Loading...
03/06/2001 City Council1 Approve Claim Checks i rnialging era er ements EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES March 6, 2001 Following a Special Meeting at 6:45 p.m. for an Executive Session regarding a real estate matter, the Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Haakenson in the Council Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Gary Haakenson, Mayor Dave Earling, Council President Thomas A. Miller, Councilmember Michael Plunkett, Councilmember Lora Petso, Councilmember Dave Orvis, Councilmember Christopher Davis, Councilmember Richard Marin, Councilmember ALSO PRESENT Tyler Fisher, Student Representative 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA STAFF PRESENT Tom Tomberg, Fire Chief Duane Bowman, Development Serv. Director Stephen Clifton, Community Services Director Peggy Hetzler, Administrative Services Director Noel Miller, Public Works Director Arvilla Ohlde, Parks and Recreation Director Rob Chave, Planning Manager Dave Gebert, City Engineer Don Fiene, Assistant City Engineer Scott Snyder, City Attorney Sandy Chase, City Clerk Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst. Jeannie Dines, Recorder COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, FOR APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS Council President Earling requested Item B be removed from the Consent Agenda. COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, FOR APPROVAL OF THE REMAINDER OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: (A) ROLL CALL (C) APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #46727 THROUGH #46869 FOR THE WEEK OF FEBRUARY 26, 2001, IN THE AMOUNT OF $280,226.23 (D) APPROVE CHATTEL DEED OF DONATION FROM EDMONDS FIRE SAFETY FOUNDATION TO DONATE THERMAL IMAGING CAMERA TO THE CITY (E) ACCEPTANCE OF SEWER EASEMENTS FOR THE PERRINVILLE SANITARY SEWER LID 215 AND 216 PROJECT Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 6, 2001 Page 1 Ord #3348 (F) ORDINANCE NO. 3348 AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF THE EDMONDS Trellises and COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE BY ADOPTION OF A NEW SECTION 17.30.035 Arbors TRELLISES AND ARBORS TO ESTABLISH AND CLARIFY THE REGULATION OF TRELLISES AND ARBORS Item B: Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of February 27, 2001 Council President Earling advised Betty Mueller and Roger Hertrich requested their comments from last week's Council meeting be included in the minutes verbatim. COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, FOR APPROVAL OF ITEM B WITH THE ADDITION OF VERBATIM COMMENTS FROM BETTY MUELLER AND ROGER HERTRICH. Councilmember Plunkett pointed out the availability of audio and videotapes of the meetings, and commented the minutes were intended to be a narrative summary of the meeting and not all comments were included in the minutes verbatim. He expressed concern others would request their comments be included in the minutes verbatim. Councilmember Petso supported the motion to include Ms. Mueller and Mr. Hertrich's comments verbatim, noting citizens who provide comment should be assured comments of importance to them were included in the minutes. Councilmember Miller agreed the minutes were intended to be a summary of the meeting. He was concerned allowing comments to be included verbatim in the minutes would place an increasing burden on staff resources. He commented citizens interested in further detail could view the video and/or listen to audio tapes. Approve /27/01 Council MOTION CARRIED (5-2), COUNCILMEMBERS MILLER AND PLUNKETT OPPOSED. The Minutes as item approved is as follows: orrected (B) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 27, 2001 Closed 3. CLOSED RECORD MEETING — APPEAL OF THE HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION Record APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR A FOUR -LOT SHORT SUBDIVISION CALLED Meeting SEAVIEW HIGHLANDS. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 18111 — 84TH AVENUE WEST Appeal - AND IS ZONED SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RS-12). (Applicant: Orlo Fuller / Appellant: File No. Dennis and Carla O'Leary. File No. 5-2000-50 / AP-2001-17) AP-2001-17 Council President Earling recused himself from participation in this item as well as any continued hearing as one of the principles involved in the public hearing was a member of his real estate firm. Council President Earling left the dais. Mayor Haakenson advised a request had been received to continue this matter to March 13, 2001, based upon insufficient notice of hearing. City Attorney Scott Snyder advised the City Clerk had confirmed the notice provided was ten calendar days rather than the required ten working days, therefore, the notice was not sufficient. He recommended the Council continue the public hearing. Responding to Mayor Haakenson's question, the applicant, Orlo Fuller, indicated continuing the public hearing was acceptable to him. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 6, 2001 Page 2 COUNCILMEMBER DAVIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, TO CONTINUE ITEM 3 TO MARCH 13, 2001. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (Council President Earling did not participate in the vote.) Council President Earling returned to the Council dais. Public 4. PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY Hearing _ DEVELOPMENT CODE CREATING NEW CHAPTERS 17.40.050 (NONCONFORMING Community COMMUNITY FACILITIES), AND 17.65 (PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR COMMUNITY Facilities FACILITIES), AND AMENDING CHAPTERS: 16.20 — RS (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL); 16.30 — RM (MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL); 16.45 — BN (NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS); 16.50 — BC (COMMUNITY BUSINESS); 16.53 — BP (PLANNED BUSINESS); 16.55 — CW (COMMERCIAL WATERFRONT); 16.61 — MIXED USE (MEDICAL USE); 16.80 — P (PUBLIC USE); AND CHAPTER 21 (DEFINITIONS). Planning Manager Rob Chave provided an overview of the process for this amendment. He explained several years ago, the Council voiced concern that the City's method of addressing community facilities in the Development Code could lead to incompatible uses in neighborhoods. The City's practice at that time was to rezone property to "Public (P)" to accommodate uses such as schools, churches, etc. During the process of considering rezoning existing schools in recently annexed areas that were zoned residential, concern was expressed that although the use was not likely to change, if the property were rezoned to "P" different types of facilities other than those envisioned could occur in the neighborhood. Therefore, the Council directed the Planning Board to consider how community facilities were permitted in the City. During their review, the Planning Board determined a new approach was necessary that would mitigate the impacts of the facilities rather than determine which zones the facilities would be allowed in. The Planning Board developed a series of standards regarding buffering, parking, etc. and how other mitigation methods would occur. Mr. Chave referenced a matrix describing the current draft ordinance, the Planning Board's recommendation and the existing Development Code regarding community facilities. He explained under the new approach, neighborhood churches (less than or equal to 22,000 square feet) would be permitted in all zones. A Conditional Use Permit (CUP) would be required for a new church to be located on a neighborhood street. Larger, community churches must be located on a collector or minor arterial or within 1200 feet of a principle arterial. He explained the Planning Board's belief was that a larger church would generate more traffic and should be located closer to a major thoroughfare. Primary schools are allowed to locate in residential areas but additional location criteria is imposed for a high school. A high school must be within 500 feet of a major arterial because high schools generate more traffic and have different traffic patterns than a primary school. Mr. Chave explained the current recommendation regarding school height was a baseline height of the zone in which the school is located (i.e. 25 feet in a residential zone) with the opportunity to increase the height to 35 feet for an auditorium, pool or gym. A CUP would be required for increased height for any use other than auditorium, pool or gym on the site. Similarly, the baseline height for churches would be the zone in which the church was located with the opportunity to increase the height to 50 feet for steeples, bell towers, and other religious symbols without a CUP. For churches, the additional height must be setback from the property line. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 6, 2001 Page 3 Mr. Chave explained the parking standards for schools were based on specific site studies done for SEPA to determine the parking requirements. The proposed parking standard for schools was 11 spaces for 100 students and high schools required a site -specific parking and transportation management plan. He advised there was no change in the parking standard for churches. He described the review threshold for primary schools, explaining a CUP would be required for primary schools over 60,000 square feet or over 600 students. Mr. Chave explained the original ordinance proposed a 5-year CUP review. After reviewing the City's regulations, staff determined there were a sufficient number of processes that would allow staff to review facilities whenever a change occurs. Examples of processes include a building permit that would potentially trigger design review by the Architectural Design Board and SEPA review, which are both public processes including notice to properties within 300 feet. He explained SEPA review would consider past environmental documentation and verify that a prior traffic study acknowledged the new development. He commented a minor change that did not materially alter the use of the facility would require public notice but not necessarily require a public hearing. Therefore, staff determined a 5-year CUP review process was unnecessary. Mr. Chave advised the Planning Board held two work sessions per month for approximately two years as well as several public hearings. The City Council held a public hearing in November followed by two work sessions to develop the current draft language. He noted the City's notification list was also very lengthy, and has included mailings to churches, the Edmonds School District and interested residents. City Clerk Sandy Chase advised the legal posting and notification requirements were met and special display ads were purchased in the Herald, the Enterprise, and the Edmonds Beacon. City Attorney Scott Snyder reviewed several minor corrections to be made to the ordinance. Councilmember Plunkett referred to page 16 and 17 of the staff recommended version of the ordinance, inquiring whether the elimination of the paragraphs eliminated the 5-year CUP review. Mr. Chave agreed. Councilmember Petso recalled when this process first began, there was a desire for property zoned "P" to revert to the underlying zone if it was no longer needed as a school site. Mr. Chave explained if that was desired, Council could direct the Planning Board to study existing "P" zones in the City to determine whether they