HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-08-2004 - Agenda PacketMEDINA CITY COUNCIL MEETING
AGENDA
March 8, 2004
501 Evergreen Point Road
A. CALL TO ORDER
7:00 p.m.
Medina, WA
7:00 p.m.
B. ROLL CALL (Adam, Blazey, Nunn, Odermat, Phelps, Rudolph, Vall Spinosa)
C. APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA
D. AWARDS AND PRESENTATIONS
E. ANNOUNCEMENTS
1. Mayor
2. Council
3. Staff
F. CONSENT AGENDA
1. Minutes from February 9, 2004 Council Meeting
2. Minutes from February 23, 2004 Council Study Session
3. Approval of February 2004 Checks/Finance Officer's Report
4. N.E. 121" Street Overlay Project Bid Award
5. Authorize City Manager to Execute Joint Powers Agreement for Regional Public
Safety Communications Consortium
6. Appoint City Representative to Jail Assembly
G. AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION
1. Non -Agenda Items (3 minutes per person)
H. REPORTS
1. Police Department
2. Development Services
3. Public Works Department
4. Park Board
5. Finance Committee
6. Personnel Committee
7. Emergency Preparedness Committee
8. City Manager's Report
I. PUBLIC HEARING
1. School Special Use Permit Criteria
J. OTHER BUSINESS
1. Ordinance Amending MMC 2.40 - Park Board Rules and Procedures
2. Appoint Park Board Commissioners
3. Intersection Sight Distance Regulations
4. Citizen Request for Refund of Collection Fees
5. Selection of facilitator & date for Annual City Council Retreat
6. Agenda Calendar
7. Application for Rezone - Weymouth
8. Ordinance Amending 1997 Uniform Building Code
K. NEW BUSINESS
L. EXECUTIVE SESSION
1. Personnel Matters
2. Land Acquisition
M. ADJOURNMENT
MEDINA CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
February 9, 2004 Medina City Hall
7:00 PM 501 Evergreen Point Road
ROLL CALL
Present: Council members Miles Adam, Drew Blazey, Katie Phelps, Bob Rudolph and Pete Vail-Spinosa,
Deputy Mayor Nunn and Mayor Mary Odermat.
Staff Present: City Manager Doug Schulze, City Attorney Kirk Wines, Interim Police Chief Jeff Chen, Director of
Public Works (DPW) Shel Jahn, Planning Director (PD) Joseph Gellings and Recording Secretary
Caroll Wedlund. Consultant Building Official Bob Rohrbach was also present.
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting of the Medina City Council was called to order at 7:00 p.m.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Council member Rudolph moved, seconded by Council member Vall-Spinosa, to approve the meeting agenda, and
the motion carried unanimously.
AWARDS AND PRESENTATIONS
Service Recognition Award --Mayor Odermat stated former Mayor Dan Becker was not present for his award.
Appointment of Chief of Police --City Manager Schulze gave background information and appointed Interim Chief
Jeff Chen as Medina's new Chief of Police, and as Town Marshall for the Town of Hunts Point,
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Mayor Odermat relayed an ETP monthly business meeting would take place at 7:30 a.m. on Friday, February 13,
2004 at the Overlake Conference Center. It was also noted the State Legislature had convened on January 12,
2004. A community meeting was planned concerning the new Medina Elementary School project for February 11,
2004 from 6:30 to 8:00 p.m. in the Medina Elementary School gym. The first community meeting was held on
January 28, 2004, and this was the second of a series of public meetings regarding development of the new school.
City Manager Schulze announced the Legislature's House Finance Committee had passed an amendment related
to sales tax streamlining, which was favorable for Medina. They had also passed additional distributions for cities
that would be significantly impacted by changes in sourcing of sales tax.
Rezone Application No. 2003-01 (Weymouth Residence) --Mayor Odermat commented the Weymouth
application was being postponed and would not be discussed tonight, per request of the applicant. PD Gellings
added the applicant had 90 days to move to a Council public hearing.
CONSENT AGENDA
Council member Vall-Spinosa moved, seconded by Council member Blazey, to approve the consent agenda.
Council member Adam voiced concern with this issue moving from Study Session discussion to the consent
agenda. Mayor Odermat stated it was an item that did not require a public hearing. Deputy Mayor Nunn added it
was purely an administrative issue that did not require public comment. City Manager Schulze relayed the Council
direction had been to include Ordinance No. 769 in this meeting's consent agenda. Council member Vail-Spinosa
inquired about the $783.42 check to Dolce Skamania Lodge and the $186.48 check to Campell's on Lake Chelan in
the January 31, 2004 check register. City Manager Schulze responded the first one was for Lieutenant Skinner's
attendance at the Command College, and the second check was for the Washington Municipal Treasurers
Association conference that the Finance Officer would attend. The consent agenda unanimously passed.
E-1 Minutes of January 12, 2004 Council Meeting — approved
E-2 Minutes from January 26, 2004 Council Meeting — approved
E-3 January 2004 Checks and Finance Officer's Report — approved
E-4 Adoption of Ordinance No. 769, Special Use Permit Hearings for Schools - approved
E-5 December 2003 Checks — approved
AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION
Mayor Odermat opened the meeting to audience participation.
Jim Clark, 2415 — 79`h Avenue NE, voiced concern about a boarding house across the street from his residence.
He was concerned about the safety of children on his street, due to the lack of criminal history checks or credit
history verification, and the transient nature of its inhabitants.
City Council Meeting Minutes
February 9, 2004
Page 2
As a neighbor living across the street from Jim Clark, Janet Ashley, 2404 — 791h Avenue NE, added the situation
was a "Motel 6", with some non-smoking rooms, as some of the tenants smoked on her bulkhead and left the butts
in her garden. The owner also had someone with a Winnebago staying there who sometimes slept in the camper
and at other times in the house.
As the mother of three small girls, Amy Burns, 2404 — 79th Avenue NE, voiced concern about neighborhood
safety, as accommodations were offered on the spot with no reference checks.
PD Gellings commented his work regarding this issue was summarized in the City Manager's activity report from
last week. Staff was requested to identify a solution to the boarding house issue for discussion at the February
Study Session.
REPORTS
Police Department —Chief Chen gave an overview of MPD activity during January:
a. A resident reported an unlocked vehicle prowl two weeks after it occurred, with $1,600 worth of merchandise
taken. The investigation was still pending.
b. An inside job fraud/forgery situation occurred on January 9, 2004, whereby someone known to the resident had
access to that person's credit cards. MPD was conducting a follow-up investigation.
c. A resident left his home safe open and $8,000 worth of jewelry was taken. Some maintenance people had been
working in the home, and MPD was following up with that information.
d. A nanny took approximately $5,000 of items from a Medina resident.
Chief Chen relayed MPD issued another E-Lert on January 21, 1004 concerning a con man that liked higher end
vehicles and was trying to steal car keys. MPD had connected him to a stolen vehicle deposited in Clyde Hill.
Further, Seattle Police Department had arrested this person, who was now incarcerated in the King County Jail.
Chief Chen indicated at last count, 500 participants were enrolled in the E-Lert system, but some of them were
Clyde Hill and Hunts Point residents. Staff was requested to feature E-Lert sign-up in Medina quarterly newsletters
to get more residents enrolled.
Development Services Report—PD Gellings referred to the 2003 Building Permit Processing Performance Report
in the Council packet, which included time analyses for new construction, remodel/repair, and additions/alterations.
One year had passed since the passage of Ordinance No. 748 overhauling the construction mitigation program.
That ordinance had changed the program by significantly lowering the size of the project that triggered mitigation
such that nearly any new home project was captured. Also, the framework for reviewing mitigation plans had been
revised as a result, with more intense projects being reviewed by the PC, and evaluation of less intense projects by
staff. The case -by -case review system prescribed by this ordinance allowed staff to look for unique mitigation
opportunities and to truly customize each plan to the site conditions. He commented the first project approved a
year ago under the new construction mitigation program was now beginning construction, but the real test would be
in the forthcoming months. DPW Jahn added PD Gellings had done a great job of clarifying what was to be
included in the mitigation plans, and submittal quality had significantly improved as a result. Homeowners were
devising innovative plans to lessen the impact upon the community. PD Gellings added applicants asked to review
other mitigation plans for ideas.
PD Gellings continued due to inclement weather, the January PC meeting had been cancelled. However, the PC
reviewed three cases this month, and planned to hold a public hearing in March and form a recommendation on
elementary school zoning. They also planned to review side yard setbacks during that same meeting. PD Gellings
relayed Medina Elementary students would be temporarily housed at Bellwood School during construction. He also
conveyed his knowledge of the boarding house issue for the three months he had been on staff, and his efforts to
collect facts regarding that situation.
Council member Phelps distributed a paper containing four shots of two different reader signs as examples for
signage at Medina Elementary School, adding she had LED picture samples as well. DPW Jahn provided PD
Gellings with a picture of the signage at Redmond Middle School, noting it was fairly small and was not invasive.
Public Works —DPW Jahn elaborated on the January Public Works report in Council packets, noting the Public
Works crew had been repairing, straightening and installing signs throughout the city. He conveyed this was a
never-ending task with signs being hit or vandalized. In conjunction with the PD, he also periodically identified signs
to improve safety. DPW Jahn voiced concern about sign proliferation in Medina, and requested guidance from the
Council. Council member Blazey thought the DPW and Medina's new Police Chief should use their best judgment
City Council Meeting Minutes
February 9, 2004
Page 3
regarding signs, so the Council would not become involved in micromanaging which signs should be installed.
Following discussion, City Manager Schulze commented it had been the policy since he had become City Manager
that the Council preferred to have only the minimum necessary signage, which met with Council approval.
DPW Jahn also relayed the overall cost of bridgework repair for the two Overlake Drive East bridges was $51,432.
Council member Adam complimented DPW Jahn for joint effort with the City of Clyde Hill in preparation for the
2004 NE 12`h Street and Lake Washington Boulevard pavement rehabilitation project. He also inquired whether the
PW shop back lot storage area had been included in the 2004 budget. DPW Jahn responded negatively, adding it
had been an unplanned cost as a requirement for permit renewal with PSE. He had taken the cost out of the parks
miscellaneous fund. DPW Jahn emphasized the area had not been expanded, and the ecology blocks and fencing
were required by PSE for permit renewal. He added the remaining fence fabric had just been received.
DPW Jahn commented he wanted to replace the old maple tree on NE 71h Street with a substantial oak tree that
had a full root bulb. He also provided an update on the Indian Trail, noting sod would be cut, with gravel overlay
and wood chips on top to make a meandering pathway. DPW Jahn commented drilling a hole in the bottom of the
12 bollards had presented a challenge, and the city would have it done by someone who had the proper equipment.
However, he hoped to have the bollards mounted within the next three months.
Park Board —Chair Gerlitz emphasized the PB needed members.
Finance Committee —Council member Rudolph reported looking back on 2003, the city ended up $600,000 better
than had been projected in the budget. He reported the deficit for 2004 was projected to be approximately
$350,000. City Manager Schulze distributed a new summary sheet with updated 2003 year-end actual figures,
rather than projected.
Personnel Committee —Council member Blazey indicated a Personnel Committee meeting was scheduled for
Tuesday, February 10, 2004 at 5:30 p.m. at Council member Adam's house. The purpose of the meeting was to
bring new Personnel Committee member Phelps up to speed.
Emergency Preparedness —Council member Blazey announced an Emergency Preparedness Committee
meeting was held after the last Council meeting. The committee decided to move ahead with the Strengthening
Preparedness Among Neighbors (SPAN) program, even if a leader was not available in every area of the city. The
committee had also broken into subcommittees to determine whether they could improve each area. He stated
Emergency Preparedness Coordinator Kris Finnigan had a chart depicting subdivision breakdowns. City Manager
Schulze added about 98 percent of the city did not presently have neighborhood captains, but he was hopeful as
neighborhoods organized, they would share their experience with the remaining ones. Mayor Odermat stated it was
important for residents to realize they had to be part of the plan, and suggested a banner be displayed at the city
entrance advising Medina needed response from residents. She suggested a barometer or percentage gauge be
utilized for this purpose. Council member Blazey recommended an insertion in the quarterly Medina Newsletter.
Deputy Mayor Nunn thought utilizing the E-Lert might be helpful, and City Manager Schulze indicated the city had
used that avenue in the past.
City Manager's Report —Council member Vall-Spinosa inquired about early retirement of the park debt. City
Attorney Wines responded prepayment was not allowed under the terms of the promissory note. However, he
thought the court would allow prepayment if the city paid a one percent penalty. City manager Schulze added
prepayment of the remaining loan balance would result in a net savings of less than $30,000, since the payments
had reached the final two years of the ten-year loan, and taking into account the investment interest earnings and
the one percent prepayment penalty. Council member Vall-Spinosa requested a letter be sent to the Dustins
discussing the possibility of prepayment, which met with Council concurrence. If the Dustins responded negatively,
the city would not pursue the issue further.
Civil Service Commission Report —Civil Service Examiner Caroll Wedlund gave a report of civil service activities
during 2002-2003, noting that she and the CSC had been busy behind the scenes ensuring Medina had the best -
qualified police officers. Chief Chen added a lateral applicant from New York was in the works who had expressed
tremendous interest in joining MPD. However, if the candidate remained with NYPD another three months, he could
rejoin them, if he needed to do so. This lateral applicant would not be required to attend the CJTC Academy, and
the hiring process would take three months anyway, whether it was a lateral or an entry-level candidate.
City Council Meeting Minutes
February 9, 2004
Page 4
PUBLIC HEARING
Ordinance No. 768, Zoning Code Housekeeping --Per Council direction from the January 12, 2004 meeting, PD
Gellings explained spas, hot tubs and pools would be noticed in a separate public hearing and covered under a
separate ordinance. Further, references to Planning Manager had been changed to reference the City Manager or
designee, in order to avoid the need to amend ordinances if the title of the office for the planner was changed. Also,
in 17.76, "arterial" had been changed to "collector" to reflect the recent redesignation of city streets. Council
member Adam moved, seconded by Deputy Mayor Nunn, to approve Ordinance No. 768, Zoning Code
Housekeeping. The ordinance was adopted, with Council member Vall-Spinosa abstaining.
OTHER BUSINESS
2004 ARCH Budget and Work Plan --Program Manager for ARCH, Art Sullivan, 18414 NE 26`h Way, Redmond
98052, presented an overview of the annual work program and budget for ARCH. He explained the proposed 2004
budget used the same format as in previous years, noting there was a four percent increase from 2003. Mr.
Sullivan pointed out the vast majority of expenses went for staffing. The intent was down payment deferred loan
assistance for moderate -income first-time homebuyers in east King County until the home was sold. A Council
member suggested using the lower end of moderate income for eligibility. Mr. Sullivan continued ARCH was not
requesting funds from Medina for other projects in the fall round. He clarified Medina funded the Trust Fund
separately to directly assist affordable housing. As part of ARCH's services, Mr. Sullivan also offered to provide
insight with Medina's efforts related to accessory dwelling units. Council member Rudolph moved, seconded by
Deputy Mayor Nunn, to approve the ARCH 2O04 Budget/Work Plan as recommended, and the motion carried
unanimously. Council member Rudolph moved, seconded by Deputy Mayor Nunn, to approve the ARCH Housing
Trust Fund Recommendation, which was unanimously approved.
Building Code Update --It was noted this agenda item was for discussion only. In order to comply with recent state
legislation, an amendment was proposed to MMC Chapter 15.04. Building Official Rohrbach gave background
information why such action was necessary, noting building codes were revised every three years as a
housekeeping measure for codes that had been adopted by the state. He also noted in 2000, the four code -writing
organizations in the U.S. jointly published a new single version of the building code entitled the International
Building Code (IBC). The change applied to several companion codes as well, the International Mechanical Code,
the International Plumbing Code, and the International Fire Code. There was also a simplified version of the
building code, titled the International Residential Code (IRC), which was intended for moderate to simple
residences. He recommended adopting both, and proposed for most homes built in Medina, architects and builders
should use the IBC, and for smaller, less complex homes, they could have the option of using the IRC. Ten percent
of Washington cities had already taken such action. Further, new fee schedules would be added for permits issued
under the codes contained in this proposed ordinance, and portions of the referenced codes would be amended
accordingly.
As an architect as well as a Medina resident, Mark Nelson, 1233 Evergreen Point Road, inquired when the
proposed amendments would take effect. Building Official Rohrbach wanted to ensure the ordinance was in place
by July 1, 2004. He planned to meet with architects and builders who had built in Medina within the last two years.
Suggestions gleaned from them could be incorporated into the final version for presentation to the Council in a
public hearing. He requested notice be given either through the Medina Newsletter or some other means, so
everyone would be aware of this proposed action. The Council directed that local builders and architects be
contacted for input on the proposed I -Code ordinance.
84th Avenue NE Tree Replacement --DPW Jahn provided an update regarding the 84th Avenue NE tree
replacement project, noting there were no funding provisions in the current budget for this project. City Manager
Schulze offered some funding options for Council consideration. He also stated the city must first deal with the
safety issue presented by these hazardous Poplars. City Manager Schulze suggested a need for community input
into this process, and citizen involvement regarding how residents would like the community to look. Council
member Vall-Spinosa suggested removing and then replacing every fourth or fifth tree over a five-year period. DPW
Jahn pointed out trying to do it piecemeal raised a number of issues, and removing the trees all at once would be
less expensive. Further, both Overlake and church personnel wanted all of the Poplars removed, as 85 percent of
them were hazardous. He commented Overlake would plant additional greenery inside the fence to handle the golf
ball issue. Council member Blazey suggested at a minimum the city could trim the Poplars. City Manager Schulze
relayed the Comprehensive Plan singled out this area as something that should be preserved to maintain the
desired appearance. Therefore, Overlake would not be required to maintain Poplars in the right-of-way. Also, the
Code prohibited a chain link fence along a collector street, so Overlake would be requesting a variance. He noted
variances often came with conditions, and the city might want to review the level of Overlake's participation on the
City Council Meeting Minutes
February 9, 2004
Page 5
east side of the fence. Following further discussion, staff was directed to prepare a clear interpretation of the MMC
for the 841h Avenue NE tree removal project, including legal responsibilities as well as liability exposure for the city
regarding safety concerns, for presentation at the March 8, 2004 meeting. City Manager Schulze pointed out when
this issue first came up, it was determined at that point the church could remove the hazardous trees at any time
without a permit. The Council also directed staff to send a clarification letter to St. Thomas Church regarding
hazardous tree removal.
Mark Nelson, 1233 Evergreen Point Road, voiced agreement with the Council's analysis and directive to staff. He
also questioned how Overlake would declare a variance hardship to obtain a berm and chain link fence.
Parking Regulations Policy --Council member Blazey referred to his February 4, 2004 parking regulations policy
statement in the Council packet, noting the broad recommendation was for a more user-friendly approach to
parking in the city. He recommended the following to update's Medina's parking regulations policy:
1. The city should have a reasonable, citizen -friendly approach to parking, and should try to accommodate
residents and their guests by facilitating parking.
2. Parking should be tightly controlled in Medina's core downtown area (from the beach and City Hall to the Post
Office, including the Green Store) to optimize benefits to the residents and foster an enjoyable community area.
3. The parking regulations policy should place Medina citizens' parking needs before those of city staff in most
instances.
4. There was no desire for a parking sign in every city block.
5. Moving the public works trailer to the public works maintenance area would create 4-5 parking spaces.
6. Parking police vehicles elsewhere when not in use would allow for extra parking spaces at City Hall.
7. The dumpster adjacent to City Hall could be moved for greater public parking access.
8. Highlight the parking area immediately south of View Point on 84th with a sign.
9. Require staff to park off site from the Permit or Restricted Parking areas on EGPR from Memorial Day through
Labor Day. Shuttle van transportation could be utilized from Medina Elementary for this purpose.
10. Review 30-minute parking across from the post office, and consider changing it to 4-hour parking for the beach.
11. To facilitate off -road parking for guests (with two wheels off the concrete), post 4-hour parking signs in
appropriate rights -of -way
12. Discontinue prohibited parking on the south end of Upland Road before it intersects with Overlake Drive West.
(Those three signs had been installed to prevent construction parking at the Simonyi residence.)
13. Standardize signs in a comprehensive manner.
City Manager Schulze relayed 17 spaces were necessary. The majority of employees came and went several times
a day, so it was a real efficiency issue. The permit parking signs had been installed adjacent to City hall because
construction vehicles were left there before staff arrived at work and remained there all day. Construction workers
parked anywhere they could find a spot off the construction site and rode their bikes to the site. The construction
workers parked far enough away so they were not associated with the construction site. Two Council members
stated when employees returned from lunch, there was no place to park. Council member Blazey relayed when the
Blue Angels were visiting Seattle last summer, police officers ticketed people who were illegally parked. A neighbor
had been very upset, because she could not park in front of her home, and thought she must obtain a parking
permit that would cost $500. City Manager Schulze clarified that person had wanted a private parking spot for her
use only. It was suggested police vehicles could park elsewhere when not in use, to create more parking spaces at
City Hall. Chief Chen noted the potential for vandalism was an issue for PD vehicles parked away from City Hall.
Mayor Odermat commented during the mornings and at the end of the day, Medina's post office was a busy place.
She added the DPW should be close to City Hall. City Manager Schulze referred to the Citizen Action Request Log
in the City Manager's Report, pointing out the complaint regarding a construction vehicle parked in the right-of-way
that was obstructing intersection visibility. He commented as the Council saw more complaint logs, they would
realize the number of complaints for parking in the right-of-way, and that was why the PD had been more stringent
in enforcing parking, The Code stated all construction -related vehicles were prohibited from parking in the right-of-
way or on the street, except where specifically designated. Following a straw poll taken of Council members, staff
was directed to identify creative solutions for Medina's parking regulations, including whether no parking signs at
841h Avenue NE and Upland Road could be removed, as well as a comprehensive approach for parking regulations.
A recess was taken at 10:30 p.m., and the meeting reconvened at 10:35 p.m.
2003 Year End Financial Report --By consensus, the Council approved the 2003 year End Financial Report.
Council member Vall-Spinosa added the report raised questions that could be discussed at the Council Retreat.
City Council Meeting Minutes
February 9, 2004
Page 6
NE 12`h Street/Lake Washington Boulevard Project Update --Council member Blazey commented people coming
off the NE 121h curve were treating the stop sign as a yield sign, and wondered if better signage could be used
there. DPW Jahn replied the sign was on Clyde Hill's side, and it was that city's responsibility. Therefore, Clyde Hill
would have to agree with any suggestion made by Medina. DPW Jahn added he was trying to make Medina's
crosswalks more definitive with stamped concrete, and the one at that location was no exception.
2004 Legislative Action Plan --City Manager Schulze explained Medina could be supportive of sales tax
streamlining by monitoring bills as they proceeded through the Legislature. The AWC sent an alert whenever a bill
faced a vote, so it was a matter of remaining attentive to pending issues. Medina was a very small player in terms
of population and the amount of money it would receive. Further, AWC cities were divided on this issue because
there were some winners and some losers. He added each of Medina's legislators had attended one Points Mayors
meeting in the last quarter of 2003, and understood the key issues facing the four communities. Deputy Mayor
Nunn moved, seconded by Council member Adam, to approve the 2004 Legislative Action Plan, and the motion
carried unanimously.
First Quarter Agenda Calendar--2004 first quarter Council agenda calendar changes were made.
Council Retreat --City Manager Schulze announced he was awaiting a reply from the consultants for the Council
retreat. Council member Vall-Spinosa suggested the Battelle Institute might be a useful site for this purpose.
NEW BUSINESS
ARCH Assistance --Council member Rudolph stated ARCH Program Manager Art Sullivan might be a resource
regarding the boarding house issue. Deputy Mayor Nunn thought Medina's definition of a single-family residence
was not clear enough. PD Gellings stated the problem was neighborhood alarm over a high turnover rate and
multiple tenants sharing a kitchen and bathrooms. It was not like a separate accessory dwelling. He volunteered to
contact Mr. Sullivan and to furnish the Council with a report.
Medina Grocery --Mayor Odermat stated Jim Lawrence had called to broker a meeting with some Council
members. A trial date was set for June 14, 2004, but the petitioners had requested a summary judgment for
February 25, 2004. City Attorney Wines explained the summary judgment request was limited in scope to whether
the new framework set up by Medina for granting a Historical Use Permit was in conflict with the regulatory format
that discussed a single public hearing. Mayor Odermat continued the petitioners wished to discuss mitigation
measures, and suggested she and Deputy Mayor Nunn meet with them before the February 25 summary judgment
date and convey the information back to the entire Council. Deputy Mayor Nunn added the petitioners wanted to
settle the case. He and Mayor Odermat would listen.
OTHER BUSINESS
2004 Legislative Action Plan --Henry Paulman, 1415 — 80 Avenue NE, requested the word LIDs to be included
for the SR-520/Evergreen Point Bridge on page two of the City Manager's 2004 Legislative Action Plan. Mayor
Odermat replied the Council had already passed the 2004 Legislative Action Plan, and she wished he had spoken
sooner.
EXECUTIVE SESSION
It was noted the Council had met in Executive Session at 6:00 p.m. tonight to discuss personnel matters, per RCW
42.30.110(g) and land acquisition, per RCW 42.30.110(c). The Council recessed into Executive Session at 11:03
p.m. to discuss personnel matters, per RCW 42.30.110(g). The meeting reconvened at 11:30 p.m.
OTHER BUSINESS
Management Employment Contracts --Council member Vall-Spinosa moved, seconded by Council member
Blazey, to authorize employment agreements for DPW Jahn and for PD Gellings, which was approved.
ADJOURNMENT
Council member Blazey moved, seconded by Blazey, to adjourn the meeting at 11:32 p.m., and the motion carried
unanimously.
Attest: Mayor Mary Odermat
Caroll P. Wedlund, Recording Secretary
MEDINA CITY COUNCIL
STUDY SESSION MINUTES
February 23, 2004 Medina City Hall
7:00 PM 501 Evergreen Point Road
Mayor Odermat called the Council Study Session to order at 7:03 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present: Council members Miles Adam, Katie Phelps, Bob Rudolph, Pete Vall-Spinosa, Deputy Mayor
Todd Nunn and Mayor Mary Odermat
Absent/excused: Council member Drew Blazey
Staff Present: City Manager Doug Schulze, City Attorney Kirk Wines, Planning Director (PD) Joseph
Gellings and Recording Secretary Caroll Wedlund
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Mayor Odermat stated the Park Board had three applicants for two positions, and the Council had been
requested to authorize one more PB member. Mayor Odermat was hopeful the new PB members could be
appointed at the next Council meeting. Council member Adam wanted to ensure consistency for this process,
noting the Planning Commission opening a year prior had gone through the Personnel Committee, Mayor
Odermat stated any appointment must have Council consensus. Deputy Mayor Nunn commented such action
went to the Council as a whole. Mayor Odermat added there had been difficulty with that PC appointment
because the applicant had not completed an application. City Manager Schulze clarified this could be discussed
under agenda item D-3, Council Policy Manual.
City Manager Schulze distributed copies of the 2004 Council calendar through June. He also disseminated an
article from the Bothell -Kenmore Reporter, noting other cities were having the same problems as Medina, and it
was appropriate for discussion under the Council Policy Manual.
Council member Rudolph commented Medina would be impacted if the 25 percent property tax issue passed.
Council member Vall-Spinosa inquired about levy lift LIDs. City Manager Schulze stated it depended upon the
LID lift language the Council wanted. This issue would require an across-the-board reduction in levy taxes. He
will check and report back to the Council.
DISCUSSION
Site Plan Review —Mayor Odermat stated the Council needed to conduct a review of PC recommendations
regarding the new site plan review program, and verify that the policy direction of their recommended ordinance
met the Council's intentions.
Henry Paulman, 1415 — 801" Avenue NE, wanted Deputy Mayor Nunn recused, for appearance of fairness.
Deputy Mayor Nunn stated he had discussed this subject with the City Attorney, and it had been determined his
presence was acceptable during discussion of site plan review. Mr. Paulman objected again, and his objection
was noted.
PD Gellings gave an overview of what the PC had done with the new site plan review program. The PC had
recommended it only apply for lots over 80,000 square feet, and only 20 lots in Medina met that condition. The
PC had also suggested construction of any home or substantial remodeling of a home on a lot over 80,000
square feet should trigger site plan review. He summarized the eight bullet points outlined in the Site Plan
Review Objective Statement. PD Gellings also stated the PC had discussed this matter at four different
meetings and held a public hearing at the June, 2003 meeting. In developing their recommendation, the PC had
focused on analyzing how a new site plan review program would relate to existing land use controls for large
homes and how property rights would be impacted. He summarized the PC's decision -making process and their
resulting draft ordinance. He referred to the Site Plan Review Inquiry in the Council packets as well as on the
white board. The PC had recommended the site plan review should influence massing. They also thought site
plan review should potentially control the building outline. The PC had spent a lot of time discussing existing
building controls such as structural coverage, building height and setbacks. They had recognized where there
was no alternative but to recognize the primary impacts, building outline should be part of the review. That was
why he had added alternative building outlines to the Site Plan Review Inquiry. PD Gellings stated the Zoning
Code already placed maximum height and coverage restrictions on Medina residences. The PC did not want
any reduction from existing height and coverage allowances through site plan review. He commented some of
Medina's largest lots were spread over small neighboring lots through lot consolidation, resulting in the potential
for a house that dwarfed adjacent neighbors.
City Council Study Session Minutes
February 23, 2004
Page 2
City Manager Schulze clarified the city had addressed construction issues through the Construction Mitigation
Plan, as well as some of the long term impacts via setback regulations and lot coverage restrictions. However, it
had not provided guidance for the ongoing issues that could be handled with a site plan review process. There
had been support from three different property owners who fell into this category after the fact that going through
a site plan review beforehand would have helped them during the process. Council member Adam thought the
site plan review process was too restrictive. Council member Rudolph explained some of the buildings on the
Bezos property were historic in nature, such as the firehouse, and site plan review would give some flexibility to
special situations like that.
PD Gellings stated theoretically, site plan review could force an applicant to change setbacks, because when
building outline was influenced, the building became more slender, which would increase the setbacks.
However, building setback formulas were not being changed.
PD Gellings recalled prior to discussing site plan review, the Council and PC had spent a lot of time discussing
site coverage allowance, resulting in coverage for large lots increasing more slowly than lot size. A fixed
percentage was given to all lots, and in this case it was 13 percent.
PC Chair Mark Lostrom, 802 — 84`" Avenue NE, stated he was not part of the PC when this was
recommended. He projected each site plan review would be appealed, and the Hearing Examiner would be
faced with making a correct judgment. He also thought a formula should be generated for spreading bulk in
numerous buildings. Neighboring communities like Hunts Point used a diminishing returns formula. They also
required that construction on large lots be arranged differently to give neighbors more room.
PC Vice Chair Mark Nelson, 1233 Evergreen Point Road, had a different opinion than PC Chair Lostrom. He
recalled the PC found it difficult to decide upon objective criteria that would meet with both Council and public
approval. The PC was trying to protect neighbors from negative impacts. He expressed regret that this
ordinance did not have the ability to provide some flexibility for parcels such as the Bezos property, if the
property owners met the intent of the Code and the result was not readily visible to neighbors. He commented
cities such as Renton currently implemented the site plan review process. VC Nelson suggested the ordinance
be tested by a couple of architects to determine what they could find wrong with it. He also recommended
determining whether Renton's ordinance was being challenged. VC Nelson did not think Renton's ordinance
had a lot of objective criteria.
City Manager Schulze stated the idea behind the site plan review process was most of the work should be done
at the staff level in working with the applicant. The result would be a project that had the least impact on
neighboring properties but would still work. City Attorney Wines explained the city could have problems if they
did not include objective criteria. An applicant should not have to wait until a meeting with staff or a PC hearing
before they knew what they could do. He emphasized if the city was going to require an applicant to go through
this process, it must have something objective for reference.
Council member Rudolph stated it might be worth another look at what the City of Lincoln, Massachusetts (near
Boston) had devised to combat this problem, as there was a risk Medina's site plan review ordinance as written
would be challenged. He suggested there could be a site plan review or an alternative, such as some restriction
of building size. Mayor Odermat added there was a need to come up with objective criteria. Deputy Mayor Nunn
commented he was concerned about such decisions being reversed by the Hearing Examiner.
PC Chair Mark Lostrom voiced agreement with many of the Council members' comments. He thought the
community should inventory historic structures and try to intertwine them into development regulations. He
believed they should be recognized formally and dealt with separately. If the Code did not address these
concerns, the city would not obtain the desired result. He emphasized design review worked best when it was in
place from the very beginning, rather than after the fact.
PC Vice Chair Mark Nelson inquired how one defined the difference between design review and site plan
review. He had never heard of anyone appealing a design review issue. He had designed a library and a condo
in a small residential neighborhood on Mercer Island, both of which were required to go through design review.
A design review panel furnished constructive feedback. Based upon that information, he went back to the
drawing board and furnished them with redesign. Everyone gained in that experience. Therefore, the process
worked on Mercer Island. He thought it would be worthwhile to obtain some feedback of their ordinances and
new regulations regarding setbacks and height. Two Council members inquired about reviewing the Mercer
City Council Study Session Minutes
February 23, 2004
Page 3
Island criteria, how long it had been in effect, how many challenges there had been, and whether or not the
petitioners had prevailed. Mayor Odermat inquired what degree of subjectivity sustained legal challenge?
Council member Rudolph requested that staff check with the Town of Hunts Point as well. Mayor Odermat
pointed out the Council had been furnished with example ordinances by lobbyists a year ago. Staff was directed
to research and present what had been legally sustainable in other communities for the next Council Study
Session. The Site Plan Review was also returned to the Planning Commission with the following direction:
a. Check Mercer Island's experience with design review;
b. Check Hunts Point's experience with design review.
c. The Council prefers more objective criteria, and
d. The building outline/placement general approach is acceptable.
School Special Use Criteria —Mayor Odermat stated the PC would hear School Special Use Criteria in a
public hearing on March 2, 2004, followed by a public hearing before the Council on March 8, 2004. PD Gellings
recapped his staff report, noting during the January Study Session, the Council had reviewed a comprehensive
list prepared by staff of design priorities for the new school. The Council then identified seven of those issues as
possibly warranting code changes. He reviewed the matrix in the Council packet containing draft objective
statements for some of these issues, and additional information that had been requested by the Council for the
remaining issues. PD Gellings commented finalizing the objective statements would allow the PC to hold a
public hearing and develop recommended Code changes at their March 2 meeting.
PD Gellings gave an overview of the open house at Medina Elementary and invited the public to attend future
meetings. As an assist, Medina had placed an announcement in the Medina Newsletter. He pointed out
residents had expressed concern about circulation to Overlake Drive West, as well as parking facilities. He
added the District had furnished feedback regarding strategies of where to place one story versus two. There
had been some discussion about building height and massing as well. Council member Phelps commented the
Bellevue School District announced parents had requested a northwest look.
Ron Santi, 7842 NE 81h Street, agreed with Council member Phelps. He added there was a desire to make the
school project timeless.
PC Chair Mark Lostrom relayed District personnel had stated in a ten-year projection, enrollment was not
anticipated to change. He noted they had promised to work on traffic and circulation issues. Further, they
wanted to preserve the current location and size of the soccer field, which meant there was a very strong
constraint where buildings would be placed on the rest of the property.
PD Gellings stated any parking problem on the existing site was driven by special events. However, the city had
an opportunity to address special events if they made this part of the special use criteria. Council member
Phelps added elementary schools by function had more parental involvement, and they did not compare to
middle and high schools. Deputy Mayor Nunn commented the District should be able to build a school that
worked.
PC Vice Chair Mark Nelson was concerned about special events and whether or not other schools had the
same level of parental involvement as Medina. He had noticed the impact of those special events on the
neighbors, and asked whether or not this concern had been expressed to the city. If so, should the city make
allowances for it? His concern was for the neighbors having cars parked around their homes. He also inquired
whether the Council wanted the buffering criteria to include not only adjacent resident properties, but also those
across the right-of-way or across the street.
Ron Santi stated the city should defer to the school regarding parking needs, but should also be concerned
about mitigation. The real issue was how to configure the parking. He thought as one turned the corner, they
should not see a vast parking lot and a big school. Mr. Santi suggested under structure parking for staff, to
reduce the parking configuration. He added the District did not want to discuss it, as such action would increase
the cost. This subject had come up at the first meeting, and had been pushed off to the side, because the
District did not want to consider it. He suggested the city ask the School District to analyze that option. PD
Gellings stated District personnel had stated a large budget spike would result if underground parking were
required. Mayor Odermat suggested staff obtain a cost analysis for underground parking. Perhaps the
community could contribute financially as well. Mr. Santi stated this was a $3 million project and the District had
more money to spend.
