Loading...
01/20/2004 City CouncilEDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES JANUARY 20, 2004 Following a Special Meeting at 6:45 p.m. to interview a candidate for the Arts Commission, the Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Haakenson in the Council Chambers, 250 5xh Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Gary Haakenson, Mayor Michael Plunkett, Council President Jeff Wilson, Councilmember Mauri Moore, Councilmember Peggy Pritchard Olson, 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 Arvilla Ohlde, Parks and Recreation Director Noel Miller, Public Works Director Rob Chave, Planning Manager Dave Gebert, City Engineer Darrell Smith, Traffic Engineer Star Campbell, Assistant Planner Frances Chapin, Cultural Resources Coordinator Scott Snyder, City Attorney Sandy Chase, City Clerk Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst. Jeannie Dines, Recorder COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PLUNKETT, FOR APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS Councilmember Dawson requested Item D be removed from the Consent Agenda and Councilmember Marin requested Item F be removed. COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, FOR APPROVAL OF THE REMAINDER OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: (A) ROLL CALL (B) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JANUARY 13, 2004. (C) APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #67924 THROUGH #68065 FOR THE WEEK OF JANUARY 5, 2004, IN THE AMOUNT OF $843,066.34. APPROVAL OF FISCAL YEAR 2003 CLAIM CHECKS #68066 THROUGH #68069 FOR THE WEEK OF JANUARY 5, 2004, IN THE AMOUNT OF $55,577.17. APPROVAL OF FISCAL YEAR 2003 CLAIM CHECKS #68070 THROUGH #68319 FOR THE WEEK OF JANUARY 1.2, 2004, IN THE AMOUNT OF $571,770.77. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 20, 2004 Page I (E) COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT QUARTERLY REPORT — JANUARY 2004. (G) MIKE DOUBLEDAY GOVERNMENT RELATIONS — 2004 CONTRACT PROPOSAL FOR SERVICES. (H) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN THE RECYCLING GRANT AGREEMENT BETWEEN EDMONDS AND WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY FOR 2004 AND 2005. (1) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN SNOHOMISH COUNTY AND ITS CITIES AND TOWNS REGARDING SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT. (J) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN RECREATIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH THE SOUTH COUNTY SENIOR CENTER. (K) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN ADDENDUM NO. 2 TO THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH CHS ENGINEERS, INC. FOR SR 104 TO SECOND AVENUE SOUTH SEWER MAIN REHABILITATION. (L) AUTHORIZATION TO ADVERTISE FOR STATEMENTS OF QUALIFICATION FOR DESIGN OF LIFT STATION 7 & 8 INTEGRATION AND REHABILITATION. Item D: Confirmation of the Mayor's Appointment of Pamela Harold to the Arts Commission. Councilmember Dawson expressed the Council's pleasure at having Ms. Harold appointed to the Arts Commission. Cultural Resources Coordinator Frances Chapin described Ms. Harold's background as an artist, writer and art educator as well as her participation in community committees. Ms. Harold commented she looked forward to serving on the Arts Commission and working with the City Council and her hope to make a contribution to arts in Edmonds. COUNCILMEMBER DAWSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON, FOR APPROVAL OF ITEM D. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The item approved is as follows: (D) CONFIRMATION OF THE MAYOR'S APPOINTMENT OF PAMELA HAROLD TO THE ARTS COMMISSION Item F: Report on Bids Opened January 7. 2004. for the Davton and Main Street Pedestrian Improvements and Award of Contract to Finishine Edge Curb and Sidewalk ($39,300.39). Councilmember Marin explained the need for improvements at Dayton & Main was brought to the City's attention by citizens and he had hoped the improvements could be implemented at once. He highlighted the work of the Engineering Department and specifically Traffic Engineer Darrell Smith to ensure the project was done right. Although the cost was greater than originally anticipated, he explained the project would address some additional issues. COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON, FOR APPROVAL OF ITEM F. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The item approved is as follows: (F) REPORT ON BIDS OPENED JANUARY 7, 2004, FOR THE DAYTON AND MAIN STREET PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS AND AWARD OF CONTRACT TO FINISHING EDGE CURB AND SIDEWALK ($39,300.39). Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 20, 2004 Page 2 3. PRESENTATION AND AUTHORIZATION FOR THE MAYOR TO SIGN A RESOLUTION ENDORSING THE ACT (ACTIVELY COMING TOGETHER THROUGH ARTS, CULTURE AND CIVIC ENGAGEMENT) INITIATIVE Cultural Resources Coordinator Frances Chapin pointed out Edmonds was a community with a vibrant arts component. She identified numerous art and cultural displays and events in the city. She explained over the course of the past year, artists, citizens, educators, students, arts organization, local cities and local leaders had collaborated to identify ways to strengthen, support and promote cultural, artistic and civic activities in South Snohomish County for the benefit of all. She explained this presentation was a request for the City Council to adopt a resolution endorsing the ACT (Actively Coming Together Through Arts, Culture and Civic Engagement) initiative, supporting a collaborative effort for building community through participation in arts, cultural and civic activities. Ms. Chapin introduced Delaine Johnson, a nationally known visual artist and arts educator, who had been involved in community art partnerships for many years. Ms. Chapin described Ms. Johnson's efforts to form the regional arts roundtable, a forum for networking and improving communications. Ms. Chapin noted the joint recreation guide, CRAZE, was one of the results of the roundtable. Ms. Johnson referred to the United States' race with Russia to reach the moon, an era when arts programs were reduced in favor of science programs. She explained although scientists understand rote material, they lacked the creative ability to move forward. Research found that artists' creativity was a necessary component of moving knowledge to a higher level, and arts programs were once again embraced. She described the enrichment provided by art and creative outlets. She summarized the importance of a strong support system for the arts. Parks & Recreation Director Arvilla Ohlde referred to the ACT Resolution, pointing out working together would enrich lives, building bonds and lead to citizen involvement. Arts, Culture and Civic Engagement also provided a positive economic impact and through coordination, results in positive collaboration between public agencies, educational institutions, businesses and citizens. She explained the initiative began with the forethought of Jack Oharah, President of Edmonds Community College. She described the benefits of art including making communities more vibrant, nurturing personal growth, supporting cultural and technological advances, producing jobs, and accommodating a variety of lifestyles. She advised Edmonds Community College passed the initiative late last year and Edmonds School District was considering the initiative tonight. COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, TO ADOPT AND AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO SIGN THE ACT RESOLUTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The adopted resolution reads as follows: RESOLUTION NO. 1058 ENDORSING AN INITIATIVE CALLED ACT (ACTIVELY COMING TOGETHER THROUGH ARTS, CULTURE AND CIVIC ENGAGEMENT) TO SUPPORT A COLLABORATIVE EFFORT FOR BUILDING COMMUNITY THROUGH PARTICIPATION IN THE ARTS, CULTURE, AND CIVIC ENGAGEMENT IN OUR REGION. 4. PUBLIC HEARING ON A RECOMMENDATION BY THE EDMONDS HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION TO DESIGNATE THE EDMONDS MUSEUM (FORMER CARNEGIE LIBRARY) AS ELIGIBLE FOR LISTING ON THE EDMONDS REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES Planning Manager Rob Chave explained this was the first nomination the Edmonds Historic Preservation Commission had received to designate a building for eligibility for listing on the Edmonds Register of Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 20, 2004 Page 3 Historic Places. He explained this item was a declaration by the City Council to declare the property eligible for listing, the first step in the process. Once the Council made a determination that the property was eligible, the property owner must agree to have the property listed, and then an ordinance would be presented to the Council formally adding the property to the Edmonds Register of Historic Places. He emphasized listing property on the register was a voluntary action which could not occur without the property owner's consent. Mr. Chave identified potential benefits to a property owner from listing a property on the Edmonds Register of Historic Places including tax credits on value that was added, prestige of being listed as a historic site, as well as permitting benefits. He explained following the Council's determination that the property was eligible for listing, the property owner, in this instance the City, would make a determination whether to proceed with listing the property on the Edmonds Register of Historic Places. At Council President Plunkett's request, Mr. Chave reviewed the designation criteria in the packet including that the property is required to be significantly associated with history, architecture, archaeology, engineering of cultural heritage of Edmonds; has integrity; age at least 50 years old or have exceptional importance if less than 50 years old; and falls into one of several other designation categories. He explained the Commission found the Edmonds Museum satisfied the criteria. Council President Plunkett noted this criterion must be met for any property to be designated for eligibility to be listed on the Edmonds Register of Historic Places. Mr. Chave noted the nomination was made by a member of the Edmonds Historic Preservation Commission; the code permits the City as well as any individual to submit a nomination. He reiterated this was a voluntary program; regardless of who made the nomination, if the property owner did not agree, the property would not be listed. Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. Darrell Marmion, 750 Edmonds Street, Edmonds Historic Preservation Commissioner, indicated he nominated this property for listing and the historical significance of this building was obvious. He thanked the City Council for forming the Historic Preservation Commission. He referred to a letter received from a citizen who lives adjacent to the building thanking the Commission for their review and expressing encouragement for the listing. Hearing no further comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public participation portion of the public hearing. COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON, THAT THE COUNCIL FINDS THE EDMONDS MUSEUM MEETS THE CRITERIA CONTAINED IN CHAPTER 20.45.010 ECDC, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND STAFF TO EXECUTE SUCH DOCUMENTATION AS NECESSARY TO CONFIRM THE CITY COUNCIL'S APPROVAL OF THE SITE FOR LISTING ON THE EDMONDS REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 5. PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE CHAPTER 18.60, RIGHT-OF-WAY CONSTRUCTION PERMITS, AND CHAPTER 18.70, STREET USE AND ENCROACHMENT PERMITS, AND PROPOSED RESOLUTION TO REDUCE THE STREET USE PERMIT FEE City Engineer Dave Gebert explained over the past year, staff has completed a review and evaluation of the city's codes, procedures, and processes relating to Right -of -Way Construction Permits, Street Use Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 20, 2004 Page 4 Permits, and Encroachment Permits. He explained the objective of the review was to clarify procedures and ensure the process met the cty's needs regarding the use of the right-of-way as well as an efficient process for the city and applicants. Mr. Gebert explained the current ECDC provided three separate permits with regard to using the City's right-of-way — a Right -of -Way Construction Permit for private parties for entry into the City's right-of- way for purpose of excavation, construction, maintenance or repair; a Street Use Permit for the placement of temporary objects in the City's right-of-way, and an Encroachment Permit for the encroachment of a permanent structure within the City's right-of-way. During review, staff concluded the three permits were appropriate and recommended they be retained; however, in recent years they have not been consistently applied. In fact, Street Use Permits have not been used in recent years. In order to clarify the application of the three permit types to the numerous uses of the City's right-of- way, Mr. Gebert explained that staff prepared a matrix of uses and permit types that applied to the uses. He noted the matrix would be used as a desk reference at the permit counter and would be available to the public. He envisioned not every possible use of the City's right-of-way had been anticipated in the matrix; therefore, as issues arose that were not addressed in the matrix, the code would be interpreted and the issue added to the matrix as appropriate. Staff also proposed that ECDC Chapter 18.60 with regard to Right -of -Way Construction Permits and Chapter 18.70 with regard to Street Use and Encroachment Permits be revised as outlined in the Council Agenda Memo. The proposed revisions did not significantly change the code requirements and were intended to clarify and differentiate between the Street Use Permit and the Encroachment Permit and identify specific application requirements for the permit application. Mr. Gebert noted the most significant change was reinstituting the Street Use Permit. In recent years the Encroachment Permit had been used for the placement of temporary and removable objects in the right- of-way when the Street Use Permit would have been more appropriate. Because this change would affect the downtown businesses, staff briefed downtown businesses, via the Chamber of Commerce, on the proposed revisions to the code and procedure. Via this process, the downtown business community indicated they did not have any issues with the Encroachment or Right -of -Way Construction Permits but they had concerns with the Street Use Pen -nit including, 1) the $190 fee for the Street Use Permit was too high, 2) the annual renewal should not be required, and 3) an exception from the Street Use Permit should be allowed for "Open" and seasonal flags. Mr. Gebert advised the business community's concerns were reviewed with Mayor Haakenson and the Community Services/Development Services Committee and incorporated into the proposed code and procedural revisions. He detailed the changes, indicating Chapter 18.70 did not require annual renewal of the Street Use Permit, the matrix exempts open and seasonal flags from the requirement for Street Use Permits and staff recommends the current adopted fee for the Street Use Permit be reduced so that the total fee including the $15 City surcharge be reduced from $190 to $100. Mr. Gebert relayed staff's recommendation that the Council adopt the ordinance amending Chapters 18.60 for Right -of -Way Construction Permits and Chapter 18.70 for Street Use and Encroachment Permits and adopt a resolution amending the current Development Services Fee Schedule to reduce the Street Use Permit fee to a total of $1.00. Councilmember Wilson inquired whether a new Street Use Permit would be required if there were a change in the use. Mr. Gebert advised a new Street Use Permit would be required for a new business. The intent was that the applicant would identify