Loading...
08/21/2001 City CouncilEDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES August 21, 2001 The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:04 p.m. by Mayor Gary Haakenson in the Council Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, followed by the flag salute. ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Gary Haakenson, Mayor Dave Earling, Council President Thomas Miller, Councilmember (arrived 7:20 p.m.) Michael Plunkett, Councilmember Lora Petso, Councilmember Dave Orvis, Councilmember Richard Marin, Councilmember STAFF PRESENT Tom Tomberg, Fire Chief Greg Wean, Acting Police Chief Duane Bowman, Development Serv. Director Peggy Hetzler, Administrative Services Director Noel Miller, Public Works Director Arvilla Ohlde, Parks and Recreation Director Jim Larson, Assistant Admin. Serv. Director Stephen Koho, Treatment Plant Manager Dave Gebert, City Engineer Steve Bullock, Senior Planner Scott Snyder, City Attorney Sandy Chase, City Clerk Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst. Cindi Cruz, Executive Assistant Jeannie Dines, Recorder 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Change to COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, Agenda TO ADD COMMITTEE REPORTS TO THE AGENDA AS ITEM 3A. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (Councilmember Miller was not present for the vote.) COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, FOR APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (Councilmember Miller was not present for the vote.) 2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS Council President Earling requested Item F be removed from the Consent Agenda. Councilmember Marin requested Item B be removed. COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, FOR APPROVAL OF THE REMAINDER OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (Councilmember Miller was not present for the vote.) The agenda items approved are as follows: (A) ROLL CALL Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 21, 2001 Page 1 Approve (C) APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #49874 THROUGH #50018 FOR THE WEEK OF Claim AUGUST 6, 2001, IN THE AMOUNT OF $152,807.85. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS Checks #50019 THROUGH #50189 FOR THE WEEK OF AUGUST 13, 2001, IN THE AMOUNT OF $493,615.34. iquor Licenses (D) APPROVAL OF LIST OF BUSINESSES APPLYING FOR RENEWAL OF THEIR LIQUOR LICENSES WITH THE WASHINGTON STATE LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD Surplus City Vehicles & (E) AUTHORIZATION TO CONTRACT WITH JAMES MURPHY AUCTIONEERS TO Equipment SELL SURPLUS CITY VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT Treatment Plant (G) AUTHORIZATION TO CALL FOR BIDS FOR TREATMENT PLANT CHEMICALS Chemicals (IT) AUTHORIZATION TO CALL FOR BIDS FOR LIQUID CHLORINE FOR THE Liquid hlorine WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT AND OTHER AGENCIES Item B: Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of August 14, 2001 Councilmember Marin advised he would abstain from the approval of the minutes due to his absence from the August 14 Council meeting. Approve COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, FOR i MAPPROVAL OF ITEM B. MOTION CARRIED, COUNCILMEMBER MARIN ABSTAINING. Minutes te (Councilmember Miller was not present for the vote.) The item approved is as follows: (B) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF AUGUST 14, 2001 Item F: Authorization for Mayor to Sign Contract with Greater Edmonds Chamber of Commerce for the Hot Autumn Nites Automobile Show and Celebration Council President Earling explained Section 1.1 of the contract with the Chamber was revised to more clearly define the streets that will be used for the Hot Autumn Nites event on September 8. A copy of the revised Section 1.1 was provided to the Council as well as a map that more clearly reflects the streets. COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, FOR APPROVAL OF ITEM F. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (Councilmember Miller was not present for the vote.) The item approved is as follows: ontract for of Autumn ites Event (F) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN CONTRACT WITH GREATER EDMONDS CHAMBER OF COMMERCE FOR THE HOT AUTUMN NITES AUTOMOBILE SHOW AND CELEBRATION 3A. COMMITTEE REPORTS Public Public Safety Safety ommittee Councilmember Plunkett reported the committee held a discussion regarding neighborhood traffic calming. He explained a few years ago, there was little remedy for neighborhoods seeking traffic controls as a neighborhood seldom met the state regulations for installing a stop sign. In recent years, the City's Traffic Engineer has worked with numerous residents who have expressed concern with vehicle speeds in their neighborhoods. He explained one element of the update of the City's Transportation Plan would be a neighborhood traffic -calming program. This will include the creation of a priority ranking to allow staff to respond to neighborhoods in the greatest need more quickly. Once developed, City Engineer Dave Gebert will present the neighborhood traffic control plan to the Committee and then to the City Council. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 21, 2001 Page 2 I Mayor Haakenson explained the reason for the delay in the meeting was the Council was awaiting the arrival of Councilmember Miller so that he could be included in the discussion of Agenda Items 3, 4 and 5. Finance Finance Committee ommitcee Council President Earling requested the minutes reflect he attended the meeting. He reported the Finance Committee discussed the City's financial policies. He explained recent Council discussion raised the issue of establishing formalized financial policies. He noted many of the financial policies in place in the City were established to meet the requirements of the State RCWs. Staff was asked to .return at the November Finance Committee meeting with further investigation of cities who have formal financial policies as well as policies not related to RCWs. Councilmember Plunkett recalled he was one of the Councilmembers who expressed a willingness to explore financial policies. He complimented Administrative Services Director Peggy Hetzler on the report she provided and asked if there were potential policies in addition to those identified in her report. Ms. Hetzler answered her memo included policies that were recommended by the Government Finance Officers Association. Her research of other cities revealed some cities have numerous policies and others have limited policies, therefore, there were many options for the Council to consider with regard to financial policies. Councilmember Plunkett noted it appeared the City met all statutory requirements. Downtown I Downtown Parkin? Committee Parking Councilmember Orvis explained the Downtown Parking Committee currently administers a program ommittee designed to encourage employees who work in downtown Edmonds to park away from the business core. Some business owners have complained they cannot obtain employee parking permits for all their employees. He explained an employee parking permit allowed an employee to park all day in a 3-hour zone outside the business core. The committee plans to discuss ordinance changes that would allow a business owner to obtain permits for all employees. The second item the Committee discussed was ferry commuter parking. He explained many ferry commuters park on City streets overnight, creating conflicts with citizens' parking needs. The Committee is considering extending the 3-hour parking zone further up 3`d Avenue. He noted this would not impact residents who could obtain a special permit; the 3-hour limit would apply only to non-residents. This issue will be presented to the Community Services/Development Services Committee in September. The Committee also continued its discussion regarding parking enforcement. COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, TO TAKE ITEM 6, AUDIENCE COMMENTS, NEXT. