 feet. The side setbacks in the RS -12 are a minimum of 10 feet on each side; in the RS- 20 zone there is 10 -foot minimum on each side but the total must equal 35 feet. Ms. Gruwell explained the existing lots range from under 8,000 square feet to 17,590; the only lot that could potentially have another house constructed on it that could not under the current regulations was the one the applicants own. She noted there was also the potential for development of another lot but it could be developed under the existing zoning. She noted it was staff's hope that with the rezone, there would be fewer variance requests as the zoning would more accurately reflect the existing development. Staff found the rezone met the criteria. Ms. Gruwell explained that the Planning Board met on September 10 to consider the rezone request and to take public input. The only input provided was from the applicant. The Planning Board recommended the City Council approve the proposed rezone. Staff recommends the Council adopt the Planning Board's recommendation and approve the rezone. Mayor Haakenson pointed out there were a number of letters in the Council packet in support of the proposed rezone and one opposed. Mr. Quast was one of those who submitted a letter in support. Councilmember Wilson asked whether the topography from 75"' Place W dropped to the shoreline. Ms. Gruwell answered yes. Councilmember Wilson inquired about the typical variance requested. Ms. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 21, 2003 Page 4 Gruwell answered they were primarily from side property lines but also height variances. She noted in order to construct a driveway, residents must build a bridge or somehow negotiate the drop. Councilmember Wilson referred to Ms. Gruwell's comment regarding the tools available that negate some of the reasons for the 20,000 square foot lot size. He asked whether under those provisions there was any indemnification of the City to build in a landslide hazard area. Ms. Gruwell answered her understanding was that the responsibility was transferred to the geotechnical engineer designing the construction. City Attorney Scott Snyder agreed, noting the City required indemnity from the property owner, insurance to the extent feasible, an analysis conducted by a separate geotechnical expert, and notice of the studies placed in the records for future property owners to assess the situation. Councilmember Wilson asked whether there were adequate protections in place, noting one of the City's concerns with regard to development in this area was the potential for landslide. Mr. Snyder stated yes, noting the City was attempting to strike a balance between appropriate protections and notification, and assuming a special relationship with the property owner which would incur greater liability. The rights granted to these property owners would be no different than the property owners in the area assumed. He pointed out this was more typically a run -out area for debris flow from the steeper portion; therefore, residents would need to plan where that debris would go but it would not itself cause a hazard or danger. Councilmember Wilson asked whether the Planning Board discussed public use from 75th Place W to the water as a result of the narrower setbacks. Ms. Gruwell answered that was not discussed. She noted no 35 foot setbacks currently existed. Councilmember Wilson asked whether the Planning Board discussed rezoning other areas along 75th Place W. Ms. Gruwell answered that was not discussed by the Planning Board. She pointed out the area to the south already had a contract rezone to RS -12. When the applicant canvassed the neighborhood to gather support for the rezone, they envisioned a larger area but there was concern with development of the vacant lots to the north, therefore the scope of the rezone was narrowed. Councilmember Dawson noted the primary impetus for the rezone was that RS -12 more accurately reflected the actual use of the neighborhood than the RS -20 zoning as well as the fact that but for the concerns about topography, this area would likely have been zoned RS -12 in the first place. Further, the additional safeguards that were in place reduced the concern with development in this area. Ms. Gruwell agreed. Councilmember Dawson inquired whether the Council could consider GMA issues and that RS -20 zoning may not exist in the future. Mr. Snyder answered yes, explaining rezones were unique in that they were a mixed quasi judicial and legislative issue. There were certain issues upon which the quasi judicial procedure must be followed, however, from a legislative perspective, the Comprehensive Plan, long term planning, etc. could be considered by the Council. Councilmember Dawson commented that while there was currently RS -20 zoning in the City, it was likely the City would not be allowed to retain that zoning in the future. Mr. Snyder answered except for certain critical areas and steep slope environments. Councilmember Dawson asked whether this area would fall under that criteria. Mr. Snyder reiterated this was a run -out for debris flows; the area to the east was of greater concern and staff likely would have more concern with placing additional density in those areas. Councilmember Dawson asked