No preview available
02/01/2005 City CouncilI� M . ,,. February 1, 2005 The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:03 p.m. by Mayor Haakenson in the Council Chambers, 250 5"' Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Gary Haakenson, Mayor Richard Marn, Council President Michael Plunkett, Councilmember Jeff Wilson, Councilmember Mauri Moore, Councilmember Peggy Pritchard Olson, Councilmember Dave Orvis, Councilmember Deanna Dawson, Councilmember ALSO PRESENT Bryan Huntzberger, Student Representative 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA STAFF PRESENT David Stern, Chief of Police Duane Bowman, Development Services Director Stephen Clifton, Community Services Director Dan Clements, Administrative Services Director Jennifer Gerend, Economic Development Dir. Noel Miller, Public Works Director Kathleen Junglov, Asst. Admire. Services Dir. Rob Chave, Planning Manager Dave Gebert, City Engineer Don Fiene, Assistant City Engineer Frances Chapin, Cultural Resources Coordinator Scott Snyder, City Attorney Sandy Chase, City Clerk Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst. Jeannie Dines, Recorder 2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COUNCILMEMBER MOORE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON, FOR APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: (A) ROLL CALL Approval of 1/25/05 (B) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JANUARY 25, 2005. Minutes Approval of I (C) APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #76898 THROUGH #76991 FOR THE WEEK OF Claim Checks JANUARY 24, 2005, IN THE AMOUNT OF $357,920.57. (D) ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES FROM NICHOLAS J. Claims for Damages TROUT ($472.05), LEANNE KERRIGAN (AMOUNT UNDETERMINED), AND GARY SUYDAM ($300.00). Lift Station 4, (E) REPORT ON FINAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR THE LIFT STATION #1 Renovation RENOVATION PROJECT AND COUNCIL ACCEPTANCE OF PROJECT. Edmonds City Council ApprovedMinutes February 1, 2005 Page 1 Alder Street (F) REPORT ON FINAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR THE ALDER STREET UTILITY Utility REPLACEMENT AND 231st PLACE SW STORM IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT AND Replacement COUNCIL ACCEPTANCE OF PROJECT. Traffic (G) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN AN INTERLOCAL TRAFFIC SIGNALS Signals MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF LYNNWOOD. Maintenance 3. PROCLAMATION IN HONOR OF ARTS DAY FEBRUARY 15 2005 Arts Day, February 15 Mayor Haakenson read a proclamation declaring February 15, 2005 as Arts Day in Edmonds. He presented the proclamation to Arts Commissioners Rick Bader and Pam Harold. Mr. Bader commented on the importance of art in the community, explaining the commission dedicated their time to promoting the arts. He expressed the Commission's appreciation to the Council for their recognition of arts and for their continued support. Utility Rate 4. UTILITY RATE STUDY RECOMMENDATIONS Study (A) UTILITY RATE STUDY RECOMMENDATIONS (B) RATE ORDINANCE Administrative Services Director Dan Clements recalled last fall the City contracted with FCS Group to conduct a Utility Rate Study. Their recommendation is a 0.83% increase which equates to a $0.47 per month increase for an average residential consumer. Tracey Dunlap, Principal, FCS Group, explained the rate study considered water, sewer and storm drainage utilities as all are managed in a combined utility fund, as well as each fund separately, including their budget and capital projects. She noted a rate study considers revenue requirements to finance the capital program as well as the operating budget. The study also considers financial policies with regard to management of the facility. Their analysis considered the capital requirements for each fund, how they could be funded via the use of debt and the impact on each utility. Ms. Dunlap described assumptions used in the study including projections based on the 2005 budget, decision packages are included in the analyses, capital improvement projects reflect information provided by City staff on December 17, and growth rates are based on the most recent connection charge revenue collections. Nihat Dogan, Project Consultant, FCS Group, highlighted large projects in the Water Utility CIP from 2005 through 2010. He explained the main capital funding source for the Water Utility was projected to be revenue bond proceeds for the next six years. Three bond issues were assumed, $1.1 million in 2005, $1.5 million in 2006, and $2.45 million in 2008 to cover multiyear capital needs. He explained no Water Utility rate adjustment was needed in 2005 and a rate increase was projected in 2006 driven by bond coverage requirements. Mr. Dogan highlighted large projects in the Sewer Utility CIP from 2005 through 2010. He explained the sewer utility had adequate levels of fund balance to fund the CIP, and generates positive cash flow from operations that can be used for capital needs. Further, the utility already qualified for a low interest Public Works Trust Fund (PWTF) loan that will be used in the next two years and no additional borrowing was needed to fund the Sewer Utility CIP. He explained no rate increase in the Sewer Utility was projected in the next six years. A revenue bond will be required in 2008 that will help the utility generate cash flow from its operations. Further, the sewer system plan is scheduled to be updated in 2005 which may identify additional capital needs. Edmonds City Council ApprovedMinutes February 1, 2005 Page 2 Mr. Dogan highlighted large projects in the Storm Drainage Utility CIP from 2005 through 2010, noting a large portion of grants and contributions were related to the Perrinville Diversion project ($150,000 in 2007 and $1.5 million in 2008). Their analysis projects two bond issues, $1.65 million in 2006 and $1.15 million in 2008 to cover multiyear capital needs. No rate increase was projected in 2005 but a 14% increase will be necessary in 2006, primarily for servicing the new debt and establishing the operating fund balance. He noted projections did not include potential annexation areas. Ms. Dunlap explained the projection for the Stormwater Utility indicates a rate increase of approximately 14% followed by two rate increases of approximately 7 %. The recommendation developed via consultation with City staff was a series of 7% adjustments to phase in the increases to the Storm Drainage Utility. She explained the Storm Drainage Utility was the lowest of the three components of the combined utility, thus the impact of a 7% increase was not as large. Ms. Dunlap reviewed their recommendations, a 7% stormwater drainage increase in 2005 that would help smooth the projected rate increase in 2006 and no rate increase for the Water and Sewer utilities. She also recommended the capital improvement implementation and budgetary performance be evaluated later in 2005 for all three utilities as well as the needs for future years reevaluated She displayed an example of the impact of a 7% storm drainage rate increase using an average customer's usage, explaining the 7% increase in the Storm Drainage rate would increase the charge from $6.73 to $7.20, a $0.47 increase, or a 1 % increase in the overall combined utility bill. Ms. Dunlap advised next steps included adoption of the rate ordinance in February and a mid -year rate study update in July. Mayor Haakenson asked Ms. Dunlap to describe requirements for the City's operation of the utility and why a Storm Drainage Utility was established. Ms. Dunlap answered the City's utilities are self - sufficient enterprises intended to meet all their needs from utility rates. Although the utilities are combined for the purposes of issuing bonds and other management, each are treated individually in how they establish their rates because each utility has different needs. She noted although it was not necessary to set aside a great deal of money in the utility fund, there were prudent reasons for reserves. For example, in the Water Utility, revenues are not collected in an even pattern because more water is sold in the summer months, however, expenses may not occur in that same pattern. Therefore, a cushion in the operating fund helps weather changes in cash flow and better manage the utility on a self- sufficient basis. Similarly, capital needs vary widely from year to year and a series of increases help ease into financing a higher level capital project over time. She noted debt assisted in smoothing fairly long -lived assets over the period they would be used, the reason debt was recommended as a method of financing capital needs. She noted the intent of each utility was that they meet their own needs with their own rates but economies can be realized via considering them together. Ms. Dunlap stated storm water, essentially runoff, was not related to water use but rather the amount of rainfall and parcel area. In 1997 the City decided to split the sewer rate into a sewer and storm water rate to ensure the contribution that various types of customers made to the storm water system were recognized; customers with a great deal of paved area pay more in their storm water rate than they would in a combined rate because they create more runoff. Mr. Clements summarized the recommendation is to adopt a revised rate ordinance in February. The ordinance is included in the packet; the Council could adopt it tonight or consider adoption later in February. Mayor Haakenson inquired whether a public hearing was required. Mr. Clements answered a public hearing was not required. For Councilmember Orvis, Mr. Clements explained if the ordinance were returned later in the month, it would be in the same format. The intent of presenting the information tonight was to distribute the rate information for public comment. City Attorney Scott Snyder advised a public hearing could be held if the Edmonds City Council ApprovedMinutes February 1, 2005 Page 3 Council directed. It was the consensus of the Council to schedule a public hearing and adoption on February 22. Res# 1083 5. RESOLUTION NO 1083 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS Opposition to WASHINGTON RESTATING ITS CONCERN AND OPPOSITION TO EXPANDED REGIONAL Expanded to o COMMERCIAL AND PASSENGER AIR SERVICE TO PAINE FIELD Service Paine Field Council President Marin read the following resolution: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, RESTATING ITS CONCERN AND OPPOSITION TO EXPANDED REGIONAL COMMERCIAL AND PASSENGER AIR SERVICE TO PAINE FIELD. Whereas, at the present time no documented demand exists to support commercial air travel into the Snohomish County Airport; and Whereas commercial air service is already permitted for commuter air service at Paine Field, but no carriers have found it economically feasible; and Whereas, in 2004, the Snohomish County Citizens' Cabinet on Economic Development recommended consideration of commercial air service at Paine Field as possibly providing significant benefits to attract and reta in certain kinds of businesses; and Whereas, the implementation of expanded commercial and passenger air service to Paine Field might have adverse impacts to the City ofEdmonds and its residents; and Whereas, Snohomish County and the Snohomish County Airport have not provided an environmental impact statement identifying potential adverse environmental impacts associated with increased commercial and passenger air service and proposed mitigation measures to address any identified impacts; and Whereas, the City of Edmonds passed Resolution #810 in opposition to commercial and passenger air service to Paine Field on January 31, 1995, and there has been no additional information to persuade the City Council to change said resolution; Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved, the Mayor and City Council hereby resolve, that: Section 1: The Mayor and Edmonds City Council reaffirm their earlier opposition to and reservations about the expansion of air traffic at Paine Field until such time that Snohomish County government and Paine Field management can demonstrate that the potential adverse impacts which may result due to additional passenger air service have been reduced to negligible levels over the City of Edmonds and, more significantly, that residential property values will not be adversely affected by said additional passenger service. CO11"11CIL R 1 T RITI ♦ i _` / SECOT'NDEDAV-1--CQQITICIL?TtEITIBER Dxllsml, FOR APPROVAL OF i i 18 Councilmember Dawson commented her opposition to expanded commercial and passenger service at Paine Field was stronger than stated in the resolution and extended beyond the impact on Edmonds residents to impacts on Snohomish County and the region including Mukilteo. She pointed out since the 1978 agreement there had been a great deal of development in proximity to Paine Field that could potentially be adversely affected She pointed people relied on the 1978 agreement and Snohomish County had an obligation to honor that agreement. Councilmember Plunkett indicated his opposition to expanded commercial and passenger air travel at Paine Field was considerably stronger than the resolution but would support the resolution. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Sound Transit 6. UPDATE ON SOUND TRANSIT ACTIVITIES Update Matt Sheldon, Sound Transit, highlighted 2004 milestones for Sound Transit including reaching agreement in principle with the Port of Seattle to extend light rail to SeaTac airport, completion of the Edmonds City Council ApprovedMinutes February 1, 2005 Page 4 first HOV direct access ramp in Lynnwood and a second ramp in Bellevue, celebration of five years of Sound Transit service and a full year of Sounder commuter rail and celebration of the start of construction of every segment of light rail. He highlighted other milestones including 36,000 riders per day with the expectation of celebrating their 45 millionth rider since inception in the next year, 73 miles of commuter rail that carries 3,500 weekday passengers, 42 million miles on 19 regional express routes since 1999 carrying approximately 30,000 weekday riders, and completion of a 1.5 mile segment of light rail in downtown Tacoma to the Tacoma Dome station that carries about 2,500 people per day. He noted the Tacoma Dome station was a regional hub, combining commuter rail service, regional express bus, local bus, Amtrak, Greyhound and other private providers. Mr. Sheldon reviewed projects under construction including transit centers, direct access ramps, Park & Ride improvements, commuter rail improvements, and central link light rail construction projects. He displayed photographs illustrating the progress of construction projects in Tacoma, Everett and Auburn, noting these projects have spurred economic growth as well as the community's sense of pride. He noted the Tacoma light rail project has been the catalyst for a great deal of redevelopment. Mr. Sheldon reviewed what they have learned from projects including the importance of collaboration with partners, integrating services in projects, communication with elected officials including early identification of issues, and revamping cost estimating methodologies and controls. He described improvements in Edmonds including Sounder commuter rail service and station, track and signal improvements. The Everett to Seattle Sounder service was currently operating only one round trip daily but plans were to increase that to four trips by 2007, initiating the second round trip in 2005 and the third and fourth in 2007. He acknowledged the current ridership on the Sounder commuter rail was somewhat low, largely due to the limited service. Opening a station in Nlukilteo as well as the increase in service was anticipated to improve ridership. Sound Transit is in discussions with the City regarding an interim station in Edmonds at the same location (to replace the temporary station) in conjunction with Amtrak that would include upgrading the platform., adding shelters, adding long term and short term parking as well as bus facilities. Discussions include whether to make the investment now or retain a portion of the funding to be used in conjunction with the Edmonds Crossing project. The total investment available for the station is $13.5 million of which approximately $1.5 million has been spent to date. Mr. Sheldon explained the Sounder track and signal improvements have enabled them to provide the service in the corridor, a $258 million expenditure in Snohomish County. He noted this was tied to an agreement with BNSF that allowed them to add service at certain times and preserve the windows for that service into perpetuity. BNSF has agreed via those funds that they will not impinge on those train times and will operate freight movements around those times. Mr. Sheldon described $2.5 million in investments on SR -99 in conjunction with Edmonds, Lynnwood, Community Transit and WSDOT to assist with reconstruction that resulted in development of business access and transit (BAT) lanes that allow transit priority as well as access to businesses. He described improvements in regional bus service, noting ridership on Sound Transit express routes in Snohomish County has increased dramatically, a 33% increase from 2003 to 2004. Mr. Sheldon explained the next step is to determine whether the region wants to do more. The current Sound Move program has a few more years to complete its projects but the time is right to discuss what investments the region was interested in. To that end, Sound Transit was beginning a process to engage the community including updating their long range plan and beginning discussions regarding Sound Transit 2, a potential package of investments that Sound Transit may choose to take to voters. Future projects in Snohomish County could include expanding light rail service into Snohomish County or starter lines in Snohomish County, further upgrades to service and facilities on SR -99 in Snohomish and King Counties, future investment in projects like Tacoma Link, light rail across I -90 to the eastside, bus rapid transit on I -405, expanded HOV direct access ramps, and/or expanded commuter rail service. Edmonds City Council ApprovedMinutes February 1, 2005 Page 5 Mr. Sheldon described next steps which include completion of the Final EIS in Spring 2005, updating the Long Range Plan in Summer 2005, and potentially a Sound Transit ballot measure as early as 2006. He noted consideration is also being given to potentially partnering on a joint ballot with the Regional Transportation Improvement District (RTID). Mr. Sheldon explained studies show regional population growth will be significant in the next 25 years, 1.2 million in the Sound Transit service region, a 45% increase in employment region -wide and 45% increase in vehicle travel time. It was anticipated major roadways would have rush hour congestion all day rather than only peak periods, increasing the demand on transit. He encouraged the Council to provide their ideas during the process. Mr. Sheldon stated plans for 2005 include the start of the second Sounder trip, obtaining permits for the third and fourth Sounder trips, opening the Ash Way direct access ramp and beginning construction on other HOV direct access ramps, construction of the last segment of the central light rail link in Tukwila, converting the downtown Seattle transit tunnel for joint bus and rail operation, installing Smart Card equipment on businesses to provide a seamless fare integration, updating the long range plan and beginning development of Sound Transit 2. Councilmember Moore advised Edmonds was interested in exploring a quiet zone for trains and asked if Sound Transit had considered that in the upgrades. Mr. Sheldon offered to confer with Sound Transit staff. Councilmember Moore encouraged Sound Transit to explore establishing a quiet zone in Edmonds. Mayor Haakenson suggested at the conclusion of Mr. Sheldon's presentation, Community Services Director Stephen Clifton describe efforts to establish a quiet zone. Councilmember Moore inquired about the alignments for light rail being considered in Snohomish County. Mr. Sheldon answered the current long range plan, adopted in 1996, shows an alignment along the I -5 corridor extending from Northgate to Everett. He noted this would be the time to indicate if there was interest in exploring alternate alignments. Councilmember Moore inquired about the outreach done regarding recent fare increases before they were implemented. Mr. Sheldon answered the issue arose fairly quickly and the Board was interested in pursuing the fare increase as quickly as possible, therefore, discussion of the increase was incorporated into the first five of the ten public hearings scheduled for the long range plan and EIS in January, one in each of the five Sound Transit subareas. There were also opportunities for public comment before the Sound Transit Finance Committee and Sound Transit Board before the fare increases were enacted. Councilmember Moore inquired whether there was outreach in the community. Mr. Sheldon acknowledged there was not specific outreach regarding the fare increase other than the public hearings regarding the long range plan and EIS. Councilmember Plunkett inquired about the economic benefit that would be provided to Edmonds from the four round trip commuter rail trips. Mr. Sheldon answered the exact benefit was unknown as it was dependent on a number of factors including development regulations, and the market created by the commuters. He noted there were examples throughout the country where transit development has spurred economic development, thus Sound Transit was confident there would be a positive effect on the community. Councilmember Plunkett noted in some communities the result was millions of dollars in economic development from commuter rail. Councilmember Plunkett inquired about parking for commuter rail. Mr. Sheldon stated a 150 space parking lot for the interim station was proposed to address the anticipated demand. Councilmember Plunkett asked whether in Sound Transit's experience riders shopped and used services where the train stopped. Mr. Sheldon stated it depended on what services were available and the schedules. The type of services that tend to develop around train stations were service- oriented as well as residential Edmonds City Council ApprovedMinutes February 1, 2005 Page 6 development for those who want to live close to transit to avoid use of vehicles. Councilmember Plunkett concluded commuter rail could be an economic catalyst and something most cities interested in economic development would see as an advantage. Mr. Sheldon stated that had been the experience in other places and was beginning to be the experience in places where Sound Transit stations have been constructed. Mr. Clifton provided an update on efforts to establish a quiet zone, explaining in mid -2004, Development Services Director Duane Bowman and he met with BNSF officials at the intersections of Dayton & Main where the railroad tracks intersect and requested BNSF design the improvements necessary to establish a quiet zone. The regulations do not become effective until July 2005 so compliance is not possible until that time. BNSF provided plans in January illustrating the type of gates that would be necessary to establish a quiet zone. The information has been provided to Sound Transit so that they could determine whether the intersection improvements Sound Transit proposes will help meet BNSF's requirements. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE EXTENSION OF ORDINANCE NO. 3511, AN INTERIM ORDINANCE, AMENDING ECDC 21.30.010 FAMILIES TO ADD A NEW PARAGRAPH D IN ORDER TO AMEND THE DEFINITION OF FAMILY TO AUTHORIZE AND PERMIT EXCHANGE STUDENTS TO RESIDE WITH FAMILIES FOR A PERIOD NOT TO EXCEED ONE YEAR. (EFFECTIVE DATE OF ORDINANCE NO. 3511 IS 8/27/04: EXPIRES 2/27/05) Development Services Director Duane Bowman explained the purpose of the public hearing was to consider extending the interim zoning ordinance that established an amendment to the definition of family to allow exchange students to reside with families for a period not to 0"ceed one year. The Planning Board has not yet had an opportunity to review the issue but plan to undertake a review in May /June 2005. Staff recommends the Council adopt the proposed ordinance extending the interim zoning ordinance. Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. There were no audience members who wished to provide comment, and Mayor Haakenson closed the public hearing and remanded to Council for action. Ord# 3533 Extending COUNCIL PRESIDENT MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON, FOR Ord# 3511 - APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE NO. 3533. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The ordinance Permit approved reads as follows: Exchange Students to Reside with AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, EXTENDING AN INTERIM Families for a ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 3511, WHICH AMENDED ECDC 21.30.010 FAMILIES TO ADD A Period Not to NEW SUB-PARAGRAPH D AUTHORIZING AND PERMITTING EXCHANGE STUDENTS TO Exceed 1 Year RESIDE WITH FAMILIES FOR A PERIOD NOT TO EXCEED ONE YEAR, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. Mayor Haakenson declared a brief recess. Consider 8. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE Proposed COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Amendments to the (A) PUBLIC HEARING ON A REQUEST FOR A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP Comprehensive Plan AMENDMENT FOR PROPERTIES FRONTING ON THE SOUTH SIDE OFF EDMONDS WAY BETWEEN 97TH AVE. W AND 95TH PL. W. THE PROPERTIES ARE CURRENTLY DESIGNATED AS "SINGLE FAMILY — SMALL LOT" AND ARE ZONED RS -8; THE REQUEST IS TO CHANGE THE PROPERTIES TO "MULTI FAMILY — HIGH DENSITY." APPLICANT: SHAUN LEISER FOR GASTON ENTERPRISES, LLC. FILE NO. CDC -03 -194 (B) PUBLIC HEARING ON A REQUEST FOR A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT FOR PROPERTIES FRONTING ON BOTH SIDES OF EDMONDS WAY GENERALLY LYING BETWEEN 97TH AVE. W AND 92 No AVE. W. THESE PROPERTIES ARE CURRENTLY DESIGNATED AS "SINGLE FAMILY — SMALL LOT," "MULTI Edmonds City Council ApprovedMinutes February 1, 2005 Page 7 FAMILY — HIGH DENSITY," AND "NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL;" THE REQUEST IS TO CHANGE ALL OF THE PROPERTIES TO "EDMONDS WAY CORRIDOR." APPLICANT: A. D. SHAPIRO ARCHITECTS REPRESENTING HANS LAMMERSDORF. FILE NO.: CDC -03 -193 Mayor Haakenson clarified the Council was not considering any of the recommendations in the Downtown-Waterfront Plan tonight including the height increase issue; those recommendations would be discussed at the public hearing on February 15. Planning Manager Rob Chave explained the first three applications were submitted by private citizens. He displayed a map, identifying the request in Item A by Gaston Enterprises representing a number of property owners, for a change in the Comprehensive Plan designation from single family to high density multi family. He displayed a map of the properties contained in Item B, which also encompassed the Gaston property, which was submitted by Shapiro Architects representing Hans Lammersdorf, for a change in the Comprehensive Plan designation of a larger area with a mixture of land use designations including single family, multi family and neighborhood business to Edmonds Way Corridor. He noted the Corridor designation allowed a number of potential zones from multi family to small scale business. Mr. Chave explained Item C was a Closed Record Hearing on Gaston Enterprises' request for a rezone to RM -1.5 to implement the change in the Comprehensive Plan designation. The Lammersdorf proposal does not include a rezone at this time; they plan to return at a later time with a specific zoning proposal. He explained the Council could hold the public hearings on Items A and B separately or combine Items A and B into one hearing as many of the issues overlap. The Closed Record Hearing on Item C must be held separately. He noted the Council could consider the rezone if either Item A or B were approved as the proposed rezone to multi family would be consistent with either change in the Comprehensive Plan designation. It was the consensus of the Council to combine the public hearing s on Items A and B. Mr. Chave observed Mr. Leiser did not plan to make a presentation regarding the change in the Comprehensive Plan designation proposed in Item. A. Tony Shapiro, AD Shapiro Architects, representing Hans Lammersdorf, explained Mr. Lammersdorf owned property at both ends of the group of properties proposed for amendment. He recalled it discussions with staff, they recommended it would provide more continuity in the Plan if an amendment was requested for the entire area on Edmonds Way. He noted Westgate Chapel had not expressed any concern with the proposed change. Mr. Shapiro displayed photographs of the property adjacent to the Kwick N Kleen Car Wash which they call Westgate Commons, identifying the approximate boundaries of the property. He advised they have not yet submitted a rezone on the parcel. He displayed and reviewed a conceptual sketch of a project on the site, a L- shaped mixed use building against the hillside, with retail below and housing above, with parking in front of and above the retail. He noted they are also studying office above retail on a portion of the site. He displayed sketches of a promenade above the retail level with access to garden style apartments and retail below. He displayed conceptual plans illustrating access onto Edmonds Way, retail bays, and apartments over retail. He noted they have met with the City's Traffic Engineer as well as WSDOT to discuss consolidation of curb cuts and configuration of access. He displayed a section looking east through the hillside illustrating how it was envisioned the hillside would be terraced and anchored with soil nails. He displayed an elevation from the parking deck toward the hillside. He concluded this site could be developed in a manner that would utilize it to its fullest extent and enhance Edmonds Way. Edmonds City Council ApprovedMinutes February 1, 2005 Page 8 With regard to the property at 232 °d, Mr. Shapiro stated a mixed use building is envisioned on this site with townhouses along the street and flats over offices. The intent was to consolidate more than four curb cuts into two access points. He displayed a conceptual sketch of a mixed use building, a section looking south showing the townhouses and how they would be separated from Edmonds Way. The change in the Comprehensive Plan designation would enable them to rmve ahead with such a project and request a rezone in the future. Councilmember Plunkett inquired whether the Council should consider the project plans Mr. Shapiro provided. City Attorney Scott Snyder answered the Council's required findings are better directed at the Comprehensive Plan change criteria shown on pages 81 -87 of the packet. He explained the Council's decision was legislative; approving a change to the Comprehensive Plan, not approving a specific project. He cautioned the Council not to express an opinion regarding the ultimate project in their deliberation as that may come to the Council on appeal. For example, he explained the Council could find that the Edmonds Way Corridor designation was appropriate but not that the Comprehensive Plan amendment was being made in preparation for a rezone to allow this project to occur as that could be considered pre - judgmental bias. Mayor Haakenson opened the public hearing on Items A and B. He announced the Council had received a letter from Randy Kohler voicing his support for the Gaston Comprehensive Plan amendment. There were no other members of the audience who wished to provide comment and Mayor Haakenson closed the public hearing. Councilmember Dawson asked for a further explanation of the Edmonds Way Corridor designation, noting it appeared to be a "catch -all" description of what already existed and it was unclear why this designation exists. Mr. Chave answered there was a section of the Comprehensive Plan that addressed the Edmonds Way Corridor including policies regarding access, having the area serve as a corridor and not having uses occur in the corridor that slowed traffic, and recognizing the mixture of uses that have historically occurred and are appropriate for the future. He noted there was a mixture of uses between 1 -5 and Westgate including multi family and small scale commercial uses but generally not development like strip malls. He concluded the intent was to control access, have the corridor develop sensitive to the level of traffic, not intrude into the adjacent single family areas and not have intensive commercial development that would require a great deal of turning movements. Councilmember Dawson questioned how the proposed amendment could not be consistent with the Edmonds Way Corridor designation when the designation was created for this area. Mr. Chave agreed, noting the intent was small scale businesses that did not create traffic problems. The City would not want general commercial type of development that would allow strip malls along Edmonds Way. He presumed this location was not included in the original Edmonds Way Corridor designation because the development pattern was established. He noted there were now some single family zones that were being included in the Edmonds Way Corridor designation. Councilmember Dawson stated the question then is whether to rezone individual lots within this designation. Mr. Chave agreed specific rezone applications would be considered separately. Councilmember Dawson questioned whether it would be appropriate to designate a portion multi family rather than designating it entirely Edmonds Way Corridor. Mr. Chave answered although the applicant has multi family development in mind, multi family was consistent with the Edmonds Way Corridor designation and it was preferable to have the same designation for the entire area. Councilmember Dawson asked whether there would be any portion of Edmonds Way that would not be designated Edmonds Way Corridor if this amendment were approved. Mr. Chave displayed the draft Comprehensive Plan map which illustrated if Item B were approved, the entire length of Edmonds Way between Westgate and Hwy. 99 would have the Edmonds Way Corridor designation. Edmonds City Council ApprovedMinutes February 1, 2005 Page 9 Councilmember Dawson asked why this area had not been designated Edmonds Way Corridor previously. Mr. Chave recalled there was uncertainty at that time regarding what type of development would occur in this area. Councilmember Dawson concluded that because this designation was created for the area, it could not be inconsistent. Mr. Chave agreed the Edmonds Way Corridor designation was created to hold development in check but also to allow for a variety of uses to occur. He noted Traffic Engineer Darrell Smith considered the amendment request and his and WSDOT's input will be sought at the time of any rezone and development proposal. Councilmember Wilson inquired how the boundaries of the amendment were determined. Mr. Chave answered it was largely based on topography and slopes that separate the property along Edmonds Way from the single family development above. Councilmember Wilson asked whether there was a benefit to including or excluding the parking area north of Westgate Chapel from the boundary of the amendment. Mr. Chave answered there was a concern if the boundary were extended north it would begin to extend into an area of single family homes. Councilmember Wilson referred to a letter in the packet from Ms. Mantooth regarding the inclusion of another area and asked whether the Planning Board or staff had discussed including that area. He recalled the designation of this area had been discussed by the Council a couple years ago. Mayor Haakenson explained the