Loading...
11/06/2000 City CouncilEDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES November 6, 2000 Following a Special Meeting at 6:30 p.m. for an Executive Session regarding legal and real estate matters and a 6:45 p.m. interview of a candidate for the Library Board, the Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Pro Tem Tom Miller in the Library Plaza Room, 650 Main Street. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Thomas A. Miller, Mayor Pro Tem Jim White, Council President Pro Tem Dave Earling, Councilmember Michael Plunkett, Councilmember Lora Petso, Councilmember Dave Orvis, Councilmember Christopher Davis, Councilmember ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT Gary Haakenson, Mayor 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA STAFF PRESENT Duane Bowman, Development Serv. Director Stephen Clifton, Community Services Director Rob Chave, Planning Manager Arvilla Ohlde, Parks and Recreation Director Maryanne Zukowski, Traffic Engineer Don Fiene, Assistant City Engineer Scott Snyder, City Attorney Sandy Chase, City Clerk Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst. Jeannie Dines, Recorder COUNCILMEMBER DAVIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, FOR APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA AS PROPOSED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DAVIS, FOR APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PROPOSED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: (A) ROLL CALL pprove lo/2voo (B) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF OCTOBER 21, 2000 Minutes ,Approve 10/24/00 (C) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF OCTOBER 24, 2000 Minutes (D) APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #44279 THROUGH #44411 FOR THE WEEK OF pprove OCTOBER 23, 2000, IN THE AMOUNT OF $172,586.33. APPROVAL OF CLAIM Claim Checks CHECKS #44412 THROUGH #44570 FOR THE WEEK OF OCTOBER 30, 2000, IN THE AMOUNT OF $384,992.00. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL CHECKS #31582 THROUGH #31683 FOR THE PAY PERIOD OCTOBER 16 THROUGH OCTOBER 31, 2000, IN THE AMOUNT OF $335,808.17. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 6, 2000 Page 1 im for ages 215 216 Easements Lodging Tax Advisory National Young Reader's hay Korean War — 50'h Anniver- sary Library Board Appoint- ment I rary and nual I (E) ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM KEN AND KATHY SANTI ($55.27) (F) ACCEPTANCE OF SEWER AND TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENTS FOR THE PERRINVILLE SANITARY SEWER LID 215 AND 216 PROJECT (G) APPROVE RECOMMENDATION FROM LODGING TAX ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR 2001 HOTEL /MOTEL TAX FUND #120 APPROPRIATIONS (H) PROCLAMATION IN HONOR OF NATIONAL YOUNG READERS' DAY, NOVEMBER 8, 2000 (I) PROCLAMATION IN HONOR OF THE 50TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE KOREAN WAR 3. CONFIRMATION OF APPOINTMENT TO THE LIBRARY BOARD Mayor Pro Tem. Miller advised the Council met with the candidate for the vacant Library Board position, Lynda Hughes, prior to tonight's Council meeting. He briefly described her background which included 30 years as an educator in the Edmonds School District. COUNCILMEMBER DAVIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER EARLING, TO CONFIRM THE APPOINTMENT OF LYNDA HUGHES TO THE LIBRARY BOARD. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 4. ANNUAL REPORT FROM THE LIBRARY BOARD Library Board President Bob Freeman introduced the members of the Library Board. He explained the library funding issue took a great deal of time during the past year. He advised the Library Board held a public forum in March to provide citizens an opportunity to give input regarding the library funding. A written presentation outlining options with pros /cons for future library funding was provided to the Council, recommending the City seek voter approval to annex to the SnoIsle Library Regional District as a future funding method. Mr. Freeman explained it was not necessary to provide a year's notice of termination of the SnoIsle contract if an annexation vote was taken. If the vote was successful, annexation would supercede the contract. If the vote failed, the contract would remain in place. If the contract was cancelled by providing 360 days notice in January, and an annexation vote failed, no contract would be in place, leaving the library in a precarious situation. He said it would be a disservice to the citizens of Edmonds to cancel the contract and urged the Council to leave the contract in place pending an annexation vote (if a decision was made to pursue an annexation vote). Mr. Freeman said the Library Board also discovered the City maintained a Special Library Fund, established in 1967 for donations to benefit the library. The fund currently had a balance of $1,200. He also recognized the annual contribution to the library from the Friends of the Edmonds Library that made possible services and improvements beyond the City's contract with SnoIsle and at no cost to Edmonds taxpayers. This year's $8,800 contribution was used to support the children's program including the Summer Reading Program, the young adult program, continuing education for library staff, and purchase of needed equipment and supplies. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 6, 2000 Page 2 Evie Wilson - Lingbloom, Managing Librarian, Edmonds Library, referred to the report she provided the Council outlining activities in the previous year. She said the library continued to be a vibrant force in the community. She described a new genealogic database the Library District funded, Ancestry.com, commenting all United States census data would be loaded into the database. The database cannot be accessed from home and is only available at the library. Cemetery 5. ANNUAL REPORT FROM THE EDMONDS MEMORIAL CEMETERY BOARD Board Annual Parks and Recreation Director Arvilla Ohlde introduced Dorothy Williamson, Chair of the Edmonds Report Cemetery Board. Ms. Williamson introduced Cemetery Boardmember Ester Sellers. Ms. Williamson reported the well installed in 1997 kept the cemetery green over the summer as well as reduced their water bill. The water, together with a new mower, allowed the Cemetery Sexton to maintain the cemetery beautifully. She explained the cemetery was operated like a business enterprise with a yearly budget prepared with income from sales of lots, burials and markers. She said this year's budget included plans for a new columbarium. She reported 36 sales and 51 burials occurred this year. She informed Council of the following events: the Memorial Day service on May 29, the public tour of the cemetery on July 20, historic tours of the cemetery for children in Parks and Recreation summer programs, and flags posted by the Sexton at veteran's graves on Memorial Day and Veteran's Day. She explained there would be a public process for the cemetery master plan, and described the multi -year process for abandoning cemetery lots. Ms. Williamson advised the Cemetery Board met on the third Thursday of each month at 4:00 p.m. in the Frances Anderson Center and said all meetings were open to the public. She emphasized the need to maintain the full -time Sexton position to accomplish sales, maintain the cemetery and provide burial services. Community 1 6. PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY Facilities DEVELOPMENT CODE CREATING NEW CHAPTERS 17.40.050 ONON- CONFORMING COMMUNITY FACILITIES). AND 17.65 (PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR COMMUNITY FACILITIES). AND AMENDING CHAPTERS: 16.20 — RS (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL); 16.30 — RM (MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL); 16.45 — BN (NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS): 16.50 — BC (COMMUNITY BUSINESS): 16.53 — BP (PLANNED BUSINESS); 16.55 — CW (COMMERCIAL WATERFRONT)_; 16.61 — MU (MEDICAL USE): 16.80 — P (PUBLIC USE), AND CHAPTER 21 (DEFINITIONS) THESE AMENDMENTS WOULD ESTABLISH NEW CONSISTENT DEFINITIONS