Loading...
01/17/1995 City CouncilAPPROVED CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 1131195 EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES JANUARY 17,1995 The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Laura Hall in the Library Plaza Room, 650 Main Street.; The meeting was preceded by the flag salute. ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Laura Hall, Mayor Tom Petruzzi, Council President Barbara Fahey, Councilmember William Kasper, Councilmember Michael Hall, Councilmember Dave Earling, Councilmember John Nordquist, Councilmember ALSO PRESENT Ellenann Chiddex, Student Representative 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA STAFF PRESENT Tom Miller, Police Chief Michael Springer, Fire Chief Chuck Day,.Accounting Manager Brent Hunter, Personnel Manager Noel Miller, Superintendent of Public Works Paul Mar, Community Services Director Rob Chave, Planning Manager Jeff Wilson, Current Planning Supervisor Kirk Vinish, Planner Steve Bullock, Assistant Planner Jim Walker, Acting City Engineer Scott Snyder, City Attorney Rhonda March, City Clerk Christine Laws, Recorder COUNCIL PRESIDENT TOM PETRUZZI MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MICHAEL HALL, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED. 2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS Councilmember Dave Earling requested pulling Item G from the Consent Agenda.. Councilmember Michael Hall pulled Item K, and Councilmember Barbara Fahey pulled Item L. COUNCILMEMBER DAVE EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BARBARA FAHEY, FOR PASSAGE OF THE REMAINDER OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED. The items passed were as follows: (A) ROLL CALL 3 (B) APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF JANUARY 3, 1995 (C) APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF JANUARY 10, 1995 Approved City Council Minutes January 17, 1995 Page 1 (D) APPROVAL OF CLAIM WARRANTS #940822 THRU #950096 FOR THE WEEK OF VV JANUARY 3, 1995, AND CLAIM WARRANTS # 950097 THRU #950252 FOR THE WEEK OF V• n JANUARY 9, 1995; AND PAYROLL WARRANTS #946816 THRU #947107 FOR THE .r 1 PERIOD OF DECEMBER 16 THRU 31, 1994 (E) AUTHORIZATION TO ADVERTISE REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR CODE BOOKS A � CODIFICATION SERVICES (F) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT WITH RONALD McCONNELL FOR HEARING EXAMINER SERVICES (H) ORDINANCE 3004 AMENDING LIST OF COUNCIL PAID COMMITTEES TO INCLUDE o0 SNOHOMISH COUNTY TOURISM ADVISORY BOARD D 3 (I) APPROVAL OF RECLASSIFICATION OF DEPUTY CITY CLERK POSITION FROM NE-5 Ae�,Q4� TO NE-7 (referred from 1/10/95) (► (J) AUTHORIZATION TO CALL FOR BIDS FOR CHLORINE SUPPLY TO THE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT AND YOST POOL (1Vn REPORT ON FINAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR THE 1994 SANITARY SEWER j 9 q ME . ! REPLACENT PROGRAM AND COUNCIL ACCEPTANCE OF PROJECT (N) REPORT ON BIDS OPENED JANUARY 10, 1995, FOR THE CITY PARK DISABLED ACCESSIBILITY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (HUD) AND AWARD OF CONTRACT TO J,D�� DLR UTILITIES ($115,132.10) � (0) AUTHORIZATION TO CALL FOR BIDS FOR A SLIDE -IN HYDRAULIC SANDER AND / - HYDRAULIC SNOW PLOW FOR 10-YARD DUMP TRUCK (P) APPROVAL OF PROPOSED RESOLUTION 807 COMMENDING ELLENANN CHIDDIX FOR HER SERVICE AS A STUDENT MEMBER OF THE EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL p_ .w go7 COUNCILMEMBER DAVE EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MICHAEL HALL, TO PULL ITEM G FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND PLACE IT AFTER ITEM 10 FOR DISCUSSION UNDER THE COUNCIL PORTION OF THE AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED. The item removed was as follows: (G) PROPOSED ORDINANCE REPEALING EDMONDS CITY CODE SECTION 1.02.035 AND ADOPTING AND REENACTING A PROCESS FOR THE CITY COUNCIL TO FILL VACANT CITY COUNCIL POSITIONS Councilmember Hall discussed his pulling of Item K. He asked if the City had asked anyone else to pay for this or if a demand has been made for any monies before we pay this obligation. His concern was that if this were to arise in a litigation situation, and the City had not given the "defendant" the opportunity to pay this cost, the City could be held liable. Jim Walker, Acting City Engineer, responded that this matter is unrelated to the other issue discussed in executive session. There is an EPA requirement that all incinerators of a certain size, regardless of use, go through a testing procedure. A baseline is then established, and a maintenance criteria set. This is a performance test for the incinerator, and it has nothing to do with the operation of the incinerator itself. There is still repair and maintenance work needed, but the incinerator does operate at full capacity. Approved City Council Minutes January 17, 1995 Page 2 COUNCILMEMBER MICHAEL HALL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER P BARBARA FAHEY, FOR PASSAGE OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEM K. MOTION CARRIED. The item passed was as follows: (IQ AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN AGREEMENT WITH AMTEST - AIR QUALITY, INC. FOR WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLAN INCINERATOR TESTING ($6,956) Councilm.ember Fahey pulled Item L for clarification of whether or not the approval of the storm drainage improvement project is part of the L.I.D. going on in the same area. Jim Walker said this was a portion downstream from the L.I.D. that the City did at its own expense. It collects drainage not only from the L.I.D. area but also some areas outside the L.I.D. that were developed. COUNCILMEMBER BARBARA FAHEY MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL 11I PRESIDENT JOHN NORDQUIST, FOR PASSAGE OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEM L. MOTION CARRIED. The item passed was as follows: (L) REPORT ON FINAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR THE 88TH AVENUE WEST STORM DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT AND COUNCIL ACCEPTANCE OF PROJECT 3. AUDIENCE Alvin Rutledge, 7101 Lk. Ballinger Way, Edmonds, discussed the Lake Ballinger Ski Race issue. The recommendation from the people in the area they have spoken with, the Block Watch, etc., there is no objection to the ski race. He requested notification of any hearing on the matter be sent to those whose addresses have been provided. HBO and Showtime, Mr. Rutledge feels, should be removed so as to not be accessible to the schools. He discussed the recent Everett School District problem that has received so much press. Regarding the monorail system, Mr. Rutledge has talked to the three people running for the new Shoreline District. They believe Meridian would suit their purposes better than by the train depot. He also reported there are 50,000 people in that area of the city. Mr. Rutledge then brought up that the City of Mountlake Terrace owes the City $500,000 and the Shoreline area owes some money on the water. He talked to those running for office in Shoreline, and they desire to work the money owed with the monorail system to pay the City back some money. Mr. Rutledge went on to discuss the salary differences between Shoreline and Edmonds. He expressed his opinion the City Council was overpaid and they had done nothing in the Ballinger area for four years. He also expressed caution that if more attention were not paid to the Ballinger area, there would likely be numerous requests for annexation to Shoreline. Susan Peterson, 21103 - 80th Avenue West, thanked Council for the quality of life in the Edmonds community. She has been noticing some trends in some of the growth in the downtown business area. She feels part of the attractiveness of living here is the human scale of the buildings, the walkability of the streets, and the sense of community history. She expressed dismay at some of the destruction occurring downtown -- tearing down old buildings, constructing two-story office buildings that take up entire blocks o,0 and come right up to the walkways. She asked that the Council and Planning Department consider the Approved City Council Minutes January 17, 1995 Page 3 positioning of new construction on lots that they not have concrete right up to the sidewalk, that there is some landscaping, and some attempt to preserve some of the older buildings in the community to preserve the sense of character and history in which we all take pride. She expressed understanding of the complexity of planning and concern over the loss of humanity and history. 4. PRESENTATION OF PLAOUE AND RESOLUTION TO STUDENT REPRESENTATIVE p� ELLENANN CHIDDIX 1 " ' Council President Tom Petruzzi said one of the nicer aspects of the Council job is being part of the student member program because they get to meet young people who are bright, interesting and committed to learning. They take their Tuesday nights to see with the Council as a non -voting, but contributing member. Ellenann has been a very good contributor during her term on the City Council. He then introduced Ellenann Chiddix who introduced her parents. Council President Petruzzi read the resolution of commendation passed by the Council extolling the role she played during her term and wishing her continued success in her studies and .future career. It also expressed the hope that Ellenann will continue to devote her fine talents to the democratic process in the City of Edmonds and elsewhere. Council President Petruzzi then presented Ellenann with an engraved plaque of commendation and appreciation. Ellenann Chiddix thanked the Mayor and Council for their help while she was trying to figure out what was going on. She considered her term a very useful experience she can take back to school and tell other students about. She stated her belief that it makes a city feel a lot more personable when it is willing to bring in a high school student to speak and help make decisions. It was announced by Mayor Hall that the Woodway City Council members were present. She acknowledged the members present and the fact they had changed their meeting night in order to be present for this meeting. 5. HEARING ON APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION TO GRANT APPROVAL OF t,po A VARIANCE AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO INCREASE THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED HEIGHT FOR A CELLULAR COMMUNICATIONS MONOPOLE AT 650 V EDMONDS WAY (APPLICANT" ONECOMM CORP. — FILE NOS. V-94-152 & CU-94-151 / APPELLANT: PETER HART, ET AL — FILE NO. AP-94-181) City Attorney Scott Snyder requested Council survey regarding appearance of fairness issues. Council President Petruzzi indicated he had been approached and questioned about the timing of the hearing this evening. Mayor Hall acknowledged a similar approach as well as a telephone call from Mr. Ray Olson, 22808 - 106th Place West, who was recuperating from surgery and couldn't be present. He asked Mayor Hall to voice his opposition to the issue. Councilmember Fahey acknowledged concern had been raised because of material in the minutes of last week's meeting concerning receipt of information. Most of that information came as a result of attending the telecommunications conference that she is on record as having attended. At that time she had indicated that during the course of the workshops attended, she had received information on cellular towers. Prior to the time she knew this was going to be coming before Council as a public hearing, some time before Christmas, she was contacted by a couple of people with information regarding cellular towers in general. It was her understanding that information was provided to all Council members. Approved City Council Minutes January 17, 1995 Page 4 City Attorney Snyder stated that information received outside of the record of a general or technical nature as the conference Ms. Fahey referred to, isn't a part of the record of the proceeding and would not be considered by the councilmember in making her decision. The other information and ex parte communications is required to be revealed under the statute which codifies the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine. He suggested seeing if any challenges exist. Mayor Hall asked the audience if there were any objections . to any of the Council seated before them participating in the hearing. Hearing none, the floor was turned over to Jeff Wilson, Current Planning Supervisor. Mr. Wilson introduced Kirk Vinish, City Planner, to give Staffs presentation. Mr. Vinish made use of the overhead to show the area involved in the project which is zoned BN. The entire square footage of the property is 2,112 square feet and is generally triangular or rectangular in shape. The actual dimensions are 150' x 1,140' deep. The proposal is to lease 800 square feet of that for the construction of the facility which will be a 140' tall monopole with 15' width antenna, making it 154' total height. The required approvals by the City would include a conditional use permit and a variance which they applied for earlier. They were granted approval by the City Hearings Examiner. The zoning around the facility is: to the North is SR 104 or Edmonds Way; to the South is zoned RS-8 and there are a number of multiple and single family dwellings; to the East is SR 104; and to the West is RS-6 zoning. There are quite a number of residents in the area. Directly across Edmonds Way are some medical buildings. Mr. Vinish also volunteered, at Council's option, to provide a review of the criteria for conditional use permits and variances. That information is contained in the Council Agenda Memo. Based on Council's prior review of this information, his offer was declined. Mr. Vinish called Council's attention to the applicant's request for continuance contained in their packet. They have expert witnesses who were at the last minute unable to attend the meeting. Council President Petruzzi asked City Clerk Rhonda March if proper notification of all parties had been given for this meeting. Notices were sent approximately two weeks ago to the applicants per code. All applicants have already received a packet. COUNCIL PRESIDENT TOM PETRUZZI MOVED, SECONDED FOR CLARIFICATION BY COUNCILMEMBER JOHN NORDQUIST, TO DENY THE REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE AND GO FORWARD WITH THE HEARING THIS EVENING. Councilmember Nordquist asked City Attorney Scott Snyder if this could be declared a first hearing. Mr Snyder indicated he had not seen the request from the applicant. Basically, the applicant under the City's procedures, always retains the burden of proof in going forward. His understanding was that one of the reasons for the request was a lack of expert witnesses regarding a medical aspect which could be reserved for rebuttal testimony. He suggested one way of dealing with this would be for the applicant to make its presentation tonight and reserve time for a future meeting. Because of the number of people and exhibits Council will probably be unable to get through the hearing in the one hour allotted. After the allotted time, Council could then continue the hearing. That would allow the applicant to come back and present the information on rebuttal testimony. Approved City Council Minutes January 17, 1995 Page 5 Mayor Hall explained the procedure and called upon the applicant OneComm. Mayor Hall was reminded there was a motion on the table. Mr. Snyder suggested that before the Council votes the applicants should be heard. Both the motion and the second were withdrawn.