02/03/1987 City CouncilTHESE MINUTES SUBJECT TO
FEBRUARY 10, 1987 APPROVAL
1
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
FEBRUARY 3, 1987
The regular meeting of the Edmonds City ,Council was called to order at :7:00 p.m. by Mayor Larry
Naughten in the Plaza Me.eti.ng Room of the Edmonds Library. All present joined in the flag sa-
lute.
DD.r CCNT
Larry Naughte.n, Mayor
Jack Wilson, Council Pres.
Steve Dwyer
Laura Hall
Jo-Ann.e Jaech
Lloyd Ostrom
John Nordquist
Tony Russell, Student Rep.
ABSENT.
STAFF PRESENT
Bill Kasper Mary Lou Block, Planning.Div. Mgr.
Peter Hahn, Comm. Services Dir.
Jack Weinz, Fire Chief
Bob Alberts, City Engineer
Bobby Mills, Pub. Wks. Supt.
Art Ilou•sler, Admin. Svc. Director
Scott Snyder•, CityAttorney
Dan Prinz, Police Chief
Jackie Parrett, City Clerk
Margaret Richards., Recorder
CONSENT AGENDA
* Items (B), (C), (H), and (J) were removed from the Consent Agenda. COUNCILMEMBER JAECH MOVED,
SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST, TO APPROVE THE BALANCE OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CAR-
RIED. The approved items on the Consent Agenda include the following:
(A) ROLL CALL
(D) AUTHORIZATION TO CALL FOR BIDS FOR 1987 COLD WATER METERS ($16,700)
(E) ADOPTION OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS .OF LAW REGARDING APPEAL OF HEARING
EXAMINER DECISION REGARDING ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT AT 15810 - 75TH Pl. W. (GIL
THIRTY, OWNER) (APPELLANT: PETER HAHN)
(F) SET MARCH 3, .1.987 FOR HEARING ON HEARING EXAMINER RECOMMENDATION REGARDING PROPOSED 11
LOT SUBDIVISION WITH MODIFICATIONS AT 657 - 9TH AVE. N. (P-5-8.6/HOMELAND HOMES AND
WILLIAM KASPER)
(G) SET MARCH 3, 1987 FOR HEARING O.N HEARING EXAMINER RECOMMENDATION REGARDING PROPOSED 8
LOT PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT/SUBDIVISION AT 7416 MEADOWDALE BEACH ROAD
(PRD-1-86 AND P-6-86/ROBERT ALLEN)
(I) ADOPTION OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW REGARDING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF
12 LOT SUBDIVISION AT 15720 - 68TH AVE. W. (P-4-86/METCO CONSTRUCTION)
(K) ACCEPTANCE OF QUITCLAIM DEED FROM KEITH AND JANET ELLIS, RICHARD AND ALICE ROSAIA,
AND ROBERT AND MARY ANN STARK FOR STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY AT 807 ALOHA ST.
(L) APPROVAL ,OF AGREEMENT FOR ONE YEAR EXTENSION OF CITY MEMBERSHIP IN THE COALITION FOR
CLEAN WATER ($2,480)
APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF JANUARY 20, 1987 AND JANUARY_27, 1987 [ITEM (B_) ON THE CONSENT_ AGENDA]
Councilmember Hall referred to page 1, paragraph 3 of the January 27, 1987 minutes. She said she
had referred to a $40,000,000 plant and not a $4,000.,000 plant. COUNCILMEMBER HALL MOVED, SECOND-
ED BY COUNCILMEMBER JAECH, TO APPROVE THE JANUARY 20, 1987 MINUTES AS SUBMITTED AND JANUARY 27,
1987 MINUTES AS CORRECTED. MOTION CARRIED.
*See Council Minutes of February 10, 1987
AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN REVISED PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT WITH JAMES DRISCOLL FOR
HEARING EXAMINER SERVICES LITEM C ON 111E CONSENT AGENDA
Councilmember Jaech said although the Council had discussed the monetary aspects of the contract,
it had not discussed the specific terms. She recommended that the issue be removed from the
Consent Agenda and placed on next week's regular agenda.
COUNCILMEMBER JAECH MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCiLMEMBER NORDQUIST, TO REMOVE ITEM (C) FROM THE CON-
SENT AGENDA AND PLACE IT ON THE FEBRUARY 10, 1987 REGULAR AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED.
FINAL APPROVAL OF 6 LOT SUBDIVISION AT 1126 - 2ND AVE. S. (DEER PARK/P-3-86) [ITEM (H) ON THE
* CONSENT AGENDA
Councilmember Jaech noted there was a. difference of $27,057 between the actual cost of the
project and what was budgeted. She asked Staff to provide Council with an accounting of those
additional funds. City Engineer Bob Alberts said the funds were placed in the 19.87 budget and
redistributed in the Water/Sewer Fund.
