07/01/2003 City CouncilEDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES
July 1, 2003
The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Haakenson in the Council
Chambers, 250 5d' Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute.
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Gary Haakenson, Mayor
Dave Earling, Council President
Jeff Wilson, Councilmember
Michael Plunkett, Councilmember
Lora Petso, Councilmember
Dave Orvis, Councilmember
Richard Marin, Councilmember
Deanna Dawson, Councilmember
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
STAFF PRESENT
David Stern, Chief of Police
Stephen Clifton, Community Services Director
Jim Larson, Assistant Admin. Serv. Director
Arvilla Ohlde, Parks and Recreation Director
Rob Chave, Planning Manager
Dave Gebert, City Engineer
Brian McIntosh, Asst. Parks and Recreation Dir.
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 COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, FOR
APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA AS PRESENTED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
Councilmember Petso requested Items F and G be removed from the Consent Agenda. Councilmembers
Wilson and Dawson requested Item F be removed and Councilmember Marin requested Item E be
removed.
COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, FOR
APPROVAL OF THE REMAINDER OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows:
(A) ROLL CALL
Approve
6/24/03
Minutes (B) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JUNE 24, 2003
pprove
laim (C) APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #63562 THROUGH #63697 FOR THE WEEK OF
becks JUNE 23, 2003, IN THE AMOUNT OF $102,502.37.
Addendum 4 (D) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN ADDENDUM #4 TO C112M HILL
to CH2M
ill Agree -
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT.
ent
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 1, 2003
Page I
J
1
Item E: Reappointment of Edmonds Public Facilities District Board Member James Monroe
Councilmember Marin explained he pulled this item to bring to the Council's attention the great work
done by the PFD Board, particularly by Board Member James Monroe.
Reappoint COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, FOR
FD Board
Member APPROVAL OF ITEM E. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The item approved is as
follows:
(E) REAPPOINTMENT OF EDMONDS PUBLIC FACILITIES DISTRICT BOARD
MEMBER JAMES MONROE
Item F: Approval of Findings of Fact for a Closed Record Review Held before the City Council on May 27,
2003 of an Application by Phoenix Development, Inc. for a Planned Residential Development and Formal
Plat. The Site is Zoned Single - Family Residential (RS -8), and is Located at 8512, 8516, 8520 and 8526 Main
Street. (File No. PRD- 2002 -171 and P- 2002 -172)
Councilmember Petso advised she voted against this item on May 27, 2003 and planned to vote against it
again tonight.
Councilmember Wilson advised he would abstain from the vote as he did not participate in the public
hearing due to his absence from the May 27, 2003 City Council meeting.
Councilmember Dawson disqualified herself from this item due to inadvertent ex parte communication
she had with a neighbor. Although she did not feel it would influence her vote, upon the advice of the
City Attorney, she disqualified herself from the vote.
7ings of
hoenix COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING, FOR
elopment APPROVAL OF ITEM F. MOTION CARRIED (4 -1 -2), COUNCILMEMBER PETSO OPPOSED
and AND COUNCILMEMBERS WILSON AND DAWSON ABSTAINING. The item approved is as
al Plat follows:
(F) APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT FOR A CLOSED RECORD REVIEW HELD
BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL ON MAY 27, 2003 OF AN APPLICATION BY PHOENIX
DEVELOPMENT, INC. FOR A PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND
FORMAL PLAT. THE SITE IS ZONED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RS -8), AND
IS LOCATED AT 8512, 8516, 8520 AND 8526 MAIN STREET. (File No. PRD- 2002 -171
and P- 2002 -172).
Item G: Proposed Ordinance Amending the Provisions of the Edmonds Communitv Development Code to
Repeal and Re -enact Chapter 20.10, Architectural Design Review, in Order to Address Issues Related to
Review of Signs; Repealing and Re- enacting Chapter 10.60, Sign Code; Amending Chapter 19.45 Relating to
Adoption of the Uniform Sign Code to Add a New Section 19.40.015 Relating to Exemptions: and Fixing a
Time When the Same Shall Become Effective.
Councilmember Petso explained that the proposed change in the ordinance would result in a number of
existing signs being nonconforming and she preferred that consideration be given to other ways of
streamlining procedures rather than making existing signs prohibited. She encouraged the Planning
Board to consider alternate methods of streamlining the sign approval procedure, such as an easier
process for straight - forward signs for which there was general agreement that they were appropriate for
downtown, and establishing a less streamlined procedure for signs that were not encouraged in the
downtown area.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 1, 2003
Page 2
COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING, FOR
APPROVAL OF ITEM G. MOTION CARRIED (6 -1), COUNCILMEMBER PETSO OPPOSED.