* Randi Hilleso, 1700 Westlake Avenue North, Suite 420, Seattle, Washington, represented OneComm. Councilmember Hall wished to hear directly from the applicant that she is requesting a continuance. Ms. Hilleso indicated OneComm respectfully asks for a continuance because of notice received late last week that two of its expert witnesses were unable to attend. Their testimony is essential to the appellant's presentation directly related to many of the concerns outlined in the letters of appeal. Specifically, these presenters include Dr. Arthur Guy, UW Center for Bioengineering, a leading authority on electromagnetic fields in telecommunications systems and is an authority on health issues related to these. He was called away today to Washington, D.C. Also, John Storch, OneComm's Director of Engineering and Operations for Washington State was unable to be present because of a mandatory meeting at the OneComm headquarters in Denver. OneComm has new information in direct response to the appellants' concerns regarding health issues and standards. Mayor Hall asked how OneComm would like its time divided to allow these experts speak. City Attorney Snyder indicated that if all 20 minutes was deferred to the later expert testimony, the applicant would not have carried its burden of going forward and making a presentation at this hearing. He indicated is understanding that Ms. Hilleso was anticipating that there will be concerns raised regarding the health and engineering effects of the monopole tower. He again suggested that she could reserve rebuttal time to address those issues. He reminded Ms. Hilleso that she has the burden of going forward and showing that they have met certain variance criteria. He asked if reserving these two witnesses for rebuttal testimony, most likely at another hearing, would negatively impact OneComm's presentation. Ms. Hilleso indicated she was prepared to go over the required criteria issues. Councilmember Hall asked if the continuance request had been handled in accordance with the applicable rules and procedures. He also asked if the witness information had been presented to the other side. City Attorney Snyder responded that the City has no rule of procedure on either disclosure of witnesses nor a time within which a continuance must be requested. He asked if the request for continuance was withdrawn based upon the understanding that the applicant would be allowed rebuttal time at another hearing at which its experts may be heard. Based on considerable discussion, it was determined the hearing was not being continued, that this was a first hearing, and a second hearing would be scheduled for a date certain. The purpose is to allow everyone an opportunity to have their say. The applicant requested ten minutes for her portion of the presentation. COUNCIL PRESIDENT TOM PETRUZZI MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BARBARA FAHEY, TO SUSPEND THE RULES AND THAT THE HOUR FOR DISCUSSION BEGIN AT 7:40. City Attorney Scott Snyder explained to the audience that Council was suspending the rules because under the normal rules of procedure the 19 appellants would be required to present their presentation in a unified format and divide between them the time Council had made available, which is approximately 15-20 minutes. By suspending the rules and allotting more time, both to the appellants, the public, and the applicant, it is hoped a more orderly presentation would be allowed. MOTION CARRIED. Approved City Council Minutes January 17, 1995 Page 6 Randi Hilleso, OneComm Corporation, 1700 Westlake Avenue North,' Suite 420, Seattle, Washington, stated that OneComm Corporation requests the City Council to uphold the decision of the Hearing Examiner for the conditional use permit and variance to construct a communication facility at 650 Edmonds Way. OneComm's application adheres to the existing Edmonds Community Development Code as stated by the Hearing Examiner. Specifically, under the conditional use criteria, the proposed use must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. In Chapter 15.20.30 of the Comprehensive Plan titled "Community Facilities and Utility Sites", communication facilities under community utilities add a provision for future growth and development of the City of Edmonds. Under community facilities the ECDC states that it shall include all significant buildings, structures and facilities that are designed to serve a public need. A community utility under the same citing includes communication and should be located where they will be readily accessible to Edmonds residents and will serve them conveniently and economically. Currently there is no ground coverage for ESMR or enhanced specialized mobile radios or wireless communications in the city of Edmonds. The proposed site will allow coverage to be linked to the Greater Seattle -Tacoma area. Integrating this ESMR site into the existing network will insure that OneComm can meet both its FCC license agreement and its commitment to the public to provide the highest quality, uninterrupted communication service. The facility will be installed on an existing neighborhood commercial or BN property. The exiting approximately 90' trees will be preserved to provide additional screening for the facility. Only a minimum amount of shrubbery will be removed, preserving the woodland nature of the surrounding property. ECDC 15.20.010 encourages commercial development to serve the needs of the citizens, to develop partnerships with the citizens of Edmonds, help the community grow and prosper, enhance communication with the City of Edmonds and servicing the crossroads corridor of Highway 104 or Edmonds Way, will provide long term economic enhancement for the city. As the area grows, commercial uses along the SR 104 corridor will prosper, commuters will be able to connect with services along the way, and services and security needs will be met by having convenient, affordable communication close at hand. The second criteria under the conditional use permit is the zoning ordinance. As the proposed use and location are consistent with the purposes of the zoning ordinances and the purposes of the zoned district in which the use is to be located, and the proposed use will meet all applicable requirements of the zoning ordinance. Transmitting and receiving antennas are permitted, requiring a conditional use permit in the neighborhood business or BN district of the City of Edmonds, under Chapter 16.30.010(C)(f). The communication facility fits into the existing BN-zoned property set back further than the required lot line setback. The third criteria is the use, as approved or conditionally approved, will not significantly be detrimental to public health, safety and welfare, or to nearby property or improvements unless the use is a public necessity. The development of this site in the city of Edmonds is designed to minimize impact on the immediate or surrounding areas. The tower and equipment will be sited in the southeast central portion of the property in an area approximately 800 square feet in size. The proposed facility would be set back from the property line beyond compliance with the setback requirements specified for the BN district in Chapter 16.45 of the City of Edmonds Community Development Code. The monopole was selected because it would better blend with the existing telephone poles in the vicinity than would a lattice tower. It would not require the use of guywires. The specific monopole location on the property was chosen in part to minimize the visual impact on the neighborhood and be screened by the existing tree stand on the property and in the vicinity. The location was also selected to minimize the intrusion into future commercial use of the property. Beyond the omnidirectional width antennas would Approved City Council Minutes January 17, 1995 Page 7 have minimal visual impact because they are blue in color, as well as the top being gray to blend with the sky. The proposed facility would minimally impact and would not interfere with the surrounding properties or their usage. ESMR facilities operate at an extremely low power, and the levels of radio frequency energy which will be radiated by the facility are very low. it is unlikely that electromagnetic interference will occur to consumer or commercial electronic equipment, including radio, television and telephone transmissions. Radio transmissions are strictly controlled by the Federal Communications Commission, insuring no occurrence of interference. Further, the proposed facility would not require the expansion of public utilities and services for its construction, operation, or maintenance. The site would be unmanned and, therefore, not require water, waste treatment, or hazardous waste management. The radio signals transmitted from the ESMR antennas do not contain any known health risks to the public. The facility does not emit harmful rays, noxious odors, heat, excessive noise or pollutants. The facility will operate at extremely low power levels — a small fraction of the power used by television, radios and broadcasters. In summary, OneComm's facility will provide significant benefits to the public. Today's mobile society is dependent upon communication links for business, safety and productivity. Because this technology provides for communication without wires or cables, people may send or receive calls anywhere in the world while in an ESMR service area. One of the most worthwhile benefits that ESMR offers is that emergency operations, fleet dispatch, and police and fire department communications are enhanced and improved. ESMR is also of significant use to traveling business people with data transmission and communication capabilities easily handled at the home office. As an added benefit, travelers can call immediately for assistance if necessary, insuring safety and security. This does not create special circumstances related to the property. The strict enforcement of the zoning ordinance deprive the owner of the rights and privileges permitted to other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning. The proposed facility is analogous in function and appearance to other utilities such as telephone and cable television which are already serving Edmonds. The existing public utilities do not adhere to strict enforcement of the 25' height limit in the zone. Strict enforcement for this application would be inconsistent with the existing public utilities within the immediate area. The site selection for this facility included a consultation with the City Planners directing OneComm to certain zones and parts of the city. Commercial zones are the only districts where a communication facility would be permitted. Further, only commercial areas South of the downtown area would be considered. Of those commercial areas, sites farther to the East would be unsuitable due to the Eastern upslope of the city, causing radio frequency shadow preventing uninterrupted service to Edmonds. The approval of the variance does not constitute grant of special privilege to the property. The proposed facility is a small installation with the equivalence of an oversized utility pole. Radio waves cannot pass through buildings, trees, or ground foundations. In order to provide the rated communication service, the surrounding trees, buildings and hills must be cleared. The project adheres to the Comprehensive Plan, the zoning ordinance (BN), and it is not there is no known detriment to public health, safety or welfare, or injury or devaluation to the property or improvements of the 'vicinity of the zone. This is the minimum height that is required for effective engineering of this particular site. The topography to the West of the site prevents development of a communication facility of lesser height. The property use does not differ as there are other neighborhood business uses within that same vicinity. It is not detrimental. Hardships would result if the variance were not granted. OneComm's facility would not be able to function if the variance were not granted. It would not be able to provide the citizens of Edmonds the use of the updated wireless communications. Approved.City Council Minutes January 17, 1995 Page 8 Ms. Hilleso again requested additional time at another hearing to provide. information specifically relating to the appellants' letters. Councilmember Bill Kasper asked if OneComm were a subsidiary of McCaw or AT&T. He was advised it was a separate company providing ESMR (Enhanced Specialized Mobile Radio) services which include digital telephone communications, but it also includes additional citizens within radio services. Councilmember Kasper recalled that his son was involved with Telepage which is a subsidiary of McCaw and now ATT, and he has also acquired a fair amount of stock in that company. City Attorney Snyder stated his belief that it did not sound like there was any direct financial interest from the applicant's statement, but he agreed it would be beneficial to see if there were any objections to Mr. Kasper's continuation. Gary Ostland, 22604 - 106th West, asked if any member of the Council owns property in the area. City Attorney Snyder understood the question as asking if any member of the City Council owns real estate in the area suitable for rental, and he said the record should reflect that no councilmember responded. No other question or objection was raised on this issue. Councilmember Fahey asked, from OneComm's standpoint, if they were to locate a facility elsewhere with different height elevation, they have other kinds of equipment that would serve the same need or if all of their installations were of the 154' height. Ms. Hilleso responded that every site is a little different depending upon the topography of the surrounding area. The line of sight technology is the cellular communications technology. Even though OneComm's business is actually ESMR, it utilizes the same grid -type technology. She referred the technical questions to John Storch, the Director of Operations and Engineering for OneComm. Council President Petruzzi questioned the use of the word "utility" several times in the proposal. OneComm does not technically consider itself a utility. He further confirmed with Ms. Hilleso that they are not governed by utility regulations. Councilmember Fahey asked about the comment made about passing signals off to another point. She asked if there are any other points in Edmonds necessary to connect, or are these signals being passed off to towers outside of the city. Ms. Hilleso responded that because of height necessary on this particular site and the topography to the East, this site will hand off to Lynnwood and North Seattle as this is the way the cell grade works. There is no anticipation of further sites within Edmonds at this time. Councilmember Hall asked what other towers OneComm had in the area. Ms. Hilleso answered that the nearest two are in North Seattle and Lynnwood. Councilmember Hall asked about the range of this tower and whether it would be able to go up North or to Kingston, as examples. He was advised there is a proposed site in Kingston also. It would hand off from one site to another. The nature of cellular technology is that it covers a small geographic area in which to hand off and utilize the same frequencies and being able to change channels that will be able to be reused. Councilmember Hall asked for further clarification on the statement that this tower would enhance emergency transmissions in the area. Ms. Hilleso indicated she has a presenter who will be available at the next hearing who would be able to address that specifically. Emergency services are constantly looking to upgrade their service in order to maximize their communication abilities. Some of these jurisdictions with the new 800 frequencies for the emergency services are going to the ESMR facilities, utilizing that particular technology because of its multiple capabilities. Councilmember Hall asked if his understanding that such use on Edmonds' part concerning Approved City Council Minutes January 17, 1995 Page 9 full location of the city would be possible. Ms. Hilleso said it depends on the engineering capabilities of it; there have been co -locations on monopoles. The monopoles are normally designed for one user. However, at a different height a different caller could be added. Mr. Hall further expressed concern over this height to obtain this benefit and whether there would be a charge for that benefit. It was answered that it is a service that is provided that is paid for like any other communication service. She understands there have been communication with the emergency services people with the City of Edmonds, but she does not know the outcome. OneComm is certainly interested in working with the community to service the needs of the community within the services they provide. Mayor Hall asked if Ms. Hilleso was aware that the County is limited to 800 megahertz. Ms. Hilleso responded that OneComm is working with the County to do that. Mayor Hail asked for confirmation that there will be some co-habiting of this pole. It was answered that there is always the possibility. Mayor Hall took this opportunity to advise the audience. that the County is upgrading its emergency services in the county. Councilmember Nordquist asked if OneComm had shared their pole with any other company or organization in other areas. Ms. Hilleso said their had been co -location in may locations. They are presently working with one jurisdiction where they are looking at co -location of an existing lattice tower that has the emergency services capabilities on it (actually being used by the city) as well as Cellular One. They are proposing to co -locate on that, but it is not a finalized deal. Councilmember Nordquist reported that many more requests are being received in the area for this type of equipment. He thinks that co -usage of a pole in some location favorable to everyone would be to the advantage of the applicant as well as the people in the community. He cited an example of Orcas Island as having a sharing of poles. Ms. Hilleso answered that the precise design of the pole is meant be as minimal a visual impact as possible compared to a lattice tower. A lattice tower is capable of handling the weight load as well as the various antenna appurtenances that would be affixed to the pole. A monopole design does not lend itself quite as easily to that, however it is not impossible. Mayor Hall stated that what the City of Edmonds is about is the low level of heights, etc. Edmonds is trying to get something placed where it can be utilized for 800 megahertz. The County has been discussing this long before the application was submitted. She expressed that as the reason for the careful and cautious approach to combine efforts with the private and public partnerships. Ms. Hilleso indicated that was welcomed by OneComm and that it was very open to that alternative. They have had discussions with emergency services trying to see if there is any possibility to do that. Councilmember Fahey asked if OneComm currently serves residents of the area, or if it is opening up a new service area that it currently is not to provide service to because of lack of equipment. Ms. Hilleso indicated it is both. The ESMR systems for two-way radio and dispatch services are already in existence and use by people in Edmonds. There are 10,000 current subscribers to OneComm services. The enhances special mobilized radio is an upgrade and the next generation from cellular technology into digital technology that has multiple uses and multiple types of transmission of data and information. There is now a tremendous amount