06/01/1999 City Council1
[Approve
laim
arrants
F
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES
JUNE 19 1999
The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Barbara Fahey in the
Library Plaza Room, 650 Main Street, followed by the flag salute.
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Barbara Fahey, Mayor
Gary Haakenson, Council President
Dave Earling, Councilmember
John Nordquist, Councilmember
Michael Plunkett, Councilmember
Jim White, Councilmember
Dick Van Hollebeke, Councilmember
Thomas A. Miller, Councilmember
ALSO PRESENT
Meghan Cross, Student Representative
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
STAFF PRESENT
Robin Hickok, Police Chief
Paul Mar, Community Services Director
Peggy Hetzler, Administrative Services Director
Jeff Wilson, Planning Supervisor
James Walker, City Engineer
Steve Bullock, Senior Planner
Karissa Kawamoto, Planner
Scott Snyder, City Attorney
Sandy Chase, City Clerk
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
COUNCIL PRESIDENT HAAKENSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
NORDQUIST, TO MOVE ITEM 8 TO ITEM 3A, AND ITEM 3 TO 3B. MOTION CARRIED.
COUNCILMEMBER MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST,
FOR APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED.
2.. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
Councilmember Van Hollebeke requested Item B be removed from the Consent Agenda.
COUNCILMEMBER VAN HOLLEBEKE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
NORDQUIST, FOR APPROVAL OF THE REMAINDER OF THE CONSENT AGENDA.
MOTION CARRIED. The agenda items approved are as follows:
(A) ROLL CALL
(C) APPROVAL OF CLAIM WARRANTS #29388 THROUGH #33075 FOR THE WEEK OF
MAY 24, 1999, IN THE AMOUNT OF $152,003.30
(D) ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES FROM MARGARET V.
QUINE ($500,000.00), PATTI ANN HOY ($15,212.42), ERIC AND CHRISTINE THUESEN
($243.00)9 AND DR. BRUCE BARNES, ATKINS- BARNES CHIROPRACTIC CENTER
(Approx. $4,915.00)
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 1, 1999
Page 1
pdate Hwy (E) UPDATE ON HIGHWAY 99 PROJECT AND COUNCIL CONCURRENCE WITH CITY
9 Project OF LYNNWOOD AWARD OF BID TO WILDER CONSTRUCTION
Furnishings (F) REPORT ON BIDS OPENED MAY 25, 1999 FOR FURNISHINGS, FIXTURES AND
Equipment EQUIPMENT FOR THE PUBLIC SAFETY PROJECT, AND AWARD OF CONTRACT
Complex Safety
o FOR BASE BID ITEM C TO INTERIOR DEVELOPMENT EAST LTD. IN THE
mp
AMOUNT OF $47,716.67 (Including Sales Tax)
Furnishings (G) REPORT ON BIDS OPENED MAY 25, 1999 FOR FURNISHINGS, FIXTURES AND
Equipment EQUIPMENT FOR THE PUBLIC SAFETY PROJECT, AND AWARD OF CONTRACT
Public Safety FOR BASE BID ITEMS A, R, S AND T TO BANK AND OFFICE INTERIORS IN THE
Complex AMOUNT OF $16,902.11 (Including Sales Tax)
800 MHz (H) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT RELATED
[nterlocal TO THE 800 MHz PROJECT
rd. 3253 (I) ORDINANCE NO. 3253 AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF CITY CODE CHAPTER
hapter 5.01 5.01, PRELIMINARY ARTICLE, BY THE REPEAL OF SECTION 5.01.040, CONTEMPT,
AND THE ENACTMENT IN ITS PLACE OF A NEW SECTION 5.01.040, CONTEMPT
Approve Item B: Approval of City Council meeting minutes of May 25.1999
/25/99 Councilmember Van Hollebeke requested the name at the top of page 11, Don Doer, be corrected to read
Minutes as Doug Dewar.
Councilmember Miller advised he was absent from the May 25 meeting and would abstain from the vote.
COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER VAN
HOLLEBEKE, FOR APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEM B AS AMENDED. MOTION
CARRIED, COUNCILMEMBER MILLER ABSTAINED.
(B) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MAY 25, 1999
3. PROCLAMATION IN RECOGNITION OF NATIONAL FLAG DAY ON JUNE 14. 1999
lag Day Mayor Fahey explained she asked Harold Huston, VFW Post 8870, to receive the proclamation because
roclamation of the veteran's interest in honoring and recognizing the significance of the flag and their participation in
festivities on National Flag Day. She said four students read essays regarding what freedom meant to
them at the Memorial Day ceremony at the cemetery, the result of an initiative undertaken by
Mr. Huston. She appreciated his efforts to generate patriotism in students in Edmonds. She read a
proclamation declaring June 14 National Flag Day in the City of Edmonds and urging all citizens to fly
the Nation's flag at their homes and places of business. Citizens were encouraged to pause on June 14 at
4:00 p.m. for the 20" annual National PAUSE FOR THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE to the Flag and
join all Americans in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America.
Mr. Huston thanked the Mayor and Council for the proclamation. He also thanked those who attended
the Memorial Day ceremony at the Cemetery. He explained VFW Post 8870 holds an essay contest at
Sherwood Elementary each year and a savings bond is awarded to the winner in grades 3, 4, 5, and 6.
From the 460 students at Sherwood Elementary, over 200 essays were submitted. He expressed pride for
the youth in the Edmonds area.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 1, 1999
Page 2
3B. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER
REGARDING AN APPLICATION BY HOWLAND HOMES, LLC TO AMEND THE OFFICIAL
STREET MAP FOR THE PLAN -LINED RIGHT -OF -WAY OF THE 88TH AVENUE WEST
RIGHT -OF -WAY IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 8729 MAIN
STREET. THE RIGHT -OF -WAY ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY 30 -FEET
WIDE, WITH AN ADDITIONAL 30 -FOOT DEDICATION REQUIREMENT. THE APPLICANT
HAS REQUESTED THE CITY REVIEW THE NEED FOR 60 -FEET OF RIGHT -OF -WAY AND
CONSIDER CHANGING THE MAP AND THEREBY REDUCING THE REQUIREMENT TO 30
FEET. (Applicant: Howland Homes, LLC / File No. ST- 99 -26)
Mayor Fahey asked if any Councilmember wished to make any disclosures. There were no disclosures
Public made. Ma or Fahey asked if an member of the audience objected to the participation of an
Baring Y Y Y J P P Y
T -99 -26 Councilmember in this process. There were no objections.
Mayor Fahey explained staff would be permitted five minutes to describe this issue, the applicant would
be given five minutes to explain why he is seeking this action, and audience members will be given three
minutes each to comment on this item.
Planner Karissa Kawamoto displayed 'a map of the site illustrating how development has occurred in this
area. She explained this request arose as a result of a subdivision application. During review of the
subdivision, Engineering requested the dedication of 30 feet of right -of -way. She said there is an
existing 30 -foot right -of -way in this area with a pedestrian path that connects Main Street to 88'". The
Official Street Map planned for a 60 foot of right -of -way for extension of 88`' Street to Main Street. The
applicant proposed a 2 -lot subdivision; if the City requires a 30 -foot right -of -way dedication, the
subdivision could not be approved due to inadequate lot area. She explained 88'' currently dead -ends
south of 205' Place and east of 207"' and is not a through street. The applicant is requesting the City
change the Official Street Map to not require 30 feet of right -of -way on the west side of the property.
She displayed a drawing illustrating the location of the right -of -way on the lot. Other City departments
were in favor of this request with the exception of the Fire Department who indicated the connection may
allow faster response times in this area if the fire station were ever to be relocated away from Five -
Corners.
Ms. Kawamoto reported that Engineering provided minutes from past Council meetings indicating
design issues associated with the LID in this area in the early 1990's did not plan for this connection.
She said development in that area has proceeded based on that assumption and variances have been
granted assuming the road would not be a through connection.
Mayor Fahey inquired about the topography in this area, recalling there is a significant change in the
grade. Ms. Kawamoto agreed, stating the property slopes to the northeast corner, toward 88" Street.
Mayor Fahey asked if staff has analyzed whether it would be feasible to construct a through street such
as the Fire Department wanted. Ms. Kawamoto said her understanding was, with the improvements
installed in the early 1990's, 88'' Street was not designed to go through to Main Street. ,
City Attorney Scott Snyder understood the Fire Department wanted to maintain this street on the Street
Map and asked what their position was on reduction of the right -of -way. Ms. Kawamoto said that
question was not posed to the Fire Department. Mr. Snyder said the issue before the Council is reduction
of the plan -lined right -of -way, not the removal of it. Ms. Kawamoto said her understanding was the
application requested the requirement for dedication of an additional 30 feet be removed. She clarified
the existing pathway would remain on the existing 30 -foot right -of -way. Mr. Snyder explained that
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 1, 1999
Page 3
although the current 30 -foot right -of -way is developed as a walkway, it is the Council's decision whether
to construct a street on the 30 feet of right -of -way. He stated this proposal could be approved without
eliminating the Fire Department's desire for a through street in this area. Mayor Fahey asked if 30 feet
was adequate for a street. Mr. Snyder answered a 2 -lane street could be constructed in 30 feet of right -
of -way, although it may be expensive in this location.
Councilmember Van Hollebeke asked whether Interim Fire Chief Haworth's objection was a general
purpose concern for eliminating plan -lined right -of -way or if he had specific knowledge of the need for
right -of -way in this area. Ms. Kawamoto said the memo is the only information available from the Fire
Department. They were given an opportunity to speak at the Hearing Examiner public hearing but they
chose not to participate.
Mr. Snyder clarified the Council's responsibility is to determine whether there is a need for plan -lined
right -of -way in this location and if so, what width. Although that decision will impact the development
of property; the Council is not being asked to make a decision on any land use application at this time.
A p1U icant
Matt Howland, Howland Homes, 1243 NE 152 °d, Shoreline, supported staffs recommendation. He
said the request would maintain the neighborhood feeling. There is currently a 30 -foot right -of -way for
pedestrian access. He said one of the main concerns is the utility in that area; they have agreed to grant
an easement, if necessary. He said properties to the north were granted variances to construct closer to
the street; therefore, it appears the neighborhood character has proceeded with the assumption the right -
of -way would remain for pedestrian access and would not be widened to 60 feet and opened to vehicular
traffic.
