Loading...
05/27/2003 City Council1 EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES May 27, 2003 The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Haakenson in the Council Chambers, 250 5`l' Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Gary Haakenson, Mayor Dave Earling, Council President Michael Plunkett, Councilmember Lora Petso, Councilmember Dave Orvis, Councilmember Richard Marin, Councilmember Deanna Dawson, Councilmember ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT Jeff Wilson, Councilmember 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA STAFF PRESENT David Stern, Chief of Police Duane Bowman, Development Serv. Director Jim Larson, Acting Admin. Serv. Director Arvilla Ohlde, Parks and Recreation Director Brian McIntosh, Asst. Parks and Recreation Dir. Dave Gebert, City Engineer Steve Bullock, Senior Planner Lyle Chrisman, Engineering Specialist Scott Snyder, City Attorney Sandy Chase, City Clerk Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst. Jeannie Dines, Recorder Council President Earling advised Councilmember Wilson requested Item 6 be postponed to allow him to participate in the discussion. hange to Benda COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, TO REMOVE ITEM 6 (CONTINUED DISCUSSION ON PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE REGARDING PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS) FROM THE AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, FOR APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, FOR APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: (A) ROLL CALL Approve 5/20/03 (B) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MAY 20, 2003 Minutes rove (C) APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #62851 THROUGH #62991 FOR THE WEEK OF m MAY 19, 2003, IN THE AMOUNT OF $185,182.73. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT cks DEPOSITS AND CHECKS #35612 THROUGH #35695 FOR THE PERIOD MAY 1 THROUGH MAY 15, 2003, IN THE AMOUNT OF $880,162.48. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 27, 2003 Page 1 Liquor ontrol (D) APPROVAL OF LIST OF EDMONDS BUSINESSES APPLYING FOR RENEWAL OF Board THEIR LIQUOR LICENSES WITH THE WASHINGTON STATE LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD Recognition 3. RECOGNITION OF PARKS, RECREATION AND CULTURAL SERVICES DI_RECTOR f'Arvilla ARVILLA OHLDE FOR HER ACHIEVEMENT IN BEING AWARDED THE WASHINGTON Ohlde, Parks, Recreation, RECREATION AND PARKS ASSOCIATION HONOR FELLOW AWARD Cultural Services hector Assistant Director of Parks and Recreation Brian McIntosh introduced Mr. Williams. Don Williams, Past President, Washington Recreation & Parks Association, explained Washington Recreation & Parks Association (WRPA) was a 1,200 member organization made up of State, County, and City Parks & Recreation professionals that had been in existence since 1947 with a long- standing system of awards that were bestowed each year. He advised Parks & Recreation Director Arvilla Ohlde was awarded the Honor Fellow Award at this year's WRPA Annual Conference. He explained only one person from the organization was selected each year for this recognition, the WRPA's highest award that recognized an individual's dedication and achievement in the Parks & Recreation profession. Mr. Williams described how the award was presented at the WRPA's annual conference. He described Ms. Ohlde's involvement in the preservation of natural resources and legislation that provides grants for protection of natural resource areas. He read from the award presentation which described Ms. Ohlde's qualities and her educational and professional background. He summarized the award was in recognition for not only what Ms. Ohlde has done in the cities she has worked for but also for what she has done for the WRPA profession and the National Parks & Recreation Association. Mr. Williams re- presented the WRPA's Honor Fellow Award to Ms. Ohlde. Ms. Ohlde commented she was overwhelmed when she received the award at the WRPA's Annual Conference, as it was a very high honor. Mayor Haakenson commented Ms. Ohlde was a treasure to the City and expressed appreciation for her hard work on behalf of all the citizens and for the legacy she would leave in the City. Phoenix 4. CLOSED RECORD REVIEW OF AN APPLICATION BY PHOENIX DEVELOPMENT, INC. FOR Development A PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND FORMAL PLAT. THE PROJECT WILL R Formal Plat INCLUDE 22 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND ALL SITE IMPROVEMENTS NEEDED TO SERVICE THE LOTS AND MEET THE PERMIT REQUIREMENTS. THE SITE IS ZONED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RS -8). (LOCATION: 8512, 8516, 8520 AND 8526 MAIN STREET / FILE NO. PRD- 2002 -171 AND P- 2002 -172 City Attorney Scott Snyder explained that pursuant to the Regulatory Reform Act, on a Closed Record Review, the City Council heard from staff, the applicant, and parties of record (individuals who appeared at a prior hearing); it was not an open public hearing. He identified the parties of record as Patricia Raplee, Mary Jo Sakoi, and Jessica Holliday. In accordance with the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine, Mayor Haakenson inquired whether any Councilmember had any ex parte communication or conflict they wished to disclose with regard to this hearing. Responding to Councilmember Plunkett's questions, Mr. Snyder advised the ordinance Councilmember Plunkett was referring to was the ordinance that required Councilmembers to disclose campaign contributions. He noted the ordinance referred to a corporate entity or