06/03/1986 City CouncilTHESE MINUTES SUBJECT
TO JUNE 10, 1986 APPROVAL
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
JUNE 3, 1986
The regular meeting of the Edmonds City Council was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Larry
Naughten in the Plaza Meeting Room of the Edmonds Library. All present joined in the flag sa-
1ute.
PRESENT
Larry Naughten, Mayor
John Nordquist
Steve Dwyer
Jo -Anne Jaech
Bill Kasper
Lloyd Ostrom
Jack Wilson
CONSENT AGENDA
ABSENT
STAFF PRESENT
Laura Hall Mary Lou Block, Planning .Div. Mgr.
Duane Bowman, Asst. City Planner
Peter Hahn, Comm. Svcs. Director
Bob Alberts, City Engineer
Jack Weinz, Fire Chief
Bobby Mills, Pub. Wks. Supt.
Steve Simpson, Parks & Rec. Mgr,
Art Housler, Admin. Svcs. Dir.
Scott Snyder, City Attorney
Jackie Parrett, City Clerk
Margaret Richards, Recorder
Items (B) and (C) were removed from the Consent Agenda. COUNCILMEMBER JAECH MOVED, SECONDED BY
COUNCILMEMBER NORD.QUIST, TO APPROVE THE BALANCE OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED. The
approved items on the Consent Agenda include the following:
(A). ROLL CALL
(D) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT WITH.DIANE L. VAN DERBEEK
FOR HEARING EXAMINER PRO TEM SERVICES (RECOMMENDATION OF COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST)
(E) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN CONTRACT FOR INSTALLATION OF TEMPORARY TIDE POOLS AT
BRACKETT'S LANDING
(F) ACCEPTANCE OF PROPERTY FROM MR. RUNO NOROENBERG IN EXCHANGE FOR PAYMENT OF BACK TAXES
($45.55)
APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF MAY 20, 1986 [ITEM (B) 0 THE CONSENT AGENDA
Councilmember Nordquist requested that the minutes reflect that he arrived at 7:15 p.m. during
the audience participation. COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON, TO
APPROVE THE MINUTES AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RECEIPT OF CLAIMS FOR. DAMAGES FROM VICKI L. MOYER $33.96 AND MARY L. MCKEE
156,851.22 LITEM C ON THE CONSENT AGENDA
Councilmember Dwyer referred to the first claim. He inquired if the claim is automatically sent
to the insurer. Administrative Services Director Art Housler said the City participates in an
insurance pool, and all claims are sent to the risk manager who makes a decision whether the
claim will be denied or adjusted. Councilmember Dwyer inquired if the City has any. influence if
a claim is paid or not. Mr. Housler replied negatively. Councilmember Dwyer said that this
particular claim was ridiculous, and perhaps the City could convey the message that it is unwill-
ing to pay the claim. COUNCILMEMBER DWYER MOVED, SECONDED BY CO.UNCILMEMBER KASPER, TO APPROVE
ITEM (B). Councilmember Ostrom queried why Staff did not respond to the claimant's request in a
timely fashion. MOTION CARRIED.
AUDIENCE
Mayor Naughten opened the audience portion of the meeting.
Will Smith, 732 Bell St., suggested that amendments be made to the Edmonds Community Development
Code. He reported that a contractor is building a home next to his. He has excavated the site
because of a requirement of a 14% grade for his driveway and cut a bank at the edge of Mr.
Smith's property creating an 8 foot drop.
Mr. Smith said there are no requirements that the drop be protected by the contractor, which
places the burden upon Mr. Smith by his insurance carrier regarding liability. Mr. Smith said he
does not feel that a contractor should be granted a building permit when it creates a liability
for adjacent property owners.
Councilmember Jaech noted that the Code does state that public safety and welfare must be protect-
ed when development occurs, and it must not be detrimental to adjoining property.
Councilmember Ostrom recommended that this issue be discussed at the Community Services Committee
meeting. Mayor Naughten concurred.
City Attorney Scott Snyder noted that the City is in the process of amending all building codes
in order to comply with State statutes. All changes which affect residential property are re-
quired to be reviewed by the State Building Council. Mr. Snyder recommended that this issue be
included for review.
Mayor Naughten closed the audience portion of the meeting.
Mayor Naughten introduced the new Herald correspondent, Seanna Browder.
Mayor Naughten noted that the June 17th Council meeting cannot be held at the Library Plaza Room
due to the Arts Festival. He said the only facility available on the 16th or 18th is the Senior
Center. COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JAECH, TO RESCHEDULE THE JUNE
17TH COUNCIL MEETING TO JUNE 16TH AT THE SENIOR CENTER. MOTION CARRIED.
