Loading...
04/16/1996 City CouncilI I r� EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES APRIL 16, 1996 The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:02 p.m. by Mayor Barbara Fahey in the Library Plaza Room, 650 Main Street, followed by the flag salute. ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Barbara Fahey, Mayor Dave Earling, Council President Tom Petruzzi, Councilmember John Nordquist, Councilmember Roger L. Myers, Councilmember Jim White, Councilmember Dick Van Hollebeke, Councilmember Gary Haakenson, Councilmember ALSO PRESENT Nick Zitzmann, Student Representative 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA STAFF PRESENT Michael Springer, Fire Chief Tom Miller, Police Chief Paul Mar, Community Services Director Art Housler, Administrative Services Director James Walker, City Engineer Rob Chave, Planning Manager Charles Day, Accounting Manager Scott Snyder, City Attorney Sandy Chase, City Clerk Jeannie Dines, Recorder Mayor Fahey requested a Proclamation be added to the agenda as Item 3b. COUNCELMEMBER VAN HOLLEBEKE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING, FOR APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED. 2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COUNCILMEMBER PETRUZZI MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING, FOR PASSAGE OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED. The agenda items passed are as follows: (A) ROLL CALL (B) APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF APRIL 2,1996 (C) APPROVAL OF CLAIM WARRANTS #5102S THRU #9135F FOR THE WEEK OF APRIL 1, 1996 IN THE AMOUNT OF $195,726.55; APPROVAL OF CLAIM WARRANT #8482S THRU #8482F FOR THE WEEK OF APRIL 1, 1996 IN THE AMOUNT OF $14,269.42; APPROVAL OF CLAIM WARRANTS #9138S , THRU #9351F FOR THE WEEK OF APRIL 8,1996 IN THE AMOUNT OF $312,892.39; AND APPROVAL OF PAYROLL WARRANTS #9027 THRU #9353 FOR THE PERIOD MARCH 16 THRU MARCH 31,1996 IN THE AMOUNT OF $567,853.11 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 16, 1996 Page I �Op- (D) ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIEPT OF CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES FROM HARRY A. STRAW WAR ($242.38), AND FROM MICHAEL A. SPRINGER, FIRE CHIEF (Amount Unknown) Qwff 00j;P (E) ACCEPTANCE OF QUIT CLAIM DEED FROM MARK JOHNSON FOR RIGHT-OF- WAY DEDICATION AT 505 6TH AVENUE SOUTH (SHORT PLAT S-95-180) 61wf (F) ACCEPTANCE OF QUIT CLAIM DEED FROM KENNETH AND PATRICIA HANSON FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY DEDICATION AT 19320 84TH AVENUE WEST (SHORT PLAT S-94-73) "wof Am.r P0,60 (G) ACCEPTANCE OF QUIT CLAIM DEED FOR FIVE-FOOT STREET DEDICATION FROM MABEL FLYNN AT 8619 TALBOT ROAD C0,01O& AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN COPIER LEASE FOR THE EXECUTIVE '0*5 BUILDING '4410, eA46.4g�fp r && Y"S (I) AUTHORIZATION TO SEEK REQUESTS FOR PROPOSALS FOR A FOOD ,4'f CONCESSIONAIRE AT YOST POOL 'PA955 gA (J) REPORT ON QUOTATIONS AND AUTHORIZATION FOR PUBLIC WORKS TO W*'.00 PURCHASE A PRESSURE WASHER FROM MILLER'S EQUIPMENT & RENT -ALL, INC. ($3,123.73) (K) AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE A METROTECH LEAK LOCATOR HL2000 (L) REPORT ON BIDS OPENED APRIL 9, 1996 FOR THE 1996 WATER LINE REPLACEMENT PROGRAM AND AWARD OF CONTRACT TO TAURMAN PACIFIC ($167,767.22 INCLUDING SALES TAX) '�f � 0.0- 00' ORDINANCE NO. 3083 RENEWING A NON-EXCLUSIVE COMMUNITY ANTENNA oaffivlj TELEVISION SYSTEM FRANCHISE TO EDMONDS CABLE COMPANY 0.0 - (N) ORDINANCE NO. 3084 AMENDING SECTION 4.72.040 OF THE CITY CODE IN ORDER TO CHANGE THE INITIAL APPLICATION FEE FOR BUSINESS LICENSES TO A FLAT FEE OF SIXTY-FrVE DOLLARS AND ALSO TO CHANGE THE RENEWAL FEE TO A FLAT RATE OF TWENTY-FIVE DOLLARS PER YEAR 0't P (0) ORDINANCE NO. 3085 AMENDING THE CITY CODE FOR ADVANCE TRAVEL ft'ov'jjjj�ir EXPENSE REVOLVING FUND AND ADDING A NEW SECTION ON CREDIT CARDS (P) APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW REGARDING A HEARING HELD ON MARCH 19,1996 ON AN APPEAL BY THE APPLICANT OF THE HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION TO APPROVE A PROPOSED SETBACK VARIANCE SUBJECT TO A REDUCTION IN THE REQUESTED VARIANCE, FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A PROPOSED DECK ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE LOCATED AT 7804 171ST STREET SW (Applicant/Appellant: Loren Larson / File Nos. AP-96-8 and V-95-175) 3. AUDIENCE Ray E. Albano, 20916 76th Avenue W, Edmonds, spoke in support of the bond issue for Public Safety. e requested citizens assist by completing a pledge card, allowing their name to be used as an C/, Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 16, 1996 Page 2 I I endorsement in advertising, placing a sign in their yards and voting for the bond. He pointed out the police and fire departments do an excellent job and need a "decent" pla . ce to operate from. He requested I interested citizens call Bev at 778-5225 or him at 776-5708. Florence Eberlein, 9610 216th Place SW, Edmonds, read a statement on behalf of Steve Greenbaum, 1114 Daley Place, Edmonds, regarding the City's approval of the 15 year contract with Chambers Cable. He pointed out although the Council stated they had met three times this year to discuss Chambers Cable, one week's notice was only provided for the April meeting and questioned why over an hour was allowed for speakers in favor of the contract and only six minutes for two citizens to raise questions. He felt the questions raised by he and Mr. Henry were not unreasonable; they only asked that additional information be provided to the citizens of Edmonds before the Council approved the contract. He felt City Attorney Snyder lectured him and, although it was called a public hearing, in Mr. Snyder's opinion, any public comment was irrelevant and a nuisance. He felt the Mayor must agreed as she did not allow him or Mr. Henry to reply. By refusing to allow a response and/or further questions, he felt Mayor Fahey ignored the Council's stated policy that after all persons have had an opportunity to speak, further testimony from those who have spoken will be taken. He acknowledged the agreement with Chambers Cable may turn out to be a good one but reiterated the citizens deserve to be informed. Scott Mayhew, 20421 88th W, Edmonds, stated he wished to address issues on LID 214. �10 City Attorney Scott Snyder requested Mr. Mayhew be ruled out of order as his testimony could not. be Jlq considered in the course of the Council's deliberations as it may prejudice the Council's hearing. Mayor Fahey ruled Mr. Mayhew out of order. Mr. Mayhew asked when he could address the unresolved issues in the LID. Mayor Fahey requested Mr. Mayhew make an appointment to speak to her at her office. Mr. Mayhew concluded by thanking Mr. Housler for his prompt action in resolving other issues he had with the City. Mel Critchley, 705 Driftwood Place, Edmonds, spoke regarding railroad safety and described several train accidents in the U.S. during February and March. He referred to a letter from the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) regarding train speeds through Edmonds, which indicates the 40 NTH maximum speeds are not viewed as excessive by the FRA. He felt the fence issue was a diversionary tactic to draw attention from the real issue of train speeds. Al Rutledge 7101 Lake Ballinger Way, Edmonds, referred to the discussion of Chambers Cable at the last Council meeting, noting that $20,000 would be given to Edmonds Community College and Edmonds citizens will determine how the other $20,000 will be spent. He also urged citizens to vote for the school levy on April 23. Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, Edmonds, referred'to the Council's approval to place the $9 million Public Safety bond issue on the ballot and questioned.how citizens could be asked to support this bond issue when the old Public Works site is not being used. He noted there is also discussion of fire consolidation in the South County area. He also felt the upcoming school levy was important and did not feel the Public Safety bond should be added to the tax payers' "load". He asked if the Council had a firm use identified for the Public Works site and if not, why not? 3b. PRESENTATION OF PROCLAMATION Mayor Fahey introduced Bob Stevenson, President of the Sons of Norway, Lodge 130, and explained a Scandinavian Festival Day will be held in Edmonds on May 4-. She described the activities and read the Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 16,1996 Page 3 Proclamation proclaiming May 4, 1996 as Troll Day in Edmonds. Mr. Stevenson introduced his wife, Arlene, secretary for Lodge 130, and said it would be an exciting day for the community. 4. REPORT ON COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS OF APRIL 9,1996 Finance Committee, Committee Chair Councilmember Nordquist referred to the Finance Committee's minutes which was self-explanatory. He advised a proposed change to the purchasing policy would be included in the Council's packet on Friday. The Committee reviewed the petty cash expenditures and made suggestions regarding travel increases. He noted the City will be hearing from Sno-Isle Library in the near future. Communily Services Committee Committee Chair Councilmember Petruzzi asked Community Services Director Paul Mar to explain the items discussed by the committee at their last meeting. Mr. Mar' explained the Committee's agenda included the City's response to mandates that affect the City, the near -term and future outlook of infrastructure, and permitting and planning fees. Staff has been directed by the Committee Chair to return with additional details regarding permitting and planning fees —identifying costs and potential revenues. In addition the Committee discussed the City's water supply and the 20 year outlook. Seattle Water is contemplating forming a new entity and the Committee directed staff to participate in negotiations. The $600,000 1996 Street Overlay Program will be brought to the Council in the near future. Public Safe1y Committee Committee Chair Councilmember Myers explained juvenile arrests have increased in the City of Edmonds over the past year; therefore the Police Chief and his staff recommended extension of the D.A.R.E. program into the middle schools. Funding will be provided by a grant for the remainder of this year and the next two years, if the Council agrees, will be partially funded by the grant and partially by the Council. Councilmember White pointed out juvenile crime has increased 52%; therefore, it is important to address this issue now. He noted the 50% grant was provided by Stevens Hospital. Councilinember Myers advised the Committee also reviewed a proposal to update the fire department's breathing apparatus. The current equipment is outdated and requires costly maintenance and repairs. The cost will be budgeted by the Fire Department in 1997. The Committee also discussed political signs; Councilmember Myers advised they are limited in what they can do but will do what they can to reduce litter in the City. 5. RECOGNITION OF FINANCIAL REPORTING ACHIEVEMENT AWARD TO CHARLES DAY, t1f & " CITY OF EDMONDS ACCOUNTING MANAGER J,VI,qAP 5 Mayor Fahey explained the Finance Department puts together a Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) at the end of the calendar year. She reported the City of Edmonds, for the fourth year in a row, was awarded the Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting by the Government Financial Officers Association of the United States and Canada for its Comprehensive Annual Financial Report. The Certificate of Achievement is the highest form of recognition in the area of governmental accounting and financial reporting. She presented the award to Administrative Services Director Art Housler. Mr. Housler advised the award benefits tax payers as the City's financial position and condition as presented in the Financial Report, result in lower bond rates. 'Mayor Fahey presented a Financial Achievement Award to Accounting Manager Charles Day, as he is the individual designated as being primarily responsible for preparing the award winning CAFR. Mr. Day recognized members of his staff who contributed to, the preparation of the CAFR. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 16,1996 Page 4 6. PRESENTATION ON EDMONDS SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 15 PRO -POSITION NO, I - REPLACEMENT OF SCHOOL LEVIES, AND PROPOSITION NO. 2 - TWO YEAR CAPITAL TECHNOLOGY LEVY, APRIL 23.1996 SPECIAL ELECTION (I!ublic Comment in Support or it, 0" OF Opposition will be Received). RESOLUTION NO. 841 ENDORSING PASSAGE -SCHOOL DI Y LEVIES Community Services Director Paul Mar advised the previous levy vote failed to meet the super majority by 19 votes. He advised the Edmonds School District will place two levies on the special electionballot on April 23. Brett Carlstadt, Planning and Property Manager for the Edmonds School District, advised the levies are not new, they are not more, and they are essential to the District. The first proposition, a replacement of the Maintenance and Operations Levy, is a two year levy which replaces an expiring levy. This is an essential part of the School District funding as it not only pays for the maintenance of school buildings but also maintains the educational program. The Maintenance and Operations Levy accounts for 20% of the District's operating budget. The second proposition, a two year technology levy, continues the progress being made to implement technology district wide. A two-year Technology Levy was approved four years ago —this levy increases the connectivity of school buildings, within and between buildings and throughout the world via the Internet, Sno-Isle Regional Library System, etc. He pointed out the community would be receiving a mailer entitled, "Making News" which describes advances being made throughout the School District. David Shaffer, Co -Chair of the Citizen's Committee, thanked the Council for allowing them to return and requested the Council's support of the school levies. He looked forward to the joint use of �acilities and noted the School District will be asked to make its technological equipment available to members of the community in the evenings, although he was not certain this would be done. Al Rutledge, 7101 Lake Ballinger