Loading...
12/02/2003 City CouncilEDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES December 2, 2003 The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Haakenson in the Council Chambers, 250 5t' Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Gary Haakenson, Mayor Dave Earling, Council President Jeff Wilson, Councilmember Michael Plunkett, Councilmember Lora Petso, Councilmember Dave Orvis, Councilmember Deanna Dawson, Councilmember ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT Richard Marin, Councilmember ALSO PRESENT Alex Brent - Fielding, Student Representative 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA STAFF PRESENT Tom Tomberg, Fire Chief David Stern, Chief of Police Duane Bowman, Development Services Director Dan Clements, Administrative Services Director Noel Miller, Public Works Director Brent Hunter, Human Resources Director Rob Chave, Planning Manager Dave Gebert, City Engineer Don Fiene, Assistant City Engineer Meg Gruwell, Senior Planner Scott Snyder, City Attorney Sandy Chase, City Clerk Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst. Jeannie Dines, Recorder COUNCILMEMBER DAWSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, FOR APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA AS PRESENTED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COUNCILMEMBER DAWSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON, FOR APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: (A) ROLL CALL Approve 11/25/03 (B) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 25, 2003. Minutes Approve (C) APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #66995 THROUGH #67136 FOR THE WEEK OF Claim NOVEMBER 24, 2003, IN THE AMOUNT OF $240,191.53. Checks es# 1051 (D) RESOLUTION NO. 1051 REPEALING RESOLUTION NO. 851 AND ENACTING NEW Public CHARGES AND FEES FOR THE PHOTOCOPYING AND TRANSCRIPTION OF Record Fees PUBLIC RECORDS. es# 1052 (Ei) RESOLUTION NO. 1052 DECLARING AN EMERGENCY, ADOPTING FINDINGS Declaring an WITH RESPECT TO SUCH EMERGENCY AND RATIFYING A CONTRACT Emergency , ENTERED INTO WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF COMPETITIVE BIDDING. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 2, 2003 Page 1 zone at 3. CLOSED RECORD REVIEW OF THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION TO 114-23124 APPROVE A REZONE FROM RS -8 AND RM -2.4 TO BN (NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS) FOR 0' Ave. w PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 23114 — 23124 100TH AVENUE W, AND TO APPROVE A REZONE Z n pl2 W FROM RM -2.4 TO RS -8 FOR THE EASTERN HALF OF THE PROPERTY AT 23121 102ND PLACE W (FILE NO. R- 03 -73). Mayor Haakenson advised this was a quasi judicial hearing and in accordance with the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine, he asked whether Councilmembers had any conflicts or ex parte communications to disclose with regard to this hearing. Councilmember Plunkett inquired about the identity of the four unidentified property owners on page 16 of the packet. Planning Manager Rob Chave referred to the list of parties of record provided to Councilmembers, explaining the four property owners were the four parties of record. Hearing no challenges to the participation of any Councilmember, Mayor Haakenson advised all Councilmembers would participate in the closed record review. Mr. Chave displayed the Comprehensive Plan map approved by Council in November that illustrated the location of the subject property. He displayed an existing Zoning Map of the area, explaining the northern portion of the property was currently zoned multifamily. The property to the left, zoned multifamily, was part of a single family lot that accessed to the west. The remaining property facing on 100th Avenue West was occupied by a hair salon and the properties to the south were undeveloped and zoned single family. Mr. Chave displayed a map of the proposal, to approve a rezone to change the western portion of the existing multifamily to single family zoning which is consistent with the surrounding area. The properties fronting on 100th Avenue West would be zoned Neighborhood Business. He advised the Planning Board recommended approval; no public testimony was provided at the Planning Board. Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation for parties of record. There were no parties of record present who wished to provide testimony. Mayor Haakenson closed the public participation portion of the review. COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, TO APPROVE THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION TO REZONE THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES AND DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN ORDINANCE FOR ADOPTION BY COUNCIL. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. changes in 4. CLOSED RECORD REVIEW OF THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION TO Wing for APPROVE CHANGES IN ZONING FOR THE FOLLOWING SCHOOL PROPERTIES AS PART School Properties OF TRANSLATING THE EXISTING LAND USE MAPS FROM GENERALIZED DESIGNATION AREAS TO SPECIFIC, PARCEL -BASED LAND USE DESIGNATIONS: • CHASE LAKE ELEMENTARY, REZONE FROM P (PUBLIC) TO RS -8 • MAPLEWOOD SCHOOL, REZONE FROM P (PUBLIC) TO RS -8 • SEAVIEW ELEMENTARY, REZONE FROM P (PUBLIC) TO RS -12 • SHERWOOD ELEMENTARY, REZONE FROM P (PUBLIC) TO RS -8 • WESTGATE ELEMENTARY, REZONE FROM P (PUBLIC) TO RS -8 Mayor Haakenson advised this was a quasi judicial hearing and in accordance with the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine, he asked whether Councilmembers had any conflicts or ex parte communications to disclose. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 2, 2003 Page 2 Councilmember Wilson advised that one of the parties of record, Brent Carlstad (Edmonds School District), contributed a small amount to his campaign. He indicated it would have no affect on his ability to participate. Mayor Haakenson inquired whether any members of the audience wished to challenge Councilmember Wilson's participation. There were no objections voiced to the participation of any Councilmember and Mayor Haakenson advised all Councilmembers would participate in the review. Planning Manager Rob Chave advised this item was a follow -up to a Comprehensive Plan action Council took in November with regard to the five elementary sites zoned Public (P). The proposed action would bring the five sites into consistency with the Comprehensive Plan snap and bring the sites into consistency with development regulations in which public zoning was deemed to be for regional facilities and allow elementary schools to be permitted outright in residential zones. He summarized the proposal was to change the zoning of the five elementary sites to the single family residential zoning classification which was consistent with the zoning of the surrounding areas in which they are located. He provided an example, Maplewood School, whose zoning was currently Public (P) and under this proposal would be rezoned RS -8, consistent with the zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Chave advised the Planning Board recommended approval. He recalled testimony provided at the Planning Board included Bret Carlstad (Edmonds School District), who indicated the School District did not object to the action as it would not change the operation of the schools. Mayor Haakenson inquired whether the parties of record wished to provide testimony. None of the parties of record wished to provide testimony. COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, TO APPROVE THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION TO REZONE THE FIVE SCHOOL SITES AND DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN ORDINANCE FOR ADOPTION BY COUNCIL. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Proposed 5. PUBLIC HEARING ON A PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP AMENDMENT TO Change to CHANGE THE PLAN DESIGNATION TO "MIXED USE COMMERCIAL" FOR PROPERTIES Comp Plan — LOCATED AT 133 AND 137 SUNSET AVE. AND THE VACANT LOT SOUTH OF 133 SUNSET 133 and 137 AVE. AND NORTH OF 111 SUNSET AVE. (FILE NO. CDC -02 -237) Sunset Ave. and Vacant Lot South of Senior Planner Meg Gruwell displayed a vicinity and zoning map. She explained this public hearing was 133 Sunset a proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment that would be followed by consideration of a contract rezone (Agenda Item 6), a closed record review. Ms. Gruwell explained the applicant's mother -in -law moved into the house at 133 Sunset Avenue and encouraged them to locate their law office in the basement of the house. Upon further investigation, the applicant discovered law offices were prohibited in single family neighborhoods. In an effort to allow the law office in the home, a Comprehensive Plan amendment and rezone were pursued. When staff reviewed the application for a Comprehensive Plan amendment and rezone for the single lot, it appeared to be a spot rezone and staff recommended denial. The applicant then pursued a Comprehensive Plan amendment and rezone to include the neighboring properties to the north. and south. The result was an area slightly under '/2 acre, four lots and three property owners. She explained the proposal was a contract rezone; the uses would remain the same, with the only change a 25 foot height limit and limitations on side setbacks. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 2, 2003 Page 3 �I Ms. Gruwell referred to the required findings found on page 60 of the record, pointing out the first was consistency with the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. She noted there were a number of policies that would appear to apply including siting for a mix of uses, which the Community Business zone allowed, and avoiding encroachment into single family neighborhoods, which was somewhat of a concern with this application as it appeared this would be an encroachment into a single family neighborhood. The second required finding was the amendment would not be detrimental to the public interest, health safety or welfare of the city. The third finding was the amendment would maintain the appropriate balance of land uses within the city, noting this proposal would not result in much change. The fourth finding, whether the subject parcels were physically suitable for the requested land use, Ms. Gruwell explained the location near the bowl area made it physically suitable. Ms. Gruwell summarized the pros and cons of the proposal, noting the possible encroachment into the single family neighborhood was a concern as was the appearance of buildings because the BC zone on one side would have zero setbacks compared to the single family residential zone that had 20 foot setbacks. Another concern was height; in single family residential zones the height limit was 25 feet, a 30 foot height could be allowed in the BC zone with an approved modulated roof design. She briefly described the calculation of height using the average of the four corners of the building footprint. Ms. Gruwell recalled there was no public testimony at the two public hearings before the Planning Board other than the neighbor who was a party to the application. Letters have been received from neighbors expressing concern with the height and potential view blockage, traffic, noise, crime, and pollution. With regard to traffic, her discussions with the City's Traffic Engineer indicated the signal at Sunset and Main would eliminate any traffic concerns and traffic mitigation would address any other issues. Ms. Gruwell described reasons in favor of the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment included concern with noise from train whistles and the parcels of land that have remained vacant for many years. She noted the vacant land could potentially be developed into two home sites. The applicant has indicated the 2004 assessment for the vacant land was $972,000, thus there has been concern expressed with regard to the suitability of the parcels for single family development due to the cost. For Councilmember Plunkett, Ms. Gruwell identified the location of the Bell Street right -of -way, the 4- plex, the single family home proposed to have the law office in the basement, and the vacant lot. Councilmember Plunkett asked staff to describe what uses could be developed on the parcels. Ms. Gruwell responded the typical uses could be similar to the bowl area — restaurants, offices, etc. Councilmember Plunkett noted the properties across the street were single family homes. Councilmember Petso inquired whether the applicant could withdraw their contract rezone if the Council approved the Comprehensive Plan amendment and proceed with development. Ms. Gruwell answered the applicant could withdraw the contract rezone but without the rezone, they could not proceed with what they have proposed. City Attorney Scott Snyder advised the Council could make a finding that approval was based upon the offer of a contract rezone, therefore, if it were withdrawn, the Council could reconsider the Comprehensive Plan amendment. Councilmember Petso asked whether the three property owners were also parties to the contract rezone. Ms. Gruwell answered all the property owners in the Comprehensive Plan amendment were parties to the contract rezone. Councilmember Petso observed staff's original recommendation on the application was not to change the Comprehensive Plan and asked whether that was still staff's recommendation. Ms. Gruwell answered Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 2, 2003 Page 4 that after the last Planning Board hearing, staff changed their recommendation to the Planning Board's recommendation, finding enough information had been provided at the public hearing to indicate it met the criteria as well as lack of opposition to the proposal. Councilmember Petso inquired whether the contract rezone would address parking. Ms. Gruwell answered no. Councilmember Dawson expressed concern with parking in this area, inquiring whether a business would be required to provide parking off -site. Ms. Gruwell answered typically parking would be required to be provided on site. Councilmember Dawson recalled one of the reasons staff did not recommend approval previously was lack of room for parking on the site. Ms. Gruwell agreed that was an issue for the initial rezone proposal for the one property. When the proposal included more property, her understanding was that an arrangement had been made to provide parking nearby. She explained parking would typically be addressed when tenant improvements were proposed. Councilmember Dawson concluded the parking issue would be resolved via a later process if the Comprehensive Plan amendment were approved. Councilmember Wilson asked whether the purpose of the Comprehensive Plan amendment and rezone was to accommodate the proposed office use in the basement of the existing residence or were other uses contemplated. Ms. Gruwell answered for the site at 133 Sunset, the purpose was the law office in the basement. She assumed the vacant lots would be developed as a developer might propose. Councilmember Wilson asked whether there was any other mechanism in the existing code that would allow a law office in the basement of the residence. Ms. Gruwell answered only if a change were made to the Home Occupation Code to allow law offices. Councilmember Wilson inquired about the side setback in the RS -6 zone. Ms. Gruwell answered the minimum setback was 5 feet. Councilmember Wilson inquired whether the five year date in the contract rezone after which amendments could be proposed was standard. Mr. Snyder explained when the contract rezone was reviewed for general comments, he determined there was no provision for a period of time after which amendments could be proposed. His comment at that time was that a five year period was fairly standard; it often depended on the intensity of the use, conformity with the surrounding neighborhood, and investment