Loading...
11/02/1998 City CouncilEDMONDS CITY. COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES NOVEMBER 2, 1998 The Special Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Pro Tem Dick Van Hollebeke in the Library Plaza Room, 650 Main Street, followed by the flag salute. ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Barbara Fahey, Mayor (arrived 8:00 p.m.) Dick Van Hollebeke, Mayor Pro Tem Dave Earling, Councilmember . John Nordquist, Councilmember Michael Plunkett, Councilmember Jim White, Councilmember Thomas A. Miller, Councilmember ABSENT Gary Haakenson, Council President STAFF PRESENT Paul Mar, Community Services Director Jeff Wilson, Planning Supervisor Steve Bullock, Senior Planner Noel Miller, Public Works Director James Walker, City Engineer Arvilla Ohlde, Parks and Recreation Director Dee McGrath, Senior Executive Assistant Scott Snyder, City Attorney Sandy Chase, City Clerk Jeannie Dines, Recorder Mayor Pro. Tem Van Hollebeke explained this Special Council meeting was held on Monday due to Election Day on Tuesday, November 3. He further explained Mayor Fahey is entertaining the Hekinan delegation and will arrive with them at approximately 8:00 p.m. He was serving as Mayor Pro Tem as Council President.Haakenson is on vacation. 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mayor Pro Tem Van Hollebeke requested Items No. 5 (Presentation by Gregory Sullivan Isaacs on the Cascade Symphony's 371 season) and No. 6 (Presentation of Community Grant Award) be combined and moved to Item 3 on the agenda. Mr. Roger Hertrich was agreeable to moving Item 3 (Continued Closed Record Appeal Meeting - Appeal by Roger Hertrich of the Hearing Examiner's Decision) to Item 3a. COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER EARLING, FOR APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED. 2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS Councilmember Nordquist requested Item I be removed from the Consent Agenda. COUNCILMEMBER EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MILLER, FOR APPROVAL OF THE BALANCE OF THE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS. MOTION CARRIED. The agenda items approved are as follows: Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 2, 1998 Page 1 III t (A) ROLL CALL k roved utes of (B) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF OCTOBER 27,1998 7/98 d (C) APPROVAL OF CLAIM WARRANTS #27798 THROUGH #28444 FOR THE WEEK OF m OCTOBER 26,1998, IN THE AMOUNT OF $251,189.62 rants pdate Hwy 9 Project (D) UPDATE ON HIGHWAY 99 PROJECT 'ty Atty. (E) ANNUAL REPORT FROM CITY ATTORNEY lAnnual Rpt gmt w/RW (F) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO THE eck, Drain- PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH R.W. BECK AND ASSOCIATES e Repairs FOR THE MEADOWDALE DRAINAGE REPAIRS PROJECT IlReplace 4 (G) AUTHORIZATION TO CONTRACT WITH EVERGREEN STATE SHEET METAL, INC. Feat Pumps TO REPLACE FOUR (4) HEAT PUMP UNITS FOR THE CITY HALL BUILDING lat City Hall ($8,861.76) Ord. 3230 re 5 -year life (H) ORDINANCE NO. 3230 AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF EDMONDS COMMUNITY or Pre /Short DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 20.75.100 TO CONFIRM A FIVE YEAR LIFE FOR A Plat Appr. PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PRELIMINARY SHORT PLAT APPROVAL Item I: Proposed Ordinance Amending A Contract Rezone for Certain Property Commonly Known as Harbor Square V Councilmember Nordquist said he would abstain from the vote on this item as he was on vacation and not present at the Council meeting when this was discussed. Although he had read the minutes, he was not comfortable with voting on this matter. COUNCILMEMBER EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WHITE, FOR APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEM I. MOTION CARRIED, COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST ABSTAINED. The item approved is as follows: (1) ORDINANCE NO. 3231 AMENDING A CONTRACT REZONE FOR CERTAIN PROPERTY COMMONLY KNOWN AS HARBOR SQUARE Grant Award 3. PRESENTATION BY GREGORY SULLIVAN ISSACS ON THE CASCADE SYMPHONY'S 371'H or Cascade SEASON AND PRESENTATION OF COMMUNITY GRANT AWARD Symphony Mayor Pro Tern Van Hollebeke introduced Gregory Sullivan Isaacs, Cascade Symphony Conductor, and commented the Cascade Symphony is a treasure and the City is delighted it has been part of the community for 37 years. Mr. Sullivan explained the Cascade Symphony's 37' season will be a continuation of their efforts to be an "as well" orchestra (an orchestra citizens attend as well as attending others) rather than an "instead of." He described upcoming events that will include many different works not seen elsewhere in the area. He said the Symphony's 38' season, which will cover the millennium, will be an entire season (five concerts) of works by American composers. He said the Symphony is proud to be in Edmonds and appreciates the support of the Council. The Symphony plans to re- energize their subscriber base. Although their ticket sales are excellent, grant requests also consider their subscriber base, which shows the amount of community support. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 2, 1998 Page 2 Mayor Pro Tern Van Hollebeke asked how one purchased tickets. Mr. Sullivan encouraged the public to call (425) 778 -4688 and purchase a season ticket (now available at a reduced rate). Tickets are also available at the Cascade Symphony office at the Anderson Center. He said, thanks to generous donations, the Symphony has been able to keep their ticket prices equivalent to a movie. Presentation of Community Grant Award Councilmember Earling, Chair of the Finance Committee, explained last year, at the recommendation of Councilmember Nordquist, the Council designated funds for community grants to be presented twice each year. The first grants were awarded in January and tonight is the second (and final) presentation of grant awards this year. He commented the Cascade Symphony has been in the community for 37 years and is one of the leading cultural groups in Snohomish County. Commenting he was a Cascade Symphony Boardmember several years ago and played with the Symphony in the past, Councilmember Earling said the Symphony is one of the nationally recognized community symphonies in the United States. He expressed his appreciation for the educationally oriented grant application submitted by the Cascade Symphony. The grant will fund student workshops by the Principle Trombonist of the New York Philharmonic. Councilmember Miller, Finance Committee Member, presented the Cascade Symphony a Certificate of Appreciation and a grant in the amount of $4,000. Councilmember Earling advised $6,000 of the $25,000 designated for Community Grants was not awarded during 1998 and recommended these funds be placed in the Council Contingency. Fund. emaining rant funds COUNCILMEMBER EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MILLER, TO n Council PLACE THE REMAINING COMMUNITY GRANT FUNDS ($6,000) IN THE COUNCIL ontingency CONTINGENCY FUND. MOTION CARRIED. 3A. CONTINUED CLOSED RECORD APPEAL MEETING - APPEAL BY ROGER HERTRICH OF THE HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION TO DENY HIS APPEAL OF A STAFF INTERPRETATION (FILE NO. AP- 98 -85) PERTAINING TO EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 20.60 TO CONSIDER GAS PUMP ISLAND CANOPY LOGOS AS "WALL GRAPHIC," WHICH ARE EXEMPT FROM HEIGHT AND AREA LIMITATIONS. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 1011 PUGET DRIVE AND IS ZONED NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS - "BN." F Observing this was a continued closed record meeting, Mayor Pro Tem Van Hollebeke asked if any Councilmember wished to make a disclosure. Councilmember Miller said he was not present at the first closed record meeting regarding this matter on October 20 but had read the minutes and the agenda 98 -85 packet and was prepared to participate. City Attorney Scott Snyder asked Councilmember Miller if he had listened to the tapes of the meeting. Councilmember Miller answered no. Mr. Snyder said Mr. Hertrich's arguments made at the October 20 meeting should be considered verbatim and not as summarized in the minutes. He said Councilmember Miller must listen to the tapes in order to participate. Councilmember Miller recused himself from this closed record meeting. There were no other Council disclosures and there were no challenges to the participation of any other Councilmember. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 2, 1998 Page 3 Mr. Snyder reviewed the closed record meeting procedures. He explained, as this is a continued closed record appeal, only parties of record (Mr. Hertrich and the sign applicant) have standing and may only argue from materials already in the record (no new evidence may be presented). He recalled at the close of Mr. Hertrich's presentation on October 20, he raised questions regarding the items not contained in the Council's packet (appeal letter and supporting argument) which have now been provided to the Council. At the conclusion of the October 20 closed record appeal, the Council agreed to allow Mr. Hertrich and the sign applicant an additional five minutes. Mr. Snyder explained any information presented at the October 20 meeting was part of the record. He said staff is prepared to respond to the questions Mr. Hertrich raised at the October 20 closed record appeal. Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, Edmonds, objected to the description of the closed record appeal as advertised, "consider gas pump island canopy logo as "wall graphics" which are exempt from height and area limitations," because there is nothing in the code that addresses this exemption. Mr. Snyder said the Council should consider this information in its decision. Mr. Hertrich referred to the diagram of the sign (Attachment 4) which indicates the canopy is 42 ". Although the staff report refers to a 2 - 2%2 -foot circle, there is no border between the edge of the sign and the edge of the canopy, indicating the star /circle is as large as the canopy. He stressed this was totally out of scale for the BN zone. He said the scale of the Texaco sign would be more appropriate for Hwy. 99. He pointed out the ARCO in downtown, Shell on Edmonds Way, and Texaco at Five Corners all have much smaller logos than this sign. He said other decisions made by a former city employee have been faulted including signage for B1ockBuster Video. Mr. Hertrich alleged this employee made up his own code because there is no description in the City Code that properly describes wall graphics. He said the only description in the code is regarding use and not dictionary terms. He said his references to the dictionary terms were ignored by the Hearing Examiner. He said the height is addressed in the sign code and wall signs have height restrictions. Mr. Hertrich said staff has indicated the sign must be reviewed by the Architectural Design Board (ADB) if more than two signs are proposed. He noted that there are seven signs on this property, the approved monument sign, the Olympic View Deli sign, three logos on the canopy, and two A -frame signs. He pointed out recent code changes allow only one A -frame sign. He said staff has also not considered the color change on the gas pumps. He said if the sign was painted on, unlit, and smaller, it may be an appropriate sign for the BN zone. Mayor Pro Tem Van Hollebeke asked if the sign applicant, Clyde McCoy, was present. Mr. McCoy was not present. Senior Planner Steve Bullock addressed the three questions Mr. Hertrich raised at the October 20 closed record appeal meeting (page 5 of the October 20 Council minutes). In response to the first, "how is the lighted sign not garish and how is it compatible with the neighborhood," Mr. Bullock explained this sign was reviewed by a former staff member who reviewed all ADB projects as well as waivers of ADB review and who had a history of knowledge of all ADB decisions. The staff report this former staff member wrote in response to the initial appeal is included in the Council packet (Exhibit 7). Page 3 of the staff report (page 34 of the Council packet) indicates "the applicant is proposing a wall graphic that does not exceed the maximum height or area limitations. The graphics appear to be non - garish and consistent with the neighborhood character." Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 2, 1998 Page 4 In response to Mr. Hertrich's second question, "how does the sign match with the downtown sign code," Mr. Bullock referred to page 4 of the staff report (page 35 of the Council packet) and a memo (attachment 2 of the staff report and page 38 of the Council packet). The memo outlines the former employee's opinion regarding the non - garish nature of the Texaco Star logos and that it was consistent with the neighborhood and his opinion that ADB review could be waived. In response to Mr. Hertrich's third question, "where in the code is the height limit described for wall - mounted signs," Mr. Bullock referred to page 4 of the staff report (page 35 of the Council packet) which states the former employee's rationale for the reason there are no height limitations for wall graphics, "Section 20.60.060A. Definitions - A wall graphic is a wall sign in which color and form are part of an overall design on the building. B. Restrictions - There are no area restrictions on wall graphics or identification structures." Mr. Bullock speculated the former employee could have interpreted "no area restrictions" as the area (dimensions) of the sign or the area the sign is located on the building. Utilizing his experience with ADB decisions, the former employee would evaluate the business owners' desire to operate their business as well as the sign not being unduly imposing on the neighborhood and determine whether ADB review was necessary or a waiver could be granted. Mr. Bullock explained staff and procedures in the Planning Department have changed significantly since this sign was approved. Several staff members discuss whether it is appropriate to grant a waiver rather than one person assisting the ADB and making decisions regarding potential waivers. He requested Council's feedback and input regarding how to proceed with this issue. Councilmember Plunkett inquired about Mr. Hertrich's statement that there are seven signs on the site. Mr. Bullock said the two signs on the site are the monument sign, which was approved by the ADB earlier this year, and the Olympic View Deli wall mounted sign. The former employee apparently determined the star /circle was a wall graphic and did not count as part of the two allowable signs. Mr. Bullock said this is the first time staff has been made aware of the A -frame signs and will look into it further. Councilmember Nordquist observed staff appeared to be apologizing for a previous employee's actions. He said the record appears to indicate this is a sign of some nature. He questioned whether the problem should just "go away" because the employee left the City. He felt this was a sign regardless of whether it was attached to the building, noting he often looks for logos as well as lettered signs. Mr. Bullock said he could see legitimacy in both the former employee's rationale for his decision as well as in Mr. Hertrich's appeal. At this time, staff is seeking Council direction in how to proceed. Mr. Snyder explained the issue before the Council is a code interpretation. During an appeal, a judge would give no weight to any administrative decision and would review the facts anew. Likewise, the Council is not required to give any weight to staff interpretation but is free to make their own decision regarding how to apply the definition of wall graphic and wall sign. The Hearing Examiner used the standard maxim of interpretation; if there is an ambiguity in the code, the property owner's common law right to develop the property is given deference. Mr. Snyder said there are other maxims such as "zoning codes are to be liberally construed in order to effectuate their purpose" and the "plain meaning rule" -- if the Council feels this is a wall sign and not a wall graphic. Mr. Hertrich said wall graphics are best described by the ADB. When he asked the ADB, they said a lot of little symbols as part of a band around the building could be considered a wall graphic. However, they Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 2, 1998 Page 5 felt one or two large items like "this huge circle" would be considered a wall sign. Mr. Hertrich said the former employee did not use the code to support his memo. Mr. Hertrich summarized that this matter has arisen due to a lack of expertise, interest, or ability. He said the code needed to be "tightened up" and recommended the Council put a stop to allowing signs to be used as wall graphics. Mayor Pro Tern Van Hollebeke remanded the matter to Council for deliberation. Councilmember Plunkett observed Mr. Snyder said the Council is free to develop their own interpretation. He echoed Councilmember Nordquist's comments and stated staff appears to be divided on this issue. Mr. Bullock indicates he can see merit to both sides and the staff member who made the decision is no longer in the City's employ. Councilmember Plunkett did not foresee a problem with having the signs reviewed by the ADB. Councilmember Nordquist commented in the past, the Council has encouraged businesses in the area with corporate logos such as McDonald's, Skippers, and Shell to reduce their size. He was concerned with "stretching" the definition of signs. Councilmember Nordquist asked if upholding the appeal would result in the matter being sent back to the Hearing Examiner. Mr. Snyder answered if the Council determines this is a wall sign and not a wall graphic, staff will inform Texaco they must file an application for an amendment to their sign package or turn off the light. COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, TO UPHOLD THE APPEAL AND SEND THIS BACK TO THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR FURTHER DEFINITION