Loading...
03/03/1987 City CouncilTHESE MINUTES SUBJECT TO MARCH 10, 1987 APPROVAL EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 3, 1987 The regular meeting of the Edmonds City Council was called to order at 7 p.m. by Mayor Pro Tem Jack Wilson in the Plaza Meeting Room of the Edmonds Library. All present joined in the flag salute. PRESENT ABSENT STAFF PRESENT Jack Wilson, Mayor Pro Tem. Larry Naughten, Mayor Mary Lou Block, Planning Div. Mgr. John Nordquist Bill Kasper Peter Hahn, Conmi. Svs. Director Steve Dwyer Lloyd Ostrom Jim Barnes, Parks & Rec. Mgr. Laura Hall Tony Russell, Bobby Mills, Public Wks. Supt. Jo -Anne Jaech Student Rep. Jack Weinz, Fire Chief Art Housler, Admin. Svs. Director Bob Alberts, City Engineer Scott Snyder, City Attorney Jackie Parrett, City Clerk Margaret Richards, Recorder In the absence of Mayor Naughten, Council President Wilson presided over the meeting as Mayor Pro Tem. Councilmember Jaech arrived a few minutes late and did not vote on the Consent Agenda. CONSENT AGENDA Item (B) was removed from the Consent Agenda. COUNCILMEMBER DWYER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEM- BER HALL, TO APPROVE THE BALANCE OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. Item (D) was later removed from the Consent Agenda and discussed. The approved items on the Consent Agenda include the following: (A) ROLL CALL * (C) ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RECEIPT OF CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM GREG McALLISTER ($10,000) (E) ADOPTED ORDINANCE 2604 AMENDING EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 15.o0.020(C) TO PROVIDE FOR A 10% INCREASE IN BUILDING PERMIT FEES AND ESTABLISHING A 100% RECAPTURE RATE (F) AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE VEHICLE THROUGH STATE CONTRACT FOR ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT ($12,032) (G) REPORT ON BIDS OPENED FEBRUARY 24., 1987 FOR PURCHASE OF COLD WATER METERS AND AWARD OF CONTRACT TO FOG -TITS METER SEAL COMPANY, INC. ($9,212.23) (H) AUTHORIZATION TO ADVERTISE FOR BIDS FOR 80TH AVE. PIPELINE REPLACEMENT AND STREET IMPROVEMENTS'($303,000) (I) "AUTHORIZATION TO AWARD CONTRACT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF STORM SEWER ACROSS 212TH ST. AT FIVE CORNERS TO UTELCON, INC. ($9,822) (J) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN REVISED PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT WITH JIM DRISCOLL FOR HEARING EXAMINER SERVICES (K) SET APRIL 7, 1987 FOR HEARING ON APPEAL OF ADB DECISION REGARDING FREESTANDING SIGN AT 1233 OLYMPIC VIEW DR. (AP-4-87/APPELLANT: ROGER HERTRICH) * See Council Minutes of March 10, 1987 APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 17, 1987 AND FEBRUARY 24, 1987 [ITEM (B) ON THE CONSENT AGENDA] Councilmember Hall referred to the February 24, 1987 minutes. She expressed her appreciation to Community Services Director Peter Hahn for taking the minutes at that meeting. She. noted that there were errors, as well as omissions, in the minutes. She suggested that personnel in the City Clerk's office rewrite the minutes in a more comprehensive form. City Clerk Jackie Parrett inquired what additional information Councilmember Hall wished to be included in the minutes. Councilmember Hall recommended that the tapes of the meeting be referenced to ascertain that information. COUNCILMEMBER HALL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DWYER, TO DEFER APPROVAL OF THE FEBRUARY 24, 1987 MINUTES UNTIL MARCH 17, 1987. Councilmember NordgUist concurred that the. minutes were too brief and suggested that they be rewritten almost verbatim. City Clerk Jackie Parrett said there was no staff available in the City Clerk's office to listen to tapes and prepare a verbatim record. She inquired again what information had been omitted which Councilmember Hall wished to be included in the minutes. Councilmember Hall said a minute taker should have been present at the meeting. Ms. Parrett noted that she had asked several times if a minute taker would be needed for that meeting and the response was negative each time. Mayor Pro Tem Wilson explained that it was not anticipated that the meeting would be as extensive as it turned out to be. He inquired if Councilmember Hall wanted a verbatim record to be prepared. Councilmember Hall replied affirmatively. Councilmember Jaech noted that the City Clerk was not authorized to hire temporary or part-time help without Council approval. Councilmember Dwyer recommended that the Council take the initiative to pinpoint the information that it wished to be contained in the record. He said the Council had an obligation to relay that information to the City Clerk. Councilmember Hall thought Councilmember Kasper would like a few items added to the minutes. MOTION CARRIED. COUNCILMEMBER HALL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DWYER, TO APPROVE THE FEBRUARY 17, 1987 MIN- UTES AS SUBMITTED. MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Dwyer raised a point of order. He said because Councilmember Jaech was not present at the time that the Consent Agenda was discussed, she wished the Council to reconsider Item (D). COUNCILMEMBER DWYER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JAECH, TO RECONSIDER ITEM (D). MOTION CARRIED. ADOPTION OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW REGARDING HEARING ON APPEAL OF ADB DECISION Councilmember Jaech recommended the following amendments: page 1, paragraph 1, delete the sen- tence on line 8, "Previous actions of this Council have resolved the issues regarding the exis- tence of a nonconforming use and the application of the conditional use permit procedures"; page 1, Item 2, to be clarified. She said previous discussions specified that the site was not vested ... that the conditional use permit ran only with current ownership. City Attorney Scott Snyder said a conditional use permit may not run with the land, but the use that the property is put to, as long as it is not abandoned or altered, could be maintained by future owners. Councilmember Jaech recalled that the Council had had discussions to the contrary and recommended that the minutes of the previous meeting be referenced. Councilmember Jaech continued with the following amendments: page 3, Item 7, line 8, delete the first part of the sentence as follows, "While projected vehicular traffic impacts to be generated by the site itself are relatively minimal"; page 4, Item 13, insert the words "at the eastern boundary Line' following the language "entering the site from 212th"; page 4, Item 14, delete. Mr. Snyder said that language relates to a find- ing that the Council is required to make. Councilmember Jaech continued with the following amend- ments: page 5, paragraph 1, line 2, insert the words "at the eastern boundary" following the language "The Council finds that the proposed entrance"; page 5, Item B, insert the words "moved to the eastern boundary line" in lieu of the language "is located in such a manner"; page 6, line 8, insert the words "eastern boundary" following the language "footprint to the north and the EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 2 MARCH 3, 1987 driveway entrance on 212.th Street to the". and delete the remainder of the sentence; delete the sentence beginning on line 11, page 6, "The movement of the driveway entrance will also exacer- bate the existing problem regarding the conflict of entering and parking backing traffic and we, therefore, require that the building be moved 15 feet to the north". COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBFR HALL, THAT THE AMENDED FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW BE SUBMITTED TO THE COUNCIL ON MARCH 10, 1987. Councilmember Jaech inquired if the process would delay the presentation by the Applicant to the Architectural Design Board meeting in April. Community Services Director Peter Hahn replied negatively. Mr. Snyder said the only question he had was with respect to the issue of nonconforming versus conditional use permit rights. Councilmember Jaech, inquired if that language could be worded so as not to cause confusion. Mr. Snyder