Loading...
02/15/2000 City CouncilI 1 EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES FEBRUARY 15, 2000 The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Gary Haakenson in the Library Plaza Room, 650 Main Street, followed by the flag salute. ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Gary Haakenson, Mayor Jim White, Council President Pro Tem Dave Earling, Councilmember Michael Plunkett, Councilmember Lora Petso, Councilmember Dave Orvis, Councilmember Christopher Davis, Councilmember ALSO PRESENT Maia Krause, Student Representative ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT Thomas A. Miller, Council President 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA STAFF PRESENT Tom Tomberg, Fire Chief Robin Hickok, Police Chief Peggy Hetzler, Administrative Services Director Rob Chave, Planning Manager Jeff Wilson, Planning Supervisor James Walker, City Engineer Scott Snyder, City Attorney Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst. Sandy Chase, City Clerk. Linda Hynd, Deputy City Clerk Jeannie Dines, Recorder COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCELMEMBER ORVIS, FOR APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA AS SUBMITTED. MOTION CARRIED. 2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS Councilmember Orvis pulled Item N from the Consent Agenda. COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM WHITE, FOR APPROVAL OF THE BALANCE OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED. The agenda items approved are as follows: (A) ROLL CALL pproval of (B) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 1, 2000 Minutes (C) APPROVAL OF CLAIM WARRANTS #35929 THROUGH #38991 FOR THE WEEK OF JANUARY 31, 2000, IN THE AMOUNT OF $262,955.22. APPROVAL OF CLAIM. pproval of WARRANTS #35930 THROUGH #39074 FOR THE WEEK OF FEBRUARY 7, 2000, IN laim THE AMOUNT OF $151,997.27. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL WARRANTS #27502 arrants THROUGH #27242 FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 16 THROUGH JANUARY 31, 2000, IN THE AMOUNT OF $352,292.44, Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 15, 2000 Page 1 laims for Damages (D) ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES FROM FORREST & CHERRYL BAILEY (AMOUNT UNDETERMINED), AND JAY McCOLLUM ($125.00) axicab (E) APPROVAL OF TAXICAB OPERATOR'S LICENSES FOR CHECKER CAB CO., INC. perators AND YELLOW CAB Grants to (F) AUTHORIZATION TO AWARD GRANTS TO LOCAL ARTS ORGANIZATIONS FOR Arts Organi- PROMOTION OF ARTS EVENTS AND CULTURAL TOURISM ations (G) APPROVAL OF AND AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN THE FINAL PLAT ual Plat OF OLYMPIC VIEW CREST, 20 -LOT FORMAL SUBDIVISION (File No. P- 98 -72; -98 -72 Property Location: West Side of Olympic View Drive Between 180 " Street SW and 181" Place SW; Applicant: R. L. McDuffy Associates and NW Independent Builders, LLC) SW Sno. Co. Public Safety (H) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN AN AMENDMENT TO THE INTERLOCAL Comm. COOPERATION AGREEMENT FOR THE SOUTHWEST SNOHOMISH COUNTY Agency PUBLIC SAFETY COMMUNICATIONS AGENCY (1) REQUEST FOR COUNCIL WAIVER OF EDMONDS CITY CODE SECTION 20.80 — Elliott PROFESSIONAL CONSULTANTS, AND AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN onsulting PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT WITH ELLIOTT CONSULTING, INC. Purchase (J) AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE A DUAL DRIVE UPGRADE FOR EXISTING Dual Drive KLAMPRESSES AT THE TREATMENT PLANT FROM ASHBROOK ($29,702, Including Upgrade Sales Tax) [Purchase [Vehicle (K) AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE 2000 FORD EXPEDITION FROM THE STATE CONTRACT Purchase (L) AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE INTERNET SOFTWARE Software urchase (M) AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE NETWORK SOFTWARE TO IMPLEMENT Software TECHNOLOGY PLAN Item N: Resolution No. 976 Interpreting and Applying the Fees to be Charged a Variance Applicant Pursuant to Resolution No. 967, the Annual Fee Resolution for the Year 2000 Councilmember Orvis explained he wished to vote no on the proposed resolution as he voted against this issue when it was discussed with the Council previously. COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, FOR APPROVAL OF ITEM N. UPON ROLL CALL, THE MOTION CARRIED, COUNCILMEMBERS ORVIS AND EARLING OPPOSED. The item approved is as follows: e (N) RESOLUTION NO. 976 INTERPRETING AND APPLYING THE FEES TO BE Variance rince Fees CHARGED A VARIANCE APPLICANT PURSUANT TO RESOLUTION NO. 967, THE ANNUAL FEE RESOLUTION FOR THE YEAR 2000 3. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER PUBLIC TESTIMONY ON THE PROPOSED ANNEXATION Proposed OF APPROXIMATELY 193 ACRES KNOWN AS THE "SUNDQUIST" ANNEXATION. WHICH Sundquist IS GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF 228TH STREET SOUTHWEST; WEST OF HIGHWAY Annexation 99; EAST OF 88TH AVENUE WEST; AND NORTH OF MAPLE LANE AND 234TH STREET SOUTHWEST (File No. AX -98 -101) Councilmember Petso excused herself from participation in this matter due to prior involvement datiiig back to last summer. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 15, 2000 Page 2 Planning Supervisor Jeff Wilson displayed a map illustrating the boundaries,of the proposed annexation area and landmark parcels within the proposed annexation area. He. explained at the Council's January 18 meeting, the Council met with the proponent, Eric Sundquist, the resident who brought this issue forward. At that time, the Council discussed, 1) the final boundary, 2) whether the area would be subject to existing bonded indebtedness, and 3) what zoning would be applied to the area (pre- zoning process or other method). At the January 18 meeting, several questions were raised by the Council and a decision was made to delay determination of the final boundary as well as the decision regarding assumption of existing bonded indebtedness until public testimony had been provided. Regarding zoning, the City typically adopts comparable zoning to Snohomish County's zoning to maintain/mimic existing zoning. Mr. Wilson explained the proposed annexation area was approximately 193 acres and he identified the boundaries of the area. He identified the Olympic View Water and Sewer District property on 228h and Fire Station #10 that is owned, operated, and maintained by the City but is currently in unincorporated Snohomish County. He advised the proposed annexation area abuts the City limits on.the south and east and the area to the north was unincorporated Snohomish County although a small portion on the north side was within the City. Mr. Wilson said one of the issues raised by the Council was what revenues and expenditures could be expected over the next two years and whether there would be a positive or ,negative cash flow. Mr. Wilson advised that information was outlined in detail in the Council packet and Administrative Services Director Peggy Hetzler was present to provide further information if necessary. He suggested that issue be addressed following public testimony in the event similar questions were raised. In response to questions raised regarding the Olympic View Water and Sewer District property that is within the proposed annexation area, Mr. Wilson explained the total valuation of the Olympic View Water and Sewer District property was approximately $702,000 and the total assessed value of the proposed annexation area was approximately $66 million. The petition method annexation process requires signatures of property owners representing at least 