03/02/2004 City CouncilMarch 2, 2004
The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Haakenson in the Council
Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute.
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Gary Haakenson, Mayor
Michael Plunkett, Council President
Jeff Wilson, Councilmember
Mauri Moore, Councilmember
Peggy Pritchard Olson, Councilmember
Dave Orvis, Councilmember
Richard Marin, Councilmember
Deanna Dawson, Councilmember
ALSO PRESENT
David Dwyer, Student Representative
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
STAFF PRESENT
David Stern, Chief of Police
Duane Bowman, Development Services Director
Stephen Clifton, Community Services Director
Noel Miller, Public Works Director
Rob Chave, Planning Manager
Dave Gebert, City Engineer
Scott Snyder, City Attorney
Sandy Chase, City Clerk
Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst.
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, FOR
APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA AS PRESENTED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DAWSON,
FOR APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows:
(A) ROLL CALL
(B) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 24, 2004.
(C) APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #69165 THROUGH #69373 FOR THE WEEK OF
FEBRUARY 23, 2004, IN THE AMOUNT OF $368,226.41.
(D) REPORT ON FINAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR FIRE STATION 16 LOCATED AT
8429 —196rH STREET SW AND COUNCIL ACCEPTANCE OF PROJECT.
(E) REPORT ON FINAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR THE 200 DAYTON STREET
BUILDING ROOF REPLACEMENT PROJECT AND COUNCIL ACCEPTANCE OF
PROJECT.
(F) REPORT ON FINAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR THE ANDERSON CENTER
WINDOW REPLACEMENT — PHASE H PROJECT AND COUNCIL ACCEPTANCE OF
PROJECT.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 2, 2004
Page 1
(G) REPORT ON FINAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR THE 242Nn STREET STORM
IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT AND COUNCIL ACCEPTANCE OF PROJECT.
(H) PROCLAMATION IN HONOR OF MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS EDUCATION AND
AWARENESS MONTH, MARCH 2O04.
3. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING ON REGULATIONS CONCERNING AMATEUR RADIO
ANTENNAS. THE PROPOSAL WOULD REVISE EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
CODE CHAPTER (ECDC) 16.20 TO CLARIFY HOW AMATEUR RADIO ANTENNAS ARE
REGULATED AND SET STANDARDS AND THRESHOLDS FOR THEIR REVIEW AND
PERMITTING (FILE NO. CDC-034).
Planning Manager Rob Chave explained this public hearing was continued from the February 17 public
hearing. He explained that City Attorney Scott Snyder revised the ordinance slightly but overall the
intent of the ordinance was the same as the ordinance presented on February 17. He referred to
information regarding permit/review types and associated costs and fees. There are three different fee
types: (1) amateur radio application (staff decision with notice), (2) technology impracticality waiver
(Hearing Examiner), and (3) investigating alternate locations for an antenna (Hearing Examiner). He
explained the fee was nearly $1200 for a typical Hearing Examiner review and $500 for a staff decision
with notice. The basic administration cost (advertise/post/mail) was slightly under $100.
Mr. Chave stated staff s suggestion for a reasonable fee, in view of the prohibition creating a burden via
fees, was $100. He noted in the instance where alternative locations for an antenna are to be investigated,
a Hearing Examiner process typically initiated by neighbors, a fee could be established to recover costs.
However, staff felt it appropriate to set the same fee to avoid neighbors having to pay a higher fee than
the applicant. He noted that in addition to direction on the final ordinance, staff was seeking direction
from the Council with regard to drafting a resolution to establish fees.
City Attorney Scott Snyder reviewed the changes that were made to the ordinance since the last public
hearing.
• Ordinance page 2, paragraph A — General. Accessory buildings and structures shall meet all of
the standards of ECDC 16.20.030 except as specifically provided in this section.
• Ordinance page 2, paragraph B — "Height. Height shall be limited to 15 feet, except for amateur
radio transmitting antennas and their supporting structures. Mr. Snyder explained under the
Building Code and City Zoning Code, a building was a structure with a roof; a structure was any
combination of materials attached to the ground. The intent of the change proposed in paragraphs
A &B was to address whether the antennas and/or the towers were regulated and to address the
issue with regard to wires and other similar devices attached to trees with the intent that those
would be regulated.