should be rezoned to the underlying zoning. Councilmember Petso referred to the statement regarding "P" zoned property, "to regulate the use of these lands to ensure their continuing availability for public use" and asked if this conflicted with a desire to have the property revert to the underlying zoning. Mr. Chave noted if the property was zoned residential but the use was public, it was available for public use. If the use were to discontinue, the school district would undertake a process to divest itself of the land. It would be much easier for the property to revert to residential use if residential were the underlying zoning. Mr. Snyder answered that approach was consistent with the desire to avoid unintentional spot zoning, using zoning that was consistent with the surrounding zoning. Councilmember Petso said she requested schools be removed from the definition of local public facilities (page 26 of the ordinance) to avoid local public facilities in a capital improvement not automatically becoming an allowed use. However, during the redraft of the ordinance, the term "and schools" was added to local public facilities as permitted uses (page 17 of the ordinance). Mr. Snyder explained staff's viewpoint was that schools and local public facilities shared some common development requirements Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 6, 2001 Page 4 such as parking, lighting, screening, signage, etc. and there were special development restrictions applicable to only schools in paragraphs G and H (page 18 of the ordinance). Councilmember Petso posed a hypothetical situation where the school district amended their capital facilities plan to indicate an elementary school would be closed and reopened as Scriber Lake High and the elementary students relocated. Under the previous drafts of the ordinance, the high school would be required to have a CUP; however, the proposed ordinance indicates the "schools planned, designated and sited in the capital improvement plan shall be allowed uses," thereby eliminating the CUP requirement for a high school. Mr. Snyder responded the difficulty with any other approach is it would violate concurrency requirements. In the past, specific language of the zoning code prevailed over provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. However, under GMA, the capital facilities element of the Comprehensive Plan would be controlling. Councilmember Petso pointed out this version of the ordinance placed a burden on the City and citizens to keep watch every year over the school district capital facilities plan. Mr. Snyder said the school district may adopt a revised capital facilities plan but it was not incorporated into the City's Comprehensive Plan until adopted by the City. Councilmember Petso observed there would still be no CUP process or notification to neighbors. Mr. Snyder agreed, commenting in the past the school district's capital facilities plans may have been adopted without a great deal of review. In the future, it will be important to review the plan to determine whether the plan should be adopted in total. Councilmember Petso commented this would allow the school district to avoid the CUP process for all large primary schools and high schools by including it in the capital facilities plan. Mr. Snyder emphasized until the plan was adopted by the City, it would not be part of the City's policies. He pointed out the primary changes were directed at nonconforming uses which most schools are. Mr. Chave explained that while a CUP process may not be required if adopted in the school district's capital facilities plan, design review and SEPA would still be required. Councilmember Petso expressed concern that the Planning Board established the CUP thresholds; however, with the addition of "and schools," the thresholds were eliminated from the ordinance. Councilmember Orvis referred to the non -conforming section (page 23 of the ordinance) and asked how the language applied to churches and schools below the threshold that expanded but did not exceed the threshold. Mr. Snyder answered if the use was nonconforming, there would be a review process, but until the use reached the threshold trigger for a CUP, they would not be required to obtain a CUP. However, in order to retain their nonconforming use rights, they would need to mitigate the impacts. For example, a church that expanded may need to provide additional parking but would not be required to obtain a CUP. Councilmember Miller referred to a letter submitted to the City from the staff at Edmonds Elementary School and Bret Carlstad, Edmonds School District expressing concern with the 5-year CUP review process because it would create a temporary permitting process and funds for the CUP process. Mr. Chave advised the staff recommendation eliminated the 5-year CUP process. Mr. Snyder explained a nonconforming church or school and a new church or school would require a CUP for the first expansion or to be sited. A CUP would not need to be renewed every five years under the current staff proposal. He explained obtaining a CUP once had an advantage over being a nonconforming facility because under City ordinance, a nonconforming use could not be expanded. Councilmember Orvis inquired what this would mean to a church. Mr. Chave used the example of a small neighborhood church that had been located on a neighborhood church for many years. The church Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 6, 2001 Page 5 did not have a CUP but wanted to expand from 10,000 square feet to 15,000. Because of the location on a neighborhood street, it was technically non -conforming and therefore the initial building permit to expand would require a CUP. Mr. Chave continued that once the CUP was obtained, the church was established as a legal conforming use and only needed to meet the parking requirements as long as they did not exceed the 22,000 square foot threshold. Mr. Snyder noted commercial and residential properties would not enjoy the same opportunity to make themselves conditionally approved uses (from nonconforming status); the only facilities that could take advantage of this provision were churches, schools and public facilities. Councilmember Petso recalled there had been discussion at the last public hearing regarding whether middle schools should be treated like high schools or K-6/8 (primary). She noted that was not included in the proposed ordinance and asked if it was an option based on the information in the record such as a traffic study indicating higher traffic at middle schools and the larger size of middle schools. Mr. Snyder answered there was a legislative record to support it. Councilmember Petso recalled there was also discussion of establishing the height limits to that of the underlying zone. She said the proposed ordinance would allow up to 35 feet for gyms and auditoriums and 50 feet for church steeples. She urged the public to comment on the increased height limits. Councilmember Davis asked whether there was protection for neighborhoods without the 5-year review process. Mr. Chave explained the 5-year review was in response to a concern that facilities could grow without the City being aware of it. After reviewing the City's regulations, staff is confident there are numerous ways to learn of expansion including building permits, design review, citizen complaints, etc. During the subsequent review process, the City would have the ability to ensure the impacts were mitigated. Mr. Snyder explained a CUP and all but vested permits may be reviewed on the complaint of three neighbors or a determination of the Community Services Director. Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. He noted the City received a letter from the staff at Edmonds Elementary School expressing their concern with the financial implications of the proposed amendments and the impact the additional expense would have on school budgets. The letter requested the Council reject any code change that could potentially have an adverse effect on schools. The letter was signed by staff members of Edmonds Elementary School. Another letter was received from Bret Carlstad, Edmonds School District, summarizing the school district's concerns with the proposed amendments. In addition, an email was received from Teresa Wippel expressing concern about placing budgetary burdens on an already financially strained public school like Woodway Elementary. Marla Miller, 810 Hindley Lane, Edmonds, Administrator for Edmonds School District and parent of two Edmonds Elementary School students, expressed her support for a Community Development Code that was fair but supported the development of public school facilities. She said the school district and the City shared the desire to offer inviting open spaces and multidimensional education facilities to the community. She supported the staff change to the ordinance, which addressed her primary concern. She expressed concern regarding the recommended height limits for gymnasiums and encouraged the Council to offer the opportunity to build gymnasiums that could meet the needs of sports programs. She commended the City on the work that had been done over the past two years to revise the Code, noting the code was evolving in a manner that supported the work of the community and school district. She was confident the City and school district could work together to provide good facilities for schools in the community. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 6, 2001 Page 6 Jo Kish, 8925 — 229`h Place SW, Edmonds, parent of an Edmonds-Woodway High School student and Principal of Seaview Elementary, read a' letter from William Neville, Head Volleyball Coach, University of Washington that addressed the need for gymnasiums with a minimum height of 30 feet to accommodate a variety of sports and activities. Mr. Neville urged the Council to vote against restrictive building codes that would hamstring educational facilities, facilities that enhance the quality of life in Edmonds. Joy Ulskey, 18703 — 85`h Place W, Edmonds, parent of two Seaview Elementary School students and Vice -President of Seaview PTA, advised the PTA was opposed to the ordinance, particularly the height restrictions. John Heighway, 1130 — 4`h Avenue S, Edmonds, submitted written comments. He suggested the existing codes that addressed these issues be enforced. He suggested the City consult with King County who recently reviewed these same issues. He commented the review of 4-5 CUPs would be more expedient than encumbering the code with ill conceived amendments. He pointed out the costs associated with the proposed amendments, noting citizens wanted less expensive government. The City would be imposing additional costs to another tax based sector of the community, schools, and on churches who rely on donations. He proposed the City reimburse any cost generated to schools or churches as a result of the City -mandated CUP. He recommended an audit of the associated costs be presented to the public for review. He said the building heights in the ordinance were not realistic and recommended the City listen to comments from the schools that use the facilities. Gail Andre, 9702 Wharf Street, Edmonds, parent of an Edmonds Elementary student, commented she had intended to voice her concern regarding the CUP and was pleased that requirement had been removed from the ordinance. She asked that the