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (Councilmember Miller was not present for the vote.) 6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Mayor Haakenson noted he would invite audience comments again later in the agenda. Woodway Janet Robertson, 10523 2401h Place SW, Edmonds, explained shortly following annexation, their Highlands neighborhood was impacted by the development of Woodway Highlands. She recalled the Council took their calls and their petitions and even walked the 3-block alley. She submitted a letter on behalf of 20 families, expressing their appreciation to the Council. She referred to a letter to the editor in the Edmonds Beacon from a Woodway Councilmember who indicated there was never any real problem. She pointed out Woodway originally wanted the alley from 104`h into Woodway Highlands to provide a fire lane, but later expressed a desire for this to be a walkway/bikeway for 65-200 homes. She noted the Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 21, 2001 Page 3 Edmonds residents did not want this use in their backyards as this dark, unlit, overgrown alley was not a safe place at night. She referred to numerous Town of Woodway documents citing the use of the alley for pedestrian and bicycle access, a petition submitted by the Edmonds residents requesting this not occur, and Mayor Haakenson's letter stating Edmonds did not support the walkway. She summarized at the Council meeting where the final plat was approved, Mayor Haakenson and Councilmember Plunkett advised Woodway that a pedestrian walkway would not be provided in that location. rightWater Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, Edmonds, encouraged the Council to read Mayor Haakenson's article in the newspaper and reach the same conclusion, that BrightWater was not an appropriate use for the Unocal property. He urged the Council to reach a 100% negative approach to BrightWater, noting the sooner the Council showed solidarity, the sooner King County would begin considering another location. Next, Mr. Hertrich referred to Agenda Item 5, the creation of a $3 million tax bill for maintenance that would be paid from the General Fund. He preferred the Council ask the.voters to tax General their roe noting roe owners would have approved this due to the benefits the would receive Obligation prop rtY� g property rtY pP Y Bonds from the maintenance items. He summarized this was the wrong use of General Obligation Bonds. He referred to the August 7 minutes, page 6, Item 5, noting his comments in regard to the surplus property were in reference to Site #2. He stated the City had been illegally filling Site #2 for a number of years without permits. He preferred the City do its own environmental investigation of the fill on the site. Contract 3. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PLANNING BOARD'S RECOMMENDATION TO Rezone DENY A CONTRACT REZONE REQUEST BY LARRY AND SUSAN DEISHER FOR Request — TH 7025 1741h PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7025 174 STREET SOUTHWEST. THE REQUEST IS TO REZONE Street SW THE PROPERTY FROM RS-20 TO RS-8 TO ALLOW A THREE -LOT SHORT PLAT ON THE PROPERTY (File No. R-2000-6) Mayor Haakenson noted this was a continued quasi-judicial hearing. He asked whether any Councilmember wished to make any disclosures of any conversations since the public hearing was opened. There were no disclosures made. Mayor Haakenson advised the applicant would be allowed ten minutes of his presentation and could reserve time for rebuttal. Public comment would be limited to 3 minutes per person. Mayor Haakenson opened the continued public hearing. Senior Planner Steve Bullock explained the proposal was initiated due to unfortunate circumstances that resulted in the subject property being one large parcel under multiple ownership. He noted a great deal of history regarding this parcel was outlined in the Council packet. He explained any application for a land use permit or a building permit on this property would require the signature of both property owners. Mr. Bullock explained the Planning Board reviewed a contract rezone request by both property owners to rezone the property from RS-20 to RS-8. The contract would include a 3-lot subdivision in the future and a specific layout for the subdivision as well as development of a specific home on one lot. The Planning Board reviewed the proposal and determined there was not sufficient reason or rationale to justify introducing RS-8 zoning on the north side of 1741h Street SW. Mr. Bullock noted the north side of 174th Street SW was zoned entirely RS-20 or RS-12. There is RS-8 zoning on the south side of the street but the characteristics of the land on the south side of 1741h Street SW are significantly different than the north side. The Planning Board indicated there may be justification for a rezone from RS-20 to RS 12, but because only one of the applicants was at the Planning Board hearing, and he did not have the authority to proceed on behalf of both applicants, a change to the application could not be made and the Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 21, 2001 Page 4 Planning Board made its decision based on the application that had been submitted. The Planning Board recommended denial of the contract rezone. Mr. Bullock advised the Council received two letters from the other property owner (included in the Council packet as Exhibits 7 and 8) withdrawing his participation in this contract rezone request, Mr. Bullock summarized that unless there was agreement from both property owners, the Council could not approve a contract rezone that did not have the approval of both property owners. City Attorney Scott Snyder commented a contract rezone was a request by an applicant to voluntarily limit the rights granted by the rezone. The purpose was to convince the Council that the criteria would be better met by the rezone as limited. He cautioned neither staff nor the Council had the ability to negotiate terms of the contract rezone. The application was considered as offered and as limited by the contract rezone and the Council could not request additional conditions or limitations. Applicant Larry Deisher reserved two minutes of his presentation time for rebuttal. He explained they came into title of the adjacent parcel approximately one year ago to resolve a family issue that began approximately 30 years ago with the sale of a residence to the Bells. The adjacent parcel to the west contained a shop that had been in existence for a number of years and had been in commercial operation on and off over a number of years. The original intent was to maintain the separate westerly parcel at the time of the sale; there was no intent by the Bells to purchase the entire parcel. The original property owner, the Orners, owned approximately five contiguous acres and sold several parcels over several years. The final sale was completed in 1971 to the Bells without the knowledge of subdivision regulations. Mr. Deisher requested the Council allow him to correct this issue; the only way without the cooperation of the adjoining property owner of the Bell home was to eliminate that parcel from their rezone request. He withdrew the lot to the east from the contract rezone request and requested the Council consider a contract rezone limiting the use and activity on the parcel to a single-family residence. He submitted a drawing of the home to be constructed on the parcel as part of the contract rezone. He acknowledged a short subdivision would still be required. He noted that due to the contract nature of the request, precedent would not be established for additional RS-8 zoning on the north side of 174th Street SW. He explained the parcel was adjacent to existing RS-12 zoning to the west as well as RS-8 to the south. He said the RS-20 zoning was not appropriate under the current conditions. He explained this area of Meadowdale was zoned RS-20 due to steep slopes on septic tanks but those issues have largely been addressed; this parcel is a nearly level lot with sewer and