all the types of uses they envisioned the street would be Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 20, 2004 Page 5 used for when they applied for a Street Use Permit. If an additional use was identified, the business would be allowed to amend their Street Use Permit. Councilmember Wilson asked whether the Street Use Permit defined the area of the public right-of-way that would be used. Mr. Gebert advised it did, noting it would generally be in front of the business although a diagram could be required with the application. Councilmember Orvis referred to the tree trimming/cutting in the matrix, asking whether a permit would be required to cut a branch that was hanging over the street. Mr. Gebert explained a specific policy was established with regard to that issue; he recalled it exempted certain activities using small hand tools from the requirement for a permit. However, if large equipment were required to be in the right-of-way, a Right -of -Way Construction Permit was required. The extent of the equipment and potential liability of the operation in the right-of-way was the basis for determining the requirement for a permit. For Councilmember Orvis, Mr. Gebert explained the exception in the ordinance was for non-commercial use of the right-of-way in residential areas such as churches, homes, etc. Councilmember Dawson inquired whether the City would have the ability to revoke a Street Use Permit in the future if an annual renewal was not required. Mr. Gebert advised Street Use Permits were revocable for reasons such as lapse of insurance. Councilmember Dawson inquired whether there was any aesthetic basis for revoking a Street Use Permit. Mr. Gebert answered aesthetics would be more difficult to address. Considerations when approving a Street Use Permit include safety, sidewalk width, ADA access, etc. Councilmember Dawson asked whether a Street Use Permit could be revoked if safety became an issue in the future. Mr. Gebert answered yes. Councilmember Dawson asked how the current $190 fee was established. Mr. Gebert explained a fairly extensive process was conducted to determine the cost to process each permit when the current fee schedule was developed. As Street Use Permits had not been used in the recent years, actual data regarding the cost to process was not available and staff estimated the cost based on Right -of -Way Construction, Encroachment and similar permits. The downtown businesses pointed out that much of what downtown businesses did via the Street Use Permit benefited the City aesthetically and attracted customers. Councilmember Dawson concluded that although there would be some subsidization by the City in the case of the Street Use Permit, it was appropriate. Mr. Gebert agreed. Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. Chris Guitton, Chamber of Commerce Director, thanked staff for working with the Chamber of Commerce. He disagreed the City was subsidizing the cost of the Street Use Permit as the uses increased sales which benefited the City. He endorsed the proposed revisions and requested the issue of planters for Edmonds in Bloom be resolved in the near future. Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, Edmonds, expressed concern with the storage of construction equipment and/or materials in the right-of-way for an unlimited period of time. He recommended permit fees recognize the economic value of the use of the right-of-way for storage. He also expressed concern with the encroachment permit for permanent structures in the right-of-way, referring to bay windows which did not benefit the City but provided additional floor area, a benefit to the developer. Donald Nicholson, 8421 202"d SW, Edmonds, representing Sound Disposal, commented on the difficulty serving customers when alleys are blocked and requested they be notified if an alley is proposed to be blocked. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 20, 2004 Page 6 Don Kreiman, 24006 951h Place W, Edmonds, expressed his support for the Right -of -Way Construction permit, Street Use Permit, and Encroachment Permit. Hearing no further comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public participation portion of the public hearing. Mr. Gebert responded to questions raised by the public. With regard to the planters for Edmonds in Bloom, he advised a decision regarding that issue would be reached soon and added to the matrix. With regard to charging for the extended use of the right-of-way for construction projects, he explained there were separate fees that addressed that issue such as the Sidewalk Disruption Fee, Parking Disruption Fee, etc. which required compensation for occupying those areas for an extended period. He noted some projects were vested prior to the implementation of those fees and did not pay the fees. With regard to bay windows, Mr. Gebert explained that code provision was not amended by the proposal. With regard to notifying Sound Disposal, he agreed staff would attempt to notify them. Councilmember Dawson inquired about the issue of projects being vested before the fees were implemented. City Attorney Scott Snyder answered these were not land use permits that could actually be vested but rather projects that had paid the fees that were in place at the time their project began. Councilmember Dawson asked whether