No preview available
05/19/1998 City CouncilEDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES MAY 199 1998 Following a Special Meeting at 6:40 p.m. to interview candidates for the Architectural Design Board and Arts Commission, 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. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Barbara Fahey, Mayor Gary Haakenson, Council President John Nordquist, Councilmember Michael Plunkett, Councilmember Jim White, Councilmember Dick Van Hollebeke, Councilmember Thomas A. Miller, Councilmember ABSENT Dave Earling, Councilmember APPROVAL OF AGENDA STAFF PRESENT John Westfall, Fire Marshall Robin Hickok, Police Chief Rob Chave, Planning Manager Noel Miller, Public Works Director James Walker, City Engineer Stephen Koho, Wastewater Treatment Plant Mgr Brian McIntosh, Cultural/Recreation Supervisor Scott Snyder, City Attorney Sandy Chase, City Clerk Jeannie Dines, Recorder COUNCILMEMBER VAN HOLLEBEKE MOVED, SECONDEI) BY COUNCILMEMBER WHITE, FOR APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA AS PRESENTED. MOTION CARRIED. 2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COUNCILMEMBER VAN HOLLEBEKE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT HAAKF.NSON, FOR APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA AS SUBMITTED. MOTION CARRIED. The agenda items approved are as follows: (A) ROLL CALL pprove Minutes (B) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MAY 12,1998 pprove (C) APPROVAL OF CLAIM WARRANTS #21476 THRU #24966 FOR THE WEEK OF MAY ]aim 11, 1998, IN THE AMOUNT OF $161,587.74 warrants ervice (D) REPORT ON BIDS OPENED MAY 11, 1998 FOR THE PURCHASE OF FOUR SERVICE ruck TRUCK BODIES AND AWARD OF CONTRACT TO J & D HYDRAULIC & REPAIR odies COMPANY, INC. ($36,730.69) Water Main (E) REPORT ON BIDS OPENED MAY 12, 1998 FOR THE 1998 WATER MAIN Replacemen REPLACEMENT PROGRAM AND AWARD OF CONTRACT TO SANDERS GENERAL CONSTRUCTION, LLC ($325,909.69, Including Sales Tax) Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 19, 1998 Page 1 1 TState vel (� AUTHORIZATION TO TRAVEL TO WILMINGTON, DELAWARE FOR BACKGROUND INVESTIGATION ON LATERAL POLICE OFFICER IS (G) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATIVE PURCHASING AGREEMENT Street verlay (H) AUTHORIZATION TO CALL FOR BIDS FOR THE 1998 STREET OVERLAY Project PROJECT Rolerlt (1) AUTHORIZATION TO ADVERTISE FOR BIDS TO REPLACE UNIT #56, A ROSCO ASPHALT ROLLER rd. Repeaaliling ne (J) ORDINANCE NO. 3212 REPEALING ORDINANCE NO. 3192 IN ORDER TO PREVENT Ord. #3192 CONFLICT OR CONFUSION WITH ORDINANCE NO. 3073 3. AUDIENCE eaic 7 Cindy Wilson, 10808 30th Drive SE, Everett, explained in October her mother suffered a massive heart attack. She was assisted by Medic 7 who provided CPR for over 40 minutes without any response. She was transported to Stevens Hospital where a heart rate was established as the medic unit arrived. Although she had no brain activity for over 8 hours, she was ultimately transferred to Northwest Hospital and survived the incident with no sign of heart damage. Ms. Wilson was amazed at the amount of time CPR was provided to her mother, an extraordinary amount of time according to other firefighters she has spoken with. aic 7 Cathy Daly, 21812 Brier Road, Brier, the sister of Cindy Wilson who just addressed the Council, said until this incident occurred, she had taken the availability of the medic unit for granted. She has since learned that if the incident occurred %2 hour later, the second unit would have been out of service and her mother likely would not have survived. She supported Medic 7 and hoped 24 -hour service could be funded for the second unit. eaic David Clark, 2060 Dealo Lane, Mt. Vernon, one of the Medic paramedics on the response described 0 7 above, shared his personal satisfaction with the outcome and asked the Council to support hiring four new employees. He explained that although they worked a long time on this patient, they would not have done so if they did not feel certain she could survive. He pointed out Advanced Life Support techniques and medications were required to save this patient and this patient likely would not have survived if paramedic response took 10 minutes or more. He personally urged the Council to consider hiring four new paramedics for Medic 7 as soon as possible. Councilmember Miller thanked Mr. Clark for the outstanding service Medic 7 provides, particularly for this individual. He observed the service Medic 7 provides is well beyond that provided by other medic programs in the country. Medic 7 Betty Mueller, 209 Caspers Street, Edmonds, explained Medic 7 services are currently provided with one unit full time and a second unit 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. She pointed out during the evening hours all of south Snohomish County, from the County line to north of 164th, is covered by a single medic unit operated from Stevens Hospital. Mutual aid Advanced Life Support response can result in a 20- minute response time, which she felt, was unacceptable. She said all areas should have consistently good service. She explained 91% of Lynnwood residents voted yes on the EMS levy, 78% of Edmonds Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 19, 1998 Page 2 residents, and the majority of residents in Brier and Woodway. She acknowledged expanding the Medic 7 program would increase the cost but said the EMS levy increase could cover the increased hours for the second unit. She requested Council President Haakenson, the Council's representative on the Medic 7 Board, vote at the May 21 Medic 7 meeting in favor of keeping Medic 7 and funding the second unit full time. In the meantime, she recommended a better way of funding Basic Life Support and Advanced Life Support as a priority equal to fire and police services be considered. She summarized her desire to keep Medic 7 services intact and to fund the second unit full time, and commented "we will pay for it." At Rutledge, 7101 Lake Ballinger Way, Edmonds, urged the City to find the letter regarding itigation mitigation fees. He also encouraged the City to fund maintenance of Lake Ballinger. He described a Fees five - vehicle accident that occurred near I -5 and 15th Avenue and the response time of emergency vehicles. He suggested an emergency test run to determine whether adequate emergency service is available. tions Kevin Clarke, 23924 107th Place W, Edmonds, recalled on April 21, he requested that the Council gram require the Edmonds School District to have a security guard at the Options Program. He planned to request information from the City regarding the number of crimes that have been committed by students attending the Options Program. He described an incident where students from the Options Program accosted an elementary student at a CT bus stop on 100th and stole his CD player. The elementary student's mother approached the Options Program students the next day and an altercation ensued. Another parent called police who came to the parent's home, took her and the elementary student to the Options Program and identified the student, whom police then arrested. Mr. Clarke pointed out the Options Program students do not have constant supervision. He referred to the youth smoking ordinance recently passed in the City and said it is not being enforced in their area. He questioned why the police were not patrolling the area before and after school and urged the City to put pressure on the School District to close the program, as it is a public nuisance. ERoger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, Edmonds, explained two weeks ago he spoke to the Council onse to regarding a complaint he filed. Although code enforcement looked