water service and is an ideal building lot. Mr. Deisher noted the biggest concern by the Planning Board and by those providing testimony at the hearing was the request for a third parcel between the one they are seeking the rezone on and the existing Bell home. He said the amended application would not create a third parcel; they were only attempting to resolve the subdivision created in 1971. Councilmember Marin asked how the application was amended. Mr. Deisher explained he was verbally amending the application before the Council, noting they were not seeking the rezone on the remaining parcel as he did not have the authorization to request a rezone on that portion. He was amending the application on their property, the most westerly parcel. Councilmember Plunkett asked the size of the westerly parcel. Mr. Deisher answered 10,560+ square feet. Mr. Deisher noted that although he would support the Planning Board recommendation for the RS- 12 rezone, a contract rezone to RS-8 was the only way to resolve the issue. Councilmember Plunkett observed Mr. Deisher did not have sufficient property for an RS-12 rezone. Mr. Deisher said the Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 21, 2001 Page 5 Planning Board determined it would be more appropriate to rezone the parcels to RS-12 as they were adjacent to RS-12 zoning. Councilmember Plunkett recalled Mr. Deisher indicated the rezone would not set a precedent and asked how a rezone to RS-8 in an area zoned RS-20 would not establish a precedent. Mr. Deisher answered many of the other parcels adjacent contained steeper slopes and was the original reason for the zoning. He said this isolated location with a level building pad did not exist elsewhere in the area; therefore, a precedent would not be set for additional requests. Councilmember Plunkett asked whether his property was unique within this zone. Mr. Deisher responded it was. Councilmember Plunkett asked staff whether this property was unique within this zone. Mr. Bullock responded although he had not reviewed all properties in the RS-20 zone, his belief was that the property was not unique and other properties in the RS-20 zone had portions that were flat and portions that were steep. Mr. Snyder pointed out the problem from a legal perspective was that this appeared to be spot zoning. It was an island of property and the request was primarily for the economic benefit of the property owners. The property was illegally subdivided in 1971 and by operation of the City ordinance, the property was merged into one parcel. He requested Mr. Deisher address the rezone criteria, specifically whether there had been any change in the neighborhood, the relationship of this lot to the neighborhood, and the gain to the community as a whole rather than just to the property owner. Mr. Deisher explained the area had developed significantly since 1971. Numerous subdivisions have occurred in the area to the south and west and the area has almost entirely developed. The area in question has homes adjacent to it, particularly across the street that were fully developed on lots of this size. He said the boundary of 174"' Street SW did not necessarily establish criteria for spot zoning. The correction of the subdivision would benefit the City as the current value of the lot is $20,000 and with the improvements would be valued in excess of $200,000. Mr. Snyder explained the rezone criteria were intended to show a benefit to the general public and compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Deisher pointed out the segregated lot had been taxed for 30 years and the City installed water and sewer service to the lot. Development of the lot would make a pleasant addition to the neighborhood. He believed none of the residents attending the Planning Board meeting opposed the correction of the 1971 subdivision; their concern was the potential third lot that was originally requested. Councilmember Miller asked for clarification of the amendment Mr. Deisher was requesting. Mr. Deisher explained his amendment was to eliminate the easterly parcel that was included in the original request but maintain the request for RS-8 zoning and the contract nature of the request. He said the size of their lot and the RS-8 zoning would allow them to proceed with subdivision issues. Councilmember Miller inquired about the three segments shown on the schematic site development plan. Mr. Deisher explained that was a redivision of the property to accommodate a third parcel but that was not part of his amended request. COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, TO EXTEND DISCUSSION OF THIS ITEM 20 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Councilmember Orvis asked how the illegal subdivision occurred. Mr. Deisher explained a sale occurred in 1971 to the Bells. The Orner family owned approximately 5 contiguous acres in this same location; Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 21, 2001 Page 6 they built a home in the late 1940's and sold 2-3 parcels, which were subsequently built upon. The last parcel was sold in 1971 to the Bells with no 'knowledge that `they were to abide by the subdivision process with the City of Edmonds. He said a lot status document was provided by a title company because Snohomish County recognizes subdivisions done prior to September 1972. Councilmember Marin recalled Mr. Snyder's caution regarding negotiating the contract rezone with the applicant and asked whether the Council could consider Mr. Deisher's amendment. Mr. Snyder explained Mr. Deisher's request was to limit the area of the rezone; the Council had the ability to rezone all or part of an area requested to be rezoned. Mr. Deisher submitted survey drawings showing the location of the Bell home and the correct location of the line separating the two parcels. Councilmember Marin asked who paid the filing fee for the contract rezone. Mr. Deisher answered he and his wife. Councilmember Marin asked why the other party no longer wished to participate. Mr. Deisher answered he preferred not to address that issue. Mayor Haakenson asked whether the other party was present. Mr. Deisher answered no. Councilmember Plunkett asked Mr. Deisher whether he was familiar with the six tests that must be met for the Council to grant a contract rezone. Mr. Deisher answered he was somewhat familiar with a few of the tests. Councilmember Plunkett observed Mr. Deisher's request met approximately four of the tests but he questioned whether the rezone to 8,000 square feet from 20,000 square feet was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Deisher answered there was consistency with the Comprehensive Plan as it indicates a level of residential development consistent with this lot size. Further, this level buildable area was consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. He said the contract rezone offer would bring it into more consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. Councilmember Plunkett cited another test was the relationship of the proposed rezone to the existing land uses. The existing land uses were 20,000 square feet and he asked how the proposal was consistent with 20,000 square feet. Mr. Deisher submitted the Assessor's, segregation map, noting it showed consistency with this lot size in the entire area with the exception of further north. Their parcel was adjacent to RS-8 zoning (across the street) and the home next door to the west and other properties to the west were on small lots. He noted it was consistent with the pattern of development that has occurred. Councilmember Plunkett commented that although it was consistent with the surrounding zones (across the street and to the west) approximately 20 feet to the south and to the west, it was not necessarily consistent with the zoning the property was located in. Councilmember Miller commented the biggest issue appears to be the property was zoned RS-20 due to steep slopes. He noted the design Mr. Deisher submitted backs up to a slope and asked how the steep slopes would be addressed. Mr. Deisher answered the area between 174`h Street SW and a moderate slope was nearly level. As part of the contract, the area of the 24% slope would be retained as a Native Growth Protection Easement and no vegetation, cutting, filling, etc. would be allowed. The home they have presented fits well back from the edge of the moderate slope and meets the setback requirements. The lot is 90 feet wide and 90-100 feet from the right-of-way to the edge of the slope and represents an adequate footprint for a building. Councilmember Orvis noted the preservation of the slope represented approximately 25% of the property and approximately 8,000 square feet of level ground remained. Mr. Deisher agreed. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 21, 2001 Page 7 Public Comment Dan Munro, 7115 1741h Street SW, Edmonds (immediately west of the subject property), stated that although the neighbors would like to see something happen to this property, what Mr. Deisher proposed was not in keeping with the neighborhood. The shop Mr. Deisher referred to was a dirt -floor shed where undesirable activities have occurred over the years. Although Mr. Deisher refers to the subdivision that occurred in 1971, the subdivision actually did not occur as it was not recognized by the City. He urged the Council to uphold the Planning Board's recommendation and restrict the zoning to nothing less than RS-12. His property, adjacent to this property, was approximately 12,000 square feet with an additional 2,000 square foot utility easement; therefore, the RS-8 zoning would be a significant change to the neighborhood. Earl Morris, 17306 73`d Avenue W, Edmonds (2 blocks to the north and west of the site), encouraged the Council to approve the rezone to RS-8 to allow Mr. Deisher to build a residence on the property, noting this was in the best interest of the neighborhood, the Meadowdale area, and the City. Victor Crockholm, 7107 174`h Street SW, Edmonds (northwest of the subject property), cited the possibility of adjacent properties requesting RS-8 zoning if this property was rezoned to RS-8. He pointed out this would change the character of the neighborhood and increase traffic. Greg Hinkle, 7027 174h Street SW, Edmonds (immediately to the north and west of the subject property), pointed out if the rezone was approved, there would be a house 10 feet from his driveway (a driveway also shared by the Crockholms). He indicated he was opposed to the proposed rezone. Hearing no further comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public comment portion of the public hearing. Applicant Rebuttal Mr. Deisher addressed the concern expressed regarding setting a precedent for the RS-8 zoning to the east, stating if a request were made for that property, it likely would not satisfy the setback requirements without major variances. Therefore, subsequent requests could be controlled by the City. Councilmember Petso inquired whether Mr. Deisher's lot had additional property for a utility easement that was not included in the 10,500 square foot lot size. Mr. Deisher answered the entire lot area was accounted for in the 10,500 square feet. COUNCILMEMBER MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, TO EXTEND DISCUSSION OF THIS ITEM FOR TEN MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Bullock referred to the Staff Report to the Planning Board and the six rezone criteria from ECDC Section 20.40 (cited on page 9 of the Council packet). He recalled a question was raised regarding how the rezone met the first criteria, how was it consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. He referred to staff s analysis which indicates the Comprehensive Plan map for this area was generically "Single Family." There were two subcategories under Single Family — Large Lot and Small Lot. He said the Large Lot designation would be compatible with RS-12 or RS-20 zoning and Small Lot designation was compatible with RS-6 and RS-8. He said the indication of "Single Family" and RS-20 zoning indicated the north side of 174`h Street SW should be Single Family Large Lot with corresponding zoning designations of RS-12 or RS-20. He said the main issue was compatibility of the existing zoning and development on the west side of 174th Street SW. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 21, 2001 Page 8 Mr. Bullock added there were a number of RS=f2 zones to'the east and west of this property and this property and others were zoned RS-20. One of staff's primary concerns was if a contract rezone to RS-8 was approved for the westerly portion, what would prevent the other property owner from requesting a contract rezone for the eastern portion of the property using the same argument as Mr. Deisher. He said the Planning Department was concerned RS-8 zoning would cross the street and begin creeping further. He recalled past Council discussions regarding concerns with "zone creep." He pointed out even if the contract rezone was approved, both applicants would be required to submit and cooperate on a 2-lot subdivision. Staff sees that action having similar problems, where the other property owner does not wish to cooperate or be involved in the subdivision process. With regard to a rezone of only the one portion, Councilmember Petso asked whether staff had concerns other than setting an unfavorable precedent? She said if she could get over the precedent issue, 10,500 square feet was close to the 12,000 square feet required for RS-12 zoning. Mr. Bullock answered arguments could be made either way for a number of the criteria. He referred to criteria #3 (the relationship of the proposed rezone to the existing land uses and zoning of surrounding or nearby properties) and #4 (has there been sufficient change in the character of the immediate area or in city policy to justify the rezone), noting although there has been a great deal of single family development in the area, a majority of it had occurred consistent with the existing zoning. He questioned what would justify a rezone to RS-8 as there had not been a change in character on the west side of 174`h Street SW. He acknowledged there was RS-8 zoning on the south side of 174`" Street SW, but said the character and topography in that area was significantly different. Councilmember Petso recalled a similar situation where the Council rezoned a property to multifamily in order to make it usable under the circumstances. She questioned how that situation had been so unique that there was not a problem with setting an unfavorable precedent and how that could be repeated in this situation. Mr. Snyder recalled the previous situation was a neighborhood where nearly all neighboring houses were triplexes or larger and an illegal unit had been established in one building. By changing the zoning on that lot, the Council made the use of the lot equal to the use of the other properties that had non -conforming rights. The end result was duplexes and triplexes throughout the neighborhood, a consistent use of property under both the zoning code and the character and use of neighboring properties. The difficulty with the current situation was that most of the rationale for the rezone was for the property owner to make more productive use of his property. Mr. Snyder noted there were other options available to Mr. Deisher such as purchasing additional square footage from the other property owner or developing the property in conjunction with the other property owner. He summarized rezoning decisions were not made based on assisting an individual to make more profitable use of their property. Councilmember Petso said she had little difficulty with the applicant meeting the criteria but wanted to make this decision so incredibly unique that a precedent would not be set. Mr. Snyder explained there was not, in effect, a contract rezone proposal before the Council. The contract rezone was for three lots but one of the two parties had withdrawn their approval and had not signed the amended agreement. He suggested the Council continue the hearing and allow the applicant to provide a written request that, 1) specified the square footage and new description, and 2) offered a new contract rezone signed and executed that limited the use of the property to one single family dwelling, no additional properties or reduction in lot size, and the conditions outlined in the contract rezone request. He summarized the approval for the contract rezone was withdrawn by the other property owner. Councilmember Petso asked if the amended contract rezone could be remanded to the Planning Board. Mr. Snyder answered yes. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 21, 2001 Page 9 COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MILLER, TO EXTEND DISCUSSION OF THIS ITEM UNTIL IT WAS FINISHED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Councilmember Orvis asked for a description of a Native Growth Protection Easement. Mr. Bullock explained a Native Growth Protection Easement limited what could occur in an area to primarily nothing other than removal of diseased or hazardous trees. Councilmember Orvis asked if that would stabilize the hillside. Mr. Bullock answered a Native Growth Protection Easement itself did not stabilize the hillside; retaining vegetation may help stabilize the hillside although in some circumstances, tree removal may also stabilize a hillside. Councilmember Marin asked whether denial would leave the property owned by Mr. Deisher worthless. Mr. Bullock answered the City considers this one lot that both Mr. Deisher and the Carnahan family have ownership interest in. Mr. Snyder said the City does not recognize the existence of the lot line; there is one property owned by two parties. Councilmember Marin asked whether Mr. Deisher could reapply requesting the portion of the lot he owns be rezoned to RS-12 and the remainder of the lot retain the RS-20 zoning. Mr. Bullock answered that was the essence of Mr. Deisher's amended proposal. However, a subdivision would still need to be requested by the two property owners. Mr. Snyder cautioned neither the Council nor staff should prejudge that issue, as a short subdivision would be a staff decision. Until an application was submitted and reviewed, staff could not offer an opinion. Councilmember Marin observed RS-12 may be reasonable but RS-8 did not appear to be. Mr. Bullock said an option for the applicant would be to request a rezone of the property to RS-12 and then via the subdivision process, propose a 2-lot subdivision with a modification to the lot size allowing a smaller lot for the western portion, the portion Mr. Deisher has ownership rights to. Mayor Haakenson remanded the matter to Council for deliberation and action. Council President Earling commented he had been hopeful the Council would be able to consider the 3- lot contract rezone as there appeared to be some argument in favor of that. However, the amendment offered by the applicant appeared to be a spot rezone rather than a 3-lot contract rezone. He did not recall the Council ever approving a spot rezone and pointed out it could lead to zone creep. He said 10,500 square feet was not close to 12,000 square feet and was actually more than 10% less than the land required for RS-12 zoning. Although he was hopeful the parties could resolve the issues, he was unable to support the applicant's appeal. COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MILLER, TO SUPPORT THE PLANNING BOARD'S RECOMMENDATION TO DENY THE CONTRACT REZONE REQUEST TO ALLOW THE PROPERTY TO BE REZONED TO RS-8. Councilmember Petso agreed the Council likely could not support the applicant's amended proposal as the Council, staff, and neighbors had not had an opportunity to review the new proposal. She said the Council should allow the applicant the opportunity to put his amendment into writing and remand it to the Planning Board. She said this would not commit the Council to rezoning the property to RS-8 but only returned the proposal to the process. She noted the applicant could submit his amended proposal if the motion passed but he would be required to pay the filing fee again. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 21, 2001 Page 10 Although he supported the motion, Councilmember Marin suggested the applicant be allowed to resubmit his proposal under the same filing fee withiW90 days with the exception of new fees associated with the new filing such as notification fees, etc. Councilmember Orvis indicated his support for the motion. Although he was sympathetic to the property owner's request and there appeared to be some benefit to developing the site such as fewer complaints from the neighbors and stabilizing the hillside, he was concerned with the possibility of setting a precedent with RS-8 zoning. Councilmember Miller noted that in addition to the issues addressed by Councilmembers such as the Comprehensive Plan and RS-8 zoning, there were underlying issues that need to be addressed by Mr. Deisher and the other property owner. Mr. Snyder asked for clarification regarding which rezone was being denied, the original 3-lot application or the amended rezone. He explained when the Council denied a rezone application, the applicant could not resubmit for one year. Council President Earling clarified his intent was to deny the RS-8 rezone on the original 3-lot application. Councilmember Petso asked if the Council was also denying Mr. Deisher's amended request. Mr. Snyder replied the Council would make its findings based on the original application and the Planning Board's findings. An application for rezone on a reconfigured lot could be submitted but the same proposal could not be made for one year. He explained the motion was to deny the original application; there had been no action by the Council to approve an amendment. Mayor Haakenson clarified if the Planning Board's recommendation to deny the contract rezone request to allow the property to be rezoned to RS-8 was passed by the Council, Mr. Deisher could not resubmit that request for one year but he could submit an amended application such as he described tonight. Mr. Snyder answered Mr. Deisher could resubmit an application for a contract rezone on his lot individually. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, TO RECOMMEND TO THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT THE POSSIBILITY OF APPLYING THE FEE MR. DEISHER HAS PAID TO A NEW PROPOSAL, ACKNOWLEDGING THERE WOULD BE SOME OTHER COSTS INVOLVED AND ALLOWING MR. DEISHER A 90-DAY PERIOD TO RESUBMIT AN APPLICATION. Mr. Snyder said without an amendment to the fee ordinance, staff did not have the discretion to accept a fee less than established by ordinance. If a lesser fee was to be accepted, it must be done with a category, otherwise it represented an unconstitutional special law. COUNCILMEMBER PETSO WITHDREW HER SECOND AND THE MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. Mayor Haakenson declared a brief recess. ablic 4. PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING THE PUBLIC NEED FOR A PUBLIC ACCESS CHANNEL ess IMPORTED FROM OUTSIDE OF SOUTH SNOHOMISH COUNTY nel side of th Councilmember Miller explained this agenda item was the result of a letter the Council received in April homish from residents complaining of sexuality, violence and offense language the viewed while surfing ounty p g ty> >Y g Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 21, 2001 Page 11 channels available on basic cable service provided by AT&T Broadband. The letter raised enough concern with the Council and Mayor that a letter was sent to AT&T Broadband and the City Attorney regarding options available to the City under the franchise agreement. The City Attorney's response indicated Congress has provided that cable services can offer a public service access channel but local communities have no authority to edit or change the content of programming, whether the programming is found to be offensive is irrelevant. AT&T Broadband's response was similar to the City Attorney's, indication there were few options, and neither the local jurisdiction