The item approved is as follows:
(G) ORDINANCE NO. 3461, AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF THE EDMONDS
Sign Coode de
rd# 3 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE TO REPEAL AND RE -ENACT CHAPTER 20.10,
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW, IN ORDER TO ADDRESS ISSUES RELATED
TO REVIEW OF SIGNS; REPEALING AND RE- ENACTING CHAPTER 10.60, SIGN
CODE; AMENDING CHAPTER 19.45 RELATING TO ADOPTION OF THE UNIFORM
SIGN CODE TO ADD A NEW SECTION 19.40.015 RELATING TO EXEMPTIONS; AND
FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE.
Recreation 3. PROCLAMATION IN RECOGNITION OF RECREATION AND PARKS MONTH, JULY 2003
and Parks
Month Mayor Haakenson read a Proclamation declaring July as Recreation and Parks month in Edmonds and
encouraging all citizens to celebrate by participating in their choice of recreational activities.
Parks & Recreation Director Arvilla Ohlde commended her staff, including Recreation Coordinator
Renee McRae, Cultural Resources Coordinator Frances Chapin, Assistant Parks and Recreation Director
Brian McIntosh, and Arts Assistant Chris Gillespie. Ms. Ohlde commented on the numerous recreational
activities available throughout the park system. She referred to a brochure, "Exploring Edmonds Parks,"
developed by intern Kate Gebert, that identified parks throughout the City and the amenities available at
each. In Ms. Gebert's absence, her father, City Engineer Dave Gebert, accepted a Certificate of
Appreciation on her behalf.
4. ANNUAL REPORT OF THE EDMONDS ARTS COMMISSION
Arts
Commission
Annual Arts Commission Chair Julie Toothaker commented it had been an exciting year for the arts in Edmonds.
Report As part of its mission statement, the Edmonds Arts Commission was involved in literary, performing, and
visual arts. She reported on the 17`h annual Write on the Sound held in fall 2002 which experienced the
largest attendance ever. Due to increased interest, the conference will be expanded to a 3 -day conference
in partnership with Edmonds Community College.
Ms. Toothaker advised the Summer Concerts series would begin in City Park on July 15. She expressed
the Commission's appreciation to Lynnwood Honda and Acura of Lynnwood for their sponsorship. She
reported on the two concerts in the Winter Performing Art series and four visual art exhibit areas in the
City for which the Arts Commission was responsible for selection of the artists and display of artwork.
She advised the four display spaces were the two cases in the Frances Anderson Center, the Brackett
Room at City Hall, and the library. Ms. Toothaker reported on the "Best Book I Ever Read" poster
contest held each year that promoted both visual and literary arts.
Ms. Toothaker explained another role of the Arts Commission was to grant funds from the Lodging Tax.
From these funds, the Commission sponsored a Board Development Workshop and invited all arts
organizations in Edmonds to participate. Their goal was to assist all art organizations and develop
networking and communication between art organizations. She noted the common dilemma for all arts
organizations and a major strategy of the workshop was sponsorships.
On behalf of the Edmonds Art Commission, Ms. Toothaker thanked the Council for their continued
support.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 1, 2003
Page 3
Iinned 5. PUBLIC HEARING ON A PROPOSED ORDINANCE REPEALING AND REENACTING
dentiai EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC) CHAPTER 20.35 RELATING TO
elopment PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT (PRD); AMENDING ECDC SECTION 16.20.030,
TABLE OF SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS; REPEALING ECDC 20.16.010(A)(4)
RELATING TO HEARING EXAMINER RECOMMENDATIONS• AMENDING ECDC 20.20.015
TO ADD A NEW SECTION (D) PROHIBITING CERTAIN HOME OCCUPATIONS IN PRDS;
AMENDING ECDC CHAPTER 20.21 TO ADD A NEW SECTION 20.21.010 PROHIBITING
ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS IN PRDS.
Council President Earling referred to his statement at the last meeting that there had been 40 City
Council and Planning Board meetings, correcting this to 20 meetings.
