Loading...
10/19/2004 City CouncilEDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES October 19, 2004 The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Haakenson in the Council Chambers, 250 51h 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 Dave Orvis, Councilmember Richard Marin, Councilmember Deanna Dawson, Councilmember ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT Peggy Pritchard Olson, Councilmember STAFF PRESENT Tom Tomberg, Fire Chief David Stern, Chief of Police Duane Bowman, Development Services Director Stephen Clifton, Community Services Director Dan Clements, Administrative Services Director Brian McIntosh, Parks & Recreation Director Noel Miller, Public Works Director Kathleen Junglov, Asst. Admin. Services Dir. Scott James, Accountant Dave Gebert, City Engineer Meg Gruwell, Senior Planner Frances Chapin, Cultural Resources Coordinator Scott Snyder, City Attorney Sandy Chase, City Clerk Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst. Jeannie Dines, Recorder 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Change to the Agenda COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, TO ADD "DISCUSSION OF TREE HOUSE PERMITTING" AS ITEM 5B AND MOVE ITEM 5 TO 5A. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, FOR APPROVAL OF THE AGENDAS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, FOR APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: (A) ROLL CALL Approve 10/5/04 (B) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF OCTOBER 5, 2004. Minutes Correction to (C) APPROVAL OF CORRECTION TO THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF 05/04/04 MAY 4, 2004 Minutes (D) APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #74388 THROUGH #74484 FOR THE WEEK OF Approve OCTOBER 4, 2004, IN THE AMOUNT OF $59,465.13. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS Claim Checks #74485 THROUGH #74708 FOR THE WEEK OF OCTOBER 11, 2004, IN THE AMOUNT Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 19, 2004 Page 1 OF $383,649.22. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSITS AND CHECKS #39303 THROUGH #39387 FOR THE PERIOD SEPTEMBER 16 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, Claim for 1 2004, IN THE AMOUNT OF $816,503.86. Damages (E) ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM WILLIAM LINCE Bad Debt 1 ($31,614.28). Write Off (F) APPROVAL OF BAD DEBT WRITE OFF Position I Reclass (G) POSITION RECLASSIFICATIONS (H) REPORT ON BIDS OPENED OCTOBER 7, 2004 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE Willow Creek WILLOW CREEK STORM OUTFALL EXTENSION PROJECT, AND AWARD OF Storm Outfall Extension CONTRACT TO BLACKWATER MARINE ($587,384.82, INCLUDING SALES TAX). Make a (I) PROCLAMATION IN HONOR OF MAKE A DIFFERENCE DAY, OCTOBER 23, 2004. Difference Day 3. MAYOR'S BUDGET ADDRESS — PRESENTATION OF THE 2005 PRELIMINARY BUDGET Zoos Preliminary Mayor Haakenson read his budget address into the record: "During the past year, City staff and I have Budget continued our efforts to stabilize the City's finances. By cutting expenditures, aggressively pursuing revenue options, and instituting best business practices, we have been able to steady the financial picture for the next two to three years, barring: 1.) Passage of initiatives that substantially reduce local revenues; and 2.) Settlement of collective bargaining agreements over parameters. In practical terms, this means we will be able to retain existing levels of key services such as fire, police, and parks. While this is a significant accomplishment in this, the fifth budget I have presented to you, let's keep this in perspective. It is important to remember that stabilizing our short term financial picture in no way either brings our staffing up to pre-2001 levels, nor does it lessen the need to continue working on solving our long term financial challenges. Please consider the following: Including the limited staffing recommendations contained in this budget recommendation, we have eliminated the equivalent of 23.4 full time employees, approximately 9% of our workforce, since 2001. Reductions in transportation funding now means that the resurfacing cycle for our streets has increased from approximately 30 years to over 60 years. We continue to scramble to find creative ways of maintaining the City's physical assets such as public buildings, parks, public safety facilities, public safety vehicles, and other essential equipment. Earlier this year the Council adopted the following vision for the City: "Our Mission is to provide a high quality of life for residents and businesses, and a legacy for future generations by preserving and enhancing our historic waterfront community." The coming year is key to helping us achieve this goal: 2005 is the year in which we must all work in concert to stabilize our long term financial outlook, and potentially consider restoring programs that have seen major reductions over the past few years. Budget Overview My proposed 2005 budget is essentially a status quo budget: service levels and public safety response times are projected to remain the same as this year. The proposed budget totals $67 million, excluding fund balances, and is an increase of 3.5% over 2004. Looking specifically at the General Fund, which is Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 19, 2004 Page 2 the source of dollars for City programs such as public safety, parks, and development services, the proposed budget, excluding fund balance, totals $27.4 million: a 3.9% change from 2004. General Fund cost increases have been primarily driven by medical insurance premium increases and mandatory public safety program cost increases such as dispatch services and jail costs. The primary drivers for the non -General Fund budget increase are construction projects and funds set aside for property acquisition. The Special Capital Fund (REST 1) presently has $1.2 million earmarked for the Old Woodway Elementary School, should the property become available. Water, sewer, and drainage projects account for the $2 million increase in the Utility Construction and the Utility Capital Improvement Funds. As noted earlier, the cost reductions and conservative budgeting that has taken place the past three years have placed the City in a positive position for the next two to three years. Additionally, the following factors have also played a significant role in stabilizing the City of Edmonds' short term financial future: 1.) Building permit revenues are flowing $170,000 ahead of 2004 budget estimates; and 2) Revenue from interlocal agreements is providing $125,000 over the amount originally budgeted. TaxP.c and FPP.c The proposed budget does not call for any new taxes or fees. I am recommending that the City collect the statutory 1% increase in general property taxes ($79,981). Additionally, the City is currently conducting a comprehensive combined utility rate study, which may result in changes to existing water, sewer, and storm rates. Since one of the major factors involved in the rate study is yet to be determined, that of wholesale water rates from our suppliers, we anticipate the study's recommendations will lag slightly behind budget adoption. Should rate information not be available until late November or December, a budget amendment will be brought to Council during the first quarter of 2005. As will be discussed in the following section, I am recommending that rate funded decision packages be considered with the rate study, not as part of preliminary budget deliberations. Program Changes My proposed 2005 budget contains very few additions. Where program "adds" have been proposed, the majority are one time expenditures. As mentioned earlier, my goal has been to stabilize the City's short term financial picture, with an eye to working on resolving the City's long term fiscal outlook. First, I want to talk about a major program that I am not recommending be funded. Cities and counties across the State are trying to figure out how to maintain local streets and roads after losing almost half of their street revenue through the loss of Motor Vehicle Excise Taxes. Communities across Washington. need a State-wide solution to this problem. I am convinced that diverting funds from other programs in order to maintain our streets is bad business. We will actively work with other cities in the Association of Washington Cities to find a stable funding source that will enable all local governments to carry out preventative maintenance on this important infrastructure. Second, looking at staffing changes, I am recommending that two positions, a part time clerical position in Human Resources ($26,000), and a part time Planner in Development Services ($21,700), be converted from half to full time. Work load demands and past position reductions are my primary reason for proposing these changes. These are the only full time position increases being recommended in next year's budget. There are three other personnel changes included in the 2005 preliminary budget. $6,000 has been set