FOR THE REGULATION OF COMMUNITY FACILITIES WITHIN THE CITY. Planning Manager Rob Chave explained the Planning Board studied numerous options /concepts and the draft ordinance was based on their conclusions. The Planning Board grouped local community facilities and handled them as permitted uses in a variety of zones. The Planning Board found there were some community facility classifications that warranted special attention, churches and schools. Mr. Chave explained the Planning Board found primary schools (defined as K -8) and high schools (over grade 8) should be regulated separately. Primary schools of not more than 60,000 square feet and not more than 600 students were permitted in single - family zones and criteria regarding height, setbacks, traffic studies, etc. would be applied. High schools, because of their more significant impacts, were restricted ,to more regional locations such as P (Public) zones. He commented the Edmonds - Woodway Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 6, 2000 Page 3 High School on 76`h Avenue was zoned P (Public). Primary schools and high schools would be required to comply with setbacks of 25 feet from adjoining property. He said the existing setbacks in single - family zones (RS6 and RS8) ranged from 25 feet to 7%2 foot sideyard setbacks. He stated the proposed 25 foot setback was in keeping with or exceeding existing residential setbacks. - Mr. Chave explained heights for schools must comply with the underlying zone with the exception of a gymnasium or swimming pool which may be up to 35 feet. There is also a provision for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow a school to exceed these heights. This provision was included in recognition of schools that recently received approval for substantially higher heights (Maplewood and Chase Lake). The schools went through a public process including public hearings and no objections were made to the request for increased height. He advised the height of Maplewood K -8 was up to 54 feet and Chase Lake up to 42 feet. Mr. Chave advised churches must meet a size criteria. For example, a church of up to 100 seats may be located on a neighborhood street in a single- family zone. The Planning Board felt churches of up to 100 seats were sufficiently small that they would not impact the neighborhood. Churches with up to 250 seats would be required to be located within 1,200 feet of a collector street. Churches over 250 seats. would be required to be located within 1,200 feet of an arterial. He provided examples of collector streets such as Bowdoin Way, Olympic View Drive, portions of 84" Avenue, and 3`a Avenue S. Examples of arterials were Edmonds Way, 100'h/9`' Avenue and portions of Puget Drive and 196'. He referred to a map in the City's Transportation Plan that identified street types. Mr. Chave explained the Planning Board and Council would need to address the existing P (Public) zones in the City if the ordinance was adopted as proposed. He said most of the elementary/primary schools in the City occupied land zoned P (Public). If the regulations were adopted, the City should rezone most P zoned properties to the underlying residential classification. He said under the proposed ordinance, P zoning was for regional uses; primary schools were not considered a regional use and the underlying residential zone would be the most appropriate. If the Council adopted the proposed ordinance or a similar ordinance, the follow -up action would be to ask the Planning Board to consider zoning of primary school property. Councilmember Orvis disclosed he was a member of an Edmonds church and asked City Attorney Scott Snyder whether he could participate in the discussion. Mr. Snyder explained the Council's decision on this matter was legislative and therefore not burdened by the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine. He said the proposed ordinance affected all residential zones and as Councilmembers were required to live in the City, all were equally impacted. The only impediment would be a direct financial interest in the outcome of the vote, which he indicated was unlikely due to the subject matter. Councilmember Petso advised she was a member of the Kalhala Swim Club and it did not appear that would remain as a permitted use. She asked if her dues to the club constituted a financial interest. Mr. Snyder -said there would need to be a significant financial interest. He said as the ordinance did not abate nonconforming use, the swim club could continue. Councilmember Orvis asked if a school could be constructed up to 35 feet in a single - family neighborhood without a public process. ,Mr. Chave explained the school could be constructed to the height allowed by the underlying zone (typically 25 feet in a single - family zone) but could build the gym only to 35 feet. Councilmember Orvis observed the gym would be allowed up to 35 feet without public comment. Mr. Chave explained although a rezone or CUP would not be required, there would be public comment as part of the design review process. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 6, 2000 Page 4 For Councilmember Orvis, Mr. Chave explained the two schools he mentioned previously applied for variances for the additional height and held the applicable public hearings. He explained the Planning Board's approach was if variances were routinely requested and approved, the code needed to address that issue rather than require a variance. Councilmember Orvis referred to a memorandum from Mr. Snyder regarding the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 that states the law itself provides, "No government shall impose or implement a land use regulation that treats a religious assembly or institution on less than equal terms with a non - religious assembly or institution." He observed by allowing a 30 -foot gymnasium for a school, the same would be allowed for a church as well. Mr. Snyder noted a church was limited to the height limit of the zone. Mr. Chave referred to church height provisions, which states "the maximum building height shall not exceed the maximum height for the zone in which the church is located exclusive of steeples, bell - towers, crosses or other religious symbols or icons, provided that the maximum total height inclusive of such symbols or icons shall not exceed 50 feet, further provided that the minimum setback shall be increased by one foot for each one foot for which any portion of the structure exceeds the maximum height for the applicable zoning district." Councilmember Orvis asked how this applied to a church gymnasium or auditorium. Mr. ' Snyder responded if the church had a school, it would be subject to the school regulations. He agreed the ordinance must permit the same rights or limitations for religious institutions as it did for non - religious institutions. Councilmember Orvis asked if the ordinance could be brought into consistency by having the same height limits for schools and churches. Mr. Snyder said a CUP process that considered the impact of the increase in height would be more appropriate. He said one of the difficulties in a residential neighborhood would be the size of the site. Most church sites would be smaller than a school site. He agreed there needed to be consistency. Councilmember Petso asked if it would be possible to remove schools from the definition of local public facilities to avoid ambiguities such as unintentionally allowing a use associated with schools that had not been anticipated such as a bus barn. Mr. Chave answered the definition of local public facilities included schools. He said removing primary and high schools from the definition of local public facilities would make no difference as they were already regulated very specifically. Mr. Snyder agreed, commenting by taking schools out of the local public facilities definition, future changes in the P zone would not unintentionally enlarge /reduce the rights of schools inappropriately. Councilmember Petso pointed out the ordinance allowed churches of up to 100 people on local