HEARING ON APPEAL OF ADB DECISION REGARDING PROPOSED STREET VENDOR BOOTH AT 99 JAMES ST. (AP
PELLANT: DEAN N RD UIST
Councilmember Nordquist stated that Dean Nordquist is not related to him.
Planning Division Manager Mary Lou Block said the application was to locate a street vending
trailer on the north side of the street right-of-way at the west end of James Street. This is
east of .the Washington State Ferry holding lanes on State Route 104. The Architectural Design
Board approved the application subject to two conditions: 1) it is conditional and must be re-
viewed within one year, and 2) a sky-blue color be used for the striping and signage of the
trailer instead of orange. Dean Nordquist has appealed the second condition.
Councilmember Ostrom noted that he had a memorandum from Dean Nordquist regarding this issue.
Mayor Naughten asked Mr. Nordquist if he had any comments. Mr. Nordquist replied negatively.
Councilmember Dwyer noted that the hearing is a De novo hearing. He recommended that Mr. Nord-
quist enter testimony into the record since the Council would be making a decision from the testi-.
mony given this evening.
Dean Nordquist, Ill Elm, apologized that the ADB decision had to be appealed to the Council. He
requested that the Council uphold his appeal.
Councilmember Ostrom asked Mr. Nordquist if the reason he was opposed to the color change is
because delivery of the cart would be delayed and he would miss the summer season. Mr. Nordquist
said it could be painted after delivery. Councilmember Ostrom inquired if the orange color could
be repainted. Mr. Nordquist replied affirmatively. He added that a building in downtown Edmonds
is painted an orange hue. He said he did not feel that orange is an obtrusive color. The abut-
ting property owner has approved the drawings, -layout, and color of the cart.
No one else wished to speak. Mayor Naughten closed the public portion of the hearing.
COUNCILMEMBER JAECH MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON, TO APPROVE THE ORANGE COLOR SUBJECT
TO REVIEW AT A FUTURE DATE IF IT IS OFFENSIVE. MOTION CARRIED.
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 2 JUNE 3, 1986
HEARING ON SEWER RATES FOR FUNDING OF SECONDARY TREATMENT PLANT
Councilmember Jaech said this issue was discussed at the Administrative Services Committee meet-
ing: The hearing was scheduled to apprise the public of the expense of implementing a secondary
sewer treatment facility and, also, to elicit public input.
Community Services Director Art Housler said the target date for an on-line operational secondary
sewer treatment facility is 1991. Rate discussions are focused strictly on the construction
impact of this facility.
At present, today's rates are $7.46 per month per household. During previous discussions, Mr.
Hahn said the questions arose of: 1) whether the City should raise sewer rates sooner in order to
build up reserves which would enable the City to borrow less money in 19.88, and 2) should the
City raise its rates as expenditures are required for design and construction of the project.
Mr. Hahn said two strategies for raising rates are the "pay now" and "pay later" strategies.
Rates will be raised in 1988 with the "pay later" strategy to $13.46 per month when actual out-
lays are made. Rates will continue to increase to the year 1990 to $19..80. The "pay now" strate-
gy will allow reserves to accumulate, for example, by increasing rates in 1987 to $11.46, 1989 to
$16.46, 1990 to $17.46, and 1991 to $19.80. By raising rates one year in advance, $1.00 per
month will be saved over 20 years from 1991 to the end of the debt service schedule on the bond.
Mr. Hahn computed the comparison of savings that occur in future years to costs that occur next
year by using a net present value concept that places an interest rate on the money. The net
present value of the "pay later" strategy is $2.,099, and the net present cost of the "pay now"
strategy is $2,063. One of the advantages of raising rates earlier is that rate payers will
become accustomed to higher rates and will not be surprised by subsequent increases.
A third option is that the Union Oil site may be available but would have an estimated premium on
the cost of $5.00.
Mr. Hahn said the Council and Mayor discussed the idea of sending a questionnaire to Edmonds
households to determine their preference of rate options and site alternatives.
Even if Edmonds chose to increase rates earlier, Mr. Hahn said the other jurisdictions may not
wish to follow the City's example, which would mean that the City would have to raise additional
funds.
Councilmember Jaech inquired if the City is entitled to actual expense reimbursement pro rata
from the other jurisdictions. Mr. Hahn said capital costs are reimbursed but. financing for a
"borrow up front" plan is excluded. Councilmember Jaech inquired if costs to the other jurisdic-
tions could be increased if partial implementation was to commence. Mr. Hahn said the City does
not receive capital reimbursement for financing a shared facility as opposed to expenditures.
