11/18/2003 City CouncilEDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES
November 18, 2003
The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Haakenson in the Council
Chambers, 250 5`l' 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
Richard Marin, Councilmember
Deanna Dawson, Councilmember
ALSO PRESENT
Alex Brent - Fielding, Student Representative
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
STAFF PRESENT
Tom Tomberg, Fire Chief
Al Compaan, Assistant Police Chief
Duane Bowman, Development Serv. Director
Stephen Clifton, Community Services Director
Dan Clements, Administrative Services Director
Jim Larson, Assistant Admin. Services Director
Arvilla Ohlde, Parks and Recreation Director
Noel Miller, Public Works Director
Scott James, Accountant
Rob Chave, Planning Manager
Dave Gebert, City Engineer
Steve Bullock, Senior Planner
Scott Snyder, City Attorney
Sandy Chase, City Clerk
Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst.
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DAWSON, FOR
APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
Council President Earling requested Item G be removed from the Consent Agenda.
COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT FOR
APPROVAL OF THE REMAINDER OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows:
Approve (A) ROLL CALL
11/8/03
Minutes
(B) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 8, 2003.
Approve
11/10/03 (C) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 10, 2003.
Minutes
(D) APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #66681 THROUGH #66822 FOR THE WEEK OF
prove
im NOVEMBER 10, 2003, IN THE AMOUNT OF $439,905.72.
ecks
(E) APPROVAL OF LIST OF EDMONDS BUSINESSES APPLYING FOR RENEWAL OF
°or THEIR LIQUOR LICENSES WITH THE WASHINGTON STATE LIQUOR CONTROL
d
an BOARD.
o
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 18, 2003
Page 1
oiceStream (F) APPROVAL OF FACILITIES LEASE FOR COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES BY AND
Facilities BETWEEN THE CITY OF EDMONDS AND VOICE STREAM PCS III CORPORATION.
Lease
Item G: Approval of Facilities Lease with AT &T Wireless Services of Washington
Council President Earling expressed his continued opposition to this type of facility.
COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, FOR
APPROVAL OF ITEM G. MOTION CARRIED (6 -1), COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING
OPPOSED. The item approved is as follows:
AT&T
Facilities (G) APPROVAL OF FACILITIES LEASE WITH AT &T WIRELESS SERVICES OF
I-ease WASHINGTON
004 Budg 3. PUBLIC HEARING AND DISCUSSION ON THE 2004 BUDGET
et
Administrative Services Director Dan Clements referred to the correspondence from Mayor Haakenson
in response to issues raised by the Council and the public. He noted there was also information provided
to Council regarding the Economic Development Director position.
Councilmember Dawson advised at a SnoCom budget committee meeting, the committee developed a
final recommendation regarding the 2004 assessment. She anticipated the committee's recommended
assessment would be approved by the SnoCom Board on Thursday. She noted the committee had been
reviewing an operating budget increase of 3% but a larger increase would be necessary due to the
withdrawal of Fire District 1. Because SnoCom was able to add Mill Creek as a member of SnoCom as
well as realize budget savings, the recommended increase was a 7.8% increase rather than the worst case
scenario increase of 15.5 %. She advised the actual Edmonds assessment was a 7.6% increase, a
substantial reduction of the previously budgeted amount, approximately $65,000 less.
Councilmember Plunkett expressed his thanks to Mr. Clements for the answers he provided to Council
questions during previous meetings. He explained to the audience that the Council made numerous
requests for information and Mr. Clements did an excellent job answering the questions and outlining the
issues. He advised the questions and responses were available to the public.
Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Ray Martin, 18704 94th Avenue W, Edmonds, questioned why citizens had not been made aware that
in three of the past five years, the State Auditor found the city did not make monitoring of financial
activities a priority. He noted this information was reported in an Everett Herald article. He asked if the
Council would make public safety a priority, and he recommended the Police and Fire Departments be
restored to the fullest extent possible, particularly a Training Officer for the Fire Department. He
inquired if the Council would approve the proposed Economic Development Director position to replace
the Alliance and eliminate the Human Resources Director position. He also asked if the Council would
consider limiting staff salaries. He concluded citizens wanted improvement in the financial management
of the city and not further cuts in services.
Ron Wambolt, 504 6th Avenue S, Edmonds, noted the failure of the levy lid lift should be instructive to
the Council during their deliberations on the budget. The defeat of Proposition 1 would have been more
resounding had there been an organized campaign against it similar to the campaign in favor of it and a
statement against Proposition 1 in the voters pamphlet as there had been a statement in favor of it. He
cited reasons for the defeat including that the public found it deceitful to structure it as a Police and Fire
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 18, 2003
Page 2
levy, the Council failed to recognize that taxpayers wanted a temporary reduction in the compensation
and benefits received by Councilmembers and City employees, voters' resentment of intimidating ads
placed by the Firefighters Union and Police Officers Association, and because taxpayers found a one-
time 22% increase in taxes too high.
Council President Earling responded an effort was made to get someone to write a statement against
Proposition 1 but the City received no response.
Don Kreiman, 24006 95th Place W, Edmonds, described his background as a firefighter, grant writer
for emergency medical services (EMS), and assistance with developing a federal integrated statewide
EMS run report in Iowa. He noted his ex -wife, who served as an EMS technician for six years, was
eventually forced to quit due to stress because there were too few EMS professionals and this stress
helped end their marriage. He concluded firefighters and paramedics dealt with a great deal of stress, yet
the budget included $425,000 in overtime as well as $139,000 in holiday buy back in 2003, and the 2004
budget included nearly $400,000 in overtime and $148,000 in holiday buy back. He concluded
firefighters and paramedics may have too much stress because there are not enough personnel. If public
safety was the Council's priority, he suggested the Mayor be asked to investigate why so much overtime
was necessary. He noted not only could overtime costs be reduced, but the impact on firefighters and
paramedics' families could be reduced.
Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, Edmonds, suggested that the Traffic Engineer position be
eliminated as that person would not have any work to do because of the reductions in street
improvements as a result of I -776. He noted this issue had not been addressed other than in Human
Resources Director Brent Hunter's response regarding other cities with Traffic Engineers. He urged the
Council to support the Fire Training Officer position and reduce or freeze staff salaries. He asked why a
Human Resources Director had been necessary in the past but now that position could be eliminated, and
suggested the Council provide a response regarding that position. He suggested the Council consider the
cost for the Community Services Director, Human Resources Director and Economic Development
Director as well as what each position did and whether the positions were necessary.