streets, however, if the church grew, there would be nothing the City could do. Mr. Snyder said if the building was established and the use exceeded the limitation in the future, the church could continue in use as a church and the City could not regulate the assembly. However, the City would have no obligation to issue a building permit to allow expansion. He said the result would be the parishioners would become more crowded and hopefully the end result would be to encourage the growing church to seek a more appropriate location to accommodate-its parishioners. Councilmember Petso said in the case of a church renting space from the School District, they may be able to accommodate growth by renting more space. She observed there would be nothing the City could do in that instance. Mr. Snyder agreed, assuming the use was a legal use. Councilmember Petso asked if the provision to allow churches on local streets could be eliminated and only allow churches on streets Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 6, 2000 Page 5 within 1,200 feet of an arterial. Mr. Snyder advised the Federal Act prohibited the exclusion of churches /places of religious assembly from cities. The proposed ordinance did not exclude only redirected., Washington State Courts have required cities to accommodate reasonable religious uses. He said even without a church, people could assemble as an exercise of their First Amendment rights. His opinion was the City would have a difficult time sustaining the exclusion of reasonably sized churches from residential zones. Councilmember Petso said her proposal was not to exclude churches from residential neighborhoods but to exclude them from residential neighborhoods that were not within 1,200 feet of an arterial, thereby regulating the traffic associated with the church. Mr. Snyder said the City would then have to do the same for an elementary school site. He said that raised another set of issues such as the deference the City was required to provide in its zoning laws to the statutory mission of the School District. Council President Pro Tem White asked when the membership of a church would be determined. Mr. Snyder said the code defined the size by the number of seats. Council President Pro Tem White asked if standing room would be considered. Mr. Snyder answered the code measured design capacity based on the number of pews, chairs, floor space, not the number of people. Council President Pro Tem White asked if capacity could be curtailed by the fire code. Mr. Snyder said under Washington law, it would be very difficult to regulate the number of parishioners. . Council President Pro Tem White asked whether the Planning Board considered data regarding the traffic impacts associated with the three categories of churches that would indicate there was less impact from churches than elementary schools of the same capacity. Mr. Chave said during the Planning Board's review, they considered trip generation materials from the national publication the Traffic Engineer used for elementary schools and churches. He said the Planning Board also considered information developed via a survey City Attorney Michael Karber conducted of other jurisdictions.. Mr. Chave referred to a memo from Calvary Chapel, acknowledging they raised a valid issue regarding the difficulty of comparing traffic generation for churches and schools. By considering when churches and schools generated their traffic (Sundays for churches and am/pm peak hours for schools), churches on a per square foot basis generated approximately three times the traffic on a peak hour basis. However, churches were typically smaller than schools. _ He said the data the Edmonds School District provided indicated the schools they were constructing were similar in scale. However, the size of churches varied a great deal. Therefore, the Planning Board concluded it was reasonable to have categories based on size. Council President Pro Tem White asked how the Planning Board developed the categories of 100 and 250. Mr. Chave answered surveys indicated ordinances used those thresholds. In the absence of testimony that countered those figures, the Planning Board concluded they were reasonable. Councilmember Plunkett asked how school property would be zoned if the property were sold. Mr. Chave answered if the property were sold, the zoning would remain the same. Consequently, if the Council adopted the proposed ordinance, the City may wish to review the P zones to determine whether some should be rezoned to single - family zoning. Councilmember Orvis asked if a nonconforming church would be allowed to continue. Mr. Chave referred to nonconforming provisions which state existing legal nonconforming church uses, buildings, lots and/or signs may be expanded, enlarged, altered or modified, subject to conditional use permit approval with several conditions. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 6, 2000 Page 6 Councilmember Miller opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. Gordy Lindstrom, Board Member of Calvary Chapel, 7821 224th Street SW, Edmonds, explained Calvary Chapel was a tenant of the Edmonds School District in the former Esperance Elementary School and was pursuing a home in another facility. He referred to the letter submitted by Calvary Chapel that indicated churches were handled differently than elementary schools. He questioned why a church with 250 or less seats could not be located in the same place where a 60,000 square foot school is located with less than 600 students based on the impact to the community. He commented a private school could rent the old Woodway Elementary school but religious services for 250 people could not be held there. He referenced proposals included in the letter that was submitted. Mr. Lindstrom summarized church boardmembers would be willing to meet with staff regarding traffic impacts. He said recently adopted federal law addresses this issue. He stated he was not charging the City with discrimination. Scott Vincent, 22820 29th Avenue W, Brier, Senior Pastor, Calvary Chapel, stated his concern with the ordinance was the limit placed on a church based on its size. He explained a church of 100 members likely only had 30 -35 givers, thus there was not a large income derived from a church of 100 seats. He said 250 seats allowed more flexibility. He said elementary schools did not have the 1,200 foot restriction and could be constructed anywhere up to 60,000 square feet and 600 students plus staff. He pointed out if the church had a private school, they would be allowed to do the same but could not also assemble as a church. He noted there was no comparison between the traffic impacts of an elementary school versus a church with 250 seats; a church's traffic flow was restricted to Sunday mornings and possibly a weeknight activity (with only '/4 participation compared to Sunday services). He urged the City to incorporate flexibility in the regulations that would allow them to grow and have the same rights that were granted to an elementary school. Jana Lindstrom, 8925 W Mall Drive, Everett, member of Calvary Chapel, read the federal law pertaining to land use and religious uses, "Land Use — the right to assemble for worship is at the very core of free exercise of religion. Churches and synagogues could function without a physical space adequate to their needs and consistent with their theological requirements. The right to build, buy or rent such a space is an indispensable adjunct to the core First Amendment right to assemble for religious purposes. The hearing record compiled massive evidence that this right is frequently violated. Churches in general and new, small unfamiliar churches in particular, are frequently discriminated against on the face of zoning codes and in the highly individualized and discretionary processes of land use regulation. Zoning codes frequently exclude churches in places where they permit theaters, meeting halls, and other places where large groups of people assemble for secular purposes. Or the codes permit churches only with