City Council Study Session Minutes
February 23, 2004
Page 4
Deputy Mayor Nunn stated the Council wanted flexibility for the mitigation process. The District would present
their proposal, and the city retained approval rights. Council member Vall-Spinosa thought the District should
consider more landscaping along the street. The consensus of the Council was to trust the District to do what
was right for the Medina community. The Council could add criteria conditions when the special use permit
came before them.
PC Chair Mark Lostrom stated it was easy to draft language that covered particular elements of the existing
school or parking design. PD Gellings relayed the parking issue would switch to special use criteria.
Independent from that, the city would review the feasibility cost for structured underground parking. However,
the Council still needed to discuss building height and massing to complete the objective statement.
Council member Phelps stated the example picture signage for Medina Elementary School that was distributed
during the February 9 Council meeting was what they wanted. However, the pictures were a guideline and were
not set in stone. Deputy Mayor Nunn thought it made sense to address signage in the special use permit. PD
Gellings cautioned the city would have to amend the portion of the Code that addressed signage, as current
regulations were very restrictive regarding signs. City Manager Schulze suggested the Code be amended to
allow for flexibility with regard to schools.
Ron Santi speculated other schools might then want new signs. He emphasized any sign should not be visible
from the street. It should not face toward the neighborhood, but rather toward the parking lot. Deputy Mayor
Nunn responded that could be discussed at a special use hearing.
Council member Adam commented the primary communication vehicle for meetings was the internet. He did not
think a sign should be placed along the road to announce a PTA meeting.
PC Chair Mark Lostrom cautioned any Code modification must be very specific. He thought the sign should be
unlit, so as not to unreasonably impact the neighbors. He also suggested the city could be very lenient about
temporary banners announcing school events being placed along the fence. Chair Lostrom requested guidance
for sign ideas only for schools. Deputy Mayor Nunn suggested this issue could be decided in a special use
permit hearing.
PD Gellings referred to recent Bellevue School District project depictions in the Council packet, noting the
Council had wanted to ensure the city did not end up with a stark, featureless building. He did not think there
would be a massing problem. The first three depictions were the result of the School District hiring an architect,
and the last three were by Medina Elementary hiring an architect.
Ron Santi was concerned the city might be left with something it already had. His preference was for one story,
but it would be a tight on the lot. He did not want to see two stories, but if it were designed well and allowed
flexibility, that might be tolerable. He also voiced concern about building height, and suggested modulating the
height impact with only one story along NE 81h Street. Two Council members liked the first three school designs
better than the last three. PC Chair Mark Lostrom suggested the School District should be informed which
school designs were preferable.
As a citizen, architect and PC Vice Chair, Mark Nelson voiced concern about the massing of this large building
in Medina. He liked the Phantom Lake design, as it fit in well with the community. He emphasized the School
District only had to maintain the school, but residents had to live with the result. PD Gellings stated the Code
stated 35 feet from the highest point of the finished grade for a school. However, that was a very flat site, so 35
feet across the highest point of the finished grade might be the same as 35 feet from the lowest point.
PC Chair Mark Lostrom suggested if the Council wanted the school to fit into a residential community, requiring
the height restriction to be the same as for residences would modulate the height. He thought the District could
build to 67,000 square feet without a variance, but until one actually saw the design, it would be difficult to tell.
The District was allowed higher than residential height for the school, but it was also committed to setbacks for
adjacent homes.
When asked how the courts would view a challenge if the city changed the Code for a specific project, City
Attorney Wines explained a lot was based upon the good faith of the School District. It was a new process that
the city had not tested before. The issue was whether the objectives were reasonably ascertainable or not. He
City Council Study Session Minutes
February 23, 2004
Page 5
felt the massing issue should be dealt with as a special use permit criterion. Design review seemed to go over
poorly with courts as opposed to special use permit criteria.
PC Vice Chair Mark Nelson suggested informing the District the city wanted to maintain a rural character. He
also recommended the school be kept in the special use permit process, with a statement Medina wanted it to fit
into the neighborhood residential character and into the Comprehensive Plan. If it did not meet the city's criteria
and fit into the character for Medina, the plans could always be returned. He asked City Attorney Wines if this
was something that would sustain an appeal. City Attorney Wines responded if written correctly, it should stand
up in court. Two Council members indicated that way, the school could be kept in the special use permit
process.
Ron Santi commented the School District had been furnished with concepts, and did not seem to have
reworked any of them from the first meeting to the second one. He stressed the importance of coming to
consensus of what would be required early in the process.
PD Gellings announced the next community forum was likely to be within the next 2-3 weeks, and Medina
Elementary personnel knew the deadline for inclusion in the Medina Newspaper was quickly approaching.
Council member Vall-Spinosa suggested contacting Bellevue School Board member Judy Bushnell to convey
the Council's wishes. City Manager Schulze thought Board members may not have a lot to do with design
criteria.
PC Vice Chair Mark Nelson asked if the Council intended to hear this as a special use permit process. He also
inquired if he as a PC member could attend such meetings and not compromise his role on the PC. City
Attorney Wines responded Mr. Nelson was allowed to talk during such forums. Mr. Nelson requested he be
reminded for all future meetings regarding Medina Elementary. Mr. Nelson also indicated he knew Bellevue
School Board member Judy Bushnell very well.
Mayor Odermat requested staff to convey the city was looking for something residential in appearance. The
Council also sent the School Special Use Criteria to the PC with the following direction:
a. The process should be flexible to allow the Council to work with the Bellevue School District.
b. The Council prefers to use the Special Use Permit process whenever possible, and
c. Under -structure parking should be encouraged.
Deputy Mayor Nunn left the meeting at 9:42 p.m.
Council Policy Manual —The Council Policy Manual was tabled to the March 22, 2004 Study Session.
EXECUTIVE SESSION
Per RCW 42.30.110(i), the Council recessed into Executive Session at 9:48 p.m. to discuss pending litigation.
The meeting reconvened at 10:00 p.m.
ADJOURNMENT
Council member Vall-Spinosa moved, seconded by Council member Rudolph, to adjourn at 10:00 p.m., and the
motion carried unanimously.
Mayor Mary Odermat
Attest:
Caroll P. Wedlund, Recording Secretary
F
0F.WEDIJ,
Memorandum
DATE: March 8, 2004
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Jan Burdue, CMFA
RE: Finance Report — February 2004
COMMENT:
General Fund
Item F-3
The economic downturn was a major concern while putting together the conservative budget for
2004.
Revenues
Sales and Use Tax appears to be fluctuating on a monthly basis. Downward by
3% or $30,000 for February 2004.
Investment Interest is currently meeting budget projections.
Expenditures
Departmental expenditures are meeting budget projections.
City of gdim
clicck Rc2istcr
bl ..2004
:
:
«mom
maw
:e
z
> :
z= _
: :a N
z:ITT
a:
ae,
w
m
s a::
=: zTARY SUPPLZ s z
z«> w
s/3
e v,
r:
v, r: v, z
w
x
e
w
NCTARI
Sl
az:
am
zx
w z a:z ;E =z««s5
4,
:
:
)53dd4
az: < : VENDOR
AKA «,2d ma
c§/kR /gs
l ru ,m 29. 2004
a : :z . r=z
»cy « « :a s�: z
!N7C:ClD TOTAL
RA7l_ ACCESS FEES
)»3Gd4
Q&nr2cdaa
c!%k R A,er
tmm.<4):
:
3
a»E
. ...
�
wz
.
EAT\
\\
w :
�,a
:
,
NUMB
,: e NAIME
:
:
wa v.
z z
1
CHEN
aa:
ays
aw:�
MEMFERSFn� mv:
za«a
sx«z:sexes
120:n00017':w4
n
rrw
Cite ot1 \Icdina
Chock Rc�i�tcr
F&ruar� -19, ?OU-I
C1106
Chick
'JENL03
_
CA.Tc w..�
... .._RI B!ITIGti
�JUU1hCI
:�IiIOU[lI
NUMBER
+_.;DCR ?SAME
:C CT,E.. _..MED
I. ..__.. NC. .�wC��'� NJMEEF.
.MJU21T
914.
04
18054
MONTGCMERY & ASSOCIATES
02/^, E;C4 _C,3, /CC
NCV5 S:,i79'C4 ..01 OOC OCO 25 6;
<_ i0
6,-_4
-..4
LSASTER RE --VERY
19C45
300.00
10155
W NIC:PAL RESEARCH SERV
2,05/04 C.. ,,,00
222o C01 OOC 0OC Sl3 1)
4: SO
30C-00
FEB'C4-FE_ ,5
N`JGICF; TCTA-
9046
:,054.84
10462
C'BR:EN & ASSOCIATES INC.,
P.S-2,'05;04 I., '., ,'^0
13826 0i OD, )CO 512 50
4- _.,
3,)54.84
PRCSECU7:NG ATTORNEY
i NV;,SCE T.;-AL
3,
.
L 047
228.48
10556
01- ECUIPMENT !NC
1-,CS;C4 30/CC
43382 001 OCO C00 519 30
45 OC
223
.43
PW E_3 C FICE T.R.A::,ER
IN-JCICE .-"A.L
223.48
1904P
i ,210.10
10700
CTAK
0 . 30 1'i/OC
0 J`30702 OOI OCO 003 5-9 611
4_ .,.
7,3E-1
.Efi
PLANNING MANAGEF-
it:JCICE TCTA=
9 154.58
C7033C7C3 Cl- .; 'JO OOO 558 6D
-._ .. .
6'_6.:'
P'_.,_IJN I NC MANAGEP.
:>PIC:CE TCTAI,
6'6-iC
120334405 CC1 COO 000 �S9 06
4- „_
140
. LANNING
INVOFCR -OTA-
14C.G:
720334412 001 JCC JCC _,_ 83
41 _4
2,'59.42
947E .'..E STRE-=:A?E
-'. PJCd CE TCTAL
,.,--9.1-
19043
30.32
10800
OVERLAKE PLC=
32 'O5/34 O C-,12C
82 S']2 ^_0'_ 000 100 52' ...,
__ :0
...
PCL:CE
N'dOICE 7-TA:,
905J
209.53
L015
PA.CI=IE S-FICE AUTCYATICN
.2,3/04 �C r, 'J0
44-4P- 001 J00 CCC 5i2 ;
42 JC
2C9--3
LG335-COPIER LEASE
I11V-:CE TOTAL
_„_-]3
__,.,_
2^0.0U
1120)
PERSCDTNEL SYSTEMS
:j05/C4 1, ., 'JC
2004-'_ 001_ OJO OOC 52, 2J
-I 5,.
1.^C-CO
DAMES 'WALKER
..'0.s0
19052
249.37
11270
PITNEY BOWES INC SUPPL-ES
02i05/C4 u/00/90
3029776 JAC4 00_ 000 000 518 'C
o _..
249.3"
POSTAGE PULSAFc METER
INVCICE "'0':AL
249.37
_9053
20.00
11680
PSFCA
5, .,. C/00/00
-UC4 ZUES 00' 100 003 5'4
4
S JP LL'E
FNVO:CE TC7AL
20-00
c�n��ral�a;rl�
F-,hr ary 21.), 2004
Whack
,.�_.,: _.::N
Check
VENT
-_
L.'
\lIII7PdI
-i1➢011ll�
FiT1BE3
PL. L'OH NAME
:SLEL
.DEEMED
...O:CE NC.
1 JL2vT N-749EE
-mcj%'C
-,0_�.N.,
1170C
':(CET SCND ENErtGY
.ni0=
�J JCi 9.:
., 'd'04=-
- OCO C0 :42
]0
<, 97,
'3
=NVOICE _C.AL
2, �59.L
�A>i'743
001 00C 000 80
49
:j
7
04
JAN'74C
Ili OOC 000 5=8 :0
4
29
--LEC':'R: -::'Y
INVO:CE TCi,L
735.29
..,_. ^_I
00: 000 CDC 575 80
4''
T-L EC'P.a_ C:TY
_.. :-
-.4
9035
1,140.64
11820
QWEST
/C=%0:
' C:All
'[14A
O: c:0 �C.: 5' :0
._
10
,-.._�
.E.. PHONES
C7..:.
:A.N'04B
., .._ - 0 02C �_o _:
4.
JO
a IECNE
:NVC1C3 :
--3
:AN 14_
00: OJC JOC _:S ..,
4,.
JAN "]40
Col OCC OCO 516 17
41,
L_
_ITY :SIN
31,
___. _ DN
::NONE TCTAL
"'9-4
AN ., ._
331 000 000 C
00
183...
2'd-TELE2 2NES
IVVC:CE =OTAL
.33__7
_
8288 25
,
12501
ECHRBAC. G. RER=
/
... OCO 00: _is 6J
4l
C2
.28
59056
Bti ILLING C.FF___AL
IVVCICE 'TOTAL
8,2S2.L_
_905
250.00
_26b5
SCHULLE, DOCGLAS ,.
:0/00
2EB'04
C01 OCC '112 �1� IN
43
AU=.J .ALLC4,-NCZ
19058
66.37
13400
SECURITY SAFE 3 LOCK :NC
32/95, 4
CC/CC/CO
2-44,.
00: 000 200 52_ �.,
__
40
59.54
Sll?ILIES
I CI7OICE 'CTAL
S9.
H<
.)h 18104
Cite ( )f \ICdiva
ChaCk KCeisT�r
ahrLUM, 29. 2004
l .lCCk
Lll Cck
VENGCR
C. :Y'.
CA-E
':-IT-1
T:
\1IL[11hL[
IUMEER
J NECR NAME
274�83
IIR:O:CE T .AL
0.53
i 9C5
S'
,
C
..�
STGRAcE
IC_ TOTAL
I23-OJ
1'_78-MAF'04
OG= 030 OCO 518 30
+5
.. ..
109.s0
STORA.�_
i;S�i C I CE -'TA_L
I :31
_3066O
_,000.00
SCS DATA :NC
02/C ,0_
)'190
2.C2 _GS'"A3E
00: OOC COC 5_3 LJ,o.,.,._C
22
13
13937
":C-N J*S_TEC CAKRIER NETWCRXS
.,01 GCC COO 521 2.:
42
OC
62.50
5170
US IDENTIFICAT_;,S Mmd,:UA_L
02, GE%04
23 'O9/CO
_23-.'
,.O- CC, MC, 5�e- <.,
2004 Y.A-N .AL '; PA.E
iNVCi._- _.. ___L
I—
so
19063
0.50
15223
LPILI= ES IINDERGRCLFD
02,0-iC4
., .,, .,^./OC
31-?4_C
101 OCO OOO 542 90
4-
F.X'.'AVA"'Li5 GCTIdi
CAP�C'.DI
i IvT;CI CE TCTA.L
_S.�J
75d
75-00
1S60J
'AA. ASSG" CP 9HERTF^ S m CLI-E
DL/D-/04
C. iCi-
2 " 0 4 S
C0- OCC OOC 5Z' :,
49
4.,
�...,
SriINP:ER
JO
15'll
'dA S'P DEP: OF ..-=,S NG
.,_, -J4
J., ..., .,; G.:
✓.�14 .�.,'-AG:
�.,_ :CC .. .. .. �24 C..
49
OJ
2.,-00
p_ A
I2PICICE TC-AL
2".00
9'!h5
16152
WALDRGN 6 CCMPA.IIY
...5,1
0C
;RC4
'30 ., _ _.,
4
,.,
902
,rR01 23
101 OOC '20L' S'_b __
i_
7J
OC
::UMAN ic�S0L72CES
INVOICE TOTAL
.. .:.00
9^.67
a., ::-00
18027
WAPELRA
004 Dl1-
001 D00 1100 51> 1.,
.,._. MGRSCI?CLZE
:NVO TCc TOF'_,
_9CEd
126-53
i6S0
WASH:NGTCN AWA. P.DS, INC.
0j/OC
--..4_
301 OOC ;CO -__ f2
41
:,.
_G-3l
:DAME PLATE-MAY:3
... j..___ ""CTAL
10-34
ib 1/80)4
CiN. of \I�dina
Clack Raeistar
Fahnia1ti 29,
2004
PAGn
hvek
Cllec
vEr ,a
EI
T w B' :
tI
NLTMD__R
:E1z_3 NAME
_E,r,-;J
r EEEMED
AC -CUNT
1,.
`I1[T1} I
A.I it Otilll
PLA40E-EEC7E°
L`S VCiCE TCTAL
--...
3'3Z7
C7;_ ]CC 059
-2
NP-ME _ L;.T c:S
TOTA1
A`_DIEL P-S., KIES B.
J2,05104
.C, .,I
SAL: .,.
.._ _ ___ .. .,
._ in
2,+D33._0
CTY
IT,rC—C TOTAL
.. __._..
33
'_8035
YASTMA CrUNTY LEPT GF =SSECT:
'2, OS,'04
O/C^_
- _ -"TR'03
000 C Iz_ 2C
5_ __
_64.13
_____ __ ____AL
161
13
JC_ C,, 000 521
ME::1 rAL
�_-4S
ISC20
Zl1MA2 %EMSTR_ES :NC
0 !.:S i'G4
CO/50
30.°°'3
]_ 000 C00 542 64
4_ --
_1.4y
DE'ITCE =:?EIGHT
=90'Z
i-00
i8C94
PDC,--- SOUND ENE3G'[
J '16/J4
��; :0/�0
:TD :CE PERM "'
,''1 J0C 0'— 376 80
49
-NVC'.CE TC A-
190"3
270.00
18095
CJC 20C-1
CZ 12.'54
2004 "CN: C"3CCN
D2' COC i10 S:._ 2C
C' CC
:rr..:__ ,, _
..204 CCNr 41G1T
50_ )CC g
_2T3 :1,liU_._,_D
1nvo:cE T_,�.�
_3s.Jo
=
3.,.00
_4�09
WA ET DEP? OF L "c 75 NG
..2. _2 /04
7/;^,; :C
_'445!_ _.._ , 3
___ Cr, .,." =di
ALIEN ::N-_ALEE
'd'c'A PGN
E344932 :.,_.., H
63i 002 CID 589 1�
S.:
AL:EN CONCEALED
'WHAPCN
INVC_TCE TD7AL
-9C'S
98.00
16145
WASHINC"CN STATE PATRCL
02, 21/04
CO/CC/CO
E344931-LU Z,3
631 000 300 589 :2
32 90
_±.'JC
A:,IEN CONCEALED
WEA?CN
_....A_
E344922 L__ , r.
611 OCO 300 58i _..
_2 ^C
=9
7C
.,LIEN CONCEALED
NEAPCN
:MJCICE TO=AL
49-00
_I b /s/04
Cite of NIcdina
Chcck Ka2i5Tc;r
YChruarV 29. 2001
:Aill"unt
L: fi'In ER
VENDDR NAME
_,.S.=D
16', 9l
ASC ..;'7E IN--US.E:AL SA_c'IY
LL 02.':3,,4 ..0 :0,
NSAo"
-
..., COC
_L_ -C
31 -_
_9C--
129.
94
6330
PCME DEPCT CRELI: SERVICES
02;17/04 1G, CJ/JC
J
SUPPLIES
JALN'C4
:Bl
-,,C JO^_
�... 3`1
._ -C
Sti PPLIES
_wCICE
70TP-�
'9098
8,810.9-
9805
MERCIN .;SC
02 ';C4 ., _. C0/CO
RET?'`l.=.CE
_iV
OGO B00
n-- 3)
Ez 10
NE STE S_ PEDESTR:AN
I1E✓C I,_E
.=L
925.:;0
1d097
SC UNC RESEAR C'H
D2 I-iO4 ., ',./.C, iu
66"
30'
''CO 00'
.8 :.0
4: 5C
_902C
I,194.62
3.0
A=—%'ET/.ACITJPC
-0
_3_'
_113
JO'J , 0
514 -1
_,ESC--, ?E7D
I908I
27".3.
13075
ACCLRATE _LZCTP.IC
„
.,GO J)0
3
id DC
„ATE P. HEATER
-NV..D1"E
TO -AL
19062
16.20
351
ACCL3IN=
..2/_6/J4 C-l-
1011660-202403:
"1
010 u00
52' 2O
4' I_
SEA-RZHES
:'rjC1TEE
.n_TAL
_9C63
79.45
12C93
ARMOR HOLDINGS FORENSICS,
:ITC -2, -6/Ja ... w,2-,
-04 025,-OI
^C_
OCC ',CC
I-. Z'
-_ 40
19084
503.96
27'7
AT&T
., /'8/C4 JCjCC,-C
_o_ __."SB
01
000 II'C
52_ I_
4- CJ
PCLICE DISPATCH
-N,;CICE
___.L
190`0_
_.6.00
L 6
AT&T WIRELESS SERVICES
/I8/C4 C/GL/CO
-?N'C4
301
CC: C00
521 _c
42 -C
PC D"q
A SE3V
i DIVCII-
I TA:.
19066
756.16
813
AUTOMATIC WILBERT VAULT
C2/IB/O4 CC/OCi-B
2364a
--Di
CC0 OOC
_`+< 30
41 10
PaRSINC CL"R3S
II'I6'CLCE
TOTAL
1908"-
2,.62
1980
EELLEVUE PAINT & DECORATING
2 s JO/00/-C
2 o_
7CL
000 ^_30
�76 8J
,_ cl
PAINT SUPP:.=ZG
_PT,CTCE
TCT,:
2 /085:
C01
(i00 J00
5.o aC
__
PAINT 3.iPPL:E3
PAGE
EIS-EIEU..'_'N
CIN7
4.9s
�09.94
_0 97
�25. _
94.62
q_3..
T'_6.I5
0 32
-h N/0 4
'11-ck CII<ck VENDOR
+L1I11bJI Allbdllll( N'T7BER VENTOR NAME
City of Modina
Check K��istor
Pabruary 29, 2004
Is-*;= REEEEME:. .==_ :T NUMEEP
..,__zZ 3_1 COC BC ,_
PA-N— S--`P-
:9Co fr 2..6_ 2300 DL:,"MENTHA.. TN: FORMS s EQU12i :6/04 "0OD 3116; COC OCO Z-I 22
PCL-4RT
II^J:;ICE 70TA=
I3J69 112 .'64 2363 BOISE CASCADE OFFICE PRCD:iCTS 02/18,'C4 ...J3.'S0 '0-4d9 001 000 220 °.. 2u A I 00
7UP=L:ES
)C90 ,353.06 2626 BRIM TRA,TTOR COMPANY
_9091 -6.00 290C CHE A IER ALLI,N n _'=M.AN
IT .092 ..:1.i_ 266; CIT C-RCUP
909' 1,420_43 3253 C-Y7).ILL, CITY OF
4'2.50 2640 CRC IECICN 'NC
19095 96.1-6 3365 CRYSTAL SPRINGS
:.. TOTAL
I, 04 ..I 30/:;0 .,_1 _._ .00 5'6 c0 S= �o
?.E RA_CR
-'TL'O---- TOTAL
SEATAC '50443IQ C__ 000 COO 4: --0
02 IS,'04 .,275E OC: 000 090 5z_ 20 45 Cc
POIICE _. P__,a LEA=P
IPVOICE TOTAL
02/16, 04 ,0, 0/00 N❑ o_ 307 000 000 595 3j 01 �1
AS11,LAL_ .,a__=AY _LANS
iS6'C ICE 'PCIAL
_1
1NL'OICE TS_A.,
4639 00= C00 C00 5:a :C 4_
NEE DE=I N
2NVCICE TOTAL
46-,, Sia w s_ _c
WED DESIGN
NVC-CE TOTAL
4"0- OC 000 C00 SIB 2.,
WES hS ISN
!?T;O=CE TOTAL
�2/'a/.4 DD;o ie0 Oc_ 000 Doc 536 eD :_ TO
4APFR
INVOICE TOTAL
.073541.__ OC: 710 0LS 5:5 i0 31. :,0
NA: ER
-ACE 9
DISTRI❑T7T1CN
AMCUN"
_ .S7
7 3
63
2.. N4
2-3-
356.�5
ti.0
2-4.11
2:4
420 4_
140.O1i
34J.1C
25.00
42.TC
25-3I
lb s/K/0-1
m& Mina
cy±R2ir
Fcbruar, 29. 21004
c L
<r P
= z
: :rz
Ulm :_ v2VECR :
�:'—AIAS CHECKS
)b3Ay4
C hu& (Sleek. VFNp�R
"limbeT AIllolint NUMBLP ':—MCP +a6IE
71 7151_ IACP TPPININ- K=.Y.S' D:a.
495.00 6440 _INC
19:08220 RC FINAN^E IAIL SER'.'-=S
-600 KC .SCURNAL NEWSPAPERS
-9,:'d 34-00 8302 KC SHER_FF'S OFFICE
51a_71 67c KINKV'S .NC
191,2 1„2C2.03 3752 KIRKLADTP, C:'1"1 OF
Cite of,Medina
Chad: Ravistcr
hebruary 29, 200=4
rAGE
4BE3
2':a;04 a
21 1'4_2
c: _;o JJC ,2_ 20
z_ ��
0
SUDS CRIPT:CN
0C4 .,_. F-EcN=._
.v_ OCO J.:C 51a �.,
43
REE2
_NVCICE TOTAL
CC' OCC, a _21 2.
�_ :G
1,
:a1 .::DEME�VCR B'�'il.�G
=AI,
71^9
.. ... 0/O1
1 �a96
cGI 10C 000 E-a :
-.4
01
LEGAL AZJERT_SISG
G0/60
04 009
1 C 0 0 0 52: 2
_S 4C
_..
.._
Iti l;i:CE TC-AL
')w._�
_.,
49 40
2.:6
CvF:FJ
7-C169542
Jo'_ OCJ -P) 51a
Ih:CL"E ":CTAL
..._-�
3 3_.;C
5_35i0:6958C
091 2CD 0_7
_ES
-00 JOo 5_a _G
_y
_oeTBs
Irrir_cE '_..^AL
4
-o
51350C io'9 En7
00- C00 JOC 0
49 :0
32_64
^_CPIES
=:IVCI CF ':CTAL
32
.94
02/'_&/J4 _0/CC/CO
.ACG22'03
OOi 000 JOG 52- 23
--_ SO
,65I
.:.
PO- :CE PRESIDENT
BUSH
I Nl'OIC3 '_.. _n:
,6-11
97
JAN'J4
301 OCC coo 52- -c
_. :0
45J.Ob
3PRS CCNVERS:ON
CARS
lb
dKof Medina
cywRmQa
±mom :\ _ H4
< :
< E
. :
sm
:
,
,a
:ate :
v:
:_:. :
: := c.
4 S
EMERGENCY 3,F.CCH'__RES
)bgRd4
h,ek Check .✓EI�DOR
Cite ut'Mcriina
Chcck- Rcl-Yistcr
Fcbruar, , 29. 2004
I I,,-E ..:..
,L DIi1�TJ7
AINONTil
NUM3ER
VENDOR NAME
_L., ., -..-
Y-,:
__+ ., _E N=- __ L_:T NT:,".5EP
T'.JTA-
❑EC-3 ::,N23'.- _81 00C 3,— :58 60
z_ =0
1:1V0-CE TJT.IL
_9-2-
iC.._
108CC
OVERLAKE PHOT.0
C2'S/C6
C %C
-.--.= D C_ _GC 33 I21 z.,
-NVO-CE -0-TAL
83237 -`C- 000 JCO 521 U
P ii0 _ _
-rroclEE rcTa_.
8)CC CCO E2'_ --�
_, 0
_C=,S
IN,'CICE TOTAL
19-22
246.46
_10'
AUTOMATICN
��'-8
'r;4
CC/Cp
az°3 :7 >_ COC ClJ -2: 22
.. 60
R SSG"-=P-ER LEASE
.N'," CE TGTAL,
45c4-2 COi Coo CCC 515 1-
_c VC
�3s o5-CCP-ER LEASE
I'TCC i:, h: _-
233
x
11270
PITNEY ECWES IbC 9LIPPL-ES
62/�C/-A
�908-3 0: OD'
S v. T�WAR.E YA
'-CT.__
1. 124
,450-00
1142
PRICE, JCHN G AT=-dNH° r._ ..r.
,Z,la
04
_, �, 'G
SL7 2C1 COG cco _i_ 5'
41 L_
TEFEPD ER
1N90_�� .._.., ..
_
,463.29
_170C
PUCE- S=N7, ENERGY
2, 18.'74
... , C,-00
EE3 C4A. IC'_ COO 30-
v_
ST3EE" L
IWO_CE
6
79.42
1182C
QWEST
•6:..,.
.,, C-0
FEB CE 003 Coo
191 L7
S,865_68
-81C0
REDMCND, CITY OP
,'�9�D4
_,', 0/00
A'=22'C3 CJ1 COC C30 52- 2C
6_ 9C
PO-.TCE PRESI:ENT BUSH
-WOKE TOTAL
-9-28
1-,928.83
12005
RCTP. HILL ENGINEERING PARTNERS
02/18/04
2oiC0100
2EC';4 001 C00 CCO 524 '6)
41 Cl
ENGINEERING SERVICES
2EC'24 l__ 200 OCC 542 32
41 CO
ENr,-NEER-?1G EERVICES
!NVGiCF TOTAL
=I=TR-RJ'L �GN
5,988.oP
64
3.1,.
4 .21
19 2-
233.a3
4-�0.J0
_,=70.:C
453.29
_-3 29
-9.42
42
e,ass.ea
0,805-_0
2SC.51
578-32
1 923.3z
lb 3 /' %A)4
CM o Mc ma
Check Ro2iSt�2r
Fahruary 29.
2004
PA3E
( 110ck
�.. �1dC�:
VETIDCR
LATE
CATE
_:S=RIELT2ON
XmIlb-,
.AllwallC
NUMEER
VENDCR NAME
:SSCED
wKWEEMEC
=:CE to.
ACCC037 N'INBER
F.f`1C ITJ='
.9129
22.DS
18111
SEA'TTI.E, .-_7Y G
2 5L,4
3' C/De
2_47,
DD.
2.,S
RES2-?„__,__ -___n
_NVC_c..
_0AL
22 0
113D
2.94
134CO
SF=RI7Y SAFE & LOCK !NC
L 2 ,_ s,C4
0 .....
75-2J
CC"_ OCO C20
_21 2
'3Z
AUTC KEYS
117Ci7E
__..AL
2.94
306.95
12660
SOS DATA SE RVI n5 INS
32 '10/04
i�^.0/90
l5a96
O01 OO6 000
5-8 _,
-,_
NEWSLETTERS
:NCOICE
T::TAL
,3_6-��
,112
277.
72
13b5C
SUBURBAN CITIES ASSOC
02,1E/04
11401 _10
A
COc CCC
_i9
z_ ,.. 27- -2
SOLID 'WASTE
INVC:ZE
TOTAL
277 _._
. 3
17.60
-5e03
UTILITIES =ER3RCiUTC
„2,15/C4
�.. CCJLD
4D_94Hd
000 OCD
-4Z 3D
4-
EXCAVATION NCT ?:CAT:CN
:N':CTCE
TOTAL
. ._..
.4.00
16129
WA ST DF-'T CIF ^ENS_NG
..4.18/J4
,., ...,;CO
2344933 -EPF,D
631 ^.0C COD
I4 2
52 8E
LCNCEALED WE,-.2ON
E340334-OLERMA
63- C'_ COG
585 12
__ _..
FON CJ ILHD 'WEA2CN
l'UJC:TE
TOTAL
-w.,..
E34433I---EFF,'
631 OOO 300
Se9 -2
:2 2S __._D
C CNCEAL.ED XEP.'r CN
I`J'r_.__
._-___
L3_.92_-W:Lj__,
o__ oCO _DO
EED _2
-.A 3d _c_..,
=NCEAL6.A WEE CN
TOTAL
is V
i3li5
523.00
16152
WA_DRCN m "CM?ANY
( _.., ,..
20 DO/CO
4RC4
.. OI OOC 02-0
CIS _
_ .I _,.A..
z HUM:
:N-dOICE
"CTAL
__.,.,_
19126
53.31
1615-_
WASHING MACHINE, :NC.
02/15/04
_-.CC/C0
;02:
]O1 :JOG 300
2.._ ..
.:2 ,A 1_.3:
PCLICE AUTCMCDISES
IN` CI:CE
TOTAL
:3 . , _
19137
489.60
16215
WESCOM COMMl N:CATICNS
02j18/C4
'0/CO
14327
--01 D00 CCJ
411 20
46 ., ., , .s2
EQUIP MAIN
:NVOICE
_v_AL
.SC.
--_4328
C11 COO CCC
521 26
45 _2 91 92
EQtiI2 NA.I t7
-NVCI^_E
TOTAL
_ ..-
Ib i/R/0 4
»cr aim \\
oKor«daa
F&ruma29.<n4
EQT 3=n =4I In
j) yZ£4
CON of \kAna
Chick Rc2istc;r
Fchruar, 29.
2004
PAGE
_.,
L f1dC�n
l fled:
-; ENDCF.
LATE
DATE
D_STRIDC:TLCN
VumhCr
AIlk"1NLf
NL7M0ER
VENllUR NAME
ISSL3L
REDEEMS
Sw._.__
--.C,:7,"177 ITIN E7
AM07ICT
99641-
2_
__
., .,
103._,
_91.92
2365
CDW '_CV=llMnhm 'iS
70C D 0 C
PIsLLN
:NV, :-E I-Y--A_
., _,S2
10L4'
,161-05
3...
C:4EVRCN
02/25/04
.0,O1;
50
7343306381402
., JOC �.,0 521 2„
32
Di
1,35_,'3
PC =._E AJ?C.'40SILES
INVO"C3 .-AL
78963064D-402
om OOC 003 _.6 H.
2z
_1
02.�..
PW AlJ"(Mc> I S
INVOLCE TGTA_
K2.02
'_9_4S
47.35
'L8024
COMPUSA INC
,..5/C4
.,
-0- ODD
__
.. .,
4- ._.,
AC3O3AT & CARE
REAPER
IN,'CICE TOTAL
_,._L
_3149
19_.25
2640
CRC D_S:CN INC
2ie7/C4
,
-_
4729
1 0 c 1 301 �18 1C
-_
0C
191.2-,
WED SES_SN WORK
INJCLCE LJTAL
:9"_._�
0
35.30
18091
CYL=NX SCLU7IJIIS
2,25,04
1^,i
CD
2399
7C1 000 I00 513 _.:
41
INVCICE T.,'_'AL
35.0]
1915E
51.12
464:
ENA COURIERS LNC
C.. 25/04
3C 190/OC
in-42-
02 - OCO DID 2i
.2
JC
?OL=Sn :CUR=ER
SER'I=CES
_u.=.. .., .,_..
S'.
-._
15152
2 221.34
5_ J
EVERSON S ..=T;i -VAC. !NC.
02 '2S/14
..O 3..00
_Z, 99
:.01 900 700 542 4.
4_
_.
"K
14
STORM SRii:
LNVCICE =TA.L
2,2a-.14
19153
135.51
5270
FINANCIAL CONSJLTANTS INTERNA"
02;2n/C4
_C 'O,-C
5939
CO_ 000 7:C o21 20
4a
OC
MCtiITCR Tn3LE
LWOICE TOTAL
.__.__
lK54
22,760.22
5554
FRONTIER ?CRD
02/2004
C0;00/0C
0094
10C OCO O00 52I 5_
64
22,76C._2
2C04 ECRU !:9?
iNVOIC_ TOTAL
22, 63 _22
19155
99.00
5357
FUJITSU COMPUTER PRODUCTS
02/25/04
00,00110
20O4-SP620C
COI OCO 000 518 10
48
OC
99.00
MA_N7ENPVCE AGREEMENT
::tiVOICE TOTAL
99.00
i>_56
1,664.64
18104
HEWLETr PACKARD COMPANY
D2,/25/C4
9, '0ii1
15715159-001
IOl DCO 300 52 2.,
31
4
_,7, 14.
4
2A�
IDNOICE 7O1AJ.
664-64
)b /q/04
cite cif \Icdiva
check Rey istcr
Fcbruarn 29 2004
" 7KC}�
C�I1JCi.
V�'IvDCR
_
"'
-I ',V-:, CI
\
i:L-Ma3P
�r.fDJR VA"4E
.,:, JBC
F.. -E.._.,
.CGti :- V.."`/IBER
lii[ll?.'C
:�Ill��llill
9a-
40.00
643'
-'I 'L ASSCc FCF PRO-_R-y
8
352-0C
7_8o
iSSAQ_Ar. COLIC^ DEP'-'
C�a-.
..J, C
Ili 1300 0 __
CrM;:.IE C T C'1J RANGE
_
1 '39.-5
810
JGSEPE GILLG
4 a' C00 OGS 553
O
: E'J SERv
09: COD CO) 558
G E'✓ SER'>
_-::F/3C0KI AA'04 'Cl COO OaC 553 cJ .=
JG
3"=.-..
SERV
I:T,;S � _�..-.:.
9.