at the situation immediately, no plaint further action has been taken. He pointed out four pieces of correspondence from the City and one from him have not resulted in resolution of his complaint ( #ZE 98 -39). He read from the letter sent to the suspected violator which informed him that a complaint had been filed and the City would respond to the complaint in the future as time became available. He said a letter sent to him stated his letter had been sent to the sign company; he questioned whether this violated his privacy rights. He questioned how the City would enforce future sign ordinances when staff does not appear to be interested in enforcement. He urged the Mayor and staff to address his complaint and make a determination. edit Rich Demeroutis, 921 Pine Street, Edmonds, pointed out Medic 7 response is within 8 minutes an average of only 72% of the time when one unit is in service. He pointed out one area of the community receives an 8 minute response only 46% of the time. He referred to the interlocal agreement with Lynnwood, Mountlake Terrace, Edmonds, Woodway, and Brier, which should entitle all member cities to have equal service under the contract. He stressed an 8 minute response 80% of the time was needed in all areas. He said more than $100,000 would be sacrificed if the Medic 7 program was not improved for the entire area. He urged the Council not to "short change the voters." Options Mel Critchley, 705 Driftwood Place, Edmonds, questioned why no one was responding to the request rogram for a security guard at the Options Program. Also, he pointed out the citizens paid for the best medic service (via the EMS levy) and should receive the best service. On another matter, he described his own Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 19, 1998 Page 3 experience with the City's lack of response three years ago when nine sailors were on his beach engaging in illegaY acts. The police were called but never arrived so he approached the individuals himself. The police department was unwilling to pursue the matter but the prosecuting attorney contacted the Naval Station Commander who had the sailors apologize. urchase of Jeff Lewis, 23621 92nd Avenue W, Edmonds, said his comments regarding the tidelands were quoted idelands out of context in the newspaper; he did not have a conflict with the appraisal done by Kevin Clarke, who is a hard working man of integrity and is beyond reproach. Mr. Lewis said he did support having a second appraisal conducted. He referred to the editorials in the Seattle Times and EntMrise criticizing the Council's handling of the tidelands purchase. He complimented Councilmember Plunkett for voting against the purchase. Response to Mayor Fahey asked Police Chief Hickok to address the police activity occurring near the Options Concerns Raised Re: Program. Police Chief Hickok said they have increased patrols in the area but the patrols are not done on Options a regular basis. The High School Resource Officer has been spending more time with the Options Program Program students. The Police Department has met with the School District Superintendent regarding the Options Program as well as zoning, and another meeting will be held to discuss options and other problems in the City. He said some arrests have been made at the Options Program. Councilmember Plunkett asked if the number of arrests have increased. Chief Hickok was not aware whether the number has increased, only that some arrests have been made. Councilmember Plunkett asked if it was possible to have an officer present in the morning and afternoon for the remainder of the school year. Chief Hickok said this could be done occasionally but he could not guarantee their presence as they are responding to many other calls. Mayor Fahey said another discussion would be held with the School District regarding a security officer on site for the remainder of the school year. Councilmember Plunkett asked if the School District had security personnel that could be on site. Chief Hickok said in the past the School District had security personnel that patrolled schools at night for vandalism. Councilmember Plunkett asked whom he would call at the School District to inquire about security personnel. Chief Hickok answered he could contact an assistant superintendent in charge of security. Public 4• PROCLAMATION IN RECOGNITION OF NATIONAL PUBLIC WORKS WEEK Works Wee Mayor Fahey read a Proclamation declaring May 17 - 23 as Public Works Week in Edmonds and presented the Proclamation to Public Works Superintendent Noel Miller. Mayor Fahey explained it was appropriate once a year to acknowledge the enormous amount of work the Public Works department does. She noted the Public Works Department's contribution to maintaining the City's quality of life is frequently underestimated. Mr. Miller explained Lynnwood, Mountlake Terrace, Brier, Edmonds, Olympic View Water District, Woodway, and Brier (and possibly Shoreline) would meet for lunch at the Edmonds Public Works Facility and participate in events such as the backhoe bucket contest and the water main tapping contest. He invited the public to visit the Public Works Facility. He thanked the Council for funding the construction of this new facility three years ago; commenting the new facility improved their ability to deliver service to the community. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 19, 1998 Page 4 [Aquatic 5. PROCLAMATION IN RECOGNITION OF NATIONAL AQUATIC WEEK eek Mayor Fahey read a Proclamation declaring May 17 -24 as National Aquatic Week in Edmonds, noting that Yost Pool would be opening for its 26th season on May 23. Mayor Fahey presented the Proclamation to Cultural/Recreation Supervisor Brian McIntosh, who is responsible for the ongoing maintenance of the pool. She thanked Mr. McIntosh for his efforts to keep the pool operating in the black which few other pools are able to do. 6. REPORT ON COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS Community Community Services Committee Services Committee Chairperson Van Hollebeke reported each year the City is required to adopt a six -year plan Committee for transportation improvements in the City. A recent petition from citizens for a sidewalk project on Maplewood Drive was discussed; staff will survey all residents on that street to determine the level of desire for a sidewalk. The funding of bicycle improvements was also discussed including more marked routes as well as a need for more bicycle racks. Street standards were also discussed. An ordinance to create an enterprise fund was scheduled to be reviewed but the Finance Committee had concerns about this item and recommended the Community Services Committee not review it at this time. Finance Finance Committee , ommittee Committee Member Miller reported the Finance Committee considered an ordinance to create an enterprise fund to capitalize on the City's logo and the public relations logo that has been created to promote Edmonds. Staff was directed to solicit input from the retail association. Petty Cash expenditures were approved without any discussion. The replacement of the City's 30- year -old ladder truck at a cost of $800,000 was discussed, including methods of financing, the issue of automatic and mutual aid, and the legitimacy of Edmonds purchasing a new ladder truck. The Finance Committee agreed to place this item on the May 26 Council agenda due to the cost increase on the chassis on July 1 with the understanding that it is moving forward without any recommendation. ublic Public Safety Committee Safety Committee Chairperson Nordquist reported the Public Safety Committee also reviewed the acquisition of Committee I a ladder truck and recommended it be placed on the full Council agenda. The Committee recommended approval of new fire hoses. Approval for travel for a Police Officer for a background investigation was recommended and was approved on the Consent Agenda. Don Kinney of the Dive Team made a presentation that both he and Councilmember White recommended be made to the full Council, possibly on June 2. He encouraged the public to watch the presentation. He commended the dedication of the Dive Team members both in physical activity as well as study. Interim 7. HEARING ON INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 3209 AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF Zoning CHAPTER 20.60 RELATING TO SIGN PERMITS TO PROVIDE FOR AN INTERIM STUDY Ordinance PERIOD REGARDING A -FRAME AND SANDWICH BOARD DIRECTIONAL SIGNS. 