Way, Edmonds, urged the Council to adopt the Resolution and endorse the passage of the school levy. He noted the passage of the school levy was important for the School District and for the City's bonds. Councilmember Myers asked Mr. Carlstadt to describe the extra -curricular activities that would be eliminated if the school levy does not pass. Mr. Carlstadt explained the School District receives no state funding for extra circular activities. If the Maintenance and Operations Levy fails, there will continue to be music, PE and drama in school but there will not be performances or athletic competitions. Councilmember Myers stressed the importance of extra -circular activities- which provide a rich experience for youth. Councilmember Petruzzi spoke in favor of the school levy, pointing out citizens must consider what is best for the community and children. He requested citizens vote in favor of the levies.. Council President Earling stressed the levies do not increase taxes but maintain programs as they currently exist. He recalled how levy failures can impact property values and how teacher lay-offs affect the economy. Student Representative Zitzmann spoke in favor of the school levy, noting failure would eliminate programs at Edmonds-Woodway High School such as musical performances. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 16, 1996 Page 5 p6o to 00A� COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MYERS, TO SOO FOR APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. 841. MOTION CARRIED. V-4y Mayor Fahey read the Resolution, endorsing passage of the Edmonds School District levies.. She stressed the Edmonds School District also serves the cities of Mountlake Terrace, Brier and Lynnwood and urged citizens to vote so that the election can be validated. 7. CONTINUED HEARING ON THE FINAL ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR STORM SEWER AND p4A11 foe,$( ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS TO THE AREA BOUNDED BY 204TH STREET SW, 86TH PLACE WEST, MAIN STREET AND MAPLEWOOD DRIVE (LID #214) (Continued from March 6,1996) OIL" 1Z9 Councilmember Myers advised, although he was absent from the Council meeting when this issue was discussed, he had reviewed the tapes and felt adequately qualified to participate. Mayor Fahey described the guidelines for the hearing. She noted the hearing was continued to allow testimony from Margaret Doyle, Cheryl King and continued testimony from Robert Hoffman. She advised the Appearance,of Fairness review was conducted at the initial hearing and asked if any Councilmember had any additional ex-parte communication to disclose. Hearing none, she asked if there was any challenge by either Ms. King or Ms. Doyle to the participation of any Councilmember. As there were no challenges, she announced all Councilmembers would participate and opened the continued public hearing. Margaret Doyle, 20425 88th Avenue W, Edmonds, advised she was unable to attend the March 6 hearing but wished to be a participant in the final hearing of the assessment. She indicatedthe three issues that were incomplete on March 6 have been resolved. City Engineer Jim Walker advised an appraisal was done on Bob Hoffman's parcel on his contention that his property was not given full value by the LID. The assessments were $9,000 for Parcel I I and $6,500 for Parcel 12. Bob Hoffman stated he was happy with the appraisal. Mr. Walker advised the City must determine an additional source of funds to cover the reduced assessment from Mr. Hoffinan. Possible funds included the Utility Fund related to the storm drainage for the project, Utility Funds designated for water lines, or to not include compensation for staff time used on the project. It was noted that Ms. King was not present at the meeting to provide testimony, and Mayor Fahey then closed the public portion of the hearing and remanded the matter to the Council. Mr. Snyder advised the Council's packet includes an ordinance adopting the Final Assessment Roll. Direction from the Council is desired on how the Final Assessment R611 would be amended to include the assessment limit on Mr. Hoffman!s parcel and designating a source of funding. The Council should also decide if the assessment of other participants should I be conformed using the rationale Mr. Hoffman's appraiser provided. Councilmember Petruzzi asked if the use of Fund 412-200 (Drainage Capital Projects),would impact any other projects. Mr.. Walker advised it would not, it would only reduce the cash balance in the fund. Edmonds City Council Approved Mnutes April 16,1996 Page 6 Ab COUNCELM MEER PETRUZZI MOVED SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER VAN HOLLEBEKE, TO APPROVE ORDINANCE NO. 3086 APPROVING AND CONFIRMEING THE FINAL ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR STORM SEWER AND ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS FOR 05, THE AREA BOUNDED BY 204TH STREET SW, 86TH PLACE WEST, MAIN STREET AND F5, q P, PL, .4.1 MAPLEWOOD DRIVE, COMMONLY KNOWN AS LED 214, AMENDED IN ACCORDANCE 1,1P WITH THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION. Councilmember White pointed out the title of the ordinance needed to be corrected. City Clerk Sandy Chase advised she had the corrected ordinance title in her office. MOTION CARRIED. Mayor Fahey apologized for any inconvenience caused citizens by this LID IV 8. HEARING ON APPEAL OF JHE_ HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION. UNDER FILE NO, SM- qjsA 111 95-86 APPROVING A SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL - [ENT PERM FO for,1$4t BURLINGTON NORTHERN SANTA FE RAILROAD FOR --THE CONSTRUCTION 0 V11 pf. APPROXRvAATEL-Y 660 LINEAR FEET OF TUBULAR METAL SAFETY EENCING RANGING t90 jro FROM 3 TO 4 FEET IN HEIGHT WITHIN THE BURLINGTON NORTHERN SANTA FIE towsfl RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY PARALLEL TO OCEAN AVENUE FROM WATER STREET ON V000) THE NORTH. TO THE END OF OCEAN AVENUE TO THE SOUTH (Appellant: Teresa Verhey Applicant/Appellee: Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad / File No. AP-96-36) - Mayor Fahey described the parameters for the hearing. In accordance with the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine, she. asked if any Councilmember had any ex-parte communication to declare. Council President Earling.