_
50
3,510.-5
9F2E
K1RKL?NC MtiNI ___n.L '_CURT
�..
IS; C:,
�_ ., _. ..'
jAPd04MEC 701 OGC 5.r �12 S_ _
__
`..2.0-
-
-'3A e_C/PRDBA-ICN FEES
-ANC'4NEC CC-1 J" DC0 S'2 _�
TRAP IC;P3CBAT-CII 2
._,.SIC-. 'TAL
:.,5.34
9325
`4ARA:'H0N I.-
_
,_ /C4
.:0,
.Ei _4 CC'_ CO0 a o _a
CC
TELEP9CNE LC79 D:3'CANC=
14C.35
10460
O'BRIEN 4 ASSCP iFTEb 3NC.
P.S C,'eol
+
.,r _�
_.:. ... ..n= ,,'CC :,JO -_I _.. 41
1.,
�, :4C.
35
PRCSEC'_TINS r...*hE:
'91'c3
225.30
_8105
CC=M_A
-:TY 'AC._-TTi,LF
1,4
_,212.04
1''820
QWES-
0
2 S,",-
,�!7C
=Etl';4a _ C00 07J �Ld 1' _..
.;.
?kn-5-'
.n_c_HJ[:Ec
:_.AL
79C.4C
.rAl 23C`7E
:NVCICE TOTA:.
.,_.58
7E3'G4C 701 3Cr C00 5:3 -C 42
'I
_:......
:I__ .SDN
IITVCICE TCTAL
--.----
FSH'C4D Cl: D00 000 515 -., 12
00
__34
"Y -SDN
-4
OC9 3C -2
.._
219.v:
PW-T:-I-EPHONES
jb ;/8/04
QKr vdim
cym R /gc
rhmc2±u4
cl :
Cr :
s:
:,ATE
as
»—
:as
:vz= s.
c x
N70ICE TO -AL
71
lbaG64
_ rl
Ill
I
T
u
v
r
Y
III
^
L N
�
AIII
x
f.9
J
_ C
n
q
b9'
O
v
f
Y
TW72
^I
ry
C �
A
All'
y
Yi 69 III
J
Z
b ,/S/04
2;29;i0):
..__�.= :TUM2E2 ❑915._.'.I P'FICN .° ...- __
GENERA.h FU'.JD
PROTESTS SALES TAX
03C 1D 00 C0 Cenera: Property Taxes
.. 00^ -TO =0 DO 9_ 3er. Prop Taxes - Ac- Va_oreT
JOI OD; ODC 3 .0 DO CO Loca- Retail Sales & Use Tax
�01 OCC OCC 3-3 71 00 00 Cr'_mina- Justice Fund:na
TOTAL PROPERTY s SALES TAX
L;f:3.N S'e5 PERMIT=
_000 322 10 00 00 2uild'_rg Permits
..C_ OCT CCO 322 30 00 30 'imal Licenses
TOTAL LICENSES & PERM_TS
INTERGCVERNMENTAL
3CO 0J0 334 G3 SC 00 State Grant-Tra_f_C Sa`ety Cam
GCC (0C 334 06 99 00 State Grant KC -Emergency Mgmt
J03 000 336 06 21 00 MVET-Crtminal Justice -Poo.
i.„_ ')0^ 000 336 06 22 06 MVET-Crimina_ Justice -DOD #1
OOC OCJ 336 06 23 OC NIVET C^ mina. Just-ce-DCD #2
000 000 336 C6 _. CC MVET C-iminal Justice-CCD #3
I'1 000 OCO 336 06 26 CC Crimina_ Jnet!Ce-Scecial
.._ ^W or) 336 06 51 OJ 'JUI/Other Criminal Justice
C ,_ COO 000 236 06 94 CO Liquor Excise Tax
500 3;0 06 95 00 Liquor Control Board Profi-s
CC_ .:00 OCC 336 2_ 00 CO Hunts Point Police Contract
TCTAL INTERGOVERNMENTAL
Ci?7S - A C^TOGS SIC SERV-C-S
.,_ COO 30G 342 10 �' CO Law Enforcement Se -vices
COO COO -Y, 6C OC 0, Program Fees
TOTAL CHGE F..R GCODS/SZRV_C__9
FINES 0 FORFEITURES
C00 CCO 1O CO CO MunicIcal Coat-Trafin. rat
TOTAL :TNES n FCR:_1TJRES
MISC_1L;>-NEOU, REVENUE
O01 000 J00 36- 11 00 00 Investment Interest
,.ol 010 0" 361 40 00 00 Sales Interest
00S OCO OCO 367 19 CO 00 CCntributicns-Other
_..i 000 OCO 369 9U 00 00 Other
TOTAL MISCELLANEOUS REVENUES
NCNREVENUES
900 C00 339 00 CO 00 Ot:^Ter Non -Revenues (pass thru)
':O'^AL NONRE✓ENUES
-5 90.__
90.:i
0J
,^00-9C
33C.00 1,000.00
63,2845_ 631,300-00
5,439.'6 TOOT
250-0 600.J0
00 512 .00
0 -31.:
0C 139,COO.00
_,,.713.CC 169.3,4.0'J
14.
s4i
5F
Set,
-65
529-61
..�._:.
3-4.1.8
,1'42,87
_Oil
138,J90.30
159._6_.J0
<5,83".28 95,000.90 2.__.. 59,162.'2
23.33E 95.000.
24.04
5T 3C0.
C
,di5.95
..�0.2P
JC
, ..
2:;0.2N-
SCO.00
50C.00
.)0
.,_
=CC.9C-
506.96
., S2C.55
.CO
.,::i
=,5C3.5®
4,352.
_
—,224,9C
30,000.00
22. 6=
1 3
0
9,'8_..:3
IS, �.._
,:0C.01
O.'.�a
1'9,�23.63
9,8n'-_2.
_ _.3,
19E,CCO.CO
J" 1/SM4
'CC-UNT NTM.6ER .:,7-SC3=?T--CN
CT= F-NF_VC'_D!G S'�'R:ES
'i.I.�.
,,..XA �J
s _. REN�i;I I.r"
^It. 7
J b 3 /R/0 4
Mcii
29'Z
A. E
�.
R _ _ ._ _ c=E .
L EG_S LAT.'eE-ER.I__.,
COJ 3O0 5' 60 ,_ CO 2rcfessicra- Ser-.ices
0 000 EL 60 13 CG
OOC On 51_ BO Si OO E1ec=ices Se Ieter RFg -CsCs
_OTA:, LECIS_A7:V= S--R';!Z S
2,50':.CC'
3,:"_._6 —300.C.
=�.44 11224. S3
„ , _, .Cw
7AG2 _
71„.�.
ECRT:T.r.==
nX:
.,___'7F=C
W. PC=3_:,7-D
_.,_.AL, _;,LAu._c
MW:CIPAL
CC- .._
0,1 00O
COO
512
,�
41
_3
Pm e
ut_ng Ato:y
1,10S.19
9":
33
40, Too
AD
23._9 s,-z_--O
031 C U il
COO
_12
41
2C
Public
Ce`_=ad r
1,453
._
- '10
no
_: 1= - 150-CC
:__ COO
COO
512
SJ
41
IC
E:<oP^
wits ss
.7C
._0
2,000
..._
.,_ L,cn_0G
mi COO
JOC
SIC
=0
51
12
municipal
COSYC =_a[__.,;On.__
_ 3'1._D
14,3_._..
OJ
._
is ,_ 61,K28.-C
11 033
COO
512
:J
H_
2C
Munic-,pal
oation
_,_.,.._3
.:,_2C63
_dO.i3
07A=
MUWIC_PAC, _0J3S
o_-.43
,5C0.10
.._.22 93,26'.E'
ld )/R/U4
021 2 CC
Y.
...:.T4BZR. EESC _?T:0T
E A:.AR"EE 'A AGES
..__ 700 000 512 10 _. Sala .es s Wac.es
TOTAL SALAR:E , WAGES
PERSCN'NEL BEN E: . TS
OOJ DC, 13 LO L_ 00 PPrsCar.e_ Benefits
wPERSCIZCEL H&NEF:TS
07[ER SERVICES r17E CHARGES
000 CL'0 1, 43 00 Travel 6 ":raining
NI coo ...I 513 10 09 00 M_scel lanecus
.� S3 10 49 .._ Dues, Suh9C, Au.0 ALcw
TOTAL OTHER S'RV=CES S CHARGES
TOTAL EX_ECUT:VE CEPARTMENT
22,4CC.CC
469.CO
.0_
_.237
134.cZ-,-00
_I c- Me Tina
E 11
0227,'�.,C4
,�.fA '..1-ST VL�iH E3 DES�R .GV EX":--- 72F. o-I-- T PTAT
F_CIA_=CD DEp: R-'M-- -
SALARIES & WAGES
`.14 1- Sa'a-iQs & Wa=as
TCTAL SALARIES & WAGES
PERSC.NEL EEMEF:TS
;)M .._ S14 1, 21 10 Personne_ Senef-ts
-OTAL-ERSC'NEL, 3EVE7ITS
OTHER SEE'iICES n =ARSES
j, OG DOD T14 10 43 OC Travel & Training
OOD JOD _24 -0 49 DO Misc-Dues,Sunscrpt_or_s
201 D ODC 5i 1 � _1 CC Ir.te -wtml Prot Serv-Auditors
TOTAL CTHER SERA=CES S CHARGES
0 AL P:NA:TCE DEPARTMENT
43
2,`20.:0
-.2E 2,_-�__..
-C
)h 318104
C�0 000 _� 20 __ l�
.. .. �0.. CIS 20 6�
__ R
LEGAL _ PAR—YEV`
1r,
Special Co_sse'_
`s 24X?EN- cD
OG.,.
ib /R/U4
MCN7FLY E.`N:.,.,,.._.
M._J.
z ='II:T Nl:'MEER Dco..RFT:i;V _._ URES _ 3ES
CENTRAL 3ERV:-ES
SA:..AR- S k WAGES
_.,_ 00. OCO CC oalaries S WaoeS
301 COO 060 5-6 IC 12 OC Over-ime
^r T.A.. SMARIES s WACE5
PERSONNEL 3ENEF_TS
CO1 S„C OCC 5:8 :0 2- CO Personnel eenef_rs
TO A- PERS.O.i _IEL DENEF-,S
_ HE3 SER'✓: CES 3 C31?C--
O00 00c 5_H _0 31 00 Office and 0 ._ac ng Supplies
S-8 :0 41 00=rofe�s'ural _e_vlces
I-C OOC 58 :0 =_ EO Prof Serv-Compu�er e_h Ser-,,
9 Y_ 0-3 700 -'8 10 42 C0 Pis-a_e! conone
.,_ 000 COC 5-9 10 43 00 Tray i & Training
I00 518 10 44 00 Advercis:nq
.,C_ OOJ C00 S13 10 46 00 Insurance (WC:A;
'dl ^'JC 516 -0 41 00 ..__.'r_' Sete E _c Water, Paste
OCO COC 513 10 49 CO Repairs � Mai:-Equip,ent
CO' )IC -18 _0 49 '_0 Mi6ce_laneous
:)I COO 000 SIR 10 49 2O Cues, 5�b5CrinC:ons
n18 16 49 38 IieW6letter
'Cl 'CC C00 512 10 49 40 Phococop_es
TOTAL CTHER SERVICES a __AHGES
BUILDING MAINTENANCE
-CO COC 513 30 45 00 Faci_cty Renta-
.. :_o 30 48 OC Repa`rs/Maine Hall n_�� _
TOTAL 3UIL::NG MAIN`E:ANCE
PAGE
roF TN Ex-'ENLE�
21, 04.54
_1
..
2_.
43
,91:. —.
.3:
4,00voo
.,,_
vooc_:.,
-D4.64
ics , 31.,:C
2%A2
sn3__.3�
,931
'1.
28,3-n
92
17A
B
23,44'.2_
2 413.4_
3nm.
s
10,900
_DO
13_SE
o `__._
2,914.2-
A. ..3.
16,JC0.JO
I-.::,
13,__3. 3
l,4'3.31
_ 4,
2y_cc
CC
18.-..
Is '6_l6
.:S.C�:
1.1.00
11,000.10
95
12,395.2_
2_
-35.29
3,000.00
_._-
3,254_'1
_.:.
ll.
41
300.20
A0.33
93.:3
250.OG
o_24
4 26
__
4,nx.gs
20,330
_'_'2
2_,__
11, N ._
9-,-35.;..
-9n, 5.,..O
4-.3_
:.::, 850 _..,
614.96
332.36
-,6C0
.20
-1.06
03 1
._..
z,D5._2
is, .,].CC
:,.
..
_..18
2'704
?.cc'"'N7
2JOM333
JEfI F _T-0C1
=!J 1'5n=O':'EF JIMEA".gi SHF.7_^_ES
519
92
49
OJ
Association of w?. C __es
J0_
:^0
J20
`_19
90
49
C_
2uget Sound Peg_eeal
.,i
',70
OCO
'-19
_„
Y_
'2
C_�_es .4sscc_at_C-.
000
519
90
4-
03
ARCH
.NCO
519
92
49
04
castsi3e Transoortat_cn 7roc.
519
90
49
OG
�. Lcmestu 11 1-1_Ce "zoa-am
C'O1
0.
COO
519
90
49
0'
2e.levue Highland Center
--_
000
OCD
5 1 >
90
51
10
K_.q Co inty dea_t:: Se-,_ces
L0_
0JJ
OOO
5_9
90
51
2C
C_ean Air Agency
.:._
DC'
C00
SJ
90
30
Ring Cdunt7 Alcchcl Co --mil
..._
0
..0 ;'19
90
51
,C
Ki= 2cun_-y Water & Land Rescc
T 2 TA L 1 N - si- ._FLAME: I'C AL
'COTAL '_7-%TFAL SER`i=CES
_..
,u 450.,., 4- ..,
_„_ 2,C09._J .0 3.4_
_2,47C.]C
- - CO
175..,3 _
4,o04_s0
30lI -0 4, _
-. 472J 2,4.2 50
City Of ...="-
?!.T.:.. _._-
2XIMM :TURES __n __PROPRIA ED
A.CCC_-N7
VIIMBEP
I)zSC:=TiCN
POLICE DEP.=RUMEN,
SALARIES & 'WAGES
JI
]':
32l
20
11
00
Sala -es & Wages
-01
DECC
21
-..
12
CC
Cve GTe
_.._
030
300
521
20
12
C'_
Merit Pais
707AL _ALARIFS & NASES
PERSONNEL 2ENEFSTS
.
COO
000
521
c0
21
OC
Perscnnel Senefi_s
,. .._
DO..
C w
_2_
20
22
00
Uniforms
_'0
IC
.__
20
23
0I
TuI`icc Re, ^,, urseme_t
=AL n..RSGNNEE 3ENE :.n
S"PLIES
,.,1
020
0
002
5 21
20
31
CO
Df`Lce Scrp_ies
_„!
0n0
CDC
521
20
31
40
Pc1_ee Opera ng Sdcpl-es
3?1
CCO
001
521
20
31
50
Photographic Sncn:ies
C__
000
000
5 2 :
20
31
60
Ammo/F_ange Aargers, etc..
_.,_
DSJ
300
52=
20
32
30
Venirle Expenses fie' lace e_c
_.._
0':0
IOC
521
20
35
20
Firearms 'purchase_ & rera__)
TOTAL SUPPLIES
OTIiER SERVICES & CzLCRCFS
CO_
C00
000
525
20
41
CC
Prcfess_cnal Services
'O1
OCC
000
5Z-
20
41
53
Rec fitment-Eackgrcnnd
Oil
COO
000
521
20
42
00
Comtunicat_ons '? ene,Pagers)
:31
000
COO
521
00
43
00
Travel & Traiing
EDI
0012
OCC
521
23
43
...
Does, Sunscr., Memherships
0_1
COO
OCO
521
22
44
50
Recru-_ m.ent-.d._rtcsing
061
COO
000
521
2C
45
Cc
Equipment lease & Rentals
., ._
�9C,
SSD
521
23
48
C.
Repairs & Hart Eq`_!Fme--_
.,O_
COO
CIO
521
20
43
1C
Repairs & Maint-A_ut=ctiles
.. .,:
DO
)_.,
521
20
49
-.,
Repairs & Maint-CAC
021
109
OOC
521
20
49
C..
Mise. ;Ser,. ice,,s'dpn'_iesi
311
C..2
OZO
52'
20
49
2)
31cycle Patro_
211
C7_
DEC
521
20
49
30
Animal Contrt:
,_
20C
CDC
521
20
49
40
Dues rc rip bons, Me, 2shias
I:]_
IN
900
521
20
49
60
Crime Pieventlor./?utlid Edcc
,__
:SO
CSC
521
20
49
90
Misc Investigative Eund
TOTAL OTHER SERVICES & CHARGES
L_.41
91,34-._2
„_
-CC
14A:
V2 C3_.39
2",
,- --21
6�2AM.CC
:2 .
s
..50
_ Q3.2_
33,5-=.5-
1GS,OCO-CO
.5.11
131,'23.-1:
3,22v
...
.._
45.3..
,_.
9
. _.2
- ,--.__.
n9noo.DD
19.-5
,05).4�
46,
S:;
461.52
5,030.00
3.2.
4,535.5'
a mac_-R
2,CIE
.-d
4 ,D00—CD
71�.6.
1,D13.=2
53
43
-5.=5
_,000.30
5.14
349_°'
52.DO
2.0C
63 00_CC
14
-,'_23.D0
3,4 4.Ba
3,4-4
M
s,JCr..
D
__._.
1C EnZ.-,
.,..
COO
1,000.00
_D
1, 000
a.)
,23
39
35 CCU_..
Z2.21
Z,19...�_
1,S 3
2..
2 500AC
61-33
3n5-8J
S-D.CO
2,5..5.42
__,000
AC
59
1_,___-5_
-:C
35
-'70
.C'
....
05.,2
.OD
1,50C.O:
42 A
22
421.22
3, 5z
A.
13.5-
-.. .;
..�
1,113.30
5_O.DO
16-51
S,?_F__D
35
:2
5
_2
_,110AD
1-IZ
,2_4-99
.�
.:c
Z4,.CnC.;
.Q.
-.DID
1�
1 , DEC
AD
.__
-CM
._.
:J
-12
1,19C.Cu
__
3,101DID
.ic
.,,
5CC.00
-_
500.CC
,26R
Z0
2,221
5-
88,855AD
9.55
aV00-. _.
4-,
jb 3/S/0 4
v
INTEP.CCC'E.TRNMENTAL SEE,__ES
Col OCD COC qZ 20 41 -0 Dispatch Serv_Ces-10 r11aW
7C� -3C 52: 20 51 20 DisDaCCh EPSCP.
_01 �0.. .CJ S= 29 51 30 .:....ess-WSP
231 J00 020 521 20 51 40 Marine Patrcl"e-cer =slam'
CC! 000 OCO S21 20 El 50 Jail Service-?r_siner Hcard
_._ 00l 000 5ZI 20 51 60 P__soner Transport
.71 OCC DID E21 2 1 O] Ocher Cities Add'_ PC Loe Ser..
=AL _NT_ER0'iE3FMENT;%L SEP.'l.
. ,._AL PJLi':'E ..EPA:-MZN':
_-0. ,_.
4EV
35
5 . m"-
=..14
__-.04
S,SCO_JC
..._
3,9i0.00
2-, 15..;.
2C,_ 3
.5.
143,55:.37
PAW
1 1_ TATEXPENE, E:
_ _..L 2 AL--,'1 __
ib )/,�/0 4
'lu, _a
A 7, C P.
NUMEu3 DES_P. PT - -:, ,", -,_1Z =,-,ELS ;t? 7R PR'?_ED
h1ED:CAL -._: CG2,-_ti:XEh_
:NTERGO7E,,NME>i7P.:. SE2`✓i CES
:01 001 O.O -22 :0 51 00 Fire ^_c=[ -_ Se^cces
TOTAL IN'. r.R"' EnNMEN'^A_
TCTA FIRE r M=__r.L DEP-
�. =NCE
-6_...,
;J13 552,055.00 ___ %2,J53.09
-lb ;/R/0=4
C-o; of 'deco -a
.,2; 2.,'2C31
M.T-C.
FIST N.112ER CEc. T[CN
S L`: _➢"_`IG CEY.'.3': 71ENT
SA_?R:ES r 'WAGES
210 .,24 CO __ CO aaler_es � Wages
_....,:, SALARI' WAGES
P ERSOLIN EL 3ENEF=7S
OJO )CO C24 60 ?.1 00 Personae_ Be::ef its
..,.AL PERSONNEL BENE'=ITS
^vER SER:CES & GEA2GE5
_i -00 52I GC �_ i_ Enginee'
COl B[ ,OC 524 60 4_ 02 -,lag Of`,2ia iiin _nsnectc-
_J1 J00 -00 S24 SC OC 'P-avel n Train'rg
_C1 .,00 "CC 524 60 49 JO hiso Gnes, S'•cscrcFt lens
40'PA:. YPgE3 EERV—:EB n CHARGES
TCTn= 3OILCING CEDAR-4EPIT
167 73
44.a7
_ 1,147._"
0'u0.G0
5'
.00,PC0.00
_C,55_-6d2
0, OC:i
.00
30�.a3
3,^CC-DO
-AOE
r. _ _[IEX PENJE:J
7WtLAN
!c,C_2 3'
4'.44 So-1.55
4-.44
b6,744 43
_�... 3 O, _� 3
jh 3/8/0-4
cit of Meg-aa
MOSTHL'i
_
C2; 2), 2GC4 _
�C'_��d. ^.,PER ➢6SC3i_.-CP; .__� ... .__
M =nDiCY �4"'�.4°E-a1ESS _'r 0
=9 _„
CD 41 �7 �rofc ;'.onai Ee^iiZ _" - -
O,�Z
TCTA '.�h`.EnC E::C7
C-'
'40N':EL'_' E.2END:C'JPE PE
04
Ol—--'I".:7 NJ ..M_ER EE—SCR :PT 1.i'!
JLe, I.:NG ..-PAY.TM--''+T
SAi';-P:L.S � WAGES
1._ J00 .'c 6c __ 00 Sa:ar c Ea S
'IOTAT. SA:,AR:E.. & 4AGES
PEFSCNHEL BENEF:T9
OC= D�0 000 CJ3 11 CC Persc ne 9en-FitS
aCT.A.L rERSCNSCiE:.. HFN TITS
SUP°S:cS
i3O 55o D., Do CPera '9 li=Les
TOTAL SOPPLTn:
OTHER SERVICES S '=HARCES
DD ',58 0 00 Prof Se ices 1_arner
0.._ 1110 ,.CO 553 6D 4: 0_ Plann ng Cansc!"an[
Ob ^C SE 60 4: 0= Hear.no Examirer
OOL 300 _�3 60 41 �J Land cage Core tart
DO) ,00 "P 60 44- 6C Const-0ct'on Mi=iaat-c:
O" DDl' ODD 55H 60 43 C0 Trave' a :rainrn9
c— 60 43 ^.0 Cues,Su-scr:p-icns,MenhefSnIPS
__ C�0 .l„ �58 60 64 UO clrnrture & E u .,.ent
TOTA:. O':ER SE--. ."CES � CHARGES
TCTAL PLAD;N:NC :�EPAnVENT
5.00
.._
2CC.CD
�.'Jq%S,09O.J0
x,e4: .00
4,940.�'C
SC,OCO.CC
.,.000._.,
.3
_.,
20,000.�_
-S.JO
].n_1C
500.00
60i:.00
.C.-,23
342,-2_....
.,.�_
,_24.J0
24....
DO
_,9
4 a 0.3D
6S
-..,_o... ...
-C_JD
C, c•, 71e a' .5
MC`:TFL f ELPEN^_...'
32/:: 3j 2GCY
_. , �'E G3 _
RECREAT-CN-_IFEG::A-RDS
SALARIES S WAGES
O00 F'4 C i1 Salar es Wages
TOTAL SALAP_ES s n,-.GES
2ERSCNNEL 3ENEF'7S
-00 CC- 5,4 20 2_ 00 Personnel 3enei:_s
514 20 22 00
TAT aL PERSONNEL 3EN�F TS
SOP" _ES
n
__J J00 5-4 'i JO CperaCin, Sunp Les
0 574 20 35 00 Smal- TOO15/M' _ Equ-amen[
TOTAL SUPVLIES
CT3ER SEFVICES a -BARGES
�. IOC'CC -7-' 25 43 00 Trave- 4 Training
UGC J� _74 20 44 CC Adver-is'_ng
,O_'AL =IER. SEPNT_OES n 2FAR,3ES
TOTAL PECREAT=CN-___PCUAE25
_.._E L4
EA-ANCE
L
�.. -_..
..,
_..,..00
�.. -OC
20C-CC
;0 2'0 .0L
OO -_
_.. ...�
_ ,--s-OJ
O L 9 004
17nEz S _o ;Q7vLPQlATEZ
PA,iKS TNreN_
SALARIES & WAGES
BC- 'i0G Jr; 5"'5 Sala__es s W-ces
1-6 60 12 00 Overt -me
TOTAL SAL R!ES a WAGES
PRRSONNEL EENEe":S
OCO 5'S c. 00 __rsonnel 3ene-its
OOC '^0 5'6 60 22 OC Ur:_c-ms
_07AL PEPSCNNEL EELETICS
SUPPLIES
23 ._ 0o Operating Supo:ies
_ jjCCO E76 3D 31 Cl MaintenanCe Svcp1'e=_
121 :OO F._ -76 Do Ve'nicle 1 LUhe
TOTAL SUPPLIES
OTHER SEPV:CES 4 CiIARC_S
r 6C 41 JO Professi ^al Pe 'Ices
..u^u 576 30 41 34 Prcf ss-lra_ Se_✓lies-Mist
CCU ._) S` HO 42 00 Te-e hcne.'Pos'ace
7JD 000 =76 80 43 00 Travel & Training
OCJ D3C _^.6 80 4- CO Ut-llCres
__ JCO C? E16 80 48 00 Repair & Main'-qa-nmeEt
00. , i'76 30 49 00 Miscel laneous
TOTAL OTHER SERVICES & !iARLES
CAPITAL O1JITAY
Co C 6 80 " 00 Dark mo _,
CCJ _,l 176 b2 _4 J3 Corn -Die and E }- Pment
TOTAL PARRS DEPARTMENT_
-
175,COS.00
_-._..
-48,spy AB
_...J�4.T4
.. .-._._2
4 2
C
.o.__
__,805- _
__
6,1?425
40,200___
94.�.
jo,OCO.^D
22
28,7CS.a3
9,000 00
2,912.11
�....
C5 IE
5 509.Z0
_112
94,34
C
Z, _ .7E
4an00. T
4A,
4" 41nZ4
13.45
C00.
26
_._-66
230VDo
_v.S-
03.34
_
-. s
ter.. -r
2_ 7E
y!`.l
9co.0)
-...7
7. -2. .._
HE._
355.5
6,D30_0,
_,93
so
..,,.
4 %P, u.
._
^0c .�
2 ;_
,. L31_CO
10,000_00
C _l
.20
_
S,c84A0
5,164.-0
50C .30
E_34
5 _3_.30
. ._n
2 -62.E5
17 =-- 0
4 . 5
53.:,6
_2 11E. _
_.., 46-Ao
24._:
3 < ..z8
3" 28:.3c
,_3nD4
2S4,_6. H
_A
3A ,_a_.7°.
jh /S/U4
�.' on
AC,=1 'S ILM=R DE.,CF... _.GN .. .._ _
OPERATING T2-4[:SF3PS
00 0.,0 5_? CO 20 00 Equ_pment Rec'acemen_ Find
JJ0 0n0 55' JO 3C OC=,t:'-e` F'=mod
C- 21 C ;CO =>. ..o ^0 00 Capita n ec ^3
"'CP4_ OE.EA,_JG .3PNS="RS
♦DIAL FXPENSES
-_ _`;EXp?:N:
^, :1 C 0. 9,..
.Js _ "OC.00
13 :_
CGSCRi-N
CT-HERG SC'J:RCES
1]J iOC^0 i7 00 CO Sale o, `�aiprie-'c �rooert7
7..: 375 c� uip Ir L ai cP Ke 'ere-
.,,_.,., ..__a 'u sc�xCES
.RAMSFERS
_ A7— -QU'=m N" ._..i.,r.CEIE 1P
Y',,=HL'T -E- —_
a9!-,_4
000 of __4 _C 64 00 Adm]r _ipment
_L_ 001 C&O ___ 53 64 CO P,I--ce
1 CJC 0CC 5 1 i 50 54 CC __c works yu' rte^c
LAE
"'O'=AL EQ'JT2MEH"' REPLACEMENT
.. ..i. CF ...-E
PAGE I
I OF mFXP_Nw E-.
114-__
..no
1z
4,Oil
CC 2_._.
5-.
_,
_3n._.,
..c.-3
__..._
,
__,=69.69
_., __.12
f`_ _35.CC
_.,.
"_-36
it) V8/04
2e ao-;
T ....rm2sa E-ScRiPT -,� '—
--
---- STREET -LT'ID
I:, T ERG04ERNMEN'iA� dE'�EV c
IGO '-0 3-E 00 9' 00 Motor Fuel -ax r e _ _ea;
,.i 000 CSC 33k 00 88 OG MCCO= %�e_ Tax _.es_ .:.`ed;
TCTAL I:TT ERG('.'HR'dMEN—AL
'o) Coo 397 00 '_0 OJ FrcII Generd! r1
_C-AL CPERATIN RANSREF.
TJTAL ,._T'! REET E'T.;C
t, -84 04C.__ _
of M"d -_.
n /2s'2a64
�:7:MeER CesaaTPT_:N
c-TT' STREET FMC
SALARIES 6 WAGES
olj )CC 542 30 11 OC Salar es a Wages
TCTAL SALARIES & Wa.^,ES
PERSONNEL M ER =
OOC 000 E*.. 30 2_ 00 PerSonne_ Hene`1CS
'CC 1. U =42 30 2-' 00 Ui:ifcrms
TOTAL PERSC'YIN.6_ E\nF. TS
AC AD 5 SDREE7 MA=NT7NE-N-E
00:: CDC 542 30 Co Operating SuPPiies
�g3 ODD E42 ;C 35 00 Mal_ Tools/Minor Equ_nmer:_
-'-0C 0'J =�� 30 Yi 00 Protessicna'_ Ser'/ices
0S-0 542 30 -11 '_C Pad u S'reet Ma-ntenance
C00 ,,.,.. 542 30 ,_ ]0 Machine ?ental
CCD OUT, `42 30 z, 00 ❑t'City Ser.'ices
IDI 050 ;00 542 30 48 00 Equi went Maintenance
C n E42 40 4'_ CC Storm Drain M'i tenance
7(C n42 63 41 00 Street Light ❑-111zles
000 C00 E42 64 4: 00 'traffic Contrcl 6evices
1-1 CCO COO 542 66 41 00 Snow s Ice Remc-lal
Dij CCO o. 41 CO Stree. --lean 9
TJ.AL P.OAD s JT MAjt=NA-',CE
CA_P=L C..TLP.Y
___ Dc3 C.,O _35 30 64 ..., Mach -eery and Eau -anent
"OCTAL CAPITAL OJTLAY
_'ITA[, rITY STREET T`JtJC
M.T _. ...._,.
is
a6
dC-1
2 h ___ -.
.. 4� __.CO
_o-,.
___ co.35
-5
zj,5M
JC
200--
_3_
.,.,_,.
54E4.06
203 .00
6j3s
9,
_ K1AD
-
'3_ +o
_
_�_.+_
, :0130
2.33
-,600.=5
,. 2Co
_._.
V_ 2..=.d
_ _.1
2 23- .,
150 OOd.00
_. -. ..
14. M __C
OG
_.._a
34 '1
_, :C ..
:.._
._...,
a_.'�
_,�____n
-_,7CC.11
-._'
.. '9 A.
-
44--
c
,'2z A2
_,0 LOCO
2_._�
_,55
1.45
9CC
.23
,985._�
wC
1
_
�,
_CL
62
..
-J
jr, 31SAM
^'r-i c_ Mea-n,
K. :'.E. _-.�.
;dI SCF:��=�VECUS REVSN::c
0 'JO Id9 .0 �.. ^'J ^.er nnz=,�e—ue _ o ace
-C:A:, rSCELL NECTJ �P e.IN.;F: _ _ .3'4 _
:7EE :_NZ
A.FE
} 3EMAI".N[7
s. 7 ::TATI,N
Pb 1/S/04
NT M'.._13c LESCR=2T _06
Ec EL:L
C T.iER 3cRVICES k CE9RGES
Ib lOG )CO 5i9 CO 49 _C M_sce_Saneeus T-ee Rep15cemenr_
70-;r . OTHER SER'7ICEE a CHARSES
TOTAL TREE _-ND
OJ:
_:NEX-..o,J-
_CTAL 3,',.;.?.NC
. .-,FK CROP. _=nT cc ='JIC= rUIG::
PAPK PROP CEbT 2RINC ?z=!LVT-
_
_
CO Pxinc_oa_ _,� .L,
-' _o, _..9
-• -
h _.-�
..50 ��.. 53a ;E �, 00 _n[er st _
3
.. „w , 35 397.EC
_o._-
�... JO
_., AL PARK PRO? ❑EBT PR.>�/ +" - �, �'2
TOTAL PARK =ROB CEET 3, -_�._�
•, 36, 3c'.��
_�. u.
33, 323 90
lb 3/R/O4
CAp•'.,A� c20TEC"S 3l,-C:L
TALES
00 00 3EAI. ESTA77 TA:ti
�- "TOTAL T°KES
MISCELLfSJECOS REV�C:JE
_0-AI, '_'A2: L PPCdEC:S --DD
_. -EM.A I�'rrs
)h 1/8/t 4
C+2'_TAL 23C--EC_S E.7ND
IMp,CVEMENTS
3 r NC 535 __ 63 Cl ,3d .:orscr�c`
;r
3-7 n2l 000 535 30 "_ IS Storm Sewer
000 D 10 535 30 63 C3 Pa r'< _c-nrcveT.er_ts
_ 3C.: D C I 595 3C 63 10 S-dewy k-22-d Erh SC
7:-DL :XP3C'i EVENTS
CAPITAL PBCjECTS
M.-
PLOE :_
ENCE
T. B. RICE
C0
.63
3 a "... a
.:C
D11
6--3 9
n
.,_.�., z 5 143 21
4..3
n d,5.37
- MI
MI
4.43
_._,355-_-
142 01
it) 3/8/04
Me -
071 E R
ca
NON
REVENGES---
,
oJ" 0 :9 1' 2
Cl
WA St 9 '4 COCe =Qe
c
-
2031.'J
C 0.O 09 ]c
0
WA S� JL�.CaInfO S'!SC2M6
-
)O
389 l2 52
0006an
C6
WA Sr -Stave PorL?oc
c,4 '�
1
_•,
n.
'--
o o..,�
�,70
_ �00 OCC 329 -2
09
WA St State M
-' -�
_ ,5
.JO
1.79_
WA St :=aura Care
;, -
10
3C . JC
.
_..3�_ __�
8-
Gepr oLiC-A e 715
-]C JO
-,_ 72 70-
___COO
52
88
Gun Pernm0s CePn Of __ z_
3E-
_n 46 gyp..
SC0 o0a 3G9 12
-� CO0 359 12 52
89
Gun 2crr3 is -WA _t Lac r..i .,25
z C
.,_
^
� aq OJ-
-
2' .�_� J. 339 72
90
WA 3t Patrol- Mien
.
e B
18 0
.. __,53 .9C
.._ ._
389 1a Sa
99
Kona �-Cr-'�- ne Ji_t_Ts
o
_ __ _.•..
__. J
.��' ���
TOTAL NON 3E`JEN12b
1-.-4c-47
_ ��,-__
_CT.AL. VCN 3EVENCE TR S:
54L 4
PAGE ��
„i!29/200.1
„3_ ]OC u.0 5P9 _2 52 Dep[ c' L_C 4: ^n 533
HOC ..1 �39 12 5.'- 88
OC J�7 53P ��2
"_W9 3_rGl-? _en 1525:
�� )/S/04
ITEM F - 4
CITY OF MEDINA
Evergreen Point Road, Medina, WA 98039
• (425) 454-9222 www.ci.medina.wa.us
MEMORANDUM
DATE: February 20, 2004
THRU: City Manager
TO: City Council
FROM: Director of Public Works
RE: Bid Results — 2004 CIP Project - NE 12tr' St. — Lake Washington
Boulevard Pavement Rehabilitation
1. Recommendation — The Council accept the low bid for the NE 12th St. — Lake
Washington Boulevard Pavement Rehabilitation Project and authorize the City
Manager to execute the contract in conjunction with the City of Clyde Hill for this
work.