aside in Administrative Services so a retiring employee can provide training and over -lap with a newly hired individual. Due to the continued high level of construction activity, I have continued funding for the Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 19, 2004 Page 3 temporary Building Inspector, Civil Engineer, and Office Assistant positions established in 2004 and funded from increased permit activity. Lastly, $25,800 has been added to the Parks budget to restore two part-time summer positions: a flower program employee and parks maintenance employee, and to provide for an additional week of the summer day camp program which will be offset by program income. Third, there are several corporate wide decision packages proposed for funding in 2005. These include City Code Book up -date, network system and virus up -grades, replacement of the City's fourteen year old phone system, and replacement of the local improvement district financial module from LID revenues. Fourth, I am recommending Council fund a number of one time, departmental based decision packages. Major items include: 1. Police: Taser replacement, reserve officer training, narcotics enforcement, search and rescue boat replacement; 2. Fire: Paramedic training; 3. Development Services: LIDAR topographic mapping ($35,000/Pt Edwards settlement), Geotec analysis of LIDAR ($30,000/Pt Edwards settlement); EDC permit streamlining. 4. Parks: Additional advertising, Replace worn out equipment at Yost Pool, gym, etc., Egg hunt supplies, summer camp additional week. 5. Public Works: Facilities equipment replacement; Street equipment replacement and repairs. 6. Senior Center: An increase of $5,000 in their annual service contract. As mentioned previously, the City is presently working on a multi -year combined utility rate study. In order to provide the Council with maximum time to consider utility funded decision packages, none have been included in my preliminary budget. These expenditures, and my recommendations, will be brought to Council as part of the rate study. Using this approach, I anticipated being able to more clearly identify the ramifications for rate payers of funding each decision package. Closing Comments I see 2005 as the year in which we attempt to stabilize our long term fiscal position. Staff and I have adopted a five pronged approach to help us reach this goal. The five elements of next year's business plan are: 1. Reduce our costs of doing business by implementing "best business practices." We will be working with our major vendors to secure payment discounts, and discounts for electronic payment of goods and services. 2. Aggressively pursue State legislative changes that will benefit Edmonds financially, while opposing legislative mandates that increase our cost of doing business. Central targets for the coming year are transportation funding and sales tax sourcing. 3. Audit major revenue sources to help insure the City is receiving all funds to which we are entitled. 4. Work with residents and businesses in the City's unincorporated urban growth area on annexing into the City of Edmonds on terms that are beneficial both to them, and to ourselves. 5. Continue our economic development efforts geared to expanding our local retail and business sector. We look forward to working with the Council in the coming weeks in our joint goal of adopting a budget that will help provide a high quality of life for residents and businesses, and a legacy for future generations by preserving and enhancing our historic waterfront community. On a final note, I would like to extend a special note of thanks to Councilmember Moore for her work on our budget review team." Mayor Haakenson extended his thanks to Administrative Services Director Dan Clements and the Finance Department staff for their excellent work on the budget process. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 19, 2004 Page 4 Mayor Haakenson advised the Council's first budget workshop was scheduled for Monday, October 25 in Council Chambers. He advised the budget was available on the City's website and Mr. Clements had several hard copies. Request to 4. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE REQUEST TO VACATE A PORTION OF THE UNBUILT RIGHT - vacate a I OF -WAY OF 174Tx STREET SW ADJACENT TO 6915 AND 6911 — 174TH STREET SW IN Port' ofthe ( ORDER TO ADDRESS ACCESS ISSUES RELATING TO ADJACENT PROPERTIES 174 St. sW Right -of -Way Development Services Director Duane Bowman explained the purpose of the vacation was to clean up an access issue that had existed for a number of years related to City owned right-of-way along the north side of 174th Street SW. He displayed an aerial map of the area and identified the approximately 8,276 square foot right-of-way. He explained the two properties to the north, addressed as 6915 and 6911 did not have frontage on 174th; they accessed the street via license that could be revoked within ten days by the City. The license agreements were developed in 1973 with the understanding that some type of vacation action would eventually occur. Mr. Bowman recalled the Council passed Resolution 1070 on September 7, 2004, initiating the street vacation; none of the City's departments had any objections to the vacation. The property owners obtained an appraisal of the subject right-of-way which reports a value of $16,000 and, pursuant to ECDC 27.40, compensation of up to $8,000 (50% of the appraised value) is warranted. He summarized the Council could only approve the street vacation if it finds the vacation to be in the public interest and that no property will be denied direct access. In response to the first criteria, Mr. Bowman explained vacation was in the public interest as the City had no need for the undeveloped right-of-way and no easements or public infrastructure were needed. In response to the second criteria, Mr. Bowman advised the vacation would clean up the access rights for the properties at 6911 and 6915 174th Street SW whose current access was allowed via a temporary access license. Staff recommended the Council approve an ordinance vacating the unopened right-of-way of 174th Street SW in the vicinity of 6915 and 5911 174th Street SW subject to the abutting property owners paying a total of $8,000 in compensation for the right-of-way. Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. He reported that the Council received a letter from Cindy Johnson, 7232 1741h Street SW, Edmonds, who was opposed to the proposal. Bruce Fowler, 7471 174th Street SW, Edmonds, commented there were over 170 residences west of 71st Street that used 1741h as their main route to other destinations. He noted the right-of-way width was substandard and requested the Council consider increasing the pavement width. Mayor Haakenson requested staff address at the conclusion of public comment the use of the roadway and the funding for sidewalks and street improvements. Courtney Pratt, 6911 174th Street SW, Edmonds, emphasized their interest in purchasing the property from the City to maintain the value and access to their home. The purchase would allow them permanent ownership of their existing driveway which has been in use for 27 years. The purchase would allow them the legal right to upgrade and maintain the land currently used as their front yards. The City's departments have indicated they have no use for the land and it would be beneficial to the City to sell the property as it would relinquish any liability for the property, would relieve the City of continued maintenance, and transfer the burden of taxes on the land from the City to the property owners thereby increasing City revenues. She noted the property was a difficult parcel and included steep slopes with Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 19, 2004 Page 5 heavy surface water runoff. The parcel is located on a hill with very limited sight distance. Any other use of the land would require relocation of private utilities to the homes, relocation of their driveways and possibly relocation of sewer. She concluded with an offer to the City to pay all costs for fee and title transfer and requested the Council consider a nominal fee for the land. Steve Koon, 6915 174th Street SW, Edmonds, agreed that this is a very narrow street with a blind hill just east of their driveways. He referred to the letter from Ms. Johnson, noting her belief was apparently that portions of 174th Street SW would no longer be available for pedestrians; he assured upon purchase of the land, they would be happy to give a portion back to the City to widen the street. Joe Schmidt, 6908 174th Street SW, Edmonds, expressed his and his wife's support for the Pratt and Koon's request for vacation of the property. Hearing no further comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public hearing. Mr. Bowman advised the City had no funds or plans to widen 174th Street SW now or in the near feature. He identified the subject property and privately owned properties surrounding it, explaining there was no additional right-of-way along 174th. He identified the original platted right-of-way for 174th, explaining in the early 1980s an exchange of quit claim deeds occurred to recognize the location where 1741h was subsequently constructed (present location). He identified areas where the right-of-way was vacated, noting the subject property was not vacated at that time. Access to the Pratt and Koon's homes was via the subject property and there was no municipal purpose for the property. Councilmember Orvis asked whether availability of additional area to widen the roadway would be impacted by the vacation. Mr. Bowman identified limited undeveloped area on 174th that could be utilized to widen the roadway slightly, explaining the property adjacent to the roadway was very steep. Mayor Haakenson remanded the matter to Council for action. COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, FOR ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO. 3520, VACATING THE UNOPENED RIGHT-OF-WAY OF 174TH STREET SW IN THE VICINITY OF 6915 AND 691.1 174TH STREET SW AS DEPICTED ON EXHIBIT 1., SUBJECT TO THE ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNERS PAYING A TOTAL OF $8,000 IN COMPENSATION FOR THE RIGHT-OF-WAY. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mayor Haakenson expressed his thanks to the Koons and Pratts for their patience in this process. Ms. Pratt advised they were told negotiations on the price would be part of the discussion. Mr. Bowman recalled the Koons and Pratts referred to a nominal fee in their comments but it was his understanding they planned to offer an amount as part of their presentation. He explained the ordinance required that the City collect up to 50% of the appraised value as compensation for vacating the right-of- way. He acknowledged the Koons and Pratts were interested in discussing a reduced price with the Council. COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PLUNKETT, TO RECONSIDER THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Courtney Pratt, 6911 174th Street SW, Edmonds, offered the City $1 for the land, pointing out the land was not useful to the City and they, instead of the City, would begin paying taxes on the land. She pointed out the City had not received taxes on the land for the past 27 years and within five years the City Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 19, 2004 Page 6 would receive the price they were asking in the form of compensation. She concluded the property was of great value to them but no value to the City. Councilmember Moore asked for clarification about their willingness to give back land for safety improvements. Ms. Pratt advised they would be willing to put that offer in writing. City Attorney Scott Snyder advised the City could reserve a 10-foot pedestrian easement from the vacation, thereby lowering the value of the property. For Councilmember Dawson, Mr. Bowman identified the platted right-of-way that was vacated previously. Councilmember Dawson asked whether the City was paid fair market value at that time. Mr. Bowman answered it was accomplished via an exchange of deeds for the unplatted right-of-way. Councilmember Dawson inquired about the City's past practice regarding compensation for vacating property. Mr. Snyder explained the current ordinance was adopted approximately 15 years ago based on State statute which places a limitation on the amount that can be required as compensation for vacations, 50% of the fair market value. To his knowledge that had been uniformly applied since the date the ordinance was enacted. He acknowledged there had been 1-2 instances where the cost of the appraisal exceeded the value of the vacation which the Council considered in determining the value. He noted the Council had also reserved easements in the past which reduced the value of the property being vacated. Councilmember Dawson inquired about the cost of the appraisal. Mr. Bowman answered the property owners paid for the appraisal. Councilmember Dawson inquired about the value of the sidewalk easement. Mr. Bowman answered there was no reason to retain a sidewalk easement because the City did not have any land around it and the topography of the land made construction of a sidewalk very expensive. He concluded the sidewalk easement was of little benefit because the likelihood of the City building a walkway was slim to none. Mayor Haakenson reopened the public hearing. Joe Schmidt, 6908 174th Street SW, Edmonds, identified a right-of-way that originally extended toward Olympic View Drive that was intended for use as the primary road. Due to the steep slopes, that area was vacated to construct the road in a more flat area. He identified property that was deeded back to the prior owner via vacation and subsequently sold. He pointed out the benefit to the City from additional property taxes from the property. He commented the road was further south than depicted on the map. Steve Koon, 6915 174t" Street SW, Edmonds, requested the Council consider a cap on the amount of compensation for the vacation, noting the 2004 assessed valuation for that parcel was $1500. This was an unusable lot to anyone but them for their driveway and front yards. Mr. Snyder pointed out the additional space did not provide enough additional land to allow further subdivision under current regulations. Hearing no further public comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public hearing. For Council President Plunkett, Mr. Bowman explained the appraised value of the property to be vacated was $16,000; under ordinance, compensation would be up to 50% of the appraised value. He advised the Snohomish County Assessor's office showed the assessed value of the property as $1,450. The appraisal considered the value that the additional land would provide to the parcel. Council President Plunkett noted use of the appraised value was the precedent set by the Council in past years, not the assessed value. Mr. Bowman advised the ordinance stated up to 50% of the appraised value; the property owners' offer was based on the assessed value due to the unique circumstances of the parcel, it's encumbrance by their access and its current use. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 19, 2004 Page 7 Responding to Council President Plunkett, Mr. Snyder explained the appraised value was used because the City was not typically permitted to give away public property and State statute provided a mechanism of obtaining a price near fair market value. He pointed out the City could not constitutionally deprive these residents of access to their property. The Council has a great deal of discretion in determining fair market value; the Council adopted the ordinance 15 years ago to provide a standard for determining vacated value. For Councilmember Wilson, Mr. Bowman described how the right-of-way would be divided between the parcels, assuring there was not sufficient area to further subdivide the parcels if the vacation were approved. The area the Pratts and Koons would be purchasing was currently their front yards. Councilmember Wilson observed the appraisal indicated the additional 4,OOO square feet would increase the value of the parcels for the current and future property owners. Mr. Bowman agreed, noting the additional property would be added to the Pratts and Koons properties and clear up the issue of access. He recalled the issue of access arose when the Pratts and Koons purchased their homes. Mr. Bowman explained if for example the right-of-way were sold as a building lot, access would have to be provided to the Pratts and Koons homes. He noted the topography of the parcel was level at the street and sloped toward their houses. Mr. Snyder pointed out there was only one potential purchaser of the property, the adjoining property owners. Mr. Bowman recalled there had been attempts to resolve this in the 198O's, the issue arose again in the 1.99O's and was temporarily resolved via the access license. Mr. Snyder advised previous attempts had been made to sell the property back as part of the swap of the right-of-way. He noted in this area streets were not where they were located on the map and there were many problems with property descriptions. Previous property owners had not been willing to pay for the right-of-way because they had the use of it. He suggested the Council consider when establishing a price the 15 years this issue has not been resolved and the 15 years of lost tax revenue. Councilmember Dawson asked how the property would be divided. Mr. Snyder answered by State statue the City did not warrant title, the City only vacated it to the abutting property owners. Councilmember Dawson asked the outcome if one property owner was willing to pay the price the City established and the other was not. Mr. Snyder advised the ordinance as drafted required both to pay the amount established by the Council or the vacation was void. Councilmember Dawson asked the property owners whether $1500 was their firm offer, noting it appeared the value to the properties was more than $750 each