fees could be imposed on such projects. Mr. Snyder agreed the fee could be imposed at the Council's discretion. For projects that had already begun, it was an issue of fairness with regard to administering the fees. He explained the Council had virtually unlimited discretion in protection of the public right-of-way and ensuring it was preserved for public use both in changing the rules and removing obstructions. Mr. Snyder referred to Chapter 1.8.70.060.B.1 which stated the proposed use shall not interfere with vehicular or pedestrian traffic. He pointed out Sound Disposal's concern would be addressed via this review criteria. Councilmember Wilson pointed out the issues of bay windows was not new in this ordinance. Mr. Gebert agreed there was no change made via this ordinance; the last change had occurred in approximately June 2003. COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DAWSON, FOR ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO.3485. Councilmember Marin relayed his experience as a Community Services/Development Services committee member when he rode with the garbage/recycling collectors when the committee was discussing garbage/recycling enclosures. He recalled the difficulty the collectors face on a daily basis, noting the City was fortunate to have the Nicholson family operating the garbage/recycling business. He agreed with the request that the City notify Sound Disposal and/or require applicants to move containers to the end of the alley to facilitate pickup. Councilmember Moore commented businesses who used the right-of-way for signs, caf6 tables, planter boxes, etc. contributed to making downtown Edmonds a pleasant place. She thanked the businesses for their cooperation in this process. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The ordinance adopted reads as follows: ORDINANCE NO. 3485 AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE, CHAPTER 18.60 REGARDING RIGHT-OF-WAY CONSTRUCTION Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 20, 2004 Page 7 PERMITS AND CHAPTER 18.70 RELATING TO STREET USE AND ENCROACHMENT PERMITS, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, FOR ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 1059, A RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 1041 REDUCING THE STREET USE PERMIT FEE FROM $190 TO $85. Mayor Haakenson clarified the fee would be $100 including the $15 City surcharge. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 6. CONTINUED CLOSED RECORD REVIEW OF THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE A REZONE FROM RS-6 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) TO BC (COMMUNITY BUSINESS) FOR PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 133 AND 137 SUNSET AVENUE AND THE VACANT LOT SOUTH OF 133 SUNSET AVENUE AND NORTH OF 111 SUNSET AVENUE (FILE NO. R-02-133). Mayor Haakenson advised both applicants, Don Drew and John Marts, had withdrawn their application. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, TO ACCEPT THE APPLICATION WITHDRAWAL BY DON DREW AND JOHN MARTS. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 7. CONTINUED CLOSED RECORD REVIEW OF THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD DECISION ON THE APPLICATION BY MJ AND MP INVESTMENT LLP FOR A NEW MIXED USE BUILDING AT 215 FIFTH AVENUE NORTH. THE SITE IS ZONED COMMUNITY BUSINESS (BC). THIS MATTER WAS FIRST DISCUSSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON OCTOBER 7, 2003, AND REMANDED TO THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD FOR CONTINUED DELIBERATION AND MORE EXPLICIT FINDINGS. (APPELLANTS: DARRELL MARMION AND LESLIE HAAN, STEPHEN BERNHEIM AND SUSAN BAUER / APPLICANT; MJ AND MP INVESTMENT LLP / FILE NO. ADB-03-56 AND AP-03-142) Councilmember Dawson inquired whether a letter she received from an Architectural Design Board (ADB) member that referenced this matter could be considered during deliberation on this issue. City Attorney Scott Snyder advised the letter would need to be revealed as an ex parte contact and would be outside the record of the proceeding and could not be considered. Councilmember Dawson revealed she had received and read the letter. Although she would attempt to put aside the comments in the letter, she acknowledged it could taint the proceedings. Councilmember Dawson explained the letter contained Mickey Nielsen's resignation from the ADB. Mr. Snyder explained there were two statutes that placed limits on the Council in this matter, statutes that the courts have not attempted to harmonize. The first, a codification of the judicial doctrine of Appearance of Fairness Doctrine which takes into account that the Council as a quasi judicial body can only consider information in the record at closed record review. Because of other statutory restrictions, the information must be presented at a public meeting that is properly noticed, unlike a court where documents could be filed. Unless the Council takes information into the record at the hearing, it should not be considered. The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine recognizes that Councilmembers, as legislators, may be contacted and provides a method of clearing any taint imposed by an ex parte contact via revealing the information they received and give the parties an opportunity to address the information received by the Council. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 20, 2004 Page 8 Mr. Snyder explained this must be harmonized with the provisions of Regulatory Reform which impose the requirement in a project application process to have one and only one hearing on the record; in this case, that hearing was held by the ADB. The Council may hold a second hearing, a closed record review, which is an opportunity to present argument based on the record developed at the first proceeding. He pointed out the Council's minutes indicate the Council closed the public hearing, entered deliberation, and later made a motion to request information from the ADB who conducted the public hearing and provided a recommendation. Mr. Snyder noted the difficulty was that no new information could be entered into the record as the hearing had already been closed; however, in addition to the letter that Councilmember Dawson received, four Councilmembers and Mayor Haakenson received an email with an attached brief from one of the appellants, Mr. Bemheim. He suggested the letter Councilmember Dawson referred to, the information from Mr. Bernheim, and any other ex parte communication that was received be forwarded to the parties of record and allow them an opportunity to make written rebuttal. He noted this would clear any taint under the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine. He explained the difficulty of this situation was that under Regulatory Reform, another hearing could not be held but in order to comply with Appearance of Fairness Doctrine, parties of record should be allowed to comment on the information that has been provided outside the hearing. Councilmember Dawson noted she also received the email but did not read it. She pointed out three Councilmembers, herself due to illness, and new Councilmembers Moore and Olson were not present when the Council held the first closed record review. She questioned how that would impact the deliberations. Mr. Snyder answered that because this was a hearing on the record, Councilmembers Moore, Olson, and Dawson should be prepared to indicate on the record on the date to which this matter is continued, the fact that they reviewed the record of the first proceeding via viewing the video tape, listening to the audio tape, or reviewing the transcript of the hearing. Councilmember Orvis disclosed he had had contact with James Mallonee on a variety of issues but none related to this building. Although not listed as a party of record, Rob Michel who is a member of the ADB, contributed to his campaign in the amount of $249. Council President Plunkett disclosed Darrell Marmion and he worked together on the Historic Preservation Commission but have not discussed this issue. He advised Rob Michel contributed to either his Senate or his City Council campaign. Councilmember Wilson inquired whether disclosures made at the October 7, 2004 needed to be repeated. Mr. Snyder advised the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine stated that once a disclosure was in the record, the burden shifted to anyone with an objection based on the disclosure. Councilmember Wilson disclosed he received the email from Mr. Bernheim as well as the email from Mr. Chave and did not read the email from Mr. Bernheim. Councilmember Wilson advised he received an email from Mr. Snyder regarding the issue as well as an email from Mr. Marmion with regard to his frustrations with the quasi judicial process and the City Council's inability to hear certain issues due to the closed record review process. Councilmember Olson disclosed that Rob Michel also contributed $249 to her campaign. Councilmember Marin disclosed that Rob Michel also contributed to his campaign. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 20, 2004 Page 9 Mayor Haakenson asked whether any parties of record had any objection to the participation of any Councilmember who had made a disclosure. There were no challenges voiced. Mayor Haakenson advised all Councilmembers would participate in the deliberation. Mr. Snyder suggested the City Clerk mail the information that had been received outside the record to all parties of record and inform them of the opportunity to comment in writing prior to the next hearing. He suggested the parties comment in writing to ensure they limited themselves solely to the information provided outside the record, Mr. Bernheim's brief and the letter from the member of the ADB. By commenting in writing, the Council could easily indicate what information was being considered. Further, if the Council heard additional argument, it could be construed as a second hearing when the Council should be in the deliberative phase of their review. He summarized his recommendation was that the Council continue this matter to a date certain and establish a date by which any responses are to be received. Council. President Plunkett questioned whether a date certain was required. Mr. Snyder pointed out the applicant had been delayed and the City was already outside the guidelines set by Regulatory Reform, therefore, it would be preferable to limit additional delays. COUNCILMEMBER DAWSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON, TO CONTINUE THIS MATTER FOR DELIBERATION UNTIL FEBRUARY 3, 2004 AND REQUIRE PARTIES OF RECORD TO RESPOND BY JANUARY 27, 2004. Councilmember Dawson noted this delay highlighted the importance of people not contacting Councilmembers with regard to closed record reviews, however well intended the contact was. She requested Senior Executive Council Assistant Jana Spellman assist in providing video or audio copies of the meetings to the Councilmembers who were absent. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mayor Haakenson advised the information received by the Council was a letter of resignation from an ADB member and ex parte information from one of the appellants. He pointed out the second paragraph of the letter of resignation referred to the discomfort the boardmember felt with the interpretation of City Code, particularly with regard to height and roof modulation. The letter indicated the ADB had previously approved building height not based on roof modulation design but building design modulation which the author of the letter did not feel was consistent with City Code. Mayor Haakenson recalled he had brought this issue to the Council's attention on several occasions in the past few years due to City staff s frustration with the Code provisions and requesting changes be made to the Code. He pointed out the ADB was now losing a member due to this frustration. He emphasized the need for the Council to do something about the Code and urged the Council to make that one of their objectives for 2004. 8. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Don Kreiman, 24006 95th Place W, Edmonds, expressed concern with the complex procedures for starting a new business in Edmonds. He cited the Building Department's requirements which include a $65 application fee, a floor plan, a parking plan, a compliance permit, a change of use permit if any changes are being made, a tenant improvement permit if any remodeling/alterations are being made, a building permit, as well as permits for signs, reroofing, fencing, plumbing, fire alarms, fire sprinklers, etc. He cited the Planning Department's requirements which include verification of zoning and parking, parking plan, floor plan, etc. Further, an ADB process was required if a new sign, lighting, or painting of Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 20, 2004 Page 10 the building was proposed. He noted the parking requirements were the most onerous. He recalled the City recently lost the opportunity to have a diner in Edmonds due to parking regulations. He requested the Council consider parking first. Mayor Haakenson advised the Planning Board would be considering parking at their January 28 meeting. Steve Bernheim, 21.6 4th Avenue N, Edmonds, referred to Section 20.90.010.I.3 which provides that in post hearing procedures, no new evidence can be considered and the review limited to evidence considered in the public hearing. He noted there was no restriction in that section on additional arguments from parties of record. He referred to ECC 20.1.05.040 which states in a closed record review, parties may submit timely written statements or arguments. He noted no definition of timely was provided in the Code and suggested timely was submission prior to a decision. He reminded the Council that ex parte communication was communication made in private and not shared with parties to the appeal. He urged the Council to consider the record and whether communications were ex parte or shared with all parties of record. Matthew Brenan, 4728 177t" Place SE, Bothell, indicated he had great faith in the Council to make a positive decision for the City in two weeks. Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, Edmonds, agreed with Mayor Haakenson's suggestion that the Council address the issue referred to in the letter from the ADB member who was resigning. He explained the ADB had been making design decisions based on modulated buildings with no reference to rooflines. He recalled the original design criteria contained examples of modulated roofs and was intended to eliminate flat roofs and provide variety in rooflines by allowing an additional 5 feet with roof modulation. He agreed the Council needed to consider this issue soon as the ADB continued to make decisions without considering roof modulation. He urged Council. President Plunkett to identify this as the Council's #1 priority. 9. REPORT ON CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS OF JANUARY 1.3.2004 Public Safety Committee Councilmember Dawson advised the three items discussed by the Committee would be presented to the Council at the January 27 meeting — contract for animal kenneling services with Adix's Bed & Bath for Dogs and Cats, contract for veterinary services with Edmonds -Westgate Veterinary Hospital, and an. ordinance amending the existing spay/neuter ordinances. Finance Committee Councilmember Orvis advised the Committee discussed a professional services contract with Mike Doubleday which was approved on the Consent Agenda this evening. 10. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Haakenson had no report. 11. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Marin reported the Highway 99 Task Force planned to hold two focus groups later this week with randomly selected individuals within a 2-3 block area of Highway 99 to gather input regarding neighborhood values and the type of development that should be encouraged. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 20, 2004 Page 11 Councilmember Marin relayed a comment he overheard from someone visiting the Development Services Department regarding their pleasant experience dealing with Edmonds employees. ational Councilmember Dawson provided a reminder that January was National Mentoring month and entoring encouraged staff and citizens to become informed in mentoring. She gave her telephone number for Month anvone interested in contacting her with regard to the Big Brothers/Big Sisters Drop -ram — 425-673-2279. She also suggested anyone interested in mentoring could contact Julie Willie, the Director of Volunteer Recruitment at Big Brothers/Big Sisters of Snohomish County at 425-348-5290. Mayor Haakenson advised several staff members contacted him interested in mentoring or to indicate they were already involved in mentoring. Councilmember Wilson congratulated Councilmember Dawson on her recent receipt of a certificate in Municipal Leadership from the Association of Washington Cities. He explained this was obtained via continuing education credits offered by the Association. Councilmember Dawson recognized Councilmember Wilson, also a Certified Municipal Leader by the Association of Washington Cities. With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 8:35 p.m. a'4' 't/ Z&� -%9 - — SANDRA S. CHASE, CITY CLERK Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 20, 2004 Page 12 Ll_ L__ AGENDA mr EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex 250 5t" Avenue North 7:00 - 10:00 p.m. JAN UARY 20, 2004 6:45 p.m. - Interview Candidate for the Arts Commission 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 January 13, 2004. (C) Approval of claim checks #67924 through #68065 for the week of January 5, 2004, in the amount of $843,066.34. Approval of fiscal year 2003 claim checks #68066 through #68069 for the week of January 5, 2004, in the amount of $55,577.17. Approval of fiscal year 2003 claim checks #68070 through #68319 for the week of January 12, 2004, in the amount of $571,770.77. (D) Confirmation of Mayor's appointment of Pamela Harold to the Arts Commission. (E) Community Services Department Quarterly Report - January 2004. (F) Report on bids opened January 7, 2004, for the Dayton and Main Street pedestrian improvements and award of contract to -Finishing Edge Curb and Sidewalk ($39,300.39). (G) Mike Doubleday Government Relations - 2004 Contract Proposal for Services. (H) Authorization for Mayor to sign the Recycling Grant Agreement between Edmonds and Washington State Department of Ecology for 2004 and 2005. (1) Authorization for Mayor to sign the Interlocal Agreement between Snohomish County and Its Cities and Towns Regarding Solid Waste Management. (J) Authorization for Mayor to sign Recreational Services Agreement with the South County Senior Center. Page 1 of 2 CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA January 20, 2004 Page 2 of 2 (K) Authorization for Mayor to sign Addendum No. 2 to the Professional Services Agreement with CHS Engineers, Inc. for SR 104 to Second Avenue South sewer main rehabilitation. (L) Authorization to advertise for Statements of Qualification for design of Lift Station 7 & 8 integration and rehabilitation. 3. ( 5 Min.) Presentation and authorization for the Mayor to sign a Resolution endorsing the ACT (Actively Coming Together Through Arts, Culture and Civic Engagement) Initiative. 4. (15 Min.) Public Hearing on a recommendation by the Edmonds Historic Preservation Commission to designate the Edmonds Museum (former Carnegie Library) as eligible for listing on the Edmonds Register of Historic Places. 5. (30 Min.) Public Hearing on proposed amendments to Edmonds Community Development Code Chapter 18.60, Right -of -Way Construction Permits, and Chapter 18.70, Street Use and Encroachment Permits, and proposed resolution to reduce the Street Use Permit fee. 6. (10 Min.) Continued Closed Record Review of the Planning Board recommendation to approve a rezone from RS-6 (Single Family Residential) to BC (Community Business) for properties located at 133 and 137 Sunset Avenue and the vacant lot south of 133 Sunset Avenue and north of 111 Sunset Avenue. (File No. R-02-133) 7. (45 Min.) Continued Closed Record Review of the Planning Board recommendation on the application by MJ and MP Investment LLP for a new mixed use building at 215 Fifth Avenue North. The site is zoned Community Business (BC). This matter was first discussed by the City Council on October 7, 2003, and remanded to the Architectural Design Board for continued deliberation and more explicit findings. (Appellants: Darrell Marmion and Leslie Haan, Stephen Bernheim and Susan Bauer / Applicant: MJ and MP Investment, L.L.C. / File No. ADB-03-56 and AP-03-142) 8. Audience Comments (3 Minute Limit Per Person)* *Regarding matters not listed on the Agenda as Closed Record Review or as Public Hearings. 9. (10 Min.) Report on City Council Committee Meetings of January 13, 2004. 10. ( 5 Min.) Mayor's Comments 11. (15 Min.) Council Comments ADJOURN Parking and meeting rooms are accessible for persons with disabilities. Please contact the City Clerk at (425) 771-0245 with 24 hours advance notice for special accommodations. The Council Agenda as well as a delayed telecast of the meeting appears on cable television Government Access Channel 21.