2. Bid Information — Bids for the NE 12th St. — Lake Washington Boulevard
Pavement Rehabilitation Project (2004 CIP project) were opened at 2 p.m. on
February 19, 2004 at the Clyde Hill City Hall. The following information is
provided:
- Bids received: 5
- Range of bids for the total project (Medina and Clyde Hill portions
combined): $197,290.75 - $287,175.25
- Engineer's Estimate: $230,000.00
- Range of bids for the Medina portion only: $53,529.25 - $76,955.00
- Engineer's Estimate for Medina portion only: $64,000.00
- Apparent Low Responsible Bidder: Watson Asphalt Paving Co. Inc.,
Redmond, WA ($53,529.25 for Medina's portion of the work)
3. Additional Information - The required paperwork, performance and payment
bond, and references for the low bidder have been checked by the City of Clyde
Hill. Keep in mind that the low bid and the engineer's estimate does not include
the cost of design and project management, nor the cost of pavement striping,
stamped concrete crosswalks, the speed indicator signage, and other features
planned for the total project. These latter elements of the project will be put out
for bid separately in an effort to save on the overall project cost.
ITEM F - 5
fit 9f M'7tjl
CITY OF MEDINA
City Manager's Office
501 Evergreen Point Road, Medina, WA 98039 425.454.9222
` .medina-wa.ov
MEMORANDUM
DATE: February 25, 2004
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Doug Schulze, City Manager
RE: Regional Public Safety Communications Consortium Joint Powers Agreement
RECOMMENDATION: Authorize City Manager to enter into Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) for
Regional Public Safety Communications Consortium.
POLICY IMPLICATION: The Joint Powers Agreement commits the City to a contribution toward a
cost of the feasibility study, which is estimated to be $7,000. Each City's share of the cost will be based on
population. The City of Medina's share will be approximately 1 % of the total or between $100 - $200.
BACKGROUND: The sole purpose of this Agreement is to conduct a Feasibility Study for the
joint operation of a Public Safety Communication Center by the Members or an organization created by
the Members. This study will be a basis and means for assuring the continuation and improvement of
quality communication services in the Member jurisdictions.
It is extremely important for the City of Medina to participate in this consortium and provide input from a
small city perspective. A regional approach to public safety communication is viewed by the members as
the most cost-effective method for delivering this service. The cost of equipment, software, and licensing
will be important factors for the City of Medina and could be cost prohibitive for small cities if not carefully
considered.
The JPA is very specific in purpose and the City can terminate the agreement by providing a 30-day
notice. Additional charges or expenditures require prior approval of each member.
ITEM F — 5a
JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT
REGIONAL PUBLIC SAFETY COMMUNICATIONS CONSORTIUM
THIS AGREEMENT is entered into this
day of 2004, by
and between the following public agencies as authorized by the legislative body of each
jurisdiction pursuant to the authority granted in Chapter 39.34 RCW: The cities of Bellevue,
Kirkland, Mercer Island, Medma,Clyde Hill, and Woodinville Fire & Life Safety hereafter
referred to as Member(s). To be considered as a Member in this Agreement said Member will
commit financial and human resources to the program as required by this Agreement. The City
of Kirkland will be referred to herein as the Lead Agency and the other parties signatory hereto
will be referred to as Members.
L Purpose.
The purpose of this Agreement is to conduct a Feasibility Study for the joint operation of
a Public SafetyCommunication Center by the Members or an organization created by the
Members. This study will be a basis and means for assuring the continuation and improvement
of quality communication services in the Member jurisdictions. The parties hereto each task the
joint board, as created in Section 11 herein, with the responsibility for achieving the following
goals:
Center;
I. Identify the feasibility of creating a Regional Public Safety Communications
2. To develop a governance Structure that is a partnership; taking into account the
current evaluation of regional governance models used for other regional efforts such as EPSCA,
ARCH, etc....
111 2004 Agenda Packets030S2004 .Agenda Ncket Item F-�a. regional comet consortium JPA-doc
ITEM F — 5a
3. Identify the options available for staffing for Police and Fire dispatch services (i.e.
separate vs. combined job functions);
4. Examine options for locating a Regional Communications Communications
Communcations Center;
5. Work cooperativelycoorperatively and communicate with other cities and Fire
Districts mutually interested in the continuation of high quality Public Safety Communication
services in the region;
6. Work to meet other goals related to the development of the Feasibility Study as
defined by the Members, through the Board. The purpose of this Agreement is strictly limited to
the preparation of a Regional Public Safety Communication Feasibility Study, as outlined above.
It is anticipated that the implementation of the study's results will be governed by a separate
agreement.
II. Joint Board - Composition and Authority.
A. The Lead Agency will be the administrative authority for operation's conducted
pursuant to this Agreement. A joint board, comprised of one voting representative from each
Member agency, shall be the governing body responsible for administering and carrying out the
joint undertaking and this Agreement. The joint board shall be identified as "The Regional
Public Safety Communications Consortium Joint Board". hereinafter referred to as "Board".
Board Member representatives, or their designees, will have authority to act on behalf of their
respective jurisdictions. The Board shall have responsibility for formulating policy and
procedures, establishing budgets, and authorizing the Lead Agency to contract for services.
2P:2004 Agenda PacketsV03082004 Agenda Packet.ltem FSa, re110n2l Comm consortium JPA.doc
ITEM F — 5a
B. The Board will develop and submit to the Lead Agency an operational budget
immediately upon activiation of this agreement and will:
1) Secure grant money or other money as may be available through each
members budget to accomplish the purpose of this agreement.
2) Member jursidictions shall pay an amount equal to its proportional share
of the Consortium budget of $7,000 based upon each jursidiction's populationcompared to the
total population of all Consortium agencies. In approving this Agreement, the Members authorize
the Board to spend the funds collected pursuant to this Agreement, without the prior approval of
the governing bodies or executive officers of the Members. If additional funding, and spending is
needed it must be approved by the Member jusridictions before the Board may act on next steps
in the process.
C. The Board will meet as often as necessary and at least quarterly to administer this
Agreement.
D. The Board is authorized by RCW 39.34.030(4)(b) to establish a special fund (if
necessary) with the Lead Agency's Treasurer designated "Operating Fund of The Regional Public
Safety Communications Consortium Joint Board". Such find will be used for the purpose of
depositing each Member's monetary contribution as determined herein as well as any service
fees, charges, donations or other revenues received and for all expenditures necessary for the
accomplishment of the purpose of this agreement as stated above. Funds accumulated in said
operating fund will be utilized solely for the purpose of this agreement as stated above as
determined by the Board.
3P2004 Agenda Packets`,03082004 Agenda Packet Itcm F-5a. resional comet consortium JPA doc
ITEM F — 5a
The Board may, after due consideration of operational budgets and other requirements,
authorize acceptance of "in -kind" contributions from Member agencies for the purposes of
funding said Member's cost.
E. Each Member shall have one vote on the Board, and decisions shall be determined
by majority vote of a quorum of the Members. A quorum shall constitute any group of Members
that constitutes more than 50% of the entire membership of the Board. The Feasibility Study
itself shall have no binding effect upon the actions of the Members. It is anticipated ,that the
implementation of study results or recommendations, if any, shall be governed by a separate
agreement.
F. No acquisition of real or personal property is anticipated by this Agreement.
Should the acquisition of any such property be necessary for the purposes of this Agreement, the
Members shall determine the method of property acquisition and disposition prior to acquisition.
Board.
III. Lead AEency - Duties and Responsibility.
A. The Lead Agency will provide administrative and secretarial support to the
B. The Lead Agency agrees to bill each Member for that Member's share of all sums
described herein, and each Member agrees to remit payment to the Lead Agency promptly upon
receipt of such billing.
C. The Lead Agency will file certified copies of this Agrecrnent with its City Clerk,
the King County Auditor, pursuant to RCW 39.34.040.
D. Since the Board shall not constitute a separate legal entity that has the authority to
independently enter into agreements, the Lead Agency shall enter into agreements on behalf of,
4P:A2004 Agenda Packets,03032004 Aucnda PacketItem F-5a. regional comm consortium JPA-doe
ITEM F — 5a
as authorized by, the Board, to the extent necessary to accomplish the purpose and goals of this
Agreement.
E. The Lead Agency will enter into a separate agreement with the Members that
more particularly defines the roles and responsibilities outlined in this Agreement, including
compensation rates for Lead Agency services and indemnification requirements for any
contractual claims that result from agreements executed by the Lead Agency pursuant to
Paragraph Ill(D) herein.
IV. Indemnification.
Each Member (hereinafter "the indemnifying Member"), including the Lead Agency,
agrees to indemnify and hold harmless all other Members, including the Lead Agency, together
with their respective representatives and employees, from and against any and all liability arising
from the injury or death to persons or damage to property occasioned by any negligent act or
omission of any Member or of any of its agents, servants or employees, committed or omitted in
connection with this Agreement. A Member claiming indemnification under this paragraph will,
as a condition precedent to the right indemnification, give notice and tender defense of the claim
to the indemnifying Member.
V. Responsibilities of Members.
A. No unfunded expenditure(s) maybe made without prior approval of the governing
bodies of all of the Members.
B. Any charge per Member, as determined by the Board under Paragraph II(B)
above, will include all costs of the development of the Feasibility Study not covered by other
funding sources_
5P:v2004 Agenda Packcts,030S2004 Agenda Packetltcm FJa. rc,,ionul comm consortium JPA.doc
ITEM F — 5a
V1. InteEration and Modification
This Agreement constitutes the final and completely integrated agreement
between the parties concerning its subject matter and it may be signed in counterparts
without affecting the validity of this provision. No modification of the agreement or this
section is valid unless in writing and signed by both parties.
VII. Additional Members.
The Board may, by vote, accept new Members who become parties to this Agreement and
who have paid the agreed -upon amount as the new Member's share. The Board may, by vote.
accept new Members to the consortium by approving the proposed new Members signed
agreement.
VI11. Term of Agreement.
A. This Agreement will be effective from the date of this Agreement until terminated
as provided herein. The Agreement will terminate effective December 31, 2004 except as
ammended by written agreement of all of the Members. The bead Agency or any Member may
withdraw from ;this Agreement giving 30 day written notice. Withdrawing Member thereby
relinquishes all rights to any reserve fiords, equipment or materials purchased or accepted by the
Board as in -kind contributions through this Agreement. This will not apply to any equipment,
vehicles or materials contributed without charge, which will revert to the contributor upon
termination. A decision to withdraw will not relieve the withdrawing member of liability
incurred prior to withdrawal.
6P:,2004 Agenda Packets`,03082004 Agenda Packet Item F-ia, regional cornet consortium JPA.doc
ITEM F — 5a
B. Upon termination of this Agreement, all unexpended or reserve funds will be
distributed based on the percentage of the total charges assessed by the Board during the period
of this Agreement and paid by each Member or Lead Agency.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement has been executed by each party
below:
CITY OF BELLEVUE Approved as to Form:
City Manager
CITY OF KIRKLAND
City Manager
CITY OF MERCER ISLAND
City Manager
CITY OF MEDINA
City Manager
City Attorney
Approved as to Form:
City Attorney
Approved as to Form:
City Attorney
Approved as to Form:
City Attorney
CITY OF CLYDE HILL Approved as to Form:
City Attorney
WOODINVILLE FIRE & LIFE SAFETY Approved as to Form
Fire Chief Fire District Attorney
7P:,2004 Agenda Packets'03082004 Agenda PacketItem F-5a, re�Iional Comm consortium JPA.doc
ITEM F - 6
Of M�
CITY OF MEDINA
City Manager's Office
501 Evergreen Point Road, Medina, WA 98039 425.454.9222
.medina-vua. ov
MEMORANDUM
DATE: February 20, 2004
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Doug Schulze, City Manager
RE: Appointment of Representative to Jail Assembly
RECOMMENDATION: Appoint the Mayor to serve as the City of Medina representative on the Jail
Assembly.
POLICY IMPLICATION: The Jail Administration Interlocal Agreement requires each City to appoint
an elected official to serve as its Jail Assembly representative.
BACKGROUND: The Jail Administration Interlocal Agreement requires implementation of
the annual budget by March 31, 2004. A meeting of the Jail Assembly will
be necessary before the budget can be implemented. Participating Cities
have been asked to appoint an elected official to serve as Jail Assembly
representatives. Typically, cities appoint their mayors as representatives to
executive/steering committees such as the Jail Assembly.
,.-of m MEDINA POLICE DEPARTMENT
Jeffrey T. Chen, Chief of Police
CITY OF MEDINA ITEM H - 1
MONTPMY ACTIVITY REPORT
FEBUARY 2004
Felony Crimes
February
YTD
YTD
Year End
2004
2004
2003
2003
A-ravated Assault
0
0
0
0
Robbery
0
0
0
1
Sexual Assault/Rape
0
0
0
Burglary, Residential
2
2
2
15
Drug Violations
0
0
0
0
Forgery/Fraud
3
5
2
16
Theft (Over 5250)
5
1
24
Malicious Mischief
0
0
1
5
Arson
0
0
0
2
Auto/Boat Theft
0
0
1
2
Possession of Stolen
0
0
2
2
Property
TOTAL',
8
12
9
69
Misdemeanor
February
YTD
YTD
Year End
Crimes
2004'-
2004
2003
2003
Assault.. Simple
0
0
1
Malicious Mischief
3
>
>
76
(Under 5250)
Vehicle Prowl
2
0
3
22
Theft (Under S250)
2
2
7
13
Domestic Violence
1
0
0
5
Minor in Possession
1
1
6
Drue Violations
0
0
3
5
TOTAL
9
9
20
79
Page 2
MEDINA POLICE DEPARTMENT
Jeffrey T Chen, Chief of Police
CITY OF NEMINA
MONTHLY ACTIVITY REPORT
FEBRUARY 2004
Accidents
February 2004
YTD 2004
YTD 2003
Year End 2003
Injury
0
0
0
1
Non -Injury
0
1
2
16
TOTAL ^
0
1
2
17
Traffic Citations
February 2004
YTD 2004
YTD 2003
Year End 2003
Drry in, Under Influence
9
16
17
42
*Other
18
40
56
206
TOTAL
27
56
70
248'
Traffic Infractions
February 2004
YTD 2004''
YTD 2003
Year End 2003
Speeding
43
90
55
406
Parking
9
17
21
184
**Other
33
91
115
5)
TOTAL
85
198
191
1122
Traffic Warnings
February 2004
YTD 2004
YTD 2003
Year End 2003
TOTAL
199
397
415'
2635
Calls for Service
February 2004
YTD 2004
YTD 2003
Year End 2003
House Watch Checks
58
116
113
424
False Alarms
18
32
41
387
Assists -Citizen
18
33
32
217
Assists-Fire,,Medic
5
11
3
139
Suspicious Circumstances
1
3
0
15
Property— Found!Lost
I
2
3
18
Animal Complaints
]
1
I
2
Missing Person
0
0
0
2
Warrant Arrests
6
15
13
68
***Other
0
4
1
60
TOTAL
108
217
228
1332
* DWLS: Fail to Transfer Title:
No License
** Expired Tabs; No insurance:
Fail to stop: Defective
Equipment
*** Verbal Domestic: Vandalism: Civil Dispute;
Disturbance
Town of
Hunts Point
MEDINA POLICE DEPARTMENT
Jeffrey T. Chen, Chief of Police
TOWN OF HUNTS POINT
MONTHLY ACTIVITY REPORT
FEBRUARY 2004
Felony Crimes
Februarys
Year To Date
Year To Date
Year End
2004
2004
2003
2003
Burglary, Residential
1
1
0
1
Forgery (Identity Theft)
0
0
?
5
Theft (Over $250)
0
0
0
6
Auto/Boat Theft
0
0
0
2
TOTAL
1
1
2
15
Misdemeanor
February
Year To Date
Year To Date
Year End
Crimes
2004
2004
2003
2003'
Assault, Simple
0
0
0
0
Malicious Mischief
0
0
0
2
(Under $250)
Vehicle Prowl
0
0
2
2
Theft (Under $250)
1
1
0
1
Domestic Violence
0
0
0
0
Minor in Possession
0
1
0
0
Drua Violations
0
0
1
1
TOTAL
1
2
3
6
Page 2
MEDINA POLICE DEPARTMENT
Town of
Jeffrey T. Chen, Chief of Police
TOWN OF HUNTS POINT
Hunts Pointe MONTHLY ACIIvrr REPORT
FEBRUARY, 2004
Traffic
February
Year To Date
Year To Date
Year End
Citations
2004
2004
2003
2003
Driving Under Influence
2
2
0
5
Accidents
0
0
0
0
*Other
4
li
10
67
TOTAL
6
15
10
72
Traffic `
February
Year To Date
Year To Date
Year End
Infractions
2004
2004
2003
2003'
Speeding
0
1
14
68
Parking
0
2
1
7
**Other
18
45
38
206
TOTAL
18
48
53
281
Warnings
February
Year to Date
Year to Date
Year End
2004
2004 :
2003
2003
Traffic
43
107
65
634
TOTAL
43
107
65
634
Other Calls
February
Year To Date
Year To Date
Year End
for Service
2004
2004
2003
2003
House Watch Checks
5
10
4
28
False Alarms
6
12
1 1
91
Assists -Citizen
1
5
4
27
Assists-Fire,,Medic
3
3
5
19
Suspicious Circumstances
0
1
3
3
Property Lost/Found
0
0
1
3
Animal Complaints
0
0
0
0
Warrant Arrests
2
3
1
20
***Other
2
?
'
10
TOTAL
19
36
31
201
* DWLS; Fail to I ransfer Title;
No License
** Expired Tabs; No insurance,
Fail to stop; Defective
Equipment
*** Verbal Domestic: Harassment, Civil Dispute;
Arson
ITEM H — la
MEDINA POLICE DEPARTMENT
DATE: March 2, 2004
TO: Doug Schulze, City Manager
FROM: Jeffrey Chen, Chief of Police
SUBJECT: Citizen Complaint - Traffic Speed along 24`' Street NE
In response to a citizen complaint by Mr. Paul Jelinek of 7914 NE 24`" to Council
member Phelps, regarding speeding along 241h Street NE, an analysis was conducted on
traffic infractions issued from January, 2003 to mid -February, 2004.
During 2003 through mid -February, 2004, a total of 193 infractions were issued along
24`h Street NE. Of the 193 infractions, a total of 119 or 62% were issued specifically for
speeding. The average number of infractions issued in a month is 10, with an exception
that 18 were issued during the month of August, 2003.
From January through mid -February, 2004, Medina officers issued 12 infractions, of
which 10 were for speeding.
Due to the concerns by Mr. Jelinek, the Medina Police Department positioned the speed
monitoring sign on NE 24rh at the 8100 block and officers have emphasized traffic
control to help reduce speeding in that area.
ITEM H - 2
CITY OF MEDINA
Development Services
501 Evergreen Point Road, Medina, WA 98039 425.454.9222
www.medin
MEMORANDUM
DATE: March 2, 2004
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Joseph Gellings, AICP, Planning Director
RE: Monthly Development Services Department Report
Boarding Houses -- Attached is a memo from the City Attorney regarding the need for additional time in
crafting an ordinance that prohibits boardinghouse -type uses. The extra time is needed to research how
our restrictions can avoid constitutionality conflicts.
Hearing Examiner System — It has been one year since the City switched its contract for hearing
examiner services to a new law firm and approximately three years since the City started to use a hearing
examiner for approval or denial of discretionary land use permits. Overall, I am satisfied with the service
the City has been receiving through the new contract. In the transition period of the hearing examiner
getting acquainted with the City of Medina there have been a few procedural issues to be worked out.
However, I think the primary concern is how the hearing examiner evaluates the merits of the applicant's
proposal in each case. From this standpoint, the hearing examiner's decisions seem to be based on a
sound analysis of each case with great consideration for the staff recommendation and citizen testimony.
The vast majority of hearing examiner cases are variance applications. One concern with the
establishment of the hearing examiner system that I have heard from council members in the past is the
possibility that it will discourage citizens from applying for these permits because the of increased fees (the
hearing examiner costs are passed onto applicants whereas the previous decision bodies were made up
of volunteers) or a perception that the decision criteria will be interpreted more strictly with approval less
likely. Reviewing the volume of variance cases suggests that the switch to the hearing examiner system
has had a subtle effect if any. From 1990 to 2000 there was an average of 34 variance cases per year.
From 2001 through to today the annual average has been 24 variance cases.
Architect Focus Group — On February 26 Development Services conducted a focus group to discuss
adoption of the international buildings codes with architects. The invited architects were individually
selected to achieve a representative cross section of architects presently working in Medina.
Approximately 10 were able to participate. The main question put to the attendees was when our
procedures should allow architects to design a project according to the International Residential Code —
recognizing that it is too simplistic to respond to the issues that come up in the design of the large homes
that are typical in Medina. Staff received some helpful input on this question. Staff also used the
opportunity to ask the group for their candid responses to how smoothly our permitting procedures have
ITEM H - 2
been working. Again, staff received some valuable feedback and will be looking into several of the ideas
suggested by the group.
Planning Commission Meeting Recap — There were two items on the Planning Commission's March 2,
2004 agenda. The first one was a public hearing and discussion of school zoning issues per the objective
statements developed by the City Council at the February study session. A total of five citizens provided
testimony. The identified issues included building height, circulation, parking, residential buffers, and
pedestrian safety. The Planning Commission then proceeded to develop recommended code revisions
related to all seven of the council's objective statements. The City Attorney and I will prepare draft
ordinance language embodying the commission's recommendations for the City Council's March 8 public
hearing on this topic (Agenda Item 1-1).
The second item on the agenda was broadening the scope of the commission's recommendation on side
yard setback changes. The commission asked staff for some examples of the typical problems
encountered by small lot owners and agreed to work on a new problem statement at the April meeting.
Ya
MEMO
TO: JOSEPH GELLINGS
RE: BOARDING HOUSE ISSUES
FROM: KIRK WINES
DATE: MARCH 2, 2004
ITEM H — 2a
As we have discussed, the easiest form of regulating or eliminating the use of boarding
homes is through restriction on the number of unrelated persons that can reside in a
residence. One drawback to this method is that some courts have held that such regulation
tends to discriminate against single persons, unmarried couples and even religious beliefs. I
have agreed to research this issue for you to determine what reasonable measures we should
agree upon that would withstand challenge.
I will forward the results from my research to you as soon as possible. I would estimate it
would take approximately 30 days to complete the research.
ITEM H - 7
CITY OF MEDINA
EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS MEETING
MINUTES
January 14, 2004
The meeting was called to order at 5:15 p.m. Those in attendance included Council
member Drew Blazey, Volunteers Bill Buchan, Scott Hannah, Mike Higgins, Cy
Humphries, Diana Neely, Steve White, City Manager Doug Schulze, Acting Police Chief
Jeff Chen, Public Works Director Shel Jahn and Emergency Preparedness Coordinator
Kris Finnigan.
City Manager Schulze announced that the Emergency Preparedness Committee now
includes Council members Blazey, Nunn and Vall Spinosa.
The SPAN (Strengthening Preparedness Among Neighbors) Program was reviewed and
it was reported that a call for additional volunteers to host meetings had gone out in the
December newsletter, with three residents having volunteered since that time to become
involved in the effort. Director of Public Works Jahn stressed the importance of this
program.
Referring to the City of Medina's Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan
(CEMP), City Manager Schulze explained that Acting Police Chief Chen and Director of
Public Works Jahn are reviewing the plan in relation to capabilities of their departments.
He further stated that the plan, as written, is approached as for the worst case scenario.
Discussion followed relative to the expectations of residents and the response
capabilities of the city, in the event of an emergency. The importance of emergency
operations center, communications and community resources were emphasized. The
need for residents to be prepared, especially for the first 72 hours following a disaster
was stressed.
It was determined that volunteers would receive electronic copies of the CEMP for their
review. It was also decided that subcommittees would be formed to identify priorities by
function, strengths and weaknesses in the plan. Those heading subcommittees are:
Councilmember Drew Blazey — Command and Control
Volunteer Steve White — Facilities
Volunteer Cy Humphries — Communications
These subcommittee members will meet with others and report back to the Emergency
Preparedness Committee at the next meeting.
It was suggested that Emergency Preparedness Coordinator Finnigan contact Volunteer
Margaret Maxwell, who has been actively involved efforts to have the SPAN Program
move forward, and ask her to coordinate SPAN review, as it relates to the CEMP.
It was announced that the Quick Guide for Emergencies had been completed and was
ready for printing for 1200 Medina households. Appreciation was expressed for the
generous donations from Wells Medina Nursery, Medina Chevron and residents Mr. and
ITEM H - 7
Mrs. James Dagnon. The sample guide was available for review by those in
attendance.
The Terrorism/Weapons of Mass Destruction Annex was reported to have been
completed and was under review by Acting Police Chief Chen and Director of Public
Works Jahn.
A flyer was distributed regarding the upcoming "Partners in Emergency Preparedness
Conference 2004°, to be held at the Doubletree Hotel in Bellevue on April 13th & 14". It
was suggested that anyone thinking of attending let the city know as soon as possible
as the city would have the ability to cover the cost of two attendees.
The date of the next Emergency Preparedness Meeting was set for Wednesday, March
17th at 5 p.m. The meeting was adjourned at 7:00 p.m.
Kris Finnigan, Emergency Preparedness Coordinator
ITEM H - 8
CITY OF MEDINA
City Manager's Office
501 Evergreen Point Road, Medina, WA 98039
www.ci.medina.wa.us
CITY MANAGER'S ACTIVITY REPORT
DATE: March 2, 2004
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Doug Schulze, City Manager
RE: Period of February 16 — 29, 2004
Sales Tax Streamlining - SHB 2500 creates a sales and property tax equalization account of
$80 million from new money the state will receive upon the congressional authorization for
collection of sales tax on remote sales. This account is primarily intended to assist those cities
and counties substantially impacted by loss of the motor vehicle excise tax (MVET). The state is
expected to collect nearly $250 million annually from remote sellers. We propose that
jurisdictions negatively impacted by destination based sourcing in the long term also be eligible
for a portion of these equalization funds.
Money to finance the mitigation would come from three sources:
New money the state receives via voluntary compliance with the SST agreement;
The 1 % administrative fee currently charged all cities, counties and transit districts for the
collection of sales tax. This is approximately $15 million that is currently allocated to the general
fund.
An additional 1% administrative fee collected from those who gain from destination based
sourcing. This fee would be capped at 50% of the gain.
Unfortunately, AWC Executive Director Stan Finkelstein believes has directed the AWC staff to
extricate itself from involvement in this issue and to allow the representatives of the "winners"
and "losers" to work the issue legislatively. This decision was made based on Mr. Finkelstein's
opinion that the Association was in the middle of an irreconcilable conflict between its members.
The Legislature is does not appear to have any interest in committing to a major permanent
mitigation program and the Governor does not want to delay the effective date pending
Congressional action.
March Meeting Schedule
March 2 — Planning Commission Meeting — 7:00 p.m.
March 8 — City Council Meeting — 7:00 p.m.
March 15 — Park Board Meeting — 7:00 p.m.
March 16 Hearing Examiner Meeting — 7:00 p.m.
March 22 — City Council Study Session — 7:00 p.m.
ITEM H - 8
Citizen Action Log — Monthly report for February is attached.
Monthly Financial Reports — I received a request from a member of the City Council to modify
the format of the monthly financial reports. Unfortunately, the accounting software used by the
City is standardized, which means we do not have the ability to adjust or modify the format of
reports produced by the software application. The software used by the City of Medina is
provided by one of only a few vendors used by local government in Washington and a
considerable investment has been made in the purchase of the application, which includes
payroll, accounts payable, and accounts receivable modules in addition to the standard general
ledger accounting application. I will format the quarterly financial reports as requested. The
quarterly financial report is not automatically produced by the accounting software so it already
requires manual preparation.
February Permit Timeline Report — Through February 29, 2004, a total of seventeen (17)
building permit applications have been submitted. Twelve of the seventeen applications have
been approved and permits have been issued. The five (5) remaining applications include three
(3) applications for new residences, one (1) for pier/bulkhead repair and one (1) for a wall &
rockery. The average timeline for processing permits YTD is 1.92 days. The median days
required to approve a permit application YTD is one (1) day.
Sidewalks — During the City Council meeting on February 9th, a comment was made to the
effect that most of Medina's streets have sidewalks. At the time, no comment was made in
response to the statement, but after further consideration and staff discussion, we felt the
following information should be provided:
There are approximately 14.2 miles of surfaced roadway within the City limits of Medina. Of the
14.2 miles, approximately 4.9 miles have sidewalks on at least one side of the street. In other
words, 35% of the streets in Medina have sidewalks. However, of the 4.9 miles, which have
sidewalks, only 1.1 miles have sidewalks, which have been constructed to standards. In other
words, only 7.7% of our sidewalks meet accepted standards.
[The primary standard is a 5 ft. wide sidewalk so two pedestrians can walk safely side -by -side without one
having to step back or forward of the other, or step off the curb into the vehicular travel way. All of our
substandard sidewalks are 4 ft. wide or less with some being only 3.5 ft. wide. Additionally, many of our
substandard sidewalks have telephone poles right in the center or a little off -center of the sidewalk and/or
mailboxes erected within the sidewalk width. Further, approximately 60% or our sidewalks, both standard
and non-standard, are in serious need of repair. We have tripping hazards between disjointed slabs, root
heaving, major cracking, chipping, vegetation encroachment, overflowing surface water, etc.)
Finally, we have only 1.2 miles of designated bicycle lanes (841h Ave NE and NE 12th St. around
to Lake Washington Blvd.), which forces bicyclists to move out into the primary travel way and
compete with the vehicular traffic.
In summary:
- 14.9 miles of roadway in Medina
- 35% or 4.9 miles of the roadways have sidewalks - in total
- 7.7% or 1.1 miles of the roadways have sidewalks built to standard
- 60% of the sidewalks we have are in disrepair
- 8.5% or 1.2 miles of the roadways have designated bicycle lanes
2
ITEM H - 8
Health Insurance Costs — I have received word from the employee group assigned the task of
identifying options for controlling future health insurance cost increases that they are nearly
completed with their work. I will be meeting with the group to discuss their recommendation and
clarify any questions. The committee's report will be presented to the City Council for review
and discussed according to Council Agenda Calendar scheduling.
Park Debt Prepayment — The City Attorney has received confirmation that the letter sent to the
Dustin Estate requesting consideration of prepayment of the loan has been received. The
representative agreed to take the request to the Dustin's for consideration. At this time, we have
not received a response.
3
CD
O
J
F-'
U)
W
D
O
W
Z
O
U
Q
Z
W
N_
t
U
6
C:)
O
y y
a+ y
O
N
O
N
a O
V
N
y
d
y
U y
a
L
00
C
N @
m
c
C L
Q p �_ 3
C N O
�L..
(C6 p- O a7
pp V7
C _ .O O7 i+
M >+
N
C N O O7
3 a
N yl
D p R w
w
3
m
m
o
.0 @ 'V R
m
y
0
_C
p0) 0
E
N N r, an d
�L
0)
m N
a(D 7
t4 p
O p O t Q G7
cn
O p
L
O) N
U N U
d L
0ci a
N
O UC
p
U 4
U
p
U�a y O E
@
U 0
-C
C
C
N C
y
@ VyT
0- OO�c
N 'O
no.6
�
p
�
W-
in . N
m O` p
N >. p
>. N
N N L y y
E
a c
3 c
a otf y 0 y
m n n C
a n�
p
C N
Q
O p +• E O
3
y
m
m U m
m N o is
o@ a> a
c
N o
a �a
- w
i>
c�a o a
p N
� 01 2 ty.1 �O N ++
N C U)
p
�'
@ N
C p- C C
3 N
C
C W 7 V C.1
Q p Q C
-p U) N
3
n O
>
C N
p U
c0 O
Z p
N Z t i
n m o�
i
n? 00 cOi c .p 6.
U�
nS c c
n
W o
o f `=
'o
E m N c— m_
m m
E c
w0
E N
Cu .c W O V y N
p@ .�
-
p
p U
'
-p @ y y
-p 0
t
'O Z d
N
a
w Z
C -O n O) r
U
N
7 U a y
p C) 0 C/ O v
C C>
O O
N p7
C
a� N
.N
>, N a p
LL
0. CD'6
O'
W
U CO
U W N
N y M
U p C .. d
E
U O
U C m
>
U W
m (D
Z cn
d a+
U
y 7
E
Z T9
C
U C7 _
C X N t 7 �,.
y6 O U1
C p- s'
O
C O
O_ O
n
N U y a
C. C a.
p> c0
p p .+ y 0 0
0 y N N
U
O �p cn
mo
O G7 0 0
U Q
U)
p
U> CL LL U Z
N
O
U � d
C
U N
N
O
0 r-
y
U U� J G C
O
m
C 'O
N
E
>
p a
p
c
C>
U
U
U
w
p a
U)
a�
y
�-
y N
7 Q
N
d
!6
Q
E
-
(6
n
cn
D-
N
F
E
E
E
E
E
U
U
p
U
U
>
U
CD
0
v
0
v
0
c
0
c
0
U
v
0
2
a;
CD
0
0
0
0
0
.>_
d a
N
N
N
N
N
N
M
N
N
M
V
N
N
N
N
N
N
CD
0
N
M
M
W
O y
Y O C
O �
@ N y
d � R
@ U
� � •C C
O Z -
a O y
m
@ Y CL
n @
N n Y
E
m a 3
cnmD
� 3
oa
0 0 3 0�
C C L C
@ O toil w
v
n ❑ :D n `m E
CD
ON
` Q 41
O n @
U O O C
d += y Gl
@
0
(D Q C 7
_ O O 7
p
`
N
y m E y
m
U CMC 0 t
U o— c m
d
Y
(n
E c
o 0
t ,M
Cc y
.0
O U
d
Q y
Q
❑
a.
N
CD
N
>
O y
cO
(A,O C
o O
CL O d
(n U)
T H E
L O
m U 0
O N
CD ac_
m
Q
Cl.
m
3 m
c O
O'
a
a)
m
'O
o
•d a+
y
o'
O �' y 0
N
m L
a c
t Y
O c
@
�,
'+
NO
U
L
y 6 r
m
O
m
£
p
L O
6 y
C = 6
U O
C
V Cl) y
m L d
m
N
.>
U a0U
m<n
N
U
L
v
0
0
N
O
N
(D Q N
c a op
C @! a L
a
O ID
@ m U
3.
C
n Q O
C O L O
O)
a U)9 O
@. o
U C � O
� n @ Y
O Q
CL @ > m o
7 Y w U)O U p
3 C N S
nD
N c m OU a
N O @ w L
Q N
C @ (n
73
Y L L
3 N O C
U O
U O U
U S
U
@
U)
N
7
CT
N
N
U
i
40
.a
N
V
O
O
N
m
L y
Y
m y
C
O
t
A
CLO
m N O
Y
m
a
O c d
a
O
N
OL
W O C y
m
O _
V m m
_
U
O
E
� °
O
> c •3
a
3
0
d Q i
U
-d
a
a C y
O
m
@
c d rn
C
c
ycz)a'y3:3
o o
m
Ua
y 'p '6 Y
@ C L y�
E
@ r-. U
d L
E N
0
t
'=
N 0 7 C U
3
-oa6
EtaL
_
CD
—_
L
N C d E
O
O y❑ d
0
O
0
C
O- G1 lyd �O
m
C C
0
O
U
C_ O
o U) 3
0 0
U w
n.
N
N
U
>
O
0
v
0
0
N
O
N
cn
U
U
O
j
N
0
C
@
n
E
O
U
0
0
N
O
O
J
U)
LU
W
a
W
Z
O
U
Q
Z
W
N_
U
o
0
a
w N
o
ON
o
N
O
N
m 00
1
M
r
0
r
N
M
V
N
U
f6
N
N
E
�
co
N N
e+
C
�_
Q
=
=
C
L
C
61
Q@ mCO
CO
C1
>
N
()
O
O`E)
�LO
=Y0)
O
O
O�
>
a W
L .a
O.
@
0
0-
C
m
U
f0
d
O d 0
7
L
Q
Y
om
> C
C
y3
L
CM
O
0)
N
C C
f6 .0
CY)O
N y
7
fl- -O
C�
E
L O
L
Y
N
O` O
CO
Q
@ m
.0
U °L E
N
m
'� d
U
Y
O U_
O R
C
c
(9
E
L-.
N O
_
V) d
3
M Q
0 O
u
.� O
N�
Y N
Y
U 'D
� O�
@ O
@
U C N
m O L
r
C Z C
u@
Y
w
O.