but acknowledging it may be less than the $8,000. Steve Koon, 6915 174t'' Street SW, Edmonds, answered they would like to stay with the $1500, pointing out this was a valueless property to anyone but the Pratts and his property. He pointed out the unlikelihood of anyone paying more for the driveway area that was already part of their home. Councilmember Dawson inquired whether he would have paid more for his property if that area was included in his property rather than the City's property with a license for access. Mr. Koons answered he would not have paid any more. Councilmember Moore referred to the comparables that the appraiser used, noting it was unclear whether they had similar access restrictions. Mr. Bowman answered it was unlikely they had access restrictions. He explained the appraiser did his best to develop comparable values; every property had unique circumstances and this one was very unique. Councilmember Moore found the appraisal less relevant Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 19, 2004 Page 8 than the assessment. Mr. Bowman answered the appraiser was attempting to capture the value the additional land would add to the parcels. Councilmember Wilson noted there was property on the north side of the street that belonged to the properties on the south. He inquired whether there had been a title search done to determine whether the property owners on the south side were eligible to receive this property. Mr. Bowman answered no, noting the property was originally deeded to the City by the Gogerts. Mr. Snyder explained this was ownership in fee and was not subject to the abandonment rule. Councilmember Wilson noted the property owners must still hire a surveyor to split the vacated property between the two properties. Mr. Bowman answered the property owners would also need to pursue a Boundary Line Adjustment to adjust the line and establish new legal descriptions. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, TO EXTEND THIS ITEM FOR 10 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Councilmember Wilson referred to Councilmember Dawson's question to Mr. Koon whether he would have paid more for his property and his response the property was only worth the assessed value of $1500, pointing out the assessed value was not the true value of the property and it was likely the additional 4,000 square feet would increase the property's value. Mr. Koon pointed out the uniqueness of the parcel, acknowledging the additional 4,000 square feet would increase the value of the property but not by much. Councilmember Wilson asked the cost of the appraisal. Mr. Koon answered $425. He advised they had not yet hired a surveyor. Mayor Haakenson remanded the matter to Council for action. COUNCILMEMBER MOORE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DAWSON, TO ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS ORIGINALLY STATED (VACATING THE UNOPENED RIGHT- OF-WAY OF 174TH STREET SW IN THE VICINITY OF 6915 AND 6911 174TH STREET SW AS DEPICTED ON EXHIBIT 1) WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE PRICE, INSTEAD OF $8,000, REQUIRE COMPENSATION OF $1,500. Councilmember Wilson spoke against the motion, finding insufficient basis for using the assessed value to determine the value. Council President Plunkett found $1500 to be a good price, noting as a real estate agent, he could only list a house at a price a buyer would pay. He noted in this instance, the market for the parcel appeared to be approximately $1500, making it an obvious and reasonable number. Councilmember Moore agreed with Council President Plunkett's comments, noting this was a common sense solution to the sale of property that no one else would buy. She expressed her gratitude to the Pratts and Koons for their willingness to resolve this issue. Councilmember Dawson agreed, noting previous property owners have not been willing to resolve the issue and this was a reasonable solution. MOTION CARRIED (5-1), COUNCILMEMBER WILSON OPPOSED. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 19, 2004 Page 9 Appeal of 1 5A. CLOSED RECORD REVIEW — APPEAL OF THE HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION TO Hearing Examiner DENY AN APPEAL OF A STAFF CODE INTERPRETATION THAT A 6-FOOT BY 6-FOOT Decision re: TREE HOUSE IS A STRUCTURE AND THEREFORE SUBJECT TO THE CITY ZONING Tree House STANDARDS AND SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. THE TREE HOUSE IS LOCATED AT 18312 Located at 18312 81s` — 81ST PLACE W AND IS ZONED SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RS-12). (APPELLANTS: Place west I KEITH KEMPER OF ELLIS, LI & MCKINSTRY, PLLC FOR MARK AND JANA LOEWEN/FILE NOS. AP-04-102 AND AP-04-67). As this was a quasi judicial hearing, Mayor Haakenson invited Councilmembers to disclose any conflicts or ex parte communications under the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine. Council President Plunkett disclosed he received ex parte communication for H. W. Duncan in the form of an email on September 22, 2004, in which Mr. Duncan stated his opinion; he did not respond to Mr. Duncan. Councilmember Orvis disclosed he had driven by the site a couple of times in the last few days. Councilmember Marin disclosed a couple weeks ago Ms. Heck stopped by his house and began a conversation and when he realized the potential for a quasi judicial hearing, he steered the conversation away from any issues that would be discussed tonight. Mayor Haakenson asked whether any parties of record had any objection to the participation of Council President Plunkett, Councilmembers Marin or Councilmember Orvis. Mayor Haakenson explained due to the absence of Councilmember Olson, he may be required to cast a tie -breaking vote. Mayor Haakenson recused himself from voting in the event of a tie, explaining he had too much knowledge about tree houses in the City, certain applications, code enforcement issues, etc. and was uncertain whether he could make a fair decision. Mayor Haakenson established time limits of 10 minutes for staff and 20 minutes for the appellant. Senior Planner Meg Gruwell displayed a map of the area and identified the location of the tree house. She explained staff became aware of the tree house due to a complaint filed by a neighbor regarding a structure built in the setback, citing issues with privacy and safety due to the proximity to the fence. She displayed photographs of the tree house taken by the Code Enforcement Officer, explaining the tree house was a 6x6 structure with a stairway in the center built into the trees. Following staffs research, the Building Division sent the property owner a letter stating their deck required a permit. The property owner responded it was not a deck but a tree house and it was their understanding there were no permits required for tree houses. After further research and a presentation to the Community Services/Development Services Council Committee where the Committee chose to take no action, staff sent a letter stating the tree house was a structure and was required to meet setback requirements. Ms. Gruwell read the City's definition of structure contained in the Council's packet, "Structure means a combination of materials constructed and erected permanently on the ground or attached to something having a permanent location on the ground. Not included are residential fences less than six feet in height, retaining walls, rockeries, and similar improvements of a minor character less than three feet in height." Ms. Gruwell advised the Loewens appealed staffs decision with the argument the tree house was a minor use and did not need to be regulated under the code, the side setback only referred to buildings not structures and therefore without a roof did not need to meet the side setback, and expressing concern about the complaint -driven code enforcement. The Hearing Examiner held a hearing on August 5 and staff presented their argument that the City's code enforcement efforts were on a complaint basis due to Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 19, 2004 Page 10 limited staff. With regard to code interpretation, Ms. Gruwell said staff has consistently considered a tree house a structure. With regard to comments at the hearing that people have called/visited the City and have been told tree houses did not require a permit, she explained that unfortunately due to Building, Planning and Engineering having codes to administer, someone contacting the Building Department may be told it did not require a building permit unaware it may be required to meet other regulations. Ms. Gruwell explained setbacks were required in an effort to provide air, light, privacy, separation of structures, etc. The general setback definition refers to how far buildings, structures or uses must be from the property line. She acknowledged the front and side setback definition omitted structures and uses and only referred to building. She cited other uses that were required to meet setback requirements. Ms. Gruwell noted the Hearing Examiner determined the