Loading...
08/03/1999 City CouncilEDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES AUGUST 3, 1999 The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Barbara Fahey in the Library Plaza Room, 650 Main Street, followed by the flag salute. ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Barbara Fahey, Mayor Gary Haakenson, Council President Dave Earling, Councilmember John Nordquist, Councilmember Michael Plunkett, Councilmember (arrived 7:30 p.m.) Jim White, Councilmember Dick Van Hollebeke, Councilmember Thomas A. Miller, Councilmember ALSO PRESENT Christie Lee, Student Representative STAFF PRESENT Al Compaan, Assistant Police Chief Ray Miller, Development Services Director Peggy Hetzler, Administrative Services Director Rob Chave, Planning Manager Jeff Wilson, Planning Supervisor James Walker, City Engineer Michael Karber, City Attorney Jana Spellman, Senior Exec. Council Assistant Sandy Chase, City Clerk Jeannie Dines, Recorder Mayor Fahey welcomed Pat Notter, a Commissioner and candidate for Mayor in Wenatchee, who was present to observe the Council meeting. Councilmember Earling also welcomed Ms. Notter and commented that they have worked together as members of the Governor's Blue Ribbon Panel on transportation. He pointed out that Ms. Notter is a hard working individual. Council President Haakenson stated that two Councilmembers have filed for the position of Mayor. It has been the tradition on the Council if a Councilmember is running for an elected office, he /she should not serve in the position of Council President. Therefore, he made a decision to step down as Council President as tradition demands and out of respect to the Council. He said he has enjoyed serving as Council President for the past 19 months and believes Edmonds Council is a very hardworking and underpaid group of individuals. He also enjoyed working with Mayor Fahey and her staff. He commented election years make for difficult working relationships and thanked the Mayor for her professionalism in continuing their relationship. He expressed thanks to City Clerk Sandy Chase and Senior Executive Council Assistant Jana Spellman for their help to him in his position as Council President and said the City was lucky to have such employees. Council President Haakenson advised following a lengthy discussion with Councilmember Van Hollebeke, who is Council President Pro Tem, Mr. Van Hollebeke indicated he could not undertake the position of Council President due to work demands. The City Attorney advised that if neither the Council President nor the Council President Pro Tem can perform the duties of Council President, the Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 3, 1999 Page 1 Council President may appoint a Councilmember to fill out the term. However, Council President Haakenson believed the Council should elect a Council President rather than having him appoint one and stated that he would abstain from such a vote. He thanked the Council for their confidence in him during the past '19 months as Council President. He requested the addition of an agenda item to take place at 8:00 p.m. or as soon as feasible following Councilmember Plunkett's arrival. Councilmember Van Hollebeke said he was honored and privileged to be selected and to serve in the role of Council President Pro Tem. Due to the same reasons he decided not to seek re- election, business and family needs, he would be unable to serve in an efficient and effective manner as Council President for the remainder of this year. He was confident the Council would continue to serve in the manner it has, with honor and respect for the betterment of its citizenry. 1.. APPROVAL OF AGENDA COUNCIL PRESIDENT HAAKENSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER VAN HOLLEBEKE, TO ADD AGENDA ITEM 4A, CONSIDERATION OF A MOTION TO HOLD A SPECIAL ELECTION TO ELECT A COUNCIL PRESIDENT. MOTION CARRIED. (Councilmember Plunkett was not present for the vote.) COUNCILMEMBER VAN HOLLEBEKE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MILLER, FOR APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED. (Councilmember Plunkett was not present for the vote.) 2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS Mayor Fahey requested Item F (Authorization for Mayor to Sign a Lease Agreement for Parking Stalls at "Old Public Works" Site) be removed from the Consent Agenda as further work was needed. She anticipated this item would be placed on the August 17 Consent Agenda. Councilmember Nordquist pulled Items G and H from the Consent Agenda. COUNCILMEMBER VAN HOLLEBEKE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MILLER, FOR APPROVAL OF THE REMAINDER OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED. (Councilmember Plunkett was not present for the vote.) The agenda items approved are as follows: Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 3, 1999 Page 2 (A) ROLL CALL Approve (B) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JULY 27,1999 /27/99 Minutes (C) APPROVAL OF CLAIM WARRANTS #34841 THROUGH #34983 FOR THE WEEK OF Approve Claim JULY 26, 1999, IN THE AMOUNT OF $207,737.97 Wan-ants Update on (D) UPDATE ON HIGHWAY 99 PROJECT Hwy 99 Approve 5-Lot Plat ( E ) APPROVAL OF MAPLEWOOD PLACE, A FIVE -LOT FORMAL PLAT Councilmember Nordquist asked that both Consent Agenda Items G and H be discussed at the same time. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 3, 1999 Page 2 ids for Items G: Report on Bids Received for the Edmonds Historical Museum Window Replacement and useum Award of Contract to Vela Brothers, Inc. ($86,786.60 Including Tax) indow ds for Item H: Report on Bids Received for the Public Safety Building Asbestos Removal/Phase H and bestos Award of Contract to Crown Delta Environment, Inc. ($53,658.40, Including Tax) Removal For Councilmember Nordquist, City Engineer Jim Walker explained the window replacement represented a shift in priorities. He said there have been phases of windows completed at Anderson Center in the past but some window replacements remain. The intent was to have the remainder of the windows replaced next year although the cost would need to be re- estimated as the cost of this window replacement was higher than originally estimated. _ Councilmember Nordquist pointed out there was no information provided regarding the number of windows, etc. He asked if prevailing wages were requested. Mr. Walker answered yes; all contracts have prevailing wages. COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER VAN HOLLEBEKE, FOR PASSAGE OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS G AND H. MOTION CARRIED. ( Councilmember Plunkett was not present for the vote.) The agenda items approved are as follows: (G) REPORT ON BIDS RECEIVED FOR THE EDMONDS HISTORICAL MUSEUM WINDOW REPLACEMENT AND AWARD OF CONTRACT TO VELA BROTHERS, INC. ($86,786.60, INCLUDING TAX) (H) REPORT ON BIDS RECEIVED FOR THE PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING ASBESTOS REMOVAL/PHASE It AND AWARD OF CONTRACT TO CROWN DELTA ENVIRONMENT, INC. ($53,648.40, INCLUDING TAX) Mayor Fahey passed the gavel to Council President Haakenson so that she could attend National Night Out at City Park. 3. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING ON A REQUEST TO VACATE A PORTION OF THE 216TH STREET SOUTHWEST RIGHT -OF -WAY IMMEDIATELY EAST OF - 84TH AVENUE WEST (Applicant: Edmonds School District / File No. ST- 99 -25) H ROW Planning Supervisor Jeff Wilson explained that the Council :requested this item be continued to allow the Vacation T -99 -2s a PP raiser from the school district to provide an explanation regarding the methodology used to determine the value of the proposed vacation. Applicant Rick McCartell, Shockey, Brent, 2924 Colby, Everett (representing the school district), introduced the appraiser, Jack Dinniene, who was unable to attend the July 20 Council meeting. Jack Dinniene, NW of Northwest Valuation Services, 15817 25`h Drive SE, Mill Creek, explained that with agreement of Edmonds School District, the appraisal of the Chase Lake School property was limited to a land appraisal, assuming the highest and best use was in the land. He said the school property, without the vacation, is 10.1 acres in size. Although lots in Edmonds sell for more, there were no 10 -acre sites to use as comparables; therefore, sites in Snohomish County were used, which he felt were appropriate comparables. He explained the area to be vacated is 20 feet x 225 feet and is the site of an existing road. This represents 4,500 square feet, or 1 /100' of the entire school site. Assuming the Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 3, 1999 Page 3 highest and best use would be single family residential, the question is what a residential purchaser would pay for the property with and without the vacation of 4,500 square feet. He stressed the existence of the school on the property must be considered because a developer would have to demolish it. The four comparables ranged from $25,000 per raw lot to $34,000 per raw lot (no development or pre - application meetings held, etc.). He felt $34,000 was high and $25,000 was closer to the typical range per lot in Snohomish County. Therefore the value was estimated at $32,500 taking into consideration higher lot prices in Edmonds. Mr. Dinniene said the property was previously zoned RS -8 (8,000 square foot lots) and the school district requested the zoning be changed to Public. He assumed RS -8 was a logical use for this property. Dividing 8,000 into 440,000 (10.1 acres) results in 55 lots. He said the value of the entire property was determined by multiplying 55 lots by $32,500 per lot, less the cost of demolishing the school building (estimated to be $550,000). This results in a value for the entire site of $1,237,500. To determine how much a developer would pay for this 20 x 225 area that is currently a street, he considered that 216' is directly across the street so this would be a logical location for a street and a developer may not seek a vacation. He also considered that the 20 x 225 area adds 4,500 square feet increasing the site to 10.2 acres but does not result in an additional lot. Mr. Dinniene said he discussed the possibility of a PRD with the City's Planning Department and was told since there are no environmental issues on the site, it was unlikely the property would be developed under a PRD. His conclusion was the value of this area was nominal. To determine a value for the property, he used 10 percent of the value of a raw lot ($22,500) which resulted in a value of $2,250. Councilmember Van Hollebeke said his focus when considering vacations has been how the vacated portion enhances the value of the property to the property owner. He said the vacated portion enhances the value of the property to the school district. Councilmember Van Hollebeke said the property to be vacated represents approximately half of an RS -8 lot and felt it was logical to consider the value of a typical 8,000 square foot lot in that neighborhood. The advantage of the vacation to the school district is that they will be able to realign their property in a more advantageous configuration. Councilmember Van Hollebeke said he also considered that the process is between two public agencies that are owned by the taxpayers. However, the property proposed to be vacated is owned by the taxpayers of Edmonds rather than the school district. He felt it was important to get fair market value for the property in order to do service to the community. Mr. Dinniene said appraisals seek fair market value and do not consider that two public agencies are involved. He said this is not an independently developable lot; therefore, it must be considered from a market perspective, how much more a typical buyer would pay for the vacated property. The area proposed to be vacated does. not provide an additional lot; it only provides some flexibility. He pointed out the existing road would be a logical location for a road in a subdivision. He reiterated his conclusion was the value of the property was nominal. Mayor Pro Tem Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. Ray Albano, 20916 76" Avenue West, Edmonds, agreed with Councilmember Van Hollebeke, commenting the price of an RS -8 lot in Edmonds was closer to $100,000, a fact he felt Councilmember Earling would likely agree with. He said comparables should be in the local area. Councilmember Earling clarified he and Mr. Albano have not discussed this matter. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 3, 1999 Page 4 Kevin Clarke, 29324 107 " Place W, Edmonds, said he attended the rezone hearings when the school district requested a change in the zoning to Public, which they indicated was more valuable to them and would provide greater flexibility. If the highest and best use of property is considered, it should be valued recognizing the Public zone. He felt the adjacent single - family lot purchased by the school district for inclusion into the school property represented the best comparable but had not been mentioned during this process. He agreed there should be a substantial discount for the lack of utility for the property since it is only 4,500 square feet and said the 10 percent discount was typical of what appraisers use in the marketplace. Although he supported the vacation as it would allow the school district to utilize the property in a more functional manner and make ingress /egress safer, he stressed the importance of applying the proper methodology. He said using raw land may not be the best comparable because the site is a finished site with all utilities and grading and construction of a single - family residence could begin if the site were 9,000 square feet. He reiterated the recently purchased single - family lot should be considered in addition to commercially zoned land. He pointed out when land was sought for an aquatic center, it was estimated at $13 - $20 per square foot, land that was comparable to the Public zone. He pointed out the Public zone was not considered and the property was appraised as single - family residential, which does not represent its current zoning. Hearing no further comment Mayor Pro Tern Haakenson closed the public participation portion of the public hearing. Mayor Pro Tern Haakenson asked if the Council could consider the school district's purchase of the adjacent single family residence. City Attorney Michael Karber said the Council could consider that information but recommended expert testimony be provided regarding how that evidence should be used. If the Council believed the appraisal as prepared by the school district is not accurate, the Council could request an independent appraiser to evaluate the appraisal and provide a report to the Council. Acknowledging the difficulty in identifying a 10.1 -acre property in the City to be used as a comparable, Councilmember Earling said the value of property in Edmonds must be considered and, therefore, felt the value. of the property to be vacated should be higher. However, spending more money to have another appraiser review Mr. Dinniene's appraisal may result in as much as the difference in value. He was inclined to ask for a review of the appraisal because it was due diligence the Council needed to undertake. He pointed out substantial comparables exist that would increase the value considerably higher than $2,250. Councilmember White referred to the map of the school site and the area proposed to be vacated, which is surrounded by school district property and questioned anyone purchasing the property. He felt the appraisal was appropriate and it was not, necessary to have the appraisal reviewed to determine if there was a higher fair market value. He pointed out fair market value represented someone willing to purchase the property. He said the review of the appraisal would likely cost more than any increased value of the property. Councilmember Miller observed Mr. Dinniene indicated the parties could negotiate the price of the property; however, the City is obligated by law to accept 50 percent of the appraised value. He pointed out the City has a fiduciary responsibility to get the best price for the property and agreed with Councilmember Earling's suggestion to have the appraisal reviewed. COUNCILMEMBER MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER EARLING, TO HIRE A CONSULTANT TO REVIEW THE APPRAISAL THAT HAS BEEN PRESENTED, TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE $2.81 PER SQUARE FOOT VALUE. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 3, 1999 Page 5 Mr. Karber said the appraisal in the packet estimated the unit value of the land within the City at the present time as $2.81 per square foot. Although that was not the assumption the appraiser ultimately arrived at, that information was presented in the appraisal. This would result in a value of $12,645 (4,500 multiplied by $2.81). He said there is sufficient evidence in the record for the Council to utilize that as an option to remand the appraisal for an independent review. Councilmember Van Hollebeke asked if the Council is obligated to base their decision on the appraisal and accept 50 percent of that value. Mr. Karber said the Council can negotiate the price but due to the fiduciary responsibility to the City, an accurate portrayal of the fair market value must be determined. Although the price can be adjusted upward or downward, the Council should establish a solid record if the fair market value is varied from. Councilmember Van Hollebeke indicated he would not support the motion as presented. Councilmember Miller asked if staff could review the appraisal based on the $2.81 square foot data. Mr. Karber said the appraisal could be remanded to staff to have an independent appraiser review the appraisal based on the information contained in the record. UPON ROLL CALL VOTE, THE MOTION CARRIED, COUNCILMEMBERS EARLING, NORDQUIST, AND MILLER IN FAVOR, COUNCILMEMBERS WHITE AND VAN HOLLEBEKE OPPOSED, AND MAYOR PRO T.EM HAAKENSON AND COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT ABSTAINED FROM THE VOTE. COUNCILMEMBER VAN HOLLEBEKE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER EARLING, TO MOVE ITEM 4A, CONSIDERATION OF A MOTION TO HOLD A SPECIAL ELECTION TO ELECT A COUNCIL PRESIDENT, TO ITEM 3A. MOTION CARRIED. 