Mayor Fahey opened the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, Edmonds, recalled a number of people on 88' Avenue were
opposed to widening of that street previously and, during that time the Fire Department was in favor of
providing access from 96" to 200'. He felt inadequate comments had been provided by the Fire
Department. He questioned whether 30 feet of right -of -way would allow for construction of a roadway
and sidewalk. He said 40 feet would be more reasonable if the plan -lined right -of -way is retained on the
map. He said with the relocation of the fire station, a need for a through street may be discovered. He
commented the right -of -way could be gated to provide emergency vehicle access. He summarized 60
feet of right -of -way was too much and 40 feet was more reasonable.
Hearing no further public comment, Mayor Fahey closed the public participation portion of the hearing.
Mayor Fahey referred to page 2 of the commentary on this item which stated, "both the Planning and
Engineering Divisions recommended the applicant seek an amendment of the Street Map to eliminate the
future possibility of 88' Avenue West going through to Main Street." She observed this was different
than Mr. Snyder's comments. She concurred with Mr. Hertrich's comments, recalling she was on the
Council when action was taken on 881i Avenue, whereby that Council, over the objections of the Fire
Department, agreed to dead -end 88' ' and provide for it never being a through street although no action
was taken to abandon -the right -of -way. She requested clarification of the request. Ms. Kawamoto
referred to the drawing of the proposed plat, stating the lot width is shown as 99.99 feet by 253.18 feet.
In an RS -12 zone, the minimum lot size is 12,000 square feet. When Engineering required the 30 -foot
right -of -way dedication as shown on the Official Street Map, the lot sizes were reduced sufficiently to
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 1, 1999
Page 4
prevent approval of a subdivision in an RS -12 zone. In order for the applicant to proceed with a
subdivision application, both Planning and Engineering recommended the requirement for an additional
30 feet of right -of -way be eliminated to allow the applicant to proceed with the subdivision. She
explained the request is not for a reduction in the existing 30 feet but eliminating the additional 30 feet,
which would make the right -of -way 60 feet.
Mr. Snyder explained the City has 30 feet of right -of -way, there is 60 feet of plan-lined right -of -way.
The proposal is to remove the additional 30 feet of plan-lined right -of -way. Ms. Kawamoto said a 2 -lane
roadway with a pedestrian path could not be provided within the existing 30 feet.
Council President Haakenson observed the minutes from the June 7, 1988 Council meeting are provided
in the Council packet, but not from the meeting Mayor Fahey was referring to in 1994/1995. He asked if
the Council needed this information. Ms. Kawamoto said the minutes could be provided if the Council
wished to review that information. Mayor Fahey said the minutes would indicate that when the LID was
constructed, residents on 881 petitioned the Council requesting 88'' Avenue be dead -ended so that it
would never intersect with 207'. The Fire Department at that time was opposed to this because it was
counter to the grid patterns the City was seeking to establish to provide better emergency response in the
area between 196' and Main Street. Despite the Fire Department's objection, the Council took action at
that time to designate 88'h Avenue as a dead -end.
Mr. Snyder asked the City Engineer if the existing 30 feet of right -of -way was adequate to provide
emergency access and pedestrian access. City Engineer Jim Walker answered yes, explaining fire access
requires a 20 -foot minimum. Mr. Snyder observed 30 feet would also be adequate for a 2 -lane roadway
but not in combination with a roadway and pedestrian path. Mr. Walker said likely a sub - standard
sidewalk could be provided on one side.
COUNCILMEMBER WHITE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MILLER, TO
ADOPT THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER AND APPROVE THE
PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE OFFICIAL STREET MAP AND DIRECT THE CITY
ATTORNEY TO PREPARE THE APPROPRIATE ORDINANCE. MOTION CARRIED.
4. PUBLIC HEARING ON A REQUEST TO VACATE A 10 -FOOT WIDE BY 113 -FOOT LONG
PORTION OF THE 218TH PLACE SOUTHWEST RIGHT -OF -WAY IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT
TO 9405 - 218TH PLACE SOUTHWEST: (Applicant: Larry Wax / File No. ST- 99 -52)
ublic Mayor Fahey asked if any Councilmember wished to make any disclosures. There were no disclosures.
Baring Mayor Fahey asked if any member of the audience objected to the participation of any Councilmember
T -99 -52 in this process. There were no objections.
Mayor Fahey explained staff would be given five minutes to describe this issue, the applicant would be
given five minutes to explain why he is seeking this action, and audience members will be given three
minutes each to provide comment.
Planner Karissa Kawamoto explained this is a request for street vacation that arose as a result of a
subdivision application. There is currently an additional 10 feet that has been dedicated in front of this
property, unlike other properties around it. She displayed a vicinity map and identified the site. The
property was subdivided under Snohomish County regulations; 218'h originally stopped at the end of the
property; so Snohomish County required a hammer -head type turnaround which required 80 feet between
Lot 21 to Lot 20. She explained the hammerhead turnaround is no longer necessary for emergency
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 1, 1999
Page 5
vehicle turnaround as adequate turnaround space is provided in the cul -de -sac to the east. Although the
vacation should have been done in the early 1960's when development occurred, the applicant is now
requesting vacation of a 10 foot by 113 -foot strip of City right -of -way. The applicant has provided a
MAI appraisal, which determined property in the area is valued at approximately $9.40 per square foot.
The right -of -way is 1,130 square feet for a total value of $10,600. The ECDC allows the City to require
payment of half the fair market value, or in this instance, $5,300 for vacation of the 10 foot by 113 -foot
strip of right -of -way. She recommended the Council direct the City Attorney to prepare a resolution of
intent to vacate that portion of 218' Place in front of the property at 9405 218' Place SW.
Councilmember White asked what factors the Council should consider with regard to this request.
Mr. Snyder answered the Council must consider whether this property is reasonably foreseeable for
current or future public use. As this is street right -of -way, it can be vacated if the Council does not
believe it will be used for street purposes. Councilmember White asked if the Council could consider
any other factors. Mr. Snyder cautioned the Council not to consider the impact the vacation may have on
the development process. He clarified if the record indicated there was no future need for this right -of-
way, it would be inappropriate for the Council to refuse to vacate it solely to prevent the property from
developing.
Applicant
Larry Wax, 1006 N Bayshore Lane, Camano Island, said he lived on this property for 32 years and
assumed the property line included the 10 feet he is now requesting be vacated. He said the, properties on
both sides have the 10 feet. He has landscaped and maintained most of the 10 feet of the property.
Mayor Fahey opened the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Rita Matthews, 9325 217" Place SW, Edmonds, owner of the property adjacent to the Wax property on
the northeast side, expressed concern with construction planned on the property if the vacation is
granted.
Mr. Snyder explained the City's ownership interest in the property is for street right -of -way, the City
does not own the fee. Mr. Wax continues to own the underlying rights associated with the property. The
issue before the Council is whether there is some valid public purpose for retaining this right -of -way.
Ms. Matthews asked if Mr. Wax was requesting the vacation so that he would have two sections of 8,000
square feet so that he can build on the property. Mr. Snyder agreed that is indicated in the record.
Ms. Matthews reiterated her concern with construction on the property. Mayor Fahey clarified the
ultimate use of the property following vacation of the right -of -way cannot be considered by the Council
in making its decision. The Council can only determine whether the right -of -way is necessary for a
future street; if not, there is justification for vacating the right -of -way. The Council cannot refuse to
vacate the right -of -way based on future use of the property. Mayor Fahey advised Ms. Matthews that her
concerns would be addressed during the subdivision of the property.
Neil Cloud, 9317 217" Place SW, Edmonds, asked if the vacation was being requested so the applicant
would have two conforming lots on which to build. Mayor Fahey referred to Exhibit 2, which indicates
the vacation would provide insufficient square footage to allow a 2 -lot short plat in the R8000 zone. She
clarified if the vacation is granted, that could ultimately occur but is not part of the Council's decision
tonight. Mr. Cloud asked whether the City Engineer would visit this property (if the vacation is granted
and a subdivision applied for) to determine whether there are wetlands on the property, etc. Mayor
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 1, 1999
Page 6
1
i
i
i
I
i
I
Fahey responded that when the subdivision process takes place, residents would have an opportunity to
be involved in the process.
Mr. Cloud asked if there was precedence for vacating a street like this. Mayor Fahey answered yes. She
explained the public hearing was not an opportunity to enter into a dialogue with the Council or staff.
Input is limited to opposition or support for the, proposed action. Mr. Cloud said he is not necessarily
opposed to the vacation but wanted to ask questions. He asked about sidewalk space. Mayor Fahey said
those questions have not yet been addressed as that is part of another process. The only issue before the
Council tonight is the abandonment of 10 feet of right -of -way. Mr. Cloud inquired whether a citizen
could question the abandonment of a right -of -way based on future potential uses. Mayor Fahey said
those issues have been analyzed by staff before a recommendation was made to abandon this right -of-
way. She pointed out the right-of-way does not adjoin any other right -of -way that would provide
capacity for a future sidewalk, emergency access, etc.
Mr. Snyder pointed out the difficulty of having a dialogue during a public hearing. The issue before the
Council is whether to vacate City right -of -way based on the likelihood of the City having some future
public use for the right -of -way. Issues related to wetlands, development of the property, etc. will be
addressed at a subsequent short plat process, which is a staff determination. Sidewalks are required as
part of City street development standards; if the property is subdivided, sidewalks will be required.
Ed McMarrow, 1024 4`h Avenue S, Edmonds, said the City does not own the property being requested
for vacation. Mr. Snyder explained Mr. Wax owns the underlying fee; the City has the right to install a
roadway, a sidewalk, or utilities in that strip as they do throughout the adjacent right -of -way.
Mr. McMarrow asked if the property owner had been paying taxes on that property. Mr. Snyder
explained on any street easement, the property owner owns the underlying fee to the center of the
property. If this was public property that the City had paid fair market value for, the Council has
absolute discretion regarding retention. With street right -of -way, the City has only the right to construct
a street in that location; if it is not needed, the property can be vacated.
Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, Edmonds, said his understanding was during a public hearing, the
public can ask or say whatever they want. He objected to Mayor Fahey stating Mr. Cloud could not ask
questions. He said staff should be asked to provide information and answer the questions. He felt Mayor
Fahey owned Mr. Cloud an apology.