of evaluation going on in the communications industry, and OneComm is trying to work with that and try to work with the communities in order to make the best utilization of the community's resources as well as the communication needs of the public. Councilmember Fahey asked from where OneComm currently broadcasting to service the people in Edmonds. Ms. Hilleso said that the way the technology works is on a higher radiation much like a television and radio broadcast. She does not know the specific location for this particular service area. Approved City Council Minutes January 17, 1995 Page 10 Mayor Hall commented on the technology evolution. She surmised that before too long monopoles would be obsolete. She feels we need to deal with it now and find a satisfactory placement. She questioned how many in the room used cellular phones, and she expressed a need for accommodation. Mayor Hall prevailed upon Council for consideration of the appellants concerning time, and to provide Ms. Hilleso with what she can expect for her rebuttal. Council President Petruzzi announced there was presently one-half hour used for the applicant's testimony. He asked to hear testimony from the people who sign up to give testimony on the appellants' side. Mayor Hall asked if Council President Petruzzi would like to make note of the remaining time that should be given to the medical people for the next continued hearing. Council President Petruzzi deferred to City Attorney Scott Snyder. Mr. Snyder suggested Ms. Hilleso be given an opportunity to hear from the appellants before making her informed request. Peter Hart was the first of the appellants called to testify. Mayor Hall announced each of the appellants would have three minutes. Mr. Hart requested that his attorney, David Mann, speak first. Mr. Mann is representing nine neighbors. Mr. Hart indicated those individuals would like Mr. Mann to speak to the legal issues before they respond to the facts. Discussion was held concerning the prospect of Mr. Mann having three minutes in which to speak or whether there were individuals who were willing to waive their time in favor of Mr. Mann. David Mann, Bricklin & Gendler, 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1015, Seattle, Washington 98 10 1, passed out a copy of a fairly extensive letter he had written looking at the legal issues. He indicated while he would present a highlight version, he would request Council to look carefully at his letter. When he was first asked to look at this, Mr. Mann's first question was concerning the environmental checklist. The Council is being asked to decide on issues of public health, safety and welfare. There is no environmental checklist; someone in the Planning Department decided that one was not needed because this would be exempt from SEPA. There is an exception for variances, but there is no SEPA exemption for conditional use permits. Probably half of the cases decided in Washington concern conditional use permits an the application of the environmental study. Mr. Mann stated that since one was not done here, the entire application on that basis is invalid. He suggested Council speak to the City Attorney about this issue. Mr. Mann then discussed the conditional use permit. There has been discussion from the Hearing Examiner, City Staff, and OneComm talking about the community facility and utility element of the Plan, but nobody has discussed the other elements of the plan, including the residential element. He urged Council to look at ECDC 15.20.005 to look at the goals set for residential areas. Those goals include protecting neighborhoods from incompatible additions to existing buildings that do not harmonize with the existing structures in the area, minimize encroachment on views of existing homes by new construction or additions to existing structures, and protect residential areas from incompatible land uses through careful control of other uses of development. He thinks it clear that this is not a compatible addition; it doesn't harmonize with existing residences, and that must be taken into account. As to the question of whether this is a community facility and utility, he urged Council to look at its own definition of community facility and utility. A community facility is defined as a structure that is designed to serve a public need. This is a privately operated, for profit, service. You already have cellular telephone coverage through at least two other providers; this is not preventing a monopoly. He also asked Council to look in the City Code at the list of those public needs. He thinks Council will agree this does not fit within those. The definition for community utilities includes basic life supporting products or services. This is not. More importantly, Approved City Council Minutes January 17, 1995 Page 11 Council has to look at all the Comprehensive Plan, including the residential element and, if you decide this is a community utility, you can look at that factor also. Mr. Mann said public health, safety and welfare would be discussed. He urged Council to look at the City Zoning Code to look to see if this is consistent with the purposes of the zoning code. Look at the purposes of the BN neighborhood which include retail stores, retail service establishments. This does not fit within that. Mayor Hall indicated there was a need for one summary sentence. Mr. Mann asked if it were possible to get another three minutes. Discussion followed, and Mr. Dale Horton's time was transferred to Mr. Mann. Mr. Mann reiterated that the City Zoning Code for the CUP be that it be consistent with the purposes. He asked Council to look at the purposes outlined in it and then look at the applicable requirements it must meet. This does not as it exceeds the height. Council needs to look at whether it is going to allow bootstrapping on a variance in order to meet that. It could have been said it was needed to meet all applicable elements or get a variance, but it doesn't. Mr. Mann suggested that if Council gets as far as the variance, it should look very carefully at the variance criteria. Special circumstances do not exist in this place. You are supposed to look at the property itself and not the surrounding property. The typical example for that type of variance is if you have a narrow lot that cannot be built on because of all the required setbacks. That is not the case here; they want to get over a hill, and they want a line of sight over a nearby hill. Edmonds' code specifically says a variance is not for things such as to provide a line of sight. He called Council attention to a copy of a recent Washington Court of Appeals decision (Petowday v. Office of Hearing Examiner, City of Seattle) presented to Council as part of his handout. It deals specifically with these variance elements. That holding stated that each of the elements must be satisfied; missing one of them was not. The decision also held that because any of the surrounding properties would require a variance, that this would be a grant of a special privilege. The property with which this case is concerned is located on Queen Anne Hill. In that case there was an application to build a broadcast tower directly adjacent to other broadcast towers. The City of Seattle denied the variance; the Court of Appeals upheld the denial finding that since anyone would need a variance to build that high, it would be a special privilege to give a variance here. In summary, Mr. Mann urged Council to look at each of the elements of the conditional use permit. They believe Council will not get past those elements. However, if Council decides to, it was suggested that it look carefully at the variance elements. This does not meet the elements for a variance. The question before Council, as seen by Mr. Mann, is not how or whether or what -- the question is whether you want this tower at this location. Zoning laws are for a reason. There is new technology. You have to look at the neighborhood into which this is going, deciding whether you want to squeeze the new technology into an existing neighborhood where people have owned property and lived with the understanding it will remain the same. Peter Hart said he appealed the Hearing Examiner's approval of the OneComm Corporation's application based on his review of the Hearing Examiner's findings and detrimental effects this project would have on his property and the Westgate neighborhood in general. Approved City Council Minutes January 17, 1995 Page 12 OneComm has requested a variance that is six times the current 25' height limit. He has pieced together a map of the Westgate neighborhoods, along with photographs from different locations which have views of the tower. Because of the height of the tower, it will be seen not only from the Sherwood neighborhood, but from Nine Avenue, Fir Street, Elm Street, and 98th Street West. The tower is excessively visible. He indicated he had visited a tower in Seattle at 15th and 180th Street which is at least 100' tall. That tower is visible from a mile and a half away. He estimated that 600 homes and 2,000 people would have views of the tower, as well as the 20,000 vehicles daily using Edmonds Way and the 2,000 vehicles daily using 226th Street S.W. A towering eyesore along the entrance to our town area is the wrong presentation of the town. The industrial character of the tower and ancillary buildings is not characteristic of the Westgate neighborhood in scale, proportion or visual impact. The current use of the surrounding properties, including only 26' West of the tower base, is a single family residence. Mr. Hart feels it important that City and its Council refer to the Edmonds Code which upholds the preservation and enhancement of the single family residential neighborhoods. He believes the Hearing Examiner and others have failed to consider the compatibility criteria. Community facility development should always be compatible with surrounding land use and consistent with the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. Both the Planning Department and the Hearing Examiner state in their reports that Edmonds lacks sufficient regulation to address towers .of this kind. The Edmonds Codes mentioned above, however, do provide important guidelines which could have been followed. Other cities recognize the incompatibility of these facilities in residential neighborhoods and have enacted zoning regulations noting their location. Lynnwood would not allow such a facility in the neighborhood business zones, and Austin, Texas, requires towers of this type to be over 200' away from any residential properties. Mr. Hart reported that he and his neighbors, Rob and Teresa Helgin, have hired an appraiser to advise them on the impact the tower will have on their property value. The Helgins were on their honeymoon and unable to attend this meeting. They have vested Mr. Hart to present their appeal. Their home is on a hill just South of the tower site. They have a lovely view to the North of the Puget Sound from their living room, dining room, and deck. Mr. Helgin is especially concerned because he has just completed an extensive remodel of their home and deck. The tower will dominate their scenic view. A copy of Mr. Helgin's letter, the appraiser's report, and photographs of the Helgin Sound view are attached to their submission. The appraiser states that the tower will have a negative impact on the marketability of the Helgin's home. Mr. Hart also expressed concerns over the health effects of this project. Another of the appellants will speak to that issue. OneComm is not a public utility. Only five to ten percent nationally use cellular phones. OneComm's service is not a public necessity. Mr. Hart has spoken to both the Edmonds Police Department and Fire Department about their current communication. They both use U.S. West services for their wireless phones and SnoComm for their radio needs. They both express satisfaction with these services and no intention to utilize them. Summarizing, Mr. Hart stated he knows the Council, like him, cherish the Edmonds quality of life. Especially important is the preservation and enhancement of the single family residential neighborhoods. It is Mr. Hart's hope that the City Council members, as campaign advocates for the preservation of Edmonds' quality of life in its neighborhoods, will know when to draw the line on development. That line is 24'. Jim Waymire, 10624 - 226th S.W., is a licensed architect who served with the City of Edmonds for three years on the Architectural Review Board and is also a Professor of Architectural Design and Planning at Approved City Council Minutes January 17, 1995 Page 13 Washington State University. Mr. Waymire attended OneComm's last presentation and was appalled to see the extent to which their visual material on the tower distorted its size, leaving casual observers with a very unrealistic sense of the height of the tower and its impact on the community. He built a scale model to better assist the Council with their visualization of the plan. He went on to explain the model and what each of the items thereon represented. He showed that at 154', the tower is the tallest structure in the Edmonds Bowl and, in fact, is one of the tallest coastal structures on Puget Sound. The Queen Anne towers are the only ones taller. He further stated that 154' is the height of a 17-story apartment building. A 3-story apartment building was rejected on this site because it was over the height limit. Mr. Waymire repeated that this request is for a variance for a structure six time that required by the zoning. He likened it to a car asking for a variance to travel Edmonds Way not at 35 mph, but at 217 mph. At 154' this tower is beaming its rays to four counties. This is not a neighborhood business; it is a regional industry. The visual pollution of this tower makes it the smokestack of the 90's. Mr. Waymire went on to show a model of a tower being proposed by U.S. West on Edmonds Way just outside the city limits. The County has so far rejected it as being incompatible with its surrounding use. They will be watching these proceedings with interest. If the height limit is not 25', or is not the height of existing legitimate utilities, or is not the height of existing trees, or is not 154', then for the commercial facility across the street, Mr. Waymire asks how the Council is going to defend itself against the next proposal for a larger height. In summary, Mr. Waymire stressed that he did not move to Edmonds because of the high quality of TV and radio reception, but because of the manmade and natural environment and community values that strive for the preservation and enhancement of both. He asked that Council not make this, and those following, the new symbol of Edmonds and Council's legacy to the community. City Attorney Scott Snyder suggested that while the next speaker was setting up would be a good opportunity for Council to determine how much additional testimony to hear as the hearing had already extended well over the hour set. Mayor Hall indicated there were approximately 11 signed up as appellants. Council President reminded those present that the hearing started at 7:40. He confirmed that as the second hearing is held, those people who signed up this evening would be able to speak then. Council consensus was to hold another ten minutes of testimony, with those remaining to testify at the second hearing. Councilmember Hall suggested it appropriate to ascertain which of the speakers present would be unavailable at the next hearing. After discussion, it was determined the continuation of this hearing would be held on February 21. Concern was expressed over the fact that some of those present tonight would be unable to attend the next hearing. One individual was given the opportunity to speak tonight; it was suggested if the other was unable to attend, she could perhaps put her statement in writing. Jan Ostlund gave her three minutes to T. J. Junglov. Karen Singleton, 10605 - 226th SW., was able to get past the technical difficulties and began her presentation. She indicated she had been a resident of Edmonds for ten years. She said the tower was completely uncharacteristic and incompatible with the neighborhood. The Webster definition of incompatible is not harmonious. She feels by the number of people attending this hearing, it is obvious the feeling is that this tower does not harmonize with the neighborhood or the Comprehensive Plan. She stated that her neighborhood had worked hard for three and a half months and were present tonight to oppose this tower and protect the quality of life enjoyed in this part of Edmonds and Woodway. She showed various slides visualizing the points she was making. All business abide by height restriction and is not noticeable until you get to Edmonds Way. Also, this tower is inconsistent with current use in the BN zone of Approved City Council Minutes January 17, 1995 Page 14 neighborhood convenience and small scale retail and cannot be screened at 154' because no trees in the area are nearly that tall. The image of our highly desirable neighborhood will be comprised. She indicated the neighborhood as being nice, upscale and well -kept homes. There is not a turnover in this area in terns of sale. Ms. Singleton went on to say history of this business zone shows that an owner once desired a second story on his property, but he was denied because of the 24' limit. She says she knows citizens who live in Olympic Place development off 212th. Four years ago in building there homes, four or five houses had to be denied a few feet of their rooftops because of height