Loading...
03/02/2004 City CouncilMarch 2, 2004 The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Haakenson in the Council Chambers, 250 5th 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 David Dwyer, Student Representative 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA STAFF PRESENT David Stern, Chief of Police Duane Bowman, Development Services Director Stephen Clifton, Community Services Director Noel Miller, Public Works Director Rob Chave, Planning Manager Dave Gebert, City Engineer Scott Snyder, City Attorney Sandy Chase, City Clerk Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst. Jeannie Dines, Recorder COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, FOR APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA AS PRESENTED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COUNCIL PRESIDENT PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DAWSON, FOR APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: (A) ROLL CALL (B) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 24, 2004. (C) APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #69165 THROUGH #69373 FOR THE WEEK OF FEBRUARY 23, 2004, IN THE AMOUNT OF $368,226.41. (D) REPORT ON FINAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR FIRE STATION 16 LOCATED AT 8429 —196rH STREET SW AND COUNCIL ACCEPTANCE OF PROJECT. (E) REPORT ON FINAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR THE 200 DAYTON STREET BUILDING ROOF REPLACEMENT PROJECT AND COUNCIL ACCEPTANCE OF PROJECT. (F) REPORT ON FINAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR THE ANDERSON CENTER WINDOW REPLACEMENT — PHASE H PROJECT AND COUNCIL ACCEPTANCE OF PROJECT. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 2, 2004 Page 1 (G) REPORT ON FINAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR THE 242Nn STREET STORM IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT AND COUNCIL ACCEPTANCE OF PROJECT. (H) PROCLAMATION IN HONOR OF MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS EDUCATION AND AWARENESS MONTH, MARCH 2O04. 3. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING ON REGULATIONS CONCERNING AMATEUR RADIO ANTENNAS. THE PROPOSAL WOULD REVISE EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE CHAPTER (ECDC) 16.20 TO CLARIFY HOW AMATEUR RADIO ANTENNAS ARE REGULATED AND SET STANDARDS AND THRESHOLDS FOR THEIR REVIEW AND PERMITTING (FILE NO. CDC-034). Planning Manager Rob Chave explained this public hearing was continued from the February 17 public hearing. He explained that City Attorney Scott Snyder revised the ordinance slightly but overall the intent of the ordinance was the same as the ordinance presented on February 17. He referred to information regarding permit/review types and associated costs and fees. There are three different fee types: (1) amateur radio application (staff decision with notice), (2) technology impracticality waiver (Hearing Examiner), and (3) investigating alternate locations for an antenna (Hearing Examiner). He explained the fee was nearly $1200 for a typical Hearing Examiner review and $500 for a staff decision with notice. The basic administration cost (advertise/post/mail) was slightly under $100. Mr. Chave stated staff s suggestion for a reasonable fee, in view of the prohibition creating a burden via fees, was $100. He noted in the instance where alternative locations for an antenna are to be investigated, a Hearing Examiner process typically initiated by neighbors, a fee could be established to recover costs. However, staff felt it appropriate to set the same fee to avoid neighbors having to pay a higher fee than the applicant. He noted that in addition to direction on the final ordinance, staff was seeking direction from the Council with regard to drafting a resolution to establish fees. City Attorney Scott Snyder reviewed the changes that were made to the ordinance since the last public hearing. • Ordinance page 2, paragraph A — General. Accessory buildings and structures shall meet all of the standards of ECDC 16.20.030 except as specifically provided in this section. • Ordinance page 2, paragraph B — "Height. Height shall be limited to 15 feet, except for amateur radio transmitting antennas and their supporting structures. Mr. Snyder explained under the Building Code and City Zoning Code, a building was a structure with a roof; a structure was any combination of materials attached to the ground. The intent of the change proposed in paragraphs A &B was to address whether the antennas and/or the towers were regulated and to address the issue with regard to wires and other similar devices attached to trees with the intent that those would be regulated. • Ordinance page 3, paragraph E — Amateur Radio Antennas. Approval of an amateur radio antenna dish which measures greater than one meter or 1.1 yards in diameter, or an antenna which: (1) is mounted on a mast greater than 12 feet in height if mounted on the principal building or structures, exclusive of chimneys