O
CO U
C C
M>
N v 0
m O
G
O N
m m
y W
'—
r m
.m
@
.�
N
O N 06
Or
OE
O
itiC0
AECC
>
E
0] a
jQ
L
0L'0
N
Q O O
CwC
007
a
O0_
O
L=
O
O
O>
O
@0.
a)2V0
O O
@@
y
N
OU
Q�
pOOO
N m
C
E
O
c0
E
mQCL
0
E
0 0 �'
LO
N U
"6 �O
N O
Q) C
a
Q O
c '6 O
m Y Q E
c
Y W
Z
r
T
c
E c
m
—
0 O
ON
m N
N
O
N O)
N N
N
C .�
�
OU P
O fV7 O
CO L V G)
N
O C
3 0�
j C m
o>
E X
O(
U
L N@
m
M to
a U
y y a.
c m
Y
C.1 0 3
c
m
3
m °tS
C N
Z
@
N m Q
`
4) 4
0 0
U)
m
4.= `
N O
CO V
(0
Q) .0 � :=1
p
O
N r+
ate+ C
y i
@
O
U
`� C
.0.
i
Q
C A C C
y
N
Y
3
m
@
3
@
o
L
o
m
d
�0
Ly
Y
N.�
a>
E_
0
m� m
O-
tm
O -O a
O C=
O C>
U
p
0 0
U
y_ O
O E
E
0 o
L U w
in
m
U (� m
V
U C
n
O
N
U
C
N
N
N
N
a
C
d
m
O
O
U
C)
.O
U
.O
RO
N
U)
a
Q Q
U
>
m
d
O
♦+
N
Q
CT
6
C
C
C
y y(1)
(1)
U
m
m
@
7 QQ�
a�
D�
Q
Q
Q
U
N
N
E
E
E
C)
C)U
>>
U
O
U
O
U
O
U
a)
U)
IT
M
v
cn
v
v
v
y
C)
O
O
o
O
o
a) >
o
O
O
o
o
O
@ •�
N
N
N
N
N
N
it)
O
r
N
m
r
co
r
c*�
N
N
CD
r
r
N
N
N
N
N
N
C)
O
N
(`7
cm
ITEM J -1
of M
CITY OF MEDINA
City Manager's Office
501 Evergreen Point Road, Medina, WA 98039 425.454.9222
.rnedina-wa. ov
MEMORANDUM
DATE: February 25, 2004
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Doug Schulze, City Manager
RE: Ordinance Amending MMC 2.40 — Governing Board of Park Commissioners
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the attached ordinance amending MMC 2.40 — Governing the Board
of Park Commissioners.
POLICY IMPLICATION:
• Increases membership of Park Board from five (5) to seven (7)
positions.
• Eliminates requirement for a member of the city council to serve as an
ex officio member of the Park Board.
• Eliminates requirement for city manager to serve as secretary to the
board.
BACKGROUND: The attached ordinance is presented for City Council consideration in an
effort to expand the size of the Park Board and updated the existing language, which is outdated and no
longer necessary. Medina Municipal Code currently sets the Park Board membership at five (5) positions,
which has frequently created problems obtaining a quorum or conducting business with only three
members present. In part, this may be associated with the schedule conflicts of the current
commissioners.
Increasing the size of the board is anticipated to reduce the problems associated with obtaining a quorum.
Incidentally, increasing the size of the Park Board to seven members will make it consistent with the size
of the City Council and Planning Commission.
CITY OF MEDINA
WASHINGTON
ORDINANCE NO. ####
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 2.40 OF THE MEDINA MUNICIPAL CODE
GOVERNING THE BOARD OF PARK COMMISSIONERS
SECTION 1. Chapter 2.40 Amended: Medina Municipal Code Chapter
2.40. Board of Park Commissioners, is hereby amended to read as follows:
2.40.010 De€inkt.onpParks and Recreation Commissicr Words us+"> 41 in
thi c4apter shaft have tt�e €ollc wi g rraean+rae}
A. --` Board' rrieaas ooai�d of park co==lrn} ssEoners.
-- B; __ Park:' rneans-an area -of land,With or WithOUt water --developed and used
for public recreatiGnal-purposes, including-iaridscapad tracts, picnl..-gro4racis;
sa e4jnids-at4ie4c fields, Fe�eatiorr-Winters `oet-and-b+rye4e-per 4r,,-witdt+fe
srnnctuaries bcatar+vat garcter s-fas+iltles for bath'no. boatinF�. and fishing as welf. as
ecreat>��na r+lines fe Nie +s �a+d benef -cif-the-ouNic
0 3-Crp...a � E}3 E1_Y
A- There is created a board of park nersParks_-and Recreation
i�ornroission, consisting of five -seven members;., to _2royide guidance and direction r.
n�eetint tl e parks and recreational needs of the Cry bvE dt L,i in the City Council and
staff on rnallers relatinra to_pian irc,, acrt sit n. development and operationo =�r..k
--
facilities and rer re ationai programs within tro Ciiv.-w-n-0 shall be p� oted t3s tie -grayer,
with the consent of the city cour~cil. f car a interested -snit otherwise qurilifie-d--res+deEats-of
Medina No con)Tirssicner shah-rece+ve <1ny { Ci{s1F3ensati:7n' for h+& servif es, Th$ -;
�ra�i�issic�rr-�afl-r��t-l�-;ekved rn r�r�orY3�e:-splFirt+{�!a.
a,
The city counc+i shall -se le:c>t-c�r:e frorrl arncarkt 4-tun+ber to be a r ea;t�er
ai hhe parr ,Uot miss+sn. offr ;- v tit vot poweu s.-io-t e his
vote will hrerak a'tie-, to serve onti, h--s court-oil-1 r'i{_expirea-ccw a �is`f censor S ir't.like
aai�6 Ear, %}y--t('t2ecounal. appointed, The; diitte E; of the ex-o ficio shall . -bee
-- - Interpre-�City x t t poltt,yl far the Bear<d-s-- ef+t-
_._.. 2 _........ f re-pi-esent- h-e Board s. i "3tont-*✓ ttic; City
- 3 - - -- 3'terwise neltr tl.r E3: ar c= + ye c _+c v+say cutlers
p ;sr t Fc ar t ai+, 'ii-„-;> _. _1- 1 cat � r�E�ing f arks.
2.40.0320 M-OffftPe M P r-n �,)e rs h in
. .. ... . .....
A. ]-he terms of park cornmissicners shail be `;our yp- at at the
� � I, years: except treat
time of their --terns more
than two FT�em.bers, nor iess than e ne, shati �xpire ir, F-ach year. SuCh terms sl,::41 begin
after appoinitf)-ient has been -approved by the city councli, and uoGn :aking the
of lat&P-appeilnte �,- all 4k4une
ivalificationi and at the expiratior, of each-ccn rr),+jssioner S-Ite-, , #'ie Mayor shail appom,
wjth the consent of the city c:�ouncil, new loembars to fill vacan4cjes then Gccumno by
mason f-see#- +oR- The
Gf he board app&i oted in 19,�g shaji be dete-rmined oy lotNUMber of Members. The
Parks and Recreation Commission -shall consist of seven votina, members, each of
whom shall be aDpointed for,-a-tprrT) of four years. However_',_he first appomt rentsto the
Parks and Recreation Commission shall consist of two individualsappointed for terms of
twoyea�s,_Lvvo ndividijals..�agwrrted for terrns of three years and three individuals
nnninted For terms of four years. Subsequent appointments shal. be forl
Terms shall exr,,ire on June 30
B. Me-n:rbees Gf4#e beard- may be4+,4n4,ved at any4iLo--fe-by--thre mayo-w44
the -prior consent of -the city courrc4, Vacancies for -the rerT44nder of unexpired terms
madleAp p2Lntment The Mp ma shall appoint. with theconsentof the city council,
_
members of the Parks and Recreation Commission. Mprnl:ers of the Parks and
Recreation Cornmission must mm
esidI- within the cit\/-,IinI)it-s of MedMa. Parks arid
Recreation Commission members shall be selected without respect to political affiliation
- ---------
and shail serve without compensation.
.... . .. . ....... ..
C. The ex-offivto-shalt serve in 4r) unbiased manner 4r,?,a-a.1IAh& Gounc4'`s
discretion -Removal. Members o` the Parks and Recreation Com mission mav be
- --- - - - - - — - - - - -------------------- - - -- -
rernoved at any time by the mavorwith the prior consent of ',ne city councii for r!eqle,t of
duty, conflict of ji-iterest,-malfeasance in office or other just cause. or for unex,,ised
absence 'or more than three consecutive regular oieq_qnqs. -The dedsion of the City
. . . . . . . .......................
Council shall be final and there shall be no appeal.
D, VaCancies. other tl�an lnrouc;Ih ',he expiration of
terni, shall be filed for the unexpired term in the so, ie ni�, -inner as for appointm-Ws as
providegg_y ihe ordinance,
2,040.0430 - �-Mee�tins
A. from arlong =,-4johiy- vote -.-a
chairperson and vice -chairperson to serve a on(-,,-ypa= ien m. laerrmning in January of
each year Its -hail be the duty of tt-ehairpersGn or vice-(-nairoe-rson to niresideover a
meetings of the -boar -*-and to—arcre the duties as r e rr by the board
rrierp.bers.Eleclion ot Officers. The P,-arks and Recregtion �
Comn"tssion shall' --:ecl `rCrr,i
a . .......... . .
gitsmembersa eiripirperson, who shall ores at and a vice
-,yvha sl-al[ e--U- sE--�-e c*I i -c �e haireror-i --,nthe no- nvile chairperson shall De elected ani-lualIV A n-rtqot,,� of he Parks and. Recreation
Gornnnssion nnernbers shall constitute a ouoruir for tj'e of business and, a
maioniv vote of those or-ent shall b(' necess,*ir,, avv
P-r lot s s �,ua of -serve
B. A matarif of tk 2rei-kaf-r ;ttra<e a quo, n-fca, tear s acticars}€
business, and t Free a=(ierrc .i Fe votes shale be necessary to carry a=1.y-f,4( pes!tiGn- Rules
and Regulations. The Parks .-and Recreation Co emission F hall adoct such r le find-
reg atrrans as are necessary for the conduct of its business. -_
C. A meeting of -the board shall be held at least Once a month unless tF-
ear agrees of e ws€ rh+fie - o -42e- Ic.Meetina Schedule. The Parks a pia
Recreation Commission shall arcvide a requ. ar meeting schedule. includinq time, glace
and ire uency o f meetings as necessary_ but no less frequent than once a month._The
Commission may. from time to time provide for special meetings in_a_ccordar)cc with
RC`v"J 40, the Open F?ublic L;1eetings Act,
U. Staffing. Stiffprovided to the Commission shall be advisary.
E. _ Documentation_ The Commission shall ado2t_5uc__r2rocedures as or.-
necessary to insure minutes of the meeting are recorded and a monthly
surer dry of minutes are recorded along with all decisions.
2.40.050---040 Se ere City rnaaac+er's dutes�ut,es and Responsibrh`+es,
The Parks and Recreation Commission shall he an advlsorvboard to the City Couhc 3
rosponsible_for ..providin direction concerning the followncl matters:
a.--_Cornprehensive Park Pianninq,
". Acguisiticn of- ark lan an,d or facil"ties_
c ®eveio meet, deli n anr,' o eratic:,n of parks and recreation
prodrammin ; and fac hies.
d. Use fees and procedLIFeS fr-Ir callecting fees,
�-
p Park, play_field and facility design
f. Caoiiai In) c ver ants Plan, .ing.
Re .Nations and restrictions aov{=morn thr,, f,r;jrs of dark and far-;iliti as
use.
Concessions.
Contracts, interlocai aareem-nos. a -n pease agree_ Tents rep, rdincci
-- _�. _
parks and recreation activ_i . es.
.
.__ Proposed annual budcict for tie acrui.lOion aleveloc 's , ,'Id
00 ;rrs;ion of narks and recreation facilities and oroarams.
k, Ali rnacters as may fron 1 tirme to time. ne referred to the Parks and
- .- _ .. ......- ........ ......
R,e,crnation Commission v l nr' {, t. GAG ,cil �hn it�Eitar� �`
he=e-.+s created 'heofficeof-seoreta, V to the-tocj7,4rd of Bark
c rssaene s v ++h-the__ o€-k11a +n>tes of all r;et+rgs--aPct othaa- pr-xr#iF cis
(}f said troy^rm-iR order to assure-continiAt an--'Ifect[ve-Cfi±i}ri?bJpl„atmn
shall be failed --by the city manager" its duties to be discnarg-ad-perFonalry by ih4rn-Or
1hroij,C11) his-delerjad:?r
P The city manager shalt ts;form, lh
r.,(,—Fe iuo al-L3 'Ce;?�-��t�{�r-e�f ;3f
'lie {.i v
2.40.060 0150 Thc Commiss;on shall provide a
written report -to the City Council at eaja least once ;each rter or on ociress ,-T-la(.,,Ie on
— — — --- ----------
establispled work plans of the Commission, The Commission shall report at other firrie
-)nd activities as necessary or
_1�2�quncil su h recommendations, oven`s
directed by the City Council to carry out the established dubt—, and resDonsitjilities-01111
. established .. ...
this ordinar,co.
A. -The-beard-shall recofnf)-IePd to the ii,iayor, city counclland city ma;IL:rges
of-c-4k4als
and recreational facilitiesandprograms of the city.
re-gard+nR cOrtduct-Gf-anrn r imier
c6LI-Wrat-aotivity4hat-- #1 rric4ve-and
whGlesorrie manner.
2, --Re-c-en4-,aend aR4-sum-rvssion of arks
belanging tG the city,
. . .... . ...........
reqardiRg plaT444+�g, prorrro-4Gn, and.
and opestiGn: includ+ngj
. K-S
and'or playgrou,.?ds,,&;thef-W4144; -Or w4hout o4y linnits, of -parrs, squares, -parkways -arid
boy 4evar4LIs-; play and recreation grounds other municlpa4y owned -recreat+ona[
end
aesthetic phar aster of the saMe; and
into wriitei-. o, nlra-ets
with thF,-United Statesthe, slate7-oounty. city Of town, park distric-s, sch�,,tei district, or
niza It ion s-fo=44e - purpose-ef-c-ond i +cti iq a
--C.- submr1r4e-4hc--o.sty a2kimc-y basisan
of rrrorrey-i:�j+.�,�d-by the de-oar4hi44t Its a(--,tivitte-6 -far
the ensuing year. together with reoonimendatsons for ?rye develop ment-G' ;#,a omqrarn
and facdoies. as and guAc�-�114&6ty
cairns taretaara}s„ the budget fo-r4he 4�x-41vy. for the of the
city parks and the-Oacreational program aP4 Pel-essary f,,,iblitieF, and the
D. The board shall have the power to fI�,conkmend Fidles and regulat'"),nis fur
the govern4rer4t, Of 4--4V
f a c tl i! a i, 4d prog r -a t n s,
2.40.060 Severahility. If ariv section, sentence-, ciaLjse or phrase of this
ordinance should be he d inve.-id or uncanslitutionFl by ;:i court of compe0ent
�jsojctjon, such decision Shall not affect the valicity of the remainina porvons of
this ordinance.
SECTION 2. Effective Date: This ordinance shall take effect five (5) days
after its publication or the publication of a summary of its intent and content.
PASSED BY AFFIRMATIVE VOTES OF A MAJORITY OF THE CITY COUNCIL
ON THE DAY OF 2004, AND SIGNED IN AUTHENTICATION OF
SUCH PASSAGE THE DAY OF 2004.
Mary Odermat, Mayor
Approved as to form:
Kirk R. Wines, City Attorney
Attest:
Randy Reed, CIVIC, City Clerk
ITEM J - 2
of M CITY OF MEDINA
City Manager's Office
501 Evergreen Point Road, Medina, WA 98039
' www.medina-wa.gov
MEMORANDUM
DATE: February 25, 2004
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Doug Schulze, City Manager
425.454.9222
RE: Appointments to Board of Park Commissioners
RECOMMENDATION: Confirmation of Mayor's appointments to the Board of Park
Commissioners.
POLICY IMPLICATION: Appointments to the Board of Park Commissioners are made by the Mayor
and require confirmation of the City Council.
BACKGROUND: The City's newsletter was used to advertise the vacant Board positions.
Under current MIMIC, two vacant positions should be filled. These positions are the unexpired terms of
Danya Hill and Katie Phelps. The unexpired term of Danya Hill's position will expire on June 30, 2005 and
the unexpired term of Katie Phelps position will expire on June 30, 2007. The terms of Commission
members Brazen and Nunn also expire on June 30, 2005. Commission member Gerlitz' term expires on
June 30, 2007. If the City Council does not adopt the ordinance increasing the Board to seven members,
only two of the three applicants can be appointed. Appointments are recommended as follows:
Position 4 —
Position 5 —
If the City Council adopts the ordinance to increase the Board to seven members, all positions should be
re -appointed as provided for in the ordinance. Appointments are recommended as follows:
Position 1 — Joseph Brazen, term 7/1 /2004 — 6/30/2005
Position 2 — Connie Gerlitz, term 7/1 /2004 — 6/30/2007
Position 3 — Heija Nunn, term 7/1/2004 — 6/30/2005
Position 4 —
1�N
DATE: 4 March 2004
TO: City Council
FROM: Mary Odermat
SUBJECT: Appointments to the Park Board
At the 8 March 2004 Meeting of the City Council, the Council
will consider increasing the number of Park Board Members
from five to seven. The merit of such change is to assure
the likelihood of a quorum at meetings for voting purposes,
and to increase creative input for decision making.
Attached you will find resumes from three applicants who
were interviewed by the Park Board to fill two present,
vacant positions. The Park Board advises through the PWD
that all applicants are qualified for service. Should a seven
member Park Board become reality, and the Council confirm
the three applicants, all three applicants will be offered
positions, and a search will be advertised for candidates to
fill the seventh open seat.
Please review the attached applications for consideration of
confirmation to appoint the applicants at the 8 March
meeting.
CITIZEN ADVISORY COMMITTEE
0 APPLICATION
TO: MEDINA CITY COUNCIL
i request that you consider my application for the r'/L am
aware this advisory committee meets at least once a month and that it will take
approximately six hours or more of my time per month. I feel that I will be able to devote
the time necessary to perform the duties of this body. I am also aware that my name
and address may be made public as an applicant for this body and that this application
is a public record.
)
Date Signature
Ss4 /1/1CL E1 ��CLI�
Name (Print)
Address: fu
t (Street and Mailing Address)
DOSS c�S i/�!L (.�-�l+ �'c.
Home Phone: LlZ; Al 3 - t�- / Z 5
-T
Work Phone:
Fax Number:
E-Mail Address:
Own: ✓ Rent: How Long at This Address:
Employer:
Employer Address:
Years lived in Medina:
Years lived in King County:
i'v'7
P:IFORMSICITY FORMSIADVISORY COMMITTEE APPLICATION FORM.DOC
1. Briefly describe your educational background:
1-7,'U /�4, �� l"1 cc.c CL-
�,. !v fl
2. Briefly describe your employment background:
IC,l. �i%tiu-� %��LLi K-f—�� � G/ f/u %%!� L �u l(�.hL'1'Z� �/Ze�L: ti' — ��C'-LE✓'�
(C r2/J/vL�?C( �� �-/ L��m,Xc.n L� �r2"n-� I •%�/ 9 �f �' lu / Z �/ 9 9
I
IS %—
13. Describe vour recent civic, business and community activities (in past five vears):
lu ZoDO
hu,K l2cEr� �cC,�IvL�
I�2u��t',z� - 6���1 �t��fir��
�cs�ra/7t�
r�i�Slc�'1 �-. �t`l7lL�) rGlC<<C/C�l-l�i� ?cUL
l2CtC1 /t.r -fllc CC�.:�F--
�p i✓ � �7,ryGYl GHQ-n'G ! 1 /fir -(-L �- � � CC�
Ca-S � w,= /cu6Lwu� • ��r��i�e i-VeC
re/Z-, /7,"L-j L—
�LtIIa(ralSL:� CAE.
E
4. What do you believe is this Committee's role and responsibility?
wu.�-7 �!� fnu l-s �E.12 hey �, ; (4 �C�,Ja s
5. Briefly describe the specific qualifications, abilities and skills that you have, which
would be valuable to this Committee.
%v
LC, I:f,
le- y iet
f
�rn /%Lul2tul�y�Gy f�bLf 371 Lh�:,
L� j2CtJ Yc-1c� fZ1L� �L l/IV
X-.,�.�
6. Give a specific example of how you personally contributed towards a group
arriving at a consensus.
{L i� Z cy}Z�YIkLC�I�Z�:�, ZL�
/0 (.� 7LC(-rY1 °�� 12� !t'G�/Gli 4. % P4,
i<<J�cy2c: i {1l1.�: IC.E_t J ��e� rl �'� � �h�w ��7«: � �f� in,c.•�-/ �r� G��G-�i' L
�l LLr"r P)'b AL � C �i vi1-7 LI c Y7 a _I l L � 1 �? iti k) c l
hzzk
� i7? ✓x]U rl( Gc�G��✓� �� 1�1 61 ��C� � 12t_� 3 -�� , 7 e.- G(Lftt'� C.Li LL[y,olLY-1,1- {
Gt4tLL� GGtS Gu SS �i.�� S Q�z al /�� GALL yia xl L' / ��C�r�J
7. Describe any possible areas of conflict of interest that you may have:
/26z,4, ,
8. What is your vision for the Medina community?
Zia Ixa&' �h- LJ p�po ugh
( .1�ZL L Lu �c G l u r %J2Yl CC L fL%LY1 S i (J l-r?-T-),,
P12) /�h-Ui �4� t10—,- 14LsI-e �4 .
9. Briefly describe what you consider to be the top three issues that will face Medina
in the next 20 years.
C.-LtA,' i. - 4 �. 7Li_si; f S &j. I &C_ �n Lk-)
3. /LL l lLt ce irLc- / i:,r- j /arts a, � �c p/a� C S 6LL-,L� E y "'L &-d-e roc:-E ,
4
10. Briefly describe specific ideas you have to improve the quality of life in Medina
�✓/! �£ /)ic; LL� —� �l:.0 �t�' 1�=� % %�:-G �.; �/�,c'y�-E_ �-(f--t4 /7�_.C_c ,J
J r �
li K c �L td �n -A-4 C�
No Member of an Advisory Committee
may be a Councilmember, Officer or
Employee of the City of Medina.
When completed, return to: City Clerk, 501 Evergreen Point Road, Medina, WA 98039.
5
CITIZEN ADVISORY COMMITTEE
APPLICATION
TO: MEDINA CITY COUNCIL
I request that you consider my application for the ��,�- (�� v,,E am
aware this advisory committee meets at least once a month and that it will take
approximately six hours or more of my time per month. I feel that I will be able to devote
the time necessary to perform the duties of this body. I am also aware that my name
and address may be made public as an applicant for this body and that this application
is a public record.
Date
Signature
Name (Print)
Address: �% Li 4-
NEf-
(Street and Mailing Address)
Home Phone: �ZS
4 L'QL-�—Work
Phone: �G
Fax Number:
E-Mail Address:
Own: 1/111 Rent:
How Long at This Address:
Employer:
Employer Address:
Years lived in Medina:
'12 LEG_# _ j
Years lived in King County:
i
1'r � (;, i i - � ()k,"
c
J
P:IFORMS\CITY FORMS\ADVISORY COMMITTEE APPLICATION FORM.DOC
1) Briefly describe vour educational background:
• University of Puget Sound 1985-1989 — B.A. Education. Minor in Psv_ cholop 0.5 GPAI
o Dean's List 4 semesters
• Lesley College 1992-1993 — Master of Education (3.98 GPA )
2) Brieflv describe vour employment background:
• Elementar% School Teacher. Grades. 1-4 Kent School District 1989-199�,
o Cultural Diversity Chair — Lake Y ounns Elementary
Building Union Representative — Lake Youngs Elementary
Team Leader — Grade 4 Lake Youngs Flementar%
3) Describe your recent civic, business and community activities (in the oast 5 vears):
• Annual Campaign Chair 2003-2004 - University Child Development School
• Auction Registration Chair 2002-2004 - University Child Development School
• New Family Mentor 2003-2004 - Universit% Child Development School
• Volunteer 1998 - 2004 - University Child Development School
o Organized and planned various all school functions
Judge — Puget Sound School Chess tournament
• Sunday School Teacher— Westminster Chapel
4) What do you believe is this Committee's role and responsibility?
To successfully accomplish the advisory duties of the Parks Board such as the administration.
supervision and control of the parks and recreational facilities. This would include submitting an
annual budget for continued maintenance. improvements and any acquisitions that would be
needed. In addition to bring communit questions. concerns and possibilities to the table in
order to maintain and improve upon the character and uniqueness that Medina has to offer.
Ensure that Medina Municipal Code Chapter 2.40 was adhered to.
5) Briefly describe the specific qualifications abilities and skills that you have which would
be valuable to this committee.
• Consensus builder
• Excellent communication skills
• Ability to work with a diverse and wide range of people
• Enthusiasm and love of Medina
• Frequent user of park facilities
6) Give a specific example of how- von personally contributed towards a croup arriving at a
consensus.
As the University Child Development School (U CDS) Annual campaign chair I had the
incredible opportunity to work with several talented people to put together an enthusiastic and
creative campaign that would help us to raise 5200.000 for the school. In the infancy
brainstorming stage of the campaign. we had many ideas to consider on ho'Ato raise the funds.
With everyone on the committee who had their own passionate ideas. it was my role to actively
listen to all the possibilities and then help narrow down the vision and goal of the campaign.
Through man% discussions. the group collectively aoreed upon the thrust of the campaign. We
were able to incorporate ideas from eyery committee member so that we all felt like and could
maintain a positive spirit and an invested interest in the campaign. In the end we all
compromised to some degree but built a great campaign that "ill ultimatelybenefit the entire
L CDS communitx.
7) Describe any possible areas of conflict of interest that you may have:
None.
8) What is your vision for the Medina Community?
My vision for the Medina community involves providing a safe envirotnncnt to live and cam
out every day activities in a quiet and tranquil setting. It is important the citizens and the city
work together to create the opportunities of the next decade together. This invokes balancing
progress with the responsibility preserving the natural beauty that surrounds us every day. The
Medina communityshould be an ideal commumv, to raise children and to permanenth live.
9) Briefly describe what you consider to be the top three issues that will face Medina in the
next 20 vears.
• 520 Expansion
• Flight Paths from Sea-Tac airport
• Maintain the character of the city as it changes with balanced compromises
10) Brieflv describe specific ideas you have to improve the quality of life in Medina.
• Reducing the effect of the 520 expansion on the city by placing a lid over the highway
and to ensure that the off ramps do not back up into the city.
• Safe sidewalks to enable all citizens to use them from the elderly. handicapped. and
children.
• Park Irrigation
• Improved lighting
CITIZEN ADVISORY COMMITTEE
0 APPLICATION
TO: MEDINA CITY COUNCIL
I request that you consider my application for the f�, `X\ �Ok(6 . I am
aware this advisory committee meets at least once a month and that it will take
approximately six hours or more of my time per month. I feel that I will be able to devote
the time necessary to perform the duties of this body. I am also aware that my name
and address may be made public as an applicant for this body and that this application
is a public record.
1-1�-01 C'U�
Date Signature
Name (Print)
Address: QO Qdx )a2 -7 � S" T
(Street nd Mailing Address)
Home Phone:
Work Phone: J0�,
Fax Number:
E-Mail Address:
TAM -- O6('� Qrj Rc m- c.5ilit .
Own: ✓!Rent: How Long at This Address: 3
Employer: SIEL� �-'PW IC��j
Employer Address:
Years lived in Medina: 3J `i
Years lived in King County:
P:IFORMSICITY FORMS\ADVISORY COMMITTEE APPLICATION FORM.DOC
1. Briefly describe your educational background: E
I
T;�
2. Briefly
describe
your employment background:
3. Describe your recent civic, business and community activities (in past five years):
Dow t -A - p12 F� a
i
2
4. Wha* do you believe is this Committee's role and responsibility?
C a�^�lw� 0� vllAi' MST PnV'-S' Mfn tU` d=
5. Briefly describe the specific qualifications, abilities and skills that you have, which
would be valuable to this Committee.
V-1 LL S IJ C. /d�tLft` j
6. Give a specific example of how you personally contributed towards a group
arrivinq at a consensus.
SL�L(�tt "rr2> '�Up�1r'tcSS YJ1*++IW(s
COMM11PffL 7t>SDIUL �'_1��It r 7)�Z V1(41L!1
��iS11^�SS J ti�� �� owti i�A1wLLsj � -'j�?�M
3
7. Describe any possible areas of conflict of interest that you may have:
►',� )�
8. What is your vision for the Medina community?
A S Q>ef�q7� N 1_ SAY\ M y eO T `1
9. Briefly describe what you consider to be the top three issues that will face Medina
in the next 20 years.
7NF-1C
Cull ML
�GUEv1 ?-MLL)v�
4
10. Briefly describe specific ideas you have to improve the quality of life in Medina.
Q V (a1a1 i L 1 F"5 10-' ")ML rA 1 S acal-\2"T. i wmU
f
No Member of an Advisory Committee
may be a Councilmember, Officer or
Employee of the City of Medina.
When completed, return to: City Clerk, 501 Evergreen Point Road, Medina, WA 98039.
5
ITEM J - 3
CITY OF MEDINA
Evergreen Point Road, Medina, WA 98039
(425) 454-9222 www.ci.medina.wa.us
MEMORANDUM
DATE: February 19, 2003
THRU: City Manager
TO: City Council
FROM: Director of Public Works
RE: Intersection Sight Distance Information
With a few minor changes, the following is a reprint of the Information Memo
provided to the City Council on August 19, 2003:
1. As requested by the City Council at the August 11, 2003 City Council meeting,
the following information is provided relative to the Intersection Sight Distance
Provisions of the draft New Tree and Vegetation Code, Ordinance No. 743,
Section 12.28.220 (proposed but not adopted).
2. There are three enclosures to this Memorandum:
a. Sight Distance at Intersections (Other Jurisdiction Examples) — A
summary of sight distance standards as established by WSDOT and as extracted
from Municipal Codes for 10 Washington State municipalities. The enclosure
summarizes the established sight distance standards for each City, then
compares that City's standards with the proposed standards in Medina
Ordinance No. 743.
b. Visual Pictures for 5 Medina Intersections — Five representative Medina
intersections are reviewed in pictorial form to provide the City Council with a
visual presentation of the effect implementation of the proposed Ordinance No.
743 Intersection Sight Distance Standards would have on each intersection.
Using the proposed Medina Street Functional Classification designations, two
Collector — Collector street intersections are reviewed (NE 12th St. and Evergreen
Point Road; and NE 24tt' St. and Evergreen Point Road); and three Local Access
— Collector street intersections are reviewed (NE 16th St. and Evergreen Point
Road; 80th Ave. NE and NE 24th St.; and 791h Ave. NE and NE 24" St.).
c. Draft of Proposed Intersection Sight Distance Code - This enclosure is
what was recommended be added to the tree ordinance back in August 2003.
ITEM J - 3
The Council decided not to add this language, but to table the discussion until
January 2004.
3. Discussion:
a. The WSDOT standards for sight distance are taken from the American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). The
standards are based on best practices derived from engineering analysis,
physics and empirical data. The WSDOT standards are not required to be
adopted by Washington State counties or municipalities. There is no State law
which specifically addresses sight distances or sight triangles.
b. Adopted standards for municipalities across Washington State vary
significantly. Every standard presented in the first enclosure is either somewhat
close to the proposed Medina intersection sight distance standards or more
restrictive. More restrictive standards were more commonly encountered and in
many cases, significantly more restrictive criteria was noted.
c. Most municipal codes researched allow for flexibility and discretion in
the code giving authority to City professionals such as the Public Works Director,
City Engineer or City Planner to modify the standards as appropriate to the
situation or circumstances.
d. From the pictures taken from the 5 representative Medina
intersections, it is clear that the impact of implementing the proposed standards
would be significant and in many cases, costly. It is also clear that, under the
current conditions at each intersection, a vehicle operator must move their
vehicle well out over the pedestrian crossing and near or into the intersection
travel -way in order to adequately see traffic coming from either crossing
direction. Normal City traffic was observed operating at each of the five
intersections reviewed. It was noted that most motorists moved well out into the
intersection and well beyond the point necessary to actually see the oncoming
traffic from the left or right.
e. WCIA was contacted for advice. It appears that the case law
associated with possible municipal liability supports the concept that a
municipality bears no common law duty to maintain unobstructed visibility at an
intersection. However, WCIA still recommended that a municipality adopt and
enforce reasonable sight distance provisions in the municipal code based on
"what is sensible for a particular community," however, WCIA also recommended
that the municipality refer to the provisions as "guidelines," and not "standards" in
the code. WCIA noted that for both general safety considerations and City
government taking steps to enhance pedestrian, jogger, bicycle and traffic safety
for its residents by providing reasonable sight distance at intersections, codified
guidelines should be developed and enforced. WCIA also recommended that the
ordinance provide flexibility and allow for professional discretion with City officials
ITEM J - 3
based on the situation or circumstances at any particular intersection. The case
law references have been provided to the Medina City Attorney for review.
4. Council members suggested that maybe Public Works could go out and stake
out an intersection or two to show the Council the impact of the proposed criteria.
Public Works can still do this, however, one can very easily go to any of our
intersections, look left and right and judge about where the 150-200 ft. point
would be, then stand just behind the stop line (4 or 8 ft. behind the line) and very
quickly obtain a feel or sense of what would be required to provide the proposed
clear zone / sight triangle.
ITEM J - 3
CITY OF MEDINA
Evergreen Point Road, Medina, WA 98039
• (425) 454-9222 www.ci.medina.wa.us
MEMORANDUM
DATE: February 19, 2003
THRU: City Manager
TO: City Council
FROM: Director of Public Works
RE: Intersection Sight Distance Information
With a few minor changes, the following is a reprint of the Information Memo
provided to the City Council on August 19, 2001
1. As requested by the City Council at the August 11, 2003 City Council meeting,
the following information is provided relative to the Intersection Sight Distance
Provisions of the draft New Tree and Vegetation Code, Ordinance No. 7431
Section 12.28.220 (proposed but not adopted).
2. There are three enclosures to this Memorandum:
a. Sight Distance at Intersections (Other Jurisdiction Examples) — A
summary of sight distance standards as established by WSDOT and as extracted
from Municipal Codes for 10 Washington State municipalities. The enclosure
summarizes the established sight distance standards for each City, then
compares that City's standards with the proposed standards in Medina
Ordinance No. 743.
b. Visual Pictures for 5 Medina Intersections — Five representative Medina
intersections are reviewed in pictorial form to provide the City Council with a
visual presentation of the effect implementation of the proposed Ordinance No.
743 Intersection Sight Distance Standards would have on each intersection.
Using the proposed Medina Street Functional Classification designations, two
Collector — Collector street intersections are reviewed (NE 12th St. and Evergreen
Point Road; and NE 24th St. and Evergreen Point Road); and three Local Access
— Collector street intersections are reviewed (NE 16" St. and Evergreen Point
Road; 80th Ave. NE and NE 24th St.; and 79tt Ave. NE and NE 24" St.).
c. Draft of Proposed Intersection Sight Distance Code - This enclosure is
what was recommended be added to the tree ordinance back in August 2003.
ITEM J - 3
The Council decided not to add this language, but to table the discussion until
January 2004.
3. Discussion
a. The WSDOT standards for sight distance are taken from the American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). The
standards are based on best practices derived from engineering analysis,
physics and empirical data. The WSDOT standards are not required to be
adopted by Washington State counties or municipalities. There is no State law
which specifically addresses sight distances or sight triangles.
b. Adopted standards for municipalities across Washington State vary
significantly. Every standard presented in the first enclosure is either somewhat
close to the proposed Medina intersection sight distance standards or more
restrictive. More restrictive standards were more commonly encountered and in
many cases, significantly more restrictive criteria was noted.
c. Most municipal codes researched allow for flexibility and discretion in
the code giving authority to City professionals such as the Public Works Director,
City Engineer or City Planner to modify the standards as appropriate to the
situation or circumstances.
d. From the pictures taken from the 5 representative Medina
intersections, it is clear that the impact of implementing the proposed standards
would be significant and in many cases, costly. It is also clear that. under the
current conditions at each intersection, a vehicle operator must move their
vehicle well out over the pedestrian crossing and near or into the intersection
travel -way in order to adequately see traffic coming from either crossing
direction. Normal City traffic was observed operating at each of the five
intersections reviewed. It was noted that most motorists moved well out into the
intersection and well beyond the point necessary to actually see the oncoming
traffic from the left or right.
e. WCIA was contacted for advice. It appears that the case law
associated with possible municipal liability supports the concept that a
municipality bears no common law duty to maintain unobstructed visibility at an
intersection. However, WCIA still recommended that a municipality adopt and
enforce reasonable sight distance provisions in the municipal code based on
"what is sensible for a particular community," however, WCIA also recommended
that the municipality refer to the provisions as "guidelines," and not "standards" in
the code. WCIA noted that for both general safety considerations and City
government taking steps to enhance pedestrian, jogger, bicycle and traffic safety
for its residents by providing reasonable sight distance at intersections, codified
guidelines should be developed and enforced. WCIA also recommended that the
ordinance provide flexibility and allow for professional discretion with City officials
ITEM J - 3
based on the situation or circumstances at any particular intersection. The case
law references have been provided to the Medina City Attorney for review.