City Attorney Scott Snyder explained the public hearing had been advertised as limiting comment to
testimony regarding the prohibition of home occupations with outside employees and accessory dwelling
units (ADU) in PRDs. He recalled advising the Council previously because as these elements had been
added following the close of the public hearing, had not been subject to prior notification, and amended
two new sections of the Code, a public hearing on those items would be required. He noted that
requirement arose in RCW 36.70A.035 which required an opportunity for public comment prior to
approval of a development regulation. He noted other non - substantive changes the Council made
following the close of the public hearing were clarification of language such as a request for a cross
reference and adding criteria that referenced grasscrete for paving. He noted an additional public hearing
was not required on non - substantive changes and referenced RCW 36.70A.035.E1, 2 and 3. Mr. Snyder
summarized that the hearing notice was consistent with the Council's minimum obligation.
Mr. Snyder noted interest had been expressed by some Councilmembers in expanding the public hearing.
At the Mayor's suggestion, he outlined the alternatives available to the Council — hold the public hearing
on the subjects that were advertised (as public testimony had been provided previously on the remainder
of the ordinance) or, if the Council wished to consider broader testimony, either continue the public
hearing to take all testimony at a later date or hold the public hearing on the subject advertised and hold a
broader public hearing at a later date. He cautioned against allowing informal broadening of the scope of
the hearing tonight by not ruling speakers out of order.
Councilmember Dawson reiterated the point she made at last week's Council meeting, that although not
legally required to hold a public hearing on the broader topics, her June 3 motion was to hold a public
hearing on the entire ordinance, a motion that was approved unanimously by the Council. However,
tonight's public hearing was advertised on a more narrow subject matter. She pointed out the Council
still needed to hold the public hearing they unanimously voted to hold unless Councilmembers wished to
reconsider their vote on that motion.
Mr. Snyder recalled his discussion with Council President Earling regarding the issue of limiting
testimony at the public hearing; his interpretation was that the intent of the public hearing was to address
the two issues raised following the previous public hearing.
Councilmember Petso agreed with Councilmember Dawson that the motion was to hold a public hearing
on the entire ordinance. She recalled changes were made last week to the manner in which tonight's
public hearing was advertised, limiting testimony to specific topics, leaving the public with the
impression that a public hearing would still be held on the entire ordinance. She suggested allowing
testimony tonight on the specific topics and scheduling another public hearing on the entire ordinance on
a future date.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 1, 2003
Page 4
Planning Manager Rob Chave explained this was a public hearing limited to the two provisions that were
not considered previously: 1) prohibit ADUs in PRDs, and 2) prohibit home occupations that employ
someone outside the resident family in PRDs. He noted other than those two changes, the ordinance
remained the same as discussed at previous public hearings and meetings.
Councilmember Petso inquired whether the proposed amendments were prospective — whether the
proposed change would impact a resident in an existing PRD who had installed an ADU or already
operating a home occupation with outside employees. Mr. Chave answered legally established uses
would be grandfathered. Councilmember Petso asked whether a subsequent property owner would be
bound by the restriction and, for example, could not start a home occupation with outside employees.
Mr. Snyder answered yes as home occupations were generally personal to the person operating it. He
urged citizens with a home occupation or ADU to obtain a license as the use must be legally established
in order for them to enjoy grandfathering rights.
Councilmember Petso asked whether any special notice should be provided to PRD residents with a
home occupation with outside employees or an ADU. Mr. Snyder answered no, citing a recent Court of
Appeals case. Councilmember Petso expressed concern that a PRD resident with a home occupation
with outside employees may not be aware that tonight's meeting would include discussion regarding their
rights. She inquired whether direct notice could be provided to directly impacted residents. Mr. Snyder
answered the City could provide notice if it desired but it was not legally required. He noted this was an
issue recently addressed by the Court of Appeals that determined special notice of generalized zoning
changes was not required to be given even to non - resident property owners.
Councilmember Wilson commented if a PRD resident was operating a home occupation with outside
employees or had an ADU, they were either 1) legally established and would be grandfathered, 2)
illegally established and there was an enforcement action underway, or 3) unknown to the City. He noted
the residents in the third group may be the appropriate ones to notify but that was not possible as they
were unknown to the City. Mr. Chave advised notice would be provided when a PRD was approved or a
resident inquired about an ADU.
Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Don Kreiman, 24006 95th Place W, Edmonds, supported Councilmember Orvis' amendment not to
allow ADUs or home occupations within a PRD. He displayed an example of what he alleged was a
poorly developed PRD at 6th & Bell, six rectangular 2 -story buildings separated by a sidewalk. He
recalled on October 15, 2002, the Council supported the Hearing Examiner's decision (via a 5 -2 vote) to
approve the PRD. He noted there was no opportunity for public comment or scrutiny as there were no
parties of record other than the developer and his attorney. He noted the two attorneys on the Council
felt the developer did not comply with the PRD regulations. He quoted Councilmember Dawson's
comments at the time, "if this was approved as a PRD, what wouldn't be approved as a PRD in the
future ?" He emphasized the need for public involvement to ensure that such development did not occur
in neighborhoods. He questioned the ability for a developer to purchase a lot, remove all trees, and "put
up as many houses as they can" without any opportunity for public comment to the City Council. He
urged the Council not to approve the amended PRD ordinance, in the belief it would lead to more poorly
designed developments. He concluded GMA did not require the proposed PRD amendments, the citizens
did not want it, and the attorneys on the Council as well as the City Attorney warned Councilmembers
that the amendments may not pass legal muster.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 1, 2003
Page 5
Betty Mueller, 209 Casper Street, Edmonds, supported not allowing home occupations or ADUs in
PRDs. She was also opposed to the review of PRDs by the Hearing Examiner rather than the City
Council and opposed to the appeal to Superior Court.
Mr. Snyder noted that although two Councilmembers stated their opinion that a future public hearing
should be held, there had not been a motion for a public hearing on the entire ordinance. He noted the
testimony was beginning to enter into that broader area and, if the Council allowed it, he recommended
advertising for another public hearing on the entire ordinance. He suggested the Council either enforce
the limitation on testimony or make a motion to hold a second public hearing.
COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DAWSON, TO
HAVE ANOTHER PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS MATTER THAT WAS ADVERTISED AS AN
OPEN PUBLIC HEARING ON ALL AREAS OF THE PRD ORDINANCE INCLUDING THE
CHANGES BEING DISCUSSED TONIGHT.
Councilmember Wilson recalled Mr. Snyder's advice was either not to open tonight's public hearing to
the broader issues or advertise for an additional public hearing. Mr. Snyder agreed, noting some
members of the public who rely on meeting notice would not be aware that testimony on the broader
issue was being accepted tonight. He pointed out that whether the Council opened the public hearing
tonight to comment on the entire ordinance or continued the public hearing, if any testimony outside of
the issues that were advertised was allowed, a second public hearing would need to be scheduled.
Councilmember Wilson asked whether the Planning Board minutes contained in the packet were part of
the record and could be considered by the Council. Mr. Snyder answered yes, recalling that the Council
requested the Planning Board minutes. He noted this was not a quasi judicial issue and the Council could
consider the portion of the minutes that were relevant.
Councilmember Dawson clarified if any testimony was allowed on topics outside what was advertised,
another public hearing would be required. She noted the last two speakers appeared to have already done
that. Mr. Snyder commented that was the reason he raised the issue. Councilmember Dawson concluded
since it had already occurred, another public hearing would be required. Mr. Snyder commented that
because this was a legislative issue, the Council could exclude the portions of the comments that were
not relevant to the topics advertised; however, if allowed to continue, it began to look like a due process
violation.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4 -3), COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, DAWSON,
WILSON, AND COUNCILMEMBER MARIN IN FAVOR, AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT
EARLING, AND COUNCILMEMBERS ORVIS AND PLUNKETT OPPOSED.
Mayor Haakenson inquired whether testimony tonight should be limited to the two topics that were
advertised. Mr. Snyder answered yes, noting an alternative would be that anyone speaking tonight on the
entire ordinance would not have an opportunity to speak at the next public hearing. He concluded it was
up to the Council to decide.
Councilmember Petso expressed her preference to allow the members of the public present to testify
regarding the two issues that were advertised and accept testimony on all issues at the upcoming public
hearing.
Councilmember Wilson indicated his preference would be to allow those present to speak on all issues as
two speakers had already done so.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 1, 2003
Page 6
Councilmember Dawson commented it would be easiest to allow people to decide for themselves
whether they wanted to speak tonight or speak at a future public hearing. She noted it may be
appropriate to allow the two speakers who already testified to speak at the future public hearing
inasmuch as they attempted to limit their testimony to the advertised topics.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON, TO
OPEN TESTIMONY TONIGHT AND THOSE WHO CHOSE TO SPEAK TONIGHT UNDER THE
OPEN FORMAT WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO SPEAK AT THE NEXT PUBLIC HEARING.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
As both Mr. Kreiman and Ms. Mueller indicated they limited their comment tonight and would like an
opportunity to speak at a public hearing on the entire ordinance, Councilmembers agreed it would be
appropriate to allow Mr. Kreiman and Ms. Mueller an opportunity to speak at the future public hearing.