suggested that the wording be included to the effect that certain nonconforming use rights regarding the existence of gasoline service facilities located on the site have been addressed in previous discussions of the Council. Councilmember Jaech concurred. MOTION CARRIED. AUDIENCE Mayor Pro Tem Wilson opened the audience portion of the meeting. Betty Mathay, 8006 240th S.W., submitted a letter to the Council. She expressed concern regarding the Doces project that was heard by the Architectural Design Board in February. She said a decision was made through Administration without public input. She felt that a public hearing should have been scheduled before the Council before a decision was rendered. Councilmember Nordquist explained that a contract rezone on the Doces property is exists. He said the concern of the residents is whether. or not the contract has been violated or if the action was appropriate. Mayor Pro Tem Wilson closed the audience portion of the meeting. HEARING ON HEARING EXAMINER RECOMMENDATION REGARDING PROPOSED 11 LOT SUBDIVISION WITH MODIFICA- IONS AT 657 - 9TH AVE. N. P-5-86/HOMELAND HOMES AND WILLIAM KASPER Planning Division Manager Mary Lou Block reported that on November 20, 1986, the Hearing Examiner conducted a hearing on the application of Homeland Homes, Inc. and William Kasper for an eleven -lot subdivision with modifications at 657 - 9th Ave. N. The requested modifications include a reduction of lot area and width for proposed Lot 11. After the public hearing, an appeal was filed challenging the Declaration of Nonsignificance (DNS) issued for the project pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). On Decem- ber 18, 1986, the Hearing Examiner held a hearing on the SEPA appeal and recommended to the City Council that the appeal be denied. On January 20, 1987, the City Council held a hearing on the Hearing Examiner's recommendation regarding the SEPA appeal and upheld his recommendation. On February 9, 1987, the Hearing Examiner issued a recommendation to the City Council that the proposed subdivision with modifications be approved subject to the conditions listed in his re- port. Ms. Block said it was the recommendation of Staff to adopt the Hearing Examiner's Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law recommending preliminary approval of P-5-86. Ms. Block reviewed the conclusions and recommendation of the Hearing Examiner. Ms. Block then reviewed the configuration of the proposed subdivision on a vicinity map on the overhead projector. Councilmember Jaech inquired when Aloha Place was dedicated to the City. Ms. Block replied in 1981. Ms. Block said Ordinance 2219 was passed in 1981 which established the right-of-way widths and street configuration for the streets. EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 3 MARCH 3, 1987 Councilmember Jaech inquired who initiated the creation of Aloha. Ms. Block said the,City initi- ated an amendment to the Official Street Map in 1981 to add a proposed 35 foot wide cul-de-sac. off of 8th Avenue North near Aloha Street. The Council passed Resolution 484 in 1980 initiating the vacation of a portion of 8th Avenue North near Aloha Street. The Planning Commission then held a public hearing in September of 1980 regarding the two street amendments. In 1981, the City Council passed Ordinance 2219 amending the Official Street Map. Councilmember Hall noted that the Council received material from Finis Tupper that evening which, she said, she had not had time to review yet. She said the Council had recently discussed formulating a policy regarding the admission of evidence and inquired whether or not the Council wished to accept that material into evidence. Councilmember Dwyer recommended that the material be accepted because he said the proceeding before the council was not an appeal and, therefore, was not the same situation as was before the Council in the recent past. Councilmember Hall disagreed. She said she would be willing, however, to accept the material if the Council would take a few minutes to review the information. Councilmember Wilson said although he did not see any reason to not accept the material, it may affect the Council's ability to render a decision that evening. He said the Council must establish rules in the near future regarding the submis- sion and acceptance of evidence into the record. City Attorney Scott Snyder recommended: 1) that the material be marked for identification, if accepted; 2) insure that the applicant was provided a copy of that material and allow him an ,opportunity to review and/or rebut any information presented. The material submitted by Finis Tupper was marked as Exhibit N1. Hank Lewis said he has reviewed the material submitted by Mr. Tupper and was not opposed to its admission. Councilmember Jaech said she believed that the material submitted by Mr. Tupper was submitted in a timely fashion because the Findings & Conclusions formulated by the Hearing Examiner were re- ceived by the Council only within the last few weeks, which did not allow much time to provide copies to the public when requested or for their review. Councilmember Jaech noted, also, that citizens sometimes have no alternative but to voice their opinions or concern via written materi- al because public input is limited during the hearing process. Hank Lewis, applicant representing Homeland Homes, Inc., submitted full-scale copies of the project to the Council. Mr. Snyder inquired if that information was previously provided to the Council. Mr. Lewis replied affirmatively, noting those were full-scale copies which would be easier to read. Mr. Lewis said the proposed subdivision is located on property formerly owned by William Kasper and is now possessed by Homeland Homes, Inc. He said Mr. Kasper's home, which is Lot 11, was not purchased as part of the proposed subdivision. Mr. Lewis said the proposed subdivision is located in a 12,000 square foot single-family zoned neighborhood. All new lots will be 12,000 square feet or greater. The roadways that were previ- ously established will be developed to their capacity and in accordance with City standards. Mr. Lewis requested: 1) that the Council approve the proposed subdivision as approved by the Hearing Examiner and as recommended for approval by Staff; 2) delete the Engineering Department requirement #25 regarding the water line loop under a hardship clause. He said he would be happy to provide a new fire hydrant at the intersection of 8th Place North and a future easement, if necessary. * Councilmember Wilson inquired if Mr. Lewis had been in contact with the Fire Department regarding that request. Mr. Lewis replied affirmatively. Councilmember Wilson inquired if that proposal provided adequate water flow. Mr. Lewis said the minimum requirement for water flow is 1,000 gallons per minute, and 13,000 gallons per minute will be available at the intersection of Aloha Street and 8th Avenue North. Councilmember Jaech requested that the City Engineer and Fire Chief respond to Mr. Lewis's state- ments. City Engineer Bob Alberts said the Engineering Department will accept an alternate loop- ing system route. Fire Chief Jack Weinz said the Fire Department favors a water loop system over a dead-end main. *See Council f1inutes of March 10, 1987 EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 4 MARCH 3, 1987 Councilmember Hall inquired about the alternate system. Mr. Alberts said the system can be ex- tended to the south towards Daley Street. He said the City will participate in the cost if suffi- cient water flow is available and the extra capacity from a 6 inch to an 8 inch line is not neces- sary. He noted that the Comprehensive Plan makes a recommendation that an 8 inch line be in- stalled. Councilmember Hall inquired about the percentage of participation by the City. Mr. Alberts replied between $1 to $2 per running foot. . Councilmember Wilson inquired if Mr. Lewis was requesting relief to loop the system with an 8 inch water main to 9th Avenue North via an alternate route. Mr. Lewis said he was requesting relief from the requirement altogether based upon past actions of the Council to not