Council already ruled on Ms. Mantooth's request a couple tears ago and she has again asked staff to consider her request. Because the Council already ruled against the request, it was determined any change needed to be Council- driven and not staff - driven. Therefore, he suggested Ms. Mantooth submit her request as a 2006 Comprehensive Plan amendment. She, however, forwarded the Council a letter requesting the area be included in tonight's discussion which would require the Council to send the matter back to the Planning Board for public hearing necessitating the entire Comprehensive Plan be sent back to the Planning Board as none of the neighbors in that area had been notified. He concluded both staff and he urged the Council not to discuss Ms. Mantooth's request tonight. Mr. Snyder explained in order to comply with public participation plan under GMA, the City must provide for public hearings, Planning Board recommendations, and SEPA and traffic analysis. He noted if Ms. Mantooth's property bordered on the property proposed to be amended, the Council's legislative discretion would enable them to shift the boundaries slightly. In this case, Ms. Mantooth's property is at least four lots distant from the edge of the boundary requiring at a minimum that eight additional properties be included in the area proposed to be amended. He noted neither those property owners nor the surrounding neighborhood have been informed via the prior process which would require referral back to the Planning Board for a SEPA and traffic analysis, public hearing and Planning Board recommendation. He noted the City could only consider Comprehensive Plan amendments once annually and as a whole in accordance with the public participation plan. He noted the public participation policy encouraged private property owners to file their own applications. For Councilmember Wilson, Mr. Chave relayed the Planning Board's indication to Ms. Mantooth that they may be willing to take a second look but not as part of these Plan amendments. He recalled Ms. Mantooth's original application was denied at approximately the same time these two applications to amend the Comprehensive Plan designation were filed. Since the Council had just ruled on that application, staff did not find it appropriate to include it in the request. The Planning Board also determined any request to change the designation of the property proposed by Ms. Mantooth should be considered separately on its own merits and not included with this proposal. He noted the most significant difference between these properties and the properties Ms. Mantooth suggested be amended was the properties in this proposal had direct access to SR -104; the properties suggested by Ms. Mantooth for amendment only have access to a secondary street. Edmonds City Council ApprovedMinutes February 1, 2005 Page 10 Councilmember Wilson inquired about the schedule to submit a Comprehensive Plan amendment. Mr. Chave answered the deadline for applications had passed; Ms. Mantooth submitted an application prior to the deadline. He noted 2006 amendments to the Comprehensive Plan would be presented to the Council in January 2006. Councilmember Wilson asked whether the traffic analysis was conducted on the Comprehensive Plan as a whole for this proposal. Mr. Chave answered Mr. Smith considered the particular request in the context of the overall Transportation Element which was tpdated in 2002. Mr. Smith determined the traffic generated by these proposals was within the traffic growth projected in the 2002 update. Councilmember Wilson noted a specific determination regarding traffic impact would occur at the time of development. Mr. Chave agreed, pointing out both WSDOT and Mr. Smith would consider traffic and turning movements at the time of any development proposal. For Council President Marin, Mr. Chave explained if the Council approved Item B, changing the designation to Edmonds Way Corridor, it would be consistent with the request in Item A as multi family was an allowed use in the Edmonds Way Corridor land use designation. COUNCIL PRESIDENT MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN ORDINANCE TO CHANGE THE DESIGNATION OF THE PROPERTIES IN ITEM A AND B TO EDMONDS WAY CORRIDOR. Councilmember Wilson asked whether the Council as part of their discussion and deliberation needed to indicate why this designation was consistent with the criteria. Mr. Snyder answered absent further deliberation, he would include in the findings that the Council concurred with staff's findings and recommendations on pages 81 -87. ..1-3-1 U [II /1sY1►•� (C) CLOSED RECORD REVIEW OF A REQUEST FOR A REZONE OF PROPERTIES FRONTING ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF EDMONDS WAY BETWEEN 97TH AVE. W AND 95TH PL. W. THE PROPERTIES ARE CURRENTLY ZONED RS -8 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL); THE REQUEST IS TO CHANGE THE PROPERTIES TO RM -1.5 (MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL). FILE NO. R -03 -195 The applicant's representative, Shaun Leiser, indicated he did not plan to provide a presentation. As this was a quasi judicial matter, Mayor Haakenson inquired whether under the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine any Councilmember had any conflicts or ex parte communication to disclose regarding this matter. Council President Marin advised he learned tonight that Mr. Leiser was a former neighbor whom he had not seen in approximately 15 years. No other Councilmembers had any conflicts or ex parte communications to disclose. Mayor Haakenson inquired whether any of the parties of record had any objection to Council President Marin's participation. There were no objections voiced. Mayor Haakenson advised all Councilmembers would participate in the matter. Mr. Chave displayed the property proposed to be rezoned from RS -8 to RM -1.5. He explained since the Council indicated plans to approve an ordinance changing the property's Comprehensive Plan designation, the zoning would be consistent with that change. He pointed out the rezone could not be approved until the Council adopted the ordinance approving the Comprehensive Plan amendment. If the Council chose to approve the rezone, the City Attorney would prepare an appropriate ordinance for adoption following adoption of the Comprehensive Plan amendment. Edmonds City Council ApprovedMinutes February 1, 2005 Page 11 Councilmember Dawson asked whether the Council needed to wait until the entire Comprehensive Plan update was completed and ordinances adopted prior to approving the rezone. Mr. Snyder agreed the Council could not approve an ordinance rezoning the property until the ordinance amending the Comprehensive Plan was approved. He suggested making a conditional finding that approval of the rezone was conditioned on adoption of the Comprehensive Plan amendment. Councilmember Dawson asked when it was anticipated the Comprehensive Plan amendments would be adopted. Mr. Chave anticipated this would occur in early March. The public hearings on the Comprehensive Plan amendments were conducted sequentially because there were too many issues to address in a single meeting. The ordinances approving the Comprehensive Plan amendments would be presented on the Consent Agenda at one time. Councilmember Dawson asked whether there was any discussion by the Planning Board about a lower intensity multi family zoning. Mr. Chave did not recall any discussion of lower intensity because the surrounding multi family was also zoned RM -1.5. Councilmember Dawson asked whether there was any discussion regarding zoning the property mixed use. Mr. Chave answered there was not. For Councilmember Orvis, Mr. Snyder explained the action the Council took previously, when final, would make the rezone consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The ordinance to finalize the rezone would need to be approved after the Council approved the Comprehensive Plan amendments. Councilmember Wilson referred to the letter on page 48 from the owners of the Westgate Arms Apartments in which they refer to specific development standards should the property be rezoned and redeveloped. He asked whether those issues would be considered at the time of a specific application. Mr. Chave agreed. Councilmember Wilson summarized any action the Council took with regard to the rezone would not preclude consideration of the issues raised in the Sherrer's letter. Councilmember Wilson inquired whether the design review process included a public hearing. Mr. Chave answered presumably, if the properties were consolidated and a proposal was submitted that met the threshold. Councilmember Wilson noted it would depend on the number of units. With regard to traffic concerns that have been expressed, Councilmember Dawson noted that was an issue that could not be addressed until a specific project was proposed. Mr. Chave answered WSDOT would conduct their review when a specific project was proposed; their primary concern was the location of curb cuts — very project-specific details. Mr. Smith's analysis considered the overall level of traffic. At the time of a specific development proposal, staff as well as WSDOT would consider curb cuts, turning movements, etc. For Councilmember Dawson, Mr. Chave pointed out a development that combined parcels would likely reduce the number of curb cuts along Edmonds Way which would be beneficial. Councilmember Dawson asked staff to comment on additional benefits as a result of the rezone. Mr. Chave referred to Mr. Leiser's comments beginning on page 28 such as housing choices, reducing the number of curb cuts, tax benefits, etc. Councilmember Dawson recalled a comment that combining the properties would clean up the area and make it more compatible with adjacent development. Councilmember Wilson asked how development on this site impacted the City's population forecast. Mr. Chave answered this property was not included as multi family in the capacity analysis; increased density on the property would add marginally to the City's population. Mayor Haakenson invited parties of record to provide comment. There were no members of the public who wished to comment and Mayor Haakenson remanded the matter to the Council for action. Edmonds City Council ApprovedMinutes February 1, 2005 Page 12 COUNCILMEMBER MOORE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT MARIN, TO APPROVE THE REZONE ON THE BASIS OF THE RECOMMENDATION OF STAFF AND THE PLANNING BOARD AND CONSISTENCY WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, SUBJECT TO PASSAGE OF THE ORDINANCE APPROVING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (D) PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THE DRAFT DOCUMENT INCLUDES UPDATES TO LAND USE DESCRIPTIONS, POLICIES ADDRESSING ESSENTIAL PUBLIC FACILITIES AND HOUSING, UPDATED URBAN DESIGN OBJECTIVES, AN UPDATED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP, AND UPDATES TO FACTUAL INFORMATION (POPULATION, LAND USE, BUILDABLE LANDS CAPACITY) REFERENCED IN THE PLAN. THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS INCORPORATE THE FINDINGS OF THE HIGHWAY 99 ENHANCEMENT PROJECT REPORT AND MARKET ASSESSMENT INTO THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THE PROPOSAL ALSO INCLUDES PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE COMPREHENSIVE MAP AND TEXT MODIFYING SINGLE FAMILY PLAN DESIGNATIONS AND COMPATIBLE ZONING DESCRIPTIONS. THE PROPOSAL WOULD CHANGE SOME EXISTING "LARGE LOT" SINGLE FAMILY DESIGNATIONS TO A HIGHER - DENSITY "SINGLE FAMILY — URBAN 2" DESIGNATION TO PROVIDE CONSISTENCY BETWEEN THE CITY'S PLAN AND THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT REQUIREMENTS FOR URBAN DENSITIES OF AT LEAST FOUR (4) DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE IN AREAS NOT IMPACTED BY CRITICAL AREAS. AREAS BEING CONSIDERED FOR A CHANGE IN PLAN DENSITY INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING: AN RS -12 ZONED AREA NORTHWEST OF SHERWOOD ELEMENTARY LYING ALONG SR -104, PROPOSED FOR A CHANGE IN DESIGNATION TO "SINGLE FAMILY MASTER PLAN;" AN EXTENSIVE RS -12 ZONED AREA LYING GENERALLY SOUTH OF SOUTHWEST COUNTY PARK AND EAST OF 94TH AVE. W EXTENDING SOUTH TO 196TH ST. SW, PROPOSED FOR A CHANGE IN DESIGNATION TO "SINGLE FAMILY — URBAN 2;" AN RS -12 ZONED AREA LYING GENERALLY BETWEEN 8TH AVE. S AND 98TH AVE. W FROM PINE ST. TO 220TH ST. SW, PROPOSED FOR A CHANGE IN f 7 if.