nor AT&T Broadband could edit programming. Staff researched the issue further to determine options available and determined under the existing franchise agreement with AT&T Broadband, the options were: (1) retain existing Public Access Channel and programming, (2) cancel Public Access programming and return the available channel to AT&T for revenue programming, (3) request an alternative Public Access Channel from another source other than Seattle to fulfill the Public Access Channel requirements, or (4) other possible actions not yet determined. Councilmember Miller said it was then decided to hold a public hearing to gather public input. Councilmember Plunkett referred to option 3 and asked whether that included the City producing its own Public Access Channel. Councilmember Miller answered the City could produce its own or bring in a Public Access Channel from a community other than Seattle. City Attorney Scott Snyder explained in the last two franchise agreements, the Council made a finding of a public need for Public Access but chose not to fund the cost of establishing a local studio until there was a clearly expressed need/desire by the community to do so. The Council's last action on the matter found a need and made provision for the maintenance of seven public educational and governmental channels but chose not to fund a local studio. He noted the City of Everett was in the process of establishing a facility. Councilmember Plunkett asked the cost of establishing a studio. Mr. Snyder answered the cost depended on the level of funding, originally it was approximately $30,000 - $50,000 plus annual operating expenses. Councilmember Plunkett recalled the Council appropriated $40,000 to Edmonds Community College for start-up. Mr. Snyder answered within the franchise documents, there was $30,000 provided for an educational access studio. Those funds have never been expended and staff is discussing that issue with Edmonds Community College, encouraging them to contract with the school district. He noted there were two issues associated with this, the equipment and the long term operating costs. Councilmember Plunkett asked what the annual operating costs would be. Mr. Snyder suggested that question be posed to public access channel advocates who spoke during the public hearing. Councilmember Petso asked whether option 2 could be done on a temporary basis and what "returning the available channel to AT&T for revenue programming" meant — for example, if the Council could select a program. Kathy Nelson, AT&T Broadband, 22025 SE 30`h, Bothell, responded the Public Access Channel currently provided to the City could be canceled but would require an amendment to the franchise agreement. She was unaware how the cancellation could be accomplished temporarily. Regarding returning the channel to AT&T, the selection of programming would be done by AT&T as local government have no control over services or programming provided by the cable system. Mr. Snyder noted the City had no ability to dictate programming; the City could find there was a community need for a general category of programming. He said AT&T's corporate position was that canceling the channel could not be done temporarily or without an amendment to the franchise agreement, but it could possibly Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 21, 2001 Page 12 be done. He pointed out since the City could not dictate programming, the City could return the channel to AT&T and Seattle Public Access could continue to be carried: Councilmember Marin noted his conversations with the existing Public Access Channel indicated they were contemplating a different offering that may include more acceptable programming. Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. He advised the Council received an email today from Matt Lawrence who urged the City to take this opportunity to envision a Public Access Channel the City would like to participate in rather than restricting cable to commercial giants. Stuart Heady, 8517 Maplewood Lane, advised he served on the (Austin, Texas) City Council appointed Telecommunications Commission for ten years. He said the primary issue was how to determine public interest. He explained public educational/governmental access exist in approximately 2,000 communities. It began with the recognition that cable franchises were essential monopolies and because they selected programming for communities, could block community culture and local dialogue. He suggested holding public meetings to seek members of the public who would be interested in creating an Edmonds Access Channel. Councilmember Plunkett inquired about the annual cost to operate a public access channel. Mr. Heady answered the cost could be determined via an investigative process. Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, Edmonds, commented he would have supported eliminating the public access channel a number of years ago because reporters attended Council meetings and reported on the Council's activities. However, since the City began televising the meetings, reporters no longer attend Council meetings and the public was dependent on the televising of Council meetings. Mr. Hertrich questioned whether the Council could eliminate public access and saw this public hearing only as an opportunity for the public to speak. He suggested if the public did not want to see what was offered on the Public Access Channel, they turn it off. Mr. Snyder clarified the City reserves seven channels under the franchise agreement for government, public and educational uses. The Council meetings were televised on a government channel and the discussion did not include canceling the broadcast of Council meetings. Karen Toring, Executive Director, Seattle Community Access Network, 6323 Hunter Road S, Seattle, stressed community access channels had significant value and should not be cast away lightly. She recommended the Council consider discussing the issue further. She pointed out the Council recognized there was a demonstrated need as indicated in the franchise agreement. She agreed the possibility of creating the type of channel the City wanted existed but it would require time, commitment, and money. She said such a channel provided an opportunity for neighborhood network news, community groups, non-profit organizations, etc., and could be an incredibly powerful local resource. She explained they have petitioned the City of Seattle to launch a second channel that was neighborhood and community group based which likely would have a wider, more palatable focus. Councilmember Plunkett inquired about the cost to operate a local access channel. Ms. Toring agreed the cost would depend on what the City wanted. She commented $40,000 per year was not enough to provide the capacity and capability of a local news channel. She said the operating costs for a public access channel she assisted in developing in a larger community were approximately $250,000 and capitalization was approximately $500,000. She noted there were creative solutions/opportunities to Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 21, 2001 Page 13 identify those funds and indicated their organization was willing to be a resource to assist in identifying those funds. Councilmember Orvis commented any public access channel the City started would be very basic. He inquired about the cost of operating a message board. Ms. Toring answered a readerboard was an opportunity to provide information to the community. Councilmember Orvis inquired about the personnel time required to maintain a readerboard. Ms. Toring answered it would depend on the offerings and how often it was updated. Hearing no further public comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public participation portion of the public hearing. Councilmember Plunkett agreed there was questionable programming on the Public Access Channel and recommended citizens continue to object to the programming, Councilmember Miller suggested the Community Services/Development Services Committee