July 22 was originally selected as the date of the public hearing on the entire ordinance; at Mr. Kreiman's
request, the date of the public hearing was changed to August 5 to allow him an opportunity to speak at
the public hearing. Mayor Haakenson also inquired of the audience's availability on August 5.
Mayor Haakenson asked the next speaker, Diane Azar, whether she wished to speak tonight or at the
future public hearing. Ms. Azar answered if she had only one opportunity to speak, she would wait until
the public hearing on the entire ordinance.
Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, Edmonds, commented that since others would be allowed to speak
at both public hearings, he challenged limiting his testimony at the August 5 public hearing. He agreed
ADUs and home occupations should not be allowed in PRDs. He noted there had been a great deal of
public testimony and a majority of it agreed the review by the City Council should not be changed. He
expressed concern that Councilmembers appeared to have their minds made up with the exception of
Councilmember Petso and Dawson, regarding the Hearing Examiner versus the City Council making the
final decision on PRDs. He expressed concern that the public process had been interfered with, alleging
that Council President Earling had "illegally" tampered with the process. He asserted that the Council
was ignoring public testimony and determining on its own what was good for the community.
Ray Martin, 18704 94th Avenue W, Edmonds, indicated he intended to speak next week also. He
commented Council President Earling was intruding into the Mayor and City Clerk's responsibilities by
limiting public testimony at the public hearing. He noted there were parking issues associated with
ADUs and home occupations in PRDs. He commented the public had had 2 -3 opportunities to speak
regarding the Hearing Examiner and the majority were against the Hearing Examiner making the final
decision. He objected to the Council going against public sentiment.
Sandra Radcliff Beck, 723 Hanna Park Road, Edmonds, asked how many of the 20 meetings Council
President Earling referred to accepted public testimony. Mr. Snyder advised the public could testify and
ask questions; it was up to the Council whether to respond. She recalled that of the two previous public
hearings, one accepted public testimony and one did not. Tonight's public hearing was the third public
hearing and the fourth would be the public hearing scheduled for August 5.
Al Rutledge, 7101 Lake Ballinger Way, Edmonds, commented the Council should have attended
Planning Board meeting regarding the PRD ordinance. He commented that the Council got into trouble
this evening due to lack of experience.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 1, 2003
Page 7
Hearing no further public comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public participation portion of the
public hearing.
For those members of the public planning to return for the next public hearing, Councilmember Petso
advised the Council packet included a concise comparison of the City Council versus the Hearing
Examiner making the final decision. She requested copies be available at the front desk of City Hall so
that the public could direct their testimony to the pros and cons of that issue.
COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DAWSON, TO
CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO AUGUST 5.
Councilmember Plunkett indicated his intent was that the public hearing be open to testimony from
anyone including those who testified this evening.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mr. Snyder advised the City Clerk would re- advertise the August 5 public hearing as a hearing on the
entire ordinance rather than the limited notice associated with a continued public hearing.
6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
vy Lid Lift Al Rutledge, 7101 Lake Ballinger Way, Edmonds, recommended the campaign in support of the levy
lid lift be started sooner than August or September.
Don Kreiman, 24006 95th Place W, Edmonds, pointed out the importance of residents having an
opportunity to speak to the Council which he felt was not happening now. He indicated his intent to run
for a Council position because of his belief in allowing residents an opportunity to speak to the Council.
ions
He envisioned that if the PRD ordinance passed, the Councilmembers responsible would not be returned
ecis .
to office. He pointed out the public did not support the Hearing Examiner making the decision on PRDs,
but the Council did not appear to be listening.
ihzen Finis Tupper, 711 Daly Street, Edmonds, recalled when the Salary Commission held a public hearing
articipation on why people don't run for public office, he testified regarding citizen participation and how over the
past 15 years, the City had slowly changed the process to limit citizen participation. He cited GMA goals
that encourage the involvement of citizens in the planning process, indicating that limiting citizen
participation was contrary to GMA goals. He recalled when the Community Development Code was
being developed, meetings would extend until 1:00 a.m. and they were difficult hearings that did not have
a three minute limit on public. testimony. He recalled the original Community Development Code
included a Chapter 15 that addressed the policies, goals, and vision of the City but this section was later
repealed. He requested the Council clarify their intent and vision. He concluded that what was
happening in the City was that the Council was "building the tenements of the future."