Hearing no further comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public participation portion of the public
hearing.
Council President Earling relayed Councilmember Marin's request that the Council adopt the budget at
the November 25 Council meeting as he would be out of town in December. Council President Earling
asked for input from the Council whether they were comfortable proceeding with approving the budget at
next week's meeting.
Councilmember Petso suggested the Council discuss the issues raised during the public hearing regarding
the Traffic Engineer, Economic Development Director, and Human Resources Director. She supported a
Fire Training Officer over an Economic Development Director.
Councilmember Dawson spoke in favor of maintaining the Traffic Engineer position, commenting the
current Traffic Engineer has obtained much more than his salary in grants and funding opportunities.
She noted there were road projects occurring in the city, just not as many. She concluded the work done
by the Traffic Engineer was exemplary and his expertise had allowed the City to obtain funds for projects
that otherwise would not have been possible.
Councilmember Marin expressed his support for restoring funding for the Snohomish County Economic
Development Council, the Fire Training Officer, one additional firefighter, the Economic Development
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 18, 2003
Page 3
Director, the Highway 99 Task Force, and the Zoning Study. He noted the Council would also need to
discuss the increase in the Adix contract, approximately $4,000 - $6,000. In addition, he supported
retaining the Traffic Engineer position.
Councilmember Plunkett advised he was prepared to act on the budget and vote on amendments at the
next Council meeting.
Councilmember Orvis expressed his support for the Fire Training Officer, the Economic Development
Director, and the Traffic Engineer.
Council President Earling advised after hearing comments, and unless the Council wished, he did not
intend to discuss the Traffic Engineer position further next week.
Councilmember Dawson commented it was not enough for Councilmembers to identify items they
supported but they also needed to identify how to fund the items. She recommended that be the
Council's priority next week. She supported the Fire Training Officer, noting the City's contracts with
Woodway and Esperance had increased by more in the past two years than the amount needed to fund
that position. She commented not having a Fire Training Officer could jeopardize those contracts and the
reason Mayor Haakenson was able to negotiate a favorable contract was due to the excellent service the
Fire Department provides. Further, she recommended the savings in the amount budgeted for SnoCom
be used to fund the Fire Training Officer. She suggested the Council also consider using cash carry
forward to fund that position, noting she did not support pursuing funding from banked capacity.
Councilmember Wilson agreed with Councilmember Dawson regarding the need to identify the source
for funding items. He noted the six potential modifications were worthy of discussion provided funding
could be identified. He encouraged the Council to prioritize the six potential modifications in the event
sufficient funds were not available to fund them all. With regard to the Economic Development Director,
he commented that position was critical to the city. He referred to his work with cities in California who,
since adoption of Proposition 13, were sustained by economic development as they could not rely on
property taxes. He supported the Economic Development Director position, noting that unless new
revenues were generated, the City would face more cuts in the future.
Councilmember Petso recommended funding the Fire Training Officer with the funds allocated to the
Economic Development Director. She disagreed that without an Economic Development Director,
economic development would not occur. She noted every Councilmember and candidate agreed it was
necessary to generate sales tax revenue on Highway 99. She commented if an Economic Development
Director could not be funded, possibly other staff members could assist with that effort.
Mayor Haakenson read staff's recommendation regarding funding the potential modifications to the
budget:
Potential Modification
Amount
Staff Recommended Funding Source
Restore Snohomish County EDC
$5,000
2004 Ending Fund Balance
Add Fire Training Officer
$112,000
Banked Capacity or Council choice
Fire Fighter
$60,000
Fire Overtime Savings
Economic Development Director
$102,000
Currently in budget
Highway 99 Task Force
$12,000
2003 Council Contingency Ca -over
Highway 99 Zoning Stud
$20,000
Currentl in Budget
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 18, 2003
Page 4
Mayor Haakenson concluded of the six items, funding only needed to be identified for the Fire Training
Officer. He asked what information the Council needed from staff to facilitate next week's discussion.
Councilmember Wilson pointed out the need to discuss the Human Resources Director position.
Councilmember Petso asked for a calculation of how much expenditures would exceed revenue if all the
items were added to the budget.
Councilmember Orvis commented this was one of the most excellent budgets that had been provided
since he was on the Council. He was particularly impressed with the consolidation of staff and other
difficult decisions that had been made. He thanked Mayor Haakenson and Mr. Clements for their efforts
on the budget.
Proposed 4. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO DENY A
omprehen- PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP AMENDMENT TO CHANGE THE PLAN
ive Plan DESIGNATION FROM "SINGLE FAMILY — SMALL LOT" TO "MULTI FAMILY — MEDIUM
Amendment
for Property DENSITY" FOR PROPERTIES LOCATED ON 231ST PLACE SW AND ALONG THE EAST SIDE
on 231` Pl. OF 97TH AVENUE W SOUTH OF EDMONDS WAY. (FILE NO. CDC -02 -232)
SW and 97'
ve. W.
Senior Planner Steve Bullock explained a letter had been submitted by the applicant, Ms. Mantooth,
withdrawing her rezone request. The original application was for a Comprehensive Plan amendment as
well as a general rezone. He noted the rezone was scheduled on the Council agenda for review on
December 2. He explained part of the reason Ms. Mantooth withdrew her request for a rezone was in
response to the concern expressed by the Planning Board that a general rezone of the property would not
necessarily comply with the goals and policies for development along the Edmonds Way Corridor. She
also felt that if she withdrew the rezone request, and returned with a contract rezone or other proposal
that was more development specific, it would increase her chances of getting the Comprehensive Plan
amendment approved. Mr. Bullock also referred to a letter received yesterday and provided to the
Council from Ben Farrar in support of the Comprehensive Plan amendment as proposed.
Mr. Bullock displayed a map of the Westgate area and described the location of the properties on 231st
Place Southwest and the east side of 970' Avenue West, west of Edmonds Way that were the subject of
the Comprehensive Plan amendment request. He identified the PUD electrical substation located on the
eastern half of the property that fronts on Edmonds Way, a single family home, the home used for Fowler
Portraits, and properties developed with duplexes prior to the area annexing to the city. He displayed the
existing Comprehensive Plan map, identifying residential single family and multifamily high density and
community commercial designations. He noted after the first public hearing with the Planning Board it
was discovered that an older version of the Comprehensive Plan map was displayed to the Planning
Board that did not identify the area on the north side of Edmonds Way that was amended to multifamily
high density last year. This correction was presented to the Planning Board who indicated it did not
change their recommendation regarding the proposed amendment.