4. Council members suggested that maybe Public Works could go out and stake
out an intersection or two to show the Council the impact of the proposed criteria.
Public Works can still do this, however. one can very easily go to any of our
intersections, look left and right and judge about where the 150-200 ft. point
would be, then stand just behind the stop line (4 or 8 ft. behind the line) and very
quickly obtain a feel or sense of what would be required to provide the proposed
clear zone / sight triangle.
LL
0
co
Cl)
LLJ
ZH
ZD
�Z�
OZ
LLi
0co
LL'Q
LL
��
opo
�0
F-UF-
VN0S�
UWU
Yao
U.
UOZZ�o
W�
JLUJ
coU)
wW
z
a
0
0
0ors"'
LU
w
H.
=
UZU
LLB
O
J
Z
_
Q
Q
o
,
y R� � e •'iv. . � �. .eY
I
Ark
4
,
9 - I 40 vM
"
U-
0
z
00)
W
U)
w
LLIz
I--
LLI
z
LLI
LU
> LLI
0
Z
0 CL
z
w
0
z
Ocn
W
Wz
w
N
06
w
w0
0
>0
wa
Q
z
V •
w
Ua'
wa,
H
> LL
LL. w
0 --1
z w
Ow
U j
O U.
U
z0:
=uw:
0
z '
0
U)
Lf)
Cl)
UJ
z
zo
wzw
O
Z
LL
0
LLJ
<
W
:j
uj
U)
LJJ
0
p
0
LL
F-
F-
0
F-
L)
CL
:r
U
UwU
0
Oo
U.
LLJ
q.
od
LLJ
Cf)
LLI
(.5
z
z
c4
w
z
j
W
j
I
<
�-
<
.
'�e
U)
LLI
LLI
—
J
J
m
Cl)
C4
w
Z
0
UJ
0
006
LLI
F-
F-
LLI
iL
UzU
U.
0
co
k A
Z
m
Awt,
LL
O
V/
(
Vi
V J
LLJ
a
O
D
F-
O
_O
w
~
U
w
U
�
W
N°tSCDF_
wf/gw
N
Z
J
IXJ
�z
w
w
>O
OHO
F-
wa
UzU
z
a
-a
w
w
a Z
O==
CL
a
}
a:.
u
r'
10
�... Y
tI 4}
r
�
I
i
6
LL
0
Z
o
Z
LU
LU
0
<
0
Lu
0
0
LU
0 LIJ
UJ Z
06
LU
U)
0�
z
C)
Lu
M
�-
C.)
-i
0
w
c e
CY
0
wZ
>00 Lua.
UJ
-J
CL
CL
ui
IS
LL
z
0
C)
w
Wz
H
�—
oa
w
w
C�
>0
wa
Q
0
z
t �:a
t
�
z
2
Q
w
F
t
LL
l
j
LL
w
"1
O
J
"
a {
'Z
w
Ow
cn
w
O
LL
�
k
uj
i` x
w
F
�N
r
O
U)
0
cn
(D
06
F-
Cl)
z
0
UJ
Cl)
LU
.
0
z
LIJ
Lu
C.)
>
N
(1)
ULJ
Cl)
<
J
w
j
LU
LU
j
Lu00
z
�.
z0
I
N
I' A
Tf.
sk
w
lu
LE,
A
—
O�
r
N
Z
O
LWU
Z
L
U
oa
W
Cl)
W
Z
w
W
W
~
Z
Q
t�-
SIGHT DISTANCE AT INTERSECTIONS
(Examples from other Jurisdictions and Cities)
1. WSDOT Standards: The WSDOT standards for sight distance at urban area
intersections is based on a sight triangle calculated from an intersection set -back distance
and a sight line depending upon the speed of the passing traffic. The following diagram
and table come from the WSDOT Designs Manual. Sec. 910.10:
V -f—
—► -- V — -
- Sight line
Sight distance—
S��aht ��ne
—Sigh', distan
Design Speed
Si -lit Distai
mphl
(h)
no
SO
-;o
590
10
6U
1.150
?0
l,�lill
Sight Distance for Turning Vehicles
Figure 910-6
WSDOT calculates the location of the eye of the stopped driver to be 18 ft. back from the
road edge (10 ft. back from the edge of the road to the stop line. plus 8 ft. back from the
front of the vehicle to the location of the driver). Applyin,i the WSDOT standards to
Medina where the speed limits are t-,pically 25 MPII would require establishing a point
18 ft. back from the edge of the travel say and then cleariag, a sight triangle so oncoming
vehicles could be seen to the left and right for 100 ft.
> Comparison to proposed standards in draft Medina Tree ordinance: Significantil
more restrictive. Would require much more vegetation and sightlme obstructions to be
removed.
2. City of Mercer Island Standards: Mercer Island sight distance standards are found
in Section 19.10.090 of the Cite Code. The code calls for no tree plantings within a 30 ft.
sight triangle at any street intersection. The 30 ft. is measured from road wide or curb
edue back as shown in the following diagram:
4 30
A-
30'
L-
> Comparison to proposed standards in draft Medina Tree ordinance: More restrictive.
Would require more vegetation and sightline obstructions to be removed.
3. Cihv of Woodinville Standards: Woodinville sight distance standards are found in
Section 2 1. 12200 of the Woodinville CihCode. The code states that except for utility
poles. trunks of approved street trees, traffic control signs. the following sight distance
provisions shall apply to all intersections. roadways. and site access points: (1) A sight
distance triangle area shall contain no fence. berm_ vegetation. on -site vehicle parking
area. signs or other physical obstruction between 42 inches and 8 feet above the existing
street grade. (2) The sight distance triangle at a street intersection shall be determined by
measuring 15 feet along both street property lines beginning at their point of intersection.
The third side of the triangle shall be a line connecting the endpoints of the first two sides
of the triangle. The code goes on to state that modifications may be made to the above
code based on standards from the American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials (A-ASHTO), and exceptions to the rules may be granted by the
Public Works Director. "1'he following is a diagram taken from the Woodinville code:
NOTF.
an
tf:r c�:�,tine street era:1
,tIA- rcnln�r: epu=.
t
> Comparison to proposed standards in draft Medina Tree ordinance: May be more
restrictive. but would depend on the geometries of the intersection.
4. City of Lake Forest Park Standards: The Lake Forest Park code under LFPNIC
18.62.060 states: "Sight screening at all intersections between streets, between streets and
allevs. and between streets and driveways shall not obstruct sight within 15 feet of the
intersection. However.. a perimeter screen shall be required to a height of no more than
40 inches within the 15-foot setback from the intersection."
The bake Forest Park standards are essentiall} identical to IvVoodinville's above.
> Comparison to proposed standards in draft Medina Tree ordinance: May be more
restrictive. but would depend on the geometries of the intersection.
>. City of Clvde Hill Standards: The Clyde Hill code under CHMC 17.08.100 states
"On a corner lot nothing shall be erected. placed. planted or allowed to grow in such a
manner as materially to impede vision of drivers or pedestrians using the adjacent right-
of-way, as shown in Figure 1 below. The judgment of the public works director as to
whether vision is impeded shall be controlling and in not appealable under CHMC
17.72.060 or any other administrative procedure.
Corner Rule: A clear line of sight must be available to drivers within 85 feet of the center
of the intersection of two streets. On a corner lot nothing shall be erected. placed_ planted
or allowed to grow in such a manner as materially to impede v°ision of drivers or
pedestrians using the adjacent right-of-way shown in Figure I below.
> Comparison to proposed standards in draft Medina Tree ordinance: More restrictive.
Would likely require more vegetation and sightline obstructions to be removed. although
the corner impact of using a measurement of 85 ft. from the center of the street would be
dependent upon the actual width of the street in question.
Below is an older sketch used in Clyde Hill for fence standards which also shows the 8-5
ft. corner rule:
Y
14,
r
6. City of Bellevue Standards: The Bellevue code under BMC 20 20.b30 breaks down
the sight line setbacks based on type of intersection. For a "Minor Street Through Street
Intersection." (an intersection which has a controlled stop bN sign or flashing light on the
minor street and amber. green or no control on the major street). the sight -line setback is
defined as shown in the following figure where the set -back is 14 ft. and the distance
from the center of the intersection is dependent upon the posted speed of the major street
per the following table:
Posted Speed Limit Distance from Center of Intersection
40 MPH 410 Feet
35 MPH 360 Feet
30 MPH 300 Feet
25 MPH 250 Feet
F1yuro 1
SIGHT - LINE SETBACK
MINOR STREET / TFIROUGH STREET
FLOE (K TRr;vELLEJ LANE
NNJH Si REE:
CENTER OF
AFPNF�:;I. H IAE
,STANCE
I CENTER OF
I
��
nvPaou>r :ANE �-
.�
(USE OF (RAVELLED LANE
TA FEFi
fir
LEFT
I
FIGHT
J Cc TRSV�`
OF
'�JF
SMHi�IINf
� �
Sl:i'ti'LIVE
x.fih.^N
3E 10A(
1
II
UU SIDE E),E
OF NNDF ETWFT
TFAFFlC LANES'
a+ � MiNrD;; STREET
�G
L
0 PAPl1INU STRIPS CR LANFF DESIGNATES FOR
G FAHNNO ON_Y ARE OUTS;DE THIS RFFFRENCE -VIA
AND ARE NIT W UUED Vi -'.^E WA-' R 5 6FT
IN TRA FFI^ LAN=S.
N
The Bellevue code goes on to describe standards for several other tNpes of intersections.
The Bellevue code also states "Special Cases Resolved: Where unusual conditions
preclude the application of the forgoing provisions of this section in a reasonable manner,
or where special viewing problems exist, the City Engineer. City of Bellevue, will
determine unlawful intersection view obstruction. based on the intent of this section as
indicated in the foregoing subsections.'
> Comparison to proposed standards in draft Medina Tree ordinance: Significantly
more restrictive. Would require much more vegetation and sightline obstructions to be
removed.
7. Cihof Sumner Standards: The Sumner code. under SMC 18.48.040 states_ "At am
intersection of two street rights-of-wa% a triangular area within which no fence. shrub.
tree. ,gall or other phy sical obstruction shall be permitted higher than three (3) feet above
the established grade, as measured from the grade of the centerline of the adjacent street.
and shall extend 20 feet along both right-of-A_a- lines. measured from their point of
intersection.'
The Sumner code is verb- similar to the Mercer Island code except that the triangular clear
zone is measured from 20 ft. set -backs. not the 30 ft. set -backs as designated b} ` lercer
Island. The following diagram shows the clear zone as established by the Sumner code:
20 ►
A:-
!20
i
> Comparison to proposed standards in draft tlledina Tree ordinance: Clearly much
more restrictive. Would require much more vegetation and sightline obstructions to be
removed.
8. Cite of Marysville Standards: The Mansville code under MMC 19.12.190 states
that a sight distance triangle area shall contain no fence, berm. vegetation. on -site vehicle
parking, signs or other physical obstruction between 30 inches and 8 feet above the
existing street grade. The sight distance triangle shall be determined by measuring 1
feet along both street propem lines beginning at the point of intersection. The third side
of the triangle shall be connecting the endpoints of the first M-o sides of the triangle. The
code further states that the Planning Director ma} require modification or removal of
structures or landscaping located in required street setbacks, if such improvements
prevent adequate sight distance to drivers.
The following diagram shows the lvlarysville code standard:
> Comparison to proposed standards in draft Medina Tree ordinance: Appears to be
significantly more restrictive. Would require much more vegetation and sightline
obstructions to be removed.
9. Cih° of Pullman Standards: The Pullman code under PMC 17.35.020 states a vision
clearance area shall contain no structures, landscaping. or fence between the heights of
three (3) feet and eight (8) feet as measured at street grade. provided. however. that vision
clearance areas may contain street signs. traffic signs. utility poles and boxes. and
retaining walls. The fr(TUue associated with the Pullman code is shown below:
r -n
> Comparison to proposed standards in draft Medina Tree ordinance: SignificantIN
more restrictive due to the 45 ft. setback start of the triangie. Would require much more
vegetation and sightline obstructions to be removed
10. City of Bellingham Standards: The Bellingham code under BMC 13.52.1 10 states
"tion —
all accesses to arterial streets will have the minimum sight distances in each direc
minimum sight distance of 175 ft for a street design speed of 20 mph. 220 It for 25 mph:
265 ft for 30 mph: and 310 ft for 35 mph. For greater than 35 mph. the sight distance will
be determined by the Public Works Department measured in accordance with good
engineering practice.' There is no reference to the measured setback although one must
assume that the sight distances noted are from a vehicle location at the normal stop
location.
> Comparison to proposed standards in draft Medina Tree ordinance: Signifieantiv
more restrictive. Would require much more vegetation and sightline obstructions to be
removed.
11. City of Vancouver Standards: The Vancouver code under VMC 1 1.90.060 states:
"Sight Distance Triangles - All intersections: Public and private streets and driveways
which are controlled b) a stop sign at the location of an intersection with an uncontrolled
public street and driveways shall have minimum corner sight distances, as measured from
a height of 3.5 ft. above the controlled street_ or driveway, at least 15 ft. from the edge of
the uncontrolled public street to an object on the uncontrolled public street of 4 25 ft... in
accordance with the following table: Design speed (DS) 25 mph. 250 ft.: DS 30 mph,
300 ft.: DS 35 mph, 350 ft.: DS 40 mph, 400 ft.: and DS 45 mph, 450 ft."
> Comparison to proposed standards in draft Medina Tree ordinance: Sigmllcantl}
more restrictive. Would require much more vegetation and sightline obstructions to be
removed.
11, If desired, comparisons could be made to many other cities in Washington State.
Previously Drafted Laneuage for Code Addition
1228 220 Intersection Sight Distance Provisions
A. Trees and other vegetation planted by adjoining (adjacent) property
owners, either present owners or a previous owner, in the public right-of-way
at City street intersections shall be planted and maintained according to the
following height and spacing requirements to facilitate the safe flow of traffic:
1. No coniferous trees shall be planted within the sight triangle
(triangular zone) as shown in Figure 12.28.220.
2. Deciduous trees within the sight triangle (triangular zone) as
shown in Figure 12.28.220 shall be pruned and maintained to provide a
vertical clear -zone of thirty (30) inches to eighty (80) inches above the nearest
roadway surface.
3. Shrubs within the sight triangle (triangular zone) as shown
in Figure 12.28.220 shall not exceed thirty (30) inches in height above the
nearest roadway surface.
4. Commencing with the effective date of this ordinance, new
hedges which will grow to a height greater than thirty (30) inches shall not be
planted in the sight triangle (triangular zone) as noted in Figure 12.28.220.
5. Existing hedges in the sight triangle (triangular zone) as
noted in Figure 1.2.28.220 shall be trimmed to measure no greater than thirty
(30) inches from the surface of the nearest roadway to the top surface of the
hedge.
6. Trees, shrubs or hedges shall not be planted between the
street/road edge and any adjacent roadside drainage ditch or Swale.
7. If overgrown trees and vegetation are not trimmed, pruned, or
removed within fifteen (15) calendar days after notice from the City has been
received by the adjoining (adjacent) property owner, the City may perform the
required work at the expense of the adjoining (adjacent) property owner.
B. Trees and other vegetation located in the public right-of-way at
City street intersections which were not planted by the current or a previous
adjoining (adjacent) property owner shall be maintained by the City per the
height and spacing requirements as specified in para 12.28.220 A.
C. Measurements for the values of "X" and "I as noted in Figure
12.28.220 are dependent upon the t�-pe of City- intersection as follows:
1. For intersections where a Collector or Local Access Street
enters a Minor Arterial, or where two Collector streets intersect, the distance
"Y' will be two hundred (200) feet, and the distance "Y' will be eight (8) feet
back from either the stop line or the pedestrian crosswalk (whichever is
further back from the intersection).
2. For intersections where a Local Access street enters a Minor
Arterial or a Collector street, or where two Local Access streets intersect, the
distance "X" will be one hundred fifth- (150) feet, and the distance "Y' will be
four (4) feet back from either the stop line or the pedestrian crosswalk
(whichever is further back from the intersection).
X X
Street Centerline---�
perty Line I CI) Prope
m
m
CD
Triangular Zone Triangular Zone
r; CDI'I 'r
— fight-bf•waym
Existing or Proposed Deciduous `•. Existing or Proposed Deciduous Tree
0
or Coniferous Tree (Clear Zone shall be maintained
from 30" to 80'free from branches)
No Shrubs, Groundcover, or Vegetation
shall exceed a height of 30"
Figure 12.28.220
ITEM J - 4
/1 df MZol,
CITY OF MEDINA
City Manager's Office
501 Evergreen Point Road, Medina, WA 98039 425.454.9222
w%vw.rnedina-wa._qov
MEMORANDUM
DATE: February 20, 2004
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Doug Schulze, City Manager
RE: Request for Refund of Collection Fees
RECOMMENDATION: Reimbursement of fees paid to collection agency is not recommended.
POLICY IMPLICATION: Medina Municipal Code does not authorize the City Manager to refund fees
paid to a collection agency by holders of accounts referred to collection.
BACKGROUND: I have been contacted by a Medina resident with a request for
reimbursement of fees paid to a collection agency for collection services
provided to the City of Medina. After reviewing the account files and
Medina Municipal Code, I am not comfortable making this decision without
City Council authorization. Furthermore, I believe refunding the fees
constitutes a gift of public funds, which is prohibited by state law.
The resident applied for a variance in July 2001, which required payment of
an application fee in the amount of $1,300. At that time, $1,000 of the
application fee was dedicated toward the cost of the Hearing Examiner and
the remaining $300 was credited toward consultant charges. As of January
2002, the entire application fee is applied toward the cost of the Hearing
Examiner and administrative/staff costs. All consultant charges are billed in
addition to the application fee, which is consistent with City Council policy
for full cost recovery of development services.
The applicant was eventually billed an additional $921.94 in February
2002, for consultant charges associated with the variance application
review and public hearing, which resulted in a decision by the Hearing
Examiner to deny the variance. The applicant's agent sent a letter to the
City Council, dated October 10, 2001, which expressed a significant
amount of frustration and dissatisfaction. In addition, the agent requested
reconsideration of the variance request based on procedural issues and a
decision by the Hearing Examiner, which was five (5) days late. The
reconsideration was not granted by the Hearing Examiner.
In October 2002, the City Attorney was asked to assist with collection
action on eighteen (18) past due accounts. This particular account was one
of the eighteen past due accounts referred to the City Attorney at that time.
In February 2003, the property owner was sent a demand for payment and
notice of intent to proceed with collection activities. The property owner left
a voice message for the City Manager after receiving the notice, which
stated she had received the notice and refused to pay the charges. The
property owner threatened legal action and requested a meeting with the
City, which would include her legal counsel. The property owner's call was
returned and resulted in additional threats of legal action and refusal to pay
the charges.
This account was referred to AAAA, Inc. for collection on July 11, 2003.
The property owner contacted me on February 4, 2004, with a request for
a refund of $544.00, which was the fee paid to the collection agency for
their services in addition to the $921.94 owed to the City for consultant
charges. The property owner stated that he felt the refund was appropriate
because the City did not return a telephone call prior to placement of the
account with AAAA, Inc.
Arrangements have been made with a few of the property owners who
contacted the City to make payment arrangements after the accounts were
referred to AAAA, Inc. However, these arrangements were made before
the collection agency incurred expenses related to the collection process,
which allowed the City to pull the account without paying significant fees.
The subject account was paid in full to AAAA, Inc.
A voice message was left for the property owner on February 20, 2004,
stating that the City Manager did not have authority to approve the
requested refund, but the matter would be discussed with the City Council
during its March 8, 2004 meeting.
• Page 2
ITEM J — 4a
of MDf..
CITY OF MEDINA
City Attorney's Office
501 Evergreen Point Road, Medina, WA 98039
www.ci.medina.wa.us
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
March 2, 2004
TO:
Mayor and City Council
FROM:
Kirk Wines, City Attorney
RE:
Citizen Refund Claim/Gift of Public Funds
COMMENT:
I have been asked for an opinion whether returning all or any portion of the funds paid by Mr. and Mrs. Floyd for
consulting costs incurred in their request for reconsideration would constitute a gift of funds.
The Washington State Constitution, Article 8, Section 7 states:
"No county, city ... shall hereafter give any money, or property, or loan its money, or credit to or in the
aid of any individual... except for the necessary support of the poor and infirm,.....
A gift is a transfer of property without consideration. Louthan v. King County, 94 Wn. 2d 422, 617 P.2d 977
(1980).
A refund of fees paid by a citizen applying for a variance, or the forgiveness of all or any portion of the fees, would
constitute a gift of public funds unless the City receives something of actual value in return.
In the case before the Council, it does not appear that the City would receive anything of value from the applicants
unless they can prove that they have a valid claim against the City that exceeds the monies that the City would be
repaying or forgiving. To date, although the applicants' agent set forth numerous reasons why they were unhappy
with the decision, they did not appeal the decision and no evidence has been presented that they would be legally
entitled to a credit or refund from the City.
ITEM J-5
CITY OF MEDINA
City Manager's Office
501 Evergreen Point Road, Medina, WA 98039 425.454.9222
www.medina-wa-.90—V
MEMORANDUM
DATE: February 26, 2004
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Doug Schulze, City Manager
RE: 2004 Annual Retreat
RECOMMENDATION: Requested direction from the Council includes the following:
• Set date(s) for annual retreat
- Confirm facilitator
BACKGROUND: I have contacted several consultants who have hired by cities in
Washington to conduct retreats. Based on the discussions I have had with the consultants and city
managers, Dr. Michael Pendleton is the facilitator I recommend. Dr. Pendleton holds a Doctorate in
Philosophy in Organizational Psychology from the University of Washington. He has over 30 years of
experience in a wide range of organizational assessment and development projects in a diverse set of
organizational environments with a specialty in municipal government. In addition to his work as an
organizational — management consultant, Dr. Pendleton is a professor at the University of Washington in
the Society and Justice program.
Dr. Pendleton has served as a facilitator for Medina City Council retreats in 1998, 1999 and 2000. He is
familiar with the organization and the community. Dr. Pendleton is available for the following Friday
evening/Saturday combinations: April 23 — 24; May 7 — 8; May 14 — 15. The actual length of the retreat
does not need to be determined at this point, but will be discussed with the Council after the consultant
has had an opportunity to interview each member of the Council and management team individually.
Please bring your calendars to the March 8`h Council meeting or check these dates prior to the meeting so
the retreat can be scheduled. It is very important for each member of the City Council to attend the retreat.
ITEM J - 7
of M
CITY OF MEDINA
City Attorney's Office
501 Evergreen Point Road, Medina, WA 98039
vvww.ci.rnedina.wa-us
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
RE:
February 26, 2004
Mayor and Medina City Council
Kirk Wines, City Attorney
Weymouth Rezone Application
An application is scheduled for hearing on a request to rezone a parcel of property, which is located within
the Neighborhood Preservation District. This is the first rezone application to be heard since the Council
adopted Ordinances 758 and 762, which set forth procedures for considering rezones. These procedures are
all to be found in MMC 17.94.
The Council will be sitting in a semi -judicial capacity as the decision relates to a single piece of property,
rather than the rezone of a larger area. It will be necessary for the Mayor to ask the Council to indicate on the
record if: any Council Member has an interest in the property or an interest in the outcome of the rezone
petition; if any Council Member has received any communications concerning the rezone application; and if
any Council Member is not able to render a fair decision.
Because the decision is limited to evidence provided in the hearing before the Planning Commission, any
member of the Council who wishes may listen to the recording of the hearing before the Planning
Commission.
Unlike the recent request for a Historical Use Permit, the Council is not allowed to conduct a full public
hearing. Under Regulatory Reform, only one open record hearing is allowed for most land use applications,
specifically including rezones. This public hearing was already conducted before the Planning Commission.
The Council should allow public comment on the rezone request. This would not be testimony and those
wishing to comment would not be given an oath to tell the truth. The decision must be based upon the record
of the hearing before the Planning Commission, all comments received at the public meeting and the
Planning Commission's written report.
New evidence may only be admitted if it relates to the validity of the Planning Commission's decision and is
newly discovered evidence or if the Planning Commission improperly refused to accept or consider the
evidence.
In order to approve a rezone, the Council must find all of the following elements:
1. The proposed rezone is in the best interest of the residents of the City.
2. The rezone is appropriate because either conditions have changed significantly since the property
was zoned, making a rezone is within the public interest, or the rezone will correct an inappropriate zone
classification or boundary.
3 Th rz one is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
e e
4. The rezone is consistent with the provisions of MMC 17.94.
5. The rezone is consistent with the public health, safety and welfare.
A proposed resolution mirroring the recommendations of the planning Commission will be included in your
materials for the application.
The City Council may take any of the following actions:
1. Approve the application, with or without modifications.
2. Deny the application.
3. Send the application back to the Planning Commission if the Council finds that the record
compiled by the Planning Commission is incomplete or inadequate.
The following are supporting document included in this packet:
1. Resolution for the Reclassification of Zoning District — Weymouth Residence
2. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
3. Notice of Public Hearing On Application, City Council Meeting
4. Applicants "Rezone Application for Christopher Weymouth"
5. Neighbor Comments:
• Dick Hansen, letter dated February 3, 2004
• Beverly and Kirk Adams, letter dated February 12, 2004
• Anne Zubko, e-mail dated January 5, 2004
• David Gould, e-mail dated January 5, 2004
• Arthur Dietrich, e-mail dated January 3, 2004
6. Planning Report, dated January 29, 2004
7. Notice of Complete Application, Planning Commission Meeting
8. Applicant's "Rezone Request and Explanation" document
9. Neighborhood Character Preservation District map
10. Two maps of the property vicinity
11. 13 photographs of the property vicinity
0 Page 2
CITY OF MEDINA
RESOLUTION NO.
RECLASSIFICATION OF ZONING DISTRICT — WEYMOUTH RESIDENCE
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MEDINA RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Authority.
§ 17,94.010 Medina Municipal Code authorizes the City Council to review and approve
or deny an application for a reclassification of property from one land use zone to another
land use zone. § 17.94110 Medina Municipal Code establishes that the Medina City
Council will make the final decision based on the Planning Commission's
recommendation.
SECTION 2. Findings.
Based on the evidence presented to the Medina Planning Commission and the continents
made to the Planning Commission and the Counsel, the Medina City Council makes the
following findings:
(A) The proposed rezone is not in the best interest of the residents of the City. The
proposed rezone only benefits the subject property. It has no beneficial impacts on
surrounding property or the City as a whole. Increasing the height of strictures
allowed on the property would adversely impact at least one neighboring property.
(B) Conditions in the immediate vicinity of the subject have not changed since the NCPD
zoning was established for the area. There have been no changes in zoning or in
development patterns in the vicinity since the area was included in the NCPD zone.
(C) The rezone will not correct a zone boundary which was improper when the NCDP
zone was adopted. The previous owner of the property supported the zone change for
his property and the area. The NCDP was intended to and does include only
properties, including the subject property, where construction of residences higher
than 20 feet would interfere with views from other properties in the immediate
vicinity and detract from the historic patterns of development.
(D) The proposed rezone is neither consistent or in consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan. The Comprehensive Plan only provides for residential zoning in the area. It
does not recommend height limitations.
Resolution page I
(E) The proposed rezone is not consistent with the provisions of MMC Chapter 17.94 for
the reasons set forth above.
(F) The proposed rezone is not consistent with the public welfare. The proposed rezone
would adversely effect other properties by allowing development, which would be
inconsistent with the development allowed in the vicinity.
Any finding which is determined to be a conclusion is hereby adopted as such.
SECTION 3. Conclusions.
Based upon the foregoing findings, the Medina City Council makes the following
conclusions:
(A) The applicant has failed to establish that the proposed rezone meets the criteria
required for a change in zoning.
(B) The proposed rezone would not benefit the citizens in the immediate vicinity or be in
the best interest of the residents of the City.
(C) The subject property was not included in the NCPD zone in error. It was included
because it was part of a neighborhood in which all of the rezoned properties benefited
from the additional height restriction.
SECTION 4. Decision.
The City Council denies the rezone application for the Weymouth Residence based on
the above findings, conclusions, and Planning Commission's recommendation.
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON THIS DAY OF 12004.
SIGNED IN AUTHENTICATION OF ITS PASSAGE THIS DAY OF
.2004.
Mary Odermat, Mayor
Resolution page
Approved as to form:
Kirk R. Wines, City Attorney
Attest:
Randy Reed, City Clerk
Rc-sohurion P4YE 3
City of Medina
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON APPLICATION
Presiding Body .
Medina City Council
Permit Type(s) .
Rezone
Case No. .
2003-01
Applicant
. Ron Reed
Property Owner
. Chris Weymouth
Property Address
. 8711 Ridge Road
Request
. The applicant is requesting a rezone of the subject property from
Neighborhood Character Preservation District (NCPD) to R-16. The
primary difference between the provisions of each zone is that building
heights are restricted to 20 feet in the NCPD zone while they are
restricted to 25 feet in the R-16 zone. The rezone is requested in
conjunction with a proposal to make an addition to the existing residence
on this site.
Public Review
The Planning Commission has made a recommendation regarding this
case. A copy of the application, planning commission report and other
materials are on file in the City Clerk's office. Any interested party may
review the application and planning commission report. Interested
parties can provide oral comments during the public meeting. Those
comments may not raise new issues or information not contained in the
planning commission's record or written report except as provided in
MMC 17.94.100.
Process and Appeal
After consideration of the entire matter, the City Council shall make a
decision. Any party of record may appeal the City Council's decision.
Other Permits Required
Building permit
Notice Issued
. February 27. 2004
Hearing Date/Time . March 8, 2004 — 7:00 pm
Hearing Location . Medina City Hall, 501 Evergreen Point Road
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
February 3, 2004
CALL TO ORDER
VC Nelson called the meeting of the Medina Planning Commission to order at 7:04 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Commissioners present were Brog, Greenspoon, Lawrence, Lostrom, Nelson and Price. PC Jordan was absent.
Staff members present were City Attorney Wines, Planning Director Gellings, Engineering Consultant Bill Holladay
and Recording Secretary Caroll Wedlund.
APPOINTMENT OF CHAIR AND VICE -CHAIR
PC Lawrence moved, seconded by PC Brog, to appoint Mark Lostrom as Chair for 2004, and the vote was
unanimous. Chair Lostrom nominated PC Price as Vice -Chair. PC Price declined, and nominated Mark Nelson as
Vice -Chair, seconded by PC Lawrence, which unanimously carried.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Gellings announced Bellevue School District had confirmed Medina Elementary would be demolished and replaced
in the 2005-2006 academic year, with students temporarily housed in another school within the district. The Council
had requested the PC to hold a public hearing at their March meeting and to form a recommendation on revisions
to school regulations in Medina. He noted the school had already begun the public process with a community open
house on January 28, 2004, and a PTA meeting was planned as well. The Council had also returned the PC's side
yard setback recommendation with a directive to reanalyze their original proposal and to broaden the scope for
small lots. Gellings also noted the PC training session should be rescheduled with the Washington State Office of
Community Development. He was directed to determine the best training date via phone calls and e-mails.
MEETING MINUTES
PC Brog moved, seconded by PC Price, to approve the minutes of December 2, 2003, and the vote was
unanimous.
AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION
Audience members were invited to address any non -agenda items.
Anna Riley, 8729 NE 7th Street, voiced concern regarding the way the city calculated roof heights in Medina, as
such action resulted in unintended consequences. She indicated the calculation of roof heights was beginning to
degrade certain blocks and streets, and suggested allowing homeowners a 4/12 roof pitch, as the extra 2-1/2 feet
of height would be better for the neighborhood. Chair Lostrom indicated the PC was well aware of the situation and
this issue would probably come up again by the end of 2004. A straw poll was taken, and the PC unanimously felt
roof height was an issue they wished to reconsider. Gellings cautioned the PC had only six months prior forwarded
a request to the Council to analyze roof heights, which had met with Council denial. He was of the opinion the time
would come for discussion of this issue. PC Price requested a copy of PC Nelson's work on roof heights.
Gellings stated PC Lawrence had sent an e-mail requesting guidelines for PC review of mitigation plans. He
promised to work on changes for consistency of mitigation plan format to make PC review easier. Gellings
continued the whole idea of Ordinance No. 748, which overhauled the construction mitigation program, had been to
develop appropriate mitigation measures for each site.
Public Hearing -- Construction Mitigation Plan Level 2 Application No. C102303-0366 — Baghai — 8436 NE 71h
Street — Chair Lostrom opened the public hearing.
As architect for the Baghai project, Clynn Wilkinson, 1018 Market Street, Kirkland, stated the homeowners
wanted to demolish the existing structure and build a 5,500 Mediterranean -type home with a flat roof and
basement. He relayed 750 cubic yards of soil would be removed during the 16-month construction period. Further,
he planned to save all current trees on the parcel. He had already talked with neighbors on each side of the
property, in an effort to facilitate the process. Mr. Wilkinson noted none of the adjacent property owners shared any
access. His plan was for a screened fence around the construction material and once the home was substantially
framed, everything else would be stored in the garage. He had notified all subcontractors they must carpool. The
framing subcontractor picked up his employees. The site had a capacity for parking six'/a ton trucks with extended
cabs. Further, a company representative would be on site most of the time, 6-8 hours a day. An on -premises sign
would display the contact person's telephone number, post work hours and detail parking requirements. Further,
contractors and subs must sign a contract. Mr. Wilkinson assured the PC no vehicles or machines would be left
running without a purpose. However, concrete -pumping trucks must idle. Mr. Wilkinson assured the PC all dump
Pg. 2
Planning Commission Minutes
February 3, 2004
trucks as well as concrete -pumping trucks would use 861h Avenue NE, and all subs had been given a route map to
that effect. He promised a ten -foot wall on one side of the home, and noted the subs had also been given
information regarding park and ride lots with instructions to carpool.
Holladay noted the only available right-of-way parking in Medina was on NE 12`h Street. There had been instances
where contractors had parked at the park and ride lot at the north end of Evergreen Point Road. He reminded the
PC the applicant must sign Medina's Construction Code of Conduct. He also introduced Tim Tobin, from Roth Hill,
who would be assisting Medina with engineering concerns. Holladay emphasized the PC needed to decide what
supplementary measures should be added to ensure parking requirements would be met. He suggested the on -site
sign state, "No parking off construction property". Mr. Wilkinson promised a certified flagger would be utilized for
water and sewer installation, and other times as needed. He also relayed weekly meetings would be held with
neighbors and subs. Any sub who did not follow the rules would be fined and terminated.
Susan Potts, 8443 NE 6th Street, inquired about public parking along NE 101h Street. Holladay indicated no public
parking was permitted on NE 101h Street, and construction vehicles were only allowed on the construction site, per
Medina Code. However, they could park on NE 12`h Street adjacent to the golf course. PC Brog suggested Mr.
Wilkinson check with local churches for parking alternatives. PC Lawrence recommended the number of parking
spots be part of the mitigation plan. Mr. Wilkinson voiced confidence with compliance, based on signage, verbal
instructions, signing the contract and a monetary penalty or possible termination for those who did not comply. He
suggested the on -site vehicles could be pared down to four if there was a concern. He added the sub schedules
would be coordinated to ensure there was no parking congestion. Chair Lostrom cautioned each worker needed to
know where available parking was located in Medina. Holladay voiced concern about the amount of workers, the
number of parking stalls on site and the quantity of vehicles allowed on the premises. VC Nelson suggested an
alternate parking location be designated as part of the mitigation plan, with proof submitted to the city.
Paul Pinard, 8446 NE 7`h Street, stated the on -site condenser would be located next to his sleeping area. Mr.
Wilkinson stated the owners were still deciding whether or not to install air conditioning. Gellings noted an air
conditioning unit could be placed there as long as it was ten feet from the property line. Holladay added there were
maximum decibel levels for a condenser. Mr. Wilkinson emphasized he would work with the neighbors on this.
As the neighbor on the other side, Russ Hoesfall, 8430 NE 71h Street, was concerned about the architect having
control over his contractors, as he had heard stories of 6:00 a.m. deliveries. Mr. Wilkinson stated the on -premises
sign would show the work hours as part of the mitigation plan. With the exception of demolition debris, a dump
trailer would haul away refuse. His plan was to recycle the demolition wood. However, he had no control over waste
management. Chair Lostrom stated the city should be notified if there were any violations. Mr. Hoesfall asked about
the barrier fence. Holladay replied most fences were plywood to deaden the construction sounds and to allow
privacy. The fence would be constructed prior to demolition and taken down upon project completion. However, if
Mr. Hoesfall did not want a barrier fence, the city should have a letter to that effect on file. Mr. Wilkinson promised
Mr. Hoesfall he was willing to do whatever was needed.
