Loading...
06/03/1997 City CouncilEDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES JUNE 39 1997 The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Barbara Fahey in the Library Plaza Room, 650 Main Street, followed by the flag salute. ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Barbara Fahey, Mayor Dave Earling, Council President Roger L. Myers, Councilmember Jim White, Councilmember Dick Van Hollebeke, Councilmember Gary Haakenson, Councilmember Thomas A. Miller, Councilmember ABSENT John Nordquist, Councilmember STAFF PRESENT Al Compaan, Assistant Police Chief Paul Mar, Community Services Director James Walker, City Engineer Rob Chave, Planning Manager Brent Hunter, Personnel Manager Scott Snyder, City Attorney Sandy Chase, City Clerk Jeannie Dines, Recorder 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Change to COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MYERS, TO Agenda ADD AN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING LABOR NEGOTIATIONS TO THE AGENDA AS ITEM 8. MOTION CARRIED. COUNCILMEMBER VAN HOLLEBEKE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MILLER, FOR APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED. 2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COUNCILMEMBER VAN HOLLEBEKE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MILLER, FOR APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED. MOTION CARRIED. The agenda items approved are as follows: (A) ROLL CALL Approve Minutes (B) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MAY 27, 1997 Approve (C) APPROVAL OF CLAIM WARRANTS #15195 THRU #17785 FOR THE WEEK OF MAY Clam 26, 1997, IN THE AMOUNT OF $244,322.29 Warrants Street surface (D) AUTHORIZATION TO CALL FOR BIDS FOR THE 1997 STREET SURFACE Treatment TREATMENT PROGRAM City Park (E) REPORT ON FINAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR THE CITY PARK PICNIC Picnic SHELTERS PROJECT AND COUNCIL ACCEPTANCE OF PROJECT Shelters Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 3, 1997 Page 1 Peninville (F) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT Creek WITH REID MIDDLETON, INC. FOR THE PERRINVILLE CREEK STREAMBANK 'treamhank STABILIZATION SURVEY 3. AUDIENCE Senior Center Ray Olson, 22808 106th Place W, Edmonds, explained he had previously provided the Council with an opportunity to participate in fund raising for the South County Senior Center and said he would return in two weeks to collect the Council's contributions and deliver them to the Senior Center. Bamonas Dave Page, 1233 Olympic View Drive, Edmonds, described the Edmonds Challenge, a community Challenge based running/walking event to benefit the Edmonds Police Youth Services Unit. He distributed brochures to the Council and encouraged the Council and citizens to participate in this family event on Friday, July 18, 1997 at 7:15 p.m. Atl,let;e Al Rutledge, 7101 Lake Ballinger Way, Edmonds, distributed material to the Council regarding the Fields/ Ifollowing matters: 1) fund raising for sports teams, 2) a letter from the Attorney General, 3) an Athletic Stadium vote Fields meeting on June 25, 4) parking permit rates including his support of parking coupons, 5) support of the appointment of a salary commission, and 6) support for the upcoming vote on the stadium issue. Railroad Mel Critchley, 705 Driftwood Place, Edmonds, distributed materials regarding railroad safety Safety including a Wall Street Journal article describing other communities' efforts to get railroads to pay their share of safety measures. He noted previously 30 trains per day traveled through Edmonds; he recently observed 10 trains between 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 a.m. on a Sunday morning. He said a letter was recently sent to Mayor Fahey requesting the Council address the fact that WSDOT was not adhering to safety criteria. Her response indicated she consulted with Council President Earling whom Mr. Critchley felt was more interested in RTA issues. Mr. Critchley also expressed concern with increased parking in downtown and urged those interested in preserving the small town atmosphere not to increase the population in downtown Edmonds. Hearing on Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, Edmonds, requested a full presentation be provided prior to the Proposed public hearing on a proposed amendment to the Code as there was information staff had not presented to Code Amendment the public or the Council. He recalled the City Attorney had advised at the May 20, 1997 Council meeting, that Mayor Fahey and Councilmember Van Hollebeke's involvement with the Edmonds Alliance for Economic Development was not a legal issue. However, he was concerned with their involvement as a moral issue. He suggested Councilmembers Van Hollebeke and White not participate in the decision (Proposed Amendment to Edmonds Community Development Code Section 16.50, Community Business to Modify Maximum Permitted Residential Density, Roofline Modulation and Establish Multi -Family Residential as a Primary Permitted Use in the Zone) due to "pre judgment bias". Mr. Hertrich thanked the Enterprise for printing the article regarding this issue. He pointed out although the legal notice was printed in the newspaper, he felt there still had not been adequate public notification and recommended the Council hold a third hearing on the matter. Proposed 4. CONTINUED HEARING ON PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO EDMONDS COMMUNITY Amendment- DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 16.50. COMMUNITY BUSINESS (BC) TO MODIFY ity Communnity MAXIMUM PERMITTED RESIDENTIAL DENSITY, RObFLINE MODULATION, AND Comm Business ESTABLISH MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AS A PRIMARY PERMITTED USE IN THE ZONE (Continued from May 20, 1997) Council President Earling said he is a downtown property owner; however, the City Attorney had advised he would not be precluded from participating in this matter. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 3, 1997 Page 2 City Attorney Scott Snyder stated that the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine applied only to quasi judicial matters; not legislative issues such as this. Planning Manager Rob Chave explained this was a continued hearing on a proposed change to the Community Business (BC) zone, not a rezone as indicated by the newspaper. The proposed change would modify the existing zoning regulations that govern a portion of the downtown area but would not change the overall character of the zone. He displayed an overhead and described the existing and proposed regulations for primary use, permitted uses on the ground floor, maximum dwelling unit density, minimum depth -ground floor space, and roof design. He explained the proposed regulations would allow residential uses above the ground floor, would allow the bulk: requirements (height, setback, parking, etc.) to determine the density, and would allow modulated roof designs but would retain the existing height limits. Community Services Director Paul Mar stressed there were no changes being made to the permitted uses; no residential uses would be permitted on the ground floor. He displayed a map of the downtown area, identified the BC Zone, and described its boundaries. He also displayed an aerial photograph of the area, identifying the BC Zone. He displayed an illustration of roof designs allowed under the current - code and examples of designs allowed under the proposed regulations. He pointed out no additional height would be allowed. At the May 20, 1997 hearing, Council directed staff to provide examples of site development and commercial space with a 30 foot depth and to investigate the economic impact of the Code change. Mr. Mar displayed examples of site development under the existing and proposed regulations. He also displayed examples of existing site development in the downtown area and commercial spaces with storefronts approximately 30 feet in depth. In response to Councilmember Myers, Mr. Mar advised the proposed changes required a 30 foot minimum depth ground floor commercial space. Regarding the economic impact of the Code changes, Mr. Mar indicated a study done by the City of Seattle in 1993 regarding Mixed Use Development was included in the Council packet. He noted many of the characteristics and issues used to develop the proposed Code changes had been included in the study. After reading the report and speaking with the consultant who prepared the report; Mr. Mar concluded that mixed used developments tend to drive a higher economic return if the commercial and residential activities work well together. His conversations with the Snohomish County Assessors office indicated commercial property was valued on a per square foot basis and the amount per square foot was based on comparable sales. Therefore, if the new Code is adopted and development and sales occur, future assessments would reflect increased property values and also increased property taxes. Council President Earling clarified although only a 30 foot commercial depth would be required on the ground floor, no residential uses were permitted on the ground floor. Additional space on the ground floor could be used for open space, parking, etc. Councilmember Haakenson recalled a citizen urged the Council not to approve the Code change as it would make parking worse. Councilmember Haakenson asked whether on -street parking would be affected by residential development. Mr. Mar answered residential parking requirements could not be met with on -street parking. Mayor Fahey opened the audience participation portion of the hearing. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 3, 1997 Page 3 Mr. Snyder advised any previous testimony was included in the record. Jacque Mayo, 229 3rd Avenue S, Edmonds, pointed out the three Code changes were simple and had been reviewed by the Planning Board and the City's Planning Staff. Further, the Property Owners Committee worked with the Planning Board and City staff for over 13 months. He pointed out there had been adequate public involvement and the proposed changes were supported by the Planning Board, the Planning Staff, the Edmonds Chamber of Commerce, the BC Property Owners Association, and the Edmonds Alliance for Economic Development. He requested the Council support the proposed changes as they were "good for the City and good for economic development". Albert Dykes, 3226 Cascadia S, Seattle, owner