Mr. Bullock displayed a map identifying the proposed property specific Comprehensive Plan map change
(rather than the rounded edges of the existing Comprehensive Plan map) and again identified residential
single family, multifamily high density and community commercial designations. Next, he displayed an
existing Zoning map of the area, identifying residential single family — minimum lot size 8,000 square
foot, RM -1.5 — the city's highest multifamily zoning classification, and neighborhood business zone.
Mr. Bullock explained the proponents of the application included the property owners on the south end
of the parcels as well as one on the eastern side. Public comments received prior to the Planning Board
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 18, 2003
Page 5
public hearing via letters as well comments at the public hearing indicated there was a group of
properties on the west side of 97th Avenue W who were supportive of the proposed Comprehensive Plan
amendment and a few in the southern portion of the single family areas that were concerned and stated
their objection to the proposed amendment.
Mr. Bullock displayed a map identifying the development potential of the site based on the applicant's
original proposal of a Comprehensive Plan amendment to multifamily and rezone request from RS -8
(minimum lot size of 8,000 square feet) to RM -3 (one dwelling unit per 3,000 square feet of lot area).
Excluding the PUD lot, he pointed out the existing development was 12 units and the development
potential was 28 units.
Mr. Bullock displayed a land use map of the properties, single family properties (one developed with a
home occupation, Fowler Portraits) and the remaining five properties developed with duplexes. Mr.
Bullock explained Snohomish County's zoning code allowed a property owner whose property was at
least 1' /z times the minimum lot size required in the zone to build a duplex on their property. For
example, if the zone required a minimum of 8,000 square feet and the lot size was 12,000 square feet, the
owner could construct a duplex under Snohomish County's zoning regulations. That was not allowed
under the Edmonds zoning code; however, because the duplexes were legally established in Snohomish
County, when annexed, they were legal non - conforming. Legal non - conforming meant the property
owners could continue to make modifications to the dwelling units as long as they did not expand the
non - conformity such as add units.
Mr. Bullock explained all the properties gained access onto 97th Avenue W with the exception of the
property in the southeast corner which gained access onto 231" Place SW. There was concern raised at
the Planning Board regarding access including the steep hill and sight distance. Because this was a
Comprehensive Plan amendment, a detailed traffic study was not typically conducted. However, because
of the concerns expressed, the City's Traffic Engineer considered the area and indicated sight distance
would not be an issue on the north or the lot that gained access onto 231St Place SW. However, the
properties in the center had significant sight distance issues related to the steep grade and the crest of the
hill; developing those properties with additional units would be cause for concern. He noted this was the
extent of the traffic analysis that had been conducted at this time.
Mr. Bullock advised staff also considered the density of this area currently versus what the zoning would
allow. The property area, excluding the PUD parcel, was approximately two acres developed with 12
dwelling units or six dwelling units per acre. The RS -8 zone allows for 5.4 dwelling unit per acre;
therefore, the existing density was fairly close to the existing RS -8 density allowed by the underlying
zoning. A change to RM zoning classification in the future, the lowest zoning classification that would
be consistent with that change proposed to the Comprehensive Plan, would increase density in that area
to a minimum of 13 dwelling units per acre. The increased density, access issues, and compatibility with
surrounding neighborhoods, led to the Planning Board's recommendation to deny the proposed
Comprehensive Plan amendment. He summarized neither the Planning Board nor staff felt there was a
compelling reason to extend multifamily zoning into this area.
Councilmember Orvis asked whether the current density would be applicable if the properties were
rezoned to RM -3. Mr. Bullock explained the lowest zoning classification that was consistent with a
Comprehensive Plan amendment to multifamily residential medium density was RM -3. If the Council
approved a Comprehensive Plan amendment to multifamily medium density, it was committing to an
RM -3 zoning classification at the very least. He explained State law required that the City's regulations
be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; if the Comprehensive Plan was amended to multifamily
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 18, 2003
Page 6
residential medium density, consideration would need to be given to zoning designations that were
consistent with that designation. He noted the Comprehensive Plan currently identified zoning
classifications consistent with multifamily residential medium density as RM -3 and RM -2.4.
Councilmember Orvis inquired about a contract rezone. Mr. Bullock stated a contract rezone could
propose less density. Councilmember Orvis noted a contract rezone would require this amendment to the
Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Bullock agreed.
Councilmember Plunkett referred to the statement that if the Comprehensive Plan amendment were
approved, the Council would need to consider a zoning change. He inquired whether the applicant would
be required to submit an application or would the City take the initiative. Mr. Bullock answered if an
application was not submitted by the applicant, the City would be compelled to either change the
Comprehensive Plan back or adopt a zoning change.
Councilmember Plunkett commented his understanding was that Comprehensive Plan amendments
reflected reality but in this instance, the only way to change the density would be via an application for a
rezone. However, staff has now indicated if the Council approves the Comprehensive Plan amendment,
it was obligated to rezone the area regardless of an application. City Attorney Scott Snyder explained
either a change would need to be made to the zoning or in the next Comprehensive Plan cycle, the
Comprehensive Plan amendment reversed. He summarized the Comprehensive Plan designation and
zoning could not be inconsistent for more than a year or so.
Councilmember Wilson asked whether the City's Traffic Engineer considered what improvements, if
any, were proposed for the intersection of 97th Avenue W and Edmonds Way. Mr. Bullock answered that
was not considered in detail, but would be considered in the context of a development proposal. He
concluded the scope and scale of a specific development proposal would determine what intersection
improvements were needed and what the development's fair share of the cost would be.
Councilmember Wilson suggested the City's current Transportation Plan be considered along with
Comprehensive Plan amendments. He noted increased density could result in an additional 75 trips from
the parcels if the Comprehensive Plan amendment were approved. He asked whether there was any
discussion by the Planning Board regarding zoning creep. Mr. Bullock answered the Planning Board
discussed including other parcels to create a contiguous multifamily designation for properties that
gained access directly or nearly directly from Edmonds Way. No consensus was reached regarding an
improved boundary for the multifamily zone and the Planning Board's recommendation was made based
on the proposed amendment.