individual; unless Phoenix Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 27, 2003 Page 2 Development contributed to a campaign, the Councilmember would not be required under the ordinance to reveal the contribution. If a principle or sole owner made a contribution, he recommended the Councilmember reveal it, noting it would not disqualify the Councilmember from participation. Councilmember Plunkett advised it was his understanding that Larry Sundquist had an interest in Phoenix Development. Although Mr. Sundquist did not contribute to his City Council campaign, he did contribute to his State Senate campaign in 2002 in the amount of $625. He was not aware of any other individuals with an interest in Phoenix Development other than Bob Vick. Council President Earling advised Sundquist Homes made a contribution to an office for which he is a candidate, unrelated to the Edmonds City Council. Although he understood that need not be disclosed, he felt it proper to disclose the contribution. Mayor Haakenson asked whether there were any objections to the participation of Council President Earling or Councilmember Plunkett. Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, Edmonds, challenged Council President Earling, inquiring about the amount of the contribution made to his campaign. Mr. Snyder advised all campaign contributions were public information available via the Public Disclosure Commission. He noted the contribution Council President Earling referred to was not addressed by the City's ordinance or the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine. He advised the disclosure of the amount was at Council President Earling's discretion. Mayor Haakenson asked whether Mr. Hertrich, who was not a party of record, had the right to challenge a Councilmember's participation. Mr. Snyder offered to research the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine. Council President Earling advised the amount of the contribution was $625. Mayor Haakenson pointed out the decision whether to participate in the review was up to the Councilmember. Council President Earling indicated he was comfortable participating in the review. Mayor Haakenson identified the time limits for the presentations, 15 minutes for staff and 15 minutes for the applicant. Councilmember Plunkett advised Larry Sundquist may have contributed to his City Council campaign but he was not certain. As a result of his investigation, Mr. Snyder advised an individual who was not a party of record did not have the ability to extend a challenge to a Councilmember's participation. He noted the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine specifically states any campaign contribution cannot be the basis for an Appearance of Fairness Doctrine challenge; the statute only requires the reporting of contributions. Mayor Haakenson inquired whether any parties of record wished to challenge Councilmember Plunkett on the basis of his most recent disclosure. There were no challenges. Senior Planner Steve Bullock displayed a vicinity map (page 19 of the record) and identified the location of the project, explaining the site was a large and unique property with a significant elevation change from the west side of the property to the east side of the property. The applicant proposes a 22 -lot PRD and formal plat. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 27, 2003 Page 3 Mr. Bullock displayed a landscape site map (page 30 of the record), explaining 17 of the 22 lots would be accessed from a cul -de -sac road off Main Street as well as public open space in the southeast corner. On the western side of the lot, the five remaining lots would be accessed via an extension of Pioneer Way. He described the connection between the upper and lower portions of the PRD via a pathway in the center of the property where the steep slopes were located. Mr. Bullock advised the Hearing Examiner held a public hearing on April 17, 2003 and issued his decision on April 22, 2003. He directed attention to pages 5 and 6 of the record, the Hearing Examiner's recommendation regarding the proposal and his recommended conditions. Mr. Bullock advised the Hearing Examiner recommended approval of the proposed PRD with five conditions. Mr. Bullock explained staff issued a Request for Reconsideration after the Hearing Examiner issued his written decision because an item raised by staff at the public hearing, a change in staff's recommended conditions, was not included in the Hearing Examiner's decision. In the Hearing Examiner's reconsideration decision (page 232 of the record), Condition 3b regarding sidewalks for the upper cul -de- sac streets was amended. Mr. Bullock recommended this revised condition be included if the Council chose to uphold the Hearing Examiner's recommendation. Mr. Bullock referred to pages 234 and 235 of the record, letters submitted by two of the three parties of record expressing concern with the extension of Pioneer Way. Mr. Bullock explained the section of Pioneer Way approaching the cul -de -sac bulge was improved to approximately 24 -feet from face -of -curb to face -of -curb. The applicant proposes a 2 -lane road north from the cul -de -sac bulb as well as a lane of on- street parking, resulting in an approximately 32 -foot paved surface for the extension of Pioneer Way. He advised the individuals who submitted the letters were concerned with the appearance of Pioneer Way if the width were expanded at the end of the street and felt the additional width was unnecessary. He advised the Hearing Examiner recommended approval of the project as proposed and