3A. CONSIDERATION OF A MOTION TO HOLD A SPECIAL ELECTION TO ELECT A COUNCIL PRESIDENT section Councilmember Van Hollebeke explained his decision not to serve as Council President led him to (Council consider which Councilmembers were available to serve, as the consensus was those up for election are resident not available for that position. He contacted Councilmember Miller to inquire if nominated whether he would be willing to serve as Council President. City Attorney Michael Karber asked Councilmember Van Hollebeke if he planned to remain in his position as Council President Pro Tem; if not, the special election would include election of a Council President Pro Tem as well as a Council President. Councilmember Van Hollebeke answered he was willing to continue to serve as Council President Pro Tem for the remainder of this year. COUNCILMEMBER VAN HOLLEBEKE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST, TO HOLD A SPECIAL ELECTION TO ELECT A NEW COUNCIL PRESIDENT. MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Van Hollebeke said Councilmember Miller indicated he was willing to serve as Council President for the remainder of the term. COUNCILMEMBER VAN HOLLEBEKE NOMINATED COUNCILMEMBER MILLER AS COUNCIL PRESIDENT. COUNCILMEMBER EARLING SECONDED THE NOMINATION. THE VOTE ON THE NOMINATION CARRIED, 'COUNCILMEMBER MILLER AND MAYOR PRO TEM HAAKENSON ABSTAINED FROM THE VOTE. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 3, 1999 Page 6 Councilmember Earling requested Council President Haakenson remain as Council President for the remainder of the meeting. He commended Council President Haakenson for his decision and said he has done a great job as Council President by always being fair minded and trying to do the right thing. 4. SECOND PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPOSED "HALEY/KLEIN" ANNEXATION GENERALLY LOCATED IN THE PLAT OF ESPERANCE LANE, WEST OF 76TH AVENUE WEST AND NORTH OF 224'$ STREET SOUTHWEST, AND THE ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE TO ACCEPT THE ANNEXATION, ESTABLISH THE ASSUMPTION OF THE EXISTING BONDED INDEBTEDNESS OF THE CITY, ESTABLISH COMPARABLE ZOMNG FOR THE SUBJECT AREA, AND ESTABLISH AN EFFECTIVE DATE OF ANNEXATION (Applicant/Proponent: Marie Haley / File No. AX- 92 -62) aley/ Planning Supervisor Jeff Wilson displayed a map of the area under consideration, identifying the City Klein boundaries and annexation area. He explained the area under consideration is one small, fully developed Annexadon cul -de -sac that was developed in Snohomish County under a PRD. The total land area is approximately 103,000 square feet or 2.4 acres. When the City originally received the 60 percent petition and forwarded the request to the Boundary Review Board, property owners representing 71 percent of the assessed valuation in the area signed the petition in favor of the annexation (one parcel that is open space and one property owner did not sign the petition). Snohomish County received no objections during the review period, with the exception of one request for clarification from Olympic View Water and Sewer District, which was answered to their satisfaction. Therefore, the annexation request was approved and forwarded to the City. The final action for the Council is to hold the required second hearing and take action on the request for annexation. If the Council approves the annexation, a November 1 effective date is recommended, which would allow sufficient time for the necessary census and notification of necessary service agencies to allow a smooth transition. Councilmember Earling recalled when this issue was presented to the Council in 1998, a question was raised regarding whether residents in the area were willing to assume the bonded indebtedness. Mr. Wilson answered when the Council approved the 60 percent petition, it was approved with the adoption of the existing indebtedness of the City and, by signing the petition, residents accepted assumption of the existing indebtedness as a condition of annexation. Applicant Marie Haley, 7705 223rd SW, Edmonds, thanked the Council for considering the request for annexation. When she purchased the property in 1981, they believed the property was in Edmonds because their mailing address was Edmonds. She referred to problems with law enforcement provided by Snohomish County in their neighborhood. Mayor Pro Tem Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the hearing. Steve Dozenroth, 1109 NE 181", Shoreline, said he was interested in a property near the area to be annexed. He. said the posted signage did not indicate the area as shown on the map. He asked if the remainder of area might be annexed in the future. Mayor Pro Tem Haakenson pointed out, based on past history, that may not occur. Mr. Dozenroth asked the tax difference between Snohomish County and Edmonds. Case Vandernanden, 22118 78 " Place W, Edmonds, said the small poster placed on the corner of 222nd Street and 761 Avenue West identifies the area to be annexed in words only (between 224' up to 220'' Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 3, 1999 Page 7 and from 76" West up to 841) and does not have a map of the annexation area. He requested a clarification of the area to be annexed. Shirley Homatic, 22322 76`h Avenue W, Edmonds, said she did not receive notification for the first hearing or for this hearing however, the residents of 22406 224`' did receive a letter. There are only two houses on 223`d on the west side (22304 and 22322) which have apparently not been included in the mailing list. She became aware of the annexation as a result of the poster, which she noted indicated the area to be annexed as north of 2241 on 76t''. As this is the approximate location of her property, she was unsure if she was included in the annexed area. She indicated she was opposed to the annexation. Hearing no further comment, Mayor Pro Tem Haakenson closed the public portion of the hearing. Regarding