Councilmember Wilson pointed out the Council could not amend the Comprehensive Plan in anticipation
of a contract rezone as the City could not require an applicant to submit a contract rezone. Mr. Bullock
agreed. He acknowledged development along Edmonds Way corridor was addressed in the existing
Comprehensive Plan including a number of goals and policies regarding compatibility with adjacent
single family neighborhoods, shared access, etc. that were project specific design elements that were
difficult for the applicant to address via a Comprehensive Plan amendment and may be more
appropriately addressed via a contract rezone.
Councilmember Petso observed the only property that accessed Edmonds Way was the PUD property.
Mr. Bullock agreed. Councilmember Petso asked whether any change in the use of the PUD property
was expected. Mr. Bullock answered not that he was aware of Councilmember Petso asked whether
that parcel was designed multifamily in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Bullock answered yes, explaining
utilities were a permitted use in either designation.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 18, 2003
Page 7
Applicant
Rick McCartle, Senior Associate, Shocky Brent, 2716 Colby Avenue, Everett, explained the rezone
application was withdrawn as it was apparent from the comments made at the Planning Board hearing by
both the public and the board members that there were development - related issues for which answers
were not available. Comments at the Planning Board public hearing included access and traffic issues,
compatibility with the surrounding properties, etc., issues that could only be addressed via a site - specific
development proposal. He requested the City acknowledge via a Comprehensive Plan amendment that
the most appropriate long -term land use for this area was multifamily and resolve the specific
development - related issues via a rezone application that would address the concerns that had been raised.
Jennifer Mantooth, 7220 North Meadowdale Road, Edmonds, provided written materials including a
letter containing supplemental information in support of a Comprehensive Plan as a result of additional
research she had conducted since the Planning Board's decision. She referred to the four criteria to be
considered in reviewing a proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment contained in Section 20.00.050 of
the Edmonds Community Development Code and described how the proposed Comprehensive Plan
amendment met each criterion:
a) The proposed amendment is consistent with the provisions of the Edmonds Comprehensive Plan
and is in the public interest.
Ms. Mantooth explained the proposal served the public interest by providing a type of housing
opportunity not readily available in the City — low density multifamily housing. The majority of
housing in the city was currently single family or high density multifamily. Offering a variety of
housing types would serve the public interest by allowing a choice of affordability and lifestyle
not found in other areas of the city. She referred to an Internet article regarding senior citizens
seeking housing where all ages resided.
b) The proposed amendment would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety or
welfare of the city.
Ms. Mantooth explained the proposed change would create the potential for a relatively modest
increase in density above the existing density, noting most properties were already developed
with duplexes that were not consistent with the existing Comprehensive Plan designation of
single family. The amendment would recognize the historic and current use of the properties as
multifamily.
c) The proposed amendment would maintain the appropriate balance of land uses within the city.
Ms. Mantooth noted the City did not have significant housing inventory in the low density
multifamily range and was unbalanced in its offering to current and future residents. The
proposed amendment would assist the city in relieving this imbalance.
d) In the case of an amendment to the comprehensive policy plan map, the subject parcels are
physically suitable for the requested land use designation(s) and the anticipated land use
development(s), including, but not limited to, access, provision of utilities, compatibility with
adjoining land uses and absence ofphysical constraints.
Ms. Mantooth explained the seven parcels already supported five multifamily buildings, ten total
dwelling units, indicating physical compatibility in access and provision of utilities. Regarding
compatibility with adjoining land uses, these properties had been used for multifamily housing
since the early 1960's and fit within the context of the surrounding land uses. The buildings
were not highly visible as they were terraced into the topography and screened with mature
landscaping.
Ms. Mantooth referred to photographs of the PUD station taken from across the street, of 97"' Avenue W
illustrating the steepness of the hill, and of the rockery at the corner of 231St Place SW and 97"' Avenue
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 18, 2003
Page 8
W. She urged the Council to separate the rezone from the Comprehensive Plan amendment, emphasizing
their request was to make the Comprehensive Plan map match the medium density multifamily housing
that currently existed.
Councilmember Plunkett inquired about the number of existing duplexes and business. Ms. Mantooth
answered there were five duplexes and one business. Councilmember Plunkett observed the request was
to amend the Comprehensive Plan to reflect the existing development, noting she was not requesting a
rezone at this time. Ms. Mantooth agreed.
Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Matthew Weston, 23003 97th Avenue W, Edmonds, owner of Fowler Portraits, spoke in favor of the
amendment. He recalled much of the Planning Board's concern was the attached rezone. He was not
interested in developing his property with multifamily at this time but that designation was the most
appropriate as the area was already developed as multifamily, with the exception of two homes one of
which contained his business. He pointed out the maximum density identified was the maximum by
theory; he recalled it was indicated at the Planning Board that the numbers would be less due to
necessary easements and site layout. He urged the Council to support the amendment as it would make
the Comprehensive Plan designation consistent with the current development.
Ben Farrar, 9610 231" Place SW, Edmonds, identified his property, the undeveloped property on SR
104, and property on SR 104 that was currently developed with apartments and commercial. He
suggested the area proposed for amendment be developed in conjunction with property on Edmonds Way
to allow access onto Edmonds Way. He supported the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment and
urged the Council to visit the area, delaying a decision if necessary.
Norbert Noack, 9514 231" Place SW, Edmonds, identified his home and other property he owns in the
neighborhood, pointing out a building on one of the parcels had been illegally expanded from a duplex to
a triplex. He pointed out 231St Place SW was very different from the area on 97t'' Avenue W and urged
the Council not to amend the Comprehensive Plan in the area adjacent to 231St. He was opposed to
amending the Comprehensive Plan designation for the area because of one person's financial interest.
Jacqueline Barns, 9520 231" Place SW, Edmonds, pointed out the 231" cul -de -sac where Ms.
Mantooth gained access to her property was not multifamily but was developed with single family
homes. She agreed the properties below and down the hill were multifamily. She encouraged the
Council to visit the area and see for themselves that it was an area of single family homes. She disagreed
with changing the Comprehensive Plan designation for one property as it would lead to Comprehensive
Plan amendments on other properties in the area to multifamily.
