Loading...
10/04/1994 City CouncilCouncil Approved mutes Approved 10111194 EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES OCTOBER 4,1994 Following a special meeting, called pursuant to notice, to interview a candidate for the Architectural Design Board, Mayor Hall called the regular meeting of the Edmonds City Council to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Library Plaza Room, 650 Main Street. The meeting was preceded by the flag salute. ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT STAFF PRESENT Laura Hall, Mayor John Nordquist, Council President William J. Kasper, Council President Pro-tem Barbara Fahey, Councilmember Steve Dwyer, Councilmember Michael Hall, Councilmember (7:17) Tom Petruzzi, Councilmember Dave Earling, Councilmember APPROVAL OF AGENDA Tom Miller, Police Chief Michael Springer, Fire Chief John Westfall, Fire Inspector Paul Mar, Community Services Director Brent Hunter, Personnel Manager Rob Chave, Planning Manager Jeff Wilson, Current Planning Supervisor Rhonda March, City Clerk Christine Laws, Recorder Scott Snyder, City Attorney COUNCILMEMBER TOM PETRUZZI MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DAVE EARLING, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED. CONSENT AGENDA Council President John Nordquist asked to pull Items E, F and G from the consent agenda. COUNCILMEMBER TOM PETRUZZI MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BARBARA FAHEY, FOR THE PASSAGE OF THE REMAINDER OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED. The agenda items passed are as follows: (A) ROLL CALL (B) APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 27, 1994 Approved City Council Minutes October 4, 1994 Page 1 (C) APPROVAL OF CLAIMS WARRANTS #944482 THRU $944939 FOR WEEK OF SEPTEMBER 19, 1994, AND #945059 FOR WEEK OF SEPTEMBER 16, 1994. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL WARRANTS FOR #944729 THRU #945020 FOR THE PERIOD OF SEPTEMBER 1 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 15, 1994 (D) APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ON THE HEARING OF AN APPEAL OF THE HEARING EXAMINER'S ' DECISION TO DENY AN APPEAL (FILE NO. AP-94-89) OF THE COMMUNITY SERVICES DIRECTOR'S DECISION TO DENY A PERMIT REVIEW (FILE NO. PR-93-219) OF AN APPROVED AND BUILT PROJECT UNDER FILE NO. ADB-15-85 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 8130 212TH ST. S.W. (Appellant: Jennifer Markestad/File No. AP-94-120; Applicant: Robert Klepinger/File No. ADB-15-85)[from August 2 and August 16, 1994] Council President Nordquist indicated he had pulled these items because he wished clarification as to the requirements for the positions on which requests for proposals were to be advertised. It was clarified that the items being discussed were correctly Items F, G and H. Brent Hunter, Personnel Manager, indicated he could have that information next week. Agenda Items F, G and H were placed on the agenda for next week's meeting. COUNCIL PRESIDENT JOHN NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BILL KASPER, TO APPROVE ITEMS F, G AND H. MOTION CARRIED. Regarding Item E involving advertising request for proposals for professional services on cable television franchise renewal, Councilmember Dave Earling asked Paul Mar, Community Services Director, to refresh the Council's minds regarding the background on this item and from which funds these funds would be allocated. Mr. Mar responded that $5,000 is from the Council Fund and the remainder is from the Community Services Administration portion of the General Fund. Mr. Mar further stated that this had been brought to the Council in May when there was talk of extending their existing agreement in order to then go through the franchise renewal process and to obtain a consultant for that purpose. Because of the rate regulations process, they have not yet been able to get to this stage of the negotiations. Councilmember Barbara Fahey asked how much money the City gets as a result of being involved in this process. Mr. Mar responded that the City gets an excise tax on cable television revenues. Cable franchise renewal is a periodic cost. City Attorney Scott Snyder responded that the City receives a franchise fee of 5%, a portion of which the FCC requires be used for regulation. COUNCILMEMBER MICHAEL HALL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BARBARA FAHEY, THAT CONSENT AGENDA ITEM E BE APPROVED. MOTION CARRIED. AUDIENCE Jack Gradwohl, Area Manager for Chambers Cable, 533 Main Street, Edmonds, WA, spoke regarding ' the taping of the Council meetings. He indicated the Council meetings were presently being aired on Approved City Council Minutes October 4, 1994 Page 2 Monday, Wednesday and Friday from 12 Noon to 4:00 p.m. on Channel 32. He offered some evening replay time on Channel 36. This would be on a week -to -week basis, subject to preemption with notice, until the issues are addressed in the franchise negotiations. Jack Bevan, 19210 - 94th West, read a letter regarding Charleston Property at Second Avenue South. He requested that the SEPA regulations be carried out to the fullest. Mel Critchley, 705 Driftwood Place, showed a crab trap showing the newest government regulation which he classified as an escape route for the crabs. His primary remarks dealt with the current rail situation. He feels we are throwing money away on the railway. He told the Council of a letter to the editor to hopefully be in "The Enterprise" this week entitled "The Evolution and Natural Progression of Transportation". He feels that when the time is right to run the railroad, private money will be available to pay for it. - Trudy Lehn, 7904 - 216th Street S.W., asked why Chambers is asking for a raise while Viacom is giving a refund to its customers. It was explained to her this matter would be on the agenda a little later if she would like to reserve her comments