reiterated the Engineering Department's conditions. Councilmember Orvis inquired whether the parties of record indicated on page 17 of the record were also parties of record for this review. Mr. Bullock advised Dr. & Mrs. Suchert were the property owners. Mr. Snyder agreed William Brougher would also be a party of record. He also noted Mr. Jeff Sakoi, who signed the letter from Mary Jo Sakoi, would also be a party of record. Councilmember Dawson inquired about the handwritten notes on the Planning Division Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations. Mr. Bullock advised they represented corrections that were made to the report when it was submitted to the Hearing Examiner. Mr. Snyder inquired whether the document in the packet was an accurate representation of the document that was provided to the Hearing Examiner. Mr. Bullock advised the corrections were not made on the document that was provided to the Hearing Examiner but they were verbally entered into the record at the Hearing Examiner hearing. Councilmember Dawson reiterated her concern with the handwritten notes and arrows on the document. Councilmember Petso referred to page 201 of the record, an engineering study from Landau Associates, that states erosion would threaten secondary structures and may affect residential structures (first bullet on page 201). She referred to the last bullet on page 201 which states stability assessment should include a specific statement about effects on stability of slopes on the parcel south of lot 18 and west of lot 14. She questioned how the Council could approve a project that would affect soil stability within the project and on adjacent property. Mr. Bullock answered the slopes between the lots that accessed from Pioneer Way and the lots accessed from Main Street were not steep enough slopes to limit development and would not qualify as steep slope hazard areas where the City's Critical Areas Ordinance would prohibit Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 27, 2003 Page 4 development. He summarized the slopes qualify as lesser degree slopes that requires geotechnical review in conjunction with the building permit but not as part of plat approval. Councilmember Petso clarified it appeared that it was acceptable to allow a project to proceed even with the sentence in the report, "Within the design life of the homes ... (erosion) may affect secondary structures... and may affect residential structures." Mr. Bullock clarified the City's ordinances include requirements for erosion control measures and construction types to address these issues. In this instance, the City's ordinances with regard to building permits address the concern described in the Landau Associates peer review. Mr. Snyder referred to the statement in the first bullet on page 201, "We generally concur with the statement that side slopes will be stable following site activity." He noted that would typically suffice for this level of review. He referred to Chapter 19.05, the steep slope hazard area ordinance, which required individual determinations of stability based on specific structural design elements, meaning the design professional would look at each home /structure proposed for the lot. He noted it was typical in steep slope environments for the City to prohibit structures, irrigation and other items referenced in the first bullet on page 201. He pointed out the suggestion in the report was that individualized determinations regarding individual structures be done at the time of building permit issuance under Chapter 19.05. Mr. Bullock referred to page 209 of the record, a follow -up letter submitted by Earth Consultants, Inc. in response to the Landau Associates peer review which specifically addressed Councilmember Petso's concerns. Councilmember Petso referred to the statement on page 201 of the record that ordinary erosion may affect residential structures and the suggestion that ECI provide an estimate of the retreat of the top of the slope due to erosion processes. She questioned whether the City would be liable if a house were constructed there that later began to slide. Mr. Snyder responded that properly done, generally the City would not have liability. The City's ordinance was designed to have the homeowners' design professional assess the risk and provide at the time of building permit issuance a determination to the City that the property was stable (has less than a 30% probability of earth movement within a 25 year period). He noted the homeowner's design professional's assertion was recorded in the chain of title for future owners. With regard to the last bullet in page 201 regarding the effect on adjacent property stability, Councilmember Petso inquired whether the City would be liable if a specific assessment of stability on adjacent parcels was not conducted. Mr. Snyder advised those assessments would be made at the time of building permit issuance. The information in the record indicates the site is stable for site development activities associated with the PRD. Council President Earling asked staff to expand on the road width issue. Mr. Bullock explained Pioneer Way currently ended at the cul -de -sac bulb and the developed portion of Pioneer Way to the south was approximately 24 feet from face -of -curb to face -of -curb. The applicant proposes, from the cul -de -sac bulb north to serve their lots, to have two lanes of traffic plus one lane of on- street parking or approximately 32.5 feet. He relayed the neighbors' concerns that there would be a narrow road leading up to the cul -de -sac bulb and a widened road north of the bulb. He advised staff also had concerns with additional impervious surface, affect on trees and vegetation and would prefer the road be maintained at the width that exists south of the bulb when the road was extended to the north. He advised the Engineering Department required the extra width to accommodate on- street parking as well as two lanes of traffic. If on- street parking were prohibited, the existing width could be maintained. Council President Earling observed the applicant appeared to be making an attempt to provide for public safety and pedestrian access. He recalled attending a social function south of that area and vehicles parking a long way away. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 27, 2003 Page 5 Councilmember Orvis referred to Chapter 19.05, recalling that chapter used "generally" to describe what must be complied with. Mr. Snyder agreed and provided the chapter language to Councilmember Orvis. Applicant Presentation Jim Egge, Planning Design Consultant, representing Phoenix Development, introduced members of the Phoenix Development team, Mark Wiseman, Laurie Quadie, Bob Vick, and Jerry O'Connell. The team displayed various diagrams that they indicated were exhibits contained in the record. Mr. Egge reiterated the physical attributes of the site - two terraces, one high on Main and the other low on Pioneer Way, with access provided to 17 lots from Main Street and to five lots from Pioneer Way. He described the site's unique topography and vegetation characteristics as well as surrounding land uses. He explained the site was immediately north of the Mont Clair multifamily project, multifamily to the east, single family to the west and southwest. He noted this development provided a transition in density from the multifamily to the single family development. He described gross density of approximately four dwelling units per acre and net density of approximately six dwelling units per acre. Mr. Egge explained a traditional subdivision approach would have included a grading plan to connect the area off Pioneer Way to the upper bench by grading the upper bench to meet the City's road grade standards and allow a loop road connection to Main Street. Instead, they decided that the characteristics of the site were such that they wanted to preserve the central area slopes and vegetation, connect them via a trail system, but allow access from Main Street and Shell Valley. He advised Pioneer Way would be extended 400 feet to allow the informal trail system through Shell Valley to exit to Main Street and a bollard barrier would be provided on the roadway that could be removed to provide exit to Main Street from Shell Valley during inclement weather or emergency. Mr. Egge noted it was a goal in the City's Comprehensive Plan and PRD ordinance to recognize creative development solutions to encourage something out of the ordinary which he indicated they have provided via the site plan and the houses themselves. He explained the porches on the residences would be pulled forward, the garages recessed, a connection provided with the sidewalk, and the fronts staggered to provide an interesting streetscape. He noted their goal was to coordinate the development with housing styles to the west and southwest. With regard to the comments concerning the geotechnical report, Mr. Egge noted there was a finding in the Hearing Examiner's decision regarding individual analysis being conducted at building permit issuance. The lots that abutted a slope were lots 9 and 22 which were specifically conditioned in the Hearing Examiner's recommendation. It was the consensus of their geotechnical experts that the slopes were deep seated till, stable slopes and not an erosive condition that warranted extraordinary footings. Mark Wiseman, Wiseman Design Group Landscape Architecture, advised their landscape involvement pushed the project to consider all opportunities on the site and take advantage of them in a manner that made this infill development a better fit with the neighborhood. He noted the challenge of locating a PRD in an existing neighborhood with a sloping site and determining a housing type that would fit the neighborhood. He referred to a drawing illustrating the multifamily housing in the surrounding area, noting this project was a transition between higher density and single family homes and their goal was to sensitively fit within the topography in a manner that retained vegetation. Mr. Wiseman displayed a drawing of the center of the site, explaining one of their concepts along Main was to use the existing driveways from the old houses and change the configuration of the rock wall to provide some modulation in the wall along the street. He referred to the open space at the front of the Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 27, 2003 Page 6 project to soften the entry and they worked with the adjacent Mont Clair project to provide additional planting to provide screening. He referred to the pedestrian link that would be provided to Pine Ridge Park. He described their efforts to design the project to retain landscaping and upgrade it with new elements to ft the neighborhood. He noted particular attention was paid to housing types to ensure they oriented to the street and match characteristics of the existing houses. He noted the center open space retrained existing vegetation thereby providing a buffer and view to both sides of the development. Councilmember Petso recalled that lots 9 and 22 would be conditioned in the building permit process due to their location adjacent to the steep slope. She referred