whether the Council should be concerned that if the rezone were denied, it could be brought to the Growth Management Hearings Board alleging the City was out of step with Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 21, 2003 Page 5 GMA and should be rezoned to RS -20. Mr. Snyder offered to discuss that issue in Executive Session as the City currently had an appeal before the Growth Management Hearings Board that included a portion of that argument. Councilmember Dawson asked whether the Council could consider that RS -20 zoning may be changed in the future. Development Services Director Duane Bowman answered that issue was docketed for consideration in the Comprehensive Plan update. Councilmember Petso inquired about the four lots to the north that were of similar size but were not included in the rezone application. Ms. Gruwell answered Lots 3 & 4 were under one ownership and Lot 1 &2 were under one ownership. Councilmember Petso asked if this rezone was granted, would the City be obligated to rezone those as well. Ms. Gruwell commented there was a ravine north of that area. Councilmember Petso concluded there were potentially different circumstances for those lots. Ms. Gruwell agreed. Applicant Gilbert Thiry, 15810 75th Place W, Edmonds, pointed out the decision by the Planning Board was unanimous in favor of the rezone. The four lots to the north of the proposed rezone were 45 feet wide lots and only 8,500 square feet. He noted his second lot, which he was attempting to have rezoned so that it could be developed, was larger than that. He pointed out the property taxes on the parcel where his house is located were $6,500 per year; the property taxes on the vacant lot were $500, thus the development on the lot could result in additional property taxes for the City. Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. There were no members of the public present who wished to provide testimony. Mayor Haakenson closed the public participation portion of the public hearing. With regard to GMA, Councilmember Wilson clarified the City was not precluded from having 20,000 square foot zoning or even lower density if it was necessary for life safety reasons. Mr. Snyder agreed. Councilmember Wilson noted it was likely there would be areas in the City where there would be 20,000 square feet if necessary to protect life and property. Mr. Snyder advised the City would have the obligation to meet a 4 -unit per acre goal under GMA but may justify deviations from that goal based on Best Available Science and other factual criteria. Councilmember Wilson noted in this area there were adequate protections in place for life safety issues and the location of this area at the toe of the slope rather than the steep slope was not necessarily in jeopardy of landslide, therefore, it was logical to rezone this area but not necessary the east side of the street. Mr. Snyder acknowledged there was a risk associated with this area, but it was risk from debris flows, not triggering debris flows. COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON, THAT THE COUNCIL ADOPT THE PLANNING BOARD'S RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THE PROPOSED REZONE, FILE NUMBER R- 03 -75, AND DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CITY'S ZONING MAP FOR CONSENT APPROVAL BY THE COUNCIL. Councilmember Petso noted the proposed rezone did not meet all the criteria for a rezone. There did not seem to be any change in City policy nor did it meet the criteria regarding consistency with the surrounding area. However, in this instance, she found the criteria regarding relative gain to the public health, safety, and welfare compared to the potential increase or decrease in value to the property owners very compelling. She noted a proposed rezone did not need to meet all the criteria, it was only required Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 21, 2003 Page 6 that the Council consider and balance all criteria. She concluded this was an instance where the balance favored the rezone. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. acate 4. PUBLIC HEARING ON A REQUEST TO VACATE A 12 -FOOT WIDE BY 75 -FOOT LONG Portion of PORTION OF THE ALLEY IMMEDIATELY TO THE NORTH OF 920 — 8TH AVENUE SOUTH. ]ley (APPLICANT: THOMAS AND SUSAN NICHOLSON / FILE NO. ST -03 -120) North of 20 -8"' Ave. S. Although this was not a quasi judicial matter, Councilmember Wilson disclosed that his wife served as a loan officer for the applicant at a mortgage company; however, neither his wife nor he had any direct financial benefit from the result of this action. Ms. Gruwell displayed a vicinity map identifying the area proposed to be vacated, north of 920 8th Avenue S, a portion of alley between 7th and 8th Avenues South, between Laurel and Pine Streets. She referred to the criteria for granting a street vacation, explaining the City Council could only grant the vacation if it found the vacation was in the public interest and no property would be denied direct access as a result of the vacation. With regard to the second criteria, she noted all lots on the street had access via the street even without availability of the alley. Ms. Gruwell referred to the memo from Public Works and Engineering Division finding that the vacation