require developers to pay for costs to extend water systems. lie said the estimated cost to loop the system from the end of the cul-de-sac across 9th Avenue would be approximately $20 per foot. Councilmember Dwyer inquired what route Mr. Lewis would prefer if the extension was required. Mr. Lewis said Daley Street would provide a better overall benefit. Councilmember Dwyer inquired if a looping system to the south would provide the requisite bene- fits regardless of the size of the system. Mr. Alberts replied affirmatively. Councilmember Wilson inquired if the 4 inch water main was due for upgrading. Mr. Alberts re- plied affirmatively. He said if the City did not participate in the cost to upgrade the system, a potential existed for a late comer's agreement which would reimburse Mr. Lewis a proportionate amount of the costs because development of that area may take place in the future. Mayor Pro Tem Wilson opened the public portion of the hearing. Finis Tupper, 711 Daley Street, read the document into the record that he provided to the Coun- cil and which was marked as Exhibit N1 which stated, essentially, that he opposed the granting.of the proposed preliminary plat as recommended by the Hearing Examiner because of the following errors of law: 1) the Findings and Recommendation of the Hearing Examiner failed to consider all of the evidence presented at the hearing; 2) as proposed, the subdivision is nonconforming and, therefore, does not satisfy the requirements of the zoning ordinances, the Comprehensive Plan, and the review criteria of the subdivision ordinance of the City of Edmonds. Mr. Tupper cited sections of the Code in support of his contentions. Mr. Tupper said the Council has two possible motions which would allow the subdivision and still satisfy the requirements of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC): 1) deny the modifica- tion request for Lot 11, segregate Lots 9 and 10 of P-5-86, and approve the remaining 8 lot subdi- vision as proposed; 2) deny the modification request for Lot 11, make the determination that only 9 lots be allowed per the ECDC and remand the file back to the Hearing Examiner for review of the new lot lines. Mr. Tupper concurred that the best route to loop the system would be south to Daley Street. Councilmember Nordquist said he believed the ECDC was being challenged. He requested the Plan- ning Department's interpretation of Mr. Tupper's contentions. Ms. Block said it has been clear- ly stated that the right-of-way width for the streets in question was established by City ordi- nance in 1981 to a width of 35 feet. Councilmember Wilson inquired if the issue was before the Council in the recent past for a 15 lot configuration. Ms. Block replied negatively. Councilmember Wilson said he recalled that a major- ity of the lots along 9th Avenue were substandard. Ms. Block said the lots on both sides of the site are smaller than Lot 11. Councilmember Wilson noted that the lots of the proposed subdivi- sion are larger than most of the new lots along 9th Avenue. Ms. Block said all of the new lots of the subdivision are 12,000 square feet or greater, with the exception of Lot 11. Councilmember Dwyer inquired when a roadway width of 40 feet is required to serve a potential of 10 lots in an RS-12 area per Chapter 18.80,010 . Ms. Block said 8th Place North, which is a new road and not shown on the Official Street Map, would have to meet the standards of that chap- ter. Mr. Snyder said two other maxims of construction apply when codes conflict: 1) the specif- ic takes precedence over the general; 2) if Ms. Block's interpretation was perceived as incor- rect, the very least that would occur would be a conflict. He said in instances of zoning and subdivision matters, ambiguities are generally required to be resolved in favor of the property owner. EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 5 Ms. Block clarified that the paved width on the sidewalks of the proposed subdivision meet the requirements of Chapter 18.80.010. She said tiie only deviation would be the right-of-way width, which the Council established in the past. Mr. Snyder said generally, regardless of actions by the City in a condemnation proceeding, the hands of the Council cannot be tied in a later review proceeding. Ile said the Council was free to make a determination in the context of its normal subdivision review. Councilmember Dwyer clarified that the settlement of the previous condemnation was to terminate the lawsuit, the City would pay a sum of money, and Mr. Wallace would appear at a public meeting and not oppose Mr. Kasper's short plat application to create Lot 11. Mr. Snyder concurred. Councilmember Dwyer said, then, that that was the final action the City was bound to perform. Mr. Snyder concurred. Councilmember Dwyer inquired if the record indicated that any of the con- sideration for the condemnation settlement in 1971 involved any short plat or subdivision. Mr. Snyder said although he did not attend those proceedings, any agreement to bind the hands of a future Council in a quasi-judicial review would be contained in the legal agreement. Don Schroeder, 528 - 8th Avenue North, said'he will probably be impacted by the project more than anyone else because of the 500 foot common boundary. He said although he would prefer not to see the subdivision developed, he did not find any fault with its development. Mr. Schroeder said, however, he would not receive adequate fire protection if the project is devel- oped unless a fire hydrant was installed near his home and was hooked up to the water system of the subdivision. Nanette Straw, 743 Aloha Street, said she felt the subdivision would enhance the area and that Homeland Homes, Inc. was a very reputable organization. Howard Straw, 730 Vista Place, said he owns a Homeland Nome home. He said the organization has improved the area around his home and will improve the area around the proposed subdivision, also. Ted Kopp, 9702 - 227th P1. S.W., said he purchased three lots adjacent to the proposed subdi- vision in 1979 and subsequently sold them. Ile retained a 25 foot strip of land through 9th Ave- nue. Mr. Kopp said the cul-de-sac in the proposed subdivision will encroach on a portion of his property. He requested that that portion of land be purchased from him if the subdivision is developed. Mr. Kopp said he believed the proposed subdivision will enhance the area. Mayor Pro Tent Wilson closed the public portion of the hearing. Mr. Lewis, in response to statements made by Mr. Tupper, said that the Hearing Examiner did give consideration to the concerns that were raised during the hearing before the Hearing Examiner. Mr. Lewis said he had conversations with Staff regarding Lot 11. He said he had the option of not including Lot 11 in the subdivision and coming back at a later date to request a lot line modification but chose not to do so because he felt it was appropriate to include Lot 11 and readjust the lot line as proposed and, thereby, let it be public knowledge of the intent to modi- fy the lot line. Mr. Lewis said the square footages are identical and that it is only a matter of taking it from a right angle and readjusting the line. Councilmember Dwyer inquired why Lot 11 was proposed to be included in the subdivision. Mr. Lewis said any conflicts that may have arisen were desired to be avoided, and he wanted the project to be as straightforward as possible. Councilmember Dwyer inquired if the proposed subdi- vision would be irreparably harmed if Lot 11 was not included based upon prior actions of the previous owner causing it to be a substandard lot and not allowing it to be varied. Mt.. Lewis illustrated on a vicinity map that the proposed subdivision would improve Lot 9 and not harm Lot 11. Councilmember Jaech inquired about the ownership of the triangle depicted on the map. Mr. Lewis said half ownership remained with the proposed subdivision. Councilmember Jaech inquired if Mr. Kasper owned all of the property outlined in orange. Mr. Lewis replied affirmatively. Council - member Jaech inquired if representation for the subdivision included only the property outside of