• Ordinance page 3, paragraph E — Amateur Radio Antennas. Approval of an amateur radio
antenna dish which measures greater than one meter or 1.1 yards in diameter, or an antenna
which: (1) is mounted on a mast greater than 12 feet in height if mounted on the principal
building or structures, exclusive of chimneys and other roof top structures on the property which
conforms to the height limit of the applicable zone, or (2) exceeds the height limit of the
applicable zone if mounted on the ground or on an accessory structure on the property; shall be
processed according to ECDC 20.95.050, Staff Decision — Notice Required, and shall comply
with the following. Mr. Snyder explained this revision was to clarify that the intent was the top
of the roof line regardless of existing roof top equipment.
• Ordinance page 4, paragraph 4 — Height. The height of a ground -mounted tower or roof -top
antenna may not exceed the greater of the height limit applicable to the zone or 65 feet when.
extended by a telescoping or crank -up mechanism unless an applicant obtains a waiver (see
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 2, 2004
Page 2
paragraph G below). Mr. Snyder explained the intent of this revision was to clarify the structure
on which the crank mechanism was mounted could not exceed the height of the zone and allow it
to reach 65 feet when extended.
• Ordinance page 4, paragraph 4A — Only telescoping towers may exceed the height limits
established by paragraph E above. Such towers shall comply with the height limit within the
applicable zone and may only exceed the height limit of the applicable zone and/or 65-foot height
limit when extended and operating and if a waiver has been granted. Mr. Snyder noted this
referred to the reference to 12 feet above the height of the building which conform to the height in
the zone.
• Ordinance page 4, paragraph B — Antennas located on a nonconforming structure which exceeds
the height limit of the zone in which it is located shall be limited to height limit of the zone plus
twelve feet.
Mr. Snyder explained the above changes were made in the spirit of the direction staff received from the
Planning Board to comply with FCC regulations and to be as restrictive as possible in a defensible
manner. He clarified the ordinance was intended to accommodate amateur radio antennas to the
minimum provided by law. If the Council wanted, it was possible to provide more latitude, but staff did
not recommend, from a legal standpoint, being more restrictive.
Councilmember Wilson requested clarification on the wording in paragraph B on page 4, "shall be limited
to height limit of the zone plus twelve feet. " Mr. Snyder answered the word "structure" was used
intentionally as structure included "building." Therefore either an accessory structure such as garage or
shed would be 15 feet plus 12 feet and on the primary structure, it would be the height limit of the zone or
25 feet plus 12 feet.
If the Council passed the ordinance tonight, Councilmember Marin asked when the Council would
address fees. Mr. Chave advised with Council direction, the fee resolution could be presented as soon as
Mr. Snyder could draft it. Mr. Snyder noted because the ordinance was effective five days after
publication on Sunday, the fee resolution could be presented to the Council at their next meeting.
Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing, noting the Council had
received written correspondence from Sylvia and Sam Hochman and Matt Gormley.
Lee Tyson, 20832 88t" Place W, Edmonds, Assistant Emergency Coordinator, South Snohomish County
Amateur Radio Emergency Services (ARES), and Radio Amateur Civil Emergency Service (RACES)
member, voiced his opposition to any further regulation on amateur radio towers or antennas, noting they
were already a well regulated and disciplined group. Additional regulations would seriously affect the
pool of effective amateur radio operations available during emergencies. He described the mission of
ARES and RACES to provide emergency communications to fire, police, hospitals, Red Cross, Salvation
Army, search and rescue, and maritime, explaining that radios, antennas and towers were the tools that
enabled each member to perform their mission. He cited investment in equipment and exercises to ensure
equipment performance. He commented equipment must be available to meet communication needs and
additional regulations that negatively impact serving organizations, either physically or financially, would
affect their ability to support the community and nation.
