Loading...
05/11/1999 City CouncilEDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES MAY 119 1999 The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Council President Haakenson in the Library Plaza Room, 650 Main Street, followed by the flag salute. ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Barbara Fahey, Mayor (arrived 7:01 p.m,) Gary Haakenson, Council President Dave Earling, Councilmember John Nordquist, Councilmember Michael Plunkett, Councilmember Jim White, Councilmember Dick Van Hollebeke, Councilmember Thomas A. Miller, Councilmember 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA STAFF PRESENT Robin Hickok, Police Chief Ray Miller, Development Services Director Peggy Hetzler, Administrative. Services Director Rob Chave, Planning Manager James Walker, City Engineer Arvilla Ohlde, Parks and Recreation Director Scott Snyder, City Attorney Sandy Chase, City Clerk Jeannie Dines, Recorder COUNCILMEMBER VAN HOLLEBEKE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MILLER, FOR APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA AS PRESENTED. MOTION CARRIED. 2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COUNCILMEMBER VAN HOLLEBEKE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MILLER, FOR APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT CALENDAR AS PRESENTED. MOTION CARRIED. The agenda items approved are as follows: (A) ROLL CALL Approve (B) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MAY 4, 1999 /4/99 Minutes (C) APPROVAL OF CLAIM WARRANTS #29381 THROUGH #32653 FOR THE WEEK OF E]airants rove MAY 3, 1999, IN THE AMOUNT OF $397,850.57. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL m WARRANTS #24111 THROUGH #24245 FOR THE PAY PERIOD APRIL 16 THROUGH APRIL 30,1999, IN THE AMOUNT OF $361,133.50. laim for (D) ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM JAMES PROSIC amages ($10,451.80) 1999 Street (E) REPORT ON BIDS OPENED MAY 4, 1999, FOR THE 1999 STREET OVERLAY Vveray PROGRAM AND AWARD OF CONTRACT TO WILDER CONSTRUCTION rogram ($260,996.00, EXCLUDING SALES TAX) Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 11, 1999 Page 1 I V(F) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH HWA GEOSCIENCES, INC. FOR 1999 -2000 ONGOING TESTING SERVICES. 3. WORK SESSION - DRAFT ANIMAL REGULATION ORDINANCE Regulation Ordinance Planning Manager Rob Chave explained the Council packet contained information from the Planning Board who initially studied the animal control regulations from the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) standpoint, which focuses on ECDC Chapter 17. The land development codes address the number and types of animals that can be kept. One of the Planning Board's recommendations, in addition to the draft animal control regulations (Draft A = Exhibit 2), was that the provisions in Chapter 5.05 of the Edmonds City Code (ECC) needed to be updated to ensure there was consistency between the ECC and the ECDC. When the Planning Board reviewed the ECDC, it was noted that definitions were different and there were other conflicts between the two. When the Community Services Committee reviewed the Planning Board's recommendation, they agreed with the suggestion to combine the ECDC and the ECC. This resulted in a second draft of the animal regulation ordinance (Draft B - Exhibit 4). There was also direction given to attempt to make the regulations no less restrictive than the City's current animal control regulations. Subsequently, internal meetings with Development Services, Planning, Police, and Animal Control staff were held to combine the two sections of the Code. After discussion with the prosecutor's office and City Attorney's office, a third draft ordinance (Draft C - Exhibit 6) was developed. Mr. Chave summarized each draft had a somewhat different approach to the regulation of animals. Draft A from the Planning Board considered the provisions in the land use code and did not reference needed changes to the City Code. Draft B attempted to combine the Land Use Code and the City Code but made numbers more restrictive than the existing animal regulations. Draft C was an attempt to combine the two codes to make them consistent. Draft C contains more revisions to the way Police and Planning work together on enforcement than was contained in Drafts A or B. Mr. Chave explained the intent was to make enforcement clearer, make the provisions more consistent, and develop an ordinance that worked better for everyone. Mr. Chave said the Council's task is to determine how to proceed into a public hearing process due to the different approaches in the ordinances. He identified key issues to be addressed: 1. What type of animals will be regulated and allowed, particularly in land use. Draft C states residents have the ability to keep pets; however, horses will be grandfathered in. An existing, covered animal can be kept under the provisions that have existed until this time, but if that use of land is discontinued, it cannot be brought back. For example, if a property was used for a horse and the use ceased for over six months, the use would no longer be allowed. Whether poultry should be allowed (Draft D does not allow poultry) was also a consideration 2. Which options should . be brought forward to the public or whether a particular option should be advertised to the public. 