of the Edmonds Shopping Center on Sunset and Dayton, requested the Council support the proposed modifications as he felt they were an important, initial step toward revitalization of downtown. He pointed out, without economic vitality, the tax burden borne by homeowners in the City will continue to increase. This alternative to revitalize downtown would increase the sales tax and property tax base. He encouraged the Council to approve the proposed changes. Rob Morrison, 250 Beach Place, Edmonds, read his May 16 letter to the Council in support of mixed use development for multiple dwelling units in the BC Zone to support business uses and eliminating maximum density for permitted multiple dwelling units in the BC Zone. He pointed out allowing residential uses on the second floor would permit moderate income dwelling units so people could live and shop in downtown. Further, allowing modulated rooflines would create an opportunity to make downtown a more attractive and desirable place for residents and visitors. Dave Page, 1233 Olympic View Drive, Edmonds, pointed out there had been adequate public involvement as this was the sixth public meeting regarding this matter—four held by the Planning Board and two by the Council. He explained the existing density requirement creates units in the $300,000 - $500,000 range; the proposed changes would allow the same space to be divided into three units costing $120,000 - $150,000. He noted the 14 unit complex he owns has only 14 parking spaces but parking is not a problem as many residents walk to jobs and shopping in downtown. Al Rutledge, 7101 Lake Ballinger Way, Edmonds, pointed out the existing problem of weeds growing in sidewalks throughout the City. He urged the Council and the Mayor to make a careful decision regarding establishing multi -family residential as a primary use in the BC zone. Mel Critchley, 705 Driftwood Place, Edmonds, noted debris around the library and the necessity for him to notify the City when trees were down on Main Street. He urged citizens, at the next election, to replace Councilmembers with residents, not members of the Chamber of Commerce. He noted the Citizens for Waterfront and Railroad Safety's request to make a presentation to the Chamber of Commerce was denied. Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, Edmonds, disagreed with the proposed change to make multiple residential a primary use in the downtown area. He urged the Council to request information regarding the 25 properties scheduled for development if the proposed changes were adopted. He noted this proposal was contrary to the statements made by many Councilmembers used when running for office regarding preservation of Edmonds' small town character. He supported the preservation of the City's history so the progression of architecture and character would be visible. He suggested a vote in favor of the proposed changes was similar to voting to remove Pioneer Square in Seattle. He urged the Council to hold a third hearing as Edmonds' history was at stake. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 3, 1997 Page 4 Don Stay, 715 Sprague, Edmonds, pointed out Pioneer Square was different today than it was originally; had it remained the same, most would not appreciate it. He explained the proposed changes would be constructive, bring vitalization to the community, and bring in young people who could afford to invest in the community. Heidi Harding, Brier, said she grew up in Edmonds but moved her young family to Brier as she felt Edmonds -was no longer a family community. She pointed out increased density also led to an increased crime rate. She noted decreasing the price of a unit by increasing density would not bring in young families as most want to own a home with some land. She expressed concern with the "threat" of increased taxes if the commercial base were not increased. She urged the Council to consider the type of community the citizens want and not to destroy it with "high rise buildings". Brad Butterfield, 400 Dayton, Edmonds, encouraged the Council to consider the proposed changes. He pointed out the proposed changes would not visibly change the exterior of any new or old buildings in downtown Edmonds, it would not change building heights, bulk, setbacks, parking or landscaping requirements. The changes would promote new stores and offices, thus providing additional taxes to reduce the burden on property owners. The changes would result in more off-street parking, more .. affordable housing, architectural diversity through different roof lines and allow economic opportunity for property owners, businesses, and residents of the City. He explained the approximately $68,000 in development costs for a 3,000 square foot project (before any construction began) was prohibitive and changes in density were necessary. He explained when developing projects in downtown Edmonds, parking drives the project. If they are not able to provide enough off-street parking, the size, density, height and bulk of the building is limited. He assured a change in density would not increase the square footage of buildings in downtown. Ray Olson, 22808 106th Place W, Edmonds, concurred with the comments made by Don Stay and