3209 - DESIGNATING A SIX -MONTH STUDY PERIOD AND DIRECTING ENFORCEMENT Signs PRIORITIES Mayor Fahey explained the Community Services Committee reviewed this issue and recommended it be placed on the full Council agenda. As a result, an interim ordinance was reviewed and adopted by the Council on April 7. This public hearing is required following adoption of an interim ordinance. City Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 19, 1998 Page 5 Attorney Scott Snyder explained the City is required by State Statute to hold a public hearing within 60 days. The Council will issue written findings at the conclusion of the hearing. Planning Manager Rob Chave advised this hearing was a follow -up to the interim ordinance the Council approved approximately 30 days ago. The purpose of the ordinance was to put businesses on notice that the City is embarking on a six -month study of sign regulations, including sandwich board signs specifically. He noted there has been a great deal of interest and debate regarding the use of sandwich board signs to supplement business' advertising. The six month study will include an open house to solicit input from the business community and the public regarding sign types and locations. He commented the Comprehensive Plan states signage should be appropriate for the area it is located in; therefore, the Sign Code should reflect the differences in areas throughout the City. The purpose of the six -month study period is to allow sandwich board signs during the study period as well as an opportunity to make business owners aware if a sandwich board sign is placed on private property or blocking a right -of -way, it will be subject to enforcement. Mayor Fahey emphasized one of the major concerns with sandwich board signs is that some businesses have begun placing them in rights -of -way, which creates a barrier to pedestrians and may cause accidents. Under the ordinance, it is clearly illegal for a business to place a sign in a right -of -way. The City will make every effort to eliminate those risks and will confiscate signs that are in violation. Council President Haakenson asked whether business owners had been notified of the public hearing on sandwich board signs. Mr. Chave answered the standard public hearing notification procedure had been followed; there was no special notification. Council President Haakenson referred to the comment in the staff report that a City-wide mailing to explain the issues would be considered and said he was uncomfortable holding a public hearing without inviting those who would be affected by the issue. City Clerk Sandy Chase explained standard notification includes publication in the Herald two week before the hearing, posting at the Public Safety Building, Post Office, and Library, and publication of the agenda in the Heral d, as well as and on cable television. Mayor Fahey opened the public participation portion of the hearing. Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, Edmonds, read from the information provided to the Council by staff, "any sign in violation shall be confiscated as soon as it is noted." He urged the Council not to take action unless it could be enforced. He read, "sign regulations are a high priority for the Planning Department" and he reiterated his concern with the way the Planning Department reacted to violations. He cautioned the Council not to create more ordinances unless they could be enforced. He observed Council President Haakenson's discomfort (with the lack of notification) was often felt by citizens when the Planning Department did the standard notification for important issues. He urged the Council to advertise public hearings, as an advertisement in the newspaper if necessary, and not expect residents would just hear about public hearings. Al Rutledge, 7101 Lake Ballinger Way, Edmonds, said commercial rezones in several areas of the City would result in signage throughout the City. He suggested a solution would be a reader board downtown. Mayor Fahey closed the public participation portion of the hearing. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 19, 1998 Page 6 For Councilmember Miller, Mr. Chave said enforcement procedures usually require a complaint. Enforcement may be assisted during the study period as the interim ordinance provides more authority for the City to act immediately regarding violations rather than the normal period of time required for enforcement. In the past, the City has relied on voluntary compliance rather than picking up signs. He said staff had not done a detailed assessment of the amount of time that enforcement would require. A determination will be made during the six month study period regarding the impact enforcement would have as well as the response from the business community. Mr. Snyder clarified it is now illegal, and has been since 1980, to maintain an A -frame sign within the City; however, due to enforcement priorities and staffing, this issue has not been aggressively enforced for a number of years. From a liability standpoint, the City must maintain the safety of its sidewalks and must maintain the right of passage within ADA standards in the downtown area. Due to changes in Washington State Law in the recent past, portions of the public right -of -way can be forums for free speech, such as campaign signs. It is important the City reach a decision regarding A -frame signs during the six month period before entering a campaign period because if A -frame signs are allowed in the public right -of -way, any form of free expression must also be allowed, including political signs. Mr. Chave explained staffs priority has been to identify alternatives to A -frame signs so that everyone would be comfortable with eliminating A -frame signs. Councilmember Van Hollebeke shared Council President Haakenson's concern regarding the lack of testimony. He observed the Planning Board would begin discussion of this issue on June 10 and encouraged staff to do a mailing to those businesses that would be impacted. He also suggested staff follow Mr. Hertrich's suggestion to place advertisements in the newspaper regarding the public hearing rather than only the standard public notification. He was aware of numerous businesses that were interested in this issue. Mr. Chave noted the June 10 Planning Board meeting would be only a discussion of this issue, not a public hearing; the public hearing would be held 2 -3 weeks later. Notification of the public hearing would be mailed to businesses in advance of the Planning Board meeting. Mayor Fahey pointed out the City has been trying to address the issue of sandwich board signs for over two years. Letters have been sent to businesses, both individually and once to all businesses in the bowl area, citing the ordinance and requesting voluntary compliance as well as holding a meeting to discuss alternatives. This six month study period is a cooperative effort with the merchants to allow A -frame signs for an interim period in an appropriate manner that does not violate the ordinance and also does not create a safety hazard. She clarified the ordinance would allow businesses to display signs where they might not otherwise have been allowed but also to notify them that signs inappropriately located would be confiscated without a notification procedure. Councilmember Van Hollebeke recommended staff solicit feedback from merchants regarding alternatives to A -frame signs as soon as possible so a more attractive and permanent solution could be developed. Council President Haakenson referred to the staff report, which states the purpose of the ordinance is to enable businesses to place sandwich board signs on their property. He asked whether businesses could do this currently. Mr. Chave answered under the current code, sandwich board signs were allowed only as a temporary advertisement. Permanent sandwich board signs were not allowed under the current code. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 19, 1998 Page 7 Mr. Snyder pointed out sandwich board signs were inappropriate for three reasons, 1) the sign ordinance, 2) the amount of square footage allowed for signage, and 3) lack of Architectural Design Board approval. Council President Haakenson preferred an alternative to A -frame signs be developed before enforcement began. He felt this could be accomplished without an ordinance. ECDC 16. 8, HEARING ON THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO EDMONDS CO TN1TY 20.010.C.1 - DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 16.20.010.C.1 PERTAINING TO THE REGULATIONS Community Facilities GOVERNING THE LOCATION OF COMMUNITY FACILITIES IN SINGLE FA_NHLY (RS) ZONES (Applicant: Edmonds Planning Division / File No CDC -97 -123) Planning Manager Rob Chave recalled the Council held a public hearing regarding this issue on March 2 and voted not to approve the code amendment. On March 17, the Council voted to reconsider the issue on April 21, and subsequently set May 19 (tonight) as a new public hearing date. He said the circumstances have not changed since that time. The ECDC states community facilities such as elementary schools, nursery schools, fire stations, electric substations, pumping stations, water storage, libraries, churches, parks, recreation facilities, and bus stop shelters must be located on arterial or collector streets. A facility would require a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) but would also be required to be located on a collector or arterial street. The City received letters from churches inquiring about minor additions or remodeling to enhance their facilities and discovered these facilities were non - conforming and could not even apply for a permit to remodel because they were not located on a collector or arterial street. The Planning Board supported the proposed amendment as they felt the requirement that a community facility be located on a collector or arterial street was unnecessary. The Planning Board also felt the CUP process, which includes a public hearing, would allow application of conditions to assure the community facility fits within the community or the project could be denied if it was deemed inappropriate. Mr. Chave displayed a map of the non - conforming community facilities in residential zones, which include schools, parks, utilities, churches, and a cemetery. He explained the proposed code amendment would remove the requirement that a community facility be located on a collector or arterial street but only for those community facilities listed (elementary schools, nursery schools, fire stations, electric substations, pumping stations, water storage, libraries, churches, parks, recreation facilities, and bus stop shelters). He pointed out a high school would still not be allowed in a residential neighborhood, even with a CUP. Staff recommends approval of the amendment. He explained the code provides the City the ability to do an abatement process for a non - conforming use. This was done several years ago for a number of commercial uses in residential zones that the City wanted to ensure were discontinued over a period of time. He stressed the abatement process was not automatic but was a potential for certain non- conforming uses. He pointed out this could result in unintentional abatement of a use. Councilmember Miller recalled he originally voted against the amendment due to his concern with degradation of the quality of life in neighborhoods. When the issue was reconsidered, he wanted to see a limited scope of CUP opportunities to maintain the quality of life. He asked why bus stop shelters were not identified on the map of community facilities in residential zones. Mr. Chave said Community Transit (CT) provided a list of their current bus stops and all were located on collector or arterial streets and therefore were not included on the map. Councilmember Miller asked if a bus stop shelter could be erected in a residential zone if the amendment was approved. Mr. Chave answered it would require a CUP process but he assumed CT would continue to locate bus stop shelters on its bus routes on collector or arterial streets. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 19, 1998 Page 8 Councilmember Nordquist referred to the recommended definition of an elementary school and the City Attorney's recommendation to include "nonresidential" in the definition (An elementary school is a nonresidential school for the first six to eight grades, including pre - school and kindergarten programs operated in conjunction with an elementary school use). Mr. Snyder stated that under the Fair Housing Act amendments, if the definition of a school included residential schools, the City would be required by Federal law to accommodate any residential school for the disabled. The definition of disability includes recovering drug addicts, alcoholics and a variety of other behavioral problems that are disabilities under the law, regardless of age. Limiting the use to non - residential would protect the City from unintended consequences. Councilmember Miller asked if this language would allow the School District to operate an Options -type program in a residential neighborhood. Mr. Snyder said the language would prohibit it. He stressed the Options Program is not non - conforming, it is illegal. It .exists due to a decision to forbear from prosecution until the school year ends. He reiterated the Options Program was not a permitted use now and would not be permitted in the future. Council President Haakenson asked when the wording regarding abatement was added. Mr. Snyder answered it was added in 1976 or 1977 as a result of several large annexations that included commercial activities located in residential areas. He explained although the City cannot take property without just compensation it can make a decision regarding the useful life of commercial facilities. By notifying a business owner that their commercial use can be maintained for a period of time, they are aware additional maintenance /upkeep should not be put into a facility that must revert to a residential use at the end of a period of time. This is based on a legislative assumption that those uses could be abated and business owners could realize their reasonable expectation over a period of years. The ordinance has a constitutionally required provision that allows a hearing to be requested to establish the useful life of a commercial use and the Council can grant an extended amortization period based upon a reasonable investment expectation. He explained if the City wished to enforce the ordinance, consideration must