restrictions. She feels if the city has a height restriction, then everyone, especially commercial enterprises, should have to abide. Once a tower of this magnitude is built, none can be denied. This is a 140' tower with only 15' of antenna so it cannot be adequately discussed in the ECDC as a transmitting and receiving antennae. She further indicated that the attorney's comments on the Comprehensive Plan was enough for her to see that something like this is definitely incompatible. In summary, Ms. Singleton presented a petition to the City of Edmonds. There was an entire neighborhood working on this, and they find it inconsistent with the neighborhood. They ask for the Council to call a moratorium tonight so they can stop any other towers that may be in application at this point. She urged Council to read every appeal letter very carefully. T. J. Junglov was the next individual called to speak as she was to be unavailable for the next hearing. City Attorney Snyder reminded the audience that unless the microphones were used, they could not be heard. He also explained that the other items on Council's agenda are required by law to be held this evening because of subdivision or other statutory requirements and must be disposed of this evening. He went on to explain that Council was not being arbitrary, but there are three other hearings that need to be held. Mayor Hall prevailed upon Council regarding the time issue. Councilmember Fahey feels that given the fact the representatives of the City Council of Woodway changed their meeting to be here, they should be included in this process. Council President Petruzzi stated that if the Woodway Council members were present, he would like to hear them. He expressed his concern that even while the rules were suspended, it took over three minutes just to change the slides. His recommendation was that we see the films, if they are ready, for three minutes and then we hear from the Woodway City Council for five minutes, and then terminate the hearing for this evening. Councilmember Hall thinks the appellants, with their counsel, should make a decision as to how they would like to proceed if they can wrap up some presentations for people who will not be present next time. T. J.. Junglov, 22619 - 106th Avenue West, indicated her presence was to protest the construction by the OneComm Corporation of a 140' tall communication tower with three 15' high width antennas on 226th. The tower is incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood of single family residences. Her slides showed various other communication towers: the OneComm tower on the Tulalip Indian Reservation in Marsyville just off of Freeway 15; a 90' U.S. tower in Lynnwood located in a commercially zoned area, the CellOne tower in Lynnwood between I-5 and 200th S.W. which she estimates to be approximately 90' high and is in an industrial zoned property (Lynnwood does not allow the construction of cellular towers in neighborhood business areas or single family residential areas); the House of Clocks tower located on Highway 99 just North of 156th S.W. She said she was attempting to show that there were appropriate sites on which could be built cellular towers, usually along I-5 or major highways. This property is Approved City Council Minutes January 17, 1995 Page 15 commercially zoned, and there is an apartment house located next to the site on 156th. The next slide she showed was of the Viacom tower property on Roosevelt Way and N.E. 90th in Seattle. This area is zoned for apartment houses and commercial. A lot of single family homes are located within half a block from Roosevelt. Ms. Junglov said that the applicant only provided one area that was a single family residential area located in Bothell. At the time these towers were approved this was in the county. The residents of the area objected to the towers being put up. They were unsuccessful, and a monopole tower was put up and later a lattice tower. The tower is absolutely inappropriate in the established neighborhood. There are other places that would be better served, such as the Olympic View Water District tower, perhaps Yost Park where the tower could be screened by trees, perhaps the old Woodway High School site which is on the top of a hill. Ms. Junglov protested the speed; they were told by the planner they would each have up to 10 minutes to present our appeal. She finds it very disconcerting to spend so much time and preparation for this evening's presentation and then given a rush where she cannot adequately present her case. Councilmember Earling asked Mr. Hart about the appraisal referenced. He asked further if it was an actual appraisal or a letter of opinion. Mr. Hart advised it was the latter. Bill Sowles, 2315 - 114th Avenue West, spoke on behalf of the Woodway City Council. He read into the record their resolution passed unanimously by Woodway City Council on January 4. Town of Woodway Resolution No. 165 is a resolution of the Town Council of Woodway suggesting that the City of Edmonds consider denying the conditional use permit and variance application submitted by OneComm for the construction of a cellular tower with frontage on State Route 104 and 226th Street in the city of Edmonds, and suggesting a moratorium be established on the construction of cellular towers until the Edmonds City Council can formulate the appropriate regulations to their zoning codes and Comprehensive Plan. It reads: WHEREAS, the Town Council has been contacted by concerned residents of the Town of Woodway, and WHEREAS, the Town Council has discussed the compatibility and health concerns of construction of cellular towers within the near vicinity of Woodway with the residents, and WHEREAS, the Town Council has expressed in its letter to the City of Edmonds its concerns that the proposed cellular tower may be adverse to the intent of the Edmonds Comprehensive Plan, NOW, THEREFORE, the Town Council of the Town of Woodway, Washington, hereby resolves as follows: The Town Council of the Town of Woodway does hereby express to the City of Edmonds their unanimous request for the denial of the conditional use permit and variance and to establish a moratorium on the construction of cellular towers within the city limits of Edmonds which may impact the citizens of Woodway until such time as new regulations can be adopted. The Town Council recommends that highest priority be given to the intent of the Edmonds Comprehensive Plan and the health standards of the residents of Edmonds and the surrounding communities before permitting any cellular towers. Approved City Council Minutes January 17, 1995 Page 16 Adopted by the Town Council of the Town of Woodway, Washington, at its regular meeting held the 4th day of January, 1995. Ross Wood, Mayor There was also a cover letter from Mayor Wood submitting the resolution which was reach into the record: We are submitting a copy of the resolution just passed by our Town Council regarding a proposed radio tower on 226th Street. We believe our cities share similar values and goals to protect private property from adverse development impacts and to stabilize property values with consistent policies on traffic and view preservation. The proposed tower would be at a critical entrance to our town, changing both views and traffic for many of our residents and adding a structure inconsistent with surrounding architecture and conflicting with the Edmonds Comprehensive Plan. For these reasons we urge you to deny the variance. We hope that you will continue to take wise, deliberate and cautious positions you have in the past concerning this sort of request. Thank you from the Town of Woodway. Five additional minutes was given to the appellants in case they wished to have someone speak on behalf of several of the applicants. It was suggested Mr. Mann, may wish to speak. David Mann, Bricklin & Gendler, Seattle, made a quick point of order. He understood from the rules that this is a de novo hearing. There are 19 people who were told by the City Planning Department that they would have ten minutes each to speak, and that other people walking in would have three minutes. He is very concerned that Council is cutting off actual evidence and testimony that the Council should be considered. Mayor Hall asked if he was told that one-on-one. Mr. Mann responded that Mr. Hart was told that one-on-one, but he was not. He feels the testimony that is being cut off tonight may be valuable testimony. Mayor Hall indicated there would be a continuance, and if he wished to say something on behalf of two or three of the appellants he do so . Mr. Mann suggested that if this hearing is to be continued, Council consider spending the time needed to allow these 19 appellants to present their cases. City Attorney Scott Snyder indicated it would be in order to entertain a motion to continue this matter to a date certain. COUNCIL PRESIDENT TOM PETRUZZI MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BILL KASPER, THAT THIS HEARING BE CONTINUED TO FEBRUARY 21, 1995. MOTION CARRIED. Council President Petruzzi asked if decision should be made as to how this next hearing would be handled. Mayor Hall suggested there are already some decisions to make, and it would behoove Council to wait until that meeting and have a conference with the City Attorney so that we can be fair to those that follow. City Attorney Snyder suggested that if Mr. Mann has a suggestion regarding the amount of time and how he could best coordinate his clients' presentation so we can have a full hearing, that he could provide that to the Mayor in advance of that meeting so it could be considered. Mr. Mann clarified that he does not represent all 19 appellants and, therefore, cannot coordinate everybody's appeal. Approved City Council Minutes January 17, 1995 Page 17 This portion of the hearing was closed. Mayor Hall suggested that if there were questions between now and the next hearing as to procedure or time, they should call City Hall. Otherwise, neither the Council or the Mayor can discuss with you specifics heard tonight. Mayor Hall called a three -minute recess. 6. HEARING ON THE HEARING EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION ON AN APPLICATION BY THE EDMONDS BUILDING CO. FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF A 6-UNIT DETACHED SINGLE-FAMILY PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT (PRD); AND A 6-LOT PRELIMINARY SUBDMSION IN AN RS 12 ZONE, LOCATED AT 1312 9TH AVE. N. q Pursuant to ECDC Chapter 20.35 (PRD), the application does contain requests to modify provisions �31a of the code related to setbacks from property lines. (File No. PRD-94-16) Councilmember Fahey disclosed that one of the partners in the Edmonds Building Company is a personal friend and campaign contributor. There were no objections to her participation. Jeff Wilson, Current Planning Supervisor, was asked if Items 6 and 7 are related items -- there is a PRD application as well as a proposed street map amendment. He suggested both could be discussed at this time. Council consensus was to combine the two. City Attorney Scott Snyder asked Mr. Wilson if Item 7 were not granted, could Item 6 be approved in its current configuration. Mr. Wilson responded that there may have to be some modification. He further suggested the possibility of yes because part of the authority of the Council is the ability to modify setback requirements. What that would do is just reduce the amount of setback they presently have from the structures to the property line by 15'. That could potentially be modified as part of the proposal. He offered to show that on a transparency. It was determined that there would be two parts to one decision. Mr. Wilson reported that the subject property is approximately 1.99 acres and is located on the Southwest corner of 196th and Ninth Avenue at the intersection. The proposal submitted is for a Planned Residential Development to allow for a six -lot subdivision with the development of six detached single family residences. The property is located in an RS-12 zone. The PRD process requirements included a non- binding public meeting in front of the Hearing Examiner Pro -Tern where they actually described a nine -unit project. They received some suggestions from the Hearing Examiner Pro -Tern in terms of things they may want to incorporate into their proposal. Once that process was completed, the applicant then was required to proceed to the Architectural Design Board who reviewed the project. Their recommendation was for approval of the project, and it included a copy of the ADB's minutes of their meeting at which the proposal was reviewed. The recommendation was forwarded on to the City's Hearing Examiner who held a public hearing, received testimony, had the record from the ADB, reviewed the proposal. as well as all public testimony, and offered a recommendation which has been forwarded to the City Council. His recommendation is for approval of the project under certain conditions listed in his decision. Part 2 of the application concerns a request for a street map amendment. That amendment is to reduce the required planned right-of-way of Puget Way (the southern street) from a required right-of-way width of 60' to 45'. This is a dedicated area the City normally obtains as part of development. However, the applicant would maintain within the reduced dedicated right-of-way, they would still provide a 32' curb -to -curb road section which the minimum Edmonds' code requires to serve the number of units being proposed, including the six units on the applicant's property as well as the existing five lots to the South. What is being proposed in terms of the street development is consistent with the code based on the number of units. The City Attorney has asked if the project could be approved if the street map is not granted. Theoretically, Approved City Council Minutes January 17, 1995 Page 18 yes. Under the PRD provisions and the recommendations of the Hearing Examiner to Council, the decision actually sets what setbacks are required within a PRD. If Council was not able to grant the street map amendment, that would still allow the development to take place as it is proposed in terms of meeting setbacks and fitting on the property. The other question we need to answer would be the number of lots that could be developed with that reduction and would that additional dedication in terms of the right-of- way affect the gross developable area in such a way that they could conceivably lose a lot. He can double- check those figures. Council President Petruzzi commented that it was said that if Council denied the first action, you could still get the PRD with reduced setbacks. He asked what the required setbacks are presently and to what they would need to be reduced. Mr. Wilson responded that the RS-12 zone provide for 25' setbacks for street. Council President Petruzzi asked to what those would have to be reduced. Mr. Wilson indicated you would have a 5' setback at that point. Mr. Petruzzi commented that would mean a 20' reduction. Mr. Wilson stated he was initially incorrect. The required right-of-way width on the official street map would be for a 50' right-of-way. Therefore, they would lose an additional 5' off the southern boundary, so they would have a 15' reduction to the right-of-way from the structure to the right-of-way. The official street map identifies Puget Way as a 50' right-of-way; they are proposing a 45' wide right-of-way. With that 45' right- of-way they would have 20' setbacks from the structure to the property line. If they had to meet the full dedication and were located as presently shown, the structures would be 15' from the right-of-way. Staff will get the answer and be prepared to address whether or not they would have enough developable area to support the six lots if the street map amendment were in fact denied. Mr. Wilson explained that basically the concept of the PRD is to look at a project that can provide either a superior design that could normally be developed under the code or, as another option or element of a PRD is to use that as a way to mitigate potential impacts on environmentally sensitive areas. If a stream or wetland were on the property, or very steep slopes or significant trees everyone felt were saving, you could propose a PRD in order to provide that greater open space, preserve those natural areas and cluster your areas in a different portion of the property. The property owner would still have the same development rights in terms of total number of units, but you would end up having is the retention of these significant or unique areas to preserve as part of a public benefit. In this case what the applicant is proposing to do is: 1) not increase the density on that lot; they have clustered those units further to the eastern portion of the property as a way to remove the structures from the corner of Ninth and Puget which is an active area and 2) preserve that additional open buffer area in a landscaped fashion. They would landscape that and maintain that as part of their public benefit by maintaining an open space. He believes part of the philosophy in this case is that area is already an open space area, and the applicants desire to preserve as much of the open space that presently exists along the right-of-way as possible, but still allowing the reasonable development of the property with the six units they are proposing. The Hearing Examiner reviewed all of the information and testimony submitted by the applicant regarding their proposal to do such. He adopted a recommendation for approval which is incorporated in Council