Peter Beck, 723 Hanna Park Road, Edmonds, accused the Council of hypocrisy, recalling Mayor
Haakenson asked Ms. Azar if she wanted to speak and then when she decided to wait to provide her
testimony at the next public hearing, the Council changed the rules and allowed everyone to speak again
at the August 5 public hearing.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 1, 2003
Page 8
ashington Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, Edmonds, commented the Washington Tea Party, previously
Tea Party involved in Brightwater, was campaigning for a group of Council and Port candidates. He questioned
why those candidates, who were present in the audience tonight, did not provide testimony. He invited
the Washington Tea Party members and candidates to speak on the issues.
ashington Ray Martin, 18704 94`h Avenue W, Edmonds, referred to the GMA which encouraged public
IT ea Party participation. He commented the Washington Tea Party did a great job with regard to Brightwater and he
encouraged that group not to become a political party.
Sandra Radcliff Beck, 723 Hanna Park Road, Edmonds, encouraged the Council to think about the
citizens of Edmonds and not to make decisions that citizens should be making. She commented the
citizens of Edmonds believed in the Council and should be given a reason to continue to believe.
7. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
f
Mayor Haakenson had no report.
8. COUNCIL COMMENTS
ealth Councilmember Marin advised of the availability of a brochure from the Snohomish County Health
istnet District, "Health Services for Travelers" that provided information about health precautions when
traveling to foreign countries.
xcused COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, TO
hsence EXCUSE COUNCILMEMBER MARIN FROM THE JUNE 17 AND JUNE 24 COUNCIL
MEETINGS. MOTION CARRIED (6 -1 -0), COUNCILMEMBER MARIN ABSTAINED.
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 8:20 p.m.
roI
7MWi ENSON, MAYOR
oe
SANDRA S. CHASE, CITY CLERK
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 1, 2003
Page 9
1
AGENDA
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL
Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex
250 51h Avenue North
7:00 - 10:00 p.m.
JULY 11 2003
7:00 p.m. - Call to Order
Flag Salute
1. Approval of Agenda
2. Consent Agenda Items
(A) Roll Call
(B) Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of June 24, 2003.
(C) Approval of claim checks #63562 through #63697 for the week of June 23,
2003, in the amount of $102,502.37.
(D) Authorization for the Mayor to sign Addendum #4 to CH2M Hill Professional
Services Agreement.
(E) Reappointment of Edmonds Public Facilities District Board Member James
Monroe.
(F) Approval of Findings of Fact for a closed record review held before the City
Council on May 27, 2003 of an application by Phoenix Development, Inc. for a
Planned Residential Development and Formal Plat. The site is zoned Single
Family Residential (RS -8), and is located at 8512, 8516, 8520 and 8526 Main
Street. (File No. PRD- 2002 -171 and P- 2002 -172).
(G) Proposed Ordinance amending the provisions of the Edmonds Community
Development Code to repeal and re -enact Chapter 20.10, Architectural Design
Review, in order to address issues related to review of signs; repealing and re-
enacting Chapter 10.60, Sign Code; amending Chapter 19.45 relating to
adoption of the Uniform Sign Code to add a new Section 19.40.015 relating to
exemptions; and fixing a time when the same shall become effective.
3. ( 5 Min.) Proclamation in recognition of Recreation and Parks Month, July 2003.
4. ( 5 Min.) Annual Report of the Edmonds Arts Commission.
Page 1 of 2
CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA
JULY 1, 2003
Paqe 2 of 2
Special Note: The public testimony on the following public hearing regarding a proposed Planned
Residential Development Ordinance will be limited to specific topics. The City Council passed
a motion on June 24, 2003 to request that testimony be received only related to new sections
covering home occupations (20.20.015) and accessory dwelling units (20.21.010).
5. (60 Min.) Public Hearing on a proposed ordinance repealing and reenacting Edmonds
Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 20.35 relating to Planned
Residential Development (PRD); amending ECDC Section 16.20.030, Table of
Site Development Standards; repealing ECDC 20.16.010(A)(4) relating to
Hearing Examiner recommendations; amending ECDC 20.20.015 to add a new
Section (D) prohibiting certain home occupations in PRDs; amending ECDC
Chapter 20.21 to add a new Section 20.21.010 prohibiting accessory dwelling
units in PRDs.
6. Audience Comments (3 Minute Limit Per Person)*
*Regarding matters not listed as Closed Record Review or as Public Hearings.
7. ( 5 Min.) Mayor's Comments
8. (15 Min.) Council Comments
ADJOURN
r�
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.