Mayor Fahey commented that there is a process that is normally followed with regard to public hearings
which are intended to address specific issues and facts that are germane to the Council's decision. The
issues being raised are not germane to this issue and cannot be used to influence the Council's decision.
For that reason, information provided at a public hearing is typically limited to opinion -type information
due to the difficulty of answering other questions, particularly when many of those issues have not yet
been addressed because they are part of another process. She apologized if it appeared she was rude to
Mr. Cloud and said she did not intend to be.
Hearing no further public comment, Mayor Fahey closed the public participation portion of the public
hearing. She emphasized this is only one part of the process. If the Council makes a decision to vacate
the property which would allow the potential for short platting, there will be another process that
residents will be notified of and have an opportunity to participate in.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 1, 1999
Page 7
Council President Haakenson said Mayor Fahey is correct regarding the information the Council is
allowed to consider when making this decision, whether this 10 -foot strip of land is needed now or in the
future for public use. He agreed it is frustrating that this is the only public hearing the City is permitted
to hold. He offered to have Mr. Walker answer some of the questions raised and suggested the
possibility of the Council suspending the rules to allow further testimony.
Council President Haakenson asked what the width of 218' Street would be if the street vacation is
approved. Mr. Walker answered Development Services Engineer Gordy Hyde considered it and
determined there was sufficient space for any improvements, including 2 lanes and sidewalks.
Mr. Walker said there is no need for additional improvements on a road that accesses a dead -end
neighborhood. Council President Haakenson asked if there were sidewalks there now. Mr. Walker
answered no. Council President Haakenson asked if there are plans for sidewalks regardless of the street
vacation. Mr. Walker said sidewalks in that area are not currently included in the Walkway Plan. As
this area develops, consideration will be given to whether sidewalks will be needed. He agreed this is an
area where sidewalks would be desirable but is not a priority in the Walkway Plan.
Council President Haakenson asked if emergency vehicles currently can access the cul -de -sac as well as
if the vacation is approved. Mr. Walker said emergency vehicle access would be unchanged. The area
where the vacation is being requested would never be used as a turnaround. He said this 10 foot strip
was created as a turnaround because the street dead -ended prior to the creation of the plats to the east
(217' Place SW and 93`d Place W).
Council President Haakenson asked whether there would be a public hearing regarding any future
subdivision of the property (if the Council approves the vacation). Planning Supervisor Jeff Wilson
answered the short plat process is an administrative review, not a public hearing process. However,
public notice is provided for the two -week public comment period to solicit written comments from
anyone who wishes to comment on the application. That information is considered in the decision -
making process. Following the administrative decision, the public has the right to appeal the decision to
the Hearing Examiner, which will include a full public hearing. Council President Haakenson asked how
the public is notified of the comment period. Mr. Wilson answered notices are mailed to property
owners and residents within 300 feet of the subject property and notices are posted in the vicinity of the
subject property informing of the two -week comment period.
COUNCILMEMBER WHITE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MILLER, TO
SUSPEND THE RULES TO ADDRESS THE CONCERNS OF THE, CITIZENS PRESENT WHO
MAY STILL HAVE QUESTIONS. MOTION CARRIED.
Al Rutledge, 7101 Lake Ballinger Way, Edmonds, said if a property owner does nothing with property
over a seven year period, the property reverts back to the City. However, in this instance, the property
owner has maintained the property for over 30 years. He asked whether the City owed the property
owner for maintaining the property.
Lucian Schmidt, 454 3rd Avenue S, Edmonds, said he was pleased to see a dialogue develop between
the Council and citizens. His understanding was there would be no subsequent public hearing following
the Council's decision regarding the vacation, other than before the Hearing Examiner, and the Council
would be bypassed on a public hearing. Mayor Fahey agreed staff will make an administrative decision
but there will be an opportunity for the public to comment on the short platting before a decision is made.
Mr. Schmidt said the Council would not be included in that decision and this hearing represents
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 1, 1999
Page 8
residents' only opportunity to provide comment to the Council. He said it appears the Council does not
want to hear residents' problems later when the lots are subdivided.
Council President Haakenson disagreed and said the Council is not saying they do not want to hear what
residents have to say. Mr. Schmidt clarified the rules do not permit the Council to hear it. Council
President Haakenson agreed. Mr. Schmidt said too much authority has been given to the Hearing
Examiner in order to avoid presenting matters such as this to the Council.
In response to Mr. Rutledge's comments, Mr. Snyder said private property owners cannot adversely
possess against the public. The City, like other jurisdictions, is limited by state law to an administrative
process for short plats. A variety of reviews are required for this type of decision such as Critical Areas
ordinance, State Environment Protection Act (SEPA), etc. The issue before the Council is a decision
.regarding the vacation of a strip of land and whether the property is necessary for a turnaround in this
location. When staff considers the short plat, a decision will be made using rules adopted by the Council
after numerous public hearings.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT HAAKENSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MILLER,
TO EXTEND DISCUSSION OF THIS ITEM FOR 10 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED.
Neil Cloud, 9317 217" Place SW, Edmonds, said the reason this vacation is being sought is so the
property can be subdivided. His concern is once the property is subdivided, a house that is incompatible
with the neighborhood will be built behind an existing house. He explained properties to the east are 4 -6
feet higher than the subject property and asked what provisions would be made to keep the bank from
sloughing. He was also concerned the rear portion of the property could be a wetland and inquired
whether the City Engineer visited the site. He asked whether there was adequate space for a sidewalk.
He was not concerned about the ability of a fire truck to turnaround but with the ability of a fire truck to
get through once sidewalks are constructed on both sides. His major concern is any home built there
would not be compatible with the immediate area. He acknowledged this issue would be addressed later
but was disappointed it would not be done at a public hearing.
Larry Wax, 1006 N Bayshore Lane, Camano Island, said, in response to Mr. Cloud's comments
regarding incompatibility, four years ago four new .homes were built behind his home. He said old
homes and new homes could be combined in an area. He said the City's engineers would address any
slope or wetland issues at the time a building permit is applied for. Mr. Wax said he informed Mr. Cloud
he planned to short plat the property eventually.
Hearing no further comment, Mayor Fahey closed the public participation portion of the hearing.
Due to the numerous issues that have been raised, Mayor Fahey asked Mr. Snyder to define what the
Council can consider in its deliberations regarding this matter. Mr. Snyder explained there are two issues
before the Council, 1) a determination whether this property has some reasonable likelihood for public
purposes for street or utility purposes in the future, 2) if not, what compensation should be paid to the
City for its vacation. In response to comments made by the public, he explained the City's wetland
provisions are contained in the Critical Areas ordinance as well as the Stormwater retention and
detention requirements. Further, the state building code, particularly. appendix 70 regarding cuts, fills,
and slopes governs embankments and construction on property.
Mayor Fahey remanded the matter to Council for deliberation.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 1, 1999
Page 9
Councilmember White said the process illustrates the frustration with Regulatory Reform which limits
the City's ability to hold public hearings on certain issues that the Legislature felt would streamline the
process for development. He said the Council cannot consider sloughing, subdivision, development,
sidewalks, etc. and can only consider whether there is a public need for the 10 -foot strip. If the Council
considers other issues, the applicant could overturn the decision.
COUNCILMEMBER WHITE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MILLER, TO
APPROVE THE RECOMMENDED ACTION (DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE A
RESOLUTION OF "INTENT 'TO VACATE" THE PORTION OF THE 218"' PLACE
SOUTHWEST RIGHT -OF -WAY ADJACENT TO 9405 218"; PLACE SOUTHWEST. PURSUANT
TO ECDC SECTION 20.70.140 THE APPLICANT MUST PROVIDE PAYMENT OF $5,300 (ONE
HALF THE FAIR MARKET VALUE) WITHIN 90 DAYS OF THE ADOPTION OF SAID
RESOLUTION, OTHERWISE THE VACATION APPROVAL SHALL BECOME NULL AND
VOID), WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT ANY DEVELOPMENT ON THE PROPERTY
WILL BE SUBJECT TO POSTING, NOTIFICATION TO ALL LAND OWNERS WITHW 300
FEET, AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THEM TO BE HEARD AND IF THEIR DESIRES ARE NOT
ADDRESSED BY STAFF, THERE WILL BE AN OPPORTUNITY TO APPEAL TO THE
HEARING EXAMINER.
Council President Haakenson stressed staff has indicated there is no public use for that 10 -foot strip and
the applicant has hired an MAI appraiser to determine the value. The applicant has followed the
requirements of ECDC 20.70.140.
Councilmember Earling thanked citizens for raising their issues. Although the City shares the frustration
with the process, the only issue before the Council is whether there is a need for this 10 -foot strip.
MOTION CARRIED.
Mayor Fahey explained one of the reasons the names and addresses of speakers are recorded is so staff
has the ability to notify them in the future. She said anyone who spoke to this issue would be notified
if/when future development occurs on this property. She apologized for the perception that she was
trying to prevent citizens from getting information. Unfortunately, when questions of this nature arise,
often there are not answers available because information becomes available as the next steps of the
process take place. She stressed it was impossible to enter into dialogue on these issues tonight and it is
her responsibility as chair to ensure public hearings proceed according to the established time line. She
said City staff and her office are available to answer any questions.
5. PUBLIC HEARING ON INTERIM ORDINANCE NO. 3247 AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF
SECTION 17.40.010(C) TO LIMIT THE APPLICATION OF THE CITY'S ABATEMENT
PROCESS TO NONCONFORMING COMMERCIAL, BUSINESS AND INDUSTRIAL USES
LOCATED IN RESIDENTIAL ZONES
ublic City Attorney Scott Snyder explained state law permits cities to enact interim zoning ordinances or
earing moratoria and requires a public hearing be held within 60 days. He explained this ordinance returned the
rd. 3247 City to the non - conforming use provisions, which were initially enacted in 1971. At that time the
Council enacted.provisions that required industrial, commercial and business uses located in residential
neighborhoods be amortized (phased out) over a period of years. When those provisions were codified in
1980, an innocuous change was made to the ordinance that eliminated the words "commercial, business
and industrial" and termed them "non- residential." A number of years later, the City adopted a Public
zoning category and earlier this year when matters concerning the school district arose, the City
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 1, 1999
Page 10
i
i
discovered that the innocuous change. in language made churches, schools, and a variety of public
facilities non - conforming uses. Citizens raised the issue whether the City should amortize out the school
district's property. This raised three issues and he recommended the Council adopt an interim zoning
ordinance. The first issue is the school district's power under state law to maintain and site schools
subject to the City's police power regulations. The City could enact those provisions but would need to
do so evenhandedly which would require 1) removal of the City's own essential facilities from
neighborhoods or change the rules, and 2) act regarding non - conforming uses such as churches, which is
unconstitutional. Both federal and state law require cities to attempt to accommodate the practice of
religion and to do so in an affirmative way including reasonable provisions for places of worship in
residential neighborhoods. Therefore, it was determined the City's ordinance would apply
unconstitutionally and would be in violation of state statute. He recommended the Council adopt an
interim zoning ordinance which restored the 1971 language regarding commercial, business and
industrial uses in residential zones and avoid the unintended consequences.