60% of the total valuation of the proposed annexation area for an annexation to be considered for final approval. He pointed out $702,000, the value of the Olympic View Water and Sewer District property, was an insignificant amount of the total assessed valuation. He advised there were few commercial properties or multi- family properties included in the proposed annexation area and their total assessed valuation ranged from $5 -7 million. He said none of these properties could individually or collectively "make or break" the annexation. In order to succeed, the annexation would require the overwhelming support of single family property owners in the area. In response to an inquiry regarding whether the Olympic View Water and Sewer District property should be excluded from the boundary of the proposed annexation area, Mr. Wilson explained during annexations, Snohomish County looks to cities to annex the full right -of -way as part of annexation thereby transferring ownership, maintenance, public safety issues, etc. to the local jurisdiction. If the Olympic View Water and Sewer District property on 228' was excluded, the City would either have to propose to eliminate 2280' from the annexation which the Snohomish County Council and staff have effectively lobbied the Boundary Review Board in the past to ensure those areas are included. Another option would be to include a portion of the right -of -way and exclude a portion of the right -of -way, such as excluding the right -of -way which would result in a gap of approximately one block that would be unincorporated. This would lead to confusion over which jurisdiction had the public safety responsibility in this area. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 15, 2000 Page 3 Mr. Wilson said Olympic View Water and Sewer District currently had other property within the City limits; the main headquarters building on Edmonds Way, which was annexed into the City several years ago. Although Olympic View Water and Sewer District's property on the north side of 228`h would not be included in the proposed annexation area, by annexing the entire right -of -way, there would be improved access to the City as the right -of -way permitting agency. He pointed out most of the work between the two properties would occur in the right -of -way. Mr. Wilson said staff recommends the Council authorize circulation of the petitions with the boundaries as presently drawn. He said the Council must make the decision regarding_ bonded indebtedness. Staff also recommends comparable zoning be adopted as part of the annexation to maintain continuity and then any zoning issues could be re- evaluated as part of the City's annual Comprehensive Plan review process. Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. He advised the City received three letters and a telephone call, 1) L. Smithson (no address) opposed to annexation, 2) C. R. Maier, 8727 Holly Lane, Edmonds, opposed to annexation, 3.) an additional letter from C. Maier, opposed to annexation, and 4) Barbara Abruzzo, 23018 81" Place W, Edmonds, in support of annexation. John Hidell, 22430 86" Avenue W, Edmonds, a resident since 1965, said they went through this about two years ago when a vote was taken not to annex. He questioned why annexation was being sought again and why by this method. He was opposed to annexation and said Snohomish County had been very good to their neighborhood in addressing any street and light problems. Bob Brown, 23014 83'd Avenue West, Edmonds, said in the past 35 years, there had been '/z dozen votes rejecting annexation to Edmonds. He asked why it was thought this annexation request would be more palatable to residents in the proposed annexation area than past efforts. He questioned why he would want to annex into Edmonds. Patricia Meeker, 22711 96th Avenue West, Edmonds, a commissioner with Olympic View Water and Sewer District, said she was present to answer any questions regarding Olympic View Water and Sewer District's position on the annexation. Steve Kish, 8925 229th Place SW, Edmonds, (outside the annexation boundary), asked how the annexation boundary was established, who Mr. Sundquist was, whether he was related to the "Woodway Sundquist development," and how annexation would change the neighborhood as it would cut the neighborhood in half. Pat LaJambe, 22921 85th Place W, Edmonds, spoke in opposition to annexation. She said previous votes indicated the majority of residents were opposed to annexation. She recalled Perrinville voted to annex into the City but voted not to accept the bonded indebtedness. She said City records indicate the Council voted to include the bonded indebtedness for their area. She said Mr. Wilson indicated residents in the proposed annexation area would have to accept the bonded indebtedness if the annexation effort was successful. She questioned why the Council found it acceptable for other areas not to, be included in the bonded indebtedness but their area would not have any say in the matter. She said the Council- also voted to include the $770,000 value of the fire station property as part of the required 60 %. She objected to including the fire station property as it was not a private property and would not be included in property taxes. She recalled that although Mr. Wilson indicated the value of the Olympic View Water and Sewer District and the fire station properties were insignificant and could be included on the petition Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 15, 2000 Page 4 in favor of annexation, those properties represented $1.5 million, the equivalent of 5 -10 'houses. She requested any annexation petition state that assumption of the bonded indebtedness would be required. Eleanor Howard, 22815 801' Place W, #8, Edmonds, a resident. since 1989, said there had been at least two ballot issues regarding annexation during the time she lived in the neighborhood; both times, the ballot issue was rejected by citizens in that area. She said she saw only two signs announcing tonight's meeting, signs that required exiting your vehicle and getting down on your knees to read. She said when Olympic View Water and Sewer District had a hearing, everyone got a notice on their door. She questioned why there had not been more publicity regarding this effort. She questioned what final say residents of the area would have. Mark Strom, 8826 228" Street SW, Edmonds, adjacent to (but outside) the proposed annexation area, said he did not know much about this annexation effort and was unable to find out what the public process was to move this effort forward. He understood annexation efforts have occurred in this area in the past. Larry Brainerd, 23118 84th Avenue W, Edmonds, asked what was motivating Mr. Sundquist's efforts to have this area annexed. He expressed his appreciation for the flyer mailed to him regarding tonight's meeting. He questioned how annexation would impact him, what costs he could expect and what different services or service levels he could expect. He said annexation had been rejected twice and unless the benefits were clearly established, it would likely be rejected again. Bailey Vickell, 8427 Holly Lane, Edmonds, said in 1997, residents of the Esperance .area rejected annexation 67% to 33 %. He stressed residents in this area had. repeatedly said no to annexation. He said those seeking signatures on the annexation petition asked people if they wanted to receive information about annexation, thereby misleading those who signed the petition. He questioned what the benefits of annexation were, explaining their water is