of this portion of the alley was not in the public interest due to the potential for future utilities and access. She advised four of the neighbors provided comment, all in opposition to the proposed vacation. She referred to a memorandum from the applicant outlining ten reasons the alley should be vacated. She advised the reasons cited in the applicant's memo did not change staff's position regarding the benefits of retaining the alley. Ms. Gruwell concluded the recommended action was to deny the application and direct the City Attorney to prepare a resolution for Council adoption. Applicant Thomas Nicholson, 920 8th Avenue S, Edmonds, explained he originally began this process three years ago but it was delayed due to the financial commitment necessary to acquire the alley. He explained when they purchased the property and constructed their home seven years ago, a city official indicated there were no plans to put through the 12 -foot alley. Mr. Nicholson referred to the list of ten reasons why consideration should not be given to an alley on the property. First, the alley currently had no public or private utilities located on or near the alley as cited in the letter from Public Works Director Noel Miller. Further, neither PUD, City water /sewer, Comcast, etc. indicated any plans to put utilities on the alley as all utilities were fully built out on surrounding city streets, Pine, Laurel, 7th and 8th. Second, with regard to the comment in the letter concerning City fire trucks, he pointed out there were no fire hydrants on the alley and hydrants were fully developed on surrounding City streets. Third, his analysis found there was only one through alley in the City. Fourth, there was a significant safety issue with regard to the new eight -home development proposed across the street as their proposed access matched the location of the alley. He was concerned this would result in a safety consideration if there were a two block downhill exit from the development. Fifth, if it was considered to put through an alley, there was significant drainage, wetland, unstable soil, and height variations in the area that would likely require a significant City expenditure to construct a drivable roadbed through. Sixth, the adjacent property owner to the north who shares the property supports the proposed vacation. Seventh, staff noted each of the homes on Pine and Laurel Streets have Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 21, 2003 Page 7 parking and access available from the street. The alley provides additional convenience parking for a variety of recreational vehicles, boats, etc., but no home relies on the alley for their sole access. The eighth point in his letter was that his analysis of applications for alley vacations revealed virtually all had been approved. His ninth point was that the alley property was platted in 1915 and the city has chosen not to construct the alley during that time. His final point was that they were prepared to financially remunerate the city to acquire the property. Each of the other neighbors has been using the property without paying any remuneration. Mr. Nicholson summarized they had completed the City's process, filed the appropriate fees, and received minimal feedback from the neighborhood. He referred to the criteria, no property shall be denied access as a result of the vacation and the vacation was in the public interest, stating his strong belief that the vacation was in the public interest as a through alley in this mature alley would not fit the profile of the neighborhood and would result in the concerns previously expressed. Councilmember Marin inquired about the current condition of the alley. Ms. Gruwell identified the portion from 7th Avenue that was paved, a grassy area and the vegetated area proposed to be vacated. Mr. Nicholson explained it was boggy, wet soil and they had landscaped it as best they could. He noted there were some small trees and plants on the property. Councilmember Marin noted the residents on the west end of the block used the alley to access the rear of their lots. Mr. Nicholson agreed. Councilmember Marin stated those residents were not able to travel through to 8th Avenue in the alley. Mr. Nicholson agreed they were not. Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing, noting the Council had received a letter from the applicant as well as comments from Della and Walt Gibbs who were opposed to the proposed vacation. Don Bowdin, 738 Laurel Street, Edmonds, advised the alley abutted the rear of their property which was approximately 100 yards from 8th Avenue. He noted the original plans for this alley were to have it continue from 8th Avenue to 7t'; it was currently improved to Lot 14, gravel for Lots 15 and 16, and an unimproved marshy portion. If the alley were vacated, it would abort any future plans for completion of the alley. He hoped the alley would be completed in the future. He noted the alley served City services as well as citizens and a through alley would facilitate traffic. There was no provision for a cul -de -sac and drivers currently must use private property to turn around. With regard to drainage, he pointed out the completion of the development on 8th Avenue would relieve some of the water