and other roof top structures on the property which conforms to the height limit of the applicable zone, or (2) exceeds the height limit of the applicable zone if mounted on the ground or on an accessory structure on the property; shall be processed according to ECDC 20.95.050, Staff Decision — Notice Required, and shall comply with the following. Mr. Snyder explained this revision was to clarify that the intent was the top of the roof line regardless of existing roof top equipment. • Ordinance page 4, paragraph 4 — Height. The height of a ground -mounted tower or roof -top antenna may not exceed the greater of the height limit applicable to the zone or 65 feet when. extended by a telescoping or crank -up mechanism unless an applicant obtains a waiver (see Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 2, 2004 Page 2 paragraph G below). Mr. Snyder explained the intent of this revision was to clarify the structure on which the crank mechanism was mounted could not exceed the height of the zone and allow it to reach 65 feet when extended. • Ordinance page 4, paragraph 4A — Only telescoping towers may exceed the height limits established by paragraph E above. Such towers shall comply with the height limit within the applicable zone and may only exceed the height limit of the applicable zone and/or 65-foot height limit when extended and operating and if a waiver has been granted. Mr. Snyder noted this referred to the reference to 12 feet above the height of the building which conform to the height in the zone. • Ordinance page 4, paragraph B — Antennas located on a nonconforming structure which exceeds the height limit of the zone in which it is located shall be limited to height limit of the zone plus twelve feet. Mr. Snyder explained the above changes were made in the spirit of the direction staff received from the Planning Board to comply with FCC regulations and to be as restrictive as possible in a defensible manner. He clarified the ordinance was intended to accommodate amateur radio antennas to the minimum provided by law. If the Council wanted, it was possible to provide more latitude, but staff did not recommend, from a legal standpoint, being more restrictive. Councilmember Wilson requested clarification on the wording in paragraph B on page 4, "shall be limited to height limit of the zone plus twelve feet. " Mr. Snyder answered the word "structure" was used intentionally as structure included "building." Therefore either an accessory structure such as garage or shed would be 15 feet plus 12 feet and on the primary structure, it would be the height limit of the zone or 25 feet plus 12 feet. If the Council passed the ordinance tonight, Councilmember Marin asked when the Council would address fees. Mr. Chave advised with Council direction, the fee resolution could be presented as soon as Mr. Snyder could draft it. Mr. Snyder noted because the ordinance was effective five days after publication on Sunday, the fee resolution could be presented to the Council at their next meeting. Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing, noting the Council had received written correspondence from Sylvia and Sam Hochman and Matt Gormley. Lee Tyson, 20832 88t" Place W, Edmonds, Assistant Emergency Coordinator, South Snohomish County Amateur Radio Emergency Services (ARES), and Radio Amateur Civil Emergency Service (RACES) member, voiced his opposition to any further regulation on amateur radio towers or antennas, noting they were already a well regulated and disciplined group. Additional regulations would seriously affect the pool of effective amateur radio operations available during emergencies. He described the mission of ARES and RACES to provide emergency communications to fire, police, hospitals, Red Cross, Salvation Army, search and rescue, and maritime, explaining that radios, antennas and towers were the tools that enabled each member to perform their mission. He cited investment in equipment and exercises to ensure equipment performance. He commented equipment must be available to meet communication needs and additional regulations that negatively impact serving organizations, either physically or financially, would affect their ability to support the community and nation. Matt Gormley, 325 Walnut St #202, Edmonds, a registered professional electrical engineer and amateur radio license holder since 1934. He expressed his support for amateur radio and full reasonable accommodation in compliance with FCC regulations. He referred to written materials he provided, a brochure "Today's Radio Amateur" which contained data on antennas and supports, and a letter describing reasonable accommodations for today's radio amateur. He provided highlights of his letter describing frequency allocations and pointing out that no single band line could meet the operating requirements of the board spectrum of frequency allocations. He agreed it was appropriate for the City to Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 