that would be made based upon a proposal. His suggestion was a five year period. . Councilmember Wilson asked whether the Planning Board discussed a change in the Comprehensive Plan designation for the property on the east side of Sunset south of Bell Street or was it likely that area would remain single family. Planning Manager Rob Chave answered there was no discussion regarding this specific area although the Planning Board has discussed extending the configuration of downtown. Councilmember Petso asked whether approving a Comprehensive Plan amendment for the west side of Sunset south of Bell would set a precedent if an application for an amendment was submitted for a similar change to the homes on the east side of Sunset. Mr. Snyder referred to spot rezones, noting as part of the planning process the City Council could designate logical boundaries. One of the issues that often arose with Comprehensive Plan amendments and rezones was whether a proposal provided a logical boundary and transition. He noted the Council had a great deal of legislative discretion and their decision was given great deference by the court regarding clear and logical boundaries. Councilmember Petso inquired whether the west side of Sunset Avenue could be considered separate from the east side and be defended as a clear and logical boundary. Mr. Snyder answered yes, noting the Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 2, 2003 Page 5 record referred to noise, the quasi - industrial use of the railroad tracks, proximity to the waterfront area, etc. which would make it a logical distinction. Councilmember Plunkett noted that regardless of what the property owners indicated would be developed on the lots, a building 25 -30 feet in height could be constructed on each of the lots sometime in the future. Ms. Gruwell agreed. Ms. Gruwell advised the applicant informed the Planning Board there was grade separation between these lots and single family residential lots that looked over the top of these lots, making this less of an encroachment and different than the remainder of the single family neighborhood. AApplicant John Marts, representing Mary Ann Stark, the property owner, one of the attorneys proposing the law office in the basement of the residence, explained two of the four parcels were vacant and had never been developed. He noted the lots could be developed, providing a benefit to the City. He explained there were also two commercial lots on the east side of Sunset, Rory's and the adjacent property. To the north, there were two rental properties, a residence owned by one of the applicants, and the residence at the corner of Sunset and Bell. He explained the subject property was unique to Edmonds because the railroad tracks were on -grade with the buildings rather than buffered by a rise. He explained it was very loud and became louder as a result of the railroad, police on bullhorns advising of the closure of Brackett's Landing, etc. Mr. Marts explained when investigating purchase of the house, they were told by staff who administer business licenses that they could locate a law office in the basement even though he brought the restriction on doctor and law offices in residences to their attention. He was then asked to seek a variance and then a contract rezone. He was next told a Comprehensive Plan amendment would be required as well as a revised contract rezone. The contract rezone was then amended to accommodate the residences across the street by maintaining the uses in the area. With regard to Councilmember Plunkett's comment about 25 -foot tall buildings, he noted the building at 133 Sunset was 25 feet high. The houses across the street, which were further up the hill, looked over the top of the buildings. Their plan would be to allow more side yard setback to permit the peek -a -boo view to the water. Mr. Marts referred to the high assessment on the vacant land which was unlikely to be developed as residential property due to huge construction costs from required pilings. He noted the provision of sidewalks would push the buildings back 5 feet from the street, dropping the building down the bank, therefore, a 25 foot building would not be built adjacent to the street. He explained this area fit the criteria for Comprehensive Plan amendments as it was a transitional area and the noise made it unsuitable for residential use. With regard to parking, Mr. Marts acknowledged there was a parking problem on Sunset Avenue on weekends and at night, but not during the day. He summarized their interest was locating their law office in the basement of the residence to allow them to be close to his wife's mother, the property owner. Councilmember Plunkett referred to Mr. Marts comment that the area was not suitable for residential use, pointing out it was residential now as evidenced by the 4 -plex and the single family residence. Mr. Marts answered the apartments in the 4 -plex were very small and the occupants did not raise families there. He noted the vacant waterfront lots, although they had fabulous views, had never been sold or developed. Councilmember Dawson inquired whether the house in which Mr. Marts' mother -in -law resided was the only single family residential property in Edmonds at railroad grade. Mr. Marts agreed it was. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 2, 2003 Page 6 Councilmember Dawson referred to Mr. Marts' comment that there was not a parking problem in the area during the day, noting if the properties were developed with commercial uses, there was potential for them to be open at night. She concluded a building permit would require that the parking issue be addressed. Councilmember Wilson referred to Mr. Marts' implication that the proximity of the residential structures to the railroad made it unsuitable for residential use. He questioned what was a suitable setback from the railroad for residential use. Mr. Marts answered it would depend on the topography, noting there may not be adequate setback when the railroad was at grade level with a residence without some type of buffer. He referred to concrete walls constructed between freeways and residential uses to mitigate the noise of the freeways on the residential neighborhoods. Councilmember Wilson pointed out residences to the north of the subject property for the entire length of the City were adjacent to the railroad with varying degrees of grade separation. Mr. Marts noted there were banks above the railroad everywhere else in the city. Councilmember Wilson expressed concern with basing the reason for the amendment on the noise from the railroad. Mr. Marts noted the Sound Transit tracks would reduce the backyard setback for the 4 -plex, the residence at 133 Sunset, and the vacant lots. He estimated the distance from the railroad right -of -way to the back of the residence at 133 Sunset was approximately 40 feet, commenting there was no reduction in the noise or vibration in that distance. Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. He advised the Council had received a letter signed by 19 people indicating their opposition to the Comprehensive Plan amendment as well as a letter from A.P. and Joanne Swanson in opposition as well as an email from Liz Snyder in opposition. Council President Earling advised Don Drew, one of the property owners, contributed $100 to his Snohomish County Executive campaign. He then read a portion of the email received from Liz Snyder which he personally found very offensive, "You are representatives of all citizens of Edmonds. Should you deviate from the standard I've outlined above, I and others will perceive that you are bias, corrupt, and subject to the influence of election money." Council President Earling expressed his disappointment that anyone would think that a $100 contribution to a campaign in which $260,000 was raised would influence his vote. He found this accusation outrageous. COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, TO EXTEND THIS ITEM FOR 20 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Eric Sonett, 102 Bell Street, Edmonds, encouraged the Council to preserve their neighborhood by denying the proposed zoning change. He commented his grandmother -in -law lived in the house prior to them and they were told the area had been down -zoned but this had not been mentioned in this matter. He noted the proposal would increase traffic; commenting that although accommodating the law office may not increase traffic, allowing commercial development would. He noted Rory's has created traffic problems and destruction of property as well as a number of late night/early morning calls to the Police Department. He noted parking was a problem and a survey he conducted this summer indicated three - fourths of the cars parked in the morning were illegally parked and did not have residential permits. He noted the proposal was inconsistent with the park at Brackett's landing and suggested the City purchase the vacant lots to provide additional parking for the park and preserve the view corridor the lots currently provide. He noted that although the property may be unique to Edmonds, there were properties in Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 2, 2003 Page 7 Richmond Beach with similar alignment to the railroad, houses whose values were substantial. He agreed noise may be a problem but would be equally problematic for a law office and their clients. Ron Colwill, 204 Sunset, Edmonds, noted the noise from trail whistles, ferry landings and park users were unique characteristics of living on Sunset, not a detriment. He referred to people each year who approached him about selling his home. He advised allowing commercial use on the west side of Sunset would destroy the uniqueness of the area and it would be difficult in the future to identify an appropriate boundary. He noted traffic from commercial activity would exacerbate an existing traffic problem on Bell Street. He summarized that although he was not opposed to allowing the law practice in the residence as a conditional use, he was opposed to a rezone. Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, Edmonds, explained a resident could apply for a Home Occupation permit if their vehicle trips were similar to a residence although medical and law offices were prohibited home occupations. He alleged staff had their own book on the trips it took to qualify and if the applicant could illustrate that the law office would not exceed an acceptable number of vehicle trips, he likely could obtain a Home Occupation permit. He noted the process to accommodate this individual failed to include the entire area as a Comprehensive Plan amendment typically would, noting staff failed to include the properties on the east side of Sunset, making it a more comprehensive change. With regard to changes in the neighborhood, although staff referred to changes in nearby areas, he concluded there had not been a substantial change. He concluded this process was unnecessary as the applicant could have sought a permit for a Home Occupation. Hearing no further public comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public participation portion of the public hearing. Mr. Snyder agreed that although certain home occupations including doctors and lawyers were prohibited, they could apply for a home occupation permit but would need to establish that they would not generate any commercial traffic. He read from the Home Use Occupation Section 20.20.015(B) which states, "any permit granted to such an occupational use shall be voidable upon proof of any visit to the site by client, patient or customer and proof of one such visit shall be sufficient to void such permit." He noted staff did not have its own book on number of vehicle trips; for doctors and lawyers, no vehicle trips were allowed. Ms. Gruwell assured the information regarding vehicle trips was available on the City's webpage and did specifically state that doctors and law offices were prohibited. Councilmember Plunkett referred to Mr. Marts' reference to potential buildings on the property and that because of the sidewalks and the slope, the buildings would be down the slope and not adjacent to Sunset. He asked whether a commercial building could be built adjacent to the 5 foot setback. Ms. Gruwell recalled the contract rezone did not propose a setback from Sunset, therefore a building could be at the property line and the sidewalk would be in the right -of -way. She explained the front setback regardless of the contract rezone would be zero; the contract rezone only offered to change the side setback. She assumed that due to the grade, a building would be sited at the sidewalk. She again indicated the building height would be calculated using the average of the building footprint. Councilmember Petso inquired whether a real estate office which was not a prohibited use in the code, could obtain a permit for two agents and employees. Ms. Gruwell answered a real estate office would be allowed. Ms. Gruwell explained if clients did not come to the home office, there was an administrative Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 2, 2003 Page 8 process; if clients came to the house, an additional process was required. Councilmember Petso noted the only issue with the law office was it was a use that was prohibited for home occupations. Councilmember Wilson clarified it was an administrative process for approving a home occupation if it was only the resident working there with no clients. He noted occupations that were prohibited by the code could potentially obtain a permit if they obtained a Conditional Use Permit which was subject to review by the Hearing Examiner. Ms. Gruwell agreed. With regard to prohibited uses such as attorneys and doctors' offices, Councilmember Wilson asked whether they were prohibited because it was assumed they typically had clients that would generate a greater number of trips than other typical home occupations. Mr. Snyder clarified the requirement for home occupations was that there be no pickup or deliveries, all work at the site be conducted by people who live there, and not generate traffic. He explained the reason for prohibiting certain home occupations was that it was presumed certain occupations have patients /clients. He noted an applicant could overcome the prohibition by demonstrating they did not have anyone coming to the house. However, if traffic were generated, the home occupation permit could be lost. He summarized the issue was not the occupation but the traffic presumed to be generated. With regard to discussion of where a building could be located in relation to Sunset Avenue, Councilmember Wilson asked staff knew the location of the property line on Sunset Avenue, noting the property line would be what dictated the placement of structures, not the 5 -foot sidewalk. Ms. Gruwell agreed. Councilmember Wilson noted that unless a variance was sought, a building would likely not be higher than 25 feet and would likely be less based on the way the city calculated heights. He noted the contract rezone indicated they would not exceed the residential height limit of 25 feet. Councilmember Wilson noted in the BC zone, there was a large range of permitted uses. He asked whether the contract rezone proposed a limitation on any of the uses, hours of operation, etc. Ms. Gruwell answered no. Councilmember Wilson observed that a Determination of Non - Significance was issued for the Comprehensive Plan amendment and contract rezone. He noted the record did not include a copy of the Environmental Checklist, inquiring whether there was any evaluation of trip generation for the uses allowed in the BC zone. Ms. Gruwell indicated that would be considered at the time a project was proposed. Councilmember Wilson recalled the City adopted an EIS when the Comprehensive Plan was adopted which identified the boundaries of the designations. He noted this Comprehensive Plan amendment would change those boundaries. COUNCILMEMBER DAWSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, TO EXTEND THIS ITEM FOR 10 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Chave answered the original Comprehensive Plan EIS was prepared in 1994/1995. This proposal was determined not to be a significant change to the analysis conducted in 1994/1995 as it was not project - specific. Councilmember Petso suggested the Council deny the Comprehensive Plan amendment as the proposal was not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan due to the encroachment into the single family neighborhood and it may not be consistent with the public interest due to parking issues associated with increased commercial activity in that area. She concluded a change to the Home Occupation Ordinance would be more appropriate than a change in the Comprehensive Plan designation. COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, TO DENY THE PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 2, 2003 Page 9 Councilmember Plunkett spoke in favor of the motion, explaining although this area could be perceived as transitional and the property owners apparently have some difficulty with the noise, etc., he did not find the testimony compelling or relevant to a Comprehensive Plan amendment. He recalled testimony that the property owners had difficulty selling the vacant lots; however that was not the Council's responsibility. He recalled testimony that properties on the east side of Sunset were rentals, noting that did not make them less residential. Although reference was made to the inability to sell the two vacant lots, he noted residents live there as well as further north who are also adjacent to the railroad tracks. He concluded the proposed amendment was not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and would be detrimental to the single family zone. Councilmember Dawson noted this was a difficult decision. She empathized with the high property value on the vacant Drew property as well as the Marts who are attempting to accommodate the mother - in -law and their business. She noted while those were compelling reasons, it was not enough to support a Comprehensive Plan amendment. She acknowledged there were differences between the sides of the street but was not convinced it was appropriate for the Comprehensive Plan amendment. She expressed concern with staff's comment that they initially recommended against the Comprehensive Plan amendment and changed their mind because there was no testimony against the proposal. She emphasized opposition should not be the basis for staff's recommendation regarding a Comprehensive Plan amendment. She noted the number of letters and public testimony at the City Council level may indicate citizens are not adequately notified of Planning Board meetings. Councilmember Wilson commented there were several reasons for considering such a Comprehensive Plan amendment, however, the contract rezone did not limit the uses that might occur on the property, the only limitations were setbacks and structure heights. Because this would be an intrusion into a single family neighborhood and there were no provisions that limited the types of uses or hours of operation, he found the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment was not appropriate. He disagreed with Councilmember Petso that an amendment to the Home Occupation regulations was needed, noting the Home Occupation standards were in place to protect single family neighborhoods and opening the scope of uses would have a greater impact on the entire city than a Comprehensive Plan amendment. Councilmember Wilson noted parking could be addressed at the time a project was proposed, however, because of the potential impact increased traffic could have on the area, he would have expected that more information regarding traffic distribution would have been provided to allow the Council to consider the impact on the surrounding neighborhood. Council President Earling commented there was a dramatic difference between the east and west sides of Sunset and did not believe there was long term residential value in the properties on the west side. He noted as one traveled north on Main Street, there was an odd mixture of restaurant, office space, vacant land, a 4 -plex, and single family. He noted the best use of the property would be as the proposal stated. He indicated he would not vote in favor of the motion. MOTION CARRIED (5 -1), COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING OPPOSED. roposed 6. CLOSED RECORD REVIEW OF THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION TO ezone at APPROVE A REZONE FROM RS -6 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) TO BC (COMMUNITY 133 and 137 BUSINESS) FOR PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 133 AND 137 SUNSET AVE. AND THE VACANT Sunset Ave. LOT SOUTH OF 133 SUNSET AVE. AND NORTH OF 111 SUNSET AVE. (FILE NO. R -02 -133) Vacant South of Sunset City Attorney Scott Snyder explained the Council was obligated to make findings for denying the e. previous application. If the applicant failed to withdraw this application, the rules regarding rezone did Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 2, 2003 Page 10 not allow another rezone to be considered for a period of six years absent a change in circumstances. He suggested the Council consider continuing this item to allow the applicant to consider withdrawing the application. Mr. Marts indicated he was unable to speak for the other property owners with regard to withdrawing the application. COUNCILMEMBER DAWSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON, TO CONTINUE THIS ITEM TO JANUARY 20, 2004. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Moratorium- 7. PUBLIC HEARING ON ORDINANCE NO. 3473 ADOPTED PURSUANT TO RCW 35A.63.220; Processing ADOPTING AN INTERIM ZONING REGULATION IMPOSING A MORATORIUM ON THE Permit and PROCESSING OF PERMIT AND LICENSE APPLICATIONS FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF License OPIATE SUBSTITUTION TREATMENT SERVICE PROVIDER FACILITIES WITHIN THE Applications for Opiate CITY Substitution Treatment Provider Development Services Director Duane Bowman explained this was a public hearing on Ordinance 3473 ovid Facilities adopted pursuant to RCW 35A.63.220 adopting an interim zoning regulation imposing a moratorium on the establishment of opiate substitution treatment service providers within the city. He explained the Council passed an ordinance earlier this year, Ordinance No. 3445, establishing a moratorium; unfortunately, the Planning Board was not able to consider the issue and the moratorium expired, requiring the adoption of a new moratorium. He explained the passage of Ordinance No. 3473 would provide the Planning Board the ability to study the issue and report back to the Council. He noted this was a required public hearing to take testimony on the ordinance. Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing Steve Bernheim, 216 4th Avenue N, Edmonds, commented it was widely acknowledged that methadone was a very effective medical treatment under a doctor's supervision in reducing harm to addicts, their families, and society. He noted treatment of a heroin addict typically resulted in a reduction in crime, a reduction in family violence, and a reduction in the cost to society. He acknowledged drug abuse and addiction was very costly to society but medical treatment of drug addiction rather than the law enforcement treatment was more successful and less costly. He is a member of the King County Bar Association Drug Policy Project which has sought to develop a comprehensive reform so that expenditures to control drugs via the use of police and the courts are mitigated and the results improved. He provided the Council a copy of a document entitled "Task Force on Drug Addiction Treatment" led by the King County Bar Association Drug Policy Project in May 2001. He encouraged anyone with questions regarding this program to contact the King County Bar Association Drug Policy Project. Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, Edmonds, recalled when he was a Councilmember and represented the City on the Snohomish County Health District, there was concern with needle programs and whether such a program promoted drugs. He agreed with the moratorium to allow the City to determine whether this type of treatment was against the Council's principles, and to determine appropriate locations for such facilities. He recommended Edmonds develop an Interlocal Agreement with Lynnwood, Mountlake Terrace, and Shoreline to take a south -county approach to establishing opiate substitution treatment service providers. He suggested direction and goals for review be provided to the Planning Board. Hearing no further public comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public participation portion of the public hearing. City Attorney Scott Snyder explained this zoning moratorium was effective for six months and its purpose was to allow the Planning Board to continue its consideration of location and secondary impacts. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 2, 2003 Page 11 He noted this issue was docketed on the Planning Board agenda and he encouraged the speakers to be involved in the process. These facilities were likely essential public facilities for the purposes of the GMA and as such the City had an obligation to permit them somewhere within the borders of the city pursuant to a proper application. The issues to be considered include location and how secondary impacts were addressed. One of the main issues for consideration was the use was not currently provided for in the city's zoning districts. He commented many doctors currently had the ability to prescribe methadone in existing clinics, therefore opiate substitution treatment was occurring in the City on a case - by -case basis. Mr. Snyder advised no action was required; the purpose of the public hearing was to gather public testimony in accordance with the requirements that govern interim zoning regulations and moratoria. 8. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Don Fiene, 20311 92 "d Avenue W, Edmonds, expressed concern with the L -5 Salary Study because stu yalary there was no consultation with affected employees, comparisons were done by job title and no research was performed regarding actual job duties, and comparisons were made with cities outside the Seattle Metro area that have lower costs of living as well as with cities that are substantially larger than Edmonds. With regard specifically to the Assistant Engineer position, Mr. Fiene noted three of the cities used for comparison had separate water and sewer districts and the position did not deal with water and sewer related issues. Conversely, he developed the Water and Sewer Comprehensive Plans and outlined approximately $1.5 million in capital projects performed each year. Further, in two of the cities used for comparison, the position dealt only with development issues and no capital projects. He noted these comparison issues also pertained to the City Engineer position as well. With regard specifically to the Engineering Specialist positions, Mr. Fiene pointed out three comparisons were with cities that had significantly lower costs of living than Edmonds (Longview, Lacey & Puyallup) and an adjustment factor was needed to make these a fair comparison. Further, four of the comparisons were with cities that were significantly larger than Edmonds (Vancouver, Bellevue, Kent & Bellingham); large city bureaucracy translates to less diverse job duties and less responsibility. Also with regard to the Engineering Specialist position, two cities that were on the L -5 list (Kirkland & Bothell) show no comparable salary although they are perhaps the best comparisons; a comparison was apparently not done because the job titles differ, project engineer rather than engineering specialist. He concluded the four engineering positions were compared by job title rather than job duties, a proper comparison study would likely reveal that the Edmonds engineering salaries were lower than the median, and poor comparisons demonstrate the L -5 study is flawed and all recommendations from the study are questionable. He recommended a study that compared job descriptions rather than job titles be performed by an outside consultant every 6 -8 years rather than performing an arbitrary study every year. monds Natalie Shippen, 1022 Euclid, Edmonds, pointed out the Edmonds Crossing was a poor location for a Tossing ferry terminal due to its exposed location. She read the consultant's description of the problems including that WSF ferry captains have expressed concern about their ability to dock at a facility constructed at Pt. Edwards due to increased wind and wave exposure. Studies now indicate orienting the ferry slips into the storm winds and providing a floating breakwater would minimize the impact of wind and waves on ferry docking. To ensure operational reliability at the new ferry terminal, three landing slips would be constructed and because of the exposed setting of the landings, a breakwater and wave barrier would be required to attenuate the waves. She noted the third slip would be aligned to accommodate high wind approaches but would not be optimal for minimal crossing times. She summarized the steps that must be taken to make the Pt. Edwards site usable costs money, $20,900,000 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 2, 2003 Page 12 for the breakwater, $935,000 for the wave barrier, $7,600,000 for the third slip, and $21 million for a people mover. She concluded the consultants have indicated this was a high cost project; she found it not only a high cost project but a high cost waste project. ropositton 1 Al Rutledge, 7101 Lake Ballinger Way, Edmonds, recalled he urged the Council to provide adequate ommittee information to the residents regarding Prop. 1. He explained he had submitted an application to participate on the committee in favor of the measure but was told three persons had already been selected. He encouraged the Council to have an interview process for appointment to such committees. He announced the musical event at the waterfront on December 9. Fire Dept. Training Don Kreiman, 24006 95t'' Place W, Edmonds, thanked the Council for approving funding for the Fire Officer Department Training Officer. He noted King County Executive Sims announced his final selection for the Brightwater site, the Highway 9 site, and he thanked the Washington Tea Party and Mayor rightwater Haakenson for their efforts to oppose the siting of Brightwater in Edmonds. Human Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, Edmonds, expressed concern with plans to eliminate the Human Resources Resources position and distribute that position's duties to other departments, particularly when other Director departments were already overworked. He questioned whether the Administrative Services or Community Services Directors had any human resource expertise. He urged the Council to reconsider eliminating the Human Resources position, and to specifically consider whether the duties conducted by that position were critical and could create liability for the city if not handled correctly as well as considering the amount of time spent on those duties. He concluded distributing the human resource duties would splinter the personnel functions of the City. He stressed the importance of having someone with expertise overseeing that function. Workers 9. PRESENTATION ON THE AWC WORKERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE RETRO PLAN Comp AND AUTHORIZATION FOR MEMBERSHIP Insurance Human Resources Director Brent Hunter explained the AWC representative who was to assist with this presentation was ill and there was a December 10 deadline for joining the plan at the beginning of 2004. He explained the Council could also join at the beginning of any successive quarter if there were outstanding questions regarding