to page 201 where the concern was the properties south of lot 18 and west of lot 14. Mr. Egge suggested those lots be included in the analysis recommended in the conditions for lots 9 and 22. Councilmember Orvis inquired whether the concerns with regard to the width of the street had been addressed in the record. Mr. Egge did not recall that issue being addressed at earlier hearings. He noted the additional width was necessary to accommodate the on- street parking. Mayor Haakenson opened the opportunity for parties of record to comment. Mary Jo Sakoi, 21005 Pioneer Way, Edmonds, expressed concern with the paved area of the extended roadway being 5 -6 feet wider than what currently exists. She disagreed there was inadequate space for parking now as people park on the street now. She questioned why the additional width was necessary for 4 -5 houses, particularly when this was not intended to be a through street. She asked for reassurance that this would not become a through street and that it was not the reason for the increased width. Mayor Haakenson closed the opportunity for parties of record to comment. Councilmember Petso asked whether the street widths were proposed to be the same in the Pioneer Way extension as in the portion accessed from Main Street. Mr. Bullock answered the road at the top of the development (accessed from Main) was also proposed to have on- street parking. Councilmember Petso asked the width of that road. Mr. Bullock answered it would meet engineering standards; the specific design would occur at the civil stage. He advised the developer and staff had reached agreement regarding the width but that was not typically reviewed by the Council at this stage. Mr. Snyder advised the width of the road was the standard established by Chapter 18.80, the adopted standard for a road to serve this type of development and the applicant had not requested a modification. If the applicant had requested a modification, the Council's finding would need to be a reduction in impervious surface and that it met the decision criteria in 20.35.050 that existing and proposed streets and sidewalks within the PRD shall be suitable and adequate to carry anticipated traffic within the proposed project and in the vicinity of the subject property. He noted parking was not addressed in the decision criteria and modification standards. Councilmember Petso asked whether a neighborhood meeting was held at the beginning of the process and whether there were any notes /comments from the meeting in the packet. Mr. Bullock answered a neighborhood meeting was held but it was a pre - application meeting, not a formal City meeting. He advised he attended the meeting and explained the process but it was not a formal meeting for which notes /minutes were kept. Councilmember Petso referred to Mr. Snyder's comment that parking was not a decision criterion. Mr. Snyder advised the criteria addressed circulation. He noted the issue of parking could arise in the requirement for adequate circulation and it must be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. He Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 27, 2003 Page 7 noted the issue of parking was typically raised as a result of concern that overflow parking from a development would negatively impact an adjacent neighborhood. He reiterated there was nothing in the city's ordinance that required on- street parking be provided. He noted the action of future Councils could eliminate parking at any time. Councilmember Petso referred to a requirement to provide safer and more efficient off - street parking in Chapter. 20.35.040(A)(2). Mr. Snyder agreed. COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS MOVED TO UPHOLD THE HEARING EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION FOR THE PROPOSED PRD WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE STREET OFF PIONEER WAY BE LIMITED TO A WIDTH OF 32 FEET. COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS WITHDREW HIS MOTION. COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DAWSON, TO UPHOLD THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER TO APPROVE THE PROPOSED PRD /PLAT WITH THE CONDITIONS INDICATED IN THE HEARING EXAMINER'S REPORT, THOSE CONDITIONS TO INCLUDE THE ADDITIONAL ITEM ON PAGE 232 OF THE RECORD AND TO INCLUDE THE ADDITIONAL ENGINEERING PHOENIX DEVELOPMENT HAD INDICATED THEY ARE WILLING TO DO ON LOTS 14 AND 18. Councilmember Petso asked for clarification regarding the additional condition on page 232 of the record. Mr. Bullock explained when the Engineering Department originally wrote their 'engineering conditions for the project, they required sidewalks on both sides of the street off Main Street. At the time of the Hearing Examiner hearing, the applicant and Engineering Department had reached agreement that sidewalks could be provided only on one side of the street; however, the Hearing Examiner neglected to include that change in his recommendation. Therefore, the Hearing Examiner's reconsideration response changed Condition 3b to reflect the change to require sidewalks on one side of the street for the upper cul -de -sac road. COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, TO AMEND THE MOTION TO INCLUDE A CONDITION THAT THE ROAD EXTENDING FROM PIONEER WAY REMAIN THE SAME WIDTH AS PIONEER WAY. MOTION FAILED (2 -4) COUNCILMEMBER PETSO AND COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS IN FAVOR, COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING, AND COUNCILMEMBERS MARIN, PLUNKETT, AND DAWSON OPPOSED. Council President Earling advised the Snohomish County