review this item and work with the Executive Director of the Seattle Public Access Network on the alternative programming being considered as well as other options. Councilmember Orvis commented the Community Services/Development Services Committee would not be able to consider this issue until November due to other agenda items. He suggested the financial issues be reviewed by the Finance Committee. Council President Earling advised he would take Councilmembers' comments under advisement and forward the issue to a Council committee. Limited Tax 5. PROPOSED ORDINANCE RELATING TO CONTRACTING INDEBTEDNESS• PROVIDING General FOR THE ISSUANCE OF $2,975,000 PAR VALUE LIMITED TAX GENERAL OBLIGATION Obligation BONDS 2001 OF THE CITY FOR GENERAL CITY PURPOSES TO PROVIDE FUNDS WITH Bonds, 2001 WHICH TO PAY COSTS OF MAKING IMPROVEMENTS TO THE FRANCES ANDERSON RECREATIONAL CENTER REPLACING THE EDMONDS LIBRARY ROOF FUNDING A SEWER REHABILITATION PROJECT AND FUNDING STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS; FIXING THE DATE, FORM, MATURITIES, INTEREST RATES, TERMS AND COVENANTS OF THE BONDS; ESTABLISHING A BOND REDEMPTION FUND AND A CONSTRUCTION FUND; PROVIDING FOR BOND INSURANCE; AND APPROVING THE SALE AND PROVIDING FOR THE DELIVERY OF THE BONDS TO SEATTLE-NORTHWEST SECURITIES CORPORATION OF SEATTLE WASHINGTON Administrative Services Director Peggy Hetzler explained the Council authorized staff to proceed with the issuance of the Limited Tax General Obligation Bonds to provide funding for the Frances Anderson Center, replacement of the library roof, sewer rehabilitation project, and street overlays. She explained the pricing of the bonds was scheduled to occur today and was completed this morning. She referred to the final bond ordinance provided by Foster Pepper & Shefelman that authorizes the sale of the bonds in the par amount of $3,000,045 at an interest cost of 4.7%. The par value of the bond issue includes the underwriter's spread, the cost of the bond insurance, and bond counsel fees in order that net proceed to the City will be $2,975,000 approved for the project costs. Dick Ehlers, Seattle Northwest Securities Corporation, described the bond sale goals and results; goals included achieving aggressive market interest rates and providing funds needed for capital projects. He explained the net proceeds of the bond sale, $2,975,000 would be available to the City on September 5, 2001. He explained the bond rating service, Moody Investors Service, confirmed the City's existing Al rating on Limited Tax General Obligation Bonds (non -voted bonds) and upgraded the rating on Unlimited Tax General Obligation Bonds to AA-3. Edmonds is now one of only eight cities in the state with the AA-3 rating. He read from Moody's rating report, "The rating upgrade is primarily based on the Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 21, 2001 Page 14 continued growth in the City's tax base, from its strong socioeconomic indicators for this effluent community, continuation of strong financial performance and a manageable debt position. The City's financial operations are well managed, benefiting from a combination of careful spending practices, healthy revenue growth in recent years especially among property and sales tax receipts. General Fund reserves are strong and stable representing approximately 26-27% of General Fund revenues." Mr. Ehlers advised orders had been taken for approximately half the issue of bonds and at approximately 10:00 a.m., Seattle Northwest Securities Corporation, took the risk on the remainder of the issue. At that time, subject to the Council's action tonight, the interest rate was locked in. He advised the net cost for a 20-year bond issue was 4.7475%, a great rate. He referred to historical indices in his report, noting other than a two -month period, these rates were below 25-30 year lows. Councilmember Miller asked whether Moody's upgrade of the City's bond rating had any impact on the pricing of the bonds. Mr. Ehlers answered only marginal because it did not relate to the bonds that were being issued. He said it would have a significant impact if voters authorized Unlimited Tax General Obligation Bonds. He explained the bonds were sold with the purchase of bond insurance, which increases the rating to AAA. The reduction in the interest rate provided by the increased rating more than paid for the bond insurance premium. Bob Yeasting, Independent Financial Advisor, referred to his report and the yield to investors from the City's bonds and several issues in the market recently. He noted the market had improved slightly since Lynnwood sold bonds last week at 5.02% - 5.08%. He compared Edmonds bond sale to the sale of bonds for King County Harborview Hospital, noting the City's bonds sold better than King County's. He recommended approval of Seattle Northwest Securities Corporation's offer. Councilmember Plunkett inquired about Lynnwood's bond rating. Mr. Yeasting answered it was Al, essentially the same as Edmonds. Councilmember Plunkett inquired whether Edmonds' rating was more extraordinary in view of Lynnwood's economic base. Mr. Yeasting explained the rating was a combination of low debt, which Lynnwood also has, and Edmonds enjoys a good reputation for management of the City and a solid residential community base. Mr. Ehlers explained Lynnwood was rated by Standard & Poors Corporation rather than Moody's and the rating companies have slightly different approaches. Standard & Poors tends to consider valuation as a whole and Moody places more credence in the wealth indices of the individuals living in the City along with the management of the City and financial reserves. He noted Moody's as a whole has taken a more optimistic view of Washington and Washington credit over the past few years. Lee Voorhees, Foster Pepper & Shefelman, 11113rd Avenue, Seattle, referred to Ordinance No. 3372 which had been redrafted to reflect the bond insurer, the increase in the principle amount of the bond, and the setting of the maturities and interest rates associated with each maturity year. He highlighted the interest rates and maturities in Section 2 and 3, the registration and transfer of bond in Section 4, the ten year optional par call outlined in Section 6, pledge of taxes in Section 9, approval of bond purchase contract in Section 16, compliance with Security and Exchange Commission regulations outlined in Sections 17 and 18, and bond insurance in Section 19. He summarized passage of the ordinance authorized everything necessary to deliver the bonds to the purchaser on September 5, 2001 as scheduled and no separate action on the purchase contract, insurance, etc. was necessary. He recommended approval of the ordinance. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 21, 2001 Page 15 Councilmember Petso asked if the terms of the bond were variable. Mr. Voorhees answered the bond maturities and interest rates were described in Section 3. The bonds were callable in ten years at the option of the City. Councilmember Petso referred to a list of outstanding debt as of September 1, 2001, and inquired about the Bond Anticipation Note issued in December 2000 in the amount of $2.7 million. Ms. Hetzler answered this related to LID 215 and 216. The LID bonds would be issued later in September. Mayor Haakenson remanded the matter. to Council for action. Ord# 3372 COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, FOR Limited Tax COUNCIL APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE NO. 3372 FOR THE SALE OF LIMITED TAX General Obligation GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS. Bonds, 2001 Councilmember Petso pointed out the bonds being issued were 20-year bonds but the road repairs could be expected to last only 15 years. She was uncomfortable with this and used the analogy of purchasing a new car and financing it over 15-20 years — paying for the loan when you no longer had the use of the item purchased. She suggested the Council consider a financial policy that funds not be borrowed for a project