provided by Olympic View Water and Sewer District, their power from PUD, and police from Snohomish County. He said The Edmonds Paper indicated a new police officer would be hired at a cost of $90 for a $300,000 home. He said they already have police protection. He said residents inside and outside this area still experience car and home invasions, which Edmonds Police have not stopped. He said their being annexed to Edmonds would not be better for them. He reiterated the City needed to show what they could do for them, commenting most people have been misled by information in the newspaper. He questioned how many of the property owners' voices in the 193 acres were being heard. He objected to property owners being the only ones with a voice in this vote. Rich Johnson, 8706 Holly Lane, Edmonds, a resident since 1965, said he came tonight to hear the latest "fairy tale" regarding how much better his life would be via annexation. John Justice, 8808 223" Place SW, Edmonds, outside the annexation area, said there were numerous young families in the proposed annexation area as well as older residents on fixed incomes. He said due to the size of many properties in the proposed annexation area, their taxes would increase if annexed to Edmonds. He said this was unfair to older residents as well as young families. He said anytime a city or company undertook annexation or a merger, there was something in it for them and not for the citizens or employees. He was opposed to annexation, indicating once that area was annexed, his neighborhood would likely be annexed next. He urged the Council not to overturn the public's vote and to leave them alone. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 15, 2000 Page 5 Phil Assink, 23202 83rd Avenue W, Edmonds, spoke "mostly" in favor of annexation due to the proximity of Council meetings and the gracious response to his inquiries to City Hall. He indicated he made some suggestions to Mr. Wilson regarding the process and suggested they be pursued. He observed there was some resistance to annexation in the neighborhood and suggested the Council consider not requiring assumption of the bonded indebtedness as a gesture of solidarity to the area. He understood the GMA had some impact on how annexation of small unincorporated areas occurred. He expressed his appreciation to Edmonds' mutual aid response into their area, as they do not have Sheriff Department's presence voluntarily, only on an emergency basis. Karen Zollman, 8826 228`h Street SW, -Edmonds, adjacent to the annexation area, said she was concerned with the financial impact of annexation. She said they moved from Seattle to the unincorporated area due to King County's history of asking voters for things, voters voting them down but then getting them anyway (such as the stadium). She was concerned with repeatedly rejecting votes and having the same issue brought up again. She commented property values were increasing astronomically and it was painful to be stuck with increased taxes when incomes did not increase at the same rate. She said their choice was to subdivide their property or move. Larry Brainerd asked if there was a significant development project that underlies the move for annexation. Hearing no further comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public participation portion of the public hearing. In response to questions raised by the public, Mr. Wilson explained in the state annexation statutes that govern the way cities review and process annexations, there are two processes for annexation — the election method (voted upon at a special or general election) or petition. method. The state did not specify which method could be or must be used, both are provided as options. In either option, the City did not have the unilateral authority to annex an area without participation or "vote" by residents in the area. He said unlike the election method process, the petition method was a two step process; a resident interested in annexation approaches the City requesting initiation of an annexation process which is what Mr. Sundquist did. In this instance, staff discussed the petition method annexation process with the resident interested in pursuing annexation and City staff, utilizing the past history, state law and Boundary Review Board requirements for evaluation annexations, determined the annexation boundaries. Mr. Wilson explained the Boundary Review Board considers whether the proposed annexation area was a defined area, was easily identifinable and was a logical service area, which generally equates to boundaries along major streets. Another criterion is that an annexation area be . contiguous to an existing City limit boundary. In this instance, approximately 40 -50% of the annexation boundary was contiguous to existing City limits. Once the boundaries had been established, the petitions were prepared by the City to ensure they met the requirements of state law and the Boundary Review Board. The proponent's responsibility in the first phase was to seek sufficient signatures to indicate interest in the annexation — signatures of property owners representing at least.10% of the total assessed valuation. The signatures are sent to Snohomish County Auditor who verify the signatures and issue certification that the signatures are from property owners in the annexation area. In this instance, the petition that was certified had signatures of approximately 12% of the total assessed valuation. This initiates the process to the City Council for consideration whether to allow circulation of a formal petition. He stressed after certification of the initial petition, the Council could not simply annex the area, they could only authorize circulation of Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 15, 2000 Page 6 petitions for formal action. Whether this petition succeeds or fails will be determined by the participation of property, owners in the proposed annexation area. If the Council approved circulation of the annexation petition tonight, that would allow the proponent to gather signatures. He would have up to six months to gather signatures (under state law a signature on a petition is only valid for six months from the date signed). If the proponent was unable to gather signatures from property owners representing 60% of the assessed valuation, the annexation dies. If he was successful in gathering sufficient signatures from property owners representing 60% of the,assessed valuation, the petition would be forwarded to the Snohomish County Auditor for certification of the signatures. If the 60% was gathered and certified, the City would prepare a report that was submitted to the Boundary Review Board who designates a review period for soliciting comments from other agencies that may be affected by annexation such as Olympic View Water and Sewer District, Snohomish County, emergency services agencies, etc. as well as comments from residents within the proposed annexation area. If after 45 days the Boundary Review Board found the annexation was consistent with state requirements for approving the annexation, they could approve it or hold a public hearing to determine whether the boundaries should be modified, the annexation denied, or the annexation approved. Once the annexation was approved by the Boundary Review Board, it would be returned to the City and the Council was required to hold an additional public hearing which will be followed by Council action to adopt an ordinance to accept the annexation and establish an effective date. Mr. Wilson said as part of the process, the Council