OF A WALL SIGN. Councilmember White asked where in the code it required staff to send a wall sign (and not a wall graphic) to the ADB. Mr. Snyder said a wall sign is defined in the Community Development Code as a sign that is parallel to and not projected from a wall or is painted directly on the wall. Section 20.60.050(A) regarding wall graphics and identification structures states, "a wall graphic is a wall sign in which color and form are part of an overall design on the building." Section 20.60.050(B) states "there are no area restrictions on wall graphics or identification structures." Section 20.60.020(A) regarding signs that must be reviewed by the ADB states, "if more than two signs are proposed for the site or if the total number of approved signs would exceed two, ADB review is required." Mr. Snyder said Section 20.60.020(A)(1) states the Planning Manager may refer the application to the ADB if a sign contains certain characteristics (free standing or detached, lighted, or use of reflective materials) or if it is a wall graphic as defined by the code. Mr. Snyder advised that if the Council finds this is a wall sign rather than a wall graphic (recognizing that all wall graphics are wall signs); the Council's findings would include a finding that there are more than two signs on the site and ADB review would be required. Councilmember White asked if there was concern with the ambiguous and arbitrary application of what constitutes a sign opposed to what is a graphic. Mr. Snyder answered that was the basis for the Hearing Examiner decision. Any ambiguities in the code are to be resolved in favor of the property owner. Councilmember White clarified Mr. Snyder's statement if the code is ambiguous, the Council must rule in favor of the applicant; if the Council finds the code is not ambiguous, then the plain meaning rule applies and the Council is to rule in favor of the appellant. Mr. Snyder answered yes. Councilmember White said if the Council agreed with the interpretation, why did it need to be returned to the Hearing Examiner? Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 2, 1998 Page 6 Councilmember Nordquist said based on his review of the facts, he too felt it was a wall sign. Mr. Snyder said if this is the Council's interpretation, staff would notify the applicant to remove the sign or file an application for ADB review of their sign package. COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST WITHDREW HIS MOTION WITH THE AGREEMENT OF THE SECOND. COUNCILMEMBER WHITE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST, TO ADOPT A FINDING OF FACT THAT THE SIGN IS A WALL SIGN AS OPPOSED TO A WALL GRAPHIC. Councilmember Earling expressed concern that the lack of definition in the City Code costs business owners hundreds, and sometimes thousands of dollars for this type of adjustment. While Mr. Hertrich's appeal has merit, Councilmember Earling said this property owner has, over time, gone out of their way to accommodate their business into a neighborhood setting and the business looks good. He hoped an amicable solution could be reached that would not cost the business owners considerably more investment. Councilmember White agreed with Councilmember Earling's comments. He pointed out an "object" that is lighted, is in excess of three feet in diameter, and even though it is not affixed to the building and is integrated well into the design, it is still a sign and should be reviewed by the ADB. He suggested the . consultants reviewing the ADB process also consider this issue. MOTION CARRIED, MAYOR PRO TEM VAN HOLLEBEKE ABSTAINED. Mr. Snyder said the Council's Finding of Fact will refer to the size, the electrical lighting, and the placement on the canopy as opposed to the wall of a building that is not consistent with a wall graphic and is therefore a wall sign. He said height may also be an issue to site in the Council's findings. He suggested he also develop an interim zoning ordinance that clarifies this code interpretation. He noted a variance for height would be required if this is a sign and suggested the fee for the variance and application be waived. The Council was agreeable to the proposed findings and the process. 4. AUDIENCE COMMENTS nimal Dave McDowell, 9006 242ND SW, Edmonds, explained he was annexed into the City with the Esperance Code Annexation. He has had chickens for at least 40 years and was assured prior to annexation that nothing nforcement would change. He said the City has indicated if one person complains, the law must be enforced and he has until November 10 to comply. He requested a later date for compliance or possibly a grandfather clause. He indicated he must appear in Small Claims Court on December 3 to respond to a neighbor's claim for property damages in the amount of $2500. He read numerous letters from neighbors stating his chickens do not cause any problems. He provided the letters to the City Clerk. Planning Kevin Clarke, 23924 107' Place W, Edmonds, distributed information to Councilmembers, which he rd Hearing reviewed. He said during the audience comment portion of the October 6 meeting, he asked Mayor re Edmonds- Fahey review the issue associated with the Planning Board public hearing, proper notification, and the oodway }' Rezone letters. He referred to the information he distributed, including the minutes from the October 6 Council meeting, and correspondence from Mr. Snyder to Mayor Fahey. One of the issues he asked to have addressed was not addressed by Mr. Snyder, and Mr. Snyder erroneously referred to the Chase Lake Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 2, 1998 Page 7 zoning. Mr. Clarke stressed there was not proper notice or mailing for the Planning Board public hearing regarding the Edmonds - Woodway High School rezone. He referred to the Edmonds Code section containing the regulations for required notification -- a mailing must include individuals who live within 300 feet of the property and three notices or one large sign must be posted. The information he distributed