- and Councilmembers Myers, Nordquist, Van Hollebeke, Petruzzi and White advised they received a telephone call from Teresa Verhey, the appellant, but did not speak with her. Councilmember Haakenson advised he also received a telephone call from Ms. Verhey and briefly discussed alternative locations for th . e fence. As there were no challenges to, any Councilmember's participation, Mayor Fahey advised all Councilmembers would participate. Planning Manager Rob Chave explained this is an appeal hearing on the Hearing Examine?s decision on the Shoreline: Substantial Development Permit for the Burlington Northern fence. . The Hearing Examiner's decision, issued on March 1, 1996, was to approve the application for'the fence, subject to the applicable requirements contained in the Community Development -Code and that the fence be located along the top of the bank, 4 feet from the approximate edge of the drivin&arking surface on Ocean Avenue for a distance of approximately 660 feet. Where it was not practical to locate the fence 4 feet from the edge of the surface, the Hearing Examiner indicated staff would be allowed to modify the 4 foot distance. The Hearing Examiner's decision also required that the construction authorization not be given by the City until 30 days after the final City approval. Council President Earling stated his understanding was this hearing was on the Ocean Avenue segment of the right-of-way, he asked the status of the decision regarding Sunset Avenue. Mr. Chave advised the decision on Sunset Avenue had been issued and no appeal had been filed. Councilmember White asked if the fence would be owned and maintained by Burlington Northern. Mr. Chave advised his understanding was that the fence would be turned over to the City to maintain following its construction. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 16,1996 Page 7 Councilmember White asked why the City would maintain the fence Community Services Director Paul Mar advised that would be an agreement between the City and Burlington Northern. Along Sunset Avenue and in other locations, there are agreements for maintenance and repair responsibilities. Mr. Chave clarified Burlington Northern's intent is to turn maintenance of the fence over to the City but that decision would need approval by the City. Councilmember White asked if the City becomes obligated to maintain the fence for the purpose of safety, does the City also incur liability for lack of maintenance. Mr. Snyder replied yes. Mr. Chave stressed this is only the intent at this time, it will be a separate agreement. Mr. Snyder advised former -Mayor Hall reached this as an agreement in principle, if the fence was constructed, out of consideration for the initiation of the Edmonds Amtrak stop, the City would maintain the fence. 1\4r. Chave advised the maintenance of the fence is not included as a condition of the Hearing Examiner's decision; therefore the City is not bound to that maintenance agreement. At the request of Councilmember Petruzzi, Mr. Chave described the tubular metal safety fence for the audience. The fence is intended to be more transparent than a chainlink-type fence in an attempt to provide a barrier to trespassing as well as minimizing the impact on views. Mr. Snyder explained the fence is intended as reasonable notification that proceeding further would be a trespass on Burlington Northern property but is not intended to be an impermeable barrier. Councilmember Haakenson asked if any additional clarification of the fence location had been provided by the WUTC. Mr. Chave referred to the VVUTC letter (page 129, Exhibit 7) which clarifies the intent is to place the fence at the top of the bluff. I Glen Haug, Construction Engineer, Project Manager for Pacific NW Rail Corridor Project, Burlington Northern Santa Fe (13NSF), Seattle, addressed the issue that the fence need not run the entire length of Ocean Avenue. BNSF is required to install the fence pursuant to the VV'UTC order which was interpreted to mean that the fence should run the full length as there is evidence of trespassing in several locations along the entire 660 foot area and the street and tracks are separated only by a grassy area. The fence is intended to discourage trespassing. The Hearing Examiner's decision also indicated fence would be installed along the top of the bluff, 4 feet from the approximate edge of the driving/parking surface. The appellant also raised the issue that the fence is not consistent with other fences in the area and would deny the public access to the beach. Mr. Haug stated BNSF believes the fence is consistent and is being placed to discourage trespass on private property and does not block public access to the beach as access is provided in other areas. - Regarding the issue that the proposed fence would block views from adjacent properties, he explained the fence was designed to be the least obtrusive. In addition, the adjacent properties slope up from Ocean Avenue so the houses' line of sight is above the fence. In response to the issue that there was no specific condition by the VY'UTC that the fence be placed at the top of the bluff and should be placed at the bottom, Mr. Haug advised BNSF has recommended that the fence be at the top of the bluff and the WUTC clearly states the same location. Placing the fence at the bottom or halfway down the bluff would not deter individuals from walking down the bluff and would open the bluff to potential for sliding during the construction of the fence. Placing the fence at the bottom of the bluff places it in the railroad ditch, which is required for drainage. Placing the fence at the bottom also increases the potential for falls; the best location for safety is on the top. Mr. Haug reserved four minutes for rebuttal. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 16,1996 Page 8 Brad Cattle, Attorney representing Teresa and Steve Verhey, Everett, noted the City's obligation to maintain the fence derives from a tentative agreement by the City in exchange for a train stop in Edmonds. He indicated their participation would be unnecessary if the fence is already required as a result of an agreement between the City and the railroad. Mr. Snyder responded the agreement was reached between the prior Mayor and the railroad; the City Council has not approved an agreement. Mr. Cattle stated he was satisfied the City had not committed itself to an agreement that would prohibit it from fairly considering this issue. Mr. Cattle apologized for Ms. Verhey's calling each Councilmember as she was unaware she should not contact the Council. He asked the Council to focus on the conditions the Hearing Examiner has attached to the Shoreline permit and the location which they believe is the sole issue. He directed attention to page 91 (WTC's staff brief to the Commission) which indicates the WTC is concerned with public access. He quoted a portion of page 94 (third full paragraph) regarding increase of train speeds if fences are constructed on the bluff 12arallel to Sunset (emphasis added by Mr. Cattle) and between the railroad tracks and parking area on Ocean Avenue. He pointed out this clearly indicates a distinction between Sunset and Ocean Avenues and raises the question whether the fence must be placed on the top of the bluff or can be in another location. He displayed and circulated a drawing (prepared by Steve Verhey based on measurements he made) of the fence located lower on the slope. He explained there is separation between Track 2, the drainage ditch and a location on the incline slope to place a fence. The drawing was circulated to Mr. Haug, BNSF, in response to Mr. Snyder's advice that the applicant be given an opportunity to review the drawing. Mr. Cattle requested each Councilmember review the drawing before deciding on this matter. He pointed out their objection to the fence at the top of the bluff is visual; the Shoreline Master Program places some value on scenic views. An additional reason for relocating the fence is the possible