Matt Gormley, 325 Walnut St #202, Edmonds, a registered professional electrical engineer and
amateur radio license holder since 1934. He expressed his support for amateur radio and full reasonable
accommodation in compliance with FCC regulations. He referred to written materials he provided, a
brochure "Today's Radio Amateur" which contained data on antennas and supports, and a letter
describing reasonable accommodations for today's radio amateur. He provided highlights of his letter
describing frequency allocations and pointing out that no single band line could meet the operating
requirements of the board spectrum of frequency allocations. He agreed it was appropriate for the City to
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 2, 2004
Page 3
update their amateur radio antenna regulations and bring them to state-of-the-art. He urged the Council to
consider the information he provided when revising the amateur radio antenna regulations.
Bob Preston, 809 Carey Road, Edmonds, questioned why if a property owner could have a 12-foot
antenna on a 25-foot structure, why could they not have a 37-foot free-standing tower. He also
questioned why only a crank -up tower was allowed above 37 feet. He recognized in certain areas of the
City where there were views it may be helpful to have a crank -up tower, however, in many areas where
there are no views, a 65-foot fixed tower would not have an impact on the neighborhood. He
acknowledged some fee was justified but preferred the fees be kept low.
Hearing no further public comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public participation portion of the
public hearing.
COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, FOR
APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE NO. 3490. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The ordinance
approved is as follows:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE
PROVISIONS OF ECDC 16.20.050 SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS — ACCESSORY
BUILDINGS IN ORDER TO AMEND ITS REGULATIONS RELATING TO AMATEUR RADIO
ANTENNAS AND TO ADOPT AN INTERACTIVE PROCESS IN CONFORMANCE WITH FCC
REGULATIONS, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE.
COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PLUNKETT,
TO DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE A FEE RESOLUTION FOR COUNCIL
CONSIDERATION ON MARCH 16.
Councilmember Wilson inquired about the amount of the recommended fee. Mr. Chave explained the
basic administration cost for advertising, posting and mailing was estimated at $97; staff's
recommendation was a $100 fee. He noted the $15 surcharge would also be applied.
Councilmember Marin clarified his intent was the $97 fee plus the $15 surcharge for a total of $112.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
4. PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO ECDC CHAPTER 21.40.020 AND
17.30.000 REPEALING THE CITY'S CURRENT HEDGE REGULATIONS. THE PROPOSED
AMENDMENTS WOULD CAUSE THE CITY TO CEASE TO REGULATE HEDGES EXCEPT
WHEN RELATED TO STREET OR ACCESS SAFETY (FILE NO. CDC-03-1)
Development Services Director Duane Bowman explained this ordinance was scheduled for a public
hearing based on the Planning Board's recommendation which would cause the City to cease regulating
hedges except when related to street or access safety.
Mr. Bowman recalled in 1989, the Hearing Examiner issued a landmark ruling in regard to an
interpretation of ECDC 21.40.020, the definition of hedges. His decision indicated that unless a specific
kind of tree was low growing, it did not constitute a hedge; however, staff was still often caught between
neighbors arguing over height and composition of vegetation between properties. He recalled the Council
referred the matter to the Planning Board in December 2002 after considering cases that illustrated the
difficulty with regulating hedges.
Mr. Bowman read the current definition of hedge, "Hedge means a fence or boundary formed by a row of
shrubs or low trees," commenting this definition was very vague and non-specific. The Planning Board
reviewed the issue, took public testimony and considered two options, 1) redefine the definition of hedges
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 2, 2004
Page 4
to make it more enforceable, or 2) discontinue regulating hedges. After receiving testimony and
correspondence from residents, the Planning Board concluded the best alternative was not to regulate
hedges except where they created sight distance problems at street intersections, driveways, etc. The
Planning Board concluded the current regulations were difficult to interpret and basically unenforceable.
He recalled the Planning Board considered several different hedge definitions, however, none were
deemed workable. The Planning Board concluded there were more appropriate methods of resolving
disputes between neighbors such as view easements, vegetation maintenance agreements, or mediation.
Mr. Bowman explained the Planning Board again considered the ordinance at their February 11 meeting,
following the Council work session, and made some slight changes to the ordinance but basically
forwarded the same recommendation to repeal the City's regulations governing hedges. He noted the
Council packet included the complete Planning Board record regarding this topic as well as the Council
minutes from the work session.