Councilmember Jaech inquired what percentage the other jurisdictions' rates could be increased if
the City increased its rates at the present time. Mr. Hahn said that is dependent on how much
the City spends. If $3,000,000 is raised and the City spends $1,000,000 for design, it will.
receive 55% of $1,000,000. The other jurisdictions do not have to participate in an investment
project, only on construction projects. Councilmember Jaech inquired if the City is allowed to
create reserves from the co -sharers of the project. Mr. Hahn said the City can only collect
expenditures on capital costs, not on accumulations of future reserves. Councilmember Jaech
inquired if that is a provision of the contract or of State or Federal law. City Attorney Scott
Snyder said the provisions were mutually negotiated, and the City has no discretion to set rates
but, rather, can plug in actual expenditures. The rate is then determined by the pre -agreed
formula. Councilmember Jaech inquired when the contracts were to be renegotiated. Mr. .Hahn
replied in the late 1990's.
Councilmember Ostrom inquired if the contract could be amended to allow the other jurisdictions
to increase their rates. Mr. Hahn replied affirmatively.
Mayor Naughten opened the public portion of the hearing.
Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, said he and most of the citizens of Edmonds endorse a rate
increase.
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 3 JUNE 3, 1986
Mayor Naughten closed the public portion of the hearing.
Mayor Naughten said the questionnaire which will be sent to households will be presented to the
Council next week for discussion.
Mr. Hahn said the method of financing (conventional vs. a privitization) will also be brought to
the Council's attention. He said he will be requesting authorization to select a consultant in
the near future for preliminary site work and preliminary engineering.
HEARING ON APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER DECISION REGARDING PROPOSED 96 UNIT ELDERLY HOUSING
Do 1CrT rAMnTTIAKIAI nKts DVE)MTT rno ro An I N. U A R I A Nrr pffii luli Inl r, F I f;141 AT TAR_ fly
Councilmember Nordquist referred to a document from City Attorney Scott Snyder regarding the
Appearance of Fairness Doctrine. Mr. Snyder said the document requires that information received
outside of the hearing process be entered into the record so that all interested persons may have
an opportunity to review what is being requested.
Mr. Snyder requested that the public submit to the City Clerk any material which is to be present-
ed so that it could be marked as an exhibit and entered into the record. He noted that the appli-
cant or appellant should be given an opportunity to review any material.
Councilmember Nordquist said Dorothy Williamson related to him over the weekend that she intended
to submit a document in the packet. He said he had in his possession a letter from Natalie
Shippen.
Councilmember Ostrom said he had a copy of a letter from Muryl Medina, Eunice Wickstrom, and John
and Sherry Coscott.
Councilmember Jaech said that she resides on Walnut Street, which is four blocks away from the
proposed project. However, she will not be affected by the construction in any way.
Councilmember Ostrom said he spoke with two people who related to him their interpretation of
Chapter 20.25 of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC). They stressed the difference
between a retirement home and housing for the elderly.
Mr. Snyder inquired if anyone in the audience objected to the participation of any Councilmember
based upon their disclosures. No objection was noted.
COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OSTROM, TO ACCEPT THE APPELLANT'S REQUEST
TO WITHDRAW THE BUILDING HEIGHT VARIANCE APPLICATION FOR CONSIDERATION FOR CU-6-86 and V-4-86.
Councilmember Jaech inquired if the building structure is being changed.
Reid Shockey, 2907-1/2 Hewitt Ave., Everett, said the design of the building was modified to
eliminate the need for a variance. Councilmember Jaech inquired if the modification will change
the proceedings this evening which the Council will be basing their decisions on. Mr. Shockey
said the appealed items will pertain to the Conditional Use Permit and to issues pertaining to it
and will not pertain to the variance. Councilmember Jaech inquired if the building height will
create setback requirements or any other special circumstances. Planning Division Manager Mary
Lou Block replied negatively. Mr. Hahn noted that excavation has been reduced from 38,000 to
approximately 33,700 cubic yards.
MOTION CARRIED.
Ms. Block gave background information. Ms. Block read into the record the Hearing Examiner's
Conclusions and Decisions.
Assistant City Planner Duane Bowman displayed on the overhead projector the.proposed project and
its location in relation to surrounding facilities.
Mr. Hahn reviewed sections of the ECDC which Staff relied upon in making their recommendations as
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 4 JUNE 3, 1986
follows: Section 16.30: Permitted uses in multiple residential zones; subsection A (1) Multiple
dwellings; (3) Retirement homes, and (5) housing for the elderly in accordance with the require-
ments of Chapter 20.25.