unsightliness of the fence when it becomes in need of maintenance. The fencevill also increase -the likelihood of individuals congregating at the fence, possibly defacing it. Finally, the integrity of the upper bank is questionable created by the installation of the fence. The reasons given for not installing the fence lower on the slope have been that the fence is a barrier and a warning. to pedestrians. Mr. Cattle pointed out the fence is only a visual barrier and signs can serve as a warning and would be less obtrusive. It is also likely individuals will sit on the fence at the top of the bluff, creating an additional hazard. Their proposed fence location would not interfere with maintenance of the ditch. The fence could be a single rail, galvanized to eliminate maintenance, and would allow sufficient space for individuals to exit the track. Mr. Cattle summarized, if the City is balancing the Shoreline Master Program against the interests of Burlington Northern, strong emphasis should be placed on the scenic view at this location. This would result in Burlington Northern getting their fence and thus their increased speed limits and the neighbors in the area can retain their views. Teresa Verhey, 19115 Ocean Avenue, Edmonds, expressed concern with how arbitrarily streets can be fenced off, particularly dead-end streets, without appropriate cause. She indicated the fence will draw her sons, ages 3 and 6, as well as other children as a ' place to climb, resulting in a huge liability issue. This can be eliminated by placing the fence below the bluff. Mayor Fahey opened the public portion of the hearing. Rob Morrison, 250 Beach Place, Edmonds, spoke to train speeds and public access. He referred to his presentation to the VvrUTC hearing on 11/15/94, noting the element of access refers to gaining access to Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 16, 1996 Page 9 beaches and parks. To those objecting to the fence, he reminded them that this is private property and a dangerous crossing exists. He suggested, in a paper be wrote in 1993, that the residents discuss with the City and the railroad, the possibility of an underpass or overpass to provide access to the beach. The Chamber's 3MT Task Force is currently studying an underpass at Main Street. He described the increased freight and 'passenger trains along this track as Edmonds is an important national, international, and loading point. The City must accept the minimal deterrents requested to ensure continuance of Edmonds' place in the growth of the Pacific Northwest. He recommended the residents look at other answers to the problem rather than delaying the inevitable with appeals. Tom Rippey, 19031 Ocean Avenue, Edmonds, indicated he purchased this residence three weeks ago and only learned of the proposed fence during closing. He preferred the fence be built below the bluff as proposed. Robert Hackley, 84th Avenue West, Edmonds, recommended this proposal be approved by the Council. He felt the railing was very simple and would provide little view obstruction but would serve as a safety barrier. He recommended the fence be installed to provide safety for City residents and because the City may lose the Amtrak stop if the fence is not installed. Steven Verhey, 19115 Ocean Avenue, Edu onds, pointed out the importance of balancing commerce and transportation with the residents and families in the community. This area provides beach access and a viewpoint for the residents in University Place, in Seaview, and the areas behind Ocean Avenue. The same visual deterrent can be accomplished by a fence lower on the slope which he felt the WUTC was allowing the City to make this decisio* n. He urged the Council to consider the community as well as commerce and future benefit to the downtown area. Ellie Duckworth, 19028 Sound View Place, Edmonds, advised she lives behind Ocean Avenue. Her major concerns are this fence will not be continuous, will not provide a barrier and only be a place to climb. She felt the fence would not provide safety and she would object to the City agreeing to maintain the fence. Arlene Crane, 19020 Ocean Avenue, Edmonds, objected to the fence. as it would notkeep people away . The fence will entice youth to walk on it, creating additional liability and birds will create a mess on the fence. She felt ifa fence were necessary, it should extend from Seattle to Vancouver. She pointed out the individuals who are opposed to increased train speeds caused Burlington Northern to propose -this fence. She further noted the colors on Ocean Avenue are gray and green, not blue. Mel Critchley, 705 Driftwood Place, Edmonds, felt this issue was "symbolism over substance". He described differences between the way the railroad is built and the way it is operated such as the limited use of spikes which often causes derailments. He recalled a conversation with a resident of Germany who could recall only one derailment in Germany in 50 years. He recommended the fence be constructed of stainless steel. Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, Edmonds, said the Council has the opportunity to do what is right for the residents of the City and the view of the natural environment. He urged the Council to view the section of fence on Sunset and visualize that extending the length of Ocean and Sunset Avenues. He felt the purpose of the fence could be accomplished by building the fence lower on the slope. A fence"at the top would become a dangerous play area and would not prohibit individuals from accessing the tracks. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 16,1996 Page 10 He indicated he would be more likely to obey a sign than a fence. He objected to the City maintaining the fence and urged the Council to enforce the Shoreline rule regarding preservation of views. Don Carr, 9832 - 225th Place, Edmonds, said the Chamber of Commerce supports the railroad and its important role in commerce, in tourism in the City of Edmonds, and as part of the regional transportation system. The Chamber is also concerned with safety; therefore, supports necessary safety improvements. A] Rutledge, 7101 Lake Ballinger Way, Edmonds, recalled a hearing before the Council several months ago and questioned if the Council should hear this issue as they have heard it before. He recommended a 5-6 foot high fence be built with rollers underground. COUNCILMEMBER MYERS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCELMEMBER. PETRUZZI, TO EXTEND THE HEARING. MOTION CARRIED. In response to the concern that Edmonds could lose Amtrak, Mr. Cattle explained the proposed fence location is a compromise to accomplish what the railroad, the City, and the residents of Ocean Avenue want. Regarding the issue of maintenance, he asked what assurance would be provided that the fence would be maintained in an acceptable condition. He suggested the fence be constructed of galvanized steel. Mr. Snyder responded to Mr. Rutledge, indicating the hearing 3-4 months ago concerned the Sunset Avenue application which the Council remanded and not on this portion of the track. Although'he was not part of the original negotiations with the State, Mr. Haug