Loading...
03/02/1998 City CouncilEDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES MARCH 2, 1998 The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 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 Gary Haakenson, Council President Dave Earling, Councilmember John Nordquist, Councilmember Michael Plunkett, Councilmember Dick Van Hollebeke, Councilmember Thomas A. Miller, Councilmember ABSENT STAFF PRESENT Michael Springer, Fire Chief Robin Hickok, Police Chief Al Compaan, Assistant Police Chief Paul Mar, Community Services Director -ebb Chave, Planning Manager Jeff Wilson, Planning Supervisor James Walker, City Engineer Scott Snyder, City Attorney Sandy Chase, City Clerk Jeannie Dines, Recorder Jim White, Councilmember ptions Mayor Fahey explained Item 6 (Hearing on proposed amendment to the ECDC Section 16.20.010.C1. rogram pertaining to the regulations governing the location of "Community Facilities" in single - family (RS) Zones) would change the process to require Conditional Use Permits rather than the current process. She said some citizens understood this item would take specific action related to the school in the Woodway area with the Options Program. She assured this was not the intent of this item and read a prepared statement: "The City Clerk has received numerous letters from citizens in the Woodway Meadows neighborhood regarding the school district's use of Woodway Elementary for its Options Program. Please note Item 6 is not a rezone of the property for this use. The current use is illegal and staff can comment on the status of the enforcement action (contact City staff to receive specific information). The City Attorney has concerns about the record of the rezone and any eventual hearing on a Conditional Use Permit, which he will address. To ensure citizens receive notice of the upcoming Planning Board Hearing, the staff has prepared a sign -up sheet; persons who submit letters or sign -up tonight will receive notice of the upcoming hearing." Mayor Fahey asked audience members who were present to express opposition to action relating to the Option Program to stand (numerous audience members stood). She then requested audience members present to express their support of the program to stand (a few audience members stood). Mayor Fahey asked the City Attorney to explain the importance of citizen's entering the process at the Hearing Examiner's level rather than the City Council level. City Attorney Scott Snyder explained the City Council makes its decision based on the record. While members of the public have the right to Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 2,1998 Page 1 speak under audience comments, the Council has a policy not to turn that discussion into "impromptu" public hearings. A hearing regarding any potential rezone of the property by the School District would be held by the Edmonds Planning Board and the public should submit testimony at that time. Letters to the City Clerk appeared to express concern regarding conditions on the use of the property. The City Council would only hear a Conditional Use Permit if it was appealed after a Hearing Examiner's decision and their decision must be based solely upon the record. Therefore, public comments made tonight would not be included in either record and any comments could potentially prejudice the Council's right to hear the appeal as they are only able to consider information included in the Hearing Examiner's record. He stressed the importance of speaking to the Planning Board (and the Hearing Examiner in the event of an appeal), and not to the City Council tonight. He advised such comments would be out of order at tonight's Council meeting. Mayor Fahey noted some of the letters appeared to indicate an intent to circumvent the process and make a decision without public input or a public hearing. She stressed the City did not ever operate that way, any decision of this magnitude would include a formal process and all comments pro and con would be permitted. She pointed out, under Regulatory Reform, it was important the public make comments at the hearing level due to the inability of the Council to consider any other information in the event of an appeal. She urged the public to sign -up on the form provided to ensure they were notified of any upcoming hearing. She said once a member of the public was a party of record, they would be permitted to reinforce their comments to the Council in the event of an appeal. Planning Manager Rob Chave requested members of the public sign -up on the sheet entitled, "School Sign -up" to ensure they were notified of any issues coming before the Planning Board regarding schools. 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA COUNCILMEMBER EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER VAN Change to HOLLEBEKE, TO MOVE AGENDA ITEM #7 (PROPOSED ORDINANCE PROHIBITING THE Agenda POSSESSION OF CIGARETTES BY A MINOR) TO ITEM IA (TO ALLOW THE CROWD TO DISBURSE) AND ADD AN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING A LEGAL MATTER FOR APPROXIMATELY 20 MINUTES AS AGENDA ITEM 1AA. MOTION CARRIED. COUNCILMEMBER MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER VAN HOLLEBEKE, FOR APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED. Ord. #3193 IA. ORDINANCE NO. 3193 PROHIBITING THE POSSESSION OF CIGARETTES BY A MINOR Possession of y aiMinore$ Assistant Police Chief Al Compaan explained the proposed ordinance would prohibit the possession of cigarettes or tobacco products by a minor. He explained the City had not formally adopted the Revised Code of Washington Statute pertaining to the possession of cigarettes. The High School Resource Officer, Fred Bonallo, has been frustrated by students standing on the public right -of -way smoking and not following State law regarding possession of cigarettes. The proposed ordinance would give the Police Department some leverage to get minors into a smoking cessation program which is the focus of the proposed ordinance rather than the monetary penalty. The possession of cigarettes by a minor is an infraction, not a criminal matter, and the ordinance provides for up to a $50 fine and/or a smoking cessation program the court can order the minor to the attend. He noted the School District is also interested in pursing this issue. He stated there are some smoking cessation programs available through the Health District. The ordinance primarily adopts the existing State law. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 2, 1998 Page 2 Councilmember Van Hollebeke asked if the smoking cessation program would be at the minor's cost or if there were no -cost or low cost programs available. Assistant Chief Compaan said he has been informed there are programs available through various social service agencies that could be provided at no cost. Councilmember Earling asked if a family with a higher income would be required to pay for the smoking cessation program. He pointed out the potential for parents to pay the fine. He requested further information be provided on the availability of smoking cessation programs and whether the cost was based on income. He asked whether existing State legislation provided the City enough authority. Assistant Chief Compaan answered the Edmonds Municipal Court could not hear the case until the City adopted the State statute. Cases are currently heard in District Court but are not worth the City's time or the cost of filing fees for this type of violation. COUNCILMEMBER VAN HOLLEBEKE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MILLER, FOR THE ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO. 3193. MOTION CARRIED. The ordinance adopted is as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, PROHIBITING THE POSSESSION OF CIGARETTES BY A MINOR, FIXING A PENALTY FOR A VIOLATION OF THE SAME AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BE EFFECTIVE. Councilmember Earling requested Assistant Chief Compaan provide information regarding the cost of smoking cessation programs and the availability of funding. Executive 1AA. EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING A REAL ESTATE MATTER Session Mayor Fahey adjourned the Council to Executive Session at 7:17 p.m. for discussion of a real estate matter for approximately 20 minutes. At 7:40 p.m., City Clerk Sandy Chase announced the Council would be in Executive Session for approximately five more minutes. Mayor Fahey reconvened the Council meeting at 7:47 p.m. 2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COUNCILMEMBER MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER EARLING, TO PULL ITEM B (APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 24, 1998). MOTION CARRIED. COUNCILMEMBER VAN HOLLEBEKE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER EARLING, FOR APPROVAL OF THE REMAINDER OF THE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS. MOTION CARRIED. The agenda items approved are as follows: (A) ROLL CALL pprove (C) APPROVAL OF CLAIM WARRANTS #21417 THRU #23497 FOR THE WEEK OF laim FEBRUARY 23,1998, IN THE AMOUNT OF $299,162.31 arrants Electrostatic I (D) REJECTION OF BIDS AND AUTHORIZATION TO CALL FOR BIDS TO PURCHASE Engineering AN ELECTROSTATIC ENGINEERING COPIER opier urchase of (E) REPORT ON QUOTATIONS FOR PURCHASE OF UTILITY VEHICLE FROM Utility B,�ETT IMPLEMENTS OF SNOHOMISH, INC. ($7,775.17) ehicle Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 2, 1998 Page 3 Purchase of Ball Field (F) REPORT ON QUOTES FOR PURCHASE OF BALL FIELD GROOMER FROM Groomer BARNETT IMPLEMENTS OF SNOHOMISH, INC. ($9,045.93) uxiliary Generator at (G) AUTHORIZATION TO CALL FOR BIDS FOR AN AUXILIARY GENERATOR AT THE WWTP WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT Ord. #3194 (H) ORDINANCE NO. 3194 CORRECTING SCRIVENER'S ERROR AND AMENDING mend SECTION 16.60.010.1) OF THE COMIVIUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE TO RESTORE ECDC I 116.60.010.Dl OUTSIDE RETAIL USES AS A SECONDARY CONDITIONAL USE OF THE GENERAL COMMERCIAL (CG) ZONE Item B: Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of February 24, 1998 Council President Haakenson referred to the correction pointed out by City Engineer Jim Walker on page 4, paragraph 4, third sentence, "However their project is in,the very preliminary stages, approximately where Edmonds was -1-8 8 to 10 years ago." L/24/98 COUNCIL PRESIDENT HAAKENSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MILLER, FOR APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED. 3. AUDIENCE Waterfront Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, Edmonds, pointed out relationships in a small town are close and ark expressed concern about this close relationship in regard to items that a pp ear before the Council. He Associates pointed out he requested information regarding the owners of the Waterfront Park Associates property at the previous hearing regarding the potential acquisition of the property. He requested the relationship of each Councilmember to any owners of the Waterfront Park Associates property be revealed. He clarified this could be past or present business or personal relationships or financial contributions to a Councilmembers' campaign. He asked Councilmember Earling to reveal his relationship to Mr. McNaughton, one of the owners of the Waterfront Park Associates property. CASCD Al Rutledge, 7101 Lake Ballinger Way, Edmonds, asked why Councilmember Haakenson did not roposal provide further information regarding the Cpltural Arts Stadium and Convention District (CASCD) proposal submitted by Jim Smith (Lynnwood Councilmember) and recommended citizens be informed Highway 99 there was another proposal. He indicated he attended a workshop regarding the Hwy. 99 project, noting Project the $21 million available from Lynnwood, Mountlake Terrace, and Edmonds was insufficient to fund the project.. He commented on the positive impact the new, larger ferries would have on traffic. As a member of the Senior Kiwanis, he congratulated Edmonds - Woodway and