Mr. Hahn said Section 20.25.010 allows a decrease of as much as 1/2 of the minimum required site
area per unit and allows a decrease of as much as 5/6 of the minimum number of parking spaces per
unit.
Section 20.25.020 states that a project shall be. rented exclusively to elderly persons, as de-
fined by the Housing and Urban Development, or to persons receiving Social Security disability
benefits or be financed under the Insured Mortgage Program of HUD or other similar government
programs.
Section 20.25.040 sets forth the location criteria for an eligible project for housing for the
elderly. Mr. Hahn said the proposed project satisfies these conditions.
Councilmember Dwyer referred to Section 20.25.010 which states, "The Hearing Examiner mmM ap-
prove .", and Section 20.25.030, "The applicant shall...". He questioned the definition of
"may". He inquired if there are standards given for -w- at the correct result should be regarding
the decrease of as much as 1/2 of the minimum required site area per unit and a decrease of as
much as 5/6 of the minimum number of parking spaces per unit in Section 20.25.010. Mr. Hahn said
there are no specific standards. Councilmember Dwyer inquired if the result is purely discretion-
ary given the absence of a standard and the use of the word "may". Mr. Snyder said there are
standards. He said the RM zone category contains three categories that overlap: 1) multiple -
family dwellings, 2) retirement homes, and 3) housing for the elderly. He said there is national
case law in the U.S. Supreme Court regarding a Washington ordinance that found: 1) that retire-
ment homes are residential uses, and 2) it is a constitutionally suspect category to attempt to
discriminate against retirement homes and elderly projects in multiple -family zones. A housing
project, whether for elderly or "swinging singles", is subject to the same development site crite-
ria.
Mr. Snyder said he interpreted the "may" in Section 20.25.010 to mean it is discretionary whether
or not to permit a decrease in parking and/or an increase in density.
He said the standards are applied in Section 20.25.030 regarding a Conditional Use Permit. Mr.
Snyder said he interpreted the sections together to mean that an RM structure is allowable if the
RM standards are complied with. And if decreased parking and/or increased density is desired,
then the Conditional Use Permit criteria in Section 20.05 is applied and an apartment, retirement
home, etc., is allowed if the criteria are met.
Mr. Snyder pointed out that the Hearing Examiner did not apply the Conditional Use Permit crite-
ria.
Mr. Snyder further stated that the Council does have the ultimate decision in this case whether
or not to allow an increase in density or decrease in parking.
Councilmember Jaech inquired how the Hearing Examiner arrived at the number of parking spaces of
seventy from forty-nine. Ms. Block said the parking spaces were determined by the. number of
employees at the facility plus visitors and delivery people. Mr. Bowman added that the increase
in parking was also based upon a report submitted at the Hearing Examiner's request. by Mr. Bowman
of a survey conducted of the two existing senior housing projects in the immediate vicinity re-
garding their parking situation which indicated that parking was insufficient. Councilmember
Jaech noted that the those units contained approximately forty-eight tenants and twenty-two park-
ing spaces. She inquired if the two projects provided the same number of services as the pro-
posed project. Mr. Bowman replied negatively. Councilmember Jaech said the two projects are
strictly apartment housing and do not provide the same type of accessory services as the proposed
project. Therefore, there could be a difference that does not form a true comparison.
Mr. Snyder said Ms. Block had previously mentioned that he had provided an opinion regarding
compliance of the project with the Code. He said it is not his function to advise the Council on
matters of fact that it will be hearing. He had merely provided the Council. with three adminis-
trative interpretations.
Mayor Naughten opened the public portion of the hearing.
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 5 JUNE 3, 1986
Dorothy Williamson, 703 Main St., said she does not interpret the ECDC as Staff does because it
is stated as low income for the elderly, and the proposed project is not low income at $1500 per
month. Also, the area is zoned as multiple -family dwellings and not commercial, which she views
the project as being. She was also concerned: 1) that the proposal was not presented to the ADB,
2) about the increase in traffic, and 3) her mother lives next door to the proposed project, and
the division line between the properties will be a six foot fence.
Finis Tupper, 711 Daley St., said his son will be proud to stand before the Council thirty years
from now and say that he is glad that he grew up in Edmonds and is proud of the City if the ECDC
is properly and strictly applied.
Mr. Tupper said this issue is not complex and does not require that State and Federal case laws
be referenced in making a decision. The ECDC clearly differentiates between retirement homes and
housing for the elderly. Retirement homes, he said, are a permitted use. However, Chapter 20.25
does not state that double density and reduced parking are allowed.