COUNCILMEMBER JAECH MOVED, SECONDED BY CO.UNCILMEMBER WILSON, TO APPROVE ITEM (J). MOTION CARRIED.
Council President. Wilson read a resolution into the record he had prepared himself in honor of
former Council President Hall as follows: "BE IT HERE HIGHLY RESOLVED that Laura Hall secured
and locked the Council office at City Hall and, thus, averted a possible EdmondsGate; BE IT
HERE HIGHLY RESOLVED that Laura Hall has put new meaning into the position of Mayor Pro Tem; BE
IT HERE HIGHLY RESOLVED that Laura Hall ran an organized and spirited retreat ... that through her
extensive training as college house mother was able to ride herd on that somewhat unruly group
that attended; BE IT HERE HIGHLY RESOLVED that we all appreciate Laura Hall's just being herself
and keeping us on our toes; AND BE IT HERE HIGHLY RESOLVED that Laura's attention to detail and
effort put into the position as Council President is much appreciated by her loyal followers".
Council Pre.sident Wilson presented Councilmember Hall with a plaque in appreciation of her servic-
es as Council President. The meeting recessed at 7:12 p.m. for coffee and cake and reconvened at
7:25 p.m.
AUDIENCE
Mayor Naughten opened the audience portion of the meeting.
Rosemary Shuman, 9110 - 188th St. S.W., inquired if owners of dogs who purchased permanent dog
tag licenses could be grandfathered under the former ordinance and not required to pay the
renewal fee. She said those people who purchased licenses prior to passage of the new ordinance
made an express agreement with the City and have upheld their end of the bargain.
Police Chief Dan. Prinz said one of the reasons the ordinance was passed was to facilitate the
City in keeping more accurate records of those licenses. He said approximately 206 of dog owners
would purchase a license for one dog and then remove it from the licensed dog and use it for
another dog.
Ms. Shuman requested the Council to set a hearing on the issue, and in the interim refund those
people who already paid the renewal fee.
Councilmember Wilson recommended that the issue be discussed at the next appropriate committee
meeting.
Mayor Naughten suggested that the fee could be noted as paid under protest, and if the Council
changed the ordinance those people would be reimbursed.
Councilmember Dwyer did not wish to cause undue administrative expenses by taking and then refund-
ing fees. He recommended that the issue be placed on the February 17, 1987 agenda for further
discussion in order to settle the question without delay. The issue was placed on the agenda.
Mike Cooper, 820 Maple Street, expressed concern that the Council eliminated funding of the fire
boat. He said the comments he would make were his personal opinions based on his education and
career experience and not those of anyone related to him.
*See Council Minutes of February 10, 1987
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 2 FEBRUARY 3, 1987
Mr. Cooper reminded the Council that ~ihe City, through its Fire Department, has a responsibility
to provide adequate fire protection to its citizens. He said the Council has removed that oppor-
tunity to provide adequate protection to the marina through its recent action to eliminate fund-
ing of the fire boat. He requested the Council to reassess its priorities and place public safe-
.ty as a high priority.
Mayor Naughten closed the audience portion of the meeting.
HEARING ON PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION FOR PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY
Planning Division Manager Mary Lou Block reported that during 1986 several questions arose in
regard to resi.dential docks and piers on Lake Ballinger. The Code did not provide adequate direc-
tion for regulating these uses. For this reason, the topic was referred to the Planning Board.
After two public hearings, the Planning Board developed recommendations that: 1) made private
residential docks and piers permitted secondary uses; 2) established site development standards
for docks, piers, and floats; and 3) provided new definitions for docks, piers, and recreational
floats.
Ms. Block said it was the recommendation of Staff to .adopt the Planning Board's recommendation
and direct the City Attorney to prepare the necessary ordinance.
Ms. Block reviewed the Code amendments as follows: 16.20.010 .(B) Permitted Secondary uses - (7)
addition of private residential docks or piers; 16.20.040 Site Development Exceptions (F) (1)
height of a residential dock or pier shall not exceed five feet above the ordinary high water
mark; (2) the length of any residential dock or pier shall not exceed the average length of the
docks or piers within 300 feet of the subject dock or pier; (3) the width of any residential dock
or pier shall not exceed twenty-five percent of the lot width parallel to the shoreline; (4) all
residential docks or piers shall observe a minimum ten foot side yard setback. Joint use docks
or piers shall be allowed to be located on the side property line, provided the abutting water-
front property owners file a joint use maintenance agreement with the Snohomish County Auditor in
conjunction with the issuance of a building permit; (5) no lot shall have more than one dock or
pier; (6) no residential dock or pier shall exceed 4.00 square feet; (7) offshore recreational
floats are prohibited; (8) no covered buildings shall be allowed on any residential dock or pier;
21.20.035 - dock means a structure designed to float upon the water which is attached to the
shoreline and is used for moorage or other water -related activities such as swimming or diving;
21.30.035 - a recreational float is an offshore platform used for water -dependent activities
such as swimming and diving; 21.80.055 - a pier is a fixed structure which abuts the shoreline
and is used for moorage or other water -related activities such as swimming or diving.