until then. Lars Olson, 561 Pine, spoke with regard to the weight limit on certain streets. He indicated he had observed, and has reported on more than one occasion, the fact that 80,000 trucks are traversing roads with 5 ton weight limits. He indicated there had been very little response from the police. He expressed his displeasure with the way traffic is dealt with in the city. OBSERVANCE OF "NATIONAL FIRE PREVENTION WEEK" Mayor Hall read a proclamation in honor of National Fire Prevention Week, October 9-15. Fire Chief Mike Springer introduced Fire Inspector John Westfall and handed out batteries for the Councilmembers' smoke detectors. Inspector Westfall gave a report on home fires and indicated most home fire injuries and deaths were a result of smoke and occurred between 12:00 Midnight and 6:00 a.m. He explained the benefits of smoke detectors. He announced five steps to fire safety: 1) test smoke detectors monthly, 2) once a year, on a memorable date such as the switch off daylight savings time, change the detector's battery and never remove the battery unless you are changing it, 3) clean and vacuum smoke detectors, 4) replace smoke detector every ten years or when it does not test properly, and 5) have fire escape plan and fire drills. CONTINUED HEARING ON APPEAL OF THE HEARING EXAMINEWS APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT LOCATED hAT 23910 74TH AVENUE W. (Appellant: William Lancaster and C. D. Coffelt/File No. i,A AP-94-144; Applicant: Antonia Bryant/File No. CU-94-108) [from September 19,19941 City Attorney Scott Snyder gave a background update to those present. The purpose of this continued hearing was to allow Antonia Bryant an opportunity to respond to Exhibit 6, a lengthy document provided by Mr. Lancaster. He also indicated a need to clarify a couple of matters. He pointed out that Councilmember Kasper had not been present at the last hearing. He asked Councilmember Kasper Approved City Council Minutes October 4, 1994 Page 3 if he had had an opportunity to review all of the materials, tapes and exhibits. Councilmember Kasper replied he had. Mr. Snyder indicated there was no bar to a councilmember participating as long as he had been briefed on the matter. Mr. Snyder's second concern was a matter of ex-parte communication occurring between Council President Nordquist and Mr. and Mrs. Coffelt. It was determined that Council President Nordquist had received no information and that the contact was merely a matter of referring the Coffelts to Rob Chave. It was asked whether the Council or the public had any objection to either Council President Nordquist or Councilmember Kasper taking part in this hearing. There were none. City Attorney Snyder reminded Antonia Bryant that this hearing was for her response and that no new information could be provided without providing similar opportunity to the appellants. Ms. Bryant handed out to the Council and City Clerk Rhonda March her rebuttal letter and two pictures of the subject property. She feels the statement contained untruths and distortions. She felt they questioned the Bryants' honesty and suggested they came into the neighborhood with the purpose of causing trouble and devaluing the neighborhood. Ms. Bryant stated that they take great pride in their home and would do nothing to devalue the property. She reiterated that they will do whatever they can to rectify their temporary financial hardship, and that they would make sure their renter did nothing to harm the integrity of the neighborhood. She believes that, with the exception of the two year residency requirement for the conditional use permit, all requirements have been met for the requested waiver of the two year period. The Bryants feel their situation falls within the allowed exceptions to the residency requirement. She again asked the Council to not overturn the original decision. They did not enter into the purchase of their home with the intent of renting out the accessory dwelling. However, if they are not allowed the accessory dwelling permit, they will be forced to leave their home. Councilmember Fahey asked about the income being temporary until the second child is born. Ms. Bryant stated that she would be employed at least another year. The hearing portion was closed, and the matter was remanded to Council. Councilmember Petruzzi indicated he had had an opportunity to review all the materials in this matter, as well as re -read the pertinent codes. He believes it incumbent upon the Council to make sure that the public can rely on the codes and the enforcement of the codes. He thinks the recorded covenant is very clear. He also feels the neighborhood should be able to rely on the covenants running with the land. He perceives Edmonds as about keeping the integrity of the neighborhoods. In looking at the code, it states: For the purposes of this chapter, a financial hardship shall be defined as any situation outside the control of the applicant which critically impairs the applicant's ability to meet the financial obligations associated with the home which was not anticipated at the time of the acquisition of the subject site or at the time of the applicant's initial residence of the subject site, whichever is first The applicant shall have the burden of establishing the existence of a bona fide financial hardship by clear and convincing evidence. Approved City Council Minutes October 4, 1994 Page 4 Councilmember Petruzzi related that he felt that the applicant had to have anticipated that if the parents did not live there, there would be a financial hardship. He also mentioned the fact that the parents were on the mortgage. He also questioned the parents' move into a house approximately half the size of their present house. He has difficulty relating a financial hardship to a $300,000+ house. He feels the appeal should be upheld and the hearing examiner's