packets. The second part, the street map amendment, brings us back to the question of whether a 50' right- of-way is actually necessary to serve the amount of development that exists on that street. There will be a total of 11 units potentially served off of that street. Based on what the street development standards are with required right-of-way, that 32' curb -to -curb section is sufficient in an RS-12 zone to handle up to four additional units. The threshold in the code is 15 which is the breaking point for the next development standard for right-of-way width. Engineering reviewed the proposal for the street map amendment and Approved City Council Minutes January 17, 1995 Page 19 determined that all of the required utilities and infrastructures that needs to go into that roadway section could be accommodated within the proposed 45' right-of-way, again requiring the minimum street standards. Mr. Wilson reminded Council that it had an opportunity to review this in some sense in the past. It was an appeal of the environmental determination that went through the review process before the Hearing Examiner and also to Council. A copy of the Council decision is included in the packets for reference. Mr. Wilson indicated the environmental review has been completed, the Hearing Examiner's recommendations on both aspects have been provided to Council, and it is time for Council action. Councilmember Kasper stated his understanding that it has been determined that the culdesac is City property and that half of it has been developed by the southerly plat. He said it is not obvious whether the northerly half of it is part of this development. Mr. Wilson said that Exhibit 7 of the packet, on page 125, lists engineering requirements for the development if the plat. He thinks the extent of the improvements proposed by the applicant is at the very eastern boundary of their property so it does not include portions of the culdesac. They can complete the frontage of their property without completing the culdesac itself. Mr. Wilson suggested Jim Walker could better respond to such questions. Councilmember Kasper pointed out that the other half of the culdesac was developed by the applicant of the southern plat. Mr. Wilson acknowledged that fact and stated that the engineering standards presently state that they have to complete the other street provisions -- Puget Way had to be paved to a minimum of 32' face of curb -to -face of curb -- and it didn't go into any specific detail as regarding the remaining portion. Councilmember Kasper further questioned the large jog in the fence by the School District property as they did not appear on the material he had been received. He asked if that had or had not been acquired by the applicant. Mr. Wilson showed a transparency that is part of the survey of the property and identified it as part of the Staff reports submitted in the Council packets. It appears the fence in question is on school property and did not follow the property line, then it jogs to the West to follow the applicant's property again on down to the culdesac. Councilmember Kasper confirmed with Mr. Wilson that it is thought to be in inset on the school property. Councilmember Kasper acknowledged receipt of letters regarding the parking situation. He questioned Jim Walker about area between Orchard Road and Ninth Avenue on the North side. Mr. Kasper feels it a short distance and asked what Mr. Walker thought of not having parking from Orchard down because of the safety concern. Mr. Walker responded that they basically told how much to widen the road but did not determine to what use that road would be put. That is typically done at a later time. They try to keep the road uniform throughout an area, unless we overthrow for some reason. It could be left striped or painted out for no parking. Councilmember Kasper asked further about visitor parking which does not appear to exist. Mr. Walker answered that the code requirement for single family only requires one off-street parking space per single family unit. The units all appear to be developed with two car garages, so you would have two off-street parking spaces within the garages themselves, and then the driveway pads serve as their guest parking. There is no dedicated guest parking within the project itself that is required under Edmonds' code or parking standards. Councilmember Kasper asked about the size of the existing Puget Way culdesac as it appears short. He also stated that none of the setbacks were on the maps, but he had checked them out. He found they are on the Master Plan. Mr. Walker had requested additional drawings which did not end up in the packets. He offered to show a transparency of what is contained in the file and was submitted as part of the record. Approved City Council Minutes January 17, 1995 Page 20 Councilmember Kasper confirmed that the Gateway landscape was to be held as their property, and maintenance and landscaping is part of the project. Councilmember Petruzzi noted there was some conflicting testimony in the documents given to Council. He asked if there would or would not be a sidewalk installed on Puget Way. There is an existing sidewalk on one side of Puget Way and whether the plan requires installation of a sidewalk on the other side adjacent to the PRD. Mr. Wilson said that the engineering requirements call for a black or white sidewalk up one side of Puget Way, and that sidewalk is installed on the south side. It was confirmed there was no requirement for a second sidewalk. Councilmember Petruzzi also felt there was conflicting testimony with regard to the parking on Puget Way. He asked if there would be parking allowed on Puget Way. Mr. Wilson answered that there is sufficient wide for the two lanes of traffic plus parking on one side. Councilmember Petruzzi requested viewing the setback transparency. Mr. Wilson described the transparency material and also circulated among Council a larger version of the marked map. Councilmember Earling noted one of the questions was concerning the widening of Puget Drive to allow for better view on ingress and egress. Mr. Wilson indicated that widening it will probably not have a real significant change in the view. It depends upon how the centerline is in the street and how it is offset. Mr. Wilson agreed with Councilmember Kasper that limiting parking in certain areas may also have some effect. He was uncertain as to which side of the street parking was on. Mr. Wilson suggested putting it on the south side because there is no entrance there. Responding to an earlier question, Mr. Wilson said there is a note on the record indicating the culdesac as being 40-45 feet in radius. With regard to the people on Ninth Avenue exiting to Puget Way, Councilmember Earling asked for reaffirmation that Staff has looked at that and there is a high comfort level. Mr. Wilson indicated the basic belief that it is adequate as it stands now. If redesigned, it would probably be done differently, but there is no history of significant accidents due to those type of movements in the area. Until this project came up, he was unaware of any complaints or issues of traffic studies or traffic related accidents or other past history. Councilmember Kasper asked Mr. Walker about the statement made that it is in the making for changing the access to Ninth North to perpendicular access into the curve instead of coming straight out. It gives more attention to what is happening going into Puget Way. Councilmember Kasper recognized it had nothing to do with the project. It was acknowledged that there were things being reviewed and action is being taken. Mayor Hall opened the public portion of the meeting. Because Items 6 and 7 were combined, Mayor Hall allotted 15 minutes for the applicant. Brian Ziegler, Methune Partners Architecture, 414 Olive Way, Suite 500, Seattle, Washington 98101, was hired by Edmonds Building Company to be the planners and architects on the project. He highlighted some of the more significant points of the project that have come up at past hearings. He began with the right-of-way adjustment for Puget Way. As Mr. Wilson stated, it is proposed to go from 50' to 45'. The reason is that they can accommodate the 32' of pavement within the 45' right-of-way and keep the 5' sidewalk which is existing to the South in place. That would allow them to have 5' to the North Approved City Council Minutes January 17, 1995 Page 21 of the property as private property rather than public property, to be maintained and landscaped privately. It would give people a nicer yard than landscaping in public domain. The zoning designation for that street is only a 40' right-of-way designation, so there is some conflict between the Master Plan and the Zoning Code. Accordingly, they split the difference. Mr. Ziegler indicated their belief that the PRD process is necessary and desirable. He thinks it necessary because it eliminates an existing dangerous driveway which services the two existing lots on the site which comes out on the radius of SR 104, probably one of the worst spots you can bring it out. They want to remove the two homes on the site, replace it with six homes, and consolidate all driveways into one through the PRD process and bring them down on the Puget Way which they think is the safest method of getting in and out of the site. In his opinion, as a planner, it is the most safe place to get those lots ingress and egress. He cited obstacles to other possible locations. Mr. Ziegler feels the process desirable because it allows them to cluster the lots a little, bringing them down from a 12,000 square foot individual lot size to around a 9,000 square foot lot. The remaining area of the site would be left in Gateway landscape. That presents an elegant foreground to the project and also the city. It also allows them to pull the homes back a little from SR 524 which is a pretty noisy street. Mr. Ziegler indicated the one thing they were asking for was a 15' separation of the homes rather than a 20' separation at the front corners. That will allow them to fan the homes which opens up the view corridors. The 15' separation additionally provides houses that appear to be one story to have daylight lower levels. Mr. Ziegler reserved time for rebuttal and summarized by saying that they agree with the Staff reports, they have unanimous approval from the Architectural Design Review Board, they were supported by the Hearing Examiner, and there is nothing he has read in any of the reports that he disagrees with. He expressed pleasure in working with the City of Edmonds on this project. The drew Council attention to the watercolors spread through the area showing the homes to be built and the neighborhood as you enter from Puget Way. These are presented to assist Council understand the character they have been discussing which is high quality homes for Edmonds. Mayor Hall indicated Mr. Ziegler has ten minutes remaining. She further indicated two people had signed up to speak on the issue. Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, was the first to speak. Before beginning Mr. Hertrich noted there is a tremendous volume of material that Council has received. He referred Council back to Exhibit 6, pages 109-123 which is the findings and recommendations of the Hearing Examiner. He thinks Council has already seen everything else previously. He expressed his desire to ask the various members of the Council if they could confirm publicly that they have reviewed all of the exhibits and the records. His concern was that because of busy schedules councihnembers may not have had an opportunity to review all of those things. He asked for a direct response from Council. Mayor Hall reminded him that he had three minutes in which to speak. He did not feel his three minutes had started yet. Mayor Hall did not feel it appropriate to rank the councilmembers on how much time they spent on homework, but suggested if any one of them wished to "go for a gold star" they should do so. Council President Petruzzi said he thought Mr. Hertrich could safely be assured that each of them, in their own way, has done their homework on this project. He said that he, personally, visited the site twice besides reviewing the material. Council President Petruzzi also expressed his assumption that by materials Mr. Hertrich meant the materials presented to Mr. Petruzzi. Mr. Hertrich responded that there is material available for the Council that are not always in the packet. Council President Petruzzi confirmed that Mr. Approved City Council Minutes January 17, 1995 Page 22 Hertrich was referring to his letter of January 6 regarding an Exhibit K. Mr. Petruzzi believed there was discussion between Mr. Hertrich and the Hearing Examiner, so he knows that particular issue was addressed. It was explained at that time that the official report from the City Staff is the germane material that Council uses. Mr. Hertrich started to go into the reason he raised this, but indicated it was still not within his three minutes as this is procedural. Mayor Hall reminded him as a former councilmember that he can ask one question and the time starts. Mr. Hertrich insisted the legal issues need to be handled first. He thinks this is a very legal question in that: 1. Item K was used as part of the Hearing Examiner's decision -making process. The Council is review all of the items that are available in order to make a determination on the Hearing Examiner's recommendation. If the Council has not done that, then it is inappropriate. He had previously asked that Council obtain a reproduction of Exhibit K as he thought it was essential to the hearing; 2. If that hasn't been reviewed, are there other things in the Hearing Examiner's records that haven't been reviewed? Council President Petruzzi read from the Hearing Examiner's report (Nos. 56-57, p. 10, Hearing Examiner Recommendation, 12/12/94)) regarding Mr. Hertrich's submission of Exhibit K. Mr. Petruzzi asked Mr. Hertrich why review of a conceptual plan would cause Council to alter any opinion it may have when there is a plan in front of it. Mr. Hertrich responded that the conceptual plan is the normal subdivision laid out with all of the normal setbacks, without variances, and it indicates that this piece of property can be developed on a normal subdivision basis without any use of the PRD, less the normal setbacks, road oddities. Mr. Hertrich said Staff constructed this, he asked for it to become an exhibit, and the Hearing Examiner accepted it. His point is that the PRD is a creation, using a lot of variances, that has an effect on him and a number of his neighbors. Mayor Hall called a point of order. Mr. Hertrich responded that he was merely answering a question. Mayor Hall said have your three minutes. Mr. Hertrich asked whether the Council wanted him to explain. Council President Petruzzi agreed with Mayor Hall that Mr. Hertrich's time should commence now. Mr. Hertrich reiterated that this piece of property could be developed without a PRD subdivision. He said the Hearing Examiner made a number of erroneous decisions. One was that this was a very flat piece of property and that there was no slope. By bringing the buildings back up on the property, there is a 7.3% slope as was indicated by the drainage report. That means if you take a piece of property at the lower end where you could develop a normal subdivision and you move that building block from where measurements are taken, and you move East you are moving up hill. As you move uphill, you are effectively raising the height of that building by moving the building pad to a new location. Mr. Hertrich's suggestion was that he and his neighbors who have viewed over this property for 25 years would be damages. He handed out an exhibit he described as indicating the historic house on the property. As they view it from their property, they look over and around this building which sits. If you were to move all of the buildings down into a rectangular, normal layout, you would have some of them lower, and you would have some of them spread apart further. Then, he would not have to suffer from the variance requested for Lot 3 -- 5' from the side yard means it is 5' up the hill further. There is anywhere from 5-' of variables in the height of the ridge line or first floor elevation in houses 3, 4 and 5. Any one of those houses, of placed differently on the piece of property would be lower. Approved City Council Minutes January 17, 1995 Page 23 Mr. Hertrich suggested there were no unusual circumstances that warrant a PRD. This property is not saving the historic house, it is not saving any of the 20 fruit trees, it is not doing anything that a PRD normally would do. It does not qualify. Mr. Hertrich feels that only to the benefit of the builder, the profits he makes, and the views they get, the views he looses is losing value on his home if the Council bases its decision on a PRD that does not meet the proper circumstances and requirements. Councilmember Kasper questioned whether the conceptual plan provided access for all the buildings to Puget Way. Mr. Hertrich said it was one road in like the one presented, only expanded out. They did not use the Gateway effect; they expanded all of the lots out to the full 12,000 square foot. Their quote requires 80' feet frontage; some of these of 50' in the front yards. In that case, you didn't have a problem putting all of your excess parking out on Puget Way. If you had a guest, they could park in front of your house. Mr. Hertrich feels this is wrong and this question should have been decided before this point in the proceedings. Steve