agreed the changes were necessary to improve the community. He asked if the Council had considered the increased expenses to the City along with the increased revenues. Ellen Ernst, 702 7th Avenue S, Edmonds, said her young family lives close to downtown but in recent months/years, there have been fewer things for her to purchase downtown. She questioned why downtown was not currently viable for commercial space. She expressed concern with who was "driving" the proposed changes and whether the smaller units would actually be lower priced. She supported keeping downtown as a place she could walk to with children. Doug Dewar, 110 James, Edmonds, a member of the Chamber of Commerce, reiterated that in order to promote economic growth, more people need to live in the downtown core to support retail businesses. Therefore, less expensive housing was necessary for people who want to live downtown. He pointed out residential uses create less traffic and require less parking than commercial uses. He encouraged the Council to adopt the proposed changes. Peter Beck, 718 Spruce, Edmonds, pointed out the proposed changes would only modify the BC Zone slightly. He challenged the Council to make a decision tonight and to move forward with the future of Edmonds. Bruce Nickolson, 9829 Cherry Street, Edmonds, explained the proposed changes would generate taxes and decrease the citizens' tax burden. He noted many of the existing spaces downtown were old, in poor repair, and were not repairable due to the expense. Replacing the structures must be done in an economically viable manner so developers could create competitive, good quality spaces for commercial Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 3, 1997 Page 5 or residential use. He encouraged the Council to consider the information presented and to vote in favor of the recommended changes. Joan Longstaff, 524 Main Street, Edmonds, said Edmonds has a special quality of life and the proposal was an example of the City's government, private sector, and business community working to retain that quality of life. She pointed out many young families want to shop in Edmonds but there are not enough businesses in Edmonds to make it practical. The proposed changes would provide retail on the ground floor and more affordable housing for couples and seniors, not necessarily family housing. Bill Borger, 751 Laurel, Edmonds, encouraged the Council to vote in favor of the proposed changes as it appeared it was something residents wanted. He encouraged the Council not to delay their decision further and to move forward with increasing business in the City. COUNCILMEMBER MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER HAAKENSON, TO EXTEND THE HEARING FOR 20 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED. Mr. Snyder explained conflict of interest, Appearance of Fairness Doctrine, and Pre -Judgment Bias have specific meanings under State law and apply only to quasi judicial matters. He pointed out the Enterprise's headline was misleading; a rezone, a quasi judicial matter, is a specific decision regarding a specific property. A Councilmember with ownership in that specific property would be prohibited from participating in the decision. However, when the Council sits as a legislative body and considers a broad zoning category, they are not governed by the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine or Pre -Judgment Bias. Regarding a conflict of interest, a Councilmember would not be disqualified from participation unless the Council was voting on a contract from which he/she would directly benefit monetarily. There is nothing in the decision currently before the Council as a legislative body that would disqualify any Councilmember. Mayor Fahey closed the public participation portion of the hearing and remanded the matter to Council for deliberation. Councilmember Van Hollebeke pointed out it was the Council's duty to be informed and to gather information to make good decisions with the citizens' best interest uppermost in mind. He said one of the existing problems in Edmonds is the lack of resources the City needs. Vacant buildings create delinquency; the answer is to fill the vacancies, beautify the City and to enhance the small town atmosphere. He said property owners have a right to improve their property and to make a profit. Mixed use creates a safer city; more people downtown results in less crime. Increased density would result in more feasible and profitable projects. He encouraged Councilmembers to vote in favor of the proposed changes. Councilmember Miller observed the numerous public meetings met the issues of due diligence both in spirit and the law. He noted the recommended changes reflected common sense for businesses in downtown Edmonds. He addressed comments regarding Pioneer Square, noting if the proposed changes were not adopted, people and businesses would leave and nuisances would be attracted. He pointed out the "broken window theory" (one broken window attracts others, etc.) and felt it was imperative the Council pass this ordinance tonight. Councilmember Haakenson said this was a common sense issue; less expensive housing was needed in Edmonds; more residents created more shoppers