Hearing no further public comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public participation portion of the
public hearing.
Councilmember Plunkett asked whether Comprehensive Plan amendments were done so that the
Comprehensive Plan reflected reality. Mr. Bullock answered not necessarily, and explained the
Comprehensive Plan was a planning tool that assisted the City in directing development. He noted the
Comprehensive Plan may reflect how the City wanted development to be but it had not yet occurred. He
summarized the Comprehensive Plan was not always a reflection of the current development.
Councilmember Wilson asked whether a Comprehensive Plan amendment could be approved subject to
specific conditions such as requiring a contract rezone and specifying what should be included in the
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 18, 2003
Page 9
contract rezone. Mr. Snyder answered it was not possible to make a conditional change to the
Comprehensive Plan; however, the Council could begin to build a record for what they would like to see
developed there.
Responding to further questions of Councilmember Wilson, Mr. Snyder explained the Council could
express concern regarding traffic patterns and the need to address them in any proposal and if proposals
did not address that issue, the Planning Board could be directed to consider returning the property to its
previous zoning with an indication why the proposal failed to meet the City's needs.
Councilmember Wilson asked whether that approach would only be successful if the Council were to
clearly articulate concerns as part of this record. Mr. Bullock referred to the staff report (page 30 of the
council packet), specifically Comprehensive Plan Policies, an excerpt from the current Comprehensive
Plan that addressed goals for the Edmonds Way Corridor. He noted the goals addressed several of the
Council's concerns and would be considered during the review of a rezone proposal. He noted the
Council's direction may be that for a project to meet the goals, it would likely need a contract rezone.
Councilmember Wilson noted any development would be required to meet the aforementioned
Comprehensive Plan policies regarding development in the Edmonds Way Corridor; the Council could
not provide specific direction for a contract rezone such as access, trips generation, etc. Mr. Snyder
agreed, pointing out if the Council did so, it may be deemed to be prejudging the issue. He explained the
Council would be in a quasi judicial capacity when making the decision on the rezone and would need to
rely on the record.
Councilmember Petso asked for clarification regarding the zoning that allowed the duplexes to be
developed. Mr. Bullock answered Snohomish County Zoning Code contained a provision that allowed a
property with more than 1 % times the minimum lot size required by the underlying zone to build a duplex
on the property. This provision was not contained in the Edmonds Zoning Code. Councilmember Petso
asked whether those areas would be designated on Snohomish County's Comprehensive Plan as single
family development. Mr. Bullock answered yes.
Councilmember Petso referred to the request to make the Comprehensive Plan map match the existing
development, noting that was not possible because the City did not have a Comprehensive Plan
designation that allowed a property with 1' /z times the minimum lot size required by the underlying zone
to build a duplex, therefore, no changes were necessary. With regard to the argument by Ms. Mantooth
that the existing development was very nice and the multifamily dwellings were stepped into the hillside
and screened by mature trees, she noted that could not be required if a Comprehensive Plan amendment
were approved and new projects would threaten the items she cited as what made it so nice. She
concluded the existing development was an ideal buffer between the single family neighborhood above
and whatever might occur in the Edmonds Way Corridor. The only property she considered to be on the
Edmonds Way Corridor in this area was the PUD property and possibly the two single family homes at
the bottom of the hill. She referred to the Comprehensive Plan amendment across Edmonds Way from
this property where there was a single family neighborhood above the Edmonds Way Corridor that was
not included in the Comprehensive Plan amendment.
COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DAWSON, TO
APPROVE THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION TO DENY THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP AMENDMENT AND DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO
PREPARE APPROPRIATE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS FOR ADOPTION BY THE
COUNCIL.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 18, 2003
Page 10
Councilmember Dawson agreed with the Planning Board's rationale and staff's recommendation for
denial. The proposed amendment was either too broad or too narrow, either the entire area should be
considered for a global Comprehensive Plan amendment or a smaller area. She noted at least the lot that
gained its access from 231St Place SW did not belong in the proposed amendment. She noted this may be
considered in the Comprehensive Plan update as some of the area may be appropriate for multifamily
housing. She did not support the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment.
Councilmember Plunkett indicated he would not support the motion because the reality was the area was
already developed with five duplexes, a business and a PUD station. He preferred to give the applicant
an opportunity to prove to the Council and community that access, density, compatibility, etc. could be
addressed via a rezone.
Councilmember Orvis indicated he would not support the motion, explaining he had driven through the
neighborhood and found the multifamily development was appropriate as it was near an arterial. He
pointed out any rezone would need to comply with the Comprehensive Plan goals and design review,
address concerns raised by the neighborhood, traffic concerns, etc. He concluded approving the
amendment would give this neighborhood an opportunity at a rezone that would be consistent with the
existing development.
Councilmember Wilson expressed his support for the motion, pointing out the proposed Comprehensive
Plan amendment did not support the existing density; it was intended to increase the density in the area.
He noted this was often the problem with applicant- driven Comprehensive Plan amendments; they
looked at issues from a very narrow scope and did not consider the impacts of increased density on an
area -wide or system -wide basis. He expressed concern with the potential for increased traffic, zoning
creep on adjoining parcels, need for a signal at the intersection of 97"' Avenue W and Edmonds Way due
to increased traffic volumes, and moving traffic off the arterial and onto adjoining residential streets.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4 -3), COUNCILMEMBERS WILSON, DAWSON,
PETSO AND MARIN IN FAVOR, AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING AND
COUNCILMEMBERS PLUNKETT AND ORVIS OPPOSED.
Amend
omprehen-
5. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO AMEND
ive Plan THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP TO CLARIFY THE BOUNDARY OF THE "COMMUNITY
Map for COMMERCIAL" DESIGNATION FOR PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 23114 — 23124 100TH
Property at
3114—
AVENUE W AND TO CLARIFY THAT THE EASTERN HALF OF THE PROPERTY AT 23121
3124 100`s 102ND PLACE W IS DESIGNATED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL. (FILE NO. R- 03 -73)
Ave. W, and
23121102"'
Pl. W. Planning Manager Rob Chave explained when the Planning Board began translating the Comprehensive
Plan Map, they noticed some anomalies in this vicinity. To make the decision more urgent, the City also
received a rezone application for a specific property in the area. He displayed the existing
Comprehensive Plan map of the area, identifying the transitional area between the Westgate commercial
and the location of the former Woodway High School. He explained the existing Comprehensive Plan
Map designates the area along 100''' Avenue W as commercial with single family designations to the
west. However, the existing zoning was a mix of multifamily and single family zones.