ruling overturned. Councilmember Michael Hall stated that his overall view is that the Growth Management Act is telling us we have to accept more people into the community. He thinks the provision in the code is something that is doing that -- with the mother-in-law apartments, etc. All he sees that is done with the covenant is to put everyone on notice that this property would fall under that classification and that something would need to be done in order to qualify. One of the provisions is "hardship outside the control of the applicant". His recollection of the testimony was that there was some particular incident totally out of the control of the parties that prevented the parents from moving into the house and thinks they should qualify for the exception in the code. If it is not going to denigrate the neighborhood and if this is something that can be done within the code, something should be done for future capability to determine who is going to come in under the new Growth Management Act. Councilmember Petruzzi indicated that the staff has continually told the Council that we can accommodate all of the requirements within the existing codes as there is the land mass to do it. He took exception to attempting to rectify something in growth management through a ruling on the code. Councilmember Steve Dwyer agreed with Councilmember Petruzzi. He said that when the Council revised the code provision there was concern about not recategorizing the essential nature of single- family zoning as being single-family zones. The two situations that prompted the Council to revisit the strict enforcement of the single-family zones to allow for mother-in-law apartments were 1) an elderly person who needed someone to assist them, and 2) someone who had lived in their home for a long time that was being priced out of their home. The Council did not want to make mother-in-law apartments available to new purchasers because that too closely resembles a situation of multi -family zoning, i.e., a duplex. In the end, it came down to a presumption that if someone had been living in their home for at least two years then a request for the mother-in-law apartment wasn't a sham. It was thought at the time that if this type of situation dealt with family members, that could be an exception to the two-year rule. The other exception deals with some calamity striking shortly before the two year period expired. It was never the intention to create a situation to accommodate the purchase for the initial living situation from non -family members by combining income. He doesn't believe this situation is the fault of the City or its ordinances. He believes this situation is exactly the situation the Council is trying to prevent -- unrelated people buying homes in neighborhoods and then dividing them up. He feels the correct decision is to overturn the decision of the hearing examiner. Councilmember Barbara Fahey agrees with Councilmember Hall. She expressed empathy for the neighborhood. She indicated that when she read the ordinance, she found it does boil down to a financial hardship. She feels her review of the documentation shows that there was a clear and definite dependency set up on the fact that the parents were going to live there. That scenario is allowed by the code. She thinks the Bryants' plan had been pretty well spelled out, and they were depending on assistance from her parents. She stated further that with four signatures on the loan, Washington Approved City Council Minutes October 4, 1994 Page 5 Mutual had to have known there would be a cooperative effort in making the payments. Councilmember Fahey feels that since their plan didn't work out, there is definitely a financial hardship. She was inclined to feel the Bryants had demonstrated a financial hardship and should be able to have the accessory dwelling unit. She feels that there are certain safeguards built into the code to prevent the extraordinary circumstances from which the code was to provide protection. Councilmember Petruzzi stated the code is clear that the hardship could not have been foreseen at the time of the acquisition of the home. Certainly, if something happened and the parents could not live there, it would have had to have been anticipated. COUNCILMEMBER TOM PETRUZZI MOVED, SECONDED FOR DISCUSSION BY COUNCILMEMBER STEVE DWYER, TO UPHOLD THE APPEAL AND OVERTURN THE DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER COUNCILMEMBER DAVE EARLING RECALLED THE PROCESS THE COUNCIL WENT THROUGH AND THE KINDS OF DECISIONS MADE AND THE REASONS THEREFORE, AND THAT IT CLOSELY PARALLELLED WHAT COUNCILMEMBER DWYER SAID. HE BELIEVES THE INTENT OF THE COUNCIL WAS CLEAR AT THE TIME THE CODE WAS PUT TOGETHER, AND HE INDICATED HIS SUPPORT OF THE MOTION. ROLL CALL SHOWED THE FOLLOWING: COUNCILMEMBER STEVE DWYER—YES; COUNCILMEMBER DAVE EARLING—YES; COUNCILMEMBER BARBARA FAHEY—NO; COUNCILMEMBER MICHAEL HALL —NO; COUNCILMEMBER BELL KASPER- -NO; COUNCIL PRESIDENT JOHN NORDQUIST—YES; COUNCILMEMBER PETRUZZI—YES. MOTION CARRIED 4-3. HEARING ON A REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF A PROPOSED 6 UNIT/LOT PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT/PRELEMJNARY SUBDIVISION LOCATED AT 8606 196TH STREET SOUTHWEST (Applicant: Jordy Kostelyk/File No. ,Q} PRD-94-12) Qt' Jeff Wilson, Current Planning Supervisor, provided the history of the subject matter. The applicant, Jordy Kostelyk, is requesting preliminary approval of a 6-unit detached singe -family Planned Residential Development (PRD) and 6-lot subdivision for a 1.18 acre property that is zoned both RS-12 and RM-2.4. The property is located at 8606 - 196th Street S.W. The application has followed the PRD provisions outlined in the Edmonds Community Development Code, and three public hearings have been held. First, an optional pre -application hearing was held with the Hearing Examiner