Planning Department took a number of interested people on a tour of PRD projects throughout Snohomish County. He commented although there were a number of bad examples, there were also many very good PRD projects. He encouraged citizens to visit one of the good examples on 44t" in Mountlake Terrace, a quality development with quality homes. He concluded Phoenix Development had done a good job adapting to a difficult site and incorporating enhancements such as the green space that would compliment the neighborhood. Councilmember Dawson recalled on previous Council reviews of PRD projects, there was concern that there would not be enough parking for the additional units and that there needed to be on- street parking. She noted if the on- street parking had not been provided in this project, there would have been neighbors who objected to not enough parking being provided. She assured her intent was to widen the road to provide on- street parking but not for this to ever become a through street. Councilmember Petso pointed out one of the criteria was compatibility with surrounding property related to preservation of natural features and reduction of impervious surface, both which would have been Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 27, 2003 Page 8 improved by the amendment proposed by Councilmember Orvis. She advised that maintaining the width of the road would have ensured it was compatible with the existing road. She planned to vote against the motion, finding the project did not meet the criteria with regard to compatibility with surrounding properties. MOTION CARRIED (5 -1), COUNCILMEMBER PETSO OPPOSED. 5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS 004 Budget Al Rutledge, 7101 Lake Ballinger Way, Edmonds, suggested the Council hold a budget hearing in July that described the status of the budget with and without the passage of the levy lid lift. Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, Edmonds, thanked Councilmember Plunkett and Council President Earling for their disclosures related to campaign contributions, noting that although not required, the public should be aware of Councilmembers involvement with developers. He urged the Council to retain landed the final review of PRDs which provided an opportunity for the Council to address citizens' concerns. esidential p Pp tS' evelopment He expressed concern that not all Councilmembers voiced their views during the review of the PRD. Planned 6. CONTINUED DISCUSSION ON PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE EDMONDS Residential COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE REGARDING PLANNED RESIDENTIAL Development DEVELOPMENTS (PRDs) This item was removed from the agenda under Agenda Item 1. posJof 7. DISPOSAL OF CITY PARCEL LOCATED WITHIN THE CITY OF LYNNWOOD Pafated nwMa or Haakenson ex lained the ad acent roe owner rovided a letter dated June 19, 1972 from then nw y P J property m' p City Attorney James A. Murphy that advised the property owner of his ability to purchase the parcel from the City for the price paid, approximately $3,000 and gives him the authority to develop the property and utilize the property granted to the City for ingress and egress. Mayor Haakenson summarized the property owner could have developed the property without coming to the City but he felt it would be cleaner if he purchased the property from the City. Development Services Director Duane Bowman displayed a vicinity map illustrating the 30' x 301' strip of land purchased from the adjoining parcel. He explained the intent in late 1960's was to create an access point that would serve the long, narrow parcels to the north and a proposal was developed showing a potential for an access road on the back side of these parcels to provide access to 199t1i. This access was never pursued by Lynnwood and the project was abandoned. Edmonds purchased the property from the Rowes. Subsequently the lots obtained access to 196th and a joint development between Edmonds and Lynnwood allowed development of multifamily units with an access to 76th, eliminating the need for this strip. Mr. Bowman explained the property was currently zoned RS -7200 (single family residential) in Lynnwood. In the mid 1980's the City Engineer allowed an extension of a sewer to serve the properties. He referred to the 1972 letter from the City Attorney offering to sell the property back to the property owner, explaining that sale was never completed and the City continued to own the right -of -way. Mr. Bowman explained notice was not provided to adjacent property owners as it seemed to be prudent to return the property to the property owner for which it was purchased. The purpose of tonight's Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 27, 2003 Page 9 presentation was to obtain authorization to follow through with the original City Attorney's offer to sell the property back to the adjacent property owner. Councilmember Petso advised she had discussed with City Attorney Scott Snyder whether there was a contract to sell the property back to the original property owner at the 1972 price and he indicated since there was no contract, the city was not obligated to sell the property at that price to that individual. Mr. Snyder advised the Council minutes indicate the Council requested the issue be returned but did not authorize the transfer. Councilmember Petso asked the legal status of the property. Mr. Snyder referred to the Statutory Warranty Deed conveying title to the City which indicates the grantor reserves a permanent ingress /egress easement on the property, precluding