the tax difference, Mr. Wilson said Edmonds' taxes were approximately $1.30 less per $1,000 of assessed valuation compared to Snohomish County residents' taxes. City Clerk Sandy Chase said the hearing notice that was posted had the same title as the agenda item. Mr. Wilson explained the mailing list represents property within 300 feet of the boundary of the area. He said the mailing labels were obtained from Snohomish County Assessor's Office, which have not been 100 percent infallible in the past. Councilmember Miller asked if the City had met its legal obligation for notification of the hearing. City Attorney Michael Karber answered the annexation statute requires public notice but not individual public notice as this is a legislative matter. The City goes beyond the minimum requirements by mailing individual notices to properties within 300 feet. The statute only requires posting, advertising in the newspaper, and on the agenda. Mayor Pro Tem Haakenson remanded the matter to the Council for action. COUNCILMEMBER MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, TO DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE THE APPROPRIATE ORDINANCE FOR APPROVAL BY COUNCIL ON THE NEXT AVAILABLE CONSENT AGENDA; APPROVING THE ANNEXATION AND ESTABLISHING 12:00 AM ON NOVEMBER 1, 1999 AS THE EFFECTIVE DATE; DIRECT THE CITY CLERK TO NOTIFY ALL AFFECTED AGENCIES; AND DIRECT THE CITY CLERK TO UNDERTAKE A CENSUS OF THE ANNEXATION AREA. MOTION CARRIED. Mayor Fahey returned at 8:05 p.m. 5. PUBLIC HEARING ON ORDINANCE NO. 3265 - ADOPTING AS AN INTERIM ZONING REGULATION AMENDMENTS TO THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 17.70 REGARDING TEMPORARY USES TO ADD A NEW SECTION 17.70.040 BISTRO AND OUTDOOR DINING, AND AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF ECDC 18.70.030(B) RELATING TO REVIEW OF STREET USE PERMITS rd. 3265 Planning Manager Rob Chave explained the interim ordinance adopted by the Council on July 6 ntdoor regarding this matter requires a public hearing. The ordinance enables licensed and permitted restaurants sales and dining /drinking facilities to have bistro dining on the sidewalks immediately adjacent to their businesses. He advised the Planning Board is reviewing the issue, has set a public hearing and will be forwarding a final recommendation to the Council in the future. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 3, 1999 Page 8 Mayor Fahey opened the public participation portion of the hearing. Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, Edmonds, said although the idea was good, he was concerned with how it would be policed. He pointed out policing of many of the City's regulations is done on a complaint basis, which he did not believe would work for this issue. He suggested a staff person(s) be appointed to educate business owners, to periodically police the situation, to check for valid permits, to inform violators of the rules, to distribute the rules, to be courteous, to be helpful, and to smile so that business owners would happily comply with the new ordinance. He said if this was done on a proactive basis, it would create a feeling of working together with the City. He anticipated once there is bistro dining and /or merchandise /displays on the sidewalk, no one will complain but they will grumble if it is in the way, and it will not be as good a public thing as expected. He said the City could make this work with the information person addressing the issue and providing a warning if necessary and a fine if businesses repeatedly did not comply with the ordinance. Without this, it would likely get out of hand and never be under control. Hearing no further comment, Mayor Fahey closed the public portion of the hearing and remanded the matter to Council for deliberation. Councilmember Van Hollebeke said this issue has been reviewed by the Community Services /Development Services Committee on which Councilmember Nordquist and he serve, and they too considered how to control it. This was addressed by having the interim zoning measure. expire 180 days following its adoption to allow adequate time to determine if the regulations are working or need to be fine- tuned. Councilmember White asked Councilmember Van Hollebeke what was contemplated by the Community Services/Development Services Committee for "mobile vending services." Councilmember Van Hollebeke said they visualized vending carts such as are commonly seen in other areas. Councilmember White pointed out the language in the ordinance; which indicates that this use shall not interfere with vehicular or pedestrian traffic, must be strictly adhered to. He said enforcement of this regulation should not necessarily be on a complaint basis, but staff should be looking for problems to address them before they become a nuisance. With that provision, he would support the ordinance. Mayor Fahey clarified the Planning Board will review this matter, including a public hearing, prior to official action by the Council. The purpose of this public hearing was to determine if modifications were necessary before the ordinance is reviewed by the Planning Board. Council President Haakenson asked if the Community Services/Development Services Committee forwarded this matter to the full Council for discussion or if a recommendation had been made. Councilmember Van Hollebeke answered the Committee discussed the ordinance at length, followed by review by the City Attorney and then forwarded to the Council. 