Pro -Tern for the purpose of soliciting public comment. Second, a review by the City's Architectural Design Board was held. Third, a plan reflecting the recommendations of the Architectural Design Board was submitted to the Hearing Examiner for public hearing. The Hearing Examiner reviewed testimony and the recommendations of the ADB and issued his report recommending approval of the application with certain conditions. One of the concerns raised by engineering concerned the access proposed. The plan for the eastern property line presently provides for a 5' wide buffer strip, 20' of asphalt paving, and a 5' wide sidewalk. Based on the number of units, the standard calls for a minimum Approved City Council Minutes October 4, 1994 Page 6 of 22' of pavement with curb and gutter on either side, which provides for approximately a 25' wide access standard. He indicated the applicants will have to come back again for final approval. Councilmember Kasper asked if it was late to enforce the requirement or if it was a condition to the permit. Mr. Wilson indicated it was not a late implementation; it is just that the designs had not been changed to reflect that. Councilmember Kasper asked if the applicants had agreed to that. Mr. Wilson responded that this is a design standard not subject to negotiation and is based on zoning designation and number of lots served. Councilmember Kasper asked if this will effect the setbacks. Mr. Wilson stated that under the PRD process, internal setbacks can be modified. The intent of the PRD is to allow for potentially smaller lots as long as (1) the density does not exceed that allowed by the underlying zoning, and (2) the height of the structure does not exceed that allowed by the underlying zoning. The overall density does not change. The intent of the PRD is to provide greater buffer areas. Councilmember Kasper asked if it would effect the rear buffer. Mr. Wilson indicated that it would effect the western edge of the access road and would not effect the perimeter setbacks. Opening the public portion of the meeting on behalf of applicant Jordy Kostelyk was Architect Rick Anderson, 17518 - 52nd Avenue West, #B, Lynnwood, WA 98037. Mr. Anderson has had conversations with the engineering department regarding the required right-of-way. The final decision that he received on January 20, 1994, was that given the density of the site and the split -zone nature of the site, they would accept a 20' right-of-way. For that reason the plans had not been changed. He indicated his desire to give a recital of the intentions behind the project application and individual elements of the Edmonds Community Development Code that they feel should be brought to bear on the project. Their intent is to provide entry level housing, for this purpose deemed to be the building and selling of a home for a price of approximately $160,000. In order to do that they need to have small, well -used lots. One of the key elements is the zero lot line configuration where instead of splitting the setbacks in half, you place the home immediately adjacent to one property line which allows a larger, more usable sideyard and setback. They have attempted to identify and develop a larger open space on the site. They are also trying to keep the integrity and character of the neighborhood. Accordingly, they are placing the new development behind the existing house, leaving the open space in front. Mr. Anderson stated that they wanted to place the intense development adjacent to intense development so you have the most intense development (driveway) adjacent to the most intensely developed parcel of property adjacent to it which is the condominium next door. There are three goals for landscaping: 1) buffering for adjacent uses, 2) provide privacy screening and facade softening, and 3) preserve existing character. Peter Beck, 718 Sprague, asked about the square footage of these lots. Mr. Anderson indicated he recalled the smallest lot is 3,500 square feet and the largest was about 11,000 square feet. Lars Olson, 561 Pine, asked if the 11,000 foot lot was the existing home and what the size was of the next smaller, lot. Tracy Marquart, 629 - 196th, asked if there were plans available to view. Mayor Hall indicated there were. Approved City Council Minutes October 4, 1994 Page 7 Mr. Anderson corrected information previously given. The largest lot size is 8,000; the next smallest is 5,400 square feet. The public portion of the hearing was closed, and the matter was remanded for Council action. Council President John Nordquist questioned the vicinity map he had been provided. He wished clarification on the property location. Councilmember Kasper asked Jeff Wilson what the code is for right-of-way widths. From his observation, there is a problem with the 22' because of the number of cars. He expressed concern about overflow visitor parking. Mr. Wilson indicated they can only require two off-street parking places, but street standards are not designed to incorporate on -street parking as a requirement to handle overflow or visitor parking. Mr. Wilson indicated the right-of-way is one thing to be resolved before final issuance of a permit. He further stated that this property is zoned RS-12 (5-9 units) which require a 30 foot right-of-way width, with 20 feet of pavement. Because it is a split zone, engineering may be applying a different standard. With regard to density, Mr. Wilson stated that it is calculated on the combined parcels. Councilmember Kasper said he was not against the project as it is ideal for the location, but he again questioned the amount of available parking. Mr. Wilson indicated the City could not ask for more parking places than are provided in the code. Mr. Wilson further stated that some projects as an extra bonus provide additional parking, but that is something that can be done by choice by the developer