for a term that exceeds the life of the project. She offered to assist in developing such a financial policy for Council consideration. Councilmember Petso also expressed concern with the nature of some of the projects, noting the emergency repairs to Frances Anderson Center were acceptable but repairs to the Frances Anderson Center plumbing were of a less urgent nature. She indicated she would likely vote against approval of the ordinance for these reasons. She commented ordinarily she would advocate doing some capital financing via bonds when rates are low due to the benefits to the City and the ability to achieve equity — those using the asset that was purchased were the same ones making the payments on the bonds. Councilmember Miller commented the need for financial policies appeared to conflict with the upgrade in the City's rating to AA-3. He indicated this was a "badge of honor" for the management by the existing Council and previous Councils. He commended staff and the Mayor for doing such an outstanding job. He said additional financial policies appeared to be restatement of current RCWs regarding how the City manages its finances. He supported the motion, noting this was a wise decision; the City was taking wise financial steps in obtaining the funds, but also because the funds would be used to support and continue the enjoyment of the City's infrastructure. Councilmember Petso acknowledged the City had an excellent credit rating. She directed Councilmembers' attention to the analogy of buying a new car with a 15-20 year loan; no matter how good one's credit rating was, taking a 20-year loan for a new vehicle was not prudent. She reiterated her suggestion that the Council consider a financial policy that funds would not be borrowed for a term longer than the expected life of a project. Council President Earling commended Ms. Hetzler for assembling the financing package and also commended former Finance Director Art Housler who set a precedent over a number of years and laid a good foundation. Council President Earling referred to bond ratings of other cities in the State, pointing out only five other cities in the State had a bond rating superior to Edmonds. He said this was a tribute not only to Ms. Hetzler, Mr. Housler but also to former and current administrations who have been consistently conservative, imaginative and had good timing on several bond issuances. Regarding the 15- year life of the road improvements, he noted some of the roads to be overlaid were last overlaid 30 years Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 21, 2001 Page 16 ago. He noted the intent was to catch up with past deficiencies created by reprogramming transportation funds. Councilmember Marin thanked those involved with this project, those involved in the issuance, Ms. Hetzler for her insight, and staff who identified projects, etc. MOTION CARRIED. THE VOTE WAS 5-1, COUNCILMEMBER PETSO OPPOSED. 6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS (con't) There were no additional public comments. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Open House Mayor Haakenson invited the public to an Open House regarding the Edmonds Crossing/Pine 1ne or Edmonds Y P P $ g � Tossing/ Street/Ferry Traffic Study on Thursday, August 23 from 7:00 — 9:00 p.m. in the Library Plaza Room. He Pine Street explained the open house would address the status and alternatives as well as provide an opportunity for Ferry Traffic Study public comments. Police Chief Mayor Haakenson commented the City had been without a Police Chief for five months. After reviewing Candidates 36 applications and conducting 15 interviews, the selection has been narrowed to three possibilities, a candidate from Snohomish, Kennewick, and Santa Maria, California. Mayor Haakenson said he was in Snohomish last week, and will be in Kennewick this week, and Santa Maria, California next week conducting background checks on candidates. A decision will be presented to the Council the week following Labor Day. oric 8• COUNCIL COMMENTS Preservation Advisory Councilmember Plunkett invited the public to the Edmonds Historic Preservation Advisory Committee Committee meeting on Thursday, August 30 at 3:30 p.m. in the third floor conference room at City Hall. Public Councilmember Petso advised the August 28 Council meeting included a public hearing regarding a Hearing re: revised Planned Residential Development (PRD) ordinance. She explained the previous PRD ordinance Planned applied to developments of five or more lots and offered a reduction in the lot size requirements in Residential exchange for open ace and other public benefits. The revised ordinance removes the requirement for Develop- g p p p q ent five or more lots as well as the requirement to provide open space. She used the example of a property owner in Westgate whose lot was large enough to be subdivided into two lots. The proposed PRD ordinance allowed rounding up of the lot size (in her example there was enough property for 2.5 lots, which could be rounded up to create 3 lots). The new ordinance would also potentially allow duplexes in single family zones and could allow clustering of homes on property with wetlands or 'steep slopes, clustering to the extent that the zoning could potentially drop below the RS-8 lot size. She urged the public to attend the public hearing and provide input. With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:00 p.m. •�KENSON, MAYOR "le Lta—�., SANDRA S. CHASE, CITY CLERK Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 21, 2001 Page 17 AGENDA = EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex 250 51" Avenue North 7:00 - 10:00 p.m. AUGUST 21, 2001 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 August 14, 2001 (C) Approval of claim checks #49874 through #50018 for the week of August 6, 2001, in the amount of $152,807.85. Approval of claim checks #50019 through #50189 for the week of August 13, 2001, in the amount of $493,615.34. (D) Approval of list of businesses applying for renewal of their Liquor Licenses with the Washington State Liquor Control Board (E) Authorization to contract with James Murphy Auctioneers to sell surplus City vehicles and equipment (F) Authorization for Mayor to sign contract with the Greater Edmonds Chamber of Commerce for the Hot Autumn Nites Automobile Show and Celebration (G) Authorization to call for bids for Treatment Plant chemicals (H) Authorization to call for bids for liquid chlorine for the Wastewater Treatment Plant and other agencies 3. (20 Mine) Continued Public Hearing on the Planning Board's recommendation to deny a Contract Rezone request by Larry and Susan Deisher for property located at 7025 174th Street Southwest. The request is to rezone the property from RS-20 to RS-8 to allow a three -lot Short Plat on the property. (File No. R-2000-6) Page 1 of 2 CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA August 21, 2001 «.. Page 2 of 2 4. (30 Min.) Public Hearing regarding the public need for a Public Access Channel imported from outside of South Snohomish County 5. (15 Min.) Proposed Ordinance relating to contracting indebtedness; providing for the issuance of $2,975,000 par value of Limited Tax General Obligation Bonds, 2001 of the City for general City purposes to provide funds with which to pay costs of making improvements to the Frances Anderson Recreational Center, replacing the Edmonds Library roof, funding a sewer rehabilitation project, and funding street improvement projects; fixing the date, form, maturities, interest rates, terms and covenants of the bonds; establishing a bond redemption fund and a construction fund; providing for bond insurance; and approving the sale and providing for the delivery of the bonds to Seattle -Northwest Securities Corporation of Seattle, Washington 6. Audience Comments (3 Minute Limit Per Person) 7. ( 5 Min.) Mayor's Comments 8. (15 Min.) Council Comments 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 as well as a delayed telecast of the meeting appears on AT&T Cable, .Channel 21.