the City from using the property for anything. He noted the amount of money was the monetary consideration, but the City also extended water and sewer service at no cost to the property owner. Councilmember Petso inquired why staff recommended selling the property at the 1972 price, noting 9,000 square feet had significantly more value than $3,616 even with an access easement. She inquired whether selling the property at an amount so far below its market value would constitute a gift of public funds. Mr. Snyder advised the Council needed to make a reasonable legislative determination that it would be receiving value to ensure there was a reasonable audit trail. Mr. Bowman explained if the City retained ownership, virtually nothing could be done with the property due to the access easement. He noted if the strip were sold to the properties to the west, a subdivision could be done in Lynnwood using the area for access, therefore, it was not worth much to the properties to the west. Mayor Haakenson emphasized the property owner could do his project without paying the City anything. Councilmember Plunkett noted total square feet was not the only determinant of the value of a property as property needed to be developable to have market value. Mr. Bowman reiterated the property was not developable for anything other than a road. Councilmember Orvis noted the property to the east was zoned RS -7200 and asked whether this additional property could potentially allow another unit in a development. Mr. Bowman answered no, explaining a short subdivision has been proposed for the adjacent property (in Lynnwood) and the most they can develop on the parcel was three lots with this strip providing access. Councilmember Petso asked whether the strip, when paved for an access easement, could also be available as a backyard driveway to the residents to the west, somewhat like the residents of Forest Glen and Woodway Meadows have. Mr. Bowman answered possibly, explaining that although the City owned the property, there was an access easement on the property. Councilmember Petso asked whether residents could be given permission to use the access if the City retained ownership of the property. Mr. Bowman answered not necessarily, if the proposal for the access easement was a secondary access, then the number of units (in both Edmonds and Lynnwood) would exceed the width of the right -of -way. He summarized he would not recommend that action as the units in Edmonds already have access to the street and it was not necessary to provide another access for those properties, essentially allowing six units to utilize the road. Councilmember Petso commented her experience with the residents in Forest Glen was that they appreciated the backyard access. She asked how the property owner could proceed with his project if Edmonds wanted to use the property for backyard access. Mr. Bowman answered the property owner Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 27, 2003 Page 10 had an access easement across the property and the City could not prevent that use. Councilmember Petso asked whether a 30 -foot wide access was sufficient to serve six properties. Mr. Bowman acknowledged it was a sufficient width under the City's current code but it would need to be developed to its full width. The other issue was that the property was inside the City of Lynnwood and he was uncertain whether Lynnwood would grant the ability for the units to use the access. Mr. Bowman explained that because the property was in the City of Lynnwood, it was more complicated than just making the access available to the adjacent residences. Councilmember Petso agreed, questioning the rationale for not notifying adjacent residents of this action. Mr. Bowman answered the property came from the Rowe property originally and a letter in the record indicated the City's willingness to sell the property back to the property owner. He acknowledged it was a 30 -year old letter; it was up to the Council to make the decision how to proceed. Councilmember Petso asked whether there would be a sufficient audit trail to justify the $3,661 sale price. Mr. Snyder answered it would clearly not be a gift; it was a question of reasonable legislative discretion. He noted one difficulty was that the cost of an appraisal may exceed the amount the city would receive for the property. Councilmember Petso pointed out the potential for the prospective purchaser to provide the appraisal and deduct the cost from the sales price. Mr. Snyder agreed that was a possibility. Mayor Haakenson reiterated the property owner could build his project without paying the City anything so he was unlikely to pay more for the property. Councilmember Dawson noted that although the property was owned by the City of Edmonds, it was not in Edmonds' jurisdiction and the uses would be determined by Lynnwood rather than Edmonds. Mr. Bowman agreed, noting the City of Lynnwood would need to review the uses as part of the short subdivision process which they have already done and are awaiting approval of the use of the property. The deed already allows an access easement. Mr. Snyder explained if development proceeds, under the current scenario, it would be a private road and although the City could allow access to the property, the developer could require a contribution toward maintenance of the road. Councilmember Dawson referred to Mayor Haakenson's conversations with the adjacent property owner, asking whether it appeared he would be willing to pay more than $3,616.68. Mayor Haakenson advised the adjacent property owner was willing to pay the