for the downtown business zone; commercial frontage would be maintained on the ground floor; and many buildings would become more visibly appealing due to modified roof designs. Further, there would be no increase in building heights nor any rezoning. He Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 3, 1997 Page 6 stressed these were good changes; Edmonds was changing and businesses were disappearing. He felt the ordinance was good for Edmonds and would assist in saving the downtown business zone . He pointed out he did not hear any additional information to change his mind and he continued to support the ordinance. He pointed out if the Council failed to move forward with the proposed changes, small town charm would be replaced with ghost town charm. Councilmember White disagreed with the need to hold a third public hearing as well as with the idea that rejecting -the proposed changes would preserve small town character. Adopting the proposed changes would promote residential uses downtown, increase shoppers downtown, and enhance the community. He indicated no additional information was presented during the last two weeks to change his support of the proposed changes. Councilmember Myers commented that although he felt the proposed changes were best for the City, he was concerned there was no long-range Master Plan in place. He preferred the proposed changes be included as part of a Master Plan. Council President Earling commented that he is proud to have been in business in the City of Edmonds for 19 years. During this period of working in the downtown area he has been able to obtain a sense of.. what works and what doesn't work. He has been a long time supporter of the Code. The Code that was- put asput together back in the early 1980s was put together with a great deal of deliberation, a great deal of thought, and it works very well. However, during his service on the Council, he has determined there are some areas of the Code that perhaps need some modification. The modification before the Council this evening addresses one of the weaknesses in the current Code. He explained Councilmembers had an opportunity to further study the matter during the two week extension. During that time, his research revealed that during the past six months, there had been 22 condominium properties in the range of $250,000 and higher taken off the market. Seven were taken off by sales, the remainder because they did not sell. The average sale price of those sold was $351,500; they were on the market for 109 days. Currently in the downtown area, there are 23 units for sale for $350,000 and above. The average listing price is $412,917 and they have been on the market for an average of 115 days. His research indicated the current requirement for 3,000 square feet of land for each unit is onerous on developers. The proposed changes would allow 6-7 units in a space where previously only 3 units would have been allowed and reduce prices to under $200,000. Although this could not be considered low cost housing, it would be affordable housing for many more people. He emphasized there would be no change in height, setback, or parking—this was a quality proposal the City needed to move forward with. COUNCILMEMBER MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER VAN HOLLEBEKE, TO APPROVE ORDINANCE NO. 3147 AS PROPOSED. MOTION CARRIED. The ordinance reads as follows: Ord. #3147 Amending Chapter 16.50 ORDINANCE NO. 3147, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, of the ECDC AMENDING CHAPTER 16.50 OF THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (BC) COMMUNITY BUSINESS IN ORDER TO BETTER PROVIDE FOR MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. Mayor Fahey declared a brief recess. Moratorium 5. HEARING ON THE MORATORIUM AND INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCE REGARDING and Interim SUSPENSION OF ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES WHICH WOULD PROHIBIT OR LIMIT Zoning Ordinance THE ESTABLISHMENT OF GROUP LIVING ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE DISABLED. FOR YOUTH OR THE ELDERLY OF SIX OR FEWER SEEKING TO SITE IN RESIDENTIAL OR NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS ZONES Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 3, 1997 Page 7 1 City Attorney Scott Snyder explained the City Council imposed a partial moratorium and enacted an interim zoning regulation several months ago; a public hearing was required within the six month period. Limiting or suspending application of the City's group home provisions was in response to Judge Zilly's ruling in the Bellevue Youth Home case in which he went beyond the Fair Housing Act amendment and found that limitations against youth violated the Fair Housing Act's prohibition against discrimination based on family status. He explained the City of Bellevue was in the process of determining whether to appeal this decision. The City needed to review its group home provisions to ensure protection of the rights of the disabled and youth in foster care are included. Also included in the Interim Zoning Ordinance is adoption of an administrative procedure to accommodate the disabled in the application of the zoning ordinance and building