`I[!I► /_�11i [i7►�I1C1�.Y i►[!i ii 9i 9I_�►T/ l i 1G•Qil7� \►i•IFii EXISTING LARGE LOT AREAS WITH NO CHANGE IN DENSITY WOULD BE RELABELED "SINGLE FAMILY RESOURCE." EXISTING "SMALL LOT" SINGLE FAMILY AREAS WOULD BE RENAMED "SINGLE FAMILY - URBAN 1." Mr. Chave explained this public hearing was on proposed changes to the Comprehensive Plan not including the changes proposed to the Downtown-Waterfront Plan. He explained the Comprehensive Plan elements include Land Use, Community Culture and Design, Utilities, Capital Facilities, Housing, Transportation and Parks, Recreation & Open Space. This year's Comprehensive Plan update included new population targets for 2025 (44,880), updated land use maps that show single family urban and resource designations consistent with new, more detailed information generated via the critical Tea inventory and Best Available Science (BAS). Mr. Chave stated until this time, the City has had single family large lot and single family small lot designations which although they described the lot sizes, did not indicate why. Under the proposed amendment, the small lot designation would be changed to Single Family Urban 1 (RS -6 or RS -8 zones). Areas designated large lot (RS -12 and RS -20 zoning) where the designation did not coincide with critical area are proposed to be changed to Single Family Urban 2 (RS -8 or RS -10 zoning). The remaining large Edmonds City Council ApprovedMinutes February 1, 2005 Page 13 lot designations (RS -12 and RS -20) would be changed to Single Family Resource reflecting their relationship to the critical areas pattern in the city. Mr. Chave explained other amendments update the policies in the Comprehensive Plan regarding essential public facilities, and update the Hwy. 99 goals and policies based on the Hwy. 99 Enhancement Report and market analysis. The direction of the Hwy. 99 Enhancement Report was to encourage economic development via a series of focal points as well as policy updates regarding connections to surrounding neighborhoods. The update also incorporates Design Guidelines objectives to provide additional direction in the Comprehensive Plan regarding design. He noted design objectives specific to the downtown area would be addressed at the February 15 public hearing. Mr. Chave advised the update also incorporated historical trends regarding population, housing units, households, land area, net land area, etc. He displayed a graph illustrating population growth from 1940 through 2000, noting population increases since the 1970's have been very small with increases in the 1990's occurring only as a result of annexations. He displayed a comparison of the City's growth target to historical growth based on buildable land capacity, pointing out the City has the land capacity to meet its growth targets to 2025. He noted the letter from the State commended the City for its ability to meet its growth targets to 2025. Mr. Chave explained one of the most significant issues was large lot single family. GMA and the Growth Management Hearings Board decisions that followed have found that urban densities, defined as four units per acre or more which the City's RS -12 and RS -20 zoning does not meet, must be achieved unless good reasons are provided for retaining the larger lot zoning. The only reason accepted thus far for retaining larger lot zoning was critical areas. If a pattern of critical areas could be demonstrated, it could be used to justify larger lot zoning as it served to preserve and protect the critical areas. Mr. Chave displayed maps identifying critical areas including steams, steep slopes, wetland and wildlife habitat areas, explaining the intent was to identify where patterns of critical areas occurred. Many of the large lot areas corresponded to critical areas; however, there were some areas where the critical areas do not coincide with large lot zoning. He identified areas designated as large lot that under the current proposal would be changed to Single Family Urban 2 designation. The Planning Board wanted to address this in two phases, first the Comprehensive Plan amendment, followed by more detailed public hearings on zoning changes to either RS -10 or RS -8. Mr. Chave referred to an island of RS -12 in the southern portion of the City where there was not a pattern of critical areas as well as a unique area west of Westgate near Paradise Lane that had remained large lot zoning due to concerns with access and traffic on SR -104. The Planning Board suggested a Master Plan overlay that would require a development that addressed how the lots would access SR 104, etc. Mr. Chave displayed a table summarizing the densities, reiterating that although Single family Resource did not achieve four units per acre, it was justified in the analysis based on critical area. For the other zones, including RS -10, the four units per acre would be achieved He displayed the new Comprehensive Plan map and a pie chart identifying percentages of land in various zoning classifications, noting that none of the proposed changes altered the land use pattern in the City, it was still primarily single family. He displayed a map of the Hwy. 99 enhancement project, pointing out the potential for economic growth in those areas. Councilmember Dawson asked whether there were any RS -20 zoned areas without critical areas. Mr. Chave answered no; the designation of the RS -20 zoned properties with critical areas would not be changed. Councilmember Dawson asked why a more detailed presentation had not been made to the Council regarding the Hwy. 99 enhancement project so that the Council could be more informed with regard to Edmonds City Council ApprovedMinutes February 1, 2005 Page 14 those recommendations. She acknowledged the Council had had a presentation but not on the specific zones within the zone. Mr. Chave recalled the Council had a presentation from Burke and Associates that addressed the economic analysis and the focus areas. Councilmember Dawson commented she had anticipated the Council would discuss that further. Mr. Chave noted the Planning Board had the same presentation although it may have occurred closer to when their recommendation was made. Councilmember Dawson commented in reviewing other cities' Comprehensive Plan updates throughout the country, she noted many have more in their Plans regarding quality of life than Edmonds has and specifically Edmonds does not address issues relating to public safety in its Comprehensive Plan. She asked whether any consideration had been given to establishing targets, goals and objectives for public safety within the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Chave answered no; staff had not considered including it and the Council has not directed staff to include it. He noted there were some limited, general goals and policy in the Comprehensive Plan with regard to public safety. He noted other jurisdictions have more standards applicable to public service delivery; the focus in Washington State has been transportation. Councilmember Dawson commented one of the reasons there has not been as much focus on public safety was due to the focus on the Comprehensive Plan. She acknowledged it was too late to include it this year but suggested it be included in the Comprehensive Plan in the future. Mr. Chave agreed it would be an excellent topic for the Council retreat. Councilmember Dawson noted she had been discussing the idea of a presentation on this topic with the Fire and Police Chiefs. Councilmember Wilson commented concurrency standards may need to be broadened to include public safety. Mr. Chave answered the framework was there but it had never gone to that level of detail; there have been attempts to do so elsewhere in the nation. He noted public safety and other issues were addressed in the CIP but it did not address service delivery. Councilmember Wilson also supported bringing the Comprehensive Plan to the neighborhood level to allow the City to engage neighborhoods in the planning process versus addressing needs as a citywide proposal. Mr. Chave answered that would take a concerted effort and absent any further State mandates, staff may be able to undertake it. Councilmember Wilson suggested considering that in the next round of amendments. Councilmember Wilson recalled the City changed school district property from a Public zoning to the underlying single family residential zoning and asked whether that was done for all school properties in the City. Mr. Chave answered yes, explaining rather than designate schools on the Comprehensive Plan as Public, they were identified with an overlay. Councilmember Wilson asked whether there had been any discussion regarding how those properties would be considered when they were converted from a school use. Mr. Chave answered it would be appropriate to ask that question when the City adopted the School District's Capital Facilities Plan. He noted changing a designated school site to something else would require a Comprehensive Plan amendment to eliminate the school designation followed possibly by a zoning change. Councilmember Wilson suggested incorporating language in the Comprehensive Plan providing policy guidelines, etc. if the properties transitioned in the future. Mr. Chave answered there was no language like that now but it could be done. The City and School District's CIPs would be updated in 2005. Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. He paraphrased a letter the Council received from John McCullum, 98"' Avenue W, who urged the Council not to sacrifice large lots for urban density. Stan Piha, 2101 Xh Avenue, Ste. 250, Seattle, representing RMP LLC, owners of the vacant property one block west of Hwy. 99 adjacent to the Aurora Marketplace Shopping Center, explained over a year ago RMP failed in its attempt to develop this site under the current zoning, a 52 -unit garden style apartments, leaving the property vacant, non - income producing and non -tax generating. They were Edmonds City Council ApprovedMinutes February 1, 2005 Page 15 hopeful the changes proposed in the Hwy. 99 corridor plan would facilitate change. RMP LLC is supportive of the proposed amendments envisioned and anticipated to create a viable Hwy. 99 corridor. The four focus areas identified in the Makers and Burke reports offer enhancement to the corridor, however, a missing component is the lack of future direction for properties outside the four focus areas, such as the RMP parcel. The RMP site is clearly included within the Hwy. 99 corridor, yet none of the proposed recommendations address sites outside the four focus areas. As a result, their parcel is included in the vision for the corridor without the guidelines for development. Based on the recommendations in the Makers and Burke reports, Community Transit's plans to place a bus rapid transit station a block from the site and the existing proximity to shopping and transportation, Council direction encouraging the inclusion of appropriate zones and a system for recommendation for properties like theirs lying within the Hwy. 99 corridor is warranted. Lori Haugh, 8006 181St Place SW, Edmonds, explained her home in the Seaview area was on the north border of the proposed area currently being considered to be changed to 10,000 square foot lot sizes. She did not support any rezone but was strongly opposed to 8,000 square foot lot size rezone. She described Seaview as an area filled with trees, quiet streets, grade schools and large lots. In her conversations with neighbors, everyone was concerned with the decrease in the quality of life that more development would bring and increased traffic. She cited the environmental