the individualized permission from the zoning board and zoning boards use that authority in discriminatory ways. Sometimes zoning board members or neighborhood residents explicitly offer race or religion as a reason to exclude the proposed church, especially in cases of black churches, Jewish shoals and synagogues. More often discrimination lurks behind such vague and universally applicable reasons as traffic, aesthetics or not consistent with the city's land use plan. Churches have been excluded from residential zones because they generate too much traffic and from commercial zones because they don't generate enough traffic. Churches have been denied the right to meet in rented storefronts, in abandoned schools, in converted funeral homes, theaters and skating rinks, in all sorts of buildings that were permitted when they generated traffic for secular purposes. The hearing records contain such evidence that these forms of discrimination are very wide spread. Some of this evidence is statistical from national surveys of cases, churches, zoning codes and public attitudes. Some of it is anecdotal with examples from all over the country, and some of it is testimony by witnesses with wide experience who Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 6, 2000 Page 7 say the anecdotes are representative." Ms. Lindstrom indicated the law then described some testimony. She continued reading the law, "This discrimination against religious uses is a nationwide problem, it does not occur in every jurisdiction with land use authority but it occurs in many such jurisdictions throughout the nation. Where it occurs, it is often covert, it is impossible to make separate findings about every jurisdiction or to legalize in away that reaches only those jurisdictions that are guilty." She reiterated they were not accusing the City of discrimination but wanted the Council and public to be aware of what the law states. Don Kreiman, 24006 95`" Place W, Edmonds, referred to the title of this item on the ordinance which indicated the amendments would establish new, consistent definitions for the regulation of community facilities within the city. He lives across the street from Woodway Elementary and was concerned a high school could be located there. Mayor Pro Tem. Miller advised staff would address his question at the conclusion of the public comments. Kurt Olden, 9117 238" Street SW, Edmonds, was opposed to allowing school properties to be rezoned P (Public). He said in the south area of Edmonds, an area that was annexed recently, there were small schools and small churches located within neighborhoods that have narrow streets and open drainage ditches. He said allowing schools to increase to the size that was indicated would have a huge impact on their neighborhood due to traffic, lighting, noise, etc. He said if these uses were allowed to occur in neighborhoods, the City was creating quasi - commercial zoning. He urged the Council to consider how these decisions would impact neighborhoods. Pamela Krueger, 411108" Avenue N, Ste. 1800, Bellevue, attorney representing the-Edmonds School District, recommended adoption of the proposed community facilities ordinance, noting it was carefully studied by the Planning Board in a process that began over a year ago and included many public hearings in which the School District has been involved. She recognized the need to allow local public facilities at sites where they could best serve the community and to apply different development standards in certain instances. She said the original concerns with the ordinance were based on the limits of the City's zoning authority and the need to regulate land use impacts rather than content of the School District's educational program and not create unreasonable interference. She stated the processes to increase heights for Chase Lake and Maplewood resulted in little or no negative public comment. She concluded there was a very exhaustive process to determine the distinguishing points for considering secondary impacts of K -8 versus high school which resulted in the Planning Board's recommendation. Bret Carlstad, Edmonds School District, Director of Planning, Property, Risk, Safety and Custodial, 20420 68 "' Avenue W, Lynnwood, complimented the Planning Board for their thorough and exhaustive process to develop the proposed ordinance. He stated throughout the process the School District was asked to provide numerous pieces of data regarding school buildings, enrollment, site maps, square footage, age location of each building, layout of playfields, programs within each building during the day and after school, student bus ridership, necessary parking, traffic, partnership programs, etc. He noted the Planning Board also considered a great deal of other data from other communities and national studies regarding schools and their impacts. Wayne Robertson, Edmonds School District Superintendent, 710 Elm Place W, Edmonds, expressed appreciation for the thoroughness with which the City had addressed this complex issue. He stated the School District was privileged to participate in the process. On behalf of the School District, he spoke in favor of the proposed ordinance. He explained the School District was well aware of the sensitivity of these issues and took very seriously their relationship with the many neighborhoods in the community. He said the School District did not want to take action that caused distress to those Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 6, 2000 Page 8 relationships and communities and would make any changes thoughtfully and with a great deal of communication and coordination. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM WHITE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, TO EXTEND THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR 20 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Jim Young, 23730 107`h Place W, Edmonds, commented the amendment to the Community Development Code may be too broad and general as it relates to schools. He said each application for a permit should be reviewed on an individual basis to consider the impacts to the surrounding area and allow opportunity for public input by those affected. He said. if the proposed changes meant the Edmonds School District could return the Options Program to their single - family neighborhood, he was opposed to the amendments. He recalled his two sons were fearful when going to and from school during the time the Options Program was in their neighborhood and he did not want this type of program returned to a school in a single- family neighborhood. He said the code should be written to protect families and neighborhoods. Cheryl Clarke, 23924107`h Place W, Edmonds, was opposed to the proposed amendments to the Edmonds Community Development Code with regard to the Edmonds School District's proposal to rewrite the zoning code to allow middle and high school students in single - family residential zoned areas. She was also opposed to the proposal to redefine schools, reduce building setback requirements and increase building heights to 35 feet. The proposed changes would impact surrounding neighborhoods, recalling their neighborhood's experience with the impact of high school students. The high school student program in their neighborhood was eventually moved, but only because the current zoning did not permit high school students in single- family residential zoned areas where the school was located. Had the zoning allowed it, she said the high school students would still be attending that school despite numerous complaints from local residents. She commented the amendment would allow the School District to place high school students in single family residential areas at any site without a public hearing. Elaine Yard, 9209 Olympic View Drive, Edmonds, member of St. Peter's By the Sea Lutheran Church, stated St. Peters by the Sea is a small church that did not construct their building completely in the 1960's and had not yet constructed a sanctuary. If the church wanted to construct a main