Loading...
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