the area marked in orange, which depicted a different configuration for Lot 9 than was shown on the map provided to the Council. Mr. Lewis replied affirmatively. Councilmember Jaech inquired if the lots would still meet the 12,000 square foot minimum requirement. Mr. Lewis replied affir- matively. EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 6 MARCH 3, 1987 Councilmember Hall said she appreciated the manner in which the proposed subdivision was present- ed to the Council, although it was somewhat confusing. She requested clarification. Mr. Snyder inquired if portions of the Nichols, Dunmire, and Kopp property were required to be utilized to develop the cul-de-sac on Aloha Place as a part of the subdivision. Mr. Lewis replied negatively. He said the dotted line on the map is an area that has never been acquired by the City. The cul-de-sac will be developed with an adequate turnaround to service the two lots. Mr. Lewis said Mr. Nichols indicated he would be willing to dedicate the roadway if Homeland Homes made the improvements. Mr. Snyder inquired if the Dunmire lot was developed. Ms. Block replied affirmatively. She said the older homes access from 9th Avenue but will access from the cul-de-sac when it is developed. Councilmember Dwyer inquired if half of a cul-de-sac would exist when the subdivision was com- pletely developed. Mr. Lewis said a modified turnaround would exist. Councilmember Dwyer in- quired how the City would eventually compel completion of the cul-de-sac. Mr. Alberts said the applicant is required to make every attempt to obtain full right-of-way for the cul-de-sac bulb. If efforts result in failure, then a hammerhead could be designed, which would provide an accept- able turnaround. -Councilmember Jaech asked Mr. Snyder to reiterate his statement regarding nonapproval of a subdivision because of property not in possession by the developer. Mr. Snyder said there is case law to the effect that a subdivision which requires the dedication of property in the owner- ship of a third party cannot be approved without the concurrence or the third party joining in. Councilmember Nordquist inquired if emergency vehicles could access Lot 9. Fire Chief Weinz said vehicles could access that lot as long as it met Engineering Department requirements. Councilmember 1-1611 inquired if the Fire Department favored a cul-de-sac over a hammerhead. Fire Chief Weinz said the primary concern of the Department was getting to the scene and not leaving it. He said the Department had no preference of one configuration over another because firefighting vehicles can back out. Mr. Lewis, in response to Mr. Tupper's statements, said the right-of-way will be constructed to its maximum width of 35 feet and will meet City standards. Joan Herman, Box 134, Winthrop, said she owns the Nichols property. She said she had con- cerns regarding that property, but her questions have since been addressed. Councilmember Nordquist noted that the Hearing Examiner had commented that the applicant's re- quest for the elimination of street lamps was not reasonable and should be required in order to provide light for the protection of the neighborhoods. Councilmember Nordquist said the Hearing Examiner, however, did not include that street lamps be provided in his recommendation. Ms. Block said that provision is an Engineering Department requirement and is adopted as part of Exhibit N4. Councilmember Nordquist said there was some confusion regarding the location of the street lamps. Ms. Block said street lamps are typically located at the intersection of cul-de- sacs. Councilrnernber Jaech said she interpreted the Engineering Department requirement to provide street lamps along the entirety of the street to the end. She requested clarification of the loop and recommended that it connect with Daley Street. COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER HALL, TO ADOPT THE HEARING EXAMINER'S FINDING OF FACTS & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW RECOMMENDING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF P-5-86 WITH THE FOLLOW- ING ADDENDUMS: 1) PROVIDE STREET LAMPS PER THE HEARING EXAMINER'S COMMENTS AND ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT REQUIREMENTS, 2) INCLUDE THE LOOPING OF THE WATER LINE TO DALEY STREET AS RECOMMENDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JAECH. * Councilmember Dwyer said the Hearing Examiner's Finding N13 was incorrect. He said he believed that the configuration or size of Lot 11 was a result of a bargain -wise of ill -advice made by Mr. Kasper in 1971 and precludes modification pursuant to the variance requirements. He said he would prefer that an application for a lot line adjustment be made in the near future. COUNCILMEMBER JAECH MOVED TO AMEND THE MOTION TO DELETE LOT 11 FROM THE SUBDIVISION REQUEST BE- CAUSE IT WAS NOT PROPERTY OWNED BY THE DEVELOPER OF THE SUBDIVISION. MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. COUNCILMEMBER JAECH MOVED TO AMEND THE MOTION, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DWYER, TO DELETE LOT 11 FROM THE SUBDIVISION REQUEST. * See Council flintues of March 10, 1987 EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 7 MARCH 3, 1987 Councilmember Dwyer inquired if the Council was empowered to take such action and, if so, if the motion was worded appropriately. Mr. Snyder said the Council was empowered to take that action. He said he interpreted Councilmember Jaech's motion to mean that Lot 11 would remain in its cur- rent configuration and the boundary line adjusted to reflect the former segregation. Councilmem- ber Jaech concurred. Mr. Snyder said the motion was appropriate. THE MOTION TO AMEND CARRIED WITH COUNCILMEMBER WILSON OPPOSED. THE MAIN MOTION, AS AMENDED, CARRIED. (The Hearing Examiner's complete report is available in the Planning Department). The meeting recessed at 9:02 p.m. and reconvened at 9:10 p.m. Mayor Pro Tem Wilson announced that a request was made by the Cemetery Board to remove Item N7, Request by Cemetery Board to Transfer Existing Loan to Endowment Fund, from the agenda and re- schedule it on March 17, 1987. Councilmember Jaech said it would be more appropriate if that item was scheduled for discussion on March 10, 1987 because it was more of an in-house matter. Mayor Pro Tem Wilson concurred. COUNCILMEMBER HALL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JAECH, TO REMOVE ITEM N1 FROM THE AGENDA AND RESCHEDULE IT ON MARCH 10, 1987. MOTION CARRIED. HEARING ON APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER DECISION REGARDING ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT AT 9328 - 216TH S.W. CU-59-86/AP-3-87/APPELLANT: RANDY BOAG Councilmember Dwyer stated that he was related to the applicant. lie left the dais. Planning Division Manager Mary Lou Block reported that on January 15, 1987, the Hearing Examiner held a public hearing on the request of Randy Boag for a conditional use permit for an acces- sory dwelling unit in his residence at 9328 - 216th St. S.W., Edmonds. The Hearing Examiner issued his decision on January 20, 1987 denying the requested permit on the grounds that there was inadequate parking for the number of vehicles used by the occupants of the residence. On February 11, 1987, Randy Boag filed an appeal seeking to overturn the Hearing Examiner's decision. Ms. Block said it is the intent of Chapter 20.21 to allow accessory dwelling units in single- family zones as long as they are compatible with the neighborhood. The conditional use process allows the City to impose conditions to insure such compatibility. The Hearing Examiner based his decision to deny the requested conditional use permit for an acces- sory dwelling unit on inadequate parking. Ms. Block said Mr. Boag was unable to attend the hearing and had his wife present the applica- tion. Apparently, Mrs. Boag, accompanied by an infant, was unprepared to answer the questions raised and was unable to respond to the parking issue. Mr. Boag has since indicated his desire to pave the west side yard to accommodate additional parking. The neighboring property owners object to the application due to the