Meadowdale High Schools for reaching the State basketball tournament. ity Park Lucien Schmidt, 545 3rd Avenue S, Edmonds, recalled his neighbor James Benttler (702 4th Avenue way S) and he generated a petition opposing the introduction of two way traffic into the Edmonds City Park. [Traffic The petition, signed by 62 neighbors of the City Park, is on file with the Director of Parks and Recreation and was brought to the Council's attention via a memo dated December 15, 1997. He requested the Council grant him the opportunity to make a ten - minute presentation regarding two -way traffic in City Park. He said introducing two -way traffic into City Park represented a drastic change, which would be recognized, over time, as a serious mistake. He noted the cost of the proposed two -way road was estimated at $250,000. He pointed out that granting 3 minutes to each of 62 petitioners would consume more than three hours time. He also submitted written comments to the City Clerk. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 2, 1998 Page 4 Mel Critchley, 705 Driftwood Place, Edmonds, observed there were no longer any appointed Councilmembers, all had been elected by the citizens. He urged Councilmembers to do what is right for the community, noting the public has a contemptuous, pessimistic attitude toward government at this time because of the performance of government at all levels and the apparent inability for those in government to make a moral judgment. He pointed out the huge sums of money collected from the public in taxes and then recklessly distributed. He referred to numerous situations occurring in federal government and urged the Edmonds City Council to make the decision to be prudent and vigilant in their transactions and avoid conflict of interest. He referred to the City's lawsuit against Betty Mueller and two other citizens for the petition they circulated stating the Council's action regarding Medic 7 did not coincide with the wishes of the citizenry. The result was that citizens were "bludgeoned into a compromise." He urged the community to question the leadership of the City. He referred to fraud occurring in federal government and reiterated it was up to the Council, "to do what is right." Council Jeff Lewis, 23621 92nd Avenue W, Edmonds, questioned the need for a Council retreat, the cost, the Retreat need to hold the retreat at a private business, and whether the retreat could be held in a public building. If the retreat could not be held in a public building, he recommended the retreat be held in Edmonds to keep moneys in the City. _ roposed Rich Demeroutis, 921 Pine Street, Edmonds, referred to a letter to Bill Toskey from Reid Middleton urchase of regarding the feasibility of extending the Port to the ferry dock which stated the development of a marina idelands facility in the inter and shallow subtidal areas was not feasible due to environmental concerns. A facility may be feasible if constructed in deep water requiring no dredging. He questioned the value of the property proposed to be purchased from Waterfront Associates if the Port determined it not suitable for development due to environmental issues. He referred to the Edmonds Downtown Waterfront Plan, noting the plan recommended the Shoreline Master Plan be amended to require that all shoreline development provide a connected walkway along the shoreline with landscaping and amenities to provide safe, convenient pedestrian travel as a condition of any shoreline permit. He said a request was made for an easement on the tidelands during the permitting process to convert the Ebbtide apartments to condominiums (in the 1980's). He asked whether this easement was required when permits were issued for work that recently took place on the Waterfront Park Associates building. Council President Haakenson referred to Mr. Critchley's comment that "citizens were bludgeoned into compromise ", and said he worked with Mr. Santopaulo on this issue and asked him to respond to this comment. In response to Mr. Hertrich's request regarding his relationship with Mark McNaughton, Councilmember Earling said Mr. McNaughton probably did contribute to one or both of his campaigns. He pointed out this was a matter of public record and was not an issue to be declared at the beginning of a hearing. Mr. McNaughton had a real estate license at his old company, Edmonds Realty, Inc., for a period of years. At his request, Councilmember Earling returned the license to Olympia. While Mr. McNaughton was at his office, he listed and sold property and made money. Baring on 4. FINAL PUBLIC HEARING ON THE POTENTIAL ACQUISITION OF WATERFRONT Proposed PROPERTY Acquisition of Waterfront Community Services Director Paul Mar recalled the Council continued the January 20, 1998, public Property hearing on the potential acquisition of the tidelands and made a decision to engage an appraiser to review the previous appraisal on the property. At the time the packet was prepared, that information was not available. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 2, 1998 Page 5 Councilmember Earling pointed out tonight the Council received a draft report on the review of the methodology of the appraisal. Following his review of the draft report, the appraiser (Mr. Macaulay) who reviewed Mr. Clarke's appraisal had some concerns with the methodology but made no comment regarding the appraised value. He said the final report on the review of the appraisal would be submitted later this week. Councilmember Earling recommended Mr. Clarke be asked to review the draft prepared by Mr. Macaulay and comment on the methodology he used to formulate the appraisal. City Attorney Scott Snyder pointed out Mr. Clarke was agreed upon by the City and Waterfront Park Associates to do the grant appraisal. Whether or not to require additional information from Mr. Clarke was up to the Council. Mr. Snyder pointed out the necessity to have a willing seller certificate from Waterfront Park Associates to utilize the grant