6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Foodway Rob Nelson, 10619 240" Place SW, Edmonds, distributed a map of the area proposed for a fire lane e,elop- from Woodway. He explained the map identifies a 20 -foot area that encompasses Woodway Meadows on r the west and south side, and on the east side in front of the old Woodway Elementary School and the cemetery. He said this map was brought to the attention of Snohomish County's Land Specialist who ent indicated that land was owned by Snohomish County. He was concerned with the right -of -way and fire Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 3, 1999 Page 9 lane between their homes. He asked the Council to slow deliberation on this property, as he understood from the previous Council meeting that a permit was granted for a fire lane. He asked where residents go from here. ermit Ray Albano, 20916 76 "' Avenue W, Edmonds, described delays Noah would have experienced when Delays building the ark (in the City) such as permit delays, requirements for variances, the ADB process, animal rights, the IRS, etc. resulting in a 5 -6 year delay. He referred to recent comments in the newspaper, and stated that Councilmember White represented Edmonds' safety, health and welfare and he planned to support him in his re- election effort. However, Mr. Albano expressed concern with the idea of appointing a Councilmember without seeking candidates as he felt this would set a dangerous precedence. ooaway Kevin Clarke, 23924 107" Place W, Edmonds, said upon reviewing the construction drawings for the Develop_ emergency access road, he learned the developer is required to build the road according to City standards ent but it was left off the drawing as the existing road does not meet the City's standards. He said although the construction permit was issued based on these plans, he questioned whether anyone walked the property. The existing pavement is only 10 feet and the City requires a 16 -foot wide paved strip with edging and proper drainage. He questioned how a permit could be approved without a public process that allowed input into construction of the right -of -way. As an adjacent property owner, he felt it was important to have input into how the construction of the 20 -foot strip for right -of -way would impact his property, particularly given the flooding issue he has experienced. He requested when the City received title to the 20 -foot strip, that the 36 residents who live on the strip be allowed to provide input regarding that 20 -foot strip. He was astonished that development occurring outside the City, did not include a public hearing to allow residents of the area to provide input regarding how this would impact them. He observed Edmonds provides fire service to Woodway, noting there is an existing, paved, 50 -foot fire access to this property. Wendy Norcross, 8615187"' Place SW, Edmonds, said she respected and admired all Councilmembers. She referred to what was in the newspaper recently and expressed disappointment with the characterization in the newspaper by the Mayor. Ms. Norcross said it was unfortunate, if there was a misunderstanding that Mayor Fahey did not approach the individuals involved but instead involved the City, which makes everyone look bad. She respected the job Mayor Fahey has done but wished she had chosen another route. Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, Edmonds, thanked Mayor Fahey for her letter which provided information to the public that may not have been possible otherwise. Although it would not have been his choice to do this, he understood Mayor Fahey's passion as indicated in the letter. He said sometimes when wrong is observed, you have to speak out and let the public know what is really going on which he appreciated. The question many are asking is how a suggestion can be made, as Councilmember White indicated, without some concurrence of other Councilmembers with regard to an appointment. He said that is the portion of this process that does not sit well with residents of the City. He said few residents liked the letter or what was proposed. He said any action the Council takes, particularly on any major issue, will make people wonder what is going on behind closed doors. Woodway In response to questions raised, City Engineer Jim Walker explained that a letter was sent to the Develop- developer of Woodway Highlands) requesting information related to the right -of -way or the permit that ent was issued would be pulled. As the developer has not .provided that information, the permit is now Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 3, 1999 Page 10 invalid. Snohomish County is reviewing how this strip came to be and what steps may be required to resolve the issue. Mr. Walker said although the plat drawings for Woodway Meadows show the 20 -foot strip within the plat, it does not appear it was done that way, leaving a 20 -foot strip along the west side of Woodway Meadows that is part of a separate tract and not owned by those property owners. Once Snohomish County makes a decision, staff will work with the City Attorney to develop a strategy. 7. CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCES REGULATING SEASONAL SALES AND ESTABLISH- ING ADDITIONAL STREET VENDOR REOUMEMENTS, AND DISCUSSION OF THE REGULATION OF OUTDOOR DISPLAYS AND SALE OF MERCHANDISE Seasonal Mayor Fahey explained this item is a follow -up to action that has transpired related to this issue over the Sales / past few months. She recalled the Council discussed how to address seasonal sales when it came to Outdoor staff s attention that there were no provisions in the code for the sale of seasonal merchandise. The issue Displays was also raised that a solicitor's license would allow a solicitor to sell their wares on an ongoing basis on a lot that was made available to them. Although this would not be in violation of the code, it was not within the spirit or the intent of the code. The City Attorney was asked to draft an ordinance to address seasonal sales, which was presented to the Council at a public hearing on June 29. At that time, the Council was supportive of the ordinance but requested the Community Services /Development Services Committee give further consideration to the time period for the display /sale of seasonal merchandise. The Committee's recommendation was to increase the time period in the ordinance from two 30 -day periods not to exceed 60 days in one calendar year, to two 45 -day periods not to exceed 90 days in a calendar year. The language in the ordinance was revised to reflect the Committee's recommendation. Further, an amendment to City Code. Chapter 4.12 