met with the proponent to discuss the boundaries and the Council will now determine if the boundaries were logical and represented good service areas. Regarding bonded indebtedness, the Council will make a decision regarding whether the proposed annexation area will be subject to the bonded indebtedness. If so, state law requires that it be clearly stated on the formal 60% petition. He stressed the Council had not yet made a decision regarding whether the. area would be subject to bonded indebtedness and that would be part of the decision made tonight. He explained signing the petition was a vote in favor of annexation, not signing the petition was a vote against annexation. In response to the question of why the issue of annexation was being brought up again, Mr. Wilson. explained there was no limit on the number of requests that could be made for annexation. In the past, the City put annexation out for public vote as part of multiple requests for annexation. This time, the process was citizen driven. If a resident asks to pursue the annexation process, the City could. not refuse them the opportunity to pursue the process. In its public role, the City must remain neutral on the .issue and provide factual information regarding the annexation to the proponent and the public. In the past, fact sheets have been prepared and made available to the public that address issues that are frequently raised. Regarding the question of Perrinville's assumption of bonded indebtedness, he explained the election method process required the annexation area to vote on whether to annex as well as whether to accept the bonded indebtedness. If residents vote against accepting the existing bonded indebtedness, the Council makes a decision whether to accept the annexation without the bonded indebtedness or the Council could choose not to accept the annexation. He summarized the question regarding assumption of bonded . indebtedness is asked in both methods of annexation. In response to assessed valuation of Olympic View Water and Sewer District and the fire station property, he said staff considered the top ten valuations of property in the area based on Snohomish County records. The top ten were chosen as the lowest value in the top ten was $501,000 with remaining properties valued at below $400,000, indicating predominately single family properties.. Property values Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 15, 2000 Page 7 for the top ten properties ranged from $501,000 to $1.3 million. Only three properties are assessed over $1 million, one in the $800,000 range, two in the $700,000 range and three in the $500,000 range. The top ten properties account for only approximately 13% of the total assessed valuation of the entire proposed annexation area. He stressed it required 60% for the annexation to succeed under the petition method process. Even if all the top ten property owners signed the petition, signatures from at least 47% of the remaining assessed valuation would be required for the annexation to proceed. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM WHITE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, TO EXTEND THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR 45 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED. (Councilmember Petso did not participate in the vote.) Regarding notice, Mr. Wilson explained staff did the best they could to provide notice. The area was posted in seven locations. Notices were mailed to all property owners of record within the proposed annexation area (utilizing records obtained from Snohomish County), and notices were mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the boundaries of the proposed annexation area in an effort to have as wide spread public notice as possible. He said notice was mailed at least ten days prior to the public hearing. Regarding what benefits a resident might derive from the proposed annexation, he said what was felt to be beneficial varied by individual. When comparing the tax rate property owners in Snohomish County pay versus the property taxes that would be paid if the area were annexed into'the City, the City's taxes and fees (stormwater, etc.) are $1.18 less per $1,000 of assessed valuation. For a home valued at $200,000, the annual savings would be $159 or an 8.9% reduction. He clarified the City did not establish property valuations, that has been and would continue to be the responsibility of Snohomish County. He pointed out some taxes would remain the same whether a property was located in unincorporated Snohomish County or the City such as state schools, local schools and hospital district. The City's additional tax rates include the EMS levy and public safety bond. The proposed annexation area would still be required to pay off the Fire District 1 bond voted on previously. He explained even including the public safety bond and the Fire District's existing bond, the savings would still be $1.18 per $1,000 of assessed valuation. He said the tax applicable to the City's public safety bond was approximately $0.27 per $1,000 of assessed valuation. He said although Snohomish County did not have a public safety bond or the EMS levy, they have a road tax and library tax and Fire District 1 has a regular levy, a special levy, and a bond that are. included in the property taxes currently paid by property owners in the proposed annexation area. Councilmember Plunkett referred to page 52 of the Council packet, "South Snohomish County vs. City of Edmonds 2000 Detailed Comparison of Property Tax, Single Family Residence," and asked whether that could be made available to the public. Mr. Wilson answered in past annexations, an annexation fact sheet has been prepared and made available to the public. He said the fact sheet would include the information on page 52 and page 53 (2000 Comparison of Costs including. property taxes, surface water charge, utility taxes and street lighting charges). Council President Pro Tem. White asked Mr. Wilson to address the affect GMA has on annexation. Mr. Wilson explained the Planning Principles of GMA attempted to identify areas that were urban in nature that should receive their urban services from urban entities rather than from the ,county, a regional service provider. He explained urban services include sewer, water, police, fire, road maintenance, etc. versus regional services such as criminal justice, etc. GMA required urban growth area boundaries to be established by the county; everything within South Snohomish including this area was considered to be within an urban growth area. Therefore, the logical entity to provide services and planning would be the Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 15, 2000 Page 8 local jurisdiction rather than the county. He said urban areas would provide urban levels of service such as transportation, housing, employment to take advantage of scales of economy such as not extending sewers to unincorporated/rural areas and take advantage of areas that are already urban in nature. He- pointed out GMA did not mandate that areas be annexed but it was logical that local services should be provided by the urban entity. Councilmember Plunkett asked if the Snohomish County Sheriff's Department patrolled this area. Police Chief Robin Hickok answered they may send an occasional deputy through the area but he was not aware of the schedule for patrols. Councilmember Plunkett recalled a comment was made by a member of the public that public safety was provided on an on -call basis. Chief Hickok answered for situations such as domestic violence