Ms. Block noted that the minutes of October 22, 1986 and December 10, 1986 of the Planning Board
meeting were included in the packet.
Ms. Block related two concerns from residents to the Council with respect to the length of docks
or piers as defined in 16.20.040 (F) (2) and (6). She said someone could conceivably build a 100
foot dock which was only 3 feet wide. Ms. Block recommended that an application for a dock long-
er than 50 feet be subject to Staff review, and if anyone in the neighborhood voiced an objection
that it be subject to a hearing.
Councilmember Ostrom noted that 16.20.040 (F) (2) precluded the construction of a dock longer
than the average length of docks or piers within 300 feet. Ms. Block said the residents' concern
was that there may not be a dock within 300 feet in which .to average the length.
Councilmember Nordquist inquired if consideration was given to side yard setbacks where drain
tiles are placed because he said dredging may be necessary at some time and the setbacks would
not provide adequate room for the equipment (i.e., the south and west side of the lake). Ms.
Block said that issue could be addressed separately to include a minimum setback for the City
easement. Councilmember Nordquist requested the Engineering Department to submit their recommen-
dation to the Council.
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 3 FEBRUARY 3, 1987
Mayor Naughten opened the public portion of the hearing.
Dennis Russell, 23705 - 74th Ave. W., said his only concern was the length of the docks or piers,
which was addressed by Ms. Block. He said he wholeheartedly supported the Planning Board's recom-
mendation.
Councilmember Hall inquired if the angulation of side yard setbacks has been addressed.
Doug Rogers, 2.3627 - 74th Ave. W., said in consideration of angulation of a property line, the
50 foot length of a structure -and 10 foot setback was recommended to preclude a dock or pier from
intruding onto another person's property.
City Attorney Scott Snyder said the 10 foot minimum side yard setback would preclude the intru-
sion of a dock or pier onto someone else's property because of the angulation of lot lines.
Mayor Naughten closed the public portion of the hearing.
Councilmember Nordquist expressed his dissatisfaction that the issues of drainage tiles and
angulation of a property line were not adequately addressed. He requested Staff to further
investigate those issues and provide the Council with a line drawing of the southwest corner of
the lake in the near future. Councilmember Dwyer recommended that a 35 foot maximum length also
be considered.
COUNCiLMEMBER OSTROM MOVED, SECONDED BY.000NCILMEMBER WIL.SON, TO CONTINUE THE DISCUSSION TO FEBRU-
ARY 17, 1987 FOR COUNCIL DELIBERATION AND DECISION. MOTION CARRIED.
HEARING ON APPEAL OF ADB DECISION REGARDING PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AT 8339 - 212TH ST. S.W.
ADB-50-86/APPELLANTS: MR. AND MRS..CLYDE M. CLARK AND ROGER HERTRICH
Councilmember Ostrom raised a point of order. Ile inquired about: the two items labeled as item N4
from Mrs. Clark and. Roger Hertrich in his .packet. City Clerk Jackie Parrett said she inserted
those items in the Council folders that afternoon at the request of those parties and retained a
copy for the record.
Councilmember Dwyer inquired if all interested parties had had an opportunity to review that
material. Ms. Parrett replied negatively.
Sarah Mack, Hillis, Cairncross, Clark & Martin, 500 Galland Building, Seattle, attorney
representing the applicant, said Mrs. Clark had provided her with a copy of that information
which she submitted to the Council but she had not received a copy of the information submitted
by Roger Hertrich. Ms. Parrett provided Ms. Mack with a copy of. that information.
Ms. Parrett said Mr. Hertrich had also given her additional materials that evening and asked that
it be distributed to the Council.
City Attorney Scott Snyder recommended that the information be recorded and marked for identifica-
tion and that all parties be given an opportunity to review that information before it was accept-
ed into the record.
Mr. Snyder suggested that the Council discuss the admission o- materials into. the record. He
expressed concern regarding the delivery of materials to the Council between the time the agenda
and Council packets are mailed and the hearing.
Councilmember Wilson recommended that the information contained in the Council packets be accept-
ed but not the information submitted by Mr. Hertrich that evening.
