Loading...
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