be given to what the Council wants to abate; prepare an inventory of commercial and other non - conforming uses in addition to non - conforming community facilities; make amendments to the ordinance; and notify business owners of the extended amortization period including an appraisal to determine the expected useful life of a building to be abated. Council President Haakenson referred to the statement, "any non - residential use located in a residential zone district or in the OS zone district shall be discontinued within 15 years after the use first became non - conforming." He questioned the meaning of "shall," noting this appeared abatement was mandatory. Mr. Snyder pointed out the City was required to notify a business owner of their right to request a hearing and an extended amortization period. If this is not done, the 15- -year period would not apply. Council President Haakenson observed there may be many non - residential uses that should have already been abated according to the code. Mr. Snyder answered there could be. Councilmember Plunkett asked whether an electrical substation could be located on a residential street if the amendment was approved. Mr. Chave answered they would be eligible to apply for a permit. Mr. Snyder pointed out sewer lift stations are located based on water pressure and gravity. Councilmember Plunkett asked if a "grandfathering" mechanism such as variances could be utilized such as designating a residential street as an arterial. He asked if the Planning Board had considered other solutions and if the City Attorney had been consulted. Mr. Chave answered the Planning Board had considered options but none could be accomplished without rewriting major portions of the code. He Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 19, 1998 Page 9 pointed out revisions to the code can have unanticipated effects on other areas of the code. The Planning Board felt the CUP would be adequate, as the use was not changing. Councilmember Plunkett asked if the City Attorney had been consulted. Mr. Chave answered yes. Mayor Fahey referred to Councilmember Plunkett's comment regarding redesignating a residential street as an arterial and requested Mr. Chave provide further clarification of this action. Mr. Chave explained in one specific case, the Hearing Examiner determined the street a community facility was located on functioned like a collector /arterial and he felt it was appropriate to approve the application. However, the Comprehensive Plan does not identify the street as a collector /arterial and the Hearing Examiner's decision did not change the status of the street. Further, this decision was specific to that application and did not grant any rights for any future applications. He noted at the request of another church, the Comprehensive Plan designation of the street it was located on (7th Avenue l) was changed to a collector as it had previously been designated incorrectly. Mr. Snyder pointed out the Hearing Examiner's decision did not offer any certainty to the next applicant as courts are not required to give deference to legal interpretations of administrative bodies. Councilmember White requested staff describe the process to place an electric substation in a neighborhood. Mr. Chave explained an application for a CUP would be required as well as submittal of names for notification of property owners within 300 feet of the proposed site. Advertising and notification of the application would take place, followed by a hearing by the Hearing Examiner whose decision was appealable to the City Council. A SEPA process would likely also be required for an electrical substation, which requires the same notification as the CUP. A substantial EIS to address the impact on the neighborhood from service vehicles, how the structure would be screened, etc. would also be required. The City would have the ability during the EIS or SEPA process to impose conditions or find it was an impact that could not be mitigated which would lead to denial. A review of other possible locations would also be required. Mayor Fahey opened the public participation portion of the hearing. Kurt Olden, 9117 238th Street SW, Edmonds, was opposed to the amendment to remove the collector /arterial wording from the code. He felt this would lower the level of protection from community facilities locating in neighborhoods and made the CUP the only form of protection that he felt was not strict enough. He noted this would allow the siting of a recreational facility or a church in a residential neighborhood, which would increase traffic on residential streets. Rather than changing the code, he suggested each facility be reviewed on a case by case basis to determine if the facilities that are out of compliance are already located on a collector /arterial street. He pointed out Snohomish County did traffic studies of many of the streets in their neighborhoods and he recommended Edmonds research Snohomish County's records, do its own traffic studies, and update the transportation element of the Comprehensive Plan. If some of the sewer lift stations still are non - conforming, they should be granted a variance to allow them to remain. Other facilities should follow the regulations in the code or be abated. He said removing the collector /arterial wording was too broad a change. He referred to an e-mail he received from Dr. Susan Torans who stated a typical elementary school is defined as K -6. If the word elementary is changed or removed, the School District would be allowed unlimited access to place any type of school program they operate into a neighborhood. He summarized they do not want an Options Program or alternative high school in their neighborhood. Gary McCaig, 9120 236th SW, Edmonds, urged the Council to vote no, stating there were good reasons for the original ordinance such as preserving neighborhood character and limiting traffic and Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 19, 1998 Page 10 accompanying safety and nuisance factors. He suggested the concerns of schools, churches, etc. be addressed without removing the wording and commented zoning changes are a one -way street, regulations get looser, not more restrictive. He said the CUP and SEPA would be the only protections left. He pointed out the position of future Councils and/or Mayor's regarding CUP's as well as the economic environment in 10 -15 years is unknown. He said the CUP process was inadequate and urged the Council to vote no. Kevin Clarke, 23924 107th Place W, Edmonds, said he has spent over 100 hours researching this complex land use issue. He recalled when the Council voted against the proposed amendment in March, Councilmember Miller recommended the Planning Department reconsiders the issue but no new concepts were developed. He referred to the map of non - conforming uses in .residential zones and said if the 17 substations were removed, and 238th was analyzed properly, there were only six properties in the City that are non - conforming use in residential zones (three churches and three schools). He visited each site and found they were located in former unincorporated areas of Snohomish County whose infrastructure is not appropriate for an expansion of the use (open ditches, narrow streets, and no sidewalks). He commented many churches and schools enter into private agreements that allow them to use each other's parking lots. He pointed out Westgate Chapel, which is located in a multi- family residential zone, has a new parking lot located in a single - family zone. He pointed out the United Korean Church has a CT Park 'n Ride lot. He urged the Council to review the public hearing held in December; no representatives from