Councilmember Ostrom suggested that the Council accept information that was relevant to the hear-
ing. lie said the hearing could be continued to a later date if the Council felt it needed addi-
tional time to review that information.
Councilmember Wilson said a person versed in the Council's hearing system could very well take
advantage of the system, by submitting information at the last minute and, thus, circumvent the
decision on the hearing date, causing the decision to be held ov(!r.
Mr. Snyder expressed concern that materials submitted at the time of a hearing may not be proper-
ly received and marked for identification. He recommended the following procedures for the admis-
sion of evidence: 1) establish a deadline for submittal of materials in the Council
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 4 FEBRUARY 3, 1987
packet and provide that it be distributed to the public and opposing parties: 2) materials dis-
tributed at the hearing should be submitted to the City Clerk and marked for identification and
specifically referred to by exhibit number by the person who submitted it during their
testimony. He said at that time the Council could make a determination to accept or deny the
material.
Councilmember Dwyer said he would be satisfied as long as a party whom evidence was submitted
against had an opportunity to review that evidence and respond to it. He did not recommend that
advanced cut-off dates to submit materials be imposed because he said it would preclude a citi-
zen not familiar with the system to present relevant material and allow a citizen versed in the
system to capitalize from it.
Councilmember Hall said she wanted the public to be aware that the Council must, at times, contin-
ue hearings when it is inundated with information in order to allow the Council an opportunity to
review that information.
COUNCILMEMBER DWYER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER HALL, TO ACCEPT ANY MATERIAL PRESENTED FOR
THE HEARING THAT EVENING AND THAT THE CITY CLERK INSURE TI4AT ALL INTERESTED PARTIES HAVE AN OPPOR-
TUNITY TO REVIEW THAT MATERIAL.
Mr. Snyder expressed concern with respect to establishing a blanket acceptance of material which
the Council has not yet seen or reviewed or which has not been identified. He suggested that
material be accepted at the close of a hearing if the Council chose to accept it.
COUNCILMEMBER DWYER WITHDREW THE MOTLON. THE SECONDER AGREED.
C
In reference to other ex parte communications, Councilmember Dwyer stated that Mrs. Clark had
contacted him by telephone at his place of _employment recently. He said the conversation was
very brief and pleasant but not substantive, and that he encouraged her to attend the hearing.
Councilmember Jaech noted that she entered into a contract with the Trust Department of Rainier
Bank for a development issue for the tax work for her business. In addition, she said Mr.
Chandler -introduced himself to her that evening and said she may be distantly related to his wife
because their maiden names were the same.
Mr. Snyder .inquired if anyone in the audience objected to participation of Councilmember Dwyer
and Councilmember Jaech based upon their disclosures. No object: ion was noted. Roger Hertrich,
one of the appellants, specifically stated that he had no objection.
Mayor Naughten inquired about the status o.f the information that was submitted to the Council.
Mr. Snyder recommended that that; information be marked for identification as it was received. If
the Council so chose, he said it could accept the information at the close of the hearing.
Mr. Snyder noted, for the benefit of the public, that the information that was contained in the
Council's blue folders was received only that evening and since the Council had conducted an
interview just prior to the meeting, they had not had a lengthy period of time to review it.
Ms. Parrett inquired about the information submitted by Mr. Hertrich that evening. Mr. Snyder
suggested that the information be marked for identification. and copies provided to the public, as
well as the applicant, and that Mr. Hertrich identify that information during his testimony.
.Councilmember Jaech said she saw no problem in accepting information, as that was part of the
hearing process.
C
Planning Division Manager Mary Lou Block reported that the first design of this project was de-
nied by the Architectural Design Board (ADB) on September 3, 1986. That action was appealed to
the City Council and heard by the Council on October 7, 1986. At that time, the Council remanded
the project to the ADB and recommended that a conditional use permit be required. Since then,
the issue of the conditional use permit has been resolved in that a permit is not necessary. The
applicant redesigned the project and again applied to the ADB. On January 7, 1987, the ADB ap-
proved the new design. This approval has now been appealed to the City Council.
Ms. Block said it is the recommendation of Staff to uphold the January 7, 1987 decision of the
ADB.
EDMO.NDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 5 FEBRUARY 3, 1987
Ms. Block said Mrs. Clark had indicated that she had not received notice of the hearing. Ms.
Block said she checked the records which indicated that notice was sent to her, as required by
law.
Councilmember Nordquist inquired if adequate parking has been provided for the possible develop-
ment of Phase I1. Ms. Block said any issue with respect to Phase Ii has not been addressed be-
cause those plans were not proposed at the present time.
Councilmember Dwyer inquired if any situati.on occurred which would eliminate the ability of con-
struction of Phase II in the location .proposed on the footprint if the building presently pro-
posed was built farther to the north. Ms. Block replied negatively.