the plan. Mr. Hunter explained the AWC Workers Compensation Insurance Retro Plan was developed by AWC to assist cities in holding down escalating workers compensation insurance costs. He noted not only did the overall cost of workers compensation increase, it was dependant on the City's experience. He explained the Retro Plan would allow member cities to receive a refund if they had a positive experience. He referred to a comparison of the City's experience over the past four years; had the City been participating in this Plan, the City could have been eligible to receive $182,000 in refunds. He explained AWC anticipated the City would receive a 20 -25% refund if the City participated in the program. He reiterated refunds were based on experience, the more positive experience, the better the refund. This program also provided professional claims management experience and risk management/safety expertise. Mr. Hunter explained the cost to join the AWC Workers Compensation Insurance Retro Plan was 6.5% of the City's annual premium. He noted approximately $271,000 was projected for workers compensation premiums in 2004. He referred to an example in the packet of how the refund and service fee would be applied to Edmonds. He also referred to a retro rating timeline, explaining the funds to join the Retro Plan were not budgeted in 2004 but could be funded via ending cash balance. He explained the refund would be provided to the City the following year; if the City joined in 2004, the refund plus Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 2, 2003 Page 13 service fee would be provided in 2005. Therefore, once the Plan was funded, it was basically self - funding. Councilmember Petso inquired about the potential downside of joining the Plan other than the fee. Mr. Hunter explained the potential downside was that the City would be entering a risk pool. Although AWC selected the members they would like to participate, if the entire pool's experience was bad, the City could be assessed an additional fee to cover the additional cost. Councilmember Petso concluded this was analogous to a self - insurance program. Mr. Hunter agreed, noting a full refund would not be provided for the first four years to allow establishment of a reserve pool to cover any potential losses. COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, TO AUTHORIZE MEMBERSHIP IN THE AWC INSURANCE WORKERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE RETRO PLAN WITH FUNDING FROM ENDING CASH BALANCE. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 10. PRESENTATION OF L -5 SALARIES 5 Salary Human Resources Director Brent Hunter reviewed the L -5 Salary findings, noting that in accordance study with the L -5 Salary Plan that was established in 2000, he was required to provide an update to the Council each year. He noted this year in addition to the L -5 Endings, a policy change was suggested to address a concern raised by the Finance Committee regarding Edmonds salaries that consistently exceed the L -5 level. The Finance Committee also suggested expanding the geographical area that was surveyed. If the Council accepted the L -5 findings and wanted to move forward, staff would return with the annual salary ordinance for non - represented employees which would be effective January 1, 2004. Mr. Hunter acknowledged there had been some questions raised recently with regard to the L -5 policy. He explained the L -5 policy was proposed by former Councilmember Miller in 1999; at the time, the City was experiencing several salary problems including difficulty recruiting, internal compression, and significant differences with salaries for key positions in other cities. He explained the L -5 policy required surveying cities in the Pierce, King, and Snohomish County areas of similar population, selecting the four cities above and below the City's population, comparing salaries in those organizations and ranking them on the basis of salaries. The result was nine cities, including Edmonds, and the median was selected, thus the L -5 or level 5. The policy had been evolving since the policy was enacted. Mr. Hunter referred to the November 2003 L -5 Recommendations that listed positions, current top salary range, L -5 Endings, and recommended minimum and maximum salary ranges based on the L5 Endings. He noted there were seven positions for which he recommended the salary range be adjusted. The L -5 policy affected 40 non - represented employees or approximately 15% of the City's workforce. He also pointed out not all non - represented employees were paid according to the L -5 salary range; approximately 60% were at the top of the salary range and not eligible for merit increases. Mr. Hunter reviewed proposed changes in the L -5 policy, first, to address the positions where Edmonds' salary was higher than the L -5 level, it was suggested that after three consecutive years that the position was determined to be paid greater than the L -5 findings, the position's salary would be frozen making it ineligible for cost -of- living increases. He recommended the three year period begin this year. He noted several positions exceeded the L -5 level at the Council's request due to superior performance, for example the City Clerk, Traffic Engineer, and Assistant City Engineer. He noted the Council may be asked to reaffirm those decisions. The second proposed change, suggested by the Finance Committee, would expand the geographical area of the survey from the current tri- county area (Snohomish, King, and Pierce) to the Puget Sound Region. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 2, 2003 Page 14 He suggested the data collected from closer to the City's market was more reliable and the tri- country area provided good data. He requested the Council provide direction on the two proposed changes. Mayor Haakenson clarified non - represented employees covered by the L -5 salary policy represented 15% of the City's workforce. Mr. Hunter answered there were 40 employees covered by the L -5 salary policy; salaries for the remainder were covered by labor agreements. Councilmember Dawson requested clarification regarding when the three year period before a salary was frozen would begin. Mr. Hunter clarified 2004 would be the first year of the three year period. Councilmember Dawson asked how the concerns that have been raised tonight would be pursued after Mr. Hunter retired. She noted if after two years the survey indicated the City was paying more for a position than other cities, either. the City was overpaying that person or that position was doing a different job. She noted recent staff reductions may have resulted in employees who are performing more functions than that position performs in another city. Mr. Hunter assumed once a position was identified the first year, those employees would ensure the data was accurate. Councilmember Dawson questioned whether the employee would be responsible for researching comparable positions. Mr. Hunter noted the employee would likely question the City to ensure the information was accurate. Councilmember Dawson acknowledged that she was not a great fan of the L -5 policy. She suggested the L -5 policy be used as a guide but not the only source of information in view of differences between job titles in other cities, etc. She asked how many employees did not have a comparable position in the survey. Mr. Hunter answered there were two positions in the current survey that did not have a comparable, the Engineering Project Manager and a Planner. Councilmember Dawson commented it may be time to revisit the L -5 policy. She recommended the Finance Committee consider whether the policy had outlived its usefulness and whether adjustments were needed to be made to the policy to make it more fair. Councilmember Petso clarified for positions which the City was currently paying in excess of the L -5, there would be no chance of freezing their salary until 2007. Mr. Hunter agreed that was his recommendation. Councilmember