but cannot be required by the City. COUNCILMEMBER TOM PETRUZZI MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER STEVE DWYER, THAT THE COUNCIL UPHOLD THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER TO APPROVE THE PROPOSED PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT (PRD) APPLICATION SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS LISTED IN THE HEARING EXAMINER'S REPORT (PAGES 7-8 OF EXHIBIT 1). THIS IS ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 8606 - 196TH S.W.; THE APPLICANT IS JORDY KOSTELYK. COUNCILMEMBER BILL KASPER ASKED TO AMEND THE MOTION TO MAKE THE PROJECT APPROVAL SUBJECT TO A 22 FOOT ACCESS RIGHT- OF-WAY. UPON COUNCIL CONSENSUS, AND APPROVAL OF THE SECOND (MR DWYER), THE AMENDMENT WAS MADE PART OF THE ORIGINAL MOTION. COUNCILMEMBER MICHAEL HALL ASKED IF THE APPLICANT SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO SPEAK TO THE ISSUE OF THE 22 FOOT RIGHT- OF-WAY. FEELING THAT THE MATTER HAD ALREADY BEEN ADDRESSED AND WAS STATUTORILY PROVIDED, THE QUESTION WAS CALLED FOR MOTION CARRIED. Before proceeding to the next agenda item, Mayor Hall called for a two minute break. HEARING ON CHAMBERS CABLE PROPOSED RATE SCHEDULE Paul Mar, Community Services Director, summarized the purpose of the hearing as being required as It part of the Federal Communication Commission procedures. In January 1994 the Council adopted an Approved City Council Minutes October 4, 1994 Page 8 I- ordinance to enable the City to regulate basic cable television rates and administer other related equipment and service regulations. As the local franchising authority, the Council's job is to regulate the basic service tier. Mr. Mar suggested as a procedure that the City and consultant would present their findings (found in Exhibit 10), that those presenting objections (found in Exhibit 9) be allowed to speak, and after the conclusion of testimony, the City come back and make its findings and conclusions. Mr. Mar introduced consultant Deborah Grindle of Grindle Cable Television Financial Consulting Services. She stated that her firm had been retained to assist the City in rate regulation matters. In 1992 Congress passed the cable television consumer protection and competition act. This allowed for local government regulation of certain rates of cable television companies. Congress then turned over to the FCC the role of establishing rules for the regulatory process. Cable service is divided into three classes. First, basic service tier which is the least package to which one may subscribe. This tier, and any equipment needed for this tier, are subject to local regulation. The second tier of service is under the regulation of the FCC. The third tier, HBO and pay -per -view is totally unregulated. Form 393 requires the cable provider to justify its rates based on benchmark rates between September 30, 1993, and May 14, 1994. The benchmark rate factor is the type of system, the number of channels it has, and the number of satellite signals it has. For the 393, the greater the proportion of satellite signals to regular channels on the tier, the higher the rate is -allowed to be. In May 1994 the FCC replaced the 393 with the 1200 series which justify rates from then forward. With the 393, if the rate structure from cable operator is higher than rates allowable under 393, then subscribers may be entitled to a refund. On March 21, 1994, Chambers submitted its Form 393 with the City showing 29 channels of regular service with 19 satellite channels. Subsequent clarification from the FCC show that there should have been 17 satellite channels; two reported initially were proven not to be satellite channels. Under the 393, a reduction in rates is called for of about one percent. There are also reductions for the converter charges. There is a change in installation fee. Chambers is switching from a set installation fee to an hourly rate of $22.80. From September 30, 1993 to May 14, 1994, the average customer will get a refund in an average amount of 12¢ per month. Based on an average number of subscribers, the total refund liability of Chambers is $8,904, with the average subscriber receiving a refund of 90¢. The 1200 series was designed to correct a lot of the problems with the 393. The two main differences are that the operator is allowed to recover increases in external costs such as programming costs and also it increases the competitive differential. That differential provides for what was a 10% decrease under the 393 to become 17% under the 1200. Again, using the 1200 form, the basic cable rates from September 1993 to May 1994, the customers are entitled to a refund. The basic service rate would decrease 17%. The monthly charges for converters and hourly charges for converters is basically the same as for the 393. There is a substantially greater refund liability as a result of this form. The average subscriber between May and September will receive a refund of $3.47 per month for a total liability estimated to be $150,000. Upon questions by Councilmember Petruzzi and Mayor Hall, Ms. Grindle explained that the average subscriber would obtain refunds of about $16.50 from both the 393 and 1200. Approved City Council Minutes October 4, 1994 Page 9 Councilmember Hall asked if the refund would be in the form of a check or a credit on the bill. Ms. Grindle responded it will most likely come as a credit. Councilmember Petruzzi asked, and received, clarification on advance billing procedures. City Attorney Snyder indicated this is not a subject the City can legally regulate under the current franchise agreement. He further indicated there was a recent FCC decision involving TCI and the City of St. Louis which has granted the operator broad discretion in determining the mechanism for providing the refund. The typical methodology is to give the refund to the current subscriber and not