2, 2004 Page 3 update their amateur radio antenna regulations and bring them to state-of-the-art. He urged the Council to consider the information he provided when revising the amateur radio antenna regulations. Bob Preston, 809 Carey Road, Edmonds, questioned why if a property owner could have a 12-foot antenna on a 25-foot structure, why could they not have a 37-foot free-standing tower. He also questioned why only a crank -up tower was allowed above 37 feet. He recognized in certain areas of the City where there were views it may be helpful to have a crank -up tower, however, in many areas where there are no views, a 65-foot fixed tower would not have an impact on the neighborhood. He acknowledged some fee was justified but preferred the fees be kept low. Hearing no further public comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public participation portion of the public hearing. COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, FOR APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE NO. 3490. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The ordinance approved is as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF ECDC 16.20.050 SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS — ACCESSORY BUILDINGS IN ORDER TO AMEND ITS REGULATIONS RELATING TO AMATEUR RADIO ANTENNAS AND TO ADOPT AN INTERACTIVE PROCESS IN CONFORMANCE WITH FCC REGULATIONS, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PLUNKETT, TO DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE A FEE RESOLUTION FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ON MARCH 16. Councilmember Wilson inquired about the amount of the recommended fee. Mr. Chave explained the basic administration cost for advertising, posting and mailing was estimated at $97; staff's recommendation was a $100 fee. He noted the $15 surcharge would also be applied. Councilmember Marin clarified his intent was the $97 fee plus the $15 surcharge for a total of $112. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 4. PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO ECDC CHAPTER 21.40.020 AND 17.30.000 REPEALING THE CITY'S CURRENT HEDGE REGULATIONS. THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS WOULD CAUSE THE CITY TO CEASE TO REGULATE HEDGES EXCEPT WHEN RELATED TO STREET OR ACCESS SAFETY (FILE NO. CDC-03-1) Development Services Director Duane Bowman explained this ordinance was scheduled for a public hearing based on the Planning Board's recommendation which would cause the City to cease regulating hedges except when related to street or access safety. Mr. Bowman recalled in 1989, the Hearing Examiner issued a landmark ruling in regard to an interpretation of ECDC 21.40.020, the definition of hedges. His decision indicated that unless a specific kind of tree was low growing, it did not constitute a hedge; however, staff was still often caught between neighbors arguing over height and composition of vegetation between properties. He recalled the Council referred the matter to the Planning Board in December 2002 after considering cases that illustrated the difficulty with regulating hedges. Mr. Bowman read the current definition of hedge, "Hedge means a fence or boundary formed by a row of shrubs or low trees," commenting this definition was very vague and non-specific. The Planning Board reviewed the issue, took public testimony and considered two options, 1) redefine the definition of hedges Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 2, 2004 Page 4 to make it more enforceable, or 2) discontinue regulating hedges. After receiving testimony and correspondence from residents, the Planning Board concluded the best alternative was not to regulate hedges except where they created sight distance problems at street intersections, driveways, etc. The Planning Board concluded the current regulations were difficult to interpret and basically unenforceable. He recalled the Planning Board considered several different hedge definitions, however, none were deemed workable. The Planning Board concluded there were more appropriate methods of resolving disputes between neighbors such as view easements, vegetation maintenance agreements, or mediation. Mr. Bowman explained the Planning Board again considered the ordinance at their February 11 meeting, following the Council work session, and made some slight changes to the ordinance but basically forwarded the same recommendation to repeal the City's regulations governing hedges. He noted the Council packet included the complete Planning Board record regarding this topic as well as the Council minutes from the work session. Councilmember Moore inquired what would happen in the future when neighbors had a dispute if this ordinance were passed. Mr. Bowman answered residents would be informed the City did not regulate vegetation and inform them of options for resolving issues such as view easement, maintenance agreement, or mediation. He referred to a handout that would be distributed by Code Enforcement, "How to Deal with Neighborhood Issues." Mayor Haakenson reopened the public participation portion of the public hearing. Darrell Marmion, 750 Edmonds Street, Edmonds, supported regulating fences and hedges similarly as they usually served the same function. He noted most of the letters in the Council packet had the same opinion. He expressed concern with staff s comment that the ordinance was unenforceable and difficult to interpret and the solution that was reached to eliminate the regulation. He preferred consideration be given to potential solutions used by other cities. He referred to several other instances in the code where reference was made to hedges, specifically Title 14, 16 and 23. Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, Edmonds, agreed with eliminating regulation of hedges. He referred to the Clyde Hill regulation that stated a fence shall be any barrier which is naturally grown or constructed for the purposes of confining, a means of protection or use as a boundary. He suggested eliminating the concept of a hedge and only regulate barriers, whether naturally grown or constructed. Hearing no further public comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public participation portion of the public hearing. Councilmember Moore asked staff to respond to Mr. Hertrich's suggestion regarding a naturally growing fence and Mr. Marmion's reference to the word hedge in other areas of the code. Mr. Bowman noted the fundamental question was whether an ordinance would be enforceable. He pointed out the possibility of a resident planting a natural barrier in the center of their backyard which could create as much of a problem as on the property line. If the Council chose to regulate things that grow, the Council needed to develop a definition. He agreed staff could redefine the definition to include natural barrier but regulating things that grow was problematic. He noted someone could also plant a single tree which would have the same impact as a row of 3-4 trees but single trees were not regulated. Councilmember Moore asked how other cities addressed this issue. Mr. Bowman noted most cities did not regulate vegetation due to the difficulty. Councilmember Moore asked staff to respond to Mr. Marmion's claim that hedge appeared in other sections of the ordinance, specifically Title 14, 16 and 23. Mr. Snyder recommended doing a word search to identify the word "hedge" in the ordinance. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 2, 2004 Page 5 Responding to further questions, Mr. Snyder explained his law firm also represented Clyde Hill which was a completely developed community that for years had governed itself via strong subdivision homeowners covenants. He stated the City could adopt a Clyde Hill -approach; however, the cost may be prohibitive. Mr. Bowman pointed out once such a change was made in the code, a base line for enforcement must be established. Options for establishing a baseline include an inventory which is very expensive or hiring an arborist to testify on individual cases. Councilmember Wilson inquired about the cost of inventorying existing vegetation if the Council adopted a Clyde Hill -type ordinance. Mr. Bowman answered his initial estimate of a parcel -by -parcel inventory was $100,000+. Due to the cost of the inventory, he commented that another alternative would be the use of an expert. Responding to Council President Plunkett's question, Mr. Snyder stated if everything were grandfathered, an inventory of the existing hedges would need to be done or an arborist could be used to testify regarding the height of the hedge on the date it was grandfathered. He noted grandfathering did not eliminate the City's enforcement burden. Councilmember Dawson noted if vegetation were grandfathered, the age of the hedge would be unknown without an inventory. Mr. Snyder noted one key principle was that one could not establish legal nonconforming rights unless the use was legally established. With buildings, structures, and manmade things, that was easy due to the need for a building permit. In this instance, to regulate something for which no permit has been required in the past, it would be the City's burden to show the use was not legally established. Mr. Bowman pointed out a large portion of the City was annexed from Snohomish County where there were no regulations regarding hedges. Mr. Snyder noted when the ownership of a property changed, etc. it would become more difficult over time to establish the height of vegetation at the time it became nonconforming. Councilmember Dawson inquired whether hiring an arborist to testify on a case -by -case basis was a workable solution. Mr. Snyder answered an arborist would rely on information such as standard growth patterns and weather data to establish normal annual growth. He stated although it was possible to obtain that testimony, it required a great deal of preparation and expense. Councilmember Dawson