tree house was a structure and must meet setback requirements. The Hearing Examiner's decision was appealed by Keith Kemper on behalf of the Loewens for the following reasons, 1) the Hearing Examiner gave undue weight to the interpretation of the Planning Division, 2) the Planning Department has not been consistent in its interpretation of these provisions nor in their application to tree houses, 3) disagreeing that the tree house is a structure as that word is not used in the code, 4) the common sense suggested by the Hearing Examiner is clearly a matter of degree, and 5) the Hearing Examiner did not follow accepted rules of statutory interpretation when he used the more general provision to trump the more specific provision. Ms. Gruwell noted since the original photographs were taken of the tree house, a wall had been constructed to keep the children from falling over the fence. Ms. Gruwell relayed staff's recommendation that the City Council determine a tree house is a structure and must meet setback requirements by denying the appeal and affirming the Hearing Examiner's August 19, 2004 decision to deny the original appeal. Councilmember Orvis asked to look at the colored photographs. Councilmember Dawson asked whether it was only the side setback that was alleged to have been violated by the tree house. Ms. Gruwell answered yes, the tree house met the front and rear setbacks. Councilmember Wilson asked whether the tree house was considered an accessory structure and whether there were height limits for accessory structures. Ms. Gruwell answered it was considered an accessory structure and the height limit was 15 feet. Councilmember Wilson asked if the height was measured from the ground to the top of the structure. Mr. Gruwell answered an average grade to the top was used, noting the tree house did not exceed the 15 foot height limit as the platform was at approximately the fence level, 6 feet. Appellant Keith Kemper, Ellis, Li & McKinstry, 601 Union Street, Suite 400, Seattle, explained this issue arose as a result of the Loewens building a play area for their kids, not an intent to cause controversy, upset their neighbors or provide this thorny scenario. He pointed out in many of the developed areas in. Edmonds, the trees were near the lot line and the center cleared for lawn, thus the dilemma when siting a tree house. There appeared to be some suggestion that the Loewens brought this issue upon themselves by choosing this location next to the fence for the tree house. He noted any tree house in the Loewen's yard would be near the lot line as other trees in the yard abut the fence in the back and the other side. The location the Loewens chose for the tree house was as agreeable as any other location in the yard. Mr. Kemper noted the City passed regulations to create space, light, etc.; trees were higher than the tree house and blocked space and light, yet they were not offensive but a tree house was. The tree house raised a number of fundamental questions including how much should the City regulate citizens with Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 19, 2004 Page 11 regard to what they can do on private property. The record created at the Hearing Examiner appeared to indicate the neighbors were stuck with this on their land, he clarified the tree house was not on the neighbor's property but was on the Loewen's land and in their trees. He questioned whether citizens in a suburban area could expect as one of their rights to be entitled not to see anything they did not want to see; reference to the setback rules indicates no although that appears to be one of the objections —privacy. Mr. Kemper pointed out obviously the Planning Division and Council had not intended to regulate everything out of the 10-foot setback as shown by the numerous exceptions including private radio towers. The best indication of what the Council intended was what the ordinances state. He referred to the general rule for setback in 21.90.020, "Setback means the minimum distance that buildings/structures or uses must be set back from a lot line, excluding up to 30 inches of eaves. (See also Rear Setback, Side Setback and Street Setback.)" Mr. Kemper explained in the instance of a general ordinance and a more specific ordinance, the specific ordinance set the specifics that apply under the umbrella of the general ordinance and the specific ordinance, to the degree there was any conflict, trumps the general ordinance if the two cannot be read harmoniously. Mr. Kemper noted there were definitions in the code for building, structure and uses. He questioned why there would be a definition in the code for structures and uses if building was intended to include both uses and structures. He read the definition of Side Setback in 21.90.050, "Side setback is the minimum. distance required by this code for a building to be set back from a side lot line." He pointed out this definition did not refer to the general definition and did not state structures or uses. Mr. Kemper referred to other uses that the code allowed to encroach into the 10-foot setback, exceptions that were used to determine it did not apply to tree houses or other structures. All the exceptions to the 10-foot setback were attached to the building such as an eave, a chimney, a patio and a deck. Mr. Kemper read the definition of a structure in ECDC 21.90.150, "Structure means a combination of materials constructed and erected permanently on the ground or attached to something having a permanent location on the ground. Not included are residential fences less than six feet in height, retaining walls, rockeries, and similar improvements of a minor character less than three feet in height." He pointed out under this definition a birdhouse or a tree swing could be considered a structure, items he hoped the City did not want to regulate. He questioned whether size was a consideration, whether a tree house was permanent, and whether a tree was actually permanent. Mr. Kemper acknowledged this had raised some difficult issues, some that the Council may prefer not to address. There were many tree houses in Edmonds; this one complaint could produce a great deal of difficulty, referring to a subsequent complaint regarding a nearby tree house. He noted enforcement of the code the way the Hearing Examiner indicated would require the City to have a number of tree houses removed unless changes were made to the code. Mr. Kemper expressed concern with the City's complaint -based enforcement, noting a visitor to Edmonds could register a complaint about a tree house and the City was required to follow up. He summarized the Council needed to strike a balance between private property rights and what a neighbor could require the City to enforce. He concluded it would be nice if in the City of Edmonds, a resident could build a tree house and not have it regulated out of existence. Councilmember Orvis inquired about the area of the tree house. Mr. Kemper answered the area of the deck was 6 feet square with a hole in the center for the stairs and a 6x6 foot wall. He noted the Loewens built the wall in response to the neighbors concerns that it was infringing on their privacy. He noted when the kids were on the deck, they could not look into the adjoining, complainant's yard. Councilmember Orvis noted there was siding on the wall. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 19, 2004 Page 12 City Attorney Snyder cautioned the Council was limited to the record established at the Hearing Examiner public hearing. Councilmember Moore asked for a clarification of the appellant's recommendation. Mr. Kemper recommended the Council reverse the Hearing Examiner's decision and find that the side yard setback was not violated because the regulation refers only to a building. Councilmember Wilson noted the general definition of setback included buildings, structures and uses and asked Mr. Kemper whether his reasoning was the tree house was not in violation of the side setback because it only referred to building. Mr. Kemper acknowledged the general definition included all three but the side setback definition, the more specific statute, referred only to a building. Councilmember Wilson asked whether the Loewens were precluded from having a tree house on another location on their property. Mr. Kemper advised the trees on the property were on the edges of the lot. If this same size structure were attached to any trees on the property, it would be within 10 feet of the lot line on any of the three lot lines in the back of the house. Councilmember Wilson pointed out, based on Mr. Kemper's definition of setback or side setback, there would be no limitation on the number of tree houses that could be built in a side setback. Mr. Kemper acknowledged under a strict code interpretation that was likely correct. He pointed out there would be other limitations such as the size via a building permit. Councilmember Wilson observed it was Mr. Kemper's position that the tree house on the property line did not infringe on the City's police powers regarding setbacks and impacts on light, space, view, etc. Mr. Kemper answered they were all to a matter of degree; a tree house as a matter of degree was minor and should be treated as minor. Councilmember Wilson asked what the threshold should be for the number of structures that could be constructed on the property line. Mr. Kemper answered a reasonable approach would likely be an accumulative amount such as 120 square feet. Councilmember Wilson concluded based on Mr. Kemper's definition, a property owner could have as many structures as they wanted along the property line. Councilmember Dawson asked whether Mr. Kemper's position was that because the tree house did not have a roof, under the side setback it was not a building and the definition only applied to a building. Mr. Kemper agreed a roof was one of the specifics items that defined a building. Councilmember Dawson observed it was also his position that to the extent there was any conflict between the general and specific, the Council must err in favor of property owners' rights. Mr. Kemper agreed. Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the hearing to parties of record. Warren Henderson, 18335 81" Avenue W, Edmonds, (the Loewen's neighbor to the east) spoke in support of the Loewen's request to reverse the Hearing Examiner's decision regarding the tree house. He described the development of the area since 1963 including the construction of numerous tree houses over the years. He noted they had a tree house that was removed when their daughter grew up and they were not aware there were any restrictions. He remarked a tree house was not a building as it did not have a foundation, water, electricity and was a temporary structure. He pointed out the tree house wall would still be visible from the neighbor's property regardless of whether the tree house was located 5-10 feet into the yard. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 19, 2004 Page 13 Jonathan Hatch, 152 — 3`d Avenue S, Suite 101, Edmonds, attorney for the complainants, explained this issue arose when his clients became concerned that the Loewens had violated the City's development and zoning codes. City staff and subsequently the Hearing Examiner agreed with their concerns. He referred to the grounds upon which the Loewens determined the matter should be reversed, first that the Hearing Examiner gave undue weight to City staff's interpretation of the code. Mr. Hatch noted the Hearing Examiner appropriately gave weight to staff's determination because they were the experts in the matter. Because the Hearing Examiner was acting on an appeal of a staff determination, rules of appellate procedure require an appealing body give great weight to a higher fact finder. Mr. Hatch disagreed with the Loewens argument that tree houses were not subject to setbacks, pointing out structures were governed by setbacks. Mr. Hatch pointed out the issue was not about tree houses but what could occur in a side setback. Second, the Loewens allege a tree house is not a structure. He disagreed with Mr. Kemper's inference that a tree house was not permanent because the tree could be cut down, pointing out permanency was something other than transient. He directed attention to Exhibit 61 which illustrated the view of the tree house from the neighbor's yard. The third issue, whether the specific trumps the general, Mr. Hatch observed staff was performing the job they were charged with, controlling what occurs in setbacks for the purposes they were created, to create space between residents and provide a buffer between development. Mr. Hatch enumerated "a horror show of possibilities" if the only thing regulated in a setback was buildings including a large movie screen, large BBQ with chimney, etc., commenting it was never the intent of the Council to allow property owners to build that type of thing in the setback. He referred to Mr. Kemper's reference to a birdhouse as a structure that would need to be regulated, noting the definition of a structure excluded anything under 3 feet in height. He concluded the tree house was clearly a structure in the setback that was prohibited by the current code. He recommended the Council uphold the Hearing Examiner and staff decisions. Kara Heck, 8206184`" Street SW, Edmonds, cominented someone had also complained about their tree house once this issue had been raised. She encouraged the Council to consider existing tree houses, what property owners were told by staff regarding requirements and possibly grandfather existing tree houses. Mr. Snyder clarified that because Mr. Loewen was represented by counsel, the time for his comment would come out of the time remaining for rebuttal by this attorney. Mark Loewen, 18312 81st Avenue W, Edmonds, explained the tree house was constructed for his three children as a place for their friends and them to play, be protected and monitored. He pointed out dumpsters were allowed in the side setback next to the property line. He assured once the children were grown, the tree house would be removed. Appellant Rebuttal Mr. Kemper explained it was not their intent to make this into an emotional issue and he felt silly talking about tree houses, yet the enforcement action taken against the Loewens precipitated this action. He pointed out this was one, 6x6 tree house that the neighbor didn't like, not a series of buildings or any other ridiculous scenario. He agreed the Hearing Examiner was to give weight to the interpretation of the code, yet that did not mean the Planning Department was never wrong; in this instance the Planning Department was wrong, the Hearing Examiner accepted their explanation and it should be reserved. Councilmember Wilson pointed out this was much more than the issue of a tree house, it was how the code was applied. He recalled Mr. Kemper's argument in his presentation was based on definitions, yet his closing remarks indicated this was an emotional issue with regard to tree houses. Mr. Kemper acknowledged this was an issue of how the code was applied but it arose in the context of a tree house. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 19, 2004 Page 14 He agreed the Council's decision could impact other structures but he doubted the other scenarios cited by Mr. Hatch were likely. Councilmember Wilson referred to ramifications that the reversal of the Hearing Examiner's decision could have in the future. Mr. Kemper noted this issue could be resolved by reversing the Hearing Examiner's decision, acknowledging the conflict between code sections may need further resolution. Councilmember Wilson referred to Mr. Kemper's reference to the definition of building (page 65 of the record) noting if the tree house had a roof, it would be a building and subject to the setback. Mr. Kemper agreed a tree house could potentially be a building if it met the other criteria. Ms. Gruwell pointed out patios, decks, etc. would be structures also, thus if the regulation did not apply to tree houses, it would not apply to patios, decks, etc. Councilmember Wilson referred to staff s summary (page 3 of the record) and the statement the Council needed to determine if the tree house met the definition of a structure and asked why the focus was on structure when it did not appear in the definition of side setback. Ms. Gruwell answered in accordance with the way staff has historically applied the general definition of setback, if an item was determined to be a structure, it must meet setback requirements. Councilmember Wilson asked the amount of weight the Council should give to the historical application of the definition. Mr. Snyder answered the record was not clear enough with regard to tree houses to establish a pattern of decision making over time. He noted generally the Council gave due deference or substantial weight to the decision of the zoning official. He noted zoning ordinances were liberally construed to effectuate their purpose because they were remedial statutes of the police power ordinances. He explained if an ambiguity existed in the ordinance, the ordinance was strictly construed in favor of the property rights of the individual in derogation of common law property rights. Mayor Haakenson remanded the matter to Council for action. Councilmember Orvis supported the argument of the appellant's attorney with regard to ambiguity in the code and it was his understanding that any ambiguity must be interpreted in favor of the property owner. COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DAWSON, TO REVERSE THE ACTION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER. Councilmember Moore agreed the code was ambiguous and was not written with tree houses in mind. She summarized if the City wanted to regulate tree houses, they should regulate them specifically and otherwise use common sense to resolve this situation. Councilmember Dawson commented she did not find the statute was unclear; side setbacks referred to building; if it was intended to mean structure, it should have said structure. She noted