sanctuary, there would not be enough land due to the revised requirements of three seats for one parking space. She said church parking at this time did not extend into the neighborhood and they strived to be a good neighbor. The parking requirements (one space for every three seats) would restrict the church's mission that includes a food bank, providing quilts to those in need, counseling, etc. She urged the Council to reconsider the proposed amendments. Steve Pigeon, 23723 78 "' Place W, Edmonds, stated as a result of federal action on September 22, 2000, the City Council inherited a problem. He commented there was substantial discrimination in the ordinance and in the nonconforming uses, the attempts to regulate parking, and imposing arbitrary lines at 100 persons and 250 persons. He explained the analysis that would occur before a court as to whether there was additional undue burden placed on a church that was not placed on the school district. Kevin Clarke, 23924 107`h Place W, Edmonds, distributed copies of documents to the Council (Edmonds School District Capital Facilities Plan, Elementary and High School Transportation Impacts, 10/17/00 Herald Newspaper article). He protested the fact that the School District was given two hours to make a presentation before the Planning Board but the public was only given three minutes.each. He Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 6, 2000 Page 9 recalled that although the Planning Board requested a copy of the School District's Capital Facilities Plan from the School District several times, it was not provided in a timely manner. He pointed out the definition of a school in the Capital Facilities Plan, the Edmonds School District inventory, the State of Washington's classification, and Snohomish County's impact fee ordinance all classify schools as elementary, middle and high school. Edmonds would be the only one classifying schools as primary and high school. He said any K -8 school would be allowed in a residential area including a middle school. He said if the Council had not read the Capital Facilities Plan, they did not have a right to vote on the issue because the ordinance refers to the Capital Facilities Plan. Further, the Capital Facilities Plan referred to supply and demand for space. He pointed out all school undeveloped sites were east of I -5 and 405 in the city of Lynnwood or Snohomish County. He referred to an article regarding an accident that occurred when a high school student on his way to school hit eight children at a bus stop on a 30 mph arterial with curbs, gutters and sidewalks, amenities that were not found in his neighborhood. He concluded high school students should not be allowed in single - family residential zones. He urged the Council to have the ordinance rewritten. Al Rutledge, 7101 Lake Ballinger Way, Edmonds, referred to property on 210"'/68` West that he sold to the Mission Church in Seattle. He said if the proposed ordinance had been in place, he may not have been able to sell the property. He said the property was being used for a preschool and there were no problems with parking from the church or preschool. Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive; Edmonds, read a portion of Section 16.80 that stated the purposes of the P district, the siting and development of regional public facilities to be located in or near residential areas and to establish standards to minimize the impact. He said any adoption of 16.80 should be tied to the rezone of all School District properties to the underlying zoning. He explained this would protect the residents in the area from a regional use on the site which could occur on a P zoned property. He said the primary consideration should be protection of the residential character of neighborhoods. He said schools and churches should be treated equally based on the size and impact, maintaining the philosophy of protecting neighborhoods. He said allowing a high school in a residential zone did not protect the residents of that area. He suggested the Council consider holding a second or third public hearing on this issue as one evening was not sufficient for adequate discussion. Hearing no further comment, Mayor Pro Tem Miller closed the public participation portion of the public hearing. Mr. Snyder said two premises needed to be observed in the discussion, 1) the City could not exclude churches from residential neighborhoods. The City may regulate the development impacts of churches if done in an evenhanded way, 2) a municipality may not supercede, set aside, invalidate or impair the educational processes of or limit the standards prescribed by the State in the operation of public schools. He said the City also could not exclude schools from residential'neighborhoods or dictate to the School District what programs were operated from schools. The City could not exclude churches or schools from the City or from its various zones. The City may regulate developmental impacts such as traffic, noise, light, etc. The City may not regulate.programs or the kind or quality of worship. Mr. Snyder said although Congress passed the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000, the underlying law required the City to be flexible in the standards it applied. He suggested the church with 1 -2 services a few days a week needed to be compared to schools. He said the comparison should not be whether one student equaled one parishioner but how the person reached the location and the impacts to the City. In response to the comment regarding narrow roads and drainage ditches, he said those were issues the City would regulate. Upon a change in a program or construction of a new school Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 6, 2000 Page 10 or church, the City must ensure appropriate development fees were charged to improve the roads, install sidewalks, etc. to address the development impacts. The City's role was not to exclude the use but address the development impacts. Regarding the comment about unreasonable restrictions, Mr. Snyder explained Washington Courts have required cities to be flexible and perhaps a more generalized threshold than 100 or 250 people with a CUP would be appropriate to ensure the church could continue its mission. In response to Ms. Clarke's statement that the ordinance permits high schools in residential zones, Mr. Snyder referred to Page 22 that stated high schools were permitted in residential zones only with a CUP. Mr. Snyder explained the purpose of a CUP was to establish conditions and review siting criteria to ensure off -site impacts were addressed. Regarding the Options Program, Mr. Snyder reiterated the City could not regulate the details of the education programs conducted in the School District's facilities, only the developmental impacts. In response to Mr. Clarke's comments that Edmonds would be the only city with an elementary/high school distinction, staff has been attempting to determine whether any other jurisdictions have conducted studies to compile data to support snaking a distinction between middle and elementary schools. As of today, Mr. Chave had surveyed ten south Snohomish County and King County cities and none had a separate zoning category for middle schools. Mr. Chave said Mr. Karber, who did a substantial survey on how other jurisdictions regulated schools, could find no instance where middle schools were regulated separately from elementary or high schools. Mr. Chave said his recent survey revealed no other cities regulated high schools differently than elementary schools; both were either permitted outright in residential zones or as a conditional use. He commented the Planning Board's record had more in- depth study than other jurisdictions to address the secondary impacts of high schools versus primary schools. Mr. Snyder said there was nothing in the record thus far that would support the Council making a distinction between middle and high schools. If the Council wished to make that distinction, he said the Council may wish to commission a study regarding developmental impacts. Another method, used by many other cities and proposed for high schools in the draft ordinance, was a CUP process which would make an individualized decision about the facility and measure its impacts on a case -by -case basis. He said this process, regulating developmental impacts and requiring the impacts to be mitigated, could be used for both churches and schools. He suggested the City consider a CUP process instead. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM WHITE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, TO EXTEND THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR 20 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Chave said programs serving high school students such as the Options Program, would be considered a high school under the definitions in the code and would require a CUP. He said a CUP was not the only way the City reviewed facilities such as schools and churches; there was also design review where the Architectural Design Board routinely reviewed issues such as setbacks, visual impacts on the neighborhood, building design, etc. Regardless of whether a CUP was required, there would be a public process. Further, the School District was obligated to follow its Capital Facilities Plan; if the public was concerned with the potential location of a school, they could participate in that process. When the City adopted the School District's Capital Facilities Plan, the public would have an opportunity to review the siting of facilities at that time as well. Council President Pro Tem White observed the Council had no authority to dictate to the School District where they could place a high school facility. The City could only regulate the impacts the facility had Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 6, 2000 Page 11 on an area, and the City's regulation would occur during a CUP process. Mr. Snyder agreed and added even with a CUP, if a facility created a public nuisance, the City could have a second review and impose additional conditions and requirements /standards.. Council President Pro Tern White inquired about the process for issuing a CUP. Mr. Chave explained once an application was received, the City provided mailed notification to property owners within 300 feet, published a notice in the newspaper and posted the property. He said an internal staff review was conducted and a public hearing held before the Hearing Examiner. The Hearing Examiner's decision was appealable to the City Council. Council President Pro Tem White asked whether the evidentiary public hearing could be held at the Council level rather than the Hearing Examiner. Mr. Snyder answered that was within the Council's discretion; Regulatory Reform allowed only one open record hearing but that could be before the Council. He cautioned if the Council planned to hold such hearings, many of the limitations in a legislative proceeding such as limiting time for the public to comment would not be applicable. The public hearings would be long and the Council would need to provide as much time as necessary for the public, particularly the applicant or anyone with an interest, to present their case. Councilmember Orvis asked if the ratio in the existing ordinance was 5:1. Mr. Chave answered the 5:1 ratio in the existing code was retained under the proposed ordinance. Councilmember Orvis asked if churches were excluded from any zones. Mr. Chave answered community facilities were permitted in all residential and most, if not all, commercial zones. Mr. Snyder said churches were permitted in all zones but could only be sited depending on their size and proximity to a collector or arterial street. Councilmember Petso asked Mr. Snyder whether he agreed with the suggestion that all P zoned properties should be rezoned prior to or in connection with adoption of the ordinance. Mr. Snyder said the rezoning needed to be done contemporaneously. He said if the Council was concerned, zoning moratoria could be enacted to ensure nothing occurred in the interim. The City needed to follow -up with a rezone of P zoned school property. Mr. Chave said most schools in recently annexed areas were zoned residential; the schools zoned P were primarily in the older areas of the City. Councilmember Petso recalled a speaker suggested the rezoning be accomplished in connection with the ordinance rather than after adoption of the ordinance. Mr. Snyder agreed if the Council wished to continue studying this issue, zoning moratoria needed to be adopted to limit application of the current ordinance. He also indicated he was very uncomfortable with the City's current restrictions on churches. Councilmember Petso referred to Page 149 of the packet which indicated the trips per student were . higher for middle schools students than elementary students and asked if that information would allow the City to define middle schools differently than high schools and require a CUP. Mr. Snyder said that was sufficient basis for a conditional use process. He said the City's obligation was to allow the School District to site its schools as long as the developmental impacts could be addressed. If the intent was to exclude middle schools from certain zones, more information would be necessary to create an adequate record. However, the record was sufficient to require a conditional use process to review potential impacts. Councilmember Petso asked if all three school types could be required to have a conditional use process. Mr. Snyder answered elementary schools were recognized as an appropriate use and he was not aware of any other jurisdiction that had significant limitations on the siting of an elementary school. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 6, 2000 Page 12 Councilmember Petso asked if the ordinance could be adopted without making a change in the procedure for churches and schools to obtain increased height. Mr. Chave answered during design review for schools, reasonable increases in the facility height have been allowed. Councilmember Petso pointed out this may differ in a non -view situation such as Chase Lake versus an area with a view. Mr. Chave explained that was the reason a CUP was proposed, to allow a public hearing, design review, etc. Councilmember Petso asked if all height increases required a CUP. Mr. Chave answered yes, with the exception of a gymnasium or swimming pool. Councilmember Petso asked if the Council could require a CUP. Mr. Chave answered yes. Council President Pro Tem White asked what the rationale was for not requiring a CUP for gymnasium height. Mr. Chave said there was testimony that all gymnasiums would be over 25 feet. Councilmember Plunkett observed under the proposed ordinance, a middle school could be sited in a residential neighborhood without a CUP. Mr. Chave answered yes, under the definition of schools, K -8 would be allowed without a CUP. Councilmember Plunkett said this would allow seventh and eighth graders to attend school in a residential neighborhood and the school would also be allowed to have a gym, pool or auditorium with a height of 35 feet. Mr. Chave agreed. Responding to questions, Mr. Snyder explained the City had the ability to enact zoning moratoria to suspend enforcement or prohibit issuance of permits while an issue was studied. Councilmember Orvis asked if the moratoria would be on enforcement of the regulations. Mr. Snyder answered the City could have interim zoning regulations or moratoria. An interim zoning regulation would, for example, set up a process similar to a conditional use process to allow flexibility in the siting /improvement of a church. He said the existing ordinance lacked flexibility and imposed allegedly unconstitutional provisions on churches. He reiterated the City lacked some way of comparing students and parishioners and the vehicle trips. Council President Pro Tem White said the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, did not allow the City to implement land use regulations that treated religious assembly differently from any other non - religious assembly. He asked