Hatch, 1401 Ninth Avenue North (Ninth and Puget Drive), lives diagonally across from this development. He expressed agreement with Mr. Hertrich as he, also, would have liked to have heard if everybody reviewed all of the documents on this plan. He indicated two questions on this project. First, it appears there is enough area on this piece of land to develop these houses normally, and Mr. Hatch would like to know why that was not done. He said they were asking for a variance on streets in order to have a variance on setbacks when none is necessary. All of that area is zoned RS-12,000. If Council grants this piece of property, what is to stop it from granting any other developer that wants to come in and do this kind of thing. He said he had seen numerous occasions where people lost views because of development. Mr. Hatch thinks that the people who live there have the first right. The people coming in to develop should meet the requirements that are already in place. Mr. Hatch summarized this argument by saying that the property is big enough to develop without any variances, without any adjustments. He opposes reducing the setback from 50' to 45', and he opposes this residential development being developed as it is. His second point was asking for verification regarding a fence he understood was to go around the front of the development. Scott Snyder advised Mr. Hatch to continue, and his question would be answered after he had finished. Mr. Hatch referred to a comment made by the architect that these houses are being set back as far as they possibly can in order to reduce the noise that they get from SR 524. If there is a fence that is placed in front of these houses, that will rebound the sound on SR 524 back to his house. He doesn't think that a fair situation. He favors putting a natural fence, a hedge or something along those lines that will absorb the sound. Mr. Hatch said he opposes both of these items because they can be done within the guidelines that the City has for RS-12, there is no reason for variances other than the fact that it increases the value of this development and their ability to sell these lots. It does not increase the value of any other existing property owner. He asked for an answer on the fence question. COUNCILMEMBER JOHN NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY 4WV11 COUNCILMEMBER DAVE EARLING, TO EXTEND THE MEETING. MOTION CARRIED. Brian Ziegler of Methune Partners stated that because of a comment made at one of their community meetings, modifications were made in the fence to include earthen berm for most of the fence, and there will Approved City Council Minutes January 17, 1995 Page 24 be a small reduced -height ornamental fence on top of it. It won't stand over 5, but most of it is earthen berms because they don't want to rebound sound. That was a comment someone in the Laurelhurst neighborhood had made a couple of meetings ago. They responded by doing some grading work there. Mayor Hall asked if Mr. Hatch had heard the answer to his question. Mayor Hall returned the floor to the applicant. Brian Ziegler responded to Mr. Hertrich's comments. He clarified that they are not asking for any variances. They are just doing the PRD process outlined in the Zoning Code. It is a legal process and is an option to do a standard type of zoning and it is an option that is provided because we can get better developments by using the PRD. He believes this is a better development than what he can see without the PRD. He also thinks it necessary on this site because it is unique in the city as it has SR 524 and its access situation onto the site, and also the opportunity to provide Gateway landscape within the city. Being able to provide that foreground landscape is a unique opportunity that can accommodate both needs -- can create elegant foreground to the development community and also create a very beautiful landscape entry to the city of Edmonds, with private maintenance. He looks at it as a win -win situation. As far as saving the historical house, Mr. Ziegler informed the Council and audience that they went through series of meetings, one of which was in advance of all the other meetings required by the City for a courtesy meeting to get al the neighbors there -- before a pencil is ever picked up to do a design. They had the historical house saved on that plan, along with the P-patch. The P-patch was resoundingly rejected by the neighbors. They saved the house in the lower corner and offered it to the City for free, and they decided they didn't want it either. The thought now is running toward moving it off site. Mr. Ziegler said the brick one really wasn't worth saving and that it is not the type that can be moved. As far as saving the fruit trees, Mr. Ziegler indicated he had grown up in an apple orchard making apple cider. It is his opinion that those fruit trees have had their day. They would like to save as many trees as possible, if they are worth saving, but to redesign a whole community over a couple of 50 year old apple trees just doesn't work on one side. Regarding Mr. Hatch's concerns over normal development, Mr. Ziegler felt he had already responded to those. We are building a development, and buildings do block views just by their nature. We did try to preserve as many views as possible by flaring the houses out, and by using hipped roofs rather than gabled roofs so that the ridge lines will be minimal. Instead of going to the end of the house, they are being brought in, creating view corridors between the homes as much a possible. Concerning Lots 1 and 2, they would like to take advantage of the views also. All the homes on the uphill side appear to be one story. He said they had settled them so as to stay under the 25' height limit. We settled it to appear like a one-story house and then there is a daylight basement. Councilmember Fahey asked for clarification of what constitutes a hipped roof and its purpose. This was explained by Mr. Ziegler. Councihnember Nordquist questioned the size of the driveways and asked where the cars would be put, especially on Lots 2 and 3. Mr. Ziegler explained that on Lot 3 has a 16' apron, and it is a private access. Lot 1's should be 18'. Lots 6, 5, and 4 are all beyond 18'. Some have the minimum amount, and others have additional amounts. Also, Lots 1 and 2 the garages are underneath. Approved City Council Minutes January 17, 1995 Page 25 Council President Petruzzi asked if this lot were developed under normal requirements, without the PRD, how many homes could be put on it. The response was six. Mr. Petruzzi then confirmed they could still get full benefit of the property. Mr. Ziegler then pointed out, in response to an earlier question, that if the 5' exemption to Puget Way was not there, there still could be six. They would rather have it private than public. Councilmember Kasper questioned the roof pitch. Mr. Ziegler said he believed it to be 512, but that he was the planner and not the architect. He indicated the drawings were accurate drawings. It was started out a little higher, but was lowered to settle it into the 25' height requirement. Councilmember Kasper noted that the South half developed their half of the culdesac, and he school district was involved in some of this but not in the development of it. He indicated it had been practice to complete both sides of the street. He asked what their posture was concerning that. Mr. Ziegler responded they would prefer not to be required to develop that end for a couple of reasons. One is that the development stops at the private road that comes in as far as traffic is concerned for the development. They are extending Puget Way all the way to the property line even though it goes beyond the access road into the property. Secondly, it is an additional expense that would have to be incurred by the buyers of the land. They are looking at ways to minimize cost because of the time delays that have occurred by appeals and correct notification where another hearing was required. This project has taken four to six months longer than a typical project would. Councilmember Kasper said this is a public access to a public school. By the time the project is completed, there will probably not be much left of it. It was designed to be developed by the north part of the parcel. This is public land so is not for sale. He voted against the SEPA because of the fact that there wasn't any consideration to the fact that this is a public street, there are people that come up and use that for access to pick up their kids, but not necessarily park there. Mr. Ziegler responded that it is a public street and the traffic generation is being caused by a public use and really is not associated with the project and is beyond the project boundaries. In his opinion the nexus was not really there as something that should be required of this development. He agreed that there may be a problem with the culdesac, but it is not caused by this property and it is not on their property. They are improving the road that is adjacent to and also giving a Gateway landscape to the city of about $80,000 of landscaping. The time requirements is behind about four months, some of it because of appeals that the City can't be held accountable for, but also because of notification errors which, unfortunately, were City responsibility. Councilmember Kasper recognized that there are cost savings in the reduction of the right-of-way because it gives them more slope to do the cutting. There are benefits the city should drive, especially with all the children involved. That is why he doesn't like to see that uncompleted. He thinks that completes the whole project for everybody. City Attorney Scott Snyder interjected that he had been advised by Staff that they do have a recreated Exhibit K that can be provided to Council. It is a conceptual drawing which is not identical to what was presented to the Hearing Examiner. Councilmember Hall suggested this ought to be shown to Mr. Hertrich to see if he agrees that this is a fair representation of Exhibit K. If it is, Council should see it. Mr. Snyder indicated this is not a representation of Exhibit K. Exhibit K was Staff sitting down while they are testifying drawing a picture demonstrating Mr. Bullock's testimony. He has done roughly the same thing, but he doesn't want there to be any implication that we are trying to recreate the document; it is just another conceptual drawing of a similar type. The drawing was shown to Mr. Hertrich and then the full Council Approved City Council Minutes January 17, 1995 Page 26 body. Mayor Hall asked who had done the drawing and was advised it was by Mr. Bullock and was very similar to the one he had prepared prior to the Hearing Examiner's hearing. Mr. Wilson explained that the dashed lines represent building pads conforming to the setback requirements, purely based on the lot area, fitting six lots onto the proposal, providing an access road with a turnaround, providing setback lines. These represent the building pads as well as potential 35% lot coverage within those building pads. The one variable occurs, as an example on Lot 3, and that becomes optional as to where they provide the street setback because of the way the road ends and the way the code is it provides an option as to whether the applicant utilizes the 25' setback on one, or it can occur on another line which means they would have a 10' setback which would include the building further to the South. In this configuration you would have 20' corridors separating the three buildings. Mayor Hall closed the public portion of the hearing and remanded the matter to Council for deliberation and action. Council President Petruzzi thinks that aesthetically the project looks like an excellent project. He does, however, have a couple of concerns going to the crux of the matter. One concern deals with reducing the width of the road. If the PRD were to be approved, he would have a difficult time granting the reduction of the size of the road. He went to the site twice. It has been said there would be four houses added because the.other two already exist. The houses that already exist do not enter from Puget Way, so there would be six homes added on Puget Way. There are five homes already, there is very limited parking in the PRD itself, and there is obviously the possibility of having traffic out on Puget Way. The gentleman in the large white house has to come right across the end of Puget Way. Councilmember Petruzzi feels it could be relatively dangerous. He noted that the report says four houses adds 40 vehicle trips per day. If it is six houses, he feels we can safely assume it would add 60 trips a day which would more than double the traffic on the project. He has a difficulty with that. His other concern really goes to the crux of when does Council approve a PRD. The Hearing Examiner says in order for a PRD to be granted in the City of Edmonds, the general guidelines and criteria set forth in ECDC 20.35.050 must be satisfied. The first one is where Council President Petruzzi has a concern. That is, "a. Only those properties where unusual circumstances exist making it difficult to develop a lot by lot basis may be considered for a PRD. This is intended to include deep slopes, wetlands, significant and substantial natural features such as groves of woods, special trees, animal habitats, streams, ponds, lakes, views or historic structures". The Hearing Examiner's conclusion on that particular item is: "The examples of unusual circumstances as set forth in ECDC 20.35.000(a) are not all-inclusive. Although the proposed site does not have steep slopes, wetlands, or other significant natural features, it is located in a significant or unusual portion of the City of Edmonds, namely the Northern entryway into the downtown city". Council President Petruzzi is struggling with that as falling within ECDC 23-35.050. His understanding is that this particular ECDC is in place to provide people an opportunity to the maximum of the potential of their lots that they would normally not be able to do because of some circumstance. The idea that it is the northerly entryway to the downtown city he doubts is a detriment, but thinks it is more a positive. He thinks the project is extremely well designed and is aesthetically a very good thing for the city. The thing he needs to weigh is whether he is upholding the intent of the codes. Councilmember Hall responded to the concerns of Council President Petruzzi. Reducing the size of the road is incorrect; the road would not be reduced. It is the right-of-way that is being reduced which is not going to effect the size the road. Whatever the size of the road is going to be is set. Council President Petruzzi interjected that Council could require the road to be bigger than 32. Councihnember Hall doesn't see any reason to require anything larger than the normal road width. He stated that Mr. Petruzzi's Approved City Council Minutes January 17, 1995 Page 27 statement was that the road width would be reduced which it would not. Council President Petruzzi reiterated that the right-of-way would be reduced and it would not give the Council the -ability to increase the width of the 32 minimum feet. City Attorney Snyder pointed out that Council's rules provide that after each council member has spoken, another council member will get an opportunity. Typically, there is not debate at this point. Councilmember Hall's second point dealt with the fact that since the Hearing Examiner indicated the reasons as not being all-inclusive, he was indicating that there are other subelements that may qualify. Councilmember Hall thinks anyone who has lived in Edmonds long enough knows that this is a very unique piece of property. It is on the corner of a state route; it is one of the entrances to the town. If this was forced to be developed similar to Exhibit K representation, as an example, he thinks there would not be as pleasing a corner there. This is, in reality, a buffer they are offering the City with a greenbelt which he is excited about. This piece of property is going to be developed, and if someone has to develop it to the maximum potential and encroach upon that greenbelt, he feels that would not be aesthetically attractive for anyplace in the city, let alone a northern entrance. Councilmember Kasper said he had problems with this on the SEPA primarily to the street, but in looking at it and the way it was designed, he feels with the grade of SR 524, the curve, and the noise aspect, that the way this has been laid out certainly is to the benefit of the properties as well who is going to maintain that if a fence is built. He thinks there is a commitment by the community to take care of that curve visually. He agreed with Councilmember Hall that there are other things than the specific items listed. In looking at this on site he understands Mr. Hertrich's problem, though to what extent it is hasn't been measured. He feels Council has to weigh these things on what is best for the entire community. That is also why he emphasized the culdesac and the street. The whole thing matching up for the best of the entire community. As far as he can see it is within the code as long as everything is completed and locked up and maintained, including the culdesac. Council President Petruzzi commented that Councilmembers Kasper and Nordquist had been on the Council longer than the other members combined. He asked if Mr. Kasper felt comfortable with the interpretation that would comply with that section a. Councilmember Kasper responded he does from the standpoint of having looked at other properties