3. How many household pets should be allowed. The Planning Board's recommendation increased the number to five due to the number of people who keep more than the three currently allowed. Mr. Chave commented although some residents may be in violation of the current code, violations are complaint driven. Mr. Chave said the provisions in ECC Chapter 5.05 are primarily housekeeping items that attempt to make enforcement easier, more up -to -date, and consistent with definitions in the Code. He pointed out Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 11, 1999 Page 2 all definitions are consolidated in ECC Chapter 5.05 and the ECDC references those definitions. The intent is to avoid having two sets of definitions to eliminate any potential conflict. Mayor Fahey explained this meeting was scheduled as a result of the joint meeting with the Planning Board and was intended to be a work session for the Council to review the three proposed ordinances. As the work session was not advertised as a public hearing, no comments from the public would be permitted. She stressed there will be an opportunity for the public to review the ordinance prior to Council action. Mr. Chave said the Community Services Committee felt it was important to make an extensive effort to advertise when a final draft ordinance is presented to the Council and made numerous suggestions on how to accomplish notification. Mayor Fahey advised the Council received new information tonight, a communication from the public as well as an extensive packet of information regarding the provisions in the ordinance related to covered animals, specifically horses. She said Councilmembers had not had an opportunity to read this information. She explained this is a very complex process when trying to determine the language in three parallel ordinances and comparing them to the existing ordinance. Councilmember Van Hollebeke commented this issue has been before the Community Services Committee numerous times over the past 312 years, and it has been before the Planning Board seven times. He suggested discussion occur on three categories, 1) small pets normally housed entirely inside, 2) small domestic animals typically housed outdoors, and 3) large domestic animals. City Attorney Scott Snyder agreed with Councilmember Van Hollebeke's suggestion, pointing out that although there are a number of technical changes suggested by Animal Control personnel, staff is seeking direction on these three issues. Council President Haakenson asked what the Planning Board's recommendation was for these three issues. Mr. Chave said the Planning Board felt the number of three household pets (new term - small domestic animals) should be increased to five. The'Planning Board also felt poultry and covered animals should be allowed but more regulations /conditions under which they are kept should be included in the code such as reference to provisions in City Code 5.05. The Planning Board felt 12,000 square feet minimum was not large enough and recommended it be increased to 20,000 for one covered animal. The Planning Board's ordinance provides a Conditional Use process for exceeding the number of animals or for a different type of animal not addressed in the ordinance. Fowl were still allowed and were defined along with small domestic animals. Mayor Fahey observed the Planning Board's recommendation is a change from the existing regulations pertaining to chickens. Mr. Chave answered yes. Mayor Fahey said exotic birds were not addressed in the ordinance. Mr. Chave agreed exotic birds were not addressed in the ECDC but ECC Chapter 5.05 may address them. Mayor Fahey inquired about the Planning Board's recommendation regarding exotic birds. Mr. Chave referred to the Planning Board's definitions on page 20 and said the Planning Board's definition of household pets included all types of small animals such as hamsters, mice, gerbils, songbirds, etc. and recommended they not be counted as long as they are kept inside the house and in a manner that did not affect health, welfare, safety. Regarding small domestic animals, the Planning Board determined, based on testimony, that small fowl such as ducks, chickens, pigeons, etc. were more like household pets and they were willing to consider a Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 11, 1999 Page 3 limited number (five) to be kept. This assumed there would be regulations about them not running loose, etc. Mayor Fahey recalled exotic birds raised this issue because although the birds were maintained inside, there were frequently taken outside during the day, which had perceived impacts on the neighbors. She said the provisions did not clearly indicate how enforcement of this would be addressed such as whether large exotic birds can or cannot be maintained outside. Mr. Chave said this was one of the concerns raised when the Community Services Committee reviewed this issue; the ECDC needed to be consistent with the City Code. Councilmember White asked if there was more information in ECDC Chapter 17.35 than the two pages the Council. was provided. Mr. Snyder answered this is a new chapter and the two pages represent the complete chapter. He said this would become an overlay zone for all residential zones. Councilmember White asked what "except as provided herein" referred to. Mr. Snyder said that refers to subsection B on the reverse, which is the grandfathering provision for horses. Mr. Snyder clarified when amending the Zoning Code, the Council is required to consider the Planning Board's recommendation. The Council can pass the Planning Board's recommendation