Councilmember Moore inquired what would happen in the future when neighbors had a dispute if this
ordinance were passed. Mr. Bowman answered residents would be informed the City did not regulate
vegetation and inform them of options for resolving issues such as view easement, maintenance
agreement, or mediation. He referred to a handout that would be distributed by Code Enforcement, "How
to Deal with Neighborhood Issues."
Mayor Haakenson reopened the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Darrell Marmion, 750 Edmonds Street, Edmonds, supported regulating fences and hedges similarly as
they usually served the same function. He noted most of the letters in the Council packet had the same
opinion. He expressed concern with staff s comment that the ordinance was unenforceable and difficult
to interpret and the solution that was reached to eliminate the regulation. He preferred consideration be
given to potential solutions used by other cities. He referred to several other instances in the code where
reference was made to hedges, specifically Title 14, 16 and 23.
Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, Edmonds, agreed with eliminating regulation of hedges. He
referred to the Clyde Hill regulation that stated a fence shall be any barrier which is naturally grown or
constructed for the purposes of confining, a means of protection or use as a boundary. He suggested
eliminating the concept of a hedge and only regulate barriers, whether naturally grown or constructed.
Hearing no further public comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public participation portion of the
public hearing.
Councilmember Moore asked staff to respond to Mr. Hertrich's suggestion regarding a naturally growing
fence and Mr. Marmion's reference to the word hedge in other areas of the code. Mr. Bowman noted the
fundamental question was whether an ordinance would be enforceable. He pointed out the possibility of a
resident planting a natural barrier in the center of their backyard which could create as much of a problem
as on the property line. If the Council chose to regulate things that grow, the Council needed to develop a
definition. He agreed staff could redefine the definition to include natural barrier but regulating things
that grow was problematic. He noted someone could also plant a single tree which would have the same
impact as a row of 3-4 trees but single trees were not regulated.
Councilmember Moore asked how other cities addressed this issue. Mr. Bowman noted most cities did
not regulate vegetation due to the difficulty.
Councilmember Moore asked staff to respond to Mr. Marmion's claim that hedge appeared in other
sections of the ordinance, specifically Title 14, 16 and 23. Mr. Snyder recommended doing a word search
to identify the word "hedge" in the ordinance.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 2, 2004
Page 5
Responding to further questions, Mr. Snyder explained his law firm also represented Clyde Hill which
was a completely developed community that for years had governed itself via strong subdivision
homeowners covenants. He stated the City could adopt a Clyde Hill -approach; however, the cost may be
prohibitive. Mr. Bowman pointed out once such a change was made in the code, a base line for
enforcement must be established. Options for establishing a baseline include an inventory which is very
expensive or hiring an arborist to testify on individual cases.
Councilmember Wilson inquired about the cost of inventorying existing vegetation if the Council adopted
a Clyde Hill -type ordinance. Mr. Bowman answered his initial estimate of a parcel -by -parcel inventory
was $100,000+. Due to the cost of the inventory, he commented that another alternative would be the use
of an expert.
Responding to Council President Plunkett's question, Mr. Snyder stated if everything were grandfathered,
an inventory of the existing hedges would need to be done or an arborist could be used to testify regarding
the height of the hedge on the date it was grandfathered. He noted grandfathering did not eliminate the
City's enforcement burden.
Councilmember Dawson noted if vegetation were grandfathered, the age of the hedge would be unknown
without an inventory. Mr. Snyder noted one key principle was that one could not establish legal
nonconforming rights unless the use was legally established. With buildings, structures, and manmade
things, that was easy due to the need for a building permit. In this instance, to regulate something for
which no permit has been required in the past, it would be the City's burden to show the use was not
legally established. Mr. Bowman pointed out a large portion of the City was annexed from Snohomish
County where there were no regulations regarding hedges.
Mr. Snyder noted when the ownership of a property changed, etc. it would become more difficult over
time to establish the height of vegetation at the time it became nonconforming. Councilmember Dawson
inquired whether hiring an arborist to testify on a case -by -case basis was a workable solution. Mr. Snyder
answered an arborist would rely on information such as standard growth patterns and weather data to
establish normal annual growth. He stated although it was possible to obtain that testimony, it required a
great deal of preparation and expense.