included an affidavit from the Planning Department stating they complied with the City's ordinances. He referred to a map, provided by the Planning Department, showing only two notices were posted on the property. The colored notice states, "I hereby certify that I have posted on the above property in three conspicuous places." He said the Code requires three notices but the map clearly indicates only two notices were posted. The information he distributed indicated the consultant for Edmonds School District filed a request to postpone the City Council public hearing because the mailing list was insufficient. He referred to Paul Mar's letter in response to the School District's request and agreeing to postpone the public hearing and the City Clerk's renotification. He referred to the mailing lists, submitted in July and in October and a comparison of the two which indicates there are 21 names or 15% that did not appear on the mailing list for the Planning Board public hearing. He urged the Council to make a decision on this issue, noting that he requested this be addressed over a month ago. He pointed out Mr. Snyder's letter to Mayor Fahey was dated October 16 but she did not respond to him (Mr. Clarke). He objected to the Council placing the burden on him to show that the City and the School District are not complying with the law. At the conclusion of the three minute time period for public comment, Mr. Clarke objected to being allowed only three minutes to present a document that took him hours to research. He stressed the Council must make a decision because the posting has already been done for the Council's November 17 public hearing. He requested an additional two minutes to review the materials presented to the Council. He pointed out the Council has correspondence from Marilyn Hill, one of the property owners who was not on the mailing list for the Planning Board public hearing, requesting the Council consider this issue. Mr. Clarke pointed out citizens do not have an opportunity to appeal the Council's decision. Councilmember Plunkett asked if Mr. Clarke could be given an additional two minutes for further explanation. Mayor Pro Tern Van Hollebeke asked Mr. Snyder to advise the Council of the appropriate procedure. City Attorney Scott Snyder suggested Council discussion of this issue be added later on the agenda. He said the Council's rules are clear regarding impromptu public hearings during the public comment portion of the agenda. He said staff informed him that his letter referred to the wrong rezone and a follow -up memo was sent to correct the reference to Chase Lake. He requested an opportunity to review the posting with staff and offered to review the materials Mr. Clarke provided. COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MILLER, TO ADD A DISCUSSION OF THE POSTING PROCESS FOR THE EDMONDS - WOODWAY HIGH SCHOOL NON - PROJECT REZONE TO THE AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Nordquist referred to Mr. McDowell's request for an extension. Mr. Snyder advised the Small Claims Court issue is independent of the City's process. He discussed the matter with the City's Code Enforcement Officer, who is reviewing the non - conforming nature of the rights established by maintenance of the chickens in Snohomish County. scent2l- Al Rutledge, 7101 Lake Ballinger Way, Edmonds, announced a seminar taking place Saturday, atic November 7 and Sunday, November 8 regarding athletic scholarships. He remarked that Mayor Pro Tem ter Van Hollebeke addressed Ascent 21 at the October 20 meeting but did not mention his involvement with the aquatic center. Mr. Rutledge recommended swimmers also attend the seminar regarding athletic Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 2, 1998 Page 8 scholarship and that the City seek the support of swimmers in the event the Ascent 21 ballot issue fails and other funding methods must be explored. 1999 Budget Rich Demeroutis, 921 Pine Street, Edmonds, said he was able with some difficulty to obtain a budget Tax Increase book. He pointed out the Mayor's letter indicates during the Human Resource and Compensation Study, re EMS Svcs she asked Mr. Housler to factor in a 6% property tax increase. He said the City has a habit of loading taxes onto residents and the Mayor has balanced the budget by adding 6% to residents' taxes. He objected to the establishment of the Developmental Services Manager position because the City did not have the funds for it. He questioned the increase in the percentage for EMS services from 25% to 40% and the Mayor's indication this was draining the City's budget. He acknowledged the City must have fire suppression by state law but questioned whether a fire fighter was an EMS technician or a fire fighter when he /she was waiting for an alarm. He envisioned the City would soon say a transport fee was necessary, which he did not believe citizens wanted. He recommended the percentage remain at 25% or determine why it increased to 40 %. 5. PRESENTATION OF HEKINAN DELEGATION Presentation Mayor Pro Tem Van Hollebeke explained Edmonds has had a Sister City relationship with Hekinan, of Hekinan Japan, for ten y ears. He recalled a delegation from Edmonds, includin g Mayor Fahe y and Delegation Councilmember Nordquist, visited Hekinan to celebrate their 501 anniversary. Mayor Fahey said the City is celebrating the 10' anniversary of the Sister City relationship with Hekinan and the 50' anniversary of the formation of the City of Hekinan. She said a delegation traveled to Hekinan in honor of their 501 anniversary,in July and now Edmonds is being honored with a visit from the Mayor of Hekinan, Taku Nagashima and his delegation. She explained over the past ten years, Edmonds has had a relationship of friendship and understanding develop with Hekinan which is believed, people to people, will lead to world peace. She said for many years Edmonds students have traveled to Hekinan as exchange students to attend their schools and learn more about their culture. In return, Edmonds has had