churches or schools were present and no public testimony was provided. He said the Planning Board minutes reflect their (and staffs) concern with public safety issues. He urged the Council to send the issue back to the Planning Board. Bret Carlstad, Property Manager, Edmonds School District, 20420 68th Avenue W, Lynnwood, said the Edmonds School District has two sites that previously were in the County. Without the proposed amendment, the School District is not allowed to upgrade its facilities or even maintain them at a standard to keep them viable facilities for the students who live in these neighborhoods. He explained the land the Madrona School occupies came to the Edmonds School District from the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and has restricted educational covenants associated with it. If the Edmonds School District ceases to use the building for educational purposes, it reverts back to DNR. Without the proposed change, the School District's ability to continue to meet its mission (to educate youth) is greatly hampered. He summarized the School District's ability to maintain facilities to a standard the community appears to desire is greatly minimized unless the proposed amendment is approved. COUNCILMEMBER VAN HOLLEBEKE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT HAAKENSON, TO EXTEND DISCUSSIONOF THIS ITEM FOR 15 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED. Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, Edmonds, suggested only consideration of the elementary schools and churches be returned to the Planning Board such as establishing a special category. He pointed out the concern was with new facilities; if the collector /arterial wording was removed, any new facility could be located in a residential area. He recommended parks be defined according to size as well as the type and size of recreational facilities. He stressed the Planning Board should be the next step rather than a vote to change the code. He pointed out non- conforming facilities can be upgraded for ADA compliance. Jan Robertson, 10523 240th Place SW, Edmonds, a resident since 1969 who opposed annexation for many years, said she did not hear any mention of this issue at the annexation meetings. Although she is pleased to be in Edmonds, there is poor communication as none of them subscribe to the Everett Herald. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 19, 1998 Page 1 l She suggested these uses be grandfathered and questioned how the Restlawn Cemetery could be abated. She cautioned the Council not to rush into making Edmonds look more like Lynnwood. Jeff Lewis, 23621 92nd Avenue W, Edmonds, said he lives next door to the Madrona School. When he moved to the area, Madrona was a middle school with heavy woods on three sides. Nearly every household had been broken into and numerous other crimes occurred. The school then closed and was vacant (and not returned to DNR) prior to the Madrona K -8 program. He said the Madrona K -8 has been a great neighbor and are willing to work . with the community. He preferred the definition of an elementary school be K -6 or K -8 rather than "the first six to eight grades." He recalled the misunderstanding that occurred at the March 2 meeting and said his efforts to get neighbors to attend the Council meeting indicated many are disillusioned with the Council. He referred to the December 10, 1997, Planning Board meeting minutes when Planning Supervisor Jeff Wilson stated, "under the legal description of a non - conforming use, the ability to expand includes an increase in floor area. This expansion is not allowed" (referring to improvements _for ADA compliance). When this statement was made again in March, Mr. Snyder corrected him. He observed Mr. Snyder had not attended any of the Planning Board meetings and recommended Mr. Snyder have input into this issue. He agreed this issue should be returned to the Planning Board for further research. John Anderson Taylor, 9205 236th Street SW, Edmonds, stated that he favored grandfathering the existing community facilities and maintaining Edmonds as a beautiful, pristine community. He urged the City not to bring the Options Program to the Madrona School, commenting such programs must be contained so they do not contaminate. Al Rutledge, 7101 Lake Ballinger Way, Edmonds, said many community facilities do not even have paved parking lots and were not interested in selling /developing their property. Jim Young, 23730 107th Place W, Edmonds, said his understanding of the proposed amendment was it would allow the Edmonds School District to use any existing school building for grades K -12. He was opposed to this change as existing zoning rules were in place to give the City and citizens control over how land and buildings are used. He opposed changes to the code that would reduce zoning protection to all residents and believed there were existing ways to meet the Edmonds School District and churches' objectives. With no further public testimony, Mayor Fahey closed the public participation portion of the hearing. Mr. Snyder clarified the code change would not authorize high school uses; the definition of elementary school is limited to K -8. He explained there was nothing in the amendment that would automatically require abatement of the current uses; that would require significant code changes as well as notification. Council President Haakenson referred to page 3 of the Council packet and read, "Note that the proposed amendment does not alter the list of facilities that are potentially permitted with a CUP. As listed in ECDC 16.20.010.C, the only uses eligible for a CUP are the following: elementary schools, nursery schools, fire stations, electric substations, pumping stations, water storage, libraries, churches, parks, recreation facilities and bus stop shelters." He questioned whether other uses could be added to this list or apply for a CUP. Mr. Chave answered no. Council President Haakenson asked if there were other alternatives to allow remodeling of schools and churches. He pointed out it was necessary to allow schools to remodel as students in the neighborhoods Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 19, 1998 Page 12 attend these schools. Mr. Chave said some facilities (parks, schools) could request a rezone to "Public." Public is a broader use category and would enable a property rezoned to Public to accommodate an elementary school to be changed to a high school in the future without additional action. Another alternative would be to change the non - conforming use provisions to be less restrictive in what they are allowed to do. It was felt this was a larger issue due to the possible impact on other non - conforming uses that the City did not want to allow to be expanded. Council President Haakenson asked if Mr. Chave felt all alternatives had been considered. Mr. Chave answered all alternatives had been considered that would not involve a longer process. For example, a revision to the non - conforming use provisions would be a long -term code amendment process due to the additional potential impacts. He said the non - conforming use provisions apply Citywide to many other situations. Staff is confident the CUP and SEPA process will provide sufficient safeguards. Councilmember Miller asked how the City would enforce a church using its parking lot as a CT Park 'n Ride. Mr. Chave stated a facility would be permitted to have a small -scale commuter parking facility; a larger facility would require an approval process. He was not aware if the situation mentioned was approved in the City or was pre- existing in the County. Councilmember Miller observed a community police station was not on the