or felony in progress, they would send a vehicle likely from the South Precinct (164' Street in Lynnwood). Councilmember Plunkett asked if that differed from how the City of Edmonds would patrol the area. Chief Hickok answered the City's traffic unit would respond to a traffic complaint within a day and there would be a 4- minute response to most calls with a 2 minute or less response for a "hot" call. He stressed he was not criticizing the Snohomish County Sheriff's Office, the City was simply closer and could provide faster service. He explained Edmonds would also provide routine patrol through the area 24 hours a day. In response to the question regarding whether the proponent was seeking a development proposal, Mr. Wilson said in his conversations with Mr. Sundquist, there had not been any indication .regarding a specific development proposal. Mr. Sundquist owns a property approximately the size of a single family lot and had not mentioned any development proposals during this process. As there were additional questions from the audience, Mayor Haakenson reopened the public participation portion of the public hearing. Council President Pro Tent White requested residents address their historical objection to annexation. Eleanor Howard, 22815 — 88`h Place W #8, Edmonds, asked if there would be an opportunity during the second step of the petition process to find out why Mr. Sundquist wanted to pursue annexation. She said they have been opposed to annexation in the past because they were led to believe their taxes would increase. Councilmember Earling asked who led her to believe her taxes would increase. Ms. Howard answered that was the talk in the neighborhood and what her landlord told her. Steve Kish,' 8925 229`h Place SW, Edmonds, said he was still unclear where the existing Edmonds boundaries were. Observing Mr. Sundquist apparently owned property in the area and thereby had the right to petition for annexation, he asked if anyone could petition for annexation. If so, could he (Mr. Kish) request the boundary be amended to include another area? John Hidell, 22430 86 ' Avenue W, Edmonds, asked how the decision was made to discount the votes taken in the past. Mayor Haakenson responded state law allowed any citizen, including Mr. Sundquist, to petition for annexation regardless of previous votes. Mr. Hidell said the previous vote had no life. Mayor Haakenson agreed. Rich Johnson, 8706 Holly Lane, Edmonds, commented that Mr. Sundquist owned property in the area and asked if he lived in the area. Larry Brainerd, 23118 84`h Avenue W, Edmonds, said the lack of opportunity to vote on this issue brought people who were passionate about it to meetings. He said he and many others live in this area in quiet enjoyment. He said the petition process was begun by someone with a personal motivation, and Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 15, 2000 Page 9 long before he became aware of that effort. He was skeptical when he learned only last week that a meeting was being held this week regarding this process. He was more skeptical upon learning there had been two previous votes and a process had been determined that did not include voting. City Attorney Scott Snyder said this was a required step, the second of eight under state law that would be required to annex the area. The City received a petition; this hearing was required by state law to allow the Council to establish the boundaries for the next petition to be circulated. Regarding the question of how the annexation boundaries could be amended, he said they could be amended by the Council tonight, amended by the Council when the petition was returned, or amended by the Boundary Review Board.. He stressed when the City received a petition, as it did from Mr. Sundquist, its obligation was to consider it and that was what the Council was doing — determining whether to authorize circulation of a petition that requires signatures from property owners of 60 %. of the assessed valuation in the proposed annexation area. Mayor Haakenson asked if the City could turn down a citizen's request for annexation. Mr. Snyder answered staff was obligated to accept the petition, forward it to Snohomish County to have the signatures certified and the petition returned to the Council for this public hearing. Ed Poole, 8708 228" SW, Edmonds, asked Olympic View Water and Sewer District's position on the annexation. Pat LaJambe, 22921 85th Place W, Edmonds, reiterated her question regarding the $770,000 valuation of the fire department property and her understanding that the Council had authorized the mayor to sign the petition on behalf of the City. She said only this area was paying the bond debt for the fire department and suggested that be reason for reconsidering this area's assumption of the public safety bonded indebtedness. She said she had not seen or received notification of the January 18 meeting but expressed appreciation for the notice of tonight's meeting. Regarding the implication that Snohomish County did not address public safety issues in their area, she described incidents when the Sheriff's department responded in less than ten minutes regarding a traffic issue and a follow -up response to an accidental 911 call she made. She commended the service that Snohomish County provided in these two incidents. John Justice, 8808 233rd Place SW, Edmonds, said he was under the same assumption that taxes would increase upon annexation. He said many of the homes in the proposed annexation area are single family homes according to Snohomish County and his understanding regarding the differences between Snohomish County and City lot sizes, annexation would result in some lots accommodating another home. He asked if this would result in another lot and thus increased property taxes. Paul Stevens, 8631231" Place SW, Edmonds, asked what other differences between City and County they might expect other than taxes and fire and police service. He verified his taxes increased when he moved from the City of Edmonds to unincorporated Snohomish County in 1996. Pat Meeker, 2271196 Ih Avenue West, Edmonds, a commissioner with Olympic View Water and Sewer District, said in August, the district was approached by Mr. Sundquist to sign the petition that would begin the process for annexation. Olympic View Water and Sewer District did not want to be involved and felt if they signed, their property would become part of the annexation process although the property was not taxed. The district felt it was up to the single family residents to determine whether they wanted to be annexed. However, if they did not sign the petition, they still became part of the process; therefore, they had asked to be removed from the annexation area. Edmonds City Council Approved'Minutes February 15, 2000 Page 10 Larry Brainerd asked if Mr. Sundquist discussed his intent regarding development with Olympic View Water and Sewer District. Ms. Meeker answered no, he had not. Mr. Brainerd said he was concerned because Olympic View Water and Sewer District's property was valued at approximately $800,000 and he felt it would have an affect. However, as indicated tonight, the property represents. only 1.2% of the total assessed valuation of the area and therefore had little affect. Lorraine Garrett, 22818 86`h Place W, Edmonds, asked the affect of annexation on zoning and whether it would result in multi- family housing rather than single - family homes. Mr.. Wilson identified the existing City limits on the map. In response to the question regarding whether there would be an opportunity to determine