funds. Councilmember Earling recommended Mr. Mar contact Mr. Clarke and request he respond to Mr. Macaulay's review of the appraisal. Mr. Snyder advised the public would have access to the final report once it is released. COUNCILMEMBER EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MILLER, TO ASK MR. CLARKE TO REVIEW MR. MACAULAY'S COMMENTS, AFTER MR. MACAULAY'S FINAL REPORT IS RECEIVED, AND PROVIDE A REASONABLE AMOUNT OF TIME FOR HIS RESPONSE. MOTION CARRIED. Council President Haakenson requested staff advise him when the information is available from Mr. Clarke so another hearing date can be scheduled. Mayor Fahey opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. Kevin Hanchett, Vice President, Waterfront Park Associates, Inc., explained two years ago the City approached Waterfront Park Associates and asked if they were willing to sell a portion of their property to the City. Waterfront Park Associates said yes and paid for an appraisal to determine the value of the property. After negotiations, the City requested a neutral appraisal be agreed upon to develop the appraisal. As a result, a tentative value was arrived at which was submitted to Snohomish County for grant funding. As a result of the appraisal the City offered $785,000 for the property which Waterfront Park Associates agreed to although their original appraisal indicated a value of $800,000. In Waterfront Park Associates' initial offer, they also agreed to contribute $50,000 toward a new seawall. When the City reduced the price to $785,000, they also requested Waterfront Park Associates pay up to $80,000 for improvements. Waterfront Park Associates agreed to this price and ultimately agreed to fund the walkway improvements. He stressed Snohomish County has granted $600,000 for this purchase. If the City did not acquire this property utilizing those funds, they would be used elsewhere in Snohomish County. He pointed out the City needed a willing seller but the City was at risk of losing the property as well as the grant funds. Jack Bevan, 19210 94th West, Edmonds, questioned the expenditure of $800,000 for the tidelands. He pointed out development in this area was unlikely and recalled the State was not able to construct another ferry slip in this location due to the eelgrass beds. He recommended the City spend the $800,000 for a down payment on the Marina Park. He cautioned if the City paid this much for "a little bit of mud," it would set an unreachable price for the Marina Park tidelands. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 2, 1998 Page 6 Rob Morrison, 250 Beach Place #102, Edmonds, referred to a letter he submitted to the Council, noting his comments were based on the facts available regarding the cost of the property. He indicated he would comment further at the next hearing. Al Rutledge, 7101 Lake Ballinger Way, Edmonds, pointed out increased consumer spending will result in increased revenue for the City. He said the maintenance costs should also be included in the City's budget. Mel Critchley, 705 Driftwood Place, Edmonds, questioned the appraisal of the Waterfront Park Associates property. He pointed out the Washington Ferry System was not interested in purchasing the property due to the eelgrass. Further, the Port of Edmonds performed a study on the property and determined they could not practically develop it. The Port of Edmonds purchased %2 acre of property, including the uplands, for $35,000. The Anderson property, upon which the appraisal is based, had a viable business and a boat launch and was therefore worth more. He asked if these facts were considered by Mr. Macaulay, noting these facts were not included in Mr. Clarke's appraisal. He pointed out an appraisal could be done on any property for any amount; the selling price was what counted. Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, Edmonds, reiterated his request for the names of the members of the Waterfront Park Associates corporation. He pointed out almost anyone can use the tidelands but almost no one can build on them due to the eel grass. He recalled the Reid Middleton report indicated it was not ecologically possible to build anything on the water; therefore, Waterfront Park Associates' plan to develop was not a viable concern. He disagreed with spending City funds on private projects, noting the wall paid for by the City was not damaged, it was being improved. If there was a concern about Waterfront Park Associates' appraisal, he recommended the City refund the cost of that appraisal. He indicated he asked former Councilmember Bill Kasper about the appraisal and he indicated the City had not budgeted enough for a good appraisal. He suggested if Waterfront Park Associates would agree to $600,000 and build their own bulkhead, the City may want to agree to this, but otherwise the City should "close the doors." Rich Demeroutis, 921 Pine Street, Edmonds, recalled the negotiations for the tidelands began when the lawsuit was filed against the City regarding the common wall. He noted no temporary shoring was in place on the building when the structural wall was removed and felt $80,000 for something that wasn't structural was fraud. He was offended the City would consider doing business with Waterfront Park Associates and questioned how a firm who filed a lawsuit against the City could be a willing seller. He questioned the cost of constructing a seawall from Brackett's Landing to the Port, how it would be funded, and the return on the investment. He questioned why the City wanted to put more concrete on a beach that should be sand. To solve the lawsuit, he recommended the City revise the Waterfront Plan to eliminate the walkway. Syd Locke, 110 Pine, Edmonds, recalled in prior hearings, the property was listed as the only beach the City did not have access across the tidelands. He said this was not true as the City only has a 10 -foot easement across the Ebbtide tidelands. He said purchase of the Ebbtide tidelands may be required if the City purchases the