is necessary to add paragraph D to Section 4.12.055 Street Vendor Requirements (which does not require a public hearing) to require solicitors to remove all goods and products from the site each night. Within the context of this discussion, Mayor Fahey explained that businesses in the downtown area were prevented from displaying merchandise outside their stores but several are doing it on a continual basis, essentially in violation of the City's code. The Council expressed a desire to consider that issue to determine if modifications could be made to the code to address this problem. She referred to ECDC Section 16.50.030 which provides a general prohibition on outdoor uses in the downtown area, "Operating restrictions. A. Enclosed Building. All uses shall be carried on entirely within a completely enclosed building except: 1) Public utilities and parks, 2) Off-street parking and loading areas, and commercial parking lots, 3) Drive -in businesses, 4) Plant nurseries, and 5) Seasonal farmers' markets." Mayor Fahey stressed this only pertained to businesses in the downtown area and any merchandise displayed outside was in violation of the existing ordinance. After reviewing this with City Attorney Scott Snyder, it was determined almost anything done to address this issue created new problems. It was determined the outside display of merchandise requires an extensive discussion in the context of the visioning plan to determine how to enhance the display capabilities in the downtown area without eroding the beauty and charm of the area. As Mr. Snyder indicated, it can also become a way by which merchants can bypass issues in the sign code or issues the Architectural Design Board would consider. Mayor Fahey advised a letter was submitted expressing concern with the outdoor displays and requesting the ordinance be enforced by taking action against merchants who are displaying merchandise outside their buildings. She acknowledged she and the Council swore to enforce the codes and ordinances of the City; therefore, it is necessary to notify merchants who are in violation of the code to remove outdoor displays. She said the alternative, should the Council choose to take a less oppressive approach in the Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 3, 1999 Page 11 interim, would be to adopt a moratorium on that section of the code until the issue can be researched more completely. Mayor Fahey asked for clarification whether the seasonal sales ordinance addressed the issue of outdoor display of merchandise. City Attorney Michael Karber answered it does not address outdoor display of merchandise, explaining the prohibition of outdoor sales is stated in the Community Business as well as the Neighborhood Business section and would, therefore, apply citywide in those zones. He said the seasonal sales amendment allows outdoor sales of certain types of merchandise within a certain time period but does not address the businesses that display non - seasonal merchandise outside and for longer than two 45 -day periods. Mr. Chave clarified although the discussion focused on the downtown area, the same prohibition applied to Neighborhood Businesses. In view of the number of changes that occurred since this issue was reviewed by the Community Services /Development Services Committee, Councilmember Plunkett questioned whether the ordinances have been drafted as the Committee anticipated. He suggested the ordinances be returned to the Committee for further review. Councilmember Van Hollebeke was satisfied with staff and the City Attorney's response to management and regulation of these issues. He pointed out the sunset clause in the ordinance was intended to allow the ordinance to be enacted and allow review in one year. COUNCILMEMBER VAN HOLLEBEKE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST, FOR APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE NO. 3269 AND ORDINANCE NO. 3270. MOTION CARRIED. The ordinances are approved as follows: ORDINANCE NO. 3269: AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 16.45.010(B) BY THE ADDITION OF A SUB - PARAGRAPH (5), AND SECTION 16.50.010(B) BY THE ADDITION OF A NEW SUB - PARAGRAPH (4), TO PROVIDE FOR LIMITED DISPLAY AND SALES ACTIVITIES OF A SEASONAL NATURE SO LONG AS LOT COVERAGE AND OUTSIDE STORAGE PROHIBITIONS ARE COMPLIED WITH, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. ORDINANCE NO. 3270: AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF ECC SECTION 4.12.055 STREET VENDOR REQUIREMENTS, PARAGRAPH (D) TO PROHIBIT THE OVERNIGHT STORAGE OF INVENTORY 'OR OTHER SALES RELATED MATERIAL ON ANY PUBLIC STREET, PUBLIC PLACE OR PUBLIC LOT, EXCEPT AS PROVIDED HEREIN, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. COUNCIL PRESIDENT HAAKENSON, MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WHITE, TO CREATE A MORATORIUM ON ENFORCEMENT OF ECDC 16.50.030 AND 16.45.030 FOR A PERIOD OF 180 DAYS WHILE STAFF RESEARCHES A SOLUTION. Following Councilmember Van Hollebeke's suggestion that the moratorium be for one year, Mr. Karber advised the City is limited to 180 days. He pointed out this action will also require a public hearing within 30 days. MOTION CARRIED. Mayor Fahey advised a public hearing would be held August 17 when the City Attorney would present the appropriate documentation. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 3, 1999 Page 12 8. MAYOR'S REPORT T Inslee Mayor Fahey announced that Congressman Jay Inslee will visit the City on August 16 and invited the isit— public to participate. She explained the City has been working on obtaining stateside funding from the Stateside Land and Water Conservation Futures Fund. This fund was established via enabling legislation from Funding continental shelf gas and oil leases and was to be allocated to both federal and stateside projects for purchase and preservation of open space and parks. Approximately six years ago, Congress made a decision to eliminate stateside funding and retain designated monies for federal projects. Congressman Inslee is a strong proponent of stateside funding and wants to make a public statement in the form of paddles and parks. He will leave Meadowdale Beach in a kayak and will arrive at Olympic Beach at approximately 1:00 p.m. where a light lunch will be provided. Mayor Fahey reported upcoming events at City Park on Sunday, August 8 will include the Old Settler's Picnic, Edmonds in Bloom's award ceremony at 1:00 p.m., and a concert at 3:00 p.m. ational Mayor Fahey expressed her appreciation to Crime Prevention Officer Robin Heslop who coordinates the ight out Blockwatch program and who coordinated National Night Out in City Park. She explained National Night Out is an opportunity for the public to leave their porch lights on as a symbol of the community's response to fighting crime block by block and to join together at a designated location to express their support for keeping neighborhoods safe. 9. COUNCIL REPORTS Council President Haakenson thanked the Council for allowing him to serve as Council President for the past 19 months. He congratulated Councilmember Miller on his selection as Council President and offered to assist in any way he could. He suggested Councilmember Miller appoint him to the committees he previously served on. Councilmember Van Hollebeke thanked Council President Haakenson for the excellent job he did as Council President. He congratulated Councilmember Miller and said he looked forward to a productive remaining portion of the year. He reminded residents that Edmonds has been voted the Friendliest City in Puget Sound for the past 6 -7 years. Councilmember Plunkett thanked Council President Haakenson for working with the Council as Council President and looked forward to working with Councilmember Miller. Councilmember Nordquist thanked Council President Haakenson for serving as Council President, observing it was a job well done. COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT HAAKENSON, TO EXCUSE COUNCILMEMBER MILLER FROM THE JULY 24 MEETING. . MOTION CARRIED, COUNCILMEMBER MILLER ABSTAINED FROM THE VOTE. Councilmember Miller advised applications for the second half of the Community Grants were available ommunity at the City's Clerk's office and would be accepted until August 27 at 5:00 p.m. A total amount of $5,000 l; cations is available. He thanked Council President Haakenson for the fine job he did during the past 19 months and expressed his appreciation for the leadership and wisdom he brought to the Council. He observed there were four people running for Mayor and nine people running for four Council positions. As Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 3, 1999 Page 13 Council President, he pledged to do everything to ensure there is a professional and stable Council for the remainder of the year. Boo Han Mayor Fahey referred to a memo in the packet from a citizen regarding the height of the retaining wall Plaza for Boo Han Plaza, noting the wall was appropriate and the City could not make further demands regarding what is required based on the site's topography. She said she brought this to the Council's attention in the event they were contacted by the citizen. With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 9:10 p.m. = FBOR A� R B A R A S. F: A H TEF;�,M ;. SAINUKA S. CHASE, CITY CLERK Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 3, 1999 Page 14 1 1 n AGENDA EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL Plaza Meeting Room - Library Building 650 Main Street 7:00 -10:00 mm. AUGUST 3, 1999 7:00 P.M. - CALL TO ORDER FLAG SALUTE APPROVAL OF AGENDA 2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS (A) ROLL CALL (B) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JULY 27, 1999 (C) APPROVAL OF CLAIM WARRANTS #34841 THROUGH #34983 FOR THE WEEK OF JULY 26, 1999, IN THE AMOUNT OF $207,737.97. (D) UPDATE ON HIGHWAY 99 PROJECT (E) APPROVAL OF MAPLEWOOD PLACE, A FIVE -LOT FORMAL PLAT (F) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN A LEASE AGREEMENT FOR PARKING STALLS AT "OLD PUBLIC WORKS" SITE (G) REPORT ON BIDS RECEIVED FOR THE EDMONDS HISTORICAL MUSEUM WINDOW REPLACEMENT AND AWARD OF CONTRACT TO VELA BROTHERS, INC. ($86,786.60, INCLUDING TAX) (H) REPORT ON BIDS RECEIVED FOR THE PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING ASBESTOS REMOVAL/PHASE 11 AND AWARD OF CONTRACT TO CROWN DELTA ENVIRONMENTAL, INC. ($53,648.40, INCLUDING TAX) 3. (30 Min.) CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING ON A REQUEST TO VACATE A PORTION OF THE 216TH STREET SOUTHWEST RIGHT -OF -WAY IMMEDIATELY EAST OF 84TH AVENUE WEST (Applicant: Edmonds School District / File No. ST- 99 -25) 4. (30 Min.) SECOND PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPOSED "HALEY /KLEIN" ANNEXATION GENERALLY LOCATED IN THE PLAT OF ESPERANCE LANE, WEST OF 76TH AVENUE WEST AND NORTH OF 224TH STREET SOUTHWEST, AND THE ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE TO ACCEPT THE ANNEXATION, ESTABLISH THE ASSUMPTION OF THE EXISTING BONDED INDEBTEDNESS OF THE CITY, ESTABLISH COMPARABLE ZONING FOR THE SUBJECT AREA, AND ESTABLISH AN EFFECTIVE DATE OF ANNEXATION (Applicant/Proponent: Marie Haley / File No. AX- 92 -62) 5. (15 Min.) PUBLIC HEARING ON ORDINANCE NO. 3265 —ADOPTING AS AN INTERIM ZONING REGULATION AMENDMENTS TO THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 17.70 REGARDING TEMPORARY USES TO ADD A NEW SECTION 17.70.040, BISTRO AND OUTDOOR DINING, AND AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF ECDC 18.70.030(B) RELATING TO REVIEW OF STREET USE PERMITS 6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS (3 Minute Limit Per Person) 7. (30 Min.) CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCES REGULATING SEASONAL SALES AND ESTABLISHING ADDITIONAL STREET VENDOR REQUIREMENTS, AND DISCUSSION OF THE REGULATION OF OUTDOOR DISPLAYS AND SALE OF MERCHANDISE. 8. (5 Min.) MAYOR'S REPORT 9. (15 Min.) COUNCIL REPORTS 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 appears on Chambers Cable, Channel 32 or 46 Delayed telecast of this meeting appears the following Wednesday, Friday and Monday at noon on Channel 32 or 46