Mr. Sundquist's interest in annexation, Mr. Wilson said Mr. Sundquist owns one parcel of land with a single family home valued at approximately $168,000. In response to the question whether anyone could petition for annexation, Mr. Wilson answered yes, in the past, commercial property owners typically initiated the petition method annexation. It was unusual for an individual to pursue a petition method annexation for such a large area, approximately 193 acres and 800 residents. Mr. Wilson referred to Mr. Snyder's response regarding past votes, and'explained the annexation statutes do not include a shelf life for a vote. One vote would not preclude someone else initiating annexation immediately for the next ballot or initiating a petition method annexation. He said staff was. simply responding to inquiries as they arise and assisting the proponent in adhering to the state statues regarding annexation. Mr. Wilson said he was unaware whether Mr. Sundquist lived in the area but was aware he owned a single family residence in the proposed annexation area. Regarding the City signing the petition for the fire station property, Mr. Wilson said the, City, as a property owner, had the proprietary right of any property owner to sign the petition. In this instance, the City has a facility owned, maintained and operated by the City in an unincorporated area. The City was asked and agreed to sign the petition of intent but that was the only document that had been signed. This allowed sufficient signatures to allow the process to proceed to this point to allow discussion with the public regarding the appropriate course of action but the City was not obligated to sign any future petitions. He said the valuation of the City's property represented only approximately 1% of the total assessed valuation, not a significant player in obtaining the 60 %. .In response to whether this was the only area that currently paid the Fire District bond, Mr. Wilson answered no. Any of the areas that annexed within the past five years south of 220` such as Firdale Village and in the Westgate area, were in Fire District 111 and as part of the original bond, were still required to pay for it. Regarding why the public did not receive notice of the January 18 meeting, Mr. Wilson explained the annexation regulations established by the state require the Council to meet with the proponent to discuss issues such as the boundaries, bonded indebtedness, zoning, etc. The meeting with the proponent did not replace the public hearing and was intended to be a fact - finding opportunity for the Council with the person initiating the process. In response to questions regarding zoning, Mr. Wilson displayed a map illustrating comparable zoning designations for the area. In response to the question whether lots could be developed with an additional single family home, Mr. Wilson said it was possible but may not be any different than was currently Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 15, 2000 Page 11 allowed by Snohomish County. He explained Snohomish County's single - family designation, R 8400 requires 8,400 square feet of lot area per single family unit. The City's comparable zoning designation is RS 8000; which requires 8,000 square feet of lot area per single family unit. He explained if a property owner in unincorporated Snohomish County with 16,000 square feet was annexed into the City, they could have the potential to subdivide into two single family lots. One difference between the City's single family zoning designation and Snohomish County's was the City did not have a duplex zone but the county did. Snohomish County regulations allow a single family lot that is 1'/2 times the size of the minimum lot size, requirement to construct/establish a duplex on the property. Therefore, a property owner with a 12,600 square foot lot in Snohomish. County could have a duplex; however, a 12,600 square foot lot in the City would still be one single family lot. Regarding- other changes in service that could be expected, Mr. Wilson said this was similar to the question regarding what benefits would be derived from annexation. He commented one- person indicated to him that annexation would allow greater ease to attend City Council meetings locally and in the evening versus attending Snohomish County Council meetings during the day in Everett. Others like the ease of accessing services in the community, including some who already utilize those services and feel it would be appropriate to annex and help pay for those services. He said other benefits may include locally processed building permits and locally held hearings. Mr. Wilson responded to the question whether zoning would change if the area was annexed, stating the only significant change was in single family that he addressed previously,(RS 8000 in the City versus R 8400 in Snohomish County). He identified the boundaries of the proposed annexation area, explaining nearly all zoning to the west was single family R 8400 zoning. There are portions along Hwy. 99 that are zoned GC (General Commercial) and one parcel currently zoned multi- family residential that would be annexed with a comparable zoning. He said staff recommends adoption of comparable zoning to keep zoning as status quo as possible. He said the only changes that would/could occur would be via amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan, which requires a public hearing process. He explained the City was attempting to make the Comprehensive Plan amendment process a neighborhood -based process to encourage neighborhoods to participate. He said staff did not foresee any changes to zoning at this time. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM WHITE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DAVIS, TO EXTEND THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR 15 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED. (Councilmember Petso did not participate in the vote.) Councilmember Orvis .asked if the zoning information would be included in the information packet that is made available to the public. Mr. Wilson explained the zoning is required to be part of the petition just as the issue of bonded indebtedness is required to be included on the petition. The back of the petition would include a map illustrating the existing zoning in Snohomish County and comparable zoning in the City. Mayor Haakenson remanded the matter to Council for deliberation. Council President Pro Tem White pointed out Councilmember Petso, who removed herself from consideration of this item, was an Olympic View Water and Sewer District Commissioner and that aspect of the annexation had been thoroughly discussed by the Council. Council President Pro Tem White said he found this process offensive because the law required a citizen to obtain permission to petition fellow citizens and this public hearing was required to determine whether Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 15, 2000 Page 12 the Council would grant that fundamental right. He said regardless of how citizens in the proposed annexation area may respond to the petition for annexation, he expected any citizen to be granted the right to petition fellow citizens. Councilmember Davis echoed Council President Pro Tem White's comments, pointing out the need for the process to move forward. Regardless of whether he agreed with the outcome, he agreed it was important to allow citizens to ask other citizens whether they wanted to be annexed. Councilmember Orvis said he was primarily concerned with the information that would be distributed to citizens and