Waterfront Park Associates property. There being no further public comment, Mayor Fahey closed the public participation portion of the hearing and remanded the matter to Council. Mayor Fahey pointed out this hearing was advertised as the final hearing on this matter. Mr. Snyder said the Council could continue the hearing to a date certain or re- advertise for a new hearing. Observing a Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 2, 1998 Page 7 date certain was not available, she advised this would not be the final public hearing and an additional hearing will be scheduled when the information requested is available. Line 5• HEARING ON PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT �ustrnent CODE CHAPTER 20.75 PERTAINING TO PROCEDURES FOR PROCESSING LOT LINE Applications ADJUSTMENT APPLICATIONS, AND SECTION 20105 010 PERTAINING TO APPE T PROCEDURES FOR DECISION ON LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT APPLICATIONS (Applicant: Edmonds Planning Division / File No. CDC -97 -124) Planning Manager Rob Chave explained as part of the City's continuing efforts to improve permitting as a result of Regulatory Reform, staff reviewed the lot line adjustment process. The City currently handles lot line adjustments the same as short subdivisions; however, according to State law, a lot line adjustment cannot be used to create a new buildable lot. Therefore, lot line adjustments are used to make a slight adjustment to a lot line and typically involve only two property owners. He said the City's experience has been that issues involving other property owners do not arise during a lot line adjustment. The proposed amendment would change the lot line adjustment process to an administrative process with limited appeal and waive many of the requirements and associated costs. Councilmember Earling asked if all the applicable setbacks remain in place in the event of a lot line adjustment. Mr. Chave said in the case of non - conformance, adjustment of the property line would not make the non - conformance worse. Councilmember Earling asked if the applicable zoning codes would still be met. Mr. Chave answered yes. Councilmember Van Hollebeke recalled a recent experience in his neighborhood in which a resident added on to his structure without a building permit. This was detected by another neighbor and a lot line adjustment was sought to correct the situation. Although his property line was not directly involved (but is adjacent to this property), Councilmember Van Hollebeke pointed out other issues arose that did impact his property. He asked if making the lot line adjustment an administrative process would eliminate the notification process, noting it was only via the notification process that they were aware of the situation in their neighborhood and had an opportunity to express their concerns. Mr. Chave answered there would not be notification to the surrounding area as long as the parties involved could meet the applicable setbacks required by the zoning. He said a lot line adjustment would not change the underlying development regulations, it only moved the lot line. Councilmember Van Hollebeke said he supported simplification of processes whenever possible; however, he was concerned with losing the ability to notify surrounding property owners. Mr. Chave said if the criteria requirements are met, input from other property owners may not have any impact on the process. Councilmember Van Hollebeke pointed out, in the situation in his neighborhood, additional factors arose as a result of the lot line adjustment request. Councilmember Miller asked the original intent of the notification process. Mr. Chave said the lot line adjustment was a method of moving property lines to increase the developability of the property. Therefore, if the developability of a property is being changed, the surrounding property owners should be notified. However, a property that is unbuildable cannot be made buildable through a lot line adjustment process and therefore should be a process affecting only the property owners making the adjustment to their property. He said this is significantly different from a short subdivision which may result in new structures. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 2, 1998 Page 8 Mayor Fahey opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. As there were no members of the public present who wished to address the Council, Mayor Fahey closed the public participation portion and remanded the matter to Council for deliberation. COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST MOVED TO AUTHORIZE THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN ORDINANCE TO ADDRESS THIS MATTER. , MOTION CARRIED, COUNCILMEMBER VAN HOLLEBEKE OPPOSED. 6. HEARING ON PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CDC CODE SECTION 16.20.020.C.1 PERTAINING TO THE REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE 16.20.020.0.1 LOCATION OF "COMMUNITY FACILITIES" IN SINGLE - FAMILY (RS) ZONES (Applicant: Community Edmonds Planning Division / File No. CDC -97 -123 Facilities in RS Zones Tanning Supervisor Jeff Wilson explained the proposed amendment was brought to staffs attention by a number of community facilities, primarily churches. Under the current single family zoning classification, community facilities are required to obtain a Conditional Use Permit to be allowed in the single family zone but also must be located on a collector or arterial street. He said a number of churches were built prior to adoption of the ordinance,.