if the City wanted to regulate all structures in the side setback that could be done although it had not been done in the past. She summarized the structure did not meet the definition of building and to the extent the ordinance could be read otherwise, it was ambiguous which required the Council to err on the side of private property rights. She voiced her support for reversing the Hearing Examiner's decision. Councilmember Wilson did not find the definition of setback ambiguous and found the side setback definition only further clarification. He noted zoning codes were intentionally vague and did not articulate everything that was/was not regulated to avoid the risk of excluding/including specifics. He noted tree houses were usually issues that could be resolved via neighbors talking with each other rather Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 19, 2004 Page 15 than resolved in a formal setting with unintended consequences. He expressed concern that reversing the Hearing Examiner's decision would have huge unanticipated consequences with regard to not only tree houses but other structures in the setback. Councilmember Dawson pointed out the solution was legislative action to clarify the code. She acknowledged the Council may not have intended there to be a difference between setbacks and if the Council wanted to exclude certain structures from a setback, that was a legislative issue. Councilmember Marin spoke against the motion, noting although it was silly to be arguing about a child's playhouse, abandoning the rules was not the appropriate solution. MOTION CARRIED (4-2), COUNCILMEMBER WILSON AND COUNCILMEMBER MARIN OPPOSED. Mayor Haakenson encouraged the Council to correct the code so that it reflected the Council's desires and to remove any ambiguity in the code or there would continue to be staff interpretations that did not meet the Council's expectations. He urged the Council to consider that most people did not know they needed a permit to build a tree house or a fence. He noted residents have come to the second floor asking the Building Department about building a tree house. Although the Building Department does not have any rules for building a tree house, the Planning Department does. He explained when this issue arose earlier this year, Mr. Bowman and he discussed how to ensure when a resident came to the second floor they were referred to the Planning Department and visa versa as appropriate. He urged the Council to consider that a lot of people have constructed tree houses believing they did it correctly and he encouraged the Council not to penalize them. Mayor Haakenson declared a brief recess. Tree House 5B. DISCUSSION OF TREE HOUSE PERMITTING Permitting Councilmember Marin proposed the Council discuss and provide direction to the City Attorney to draft an interim zoning ordinance that would enact a special tree house use permit for one new or existing tree house within a side or rear setback. The applicant would be required to consult with the abutting property line owner and bring in a letter from the neighbor stating he/she had no objection to the proposed tree house. The applicant would then prepare a simple plat plan, pay a $25 fee and be allowed to build a tree house with an area of less than 120 square feet and under 15 feet in height. He advised the permit could be good for five years and renewable or any other time period the Council selected. He suggested the interim ordinance be available in a couple weeks for Council adoption, followed by the required public hearing within 60 days before making it a permanent provision in the code. Councilmember Dawson preferred to address the code language regarding setbacks. Although she appreciated the intent of Councilmember Marin's suggestion, she noted the reference should be to play structures not specifically tree houses. She expressed concern that Councilmember Marin's proposal appeared to penalize citizens who had disagreeable or unreasonable neighbors, noting in neighborhoods where people cared about each other, this issue would likely not arise. She suggested if it was the Council's intent not to allow buildings, structures and uses in the side setback, the code needed to be amended to reflect that and exempt certain structures. Mayor Haakenson noted in the five years he has been. Mayor, there have been two complaints regarding tree houses, both in the last few months and one because of the other. He summarized people with tree houses have not been fighting with their neighbors. He reminded the Council that until a decision was Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 19, 2004 Page 16 made with regard to the Findings of Fact, this issue was still quasi judicial and they were not free to discuss the matter. Councilmember Wilson supported the intent of Councilmember Marin's suggestion, agreeing it was a moot point with the exception of tree houses with a roof that could be defined as a building and would be treated differently. He agreed the first action should be to consider a code amendment regarding what was allowed within the front, rear and side yard setback, noting that could include what items to exclude from regulation such as tree houses or playhouses. Mayor Haakenson referred to Councilmember Wilson's comment that tree houses with a roof would be treated differently, noting the Findings of Fact may not reflect that based on the Council's discussion tonight. He advised he would instruct staff not to take any enforcement action on tree houses until these issues were resolved. Council President Plunkett asked for direction from Mr. Snyder. Mr. Snyder answered given the Council's rationale, there were no restrictions at this time on structures or uses of any kind in the side yard setback with the exception of the specific deck regulation which grandfathered all existing tree houses and play structures. He suggested providing an interim ordinance that states structures and uses were prohibited in the side yard setback and identify exceptions. He suggested the Planning Board conduct a public hearing process on the interim ordinance to determine appropriate structures to be included/excluded. Mr. Snyder clarified when the Council's decision was final, they would have grandfathered all existing playhouses and structures thus negating any enforcement efforts with regard to any existing structure. If the Council adopted an interim zoning ordinance, it would apply from that day forward to any new structures. He suggested putting back into place the provisions staff thought existed and then identify exceptions based on a public hearing. It was the consensus of the Council to proceed as Mr. Snyder suggested. 6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Parking Ron Wambolt, 530 Dayton Street, Edmonds, recalled others have addressed the Council regarding the Enforcement lack of parking enforcement downtown and how it hampered business and limited sales tax revenue. He pointed out how the lack of parking enforcement affected safety including drivers who make it less safe for pedestrians by parking on top of crosswalks, motorists who are required to veer into oncoming traffic due to cars parked too close to stop signs, and restricted access in the event of an emergency by cars parked too close to fire hydrants. He noted these activities were not hypothetical but were the norm due to the absence of parking enforcement. He urged the City to change its philosophy with regard to traffic enforcement, making it acceptable to ticket law -breaking drivers. He noted the Mayor blamed the lack of parking enforcement on the Council and the Council blamed it on the Mayor. He urged the Council and Mayor to operate as a cohesive group to address this issue. Mayor Haakenson responded the Council and Mayor understood the issue and did not blame each other. Land Use Kara Heck, 8206 1841h Street SW, Edmonds, referred to the comment about neighbors getting along, com laints noting there was a point where neighbors could no longer get along. She displayed a voluminous file of complaints against their property because of a neighbor's complaints, the same neighbor who complained about their tree house even though it was not visible from their property. She explained she chose to put the tree house in the backyard rather than the front yard where the neighbor could not see it, yet he still complained. She questioned when the City stopped spending its resources on unfounded complaints. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 19, 2004 Page 17 Mark Loewen, 18312 81" Avenue W, Edmonds, explained under the City's current regulations, anyone rand use could file a complaint at no charge; the cost to file an appeal was $230 not including attorne 's fees etc. Complaint p g � pp g y He proposed a more fair and equitable way would be to charge a nominal fee for filing a complaint such as $100 which would cause individuals to contemplate before making a complaint. If the complaint was determined to be legitimate, the fee could be refunded. 