height restriction be reconsidered as they were not viable for schools. Gordy Lindstrom, Calvary Chapel, Edmonds, expressed his appreciation to the Planning Board and City Council for listening to their concerns. He commented the difference between a neighborhood church (22,000 square feet) and community church was developed with assumptions, and 22,000 square feet was at the low end of the range and could have been higher. He supported staffs recommendation to remove the 5-year CUP review. He recalled a comment by Mr. Snyder that there may be other public facilities in addition to schools and churches that would be subject to the provisions of the ordinance. Diane Goodwin, 9519 235`h Street, Edmonds,' expressed her support for the Planning Board's recommendation and was in favor of the removal of the 5-year CUP review. She did not favor any requirements that took away resources from the school district or students. She questioned moving money from one tax base to another, commenting residents paid either way. She questioned the motives for the amendments, expressing concern that there appeared to be distrust of the school district. She noted the community appeared to be afraid that high schools would be located in their neighborhood, and was concerned that residents did not trust teens in the community. Gary Leonard, 21014 Woodlake Dr., Edmonds, parent of an elementary and a middle school student, supported the Edmonds School District and opposed any changes that would place restrictive and unnecessary financial burdens on the school district. As a recreational sports director at the University of Washington, he concurred with William Neville's comments regarding the height restrictions. He said restricting gymnasium heights was a disservice to students. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 6, 2001 Page 7 a Al Rutledge, 7101 Lake Ballinger Way, Edmonds, reported he attended Planning Board meetings as well as meetings in King County regarding schools and churches and recommended the City review King County's consideration of this issue. Jim Orvis, 23529 — 93rd Avenue W, Edmonds, said shortly after moving to Edmonds, he attended a school board meeting and Council meeting and understood why the City was concerned with how school and church property was used in the community. He pointed out the Council's responsibility was citizens and neighborhoods, which was not the school district's responsibility. He suggested the City consider setbacks to accommodate additional height for school auditoriums and gymnasiums. He said a 35-foot building height may be acceptable if the structure was setback toward the center of the property, avoiding substantial impact to the neighborhood. COUNCILMEMBER MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, TO EXTEND THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR 15 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Kevin Clarke, 23924 1071h Place W, Edmonds, supported staffs recommendation to eliminate the 5- year CUP review and increased height limits to 35 feet. He recommended the provision for transit in the ordinance be amended to allow more flexibility. He pointed out requiring a curb cutout at Edmonds Woodway High on 76th was not feasible and said allowing a transit stop on site, adjacent to, or across the street with an adequately lighted sidewalk would be an adequate solution. He supported the elimination of the "P" zone. He said the school district's capital facilities plan defined schools as elementary, middle and high schools; therefore, the City was creating new school definitions that conflicted with the school district's capital facilities plan. He suggested the school district be required to provide a security plan for all high schools located in a residential zone and that high schools be required to have closed campuses, recalling security was an -issue when a high school program was operated in a single family residential zone. He supported requiring a CUP for high schools. Doug Sheldon, 803 Bell Street, Edmonds, -parent, coach and member of Citizens Planning Committee (a group that meets monthly to address such issues as enrollment, facilities location, etc. and makes recommendations to the School Board), supported the elimination of the 5-year CUP review. As a basketball coach, he recommended the 35-foot gymnasium height be allowed. He suggested the City Council open methods of communication with the Edmonds School District via the Citizen Planning Committee or other avenues. Pat Johnson, 528 Pine Street, Edmonds, principal of Chase Lake Elementary, expressed her appreciation for the improvements made to the ordinance and encouraged the Council to support youth due to the importance of the community valuing youth. Randy Brockway, 22314 — 96th Avenue W, Edmonds, encouraged the Council to adopt the Planning Board's recommendation. As a parent of five children, he favored anything that increased and enhanced the sports activities of the school district. He said limiting gymnasium heights to 25 feet would severely restrict sports activities. Elaine Yard, 9209 Olympic View Drive, Edmonds, commented most communities throughout Washington allowed school gymnasiums higher than the height limits of residential areas and she supported allowing a 35-foot height limit for a gymnasium. She commented schools and church steeples became landmarks. She said Olympic Baptist Church and St. Peters By the Sea did not receive notification of this public hearing. She referred to the provision that required on -site parking lots be screened from residential properties with a solid wall or sight -obscuring fence not less than 6-feet in Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 6, 2001 Page 8 height, commenting a 6-foot wall around a parking lot may create an opportunity for vandalism, create a meeting area out of sight of the police, and possibly obscuring views. David Schaeffer, 518 — 61h Avenue S, Edmonds, parent of an Edmonds-Woodway High School student, and past Chair of Citizens for Schools (the group that supports school levy elections), expressed his appreciation for the Council's support of school levy elections and schools. He pointed out the importance of schools to residents in the community. He said Citizens for Schools encourages school administrators to make their facilities available to the community. It would be difficult to ask for support of school levies for a school district that was required to pay fees to another agency to continue their operation. He encouraged the Council to continue their support of schools and not place unnecessary burdens on the school district. Bret Carlstad, Edmonds School District, Director of Planning, Property, Risk, Safety and Custodial Services, noted a great deal of data collection, verification and dialogue was necessary to develop the proposed ordinance and although the ordinance was not perfect, it was felt by staff, Planning Board and the School District to be reasonable and rational. He referred to paragraph GI on page 18 of the ordinance, commenting primary schools with less than 600 students and 60,000 square feet should be a permitted use rather than require a CUP. He said the CUP for schools in excess of 600 and 60,000 square feet was reached via discussion and made sense, the temporary CUP did not. He urged the Council to adopt the Planning Board's draft of the ordinance and to consider the most recent information provided by the School District,'particularly with regard to gymnasium heights. He welcomed dialogue with the City regarding issues that affected the school district or issues of a general nature. COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DAVIS, TO EXTEND THIS ITEM FOR 15 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Pamela Krueger, Edmonds School District, spoke, in support of the Planning Board and staff recommendation. She referenced the School District's March 5 letter. She questioned the applicability of the CUP process to schools. She pointed out there was little guidance in the ordinance for staff to identify the first instance of a significant change in use and there were other provisions in the ECDC that allowed the City to consider impacts of schools, including the SEPA process. She pointed out the difficulty of determining what would constitute "a change in use" for a school. She commended the Planning Board and Council for considering and discussing the issues. Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, Edmonds, commented that he lived near a school zoned with the underlying zoning and supported that approach for all schools. Although he supported gymnasiums and other buildings associated with a school, he appreciated the community's ability to have knowledge and provide input on development that exceeded the height limit and had an effect on the surrounding neighborhood. He said the Council should not be afraid of a CUP because it provided protection to neighbors. He referred to the provision in the ordinance that stated, "high schools shall be permitted as a conditional use in all zones," questioning whether. high schools were allowed to be located in a residential zone. He referred to the statement in the ordinance that "local public facilities and schools that are planned, designated and sited in the capital improvement plan shall be allowed," commenting the school district should not be permitted to determine where schools would be sited in the City without an opportunity for a public review process. He supported a CUP for increased height for schools and church steeples. He commented the "P" zone allowed regional facilities to be located in that zone, pointing out the range of development possible once . a school property that was zoned "P" and was no longer necessary as a school site. He referred to the Council's discussion regarding the 3CH PAC committee and staff's statement regarding the "P" zone, "the existing height limit is 25 feet but under a "P" zone up to 60 feet was allowed. In those zones, some facilities may be 50-70 feet in height. You would have to Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 6, 2001 Page 9 rezone to Public use to get those heights." He recommended the CUP process be retained to allow a public process. Hearing no further comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public participation portion of the public hearing. Mr. Snyder addressed Councilmember Petso's comment regarding 17.100.050 (Local Public Facilities and Schools) and the addition of "and schools" in paragraph A. He said the addition was not part of the Planning Board's recommendation but was inserted to distinguish between local public facilities and schools. He agreed with Councilmember Petso that "and schools" should be deleted from paragraphs Al and A2. In response to Mr. Carlstad's comment regarding paragraph G1 on page 18 of the ordinance, Mr. Snyder agreed the paragraph should read, "Primary schools with a design capacity of not greater than 600 students and/or more than 60,000 square feet of floor area shall be permitted as a eenditienal permitted use in all zones. In response to the statement that high schools were permitted in all zones, Mr. Chave advised high schools were permitted with a CUP. He pointed out if gymnasiums and steeples were allowed to a certain height, there would still be a public review. via Architectural Design Board (ADB) review and potentially SEPA