Mayor Naughten opened the public portion of the hearing.
Betty J. Clark, 20010 - 18th Ave. N.W.,.Seattle, said she objected to the location of the pro-
posed building for the following reasons: 1) the setback of the building will ruin the exposure
of their building adjacent to it; 2) the .proposed development will reduce the openness at Five
Corners; 3) the design of the project, as proposed, is incompatible with the aesthetics of Five
Corners; 4) the project will cause congestion at the intersections.
Ms. Clark said the City of Mountlake Terrace requires a 70 foot setback for buildings located on
an arterial, and the City of Lynnwood requires a 100 foot setback for commercial property, 30
feet for other businesses, and 10 feet from adjacent property lines.
Ms. Clark said the building, as proposed, will look like the back of a warehouse and will ob-
struct the openness of Five Corners. She said although the project is in compliance with zoning
ordinances, the City Council and ADB have the right to look beyond the Code at the practical and
effective location of the building.
Ms. Clark referred to the ADB minutes of January 7, 1987, page 12, and quoted Mr. Chandler's
comments as follows: "Mr. Chandler said the Board's request for a larger than required setback
seemed inappropriate. He submitted photographs depicting the existing businesses located at Five
Corners. fie noted that of all those businesses, the Volkswagoo business was the only structure
which complies with setback requirements. He questioned why the proposed project has been sin-
gled out .to bear the burden of the openness at Five Corners". Ms. Clark said all of the business-
es facing the intersection have setbacks greater than 25 feet.
Ms. Clark said unless the Council is really aware of the geographics of the intersection, it
must visualize the impact of the proposed building. She suggested that its existence would be
comparable to seven semitrailer trucks lined up four across and three in length.'
Ms. Clark inquired why the driveway on 212th was proposed to be relocated in an easterly fashion.
Ms. Clark referred to the January 7, 1.987 meeting of the ADB. She suggested that perhaps the
three new members of the Board were not familiar with the inter!.ection and were at a disadvantage
in making a decision.
Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, said he felt the three .new members of the ADB were a little
threatened and coerced and had not served on the Board long enough to understand the function of
that body.
Mr. Hertrich referred to exhibits he had marked as #2, a drawing by the Engineering Department;
#3, a Staff memorandum; #4, a Staff report. He then referred to the Bell -Walker report dated
August 26, 1987, page 6, as Exhibit H5, which indicated that cars parked at the gas pumps may
cause view blockage to the north leg. Ile cautioned the Council that the ADB made a recommenda-
tion to install street trees near .the gas pump island which, he said, would further compound the
problem. The report indicated that left turns exiting the property could be permitted. Mr.
Hertrich said if someone utilized the easterly driveway and made a left turn to exit onto 212th
going eastbound, traffic congestion would be lessened at the intersection. However, the proposed
driveway would direct cars to exit onto 84th and complicate the process. He noted that the Traf-
fic Engineer had stated that driveways are best utilized where distances from an intersection are
considerable. He pointed out that minutes of the ADB, which he had marked as Exhibit #6, reflect
that Diane Monroe indicated there will be a 50% increase in traffic to the intersection. (Ms.
Mack later noted that that statement was incorrect.)
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 6 FEBRUARY 3, 1987
14r. Hertrich referred to.the September 3, 1986 minutes of the ADB, which he had marked as Exhibit
#7, which, he said, reflect that the setback. was questioned and. Ms. Mack had stated that the
applicant was willing to provide an additional 20 foot setback.
Mr. Hertrich then referred to minutes of the second ADB meeting, which he had marked as Exhibit
N8. He .contended that the calculations for .off-street parking were incorrect. He noted there
was no indication of wheelchair ramps on the curbcuts. He said he objected to the raised is-
land. He also said the truck zone was located too far from. the .proposed building to be of practi-
cal use.
Mr. Hertrich referred to page 13, paragraph 2 of the Bell -Walker report. He said it indicated
that there were eight accidents within the last three years and that ten accidents per year would
warrant an investigation. (Mr. Hertrich later testified that that statement was in error.)
He then referred to minutes of previous ADB and Council meetings and refuted portions of the
testimony. He said the Council's Findings of Fact have not been satisfied and urged the Council
to uphold the.appeal.
Councilm.ember Ostrom asked Mr. Hertrich why he believed the calculations for parking were incor-
rect. Mr. Hertrich said .the Code specifies that service stations are required to provide one
parking space for every 500 square feet of service area and convenience stores are required to
provide one space for every 300 square feet of building space.
Councilmember Dwyer referred to the site plan. He inquired if the distance between the property
line and proposed building line was 25 feet. Ms. Block replied affirmatively. Councilmember
Dwyer inquired if the distance between the red marker indicating the existing building and the
properly line was approximately 70 feet. Ms. Block replied affirmatively.