amount in the letter, $3,616, but not any more. COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, TO SELL THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FOR $3,616.68. Councilmember Marin pointed out the letter was a bond that indicated the City's willingness to sell the property for a specified price. Councilmember Petso objected to the sale, pointing out citizens within 300 feet were not provided notice even though such notice was required of all other land use actions. She questioned why the adjacent property owner was willing to pay $3,616 but no more. She preferred to have further discussion regarding the transaction with citizens to determine how they could benefit rather than accepting a 30- year old offer as a current, valid contract. She indicated she would vote against the sale of the property. Councilmember Dawson disagreed with Councilmember Marin's assertion that a 31 -year old offer was binding. If Mayor Haakenson's understanding was that the adjacent property owner would not pay any Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 27, 2003 Page 11 more and he likely would be the only party interested in purchasing the property, it would be better to get $3,616 than nothing. Mr. Snyder advised two additional benefits that would be cited would be the extinguishment of any unfilled obligation of the City of Edmonds to extend water and service and return of property to the tax rolls. MOTION CARRIED (5 -1), COUNCILMEMBER PETSO OPPOSED. 8. MAYOR'S COMMENTS 6 Ave. W Mayor Haakenson announced the Engineering Department recently won two awards, one from the Rockery Soil Washington Aggregate and Concrete Association in recognition of their distinguished contribution made nalNail in the creation of the 76"' Avenue rockery soil and nail wall which was judged to be an outstanding example of excellence in concrete construction, and another from the Washington State Chapter of the American Public Works Association, naming the 76th Avenue West rockery soil and nail wall project as the project of the year for 2003. es,gn I In response to inquiries regarding the design guidelines, Mayor Haakenson asked where they are in the uidelines process. Councilmember Marin (Community Services/Development Services Committee Chair) answered they were under review. artell Drug Mayor Haakenson referred to the grand opening of the Bartell Drug store in Westgate, expressing his store pleasure with their opening and the additional sales tax revenue the store would generate. 9. INDIVIDUAL COUNCIL REPORTS ON OUTSIDE COMMITTEEBOARD MEETINGS Historic Councilmember Plunkett reported Planning Manager Rob Chave would be representing the City and the Preservation Historic Preservation Commission in Olympia on May 29 in an effort to obtain a State grant. If the City Commission received the grant, funds would be available for the Commission to prepare a professional inventory of historic properties which would allow those property owners a voluntary opportunity to utilize incentives to maintain, rehabilitate, and preserve their properties. Stormwater response to a previous inquiry regarding the possibility of stormwater detention facilities breeding Detention mosquitoes, Councilmember Marin advised the Community Services/Development Services Committee Facilities would be discussing that issue at their June meeting. With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 8:47 p.m. SANDRA S. CHASE, CITY CLERK Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 27, 2003 Page 12 r' 7:00 - 10:00 p.m. May 27, 2003 7:00 o.m. - Call to Order Flag Salute 1. Approval of Agenda 2. Consent Agenda Items (A) Roll Call (B) Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of May 20, 2003. (C) Approval of claim checks 962851 through 062991 for the week of May 19, 2003, in the amount of $185,182.73. Approval of payroll direct deposits and checks #35612 through #35695 for the period May 1 through May 15, 2003, in the amount of $880,162.48. (D) Approval of list of Edmonds businesses applying for renewal of their liquor licenses with the Washington State Liquor Control Board. 3. ( 5 Min.) Recognition of Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Director Arvilla Ohlde for her achievement in being awarded the Washington Recreation and Parks Association Honor Fellow Award. 4. (45 Min.) Closed Record Review of an application by Phoenix Development, Inc. for a Planned Residential Development and Formal Plat. The project will include 22 single family residential lots and all site improvements needed to service the lots and meet the permit requirements. The site is zoned Single Family Residential (RS -8). (Location: 8512, 8516, 8520 and 8526 Main Street / File No. PRD- 2002 -171 and P- 2002 -172). 5. Audience Comments (3 Minute Limit Per Person)* *Regarding matters not listed on the Agenda as Closed Record Review or as Public Hearings. 6. (60 Min.) Continued discussion on proposed amendments to the Edmonds Community Development Code regarding Planned Residential Developments (PRDs). Page 1 of 2 CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA May 27, 2003 Page 2 of 2 7. (15 Min.) Disposal of City parcel located within the City of Lynnwood. 8. ( 5 Min.) Mayor's Comments 9. (15 Min.) Individual Council reports on outside committee /board meetings. ADJOURN 1 Parking and meeting rooms are accessible for persons with disabilities. Please contact the City Clerk at (425) 771 -0245 with 24 hours advance notice for special accommodations. The Council Agenda as well as a delayed telecast of the meeting appears on cable television Government Access Channel 21.