without further hearings or the Council can hold its own public hearing if amendments are to be considered. He explained the intent of this discussion is to determine a document to present for public comment at a, public hearing. Councilmember White asked how ECDC Chapter 17.35 was developed. Mr..Chave said it was a result of Police and Planning staff considering changes in ECC Chapter 5.05, the work done by the Community Services Committee in their attempt to combine the codes in a consolidated manner that would amend ECDC Chapter 17.35 and updates to the ECC Chapter 5.05. He clarified the Planning Board has not reviewed Chapter 17.35 contained on pages 131 and 132. Councilmember White asked where the idea of eliminating covered animals in Edmonds originated. Mr. Chave answered it was a result of discussion at the Community Service Committee. Mr. Snyder said one of the original complaints was waste odors from an adjacent property. Councilmember White asked the origin of the lined -out version of the ordinance on pages 9 - 11. Mr. Chave answered this was transmitted in a letter from Mr. Ericson and was not generated by City staff. Mayor Fahey said one draft indicates covered animals were permitted if they currently exist on a site; however, if the animal dies, it cannot be replaced. Mr. Snyder said the intent was to grandfather the animal, not the land use. The animals could be maintained for their lifetime but they cannot be replaced. Mayor Fahey asked if this was in the Planning Board's recommendation. Mr. Snyder answered no; it was in Draft C. Councilmember White asked where fowl were addressed in Draft C. Mr. Chave referred to Paragraph A on page 131 which states, the keeping of poultry or covered animals within a residential dwelling unit, or upon the premises connected therewith, shall be prohibited except as provided herein. The only provision "herein" addresses covered animals; therefore, since poultry is not accepted, it is prohibited in residential use zones. Mr. Snyder clarified Chapter 17.35 is limited to residential zones, single family and multifamily. Mr. Chave said there was a similar provision on page 84 of Draft B. He pointed out when Draft B was developed, there was no Chapter 17.35 in the Land Use Code that addressed animals as that draft combined Land Use and City Code provisions. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 11, 1999 Page 4 Council President Haakenson observed there were nine letters in the packet and suggested the Council take a ten - minute break to read the letters as he felt they were germane, particularly to the covered animal issue. Councilmembers agreed and Mayor Fahey declared a ten - minute recess. Upon reconvening, Councilmember White explained he visited every place in the City he could find where there is an animal that would be affected by this ordinance other than dogs, cats, etc. The locations were identified via his own knowledge as well as from Animal Control Personnel. He displayed photographs of a residence that has chickens, pointing out the coop and the chickens. He explained this coop is a source of complaints and Hearing Examiner hearings because it allegedly is unkempt and is degrading to the neighborhood. He said the photograph dispels that conclusion. Councilmember White displayed a photograph of a tunnel that allowed horses to pass under Main Street. Another photograph showed two goats at a residence on Main Street. Councilmember White displayed a two photographs of an area north of Perrinville, one of a pasture with outbuildings and another of a street developed with houses. He said when he was growing up, the street that is now developed with houses was a horse pasture. He said people often indicate they like Edmonds for its charm and its character. This ordinance, in a large part, proposes to change that character. It has been said that the City is no longer suburban but is now urban and the City should act urban. He disagreed with that philosophy, pointing out it is not the philosophy of the majority of Edmonds residents. What he has heard for the past four years is that residents do not want to turn the City into Wallingford, which he believed the ordinance was a step toward. His concept of Edmonds is a place where people have a right to continue doing what they have been doing for 38 years in the case of the horses off Main Street and 36 years in the case of the chickens on Main Street, without interference from City government. He said legislating away that ability would be unfortunate. The focus of the Council's deliberation should not be establishing an ordinance that determined whether certain animals were allowed, but rather if a resident has an animal, how it must be maintained. He said nuisance provisions in the ordinance could address any problems. He questioned where regulations would stop once the City began to regulate. He said this would be a poor policy to set and preferred animals be dealt with on a case -by -case and nuisance basis. He disagreed that one horse could destroy a neighborhood because if one horse becomes a nuisance, it can be dealt with. Councilmember Van Hollebeke pointed out the cost of housing in Edmonds and his belief that most were priced at $225,000 +. When there is an offensive situation in a neighborhood, it affects many neighbors. He agreed there were a limited number of properties in the City housing covered animals but there was a high potential for damages, noting a resident