number of cars'on the proper- ty, lack of parking spaces, laundry facilities on the upper rear deck, and the running of a busi- ness out of the home. Many of the complaints of the neighbors could be resolved if the applicant were to meet the fol- lowing criteria to obtain an accessory dwelling permit: 1) a building permit would be required for the accessory unit. The City would inspect the residence to insure compliance with the Uni- form Building Code; 2) the laundry facilities on the upper deck and the freezer on the lower deck would be required to be moved into the house; 3) any vehicles that are for sale or in disrepair would be required to be removed from the site. Further, the Council could impose a condition that does not allow the applicant or tenant to sell any cars from the property; 4) parking would be required for the applicant and tenants. Ms. Block said the neighbors have alleged that the owner is running a business from his home. Any business that is located in a residence must obtain a home occupation permit and comply with all code requirements. EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 8 MARCH 3, 1987 Ms. Block said if the Council upholds the appeal, Staff would recommend that the following condi- tions be imposed: 1) sufficient parking be provided on site to accommodate the cars of the own- ers and their tenants. Although the Code requires only 3 on -site spaces, to avoid causing nega- tive impact on the neighborhood in this case, spaces should be assured for all permanent cars. These spaces are not allowed to be provided in a side yard; 2) require the applicant to obtain a building permit. No appliances shall be allowed outside of the residence. All improvements shall be in accordance with current City codes; 3) all cars not used by the applicant or tenant that are for sale or are inoperable shall be removed from the property within thirty days of Council approval of the accessory dwelling unit; 4) no cars may be repaired or sold at the resi- dence. Councilmember Jaech inquired if the issue of the home occupation was an issue that was before the Council. Ms. Block replied negatively. Randy Boag, 9328 - 216th St. S.W., said he contacted the Police Department who subsequently inspected the property and determined that the vehicle did not constitute an abandoned vehicle. Mr. Boag said he has since sold that vehicle. Mr. Boag said he has provided three spaces for on -site parking. He requested that side yard parking be permitted. lie said he owns three vehicles and his tenant owns one. If side yard parking was permitted, two additional parking spaces could be provided. Mr. Boag said he had photographs which depicted that adjacent residents utilize their side yards for parking purposes. (They were submitted as Exhibits M1 and 2.) Mr. Boag submitted three letters from long-term residents of that area to the City Clerk that recommended that a conditional use permit be granted. (Exhibits H3, 4, and 5) Councilmember Wilson requested clarification regarding the tenant, as well as the appliances that are located outside. Mr. Boag said he installed a stack washer and dryer on the upper covered deck. He said Mr. Bowman told him that it may be possible to obtain a permit to enclose that area. Mr. Boag said a chest freezer is located underneath the lower deck. He said the appli- ances were purchased two years ago and are in good condition. Councilmember Nordquist inquired about the length of time Mr. Boag has resided at that resi- dence. Mr. Boag replied two years and one month. Mr. Boag said the home has been occupied by a tenant since that time. He said he researched the matter when he purchased the home and found it to be a permitted use. His father lived with him until he passed away recently, and Mrs. Lovejoy, his present tenant, took occupancy. Councilmember Nordquist inquired if Mr. Boag has ascertained that the home was located in an RM zone. Mr. Boag said he learned that a conditional use permit was permitted in that zone. Ms. Block said she was unsure what Mr. Boag was referring to other than Mr. Boag may have been informed that an accessory dwelling with a conditional use permit was a permitted use. Council - member Nordquist inquired if a conditional use permit was granted to the previous owner. Mr. Block replied negatively. Mayor Pro Tem Wilson opened the public portion of the hearing. Charles Foster, 9324 - 216th S.W., said he did not feel that an accessory dwelling unit was acceptable in that neighborhood because it was a family -oriented area and nonowner occupancy was not desirable. He said lie did not feel that the restructuring of the Boag home to comply with Code requirements would be properly maintained in the future. Richard Tetreau, 9323 - 216th St. S.W., said he viewed an accessory dwelling unit as being occupied by a family member. He inquired if rental to a non -family member was considered as a duplex. Ms. Block said under the provisions of the accessory dwelling ordinance, an owner is required to reside on the property. The Code requires three parking spaces. Tenants do not have to be related to the owner. Mr. Tetreau inquired about the consequences of noncompliance. Ms. Block said a conditional use permit can be revoked at any time if the conditions of the permit have been violated. Councilmember Hall inquired how the accessory dwelling unit has deviated from a mother -in -law -type apartment to rental to a non -family member. Ms. Block said extensive discussions took place during the hearing process regarding the accessory dwelling ordinance, and it was determined that a non -family member may occupy the unit. Councilmember Jaech recalled that the mother-in-law concept evolved from the necessity of home owners to obtain additional income to maintain their homes. EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 9 MARCH 3, 1987 Councilmember Jaech inquired if a separate unit existed on the Boag property. Ms. Block re- plied negatively. She said a separate unit was strictly prohibited by Code. Councilmember Jaech inquired about the circumstances of the rental. Ms. Block said the home is a two-story struc- ture, and the owner and his family occupy the lower level and the tenant occupies the. upper lev- el. Councilmember Jaech inquired if the home has been altered. Ms. Block said minor remodeling is being done to the interior but no alterations have been made to the exterior of the building. Councilmember Hall said one of the criteria dictates that only one water meter exist. She in- quired if a second water meter would be installed. Ms. Block replied negatively. In response to Councilmember Jaech's question, Mr. Snyder said the following conditions are at- tached to any permit issued under the accessory dwelling ordinance: a permit expires - 1) if the dwelling unit is substantially altered and no longer conforms with plans and drawings; 2) if the primary residence ceases to have three or more off-street parking spaces; 3) if the primary residence and the dwelling unit are rented or conveyed to anyone other than the permitee. Sam Wharton, 9315 - 216th St. S.W., said he opposed the granting of the conditional use per- mit. He said when he purchased his home eighteen years ago, the neighborhood was zoned for single-family residences and should remain in that state. lie said the zoning ordinance should be either adhered to or amended if it is inappropriate for multi -family dwelling. Mr. Wharton said Mr. Boag's house was inadequate for joint occupancy because it was too small, the street was not wide enough, sufficient parking space was not available, and congestion would occur. He requested that the single-family zone be maintained. John Campbell, 9414 - 216th St. S.W., said he moved into his home in 1966. He said the City he formerly resided in passed a similar mother-in-law ordinance which ended in tragedy because an epidemic of typhoid fever resulted from overuse of the sewer system. Mr. Campbell said many unforeseen circumstances could arise if the accessory dwelling ordinance remains in effect. He strongly recommended against allowing that ordinance to exist. Laurence Newton, 9329 - 216th