Ms. Mack chose to utilize the applicant's allotted time for rebuttal.
Bob Turcott, 8928 Main St., said he felt the proposed driveway should be located in the same
location as the existing driveway to eliminate congestion at the intersection and that the left-
hand turn lane should be provided excluding the island.
Mr. Turcott said he felt the need for a greater setback than what was proposed to eliminate
traffic congestion and provide better visibility. He said the traffic study was not conclusive
because it was conducted at a time of year when school was not in session.
Finis Tupper, 711 Daley St., said the Council must determine if the proposed project is consis-
tent with the Comprehensive Plan. He believed it was not consistent with Chapter 15.05.020, as
Mrs. Clark earlier testified that the setbacks are not compatible and do not harmonize with sur-
rounding properties. He said the proposed building is not to scale with surrounding properties.
Eric Anderson, 8406 Bowdoin Way, said the proposed project should be denied because the applicant
has not complied with the requests of the ADB and Council to submit plans depicting the location
of the building farther to the north and the curbcut .on 212th St. farther to the east.
Ms. Mack refuted the testimony that the applicant has failed to respond to direction by the City
Council. She referred to the Findings & Conclusions adopted by the City Council in October as
follows: "The applicant is instructed to present a new site plan designating the location of the
building, structures, and improvements in such a manner as to provide for additional site dis-
tance with respect to the intersection, and the ADB is requested to give special consideration to
pedestrian traffic, particularly from the public schools". She stated that the applicant present-
ed the ADB with an updated traffic report which was conducted while school was in session and
revealed: 1) lower .traffic volumes than those. computed in earlier traffic studies; 2) that the
highest volumes of traffic occurred during commuter peak hours and not while school was letting
out; and 3) traffic volumes would increase by only approximately 5% even when factoring in addi-
tional traffic generated by Phase II.
Ms. Mack requested Mr. Chandler to indicate on the site ma.p the location of the driveway from the
properly line. Mr. Chandler complied. He noted that the Engineering -Department requires that
adjacent driveways be no closer than 50 feet from each another.
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 7 FEBRUARY 3, 1987
Ms. Mack said Ms. Clark was not present at the ADB meeting anJ her concerns regarding the poor
aesthetic quality of the proposed building were slightly misplaced because she said there were
conditions imposed by the A:OB that extensive. landscaping measures along the east elevation of the
building be provided.
Ms. Mack said she was somewhat confused with respect to the grounds for Mr. Hertrich.'s appeal
and was unsure how to respond to his allegation that the ADB's decision should be overturned
because there were three new members. She said neither she, nor anyone on behalf of the appli-
cant, coerced any member. She noted that the minutes of the ADB meeting reflect that extensive
involvement and discussion took place by all members in carrying out their mandate to apply the
criteria and standards .of .the Code. She said Mr. Hertrich was not accurate when he referred to
street trees because she said it was her understanding that the Board had recommended that street
trees be planted toward the interior of the site. Mr. Chandler referenced the proposed landscap-
ing on the site plan.
Mr. Chandler stated that the island and right -turn only out of 212th Street were mitigating
measures imposed by the Engineering Department. He said Ms. Clark failed to reveal the business-
es at Five Corners whose setbacks were in violation of the Code and then identified them.
Mr. Chandler said he submitted photographs to the ADB which depicted that the proposed building
would not impair visibility within 500 feet of the intersection but existing structures beyond
the 500 feet mark would impair visibility.
Councilmember Wilson inquired about the distance from the westerly edge of the proposed curbcut
to the intersection. Mr. Chandler replied 99 feet. Councilmember Wilson inquired about the
number of cars that would fit within that distance. Mr. Chandler replied five cars. Councilmem-
ber Wilson inquired about. the maximum number of cars observed at that location when the traffic
study was conducted.
Councilmember Ostrom inquired if the applicant preferred to locate the curbcut in an easterly
direction on 212th St. but was unable to do so because of the Engineering Department require-
ments. Mr. Chandler replied negatively.
In response to Councilmember Wilson's question, Ms. Mack said the maximum number of cars observed
at the intersection was five and was observed at a time of day when traffic was halted at all
five legs to allow school children to cross.
Mr. Chandler said five traffic studies were conducted on the proposed site. He said he would
grant a great deal more credibility in those studies than he would to the opinions of people who
were "self-proclaimed nonexperts". He requested the Council to value their testimony for
what it was worth.
Ms. Mack said the ADB extensively reviewed the aesthetic quality of the proposed development.