review which both trigger public notice and, in the case of ADB review, a public hearing. This would allow opportunity to modify the design based on concerns raised by the public. He was confident there were adequate safeguards in the City's regulations even without a CUP. Councilmember Orvis questioned when schools or churches under the threshold required a CUP. Mr. Snyder answered the two permitted categories were neighborhood churches (less than 22,000 square feet) and primary schools with less than 600 students and less than 60,000 square feet. Councilmember Orvis asked if churches would require a CUP. Mr. Snyder advised unless a church met location criteria (located on a collector or arterial), a CUP would be required. Councilmember Orvis read text from federal law, "no government shall impose or implement a land use regulation in a manner that treats a religious assembly or institution on less than equal ground than a non- religious assembly or institution" and asked Mr. Snyder to comment on the history of the law. Mr. Snyder answered this was passed recently by Congress and was consistent with state and federal decisions made for several years. Mr. Snyder advised the 22,000 square foot requirement for churches was based on traffic generation information as being equivalent to a 60,000 square foot elementary school. Councilmember Orvis asked whether it was a violation of federal law to require a church below 22,000 square feet to have a CUP and not require a school below 60,000 square feet to have a CUP. Mr. Snyder explained a church less then 22,000 square feet located on a collector or arterial did not need a CUP. A primary school of 60,000 square feet was also a permitted use and did not require a CUP. He explained a school of that size was deemed to be a neighborhood school with traffic impacts that would allow it to be located on a residential street without creating negative impacts to the neighborhood. Mr. Snyder said the legislative record established the threshold at which traffic impacts would occur. Councilmember Orvis posed the question, assuming a neighborhood church and elementary school had the same impacts, it appears the church would be required to obtain a CUP but the school would not. Mr. Chave explained both were ultimately permitted uses. Councilmember Orvis commented one would be required to pay for a CUP process while the other would not. Mr. Snyder advised the Council could choose to exempt a neighborhood church on a residential street from the CUP requirement. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 6, 2001 Page 10 Councilmember Orvis observed schools would be allowed to increase the height for an auditorium, gymnasium or pool but a church would only be allowed to increase height for a steeple or bell tower. He pointed out a church sanctuary was more comparable to the school auditorium or gymnasium. Mr. Snyder answered if the City denied a CUP for an equivalently sited church, the church may have grounds for a lawsuit. COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DAVIS, TO EXTEND THIS ITEM FOR 30 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Councilmember Plunkett asked if the staff recommendation would permit school gymnasiums, auditoriums and pools to 35 feet. Mr. Chave agreed. In response to Mr. Hertrich's comment regarding high schools in a residential area, Councilmember Plunkett asked if the high school would be required to be located a certain distance from an arterial. Mr. Chave answered yes. Councilmember Plunkett asked staff to respond to Mr. Clarke's suggestion to add language regarding a transit stop. Mr. Chave said he would not object to adding, "provide for at least one public transit stop," clarifying the school would need to provide a transit stop on or off site. He explained transit companies prefer a turnout. He said the provision did not require a transit stop be provided on site. Councilmember Plunkett asked whether Mr. Clarke's suggestion to add a section regarding security was appropriate. Mr. Chave answered security would not normally be addressed via land use. He was unsure how the City would mandate or police a security plan on school grounds. Councilmember Orvis commented it would be difficult to impact the height of a facility via the CUP process; his understanding was the CUP process would not impact the actual height, but only allow for relocation of the increased height. Mr. Chave said the intent of the CUP process was to allow the use but locate it in a manner that had minimal impact on the surrounding property. He agreed it would be difficult to deny a church request for a higher steeple; a different location could be sought, locate it on a lower elevation of the property away from view corridors, etc. If there were not opportunities to do that, the City would still have to identify a location on the site for the steeple. Councilmember Orvis said likewise for a church sanctuary in the BC zone where development was permitted to the property line and the building could not be moved, the facility would be allowed the increased height. Mr. Chave agreed. Councilmember Davis observed the Planning Board's recommendation required a setback for church steeples or bell towers of up to 50 feet but the increased height for school gymnasiums did not require a setback. He asked if a setback for the increased school height had been considered. Mr. Chave said there was more latitude for locating a steeple on a site and there was concern that requiring a gymnasium to be located in the center of the property would limit design flexibility. Allowing more flexibility and avoiding a setback requirement for school gymnasiums would allow the design review process to determine the best location. Councilmember Orvis asked if nonconforming churches or schools that exceeded the height limit would be allowed to rebuild. Mr. Snyder advised a facility would be allowed to be rebuilt if it were damaged less than 50% of its fair market value. If the building were completely destroyed and rebuilt, it must be rebuilt in compliance with the current height requirements. He said if the structure were torn down, it would also need to be rebuilt in compliance with the current height requirements. He explained the nonconforming provisions of the zoning code were intended to bring uses into conformance with code. Mr. Snyder suggested the following addition to paragraph E on page 15 of the ordinance to address Councilmember Orvis' concern regarding the height limitation for churches: "sanctuaries, auditoriums Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 6, 2001 Page 11 and other portions of a structure that serve as a place of religious assembly shall have a maximum building height of 35 feet." Mayor Haakenson remanded the matter to Council for action. Councilmember Petso suggested the Council consider a CUP for increased height to allow citizen input and avoid a wall adjacent to someone's backyard, but still get great athletic facilities and efficiently designed schools. She said this would be required only when a school or church was completely remodeled as the cost of obtaining a CUP for the portions of the building that exceeded the height limit would be lost in the cost of the school or church project. COUNCILMEMBER DAVIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MILLER, FOR APPROVAL OF THE STAFF RECOMMENDED ORDINANCE WITH THE CORRECTIONS OUTLINED BY CITY ATTORNEY SCOTT SNYDER. Councilmember Petso suggested the Council not approve the ordinance tonight, as it was not in a finished enough format due to the renumbering that was required, etc. Councilmember Plunkett suggested staff make the corrections to the ordinance provided by Mr. Snyder, Councilmembers provide amendments to staff, and hold another public hearing. Councilmember Miller urged the Council to consider voting on the ordinance tonight, noting the Planning Board held public hearings for two years and now the Council was revising the ordinance based on new input and disregarding the input the Planning Board took from citizens and the school district. He preferred the Council polish the ordinance rather than substantially revise it. He was hesitant to add more regulations, particularly when another governmental agency such as the school district was involved. He was not comfortable with regulating churches, particularly requiring CUPs for churches. He said the input provided to the Planning Board and the Council indicated the proposed ordinance was acceptable to churches in the City. Councilmember Davis did not support holding another public hearing as there had been adequate opportunity for input. He supported moving forward with the ordinance as the staff recommendation addressed his main concern, the 5-year CUP review. Councilmember Plunkett expressed concern the amendments suggested had been vague. He suggested the ordinance be redrafted and returned to the Council for review without an additional public hearing. Councilmember Orvis preferred to submit amendments to staff and review the ordinance again at a future Council meeting. COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, TO TABLE THIS ITEM. COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS WITHDREW HIS MOTION. COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, TO AMEND STAFF'S RECOMMENDED ORDINANCE TO ADD THE FOLLOWING TO PARAGRAPH I OF SECTION 17.100.050: "HEIGHTS ARE ALLOWED TO 35 FEET FOR AUDITORIUMS, POOLS AND GYMNASIUMS WITH A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT." MOTION CARRIED, COUNCILMEMBERS MILLER AND DAVIS OPPOSED. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 6, 2001 Page 12 s Councilmember Orvis stated he was opposed to increasing the height limit for churches and schools. COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, TO AMEND THE ORDINANCE TO REQUIRE NEW SCHOOLS AND CHURCHES TO CONFORM TO THE HEIGHT LIMIT OF THE UNDERLYING ZONE WITH THE EXCEPTION THAT EXISTING USES MAY BE REBUILT TO THE ORIGINAL HEIGHT. Councilmember Orvis explained all buildings were required to adhere to height limits due to the importance of avoiding view blockage. He said his amendment would provide sufficient flexibility for the school district to accomplish its needs and would hold government to the same standards required of citizens. He said the portion of his motion that allowed existing buildings to be rebuilt was intended to protect high school gymnasiums that were currently above the height limit. He said his research revealed several nice 25-foot high gymnasiums. He pointed out if a height of over 25 feet was necessary, the school district could apply for a rezone to allow additional height. He said the use of slopes could also increase the height of a facility. He said if a school. was allowed an exception to the height requirement for a gymnasium or auditorium, the same must be allowed for a church sanctuary. He questioned why additional height would be allowed for a school or gymnasium when it was not allowed for a home and said to raise height limits for schools and churches would likely result in raising heights throughout the City. Councilmember Petso recalled public testimony indicated there was a need to make an exception for gymnasiums to provide recreational facilities and said a different standard may be appropriate. Councilmember Davis referred to an earlier suggestion that the school district could excavate to achieve sufficient gymnasium height and quoted from a letter from Bret Carlstad, Edmonds School District, regarding the estimated cost of excavating 3 feet, "assuming the burying of the gym by 3 feet did not involve issues of ground water or other geotechnical or design issues, this action would be expected to add up to $75,000." Councilmember Davis recalled testimony tonight indicated residents did not want to add significant cost to the education system. Although he appreciated the spirit of Councilmember Orvis' amendment, Councilmember Miller commented a gymnasium of less than 35 feet defied common sense. In the case of steeples, they become landmarks and beacons in the community that he did not want to interfere with. MOTION FAILED (1-5), COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS IN FAVOR, COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING, AND COUNCILMEMBERS MILLER, PETSO, DAVIS, PLUNKETT, AND MARIN OPPOSED. COUNCILMEMBER DAVIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, TO EXTEND DELIBERATION OF THIS ITEM FOR 15 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING, TO AMEND THE ORDINANCE TO PERMIT CHURCH STEEPLES UP TO 50 FEET IN HEIGHT WITH A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. MOTION CARRIED (5-2), COUNCILMEMBERS MILLER AND DAVIS OPPOSED. COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, TO AMEND THE ORDINANCE TO EXEMPT SMALL NEIGHBORHOOD CHURCHES (UNDER 22,000 SQUARE FEET) FROM THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PROCESS. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 6, 2001 Page 13 Councilmember Orvis explained the intent of the amendment was to comply with federal law and to _ assist small churches with avoiding an expensive CUP process. Councilmember Petso supported the Planning Board and staff's recommendation, noting when a church was located in a residential area, the neighbors were entitled to the higher protection provided by the CUP. Council President Earling acknowledged that although small churches often struggle financially, it was necessary to ensure the church met the City's standards. Councilmember Orvis commented there was already a difference between schools and churches based on the traffic impacts. He pointed out the threshold difference between churches (22,000 square feet) and schools (60,000 square feet) which, according to staff, were equivalent. MOTION FAILED (2-5), COUNCILMEMBERS ORVIS AND PLUNKETT IN FAVOR, COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING, AND COUNCILMEMBERS MILLER, PETSO, DAVIS, AND MARIN OPPOSED. COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED TO AMEND THE ORDINANCE SO THAT SECTION 17.100.050(0) READS, "TRANSIT. HIGH SCHOOLS SHALL PROVIDE FOR AT LEAST ONE PUBLIC TRANSIT STOP OR STATION. THE TRANSIT STOP OR STATION SHALL INCLUDE, IF FEASIBLE, A TURNOUT OF SUITABLE SIZE AND LOCATION TO ACCOMMODATE THE PUBLIC." MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, TO AMEND THE ORDINANCE SO THAT SECTION 17.100.050(0) READS, TRANSIT. HIGH SCHOOLS SHALL PROVIDE FOR AT LEAST ONE PUBLIC TRANSIT STOP OR STATION ON SITE, ADJACENT TO OR IMMEDIATELY ACROSS THE STREET. THE TRANSIT STOP OR STATION SHALL INCLUDE A TURNOUT OF SUITABLE SIZE AND LOCATION TO ACCOMMODATE THE PUBLIC." Councilmember Miller spoke in opposition to the motion as it did not address the safety issue of students crossing the street. Council President Earling indicated he could not support the amendment as the intent of transit stops was to provide a safe venue for students to board buses and this was not assured if students were required to cross the street. He said the Planning Board and school district were agreeable to the language in the ordinance. Councilmember Davis indicated he would not support the amendment due to the safety issue and because the existing language had been agreed to by the Planning Board. Councilmember Plunkett commented the reason information regarding safety was not available was because the Council was being forced to write legislation in a haphazard manner. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (3-4), COUNCILMEMBERS ORVIS, PETSO, AND PLUNKETT IN FAVOR, COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING, AND COUNCILMEMBERS MILLER, MARIN, AND DAVIS OPPOSED. Mr. Snyder suggested the Council adopt the ordinance subject to final approval of the revised ordinance on the Consent Agenda. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 6, 2001 Page 14 THE VOTE ON THE MAIN MOTION: STAFF RECOMMENDED ORDINANCE, WITH THE CORRECTIONS OUTLINED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY AND TWO AMENDMENTS (HEIGHTS UP TO 35 FEET FOR SCHOOLS AND HEIGHTS UP TO 50 FEET FOR CHURCHES WITH A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT). MOTION CARRIED (6-1); COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS OPPOSED. Mayor Haakenson declared a brief recess. nexation 5. APPROVAL OF ANNEXATION AGREEMENT WITH SNO-ISLE REGIONAL LIBRARY greement— SYSTEM Sno-Isle ibrary COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, TO EXTEND THE MEETING PAST 10:00 P.M. MOTION CARRIED. (Councilmember Plunkett and Council President Earling were not present for the vote.) Administrative Services Director Peggy Hetzler recalled in January 2001 the Council passed a resolution placing the issue of whether to annex into the Sno-Isle Regional Library System on the ballot. The next step was to approve an annexation agreement with Sno-Isle. The agreement in the Council packet is the agreement the Sno-Isle Board adopted at their last meeting. She said City Attorney Scott Snyder distributed a revised annexation agreement this evening that clarified some ambiguous language and revised the indemnity section. The annexation agreement before the Council was the same agreement Sno-Isle has with the other cities annexed to their system. One major difference for the City of Edmonds is Sno-Isle has agreed to contribute a maximum of $300,000 toward the cost of the library roof replacement. Ms. Hetzler said the agreement identifies the City's obligations and the Sno-Isle District's obligations. The City will continue to own the building and provide the building to Sno-Isle at no cost. The City will continue to do maintenance and repairs including necessary interior improvements. Sno-Isle will own the fixtures and its periodicals. Sno-Isle is also agreeable to some responsibility for interior improvements such as painting and carpeting. She emphasized the agreement reflected the same level of service Sno- Isle was currently providing the City and incorporated the addition of Sno-Isle's contribution toward the library roof replacement. Ms. Hetzler acknowledged Exhibits A and B to the agreement were missing from the packet. She explained Exhibit A was a description of the area of the building occupied by Sno-Isle. She explained there was no proposal for Sno-Isle to occupy any more or less than they presently occupy. Exhibit B outlines Sno-Isle's access through common areas. She commented the Sno-Isle Board approved the agreement with the understanding Exhibits A and B would be provided. Council President Earling asked if the agreement had any term. Ms. Hetzler answered unless by an act of God or a vote of the public, the annexation would be in place permanently. She said if the annexation vote was not successful, the annexation agreement was null. Council President Earling questioned whether there would be any opportunity to review the terms of the agreement if the annexation were approved. Ms. Hetzler explained the agreement allowed renegotiation with Sno-Isle in the event of a catastrophe. Mr. Snyder said the revisions to the agreement were reviewed with the Sno-Isle Library District Director Art Weeks and the District's Counsel. He explained the agreement addressed what would occur if the facility became outdated and vested the determination of where the library would be housed with the Council. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 6, 2001 Page 15 Council President Earling clarified any capital expenditure outside the library space was the City's responsibility. He recalled there had been discussions regarding other improvements that may be required such as the kitchen. Ms. Hetzler stated the kitchen was a separate issue that Sno-Isle had already agreed to take care of. She said attempts to negotiate an ongoing contribution from Sno-Isle toward capital improvements had been unsuccessful; therefore, the agreement includes only the 50% contribution on the roof replacement. Council President Earling asked if this would obligate Sno-Isle to pay $300,000 in 50 years when another roof replacement was necessary. Ms. Hetzler answered no, it was a one-time contribution. Mr. Snyder explained the statute required the City to maintain a library board. The District would make requests of the library board, the library board would make recommendations to the City Council during the budget process, and the City Council would determine necessary repairs. Council President Earling asked where in the annexation agreement it was stated Sno-Isle would take care of the carpeting and painting. Mr. Snyder referred to Section 3.1, Obligations of the City, and answered those items were the City's obligation. Ms. Hetzler said Sno-Isle Library District Director Art Weeks just informed her that although the City had been negotiating with Sno-Isle regarding the interior improvements (painting and carpeting) the Sno-Isle Board did not agree to it. Mayor Haakenson said the painting and carpet replacement was one of the deals he had insisted upon and urged Mr. Weeks to return to the Board to negotiate those items. Mr. Weeks said Sno-Isle agreed to fund any future replacement of furnishings but he was unable to convince them to fund painting or carpet. Mayor Haakenson urged the Council to add painting and carpet to the annexation agreement and return it to the Sno-Isle Board. Art Kirschenbaum, 700 81h Avenue S, Edmonds, Sno-Isle Library Boardmember, stressed the annexation agreement was similar to the agreements with all other annexed cities. The Board felt Sno- Isle could not take on an obligation specifically unique to Edmonds without other annexed cities making the same request. He said the annexation agreement represented a generous and fair offer to the City. Councilmember Petso asked why the library quarters, as described in Exhibits A and B, were only replaceable in the event of a natural disaster and the clause regarding flexibility did not apply to a desire to move the library to another facility. Mr. Snyder said the intent was to allow the Council to determine when, where and how the library facilities were housed in the event of a disaster. Councilmember Petso commented the Council appeared only to be able to determine where the facility would be located in the event of an earthquake or other natural disaster. Mr. Snyder said the City provided the current facilities; if the current facilities were destroyed suddenly, the parties would meet and renegotiate. If reasonable use becomes an issue, it could be planned for via the annual budget process. Councilmember Petso asked if the only reason the library could be moved was if it were destroyed. Mr. Snyder said the library would remain in its present location unless destroyed or the useful life was exceeded. Councilmember Petso observed if the City wanted the ability to move the library, it would