problems. Regarding topography, he noted the alley followed the same grade as Pine and Laurel Streets. He concluded there was nothing in the records that indicated there was any intent for this alley not to be completed nor had a cost been established for completion. He urged the Council to deny the proposed vacation. Hearing no further public comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public participation portion of the public hearing. Councilmember Wilson asked the number of parcels west of 8th that used the alley for access to parking and/or garage. Ms. Gruwell advised seven homes had garages, two had gravel parking spaces accessed from the alley. There were eight garages and eight other parking arrangements (driveways, gravel pads, carports) off the street. Councilmember Wilson inquired about natural constraints that would prevent development of the alley such as a wetland. Ms. Gruwell answered the size of the area would not be large enough to qualify as a wetland under the Critical Areas Ordinance. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 21, 2003 Page 8 Councilmember Wilson asked whether there were any topographical considerations that would prevent connection of the alley to 8`" Avenue. Public Works Director Noel Miller answered there was a somewhat steep grade for the existing paved area to 8"' Avenue, but as previously noted, it was no different than the grade on Pine and Laurel Streets. Councilmember Plunkett referred to Mr. Nicholson's suggestion in the fourth point in his letter that if the development to the east of 8`" was constructed and the alley was opened, vehicles from the development would use the alley. Development Services Director Duane Bowman answered there was the potential for residents of the development to the east of 80' to drive down the alley. He projected they likely would not because the alley was narrow and not conducive to two vehicles passing. He doubted it would become a high speed area due to the physical constraints of the alley. Councilmember Plunkett concluded there were fairly wide roads to the left and right that could be used for access, making use of the alley less likely. Councilmember Petso referred to the comment that the new development would improve drainage on the alley property. Mr. Bowman answered any development would need to collect and handle their stormwater in a manner better than currently occurred. He noted it was unlikely the development would exacerbate any existing drainage issues. Councilmember Plunkett referred to the comment that the City had unanimously approved previous alley vacations, asking whether alleys were usually vacated and whether the circumstances were similar. Mr. Bowman referred to the vacation criteria, whether it was in the public interest to vacate the alley, explaining many alley vacations were approved because the topography made it impractical to complete the alley. In this instance, the facts warrant holding the alley for potential future use as it was not topographically impossible to extend the alley and there were properties that currently have developed alley access. He concluded the facts for each alley vacation must be evaluated on a case -by -case basis. Councilmember Wilson asked whether in the past there were any instances where a vacation was granted when a department indicated a need to retain the alley for potential public use. Mr. Bowman, Mr. Miller, or Mr. Snyder could not recall such a situation. Councilmember Wilson noted the Council had granted alley vacations in the past based on topography and when all departments agreed there was no potential future need for the alley. Mr. Bowman agreed. COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, TO DENY THE APPLICATION AND DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE A RESOLUTION FOR COUNCIL ADOPTION. Councilmember Marin pointed out much of the alley was developed and being used fairly extensively and it was conceivable those neighbors may want to fund the continuation of the alley. Councilmember Plunkett commented it was not in the public interest to vacate the alley, noting a reasonable person would use the street rather than the alley. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Election/ ag Ron Wambolt, 504 6 "' Campaign Avenue, Edmonds, referred to advertisements in the Edmonds Beacon, one by P >m Issues Ken Reid showing support for his reelection to the Port Commission from Councilmembers Marin, Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 21, 2003 Page 9 Plunkett, and Wilson. Mr. Wambolt pointed out the Council supported the Washington Tea Party's opposition to Brightwater, however, no help was provided by the Port, led by Ken Reid. He recalled Mr. Reid continually dismissed all requests by citizens for the Port to assist with opposing Brightwater. He questioned Councilmember Marin, Plunkett and Wilson's endorsement of Mr. Reid. Next, Mr. Wambolt referred to an advertisement by Peggy Olson stating she had been endorsed by Mayor Haakenson and Councilmembers Earling, Marin, Orvis, Plunkett, and Wilson. He opined that the Council as a group had inappropriately handled the City's budget crisis; his conclusion was the Council was striving to get an agreeable replacement for Councilmember Petso elected, a