explained a number of speed increases were necessary, when the. route to the north was proposed, to retain the four hour time limit the State and Amtrak wanted. Therefore, speed increases were enacted in a number of areas throughout the State, resulting in the requirement for a fence. BNSF intended to provide the property and construct the fence but did not intend to own or maintain the fences or incur the resulting maintenance costs or liability. Regarding the proposed location on the slope,.he indicated he would need to verify dimensions but felt the proposed location. would be too close to the drainage ditch and the track., In addition, climbing the fence on the slope and the resulting higher fall would increase the opportunity for injuries. Mr. Chave advised that any maintenance issues regarding the fence are not a subject of this appeal. He referred to Exhibit 7, noting it appeared the WUTC staff was agreeing with and clarifying the appropriate location of the fence was at the top of the bluff. The WUTC noted, if the fence is not approved, they will revisit the issue; the City does not know if the VVUTC would reconsider the decision on the location of the fence. In response to Councilmember Van Hollebeke's questions regarding fence materials, and setback from the parking/driving surface of Ocean Avenue, Mr. Snyder recommended any conditions the Council wished to impose on the fence be stated tonight.* Councilmember White referred to the WUTC's post -hearing brief on page 94 and their clarification letter of January 19 (page 130) which appeared to distinguish between Sunset and Ocean Avenue. Mr. Chave referred to page 129, noting staff s interpretation was that the context of the letter addressed both Ocean and Sunset Avenues. Mayor Fahey closed the public portion of the hearing and remanded the matter to the Council for aelibeiation. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 16, 1996 .Page 11 Council President Earling recalled the pictures of a similar tubular fence in White Rock, BC, noting it is basically unobtrusive to the view and provides a safety barrier. While views in the City are a sensitive issue, in this case safety is also very important. He pointed out the concern over children climbing the fence increases when the fence is placed on the slope, closer to the tracks. Amtrak service is important to the community and the fence is an important element in retaining that service. He pointed out the Vv'UTC's letter of January 19 discusses both Ocean and Sunset Avenues. He supported staff s recommendation. Councilmember Petruzzi explained he has seen the fence in White Rock, BC, which is very unobtrusive. While observing the fence for over two hours, he found the fence does provide a barrier, individuals access the beach at the appropriate locations. He felt a fence on the slope would be an "invitation to disaster"; therefore he preferred the fence be built at the top of the bluff. Councilmember Van Hollebeke noted the eight properties overlooking the fence are set back from and elevated above the road, resulting in minimal visual impact. He recommended the residents be involved in material and color selection of the fence to reduce maintenance and vandalism. He commented there are no public beaches across the railroad tracks in this area and expressed concern that the slope installation would increase the dangerous attractiveness to young children. Councilmember White commented he initially did not see a safety issue with the fence halfway down the bluff and was satisfied the WUTC distinguished between Ocean and Sunset Avenues. After listening to the Council's comments, he felt the concern with safety seemed to outweigh the obstruction to the views. Councilmember Myers described how power lines in the view line of property he owns on Camano Island originally were a distraction but now are not, which he felt may also occur in this situation. He noted the installation of the fence on the slope results in an increased drop if one were to climb the fence. He recommended the fence be placed on the top of the bluff. Councilmember White said he now felt the fence on the slope may be more likely to attract people down the bluff than to deter them. COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MYERS, TO DENY THE APPEAL AND UPHOLD THE DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER. MOTION CARRIED. Mayor Fahey declared a 5 minute break. COUNCILMEMBER PETRUZZI MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MYERS, To EXTEND THE MEETING. MOTION CARRIED. 9. HEARING ON APPEAL FILED BY GARY HUFF ON BEHALF OF CHESTER JOHNSO "PEALING THE HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION TO DENY AN APPEAL (EILE NO. AP- 411§ 95-189) OF THE PLANNING DIVISION'S HEARING OFFICER'S DECISION TO...DENY A PROPOSED 3-LOT SHORT SUBDIVISION UNDER FILE NO. S-95-129, LF THE PRO ERTY LOCATED AT 17000 TALBOT ROAD (Appellant: Gary Huff on behalf of Chester Johnson I File No. AP-96-25) Mayor Fahey described the hearing procedure and asked if any Councilmembers wished to make a disclosure. Councilmember Myers reported David and Inga Johnson are very good friends of his. Councilmember Haakenson advised he is a neighbor of the property and is acquainted with Jack and Jill Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 16,1996 Page 12 Fritz who operate the apartment building. Council President Earling advised he lives on Talbot Road, approximately 3/4 mile from the property. Councilmember White advised he walked the property on Saturday but did not speak to anyone. City Attorney Scoff Snyder asked Councilmember Haakenson his proximity to the property and whether he felt the approval or denial would have any affect on any personal or financial interest in his property. Councilmember Haakenson advised the property was approximately five houses away and would not affect his property. There were no challenges to participation by any Councilmember and Mayor Fahey announced all Councilmembers would participate in the hearing. Planning Manager Rob Chave advised this is an appeal of a staff denial of a short subdivision request; the appeal was first heard by the Hearing Examiner and that decision, agreeing with staff, has been appealed to the Council. He referred to the sentence in staff s analysis, "Therefore th ' e decision to deny the proposal is essentially a policy decision." He explained Mr. Snyder indicates in his memo that there are grounds to approve or deny the request; the staff position is defensible but he felt there were also merits in the appellant's argument. Mr. Chave explained the City's non-conformance provisions can be traced to 1970 when, an ordinance created a 15 year moratorium targeted at commercial uses in residential zones. Thus City staff has been conservative in its interpretation of non -conformances and has viewed any increase in floor area, height, bulk, etc., as an expansion of the non -conformity which has not been allowed. In 1994, a sliding scale provision for lot areas was adopted which allowed for development of non -conforming lots, thus indicating a shift in the policy created in 1970. In addition, recent changes to GMA have