impact of cutting large trees and displacement of wildlife and birds. She noted the 51 people who signed her petition indicated they were opposed to increased development, increased traffic, tree removal and the possibility of increased rental homes as developers purchased homes and waited for adjacent properties to become available. She noted only four dwelling units per acre was mandated by the GMA, however, Edmonds wanted to take this a step further and establish a 8,000 square foot designation. In the area being considered for 8,000 square foot lots, there were a substantial number of 16,000 square foot lots and some that were larger. The Planning Board indicated this area was selected because adjacent properties were 8,000 square foot. She concluded the only reason for the 8,000 square foot designation was to open Seaview to developers. She anticipated the area would then be quickly redeveloped, changing the ambiance of Seaview. She noted property owners across the street on 80th did not receive notification as they were not directly affected by the rezone but would have like to be included in the process. She concluded with a concern that there were Councilmembers who could directly benefit from the rezone, particularly to 8,000 square feet. Councilmember Plunkett inquired what Councilmembers would directly benefit and why. Ms. Haugh answered Council President Marin lived in the Seaview area on a 16,000 square foot lot that was proposed to be designated 8,000 square feet Councilmember Plunkett concluded it was a stretch of logic that Council President Marin would directly benefit from the change in the designation. Carol. Sehillios,1.8622 841h Avenue W, Edmonds, explained the GMA mandated urban growth in urban areas. While Seaview was legally designated an urban area, urban hardly described their neighborhood at 184th and 186`h. She spoke against including their neighborhood in the change from large lots to higher density Urban 2 citing quality of life. She noted mature trees and larger lots meant houses were not close together which preserved privacy in the Seaview area. She noted this rural setting within an urban city was one of the attractions of the neighborhood. She identified her neighborhood on the map, pointing out there were large lots that could be subdivided. She urged the Council to preserve their privacy and prevent the potential of a higher density neighborhood. She also pointed out environmental issues in the neighborhood including houses built on marsh land, underground streams, houses in the 84th Avenue West area that have had their foundations raised due to sinking soil, and ground holes that must be filled with soil. She noted the greenbelt and pathway in the neighborhood would be dffected should the property owners divide the land, decreasing the number of trees and the land's capacity to manage water flow. She concluded excluding their neighborhood from the rezone would not have a large impact on the City's GMA requirements and the change would have an impact that the Planning Board had not considered, the potential dangers that could result due to environmental issues. She urged the Council to Edmonds City Council ApprovedMinutes February 1, 2005 Page 16 designate their neighborhood a critical area to preserve the integrity of the environmental and the safety of the houses in the area. Berrie Martinez, 8323 187"' Street SW, Edmonds, explained Seaview is known for its rich variety of mature trees, bird life and quality of life. She identified her property and Ms. Schillio's property, describing sinkholes that occur in her front yard and their neighbor's yard and identifying houses whose foundations that have been raised She noted longer term residents identified an area of filled marsh land which may have contributed to the groundwater lxoblems in the area. She concluded the area could not withstand further development. She pointed out many of the plats in the area were subject to covenants that restricted smaller lot sizes. She identified their neighborhood as a high erosion area including a ravine that fills like a creek during the rainy months. Gordon Wahl, 18824 81st Avenue W, Edmonds, recalled needing 50 yards of soil last year to fill his backyard and described a sinkhole on the lot next to his that the owner has continually filled with soil for the past 15 years. He noted their lot was at the bottom of the hill, resulting in extensive water runoff. He recalled there being a stream in this area when he was a child. He recalled following the storm in 1997, the area behind Council President Marin's was a lake and the ditch in front of his house was approximately 4-feet wide. He concluded this neighborhood was definitely a critical area and preferred their zoning be RS -10 to preserve their neighborhood. Kar -Ellen Wollman, 18914 84th Avenue W, Edmonds, whose property is next door to Seaview Elementary, recalled hearing stories from neighbors of it being so muddy at Seaview Elementary that kids would get struck up to their thighs in the mud. She recalled drainage repairs were necessary when Seaview Elementary was remodeled. She questioned whether this solution to density was any better than the cottage houses in Shoreline where there was now a moratorium on building cottage houses. She questioned how the boundary between the RS -8 and RS -10 designated areas was determined. Richard Senderoff, 18823 81st Avenue SW, Edmonds, expressed opposition to changing RS -12 areas to RS -8. He noted his block and Council President Marin's block which were 16,000 square foot lots could be subdivided by the current or a future owner. He referred to Ms. Schillios' comment regarding Council President Marin, recalling his neighbors told him Council President Marin had attempted to subdivide his property approximately ten years ago. He pointed out that although his property and much of the street is flat, during the 1997 storm his house was flooded as it is the low point on the block. He noted as a result of the flooding, he received FEMA support. He urged the Council to refer to his comments in the Planning Board minutes. He referred to an article by Mayor Haakenson in the Edmonds Beacon regarding Paine Field which Mayor Haakenson stated that although he believed in economic development, not at the expense of quality of life. Mr. Senderoff summarized his concern was how rezoning this area would affect the quality of life. Brian Ferbee, 8219 187th Avenue SW, Edmonds, expressed concern with developers "cherry picking" their way through the Seaview building homes in various areas. If large lots were divided and new home constructed, these additional homes would only exacerbate runoff problems. He referred to the earlier presentation regarding increases in the storm drainage rate, envisioning the cost of constructing storm sewers in the Seaview area to address runoff. A member of the Citizen Plan Committee for the Edmonds School District, he pointed out additional homes would impact school enrollment as well as school boundaries. He pointed out traffic impacts must be considered as well. Ray Martin, 18704 94th Avenue W, Edmonds, provided a list of reason's why Ms. Haugh's comments regarding Council President Marin were valid, 1) in 2004 Council President Marin was the subject of four people's letters accusing him of being less than honest, 2) Council President Marin made a statement a year ago that citizens should not be part of the decision - making, that elected officials should make the decision, 3) Council President Marin stated he would need to check with builders to get permission to do Edmonds City Council ApprovedMinutes February 1, 2005 Page 17 something, and 4) Council President Marin's disclosure to the Public Disclosure Committee regarding his failure to make required reports. Mr. Martin summarized Council President Marin should not vote on this issue as it was a conflict of interest. Roger Hertrich,1020 Puget Drive, Edmonds, agreed with the comments regarding the quality of life in Seaview; noting it was a pleasant area in which to live and visit. He supported the residents' opinions regarding the proposal to change the zoning. Acknowledging that much of the requirements were GMA based, he urged the Council to consider the people who live in those areas. He pointed out the 51 signatures on Ms. Haugh's petition illustrated how Seaview residents felt about the proposed change and about their community. Melissa Baker, 18823 94th Avenue W, Edmonds, noted only part of the east side of 94th was being considered for rezoning and questioned why the entire length of 94"' was not considered for rezoning. She noted there was a good deal of traffic from Olympic View Drive into the Seaview area and increasing the density would increase traffic. She expressed concern with the impact increased traffic would have on the numerous children in the area who walk to the public schools. She was told by public officials that she lives in a high water table and she has observed numerous springs and constant runoff. She questioned how much runoff the area could handle. Mayor Haakenson invited those who had already spoken to submit written materials, noting the Council may proceed with a decision tonight. Hearing no further public comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public hearing. COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON, TO EXTEND THE MEETING FOR ONE HOUR. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Snyder explained the State legislature mandated that cities comply with GMA and failure to do so could result in the loss of grant funds and/or other sanctions. If the Council were to exclude an area, what defense would the City raise? Issues raised by the audience include quality of life, transportation and educational planning, and critical areas. As Mr. Chave mentioned, the only basis recognized by the State legislature and approved by GMA are critical areas. There had been 45 cases recently raising a variety of quality of life issues. He recalled the issue of how an area looks /feels was raised by Woodway recently which the Growth Management Hearings Board did not accept. He summarized a community's different feel or quality of life was not part of the criteria. With regard to transportation, the City's obligation to accept growth drives other components of the Comprehensive Plan; the City must accept growth and determine via CIP funding how to provide for education, infrastructure, etc. Staff s intent was to establish a foundation for the areas that would remain Resource. Mr. Snyder acknowledged citizens had raised a variety of critical area issues that could lead to the designation of further critical areas via further study. The Council could defer a change in the designation of a particular area subject to a plan to map the critical area, make a determination, and review the issue next year. He cautioned citizens to be careful what they wished for, pointing out a property owner may not be able to fill a sinkhole if their property were determined to be a critical area. He concluded a number of the issues raised were not the basis for decision - making. Mr. Snyder clarified although the term rezone has been used, and the change in designation would lead to rezones, this action was legislative and the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine did not apply. He noted Council President Marin had asked him about the rules and he indicated although Council President Marin was not required to step down, he may do so if he finds that appropriate. Mr. Chave pointed out a high water, seepage, etc. was not defined as a critical area under State regulations. He expressed concern with deferring the designation change for further study as there was no Edmonds City Council ApprovedMinutes February 1, 2005 Page 18 mapping showing the relation between a high water table and a critical area. This would require further consultant study to determine those areas and to determine whether it met the state's criteria for a critical