attempt to track people down. Sylvia Sycamore, Senior Vice President of Chambers Communication Corp. here for Edmonds Cable Company (Chambers Cable Company of Edmonds). They are in agreement with the consultant's report. She described their process for implementation. Based on the fact that the Council will pass a resolution this month, and the fact that they must give the subscribers a minimum of 30 days notice, they are looking at an effective date of December 1 for the new rate, with refunds occurring on or before that time. They are also looking at changing their cycle from a three-part cycle to a one -cycle system. There will be information included with the bill explaining the rate changes, the refund, and the billing changes. Service rates will be charged at an hourly rate with a half hour minimum, additional time broken down to the nearest quarter hour. Items not previously billed will not be billed under the new proposal. The refunds will be given as a one-time credit on the bill. There are five categories of refunds, and each class of subscriber will get refunds as they apply. She stressed there is no rate increase at this time. Councilmember Hall expressed his thanks for Chambers' offer to televise Council meetings during evenings. He noted the suggested channel was Channel 36 and asked how many channels they had. He was advised there were 35 stations, beginning with Channel 2. Councilmember Hall also expressed concern about switching to hourly rates. Examples were given comparing the flat fees to the new hourly rates. None of the individuals who wrote letters objecting to this item were present. Trudy Lehn, 7904 - 215th S.W., presented City Clerk Rhonda March with a petition opposed to rate increase signed by 66 senior citizens. Warren Schweppe, 8524 - 215th S.W., Edmonds, spoke to programming. He also expressed a desire to see TCI or Viacom compete in the area. Sharma Oliver, 505 N. 149th, Shoreline, spoke as an individual, small business owner, and representing Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility and Pacific Northwest PC Users Group. Her concern was not so much with rates and other access issues. She asked they not enter into a franchise agreement that locks them into current technology. She suggested that channels be reserved for schools and libraries, government, and the general public for creation of programs they wish to provide to others. She feels that unless the City negotiates for many channels and adequate band widths to enable full participation, the Puget Sound area will decline as a desirable place for high-tech industry to Approved City Council Minutes October 4, 1994 Page 10 locate. She provided the Council with copies of an article from Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility that addresses this issue. Her presentation was well received by the Council. City Attorney Snyder advised Ms. Oliver of the consent agenda item dealing with the Council's authorization to advertise request for proposals for professional services on cable television franchise �t renewal. Lars Olson, 561 Pine, discussed the City's ability to address the regulation of public utilities. He feels the regulated utilities buck the trends at all times. When other industries, including high-tech are aiming at cost reduction, where regulated utility costs are not going down. He suggested the Council was allowing a monopoly to harvest Edmonds at $1,200 per acre with higher density harvest at a higher rate. He likened this to the telephone company. He feels it the duty of the Council to enforce "this" and pass along the savings to the citizens. The public portion of the hearing was closed by Mayor Hall. Ms. Grindle answered the question regarding the retroactivity of the refund by stating it was retroactive. With regard to programming content, she indicated that was not an area that could be locally regulated. Paul Mar recapped the subject. He indicated there were procedural recommendations by staff as indicated on the agenda memo. He further complimented Chambers on their cooperation. COUNCIL PRESIDENT JOHN NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER STEVE DWYER, TO ADOPT GRINDLE CATV FINANCIAL CONSULTING SERVICES' SEPTEMBER 29, 1994 REPORT AS THE CITY'S FINDINGS OF FACT ON THE FORMS 393 AND 1200 SUBMITTED BY CHAMBERS COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION. MOTION CARRIED. COUNCIL PRESIDENT JOHN NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER STEVE DWYER, TO AUTHORIZE STAFF TO A) PREPARE FORMAL FINDINGS OF FACT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONCLUSIONS OF TONIGHT'S PUBLIC HEARING; AND B) PREPARE A REFUND ORDER AND AN ACCOUNTING ORDER PURSUANT TO THE POWER GRANTED TO THE EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL BY THE FCC AND THE FINDINGS OF FACT. MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Dwyer expressed his pleasure at his perception as to how this has all worked so far. Mr. Mar added further comment. Chambers had offered that the rates be adjusted at permanent levels as of December 1, 1994. Also the refund order will have stated in it that they will provide the City Council with a report on the funds by the 15th of November, and all overcharges will be by December 1. Those will be incorporated in the specific language of the documents being prepared. Sylvia Sycamore expressed concern over being able to have a report by November 15 as that is the date they get their data base information. It was determined that the date for Chambers' report to Council will be discussed and the Council advised. Council President Nordquist suggested we should give Chambers time to accomplish the refunds. Approved City Council Minutes October 4, 1994 Page 11 Councilmember Hall asked about the FCC requirement to make a decision by October 14 and whether tonight's vote counted as being within that time or