Mr. Tupper said that a retirement home is a building which provides services and minimum mainte-
nance living accommodations as defined in the ECDC. He questioned if the services provided by
the proposed project can be defined as "minimum". Housing for the elderly does not provide ser-
vices on site. Mr. Tupper said he agreed that allowance of any increase in the zoning or parking
requirements of the ECDC is entirely discretionary.
Mr. Tupper referred to an application applied for in the past where Ms. Block presented it to the
Edmonds Board of Adjustment on March 29, 1978, CU-7-78, which stated, "Mrs. Block said this appli-
cation was in connection with a subsidized elderly housing development". Mr. Tupper said it is
clearly within the Council's discretion to deem the project as a retirement home, which is enti-
tled to forty-eight units.
Reid Shockey, 2907-1/2 Hewitt Ave., Everett, Planning Consultant representing the applicant,
submitted the following exhibits: 1) comparable parking analysis conducted on nine similar facil-
ities within the Puget Sound area which indicates that the average age in housing projects is
eighty years old and the ratio of parking spaces to units ranges between two to four; 2) map
entitled "City of Edmonds Roads" which has been color coded by collector, community, arterial,
and primary; 3) revised site plan and the east elevation of the property; and 4) proposed set of
findings.
Unidentified man said the discussion should be limited to the City of Edmonds and not the Puget
Sound area. Mr. Shockey said that the analysis has been provided because one of the objections
of the appellants is that the applicant is not providing factual information to the Council.
Mr. Shockey stated that the proposal is a well -designed project which will be well managed and
operated and will serve the needs of the elderly in an area that is developed for multiple -family
dwellings along an arterial street close to the types of services that the applicant believes
were envisioned in the ordinance. The dimensions of the building will be no different than any
other multiple -family dwelling allowed in the zone. He said the project meets every requirement
of the Code, and the applicant agrees to abide by every condition and requirement that has been
imposed by the Hearing Examiner and Staff.
Mr. Shockey said that the Hearing Examiner approved the development as well as the Planning De-
partment, and the City Attorney reaffirmed the legality of homes for the elderly in RM zones
without the need for low-income status, which is allowed under the Code. He said the burden is
upon the appellants of how they erred in their judgements.
Mr. Shockey said the development will enhance Edmonds' image as a diverse community serving the
needs of all of the people. The Comprehensive Plan and the policies contained within it speak
about promoting diversity, providing for a mixture of age groups/income groups, life styles, and
encouraging creativity and housing types.
Mr. Shockey said he would not discuss the variance issue because it has been withdrawn.
Mr. Shockey refuted Mr. Tupper's statements in his appeal letter that the Staff report, appli-
cant, and Hearing Examiner failed to address the impacts of the development with regard to traf-
fic generation, noise levels, bulk design orientation, and adjacent land uses. He said testimony
was submitted at the hearing which explained the pedestrian facilities around the property; the
1
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 6 JUNE 3, 1986
C
facility will not generate any more traffic than a forty-ei.ght unit multiple development, and the
bulk of the building is no different than a forty-eight unit multiple dwelling; testimony was
given regarding relationship to wetlands and orientation to view; the development will be next to
a City park and wetlands, which will be protected; and adjacent land uses are multiple -family
dwellings.
Mr. Shockey referenced the Hearing Examiner's Findings 11, 12, and 13 which indicate that he did
review the impacts and found that the conditional use requirements were met.
Ancillary services will not be provided for nonresidents and will be low scale. Mr. Shockey said
the services are an excellent concept, and if applied properly, the community could look to them
with pride because of the unique kind of facility it provides for senior citizens. Additionally,
these services would impact the community favorably because tenants would not have to drive down-
town to seek these services.
Mr. Shockey stated that the development meets the criteria of the ordinance regarding housing for
the elderly. The applicant has submitted in good faith a project based on the Code which was
adopted and asks the City to abide by the Code.
Mr. Shockey said seventy parking spaces will be provided, which is one space for every 1.4
units. He referred to the survey taken by Staff of other projects which depicted insufficient
parking. He said only one parking space was provided for every 6 units.