Holladay delivered the engineering staff report, noting 48 percent of the gross lot area would become impervious
surface. He also thought the on -site parking would be difficult to accomplish. However, the applicant was taking
what measures he could to meet this requirement. Holladay noted muffled equipment would be required on site.
The two staff issues were construction time and implementation of on -site parking. He noted a six-month extension
could be granted beyond the 18-month city -imposed construction period, for a total of 24 months. Holladay also
relayed the requirement for monthly meetings with adjacent neighbors. If construction could not be completed
within the allotted time, the neighbors should be informed. He recommended approval with the additional
requirements of construction mitigation for on -site parking, on -site display of work hours and addressing the issue
of a portable toilet with screening or a fence.
Commissioners asked clarification questions of both Holladay and the applicant. They also discussed the adequacy
of the proposed mitigation measures. Chair Lostrom requested the applicant to use the truck traffic route of NE 24"i,
to 841h Avenue NE and then to the job site, rather than the one proposed by Mr. Wilkinson. VC Nelson moved to
approve Construction Mitigation Plan Level 2 Application No. C102303-0366 — Baghai — 8436 NE 7th Street as set
forth by staff, modified by PC Lawrence to include evidence of investigation for private reserved parking overflow as
a backup for carpool parking. PC Greenspoon seconded the motion as amended, which carried unanimously.
Public Hearing -- Construction Mitigation Plan Level 2 Application No. C120403-0410 — Cirillo — 1257
Evergreen Point Road -- On behalf of the applicant, Jeff Adberg, 2925 Fuhrman Avenue East, Sullivan Conard
Architects, Seattle, announced he had contracted with St. Thomas Church for parking. He noted the proposed
Pg. 3
Planning Commission Minutes
February 3, 2004
development included demolishing the existing residence and constructing a 9,000 square foot replacement home.
The houses to the north were not close and the vegetation and distance provided adequate noise and visual
buffers. A temporary 10-foot sound wall between the 1255 Evergreen Point Road residence and the south end of
the Cirillo home was proposed to mitigate visual and noise impacts with the closest neighboring residence. He
indicated temporary construction fencing was planned to reduce visual impacts to the other neighboring houses to
the east and southeast.
Builder Burt Lockhart, 16010 — 701h Avenue North, Fulks Inc., Edmonds, stated he had a fairly detailed
mitigation plan for the Cirillo residence, including a shuttle from the reserved parking area to the site. Further, the
site had almost a built in turn -around, with the luxury of two potential accesses. There was also ample room for
construction equipment. He indicated truck coordination would be accomplished with radio control from the site to
the drivers. The building footprint would also follow the existing grade.
Patricia Wangsness, 1312 Evergreen Point Road, emphasized she had suffered through construction at 1247
Evergreen Point Road, which would not be completed for another six to eight months. She noted the workers
arrived at 6:05 a.m. and parked on Evergreen Point Road. Further, she had to speak to them about offensive
language. Ms. Wangsness had questions regarding the start date of construction for this project and its duration.
Holladay referred to Medina's Construction Code of Conduct that prescribed the work hours. He promised to speak
with Interim Police Chief Chen at the next staff meeting to discuss parking, noting the PD had profusely written
tickets in the past for the same violation. However, the Building Official was the only person who could issue a stop
work order. Chair Lostrom relayed the PC had wanted some consequences in the ordinance for violation of the
mitigation plan, but it did not survive the process.
Mr. Lockhart voiced his appreciation of Ms. Wangsness' concerns. He assured her a full time superintendent
would be on the job every day, who would introduce himself to her and all the neighbors and provide them with
multiple phone numbers. He promised to be a responsive builder who would work with people if a problem arose.
Mr. Lockhart concluded the start date would depend upon when the building permit was granted.
Holladay gave a staff report, noting this second submittal of the mitigation plan satisfactorily addressed the issues
that had been raised during the first review, and now complied with the Municipal Code. The first version, submitted
on December 4, 2003, had been reviewed by staff and consultants, and returned for additional information. He
relayed 18 percent of the site would be covered by impervious surface. Access to this parcel was via a narrow
private paved lane off of Evergreen Point Road, which was shared by seven homes. Access to the private beach
area was via a steep narrow paved lane (Winter Beach Road) along the north and west sides of the Cirillo property.
Further, the lot included steep slopes, and a steep slope variance had been granted on August 21, 2003. Site -
specific mitigation issues included closing the Winter Beach Road access drive for storm drain installation. He
recommended approval, with Ms. Wangsness being added to the mitigation contact list.
Holladay referred to the two letters from nearby residents that had been distributed to PC members during tonight's
meeting. The January 2, 2004 letter from resident George Reynolds expressed concern that the temporary sound
wall should be as attractive as possible on his side of it, and would be removed upon construction conclusion. He
was also worried about traffic, and wanted the prohibition on truck queuing to include the private lane on which the
Cirillo property and his residence were located. Mr. Reynolds also wanted a bond posted to ensure restoration of
any damage created on the private lane. Holladay noted that was a civil issue. Mr. Reynolds had also asked that
the applicant define "time critical activity" for Saturday construction hours, so that such actual occurrences were
infrequent. Holladay noted Mr. Reynolds would receive update letters and would be invited to information meetings.
Holladay turned to coordination between the Swanson construction wrap-up and the beginning of the Cirillo job,
noting the Swansons were proposing to widen the entrance to the private lane at Evergreen Point Road, making it
safer. Mr. Lockhart agreed to discuss all issues raised in Mr. Reynolds' letter with him. Holladay also referred to a
letter from resident James McGraw, who owned four parcels next to the Cirillo property. To allay Mr. McGraw's
concerns, Holladay suggested a reminder sign be erected where the lane met Evergreen Point Road indicating "No
construction access" to NE 141h Place. He also promised to have an article regarding construction hours inserted in
the Medina Newsletter. PC Lawrence requested that police officers drive by to see if construction workers were on
the job site at 6:00 a.m. Holladay promised to discuss this with MPD. Mr. Lockhart indicated his crew generally
arrived at 6A5 a.m., but did not begin work before 7:00 a.m. Chair Lostrom promised to clarify this as part of the
newsletter article. As a neighbor of the proposed Cirillo construction site, VC Nelson asked the owner, the architect
and the builder to be cognizant that neighbors on the private lane and adjacent residents had been living with
constant construction. Mr. Lockhart promised to document the exact condition of the private lane before start of
construction. Any damage done by his workers would be repaired. He would also address any damage done by
Pg. 4
Planning Commission Minutes
February 3, 2004
other contractors. Chair Lostrom summarized the conditions for approval as inclusion of Ms. Wangsness in the
mitigation contact list, erection of a sign where the lane met Evergreen Point Road indicating "No construction
access" to NE 14th Place, and prior to start of construction, to contact neighbor Mr. Reynolds and discuss the
appearance of the temporary sound wall. VC Nelson moved to approve Construction Mitigation Plan Level 2
Application No. C120403-0410 — Cirillo — 1257 Evergreen Point Road, subject to the conditions summarized by
Chair Lostrom, seconded by PC Lawrence, and the vote was unanimous.
A recess was taken at 9:27 p.m. and the public hearing resumed at 9:34 p.m.
Public Hearing -- Rezone Application No. 2003-01 — Weymouth — 8711 Ridge Road — Chair Lostrom inquired
whether any PC members had any conflicts of interest. The only PC member who voiced a potential conflict was
VC Nelson, who had done some consulting work for Mr. Josefsberg. Chair Lostrom asked if anyone in the
audience felt VC Nelson could not be impartial, and no one spoke.
Ron Reed, Reed Architects, 16218 Vashon Highway SW, Vashon Island, stated he represented applicant Chris
Weymouth at 8711 Ridge Road, which was located on the southeast corner of the Medina Heights Neighborhood
Character Preservation District (NCPD). He was requesting a rezone of this property from NCPD to R-16. Mr. Reed
noted the site was unique within this zone. His goal was to show the property had been arbitrarily chosen to be
within the NCPD zone; therefore, a rezone was the only recourse. He pointed out that all of the adjacent lots were
at the same or lower elevation as the applicant's lot, and their views would not be impacted by the height of a home
on the Weymouth property. This parcel had a view to the west, but focused to the south. Further, it had the least
slope of all properties within the NCPD. He had designed a home that would not remove the trees on the lot.
Arne Josefsberg, 8620 NE 7th Street, stated he had lived in Medina Heights for eight years, and for the past two
years had been looking for new property in Medina Heights. He had purchased a two -lot parcel on the corner of
Ridge Road and Upland Road, and a 20-25 foot high house would impact his view. Mr. Josefsberg emphasized Mr.
Weymouth had purchased the lot in question knowing it had a height restriction. Gellings noted there was no more
than a six-foot change between the two lots.
Dick Hansen, 443 — 861h Avenue NE, distributed a letter dated February 3, 2004, with an attached History of
Zoning Changes in Medina Heights. He urged PC members to read the final paragraph in his letter, and the last
paragraph of the History, so they would understand the enormity of effort that had gone into establishing some
control over homes that overpowered the lots on which they sat or destroyed views in the neighborhood. Mr.
Hansen requested the PC to reject the Weymouth rezone application.
Beverly Jacobson -Adams, 8457 Midland Road, emphasized the applicant knew the height restrictions when he
purchased the property. She urged the PC to preserve the NCPD and allow Mr. Weymouth to build to 20 feet and
enjoy the view.
Martha Woodman, 401 Upland Road, felt the same way as others who had spoken regarding this application. She
did not think granting a rezone was the correct decision to make.
Susan Potts, 8443 NE 6th Street, agreed with Mr. Hansen, and emphasized granting a rezone would create
precedence. She suggested if the rules were to be changed, such action should be done altogether, rather than
piecemeal.
Property owner Chris Weymouth stressed granting this rezone would not impact anyone. As a developer, he had
paid a lot of money to purchase this corner lot. He could have removed the five trees but did not wish to do so. He
stated the main reason for wanting to build to 25 feet high was the trees.
Ron Reed distributed a schematic drawing that showed what Methune Associates were trying to preserve with the
view. He pointed out how large the fir trees were, noting there was no view along the eastern point due to blockage
by evergreen trees. Mr. Reed noted because there was so little height difference between the home on the other
side of Ridge Road and the applicant's house, even at a 20 feet height, that home did not have a view. The
Weymouth property had been purchased to keep the view to the city of Seattle.
Arne Josefsberg invited anyone to visit his double lot parcel to see the view, noting he had purchased that
property for a whole view, rather than a partial one.
Pg. 5
Planning Commission Minutes
February 3, 2004
Gellings gave background information and stated he had received a total of eight letters in the last few days,
including the ones from Peter and Martha Woodman and from Dick Hansen. Several people in the Council
chambers had been involved in shaping the Medina Heights NCPD ordinance passed in 1997. He emphasized it
was very clear the objective had been to protect views on the southwest -facing portion of the slope. Those involved
in the effort had done a pretty good job of delineating the slope, with the exception of the subject parcel. Gellings
went through each of the criteria for standards of review and recommended approval. He clarified the reason for
denying the variance request for this parcel in 2003 was because variance criteria were different, and he did not
think they had been met. However, this was a rezone application. Further, a number of the neighbors had
conceded a 25-foot house would not block views. Gellings did not think it would set a precedent to grant this
rezone, noting the decision criteria spoke to review of the individual circumstances in a rezone application. He
stated this was the only public hearing allowed for the Weymouth rezone application.
PC Brog indicated he had gone into the vacant house on Mr. Josefsberg's property, and did not feel a five-foot roof
height difference would impact that view. He also inquired when the original preservation zone had been created,
whether the person who owned the parcel at the time had agreed to be included, and Gellings responded the
original owner felt the property should be part of the NCPD.
Ron Reed emphasized the issue was whether the property faced the northern or the western view. Chair Lostrom
stated the history of this ordinance was there were views from parcels in Medina Heights. Further, the original
restriction was view in a generic sense rather than a western view. Following discussion regarding the merits of the
rezone request, PC Lawrence moved, seconded by VC Nelson, to recommend denial of Rezone Application No.
2003-01 — Weymouth — 8711 Ridge Road, which carried unanimously. The reasons for recommending denial were
the PC did not think there was justification for a rezone, and inclusion in the NCPD in the first place had been a
correct decision.
Meeting Time Limit — Chair Lostrom stated in the future, PC meetings would conclude at 10:00 p.m. Discussion
items could be the last on the agenda and could be bumped to the next meeting if the PC ran out of time. PCs
Price, Greenspoon and Lawrence were in agreement with a 10:00 p.m. cut off for PC meetings.
PC Lawrence moved, seconded by VC Price, to adjourn at 10:52 p.m., and the motion carried unanimously.
Caroll P. Wedlund
Recording Secretary
J. RICHARD ARAMBURLT
JEFFREY M. EUSTIS
Attorney-; at Law
505 Madison Street, Suite 209
Seattle, Weshin6ton 98104
(206) 625-9515 Fax: (206' 082-1376
March 2, 2004
Medina City Council
501 Evergreen Point Road
Medina WA 98039
Re: Rezone Application for Christopher Weymouth
Dear Council Members:
Christopher Weymouth has retained this office to assist in his application
for a rezone of his property from the Neighborhood Character Preservation
District (NCPD) to R-16. The requested rezone is necessary to correct an
inappropriate zoning boundary. We urge your approval of his application.
Mr. Weymouth's property is located at 8711 Ridge Road, which is at the
south comer of the intersection of Ridge Road and Upland Road. It lies on the
edge of the NCPD zone and straddles a southward trending ridge that extends to
Groat Point. The location of his property with respect to the NCPD zone and the
ridge is shown on the accompanying map.
Under the Medina Municipal Code (MMC) Section 17.94.100(C)(1) a
rezone may be approved upon satisfaction of the following conditions:
a. The proposed rezone is in the best interests of the residents of the
city;
b. The proposed rezone is appropriate to either address a significant
change in circumstances or to "correct a zone classification or zone
boundary that was inappropriate when established;"
C. The rezone is consistent with the comprehensive plan;
d. It is consistent with all other applicable provisions of Chapter 17.94;
and
March 2, 2004
Page 3
Moreover, the Josefberg property lies within the R-16 zone and is not limited nor
protected by the NCPD zone.
The prior owner of the Weymouth property, Earl Johnson, was among the
petitioners for the NCPD zone. Apparently, he favored the zoning district to
protect the view of his own property. However, inclusion of his property within
the zone was inappropriate since the 20-foot height limitation placed upon that
property would benefit no other properties within the zone. The requested
rezone would correct its earlier, inappropriate inclusion.
Third, the requested rezone would be consistent with the
comprehensive plan. The Comprehensive Plan does not separately address
the NCPD district or its height limitations. The redesignation of the Weymouth
property to R-16 would advance the consistent treatment of single family
properties within this area.
Fourth, the requested rezone is consistent with the applicable
provisions of Ch. 17.94. Approval of the requested rezone would fully comply
with rezone criteria.
And fifth, approval of the rezone would promote the public health,
safety and welfare. The Weymouth property has characteristics of the bordering
R-16 property and does not have the topographic conditions that served as the
basis for the NCPD zone.
Contrary to the thorough and well reasoned staff report, the Planning
Commission action appears to have been based upon a misunderstanding of the
underlying facts. Since there really is no recommendation, the Planning
Commission's reasoning must be determined from its deliberations. The
Planning Commission seems to have based its action upon three grounds: the
claimed existence of a topographic difference between the Weymouth and R-16
properties to the east; a claim of insufficient evidence; and need to preserve the
NCPD zone. None of these reasons are well founded.
First,, the existence or non-existence of a topographic difference between
the Weymouth property and other properties in the R-16 zone is immaterial since
the NCPD zone was established for purposes of view protection. Naturally there
are topographic differences among properties within the NCPD zone, just as
there are between properties within the NCPD zone and those within the
adjacent R-16 zone. But a topographic difference is not the determinative
appropriate for the City Council to engage in its own fact-finding, since the Planning
Commission did not prepare or distribute a written recommendation that meets the
requirements of MMC 17.94 100(E). Even the minutes of the Planning Commission
hearing were not available until less than a week before the City Council meeting.
March 2, 2004
Page 2
e. It is consistent with public health, safety and welfare.
As is well documented in the Planning Director's report to you, each of these five
requirements is fully satisfied.
First, approval of the proposed rezone lies in the best interests of the
residents of the city. Generally, a zoning code, like other regulations, should
be enacted and enforced for the public at large and not for the special benefit or
protection of particular individuals. See MMC 17.08.020. The NCPD is
somewhat unique in that its enactment came about as a result of a petitioning
effort by property owners within the NCPD who desired its protections. Those
petitioning for this special zone all owned westerly facing property lying up slope
of Overtake Drive and 84" Avenue Northeast, that is, except for the former owner
of Chris Weymouth's property. What is different about the Weymouth property is
that it does not lie on the westerly facing slope, but instead lies at the top of a
ridge line that runs down this peninsula of land to Groat Point.
The NCPD designation on the Weymouth does not serve either the
general public or other property owners within the NCPD district. Due to its
location at the top of the ridge line, there are no other NCPD properties up slope
from the Weymouth property whose views could be blocked by its development.
The strict,!20-foot height limit of the NCPD zoning does not serve the interests of
other similarly zoned property and therefore represents an unnecessary
reduction of Mr. Weymouth's development rights.
Second, the rezone is necessary to correct a zoning classification
that was not appropriate when established. The NCPD boundary was
voluntarily imposed by property owners within the district as a means of
preserving, views to the west. See Ordinance 624, establishing the NCPD zone.
All properties within this district, except for the Weymouth property, lie on the
westerly facing slope By contrast, the Weymouth property sits at the top of a
southerly trending ridge. Due to its location, development on this property
cannot block the westerly views of any other properties.
The property across Ridge Road to the east of the Weymouth property
lies on the easterly side of the ridge and has a principal view of Meydenbauer
Bay. Across the Weymouth property, this property (also known as the Josefberg
property) has no view of the Lake, the Seattle skyline or another significant
features. This is shown on the photographs that accompany this letter.'
'These photographs are submitted to supplement the record, as allowed under
MMC 17.94110(C)(1)(allowing for the consideration of additional evidence relating to
the validity of the Planning Commission's recommendation). Deliberations before the
Planning Commission show that it incorrectly assumed that a rezone of the Weymouth
property would adversely arf--ct the view from the Josefberg property. Additionally, it is
March 2, 2004
Page 4
criterion for the designation of the NCPD zone; view protection is. The attached
photographs demonstrate that the rezone of the Weymouth property to R-16 will
not impact views from the adjacent R-16 property to the east.'
Second, approval of the rezone is supported by substantial evidence. The
topographic map clearly demonstrates the Weymouth property to straddle the
ridge and to impact no other NCPD properties, or for that matter, any properties
within the adjacent, R-16 zone,
And third, a rezone of the Weymouth property does not in any way
undercut the purposes of the zone. The additional five feet height that would
result from the rezone impacts in no way other NCPD properties, or for that
matter any properties at all.
In conclusion, the objectives of the NCPD zone are not advanced by its
application to the Weymouth property, The rezone corrects an inappropriate
inclusion of this property within the zone and should be gran
S cerely y urs,
J /r)Eustis
JME/py
cc: Christopher Weymouth
Joseph Cellings, Planning Director
2These photographs also show cutting of trees within City right-of-way adjacent
to the Josefberg property. Just before the Planning Commission hearing, Portugess
Laurel trees lying within the City right-of-way of Ridge and Upland Roads were cut at
approximately six feet above the ground. No tree trimming permit was issued for this
work, as required under MMC 12.28.140. By no means were these plants mere shrubs.
They were far in excess of six inches in diameter and were approximately 20 feet in
height. A rtugese Laurel is capable of growing welt in excess of 20 feet. They
appear to nave been cut for purposes of view enhancement.
The Reed Architects
16218 Vashon Highway SW
Vashon, WA 98070-4.104
Medina City Council
501 Lvergrcen Point Road
Medina, WA 98039
Re: Rezone Application for Chris Weymouth, 8711 Ridge Road.
Dear Council Members:
A rezone application allows for additional material that augments evidence that
was presented at the Planning Commission Public Meeting. In accordance with
that I have included additional photographs that better illustrate the present site
situation and the proposed project on that site.
I he fact that the planning corrunission was swayed by verbal testimony and
concluded from that testimony that "at least one other property" was impacted
by the proposed rezone makes it necessary to continue my fundamental
argument. There are no views across the Weymouth property that will be
affected by the proposed rezone. The enclosed photographs indicate that
evidence. The "impacted property" (Josefberg property) does not have a view
that governs the NCPD criteria or any other Medina view ordinance.
I lie enclosed photographs include:
1. Taken from the vantage of 5'6" above the main floor level of the existing
residence on the Josefberg property looking west in panorama, it includes
the existing view to the west around to the Southeast across the
Weymouth property. It includes delineation of the existing Weymouth
residence, the existing 20' NCPD height limit and the proposed R-16
height limit. It is an accurate depiction of the conditions governing this
site and zone. The view of the Seattle skyline can be seen to the right in
the distance. It includes the far shoreline delineation of Lake Washington.
It is ease to see the, even if there was a view across the property, the bulk
of the presently allowed 20' height limit would effectively block any
possible view in that direction. There is no difference bet" Teen the 20' and
the proposed 25' height limit when it comes to anv view. The fact that
even with the existing home there is no view and it is much lower than the
allowed 20'.
2. The photographic montage of the proposed project is included to evidence
the conformance to a 23' height limit and its effect on any property. It is
consistent with the above argument.
3. 'This photograph shows the view to the east and southeast from eye level
at the Josefberg property. It is obvious that the topography and view
orientation of this property are to the east-southeast and not to the west.
It reinforces the argument that there is no significant view of anything
across the Weymouth property.
In your deliberation of this rezone application I ask that you seriously question
of the conclusions of the Planning Commission, which went against the well
founded planning staff findings. The evidence is clear. The site is well depicted
through the additional clarifying photographic evidence. If you visit the site
prior to making your decision you will find the same conclusion that I, the
Medina planning staff, and the Josefberg contracted architect have found. There
is no view across the Weymouth property; hence no impact to any property
occurs by granting the rezone. By granting the rezone you will correct the error
of the property ever being included in the NCPD.
Thank you for vour effort and serious consideration of the proposal.
Sincemly,
Ronald B. Reed
The Reed Architects
r.
IF
Aft
i5 5:
16
k,
Ot
.MU drna
Inbinar% 3, 20(14
Medina Plannine Commission
501 Evergreen Point Road
Medina. TVA 98039
Membcrs of the Commission:
We have three thirty foot tall houses on the South horder of oulot and another on our North side.
Houses to the East and West are normal at about 22 feet each. 1 all houses arc not eood. Not onh do
the,, take away sunshine in the winter causing serious moss prohlcnts. but also mden they are dose
by, we feel as if we re in a city rather than in a nice suhurhan tom -a moll free li_ht and air_
.Attached to this letter is a thumbnail historn of f,ledina 1Ie i<thts and the heir hts of houses there in
For nosy please read the last paragraph. It m ill give you some idea ofthe enormous effon that hae
gone into the effort to preserve a part of N1edina_ There is no r_ason Aates-er to undo the cork that
has been done by d or 5 different City Councils and ; or more Tannin; Conunisskms. Pift, or more
citizens worked on committees over a ten"nar period, our first vote m,ts 19I to and our last , ,r,ti bps
to 2 in favor.
TV c Knou our present Planning Director approved Re -Zone Ca, \(,. -oo?_i but r,rnemhcr that ;t
one of his predecessors didn't. and he was there at the time. In additiow our xariance cnminittee
rejected this matter and that should he the end of it.
Please reject this application.
Z4
Dick Ilanser.
1-11SlORY OF ZOti'ING CHANGES IN MEDI,,,A - IG1fTS
n September 108d the Medina Cite Council _Gordon trifle>_ A]avor appointed a comniittr No swct. anJ
male realmmendetions to revise Ndcdina � Cuninrehensne Pian and related ronin< ordinance,.
.tune 198�, after seven or more meetines the committee reporter to the Council and the nuhhc in a
meetin_ at the Church. We quote from page n olthat repot.:
"During the committees deliberation,, a number of issues v+ere raised amcernmss the kledintt
I leiehts area v%hicl: indicated the need tier a comprehensi%e rev iew of City plans anu regulation,
+hicn impact this unique neighborhood. -i hese l;sues include
--Potential view blocka"e through redevelopment or expansion ol'e.eistine homes to two floors:
--the relationship hettieel' topography and view preservation_
--street design standards: and
problems which will an e it the area's smaller lots �trc deae owed tip their gull densit%
The Committee recommends the appointment o? an advisor of 8-10 Medina Heir nts msiderns to worf,
tiith the Planning Commission and Planning Consultant over the next 4-0 Months to prepare specific
recommendations for this area of Medina. The attached map ( Attachment -A- ) shows the su«Lested
planning area' The Nltvor asked if any ICL resident would work on such a committee and about 1
fined up.
Un vov tuber '6. 1tnc Medusa IIei1_h1s Stud- Conrminec teas att, mak pre. t .a.r�:r; to the
Planning Commrttec. Ilfty three resident si_�natures accompanied our report but no reply came December,
kanuur\ and iebCnar_ paSs'cd Vithoul ac:knoly led4 ment tnat a ttplV wm aS (orthcotrl« _
n a»pe tl was' made a� h Cih C vuncil jl a Kind. Al ivorl and on y1ar it ! U the itizai's amunittee vca',
❑1C Ce 3SCCl 10 [n�rteen F61i1' CUWl:Ilrian iioAl'lid hc.aflQtl. Plamlm" C. ��m n��SS!One!LSoil find Plamtlmu
Consultant Rob Burke. Alayor Te,i Kill- otlere.l the services ui the Citv 1tto:ncy and the Citc
�'v(anaacr if. needed.
Chen .vv� committee met three times, reduced the study r;a somcvv hat and canvassed ? 10 houses obtaining_
�) I srgnatures for our proposal and oppos d_ Discour tine dupheate signa�ure, ut sonte homes shuv+ n
n t 40 homes n savor (66.6O ys. i.4P)n oppo,ecl. I =,, re portviceut to Citf i='our.cii April 14 onh to he
relerred to the Flannin,I Commission vvho scheduled a public 11 aline Alas-.1086. Che principal item op
our survey was to reduce the height of houses b% tc❑ feet, from the current 30-;ti feet to ?0-?6 fcet..Afrer
he June 2 Planning Commission meeting thc� recommended to Cite Council that all R-16 zones be
changed to 2'8-�4 feet_ `
Eventutlly, sometime after September 1986. the City Council chtn_ed height limits ir, all R-I6 zones to
fret me-Isured ttom the iovvcst point oforiuij) d urade at +hick the buildin footprint hit the ��round. Three
I iecannlendations flop.) the Citizens committee were never addressed.
%larch 1994--We were to learn tflat the Cit., Council (Kay Cory. Ala\orl changed the method of measurinu
height Ofhouses in R-16 to lovaest point to finished Lrade. Several members ofthe community objected and eventuatly the council reversed this error. Meanwililc a eery large house vvas built that stands about 10 feet
hi<Lher in the air than it would have been had this chance had not heen made.
1pr11-(•lay 19Q6 Wb- were jolted into action by a ne" house being )wilt un Rid, e Kuad ��'est otthc hums of
one of our committee members. The flew house absolutck obliterated the wes2rn exposure of our
nlenrbc's home 1i'e re(brm d a committee a, the lledma Preservation Committee (Later to be called
"hledir a 9'ieyv Slope \ei f b�rhood Council) ur y1� S. .fin an a cuntainin� ' 10 )louses vvas selected. This
was later reduced to 94 homes_ A mailine campaign Melded 6h po;hive- responses and -, nentivc with 2:
no response At he direction of City Cotmcil. the cite planner with Iwo of our committee redreti our
hotindan to exclude about half the homes led%inL, m the zone nm� covered be Ordinance 624.
orthe vere heginnim_ if ! 9S , the total ctio^ of the loom comminec members ha, been to esutbiish
i)me COnrrol mer houses that overpo�ker the 101S OG mec 51', O: O\'erpo\Aer the Ilel�,h bOrhi�Od
wherever they are. Citizens have spent thousands of dollar pteparimL for the mama. mam meetings at cin
hall and the cite probabh .spent as much. Over 50 citizens have spent time on these committees and the
dine has to be in thousands of hours. Over S hours has been spent on this report alone. 'flier-, were about
r,' of paper or to sort -LnrouL,,h to organize ever_vthine in proper order.
R. L. Hansen
Eebruan i. --00T
r -----
.o
13
r
l
�#RRgcTRP,
�RE�L 4AT�tnJ a. - -�
Vtct'CWC
VN
''ram ,:'_,fir• ti
1 '
Date. February 12, 2004
y
To: Medina City Council Members L v-
v
From. Beverly (Jacobson) and Kirk Adams
8457 Midland Road
Medina, WA 98039
425.455.2524
Subject. Weymouth request for rezone - Application No. 2003-01
Our verbal testimony regarding the Weymouth request for a variance, which was denied,
and the request for a rezone of NCPD, also denied, is on record. We support the decision
of the Medina Planning Commission entered on Feb. 9 for the reasons they stated and our
following personal opinions:
Mr. Weymouth `knew or should have known' that the height restriction for the lot
was 20 feet when he bought the property.
2. The view for a 20-foot house is terrific! NCPD zone should be preserved.
3. Changing an ordinance or a zone for a single lot sets precedence. Chipping away
at work that many residence accomplished over several years to please one person
is not the way to preserve a neighborhood or reflect `community'.
4. Finally, the comments of Mr. Weymouth at the public hearing on Feb. 9°i gave me
the impression that he was not interested in being a good neighbor and Medina
community member. His language and tone raised flags that he may "buy, build,
sell" with no concern for the impact on the community. His delivery did not
reflect the values and spirit of Medina residents.
For these reasons, we urge you to accept the recommendation of the Medina Planning
Commission and reject the application for rezone of the Weymouth property.
Thank you.
Page 1 of 1
Craig Fischer
From: Azubko@aol.com
Sent: Monday, January 05, 2004 4:47 PM
To: cfischer@medina-wa.gov; dschultze@medina-wa.gov
Subject: Planning Commission meeting
To members of the Planning Commission -
For 15 years plus, since the advent of the monster mansion in Medina Heights my neighbors refer to as "The
Pizza Mansion," residents of this neighborhood have been engaged in one battle after another over building
heights and scale and zoning ordinances in the R-16 zone.
In the late 1990s, a group of Medina Heights residents led by Dick Hanson and including myself and Mary
Oder -matt (who at the time was, I believe, a member of the Planning Commission) spent more than a year walking
up and down this hillside in our neighborhood and meeting as a committee to consider the wishes of homeowners
in this part of town regarding building size, views, and the rights of private property owners. We were asked to
report back to the City with findings and a recommendation how to proceed - which we did. The result was a view
protection and height limitation ordinance crafted just for the special circumstances of the westward sloping
hillside of Medina Heights.
Personally, I come down rather firmly on the side of private property rights. In fact, I believe I was asked to join
the committee as I was perceived to be "the opposition." I've always been willing to acknowledge we give up
some freedoms to do exactly as we wish when we buy into this community.... we pay taxes, we put out our trash
on thursdays, we don't pour pollutants into the storm drainage system, etc. But this infringement on the right to
develop one's own property according to one's own wishes, I acknowledge this is huge.
Maybe your claimant at tonight's Planning Commission meeting thinks the restriction is unfair. But 1 can attest to
the fact that our committee led by Dick Hansen spent months talking to homeowners on the downward sloping
hillside in Medina Heights. Homeowners told us they were willing to give up their right to develop their land to the
highest value (i.e., maxing square footage, building another Pizza Mansion) in order to preserve neighbors' views
and, by extension, lock in the value of their own view corridors.The land owners in that plat or plat and a half
formed a compact and after many meetings, a telephone survey, public hearings and what 1 would consider plenty
of due process decided they wanted the right to build huge houses in this specific neighborhood limited through
an ordinance that speaks to building height and setbacks. And the city, through its adoption of the view protection
and height limitation ordinance, endorsed the concept. This all transpired not so long ago, right? Less than ten
years ago if memory serves.
In Medina Heights, the people have spoken and the city has responded with a legal mechanism to enforce curbs
on unbridled, "over the top" real estate development : on the hillside with views, the perpetuation of view corridors
may supercede a land owner's right to develop private property rights in ways that would violate building height,
lot coverage and setback standards. Based on my experience serving on the committee that produced and
lobbied for this outcome, l wholeheartedly endorse this arrangement and the ordinance that gives legal standing
to the concept. Surely the person who bought the property which is the subject of tonight's hearing knew of this
ordinance when he bought the property?
Anne Zubko
8604 NE 6th Street (my home is outside the view preservation area. We have no view at our house and the value
of my property would not be directly impacted by the outcome of this hearing.)
1/5%?004
Craig Fischer
From:
Dave Gould [dgould@bcc.ctc.edu]
Sent:
Monday, January 05, 2004 , 1 08 AM
To:
'cfischer@medina-wa.gov'
Subject:
REZONE 2003-01
T0: MEDINA PLANNING COMMISSION
It's my assumption that, when __ comes to difficult clanninc decisions,
_ ,::Is useful to know the thoughts of city residents. Wit _..is assumption
in mind, here are my thoughts on the rezone request for a porn on of
Medina Heights.
I'm not against castles, country manor houses, or other large houses as
a
matter of principle. One of the great pleasures of traveling In England
is
to visit the huge homes now controlled by the National Trust.
However, these homes are beautiful partly because they are appropriately
situated in grounds that are proportional to the-'-- size. They lose all
appeal when crowded tightly into urban areas.
it's my understanding that esthetics is one of the principal reasons for
the
existence of zoning laws. As there are no estate size lots in Medina, it
seems appropriate to maintain house sizes, proportional to -he land that
is
available. Otherwise the appeal of the area lost.
-nerefore, I'm in favor of denving -nis rezone _ _ est and im.i'_ar
reouests
I
or domes that are too 'tar^ye t0 fit -..___._z __.,_dentia'_ zoning
restrictions.
David D. Gould
543 Overlake Drive East_
Medina, WA 98039
Craia Fischer
From:
Arthur jad707@biarg.net'
Sent:
Saturday, January 03, 2004 2 05 PM
To:
Craig F Medina
Cc:
Doug Schulze
Subject:
Rezone, Case 2003-01
To: Planning Commission
Planning Director
Subject: Rezone, Case 2003-01
I request that the Planning Commission denied the rezone recraest
by the property owner, Chris Weymouth.
The Neighborhood Character Preservation District !NCPD) was established
after 2 years of work to preserve the character of the Medina Heights
neighborhood and prevent. "Mega houses" in this area of Medina.
This is the second attempt by the property owner to build a house,
exceeding
the existing Ordinance. The Hearing Examiner denied an application for a
variance
to exceed the heights restriction a few months ago.
A new two story house is now in process to be finished just across the
street
on 309 Upland Road, complying with the existing Ordinance.
Onr_e the City, Plarning Commission or Hearing ?xaminer, _rants a __- maze
or
variance, the N•CPD V.'i.11 be violated and more "mega hoL:sesll wi_-- be
built.
I hope the Commission is able to uphold the existing 0-dinance and deny
the
request.
Respectfully, Arthur Dietrich,
425 454-1206
ITEM J-10A
Planning Report
Re -Zone Application
TO: Medina Planning Commission
FROM: Joseph Gellings, A1CP, Planning Director
RE: Re -Zone Case No. 2003-01
DATE: January 29, 2004
Address: 8711 Ridge Road
Applicant: Ronald B. Reed, The Reed Architects
Owner: Christopher A. Weymouth
Zoning: Neighborhood Character Preservation District
Note: This staff report updates my January 2, 2004 staff report in three ways:
1. Three neighbor comment letters that have been submitted since the original report
hai.�e been, added to the exhibit list.
2. An additional Finding of Fact has been included.
3. A recommendation that the Planning Commission, and City Council adopt a
finding that approval shall not set any precedent has been added.
Exhibits: 1.
Letter to individuals residing in a certain geographical
extent of southeastern Medina from "Medina View Slope
Council' citizen committee dated August 1, 1996
2.
Minutes of September 24, 1996 Medina Planning
Commission meeting
3.
Letter to Medina Planning Commission from :Medina
View Slope Council dated September 24, 1996
4.
Letter to individuals residing in a certain geographical
extent of southeastern Medina from Medina View Slope
Council dated February 19, 1997
5.