Councilmember Dawson questioned whether the arborist's testimony would provide assistance if an
inventory were not done first. Mr. Snyder agreed in many situations it would be difficult without an
inventory.
Councilmember Dawson noted if the Council chose the arborist option, it was likely the City would lose
the majority of enforcement actions. She inquired about the associated costs. Mr. Bowman answered the
amount of time and the cost would vary by case. There was also the issue of who paid the cost of the
arborist. Councilmember Dawson inquired about the number of cases this would impact. Mr. Bowman
answered staff currently had seven active cases in a three year period. He emphasized the need to provide
regulations that were enforceable.
Councilmember Orvis noted the law could be enforced now for certain trees and shrubs and the issue was
whether to include more plants in the definition. He suggested codifying the current interpretation the
way it was being enforced now. Mr. Bowman answered the Hearing Examiner stated in his decision that
the City should do something to clarify the definition.
Councilmember Orvis recalled a complainant who was required to cut some of his shrubs because they
fell within the current definition. Mr. Bowman answered that decision could potentially be challenged.
He explained in that instance, the hedge -like material was pyramidalis which can reach 25-30 feet. Mr.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 2, 2004
Page 6
Snyder explained another problem with codifying the low growing principle was some of the bitterest
neighborhood problems were spite situations and the City may not want to encourage residents to grow
vegetation that was not low growing. He noted absent hedge regulations, the common law definition
would apply and those who wanted to preserve a view could buy that right.
If the Council chose the arborist testimony route, Council President Plunkett inquired whether the City
could shift some of the burden to the applicant. Mr. Snyder agreed, noting that may be an instance when
full cost should be required for an appeal. Mayor Haakenson raised the issue of how the arborist and
applicant could enter a neighbor's yard to evaluate their shrubs.
Councilmember Wilson inquired about the current fee structure, recalling it had been the Council's policy
to minimize costs to appellants. He asked whether the City was likely to receive many appeals if the
appellant was asked to pay the costs. Mr. Bowman answered probably not. He noted another potential
issue may be when an appellant's appeal was successful, should they get a refund of their fee?
Councilmember Moore commented that in her experience, each arborist could have a different opinion.
Councilmember Dawson asked whether Council President Plunkett wanted the appellant to bear the cost.
Council President Plunkett answered he would not support the proposed ordinance and preferred the
matter be referred to the Community Services/Development Services Committee to identify a better
solution. Councilmember Dawson acknowledged she was uncertain whether there was a more workable
solution but the issue has been discussed for many years and no good solution has been identified.
COUNCILMEMBER MOORE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, FOR
APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE NO.3491.
Councilmember Marin, a member of the Community Services/Development Services Committee last
year, advised it was he who recommended the Planning Board's recommendation be forwarded to the full
Council for deliberation but with reservations. Although he would prefer there was a way to regulate
hedges, views and privacy must be balanced. The only reasonable answer was to exercise the golden rule
and before taking rash action, consider your neighbor. He indicated he would support the motion.
Councilmember Dawson pointed out this issue had been considered for a long time and government must
balance what it would like to do with what it needed to do as well as balance costs. She concluded the
City did not have adequate funds to conduct an inventory and without an inventory, a hedge ordinance
was not workable. Although she was willing to consider another option if the Council could provide
specific direction, absent an inventory, the City had no choice but to cease regulating hedges.
Councilmember Olson agreed no other workable solutions had been identified. She planned to support
the ordinance.
Councilmember Wilson expressed his support for the ordinance, noting if there had been a way to
effectively regulate hedges, it would have been identified by now. He recalled there had not been a
solution to the problem in the 14 years he had been with the City or in his 20 year career working with
public agencies in the Puget Sound area.
Councilmember Moore agreed with Mr. Hertrich's comment that citizens of Edmonds were mostly law
abiding, pointing out citizens of Edmonds were also mostly neighborly. She noted the instances when
this would be a problem were few and it would be better not to regulate hedges.