down that way. They are all back fenced in, and their landscape is being maintained. The way this is cast is that it is all incorporated into the cost of the project how much can be done by the builder. What has been saved internally on this arrangement it appears is being spent in the project to beautify. He doesn't agree with the Gateway on 77th. This has a potential of saving a problem of the City because it is a visible comer. It is improving the neighborhood. Mayor Hall said there are times when it is far more aesthetically pleasing even though this is a wrench. She thinks what Council is dealing with is the existence of a piece of property that they would probably all like to freeze in time. However, that is not going to happen. She went on to say that PRDs definitely have a usage; they are what make any city unique. There is a danger factor on that comer, and Mayor Hall cited examples of the need for police when three churches get out. After looking at this plan, she feels it would be an enhancement. Council President Petruzzi indicated that Councilmember Kasper has cleared up a few things for him and made him more comfortable with the PRD concept. He said he is still struggling with the road. He suggested to Councilmember Hall, who previously indicated a desire to make a motion, that he do so one at a time. Councilmember Earling commented that he has been to the site a couple of times, and he feels that by widening the road to 32' will allow for some good ingress and egress. If it were not widened over what it is Approved City Council Minutes January 17, 1995 Page 28 now, it would be acceptable. He thinks by providing parking on the South side, along with comparisons to other recent developments, providing parking pads in front of the garage does in fact give enough parking for guests to park in front of the home. He thinks it has been provided for in an adequate way, as long as there is extra parking out on Puget Way. His view is that the PRD concept in this case helps solve a very difficult problem of trying to make that particular piece of property work by providing some sort of a buffer between the homes and the highway. He thinks it is a creative solution to a problem. If the property were developed in conventional configuration, with the homes being closer to the highway, it would be a tough sell. With the widening of the road, it makes sense for smooth ingress and egress. The thinks the PRD concept allows a solution, the greenery coming around the corner of the highway, that benefits both the development and the community. He thinks it is a very positive statement. Councilmember Fahey has looked at this for a long time and has tried to envision this piece of property developed under the normal way such as the one laid out earlier. She can't see where the City would get any benefit from not encouraging a PRD of this type. What, in effect, would happen is that houses would move closer to the road. She can't believe that in moving them farther toward the road and observing the normal setbacks, and as a result having a larger building lot and possibly larger houses, that anybody is going to benefit, even those who seem to think there is a problem with view. She thinks the developer has really done a fine job of creating something that will be an asset to this city and is showing a high regard for the aesthetics of the city. She thinks the PRD should be supported. Lr .& COUNCILMEMBER MICHAEL HALL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER 4K P_ BARBARA FAHEY, THAT WE UPHOLD THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER AND APPROVE THE PROPOSED SIX -UNIT PRELIMINARY PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. COUNCILMEMBER BILL KASPER ASKED TO AMEND THE MOTION TO INCLUDE THE COMPLETION OF THE CULDESAC IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE OTHER SIDE AS SEEN ON THE CONFIGURATION. THE AMENDMENT WAS SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DAVE EARLING. Councilmember Hall spoke to the amendment. He doesn't know if Council has the ability to make someone do that if it is not on their property. He indicated anything could be done with the motion, and if the others wanted to see an attorney to see if they have the ability and/or opportunity to respond to that. He would vote against the amendment for that reason. Councilmember Earling thinks all of the Council believe in the quality of the development. He feels the amendment would help solve a solution of ingress and egress. It is known that many cars pull into that street now. He thinks, with the construction process, that will intensify with people pulling in to see what the development is all about. He thinks it a practical conclusion to complete the culdesac, particularly in light of the fact that the school is a neighbor. He is concerned about parents going in to pick up kids as opposed to trying Olympic Avenue or out on the highway. This seems to be a safer place for people to get in and move freely and pick up their kids and leave the street again. He thinks it is a real attractive consideration that would in fact be an amenity to the development. City Attorney Snyder offered a suggestion. The applicant has raised the question of whether there is a nexus that is a connection between the imposition of this development and the requirement of the condition. He suggested the record is very thin in terms of requiring it as a condition of subdivision PRD approval. On the other hand, if Council wanted to attach that as a condition to the vacation of the road, which is a Approved City Council Minutes January 17, 1995 Page 29 matter typically within the Council's legislative discretion, you could approve the PRD conditioned upon the approval of the road right-of-way reduction. Then as compensation for and condition for that reduction of right-of-way, the construction of the turnaround. It would be a two step process. It would take the requirement out of the subdivision approval, answer the nexus problem, and tie it directly to that matter which is in Council's legislative discretion which is the reduction of the right of way. Tie the safety issue and the right-of-way reduction directly to the culdesac turnaround issue. Councilmember Bill Kasper indicated his understanding that that issue should be in the 45' modification which is the next motion. There is a benefit to them to reduce and get their grades in on that street, and this is the offset. COUNCILMEMBER KASPER'S AMENDMENT AND THE SECOND WERE RESCINDED. MOTION CARRIED. COUNCILMEMBER BILL KASPER MOVED THAT THE EXISTING RIGHT-OF- WAY BE REDUCED FROM 50' TO 45' FOR THE REASONS SET FORTH IN THIS HEARING, AND FOR THAT REDUCTION COUNCIL EXPECTS THE COMPLETION OF THE CULDESAC TO THE EAST, WHICH HAS ALREADY BEEN DEVELOPED ON THE SOUTH SIDE BY THE SUBDIVISION TO THE SOUTH, TO BE COMPLETED IN THE SAME FORMAT, WITHOUT A SIDEWALK AS THE SIDEWALK ALREADY GOES AROUND THE SOUTH SIDE TO THE GATEWAY AREA AND IS UNNECESSARY. COUNCILMEMBER DAVE EARLING SECONDED THE MOTION. Council President Petruzzi stated he would be voting against this motion. He is still of the belief that 32' pavement is going to be insufficient to handle all of the vehicles that will be on the road. Councilmember Fahey asked for clarification of whether Puget Way was public road. In doing this it is still a public road that will be under the domain of the City and have to be maintained by the City. For the sake of discussion, she said she has a problem passing on expenses to developers that they do not necessarily have to incur. There is already a tradeoff for the PRD in the landscaping that borders this and the beautification of the city. Every time we do something like this we are basically increasing the cost of the housing which she thinks is a serious problem. Every time you set a standard like this, you pass it along to the buyer. She thinks it is making an unrealistic demand. If that belongs to the City, it is the obligation of the City to develop it and complete it appropriately. She opposes the motion. Councilmember Hall said there had been mention that there was some responsibility on Council's part for notices that were not given, and there was some delay. He thinks Council needs to take some responsibility here and not make it any more expensive than it already is. He would vote no as well. Council President Petruzzi called for the question THE VOTE WAS 3-3, WITH NO VOTES FROM COUNCILMEMBERS MICHAEL HALL AND BARBARA FAHEY AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT TOM PETRUZZI. THE MAYOR VOTED NO. MOTION DEFEATED. Councilmember Fahey said there was still an issue because now the width of the road has not been approved. She was advised Council had just turned it down. City Attorney Snyder said Council had an Approved City Council Minutes January 17, 1995 Page 30 affirmative motion, so at this point it has not reached a decision regarding the right-of-way. Council President Petruzzi said the decision had been made not to reduce the right-of-way. The motion was to reduce it to 45'. Councilmember Hall said his motion was to uphold the Hearing Examiner's decision, and he thought that included the reduction in the right-of-way. There was discussion of whether this was all combined in the hearing process. Council President Petruzzi said the last motion was to grant the reduction in the right-of-way width and, on top of that, deal with the condition that was put on. He asked if that motion killed the request for reduction of right-of-way. Mr. Snyder suggested that Council have a clear record and render a decision in the matter. He noted that Council had turned down one proposal, and since it was conditioned, it is going to be very complicated to try to sort out, particularly as Councilmember Hall's main motion is based on the assumptions that the setbacks provided were going to be approved. He stated that if Council could not reach a decision or could not approve the right-of-way reduction, it was going to have to go back and address that in the first motion. Councilmember Hall stated that he had tried to do that in the first motion. COUNCILMEMBER MICHAEL HALL MADE A SECOND MOTION ON THE SECOND ISSUES OF THE HEARING TO APPROVE THE REDUCTION IN THE RIGHT OF WAY TO THIS ROAD FROM 50' TO 45' AND TO NOT HAVE ANYTHING IN THERE ABOUT THE RECONSTRUCTION OR THE FINISHED CONSTRUCTION 0-� OF THE CULDESAC. COUNCILMEMBER FAHEY SECONDED THE MOTION. R� ROLL CALL OF COUNCIL SHOWED: HALL, YES; FAHEY, YES; KASPER, NO; NORDQUIST, NO; PETRUZZI, NO; EARLING, YES. BECAUSE OF THE TIE, THE MAYOR VOTED YES. MOTION PASSED. 7. HEARING ON THE HEARING EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION ON AN APPLICATION BY EDMONDS BUILDING COMPANY FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE OFFICIAL STREET MAP TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED RIGHT-OF-WAY WIDTH FOR PUGET WAY, EAST OF 9TH AVENUE NORTH FROM 50 FEET TO 45 FEET (File No. ST-94-102) A►�' This portion of the hearing was discussed in conjunction with Item 6. EXECUTIVE SESSION ON A LEGAL MATTER Mayor Hall recessed the Council at 10:50 p.m. for a 10 minute executive session on a legal matter. The meeting reconvened at 11:02 p.m. ,�►�f 8. HEARING ON INTERIM CRITICAL AREAS ORDINANCE r l o City Attorney Scott Snyder said that in the course of a recent subdivision proceeding the applicant and his attorney raised the issue of whether the City had validly adopted an Interim Critical Areas Ordinance. - The City had adopted its provisions in advance of the GMA, and then at a later meeting attached a sunset clause to the City's ordinance. The GMA when it was enacted used the phrase that the City had used in adopting its ordinance, that is interim ordinances and moratorium, and provided a requirement regarding public hearings and the review process. In the course of his office's review of the points raised by the applicant, they had previously advised the City Council that, if correct, there would be a gap in the City's critical areas coverage, that the City is required to have a critical areas ordinance, and advised the Council that if you go with the applicant's theory the Council could, in effect, adopt a new critical areas ordinance as a safety net, and that it needed to be backed up with a hearing. In the course of reviewing the ordinance itself, he has three recommendations that he would like to make if Council decides to maintain the current Approved City Council Minutes January 17, 1995 Page 31 structure. The City's structure was developed by Shelton & Associates, a City consultant based upon the ordinance involved in King County. That effort on behalf of the City was also undertaken in several other cities. In the course of tailoring the King County model to each city situation, there are some important things that were lost in the process: 1. Legislative findings. King County had extensive scientific and legislative findings to support their setbacks. He recommends that any re -adoption of Edmonds' Critical Areas Ordinance incorporate those legislative findings. 2. The King County structure had a provision that allowed Staff to vary the required buffers. There were some problems with the King County structure in that there were no guidelines for the exercise of that discretion, but it did make the King County ordinance much more flexible than the current provision in Edmonds. The combination of lacking legislative findings and having a less flexible ordinance creates a situation where the City's ordinance is not as defensible as it should or could be. 3. As a practical matter, as Council is aware, the City has for many years had a landslide hazard ordinance which has served the City very well in terms of development of the Meadowdale landslide hazard area and other areas of the city that consist of glacial till. The recommendation he would make is that the Staff exercise its discretion. A majority of the discussion before the City Council related the appropriate buffer areas for wetlands and streams. There was very little discussion because of the existence of the City's geotechnical provisions regarding steep slopes of buffers in steep slope areas. He thinks there is an opportunity to minimize what the lot owner would have to spend in order to get a proper geotechnical report to build on a steep slope back to the development provisions so that an individual lot owner can reply upon the same geotechnical evidence the developer had to use to get the subdivision approved. Rather than having six individual lot owners prepare geotechnical reports, we can have the buffer set during the process of the PRD or subdivision review and then utilize that same information again when the building permits are issued. Mr. Snyder summarized that the City needs an Interim Critical Areas Ordinance in effect, but he thinks the present model should be corrected to include the King County legislative findings, to provide for Staff reductions in buffer zones based upon appropriate geotechnical and/or other evidence provided to a third party agreement the City typically uses (an expert hired by the developer and the City and agreed to by the developer and the City), and have that same information on steep slopes be tied directly back to the information that is required to be developed in Chapter 19.05. In response to a question by Councilmember Kasper, Mr. Snyder said that a building envelope would be established on baseline geotechnical information and would, therefore, be available in the file that a later applicant for a building permit could incorporate by reference rather than having to spend between $10- 25,000 to develop which has been the situation in some of the more delicate glacial till areas and view areas of the city. Mayor Hall opened the public portion of the hearing. Jim Miller, Lovell-Sauerland & Associates of Lynnwood, was here to discuss the same substantive issues that Mr. Snyder has addressed. He had copies of a letter which he passed out to each council member and the city attorney. The two substantive issues deal with steep slopes and wetland areas. What he is recommending is what they recommended in summary form when the Council first went through the public hearing process on the Critical Areas Ordinance. Under wetlands they are suggesting a scientific and Approved City Council Minutes January 17, 1995 Page 32 analytical method of determining the significance of wetlands and, therefore, creating the flexibility of buffers that can be used for that. It is a document that is before Snohomish County right now, and it is a document that is being used as a basis for both Skagit and Kitsap County final critical area regulations. Basically what it does is provide a system of functions and values as a basis for determining the significance of wetlands, and therefore the level of protection with the buffers. The second recommendation really addresses the steep slope issue. It suggests basically in substance the same thing the City Attorney has. That is where you have a public risk or safety or hazard issue related to erosion, landslide, or seismic issues that the geotechnical report form a basis for the buffers and the building setbacks from those type of steep slopes. Where you simply have a steep slope that the geotechnical report documents is stable that you not require a buffer or building setback. Again, that would be confirmed by the geotechnical report. This would require the deletion of two specific sections of the current Interim Critical Areas Ordinance as outlined in the letter. They are 20.1513.0200 and 20.15B.060A.3.c. Those are the sections that simply deal with steep slopes that