need to be added to the agreement. Councilmember Petso pointed out the minutes of the Finance Committee meeting referred to summer library hours, enhanced adult library services, etc. and asked if that was still being considered. Ms. Hetzler said Sno-Isle planned to provide enhanced services but the annexation agreement was not the appropriate place to address those issues. Sno-Isle Library District Director Art Weeks pledged that the library would be open Sunday hours, and that Sno-Isle would enhance the collection and programs in a manner that would be defined as the Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 6, 2001 Page 16 I� process unfolded. He said that was important to show Sno-Isle's commitment to Edmonds now and in the future. He said the intent was for the annexation agreement between Edmonds and Sno-Isle to mirror agreements with other cities and those agreements did not address hours, etc. He emphasized the library would be open Sunday hours year round upon successful conclusion of the annexation process. Councilmember Petso asked if the library would be open Sunday hours year-round if annexation was not successful. Mr. Weeks answered it would be difficult without annexation because funds would not be available to enable that to occur. Council President Earling observed there had been some miscommunication as evidenced by Ms. Hetzler's understanding that painting and carpet was part of the annexation agreement although it appeared that Sno-Isle was not agreeable to that. COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, TO TABLE THE ANNEXATION AGREEMENT TO A FUTURE MEETING WHEN THE PARTIES HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO STRAIGHTEN OUT THE AGREEMENT. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Ord #3349 6. ORDINANCE NO. 3349 CALLING FOR AN ELECTION AND SPECIFYING A BALLOT TITLE Calling for IN THE ANNEXATION OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS TO THE SNO-ISLE LIBRARY DISTRICT an Election/ allot Title/ Annexation City Attorney Scott Snyder advised the Council had previously called an election; the proposed o Sno-Isle ordinance specified the ballot title for annexation of the City of Edmonds to the Sno-Isle Library District. Library District Councilmember Petso inquired what type of election this would be, a mail -in or a regular election with polling places. Ms. Hetzler advised unless Snohomish County received another ballot measure, it was the City's decision whether to have a regular election with polling places and permanent absentees. Councilmember Petso asked if there would be a voters' pamphlet. City Clerk Sandy Chase explained a voters' pamphlet was only produced for the primary and general elections. Councilmember Petso observed the only information voters had would be the ballot title. Councilmember Orvis asked whether the wording was dictated by State law. Mr. Snyder answered yes. COUNCILMEMBER MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING, FOR ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO.3349. For the benefit of the audience Councilmember Petso read the ballot measure, "Shall the City of Edmonds be annexed to and be part of the Sno-Isle Library District?" She explained for those who had not been following the issue, the natural reaction might be, why not and vote yes. She said a contrary ballot measure might state, "Shall the City of Edmonds pay $500,000 more for essentially the same library services we're already getting." She said this would just as prejudicially produce a no vote. She proposed the ballot title be amended to indicate this is a tax proposal. She pointed out that in fact this is one of the biggest tax proposals the citizens had ever been asked to pay. COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED TO AMEND THE BALLOT TITLE TO READ, "SHALL THE CITIZENS OF EDMONDS PAY A NEW TAX OF $0.50 PER $1,000 OF ASSESSED VALUATION PER YEAR IN ORDER TO BE ANNEXED TO AND BE PART OF THE SNO-ISLE LIBRARY DISTRICT. MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 6, 2001 Page 17 Councilmember Petso said the amended ballot title was a compromise and would not artificially sway voters one way or another and may actually determine how the voters feel about annexation. Mr. Snyder advised the State statute shows exactly what can be on the ballot. Councilmember Petso asked whether the City had the ability to provide a voter's pamphlet or amend the ballot title so that it reflected the proposition voters were being asked to vote on. Mr. Snyder said the City could appropriate funds for informational handouts as long as they did not promote or oppose the ballot issue. MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER PETSO OPPOSED. Mayor Haakenson offered to moderate a Town Meeting with proponents and opponents of the library annexation issue. Councilmember Petso preferred information that could be mailed to voters. Reso #995 7. RESOLUTION NO. 995 EXPRESSING THE SUPPORT OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY Support of OF EDMONDS FOR PASSAGE OF A BALLOT MEASURE ANNEXING THE CITY OF Passage of Ballot EDMONDS TO THE SNO-ISLE LIBRARY DISTRICT Measure — nexing to Councilmember Petso said when the annexation issue was placed on the ballot, the intent was to allow Sno-Isle Library the voters an opportunity to make a decision. She said the proposed resolution went beyond simply allowing the voters to make a decision by telling the voters that they should approve annexation. She preferred the Council refrain from taking a position on the ballot issue and, if the Council took a position, it should be to oppose annexation on the grounds it would cost citizens over $500,000 more per year for essentially the same library service they already receive. Further, it would produce a windfall to Sno-Isle of over $500,000 per year at the expense of the City's taxpayers. She acknowledged Sno-Isle was returning $300,000 for the library roof replacement. Councilmember Petso requested the Council consider a Levy Lid Lift as a method of securing library funding at the same cost and service levels. She said annexation, under the terms provided, was not equitable as Sno-Isle indicated recently that Edmonds residents consumed approximately 9% of Sno-Isle services and paid only 8% of Sno-Isle's costs. However, under annexation at $0.50 per $1,000 of assessed valuation, the contribution to Sno-Isle increased from $1.1 million to $1.6 million and the City would no longer be paying approximately what its residents consumed but would be paying more. She urged the Council not to take a position on this ballot initiative and to allow citizens to make a decision at the ballot box as had been intended. If the Council wished to take a position, she urged them to oppose annexation on the grounds it would costs citizens too much money. Councilmember Miller preferred to hear public comment prior to taking a position or choosing neutrality. - He said that Councilmember Petso's comments regarding how the Council reached a decision regarding over the past 1'/z years was a distortion of the record. He encouraged citizens with questions to call him or Mayor Haakenson. Councilmember Petso pointed out the Council did not take a position on any other ballot issue. If the Council insisted on taking a position, she preferred opposition. She said when an initiative was placed before the voters, the voters should be allowed to make a decision, particularly when it was the Council who placed the issue on the ballot. Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of this item. He advised an email was received from Janice Freeman, 622 7th Avenue S, Edmonds and a letter from Laurie J. Dresler, 15714 — 75`h Place W, Edmonds, expressing support for the proposed resolution. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 6, 2001 Page 18 John Pryor, 515 Homeland Drive, Edmonds, a card carrying member of Sno-Isle, urged the Council to support annexation. He said this issue concerned all members of the community and he felt it was in the City's best interest to support annexation. He pointed out annexation was a method of securing a dedicated funding base for the library for the future. He pointed out there was a cap on the levy amount ($0.50 per $1,000), remarking the levy amount would be $0.487 and only raised to $0.50 over time. He said it was clear the rate that Sno-Isle charged the City now was unlikely to continue into the future. He urged the Council to promote annexation as a way to keep the library funded. John Quast, 15714 75rh Place W., Edmonds, recalled the opportunities libraries opened to him as a child. He said the library had a direct impact on children's education and the quality of life for residents, particularly the elderly. After reviewing the City's budget, he questioned how funding for the library and other items would be identified. He requested the Council show its support for a stable and healthy library system by approving this resolution expressing support for annexation to Sno-Isle. Peggy Olson, 18005 Talbot Road, Edmonds, a member of the Library Board for over ten years pointed out the importance of providing stability to library funding to avoid the very real possibility of a continued search for library funding as the contract amount continued to increase. She said annexation provided a stable funding source for the library. Deanna Dawson, 1015 12th Avenue N, Edmonds, said although the library was central to the City and she supported the library, it was important to consider the library annexation proposal for what it was. She said the proposed annexation was both fiscally irresponsible and intellectually dishonest. She explained it was fiscally irresponsible because it cost taxpayers an additional $1.6 million in taxes per year. She said it was also fiscally irresponsible because, if approved, it would result in taxpayers paying over $500,000 more per year for the services already being provided. She said the proposal was intellectually dishonest because the City's budget woes had nothing to do with the library. She said the proposal was also dishonest because the library was not in any danger as Councilmembers have repeatedly stated they want to protect the library. She felt this was a scare tactic designed to get residents to agree to pay higher taxes without calling it a tax increase. She stressed the need for residents to be aware of tax increases when making a decision regarding this ballot measure. She commented if the ballot measure failed,. perhaps the appropriate way to support the library was not via the annexation measure in May but in November by voting in Councilmembers who supported the library. She asked Councilmembers to make their position clear whether they would vote to cut the library out of the budget if annexation failed. George Everett, 617 Dayton Street, Edmonds, referred to the Mayor's column in the Edmonds Beacon entitled "Library's Fate Depends on Tough Financial Decisions." He said the title could have easily been "City's Fate Depends on Tough Financial Decisions" because the City had a problem with finances that could be eased by annexing into Sno-Isle and freeing up funds in the General Fund that are designated for the library. He acknowledged the bad news was that a hefty property tax increase was required; the good news was it solved the City's financial problems and took care of the library funding forever. He