list and questioned if amendments to the list would be required in the future. Mr. Chave said it was possible but there have been no requests made. Councilmember Miller asked if there was another process to allow churches to make improvements. Mr. Snyder explained they were allowed to do normal repairs and maintenance as long as there is no expansion of the floor area. Mr. Chave pointed out the code also prohibited expansion of the number of employees, equipment, hours of operation, etc. Councilmember Nordquist said he voted in opposition to the amendment on March 2 and was out of town when it was reconsidered. He explained when the ECDC was first developed, it was the citizens' vision. He said possibly the entire ECDC should be re- evaluated and include more citizen involvement. Mr. Chave agreed the issue was whether the Council was comfortable with the proposed amendment to accomplish the intent. If not, a longer process would be required and applicants would be encouraged to participate in the process. Councilmember Plunkett observed there appeared to be conflicting values -- protection of community facilities versus protection of neighborhoods. He preferred the code be rewritten if the alternative was lowering the protection of neighborhoods. COUNCIL PRESIDENT HAAKENSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MILLER, TO EXTEND DISCUSSION OF THIS ITEM FOR 20 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember White asked staff to describe the process to change the code. Mr. Chave said it would depend on the direction provided by the Council. He pointed out the ECDC was developed 20 years ago; rewriting it entirely has been an unfunded priority. He pointed out amendments to the ECDC often have unanticipated impacts elsewhere in the code and may make it less clear, conflicting, and difficult to enforce and interpret. He noted there have been changes in the City over the past 20 years that the code may not have kept up with. If an overall code rewrite were desired, resources would be required. Options to deal with minor modifications /expansions to non - conforming uses would be more manageable but would take some time. Councilmember White asked Mr. Chave to describe the amount of time necessary for the latter task. Mr. Chave estimated it would take at least until the end of the year to identify options, conduct a public Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 19, 1998 Page 13 process and time to rewrite the provisions. He clarified although an approach could be formulated and public input provided by the end of the year, the Council likely would not review it until spring. Councilmember White asked if it was legally possible to pass an ordinance and establish a moratorium on new CUP applications and repeal the ordinance in the future. Mr. Snyder said yes, the purpose of interim zoning ordinances or moratoria is to permit the Council to do the type of planning that is being discussed. Councilmember White observed an ordinance could be passed and a moratorium established on new entities seeking a CUP which would allow existing facilities to request modifications and in the future the ordinance could be repealed. Mr. Snyder said he would need to research this further but said restrictions would be necessary to make a distinction between new and existing applicants. Council President Haakenson referred to Councilmember White's suggestion and asked if this would result in a "run" on CUP applications due to the assumption the ordinance would be repealed in the future. Mr. Chave pointed out the number of facilities affected likely would not result in a "run" on CUPS. Mr. Snyder suggested, rather than a moratoria, an interim zoning ordinance that would address the current provisions of non - conforming buildings and uses (schools and churches) such as allowing current, non - conforming public facilities to do maintenance, repair, or remodel that does not increase existing floor area by a (to be determined) percentage. Therefore minor architectural changes that are currently prohibited would be permitted as long as they did not alter the type of use or substantially expand the facility. Councilmember White said he wanted to be more liberal, noting the existing ordinance would not permit a new HVAC system. Mayor Fahey commented that staff was attempting to identify a solution for existing facilities and preclude any new non - conforming facilities on a residential street. She noted any of the facilities being discussed could request a rezone to Public. She suggested consideration be given to ways to grandfather the existing uses and allow them to make improvements to meet their needs but not allow any new community facilities on residential streets. COUNCIL PRESIDENT HAAKENSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, TO EXTEND THE HEARING FOR 20 MINUTES AND THE COUNCIL MEETING FOR ONE HOUR. MOTION CARRIED. Mr. Chave observed this unique problem occurred as a result of recently annexed areas. In Edmonds, all schools and parks are zoned Public which was not done in Snohomish County. Further, Edmonds' residential zoning regulations are more restrictive than Snohomish County's. Mr. Snyder stated that from, comments received this evening, it is his understanding that the Council wanted to address existing schools and churches that are legal nonconforming uses and recently annexed into the City, without "opening the door" to any broad changes to avoid unintended consequences. Mayor Fahey remanded the matter to Council for deliberation and action. COUNCILMEMBER WHITE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, THAT THE COUNCIL DIRECT THE MAYOR TO DIRECT STAFF TO EXAMINE ALTERNATIVES TO THE CURRENT ORDINANCE WITH A VIEW TOWARD RECOGNIZING THE EXISTING FACILITIES AND CREATING THE ABILITY FOR THEM TO MAINTAIN THEIR CURRENT USE AND REASONABLE EXPANSION OF THE USE WHILE AT THE SAME TIME RESTRICTING ADDITIONAL ENTITIES FROM COMING INTO EXISTENCE UNDER THE CURRENT PROVISIONS OF THE ORDINANCE. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 19, 1998 Page 14 Councilmember Miller suggested the Community Services Committee review the alternatives developed at their next meeting (June 9). Council President Haakenson requested the members of the Community Services Committee poll each Councilmember to ensure they are aware of any concerns. MOTION CARRIED. Council President Haakenson announced the hearing would be continued until June 23, 1998. Councilmember White expressed concern with continuing the hearing, as that did not require notification. City Clerk Sandy Chase advised she always notices a continued hearing even though it is not required. Councilmember Plunkett encouraged members of the audience to attend the Community Services Committee meeting. Councilmember Van Hollebeke advised the Community Services Committee would meet in the Plaza Meeting Room of the Library Building at 7:00 p.m. on June 9. fireworks dinance 9. HEARING ON EXISTING FIREWORKS ORDINANCE Council President Haakenson asked how many members of the audience were present for the fireworks ordinance; no one responded. Fire Marshall John Westfall explained in 1992, the Council passed an ordinance banning the sale, use, and discharge of fireworks in Edmonds with the exception of approved and permitted public displays. In 1995 the Westgate Chapel annexed to the City; the sale of "Safe & Sane" fireworks had been a form of fundraising for the chapel. The chapel and the group, Washington Independence Day Association, raised concerns over the reason for the ban and requested the ban be reconsidered. Mr. Westfall said the Fire Department recommended the ban be maintained. Councilmember White explained this issue was