MOTION CARRIED (5-2) COUNCIL PRESIDENT PLUNKETT AND COUNCILMEMBER
ORVIS OPPOSED.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 2, 2004
Page 7
5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Ron Wambolt, 504 61h Street S, Edmonds, referred to the building the Council approved on February 3,
an application for a mixed use building with commercial use on the first floor and condominiums above
located at 215 5th Avenue N. He noted the proposed building violated height limits in the City's building
code as heights were limited to 25 feet unless the roof and sides were modulated, 30 feet were allowed.
He recalled Councilmember Orvis, Dawson and Wilson explained why they voted against approval;
however, Council President Plunkett, and Councilmembers Marin, Moore, and Olson did not voice their
rationale for supporting a deviation from the code. He recalled the building was on the February 24
Council agenda for final approval and again none of the Councilmembers who voted for approval would
vote for reconsideration. He noted the agenda item following the Request for Reconsideration was a
proposed ordinance to provide clarity with regard to building heights. He alleged the February 24 agenda
was structured with the approval of the building preceding the building code clarification ordinance to
accomplish final approval of the building at 215 5`h Avenue with a 30 foot height. He urged the four
Councilmembers to explain the rationale for their support of the project.
Don Kreiman, 24006 95th Place W, Edmonds, thanked everyone, especially Mayor Haakenson, who
read to Madrona students this morning. He noted Madrona was a choice school within the Edmonds
School District that scored near the top on the WASL and the Iowa Test for Basic Skills but was best
known for its musically and cultural abilities. He encouraged the public to attend Madrona's production
of "Hello Dolly" on March 18-21 at Edmonds-Woodway High School Theater. He provided Bill
Charbonneau's telephone number for the public to obtain tickets or place a program advertisement (425-
771-6000) as well as his own telephone number (206) 542-3840.
Rick Janness, 17316 73rd Avenue W, Edmonds, explained in a planned community where he lived in
prior to Edmonds, most lots had height limitations on structures or view corridors that were established as
part of property lines. As a member of the Architectural Control Board in that community, he recalled
some residents who did not have view corridors established for their property wanted view corridors. The
Architectural Control Board developed a non -binding process whereby a petitioning property owner could
reach resolution with other property owners to record a view corridor. He suggested the Council direct
staff to investigate such a process.
Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, Edmonds, referred to the Phoenix Development PRD, Madrona
Cove, a 22-lot PRD on which the Council granted final approval recently. He explained he had requested
Reconsideration of the Hearing Examiner's decision on the request for variance for height. The developer
wanted 35-foot tali buildings, however, PRD regulations specifically stated no variances and no building
heights over 25 feet, therefore, everyone expected a PRD would meet the height limit. However, he later
learned the developer of a PRD could request a height variance. He found it frustrating when height was
not mentioned throughout the PRD review process and then variances were requested when the process
had been concluded. Mr. Hertrich explained he did not appeal the Hearing Examiner's decision due to
the $220 fee for each of the six variances. He recalled a past Hearing Examiner denied the Eagle Crest
PRD a height variance; however, he felt the new Hearing Examiner was more liberal and looked at things
differently. He offered to continue to provide information to the Council with regard to the Hearing
Examiner, recommending the Council examine the type of decisions he was making.
6. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Haakenson reported today, as part of Dr. Seuss Day, he read to students at Madrona, Seaview
Elementary and Westgate Elementary.
Mayor Haakenson advised the Council retreat was scheduled for March 5 and 6 in La Conner.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 2, 2004
Page 8
7. COUNCIL COMMENTS
council Council President Plunkett reported the retreat agenda was posted on the City's website. He advised the
etreat start time on March 5 was 9:30 a.m.
Library Council President Plunkett reported on a Library Association meeting he attended last week, citing
[Association jaccomplishments of a previous mayor of Edmonds (1922 — 1924), Ann Kerr that included improving the
Fire Department, expanding the ferry, City beautification, water/sewer and animal control. He noted Ms.
Kerr was one of the first female mayors in Washington. Mayor Haakenson pointed out Ms. Kerr was the
first female mayor of Edmonds and the Kerr meeting room in City Hall was named for her.
council Councilmember Dawson inquired whether the retreat would be taped, commenting the public should be
Retreat informed if it was not going to be recorded. Council President Plunkett replied summary minutes would
be taken; the meeting would not be recorded. Councilmember Dawson suggested the Council should
have voted on this issue and expressed her preference for recording the retreat. She advised the public
that if they were interested in discussion that. occurred at the retreat, they should plan to attend.