1 10/5/04 Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, Edmonds, complained that his expression of appreciation to the Council Council for correcting his pronunciation of "irascible" at the September 28 Council meeting was not Minutes i — - r , . . , Initiative 29,7 described as irascible. Mr. Hertrich then pointed out the importance of Initiative 297 that would require clean up of radioactive contaminated dumping grounds at Hanford that continued to contaminate ground water. Mayor Haakenson asked Mr. Hertrich whether the September 28 minutes reflected his mispronunciation of irascible and Mr. Hertrich answered it did not. Mayor Haakenson asked if the October 5 minutes were corrected to reflect his expression of appreciation to the Council for correcting his pronunciation, was it acceptable to revise the September 28 minutes to reflect his mispronunciation. Mr. Hertrich answered that would make him happy. Ray Martin, 18704 94'h Avenue W, Edmonds, commended the Council on their attention to detail on the last two items, finding the Council made the right decision with regard to the tree house. He noted that issue illustrated why citizens preferred to come to the City Council rather than the Hearing Examiner who was by necessity inflexible and rigid. He urged the Council to spend an equivalent amount of time Sidewalk Mewalk ale on a critical safety issue, g ithe Meadowdale sidewalk. He encouraged the Council to include the sidewalk in the budget due to safety issues in that area. Closed. Doug McWilliams, 8204 181st Place SW, Edmonds, commented he had lived in Edmonds for 23 years. Record He commended Mayor Haakenson on his restraint during the Closed Record hearing regarding tree Review re: Tree House houses and the Council for the decisions they made. He pointed out the decisions the Council made tonight reaffirmed his faith that the Council thought of Edmonds as a home and as they consider other issues in the future, he urged the Council to continue to consider Edmonds a home not just a collection of houses. 7. REPORT ON CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS OF OCTOBER 12, 2004 Community/ Community Services/Development Services Committee Development Services Councilmember Wilson reported the Development Services Department updated the Committee on the committee status of the Comprehensive Plan/Critical Areas Ordinance update. He advised a work session was scheduled for November 1 and a public hearing on November 16. Staff also provided the Committee an update on Snohomish County Tomorrow Fair Housing Allocation; the Committee recommended bringing the proposed policies to the full Council on October 26. Public Safety Committee Committee om eety Councilmember Dawson reported the Committee discussed parking enforcement and agreed C consideration should be given to doing some parking enforcement. The Committee discussed the need for a long term stable funding source, the negative aspects of having an employee's salary dependent on fine generation and whether the position should be part time or full time, noting the difficulty with enforcing the 3-hour parking zone with a part time employee as well as the difficulty identifying a qualified part time candidate. She also expressed the opinion that funding should not be accomplished by cutting other items in the police budget for a parking enforcement position as it was intended to be an economic driver. The Committee recommended the issue of parking enforcement be discussed further during the budget Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 19, 2004 Page 18 hearings. Mayor Haakenson noted Council President Plunkett, Councilmembers Dawson, Olson and Orvis and he were at the meeting and all agreed with the need for parking enforcement. finance Finance Committee Committee Councilmember Orvis reported the Committee first discussed position reclassifications and the Council approved a reclassification of the Code Compliance position on the consent agenda. He advised reclassification of three Executive Assistants was also discussed. Next, the Committee reviewed a list of bad debt write offs which was approved on the consent agenda. The next item was a discussion of renaming Fund 125, Parks Acquisition to Real Estate Excise Tax 2, Parks Improvement, and Fund 126, Special Capital to Real Estate Excise Tax 1, Parks Acquisition. The Committee concluded their meeting with a discussion regarding property taxes. 8. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Budget Mayor Haakenson advised the Council would be holding their first workshop on the preliminary budget Workshop on Monday, October 25; additional workshops would be held in the upcoming months. 9. COUNCIL COMMENTS Council's Council President Plunkett advised of upcoming dates: The Council budget workshop on Monday, Upcoming October 25; a Council Executive Session at 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, October 26; the Council meeting on Meetings Monday, November 1 due to the election on November 2; and a full Council meeting on November 9 regarding property tax adoption following the 6:00 p.m. Committee meetings. He requested City Clerk Sandy Chase distribute the dates via email. Councilmember Marin advised he was absent from the Council Committee meeting on October 12 to [community � attend the America Public Transportation Conference for Community Transit. He reported on sessions he attended regarding transit oriented development and bus rapid transit, both issues being considered by Community Transit on Hwy. 99. He reported Community Transit was one of ten agencies supported by federal transit authority to consider the implementation of bus rapid transit. He noted if that effort was successful, as little as 10-minute headway could be provided north and south on Hwy. 99. October 18 Councilmember Dawson expressed her thanks to the Chamber of Commerce for hosting a great candidate Candidate forum on October 18. She noted a number of statewide and potential statewide elected officials attended Forum as well as candidates for legislative office. She advised the candidate forum was aired daily at 4:30 p.m. Mayor Haakenson pointed out the lights behind the Council dais were designed many years ago for the court. He noted the Council lived up to the one that stated, "Common Sense is as Rare as Genius." With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:00 p.m. i SANDRA S. CHASE, CITY CLERK Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 19, 2004 Page 19 [1 AGENDA - EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex 250 5th Avenue North 7:00 - 10:00 p.m. October 19, 2004 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 October 5, 2004. (C) Approval of correction to the City Council Meeting Minutes of May 4, 2004. (D) Approval of claim checks #74388 through #74484 for the week of October 4, 2004, in the amount of $59,465.13. Approval of claim checks #74485 through #74708 for the week of October 11, 2004, in the amount of $383,649.22. Approval of payroll direct deposits and checks #39303 through #39387 for the period September 16 through September 30, 2004, in the amount of $816,503.86.* *Information regarding claim checks may be viewed electronically at www.ci.edmonds.wa.us (E) Acknowledge receipt of Claim for Damages from William Lince ($31,614.28). (F) Approval of Bad Debt Write Off (G) Position Reclassifications (H) Report on bids opened October 7, 2004 for the construction of the Willow Creek Storm Outfall Extension project, and award of contract to Blackwater Marine ($587,384.82, including sales tax). (1) Proclamation i1.n honor of Make a Difference Day, October 23, 2004. 3. (30 Min.) Mayor's Budget Address - Presentation of the 2005 Preliminary Budget 4. (20 Min.) Public Hearing on the request to vacate a portion of the unbuilt right-of-way of 17411 Street SW adjacent to 6915 and 6911 - 174th Street SW in order to address access issues relating to adjacent properties. Page 1 of 2 CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA October 19, 2004 Page 2 of 2 5. (60 Min.) Closed Record Review - Appeal of the Hearing Examiner's decision to deny an appeal of a staff Code interpretation that a 6-foot by 6-foot tree house is a structure and therefore subject to the city zoning standards and setback requirements. The tree house is located at 18312 - 818t Place W and is zoned single-family residential (RS-12). (Appellants: Keith Kemper of Ellis, Li & McKinstry, PLLC for Mark and Jana Loewen/File Nos. AP-04-102 and AP-04-67). 6. Audience Comments (3 Minute Limit Per Person)* *Regarding matters not listed on the Agenda as Closed Record Review or as Public Hearings. 7. (15 Min.) Report on City Council Committee Meetings of October 12, 2004. S. ( 5 Min.) Mayor's Comments 9. (15 Min.) Council Comments ADJOURN Parking and meeting rooms are accessible for persons with disabilities. Please contact the City Clerk at (425) 771-0245 with 24 hours advance notice for special accommodations. A delayed telecast of the meeting appears on cable television - Government Access Channel 21.