indicated they cannot use their deck because of the offensive odor from the animals. He agreed with the concept of dealing with situations as they arise, but questioned how much the City was willing to spend on animal control, addressing the same complaint repeatedly, and whether the ordinance had sufficient "teeth" to regulate repeat offenders. He said testimony indicated there have been numerous complaints about the same situation. He stressed Edmonds is an urbanized community. Council President Haakenson asked if the incident Councilmember Van Hollebeke was referring to was chickens or horses. Councilmember Van Hollebeke said he was referring to testimony before the Community Services Committee about both chickens and horses. Councilmember Van Hollebeke acknowledged people have passionate feelings about their animals. He said if the number of animals are allowed in the manner they have been in the past, there need to be more controls, particularly unifying rules and regulations. He expressed his appreciation for the Planning Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 11, 1999 l Page 5 Board's efforts on this issue. He hoped the City could reach a speedy conclusion to this issue while allowing public input. Councilmember White said the Planning Board has deliberated on this issue for many hours and reached a conclusion opposite of the Community Services Committee on some of the primary issues. The Community Services Committee based their conclusions on continued complaints on specific situations. He said there could only have been 6 -7 situations and assumed one was on Melody Lane. He referred to the seven letters that stated the information presented was not accurate and 32 signatures indicating their opposition to removing the horses. He said this appears to indicate the will of the people involved in this situation. He questioned how the policy had been developed, commented it was apparently not from the people involved in the issue. Councilmember Miller said the proposed new Chapter 17.35 appears to be status quo, with the exception of eliminating poultry. Mr. Chave said poultry are not allowed now. He said one of the enforcement difficulties is poultry was allowed long ago. Although the poultry in the situations that have arisen were present for a long time, the regulations prohibited them were in place when the chickens were established. The grandfathering of covered animals is also different from the current regulations. Councilmember Miller observed that current regulations require animals to be maintained in a generally clean environment. The Planning Board's recommendation has more strict provisions. Mr. Chave explained the Planning Board's recommendation had controls regarding animal waste. Councilmember Miller said he was also opposed to more regulations, commenting Chapter 17.35 is nearly status quo and provides for future growth of the City. He preferred there be more restrictive language regarding waste, commenting with ownership comes responsibility. Mr. Snyder said the difficulty Animal Control Officer Debbie Dawson found is waste removal provisions would require multiple visits to a site and she preferred a one -stop enforcement approach. Mr. Chave said waste is an indication of how an animal is being cared for. Councilmember Earling said the question before the Council is to provide enough information to staff to publicize a hearing. He said Chapter 17.35 outlines the issue as both Councilmember Van Hollebeke and Councilmember White would address it. He agreed it was a "middle of the road/status quo" which ultimately grandfathers out covered animals. He was willing to move forward with a public hearing on this basis. Councilmember White did not like the concept because it mandates the pasture shown in the photograph becoming a housing development, which was not his view of what Edmonds should be. Under Chapter 17.35 the pasture must remain empty or be developed. He pointed out the pasture property for sale on Melody Lane priced at $1.2 million. Although he questioned the land being used for a horse at that price, he was offended it could not be purchased and used as a pasture if a person wanted to. The only option would be construction of 3 - 4 houses. Councilmember Nordquist said the Health Department has a role in some of the issues discussed tonight and suggested their input be sought. Councilmember Earling said although Councilmember White may not agree with the language in Chapter 17.35 on pages 131 and 132, it outlines the issues and could be the basis for a public hearing. Councilmember White asked if Councilmember Earling's proposal was for pages 131 and 132 to be published as the Council's proposal or as text to be discussed at a public hearing. Councilmember Earling said his intent was for it to be text to be discussed at a public hearing. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 11, 1999 Page 6 i Councilmember White requested a Paragraph C be added to page 132 incorporating fowl. Mr. Chave clarified it would be a provision similar to Paragraph B but regarding fowl. Mr. Chave said if the Council made a decision to advertise the public hearing regarding Chapter 17.35, staff would include relevant information from Chapter 5.05 such as the definitions. Council President Haakenson understood Councilmember White's intent and Councilmember Earling's point that Chapter 17.35 was a good discussion document. Council President Haakenson did not agree with grandfathering animals and not the use, as he felt the use should be allowed. As written, poultry are not allowed nor use of property for a horse if the use ceases for 180 days. He said these provisions may encourage residents to testify at a public hearing about what they would like to see. Councilmember Van Hollebeke supported Council President Haakenson's suggestion, commenting he wanted to have residents involved, in the process. He encouraged staff to use everything possible to inform residents such as advertisements at veterinary hospitals, at facilities that sell animal feed, and any facilities frequented by animal owners. He suggested the publication include reprints of the proposed Chapter. COUNCILMEMBER EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER VAN HOLLEBEKE, TO RECOMMEND THE INFORMATION PROVIDED TO THE COUNCIL IN PAGES 131 AND 132, ECDC CHAPTER 17.35, AS THE TEXT FOR THE BASIS OF A HEARING. Councilmember White said it was confusing when Paragraph A addressed the keeping of poultry or covered animals but Paragraph B only addressed covered animals. He said questions will arise regarding how the provisions affect poultry. He agreed the provisions would generate discussion but if the document referred to something as provided herein, there should be something herein. Otherwise, the provisions should state poultry are prohibited. COUNCILMEMBER EARLING, WITH THE AGREEMENT OF THE SECOND, MODIFIED HIS MOTION SO THAT THE FIRST SENTENCE IN PARAGRAPH B READS, "ANY COVERED ANIMAL OR POULTRY PRESENTLY BEING KEPT..." MOTION CARRIED. Mr. Snyder suggested the second sentence in Paragraph B also be revised to read, "In the event that the livestock animal or pouLta dies or is removed or absent from the premises for a continuous period..." It was the consensus of the Council to make this revision. Councilmember White requested the public hearing notification define small domesticated animals to ensure the public understands which animals are being referred to. xve 4. EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING REAL ESTATE MATTERS ession re: eaI Estate "At 8:23 p.m. Mayor Fahey recessed the Council to Executive Session for approximately 30 minutes for discussion of two real estate matters and a legal matter. She advised the Council would adjourn to committee meetings following Executive Session. �G�A:ae,. BARBARA S. FAHEY, M YOR SANDRA S. CHASE, CITY CLERK Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 11, 1999 Page 7 ` AGENDA r. ,•A�:. " EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL Plaza Meeting Room - Library Building 650 Main Street 7:00 =10:00 p.m. MAY 11, 1999 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 MAY 4, 1999 (C) . APPROVAL OF CLAIM WARRANTS #29381 THROUGH #32653 FOR THE WEEK.OF MAY 3, 1999, IN THE AMOUNT OF $397,850.57. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL WARRANTS #24111 THROUGH #24245 FOR THE PAY PERIOD APRIL 16 THROUGH APRIL 30, 1999, IN THE AMOUNT OF $361,133.50. (D) ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM JAMES PROSIC ($10,451.80) (E) REPORT ON BIDS OPENED MAY 4, 1999, FOR THE 1999 STREET OVERLAY PROGRAM AND AWARD OF CONTRACT TO WILDER CONSTRUCTION ($260,996.00 EXCLUDING SALES TAX) (F) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH HWA GEOSCIENCES, INC. FOR 1999 -2000 ONGOING TESTING SERVICES 3. (60 Min.) WORK SESSION — DRAFT ANIMAL REGULATION ORDINANCE 4. (30 Min.) EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING REAL ESTATE MATTERS ADJOURN TO COMMITTEE MEETINGS The City Council Committee meetings are work sessions for the City Council and staff only. The meetings are open to the public but are not public hearings. The City Council will meet separately as committees in different meeting rooms as indicated below. 5. COMMUNITY SERVICES /DEVELOPMENT SERVICES COMMITTEE (Large Plaza Meeting Room, Library Building, 650 Main Street) (A) DISCUSSION ON MID- WATERFRONT WATERWAY ALTERNATIVE DESIGN CONCEPTS (15 Min.) (B) DISCUSSION OF INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH SNOHOMISH COUNTY AND EDMONDS SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR THE OLD WOODWAY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SITE (5 Min.) (C) . .'PROGRESS REPORT ON PUBLIC SAFETY CONSTRUCTION PROJECT (10 Min.) (D) DISCUSSION ON BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENTS FOR FEDERAL AID PROJECTS (10 Min.) (E) POTENTIAL SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS ON RAILROAD AVENUE (10 Min.) CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA MAY 11, 1999 Page 2 of 2 6. PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE (Small Plaza Meeting Room, Library Building, 650 Main Street) (A) PURCHASE OF MULTIMEDIA PROJECTION SYSTEM (10 Min.) (B) DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE REGARDING MISUSE OF 911 SYSTEM (15 Min.) (C) DISCUSSION REGARDING FIRE DEPARTMENT TWO- IN/TWO -OUT REQUIREMENTS (30 Min.) (D) SHELL VALLEY EMERGENCY ROAD DISCUSSION (15 Min.) 7. FINANCE COMMITTEE (Anderson Center, 700 Main Street, Room 113) (A) PROCEDURES REGARDING BUSINESSES DELINQUENT'IN- PAYMENT OF GAMBLING TAXES (15 Min.) (B) STREET DIVISION DUMP TRUCK REPLACEMENT PURCHASE (10 Min.) (C) RECOMMENDATION TO AWARD BANKING SERVICES CONTRACT (20 Min.) (D) PROPOSED INCREASE TO ADVANCE TRAVEL FUND (10 Min.) (E) UPDATE ON GENERAL FUND (5 Min.) (F) APPROVAL OF PETTY CASH EXPENDITURES FOR THE MONTH OF APRIL 1999 (5 Min.) 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.