St. S.W., said he has lived in his home for 26 years. He said he thought the ordinance was unfair because the neighborhood was a single-family area and should remain so. Mr. Boag said three different families who are related to one another reside across the street from him in a single-family residence. He said they do not need a conditional use permit because they are related. Mr. Boag said his home is a two-story structure with 1,200 square feet at the upper level and 800 square feet at the lower level. He said he .would be forced to sell his home if he was unable to rent the upper level because the additional income is necessary until he completes his college education next year. Councilmember Nordquist inquired about the necessity of a business license for ownership of multi- ple property. Councilmember hall inquired if her assumption that the owner must occupy the residence for three years prior to rental of a portion of the home was correct. Ms. Block said the home must have been in existence for a period of three years before a portion can be rented. Councilmember Jaech noted that the Hearing Examiner denied the allowance of an accessory unit based upon the fact that it would be detrimental to the public and nearby private properties and improvements. She inquired about the rationale of that decision in light of the fact that the Hearing Examiner had approved a similar situation last .year. Ms. Block said the basis of his denial was that the proposed use would be detrimental in that the additional cars on the site would create an additional strain on parking in that area. Councilmember Jaech said, then, that the criteria would be satisfied if the additional parking spaces were provided and the additional cars were removed from the property. Ms. Block replied affirmatively. in response to Councilmember Nordquist's question, Mr. Snyder said he believed Councilmember Nordquist was referring to the bed & breakfast regulations. Mr. Snyder said the Council created an exception for persons who lease one rental unit or private residence. A business license is required if more than one unit is rented. EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 10 -r MARCH 3, 1987 Mayor Pro Tem Wilson closed the public portion of the hearing. Councilmember Jaech recalled that very little opposition was voiced in prior hearings regarding mother-in-law apartments. She said until public input is given opposing the allowance of those units and if the ordinance is amended, that use is grandfathered. Councilmember Hall con- curred. She recommended that the appliances be enclosed and the required number of parking spac- es provided. COUNCILMEMBER HALL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JAECH, TO UPHOLD THE APPEAL WITH THE FOLLOW- ING CONDITIONS: 1) COMPLIANCE WITH PARKING REQUIREMENTS; 2) ENCLOSURE OF THE APPLIANCES; 3) REMOVAL OF CARS NOT USED BY THE APPLICANT. Councilmember Jaech noted that an ordinance is currently in effect which prohibits the exposure of appliances that are located outdoors because small children could potentially become entrapped inside an appliance and suffocate or freeze to death. Mr. Snyder suggested that the applicant be required to submit a drawing as part of a permit for a building permit application regarding the enclosure. COUNCILMEMBER HALL SAID SHE WOULD INCLUDE THAT AS PART OF THE MOTION. Councilmember Jaech inquired if enclosure of the appliances was a requirement as part of the building permit and not of the conditional use permit. Mr. Snyder said he believed the drawing should be offered in the context of the building permit application. MOTION CARRIED WITH COUNCILMEMBER WILSON OPPOSED. Councilmember Hall recommended that the issue of accessory dwelling units be referred to the Planning Board for review. HEARING ON APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER DECISION REGARDING STAFF INTERPRETATION OF SUBDIVISION CONDITION REQUIRING ADDITIONAL PAVING ALONG THE PROPERTY AT 9636 BLAKE PL. AP-21-86/APPEL- I AKITC inninTunm ANn VATIII CCAI Wflllf'WHIN - Councilmember Nordquist raised a point of order. Ile noted the time at 9:55 p.m. He inquired how long the meeting would last in light of another 1 hour and 15 minutes of scheduled items yet to be discussed. Mayor Pro Tem Wilson suggested that the meeting adjourn at 11 p.m. Councilmember Nordquist said he would have to leave before then because he had a major business presentation to make in the morning. Planning Division Manager Mary Lou Block reported that on December 9, 1986, Kathleen and Jona- than Houghton filed an appeal of the Staff determination that they must widen the pavement of Blake Place by an additional two feet in front of their property as a condition of final approval of their building permit. Their lot was created in 1981 with the recording of short subdivision NS-22-80. That subdivision required Blake Place to be widened by two feet with the construction of a building on the lot now owned by the Houghtons. In 1985 under file NS-20-85, the City granted a lot line adjustment changing the configuration of two lots in the original subdivision. Both affected lots were owned by the Houghtons. The paving requirement was not reiterated as a condition of the lot line adjustment. The appellants contend that the paving requirement of the subdivision is not superseded by the lot line adjustment. On January 15, 1987, the Hearing Examiner held a public hearing on the appeal. The Hearing Exam- iner issued his report on January 30, 1987 denying the appeal on the grounds that the lot line adjustment requirements did not supersede the subdivision requirements. The Houghtons subse- quently filed an appeal to overturn the Hearing Examiner's decision. Ms. Block said Staff. recommends to uphold the Hearing Examiner's decision and direct the City Attorney to prepare the necessary Findings of Fact. Ms. Block referred to Exhibit "A", noting the words at the top of the page "Division of this property subject to the conditions set forth in City of Edmonds record of short subdivision File NS-22-80. EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 11 MARCH 3, 1987 Ms. Block said the Hearing Examiner referred to, in his report, State regulation on subdivisions, lot line adjustments, and the irrelevancy of a previous case in King County referred to by the Houghtons based on the fact that the City did not provide the Houghton's with incorrect infor- mation. Mayor Pro Tem Wilson inquired about the status of a previous request by citizens to widen Blake Place. He said citizens claimed that the City did not possess easement or title to that proper- ty. Ms. Block said she did not recall those circumstances. Mayor Pro Tem Wilson inquired if the City owned the property to the east. Ms. Block replied negatively. She said the City has a 30 foot right-of-way in front of the subject property. Mayor Pro Tem Wilson inquired why it was desired to widen the street below when it could not be widened above. Ms. Block said the re- quired 18 foot width of the roadway would provide adequate passing distance for two cars. She corrected her previous statement, noting that the City does own the right-of-way to the east. Mayor Pro Tem Wilson inquired about the extent of the right-of-way. Ms. Block replied 16 feet. Mayor Pro Tem Wilson said it did not make any sense to widen the street. Ms. Block said there is property to the east and west which is capable of being subdivided. Councilmember Jaech referred to the vicinity map, noting that Blake Place was not a through street to Sound View Place and would probably remain in that state. She inquired about the loca- tion of the 30 foot right-of-way owned by the City. Ms. Block indicated its location on the map. Councilmember Jaech asked how much of the street was paved. Ms. Block replied 16 feet. Mayor Pro Tem Wilson inquired about future development. Ms. Block said a fairly large parcel is located at the end of the street that has a potential to be subdivided. She said Blake Place would be the logical access to that property. Councilmember Dwyer inquired if a mechanism existed to enforce improvements in the future if they were not