The Council enacted this interim ordinance on April 20; this is the City's required public hearing. Based
on public testimony, the Council has the ability to continue or repeal the ordinance and direct preparation
of Findings of Fact.
Mayor Fahey opened the public participation portion of the hearing. There were no members of the
audience who wished to address the Council on this matter; therefore, Mayor Fahey closed the public
participation portion of the hearing.
Mr. Snyder advised, in light of the lack of public comment, he would prepare Findings based on the
Council's past legislative findings.
Council President Haakenson asked how many members of the audience were present to comment on the
Holly Drive Comprehensive Plan issue. Approximately half of the audience raised their hands. Council
President Haakenson requested a brief recess.
6. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION REGARDING
PROPOSED TEXT AND LAND USE MAP AMENDMENTS TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
(Applicant: Edmonds Planning Division / File No. CDC- 98 -1). THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
ARE:
A. REOUEST BY MR. RON GARD, TRUSTEE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, TO
CHANGE THE EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION OF THE
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 506 6TH AVENUE SOUTH FROM "SINGLE-FAMILY —
SMALL LOT" TO MULTIFAMILY HIGH DENSITY," TOGETHER WITH A
CONCURRENT APPLICATION TO REZONE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM "RS-
6" TO "RM -1.5." FILE NO. CDC -98 -1, CDC -97 -139, & R -97 -140
Public Mayor Fahey advised this item is a series of issues that were reviewed by the Planning Board. In
Hearing response to a question that arose during the break, Mayor Fahey explained there would not be an appeal
DC -98 -1A
process. The Planning Board is an advisory board and reviews information and makes an advisory
determination that is referred to the Council. It is the Council's decision whether to accept the Planning
Board's recommendation or make some other determination. She advised each of the requested
amendments would be addressed separately.
Mayor Fahey asked if any Councilmember wished to make any disclosure.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 1, 1999
Page 11
Councilmember Miller advised during the break he explained to citizens that this item includes
consideration of the Holly Street issue.
Councilmember Earling said his company listed an eight -unit condominium complex on Walnut Street
located on the property formerly owned by JoAnn Jake. It is not immediately adjacent to this property,
and he did not feel it would present a conflict. City Attorney Scott Snyder asked Councilmember Earling
if this was his personal listing. Councilmember Earling answered no. Mr. Snyder said it would not fall
within the technical parameters of the state statute but could be the basis for an appearance of fairness
doctrine challenge. In the absence of an objection from the audience, Mr. Snyder said there would not be
a problem with Councilmember Earling's participation.
Mayor Fahey asked if any member of the audience wished to challenge the participation of any
Councilmembers. There were no objections and Mayor Fahey advised all Councilmembers were
empowered to participate in the decision regarding Item A. She further advised that all comments made
at the Planning Board hearings have been provided to the Council and the public would have an
opportunity to comment on this item following staffs presentation.
Planning Supervisor Jeff Wilson said this request to amend the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map was
initiated by the applicant and involves two actions, 1) amend the Comprehensive Plan designation to
change it from "Single - Family - Small Lot" to "Multifamily - High Density" and 2) a concurrent rezone
of the property (if the Comprehensive Plan is amended) to implement the land use classification,
changing from RS -6 to RM -1.5 (density one unit per 1.500 square feet of lot area). Mr. Wilson displayed
a map illustrating the existing Comprehensive Plan designation in the vicinity of the applicant's property
including the area designated Multifamily - High Density. He pointed out that the boundary extends
mid -block between Walnut and Holly. He explained when the Comprehensive Plan was initially
adopted, designations were not intended to be exact boundaries of the land use designation but
approximate boundaries to be determined on a situation -by- situation basis.
The Planning Board felt there was a clear separation between where multifamily should exist in this area
of the City and where it should transition to single - family in the mid -block area. The subject property
and properties to the east, south and west are designated as Single- Family - Small Lot RS -6. The
Planning Board held a public hearing in December 1998; following their review of the materials
provided by the applicant and staff and testimony provided by the public, the Planning Board determined
the current Comprehensive Plan designation is appropriate. Further, allowing the designation to be
extended south to encompass this one lot would be inconsistent with the City's adopted Comprehensive
Plan and would be an intrusion into the existing, well established single - family residential area on Holly
Drive. The Planning Board recommended the request to amend the Comprehensive Plan be denied and
the existing designation remain. Mr. Wilson advised if the Council adopted this recommendation, the
concurrent rezone request would be inconsistent with the land use designation in the Comprehensive
Plan and would not be permissible.
City Attorney Scott Snyder asked if the record before the Planning Board or staff s analysis included an
indication that the City did not have adequate urban density to meet Snohomish County Growth
Management Board urban density requirements. Mr. Wilson said this issue has been discussed by the
Planning Board numerous times during the amendment process. When the City initially adopted its
Comprehensive Plan and land use maps, it was determined there was sufficient density to meet the
population targets that were determined by Snohomish County under the Growth Management Act
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 1, 1999
Page 12
(GMA) based on the land use classifications in the plan. Mr. Wilson explained the GMA allows cities to
amend their Comprehensive Plan only once per year; therefore, staff bundles multiple requests and
presents them to the Council at one time.
A_uplicant
Ron Gard, 1114 811 Avenue S, Edmonds, representative of the Frances E. Gard Trust (the entity that
owns the property at 506 6' Avenue S, Edmonds) requested the City's Comprehensive Plan map be
amended and the property at 506 61 Avenue South be rezoned from Single - Family RS -6 to Multifamily.-
High Density RM -1.5. He commented color photographs were provided to City staff that were clearer
than the black and white copies provided to the Council. He said members of the Trust have been in
favor of the request to change to a multifamily designation. Although they would prefer the City grant
their request, which would allow a multiple housing unit, they are aware of the immediate neighbors'
concern and opposition. He said a multiple unit condominium or 3 -unit townhouse would be their first
choice as the best use of the property, but they realize they face an uphill struggle to obtain this. He
observed that the Council has the authority to approve, reject or modify the Planning Board's decision
and requested the Holly Drive neighbors support a compromise proposal for a variance that would allow
subdivision of the property. He referred to his letter dated April 25, 1999, addressed to Council
President Haakenson, the Mayor and Council, which stated the property is large enough to accommodate
multifamily units, which the Planning Board, Planning Department and neighbors accept. He said this
would allow the neighborhood to maintain the single- family atmosphere and still allow fair use of the
property.
Mr. Gard explained the property is 99 feet by 120 feet, totaling 11,800 square feet, only six inches short
of the City's current minimum building size for each proposed lot. He stressed this represented 5,940
square feet versus 6,000 square feet for each lot, only 1% less square footage than required in the current
lot size requirement. He pointed out Snohomish County addresses these scenarios with an administrative
variance whenever there is a 10% or less difference from the minimum lot size via a Planned Residential
Development (PRD). This allows the property owner to subdivide into smaller lots than zoning would
otherwise allow, thereby increasing housing density slightly. He referred to an article in a recent edition
of the Citizen Link and Snohomish County Executive Bob Drewel's comments in the May 12, 1999
Enterprise "to accommodate growth, we need to find ways where neighborhoods are able to accept
smaller lot single family and townhouses and in some areas multiple family housing." Mr. Gard pointed
out the recent visioning process recommended square footage requirements for building lots be relaxed
to allow more dense multiple family housing. He said Edmonds is growing and will continue to grow
and the community must address density restrictions and existing codes must be modified if necessary.
He requested the Council consider their proposal and grant either the Comprehensive Plan Land Use
Map amendment or at least the variance to subdivide the property.
Mr. Snyder clarified the only application before the Council is the amendment of the Comprehensive
Plan. The Council may refer any issue regarding density requirements to staff or the Planning Board for
action in the future.
Councilmember Plunkett asked if the color photos Mr. Gard referred to were available. Mayor Fahey
advised the color photographs were being circulated to the Council at this time.
Mayor Fahey opened the public participation portion of the hearing.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 1, 1999
Page 13
Joseph Dwyer, 529 Holly Drive, Edmonds, suggested the Council concur with staff and the Planning
Board's recommendation and deny the requested change to the existing Comprehensive Plan designation
for this property as well as the rezone of the property.
Victoria Oace, 525 Magnolia Lane, Edmonds, spoke in opposition to the proposed rezone and
amendment to the Comprehensive Plan as she believed it would negatively affect the neighborhood
where they chose to purchase a single- family home three years ago. She referred to their former high
density, residential neighborhood on Capital Hill, commenting they chose Edmonds because of its
single- family home atmosphere. She said there is sufficient high density housing elsewhere in Edmonds
to accommodate the need for multifamily use. She indicated she was also speaking on behalf of Phyllis
and Chuck Becker, residents of Magnolia Lane, who were unable to attend tonight's public hearing. She
said the Planning Board reviewed the technical issues raised in this application and chose to recommend
denial. Their recommendation should be followed.
Shirley Dunphy, 545 Holly Drive, Edmonds, owner of the house west of the subject property for the
past two years, said a large part of their consideration was the impact the Walnut Condominiums have on
their view and the fact that the lot behind them, owned by the Gard's, was a single - family home with
trees that would lessen the impact of the condominiums. She urged the Council to support staffs
recommendation.
Kurtis Dunphy, 545 Holly Drive, Edmonds, recommended the Council accept staff and Planning
Board's recommendation to deny the modification. When they moved to this property, their view
disappeared as the condominiums were built. They were aware of this and accept it. The request under
consideration would "hem them in" and would result in their not being part of the single - family
neighborhood. He urged Council to support staffs recommendation.