Letter to Medina Planning Commission from Earl
Johnson, 8 711 Ridge Road dated February 19, 1997
6.
Letter to Medina Planning Commission from Edith A
Martin, 8467 Midland Road dated February 25, 1997
7.
Document entitled "Speech to Medina Planning
Commission" dated February 25, 1997
8.
Minutes of February 25, 1997 Medina Planning
Commission meeting
9.
Letter to Medina Planning Commission Chair Mark
Lostrom from Medina View Slope Council dated March
14, 1997
10.
Map of proposed boundary- for proposed zoning overlay
in southeastern 'Medina, dated as a March 14, 1997
revision
Citr 0/ .1-1Cdina
ITEM J-10A
Planning Report
Re -Zone Application
Contimled
11. Minutes of ?larch 25, 1997 Medina Planning
Commission meeting
12. Minutes of April 14. 1997 Medina City- Council meeting
13. Minutes of May 12, 1997 Medina City Council meeting
14. Two illustrations of view advantage of 20-foot maximum
building height in sloping neighborhoods from
Ordinance 624 file.
15. "Rezone Request and Explanation" document prepared
by applicant
16. Black and white map indicating City of Medina
Neighborhood Character Preservation District (NCPD)
boundary
17. Plat maps of the vicinity- of the subject lot
18. Color map of Groat Point vicinity illustrating NCPD
boundary, neighborhood topography, and view potential
19. 13 photographs of subject lot, adjacent lots, and views
from both
20. Letter to Medina Planning Commission from Arthur
Dietrich, January 3, 2004
21. Letter to Medina Planning Commission from David D.
Gould, January 5, 2004
22. Letter to Medina Planning Commission from Anne
Zubko, January 5, 2004
23. Declaration of Posting, January 16, 2004
24. Declaration of Mailing, January 16, 2004
25. Newspaper legal ad affidavit, January 23, 2004
Permit Request: The applicant is requesting a re -zone of the subject property
from Neighborhood Character Preservation District (NCPD)
to R-16.
Municipal Code: Medina Municipal Code (MMC) Chapter 17.21 defines the
boundaries of the NCPD zone and contains the development
standards for this zone. all of the development standards
of the R-16 district are adopted by reference with two
exceptions: 1) the maximum building height is set at 20 feet
from the low point of original grade (instead of 25 feet in R-
16), and 2) the rights of owners of nonconforming structures
in the NCPD are increased.
C,0o% Vrdina 2
ITEM J-10A
Planning Report
Re -Zone Application
Contin u.ed
Medina Municipal Code (MMC) Chapter 17.94 prescribes a
procedure through which property owners may request a
reclassification of their property's zoning.
Subject Property: The property is located at the southern corner of the
intersection of Upland and Ridge Roads. It has an area of
12,681 square feet and has relatively flat topography.
Existing Conditions: There is presently a two -store house in the middle of the
lot. It was built in 1947. The house is configured as a
daylight basement with the lower floor only exposed on the
west side of the house. The existing house is oriented to
Ridge Road. Access is via a driveway from Ridge Road
extending to a carport located south of the house.
The lot is richly landscaped and includes some very large
trees including three fir trees greater than 30 inches in
caliper in the northwest corner as well as a 36 inch Cedar
just over the south property line. The applicant has
submitted an original grade determination that states that
the majority of the existing grades are original grades with
the exception of some fill areas in the rear (west) yard.
There are no nonconformities with the existing house. The
house placement conforms to the corner setback provisions
of MMC 17.40.050, which require a front yard setback from
one street line (25 feet in this case) and a 20-foot setback
from the other line.
The property lies on the eastern fringe of the Medina
Heights Neighborhood Character Preservation District
(NCPD). This district was created by Ordinance 624 in
1997.
Legislative History: Throughout Medina's history there have been City -
sponsored and citizen -sponsored initiatives to change
zoning standards in response to development trends. The
particular legislative initiative being questioned by the
applicant started around August 1996 and led to the
creation of the NCPD through passage of Ordinance 624 in
Mav 12, 1997.
City o/ Mcdinn 3
ITEM J-10A
Planning Report
Re -Lone Application
Continued
A citizen committee calling itself the Medina View Slope
Neighborhood Council launched the effort with a mailed
survey in August 1996. The survey explained that
mitigation of the recent "mega -home" design trend was
being explored and it asked the residents' opinions of a
zoning overlay that would lower R-16 allowed building
heights and increase R-16 side setback requirements across
a portion of southeastern Medina. A proposed overlay
boundary was specified as follows: Overlake Drive East /
West to the south and east, 841h Avenue to the west and 7tih
Street to the north. The survev was only mailed to those
residing in these boundaries. The mail -back rate and the
rate of favorable opinions were both relatively high.
The initiative first entered the public realm through a
discussion item on the agenda of the September 1996
Planning Commission meeting. The group's objectives were
discussed and staff offered to work with the group to
identify code change and boundary options. The other
public discussions of the initiative were the February and
March 1997 Planning Commission meetings and the April
and May 1997 City Council meetings. In the course of these
meetings the proposed boundary of the new zone was
incrementally reduced to the present boundary and the
increased side setback requirement was dropped. The
letters and minutes reflect a desire to confine the new zone
to only those lots on the southwest facing slope in this
neighborhood and to preserve the condition of homes in this
areas having views over the roofs of their downhill
neighbors. In fact, there are references to eliminating "flat-
land" properties from the boundary because their building
height does not impact the neighbor's views. It is possible
that staff have not recovered all materials associated with
the NCPD ordinance but the materials in possession
suggest that an analysis of the topographic contours of the
neighborhood were not part of the drawing of the new zone
boundary. The minutes for the March 1997 Planning
Commission indicate that the boundary was set during a
walk of the neighborhood streets b-, the Planning
Consultant and two citizens prior to that meeting.
City of Medina
ITEM J-10A
Planning Report
Re -Zone Application
CoWinu-ed
The previous owner of the applicant's property — Earl
Johnson — was a member of the Medina View Slope
Neighborhood Council supporting the new zone.
Proposal: The applicant is requesting that the subject property be re-
zoned to R-16. The application includes several
photographs of the vicinity and a color map including two -
foot contour lines of the entire neighborhood (Exhibit 18;
contour base map provided by Public Works Director and
based on aerial photography from within the last five
years).
It can be seen on the map that the present NCPD boundary
extends across a southwest -facing slope. Also, to the east of
the zone is a mild ridge where the slope transitions from
southwest facing to southeast facing — and the views switch
from the center of Lake Washington to Meydenbauer Bay.
This ridge passes through the center of the subject lot.
Therefore, in addition to lying on the eastern fringe of the
zone, the subject lot is the only lot in the NCPD to extend
over this ridge.
The applicant has pointed out and the author agrees that
all of the adjacent lots are at the same or lower elevation as
the subject lot and their views are, therefore, unimpacted
by the height of a home on the subject lot.
Findings of Fact: 1. The subject lot has an area of 12,681 square feet, which
is average -sized for the vicinity R-16 and NCPD
properties.
2. The initiative that led to passage of Ordinance 624
started in approximately August 1996 with a proposal
for reduced heights and increased setbacks in a large
portion of southeastern Medina with the stated objective
of addresses the recent trend of redevelopment
consisting of disproportionately large ne�v homes.
3. In the course of developing Oridnance 624 the Planning
Commission and Council dropped the increased setback
requirements and greatly reduced the extent of the
boundary.
4. The subject lot lies on the eastern fridge of the final
NCPD boundary and is the only property in the
('i:% o/ .t1"a1,1a o
ITEM J-10A
Planning Report
Re -Zone Application
Continued
boundary that is not entirely on a southeast -facing
slope. It lies on a ridge that separates southwest -facing
and southeast -facing parts of the neighborhood.
5. All adjacent neighboring lots to the subject property are
at the same or lower elevation. The height of a house on
the subject property would not block views from any of
these homes.
6. The previous owner of the subject property submitted
written and oral testimony in support of the NCPD.
7. Medina Municipal Code Chapter 1 7.94.100-C-1 provides
decision criteria to be used by the Planning Commission
and City Council to evaluate rezone applications and
provides for corrections to be made to inappropriate
zone boundaries. If the Planning Commission and City
Council find that — based on the unique circumstances
of the subject property — that it should not have been
included in the NCPD, a rezone to R-16 will not make
other properties appropriately in NCPD vulnerable to
rezone.
Standard of Review: Medina Municipal Code Chapter 17.94.100-C-1 states that
the City can approve a re -zone only if it finds that the
proposal:
a.. The proposed rezone is in, the best interest of the
residents of the city; and
An axiom in land use law is that any limitation on a
property owner's development rights must be supported by
a public purpose. Since the normal R-16 building height of
25 feet would not impact any of the neighbor's views,
inclusion in the NCPD was an unnecessary reduction in
development rights.
b. The proposed rezone is appropriate because either:
i. Conditions in the immediate uieini,ty of the
subject haue so significantly changed since the
property u'as giien its present zoning that,
under those changed conditions, a. rezone is
within the public interest; or
ii. The rezone icill correct a zone classification or
zone bou-ndary that u:as inappropriate uherz
established;
C_'i(" 0f ill edi71 J G
ITEM J-10A
Summary of
Criteria Review and
Recommendation:
City 0f Nlr,dina
Planning Report
Re -Zone Application
Continued
The means and ends of the NDPD evolved to a small degree
in the eight -month period in which the ordinance was
considered. The final primary objective was preservation of
neighborhood character and views through a 20-foot height
restriction that allows homes on the constant southwest -
facing slope to maintain the views over their downhill
neighbors. Since the subject lot is of average size and has
no uphill neighbors, it should not have been included in the
NCPD boundary.
c. It is consistent with the comprehensh. e plan;
Since the characteristics of the subject property are typical
of Medina R-16 properties, applying the R-16 development
standards will serve the comprehensive plan goals well.
d. It is consistent with all applicable provisions of this
chapter, including those adopted by reference fromthe
eomprehen,sit,,e plan.; and
There are no other provisions of MMC Chapter 1 1.94 that
speak to this application.
e. It is consistent with the public health, safety and welfare.
Since the subject property has the characteristics of a
typical R-16 property and does not have the topographic
conditions to meet the NCPD goal, assigning it to R-16 will
properly balance development rights with public health
safety and welfare goals.
Per the analysis above, all of the decision criteria are found
to be met. it is recommended that the Planning
Commission and City Council approve the re -zone
application and adopt the following finding:
"approval of this rezone application is based on an
analysis of the unique topographic circumstances of
the subject property as they relate to the objectives
of the Neighborhood Character Preservation
District. Therefore, this rezone should not serve as a
precedent for the approval of any other property in
the Neighborhood Character Preservation District."
ITEM J-10A
Planning Report
Re -Zone Application
Continued
C i l) o f 11 o d i n a
City of Medina
NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION
Presiding Body
. Medina Planning Commission
Permit Type(s)
. Rezone
Case No.
. 2003-01
Applicant
. Ron Reed
Property Owner
Chris Weymouth
Property Address
8711 Ridge Road
Request
The applicant is requesting a rezone of the subject property from
Neighborhood Character Preservation District (NCPD) to R-16. The
primary difference between the provisions of each zone is that building
heights are restricted to 20 feet in the NCPD zone while they are
restricted to 25 feet in the R-16 zone. The rezone is requested in
conjunction with a proposal to make an addition to the existing residence
on this site.
Public Review
. A copy of the application is on file in the City Clerk's office. Any
interested party may review the application and provide written
comments or oral testimony at the hearing.
Process and Appeal
. After holding a hearing, the Planning Commission will forward a
recommendation on the application to the City Council who will make
the final decision. Any parry of record may appeal the City Council's
decision.
Other Permits Required
. Building permit
Notice Issued
December 18, 2003
Hearing Date/Time . January 6, 2004 — 7:00 pm
Hearing Location . Medina City IIall, 501 Evergreen Point Road
REZONE REQUEST AND EXPLANANTION
8711 RIDGE ROAD
Introduction
The existing site is developed with an existing single family residence located on a corner at
8711 Ridge Road. The existing single family home is a 1947 single story structure over a full
basement foundation that is partially day -lighted. An attached breezeway connects a one -car
garage. The site is located along the ridge of Medina Heights at the extreme southeast comer
of the neighborhood character preservation zone. The site borders the R-16 zoning classifi-
cation on two of its four property boundaries. The Medina Heights Neighborhood Preser-
vation Zone(NCPD), (MMC 17.21) is very similar to the R-16 (MMC 17.20) zoning criteria
excepting the height limit (17.21.040). The lot area is substandard at 12,684 square feet in a
zoning classification of R-16.
The owner requests:
1. The subject property be removed from the Medina Heights Character Preserva-
tion Zone (MMC 17.21) and rezoned to the adjacent R-16 Zone (MMC 17.20).
The project is located in the neighborhood character preservation of Medina Heights. This
zoning area was established in 1997 to preserve the views for the residences in the zone.
The creation of the zone was initiated through a citizens committee and presented to the
City for consideration during the mid 1990's. The boundaries of the zone zig and zag
through the neighborhood according to potential view impacts. The final process of select-
ing properties to be included in that zone came from a small group of citizens walking the
neighborhood and deciding which properties would be included and which would not be.
The singular and most important principal used for establishing inclusion in the Zone was, a
property's potential impact on the view of up -slope neigbboring properties. This process of selection, in
reference to the subject property, was both capricious and arbitrary.
The subject property is located at the far southeastern comer of the zone. Properties in the
zone slope west and southwest towards the view of Seattle and Lake Washington. Resi-
dences orient to that view. The slope considerations that established the zone do not apply
to the subject property. The subject property slopes with the ridgeline, primarily opposite
from the view oriented ones. It is situated at the top of the ridgeline sloping towards May-
denbauer Bay. There are no houses on any side of the subject property whose views are im-
pacted according to the criteria used to establish the Zone. It should not have been included
within the neighborhood preservation zone. The boundary line of the zone should be ad-
justed so as to include the subject property in the adjacent R-16 zoning classification.
1
Decisional Criteria (MMC 17.94.100c)
C-1 a. The proposed rezone is in the best interest of the residents of the City;
The Medina Municipal Code establishes the level of orderly compliance for it citizens. It
also establishes the level of compliance for its government. MMC 17.08.020-Benefits states,
"The Zoning code shall be enforced for the benefit, safety and welfare of the general public, and not to create or
otherwise establish or designate any particular class orgroup of persons who will or should be especially pro-
tected or benefited b_y its provisions."
The Me&fn Heights Neighborhood Preservation Zone does protect a particular group of
citizens, by protecting their right to enjoy the views of the West and Lake Washington. If
the City, through due process, has established this Zone to benefit such a group it can not
do so at the expense of the rest of the public's rights. In the case of the subject property iE
has imposed unfair restrictions upon a property that it should not have. The requested re-
zone of the property to include it in the adjacent R-16 zone adjusts the wrong and provides
consistency with the Zoning Code. It does not harm the present welfare or integrity of any
established Zone. It is, therefore, in the best interest of the residents of the City to rezone
the property, in order to protect the rights of its citizens.
C-lb. The proposed rezone is appropriate because either.
i. Conditions in the immediate vicinity have so signfficantly changed since the property was
given its present Zoning that, under the changed conditions a re Zone is within the publu in-
terest; or
ii. The rezone will correct a Zone classification or Zane bounday that was inappropriate when
established
The subject property's inclusion was inappropriately decided at the time of the creation of
the neighborhood preservation zone in 1997. The criteria for the creation of the zone was
to protect the views enjoyed presently by the predominately west facing slope properties. A
twenty feet height limit was imposed to afford that view consideration. The process of de-
ciding the boundaries of the zone reduced the proposed ordinance to only those properties
whose development would truly affect the view rights of others. The subject property was
inappropriately included in the zone, through arbitrary selection by a pedestrian citizens
committee. The subject property placed within the zone because it had a view but not be-
cause of the criteria the committee had established, namely that it affected the view rights of
others.
The subject property does not block another property's view. It is located along the ridge -
line. Properties along the ridgeline are not generally within the limited height district but are
included in the R-16 zoning classification. Where most of the properties in the district slope
towards the southwest the subject property slopes to the southeast. Properties in the rest of
2
the district are developed to take advantage of the slope topography to enhance their views.
ALI adjacent properties are focussed away from the subject property in order to capture the
view best associated with their land formation.
The subject property is unique within the present zone yet consistent with properties in the
adjacent R-16 zone. It is the only lot that the ridge passes through or affects the topography
in the NCPD zone. The subject property is the only lot in the zone adversely affected by
this ridge. The subject property is the only lot in the zone that has any slope to the south-
east. It is placed in the zone that was created for lots fully facing to the southwest to pre-
serve their views yet it does not. The subject property, because of its location on the ridge
has the least amount of slope of any lot in the NCPD. These make it unique in the zone.
The original grades on all lots have been manipulated to enhance the view. The property
slopes in directions contrary to the optimal view again make it unique. All other lots in the
zone slope to the view whether they are narrow or wide. This allows them to take full ad-
vantage of height limitations to enhance their view. All of these attributes described can be
found on properties in the adjacent R-16 zone.
The NCPD was created to protect the views to the west and southwest from development
that would impair or block such view, The subject property does not, will not, or ever Can
block another's view that the NCPD was set up to protect. It is the only property in the
zone that can not block another property's view. It should not even be in the zone protect-
ing such views.
The natural vegetation of the area impacts the view. A wall of tall conifers blocks any sig-
nificant view to the south, southeast, southwest, and east. Ridge road has an extensive high
solid evergreen wall on City property to the east, which evidences the lack of view impact on
those neighboring properties. The subject property, as stated above, is located along the
ridgeline as it descends toward Maydenbauer Say. There is no view advantage in that orien-
tation. The topography of most other properties in the zone slopes towards Lake Wash-
ington. The subject property does take partial advantage of that view but because of the di-
rection of the slope will be limited in comparison to other properties within the present
zone.
The combination of the surrounding trees and the topography of the site have actually
placed it in a disadvantaged position to take full advantage of the view as other properties in
the zone are allowed to do. The portion of the lot sloped southwest to take advantage of the
view is almost completely blocked by evergreen trees. Medina is very strict about removing
such trees. The subject property has no view in this direction. The south and southeastern
slope impose hardship not found on any other lot in the zone.
The zone was established to protect those properties that would lose or have their views im-
pacted with the 25' height limit of the R-16 zone. The subject property should not be in-
cluded in the character preservation zone, as it is not subject to the same circumstances as
other properties in the zone. It affects no other property's view, it slopes in a different di-
rection, and it is at the extreme southeast corner of the zone and it is unique within the pres-
ent zoning. The appropriate zoning for the property is in the R-16 zone and not the Medina
Neighborhood Preservation District.
3
C-lc. It is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
The Comprehensive Plan gives direction to the government of the City of Medina. It man-
dates the protection of the rights and laws governing its citizenry. The rezone of the prop-
erty stays within the mandates of the Plan without affording special privilege to the subject
property or infringing on the rights of others. The rezone protects value of equal rights to
its citizens. The rezone corrects an error made when the Zone was created in 1997. It pro-
duces no inconsistency with the present Zoning Code of either R-16 or the Medina Heights
Neighborhood Preservation District, rather it corrects an inconsistency. The rezone of the
subject property perpetuates the ideals of the Comprehensive Plan through correction of a
capricious judgment that included it in the -view preservation zone.
C-1d. It is consistent with all applicant pmvisions of this chapter, including those adopted by refe�znce firm
the comprehensive plan;
The proposed rezone is consistent with all aspects of the Medina Municipal Code. The fact
that the property is located at the extreme southeast corner of the preservation zone and the
boundary is located on two of the four sides of the property make the change from the pres-
ervation zone to the R-16 zone,As simple and logical correcting adjustment. It does not af-
ford special privilege or impair the rights of others. It does not create a precedent for chal-
lenge. It corrects an error in planning and reinstates equal rights to the property.
Gie. It is consistent untb the public safety and welfare.
Rezoning the subject property to R-16 changes only the improperly imposed height restric-
tion of the view preservation zone. The two adjacent zones are alike in all other ways. There
is no change in safety considering that the rezone is in all ways consistent with surrounding
properties and zoning ordinances. Shifting the boundary of the zone does not alter in any
way the public welfare of the City of Medina. It ensures equal rights to its citizenry.
Exhibit A
City of Medina
Neighborhood Character
Preservation District
ir
m
i rvi
�
m N
a,'%
S- 30
� m �.
o�
41
oo me
�I
°o
6°
a
0, Cj
L
nl of
o' a6
z o
O c. o N
I'.� $
•` m� ,y
1 `li
a1 $�N o o
65 w 8 ���• ?
of
n�� A{ o
�C n2 fir• `"
oC.
M F
?BIOd °h ti, ' � 11316E ,OP 'j
p
ISO
s.
11256#
156310 p ��0 2 �d 070
O
0205
Oe 9O 12848R 5°�r7 ��Oir
O
12728M
°s 01 s 0105
-
!s
/� 36
�
26946#-
0240
32 -
N�m� ga57
��s
6
31 r0,
2894�,
ro10
2406
s -_ 30 m
-- J
28 mi
t0
12
1490ze
%
13 0o
�i
rr ��m. _ 27
50 �o&' m� 16 ,-2440
24
10270# ° VV ��° p^° �o U . 17 �23 0 o ----- 58p-_
0096 o Q-
o e
0185 00 6. "�� ��3t;500N
ro r 5° P'o ��,
a o0 0100 o ge o - --- -
30 6
z o 2 ti �p 1 20
w 6 0 17067k 30 130 -a
Pr. s r ! 11
13132* �' '4U'� �.5 �7 .� 12136k
22 � lP 50 0 0
NE 2ND sT / 9 om ° v!`S6 !S 4 Bs ,`, \e ` �° o ------
77410 199. 17 7G.Q' N \05, 14N ' o, AO OpO �'. vi� T�
51,68 9� PO .,' ,''� 7 a o
162 06 2 9B "_-_
m� 6 �U . 55 2� /40016#
.�28 x,' 2510 8 o
AC 10�
'. 0300 1922 c25 13�Q0w ,
Phpo
of x' 24 ,' e r- 11 ________
�� ��_r. L __
P6 g9 0 ° a� pc Z' �, 23 W -
�a°� 3 �� L �� 12
`St A r
22 w 3
12876* E
13 4 w
0305 Q, 0 0320 �s21 < p w 4
N6e �0 m rotii 6 20 v --
IS 2544,'' 6
euL 13105M W Qi 38, �'18580M
° of
�37� ��8 o ��9� , h17 424750310
,r 2--7 -
566 W
N6ew 36 ,''14900# `B /-------
G o �PE x, o PGA��� I w18 2795 0 ,, � � .^ -
N 36 0* o �2�� 0 36'��PoME¢�BB��r," 0.c2 10,'11��� C� �' �16 ' -8-
s N s PCL
34 14
:3z 9O
.o ° 12
m33 'I
�2� 13" �� o 10
o �� p` P1•. �� O 90 "fi5000 ♦
n o t O o' S: 9 ` 11
° 939z 3 31 2770 ! s s' 14 v�
�.
m 0340 0 „ ems ;MI6 T w !
396450 <4 30 ,' �.2099
0021 o m 's 00 ��� w 12
99so ems, 6 29 ' titi� 16
2760�ti �;K'
0
�- �F� t�l�T � CoNrDut2 �it�lE
-SITE
M�t]IIJ�, NEI C-rF-7S rLft-�o
-ftpigr 4
IN
J.- 2
.1c
Ow,
AMA
z!
Fir, f.,
ti!7t
vi
ti.' �3S a � • _ j+. y
As
.. • �• ,�•_ y • i.. - j fir„ e w �z � �.
Maw
4.3
Ilk
aON
�'�'s
4-
7r
w •
OF
tip a Y r GON
t` _•a
r • r
�
--- jw�� -- -, — , -, ",
"" I--
41b
Sir
. . . . . . . . . .
ko.
MIR
yJ
-Iwt
_
M
t,
r.
w e
ti f
f�
♦♦T34 ia'�.f �.a j:�S-: tw l v pc�
s
XV
•r
S
i�
F
<
•war
074
�\./«+
�t��,>
���•
_-
�
-
�:
)�
y
|
&I
. yam. ♦�'
4
w
` �•v c;; :ram-
. A
rt"A
lja _Iq
r.�
ITEM J - 8
CITY OF MEDINA
City Attorney's Office
501 Evergreen Point Road, Medina, WA 98039
vvww.ci.medina.wa,.us
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
March 2, 2004
TO:
Mayor and City Council
FROM:
Kirk Wines, City Attorney
RE:
Ordinance Amending 1997 Uniform Building Code
COMMENT:
The proposed ordinance eliminates an exemption to the application of the Uniform Building Code for work located
primarily in a public way.
Many cities have not regulated construction in public ways or rights -of -way because such construction would either
involve work being done by the city or work being done by public utilities.
A wireless communications provider has taken the position that it does not need a permit in order to construct a cell
tower in the WSDOT Right -of -Way. Staff recommends that the tower should require a building permit and inspection
in order to ensure that the facility is designed and constructed to protect public safety. The proposed facility is
adjacent to a walking path, which is used to access the westbound bus stop on 520. The path is part of the Points
Communities walking trail. The facility is also within falling distance of Evergreen Point Road.
ITEM J — 8a
CITY OF MEDINA
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE ELIMINATING THE EXEMPTION FOR WORK LOCATED
IN A PUBLIC WAY FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE UNIFORM BUILDING
CODE AND AMENDING SECTION 101.3 OF THE 1997 UNIFORM BUILDING
CODE.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MEDINA DO ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. TITLE
Section 101.3 of the 1997 Uniform Building Code amended.
Section 101.3 of the 1997 Uniform Building Code is amended to read as
follows:
101.3 Scope. The provisions of this code shall apply to the construction,
alteration, moving, demolition, repair, maintenance and use of any building or
structure within this jurisdiction, except [work leGated pFimarily in a p bliG ay„
public utility towers and poles, mechanical equipment not specifically regulated in
this code, and hydraulic flood control structures.
SECTION 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.
The City Council declares that this is a public emergency ordinance
necessary for the protection of public health, public safety, public property or the
public peace and shall become effective upon adoption.
PASSED BY AT LEAST FOUR MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL ON
THIS DAY OF
.2004 AND SIGNED IN
AUTHENTICATION OF ITS PASSAGE THE DAY OF
2004.
Mary Odermat, Mayor
ORI)
ITEM J — 8a
Approved as to form:
Kirk R. Wines, City Attorney
Attest:
Randy Reed, City Clerk
Passed:
Filed:
Published: _
Effective Date:
OP,D.
SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO.
of the City of Medina, Washington
On , 2004, the City Council of the City of
Medina, Washington, passed Ordinance No. , the main points of which are
summarized by its title as follows, and approved this summary:
AN ORDINANCE ELIMINATING THE EXEMPTION FOR WORK LOCATED
IN A PUBLIC WAY FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE UNIFORM BUILDING
CODE AND AMENDING SECTION 101.3 OF THE 1887 UNIFORM BUILDING
CODE.
The full text of this ordinance will be mailed upon request.
Randy Reed, City Clerk
ORD.
ITEM I - 1
CITY OF MEDINA
Development Services
501 Evergreen Point Road, Medina, WA 98039 425.454.9222
www.rnedina-wa.qov
MEMORANDUM
DATE: March 5. 2004
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Joseph Gellings, AICP, Planning Director
RE: School Special Use Permit Criteria
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council -eview the Planning Commission's
recommended ordinance, hold a public hearing, review staff comments below, and approve an ordinance
in consideration of this input.
POLICY IMPLICATION: The Zoning Code prescribes the allowed land uses in Medina and provides
development standards for each type. The regulations for new schools should adequately address issues
such as safety, traffic, and neighborhood character.
BACKGROUND: In response to City Council -established objective statements, the Planning
Commission considered revisions to our school regulations at their March 2 meeting. The commission
held a public hearing as part of that meeting, where five citizens provided testimony. The identified issues
in that hearing included building height, circulation, parking, residential buffers, and pedestrian safety.
That hearing as well as a planned public hearing before the City Council on March 8 have been thoroughly
noticed with a special effort to reach the administration of each of the ex sting schools in Medina as well as
the neighbors of Medina Elementary School.
I have worked with the City Attorney to prepare the attached ordinance, which embodies each of the
Planning Commission's recommendations. There are, however, three aspects of this draft ordinance that
staff have concerns about.
• Criterion D. Upon further discussion by staff, it is probably not appropriate for the city to review the
school district's emergency preparedness plan — as a special use permit requirement. Instead,
any dialog on the topic should be confined to informal discussions between City staff and school
staff. Therefore, staff recommend elimination of Criterion D.
• Criterion H. This criterion includes a list of activities that could gE!nerate parking demand and
should be considered in sizing parking lots. Staff feel that the item of "school sponsored events"
should be changed to "special events" to allow for the consideration of the parking demand of
large events held on school grounds that may not be direct school sponsored.
Criterion K. This criterion implies that the City could regulate the design of outdoor signs that are
not visible from the public right-of-way. Upon further discussion by staff, such regulation may be
ITEM I - 1
outside of the City's zoning authority — all zoning regulations should be based on a public benefit,
which isn't present in regulating signs out of public view.
Page 2
Planning Report
Special Use Permit Application
TO: Medina Hearing Examiner
FROM: Jodie Vice, Planning Consultant
RE: Special Use Permit Case No. 240 — Simonyi Residence
DATE: March 5, 2004
Applicant:
Jeremy Edalgo, Rainier Industries
Owner:
Dr. Charles Simonyi
Address:
103 84th Avenue NE
Zoning:
R-30
Exhibits: 1. Application Binder dated February 17, 2004
2. Site Plan, February 13, 2004
Special Use Request: The applicant is requesting a special use permit to
construct a temporary tent structure.
Subject Property: The property lies at the end of 84t"Avenue NE on the
southwest side of the street.
Existing Conditions: The property is presently developed with a guesthouse. The
owner of the property also owns the adjacent property to
the north.
The applicant proposes to design and construct a temporary
tent structure to be used for special events 3 to 4 times per
year for a duration of 7 to 10 days at a time on the
property's terrace. After the event, the tent will be
disassembled and stored off -site.
The tent structure will be placed on the terrace adjacent to
the guesthouse. Due to the topography and landscaping of
the site, the terrace is not visible from the right-of-way or
any neighboring property with the exception of the adjacent
property to the north.
Findings of Facts: 1. The tent structure is proposed to be 33 feet wide by 78
feet long and roughly 9 feet in height.
2. The tent structure will be temporary and placed on an
existing terrace adjacent to the guesthouse.
3. The tent structure is only visible from the adjacent
property to the north.
4. The owner of this property also owns the property to the
north.
5. A valet parking system will be implemented. Guest's
cars will be parked at Medina Elementary School.
6. Estimated number of guests for each event will be 30-50
people.
Cite of llledirio I
otak
Planning Report
Special Use Permit Application
Coittiiticed
Special Use Permit
Standard of Review: Medina Municipal Code (MMC) section 17.56.050 states
that no special use permit shall be issued unless the project:
A. Is compatible with the intent of the
comprehensive plan for the city;
The high -quality residential character described in the
comprehensive plan is upheld given the tent is not visible
from any neighboring residents and screened with
plantings from the right-of-way-
B. Has no materially detrimental effects on
neighboring properties due to excessive noise,
lighting other interference with the peaceful use and
possession of said neighboring properties;
The tent will not be visible from the neighboring properties
and all lighting and noise will be inside the tent. The
location of the proposed tent will prevent light or noise from
impacting any neighbors.
C. Has been designed to minimize adverse effects on
neighboring properties;
The tent will be designed to fit on the existing terrace,
adjacent to the guesthouse. This location is not visible from
any of the neighboring properties. A parking plan for the
special events will prevent parking problems that may
effect the neighboring properties. valet parking will be
provided for the guest and cars will be parked at Medina
Elementary. The tent is also temporary in nature and will
be disassembled and stored off' -site.
D. Is consistent with applicable special use
provisions of this code.
N/A — use is not defined under special use provisions.
Recommendation: Approve with one condition. Condition: Applicant must
have a written agreement for the use of Medina Elementary
School for parking during the special events_
Crib of II('dI,?U
otak
CITY OF MEDINA
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING SPECIAL USE CRITERIA FOR
SCHOOLS.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MEDINA DO ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. SPECIAL USE CRITERIA FOR SCHOOLS.
Two new sections are added to Chapter 17.56 of the Medina Municipal Code
to read as follows:
17.56.052 Special Use Criteria for Schools
No structure shall be constructed or installed for a use as a school or for a
use that is accessory to a school unless the City Council finds that the proposed
facilities meet the following special use criteria:
A. Compatibility
School facilities and grounds must be compatible with the content of the
Comprehensive Plan for the city and with any neighborhood planning goals which
are adopted by the city.
B. Setbacks
All parts of any building shall be setback 40 feet from any property line except
that where the adjoining property is zoned for residential use, the setback shall be
60 feet.
C. Landscaping
Permit applications must contain a design for a landscaping buffer upon each
of the site's property lines which adequately mitigates visual and noise impacts of
the school on surrounding residences. The design shall detail the location and
species of proposed trees and vegetation. The design shall include use of year-
round foliage patterns where appropriate. Lines of sight necessary for safe school
operation shall be considered in the landscaping plan. The landscaping plan shall
accomplish aesthetic goals while minimizing impacts to safety -required lines -of -
sight.
D. Emergency preparedness functions center
An emergency preparedness plan developed in coordination with the Medina
Police Department shall be required. The plan should identify an emergency
preparedness functions center on the proposed floor plans for the school. Such a
facility should be oriented to the management of emergencies that directly impact
the school. Emergencies to be planned for should include natural or man-made
events that cause a crisis situation for a significant portion of the students and staff.
E. Pedestrian and vehicular circulation plan
The application shall include a pedestrian and vehicular circulation plan. The
circulation plan shall emphasize safety and efficiency in the management of typical
school -generated walking and traffic. The circulation plan must include school bus
loading and unloading operations, deliveries and parking management.
F. Lighting
With due consideration for safety concerns, the application shall include a
lighting plan which establishes an overall lighting level which is compatible with a
single-family neighborhood.
G. Safety
The layout of buildings and the lighting design shall not create dead-end
paths or concealment potential.
H. Parking
The proposal shall include an adequate number of parking spaces taking into
consideration the requirements of buses, staff, parents, deliveries and school
sponsored events.
I. Height
The height at any point of any building or structure shall not exceed 35 feet
measured vertically from the original or finished grade, whichever is lower.
J. Massing
In addition to the maximum building height restriction of subsection I, the
design of the building shall minimize the amount of three dimensional bulk existing in
the first 20 feet of the building on all sides of the building that adjoin residential -use
properties. This minimization of bulk shall be accomplished through pitched roofs,
step -backs or other architectural design techniques that reduce the perceived height
of the building and eliminate flat facades facing residential properties
K. Signs
Signs which are visible from the outside of the structures are subject to the
restrictions contained in MMC chapter17.80. Signs which are not visible from
adjoining properties or public streets shall be described in the application.
L. Land Use Designation
Construction of school buildings or associated structures shall only be
allowed on parcels which are designated as school properties on the official land use
map of the City.
M. Minimum lot area
The building site shall have a minimum lot area as follows:
1. Elementary, five acres for the first 100 students, and one-half acre
for each additional 100 students, or fraction thereof.
2. Junior or senior high, 10 acres for the first 100 students, plus one-
half acre for each additional 100 students or fraction thereof.
N. Maximum lot coverage
The school and all auxiliary buildings shall not cover more than 35 percent of
the building site.
SECTION 2. VARIANCES FOR SCHOOLS
ORD.
Variances from any zoning regulations or special use criteria pertaining to
schools shall be submitted to the City Council. At the election of the applicant,
variance requests may be combined with an application for a special use permit and
considered at the same public hearing. The Council shall use the same criteria in
deciding whether to grant variances as are set forth in the zoning code for general
land use variances.
SECTION 3. MMC 17.52.010 REPEALED.
Medina Municipal Code 17.52.010 is hereby repealed.
SECTION 4. EFFECTIVE DATE.
This ordinance shall take effect five days after its publication or the
publication of a summary of its intent and contents.
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON THIS DAY OF
2004 AND SIGNED IN AUTHENTICATION OF ITS
PASSAGE THE DAY OF 2004.
Mary Odermat, Mayor
Approved as to form:
Kirk R. Wines, City Attorney
Attest:
Randy Reed, City Clerk
Passed:
ORD.
Filed:
Published:
Effective Date:
ORD.
SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO.
of the City of Medina, Washington
On , 2004, the City Council of the City of
Medina, Washington, passed Ordinance No. , the main points of which are
summarized by its title as follows, and approved this summary:
AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING SPECIAL USE CRITERIA FOR
SCHOOLS
The full text of this ordinance will be mailed upon request.
Randy Reed, City Clerk