made at the present time and the property was subdivided. Ms. Block said a SEPA review may provide enforcement but the issue before the Council at the present time would still be an issue in the future. Councilmember Jaech inquired if the existing fence was located on the City's right-of-way. Ms. Block replied affirmatively. Councilmember Jaech inquired if adverse possession would be a fac- tor if the .fence remained on City property. Ms. Block replied negatively. Mayor Pro Tem Wilson adjourned the meeting at 10:10 p.m. COUNCILMEMBER DWYER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER HALL, TO EXTEND THE MEETING TO 11 P.M. MOTION CARRIED. Mayor Pro Tem opened the public portion of the hearing. Jonathan Houghton, 9636 Blake Place, indicated on a vicinity map the potential for subdivision of properties located on Blake Place . Mr. Houghton said the fence located on the City's right-of-way has been in existence for at least fifteen years and has been incorporated into landscaping. Mr. Houghton said the appeal was filed because he felt he was given a reasonable basis to as- sume that the conditions of the earlier subdivision were still valid. Mr. Houghton referred to the record of short subdivision of 1981. He noted that four of the conditions were carried forward to the subsequent record of subdivision of 1986, and conditions N2, 3 and 5 were omitted. He said he assumed those conditions listed in the subsequent record were applicable to his lot. Mr. Houghton said that Ms. Block's statement that the subsequent record of short subdivision referred back to the original subdivision was incorrect as it clearly refers to File NS-20-85 and makes no reference to widening the street. Mr. Houghton referred to the Hearing Examiner's Finding N11 as follows: "The issue of this appeal is whether the conditions of NSS-22-80 were superseded by the lot line adjustment of the lots of the created subdivision by an action of the City as set forth in NSS-20-85". Mr. Houghton said he believed the issue was whether he was given a reasonable basis to assume the conditions of file NSS-22-80 were superseded by file NSS-20-85. He said no mention was made during the entire process of widening the pavement. EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 12 MARCH 3, 1987 Councilmember Dwyer inquired if widening of the pavement was ever discussed when Mr. Houghton sought the lot line adjustment. Mr. Houghton said he did not believe so. Councilmember Jaech noted that Exhibit N6 did not make reference to widening of the pavement. She inquired if the requirement to widen the pavement was subsequent to the issuance of the build- ing permit. Mr. Snyder stated that the Council has the discretion to correct errors as they see them. He said, however, the State subdivision statute provides that a subdivision approval may be conditioned and lists three items. He said subdivision requirements are cumulative unless specifically amended. Mr. Snyder stated that the Council may decide that the right-of-way is not required. Councilmember Jaech inquired how the City may enforce paving if it was not required to be accomplished at the present time. Mr. Snyder said the City would have to exercise its power of eminent domain and build the road at public expense if widening was not compelled as part of the subdivision. Stuart Sierer, 9615 Blake Place, said the record of the hearing before the Hearing Examiner does not reflect his presence, even though he was in attendance. Mr. Sierer noted that a vicinity map depicted a blue area on Blake Place, ownership of which was proclaimed as the City's. Mr. Sierer, in reference to the viability of widening the road at the top, said that property is not City property but is, in fact, his property according to a title search conducted by his attorney. Councilmember Jaech inquired if ownership was reflected on his title insurance. Mr. Sierer said lie did not know without reviewing that document. Mr. Sierer mentioned that a petition was circulated by residents of Blake Place which was, in large part, signed. Mr. Sierer said Mr. Patterson's property is not landlocked because lie can access it by way of Cherry Street. Doug Patterson, 9723 Cherry Street, said property which he owns is currently proposed to be subdivided into two logs. The north lot will require access to Blake Place. Mr. Patterson said there are other lots on Blake Place which are capable of being subdivided. The property in question on Blake Place, he said, is not wide enough to allow two vehicles to pass. Mr. Patterson said he spoke with Mr. Houghton regarding the requirement to widen Blake Place, and Mr. Houghton said he "hoped the City forgot". Mr. Patterson said he contacted the City several times during the development of Mr. Houghton's property and was assured that Mr. Houghton was required to widen the street. Mr. Patterson said he has never seen a letter signed by residents, but said that most of the signatures were of residents who lived above the affected area. Kathleen Sierer, 9615 Blake Place, said the letter that the neighbors signed was submitted at the hearing before the Hearing Examiner and contained the signatures of residents from the lower portion of Blake Place. Ms. Sierer said she believed that Mr. Patterson could access his property via Cherry Street. Mr. Houghton reiterated that Mr. Patterson does have access to his property via Blake Place even if it is not paved. Mr. Houghton said there is adequate room for two vehicles to pass on Blake Place. Mr. Houghton said all of the residents adjacent to and downhill from him signed the petition, including Mrs. Hoy. Mr. Houghton said he felt the decision to deny the appeal was wrong because it did not address the basis of appeal, namely, that the applicant was misinformed by legal documents on file with the City. Councilmember Jaech inquired about the issue before the Council. Ms. Block said the subdivision of the property was the point at which the requirement was established to pave the roadway, and the paving was required with the building of the house. Councilmember Jaech inquired if the finalization of the subdivision could be withheld until such time that the paving was accom- plished if the Council determined that paving would be a requirement. Ms. Block replied affirma- tively. EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 13 MARCH 3, 1987 Councilmember Jaech inquired about the width of a standard automobile. Community Services Direc- tor Peter Hahn surmised 6 to 7 feet. Councilmember Jaech inquired about the required width to allow two standard -sized cars to pass safely. Mr. Hahn replied 18 feet. Mayor Pro Tem Wilson closed the public portion of the hearing. Mayor Pro Tem Wilson commented that the widening of Blake Place by two feet would "accomplish absolutely nothing". lie said he did not see the point of requiring that it be paved. Councilmember Dwyer said he was persuaded that it was not reasonable to assume that the require- ment to widen the pavement was waived by the City due to the lot line adjustment. COUNCILMEMBER DWYER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JAECH, TO UPHOLD THE HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION AND DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE THE NECESSARY FINDINGS OF FACT. Councilmember Jaech said she did not believe the requirement of developers to widen a roadway at their expense was equitable. She noted that the City has made efforts to curtail that require- ment. MOTION CARRIED WITH COUNCILMEMBER WILSON OPPOSED. (The Hearing Examiner's complete report is available in the Planning Department.) APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT TO EXTEND UTILITY SERVICES TO EDMONDS ASSOCIATES AT SOUTHEAST CORNER OF 72NO/212TH Councilmember Jaech raised a point of order. She noted the lateness of the hour and the inabili- ty of the Council to hear item N6, Approval of Agreement to Extend Utility Services to Edmonds Associates at Southeast Corner of 72nd/212th. She inquired if the hearing could be continued to the next earliest date to allow the Council to devote proper time and attention to that issue. Mayor Pro