Councilmember Jaech said she deals with the elderly quite often in her occupation . She said
that parking is a problem in nursing homes and retirement homes. Mr. Shockey noted that nursing
home beds were not computed into the figures in .the chart. He asked what the ratio of parking is
in these facilities. Councilmember Kasper said 2.0. Councilmember Jaech said that many of the
places which were compared do not offer the same amount of services that the proposed project
does. She inquired about the total number of employees. Mr. Shockey indicated that there will
be two resident managers, two social services directors, four housekeepers, four to five kitchen
staff, maintenance people as a contracted service, security provided by the resident manager,
gift shop, commissary, library, juice and snack bar operated by vol.unte.er residents, exercise
room operated by the social director, banking provided by a local banker on a part-time. basis,
scheduled visits by a nurse practitioner or physician, kennel staffed by resident volunteers,
beautician by appointment only, and the limousine service provided by a resident driver or manage-
ment team. Councilmember Jaech said it has been her observation that other retirement facilities
which do not offer those ancillary services staff between 25 to 35 people. She inquired about
the discrepancy. Mr. Shockey said most of the ancillary services do not generate employees on
site. Councilmember Kasper said that his mother resides at North Haven, which has 200 units, and
only 4 people are staffed; resident volunteers provide other services.
Mr. Snyder inquired if Mr. Shockey had copies of the exhibits which were being discussed that the
audience could review. Mr. Shockey submitted copies of the parking figures, road arterial street
map, and Hearing Examiner's Findings.
Mr. Shockey said there was discussion during the hearings regarding concerns over construction
traffic. He noted that construction traffic will have access to a State highway over acceptable
truck routes.
He said that a soils study has been submitted, which was not disputed on any technical or environ-
mental grounds. It is a professional and accurate analysis of the soils situation.and reveals no
impact from the excavation proposed.
Mr. Shockey further stated that Mr. Tupper erred when he stated that a conventional multiple -
family development would be required to provide 192 parking spaces, concluding that because only
70 are proposed for the project that the excavation is unnecessary because a conventional 48 unit
would be required to provide 96 parking spaces, which would require approximately the same amount
of grading as 70 parking spaces.
Charles Morgan, 7301 Beverly Lane, Everett, project architect, said a 120 unit almost identical
to the proposed project was just. completed in Oregon. At the present time, 14 paid staff are
employed, and the remainder of services are provided by volunteers. He said the reason they
could not be specific with the number of employees that will be staffed at the project is because
they rely on a management team to recommend the number of employees. Councilmember Jaech in-
quired if the employees include any contract services. Mr. Morgan replied negatively.
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 7 JUNE 3, 1986
Mr. Shockey submitted the proposed findings as an exhibit.
Richard Chapin, 900 ONB Plaza, Bellevue, attorney for the applicant, stated that there are three
issues in contention: 1) elderly, low income ordinance, 2) discretion, and 3) poverty -level
elderly housing.
Mr. Chapin said there are "or's" inserted in the ordinance which states one does not have to be
elderly and low income; rather, it states "elderly or low income".
He said the Council does not have unbridled discretion but must base its decision on the evidence
in the record. The question to ask, he said, is, "Have the appellants demonstrated that the
impacts from the proposal will be greater than would flow from a forty-eight unit apartment with
adolescents and visitors?" If so, Mr. Chapin said the Council should not exercise the discretion
the applicant is requesting. However, the record demonstrates that the impact will be no.greater
and probably substantially less.
Mr. Chapin said there is no provision in the Code which states that elderly housing must be low
income.
He summarized by saying that the applicants believe that the Hearing Examiner and Staff were
correct in their judgements, and the conditions of the ordinance have been met.
Councilmember Dwyer asked Mr. Chapin if he agreed or disagreed that there are two areas of dis-
cretion in Section 20.25.010 in the wording "may" and "up to". Mr. Chapin said he agreed there
are areas of discretion.
A recess was taken at 9:40 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 9:48 p.m.
Mr. Hahn reassured Ms. Williamson that the proposed project is subject to ADB review.
Mr. Hahn clarified Mr. Tupper's remarks that the proposed project can only be considered in the
context of Section 20.25 in that there is subsidized housing as well as two other categories.
Mr. Hahn said although the Engineering Department is interested in the volume of traffic generat-
ed by any development, it is more interested in the distribution of traffic during the day.
Mr. Hahn reiterated that the dimension of the proposed project is the same as+a forty-eight unit
multiple -family dwelling but is divided up among smaller units.
Councilmember Ostrom raised a point of order. He said that hearing proceedings do not allow
Staff to rebut testimony. Mayor Naughten said Mr. Hahn had requested clarification on several
points raised.
Mayor Naughten opened the public portion of the hearing.