reviewed by the Public Safety Committee about a year ago. At that time, it was felt it was too late in the year to make any changes to the ordinance (if they were warranted) prior to the fireworks season. The Committee requested data be compiled and presented regarding residential fires, incidents of burns, etc. before and after the ordinance. Councilmember White explained his understanding of the purpose of this hearing was to present that information to the Council and discuss whether the perceived intolerance was reasonable. He noted there were valid reasons provided by the Fire Department regarding why it is not reasonable such as the enforcement task for the Police and Fire Departments. Mr. Westfall explained Fire Chief Springer and Fire Marshall Gary McComas presented the statistics to the Public Safety Committee. He had no further information to offer. Councilmember White said he wanted that information presented to the full Council and the public. Council President Haakenson commented that the ordinance was passed because people were being hurt with fireworks and people did not like the noise. He favored maintaining the ordinance. He requested Councilmember Nordquist provide an historical perspective. Councilmember Nordquist explained the ordinance was recommended by the Fire Department who had done extensive research and was passed by the Council. City Attorney Scott Snyder said at the time the ordinance was passed, cities were given a "window of opportunity" by the Legislature to limit fireworks. He noted most communities in the Puget Sound area Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 19, 1998 Page 15 now prohibit fireworks. If the fireworks ban was lifted, he was concerned Edmonds would be an "island" where fireworks were allowed and the problems would be more severe. Council President Haakenson asked if there was any data to support changing the existing ban on fireworks. Mr. Westfall answered no. Mayor Fahey opened the public participation portion of the hearing. Al Rutledge, 7101 Lake Ballinger Way, Edmonds, encouraged the City to consider why several other cities were reconsidering their fireworks ordinances. Mayor Fahey closed the public participation portion of the hearing. She advised the City received two letters tonight, one from Reece Lewis, 1037 6th Avenue S, and one from Phyllis Lewis, who were both opposed to any change in the fireworks ordinance. Mayor Fahey said a couple of people have expressed frustration that their children cannot enjoy "safe and sane" fireworks. She said the process of considering this issue has been occurring for a couple of years and the only people who have testified were those who were interested in selling fireworks. She said there was no record on which to base a change to the ordinance. The Fire Department feels the ordinance has been very beneficial and any correspondence has been opposed to fireworks. Mayor Fahey remanded the matter to Council for deliberation. COUNCIL PRESIDENT HAAKENSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER VAN HOLLEBEKE, TO MAINTAIN THE EXISTING BAN FOR SALES, USE AND DISCHARGE OF FIREWORKS. Councilmember White explained he was not in favor of a change to the fireworks ban. This issue had been raised to the Community Services Committee who agreed to bring it to the full Council for consideration. MOTION CARRIED. 10. MAYOR'S REPORT Mayor Fahey explained two candidates were interviewed for the Architectural Design Board and Arts Commission prior to the Council meeting. She requested the Council confirm the appointments. Appoint- COUNCILMEMBER VAN HOLLEBEKE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT ments to the HAAKENSON, TO CONFIRM THE APPOINTMENT OF LISA RAFLO TO THE DB and ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD AND WAYNE KURLINSKI TO THE ARTS Arts Comm. COMMISSION. MOTION CARRIED. Mayor Fahey referred to the memo in the Council packet regarding removal of the cornerstone from the finance building (the old church) before demolition. She has been in contact with representatives of the Pchurch who will be present at the ground breaking ceremony on June 5 at 4:00 p.m., which she V welcomed the public to attend. She said there would be a sign -in booklet for those at the ground breaking which would be included in the new cornerstone. She said staff would also discuss with the church which pieces of memorabilia in the old cornerstone might be included in the new cornerstone along with several other items. The cornerstone will not be placed until the building is complete. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 1.9, 1998 Page M Mayor Fahey referred to the memo regarding the Capital Facilities Plan and requested the Council provide their input. 11. COUNCIL REPORTS Memorial Day Councilmember Van Hollebeke invited the public to the Memorial Day ceremony at the Edmonds Ceremony Memorial Cemetery on Monday, May 25 at 11:00 a.m. xecutive 12. EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING A REAL ESTATE MATTER Session At 10:35 p.m., Mayor Fahey adjourned the Council to Executive Session for approximately 30 minutes for discussion regarding a real estate matter. She advised the meeting would be adjourned immediately following the Executive Session. BARBARA S. FAHEY, MAYOR u►� � � LSO .�.e� SANDRA S. CHASE, CITY CLERK Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 19, 1998 Page 17 AGENDA EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL Plaza Meeting Room - Library Building 650 Main Street 7:00 -10:00 p.m. MAY 19, 1998 SPECIAL MEETING 6.46 P.A. INTERVIEW CANDIDATES FOR'THE ARCHITECTURAL: DESIGN BOARD AND ARTS.C:OMMISSION 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 12, 1998 (C) APPROVAL OF CLAIM WARRANTS #21476 THRU #24966 FOR THE WEEK OF MAY 11, 1998, IN THE AMOUNT OF $161,587.74 (D) REPORT ON BIDS OPENED MAY 11, 1998 FOR THE PURCHASE OF FOUR SERVICE TRUCK BODIES AND AWARD OF CONTRACT TO J & D HYDRAULIC & REPAIR COMPANY, INC. ($36,730.69) (E) REPORT ON BIDS OPENED MAY 12, 1998 FOR THE 1998 WATER MAIN REPLACEMENT PROGRAM AND AWARD OF CONTRACT TO SANDERS GENERAL CONSTRUCTION, LLC ($325,909.69, Including Sales Tax) (F) AUTHORIZATION TO TRAVEL TO WILMINGTON, DELAWARE FOR BACKGROUND INVESTIGATION ON LATERAL POLICE OFFICER (G) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATIVE PURCHASING AGREEMENT (H) AUTHORIZATION TO CALL FOR BIDS FOR THE 1998 STREET OVERLAY PROJECT (1) AUTHORIZATION TO ADVERTISE FOR BIDS TO REPLACE UNIT #56, A 1984 ROSCO ASPHALT ROLLER (J) PROPOSED ORDINANCE REPEALING ORDINANCE NO. 3192 IN ORDER TO PREVENT CONFLICT OR CONFUSION WITH ORDINANCE NO. 3073 3. AUDIENCE (3 minute limit per person) 4. (5 Min.) PROCLAMATION IN. RECOGNITION OF NATIONAL PUBLIC WORKS WEEK 5. (5 Min.) PROCLAMATION IN RECOGNITION OF NATIONAL AQUATIC WEEK 6. (95 Min.) REPORT ON COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS 7. (30 Min.) HEARING ON INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 3209 AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 20.60 RELATING TO SIGN PERMITS TO PROVIDE FOR AN INTERIM STUDY PERIOD REGARDING A -FRAME AND SANDWICH BOARD DIRECTIONAL SIGNS, DESIGNATING A SIX -MONTH STUDY PERIOD AND DIRECTING ENFORCEMENT PRIORITIES CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA MAY 19, 1998 Page 2 of 2 8. (45 Min.) HEARING ON THE 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) 9. (30 Min.) HEARING ON EXISTING FIREWORKS ORDINANCE l 10. (5 Min.) MAYOR'S REPORT 11. (15 Min.) COUNCIL REPORT 12. (30 Min.) EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING A REAL ESTATE MATTER 'arking 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 appear. he following Wednesday, Friday and Monday at noon on Channel 32.