replacement that would allow the Council to more efficiently deal inappropriately with the City's budget. In his experience, strong leaders sought to surround themselves with a few colleagues who have a dissenting view; he was disappointed this was not the Council's approach. Friends of Peggy Pritchard Olson, 18005 Talbot Road, Edmonds, President of the Friends of the Edmonds he Library Library, invited the public to the book sale on Saturday, October 25 at the Frances Anderson Center from Book Sale 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. She noted in the 12 years she had been involved with the Friends, this was the most books ever collected. She urged the public to support this event that raised funds for the Edmonds Library. Alvin Rutledge, 7101 Lake Ballinger Way, Edmonds, urged the City Council to include something in sinessnt the 2004 budget to cover the revenue losses experienced b waterfront businesses who were impacted b usmesses g p Y P Y the construction of the bulkhead. Fandidate Ray Martin, 18704 94"' Avenue W, Edmonds, referred to the October 16 candidate forum at Edmonds Drum on Community College where candidates responded to students' questions. He was told that two candidates, et. 16 Mauri Moore and Peggy Olson, stated they were in favor of legalized prostitution in Edmonds. He noted three other candidates confirmed that was Ms. Moore and Ms. Olson's position. A fourth candidate recalled Ms. Moore and Ms. Olson's indication that they were speaking sincerely and from the heart. He was concerned with this information and urged both to clarify their position. adrona I Matt Douglas, 21021 Pioneer . Way, Edmonds, referred to the Madrona Cove PRD approved by the rove PRD City Council in May, advising the developer now has requested a height variance for 16 of the 22 homes. Mayor Haakenson interrupted, stating this was potentially a quasi judicial hearing before the City Council following the Hearing Examiner's decision, therefore, the Council could not hear any comments until after the Hearing Examiner's ruling. Mr. Douglas encouraged citizens in Edmonds to attend the Hearing Examiner hearing on Wednesday, October 29 at 7:00 p.m. in Council Chambers, emphasizing residents' neighborhoods could be the next one impacted. Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, Edmonds, referred to the candidate forum on October 20, andidate expressing his dismay with the behavior of candidates Mauri Moore and Peggy Olson and a number of � t. 20 n their supporters in the audience for laughing at Mr. Rutledge's comments on prostitution. He noted their laughter occurred again and interrupted Councilmember Petso's comments suggesting she was opposed to prostitution. He reported on his interview of the Edmonds Community College Student Advisor who expressed shock at the way Ms. Moore and Ms. Olson answered the question. He reported on his conversations with the Edmonds Community College Student Body President, candidates Al Rutledge, Rich Demeroutis and Lora Petso who were opposed to prostitution and agreed the comments had been made by Ms. Moore and Ms. Olson. He noted the editor of the Herald questioned Ms. Moore and Ms. Olson and they denied making those statements. He reported his understanding that Ms. Moore, after the forum, tried to clarify her answer to the person who asked the question. He concluded those comments Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 21, 2003 Page 10 were an indication of what citizens did not want to vote for in the upcoming election and he did not plan to support either Ms. Moore or Ms. Olson. dmonds Robert Rhein, 203 3rd Avenue #9, Edmonds, noted one of the issues that had caught his attention was reposition Edmonds Proposition #1, the combined emergency services and law enforcement levy. He questioned 0.1 Ruth Arista why the topics were not separate ballot issues. (Later in the meeting Ms. Arista was identified as a co -chair of the Edmonds Citizens for Public Safety Committee, a citizen committee not affiliated with the City Council.) Ms. Arista indicated if he felt this way, he should address the committee and the committee would address the Council as the Council made the final decision. He questioned why a committee was established if the Council made the final decision. He commented the only committee that the Council seemed to agree with was with regard to pay increases. He recommended Proposition #1 be split the next time it was on the ballot as, in his opinion, law enforcement was not being used appropriately. He cited the seatbelt law as an example. He concluded government was taking too much personal responsibility away from citizens. Community 6. REPORT ON THE OCTOBER 14, 2003 COMMUNITY SERVICES/DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Services/ COMMITTEE MEETING Develop- ment Services Councilmember Marin reported the Committee first discussed the Olympic View Drive sewer laterals ommittee special connection fee, explaining the City had entered into a cooperative effort with Lynnwood to improve Olympic View Drive. There were 13 houses that abut Olympic View Drive that are not currently connected to sewer and there were substantial benefits to installing the sewer laterals at the same time the street improvements