whether we needed to have formal findings of fact. City Attorney Snyder indicated it needed to be confirmed. It was thought the final documentation could be presented to the Council next week. HEARING ON DOWNTOWN/WATERFRONT PLAN Rob Chave, Planning Manager, gave a brief summary of the history of the project and directed the attention of the Council to Exhibit 4 of their packet. This exhibit is a letter from Rob Morrison, Chairman of the 3M-T Task Force, Subcommittee of Edmonds Chamber of Commerce, relating to the "near term" waterfront plan. Rob Morrison explained the 3M-T Task Force as an advisory and investigatory group of members of the Chamber of Commerce charged by the Economic and Development Committee to ask questions and make determinations for the board of directors and for the Chamber at large. He indicated the members of the task force. Mr. Morrison then went through the 11 items included in his letter, providing more detail on each item. He invited members of the audience to contact him at the Chamber with any questions they may have. The consensus of the Council allowed Mr. Morrison to complete his report on the 11 items. Mr. Morrison further requested that the 3M-T Task Force be involved in any technical discussion of various issues presented. He indicated that residents of the waterfront area are not in favor of a walkway on the waterfront. He offered to the Council an 18-page list of signatures in that regard. Bill McLaughlin, business owner, 114 Second Avenue South, Shoreline resident, was the next to speak. He indicated one of the things the waterfront plan focuses on is that the ferry terminal will be moved to Pt. Edwards. He further indicated that the 11 points as presented by Mr. Morrison had gone before the Chamber Board and was ratified by that group. He says the important thing is to look at the 2-5 years and 5-12 years before the terminal is moved. He expressed concern about the traffic backup at Westgate. He expressed his concern that while the Council is adopting its waterfront plan, it must be very cognizant of what is going to happen in the next 12 years. John Beck, 200 Beach Place, #103, asked if the Council's action tonight was to adopt the plan as submitted. Councilmember Dwyer indicated this was the first time the Council has had input from the public. Mr. Beck also asked if there were any easements on the properties that would effect the walkway mentioned. Rob Chave indicated this was an option, and no decision had been made on that, that any walkway may end up winding in and out. Mr. Beck's concern was brought about by the fact that before he purchased his condominium an easement was granted to the City at mean low tide. He doesn't want a walkway in his front yard. City Attorney Snyder announced the City has a lawsuit pending in which an individual or business has claimed the City has had a taking of their waterfront rights in the area. It should be clear that the drawings in the Comprehensive Plan are conceptual in nature, and unless the City owns the right-of- way it could only require dedication of property in conjunction with the two -prong U. S. Supreme Court test in Dolan v. Tigard, OR, or pay compensation. Both the ordinance that adopts the Approved City Council Minutes October 4, 1994 Page 12 Comprehensive Plan and future enactments being put together as part of the Growth Management Act will confirm that. Jack Bevan, 19210 - 94th West, said he heard a lot of short term concerns about the waterfront program. He reminded that the Jones Act was changing as well as other things he felt the Council should not overlook. Peter Beck, 719 Spruce Street, spoke as to land use as it pertained to transportation. Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, hopes that in the future people who attend Council meetings get the information Council is provided with regard to items being considered. He indicated it is very difficult to participate at a hearing level if the public is uneducated on the subject. COUNCILMEMBER STEVE DWYER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TOM PETRUZZI, TO EXTEND THE MEETING. MOTION CARRIED. Mr. Hertrich indicated the character of Edmonds has changed. It is now very pedestrian oriented. He supports the walkway plan today, even though several years ago he was absolutely against it. Shilah Cook, 904 - 7th Avenue South, agrees wholeheartedly with Mr. Hertrich and indicated she strongly supports a walkway as far along the beach as they can get it. Lars Olson, 561 Pine, spoke to ferry traffic and requested the City make every effort to keep this traffic off of Pine Street and other residential streets. He also expressed an interest in regulating the length of time a car would be allowed to idle while waiting in he. He feels it would help with the air quality issue to have such a regulation. The public portion of the hearing was closed. Council President Nordquist asked if they could consider this the first reading. Councilmember Dwyer indicated that on August 23 it was determined that a date be set to hear from the public and then at that time a later date would be set to get more specific. It was the consensus of the Council to consider this a first reading. Councilmember Petruzzi suggested it was a good idea to have extra materials available for the audience. He indicated the 3M-T Committee raised a lot of transportation issues. He asked if the issues raised will be primarily addressed in the traffic segment. Rob Chave indicated he had not seen anything as specific as what the 3M-T Committee is bringing forth. Councilmember Earling stated he thinks it would be helpful at the next hearing to address some of the concerns on the kinds of resolution that could be brought to some of the problems. What kinds of techniques are we going to look to to solve some of the short term problems. Councilmember Kasper asked about the time frame