Robert Stevenson, 548 6`h Avenue S, Edmonds, said the GMA encourages growth within already .
developed areas but does not encourage spot rezones that would allow multifamily projects in nicely
settled single - family areas. He said the visioning report encouraged more high rise business and
residential development in the Edmonds bowl but also respected the community of long established
homes that sustain the ambiance of the Edmonds area. Multifamily zoned blocks north of the subject
property contain numerous single - family homes that are surrounded by apartments and condominiums.
He said these homes could be converted without a rezone or change to the Comprehensive Plan.
Significant financial gain to the property owner is obvious if the request is granted but should not be
permitted at the expense of the neighbors. Increased structure height and. lot coverage would be
permitted but would be incompatible with adjoining single- family residences. The Planning Board, after
careful consideration of information in favor and opposed to the request, concluded approval of the
request would not be in the City's best interest as the conditions of the site and the neighborhood have
not changed. Absent new and compelling evidence to the contrary, the Planning Board recommendation
to deny the request should be upheld by the Council. He submitted written comments.
Earl Lavery, 556 Holly Drive, Edmonds, spoke in opposition to the rezone of this property. He
pointed out Mr. Gard indicated in his letter of November 30, 1998, that his property was quite a ways
away from the subject property. In fact, his property abuts the subject property, is directly oriented to the
subject property, and multifamily development would adversely affect his property as well as other
properties in the immediate area due to increased noise, loss of view and lack of privacy. Mr. Lavery
explained on the west side of the property, there is one single - family home, on the east side there are two
single - family homes (including his property), across Holly Drive (approximately 60 feet) there is another
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 1, 1999
Page 14
single - family home, and opposite the southwest corner there is another single - family home. Any
multifamily structure built on this property, amongst these single - family homes, would have a very
negative impact on the area and would be a terrible mix for this residential neighborhood. He concluded
the property is currently zoned Single - Family - Small Lot and that zoning should remain.
Carol Eychaner, 2348 Franklin Avenue E, Seattle, Land Use and Community Planner, explained she
was asked by the Holly Drive neighbors to do an analysis of the proposed Comprehensive Plan
amendment and rezone (Attachment 11 of Exhibit A, pages 37 -68 of the Council packet and
supplemental comments on page 117 and 121). Her analysis did not find that the property met the
criteria for a Comprehensive Plan amendment to multifamily designation or a rezone to a multifamily
zone and that the property was appropriately designated and zoned for single - family use and
development. She pointed out the extension of the Multifamily - High Density designation would be
equivalent to a spot zoning, which is explicitly discouraged in the City's Comprehensive Plan which
states the primary purpose of the Comprehensive Plan is to discourage infill spot or strip zoning and
inharmonious subdivision. Further, her analysis found that Holly Street, which is developed almost
entirely with single - family use, is economically viable for single - family use and many of the houses have
been expanded, remodeled, or demolished for new single - family construction. She was concerned if the
Council changed the Comprehensive Plan designation for this property in a spot or piecemeal manner, it
would set precedence for other similar actions throughout the City. A cursory review of the Edmonds
Comprehensive Plan map indicated there are approximately 24 locations that have a similar zone edge
where it would be difficult to deny a similar Comprehensive Plan amendment if this is granted.
Ms. Eychaner said the impact of a change to the Comprehensive Plan designation would ' include
degradation of the single- family character of this single - family zoned street. Other impacts include loss
of privacy, loss of a sense of open space and views, and parking and potential impacts on the substandard
Holly Drive. She summarized numerous Comprehensive Plan policies support the continuance of single -
family designation and zoning of this lot on Holly Drive and on Holly Drive in general. She found no
valid land use, environmental, economic. or GMA reason for approving the Comprehensive Plan
amendment or rezone or increasing the density along Holly Drive.
Mel Steinke, 22133 Chinook Road, Woodway, owner of the triplex at 502 and 504 6`' South, spoke in
opposition to Mr. Gard's request and recommended the Council accept. the Planning Board's
recommendation. He said the triplex's views have been "boxed in" by many condominiums on Walnut
although the neighborhood was aware this could occur because the property was already zoned for that
use. He said the 17 foot entrance to the Gard's property would impact the entrance to the triplex' garages
and there is no curb parking in that location which will cause ingress and egress problems. He echoed
the previous comments regarding spot zoning and said a number of citizens in the RS -6 zone would like
to take advantage of a similar change in their designation and zone. He recommended the Council adopt
the Planning Board's recommendation.
Bob Driscoll, 514 Holly Drive, Edmonds, displayed a map illustrating residents in the surrounding
neighborhood who are opposed to the change as proposed by Mr. Gard. He recommended the Council
deny request. Mayor Fahey advised Mr. Driscoll his map would be entered into the record as an exhibit.
Marge Hampton, 548 Holly Drive, Edmonds, said their house is located on a flag lot that is accessed
by a driveway on Holly Drive, directly across from the lot at 506 611 Avenue. She said they recently
completed an extensive remodel one year ago. She said it was obvious to them that a multifamily
building on this site would be detrimental to the property values of the adjacent single - family homes on
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 1, 1999
Page 15
Holly Drive. The proposed rezone is not compatible with the Edmonds Comprehensive Plan and is not
in the interest of the general public or the residents of Holly Drive. She urged the Council to support the
Planning Board's recommendation.
Melinda Beck, 550 Holly Drive, Edmonds, said when she purchased her house in 1977, the Mayor at
that time said Holly Drive would remain single family. Since the Planning Board and Planning staff
recommend the neighborhood remains single family, she recommended the Council follow their advice.
Ed McMorrow, 1024 4th Avenue S, Edmonds, asked if the City's Comprehensive Plan has been tested
in court regarding whether it meets the requirements of GMA. Mr. Snyder answered no one has ever
challenged the City's Comprehensive Plan.
Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, Edmonds, recalled a number of years ago there was an attempt at
the other end of Holly Drive to change the zoning. At that time, a line was drawn to protect the area and
no extension of zoning other than residential was permitted. He hoped this Council would "hold the
line" again. He pointed out the need to protect the character of this neighborhood, commenting there has
been no change to warrant changing the Comprehensive Plan. He referred to page 41 of Ms. Eychaner's
report, which addresses street setback and lot coverage, advising there is a 20 -foot street setback in a
residential zone such as Holly Drive but a multifamily zone would require only a 15 -foot setback. This
would result in a multifamily building appearing out of place with other buildings on the street. Lot
coverage can be increased from 35% in a single- family zone to 45% in a multifamily zone. He stressed
these changes would be out of character with the residential character of this neighborhood.
Melissa Chapman, 610 Maple Street, Edmonds, said she has owned her home for 11 years and has
seen the small town beauty of Edmonds replaced by condominiums. She urged the Council to preserve
the small town feeling in the single - family zone.
Al Rutledge, 7101 Lake Ballinger Way, Edmonds, said rezone to multifamily would increase the
population in neighborhoods which would result in financial gain for City businesses. However, it
appears citizens do not want that. '
Hearing no further comment, Mayor Fahey closed the public participation portion of the hearing
Councilmember White asked why the Multifamily - High Density designations on the Comprehensive
Plan Land Use Map had curved edges and bisects lots. Mr., Wilson answered it was a function of the
graphic tools available.when the map was developed. Further, when the Land Use Map was developed, a
decision was made not to show designations as sharp lines that follow property lines. The rounded
corners were intended -to indicate there is some latitude to adjust the designation for properties on a
situation -by- situation basis.
Mayor Fahey remanded the matter to the Council for deliberation.
COUNCILMEMBER EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER VAN
HOLLEBEKE, TO DENY THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP CHANGE FROM SINGLE -
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO MULTIFAMILY - HIGH DENSITY AND REZONE FROM RS -6 TO
RM- 1.5.
Councilmember Earling recalled a couple of years ago the term "zone creep" was introduced. This
occurs in areas throughout the community where exceptions are made for one property, which begins to
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 1, 1999
Page 16
change the character of a neighborhood. He said the City has made designations in the Comprehensive
Plan for a reason and it is clear this is a residential neighborhood that should be maintained to uphold the
integrity of the community.
Councilmember White said that although the City is required to create high density areas to be consistent
with the GMA, the' Comprehensive Plan is reviewed each year to ensure it is consistent with the criteria
of the GMA. He said the most common theme among residents is "maintain the character of Edmonds,"
and this request does not seek to maintain the character of Edmonds. He did not find any justification.in
the criteria in ECDC 20.00.050 that would require the City to 1) determine the proposed amendment is
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, 2) determine that the amendment would not be detrimental to
the public interest or 3) whether it would be compatible with the current use.
Councilmember Van Hollebeke said this is a good example of zoning creep. He supported the motion as
he felt approving it would "open a can of worms" in the City.
Council President Haakenson recalled during the past four years, citizens have asked that the City stop
allowing construction of condominiums, townhouses, and apartments; in some cases, this cannot be done
because the zoning allows it. However, this is an instance where the Council has an opportunity to stop
that from occurring. He observed the subject property is surrounded on three sides by the single - family
designation.
MOTION CARRIED.
B. REOUEST BY JERRY & MILLIE GIRMUS, PROPERTY OWNER,_ TO CHANGE THE
EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED
AT 534 4m AVENUE SOUTH FROM "SINGLE- FAMILY -SMALL LOT" TO
MULTIFAMILY —HIGH DENSITY," TOGETHER WITH A CONCURRENT
APPLICATION TO REZONE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM "RS -6" TO "RM -1.5."
FILE NO. CDC -98 -1, CDC -98 -150, R -98 -151
Lu I Planning Supervisor• Jeff Wilson said this is a similar request where the property owner is seeking an
Baring amendment to the Comprehensive Plan as well as a concurrent rezone. He displayed a vicinity map
DC -98 -1B illustrating the Comprehensive Plan designations in the area and identified the property. He explained
the request is to amend the Comprehensive Plan from Single - Family - Small Lot to Multifamily - High
Density as well as a concurrent rezone to multifamily to allow redevelopment of the site from single -
family use to a higher density, multifamily use. This parcel is far detached from the multifamily
designation area to the north and only slightly related to the multifamily designation across 41 Avenue to
the east of the property. The Planning Board reviewed this request in December 1998, determined an
amendment to the Comprehensive Plan in this area would not be consistent with the criteria and
recommended the amendment be denied. As a result, the concurrent rezone would be inconsistent with
the Comprehensive Plan designation.