area. He suggested the information heard tonight be considered at the time of rezone. The Comprehensive Plan states RS -8 or RS -10 zoning would be appropriate for these areas. The audience comments were in reaction to a map the Planning Board prepared that split the eastern portion as RS -8 and the western portion as an RS -10 area. He noted this map did not have any factual basis but was intended to reflect the historic RS -8 in the eastern portion and the RS -12 or RS -20 to the west. After the Planning Board heard testimony at the public hearing, they shied away from that issue, thus the reason the rezone was not presented to the Council. Most of the concern seemed to be RS -8 on 16,000 square foot lots. He explained if the area were rezoned RS -10, more than a 20,000 square foot lot would be necessary to subdivide. He concluded if an area had critical areas, the constraints supported the lower zoning. Mr. Snyder pointed out the Council did not have a record identifying this as a critical area that would support leaving it in a large lot designation. He suggested if the Council wanted to consider retaining the large lot designation, they could authorize a work plan with appropriate consultant studies to review the critical area map and the Comprehensive Plan as part of the next annual process. Councilmember Moore inquired whether covenants overrode zoning. Mr. Snyder answered private covenants were for the public to utilize and defend; the City had no role in the defense of private covenants and covenants had no limiting affect on the Council's exercise of its legislative discretion. Councilmember Moore commented if the designation was changed and the neighborhood did not want subdivision to occur, the residents could sign a covenant that would prevent subdivision. Mr. Chave answered that could be done as long as the residents enforced it. Councilmember Wilson asked if there had been any analysis of the net change in density. Mr. Chave answered the potential change in density was difficult to determine. The area was largely built out and under an RS -10 scenario; little change was likely to occur as a property would need to be at least 20,000 square feet to be subdividable. He explained the Planning Board was concerned enough about what they heard during the hearing process that they did not want to propose a rezone to RS -8 without further study. For Councilmember Wilson, Mr. Chave advised no additional capacity was calculated for this area in the buildable lands analysis. Councilmember Wilson asked whether the Planning Board considered changing the land use categories such as creating a separate land use category that corresponded to RS -10. Mr. Chave answered no, but the only change that would be necessary would be to revise the table that equates land use to zoning by removing RS -8 as an option under Single Family Urban 2. Councilmember Wilson noted another approach would be to develop qualifying language that would allow a development to achieve a certain density if certain characteristics were achieved Mayor Haakenson declared a brief recess. Councilmember Orvis commented the Council could determine Single Family Urban 2 corresponded to RS -10 zoning. Mr. Chave agreed the record would defend that action. He cautioned there may be people who did not testify who were in favor of the RS -8 zoning. For Councilmember Orvis, Mr. Chave explained the brown areas on the map corresponded to erosion . slope areas. Councilmember Orvis observed that some Single Family Urban 2 overlapped those erosion slope areas and asked whether those areas could be designated Single Family Resource. Mr. Chave answered the Council would need to find that was part of a pattern of critical areas, the logic that was applied elsewhere. Mr. Snyder clarified the Council had the basis for conducting a study to determine if there were critical areas but making that determination absent further study would not be defensible Edmonds City Council ApprovedMinutes February 1, 2005 Page 19 before the Growth Management Hearings Board. The City needed BAS to confirm that a critical area existed and that record did not exist. Mr. Chave pointed out the areas designated Resource represented large patterns of critical areas. The analysis did not identify every area where a critical area may exist. He pointed out the erosion control areas were not steep slopes. Mr. Snyder explained if the Council wanted to make that determination, he would need a record based on BAS for example that sinkholes established that as a landslide hazard area or that there were degraded wetlands that should be allowed to revert to a wetland state with a plan to do so. Mr. Chave explained an RS -10 zoning would be defensible; if the Council wanted to designate additional critical areas, that was a more difficult and expensive process and there was no guarantee these areas would be determined to be critical areas. Councilmember Dawson pointed out the action before the Council was the Comprehensive Plan designation, not a rezone. Mr. Chave explained the Planning Board intended to follow up on the Council's decision with rezones to implement the designations. The Council record would be provided to the Planning Board and he encouraged those who testified to also present their information to the Planning Board. Councilmember Dawson asked why rezones could not be left to the individual property owners to pursue on a site -by -site basis. Mr. Snyder answered the GMA required the Comprehensive Plan designation and zoning to be consistent. Councilmember Dawson noted GMA did not seem to account for cities where there was high urban density in some areas and other areas the City wanted to preserve in a wooded, park like state. She asked why a mix of housing types could not be preserved and protected under GMA. Mr. Snyder answered the Growth Management Hearings Board has defined urban density as a minimum rather than an average. Mr. Snyder explained he would be happy to discuss this in an Executive Session, the Council could decide to make new law as many of these decisions have not been tested at the appellate court level. He suggested if the Council wanted to take that position that the Council pursue it with the State legislature via AWC. Councilmember Dawson concluded it was frustrating that GMA did not recognize unique characteristics in cities throughout the State. Councilmember Dawson questioned why change the designation if it would not result in an increase in the density. Mr. Snyder answered the Growth Management Hearings Board has taken a bright line approach, rejecting everything in favor of a minimum standard. Every community believed itself to be unique in some way, thus the reason the Growth Management Hearings Board has taken the bright line approach. Councilmember Dawson observed most of the neighbors' concerns would be addressed by the RS -10 zoning rather than the RS -8 zoning. She questioned whether residents would actually want their neighborhood designated as a critical area. Mr. Chave agreed in areas that were designated critical areas, the property owners have a responsibility for the critical area which limits what can be done and puts greater expense on development. Councilmember Wilson asked if there were any areas currently developed at 8,000 square feet. Mr. Chave answered there were some areas near 8,000 square feet. He reiterated the Planning Board wanted to postpone any rezone action to study the issue further. Councilmember Wilson observed the Council appeared to be leaning toward the Single Family Urban 2 and 10,000 square feet zoning. He noted this would place lots developed at 8,000 square feet in some jeopardy as they would now be nonconforming. Councilmember Wilson commented on the lack of language in the Comprehensive Plan regarding when to choose 8,000 square foot zoning versus 10,000 square feet. He preferred there be some direction in the Edmonds City Council ApprovedMinutes February 1, 2005 Page 20 Comprehensive Plan regarding when to choose one over the other. Mr. Chave answered the Planning Board expected to address that when they discussed rezone. He noted one of the issues was suitability for development. Councilmember Wilson asked whether it would be necessary to supplement the record with criteria for determining the zoning on a Single Family Urban 2 designated property. Mr. Snyder answered clear criteria was always easier to defend. He noted Comprehensive Plans were intended to provide general principles and on occasion, those principles can be in conflict. Council President Marin recalled Mr. Piha made a presentation to the Hwy. 99 Task Force regarding the RMP property and the Task Force found merit in his proposal. He asked whether it would be possible to send that concept to the Planning Board in the coming months. Mr. Chave agreed the property was within the corridor area; the Planning Board would be considering implementation of the Hwy. 99 enhancement project and could consider potential changes along the corridor. Councilmember Dawson pointed out there were gaps between the focus areas on Hwy. 99. She inquired where the intent was to provide a buffer between the zones. Mr. Chave answered the focus areas were intended to provide a general picture; implementation would need to be specific including specific zones. He noted specific designs could be developed for those areas or specific zones could be established and allow the zoning decisions to determine the boundaries. Mayor Haakenson remanded the matter to Council for action. Councilmember Plunkett acknowledged a 16,000 square foot lot zoned 8,000 square feet could be subdivided into two lots. He disagreed with the inference made by Ms. Haugh and Mr. Martin that a Councilmember would make a decision based on their own personal circumstances, pointing out it had been his experience that Councilmembers make decisions based on what they believe to be good public policy. He found changing the zoning for the Single Family Urban 2 designation from RS -10 to RS -8 did not meet the test as it was not in the public interest and did not maintain an appropriate balance of land use. He was not interested in designating this area as a critical area, noting many may not be aware of the restrictions that a critical area designation placed on their property. He recommended Single Family Urban 2 correspond to 10,000 square feet. COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, TO CHANGE SINGLE FAMILY URBAN 2 TO 10,000 SQUARE FEET. Council President Marin advised he intended to abstain from the vote on this motion, not because he had to but because it was appropriate. Councilmember Wilson suggested the Council consider a Single Family Urban 1, 2 and 3 land use designation to allow RS -8 as a zoning option for areas where that zoning pattern may already exist. He did not support RS -8 zoning for the Seaview area and found RS -10 more appropriate. Councilmember Dawson observed there were several unanswered questions and suggested staff return with further information at a future meeting. She asked whether it would be beneficial to have a third Single Family Urban designation. Mr. Chave suggested the Council split the Single Family Urban into three designations but designate the entire area for RS -10. He noted this would also establish a land use designation that corresponded to RS -8 zoning. A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT ADDED A THIRD SINGLE FAMILY URBAN DESIGNATION. MOTION CARRIED (6 -0 -1), COUNCIL PRESIDENT MARIN ABSTAINED. COUNCILMEMBER MOORE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, FOR APPROVAL OF ITEM D AS AMENDED. Edmonds City Council ApprovedMinutes February 1, 2005 Page 21 Council President Marin remarked after reading the Comprehensive Plan, he was impressed with the work done by the Planning Board. He noted the Planning Board was trying to envision the future and when reading the Comprehensive Plan, he could envision what they were proposing. He agreed with Councilmember Dawson's suggestion to discuss the inclusion of public safety in the Comprehensive Plan as well as the vision for the City for the next 20 years. Councilmember Orvis thanked staff for their efforts to preserve density in the city. He explained although he did not want to change any areas from RS -12 to RS -10, however, it was mandated by GMA. He thanked staff for their work on critical areas to minimize the impact of GMA mandates on neighborhoods and produce a Comprehensive Plan that was justifiable and defensible. Councilmember Moore thanked staff and the Planning Board, noting this was a really good Comprehensive Plan and a great foundation for the future. She noted the Comprehensive Plan maintained the worthy goal of maintaining single family lots and critical area, as well as contained elements that addressed clean water, affordable housing, transportation, and economic development and would soon include public safety. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 9. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Ron Wambolt, 530 Dayton, Edmonds, responded to the Planning Board's comments at their January 26 Planning meeting when each member described what they heard during testimony from the public that caused them Board to vote to forward a recommendation to the Council to include an increase in building heights in the BC Recommend- ation re. zone to 33 feet. He cited misinformation in the Planning Board's reasoning for the need for three Increase in additional feet of building height (from 11 supporters of the height increase): 1) to eliminate Building ght t Height dysfunctional building an sown entrances and/or first fl ceilings that are too low — Mr. Wambolt oor cen Height o 33 y g d te p d t d/ g Feet pointed out there was no abundance of vacant buildings, sloped lots allow for higher ceilings under the City Code, and three floors were not needed to make a project economically viable; 2) to provide for construction of buildings more attractive than recently built buildings — Mr. Wambolt recalled Council President Marin's praise of recent construction during a presentation at a Council meeting; 3) because the Chamber of Commerce represents 2000 people — Mr. Wambolt explained his research indicated there were actually only 400 members; and 4) support for the height increase was comparable to the opposition — Mr. Wambolt acknowledged the Chamber supported the increase but the majority of citizens oppose the height increase. Mr. Wambolt urged the Planning Board to separate opinions from facts when making decisions. Planning on Kreiman, 24006 985th Place W, Edmonds, commented the Planning Board did a great job listening Board to everyone and making the best decision they could. He urged the Council to read the materials and keep Decision an open mind. He acknowledged if a mistake had been made, it could be rectified next year. opposition to John Quast, 15714 75th Place W, Edmonds, President of the Meadowdale Community Club, thanked Expansion of the Council for its support and concern for Edmonds and the Meadowdale community, noting the Paine Field resolution in opposition to the expansion of Paine Field would send a clear message that Edmonds did not want increased traffic or the negative impacts on the community from increased noise that decreased property values. He compared the expansion of Paine Field to Brightwater, recalling in 1998 King County clearly identified Edmonds by name as a potential location for a treatment plant. Because citizens found the plan so farfetched, nothing was done and the result was a monumental struggle years later involving thousands of Edmonds residents to protect the waterfront and the community. He pointed out the community was again being given notice but this time residents would not sit by and do nothing. In spite of agreement reached years ago, Snohomish County is working to expand Paine Field, studies are Edmonds City Council ApprovedMinutes February 1, 2005 Page 22 being conducted and published, market analyses are being published and community events are being held to soothe community concerns. He noted this was exactly the process followed by King County in promoting Brightwater. He acknowledged the Council for responding to the alarm sounded by citizens, promising to remain vigilant to the opposition to expansion at Paine Field and anticipated the Council's complete support. Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, Edmonds, commended the City for the recent purchase of Purchase of waterfront property, noting properties purchased in the past have created waterfront parks that are a Waterfront regional draw. He noted the previous Park Director applied for grants to replenish the REET money used Property to purchase park property. He recalled when he asked whether any grant funds were used to purchase the waterfront property, Mayor Haakenson indicated REET funds were used to purchase the park. His research revealed IAC had not received an application for the purchase from Edmonds and the current Park Director indicated no grants had been applied for. Mr. Hertrich noted IAC would have funded 50% of the property and other grants could have been used for the remainder. Upon visiting Mayor Haakenson's office, he reiterated that the property was purchased using REET funds and indicated no grants had been applied for. He suggested Mayor Haakenson and staff lost the purchase price of $500,000 and although Mayor Haakenson assured him the City had not lost money because it had purchased property, the City lost the opportunity to replenish the REET fund used to purchase the property. Ray Martin, 18704 94th Avenue W, Edmonds, expressed his appreciation to Councilmember Plunkett for attending the ACE meeting. He also thanked Mayor Haakenson for pulling the averaging concept. Shirley Wambolt, 530 Dayton, Edmonds, recalled telling her grandson when talking about grades that the only person he needed to please was the person in the mirror because he couldn't get away from him. She urged the Council to do likewise,please the person in the mirror. 10. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Haakenson had no report. 11. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Olson thanked the Council for working together to develop a resolution opposing expansion at Paine Field that could be unanimously adopted. With no further business,the Council meeting was adjourned at 11:24 p.m. • G Y AKENSON,MAYOR SANDRA S. CHASE, CITY CLERK Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 1,2005 Page 23 AGENDA EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex 250 5th Avenue North 7:00 - 10:00 p.m. FEBRUARY 1, 2005 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 January 25, 2005. (C) Approval of claim checks #76898 through #76991 for the week of January 24, 2005, in the amount of$357,920.57.* *Information regarding claim checks may be viewed electronically at www.ci.edmonds.wa.us (D) Acknowledge receipt of Claims for Damages from Nicholas J. Trout ($472.05), Leanne Kerrigan (amount undetermined), and Gary Suydam ($300.00). (E) Report on final construction costs for the Lift Station #1 renovation project and Council acceptance of project. (F) Report on final construction costs for the Alder Street utility replacement and 2318t Place SW storm improvements project and Council acceptance of project. (G) Authorization for the Mayor to sign an Interlocal Traffic Signals Maintenance and Operation Agreement with the City of Lynnwood. 3. ( 5 Min.) Proclamation in honor of Arts Day, February 15, 2005. 4. (30 Min.) Utility Rate Study Recommendations (A) Rate Study Presentation -Tracy Dunlap, FCS Group (B) Rate Ordinance 5. ( 5 Min.) Proposed Resolution of the City Council of the City of Edmonds, Washington, restating its concern and opposition to expanded regional commercial and passenger air service to Paine Field. 6. (20 Min.) Update on Sound Transit Activities Page 1 of 3 CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA February 1, 2005 7. (10 Min.) Public Hearing on the extension of Ordinance No. 3511, an interim zoning ordinance, amending ECDC 21.30.010 Families to add a new paragraph D in order to amend the definition of family to authorize and permit exchange students to reside with families for a period not to exceed one year. (Effective date of Ordinance No. 3511 is 8/27/04; expires 2/27/05.) 8. (90 Min.) Public Hearing to consider the following proposed Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan: (A) Public Hearing on a request for a Comprehensive Plan Map amendment for properties fronting on the south side of Edmonds way between 97th Ave. W and 95th Pl. W. The properties are currently designated as "Single Family - Small Lot" and are zoned RS-8; the request is to change the properties to "Multi Family - High Density." Applicant: Shaun Leiser for Gaston Enterprises, LLC. File No.: CDC-03-194. (B) Public Hearing on a request for a Comprehensive Plan Map amendment for properties fronting on both sides of Edmonds Way generally lying between 97th Ave. W and 92" Ave. W. The properties are currently designated as "Single Family - Small Lot," "Multi Family - High Density," and "Neighborhood Commercial;" the request is to change all of the properties to "Edmonds Way Corridor." Applicant: A.D. Shapiro Architects representing Hans Lammersdorf. File No.: CDC-03-193. (C) Closed Record Review of a request for a rezone of properties fronting on the south side of Edmonds Way between 97th Ave. W and 95' PI. W. The properties are currently zoned RS-8 (Single Family Residential); the request is to change the properties to RM-1.5 (Multiple Family Residential). File No.: R- 03-195. (D) Public Hearing on proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. The draft document includes updates to land use descriptions, policies addressing essential public facilities and housing, updated urban design objectives, an updated Comprehensive Plan Map, and updates to factual information (population, land use, buildable lands capacity) referenced in the plan. The proposed amendments incorporate the findings of the Highway 99 Enhancement Project Report and Market Assessment into the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan. The proposal also includes proposed changes to the Comprehensive Plan Map and text modifying single family plan designations and compatible zoning descriptions. The proposal would change some existing "Large Lot" single family designations to a higher-density "Single Family - Urban 2" designation to provide consistency between the City's plan and the Growth Management Act requirements for urban densities of at least four (4) dwelling units per acre in areas not impacted by critical areas. Areas being considered for a change in plan density include the following: Page 2 of 3 CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA February 1, 2005 • An RS-12 zoned area northwest of Sherwood Elementary lying along SR- 104, proposed for a change in designation to "Single Family Master Plan;" • An extensive RS-12 zoned area lying generally south of Southwest County Park and east of 94th Ave. W extending south to 196th St. SW, proposed for a change in designation to "Single Family- Urban 2;" • An RS-12 zoned area lying generally between 8th Ave. S and 98th Ave. W from Pine St. to 220th St. SW, proposed for a change in designation to "Single family- Urban 2." Existing large lot areas with no change in density would be relabeled "Single Family Resource." Existing "Small Lot" single family areas would be renamed "Single Family- Urban 1." 9. Audience Comments (3 Minute Limit Per Person)* *Regarding matters not listed as Closed Record Review or as Public Hearings. 10. ( 5 Min.) Mayor's Comments 11. (15 Min.) Council Comments ADJOURN Parking and meeting rooms are accessible for persons with disabilities. Please contact the City Clerk at(425) 771-0245 with 24 hours advance notice for special accommodations. A delayed telecast of the meeting appears on cable television- Government Access Channel 21. Page 3 of 3