lem Wilson recommended that the issue be heard by the Council that evening because he said the issue would not take forty-five minutes to discus's. Edmonds Associates is interested in locating a 60,000 square foot warehousing and distributing facility on the property located at the southeast corner of 212th Street and 72nd Avenue. The property is located in Snohomish County one property west of Highway.99. Snohomish County cannot issue a building permit without a letter from the City of Edmonds extend- ing water and sewer service. In addition, the applicant must be able to complete his building by August 30, 1987. The City will not extend sewer and water services without an agreement to annex and other condi- tions. The Highway 99 corridor has been designated as a prime economic development area. The proposed project has an assessed valuation of $1.6 to 1.7 million. The Community Services Director, Planning Manager, City Engineer, City Attorney, County staff, and Edmonds Associates have met to discuss the project and the review and approval processes in both jurisdictions. A presentation was made to the Community Services Committee on February 24. The Committee mem- bers supported the overall project but wanted to insure that all impacts, especially traffic and drainage, be addressed appropriately. Staff has already asked for a traffic study, and all other engineering reviews will proceed as if the project were in the City. A particular concern of Mr. Alberts' and Mr. Kasper's is heavy truck traffic, although only four trips per day are anticipated. Mayor Naughten and Staff support a special streamlined process to expedite all the reviews. The intent of the review will be the same as for anyone. The process, however, and any special proce- dural requirements and conditions, are a policy decision which the Council is requested to consid- er. Attached to the Council packets was a schedule indicating the time frame which needs to be fol- lowed to satisfy the special needs of the applicant. EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 14 MARCH 3, 1987 Staff recommends special procedural considerations in terms of time requirements in view of the City's economic development objectives. Councilmember Jaech inquired why the project was unique when other developments located on SR 104 within the County did not approach the City with a similar request. Mr. Hahn said those develop- ments already had services. The County will not consider a permit "application unless the project has services available. Mr. Snyder said State law has held that when a city is asked to extend utilities, it may attach any condition to the extension of those lines. The City has, in the past, imposed development restrictions, as well as a requirement for annexation. Mr. Snyder said the document that has been drafted attempts to preserve the City's normal review (that the site be developed in conjunction with the City's normal design criteria and reviewed by the Architectural Design Board. with a recommendation to the Council that it complies with all site development criteria). Mr. Snyder said the City will extend utility services upon agreement by Edmonds Associates to annex. Edmonds Associates would then follow through a shortened time table of the City's normal processes but the County would issue the permit. Councilmember Jaech inquired if the City can condition the building permit or the structure to be developed. Mr. Hahn replied affirmatively. Mr. Snyder said the City is requiring that its development criteria, both in terms of zoning and design review, be complied with for the structure, which would later be presented to the Council for final review. The City will reserve all rights as an interested party and a party with juris- diction to comment and participate in the SEPA process. Councilmember Hall said she felt the project was being "fast tracked". She requested that a rendering of the project be provided. Mr. Hahn said the City had a rendering in its possession. Bob Heller, representing Edmonds Associates, reviewed a preliminary site plan and elevations with the Council. lie said of the 60,000 square footage, 6,000 square feet will be utilized for office space. The building will be the organization's western headquarters. Mr. Heller said the approx- imate cost to develop the site and structure is $7,000,000. Revenues last year were $5,000,000. Councilmember Jaech inquired if any hazardous chemicals will be stored on site. Mr. Heller re- plied negatively. Mayor Pro Terri Wilson opened the discussion for public comment. Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, said he spoke to a friend of his who receives supplies from Edmonds Associates, and he gave a high recommendation. Mr. Hertrich said particular attention should be given to the removal of existing vegetation on the site because there are a lot of trees. Mr. Hertrich expressed concern regarding traffic and that the SEPA process would be conducted by the County. lie inquired if the City would lose control on some of those issues. Mr. Hahn re- plied negatively. Councilmember Nordquist said an improved traffic light is anticipated to be installed at the intersection of 212th and Highway 99. COUNCILMEMBER JAECH MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER HALL, TO APPROVE THE AGREEMENT TO EXTEND UTILITY SERVICES TO EDMONDS ASSOCIATES LOCATED AT 212TH AND 72ND AVENUE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROPOSED AGREEMENT. MOTION CARRIED. 11111k,14111 Councilmember Jaech expressed concern that the agenda for the Council retreat was formulated without Council input. She recommended that the Saturday session be devoted entirely to secon- dary sewer treatment proposals and rate increases. Mayor Pro Tem Wilson said he was opposed because the agenda was already established and he considered the items for discussion as impor- tant as the secondary sewer treatment issue. Councilmember Jaech said past agendas have always been formulated with Council input and approval. She inquired about the agenda for Saturday. Mayor Pro Tern Wilson said the discussion would be a goal setting session for the City of Edmonds. He said he invited the Edmonds Chamber of Commerce, Main Streets Committee, Edmonds Port Commission, Administration, and the Council. Councilmember Jaech inquired why the Council EDMONDS.CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 15 MARCH 3, 1987 * was not informed. Mayor Pro Tem Wilson said the agenda has been available for Council review. Councilmember Jaech questioned why other groups within the City were not invited. She said she felt as though she had been deceived. Mayor Pro Tem Wilson said he was amazed that she felt that way. Councilmember Jaech said she did not appreciate that the Council was not invited to partic- ipate in the formulation of the agenda and would not participate in the Saturday session because only a select group of people were invited to attend. Councilmember Wilson said the Council was free to change the agenda if it so desired. Councilmember Dwyer said the agenda should be totally open for public attendance or the specific groups that were invited should not attend. Councilmember Hall recommended that the issue of secondary sewer treatment be discussed at the retreat. She welcomed the public to attend that session. Councilmember Jaech said it would be more equitable to meet with groups locally on a Saturday rather than at the retreat. Mayor Pro Tem Wilson said he would send a letter to those groups that were invited to the retreat and ask them to attend a local Saturday session to discuss the goals of the City rather than at the retreat. Councilmember Jaech said Councilmember Ostrom called her and said he was out of town on busi- ness. COUNCILMEMBER JAECH MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER HALL, TO EXCUSE COUNCILMEMBER OSTROM'S ABSENCE. MOTION CARRIED. The meeting adjourned at 11: 15 p.m. These minutes are subject to March 10, 1987 approval. *See Council Minutes of March 10, 1987 1 I. JNCQ G. PARRETT, City Clerk LARRY S. NAUGHTEN, Mavor EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 16 MARCH 3, 1987