Snohomish Councilmember Wilson reported on the Snohomish County Tomorrow meeting, noting because there
County were 13 new board members, the meeting included review of the structure of the organization, mission
Tomorrow
and values. The board began reviewing changes to the Countywide Planning Policies; however, the
policies were postponed to allow the board further opportunity to review the recommendations. He noted
the Citizens Advisory Board of Snohomish County Tomorrow was seeking new citizen members. He
encouraged anyone interested in participating in the Snohomish County planning effort to contact him via
the Council office.
Councilmember Moore commented she was a citizen member of Snohomish County Tomorrow and had
found it to be a fantastic forum for learning about land use in the county. She encouraged interested
citizens to apply.
Hwy 99 Task
Force Councilmember Moore reported on the informative Highway 99 Task Force meeting she attended. She
Sustainable also reported on the Sustainable Snohomish County Development Task Force meeting, recommending
Snohomish they be invited to provide a presentation to the Council.
County
Development
Task Force Councilmember Marin commented on the excellent completion of improvements along Main Street and
Dayton, expressing his appreciation to Traffic Engineer Darrell Smith for his efforts. Councilmember
Main St. and Dayton Marin also reported on retirement parties he attended for Human Resources Director Brent Hunter and
Improvements Jim Roberts, Engineering Department, noting these staff members would be missed.
ew 3-way Mayor Haakenson advised of the new stop signs (3-way stop) at 7th and Main to assist pedestrian crossing
Stop at 7� and to the Frances Anderson Center. He advised the next Council meeting would consist of committee
Mam meetings; the March 16 Council meeting would include a public hearing on Ordinance No. 3488 adopting
pursuant to RCW 35A.63.220 an interim zoning regulation clarifying the application of roof height above
twenty-five (25) feet as part of modulated roof and building design, and vesting certain applications in
process.
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m.
GAY H ENSON, MAYOR
SANDRA S. CHASE, CITY CLERK
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 2, 2004
Page 9
1
1
[1
L
AGENDA
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL
Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex
250 5` Avenue North
7:00 - 10:00 p.m.
MARCH 2, 2004
7:00 p.m. - Call to Order
Flan Salute
1. Approval of Agenda
2. Consent Agenda Items
(A) Roll Call
(B) Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of February 24, 2004.
(C) Approval of claim checks #69165 through #69373 for the week of February 23,
2004, in the amount of $368,226.41.
(D) Report on final construction costs for Fire Station 16 located at 8429 - 196"
Street SW and Council acceptance of project.
(E) Report on final construction costs for the 200 Dayton Street Building Roof
Replacement Project and Council acceptance of project.
(F) Report on final construction costs for the Anderson Center Window
Replacement - Phase II Project and Council acceptance of project.
(G) Report on final construction costs for the 242nd Street Storm Improvements
Project and Council acceptance of project.
(H) Proclamation in honor of Multiple Sclerosis Education and Awareness Month,
March 2004.
3. (45 Min.) Continued Public Hearing on regulations concerning amateur radio antennas.
The proposal would revise Edmonds Community Development Code Chapter
(ECDC) 16.20 to clarify how amateur radio antennas are regulated and set
standards and thresholds for their review and permitting. (File No. CDC-03-4)
4. (60 Min.) Public Hearing on proposed amendments to ECDC Chapters 21.40.020 and
17.30.000 repealing the City's current hedge regulations. The proposed
amendments would cause the City to cease to regulate hedges except when
related to street, I access safety. (File No. CDC-03-1)
Page 1 of 2
CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA
MARCH 2, 2004
Page 2 of 2
5. Audience Comments (3 Minute Limit Per Person)*
*Regarding matters not listed as Closed Record Review or as Public Hearings.
6. ( 5 Min.) Mayor's Comments
7. (15 Min.) Council Comments
ADJOURN
1
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 cable television Government Access Channel 21.