-and were not located on a collector or arterial street; therefore, those uses were classified as non - conforming. The City's non - conforming use classification made it difficult, if not impossible, for property owners to maintain or upgrade their facilities. He provided an example of the Faith Community Church who wanted to make minor adjustments to the building to include an elevator to provide handicap access to the building. Because the church is not located on a collector or arterial street, obtaining the permits would be difficult. Another possibility would be Fire Station 10 (operated by the City in the unincorporated area of Esperance) as it is not located on a collector or arterial street. If this area was annexed into the City, the fire station would be a non - conforming use and expansion of the fire station would be difficult. A number of parks " in the City which are non - conforming uses as well as other churches would also encounter difficulty doing any improvements that could be considered expansion. The proposed amendment would eliminate the requirement that community facilities be located on a collector or arterial street but the City maintains adequate safeguards for the public and neighborhoods through the Conditional Use Permit process which includes a public hearing with the Hearing Examiner which is appealable to the Council. The process provides the opportunity to review the project through SEPA, consider environmental impacts including traffic and the character of the project to ensure it fits with the neighborhood, and does not negatively impact the neighborhood. If the project can meet these tests, a Conditional Use Permit can be granted; if the project cannot meet the test, the request for a Conditional Use Permit can be denied and not allow the facility to be located in a single family neighborhood. The Planning Board recommended the proposed changes to the ECDC be adopted. Councilmember Earling referred to the agenda memo that indicates community facilities including bus stop shelters. He pointed out there were numerous bus stops in the City that could use a bus shelter and asked if this would be an issue for neighborhoods. Mr. Wilson said during his research, bus stops appeared to be an odd use to include as requiring a Conditional Use Permit to locate. He noted a bus route usually would not be located on a non - collector or non- arterial street and are usually located within the right -of -way. He said staff might want to consider whether to include bus stop shelters in the future. Councilmember Plunkett referred to the Hearing Examiner's case 97 -16 regarding the Faith Community Church, noting under the existing code, Faith Community Church was permitted to make the minor change and construct handicap access. He asked if permitting Faith Community Church to make those changes under the existing regulations would set a precedent for other minor changes. Mr. Wilson said Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 2, 1998 Page 9 Faith Community Church was a unique situation as their request was made at the time the annexation took place and the City did not have a great deal of information from Snohomish County regarding street designations. He noted the City has not re- classified some collector and arterial streets in newly annexed areas. A determination was made that Faith Community Church's request had begun while in Snohomish County (although permits had not been submitted) and accommodations were made to allow it to occur. He pointed out there were other long- standing community facilities in the City that are classified as a non - conforming use that brought this issue to staffs attention. Councilmember Plunkett observed the ECDC represented a high standard of protection for the City's neighborhoods from intrusion from community facilities. He said a Conditional Use Permit, while a standard of protection,. would be a standard considerably lower than the ECDC. Further, the Council's approval of the amendment would lower the standard of protection for neighborhoods from community facilities. Mr. Wilson pointed out the Conditional Use Permit existed under the current code. He noted the Conditional Use Permit process was appealable to the City Council. Mr. Snyder pointed out the City also has a permit revocation process, providing for review and revocation. Unlike an outright permitted use, staff, the Council, or three members of the public within 300 feet of a conditioned use may petition the Council to have the conditions changed or the permit revoked if a facility becomes a continuing nuisance or problem. Mayor Fahey opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. Lora Petso,10616 237th Place SW, Edmonds, stated she was opposed to the proposed amendment as it would lower the protection for all residential neighborhoods in Edmonds. She said properties not located on a collector or arterial street are currently protected from community facilities; the proposed amendment would require a Conditional Permit process that could be "pushed through." She suggested the proposed amendment be remanded to the Planning Board to determine how churches could be accommodated. She pointed out the City had 15 years to accommodate churches and other non- conforming uses; it was not necessary to make a change in the immediate future. Further, the fire station has not been annexed to the City yet. She opposed the proposed amendment because the Planning Board's approval was obtained using speculative argument that may not be applicable to many facilities (she referred the Council to her letter dated February 26, 1998). She was also opposed to the proposed amendment in view of the pending complaint regarding an illegal use based in part on the language the proposed amendment would delete. She recommended the City resolve any complaints based on the language before deleting it. She noted there were currently illegal property uses occurring that violate the current code that would be required to cease if the proposed amendment was not approved. She favored retaining this protection. Al Rutledge, 7101 Lake Ballinger Way, Edmonds, supported the amendment. Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, Edmonds, interpreted the proposed amendment that community facilities would be allowed where they were not allowed before. He pointed out the fragility of neighborhoods; particularly those close to commercial uses or businesses zones. If the City approves the proposed amendment, some of the protections would be eliminated. He stressed neighborhoods are most important and the Council should represent the neighborhoods. Brian Wilmont, 1503 Little John Court, Edmonds, a 17 year resident and father of three children, said it appeared the proposed amendment would result in degradation of neighborhoods. He urged the Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 2, 1998 Page 10 Council to consider the families and children in neighborhoods as well as the type of facilities that may want to locate in a neighborhood. Sekeco Williamson, 23702 107th Place W, Edmonds, did not support changing the code and preferred situations be reviewed on a case -by -case basis and the community consulted. Hearing no further comment, Mayor Fahey closed the public participation portion of the hearing. Councilmember Miller asked if there were mechanisms in place to monitor uses occurring beyond the scope of the original Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Wilson said Section 20.10, civil enforcement procedures, includes a permit review mechanism. The permit review mechanism allows staff, the Council, or property owners within 300 feet to request review of a permit if there was a change in the scope of the use approved in the Conditional Use Permit. If the use no longer complies with the uses allowed in the Conditional Use Permit, the City has the ability to change the conditions or revoke the permit. Councilmember Miller asked the reason the proposed amendment was being pursued. Mr. Wilson answered the impetus was churches who have experiepced difficulty when making changes to bring buildings up to code including providing handicap access. He said St. Alban's Church testified before the Planning Board regarding this issue. He said the proposed amendment would not change a non- conforming use to a conforming use, it would remain non - conforming due to the use that is occurring. Councilmember Earling referred to the motions in the Planning Board minutes that indicate "carried" and asked if a split vote would be indicated. Mr. Wilson said the minutes would reflect if the vote were not unanimous. Councilmember Earling pointed out it appeared Planning Boardmembers had concerns and he wanted to ensure their vote indicated whether it was a split vote. Mr. Wilson said he would encourage the Planning Board Recording Secretary to record the votes in a numerical fashion in the event of a split vote. Councilmember Nordquist said after reviewing the information, listening to the testimony as well as staffs presentation, he was not convinced there was an advantage to making the proposed change. COUNCILM EMBER NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, TO DENY THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT (TO ECDC 16.20.010.C.1). Councilmember Miller said the proposed amendment represented a degradation of neighborhoods and he would be opposed to opening neighborhoods to this type of use. He suggested the matter be remanded to the Planning Board to explore the ability for churches to make modifications. Mr. Snyder pointed out the City currently has a provision, adopted in conjunction with the review of the Oxford House, that allows any person to request an individual waiver of zoning requirements in order to comply with ADA requirements. MOTION CARRIED. 8. MAYOR'S REPORT Appoint- ments t - Mayor Fahey asked the Council to confirm the appointment of Sharil Lippman and Ruth Becke to the ents to the 3' �' pp yn pp Sister Cities Sister Cities Commission. She said they were recommended by the Sister Cities Commission after an Commission extensive search; both have spent a significant, amount of time in Japan teaching English. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 2, 1998 Page 11 COUNCIL PRESIDENT HAAKENSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, TO CONFIRM THE APPOINTMENT OF SHARILYN LIPPMAN AND RUTH BECKE TO THE SISTER CITIES COMMISSION. MOTION CARRIED. Mayor Fahey reported the annual general assembly meeting of the Puget Sound Regional Council is Puget scheduled for March 19. The purpose of the meeting is to formally elect new officers and approve the Sound p� g y pp Regional 1998 budget and the work program. She encouraged Councilmembers to attend. Council Mayor Fahey announced she would be leaving for Washington, DC on Friday, March 6 to attend the L National League of Cities Legislative Action session and would return late Tuesday, March 10. During that time, Council President Haakenson will be the Mayor Pro Tem and any administrative decisions will be made by Community Services Director Paul Mar. While attending the meeting, she will serve on the Community and Economic Development Council and work on the amendment to the Fair Housing Act. 9. COUNCIL REPORT In response to Mr. Rutledge's comments, Council President Haakenson indicated the proposal provided P op sal by Jim Smith, a Councilmember in Lynnwood, was his version of .what CASCD's proposal should be. Mr. Smith's proposal was rejected by the Lynnwood City Council and therefore was of no value to the City. Council President Haakenson thanked Mayor Fahey and staff for their hard work at the retreat as well as the Council for their attention during the retreat. Councilmember Nordquist asked if a decision had been made regarding Mr. Lucien Schmidt's request to Park make a presentation to the Council. Mayor Fahey explained Parks and Recreation Manager Arvilla 2 -Way Ohlde has been holding a series of meetings but a proposal has not yet been developed. Planning Road Supervisor Jeff Wilson explained Ms. Ohlde made a presentation to the Planning Board, who is serving as the "Park Board" for the City regarding the status of the implementation of the adopted Master Plan for City Park including the installation of the 2 -way roadway. The next step in the process is approval of the design by the Architectural Design Board which will include a public hearing process as well as the possibility of an