Ingrid Osterhaug, 1008 - 9th Ave. N., said she owns a house one block south of the proposed
project. She said Mr. Shockey told her that the applicant has the right to construct a double
density unit if the Code is adhered to. She said if the applicant is allowed to construct a
double -density unit, she should also be allowed to when her property is developed. Ms. Osterhaug
said she would be interested to know if the Council's only discretion is to allow or disallow
double density. Ms. Osterhaug said she was opposed to the project.
Dorothy Petrich, 531 - 12th Ave. N., inquired if it is possible that the project could be convert-
ed into condominiums in the future under the questioned use of the word "may". She said she was
concerned that this type of precedent setting accommodation will destroy the unique atmosphere in
the City that the citizens love. Mr. Snyder said Section 20.25 states that the project shall be
rented, and sales would be in violation of the covenants. The unit would have to revert to the
density that the Code permits if it was converted. Councilmember Jaech said it was her under-
standing that the project could be converted, and the Council would be unable to enforce the
covenants. Mr. Snyder said in the situation which is not enforceable, the covenants are private
covenants between private property owners as opposed to public covenants in this instance.
Mayor Naughten adjourned the meeting at 10:02 p.m. COUNCILMEMBER KASPER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUN-
CILMEMBER DWYER, TO EXTEND THE MEETING FOR THIRTY MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED.
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 8 JUNE 3, 1986
1
Councilmember Jaech inquired if the applicant has submitted a site plan which shows a reservation
for sufficient parking spaces to provide normally required parking spaces. Mr. Hahn replied
affirmatively.
John Rutter, 1452 - 8th Pl. S., said he owns a condominium at 317 - 3rd S. He reminded the Coun-
cil that sound discretion.refers to wisdom and the existing Code and standards for multiple -
family dwellings. He said it was proper for the Council to peruse the information that has been
provided to insure that the proposal is sound before upholding the Hearing Examiner's Decision.
Mr. Rutter said this evening's testimony is the first time he has heard assurances from the appli-
cant that the ancillary services are largely on a volunteer basis. He cautioned the Council
against approving expanding the concept of traditional services in a facility into the retail
area. He recommended that the Council obtain assurances from the applicant that the services
will be strictly on a volunteer basis by the tenants.
Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, said there have been assurances by the City that water and
drainage regulations have been imposed on the project and will be adhered to. However, he said
Mr. Crow told him that his property was adversely impacted when the freeway was built because the
water drained westerly off of his property. Mr. Hertrich said construction of the project will
not alleviate the drainage problem and may very well add to it.
Mr. Hertrich said the construction traffic will constitute approximately 3,000 trips. Noise,
debris, as well as traffic, will emanate from these trips, which will alter the lifestyle of
nearby residents.
Mr. Hertrich suggested that the applicant dedicate a percentage of the project to low-income
elderly or disabled persons.
Natalie Shippen, 1022 Euclid Dr., said the City Attorney, City Planner, and Hearing Examiner
erred when using the word "congregate care facility". She said a proper question to ask is, "Is
a retirement home a form of housing for the elderly and, therefore, eligible for the development
benefits under the housing for the elderly chapter?" She said she does not believe it qualifies.
Ms. Shippen read Chapter 20.25 into the record which defines the purpose, eligible project sec-
tion, and location of housing for the elderly. She said those sections point out that when the
ordinance for housing for the elderly was drafted, it was never intended that retirement homes be
included in that chapter.
Ms. Shippen said Ordinance 1812 clearly defines that the intent .of the Council at the time it was
adopted was to provide subsidized housing for the elderly, not deluxe retirement homes. She
urged the Council to uphold the appeal because, she said, a retirement home is not housing for
the elderly and does not qualify for housing for the elderly development benefits in Chapter
20.25.
Robert Bleeck, 22625 - 81st W., spoke in favor of the project. He said he would like this type
of facility to be available to his mother as well as himself in his later years. He said the
proposed project is important to the public in order to maintain .the City's credibility and facil-
ities for people that reside in the City in the future.
Bill Mathias, 540 Holly Dr., requested the Council to cons.id.er the impact of the project to the
residents when making a decision.
Norma Bruns, 816 Walnut, said the ordinance was passed with the sole intent that it offer subsi-
dized elderly housing in Edmonds. She read into the record portions of the minutes of the meet-
ing the evening the ordinance was adopted. She said it would be unfortunate for the City if
adopted ordinances are reinterpreted.
Mayor Naughten adjourned the meeting at 10:30 p.m. COUNCILMEMBER OSTROM MOVED, SECONDED BY 000N-
CILMEMBER JAECH, TO EXTEND THE MEETING TO 11 P.M. MOTION CARRIED.