Mr. Chave explained the proposal recommended by the Planning Board was that the commercial
boundary follow the property lines running south between the Westgate area and the former Woodway
High School. He noted the property with access and orientation to the west did not have adequate access
to be developed as either multifamily or commercial and was already designated single family. Mr.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 18, 2003
Page 11
Chave stated there was no formal application to amend the Comprehensive Plan map; staff recommended
to the Planning Board that the Comprehensive Plan boundaries be clarified.
Councilmember Wilson asked whether 100''' Avenue West was an arterial or collector. Mr. Chave
answered it was an arterial. He pointed out the change in the topography at the west portion of the
commercially designated lots and above was the single family neighborhood. He noted the boundary was
developed due to the access and topography.
Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Mark Ferbrache, 23107 102nd Place W, Edmonds, referred to several parcels and asked whether they
could potentially be developed commercial. Mr. Chave explained the properties Mr. Ferbrache was
referring to were down on 100th Avenue West. He noted the Bartell's lot was developed almost as far
westward as it could and some slope retention was required as part of their project. He noted there was
no additional property there that could be developed with commercial beyond what was already
developed.
Hearing no further public comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public participation portion of the
public hearing.
COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, TO
APPROVE THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION TO AMEND THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP AND DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN
ORDINANCE FOR ADOPTION BY THE COUNCIL. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
6. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO AMEND
Amend omprehen-
THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP, TRANSLATING THE CURRENT VERSION OF THE
ive Plan PLAN MAPS FROM GENERALIZED DESIGNATION AREAS TO SPECIFIC, PARCEL -BASED
Map LAND USE DESIGNATIONS. THIS INCLUDES CLARIFYING THAT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
Clarifying PROPERTIES ARE SPECIFICALLY DESIGNATED AS SCHOOLS RATHER THAN AS
Elementary
School GENERAL "PUBLIC" LAND USES, SO THAT THE FOLLOWING SCHOOLS WILL
Properties ULTIMATELY BE REZONED FROM "P- PUBLIC" TO SINGLE FAMILY ZONES: CHASE
LAKE ELEMENTARY MAPLEWOOD SCHOOL SEAVIEW ELEMENTARY SHERWOOD
ELEMENTARY, AND WESTGATE ELEMENTARY.
Planning Manager Rob Chave explained the proposed Comprehensive Plan map was intended to be
consistent with the existing Comprehensive Plan map and the City's zoning classifications. He explained
up until now, the Comprehensive Plan map was a general map with bubble- shaped designations. The
intent was to make the boundaries more clear as it was often difficult to identify the specific property
boundaries on the Comprehensive Plan map. He noted the purpose the bubble - shaped, more generalized
designations served was to allow differences in zoning patterns to "shake out" since 1995. When the
Comprehensive Plan map boundaries were somewhat general, staff could interpret where transitions
occurred. In support of moving toward a more parcel specific Comprehensive Plan map, he explained
that relatively few zoning changes have occurred and the zoning patterns have been fairly stable.
Mr. Chave explained that in the initial Comprehensive Plan map, schools were zoned and designated
Public Use. When the City Council changed the zoning code to enable elementary schools to be located
within single family zones, the elementary school sites could be zoned and designated consistent with the
surrounding single family zones. The Planning Board found this provided more protection for the sites
as the Public Use zone was regional or area -wide zoning and not neighborhood oriented.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 18, 2003
Page 12
I
Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, Edmonds, spoke in favor of changing the designation and zoning of
elementary schools. He expressed concern with the size of the hospital zone, noting the businesses in
that zone did not produce sales tax revenue for the city. He suggested the map be modified to reduce that
area so that the property could be developed with businesses that produced sales tax revenue.
Hearing no further public comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public participation portion of the
public hearing.
Councilmember Wilson requested staff address Mr. Hertrich's question regarding the hospital zone. Mr.
Chave referred to the property referred to as the Hospital - Medical Use area, specifically designated as the
Stevens Hospital properties. He noted there was a mixed use area in the surrounding area that was part
of the Medical -Hwy. 99 Activity Center.
Councilmember Petso asked whether the change affected the designation of school property only or the
entire Comprehensive Plan map. Mr. Chave answered the Planning Board's recommendation was to
adopt a new map, but the only real change was to school sites. He explained if a Comprehensive Plan
map were proposed that changed other designations on the map, the EIS and other documents that
supported the original Comprehensive Plan map would need to be revisited. He clarified this was
intended not to change land use designations, only make corrections to school sites and adopt a more
specific plan map.
Councilmember Petso pointed out the Highway 99- Medical Activity Center was shown for areas that
were entirely residential. Mr. Chave answered that designation was on the existing Comprehensive Plan.
Councilmember Petso noted there was previously a bubble that stated Medical- Highway 99 corridor, not
mixed use. Mr. Chave stated the current Comprehensive Plan map designated it as mixed use,
particularly in the Comprehensive Plan policies. The mixed use designation was primarily zoned
multifamily. The hospital medical activity center boundary was larger and included some single family
areas which would not change in the proposed map as single family was allowed in that designation.
Councilmember Petso referred to the single family neighborhood immediately north of Stevens Hospital
and asked whether it was zoned single family. Mr. Chave answered it was zoned multifamily, the mixed
use Comprehensive Plan designation included commercial, multifamily and a number of other uses. He
clarified on the existing Comprehensive Plan map, it was also designated a mixed use area.
Councilmember Petso asked whether a convenience store with condominiums above would be a
permitted use in that zone. Mr. Chave answered no, explaining mixed use development had been
occurring via multifamily zones which allowed multifamily uses as well as limited office uses.
Councilmember Petso asked whether the homeowners in that area had been notified. Mr. Chave
reiterated this was not a change; the Comprehensive Plan map had included this designation since 1995.
Changing the designation of this area to single family would be a change to the Comprehensive Plan.
City Attorney Scott Snyder advised if the Council wished to make such a change, it would be more
expeditious to refer it to the Planning Board or staff for review as the process would need to begin with
SEPA review.
COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON, TO
APPROVE THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION TO AMEND THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP AND DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN
ORDINANCE FOR ADOPTION BY THE COUNCIL. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 18, 2003
Page 13
7. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Ray Martin, 18704 94"' Avenue W, Edmonds, referred to the Edmonds Beacon article written by
Mayor Haakenson, noting the Mayor's interpretation of the subject raised at the candidate forum
(legalized prostitution) was different than the article in the Enterprise and from those who attended the
forum. He pointed out it was okay for people to express a different opinion.
Public Natalie Shippen, 1022 Euclid, Edmonds, explained four weeks ago she asked the Council to review a
Records
Request decision by the City's administration. She alleged Mayor Haakenson and his staff made a mistake when
they withheld information regarding the cost of the Edmonds Crossing project, information that was
pertinent to an upcoming election. She subsequently hired an attorney to review the City's letter and as a
result of his letter to Mayor Haakenson, the information she requested was provided. She paid the
attorney's fees and submitted a claim to the City requesting reimbursement which was denied. She
requested the Council review that decision and approve her claim, setting a precedent that the Council
would not tolerate administrative mistakes that cost citizens money. She requested a response from the
Council.
Council President Earling explained he had an opportunity to review the paperwork that was submitted
by Mayor Haakenson and City Attorney Scott Snyder and agreed with their interpretation. He explained
the matter could be scheduled as an agenda item if the Council wished, but to date there had not been a
request by any Councilmember to take up the issue as a policy matter.
Councilmember Petso asked how the City responded to public records requests and was there a handout
available describing how requests should be made. City Clerk Sandy Chase answered there was a form
provided for requesting public records; Ms. Shippen submitted a letter which also served as a request for
public records. Councilmember Petso concluded there was no obligation to submit the request on the
city form. Ms. Chase agreed. She noted if questions arose with a request, she may follow up to clarify.
If there was a legal question, the request was referred to the City Attorney.
Councilmember Petso asked if there was a process in place whereby an insufficient request could be
returned to the individual and resubmitted. Ms. Chase explained the public records request process was
contained in the City's Code and in the RCWs, which identified the timeline, reasons why the City may
not respond, etc.
Councilmember Petso noted this was not the first time during her term that she experienced a person who
was dissatisfied with a public records request. Although she had been advised and accepted the advice
that the city should not pay Ms. Shippen's attorneys fees, she requested the City Council put a process in
place so that someone submitting an insufficient request would be contacted and advised how the request
could be corrected. She suggested anyone feeling they were not able to get through the public records
request process could contact a Councilmember who could request the information. She noted this
process would become such a burden on Councilmembers that they may be interested in improving the
public request process.
Councilmember Dawson noted possibly the reason Ms. Shippen felt the need to hire an attorney was
because she was mislead that she was not entitled to the information rather than that the request was not
in the proper form. She explained legally Ms. Shippen was not entitled to have her attorney's fees
reimbursed. Ms. Shippen's initial request was for information she was not entitled to as a citizen as she
was not entitled to request that staff create a document. She noted the misunderstanding could have been
cleared up by identifying information she was entitled to that was available in a different format.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 18, 2003
Page 14
Councilmember Wilson reiterated Ms. Shippen's request as it was conveyed was not a proper request as
staff was not required to prepare /create documents, they could only provide existing documents that were
subject to public disclosure.
Mr. Snyder pointed out in the past 20 years, the City has never had a public records violation, a lawsuit
filed, or a claim filed on the issue prior to Ms. Shippen raising the point. He explained the estimates Ms.
Shippen sought were contained in a preliminary draft federal EIS document. Just prior to Ms. Shippen's
request, King County sought the same document from the Washington State Ferries System and was
denied on the same basis that Mayor Haakenson referenced in his letter, that these were preliminary cost
estimates, they were not final documents, and as such they were not subject to public disclosure.
Mr. Snyder explained that Ms. Shippen's request was interpreted as a request to create a document and
the same answer was provided to her that is provided to anyone who requests staff create a document.
During the subsequent 4 -6 week period before her attorney submitted a letter, he reviewed the
information contained in the draft EIS with staff to determine which estimates had been finalized so that
when Ms. Shippen's attorney submitted a proper request later, those portions of the document that had
become final were provided to Ms. Shippen. He noted one estimate was still withheld because it was still
an estimate and was based on the cost of acquiring property.
He pointed the City spent over $30,000 last year reviewing documents as was indicated in his annual
report to the Council. One of his suggestions for next year was to conduct classes with a staff member
from each department to train them to conduct an initial review of public records requests with the goal
of spending less attorney time on what should be a fairly expeditious process. He stated the response
given to Ms. Shippen was the same response given to anyone who asked the City to create something.
Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, Edmonds, referred to the newspaper article authored by Mayor
Haakenson, commenting the Mayor did not practice the civility he referred to in the article. He referred
to Mayor Haakenson's reference to a charade occurring at Council meetings with regard to audience
comments. He accused Mayor Haakenson of not speaking the facts, recalling two Council candidates
stated they supported legalized prostitution, not that they wanted to bring prostitution to Edmonds. He
referred to Mayor Haakenson's endorsement of these two Council candidates, questioning whether they
had the same ideas.
conomic Strom Peterson, 9110 Olympic View Drive, Edmonds, business owner, and Vice President of the
Development Downtown Edmonds Merchants Association, commented it was imperative the City have an Economic
hector Development Director. He stressed the importance of embracing economic development, concluding it
was good for the State, the community, and the City. He thanked the Council and staff for providing
citizens an opportunity to speak.
8. REPORT ON CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS OF NOVEMBER 10, 2003.
finance Finance Committee
ommittee Councilmember Orvis reported staff provided a presentation regarding the Association of Washington
Cities Workers Compensation Insurance Retro Plan. By joining the pool, the City could receive annual
refunds of money paid to the State for workers compensation. The Committee directed staff to make a
presentation to the Council which was scheduled for November 25. Next, the Committee reviewed the
L5 salary findings. He explained the L5 policy suggested an increase to 5 -6 ranges and staff proposed an
amendment that would allow the L5 ranges to be decreased via suspension of COLA increases (the L5
policy was currently structured to only allow increases). In addition, there was an amendment suggested
by Councilmember Petso. The Committee directed staff to make a presentation to the full Council. The
Committee then was provided a presentation regarding a housekeeping cleanup of city funds including
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 18, 2003
Page 15
eliminating several funds in an effort to simplify the budget. The Committee directed staff to make a
presentation to the full Council at a future meeting.