do not have any hazards associated with them. He was making this recommendation as something they would like to see within the Interim Critical Areas Ordinance, but if you feel because of the rush of time that it cannot be incorporated, they ask that Council direct Staff to bring back an evaluation of this for your final Critical Areas Ordinance. Phillip Carter wanted to take some time to bring Council up to speed on the status of its ordinances. In March 1992 the City adopted Ordinance 2874 which adopted the Interim Critical Area Ordinance. At the time that this matter came before the Council, the proposal to adopt this ordinance only subject to adopting Ordinance 2876 some two weeks later. The Council said to direct the City Attorney to come back two weeks later with a sunset ordinance. The City Attorney did come back three weeks, and it was adopted. If you read the documents, 2874 was adopted specifically conditioned upon sunseting two years hence, July 1, 1994. That was the status in June 1994. Clearly the cities are required to have these city ordinances under the GMA.. What the city did in June 1994 was a little different. He thinks Mr. Snyder or somebody needs to address this fundamental issue. In June 1994 the City adopted another ordinance, 2985, which repealed the sunset ordinance and extended the ICAO. There are only two ways in which you can adopt zoning regulatory ordinances as an optional code city. One is under 35.63.100 which requires the notice of the time, place, and purpose of the public hearing, requires it to be published in a newspaper on the normal fashion. That was not done. When this matter came up for hearing, he discovered the existence of these ordinances. His position is that Ordinance 2985 was adopted either pursuant to the normal course of things when you adopt rezoning ordinances -- that is with a hearing ahead of time -- or pursuant to a section that the legislature approved in June 1992 which is section 220. Chapter 220 of Chapter 35.63 allows cities to adopt interim ordinances and moratoriums for six months without a public hearing, provided you hold a hearing within 60 days. It then allows a continuance or extension for an additional six months if you hold a hearing prior to the adoption of the continuance. His question is as we stand here tonight, does the City have an Interim Critical Areas Ordinance? Did it have an ordinance on December 8, 1994? In summary, his recommendation to the City is: The City adopted an interim ordinance. It has attempted to extend it on two separate occasions. This has been going on for three years. It's time Council come to grips with reality. We need to adopt a permanent, well thought out ordinance following a public hearing and not continue to extend. For the record, the City Attorney has made recommendations on modifying the Critical Areas Ordinance. No one in the audience had the benefit of knowing what those proposed modifications would be; there is no way they could come to this hearing prepared to argue for or against the modifications. Some of them have a lot of merit. Under the case of Conrad v. Gillespie, he suggests the Council is in problems. Council should think this through carefully before taking further action. In the alternative, it should accept Mr. Miller's recommendations and delete the sections to which he referred. He handed out copies of the court case cited. Approved City Council Minutes January 17, 1995 Page 33 City Attorney Snyder said that a number of the things Mr. Carter suggests are intended to be provided to Council. When the ordinance comes back, it will be his intention to recommend a public hearing and to adopt the provisions after it. He realizes that his recommendations were only made this evening, but expressed the necessity of holding a public hearing within a specified time frame. With no one else in the audience desiring to speak, Mayor Hall closed the public hearing and remanded to Council for action. Council President Tom Petruzzi asked Mr. Snyder whether we have an ordinance. Mr. Snyder responded that his belief is that the ordinance was adopted pursuant to 35.63.100 at the time it was adopted. Council had a later procedural provision that the sunsetmg clause ordinance was then deleted by action of the Council. If Mr. Carter's theory is correct and there was some problem with the process, that is exactly what Interim Critical Areas Ordinances of the type that were adopted on December 31 are intended to do, which is close the gap. He remarked that it was good lawyering, but having it both ways doesn't necessarily work. Either you have an ordinance in effect that's been in effect, or you close the door in December, and we are now holding a public hearing to confirm that closure. What he is recommending is to then come back and have a properly adopted zoning ordinance in due course. Whether you want to incorporate, after a public hearing, Mr. Miller's recommendations regarding wetlands in addition to the other items, that is what the public hearing process is for. Mayor Hall asked what the recommended action was for tonight. Mr. Snyder's recommendation was to authorize the preparation of an ordinance to send back through the normal public hearing process to adopt a Critical Areas Ordinance that incorporates the provisions regarding steep slopes that have been discussed and makes recommendations regarding the wetlands functions. He thinks that will take more review because there are technical issues that neither he nor Staff have reviewed. COUNCIL PRESIDENT TOM PETRUZZI MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BILL KASPER, TO AUTHORIZE THE PREPARATION OF AN ORDINANCE TO SEND BACK THROUGH THE NORMAL PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS TO ADOPT A CRITICAL AREAS ORDINANCE THAT INCORPORATES THE PROVISIONS REGARDING STEEP SLOPES AND MAKES RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING THE WETLANDS FUNCTIONS; THAT MORE REVIEW OF TECHNICAL ISSUES SHOULD WAIT UNTIL MR. SNYDER AND STAFF HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THEM. MOTION CARRIED. 9. MAYOR Mayor Hall reminded Council there was a need to deal with Item G after Item 10. She indicated receipt of a letter from LeSourd Patten regarding the agreement. She touched based with the City Attorney on the Fire District 1 contract. Mayor Hall received a memo from Council President Petruzzi, and they had a meeting with Art Housler requesting those persons who were going to be at the retreat. She asked if Brent Hunter would be there from personnel. Council President Petruzzi asked Barb to make a list of the people from last year, with Q Mr. Housler and Chief Springer, Chief Miller, and Community Services Director Paul Mar. He would rather keep it at that level. Mayor Hall suggested if personnel were to be discussed, perhaps other Approved City Council Minutes January 17, 1995 Page 34 individuals should be considered. Council President Petruzzi said that if in the discussion on the 24th, everyone wants Brent Hunter to attend, then that can be dealt with then. 10. COUNCII. Council President Petruzzi said 18 people had picked up applications for the City Council vacancy. So far 2 have returned them, one discussed last week, and one from Ken Reid which is in Council's packet. He further said that a couple of minor changes were made to. the Council Agenda. We are going to have ecomments from the Student Representative which will be up to five minutes in length, in particular to see if we can't get the young people to take part and get to say something. He indicated that is a reinstitution of what was successfully attempted this year. On the Consent Agenda there will be amount of times. If Council gets into something real difficult, rather than run it into hearings, it will be pushed to a future Consent Agenda. The idea is to try and eliminate how many items we pull, to kind of go along with how the committee meetings are run. Council President Petruzzi indicated that at the AWC Conference, there is no special one for newly elected G officials this year. They have them every other year. His feeling is that one of the people who will be Aye( going is the new council member. There is one other opening. Councilmember Fahey has expressed an interest in being the second. Since Councilmember Fahey went last year, it was suggested anyone wishing to attend should call her before Friday and let her know. Mayor Hall asked for clarification of the requirement that the new council member go. She advised that was not something that could be required, but we could make a request or suggestion. Council President Petruzzi also pointed out there was a letter from Dick Van Hollenbeck. Since he is in the recovery stage, he will pass on accepting the appointment. Mr. Petruzzi has dictated a letter in response and wishing he and his family well, a copy of which is contained in the packet. Councilmember Hall noted two commendations: Staff Sgt. Greg Ween and Officer Tim Durant of the Edmonds Police Department. Councilmember Hall asked if it was known what was happening at the ferry dock. Mayor Hall indicated for the record that the State is renovating to maintain a higher level of safety. In response to a portion of his concern, Mayor Hall indicated that the City is "looking over their shoulder". Jeff Wilson said Staff had j, � spent several months reviewing their plans. They are replacing some water lines under the dock itself. 00 They are replacing some pilings that have broken off or deteriorated. They are basically doing repair and maintenance work on the facility with no expansion of the facility at all. Councilmember Hall asked further if anyone knew if they were on schedule. Paul Mar, Community Services Director, thinks they are on schedule. There is the fish window which governs. It is beyond what money can pay in terms of them having to meet that. The fish window means no construction on the dock during that season. He reminded Council the ferry dock will be closed from Saturday, January 28, to February 28, at which time a passenger only ferry will run from the Kingston Marina to the Port of Edmonds Marina. Councilmember Hall confirmed that the time to bring up items for the retreat agenda is next week. Councilmember Fahey was next to report. Since Council has scheduled another hearing on the cellular towers to February 21, in the interests of all the citizens that are concerned with the dogs in the park issue t.r) and who are hoping for an answer before spring comes, she asked that that be rescheduled. She estimated P� Approved City Council Minutes January 17, 1995 Page 35 the soonest possible date would be March 7. There was discussion of having this hearing on February 21, and have those two items the only items on the agenda. It was determined there would probably not be sufficient room to house those attending both of those hearings on the same night, especially with one being an open hearing without set time frames. Council President Petruzzi placed it on the March 7 agenda. Councilmember Kasper reported he had attended a SCCIT (Snohomish County Citizens for Improved Transportation) hearing. The purpose of it is to get public input as well as city input. Councilmember Nordquist passed. Councilmember Earling stated he had pulled Item G because he wished to ask the City Attorney a question. There have been 18 applications picked up for the City Council position. He thinks there may be as many 114 as 25 or so picked up. There no way to know how many completed applications will result. Based on the policy used when Mr. Petruzzi was appointed to the Council, Councilmember Earling estimates there may be asmany as20 interviews. In the ordinance it refers to a public interview process conducted by the City Council. He asked Mr. Snyder if a) there is any flexibility in that, and b) council members if, in fact, we attract 20 completed applications as an example, if it is the intent to have 20 interviews. At least one prior applicant has expressed the opinion 15 minutes is not enough time for the candidate to make himself known to the Council, or for there to be an exchange of questions. He suggested that there should maybe be a process whereby the number of interview was limited down to even 10. City Attorney Snyder said the only limitation under state law is that the interview process be public. How many are interviewed and whether or not Council wants to have cutoffs on the number of interviews is within its discretion. Councilmember Kasper indicated that over the years the interviews had run in the range of 15-20 minutes. Councilmember Nordquist said he didn't think Council should weed them out; that it must be fair to all of them. He has been asked if he would like to speak to certain ones individually. Councilmember Nordquist would like to walk into the interviews being able to give everyone equal time. COUNCIL MEMBER DAVE EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT TOM PETRUZZI, FOR THE PASSAGE OF ITEM G OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED. The item passed is: (G) ORDINANCE 3005 REPEALING EDMONDS CITY CODE SECTION 1.02.035 AND ADOPTING AND REENACTING A PROCESS FOR THE CITY COUNCIL TO FILL VACANT CITY COUNCIL POSITIONS There being no further business to come before the meeting, the meeting was adjourned at 11:38 p.m. R �DAO.�MARC�,CIT�YCLE�RK� Approved City Council Minutes January 17, 1995 Page 36 JANUARY 17, 1995 CALL TO ORDER - 7:00 P.M. FLAG SALUTE 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS (A) ROLL CALL (B) APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF JANUARY 3, 1995 (C) APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF JANUARY 10, 1995 (D) APPROVAL OF CLAIM WARRANTS #940822 THRU #950096 FOR THE WEEK OF JANUARY 3, 1995, AND CLAIM WARRANTS #950097 THRU #950252 FOR WEEK OF JANUARY 9, 1995; AND PAYROLL WARRANTS #946816 THRU #947107 FOR THE PERIOD OF DECEMBER 16 THRU 31, 1994 (E) AUTHORIZATION TO ADVERTISE REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR CODE BOOKS CODIFICATION SERVICES (F) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT WITH RONALD McCONNELL FOR HEARING EXAMINER SERVICES (G) PROPOSED ORDINANCE REPEALING EDMONDS CITY CODE SECTION 1.02.035 AND ADOPTING AND REENACTING A PROCESS FOR THE CITY COUNCIL TO FILL VACANT CITY COUNCIL POSITIONS (H) PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING LIST OF COUNCIL PAID COMMITTEES TO INCLUDE SNOHOMISH COUNTY TOURISM ADVISORY BOARD (I) APPROVAL OF RECLASSIFICATION OF DEPUTY CITY CLERK POSITION FROM NE4 TO NE-7 (referred from 1/10/95) (J) AUTHORIZATION TO CALL FOR BIDS FOR CHLORINE SUPPLY TO THE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT AND YOST POOL (K) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN AGREEMENT WITH AMTEST - AIR QUALITY, INC. FOR WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT INCINERATOR TESTING ($6,956) (L) REPORT ON FINAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR THE 88TH AVENUE WEST STORM DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT AND COUNCIL ACCEPTANCE OF PROJECT (M) REPORT ON FINAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR THE 1994 SANITARY SEWER REPLACEMENT PROGRAM AND COUNCIL ACCEPTANCE OF PROJECT (N) REPORT ON BIDS OPENED JANUARY 10, 1995, FOR THE CITY PARK DISABLED ACCESSIBILITY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (HUD) AND AWARD OF CONTRACT TO DLR UTILITIES ($115,132.10) (0) AUTHORIZATION TO CALL FOR BIDS FOR A SLIDE -IN HYDRAULIC SANDER AND HYDRAULIC SNOW PLOW FOR 10-YARD DUMP TRUCK (P) APPROVAL OF PROPOSED RESOLUTION 807 COMMENDING ELLENANN CHIDDIX FOR HER SERVICE AS A STUDENT MEMBER OF THE EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL continued on page 2 EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL AGENDA JANUARY 17, 1995 PAGE 2 3. AUDIENCE 4. (5 Min.) PRESENTATION OF PLAQUE AND RESOLUTION TO STUDENT REPRESENTATIVE ELLENANN CHIDDIX 5. (60 Min.) HEARING ON APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION TO GRANT APPROVAL OF A VARIANCE AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO INCREASE THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED HEIGHT FOR A CELLULAR COMMUNICATIONS MONOPOLE AT 650 EDMONDS WAY (APPLICANT: ONECOMM CORP. - FILE NOS. V-94-152 & CU-94-151 / APPELLANT: PETER HART, ET AL - FILE NOS. AP-94-181) 6. (30 Min.) HEARING ON THE HEARING EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION ON AN APPLICATION BY THE EDMONDS BUILDING CO. FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF A 6-UNIT DETACHED SINGLE-FAMILY PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT (PRD); AND A 6-LOT PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION IN AN RS- 12 ZONE, LOCATED AT 1312 9TH AVE. N. Pursuant to ECDC Chapter 20.35 (PRD), the application does contain requests to modify provisions of the code related to setbacks from property lines. (File # PRD- 94-16) 7. (15 Min.) HEARING ON THE HEARING EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION ON AN APPLICATION BY EDMONDS BUILDING COMPANY FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE OFFICIAL STREET MAP TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED RIGHT-OF-WAY WIDTH FOR PUGET WAY, EAST OF 9TH AVENUE NORTH FROM 50 FEET TO 45 FEET (File No. ST-94-102) (20 Min.) EXECUTIVE SESSION ON A LEGAL MATTER 8. (15 Min.) HEARING ON INTERIM CRITICAL AREAS ORDINANCE 9. (5 Min.) MAYOR 10. (15 Min.) COUNCIL Parking and meeting rooms are accessible for persons with disabilities. Contact the City Clerk at 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 evening at 7.00 p.m. on Channel 36, and the following Friday and Monday at noon on Channel 32.