Mr. Wilson recalled the Council approved a rezone for parcels further north via a contract rezone to
allow the multifamily designation to permit construction of two units per lot (a duplex) on each parcel.
His conversations with the applicant and Planning Board indicates this is what the applicant is seeking.
The applicant was advised there were other options for accomplishing that action without amending the
Comprehensive Plan or a rezone such as under the City's existing accessory dwelling unit ordinance if
the second unit was for a member of the family. Future planned amendments to the accessory dwelling.
unit provisions may allow them to accomplish their goals.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 1, 1999
Page 17
Councilmember White asked if the Council was to consider both the Comprehensive Plan amendment
and the rezone and, if so, were there any different standards to be considered. City Attorney Scott
Snyder advised if the Council chose not to amend the Comprehensive Plan, the rezone could not be
approved because it would not be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. If the Council denied the
request for change in the Comprehensive Plan designation, absent any discussion on the rezone, his
findings would indicate the rezone was also denied.
Mr. Snyder asked if there was any indication in the City's Comprehensive Plan process that the City does
not have sufficient density to meet its growth planning guidelines. Mr. Wilson answered the City has
sufficient density in the current designations to meet the density projections.
Applicant
The applicants, Jerry and Millie Girmus, were not present.
Mayor Fahey opened the public participation portion of the hearing.
Henry Larsen, 514 3rd Avenue S, Edmonds, a 37 -year Edmonds resident, was opposed to this request.
He asked for a clarification of Multifamily - High Density and asked if it could result in a three -story
condominium behind his house. Mr. Wilson explained the Multifamily - High Density designation
equates to RM -1.5 zoning, one unit per 1500 square feet of lot area. Any development would be subject
to the same 25 -foot height limitations, but would have the ability to obtain an additional 5 feet if certain
design parameters are met. He said there is no stipulation on the number of floors, the City measures
height only by feet. Mr. Larsen urged the Council to consider that there are six other lots on the west
side of 4' who could request the same change in their Comprehensive Plan designation and the Council
likely could not deny their requests if this request is granted. He referred to jokes about the number of
condominiums in Edmonds, commenting there are a lot of feelings against condominiums. He asked if
County growth figures put pressure on the City to increase density and felt the County's growth figures
should be only projections of what might occur and not a target to be met by eliminating single - family
housing.
Ed McMorrow, 1024 4 " Avenue, Edmonds, observed south of Howell Way there is a lot that is zoned
for condominiums. Mr. Wilson identified the three parcels that are part of a contract rezone. They could
have had higher density under the RM -2.4 zoning but the contract rezone stipulated that no more. than
two units per lot would be permitted (duplexes on each of the three lots). Mr. McMorrow asked if that
same parameter was stipulated in this request. Mayor Fahey answered no. Mr. McMorrow said he was
opposed to the requested change in the Comprehensive Plan designation.
Gwen Diason -Wood, 900 5 " Avenue S, Edmonds, said she lives in a condominium that faces 41. She
was saddened to see more and more of Edmonds changing, noting the area under consideration has
single - family homes on both sides of 41 and on 3`d. She said if one property changes to a multifamily
designation, others would follow. She said some residents have indicated their plans to move because
they fear this happening. She requested the Council not change the zoning.
Hearing no further comment, Mayor Fahey closed the public participation portion of the hearing.
In response to a question raised by Mr. Larsen, Mr. Snyder explained the GMA requires that all future
urban growth occur in urban areas. Each county establishes growth guidelines /targets and each city's
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 1, 1999
Page 18
7
i
Comprehensive Plan is required to make adequate provision for that density. Mr. Wilson indicated the
City has adequate density to meet its needs; therefore, there is no change in circumstances (one of the
criteria for approving a change in the Comprehensive Plan designation). As long as the City has
adequate urban density to meet its projections, there is no compelling reason to increase the areas for
multifamily development.
COUNCILMEMBER EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WHITE, TO
DENY THE REQUEST FOR THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP CHANGE FROM SINGLE -
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO MULTIFAMILY - HIGH DENSITY AND THE REZONE FROM RS-
6 TO RM -1.5. MOTION CARRIED.
C. REVIEW AND CONSIDERATION OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR PROPERTIES WITHIN THE "WESTGATE
CORRIDOR." SPECIFICALLY THE FOLLOWING:
1) REVIEW AND CONSIDERATION OF . CHANGING THE CURRENT
"CORRIDOR DEVELOPMENT - MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL"
DESIGNATION FOR THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 540, 550, 600, 606, AND
612 EDMONDS WAY; AND 10826 KULSHAN ROAD TO "SINGLE- FAMILY"
LAND USE DESIGNATION.
ublie Senior Planner Steve Bullock displayed a map of the Westgate Corridor identifying locations 1, 2 and 3
Baring (which correspond to areas A, B, and C in the Council packet) and their Comprehensive Plan
DC -98 -1C designations. He directed the Council's attention to page 144 of the packet, a vicinity map illustrating the
existing zoning.
Mr. Bullock referred to the area under consideration (C 1) that is currently zoned RS -6 and RS -12. The
Comprehensive Plan map identifies the property as Medium Density Residential. Approximately one
year ago, when the Council deliberated on Comprehensive Plan designations for the Westgate Corridor,
these three areas were remanded to the Planning Board for further consideration and recommendation on
the appropriate Comprehensive Plan designation as the Comprehensive Plan designation and the zoning
were inconsistent. Following testimony received at the Planning Board's public hearings, they
recommended the Comprehensive Plan designation for this area be changed to Single- Family - Small
Lot, making a majority of the existing zoning consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation.
Councilmember Earling asked if the property at 10826 Kulshan Road was within Edmonds. Mr. Bullock
answered yes. Councilmember Earling inquired about the size of the existing lot. Mr. Bullock advised
he was uncertain of the exact size; it is the northern most lot on the map and is in the RS -6 zone and
possibly a small corner in the RS -8 zone. He said the Town of Woodway indicated to the Planning
Board that they would not allow more than one unit to access this lot from Kulshan Road; therefore, it
cannot be subdivided and access provided from Kulshan Road. The Department of Transportation also
will not permit additional access from SR 104 so the lot is effectively undividable.
Mayor Fahey opened the public participation portion of the hearing.
Theresa Molnar, 540 Edmonds Way, Edmonds, a resident of Edmonds Way for 16 years, said when
they purchased the property, they were aware there were restrictions on access from SR 104 that the
previous owner agreed to. They would like the property to remain a single- family residence but
questioned whether they were paying taxes on single- family or multifamily zoned property. Mayor
Fahey answered that would be a question for the County Auditor as the City does not have the
formula basis for the assessment. At this time, according to the City's map, the property is designated
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 1, 1999
Page 19
Medium Density Residential, which would allow more than one residence. Mr. Bullock clarified the
current Comprehensive Plan designation would allow multifamily zoning but the current zoning is single
family. Mayor Fahey said the County Auditor would not assess the property based on a potential change.
Mayor Fahey clarified the recommendation was to maintain the status quo of the current zoning.
Ms. Molnar asked if the Council had the power to overrule DOT's decision. Mr. Snyder answered the
City zones property but cannot waive rights that have been acquired by the state. Ms. Molnar said her
concern was if the City planned to rezone their property to multifamily, they would be required to pay
taxes on that basis but the property could only be used as a single- family residence. Mayor Fahey
explained the recommendation is not to change the zoning to multifamily, the intent is to bring the
Comprehensive Plan into compliance with the existing zoning and use. Ms. Molnar summarized the
property is zoned single family and the intent is to maintain the single - family zoning.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT HAAKENSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MILLER,
TO EXTEND THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR 45 MINUTES AND THE MEETING AN
ADDITIONAL 15 MINUTES (FOR A TOTAL OF 60 MINUTES). MOTION CARRIED.
Thomas Pointer, 550 Edmonds Way, Edmonds, said according to the information provided, the
property is already designated "Corridor Development - Medium Density Residential" rather than single
family. He said it appeared the intent was to change it to single family in the future. Mr. Bullock
explained the City has two maps, the Zoning Map, which drives and controls development and the
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. The Zoning Map currently identifies this area as single family, an
RS zoning classification. The Comprehensive Plan identifies it as Corridor Development - Medium
Density Residential. The Planning Board discussed this and recommended changing the Comprehensive
Plan designation to single family so that it is consistent with the zoning.
Hearing no further comment Mayor Fahey closed the public participation portion of the hearing. She
asked if any Councilmember wished to make any disclosures. There were no disclosures. Mayor Fahey
asked if any member of the audience objected to the participation of any Councilmember in this process.
There were no objections. Mayor Fahey remanded the matter to Council for deliberation.
COUNCILMEMBER MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST, TO
APPROVE THE CHANGE FROM MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO SINGLE - FAMILY -
SMALL LOT. MOTION CARRIED.
Mr. Snyder said the Findings would cite the restriction on access and the incompatibility of developing
the property with the existing access and right -of -way.
2) REVIEW AND CONSIDERATION OF CHANGING THE CURRENT
"CORRIDOR DEVELOPMENT - PLANNED BUSINESS" DESIGNATION FOR
THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 601 EDMONDS WAY AND 560 PARADISE
LANE TO A "MULTIFAMILY - MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL" LAND
USE DESIGNATION.
Mayor Fahey asked if any Councilmember wished to make any disclosures. There were no disclosures.
Mayor Fahey asked if any member of the audience objected to the participation of any Councilmember
in this process. There were no objections.
Senior Planner Steve Bullock displayed a map illustrating the Comprehensive Plan designations in the
area, identifying this triangular shaped group of properties which is identified on the Comprehensive
Plan map as Planned Business. This was presented to the Council a year ago as a rezone request because
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 1, 1999
Page 20
the current zoning of the property is single family and a rezone was sought to make the area consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan designation of Planned Business. Following the Council's review of that
proposal, a decision was made to remand the Comprehensive Plan designation of the three properties to
the Planning Board as it was felt a Planned Business designation was not appropriate. The Planning
Board reviewed this issue including input from the neighborhood. Mr. Bullock pointed out there are
some access limitations due to SR 104, as well as concern on Paradise Lane due to the single - family
nature and character of the properties on the north and east. As a result, although it began as a Medium
Density Residential designation to the Comprehensive Plan for these properties, the Planning Board
recommends the properties be designated in the Comprehensive Plan as single - family residential.