Community Services /Development Services Committee
Community
Services/ Councilmember Marin reported staff updated the Committee on a draft Illegal Discharge Ordinance. The
Development Committee directed staff to bring the draft ordinance for a public hearing before the full Council with a
Services recommendation fora approval. Second, the Committee discussed the Olympic View Drive sewer laterals
Committee PP Ymp
special connection fee. He explained Lynnwood, who owns Olympic View Drive and was taking the
lead on the resurfacing, has delayed their project one year. Due to the desire to have the laterals installed
prior to the surface work and provide residents enough time to budget for the expense, the Committee
directed staff to proceed with neighborhood meetings to inform the homeowners about the upcoming
project and require the property owners to connect within 60 days as required by code.
The third item the Committee discussed was the traffic impact fee program. The Committee asked staff
to conduct open houses and return with additional information including the results from the open house.
The Committee will then recommend adoption of the Traffic Impact Fee ordinance after a public hearing
before the full Council. The fourth item the Committee discussed was draft trash and receptacle
enclosures. He noted there had been a request to develop a policy that described how the enclosures
should be constructed. As there were a number of questions, the Committee asked staff to gather further
information, refine the policy, and return to the December Committee meeting. Councilmember Marin
reported on his ride -along with the recycling collector.
ubiic Safety Public Safety Committee
ommittee The Public Safety Committee did not meet.
9. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Haakenson had no report.
10. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Dedication
(Fire Council President Earling announced the dedication of the new Fire Station on 196`" Street would be held
196'Station on on Wednesday, 19 with an open house from 3:00 — 7:00 m. and the ceremony at 5:00 m.
196 Y> > p p• Y p•
Councilmember Marin reported on a seminar hosted by the Police Department and the Police Foundation
Police
Department that included a speaker who was an expert in the field of terrorism and dealing with major public threats.
Seminar He noted this was an outstanding seminar that drew law enforcement personnel from throughout the
region. He complimented Sergeant Debbie Smith who organized the event and the Police Foundation
volunteers who made the event a success. He was gratified to see that the Edmonds Police Department
already had many of the items in place to ensure the community was protected.
Dedication Councilmember Wilson expressed his thanks to Parks & Recreation Director Arvilla Ohlde for the
fWalkway Waterfront
wonderful job she did at the dedication of the waterfront walkway.
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 9:42 p.m.
GARY SO , MAYOR
'd. eL"
SANDRA S. CHASE, CITY CLERK
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 18, 2003
Page 16
J
LJ
AGENDA
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL
Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex
250 511 Avenue North
7:00 - 10:00 p.m.
7:00 a.m. - Call to Order
Flan Salute
NOVEMBER 18, 2003
Approval of Agenda
Consent Agenda Items
Roll Call
Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of November 8, 2003.
Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of November 10, 2003.
Approval of claim checks #66681 through #66822 for the week of November
10, 2003, in the amount of $439,905.72.
Approval of list of Edmonds businesses applying for renewal of their liquor
licenses with the Washington State Liquor Control Board.
Approval of Facilities Lease for Communications Facilities by and between the
City of Edmonds and VoiceStream PCS 111 Corporation.
Approval of Facilities Lease with AT&T Wireless Services of Washington.
Public Hearing and discussion on the 2004 Budget.
4. (60 Min.) Public Hearing on the recommendation of the Planning Board to deny a
proposed Comprehensive Plan Map amendment to change the plan designation
from "Single Family - Small Lot" to "Multi Family - Medium Density" for
properties located on 231` Place SW and along the east side of 97th Avenue W
south of Edmonds Way. (File No. CDC -02 -232)
Page 1 of 2
1.
2.
(A)
(B)
(C)
(D)
(E)
(F)
(G)
3. (30 Min.)
NOVEMBER 18, 2003
Approval of Agenda
Consent Agenda Items
Roll Call
Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of November 8, 2003.
Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of November 10, 2003.
Approval of claim checks #66681 through #66822 for the week of November
10, 2003, in the amount of $439,905.72.
Approval of list of Edmonds businesses applying for renewal of their liquor
licenses with the Washington State Liquor Control Board.
Approval of Facilities Lease for Communications Facilities by and between the
City of Edmonds and VoiceStream PCS 111 Corporation.
Approval of Facilities Lease with AT&T Wireless Services of Washington.
Public Hearing and discussion on the 2004 Budget.
4. (60 Min.) Public Hearing on the recommendation of the Planning Board to deny a
proposed Comprehensive Plan Map amendment to change the plan designation
from "Single Family - Small Lot" to "Multi Family - Medium Density" for
properties located on 231` Place SW and along the east side of 97th Avenue W
south of Edmonds Way. (File No. CDC -02 -232)
Page 1 of 2
CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA
November 18, 2003
Page 2 of 2
5. ( 5 Min.) Public Hearing on the recommendation of the Planning Board to amend the
Comprehensive Plan Map to clarify the boundary of the "Community
Commercial' designation for properties located at 23114 - 23124 100th Avenue
W, and to clarify that the eastern half of the property at 23121 102nd Place W is
designated Single Family Residential. (File No. R- 03 -73)
6. (15 Min.) Public Hearing on the recommendation of the Planning Board to amend the
Comprehensive Plan Map, translating the current version of the plan maps
from generalized designation areas to specific, parcel -based land use
designations. This includes clarifying that elementary school properties are
specifically designated as schools rather than as general "public" land uses,
so that the following schools will ultimately be rezoned from "P- Public" to
single family zones: Chase Lake Elementary, Maplewood School, Seaview
Elementary, Sherwood Elementary, and Westgate Elementary.
7. Audience Comments (3 Minute Limit Per Person)*
*Regarding matters not listed on the Agenda as Closed Record Review or as Public Hearings.
8. ( 5 Min.) Report on City Council Committee Meetings of November 10, 2003.
9. ( 5 Min.) Mayor's Comments
10. (15 Min.) Council Comments
ADJOURN
Parking and meeting rooms are accessible for persons with disabilities. Please contact the City Clerk at
(425) 771 -0245 with 24 hours advance notice for special accommodations. The Council Agenda as well as a
delayed telecast of the meeting appears on cable television Government Access Channel 21.
V
I
11