Hekinan students in Edmonds, staying up to a year, attending school -and learning more about the United States. She said there are very strong relationships in other areas such as between the Hospital in Hekinan and Stevens Hospital. The Director of the Hospital in Hekinan is a member of the government and reports to the Mayor of Hekinan. The Mayor also oversees all schools in Hekinan as well as the Port. She said the Hekinan delegation is surprised to discover the many independent forms of organizations that provide these services as well as the regional services provided by the treatment plant and the School District. Tours of these facilities have helped members of the delegation understand how Edmonds' government operates. Likewise, the Edmonds delegation learned many things during their visit to Hekinan. Mayor Fahey said Hekinan is a port City, and Hekinan cherishes nature, arts, and culture, which they have also enjoyed in Edmonds. Many Hekinan citizens have come from the hospital in Hekinan to visit with staff at Stevens Hospital; there are displays in both hospitals of the other hospital. Mayor. Fahey said a reception was held last night in the Library Plaza Room. She thanked Councilmember Nordquist for leading the delegation on behalf of the Council, commenting he has developed many long - standing relationships in Hekinan due to previous visits. She expressed her appreciation to Councilmembers Miller, White, and Van Hollebeke for joining the delegation. She thanked the Council for their support of the Sister City relationship with Hekinan. She said there were numerous doctors in attendance at the reception as well as young people who entertained the delegation. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 2, 1998 Page 9 She stated the City was fortunate to have a Sister City relationship with a City with such a high regard for Edmonds. Mayor Fahey explained Hekinan has a directly elected Mayor. Mayor Nagashima is in his third term and will run for election again next year. Hekinan has an. Assembly made up of 28 members who must all run for election at the same time. The Assembly meets for a long period of time (1 -3 months) depending on issues to be addressed. Mayor Fahey introduced Tetsuya Ikuta, President of the Hekinan City Council, who was accompanied by an interpreter, Keiko Sakikabara, Vice President of the Hekinan Sister City Association. Mayor Fahey said Ms. Sakikabara has been with the Sister City organization for ten years and was instrumental in choosing Edmonds as Hekinan's Sister City. Via Ms. Sakikabara's interpretation, Mr. Ikuta, on behalf of the Hekinan Assembly, offered their deep appreciation for the warm welcome from Edmonds City Council and Edmonds residents. He was pleased they were able to come to Edmonds and have the opportunity to get to know the Council. Although there are some differences in the system and authority of the Council, he believed they should be responsible for building a happy society. He explained their assembly consists of 28 Assembly Members who check the various state policies proposed by the Mayor. He said having opportunities to enhance City policies and ideas to make a better society would deepen the meaning of Sister City. Ms. Sakikabara introduced the members of the delegation: Mayor Taku Nagashima, President of Hekinan Sister City Association; Tetsuya Ikuta, Chairman of the Hekinan Assembly; Kazushige Murakami, Director Hekinan Sister City Association; Ryoukou Agata, Hekinan Priest & Staff of Culture Association; Hitomi Suzuki, Part -time Staff of Hekinan Post Office & Teacher; Kazuko Sumiya, Hekinan Cooking Instructor; Emiko Takahashi, Hekinan Housewife, Takayuki Masuda, Hekinan Grocer; Aoi Kamiya, Miss Friend Hekinan; Masakatsu Sugiura, Manager of Hekinan Personnel & Secretariat Section; and Takao Ono, Clerk of Hekinan City Council Office. . The delegation presented a gift to each Councilmember and one to the Council. Mayor Fahey explained in addition to the formal delegation, there were other visitors from Hekinan including a Photographer, Kiyotaka Sugiura, whose photos MY EDMONDS —were on display in the Arts Festival Museum Gallery at Frances Anderson Center. Other visitors include Etsuko Kato, Mayumi Suzuki, and Yuko Mizuno. Mayor Fahey acknowledged the numerous host families in the audience as well as Debbie and Phil Onishi who lived in Hekinan recently. Councilmember Nordquist introduced Edmonds Councilmembers. He addressed the Hekinan delegation and explained he has spent many hours sharing his experiences in Hekinan with his colleagues. He said the wonderful friendship between the two cities is most enjoyable. He hoped the members of the delegation could return to Edmonds soon and share the City's hospitality. He presented gifts to the members of the Hekinan delegation on behalf of the Council and thanked the delegation for visiting the Council. Mayor Fahey explained the delegation had a western motif dinner tonight that included square dance and line dance instruction and the Hekinan delegation taught the Edmonds delegation a Japanese line dance. She explained, the delegation was coming to her home after the Council meeting for refreshments. She invited Councilmembers to join the delegation at her home. Mayor Fahey thanked the delegation for attending the Council meeting. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 2, 1998 Page 10 6. PROCLAMATION IN HONOR OF THE 50"' ANNIVERSARY OF THE PORT OF EDMONDS Port of Mayor Fahey read a Proclamation congratulating the Port of Edmonds on its 501 Anniversary and Edmonds 50 thanking them for the significant contributions they have made over the years to the economic vitality of Anniversary the City. She wished the Port continued success and encouraged the citizens of Edmonds to visit the Port on November 8 for their 50" Anniversary Celebration. Council President Pro Tem Van Hollebeke thanked Mayor Fahey and staff for their tremendous efforts on behalf of the Hekinan delegation. He commended Mayor Fahey for being a gracious hostess to the delegation and commended staff for their extra efforts. Mayor Fahey and the Hekinan Delegation left the meeting at this time. 6A. PUBLICATION OF NOTICE REGARDING EDMONDS-WOODWAY HIGH SCHOOL NON - PROJECT REZONE Notice of City Attorney Scott Snyder suggested this issue be addressed in two parts, first, the hearing before the Edmonds- planning Board. He recalled Mr. Clarke raised two issues 1) the mailing list for the public hearing ezoneay before the Planning Board was defective, and 2) the posting was defective. He said it was obvious an incomplete mailing list was used for the public hearing before the Planning Board; by Mr. Clarke's calculation, approximately 15% of the names were incorrect. Regarding the defective posting, he explained there are different rules for Council and Planning Board hearings. Staff did post twice, using two different size signs. The ordinance allows three small signs or one large sign; staff posted two large ones. He agreed there was defective notice of the Planning Board public hearing. Notification of the hearing before the City Council has been posted at five sites, publication has occurred, and a correct mailing list was used. He observed there has been no allegation that the notification for the Council's .public hearing is defective. The public hearing before the Council is a de novo hearing although the Council is required to have a recommendation of the Planning Board. He said constitutionally, substantial compliance is required for due process. He pointed out it is impossible at this time to change the flawed notice of the public hearing before the Planning Board. The problems have now been corrected and the Planning Board has provided a recommendation; whether it would. have been different if more residents attended the hearing is unknown. A corrected mailing list has been used to notify property owners of the public hearing before the Council. He reiterated the State requires substantial compliance; there is now complete compliance for the Council hearing, notification of 85% of property owners and bigger postings appear to comply with the City's ordinance. He advised it was within the Council's discretion to remand the matter to the Planning Board for a hearing but was not constitutionally required. He said the Council's public hearing would cure any previous problems. Any potential liability would be the fault of the School Board for using the wrong mailing list. Councilmember White observed this has been an issue that has been hotly debated by a number of residents. He pointed out there likely will be an appeal regardless of the Planning Board's recommendation. If the Public "P". zoning is approved, the citizens will appeal, if the "P" zoning is denied, the School District will appeal.- As the Council's review is de novo (the Council is not bound by the Planning Board review or opinion), he felt it would be a wasted effort to return the issue to the Planning Board. He suggested the issue not be returned to the Planning Board for another public hearing, as their recommendation would not influence the Council's decision. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 2, 1998 Page I1 Councilmember White recalled the City had previously expressed their displeasure with the School District's notification process. The City has now posted twice as many signs as are required and has remailed notices to citizens the City is required to notify. He recalled each time the issue of mailed notification arises, staff states the County Assessor rolls were used to determine property owners within 300 feet. He asked if this was the only information utilized to assemble mailing lists. City Clerk Sandy Chase explained the mailing list was compiled by the School District and was their responsibility. She was not aware what records had been utilized to develop the mailing list. Councilmember White asked if the mailing list was the responsibility of the applicant. Ms. Chase answered yes. Councilmember White asked if there was any process for reviewing the mailing list provided by the applicant. Planning Supervisor Jeff Wilson answered in Edmonds, the applicant is responsible for providing the mailing list and is required to sign an affidavit attesting to its accuracy. The City accepts the mailing list, along with the affidavit, as true and accurate information. Other cities may verify the mailing list. He said the Code requires notification of property owners within 300 feet. The Assessor's rolls are utilized, as they are the most accurate records regarding property ownership. He acknowledged this may not always be accurate as the Assessor is slow to transfer information but their records are usually relied upon. Councilmember White asked if the Code required notification of property owners as well as residents. Mr. Wilson answered in the case of an absent owner, a resident label as well as a property owner label is provided. Councilmember White recalled there have been other hearings with inadequate notice and he was attempting to determine where the flaw existed. He said the property owner may not necessarily be the resident, therefore the property owner as well as the street address should be notified. Councilmember White asked how the City has legally shifted the burden of providing notification to the applicant. Mr. Snyder said this is part of the required application. He said the rationale at the time this requirement was adopted was the applicant would be the one most at risk from an error and would have the greatest interest in providing an accurate list. He said this requirement was in part, a risk management tool. He noted the City's requirements are in excess of State requirements. Mr. Snyder stressed his advice was specific to this rezone process. If this was a closed record hearing and there had been a flaw in the notice so that property owners were denied standing, he would recommend the Council remand the matter and Bold another hearing. On rezones, the Planning Board makes a recommendation to the Council, but the