created competing policies that indicate more liberal consideration should be given to infill development. This one acre lot includes a non -conforming use, the multi -family development, as well as a single family residence. The proposal is to subdivide the lot into three building lots, two would be conforming for single family development and the third would remain non- conforming. Staff has viewed any increase in density in the overall one acre parcel as an increase in the non -conformity. Mr. Snyder noted the City's staff interpretation and the Hearing Examiner's ruling are consistent with the standard interpretation of the zoning code and that non -conforming use provisions are designed to N eliminate non -conforming uses. He advised, given the changes in the Comprehensive Plan elements, it is appropriate to consider the way the code has been interpreted. Councilmember Haakenson asked, if the Council finds this is not an expansion of a non -conforming use, would staff oppose approval if the project complies with necessary setbacks or, if necessary, required variances. Mr. Chave advised staff has suggested conditions if the Council makes that decision. Gary Huff, 1201 Third Avenue Ave, Suite 2900, Seattle, representing Chet and Doris Johnson, explained the nearly one acre property is in a 12,000 square foot zoning area, so there is adequate space for three lots. The property contains a 9-unit apartment building and a single family residence which were approved while the property was in Snohomish County. Mr. Huff introduced Jack and Jill Fritz and David and Inga Johnson, the children and spouses of Chet and Doris Johnson. He explained Jack and Jill Fritz live and manage the apartment building and the third lot is desired for a residence for David and Inga Johnson to allow the family members to reside on the one acre parcel. He noted. the non- conforming use, the multi -family structure, will not be changed; two-thirds of the 41,500 square foot lot would be brought into compliance by creating the two single family lots. Neither he nor the City have Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 16, 1996 Page 11 been able to find any case where a reduction in lot size around a non -conforming use has been considered an expansion of that use. He pointed out this same goal could be accomplished by the death of the Johnsons as, under the short plat laws, there is an exception for lots created by a will. The goal is to provide a way for the family to stay together on these three lots. Mayor Fahey opened the public portion of the hearing. Mr. Snyder advised Dave Johnson and Jill and Jack Fritz, who signed up to testify, could not speak speak during audience participation due to their common interest in the property. Jim Dahlfenmyer indicated he is a taxpayer in Edmonds but does not reside in Edmonds. He noted a short -plat he has in process to create a single family lot on property currently developed with a duplex is a similar situation. The property is zoned 12,000 and was annexed into the City in the 1980's. He was told by the Planning Department that if he would give up his zoning, his short plat would be approved. He felt the short subdivision request by the Johnsons should be granted. Mr. Huff submitted a copy of the letter and a petition in support of this application signed by 38 of the Johnson's neighbors. He noted the major issue is the policy decision, a number of minor issues can be easily resolved with staff. In response to Mr. Daffifenmyer's comments, Mr. Snyder advised the City's Code was written and intended to force property owners, who had a non -conforming use, to make an economic choice —was their property worth more as a non -conforming use. Staff s interpretation of the Code may be harsh but it is not inappropriate. Mr. Huff requested, if the appeal is upheld, that the Council grant a preliminary approval and allow the applicant to work with staff on conditions prior to the next meeting. Mr. Snyder advised, if the Council wished to follow that procedure, agreed upon Findings would be submitted by Mr. Huff and reviewed by staff prior to their placement on the Consent Agenda. Mr. Chave was agreeable to this procedure. Mayor Fahey closed the public portion of the hearing and remanded the matter to Council. Councilmember White asked if the Council should direct preparation of any Findings of Fact as a policy change may be implemented by upholding the appeal. Mr. Snyder indicated the appropriate Findings would be that changes in the City's non -conforming use standards in the early 1990's and the adoption of the County -wide Planning Policy favoring infill development have provided a different Comprehensive Plan context. COUNCILMEMBER PETRUZZI MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER HAAKENSON, TO UPHOLD THE APPEAL AND DIRECT STAFF AND THE CITY ATTORNEY TO WORK WITH MR. HUFF REGARDING FINDINGS. MOTION CARRIED. 10. HEARING ON AMENDMENTS TO EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE CHAPTER 20.15B - CRITICAL AREAS ORDINANCE, IN ORDER TO ADOPT THE CITY'S FINAL "CRITICAL AREAS ORDINANCE" AS REQUIRED BY THE STATE GROWT MANAGEMENT ACT (Applicant: Edmonds Planning Division / File No. CDC-95-26) Planning Manager Rob Chave explained the Planning Board reviewed the draft of the Final Critical Areas Ordinance and unanimously recommended its approval. He recommended, following the public hearing, if the Council is comfortable with the Planning Board's recommendation, that the Council adopt Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 16,1996 Page 14 the Critical Areas Ordinance. If additional discussion is necessary, staff could bring answers to the Council's questions at an upcoming work meeting. Councilmember Nordquist observed the Ordinance referred to streams and wetlands and asked if there was a definition for larger bodies of water. Mr. Chave answered large bodies of water are regulated under the Shorelines provisions. Critical areas are generally slopes and wetlands which can be associated with larger bodies of water. Mayor Fahey opened the public participation portion of the hearing. AI Rutledge, 7101 Lake Ballinger Way, Edmonds, pointed out the growth of the City of Mountlake Terrace and recommended the Council be wary of growth in the Lake Ballinger area. He recommended Lake Ballinger be included in the ordinance. Mayor Fahey closed the public participation portion of the hearing and remanded the matter to the Council for action. COUNCELMEMBER MYERS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETRUZZI, TO DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN ORDINANCE TO ADOPT THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO ECDC CHAPTER 20.15B AS PROVIDED IN EXHIBIT I AND SCHEDULE THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE FOR ADOPTION AT THE NEXT REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING. MOTION CARRIED. 11. MAYO Councihnember Petruzzi recommended Item 12 (Council) be eliminated due to the late hour. 16aso COUNCELMEMBER MYERS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETRUZZI, TO 05010 EXCUSE COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST FROM THE APRIL 2,1996 COUNCIL MEETING. MOTION CARRIED. Mayor Fahey asked for confirmation of the appointment of Albert Huff to the Sister Cities Commission. 