supported annexation to help the City out, primarily because the library was also involved. Mim Edelsteen, 8520 240'h Street SW, Edmonds, urged the Council to support annexation, noting it was one of the features that made Edmonds a wonderful community. She said annexation would ensure the library's financial stability while freeing up funds for the City. Tom Mayer, 300 12`h Avenue W, Edmonds, supported annexation to the Sno-Isle Regional Library District and urged the Council to support the resolution. He said among the benefits of annexation were Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 6, 2001 Page 19 stable and secure long term funding for the library and it ensured high quality library services would be provided by Sno-Isle. He said annexation also guaranteed a portion of residents' property tax revenue would be dedicated to library use only so that in the future, when new budget problems arise or political winds shift, citizens did not have to fight to save the library. He said while annexation would relieve the City's current budget shortage, it would also enable the City to continue to offer the current library services. He was aware annexation would result in increased taxes but because he valued the services he received from the City including library, police, fire, etc., he was willing to pay additional taxes. He thanked the Council for placing annexation on the ballot and urged them to take the next step of endorsing annexation. Jeanne Thorsen, 300 12th Avenue W, Edmonds, recalled childhood experiences at the library and said she has been a user and lover of libraries ever since. She valued library service in the community and appreciated the array of services provided by Sno-Isle. She was willing to pay more taxes to fund the library and to maintain other valuable City services. She encouraged the Council to support the resolution because annexation to Sno-Isle was the best answer to ensuring long-term, stable funding for the Edmonds library. Betty Mueller, 209 Caspers Street, Edmonds, said all citizens were friends of the library, recalling voters in Edmonds supported a number of library bond issues in the past. She commented the current assessment of $0.36 per $1,000 of assessed value generated $1.1 million to fund the library contract. She said there were sufficient funds for this year and beyond, commenting a 6% property tax increase could be instituted if necessary and utility taxes could be used to cover the cost. She said citizens were being pushed to annex to Sno-Isle who charged $0.50 per $1,000 which would generate $500,000 more. She questioned why citizens would want to pay $500,000 more for the same services. She said the $0.36 per $1,000 being collected now and the $0.50.per $1,000 collected by Sno-Isle represented a $0.86 per $1,000 tax, which she felt was double taxation. She acknowledged the City wanted a library and believed the City would retain its library regardless. She said it had been mentioned that in order to retain the library, cuts to police and fire would be required; she said residents would not permit that. She opposed annexation. Jerry Bartlett, 236 12th Avenue N, Edmonds, spoke in favor of annexation to ensure funding for the library was secure in the future. Vern Chase, 1105 Daley Place, Edmonds, was aware library annexation would increase his taxes. He explained the City's library was a wonderful community asset with something for every age and citizens must give it stability and protect it. He supported annexation. Barbara Chase, 1105 Daley Place, Edmonds, spoke in support of the library. She did not want the future to require the library to compete for funding with other important City services such as police, fire, recreation, building upkeep, roads, etc. She said Sno-Isle provided excellent service and their costs were reasonable. She recommended the Council support annexation to keep Edmonds the great place it was now. Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, Edmonds, agreed the City needed a library. He commented the Council was shifting the responsibility to a tax district because the Council was afraid to deal with the budget including increasing taxes to fund services. He expressed concern that the citizens would have no voice at the Sno-Isle Library District Board. He said those who spoke against annexation tonight were not against the library but against the way the Council handled its budget process including creating what was essentially a double taxation. He said the cost to each citizen needed to equate to the amount of Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 6, 2001 Page 20 service provided. He recommended the Council stay out of the issue by not expressing support for annexation. Art Kirschenbaum, 700 8`h Avenue S, Edmonds, Sno-Isle Library Boardmember, advised the Sno- Isle Board met the fourth Monday of every month at the Service Center in Marysville. Meetings are open to the public and he encouraged City government and/or citizens to provide input. Al Rutledge, 7101 Lake Ballinger Way, Edmonds, commented on computers now available to students at the library. He noted the $300,000 contribution from Sno-Isle for the library roof replacement would require a matching amount from the City. He suggested the City hold a Town meeting regarding annexation. Ted Bartlett, 236 121h Avenue N, Edmonds, a senior at Edmonds-Woodway High School, said he planned to return to Edmonds after college to raise his family and wanted the library to be around for his children to use. He commented on research he has done at the Edmonds library. He did not want his children to stand before the Council in 25-30 years seeking annexation. Elaine Yard, 9209 Olympic View Drive, Edmonds, said the wording of the ballot was a misdirection of the voting public because it misled the public to believe annexation was all that was entailed when the City actually had other budgetary problems. She said purposeful misdirection did not provide the focus or foundation for children's lives, leading them to believe if government could do it, they could do it too. She commented on her involvement with library funding in other areas in the past. If the Council was not able to provide the facts regarding the amount of funds that were necessary to maintain the library, she said the City did not have a good representative government. Beverly Kauffman, 9914 226`h Place SW, Edmonds, a member of the Edmonds Library for five years and a Treasurer in the past for the Friends of the Library, spoke'in favor of annexation to provide a stable funding source for the library. She pointed out annexation cost $0.487 per $1,000, not $0.50. Linda Hughes, 18105 808`h Avenue W, Edmonds, supported annexation, commenting the library was one of the things that made it an Edmonds kind of day for her. She did not want the library used as a political football and urged the Council to support the resolution. Bill Dalziel, 310 6`h Avenue, Edmonds, Boys and Girls Club, said every day he had the opportunity to take 30 youth from the ages of 5-12 to the library to do research and homework. On behalf of the Boys and Girls Club, he supported the library. He displayed a card the children made thanking the Library. Hearing no further public comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public participation portion of this item. COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DAVIS, TO EXTEND THIS ITEM FOR TEN MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Councilmember Petso asked the amount of the levy. Administrative Services Director Peggy Hetzler answered $0.50 was the cap, the amount currently charged was $0.487. Mayor Haakenson remanded the matter to Council. Councilmember Petso commented the public testimony in favor of annexation was based on a fear factor that Council would not do the right thing. She indicated she was committed to the library and if Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 6, 2001 Page 21 annexation failed, she would identify funds to pay the library contract. She said it would likely require the use of unanticipated utility tax revenue generated by increased utility rates, a tax increase, and the use of some of the City's reserves. She favored funding the library contract for another year while more favorable funding options such as a Levy Lid Lift were explored. She referred to Ms. Edelsteen's comment that she wanted to ensure the financial stability of the library and free up funds for the City. Councilmember Petso agreed annexation could free up approximately $1.1 million but a dedicated permanent Levy Lid Lift could also achieve those objectives. She said the difference was, with annexation, citizens were charged an additional $500,000 that was collected by Sno-Isle. She said if citizens were asked to provide a windfall of approximately $500,000 to Sno-Isle, those were funds the City could not use for police, fire, parks, or other items citizens wanted. She reiterated it was improper for the Council to take a position on annexation and preferred it be left in the hands of the voters. Councilmember Plunkett observed the City's library contract with Sno-Isle was $1.1 million and via annexation, $1.6 million would be collected. He pointed out the City's contract with Sno-Isle would continue to increase in the future. If the City continued to contract with Sno-Isle, the cost would likely reach $1.6 million in future years. He explained the City's operating budget was approximately $22 million; $11 million funded police, fire and paramedics, $1 million funded water and sewer costs, ESA requires continued funding, $2 million was required for interlocal government funds, a total of $14 million to fund non -discretionary items, leaving 40% of the budget to fund everything else. If annexation failed, he said the $14 million may also have to fund the library. Councilmember Plunkett pointed out the unanticipated utility taxes the City received may or may not be available in the future as every lawmaker in the area was working to reduce utility rates. He stressed the City could not count on the windfall created by increased utility taxes to fund the library. He supported annexation as a private citizen and as a Councilmember because annexation would stabilize the library funding. Councilmember Petso asked Councilmember Plunkett if he was willing to make the commitment Ms. Dawson requested (to fund the library in 2002 if the annexation vote failed). Councilmember Plunkett said he would cross that bridge if and when it was reached. Councilmember Miller reminded the public that 1'/z years ago, the passage of I-695 resulted in a revenue reduction for the City of over $1 million. As a result, budget cuts were required in all City departments including public safety. As a result of other revenues, the City was able to develop a "treadwater" budget for 2001 but continued to be faced with funding the library each year along with other services. He noted if the library continued to be funded from the General Fund, it would be reviewed for level of service reductions just as any other service in the City. He said the ability to annex to the Sno-Isle Library District provided a stable funding source for the library, removed the library from annual budget discussions and allowed the Council to fund vital services from the General Fund. He was committed on a personal level and as a Councilmember to annexation into