on the economic study. Rob Chave indicated that was preliminarily in the budget for 1995. Approved City Council Minutes October 4, 1994 Page 13 Another hearing will be scheduled for a date certain. MAYOR Mayor Hall announced an Everett City Council workshop regarding RTA to be held the morning of �.. October 12. She further reported that we have received funding of $400,000 earmarked for a feasibility study for the multimodal. She advised it has been stated that the multimodal plan may become a national model for intermodal transportation coordination. It was announced that because of a Tsunami warning, the Edmonds beaches were closed. Findings of Fact on the Aurora Marketplace annexation are due on November 1. Brusseau's of Edmonds has discontinued liquor sales. R�0 . Mayor Hall requested confirmation of Shirley Frank's appointment to the Architectural Design Board. COUNCILMEMBER DAVE EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TOM PETRUZZI, THAT SHIRLEY FRANK'S APPOINTMENT TO THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD BE CONFIRMED. MOTION CARRIED. COUNCIL Council President Nordquist confirmed a couple of agenda requests for future meetings. He also raised the issue of an unpaid bill from Financial Center for appraisal. Payment has been authorized, but we don't have a report yet. /A� COUNCIL PRESIDENT JOHN NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY TOM PETRUZZI, TO BE EXCUSED FROM THE MEETINGS OF AUGUST 9 AND 16. Vd MOTION CARRIED. Council President Nordquist announced he had received a memo from Citizens for Waterfront Access requesting a hearing. Councilmember Dwyer suggested this would be a good item for a working meeting Councilmember Tom Petruzzi passed. Councilmember Earling indicated he had received a petition from 175th Street S.W. regarding reducing speed and speed bumps. He also reported he attended a transportation conference on the East Coast last week, and a lot of good things are being done. He would be happy to share information with anyone interested. COUNCILMEMBER MICHAEL HALL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER STEVE DWYER, TO EXCUSE DAVE EARLING'S ABSENCE ON SEPTEMBER 27,1994. MOTION CARRIED. Approved City Council Minutes October 4, 1994 Page 14 ' Councilmember Hall further suggested the Council needs to work out some sort of transportation plan f on getting the meeting video tapes delivered to the library. Council President Nordquist feels that job falls within the duties of the Clerk's Office. Councilmemb Ir Fahey passed, as did Councilmember Dwyer. Councilmember Kasper reported that a major hearing had been held on Amtrak and all of the accidents P P occurring. He ,requested information from anyone who has anything regarding that hearing. At 10:25 p.m. the Council adjourned to executive session on real estate, personnel and legal matters and adjourned from there. R ONDA�JMARCH, CITY CLERK Approved City Council Minutes October 4, 1994 Page 15 .>::::.. AGENDA EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL PLAZA MEETING ROOM - LIBRARY BUILDING 7:00 - 10.00 p.m. OCTOBER 4, 1994 SPEC/AL MEETING 6:45 P.M. - INTERVIEW CANDIDATE FOR ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD CALL TO ORDER - 7:00 P.M. FLAG SALUTE 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS (A) ROLL CALL (B) APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 27, 1994 (C) APPROVAL OF CLAIMS WARRANTS #944482 THRU #944939 FOR WEEK OF SEPTEMBER 19, 1994, AND #944781 THRU #945059 FOR WEEK OF SEPTEMBER 26, 1994. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL WARRANTS FOR #944729 THRU #945020 FOR THE PEROD OF SEPTEMBER 1 THRU SEPTEMBER 15, 1994 (D) APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ON THE HEARING OF AN APPEAL OF THE HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION TO DENY AN APPEAL (FILE NO. AP-94-89) OF THE COMMUNITY SERVICES DIRECTOR'S DECISION TO DENY A PERMIT REVIEW (FILE NO. PR-93-219) OF AN APPROVED AND BUILT PROJECT UNDER FILE NO. ADB-15-85 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 8130 212TH ST. S.W. (Appellant: Jennifer Markestad/File No. AP-94-120; Applicant: Robert Klepinger/File No. ADB-15-85) [from August 2 and August 16,1994] (E) AUTHORIZATION TO ADVERTISE REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ON CABLE TELEVISION FRANCHISE RENEWAL (F) AUTHORIZATION TO ADVERTISE REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR CITY ATTORNEY SERVICES (G) AUTHORIZATION TO ADVERTISE REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR PROSECUTOR SERVICES (H) AUTHORIZATION TO ADVERTISE REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR HEARING EXAMINER SERVICES 3. AUDIENCE 4. (S Min.) OBSERVANCE OF "NATIONAL FIRE PREVENTION WEEK" 5. (20 Min.) CONTINUED HEARING ON APPEAL OF THE HEARING EXAMINER'S APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT LOCATED AT 23910 74TH AVENUE W. (Appellant: William Lancaster and C.D. Coffelt / File No. AP-94- 144; Applicant: Antonia Bryant / File No. CU-94-108) [from September 19,19941 6. (IS Min.) HEARING ON A REQUEST FOR . PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF A PROPOSED 6 UNIT/LOT PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT/PRELEW NARY SUBDIVISION LOCATED AT 8606 196TH STREET SOUTHWEST (Applicant: Jordy Kostelyk / File No. PRD-94-12) continued EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL AGENDA PAGE 2 OCTOBER 4, 1994 7. (45 Min.) ' HEARING ON CHAMBERS CABLE PROPOSED RATE SCHEDULE 8. (30 Min.) ; HEARING ON DOWNTOWN/WATERFRONT PLAN 9. (5 Min.) : MAYOR 10. (1SMin.) ; COUNCIL 11. (20 Min)EXECUTIVE SESSION ON A REAL ESTATE MATTER Parking and meeting rooms are accessible for persons with disabilities Contact the City Clerk at 771-0245 with 24 hours advance notice for special accommodations. The Council Agenda and delayed telecast of the Council Weeting appear on Chambers Cable, Channel 32.