Ken Brown, 219 - 6th Ave. S., inquired if the age requirement to qualify senior citizens is flexi-
ble. Mayor Naughten replied negatively.
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 9 JUNE 3, 1986
Mr. Chapin said he did not understand why the appellants contend that ancillary services should
only be provided to low-income people. He said Chapter 20.25 recognizes that the departures are
allowed because elderly people live a lifestyle that requires less space than an active family.
Dorothy Williamson, previously identified, requested the Council to take into consideration its
constituents' concerns. She said she visited the development in Seattle that was constructed by
the developers of the proposed project, and residents had told her that the facility was a retire-
ment home which sold for $173,000 per unit.
Finis Tupper, previously identified, said citizens of Edmonds want to insure that the Code is
applied equally and fairly but feel selective enforcement will create problems.
Mr. Tupper contended that the application has changed since it was originally filed. The appli-
cant requested a Conditional Use Permit to excavate 38,000 cubic yards of earth, 12-1/2' height
variance, double density, maximum allowed reduced parking. The Hearing Examiner said that the
project met the requirements for excavation only.
Mr. Tupper read into the record comments from the Board of Adjustment meetings and said it ap-
pears that Staff has changed its interpretation of Chapter 20.25 since it was adopted.
He said although the City of Edmonds is continually changing, the City will change the way citi-
zens want it to only through proper application of its Codes and not selective enforcement.
Mayor Naughten closed the public portion of the hearing.
Councilmember Jaech said she has drawn a different interpretation of Chapter 16.30.010 than Staff
has.She said housing for the elderly can be developed in a multiple residential zone as long as
it is in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 20.25. Chapter 20.25.010 states, "The Hear-
ing Examiner may approve changes to normal .site development standards such as decreasing the
required site area/units, thereby increasing the density", and Chapter 20.25.030 specifies how
Chapter 20.25.010 may be applied. She said the applicant must apply for a Conditional Use Per-
mit. However, a Permit was never applied for for the two different site standard criteria. She
said the applicants must also provide a site plan and a statement of how the project qualifies
under Section 20.25.020, which the Council did not receive.
COUNCILMEMBER JAECH MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST, 1.0 UPHOLD THE APPEAL AND DENY THE
DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER BECAUSE THE REQUIREMENTS WERE NOT MET WHICH ALLOW THE INCREASED
DENSITY AND REDUCED PARKING IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 20.25.010 AND 20.25.030 AND, ALSO, BECAUSE
THERE IS A SUFFICIENT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE DEFINITION OF A RETIREMENT HOME AND HOUSING FOR THE
ELDERLY.
Councilmember Dwyer said the fact that the project qualifies as a retirement home indicates that
it is not a normal multiple residential project. He said that he believed Ms. Shippen was cor-
rect in her interpretation of the Code. Therefore, he does not believe the project, as proposed,
meets the foundational requirement of being eligible for the site development standard modifica-
tions.
Councilmember Dwyer said if the project did qualify for housing for the elderly and met the stan-
dards of Section 20.25.030, two areas of discretion would be exercised. The level of discretion
should center on what the impact of .the physical impacts of the property are. Councilmember
Dwyer said the Council should not grant a Conditional Use Permit because the ordinance indicates
it is to be restricted solely to low-income developments.
MOTION CARRIED WITH COUNCILMEMBER KASPER AND COUNCILMEMBER WILSON OPPOSED.
* Councilmember Kasper said he was opposed to the motion because interpretation of the Code ex-
cludes a majority of the citizens of Edmonds from living in retirement homes because they cannot
be developed economically in the City. He said this type of project is essential to the City.
Councilmember Wilson said he does feel the project meets the requirements of the Code. The
project would enable senior citizens of Edmonds to live a quality lifestyle. He read a letter
1
* See Council Minutes of June 16, 1986
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 10 JUNE 3, 1986
into the record from Russell Berg, Executive Director of the South County Senior Center, in sup-
port of the project.
Councilmember Nordquist said Edmonds is renowned for its love for its senior citizens. He said
the City has a senior center which is unique far beyond any city in the United States. The previ-
ous Council was concerned_ that if a project was constructed for senior citizens and the apart-
ments sizes were reduced, the facility may evolve into different uses other than low-income hous-
ing.
Mayor Naughten recommended that Section 20.20.05 and 20.20.25 be reviewed for clarification.
COUNCILMEMBER KASPER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. MOTION
CARRIED.
The meeting adjourned at 11:02 p.m.
ACQ LINE G. PA RETT, City.Clerk
1
LARRY S. NAUGHTEN, Mayor
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 11 JUNE 3, 1986