whose burden it was to establish the proof that the City was treating religious assembly differently. Mr. Snyder said the proponent would have to establish there was a difference and the City must establish that there were not unreasonable distinctions. Council President Pro Tem White asked how the differences would be established. Mr. Snyder said traffic data was the most scientific evidence available. Another tool would be to assume there were liberal appeal provisions or flexibility in the form of a CUP that reasonable adjustments could be made. COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DAVIS, TO EXTEND THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR 20 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mayor Pro Tem Miller remanded the matter to Council for deliberation. Councilmember Earling commented the City had been working on this issue too long and he wanted to continue moving forward toward a decision. He suggested another public hearing be scheduled and have Councilmembers present formal amendments to the ordinance to the Council for consideration. He suggested the Council move to adopt the ordinance and then prior to passage, have written amendments presented to the Council for consideration /discussion. He suggested Councilmembers provide written amendments to the Council on the Friday before a meeting to allow Councilmembers an opportunity to study the amendment. He said this would also allow staff time to address issues and draft amendments as appropriate. He said this method would ensure the process continued. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 6, 2000 Page 13 Councilmember Petso agreed with Councilmember Earling's suggestion regarding the Council proposing amendments to the ordinance. She said public input may change if the ordinance was revised to require a CUP for a middle school and/or church. She said some of the amendments would require staff involvement due to their impact on several chapters. She suggested staff incorporate the amendments in the ordinance and return it to the Council for a public hearing. Councilmember Davis agreed with Councilmember Earling's proposal and wanted Council to have an opportunity to react to the amendments prior to staff incorporating them in the ordinance. Councilmember Plunkett indicated he did not want to vote on the ordinance until all amendments had been presented. He agreed with the proposal for Councilmembers to provide amendments in writing to the Council on Friday prior to the Tuesday meeting and to make the amendments available to the public. Councilmember Earling clarified his intent was not to make a motion on the ordinance tonight. He proposed a procedure to make a motion on the ordinance and then debate the amendments and pass the ordinance once all amendments had been adjudicated. Council President Pro Tem White observed if substantial changes were made to the ordinance, another public hearing would need to be held. He suggested Councilmembers provide proposed amendments in writing and once the amendments were agreed upon, staff could integrate them into the ordinance and a public hearing could be held. Mr. Snyder advised Development Services Director Duane Bowman suggested the Council use a workshop format to discuss amendments and staff could then return with the ordinance in a strikeout/underscore format highlight the amendments. A workshop was scheduled for December 12, prior to Council committee meetings. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM WHITE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DAVIS, TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO A DATE TO BE DETERMINED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mayor Pro Tem Miller declared a brief recess. 7. AUDIENCE COMMENTS medic 7i 1 Elaine Yard, 9209 Olympic View Drive, Edmonds, commended Medic 7 and the Emergency Medical EMS I Response unit that continued to operate most efficiently in Edmonds. She said David Clark made two erv,ces runs to her house during October with excellent results. Next, she said unless changes occurred by tomorrow, she would request Council intervention regarding a trespass issue. Al Rutledge, 7101 Lake Ballinger Way, Edmonds, said at the last Council meeting, he reported there were numerous homes for sale in the Edmonds area. He described a television program that regarding the price ranges of the over 2,000 homes for sale in the Seattle, Tacoma and Snohomish County area. He also indicated the car accident on 76'/230' involving several school children at a bus stop occurred up the street from another church and preschool. tn Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, Edmonds, commented on how schools and churches were treated differently in the code; for example, the parking ratio was eliminated for churches but the parking ratio Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 6, 2000 Page 14 was retained for schools. School parking lots were required to be screened by a wall or sight- obscuring fence but that was eliminated for churches. Heights were treated somewhat differently and the provision for an additional foot of setback for every extra foot above the height limit had been eliminated. He suggested there were areas that needed to be compared and suggested the code be carefully reviewed to ensure the treatment was equal. He referred to Chapter 17.40 which indicated schools, local public facilities, schools and parks could be expanded even if nonconforming. He pointed out other nonconforming uses could not be expanded. He recommended the term "in any significant manner" in the statement "if the enlargement does not increase the degree of nonconformity in some significant manner" be defined further. Kevin Clarke, 29324 1071'' Place W, Edmonds, pointed out the difficulty of expressing one's opinion regarding a complex issue in three minutes. 8. FIRST READING — PROPOSED ORDINANCE GRANTING TO ADELPHIA BUSINESS delphia SOLUTIONS OPERATIONS. INC.. A NON - EXCLUSIVE FRANCHISE TO INSTALL OPERATE Business solutions AND MAINTAIN A FIBER OPTIC TELECOMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM IN, ON, OVER, UPON, Franchise ALONG, AND ACROSS THE PUBLIC RIGHTS -OF -WAY OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON PRESCRIBING CERTAIN RIGHTS DUTIES TERMS AND CONDITIONS WITH RESPECT THERETO AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE Assistant City Engineer Don Fiene explained this franchise proposal was initiated by Adelphia Business Solutions in June. The City replied to their original proposal in August; concerns raised at that time included bonding, term length of the agreement, and insurance and undergrounding requirements. The proposed ordinance had been mutually agreed upon and the conditions were consistent with current law as well as the Metromedia franchise agreement adopted by the Council earlier this year. Mayor Pro Tem Miller inquired whether any member of the public wished to address the Council regarding this issue. There were no audience members who wished to speak. COUNCILMEMBER EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DAVIS, TO CONTINUE DISCUSSION TO A SECOND READING OF THE ORDINANCE. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Pine St. 9. REVIEW PINE STREET TRAFFIC STUDY PROPOSAL Traffic Study Development Services Director Duane Bowman announced the City was awarded two grants. One grant Proposal was for the Woodway Elementary walkway, a project with a total cost of $390,000; the School District match was $32,000 and.the City's match was approximately $150,000. A second grant for the Seaview Elementary traffic calming and traffic safety project had a total cost of $12,400; the School District match was $4,000 and the City's match was $4,000. He congratulated Maryanne Zukowski, Traffic Engineer, and the staff who developed the grants. Mr. Bowman recalled the Council held a public hearing regarding the Pine Street Closure on October 17. At that time, the Council requested staff return within 120 days with a recommendation regarding the Pine Street closure. He said the difficulty the Council encountered at the October 17 meeting was due to the lack of information to make an informed decision. He said staff has encountered the same problem. He referred to a memorandum from Ms. Zukowski regarding a complete traffic analysis. He sought Council approval to move forward with a traffic analysis. He explained a budget decision package had not been submitted for this study and an appropriation of funds would be necessary. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 6, 2000 Page 15 Mr. Bowman further explained the issue was compounded by construction schedules that result in a limited window to conduct the study. There is a window of opportunity in March between the Mukilteo ferry uses from late November to mid February, that would allow approximately one month to conduct the study. If this opportunity was not seized, the study would be delayed until fall 2001 due to construction of WSDOT's other improvements from late April 2001 to late August 2001. Mr. Bowman estimated the traffic study would cost approximately $49,000 and would provide level of service information as well as impacts to surrounding intersections. He suggested a possible funding source was Fund 112 -300, Street Overlay. He said this was a fund that had been used in the past to fund traffic analysis and traffic calming. He noted another Councilmember suggested allocating funds from the Council Contingency Fund. Councilmember Earling agreed with the need for the traffic study but did not want the study funded from the Street Overlay Fund. Councilmember Petso asked whether there were any economies in conducting traffic analysis of other intersections at the same time such as to generate information for the Sound Transit project or other traffic issues. Mr. Bowman agreed that could be done but it would increase the cost of the study proportionately. Councilmember Davis recommended thinking beyond the initial study, pointing out construction of improvements could reach $100,000 - $150,000 including the study. He asked if the construction estimate included signage as proposed by WSDOT. Mr. Bowman answered yes; construction costs would be a budgetary issue for 2002. Councilmember Earling pointed out the possibility of grants to fund the project. COUNCILMEMBER DAVIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER EARLING, TO AUTHORIZE STAFF TO INITIATE A FULL TRAFFIC ANALYSIS OF THE PINE STREET CLOSURE OPTIONS AND REPORT BACK TO THE CITY COUNCIL NO LATER THAN APRIL 30, 2000. FUNDING NOT TO EXCEED $49,000 TO-COME FROM THE COUNCIL CONTINGENCY FUND. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 10. 'MAYOR'S REPORT Mayor Pro Tern Miller had no report. 11. COUNCIL REPORTS ort of Councilmember Davis, who attended a recent Port of Edmonds meeting, commended the Port for the Edmonds work they were attempting to do. He also thanked the downtown merchants who participated in the Halloween Halloween festivities on October 31, and thanked the Chamber of Commerce for sponsoring the event. Festivities Councilmember Petso thanked Traffic Engineer Maryanne Zukowski for obtaining grant funding for two Grant Funding City projects. As a taxpayer and Councilmembers , she encouraged staff to seek gr ant funding whenever possible. tQ Councilmember Earling agreed with Councilmember Davis' comments regarding the Halloween festivities, commenting the event continues to grow each year. He thanked Mayor Pro Tem Miller for raisi ng the issue of grant funding at the Saturday workshop. He explained the purpose of his question Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 6, 2000 Page 16 was some City departments did a great job of applying for and receiving grants, particularly Planning, Engineering, and Parks and Recreation but there were other departments that needed to do better. He said the City needed to obtain grants, whether that required hiring a grant writer or encouraging departments who are not seeking grants to do. so. He said one method would be to request a yearly report regarding grants that had been sought and successfully obtained. He said the City lost thousands in grant funds each year by not applying for the grants. With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:06 p.m. RY rKENSON, MAYOR SANDRA S. CHASE, CITY CLERK 1 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 6, 2000 Page 17 0 1 lJ AGENDA EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL Plaza Meeting Room - Library Building 650 Main Street 7:00 -10:00 p.m. NOVEMBER 6, 2000 SPECIAL MONDAY MEETING 6:30 P.M. - EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING LEGAL AND REAL ESTATE MATTERS 6:45 P.M. - INTERVIEW CANDIDATE FOR THE LIBRARY BOARD 7 :00 P.M. - CALL TO ORDER FLAG SALUTE Isla 1: Z@ I Tl _ lits] a T e-4 ► 17 2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS (A) ROLL CALL (B) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF OCTOBER 21, 2000 (C) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF OCTOBER 24, 2000 (D) APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #44279 THROUGH #44411 FOR THE WEEK OF OCTOBER 23, 2000, IN THE AMOUNT OF $172,586.33. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #44412 THROUGH #44570 FOR THE WEEK OF OCTOBER 30, 2000, IN THE AMOUNT OF $384,992.00. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL CHECKS #31582 THROUGH #31683 FOR THE PAY PERIOD OCTOBER 16 THROUGH OCTOBER 31, 2000, IN THE AMOUNT OF $335,808.17. (E) ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM KEN AND CATHY SANTI ($55.27) (F) ACCEPTANCE OF SEWER 'AND TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENTS FOR THE PERRINVILLE SANITARY SEWER LID 215 AND 216 PROJECT (G) APPROVE RECOMMENDATION FROM LODGING TAX ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR 2001 HOTEL/ MOTEL TAX FUND #120 APPROPRIATIONS (H) PROCLAMATION IN HONOR OF NATIONAL YOUNG READERS' DAY, NOVEMBER 8, 2000 (1) PROCLAMATION IN HONOR OF THE 50TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE KOREAN WAR 3. ( 5 Min.) CONFIRMATION OF APPOINTMENT TO THE LIBRARY BOARD 4. (15 Min.) ANNUAL REPORT FROM THE LIBRARY BOARD 5. (15 Min.) ANNUAL REPORT FROM THE EDMONDS MEMORIAL CEMETERY BOARD 6. (60 Min.) PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE CREATING NEW CHAPTERS 17.40.050 (NON- CONFORMING COMMUNITY FACILITIES), AND 17.65 (PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR COMMUNITY FACILITIES), AND AMENDING CHAPTERS: 16.20 - RS (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL); 16.30 - RM (MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL); 16.45 - BN (NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS); 16.50 - BC (COMMUNITY BUSINESS); 16.53 - BP (PLANNED BUSINESS); 16.55 - CW (COMMERCIAL WATERFRONT); 16.61 - MU (MEDICAL USE); 16.80 - P (PUBLIC USE); AND CHAPTER 21 (DEFINITIONS). THESE AMENDMENTS WOULD ESTABLISH NEW, CONSISTENT DEFINITIONS FOR THE REGULATION OF COMMUNITY FACILITIES WITHIN THE CITY. Page 1 of 2 CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA NOVEMBER 6, 2000. Pacie 2 of 2 7 AUDIENCE COMMENTS (3 Minute Limit Per Person) 8. ( 5 Min.) FIRST READING — PROPOSED ORDINANCE GRANTING TO ADELPHIA BUSINESS SOLUTIONS OPERATIONS, INC., A NON - EXCLUSIVE FRANCHISE TO INSTALL, OPERATE, AND MAINTAIN A FIBER OPTIC TELECOMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM IN, ON, OVER, UPON, ALONG, AND ACROSS THE PUBLIC RIGHTS -OF -WAY OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, PRESCRIBING CERTAIN RIGHTS, DUTIES, TERMS, AND CONDITIONS WITH RESPECT THERETO, AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE 9. (15 Min.) REVIEW PINE STREET TRAFFIC STUDY PROPOSAL 10. ( 5 Min.) MAYOR'S REPORT 11. (15 Min.) COUNCIL REPORTS 1 I. °arking and meeting rooms are accessible for persons with disabilities. Contact the City Clerk at (425) 771 -0245 with 24 hour, advance notice for special accommodations. The Council Agenda appears on Chambers Cable, Channel 21. Delayed telecast of thi, neeting appears the following Wednesday at noon and 7 :00 p.m., as well as, Friday and Monday at noon on Channel 21.