were made. The Committee discussed whether to install the sewer laterals now and consider a special connection fee for property owners to share in the cost. The Committee agreed it was appropriate to install the sewer laterals now and asked that staff hold neighborhoods meetings with property owners. The Committee asked that the special connection fee be brought back to the full Council with the results of the neighborhood meeting. Next, the Committee continued its discussion on home occupations in response to a concern that the current home occupation ordinance was vague. Staff provided ordinances from other communities. Staff was asked to provide historical information regarding the number of complaints about home occupations. This information will be returned to the Committee in December. The Committee then discussed the downtown zoning designations (extent of BC Zone) and asked that three members of the Planning Board join the Committee in December for a discussion regarding downtown zoning designations. 7. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Haakenson advised the October 20 candidate forum was recorded and would be televised each morning at 9:00 a.m. for the next two weeks on Channel 21. He commented on the record rainfall in the City on October 20, reporting there were only two areas where problems occurred. He requested citizens remove leaves from the tops of storm drains as this would often relieve clogged drains. 8. COUNCIL COMMENTS Council President Earling provided a reminder of the special Council meeting on Saturday, November 8 regarding the budget from 9:00 — 11:00 a.m. xcused COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, TO bsence EXCUSE COUNCILMEMBER DAWSON FROM THE OCTOBER 7 COUNCIL MEETING DUE TO ILLNESS. MOTION CARRIED (6 -0 -1), COUNCILMEMBER DAWSON ABSTAINED. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 21, 2003 Page 11 Councilmember Dawson commented she had been quite ill and was glad to be back. She thanked Senior kvcoExecutive Council Assistant Jana Spellman for the books she included with her Council packet. With regard to the comments made by Mr. Rhein, she explained the Council held hearings previously y Lid regarding the levy lid lift and what would be included. Subsequently, a group of citizens formed a mmittee, , Edmonds Citizens for Public Safety, that was not affiliated with the Council; Ms. Arista is one of three co- chairs of the committee. She noted that although Councilmember Plunkett and she were members of the committee, it was not a city committee. arking Councilmember Orvis advised that the Planning Board would be discussing parking at their October 22 meeting. Student Representative Alex Brent - Fielding reported the Meadowdale High School, as part of their homecoming Spirit Change, collected nearly $800 in change that will be donated to Children's Hospital. With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 8:31 p.m. A_Z� G Y H E SON, MAYOR 1 lj SANDRA S. CHASE, CITY CLERK Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 21, 2003 Page 12 AGENDA EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex 250 5th Avenue North 7:00 - 10:00 p.m. OCTOBER 21, 2003 7:00 p.m. - Call to Order Flag Salute 1. Approval of Agenda 2. Consent Agenda Items (A) Roll Call (B) Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of October 7, 2003. (C) Approval of claim checks #65874 through #66066 for the week of October 6, 2003, in the amount of $528,398.28. Approval of claim checks #66068 through #66210 for the week of October 13, 2003, in the amount of $373,842.93. Approval of payroll direct deposits and checks #36867 through #36951 for the period October 1 through October 15, 2003, in the amount of $893,617.90. (D) Acknowledge receipt of Claim for Damages from Paul Rootvik ($46,011.25). (E) Authorization for the Mayor to sign an Interlocal Agreement with the City of Lynnwood regarding the unincorporated island in Perrinville. (F) Community Services Department Quarterly Report - October 2003. (G) Proclamation in honor of Make a Difference Day, Saturday, October 25, 2003. 3. (30 Min.) Public Hearing on the Planning Board's recommendation to rezone an area along the west side of 75th Place West from RS -20 to RS -12 (15706 - 16000 75th Place West, west side only). (Applicant: Janet and Gilbert Thiry / File No. R- 03-75) 4. (30 Min.) Public Hearing on a request to vacate a 12 -foot wide by 75 -foot long portion of the alley immediately to the north of 920 - 8th Avenue South. (Applicant: Thomas and Susan Nicholson / File No. ST- 03 -120) Page 1 of 2 n F�, CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA October 21, 2003 Page 2 of 2 5. Audience Comments (3 Minute Limit Per Person)* *Regarding matters not listed on the Agenda as Closed Record Review or as Public Hearings. 6. ( 5 Min.) Report on the October 14, 2003 Community Services /Development Services Committee Meeting. 7. ( 5 Min.) Mayor's Comments B. (15 Min.) Council Comments ADJOURN 'arking and meeting rooms are accessible for persons with disabilities. Please contact the City Clerk a 425) 771 -0245 with 24 hours advance notice for special accommodations. The Council Agenda as well as < telayed telecast of the meeting appears on cable television Government Access Channel 21.