Council holds its own hearing. By holding another hearing, the Council considers the matter anew and has the opportunity to correct any previous notice problems. Councilmember Plunkett agreed substantially, the Council would reach the same point. He expressed concern with what citizens would think about the process. He said it appeared the School District, who is seeking the rezone and has the burden of notification, failed to notify as many as 15% of citizens required to be notified. He preferred the Council go the extra step to ensure citizens are satisfied everything necessary was done and hold another Planning Board hearing. Councilmember White said if this was an action governed by Regulatory Reform, there would be a single, fact - finding hearing. He preferred the facts be presented and this matter moved forward. He did not believe citizens wanted a three -month delay for further deliberation. Councilmember Plunkett said the fact that 15% of citizens *required to be notified were not, may color the procedural process in the future. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 2, 1998 Page 12 Councilmember White pointed out whether there were one or two hearings, the first hearing would inevitably lead to the second hearing. He preferred the first hearing be omitted and the matter brought to the Council sooner. Mr. Snyder read from the Community Development Code concerning a codification of the rules regarding substantial notice requirements which states, "no procedural irregularity or informality in the notice, consideration, or development of any matter contained in or regulated by the Community Development Code shall affect the final decision or any other action leading to the final decision unless substantial rights of a person with a demonstrable interest are adversely affected." He acknowledged the Code's provisions for notice of the Planning Board hearing was not complied with but will be wiped clean with notification of the public hearing before the Council. He observed the School District, who has an interest in this matter, is unaware this matter is being discussed tonight. If a majority of the Council wishes to send the matter back to the Planning Board, he recommended the City notify the School District to allow them to respond by November 17. Councilmember Miller preferred the Council move forward, particularly since it will be a de novo hearing. Councilmember Earling was sensitive to accurate notification. As it is clear notification will take place for the November 17 Council public hearing, the Council had an obligation to the citizens and the School District to bring this issue to a completion. COUNCILMEMBER EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MILLER, TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS ISSUE. MOTION CARRIED, COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT OPPOSED. Mayor Pro Tern Van Hollebeke thanked Mr. Clarke for the considerable effort he has devoted to this issue and said all citizens will have an opportunity to participate at the November 17 public hearing. From the audience, Mr. Clarke commented the mailing list was not accurate. Councilmember White urged Mr. Clarke, if the mailing list was inaccurate, not to wait until the next Council meeting but contact any Councilmember at any time. 7. MAYOR'S REPORT There was no Mayor's report. 8. COUNCIL REPORTS Councilmember Plunkett commended Mayor Pro Tem Van Hollebeke for conducting the meeting. With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 9:14 p.m. BARBARA S. FAHEY, P4AY0 SANDRA-S. CA E CITY CLERK Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 2, 1998 Page 13 LJ i 1 AGENDA ' EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL TV Plaza Meeting Room - Library Building 650 Main Street 7:00 -10:00 a.m. NOVEMBER 2, 1998 SPECIAL MONDAY MEETING 7:00 P.M. - CALL TO ORDER FLAG SALUTE 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS (A) ROLL CALL (B) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF OCTOBER 27, 1998 (C) APPROVAL OF CLAIM WARRANTS #27798 THROUGH #28444 FOR THE WEEK OF OCTOBER 26, 1998, IN THE AMOUNT OF $251,189.62. (D) UPDATE ON HIGHWAY 99 PROJECT (E) ANNUAL REPORT FROM CITY ATTORNEY (F) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH R.. W. BECK AND ASSOCIATES FOR THE MEADOWDALE DRAINAGE REPAIRS PROJECT (G) AUTHORIZATION TO CONTRACT WITH EVERGREEN STATE SHEET METAL, INC. TO REPLACE FOUR (4) HEAT PUMP UNITS FOR THE CITY HALL BUILDING ($8,861.76) (H) PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 20.75.100 TO CONFIRM A FIVE YEAR LIFE FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PRELIMINARY SHORT PLAT APPROVAL (1) PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING A CONTRACT REZONE FOR CERTAIN PROPERTY COMMONLY KNOWN AS HARBOR SQUARE 3. (30 Min.) CONTINUED CLOSED RECORD APPEAL MEETING — APPEAL BY ROGER HERTRICH OF THE HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION TO DENY HIS APPEAL OF A STAFF INTERPRETATION (FILE NO. AP- 98 -85) PERTAINING TO EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 20.60 TO CONSIDER GAS PUMP ISLAND CANOPY LOGOS AS "WALL GRAPHICS," WHICH ARE EXEMPT FROM HEIGHT AND AREA LIMITATIONS. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 1011 PUGET DRIVE AND IS ZONED NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS — BN." 4. AUDIENCE COMMENTS (3 Minute Limit Per Person) 5. (5 Min.) PRESENTATION BY GREGORY SULLIVAN ISAACS ON THE CASCADE SYMPHONY'S 37T" SEASON 6. (15 Min.) PRESENTATION OF COMMUNITY GRANT AWARD 7. (30 Min.) PRESENTATION OF HEKINAN DELEGATION 8. (10 Min.) PROCLAMATION IN HONOR OF THE 50-m ANNIVERSARY OF THE PORT OF EDMONDS 9. (5 Min.) MAYOR'S REPORT 10. (15 Min.) COUNCIL REPORT Parking and meeting rooms are accessible for persons with disabilities. Contact the City Clerk at (425) 771 -0245 with 24 hours advance notice for special accommodations. The Council Agenda appears on Clambers Cable, Channel 31. Delayed telecast of this meeting appears the following Wednesday, Friday and Monday at noon on Channel 32.