was satisfied staff would distribute accurate and thorough information during the process. Councilmember Earling said he understood the intensity of residents who have gone through this process a number of times but pointed out citizens had the right to petition government, a right any citizen would expect to have. He observed statements have been made that this process did not allow citizens to vote, however, property owners would have an opportunity to sign or not sign a petition for annexation. He supported moving forward with the annexation petition and said the property owners in the proposed annexation area had the opportunity to do whatever they felt was right. COUNCII.MEMBER EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM WHITE, TO DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CIRCULATION OF FORMAL ANNEXATION PETITIONS FOR THE PROPOSED ".SUNDQUIST" ANNEXATION AND PLACE ON THE FEBRUARY 22, 2000, COUNCIL CONSENT AGENDA, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING: 1) THE BOUNDARIES OF THE PROPOSED ANNEXATION SHALL BE AS SHOWN ON EXHIBIT 1, 2) THE PROPOSED ANNEXATION AREA SHALL BE SUBJECT TO ASSUMING THE EXISTING BONDED INDEBTEDNESS OF THE CITY, AND 3) THE CITY SHALL ADOPT COMPARABLE ZONING AND LAND USE DESIGNATIONS AS SHOWN ON EXHIBIT 11 FOR THE PROPOSED ANNEXATION. MOTION CARRIED. (Councilmember Petso did not participate in the vote.) Mayor Haakenson declared a brief recess. Councilmember Petso returned to her seat on the Council. 4. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO EDMONDS Amend ECDC COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE CHAPTER 20.75 TO RENUMBER THE CURRENT 0.75 - Lot SECTION 20.75.055 — REQUIRED INFORMATION ON PRELIMINARY PLATS AS 20.75.060. ombination C AND THE ADDITION OF A NEW SECTION 20.75.055 — LOT COMBINATION TO PROVIDE A MECHANISM FOR COMBINING PARCELS OF LAND OTHER THAN THROUGH THE LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT PROCESS (File No. CDC -99 -129) Planning Manager Rob Chave said this ordinance was proposed to simplify the application process for a lot line combination.. He explained this issue typically arose when there were two properties under the same ownership and the property owner wished to construct something that would exist, across both properties. The City requires the lot line in common between the properties be removed. This is a simple process but in the past required a survey, which resulted in a fairly significant cost to an applicant. Research indicated a survey would not be required to combine the two lots. Removing the survey requirement reduces the cost for a lot line combination, making it easier for the applicant. When the Planning Board considered the ordinance, they recommended paragraph B of Section 20.75.055 be revised to read, "An application for lot combination shall be signed for by all individuals or entities owning an interest in the property. The application fee shall be the same as the fee established for lot line adjustments" deleting the remainder of paragraph B. He said staff was agreeable to the Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 15, 2000 Page 13 Planning Board's recommendation, commenting the remaining verbiage in paragraph B was included at the Development Service Director's request to allow him some discretion in appropriate situations. Mr. Chave said the fee included the recording costs and is approximately $150 -$180. Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. Hearing no comments, he closed the public participation portion of the hearing and remanded the matter to Council. COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, TO ADOPT ORDINANCE #3296 WITH THE REVISION TO SECTION B AS RECOMMENDED BY THE PLANNING BOARD. MOTION CARRIED. The ordinance approved reads as follows: rd mend 9 ORDINANCE NO. 3296 OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE 0.75 - Lot PROVISIONS OF THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE CHAPTER 20.75 BY ombination jai NUMBERING CURRENT SECTION 20.75.055 REQUIRED INFORMATION ON PRELIMINARY PLATS AS 20.75.060, THE ADDITION OF A NEW SECTION 20.75.055, LOT COMBINATION AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. 5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, Edmonds, recalled the Consent Agenda at a previous meeting 0 anance Fees included one item that did not belong on the Consent Agenda. This was a variance issue that he said was included on the Consent Agenda by the Council President at the request of a private citizen. Mr. Hertrich pointed out this issue did not go through the appropriate , channels. He objected to that procedure and recommended the Council tune up its rules as that action was inappropriate and the variance fee did not need to be reduced. He said a fee schedule was established to cover costs and should be adhered to, particularly during this time of hardship for the City. 6. 1 REPORT ON COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS ;�1Ce Finance Committee °—,&ee I Councilmember Earling said several issues on the Finance Committee's agenda had been approved on tonight's Consent Agenda. He explained there was an additional $300,000 in the ending cash balance that was not anticipated in previous projections. He said the Finance Committee recommended that amount be assigned to the Council Contingency Fund and a process developed to determine how those funds would be used. He summarized his conversations with some Couhcilmembers indicated there was general support for this proposal. COUNCII.MEMBER EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, TO PUT THE ADDITIONAL $300,000 FROM UNANTICIPATED CASH BALANCE INTO THE COUNCIL CONTINGENCY FUND. Councilmember Earling requested the Council be informed of the exact amount as soon as possible. MOTION CARRIED. Comm. serv./ Community Services/Development Services Committee ev. Services Committee Council President Pro Tern White advised Parks and Recreation Director Arvilla Ohlde described the need to increase the use of Seaview Park fields to meet the increased demand on all fields. This was an administrative action and required no Council action. The Committee discussed public• hearing notification methods and requirements. The City's notification procedure is thorough and more than Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 15, 2000 Page 14 i 1 required by law although signs may be removed without the consent of staff. The City will be contracting for creation and placement of signs that�are larger and sturdier thus making them harder to remove or be placed in an inappropriate location. Council President Pro Tem White reported staff gave a detailed update regarding the Tri- County (King, Snohomish and Pierce counties) 4(d) framework, the federal regulations that will mandate mitigation for ESA. He stressed this will affect every stream that has runoff to Puget Sound. The City is closely monitoring the 4(d) framework and, participating as much as possible in formulating regulations. Discussion of water and sewer facilities fees followed and staff was directed to place this on a future Council work meeting agenda. Staff provided an overview of the Sanitary Sewer Comprehensive Plan which will be placed on a future Council agenda for a brief review and Council adoption. Staff reviewed a new approach to temporary sign regulations, which will be placed on a future Council work meeting agenda. Sign regulations in annexed areas were discussed and staff explained if the signs were functioning properly and were not a danger, they would be left as is. Future replacement of such a sign would require .compliance with the City's sign code. The fmal item, discussion of grandfathering accessory dwelling units within the city was tabled until it could be determined how /why this was placed on the agenda. Councilmember Plunkett advised City Attorney Scott Snyder had provided the Council a draft for grandfathering accessory dwelling units tonight. ublic Safety Public Safety Committee Iconnuittee Councilmember Plunkett explained the committee considered a proposal by Parking Enforcement Officer Debbie Dawson to escalate the fine for repeat parking offenders from $20 - $80' depending on the number of times they had been ticketed. Councilmember Plunkett explained 64% of vehicles ticketed are first offenders, 16% are second -time offenders, 9% are third -time offenders and 11 % are fourth -time offenders. The committee recommended this proposal be forwarded to the full Council on a future agenda. 