appeal of the Architectural Design Board's decision. Mayor Fahey said the recommendation to make this modification to City Park was a phase 2 but was part of the original Master Plan approved by a previous Council. She asked if Council approval would be required. Mr. Mar agreed the next step would be approval of the design by the Architectural Design Board. Once the design was approved, a presentation would be made to the Council prior to going out for bid on the project. Mayor Fahey pointed out it would be more appropriate for Mr. Schmidt to make comments to the Council at that time. council I Councilmember Nordquist referred to criticism of the retreat and explained the retreat gave the Council Retreat an opportunity to consider numerous items of concern to the City in more depth. He thanked Mayor Fahey and staff for their efforts regarding the retreat. Councilmember Earling reported he would be out of town next week. I iance for Councilmember Van Hollebeke reported the Edmonds Alliance for Economic Development approved the onomic expansion of their board and announced Jack Oharah, President of Edmonds Community College; Steve velop- nt McCarty, Executive Director of Stevens Hospital; Brad Butterfield, architect; and Jack Mayo, property owner, accepted positions on the EAED board, increasing the membership from 7 to 11. He thanked Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 2, 1998 Page 12 Mayor Fahey, staff, and Council President Haakenson for their efforts in preparing an excellent retreat. He pointed out the Council worked from 8:00 a.m. until 5:30 p.m. for two days to consider an extensive agenda. He said the retreat was very productive and the minimal expense represented money well spent. 'Waterfront Councilmember Miller said he has never had any financial dealing with any of the Waterfront Park Park Assoc. Associates or received donations during his campaign. He maintained an office in the building (144 Railroad Avenue) until December 1997 but was a subleasor of another business. He expressed his appreciation to Councilmember Van Hollebeke for his service on the Edmonds Alliance for Economic Development Board. He thanked Mayor Fahey, staff, and City Attorney Scott Snyder for their efforts regarding the retreat. He encouraged citizens to attend the retreat next year. ouncil Councilmember Plunkett agreed the retreat was two days of intense work. He preferred the retreat be Retreat held in Edmonds. Mayor Fahey reminded citizens that the Council would be meeting prior to Council Committee meetings March 10 on Tuesday, 10 for a second hearing on the proposed increase in sewer and stormwater utility Hearing on Y' g p p Sewer & rates. She said the City has utilized all notification process available to notify the public. She pointed tormwater out it was not possible to provide notification on utility bills due to their extended billing cycle. Further, Utility Rates the Citywide mailing was not ready for distribution prior to the hearing. She said the agenda has been displayed as a special notice on Chambers Cable and special notices were placed in newspapers. She urged the public to attend the hearing and to express their opinion. Mayor Fahey announced minutes from the retreat as well as audio tapes of the entire two -day retreat were available. With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 9:32 p.m. BARBARA.S. FAHEY, MAYOR SANDRA S. CHASE, CITY CLERK 0 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 2, 1998 Page 13 AGENDA . _ EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL Plaza Meeting Room - Library Building 650 Main Street 7:00 -10:00 p.m. MARCH 2, 1998 SPECIAL MONDAY MEETING 'i ��v -�., .! .t.YAn _ M • �N :.c s -- P.n�_�iJxu.a -.. -. r 6 45 P.M , INTERVIEW'S ISTER'CITY;:G,,QMMISSIQN :APPLICANTS:. =.- .:: - -:; �r'r =: _<_ .,.,. ,..aW.._. =`.:P `,fk r. 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 24, 1998 (C) APPROVAL OF CLAIM WARRANTS #21417 THRU #23497 FOR THE WEEK OF FEBRUARY 23, 1998, IN THE AMOUNT OF $299,162.31 (D) REJECTION OF BIDS AND AUTHORIZATION TO CALL FOR BIDS TO PURCHASE AN ELECTROSTATIC ENGINEERING COPIER (E) REPORT ON QUOTATIONS FOR PURCHASE OF, UTILITY VEHICLE FROM BARNETT IMPLEMENTS OF SNOHOMISH, INC. ($7,775.17) (F) REPORT ON QUOTES FOR PURCHASE OF A BALL FIELD GROOMER FROM BARNETT IMPLEMENTS OF SNOHOMISH, INC. ($9,045.93) (G) AUTHORIZATION TO CALL FOR BIDS FOR AN AUXILIARY GENERATOR AT THE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT (H) . PROPOSED ORDINANCE CORRECTING SCRIVENER'S ERROR AND AMENDING SECTION 16.60.010.1 . OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE TO RESTORE OUTSIDE RETAIL USES AS A SECONDARY CONDITIONAL USE OF THE GENERAL COMMERCIAL (CG) ZONE 3. AUDIENCE (3 minute limit per person) 4. (60 Min.) FINAL PUBLIC HEARING ON THE POTENTIAL ACQUISITION OF WATERFRONT PROPERTY 5. (30 Min.) HEARING ON PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE CHAPTER 20.75 PERTAINING TO PROCEDURES FOR PROCESSING LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT APPLICATIONS, AND SECTION 20.105.010 PERTAINING TO APPEAL PROCEDURES FOR DECISIONS ON LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT APPLICATIONS. (Applicant: Edmonds Planning Division,/ File No. CDC -97 -124) 6. (30 Min.) HEARING ON PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 16.20.010.C.1. PERTAINING TO THE REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE LOCATION OF "COMMUNITY FACILITIES" IN SINGLE- FAMILY (RS) ZONES (Applicant: Edmonds Planning Division / File No. CDC -97- 123) 7. (10 Min.) PROPOSED ORDINANCE PROHIBITING THE POSSESSION OF CIGARETTES BY A MINOR 8. (5 Min.) MAYOR'S REPORT 9. (15 Min.) COUNCIL REPORT Parking and meeting rooms are accessible for persons with disabilities. Contact the City Clerk at {425) 771 -0245 with 24 hours advance notice for special accommodations. The Council Agenda appears on Chambers Cable, Channel 32, Delayed telecast of this meeting appears the following Ifednesday, Friday and Monday at noon on Cltannel 32.