codes. The City obligated itself to enact this provision as part of the settlement decree in the Oxford House case. He explained the administrative procedure would avoid the lengthy, costly, time-consuming variance process by providing a quick, easy administrative process to accommodate individual disabilities. The purpose of the hearing was to allow public input; at the close of the hearing, Council should direct him to prepare Findings of Fact based on the evidence received, if any. Mayor Fahey opened the public participation portion of the hearing. Al Rutledge, 7101 Lake Ballinger Way, Edmonds, asked if this would be permitted anywhere in the City. Mr. Snyder answered the purpose was to suspend the City's requirement that group homes go through a Conditional Use Permit process and only applied to facilities for youth and the disabled, not to other forms of group homes such as halfway houses or alternate incarceration facilities. Mr. Rutledge said he was aware of two homes for elderly in the area. Mr. Snyder advised, under State law, adult family homes for six or fewer elderly or disabled individuals are required to be outright permitted uses in every residential zone of a City. Mayor Fahey closed the public participation portion of the hearing and remanded the matter to Council. COUNCILMEMBER HAAKENSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MYERS, TO CONTINUE THE MORATORIUM AND DIRECT THE MATTER TO THE PLANNING BOARD FOR A PERMANENT AMENDMENT TO THE ECDC TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE. Councilmember White observed the ordinance would have a more substantial affect on families and neighborhoods in the City than the previous ordinance, yet no one was in the audience to address the matter. MOTION CARRIED. 8. MAYOR Memorial Mayor Fahey said she enjoyed the Memorial Day ceremony at the Cemetery, especially Council Day Ceremony President Earling's rendition of taps. She thanked the Cemetery Board for organizing this event each year. 7. COUNCIL UI?l Councilmember Haakenson appreciated the participation at the Mayor's Employee Meeting/Chili Cook - Off and said employees appeared to enjoy themselves. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 3, 1997 Page 8 Eeon. Dev. Councilmember Myers clarified his comments regarding the lack of a long range plan referred to a long Long Range range plan for economic development. On a different matter, he advised the Council was close to Plan appointing a new Student Representative. Mayor Fahey pointed out there was a long range strategic plan created by the Alliance when it was a task force. This strategic plan included review of zoning ordinances and obtaining input from property owners and developers. Executive 8• EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING LABOR NEGOTIATION ISSUES Session Mayor Fahey announced the Council would recess to Executive Session for approximately 15 minutes to discuss labor negotiation issues. It was not anticipated any action would be taken as a result, and the Council would adjourn from the Executive Session. Mayor Fahey excused the Council to Executive Session at 9:00 p.m. " BARBARA S. FAHEY, MAYOR SANDRA S. C LASE, CITY CLERK Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 3, 1997 Page 9 1 AGENDA EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL - Plaza Meeting Room - Library Building 650 Main Street 7:00 -10:00 p.m. JUNE 3, 1997 7:00 P.M. - CALL TO ORDER FLAG SALUTE 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS (A) ROLL CALL (B) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MAY 27, 1997 (C) APPROVAL OF CLAIM WARRANTS #15195 THRU #17785 FOR THE WEEK OF MAY 26, 1997, IN THE AMOUNT OF $244,322.29 (D) AUTHORIZATION TO CALL FOR BIDS FOR THE 1997 STREET SURFACE TREATMENT PROGRAM (E) REPORT ON FINAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR THE CITY PARK PICNIC SHELTERS PROJECT AND COUNCIL ACCEPTANCE OF PROJECT (F) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH REID MIDDLETON, INC. FOR THE PERRINVILLE CREEK STREAMBANK STABILIZATION SURVEY 3. AUDIENCE (3 minute limit per person) 4. (60 Min.) CONTINUED HEARING ON PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 16.50, COMMUNITY BUSINESS (BC), TO MODIFY MAXIMUM PERMITTED RESIDENTIAL DENSITY, ROOFLINE MODULATION, AND ESTABLISH MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AS A PRIMARY PERMITTED USE IN THE ZONE (Continued from May 20, 1997) 5. (20 Min.) HEARING ON THE. MORATORIUM AND INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCE REGARDING SUSPENSION OF ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES WHICH WOULD PROHIBIT OR LIMIT THE ESTABLISHMENT OF GROUP LIVING ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE DISABLED, FOR YOUTH OR THE ELDERLY OF SIX OR FEWER SEEKING TO SITE IN RESIDENTIAL OR NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS ZONES 6. (5 Min.) MAYOR 7. (15 Min.) COUNCIL Parking and meeting rooms are accessible for persons with disabilities. Contact the City Clerk at 771-0245 with 24 hours advance notice for special accommodations. The Council Agenda appears on Chambers Cable, Channel 32. Delayed telecast of this meeting appears the following Wednesday, Friday and Monday at noon on Channel 32.