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.