7. MAYOR'S REPORT ings on oards and Mayor Haakenson reported there were several openings on boards and commissions including an commissi ons opening on the Architectural Design Board for an architect and builder, one opening on the Arts Commission, two openings for alternates on the Cemetery Board, and two positions on the Sister City Commission. Mayor Haakenson thanked Planning Supervisor Jeff Wilson for his presentation regarding the - annexation, stating he had done an admirable job addressing questions from the audience. 8. Councilmember Earling advised in addition to several openings on the City's boards and commissions, Sound Transit there were openings on the Sound. Transit Citizens Oversight Panel. He explained this was a group of 15 Citizens Comm. citizens who look at project plans, accomplishments and deficiencies of Sound Transit. He encouraged fight Com. p j p P g any interested citizen to contact the Council office. The deadline for application was the end of February. 11c Councilmember Earling advised a 45- minute agenda item/public meeting regarding the library was Ong re. scheduled for February 22. He explained Rindin the library was a large item in the City's budget, brary r'y P g �Y g t3' Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 15, 2000 Page 15 approximately 5% of the General Fund budget. The Council wished to make the public aware of the potentials for funding the library and issues the City faces on a long term basis due to budget cuts. He encouraged the public to participate in the hearing. Councilmember Plunkett echoed the comments Mayor Haakenson made regarding Mr. Wilson's presentation on the annexation, commenting he handled the issue very professionally. Councilmember Plunkett also complimented Mayor Haakenson for his efforts regarding the annexation public hearing, commenting the more expansive process and willingness to take extra questions was important to the audience. Councilmember Plunkett reported Council President Pro Tem White, Mayor Haakenson, and he attended °ns°i'dati°" another Fire Consolidation meeting tonight. A number of issues were discussed . at the meeting and several small study groups are underway. He said Edmonds' representatives remain open and available 'to all possibilities. He said the meetings are open to the public and are attended by a number of people, primarily professionals with an interest in the topic. He announced the next meeting was at 4:00 p.m. on February 29 in the Third Floor Conference Room at City Hall. Student Representative Maia Krause reported the major issue at school was schedules for next year. Teachers and administration are determining how to develop schedules so that students get the correct number of hours. With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m. ARY AKE SON, MAYOR SANDRA S. CHASE, CITY CLERK Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 15, 2000 Page 16 1 I_ J AGENDA EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL PLAZA MEETING ROOM - LIBRARY BUILDING 650 MAIN STREET 7:00 -10:00 P.M. FEBRUARY 15, 2000 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 FEBRUARY 1, 2000 (C) APPROVAL OF CLAIM WARRANTS #35929 THROUGH #38991 FOR THE WEEK OF JANUARY 31, 2000, IN THE AMOUNT OF $262,955.22. APPROVAL OF CLAIM WARRANTS #35930 THROUGH #39074 FOR THE WEEK OF FEBRUARY 7, 2000, IN THE AMOUNT OF $151,997.27. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL WARRANTS #27502 THROUGH #27242 FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 16 THROUGH JANUARY 31, 2000, IN THE AMOUNT OF $352,292.44. (D) ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES FROM FORREST & CHERRYL BAILEY (AMOUNT UNDETERMINED), AND JAY McCOLLUM ($125.00) (E) APPROVAL OF TAXICAB OPERATOR'S LICENSES FOR CHECKER CAB CO., INC. AND YELLOW CAB (F) AUTHORIZATION TO AWARD GRANTS TO LOCAL ARTS ORGANIZATIONS FOR PROMOTION OF ARTS EVENTS AND CULTURAL TOURISM (G) APPROVAL OF AND AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN THE FINAL PLAT OF OLYMPIC VIEW CREST, 20 -LOT FORMAL SUBDIVISION (File No. P- 98 -72; Property Location: West Side of Olympic View Drive Between 1801' Street SW and 181st Place SW; Applicant: R. L. McDuffy Associates and NW Independent Builders, LLC) (H) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN AN AMENDMENT TO THE INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT FOR THE SOUTHWEST SNOHOMISH COUNTY PUBLIC SAFETY COMMUNICATIONS AGENCY (1) REQUEST FOR COUNCIL WAIVER OF EDMONDS CITY CODE SECTION 2.80 — PROFESSIONAL CONSULTANTS, AND AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT WITH ELLIOTT CONSULTING, INC. (J) AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE A DUAL DRIVE UPGRADE FOR EXISTING KLAMPRESSES AT THE TREATMENT PLANT FROM ASHBROOK ($29,702, Including Sales Tax) (K) AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE 2000 FORD EXPEDITION FROM THE STATE CONTRACT (L) AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE INTERNET SOFTWARE (M) AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE NETWORK SOFTWARE TO IMPLEMENT TECHNOLOGY PLAN (N) PROPOSED RESOLUTION INTERPRETING AND APPLYING THE FEES TO BE CHARGED A VARIANCE APPLICANT PURSUANT TO RESOLUTION NO. 967, THE ANNUAL FEE RESOLUTION FOR THE YEAR 2000 Page 1 of 2 CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA FEBRUARY 15, 2000 Page 2 of 2 3. (45 Min.) PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER PUBLIC TESTIMONY ON THE PROPOSED ANNEXATION OF APPROXIMATELY 193 ACRES KNOWN AS THE "SUNDQUIST" ANNEXATION, WHICH IS GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF 228TH STREET SOUTHWEST; WEST OF HIGHWAY 99; EAST OF 88111 AVENUE WEST; AND NORTH OF MAPLE LANE AND 234TH STREET SOUTHWEST (File No. AX 98 -101) 4. (15 Min.) CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE CHAPTER 20.75 TO RENUMBER THE CURRENT SECTION 20.75.055 — REQUIRED INFORMATION ON PRELIMINARY PLATS AS 20.75.060, AND THE ADDITION OF A NEW SECTION 20.75.055 — LOT COMBINATION TO PROVIDE A MECHANISM FOR COMBINING PARCELS OF LAND OTHER THAN THROUGH THE LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT PROCESS (File No. CDC -99 -129) 5: AUDIENCE COMMENTS (3 Minute Limit Per Person) 6. (15 Min.) REPORT ON COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS 7. (5 Min.) MAYOR'S REPORT 8. (15 Min.) COUNCIL REPORTS 1 'arking and meeting rooms are accessible for persons with disabilities. Contact the City Clerk at (425) 771 -0245 with 24 hours advanc( totice for special accommodations. The Council. Agenda appears on Chambers Cable, Channel 46 Delayed telecast of this meetin€ appears the following Wednesday at noon and 7:00 p.m., as well as Friday and Monday at noon on Channel 46