'refl� COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED By COUNCILMEMBER. MYERS, TO ep" Or"< CONFIRM THE APPOINTMENT OF ALBERT HUFF TO THE SISTER CITIES COMMISSION. MOTION CARRIED. Mayor Fahey requested confirmation of the appointment of James Pidduck to the Planning Board. COUNCILMEMBER PETRUZZI MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER HAAKENSON, xv TO CONFIRM THE APPOINTMENT OF JAMES PIDDUCK TO THE PLANNING BOARD. MOTION CARRIED. Mayor Fahey directed attention to. a letter from the Charter Review Commission of Snohomish County, containing a form citizens may submit outlining recommended changes or items to be retained in the Charter. She advised the form is available at County offices as well as City Hall. Council President Earling advised Councilmembers that a meeting to discuss the issues raised at the Council retreat will be held on the fifth Tuesday of April in the Community Services Building, Conference Room at 6:00 p.m. With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:57 p.m. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes BARBARA S. FAHEY, MAYOR- April 16, 1996 ,4"� � ,,, Page 15 'SANDRA S. CHASE, CITY CLERK AGENDA EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL Plaza Meeting Room - Library Building 650 Main Street 7:00 - 10:00 p.m. APRIL 16,1996 SPECIAL MEETING CALL TO ORDER - 7:00 P.M. FLAG SALUTE 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS (A) ROLL CALL (B) APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MINUTES OF APRIL 2,1996 (C) APPROVAL OF CLAIM WARRANTS #5102S THRU #9135F FOR THE WEEK OF APRIL 1, 1996 IN THE AMOUNT OF $195,726.55; APPROVAL OF CLAIM WARRANT #8482S THRU #8482F FOR THE WEEK OF APRIL 1, 1996 IN THE AMOUNT OF $14,269.42; APPROVAL OF CLAIM WARRANTS #9138S THRU #93510 FOR THE WEEK OF APRIL 8, 1996 IN THE AMOUNT OF $312,892.39; AND APPROVAL OF PAYROLL WARRANTS #9027 THRU #9353 FOR THE PERIOD MARCH 16 THRU MARCH 31, 1996 IN THE AMOUNT OF $567,853.11 (D) ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES FROM HARRY A. STRAW ($242.38), AND FROM MICHAEL A. SPRINGER, FIRE CHIEF (Amount Unknown) (E) ACCEPTANCE OF QUIT CLAIM DEED FROM MARK JOHNSON FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY DEDICATION AT 505 6TH AVENUE SOUTH (SHORT PLAT S-95-180) (F) ACCEPTANCE OF QUIT CLAIM DEED FROM KENNETH AND PATRICIA HANSON FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY DEDICATION AT 19320 84TH AVENUE WEST (SHORT PLAT S-94-73) N (G) ACCEPTANCE OF QUIT CLAIM DEED FOR FIVE-FOOT STREET DEDICATION FROM MABEL FLYNN AT 8619 TALBOT ROAD (H) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN COPIER LEASE FOR THE EXECUTIVE BUILDING (1) AUTHORIZATION TO SEEK REQUESTS FOR PROPOSALS FOR A FOOD CONCESSIONAIRE AT YOST POOL M REPORT ON QUOTATIONS AND AUTHORIZATION FOR PUBLIC WORKS TO PURCHASE A PRESSURE WASHER FROM MILLER'S EQUIPMENT & RENT -ALL, INC. ($3,123.73) (K) AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE A METROTECH LEAK LOCATOR HL2000 (L) REPORT ON BIDS OPENED APRIL 9,1996 FOR THE 1996 WATER LINE REPLACEMENT PROGRAM AND AWARD OF CONTRACT TO TAURMAN PACIFIC ($167,767.22 INCLUDING SALES TAX) (M) PROPOSED ORDINANCE RENEWING A NON-EXCLUSIVE COMMUNITY ANTENNA TELEVISION SYSTEM FRANCHISE TO EDMONDS CABLE COMPANY I CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA APRIL 16,1996 PAGE 2 (N) PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 4.72.040 OF THE CITY CODE IN ORDER TO CHANGE THE INITIAL APPLICATION FEE FOR BUSINESS LICENSES TO A FLAT FEE OF SIXTY-FIVE DOLLARS AND ALSO TO CHANGE THE RENEWAL FEE TO A FLAT RATE OF TWENTY-FIVE DOLLARS PER YEAR (0) PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY CODE FOR ADVANCE TRAVEL EXPENSE REVOLVING FUND AND ADDING A NEW SECTION ON CREDIT CARDS (P) APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW REGARDING A HEARING HELD ON MARCH 19,1996 ON AN APPEAL BY THE APPLICANT OF THE HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION TO APPROVE A PROPOSED SETBACK VARIANCE SUBJECT TO A REDUCTION IN THE REQUESTED VARIANCE, FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A PROPOSED DECK ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE- FAMILY RESIDENCE LOCATED AT 7804 171ST STREET SW (Applicant/Appellant: Loren Larson / File Nos. AP-96-8 and V-95-175) 3. AUDIENCE (3 minute limit per person) 4. (15 Min.) REPORT ON COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS OF APRIL 9,1996 5. (5 Min.) RECOGNITION OF FINANCIAL REPORTING ACHIEVEME14T AWARD TO CHARLES DAY, CITY OF EDMONDS ACCOUNTING MANAGER 6. (15 Min.) PRESENTATION ON EDMONDS SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 15 PROPOSITION NO. I - REPLACEMENT OF SCHOOL LEVIES, AND PROPOSITION NO. 2 - TWO YEAR CAPITAL TECHNOLOGY LEVY, APRIL 23,1996 SPECIAL ELECTION (Public Comment in Support or Opposition will be Received). PROPOSED RESOLUTION ENDORSING PASSAGE OF SCHOOL LEVIES. 7. (30 Min.) CONTINUED HEARING ON THE FINAL ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR STORM SEWER AND ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS TO THE AREA BOUNDED BY 204TH STREET SW, 86TH PLACE WEST, MAIN STREET AND MAPLEWOOD DRIVE (LID #214) (Continued from March 6,1996) 8. (60 Min.) HEARING ON APPEAL OF THE HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION UNDER FILE NO. SM.95-86 APPROVING A SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR BURLINGTON NORTHERN SANTA FE RAILROAD FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF APPROXIMATELY 660 LINEAR FEET OF TUBULAR METAL SAFETY FENCING RANGING FROM 3 TO 4 FEET IN HEIGHT WITHIN THE BURLINGTON NORTHERN SANTA FE RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY PARALLEL TO OCEAN AVENUE FROM WATER STREET ON THE NORTH, TO THE END OF OCEAN AVENUE TO THE SOUTH (Appellant: Teresa Verhey I Applicant/Appellee: Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad / File No. AP-96-36) 9. (30 Min.) HEARING ON APPEAL FILED BY GARY HUFF ON BEHALF OF CHESTER JOHNSON APPEALING THE HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION TO DENY AN APPEAL (FILE NO. AP-95-189) OF THE PLANNING DIVISION'S HEARING OFFICER'S DECISION TO DENY A PROPOSED 3-LOT SHORT SUBDIVISION UNDER FILE NO. S-95-129, OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 17000 TALBOT ROAD (Appellant: Gary Huff on behalf of Chester Johnson I File No. AP-26-25) 10. (20 Min.) HEARING ON AMENDMENTS TO EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE CHAPTER 20.15B - CRITICAL AREAS ORDINANCE, IN ORDER TO ADOPT THE CITY'S FINAL "CRITICAL AREAS ORDINANCE" AS REQUIRED BY THE STATE GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT (Applicant: Edmonds Planning Division / File No. CDC-95-26) 11. (5 Min.) MAYOR 12. (15 Min.) COUNCIL Parking and meeting rooms are accessible for persons with disabilities. Contact the City Clerk at 771-0245 with 24 hours advance notice for special accommodations. The Council Agenda appears on Chambers Cable, Channel 32. Delayed telecast of this meeting appears the following Wednesday, Friday and Monday at noon on Channel 32.