She stated that no evidence has been submitted which depicts that the development does not aes-
thetically harmonize with its surroundings. If any remaining condition did exist, she said she
would assume that the ADB would have imposed conditions to mitigate those circumstances.
Councilmember Hall said she has not heard testimony regarding the total traffic count at Five
Corners. Ms. Mack said the traffic study did review traffic counts at all intersections and also
addressed the issue of church traffic and concluded that the cumulative impact would not be a
great concern. Councilmember Hall inquired if the proposed business will operate on Sunday. Ms.
Mack replied affirmatively.
Councilmember Ostrom referred to the October 7, 1986 Council minutes in which Ms. Monroe stated
that the applicant had agreed to an additional setback of 20 feed.. He inquired why that addition-
al setback was not incorporated into the plans. Ms. Mack said the applicant had requested the
Council to impose a setback requirement. However, the Council determined not to impose one and,
instead, remanded the issue to the ADB. Councilmember Dwyer recalled that the Council was unable
to make a decision because the applicant was unable to provide the Council with the setback of
the existing building. Councilmember Ostrom inquired if the applicant would consider the request
to relocate the building 20 feet farther back as a problem. Ms. Mack replied negatively.
Councilmember Hall .expressed concern that the Comprehensive Plan for the proposed site was not
addressed. Ms. Mack said the applicant was neither applying for nor requesting approval for
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 8 FEBRUARY 3, 1987
development of Phase II. Phase Il,.she,said, would be subject to review and approval by the ADB
at the time it was proposed and would be considered in relationship to the proposal presently
before the Council. Councilmember Hall said she believed the reason the proposed building was
not set back farther was related to the development of Phase II: Ms. Mack said previous testimo-
ny would reveal that the location of the proposed building was related to: 1) the type of use
that is proposed; 2) what is feasible from an economic standpoint; and 3) location of the most
intense use furthest away from the residential area.
Mr. Turcott did not utilize all of his time and allocated the remainder to Mr. Hertrich.
Mr. Hertrich apologized for misquoting testimony from the ADB minutes in that the traffic acci-
dents at Five Corners occurred over a three-year period and not one-year period.
Mr. Hertrich said a precedent will be set at Five Corners if the applicant is allowed to con-
struct the proposed building with a 25 foot setback.
Mr. Hertrich said the proposed development will not impact the RS zone if it is located in a
more northerly direction because the 15 foot buffer would provide adequate screening.
Mr. Hertrich said congestion will be reduced at Five Corners if the driveway is constructed on
the southeast corner because southbound traffic would be reduced on 84th Street. He said the
City recommends, in some instances, joint access when properties are adjacent to one another.
Mayor Naughten closed the public portion of the hearing.
Mr. Snyder, in response to a previous reference to the ability of ADB, referred to Chapter 20.10
which contained the ADB requirements. He said the Board is required to comply with the Comprehen-
sive Plan, zoning ordinances, and the criteria set forth in that chapter. He noted that the
criteria made no reference to footprints or setbacks but does make reference to screening. The
focus of the Code, he said, was not to adjust setbacks as much as it was to provide buffers and
screening and addressed view blockage. Mr. Snyder said in reviewing the Code, he did not find
any provision that gave the Council or ADB the authority to designate a site plot or footprint
based on the rights of other businesses with the exception that the Comprehensive Plan specifical-
ly addresses setbacks in terms of site distance. He urged the Council to differentiate between
view blockage and site distances and recommended that if the Council intended to make adjustments
to the footprint of the building that it did so based on findings with respect to traffic, the
intersection, and the congestion and avoid making findings that relied on the rights of adjacent
property owners.
Councilmember Hall expressed concern regarding the impact on traffic of future development. Mr.
Snyder said the Council may consider phase development as a unified development, according to
SEPA, as well as future use of open spaces under Section 20.10.010. In addition, he said an
applicant who fails to use insight may risk the ability to develop future site plans.
Councilmember Nordquist referred to the area of possible future building footprint on the site
map. He inquired about the setback requirements upon development. Mr. Snyder said the Council
has the ability to designate paths for interior traffic flow. Councilmember Nordquist inquired
if the Council could require the applicant to define possible future development as a separate
parcel in the legal description. Mr. Snyder recommended, because the ordinance does not address
footprint development except in terms of the Comprehensive Plan, that the Council refer that
issue to an appropriate body for consideration.
Councilmember Hall inquired if the Community Transit bus stop was considered in the traffic study.
Councilmember Ostrom said he would like an opportunity to review. the evidence. COUNCILMEMBER
OSTROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NOROQUIST, TO CONTINUE THE MATTER TO FEBRUARY 10, 1987
FOR COUNCIL DELIBERATION AND DECISION. MOTION CARRIED.
REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION OF 1986 YEAR-END CASH CARRYOVER
Administrative Services Director Art Housler reported that it is extremely difficult to accurate-
ly forecast the true year-end cash carryover amount until the books are actually closed for the
year and all adjustments have been made. As a result, the revised original cash carryover made
during the first part of December was too conservative. Since the books have been closed for
1986, it has been determined that there is $94,741 more to be carried over. The tabulation indi-
cates there is $20,430 more in revenues and $74,311 less in expenditures.
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 9 FEBRUARY 3, 1987
Mr. Housler said it is the Mayor's recommendation to appropriate $20,000 to restore the fire
rescue boat service (FRED) and transfer the balance of $74,741 to the Building Maintenance Fund
N116 for replacement of the windows at Anderson Center ($30.,000) and the remainder as a reserve.
Councilmember Jaech noted that it came to the Council's attention that the boat was.utilized to
perform Coast Guard duties in the past. She adamently expressed her concern that the City had
neither the resources or funding to continue to do so. Mayor Naughten said it .is the policy of
the City to only service those areas within the City limits.
COUNCILMEMBER DWYER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON, TO APPROPRIATE $20,000 TO RESTORE
FRED AND TRANSFER THE BALANCE OF $74,741 TO THE BUILDING MAINTENANCE FUND #116 TO REPLACE THE
WINDOWS AT ANDERSON CENTER ($30,000) AND THE REMAINDER AS A RESERVE.
Councilmember Hall recommended that the City request the Port of Edmonds and County to aid in
funding the fire boat. Councilmember Ostrom and Councilmember Wilson concurred.
Councilmember Hall complimented the fire fighters for their endeavors with respect to the fire
boat.
Councilmember Jaech inquired why the Port of Edmonds was not required to provide their own fire
protection. Mr. Snyder said he was not sure and would investigate the matter. He said it was
his understanding that the City was obligated to prov.ide fire protection to areas within the City
limits.
MOTION CARRIED.
MAYOR
Mayor Naughten said he was sorry to inform the Council that Clarence Collins, a former member
of the Civil Service Commission (1977-1985) passed away. Funeral services for Mr. Collins will
be held at the United Methodist Church on February 5th at 10 a.m.
COUNCIL
COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON MOVED,. SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER HALL, TO EXCUSE COUNCILMEMBER
KASPER'S ABSENCE. MOTION CARRIED.
Council President Wilson inquired if the date of March 13 and 14, 1987 for the retreat at Port
Ludlow was amenable to the Council. The Council concurred.
Council President Wilson recommended that the chairperson -of each Council committee provide a
report to the Council at the following Council meeting and quarterly reports for community commit-
tee meetings.
Council President Wilson said he met with the Mayor and a majority of the department managers.
The consensus of that meeting was to direct administrative duties to Staff and legislative duties
to the Council to the degree possible to better facilitate the system.
COUNCILMEMBER JAECH MOVED., SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST, TO CONFIRM THE MAYOR'S APPOINT-
MENT OF .JIMMIE RiECKEN TO POSITION #7 ON THE CEMETERY BOARD, TERM TO EXPIRE DECEMBER 31,
1988. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Jaech noted that a hearing for a variance from the permitted height and area for a
proposed freestanding sign for the cemetery would be heard by the Rearing Examiner on Thursday.
She said she did not feel that a sign was .necessary to identify the cemetery's location. She
felt the City should set standards and abide by its laws.
Councilmember Hall thanked the Council for the cake and plaque.
Councilmember Dwyer referred to the proposed statute 585301 regarding vicious. dogs in the AWC
bulletin. He said that statute would require local govermmetrt animal control authorities to
certify vicious dogs and that uncertified vicious dogs would be promptly confiscated and de-
stroyed by local animal control authorities. He requested that a City representative contact the
State representative and inform him that the City does not wish the provisions of SB5301 to be
mandatory unless the State provides funding to implement that program.
EDMOVDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 10 FEBRUARY 3, 1987
COUNCILMEMBER DWYER MOVED, SECONDED^ BY 000NCILMEMBER« WILSON, THAT THE CITY OPPOSE SB5301 AND
THE OPPOSITION BE COMMUNICATED TO THE CITY'S STATE SENATOR WHO SITS .ON THE SENATE JUDICIARY COM-
MITTEE. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Jaech inquired about the involvement of the City regarding Federal funding in the
event that a nuclear holocaust should occur. Fire Chief Jack Weinz said that issue is currently
being addressed. Councilmember Jaech requested that the Council be kept apprised.
The meeting adjourned at 10:07 p.m.
CQ LINE G.. P RRETT, City Clerk
1
000 ;�4 _Gp�
LARRY S. NAUGHTEN, Mayor
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 11 FEBRUARY 3, 1987