questioned whether the arborist's testimony would provide assistance if an inventory were not done first. Mr. Snyder agreed in many situations it would be difficult without an inventory. Councilmember Dawson noted if the Council chose the arborist option, it was likely the City would lose the majority of enforcement actions. She inquired about the associated costs. Mr. Bowman answered the amount of time and the cost would vary by case. There was also the issue of who paid the cost of the arborist. Councilmember Dawson inquired about the number of cases this would impact. Mr. Bowman answered staff currently had seven active cases in a three year period. He emphasized the need to provide regulations that were enforceable. Councilmember Orvis noted the law could be enforced now for certain trees and shrubs and the issue was whether to include more plants in the definition. He suggested codifying the current interpretation the way it was being enforced now. Mr. Bowman answered the Hearing Examiner stated in his decision that the City should do something to clarify the definition. Councilmember Orvis recalled a complainant who was required to cut some of his shrubs because they fell within the current definition. Mr. Bowman answered that decision could potentially be challenged. He explained in that instance, the hedge -like material was pyramidalis which can reach 25-30 feet. Mr. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 2, 2004 Page 6 Snyder explained another problem with codifying the low growing principle was some of the bitterest neighborhood problems were spite situations and the City may not want to encourage residents to grow vegetation that was not low growing. He noted absent hedge regulations, the common law definition would apply and those who wanted to preserve a view could buy that right. If the Council chose the arborist testimony route, Council President Plunkett inquired whether the City could shift some of the burden to the applicant. Mr. Snyder agreed, noting that may be an instance when full cost should be required for an appeal. Mayor Haakenson raised the issue of how the arborist and applicant could enter a neighbor's yard to evaluate their shrubs. Councilmember Wilson inquired about the current fee structure, recalling it had been the Council's policy to minimize costs to appellants. He asked whether the City was likely to receive many appeals if the appellant was asked to pay the costs. Mr. Bowman answered probably not. He noted another potential issue may be when an appellant's appeal was successful, should they get a refund of their fee? Councilmember Moore commented that in her experience, each arborist could have a different opinion. Councilmember Dawson asked whether Council President Plunkett wanted the appellant to bear the cost. Council President Plunkett answered he would not support the proposed ordinance and preferred the matter be referred to the Community Services/Development Services Committee to identify a better solution. Councilmember Dawson acknowledged she was uncertain whether there was a more workable solution but the issue has been discussed for many years and no good solution has been identified. COUNCILMEMBER MOORE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, FOR APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE NO.3491. Councilmember Marin, a member of the Community Services/Development Services Committee last year, advised it was he who recommended the Planning Board's recommendation be forwarded to the full Council for deliberation but with reservations. Although he would prefer there was a way to regulate hedges, views and privacy must be balanced. The only reasonable answer was to exercise the golden rule and before taking rash action, consider your neighbor. He indicated he would support the motion. Councilmember Dawson pointed out this issue had been considered for a long time and government must balance what it would like to do with what it needed to do as well as balance costs. She concluded the City did not have adequate funds to conduct an inventory and without an inventory, a hedge ordinance was not workable. Although she was willing to consider another option if the Council could provide specific direction, absent an inventory, the City had no choice but to cease regulating hedges. Councilmember Olson agreed no other workable solutions had been identified. She planned to support the ordinance. Councilmember Wilson expressed his support for the ordinance, noting if there had been a way to effectively regulate hedges, it would have been identified by now. He recalled there had not been a solution to the problem in the 14 years he had been with the City or in his 20 year career working with public agencies in the Puget Sound area. Councilmember Moore agreed with Mr. Hertrich's comment that citizens of Edmonds were mostly law abiding, pointing out citizens of Edmonds were also mostly neighborly. She noted the instances when this would be a problem were few and it would be better not to regulate hedges. MOTION CARRIED (5-2) COUNCIL PRESIDENT PLUNKETT AND COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS OPPOSED. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 2, 2004 Page 7 5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Ron Wambolt, 504 61h Street S, Edmonds, referred to the building the Council approved on February 3, an application for a mixed use building with commercial use on the first floor and condominiums above located at 215 5th Avenue N. He noted the proposed building violated height limits in the City's building code as heights were limited to 25 feet unless the roof and sides were modulated, 30 feet were allowed. He recalled Councilmember Orvis, Dawson and Wilson explained why they voted against approval; however, Council President Plunkett, and Councilmembers Marin, Moore, and Olson did not voice their rationale for supporting a deviation from the code. He recalled the building was on the February 24 Council agenda for final approval and again none of the Councilmembers who voted for approval would vote for reconsideration. He noted the agenda item following the Request for Reconsideration was a proposed ordinance to provide clarity with regard to building heights. He alleged the February 24 agenda was structured with the approval of the building preceding the building code clarification ordinance to accomplish final approval of the building at 215 5`h Avenue with a 30 foot height. He urged the four Councilmembers to explain the rationale for their support of the project. Don Kreiman, 24006 95th Place W, Edmonds, thanked everyone, especially Mayor Haakenson, who read to Madrona students this morning. He noted Madrona was a choice school within the Edmonds School District that scored near the top on the WASL and the Iowa Test for Basic Skills but was best known for its musically and cultural abilities. He encouraged the public to attend Madrona's production of "Hello Dolly" on March 18-21 at Edmonds-Woodway High School Theater. He provided Bill Charbonneau's telephone number for the public to obtain tickets or place a program advertisement (425- 771-6000) as well as his own telephone number (206) 542-3840. Rick Janness, 17316 73rd Avenue W, Edmonds, explained in a planned community where he lived in prior to Edmonds, most lots had height limitations on structures or view corridors that were established as part of property lines. As a member of the Architectural Control Board in that community, he recalled some residents who did not have view corridors established for their property wanted view corridors. The Architectural Control Board developed a non -binding process whereby a petitioning property owner could reach resolution with other property owners to record a view corridor. He suggested the Council direct staff to investigate such a process. Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, Edmonds, referred to the Phoenix Development PRD, Madrona Cove, a 22-lot PRD on which the Council granted final approval recently. He explained he had requested Reconsideration of the Hearing Examiner's decision on the request for variance for height. The developer wanted 35-foot tali buildings, however, PRD regulations specifically stated no variances and no building heights over 25 feet, therefore, everyone expected a PRD would meet the height limit. However, he later learned the developer of a PRD could request a height variance. He found it frustrating when height was not mentioned throughout the PRD review process and then variances were requested when the process had been concluded. Mr. Hertrich explained he did not appeal the Hearing Examiner's decision due to the $220 fee for each of the six variances. He recalled a past Hearing Examiner denied the Eagle Crest PRD a height variance; however, he felt the new Hearing Examiner was more liberal and looked at things differently. He offered to continue to provide information to the Council with regard to the Hearing Examiner, recommending the Council examine the type of decisions he was making. 6. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Haakenson reported today, as part of Dr. Seuss Day, he read to students at Madrona, Seaview Elementary and Westgate Elementary. Mayor Haakenson advised the Council retreat was scheduled for March 5 and 6 in La Conner. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 2, 2004 Page 8 7. COUNCIL COMMENTS council Council President Plunkett reported the retreat agenda was posted on the City's website. He advised the etreat start time on March 5 was 9:30 a.m. Library Council President Plunkett reported on a Library Association meeting he attended last week, citing [Association jaccomplishments of a previous mayor of Edmonds (1922 — 1924), Ann Kerr that included improving the Fire Department, expanding the ferry, City beautification, water/sewer and animal control. He noted Ms. Kerr was one of the first female mayors in Washington. Mayor Haakenson pointed out Ms. Kerr was the first female mayor of Edmonds and the Kerr meeting room in City Hall was named for her. council Councilmember Dawson inquired whether the retreat would be taped, commenting the public should be Retreat informed if it was not going to be recorded. Council President Plunkett replied summary minutes would be taken; the meeting would not be recorded. Councilmember Dawson suggested the Council should have voted on this issue and expressed her preference for recording the retreat. She advised the public that if they were interested in discussion that. occurred at the retreat, they should plan to attend. Snohomish Councilmember Wilson reported on the Snohomish County Tomorrow meeting, noting because there County were 13 new board members, the meeting included review of the structure of the organization, mission Tomorrow and values. The board began reviewing changes to the Countywide Planning Policies; however, the policies were postponed to allow the board further opportunity to review the recommendations. He noted the Citizens Advisory Board of Snohomish County Tomorrow was seeking new citizen members. He encouraged anyone interested in participating in the Snohomish County planning effort to contact him via the Council office. Councilmember Moore commented she was a citizen member of Snohomish County Tomorrow and had found it to be a fantastic forum for learning about land use in the county. She encouraged interested citizens to apply. Hwy 99 Task Force Councilmember Moore reported on the informative Highway 99 Task Force meeting she attended. She Sustainable also reported on the Sustainable Snohomish County Development Task Force meeting, recommending Snohomish they be invited to provide a presentation to the Council. County Development Task Force Councilmember Marin commented on the excellent completion of improvements along Main Street and Dayton, expressing his appreciation to Traffic Engineer Darrell Smith for his efforts. Councilmember Main St. and Dayton Marin also reported on retirement parties he attended for Human Resources Director Brent Hunter and Improvements Jim Roberts, Engineering Department, noting these staff members would be missed. ew 3-way Mayor Haakenson advised of the new stop signs (3-way stop) at 7th and Main to assist pedestrian crossing Stop at 7� and to the Frances Anderson Center. He advised the next Council meeting would consist of committee Mam meetings; the March 16 Council meeting would include a public hearing on Ordinance No. 3488 adopting pursuant to RCW 35A.63.220 an interim zoning regulation clarifying the application of roof height above twenty-five (25) feet as part of modulated roof and building design, and vesting certain applications in process. With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m. GAY H ENSON, MAYOR SANDRA S. CHASE, CITY CLERK Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 2, 2004 Page 9 1 1 [1 L AGENDA EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex 250 5` Avenue North 7:00 - 10:00 p.m. MARCH 2, 2004 7:00 p.m. - Call to Order Flan Salute 1. Approval of Agenda 2. Consent Agenda Items (A) Roll Call (B) Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of February 24, 2004. (C) Approval of claim checks #69165 through #69373 for the week of February 23, 2004, in the amount of $368,226.41. (D) Report on final construction costs for Fire Station 16 located at 8429 - 196" Street SW and Council acceptance of project. (E) Report on final construction costs for the 200 Dayton Street Building Roof Replacement Project and Council acceptance of project. (F) Report on final construction costs for the Anderson Center Window Replacement - Phase II Project and Council acceptance of project. (G) Report on final construction costs for the 242nd Street Storm Improvements Project and Council acceptance of project. (H) Proclamation in honor of Multiple Sclerosis Education and Awareness Month, March 2004. 3. (45 Min.) Continued Public Hearing on regulations concerning amateur radio antennas. The proposal would revise Edmonds Community Development Code Chapter (ECDC) 16.20 to clarify how amateur radio antennas are regulated and set standards and thresholds for their review and permitting. (File No. CDC-03-4) 4. (60 Min.) Public Hearing on proposed amendments to ECDC Chapters 21.40.020 and 17.30.000 repealing the City's current hedge regulations. The proposed amendments would cause the City to cease to regulate hedges except when related to street, I access safety. (File No. CDC-03-1) Page 1 of 2 CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA MARCH 2, 2004 Page 2 of 2 5. Audience Comments (3 Minute Limit Per Person)* *Regarding matters not listed as Closed Record Review or as Public Hearings. 6. ( 5 Min.) Mayor's Comments 7. (15 Min.) Council Comments ADJOURN 1 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 as well as a delayed telecast of the meeting appears on cable television Government Access Channel 21.