the Sno-Isle Library District. COUNCILMEMBER MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO.995 AS PROPOSED. Council President Earling expressed disappointment in some of the comments made tonight, that the Council was trying to strike fear in the heart of Edmonds citizens and was being disingenuous. He expressed concern that a colleague on the Council felt those who testified in favor of annexation were disingenuous. He said the issue was not stabilizing the library funding or the City's budget problems, but the quality of life and the expectation of the citizens. He said the citizens have the expectation that the library should exist and said discussions should not center on whether the funding is stable for one or two Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 6, 2001 Page 22 years but what the library system will be like in 20 years. He encouraged the Council to look beyond funding the library this year or next year and create a long-term vision for the City to ensure future generations had an Edmonds they could be proud of. Councilmember Marin spoke in favor of the motion. He commented on funding problems created throughout the State as a result of I-695 and the opportunity created by annexation to Sno-Isle to stabilize the budget for the entire City. He expected the Library Board to ensure the Edmonds library received service from Sno-Isle commensurate with the revenue collected via annexation. Councilmember Orvis said he planned to abstain from the vote because when he voted in favor of placing annexation on the ballot, he did so to provide the public a choice and he did not want to influence their choice. He acknowledged annexation stabilized the library by providing a permanent funding solution and said it was appropriate for Sno-Isle to request the increased amount based on the City's circulation. However, he had concerns with the funding and how much the City should assist the voters in offsetting the cost of annexation. Councilmember Davis supported the motion for a number of reasons. He said this was not a double tax although he agreed it was an additional tax and potentially a large tax. However, it would allow the City to use the funds currently used to pay the library contract to stabilize funding for the rest of the City. He supported looking toward the future to ensure the library was funded for future generations. If he were to be judged in future elections on this issue, he would be judged on ensuring the vote he cast on the Council and on the ballot was in support of the library. Mayor Haakenson read the text of the Resolution into the record. MOTION CARRIED (5-2-0) COUNCILMEMBERS ORVIS AND PETSO ABSTAINING. The resolution adopted is as follows: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, EXPRESSING THE SUPPORT OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS FOR PASSAGE OF A BALLOT MEASURE AND ANNEXING THE CITY OF EDMONDS TO THE SNO-ISLE LIBRARY DISTRICT. Council President Earling explained in the past when the Councilmembers abstained from a vote, it had historically been because of lack of information and in those circumstances an abstention was understandable. City Attorney Scott Snyder said Roberts Rules of Order allowed a Council to provide a reason for their abstention. He commented an abstention counted in the affirmative if necessary to reach a super majority. Councilmember Petso said she abstained from the vote because the Council voted to put this measure before the public and she wanted it left there. If allowable, she would abstain from all future Council propositions to oppose or support any other ballot measure. She reiterated the voters should be allowed to decide and she did not want to adopt a Council directive on the issue. 8. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Al Rutledge, 7101 Lake Ballinger Way, Edmonds, commented Mayor Haakenson did an excellent job following the recent earthquake. Mr. Rutledge reported the speed bumps on Olympic View Drive were removed during snow removal and staff has advised they will not be replaced. He suggested holding a Town Meeting regarding the library. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 6, 2001 Page 23 Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, Edmonds, expressed his appreciation for the correction the Council made to the February 27 minutes. He referred to his comment regarding credentials and asked if there had been any attempt to determine whether the person the City was dealing with was the property owner with final authority. Elaine Yard, 9209 Olympic View Drive, Edmonds, requested the City remove a white flocked Christmas tree that was left on Olympic View Drive two blocks north of Andover on the right side. Ord #3350 9. ORDINANCE NO. 3350 ENTITLED "EDMONDS FIRE DEPARTMENT PROVISION OF Fire Dept. EMERGENCY SERVICES," AMENDING CITY CODE TITLE 6 Provision of Emergency Fire Chief Tom Tomberg said since mid-2000, the City Attorney and fire staff have been engaged in Services discussions regarding the Fire Department's duty to respond to emergency incidents. The issue surfaces most often in the context of liability protection and defense of claims created when the Fire Department's response does not produce the outcome an individual citizen may wish. By clarifying that the Department's emergency duty to respond is to the general public and not to any individual via the proposed ordinance, the City adopts a liability firewall during the delivery of emergency services. City Attorney Scott Snyder explained Fire Districts and certain classes of cities have clear statements in their statutes. Edmonds as a Code City had the powers that all other cities had but there was no clear statement regarding duty to respond to emergency incidents. He emphasized the City was not seeking to avoid a duty the City owed, but to establish a clear statement of the Fire Department duties. COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MILLER, FOR ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO. 3350. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The ordinance approved is as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING A NEW CHAPTER 6.65 EDMONDS FIRE DEPARTMENT: PROVISION OF EMERGENCY SERVICE AND OTHER FIRE PROTECTION SERVICES, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. 10. MAYOR'S REPORT arthquake IMayor Haakenson reported City staff performed admirably following the February 28 earthquake, setting up a command post immediately, inspecting City buildings within two hours, the Fire Chief touring the City, and meeting to discuss how to better respond in the future. He said the City sustained little or no damage and no injuries. 11. COUNCIL REPORTS Councilmember Plunkett suggested Councilmembers who directly and unnecessarily challenge other Councilmembers in a public meeting to make a declaration on a hypothetical budget issue be willing to vote on important Council business. Councilmember Marin complimented staff, Planning Board, and the City Attorney on the language in the Community Facilities Ordinance. Councilmember Petso apologized for challenging Councilmember Plunkett, stating her intent was to determine whether the Council could make the commitment requested under public comment. When it Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 6, 2001 Page 24 was clear from Councilmember Plunkett's response to her question that the Council was not interested in making that commitment, she refrained from asking other Councilmembers. She apologized if this resulted in any difficulty for him. Councilmember Petso also thanked whoever was responsible for her receiving a press release shortly after the earthquake summarizing the situation. With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 11:32 p.m. SANDRA S. CHASE, CITY CLERK Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 6, 2001 Page 25 AGENDA EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex 250 5t" Avenue North 7:00 -10:00 p.m. MARCH 6, 2001 SPECIAL MEETING 6:45 P.M. — EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING A REAL ESTATE MATTER 7:00 P.M. — CALL TO ORDER FLAG SALUTE APPROVAL OF AGENDA 2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS (A) ROLL CALL (B) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 27, 2001 (C) APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #46727 THROUGH #46869 FOR THE WEEK OF FEBRUARY 26, 2001, IN THE AMOUNT OF $280,226.23. (D) APPROVE CHATTEL DEED OF DONATION FROM EDMONDS FIRE SAFETY FOUNDATION TO DONATE THERMAL IMAGING CAMERA TO THE CITY (E) ACCEPTANCE OF SEWER EASEMENTS FOR THE PERRINVILLE SANITARY SEWER LID 215 AND 216 PROJECT (F) PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING THE PROVISION OF THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE BY ADOPTION OF A NEW SECTION 17.30.035 TRELLISES AND ARBORS TO ESTABLISH AND CLARIFY THE REGULATION OF TRELLISES AND ARBORS 3. (45 Min.) CLOSED RECORD MEETING — APPEAL OF THE HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR A FOUR -LOT SHORT SUBDIVISION CALLED SEAVIEW HIGHLANDS. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 18111 — 84T" AVENUE WEST AND IS ZONED SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RS-12). (Applicant: Orlo Fuller / Appellant: Dennis and Carla O'Leary. File No. S- 2000-50 / AP-2001-17) Note: A request has been received to continue this matter to March 13, 2001, based upon insufficient notice of hearing; the City Council needs to vote on the request to continue this evening. 4. (60 Min.) PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE CREATING NEW CHAPTERS 17.40.050 (NON -CONFORMING COMMUNITY FACILTIES), AND 17.65 (PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR COMMUNITY FACILITIES), AND AMENDING CHAPTERS: 16.20 — RS (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL); 16.30 — RM (MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL); 16.45 — BN (NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS); 16.50 — BC (COMMUNITY BUSINESS); 16.53 — BP (PLANNED BUSINESS); 16.55 — CW (COMMERCIAL WATERFRONT); 16.61 — MU (MEDICAL USE); 16.80 — P (PUBLIC USE); AND CHAPTER 21 (DEFINITIONS). THESE AMENDMENTS WOULD ESTABLISH NEW, CONSISTENT DEFINITIONS FOR THE REGULATION OF COMMUNITY FACILITIES (SUCH AS SCHOOLS, CHURCHES AND GOVERNMENT FACILITIES) WITHIN THE CITY. 5. (10 Min.) APPROVAL OF ANNEXATION AGREEMENT WITH SNO-ISLE REGIONAL LIBRARY SYSTEM Page 1 of 2 1 CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA MARCH 6, 2001 Page 2 of 2 6. (10 Min.) PROPOSED ORDINANCE CALLING FOR AN ELECTION AND SPECIFYING A BALLOT TITLE IN THE ANNEXATION OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS TO THE SNO-ISLE LIBRARY DISTRICT 7. (30 Min.) PROPOSED RESOLUTION EXPRESSING THE SUPPORT OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS FOR PASSAGE OF A BALLOT MEASURE ANNEXING THE CITY OF EDMONDS TO THE SNO-ISLE LIBRARY DISTRICT (Public Comment Will Be Received) 8. AUDIENCE COMMENTS (3 Minute Limit Per Person) 9.. (10 Min.) PROPOSED ORDINANCE ENTITLED "EDMONDS FIRE DEPARTMENT PROVISION OF EMERGENCY SERVICES," AMENDING CITY CODE TITLE 6 10. ( 5 Min.) MAYOR'S REPORT 11. (15 Min.) COUNCIL REPORTS Parking and meeting rooms are accessible for persons with disabilities. Contact the City Clerk at (425) 771-0245 with 24 hours advance notice for special accommodations. The Council Agenda and delayed telecast of the Council meetings appear on AT&T Cable, Channel 21.