Plunkett asked for clarification of the action required of the Council. Mr. Hunter answered there were three items, 1) the findings of the L -5 survey, 2) the policy change enacting a three year period after which a salary would be frozen, and 3) a policy change to expand the geographical area in which the survey is conducted. Councilmember Wilson asked how the Puget Sound Area was defined. Mr. Hunter answered it would be the area from Olympia to Bellingham including the Kitsap area. Councilmember Wilson inquired about the basis for changing the geographical area. Councilmember Petso answered cities like Olympia or Bremerton may be more comparable to Edmonds, both in salaries and jobs duties and could broaden the pool of comparables. COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, TO APPROVE THE L -5 SALARY FINDINGS. Councilmember Petso recalled she was opposed to the original L -5 salary policy for a variety of reasons including several mentioned by Mr. Fiene. She provided other examples such as when the City's new Finance Director was hired, he indicated the lower salary was compensated for by the benefit package. She recommended the benefit package be included in the salary comparison. She noted the amount the Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 2, 2003 Page 15 City saved by Mr. Fiene developing the Water and Sewer Comprehensive Plan rather than hiring a consultant more than paid his salary that year. She pointed out this revealed there may be differences in the job duties of the positions that are compared. She disagreed with approving a salary policy that continued to provide salaries based on a bad policy with actual salaries that exceed the ranges specified in the policy. Councilmember Dawson agreed further review of the policy was necessary but these were the findings of the L -5 study. MOTION CARRIED (5 -1), COUNCILMEMBER PETSO OPPOSED. COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS MOVED TO ADD NEW LANGUAGE TO INCLUDE A PROCESS TO ADJUST A POSITION'S SALARY AFTER IT HAS EXCEEDED ITS L -5 SALARY LEVEL FOR THREE CONSECUTIVE YEARS. THE POSITION'S SALARY WOULD BE FROZEN (NO FUTURE COLAs) UNTIL IT CATCHES UP TO THE L -5 LEVEL, BEGINNING IN 2004. MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED TO APPLY A FREEZE TO POSITIONS THAT ARE OVER THE L -5 SALARY RANGE FOR THREE YEARS WITH THE FIRST YEAR A SALARY COULD BE FROZEN WOULD BE IN 2005. MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. COUNCILMEMBER DAWSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, TO REFER THE L -5 SALARY POLICY TO THE FINANCE COMMITTEE TO LOOK AT THE L -5 POLICY TO DETERMINE WHETHER IT STILL MAKES SENSE AND MAKE FURTHER RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING THE SALARY POLICY IN THE FUTURE. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mayor Haakenson pointed out the L -5 Policy covered 15% of the City's employees. In 2004, the City would be negotiating all the labor contracts that cover 85% of the City's employees. He encouraged the Council to provide staff as much policy guidance as possible during that process. 11. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Haakenson wished Senior Executive Council Assistant Jana Spellman a happy birthday on December 5. 12. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Petso referred to mail the Council has received requesting the minutes of October 28 be Request to revised to quote three words of a citizens' testimony verbatim. Revise Minutes s ro COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED TO REVISE THE MINUTES OF OCTOBER 28 TO mut QUOTE THREE WORDS VERBATIM, "CORRUPT AND CRIMINAL" AS REQUESTED BY MR. ROOTVIK. In response to an inquiry by Mayor Haakenson, City Clerk Chase explained the City's minutes, although more detailed than some cities, were summary minutes. MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 2, 2003 Page 16 Mayor Haakenson recalled Mr. Rootvik also asked the Council for other action. Councilmember Petso answered she was unable to address Mr. Rootvik's request without the presence of City Attorney Scott Snyder. Councilmember Dawson commented she did not recall that was the language Mr. Rootvik used, it if could be confirmed by the tape, she would support adding it verbatim to the minutes. Councilmember Dawson congratulated Edmonds - Woodway High School for receiving the Outstanding Marching Band award for the BON - Macy's parade, the highest award for a marching band below the university level. CS/DS Councilmember Wilson advised the Community Services/Development Services committee meeting was Committee Meeting - rescheduled for December 16 at 6:00 p.m. 12/16 at 6:00 m With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 9:40 p.m. G Y H T SON, MAYOR SANDRA S. CHASE, CITY CLERK Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 2, 2003 Page 17 1 1 DECEMBER 2, 2003 7:00 p.m. - Call to Order Flag Salute 1. Approval of Agenda 2. Consent Agenda Items (A) Roll Call (B) Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of November 25, 2003. (C) Approval of claim checks #66995 through #67136 for the week of November 24, 2003, in the amount of $240,191.53. (D) Proposed Resolution repealing Resolution No. 851 and enacting new charges and fees for the photocopying and transcription of public records. (E) Proposed Resolution declaring an emergency, adopting findings with respect to such emergency, and ratifying a contract entered into without the benefit of competitive bidding. 3. ( 5 Min.) Closed Record Review of the Planning Board recommendation to approve a rezone from RS -8 and RM -2.4 to BN (Neighborhood Business) for properties located at 23114 - 23124 100th Ave. W, and to approve a rezone from RM -2.4 to RS -8 for the eastern half of the property at 23121 102"" Pl. W. (File No. R- 03 -73). 4. (10 Min.) Closed Record Review of the Planning Board recommendation to approve changes in zoning for the following school properties as part of translating the existing land use maps from generalized designation areas to specific, parcel - based land use designations: • Chase Lake Elementary, rezone from P (Public) to RS -8 • Maplewood School, rezone from P (Public) to RS -8 • Seaview Elementary, rezone from P (Public) to RS -12 • Sherwood Elementary, rezone from P (Public) to RS -8 • Westgate Elementary, rezone from P (Public) to RS -8 Page 1 of 2 CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA DECEMBER 2, 2003 Page 2 of 2 5. (20 Min.) Public Hearing on a proposed Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment to change the plan designation to "Mixed Use Commercial" for properties located at 133 and 137 Sunset Ave. and the vacant lot south of 133 Sunset Ave. and north of 111 Sunset Ave. (File No. CDC -02 -237) 6. (20 Min.) Closed Record Review of the Planning Board recommendation to approve a rezone from RS -6 (Single Family Residential) to BC (Community Business) for properties located at 133 and 137 Sunset Ave. and the vacant lot south of 133 Sunset Ave. and north of 111 Sunset Ave. (File No. R -02 -133) 7. ( 5 Min.) Public Hearing on Ordinance No. 3473 adopted pursuant to RCW 35A.63.220; adopting an interim zoning regulation imposing a moratorium on the processing of permit and license applications for the establishment of opiate substitution treatment service provider facilities within the city., 8. Audience Comments (3 Minute Limit Per Person)* "Regarding matters not listed as Closed Record Review or as Public Hearings. 9. (20 Min.) Presentation on the AWC Workers Compensation Insurance Retro Plan and authorization for membership. 10. (10 Min.) Presentation of L -5 Salaries. 11. ( 5 Min.) Mayor's Comments 12. (15 Min.) Council Comments ADJOURN Parking and meeting rooms are accessible for persons with disabilities. Contact the City Clerk at (425) 771 -0245 with 24 hours advance notice for special accommodations. The Council Agenda as well as a delayed telecast of the meeting appears on cable television Government Access Channel 21.