Ed McMarrow, 1024 4 " Avenue S, Edmonds, said the agenda indicates a change to Multifamily -
Medium Density. Mr. Bullock explained staff s original recommendation to the Planning Board was to
consider designating this area as Multifamily - Medium Density Residential. The original notification
language has been maintained throughout this process. The Planning Board recommended single- family
residential rather than Multifamily - Medium Density Residential.
For Council President Haakenson, Mr. Bullock explained staff s original recommendation was Medium
Density Residential. The matter has been advertised the same to maintain consistency. Council
President Haakenson clarified staff recommended Medium Density Residential and the Planning Board
recommended single family. Mr. Bullock agreed. Council President Haakenson questioned whether the
audience understood this. Mr. Bullock said it was clear at the Planning Board meeting that their
recommendation was single - family residential. City Clerk Sandy Chase said specific letters were sent to
the area indicating the Planning Board's recommendation.
Mayor Fahey asked if the Planning Board's recommendation to designate the properties single - family
residential was made in response to comments made by the public. Mr. Bullock answered yes. Mayor
Fahey said the Planning Board's record would demonstrate the people in that area expressed a desire to
have the property designated single family rather than multifamily. Mr. Bullock answered yes,
overwhelmingly.
Al Rutledge, 7101 Lake Ballinger Way, Edmonds, said it appears some property owners are not
interested in single family.
Mayor Fahey advised a letter was received prior to tonight's meeting from Diane and Takashi Nasa (557
Paradise Lane) and copies distributed to the Council stating their opposition to Multifamily and Medium
Density Residential and in support of the Planning Board's recommendation to change the
Comprehensive Plan designation to single family.
Hearing no further comment, Mayor Fahey closed the public participation portion of the hearing and
remanded this issue to the Council for deliberation.
COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER VAN
HOLLEBEKE, TO UPHOLD THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING BOARD
(APPROVE THE CHANGE TO SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENTIAL). MOTION CARRIED.
Mr. Snyder advised the Council's findings would cite the inappropriate traffic impacts and conflicts listed
on page 147 and 148 of the Council packet.
3) REVIEW AND CONSIDERATION OF CHANGING THE CURRENT "SINGLE -
FAMILY - SMALL LOT" DESIGNATION TO THE "CORRIDOR .
DEVELOPMENT - PLANNED BUSINESS" DESIGNATION FOR THE
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 1, 1999
Page 21
PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 744, 745 748 AND 749 15TH WAY; AND 717 AND
720 STREET SOUTHWEST.
Mayor Fahey asked if any Councilmember wished to make any disclosures. There were no disclosures.
Mayor Fahey asked if any member of the audience objected to the participation of any Councilmember
in this process. There were no objections.
Senior Planner Steve Bullock identified the two properties on the corner of 15" Street SW where the
Council approved a rezone to Planned Business approximately a year ago as those properties were part of
the Westgate Corridor. During their consideration, the Council directed staff and the Planning Board to
determine where the line for Planned Business designation should be. The Planning Board took
considerable public testimony on this issue in December /January and, almost without exception, the
neighborhoods that are adjacent to the Planned Business area, both on 15' Street SW and within the 15'
Way cul -de -sac indicated they had viable single - family neighborhoods and did not feel the noise or
traffic from Edmonds Way impacted their neighborhoods. They felt any expansion of the Planned
Business zone would be an intrusion into their single - family neighborhoods. The Planning Department
agreed this is a viable single- family neighborhood and the impact from Edmonds Way is not sufficient to
justify a change to the Planned Business designation.
Mayor Fahey opened the public participation portion of the hearing.
Charles Brady, 727 15" Street SW, Edmonds, urged the Council to uphold the Planning Board's
recommendation. He pointed out the concern for small children in their neighborhood who catch the
school bus nearby. He said additional business activity would increase traffic on 151 Way SW, which
many people currently utilize to reach 9' Avenue. He said the Police Department has worked to enforce
the use of the signal but often people run the red light. He urged the Council to maintain this as a viable
neighborhood.
Brenda Banger, 1508 8" Place S, Edmonds, said their back garden would become part of the business
zoning if the designation is changed. She explained they moved to this house 20 years ago because of
the cul -de -sac, the cemetery next door, and the peaceful, quiet neighborhood. If the zoning is changed, a
business could be located along their back fence. She said if the Planned Business zone is extended to
include their house and a block the other way to 9` ", the entire area may as well be Planned Business.
William Banger, 1508 8" Place S, Edmonds, said currently a row of trees and the neighbor's trees
shield them from the noise of Edmonds Way. If that area became business, he was uncertain what type
of business would locate there. He was vehemently opposed to changing 151" Way to anything other than
single- family residential.
Craig Roloff, 7010 226" Place SW, speaking for his mother who resides at 720 141 Way SW,
Edmonds, said his mother has lived in the neighborhood for 35 years. He stressed the area is truly
residential. He said it would be a safer area if the traffic were kept to a minimum.
Sheila Anderson, 723 15" SW, Edmonds, said she has a six -year old and intends.for him to grow up in
Edmonds. She felt Edmonds was a good place and supported the residents' desire to keep Edmonds the
way it is.
Richard Johnson, 717 15" Street SW, Edmonds, concurred with the staff report regarding retaining the
single - family zoning. Although the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Map agreed the area was single
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 1, 1999
Page 22
family, a change-was proposed due to the Comprehensive Plan change for the two corner lots. He agreed
there is a significant sound barrier provided by those buildings and the trees. He observed a 15 -foot
setback must still be maintained if those properties are developed as Planned Business.
Mayor Fahey closed the public participation portion of the hearing. She advised correspondence was
received tonight from Gerdene Adams (1506 81 Place S) regarding changing the current Single - Family -
Small Lot designation to Corridor Development - Planned Business. Ms. Adams indicated her property
is behind 744, 745, and 748. She purchased her house in 1992 because it was close to shopping but
quiet. She said the cemetery, single - family zoning, and trees provide a buffer to the traffic on 1001 and
Edmonds Way. Although traffic has increased since she purchased her home, it is still quiet in the 8''
Place cul -de -sac. She indicated business development would make the noise unbearable, the property
would decline in value and would be difficult to sell. She strongly objected to the change in designation.
Mayor Fahey remanded the matter to the Council for deliberation.
COUNCILMEMBER MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WHITE, TO
UPHOLD THE PLANNING BOARD'S RECOMMENDATION AND DENY THE PROPOSAL TO
CHANGE THE SINGLE - FAMILY DESIGNATION.
Councilmember Nordquist said this area was designed by Lloyd Black many years ago and is a unique,
classic residential area.
MOTION CARRIED.
Mayor Fahey expressed her appreciation for the public's patience with this process and residents'
willingness to maintain this area as single family.
D. REVIEW AND CONSIDERATION OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR THE PROPERTY OWNED BY THE CITY,
LOCATED SOUTH OF THE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT (230 2ND AVENUE
SOUTH) FROM "MIXED -USE COMMERCIAL" TO "PARKS /OPEN SPACE."
Public I Planning Supervisor Jeff Wilson displayed a map and identified the property. He said 5 - 7 years ago,
caring the City acquired this property as part of some additional City -owned property because a majority of it
DC -98 -ID I contains wetlands that exist to the south as part. of the Union Oil wetlands on the west side of SR 104.
Although the intent was to maintain the property in its present state and prevent development, the
Comprehensive Plan identifies it as a Mixed -Use Commercial area. The intent of the proposal is to
change the designation from Mixed -Use Commercial to Parks to recognize the intent to maintain the
property as open space and to preserve the wetlands.
Mayor Fahey asked if any Councilmember wished to make any disclosures. There were no disclosures.
Mayor Fahey asked if any member of the audience objected to the participation of any Councilmember
in this process. There were no objections. Mayor Fahey opened the public participation portion of the
hearing.
Cliff Barlo, 233 3'd Avenue S, Edmonds, asked what.the City planned to do with the Parks /Open Space.
Mayor Fahey answered there are no plans for additional development other than maintaining the .property
as it is. This action is only to make the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Map consistent. Mr. Barlo
said this area is a jungle with trees at every angle that block views and there are rats. He recommended
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 1, 1999
Page 23
the Parks Department do something about the property, specifically cut some of the trees to restore their
views.
Mayor Fahey closed the public participation portion of the hearing.
City Attorney Scott Snyder suggested the Parks Department notify Mr. Barlo when the Parks Open Space
Plan is reviewed.
Mayor Fahey remanded the matter to Council for deliberation.
COUNCILMEMBER MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST, TO
UPHOLD THE PLANNING BOARD'S RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL OF THE
REQUEST TO CHANGE THE DESIGNATION FROM MIXED -USE COMMERCIAL TO
PARK/OPEN SPACE. MOTION CARRIED.
i
E. HEARING ON PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE TEXT PORTIONS OF THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO UPDATE THE UTILITIES ELEMENT (STORMWATER
DRAINAGE) BY ADOPTING THE COMPLETED MEADOWDALE AND PERRINVILLE
CREEK DRAINAGE STUDIES
Public Mayor Fahey asked if any Councilmember wished to make any disclosures. There were no disclosures.
Baring Mayor Fahey asked if any member of the audience objected to the participation of any Councilmember
DC -98 -1E in this process. There were no objections.
City Engineer Jim Walker advised these are two studies undertaken to update the existing Utilities
Element of the Comprehensive Plan. The Perrinville Street Stabilization Study is a more detailed pre-
design study related to the Perrinville Creek study done in 1991. The other study is the Meadowdale
Drainage Investigation, which was completed following the landslides that occurred and new complaints
regarding drainage issues that the City was previously unaware of The study recommended
improvements in the area to reduce the landslide hazard and address drainage problems in that area. The
Planning Board recommended inclusion of both studies in the Comprehensive Plan.
Mayor Fahey opened the public participation portion of the hearing. Hearing no comment, she closed
the public participation portion of the hearing.
COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER VAN
HOLLEBEKE, TO ADOPT THE STUDIES AS PART OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
MOTION CARRIED.
i
Council President Haakenson thanked the Planning Board for their review of these issues. i
7. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Running for At Rutledge, 7101 Lake Ballinger Way, Edmonds, announced his intent to run for political office this
Pffice
fall. He advised he attended the joint City Council /School Board meeting on May 27 regarding the siting
of an aquatic center. He was impressed with the comments made by Mr. Nordquist and indicated he
faxed him some information regarding the aquatic center that could be provided to anyone who called
him.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 1, 1999
Page 24
9. MAYOR'S REPORT
Lulation Mayor Fahey acknowledged the Fire Department and Police Department for their participation in the
accident scene simulation at Edmonds - Woodway High School. She said the simulation clearly
demonstrat ed the trauma of an accident and the problems that can be created by driving under the
influence. She felt it was an excellent presentation and has heard a great deal of feedback regarding its
impact. She thanked Councilmember Van Hollebeke for his participation in the presentation.
emorial Mayor Fahey acknowledged the efforts of the Cemetery Board for the Memorial, Day Ceremony. She
Day thanked the Councilmembers as well as the members of the public who attended the ceremony to
eremony recognize the sacrifices made by veterans and their families.
10. COUNCIL REPORTS
COUNCIL PRESIDENT HAAKENSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MILLER,
TO EXCUSE COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST FROM THE MAY 18 MEETING. MOTION
CARRIED, COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST ABSTAINED FROM THE VOTE.
Council President Haakenson wished Councilmember Plunkett a Happy Birthday.
Councilmember Nordquist commented the meeting with the School Board was a wonderful experience
ja ting d that should be repeated in the near future. He was impressed with the young families' interest in the
ool B rd P P Y g morial Memorial Day Ceremony at the cemetery. He thanked Dale Hoggins, Chair of the Cemetery Board, for
emony his efforts. He commented Councilmember Earling's son's recitation of the Gettysburg Address was
remarkable. He hoped the Memorial Day Ceremony would continue to be an annual event.
Councilmember Miller commended Mr. Hoggins and the Cemetery Board for their efforts. He said it
was nice to see youth taking an interest in Memorial Day.
COUNCILMEMBER WHITE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER VAN
HOLLEBEKE, TO EXCUSE COUNCILMEMBER MILLER FROM THE MAY 25 AND MAY 27
COUNCIL MEETINGS. MOTION CARRIED, COUNCILMEMBER MILLER ABSTAINED
FROM THE VOTE.
Councilmember Earling echoed the comments regarding Mr. Hoggins. He reiterated Councilmember
Youth Nord uist's comments regarding the value of youth coming to events such as the Memorial Da
Participation q g g Y g Y
in the Ceremony and their parents' recognition of the history. He commended Mr. Hoggins' efforts. to
Community encourage participation by youth in the community.
Downtown Mayor Fahey announced a Subcommittee of the City Council will hold a Special Meeting on
Parking Wednesday, June 2 at 4:00 p.m. in the Human Resources Conference Room in City Hall to discuss
Committee financing options for the proposed downtown parking garage. She said anyone interested in this issue
Meeting was invited to attend the meeting.
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:50 p.m.
BARBARA S. FAHEY, MAYOR SANDRA S. CHASE, CITY'.CLERK
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 1, 1999
Page 25
AGENDA
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL
— b
Plaza Meeting Room - Library Building
650 Main Street
7:00 -10:00 mm.
JUNE 1, 1999
7:00 P.M. - CALL TO ORDER
FLAG SALUTE
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
(A) ROLL CALL
(B) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MAY 25, 1999
(C) APPROVAL OF CLAIM WARRANTS #29388 THROUGH #33075 FOR THE WEEK OF MAY 24, 1999, IN
THE AMOUNT OF $152,003.30.
(D) ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES FROM MARGARET V. QUINE ($500,000.00),
PATTI ANN HOY ($15,121.42), ERIC AND CHRISTINE THUESEN ($243.00), AND DR. BRUCE BARNES,
ATKINS- BARNES CHIROPRACTIC CENTER (Approx. $4,915.00)
(E) UPDATE ON HIGHWAY 99 PROJECT AND COUNCIL CONCURRENCE WITH CITY OF LYNNWOOD
AWARD OF BID TO WILDER CONSTRUCTION
(F) REPORT ON BIDS OPENED MAY 25, 1999 FOR FURNISHINGS, FIXTURES AND EQUIPMENT FOR
THE PUBLIC SAFETY PROJECT, AND AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR BASE BID ITEM C TO INTERIOR
DEVELOPMENT EAST LTD. IN THE AMOUNT OF $47,716.67 (Including Sales Tax)
(G) REPORT ON BIDS OPENED MAY 25, 1999 FOR FURNISHINGS, FIXTURES AND EQUIPMENT FOR
THE PUBLIC SAFETY PROJECT, AND AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR BASE BID ITEMS A, R, S AND T
TO BANK & OFFICE INTERIORS IN THE AMOUNT OF $16,902.11 (Including Sales Tax)
(H) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT RELATED TO THE 800 MHz
PROJECT
(1) PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF CITY CODE CHAPTER 5.01,
PRELIMINARY ARTICLE, BY THE REPEAL OF SECTION 5.01.040, CONTEMPT, AND THE
ENACTMENT IN ITS PLACE OF A NEW SECTION 5.01.040, CONTEMPT
3. (20 Min.) PUBLIC HEARING ON THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER REGARDING AN
APPLICATION BY HOWLAND HOMES, LLC TO AMEND THE OFFICIAL STREET MAP FOR THE PLAN -
LINED RIGHT -OF -WAY OF THE 88TH AVENUE WEST RIGHT -OF -WAY IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO
THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 8729 MAIN STREET. THE RIGHT -OF -WAY ADJACENT TO THE
PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY 30 -FEET WIDE, WITH AN ADDITIONAL 30 -FOOT DEDICATION
REQUIREMENT. THE APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED THE CITY REVIEW THE NEED FOR 60 -FEET OF
RIGHT -OF -WAY AND CONSIDER CHANGING THE MAP AND THEREBY REDUCING THE
REQUIREMENT TO 30 FEET. (Applicant: Howland Homes, LLC / File No. ST- 99 -26)
4. (30 Min.) PUBLIC HEARING ON A REQUEST TO VACATE A 10 -FOOT WIDE BY 113 -FOOT LONG PORTION OF
THE 218TH PLACE SOUTHWEST RIGHT -OF -WAY IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO 9405 - 218TH PLACE
SOUTHWEST. (Applicant: Larry Wax / File No. ST- 99 -52)
5. (95 Min.) PUBLIC HEARING ON INTERIM ORDINANCE NO. 3247 AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION
17.40.010(C) TO LIMIT THE APPLICATION OF THE CITY'S ABATEMENT PROCESS TO
NONCONFORMING COMMERCIAL, BUSINESS AND INDUSTRIAL USES LOCATED IN RESIDENTIAL
ZONES
CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA
JUNE 1, 1999
Page 2
6. (75 Min.) PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING PROPOSED TEXT
AND LAND USE MAP AMENDMENTS TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. (Applicant: Edmonds
Planning Division / File No. CDC- 98 -1). THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS ARE:
A. REQUEST BY MR. RON GARD, TRUSTEE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, TO CHANGE THE
EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 506
6TH AVENUE SOUTH FROM "SINGLE- FAMILY —SMALL LOT" TO "MULTIFAMILY —HIGH
DENSITY," TOGETHER WITH A CONCURRENT APPLICATION TO REZONE THE SUBJECT
PROPERTY FROM "RS -6" TO "RM -1.5." FILE NO. CDC -98 -1, CDC -97 -139, & R -97 -140.
B. REQUEST BY JERRY & MILLIE GIRMUS, PROPERTY OWNER, TO CHANGE THE EXISTING
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 534 4TH AVENUE
SOUTH FROM "SINGLE- FAMILY —SMALL LOT" TO "MULTIFAMILY —HIGH -DENSITY,"
TOGETHER WITH A CONCURRENT APPLICATION TO REZONE THE .SUBJECT PROPERTY
FROM "RS -6" TO "RM -1.5." FILE NO. CDC -98 -1, CDC -98 -150, R -98 -151.
C. REVIEW AND CONSIDERATION OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR PROPERTIES WITHIN THE "WESTGATE CORRIDOR."
SPECIFICALLY, THE FOLLOWING:
1) REVIEW AND CONSIDERATION OF CHANGING THE CURRENT "CORRIDOR
DEVELOPMENT – MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL" DESIGNATION FOR THE
PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 540, 550, 600, 606, AND 612 EDMONDS WAY; AND
10826 KULSHAN ROAD TO "SINGLE- FAMILY" LAND USE DESIGNATION.
2) REVIEW AND CONSIDERATION OF CHANGING THE CURRENT "CORRIDOR
DEVELOPMENT – PLANNED BUSINESS" DESIGNATION FOR THE PROPERTIES
LOCATED AT 601 EDMONDS WAY AND 560 PARADISE LANE TO A "MULTIFAMILY
– MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL" LAND USE DESIGNATION.
3) REVIEW AND CONSIDERATION OF CHANGING THE CURRENT "SINGLE- FAMILY –
SMALL LOT" DESIGNATION TO THE "CORRIDOR DEVELOPMENT – PLANNED
BUSINESS" DESIGNATION FOR THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 744, 745, 748, .
AND 749 15TH WAY; AND 717 AND 720 15TH STREET SOUTHWEST
D. REVIEW AND CONSIDERATION OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR THE PROPERTY OWNED BY THE CITY, LOCATED SOUTH
OF THE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT (230 2ND AVENUE SOUTH) FROM "MIXED USE
COMMERCIAL" TO "PARKS /OPEN SPACE."
E. HEARING ON PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE TEXT PORTIONS OF THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO UPDATE THE UTILITIES ELEMENT (STORMWATER DRAINAGE)
BY ADOPTING THE COMPLETED MEADOWDALE AND PERRINVILLE CREEK DRAINAGE
STUDIES.
7. AUDIENCE COMMENTS (3 Minute Limit Per Person)
(5 Min.) PROCLAMATION IN RECOGNITION OF NATIONAL FLAG DAY ON JUNE 14, 1999
9: (5 Min.) MAYOR'S REPORT
10. (15 Min.) COUNCIL REPORT
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 appears on Chambers Cable, Channel 32.
Delayed telecast of this meeting appears the following Wednesday, Friday and Monday at noon on Channel 32.