Loading...
06/01/1999 City Council1 [Approve laim arrants F EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES JUNE 19 1999 The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Barbara Fahey in the Library Plaza Room, 650 Main Street, followed by the flag salute. ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Barbara Fahey, Mayor Gary Haakenson, Council President Dave Earling, Councilmember John Nordquist, Councilmember Michael Plunkett, Councilmember Jim White, Councilmember Dick Van Hollebeke, Councilmember Thomas A. Miller, Councilmember ALSO PRESENT Meghan Cross, Student Representative APPROVAL OF AGENDA STAFF PRESENT Robin Hickok, Police Chief Paul Mar, Community Services Director Peggy Hetzler, Administrative Services Director Jeff Wilson, Planning Supervisor James Walker, City Engineer Steve Bullock, Senior Planner Karissa Kawamoto, Planner Scott Snyder, City Attorney Sandy Chase, City Clerk Jeannie Dines, Recorder COUNCIL PRESIDENT HAAKENSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST, TO MOVE ITEM 8 TO ITEM 3A, AND ITEM 3 TO 3B. MOTION CARRIED. COUNCILMEMBER MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST, FOR APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED. 2.. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS Councilmember Van Hollebeke requested Item B be removed from the Consent Agenda. COUNCILMEMBER VAN HOLLEBEKE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST, FOR APPROVAL OF THE REMAINDER OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED. The agenda items approved are as follows: (A) ROLL CALL (C) APPROVAL OF CLAIM WARRANTS #29388 THROUGH #33075 FOR THE WEEK OF MAY 24, 1999, IN THE AMOUNT OF $152,003.30 (D) ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES FROM MARGARET V. QUINE ($500,000.00), PATTI ANN HOY ($15,212.42), ERIC AND CHRISTINE THUESEN ($243.00)9 AND DR. BRUCE BARNES, ATKINS- BARNES CHIROPRACTIC CENTER (Approx. $4,915.00) Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 1, 1999 Page 1 pdate Hwy (E) UPDATE ON HIGHWAY 99 PROJECT AND COUNCIL CONCURRENCE WITH CITY 9 Project OF LYNNWOOD AWARD OF BID TO WILDER CONSTRUCTION Furnishings (F) REPORT ON BIDS OPENED MAY 25, 1999 FOR FURNISHINGS, FIXTURES AND Equipment EQUIPMENT FOR THE PUBLIC SAFETY PROJECT, AND AWARD OF CONTRACT Complex Safety o FOR BASE BID ITEM C TO INTERIOR DEVELOPMENT EAST LTD. IN THE mp AMOUNT OF $47,716.67 (Including Sales Tax) Furnishings (G) REPORT ON BIDS OPENED MAY 25, 1999 FOR FURNISHINGS, FIXTURES AND Equipment EQUIPMENT FOR THE PUBLIC SAFETY PROJECT, AND AWARD OF CONTRACT Public Safety FOR BASE BID ITEMS A, R, S AND T TO BANK AND OFFICE INTERIORS IN THE Complex AMOUNT OF $16,902.11 (Including Sales Tax) 800 MHz (H) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT RELATED [nterlocal TO THE 800 MHz PROJECT rd. 3253 (I) ORDINANCE NO. 3253 AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF CITY CODE CHAPTER hapter 5.01 5.01, PRELIMINARY ARTICLE, BY THE REPEAL OF SECTION 5.01.040, CONTEMPT, AND THE ENACTMENT IN ITS PLACE OF A NEW SECTION 5.01.040, CONTEMPT Approve Item B: Approval of City Council meeting minutes of May 25.1999 /25/99 Councilmember Van Hollebeke requested the name at the top of page 11, Don Doer, be corrected to read Minutes as Doug Dewar. Councilmember Miller advised he was absent from the May 25 meeting and would abstain from the vote. COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER VAN HOLLEBEKE, FOR APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEM B AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED, COUNCILMEMBER MILLER ABSTAINED. (B) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MAY 25, 1999 3. PROCLAMATION IN RECOGNITION OF NATIONAL FLAG DAY ON JUNE 14. 1999 lag Day Mayor Fahey explained she asked Harold Huston, VFW Post 8870, to receive the proclamation because roclamation of the veteran's interest in honoring and recognizing the significance of the flag and their participation in festivities on National Flag Day. She said four students read essays regarding what freedom meant to them at the Memorial Day ceremony at the cemetery, the result of an initiative undertaken by Mr. Huston. She appreciated his efforts to generate patriotism in students in Edmonds. She read a proclamation declaring June 14 National Flag Day in the City of Edmonds and urging all citizens to fly the Nation's flag at their homes and places of business. Citizens were encouraged to pause on June 14 at 4:00 p.m. for the 20" annual National PAUSE FOR THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE to the Flag and join all Americans in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America. Mr. Huston thanked the Mayor and Council for the proclamation. He also thanked those who attended the Memorial Day ceremony at the Cemetery. He explained VFW Post 8870 holds an essay contest at Sherwood Elementary each year and a savings bond is awarded to the winner in grades 3, 4, 5, and 6. From the 460 students at Sherwood Elementary, over 200 essays were submitted. He expressed pride for the youth in the Edmonds area. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 1, 1999 Page 2 3B. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER REGARDING AN APPLICATION BY HOWLAND HOMES, LLC TO AMEND THE OFFICIAL STREET MAP FOR THE PLAN -LINED RIGHT -OF -WAY OF THE 88TH AVENUE WEST RIGHT -OF -WAY IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 8729 MAIN STREET. THE RIGHT -OF -WAY ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY 30 -FEET WIDE, WITH AN ADDITIONAL 30 -FOOT DEDICATION REQUIREMENT. THE APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED THE CITY REVIEW THE NEED FOR 60 -FEET OF RIGHT -OF -WAY AND CONSIDER CHANGING THE MAP AND THEREBY REDUCING THE REQUIREMENT TO 30 FEET. (Applicant: Howland Homes, LLC / File No. ST- 99 -26) Mayor Fahey asked if any Councilmember wished to make any disclosures. There were no disclosures Public made. Ma or Fahey asked if an member of the audience objected to the participation of an Baring Y Y Y J P P Y T -99 -26 Councilmember in this process. There were no objections. Mayor Fahey explained staff would be permitted five minutes to describe this issue, the applicant would be given five minutes to explain why he is seeking this action, and audience members will be given three minutes each to comment on this item. Planner Karissa Kawamoto displayed 'a map of the site illustrating how development has occurred in this area. She explained this request arose as a result of a subdivision application. During review of the subdivision, Engineering requested the dedication of 30 feet of right -of -way. She said there is an existing 30 -foot right -of -way in this area with a pedestrian path that connects Main Street to 88'". The Official Street Map planned for a 60 foot of right -of -way for extension of 88`' Street to Main Street. The applicant proposed a 2 -lot subdivision; if the City requires a 30 -foot right -of -way dedication, the subdivision could not be approved due to inadequate lot area. She explained 88'' currently dead -ends south of 205' Place and east of 207"' and is not a through street. The applicant is requesting the City change the Official Street Map to not require 30 feet of right -of -way on the west side of the property. She displayed a drawing illustrating the location of the right -of -way on the lot. Other City departments were in favor of this request with the exception of the Fire Department who indicated the connection may allow faster response times in this area if the fire station were ever to be relocated away from Five - Corners. Ms. Kawamoto reported that Engineering provided minutes from past Council meetings indicating design issues associated with the LID in this area in the early 1990's did not plan for this connection. She said development in that area has proceeded based on that assumption and variances have been granted assuming the road would not be a through connection. Mayor Fahey inquired about the topography in this area, recalling there is a significant change in the grade. Ms. Kawamoto agreed, stating the property slopes to the northeast corner, toward 88" Street. Mayor Fahey asked if staff has analyzed whether it would be feasible to construct a through street such as the Fire Department wanted. Ms. Kawamoto said her understanding was, with the improvements installed in the early 1990's, 88'' Street was not designed to go through to Main Street. , City Attorney Scott Snyder understood the Fire Department wanted to maintain this street on the Street Map and asked what their position was on reduction of the right -of -way. Ms. Kawamoto said that question was not posed to the Fire Department. Mr. Snyder said the issue before the Council is reduction of the plan -lined right -of -way, not the removal of it. Ms. Kawamoto said her understanding was the application requested the requirement for dedication of an additional 30 feet be removed. She clarified the existing pathway would remain on the existing 30 -foot right -of -way. Mr. Snyder explained that Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 1, 1999 Page 3 although the current 30 -foot right -of -way is developed as a walkway, it is the Council's decision whether to construct a street on the 30 feet of right -of -way. He stated this proposal could be approved without eliminating the Fire Department's desire for a through street in this area. Mayor Fahey asked if 30 feet was adequate for a street. Mr. Snyder answered a 2 -lane street could be constructed in 30 feet of right - of -way, although it may be expensive in this location. Councilmember Van Hollebeke asked whether Interim Fire Chief Haworth's objection was a general purpose concern for eliminating plan -lined right -of -way or if he had specific knowledge of the need for right -of -way in this area. Ms. Kawamoto said the memo is the only information available from the Fire Department. They were given an opportunity to speak at the Hearing Examiner public hearing but they chose not to participate. Mr. Snyder clarified the Council's responsibility is to determine whether there is a need for plan -lined right -of -way in this location and if so, what width. Although that decision will impact the development of property; the Council is not being asked to make a decision on any land use application at this time. A p1U icant Matt Howland, Howland Homes, 1243 NE 152 °d, Shoreline, supported staffs recommendation. He said the request would maintain the neighborhood feeling. There is currently a 30 -foot right -of -way for pedestrian access. He said one of the main concerns is the utility in that area; they have agreed to grant an easement, if necessary. He said properties to the north were granted variances to construct closer to the street; therefore, it appears the neighborhood character has proceeded with the assumption the right - of -way would remain for pedestrian access and would not be widened to 60 feet and opened to vehicular traffic. Mayor Fahey opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, Edmonds, recalled a number of people on 88' Avenue were opposed to widening of that street previously and, during that time the Fire Department was in favor of providing access from 96" to 200'. He felt inadequate comments had been provided by the Fire Department. He questioned whether 30 feet of right -of -way would allow for construction of a roadway and sidewalk. He said 40 feet would be more reasonable if the plan -lined right -of -way is retained on the map. He said with the relocation of the fire station, a need for a through street may be discovered. He commented the right -of -way could be gated to provide emergency vehicle access. He summarized 60 feet of right -of -way was too much and 40 feet was more reasonable. Hearing no further public comment, Mayor Fahey closed the public participation portion of the hearing. Mayor Fahey referred to page 2 of the commentary on this item which stated, "both the Planning and Engineering Divisions recommended the applicant seek an amendment of the Street Map to eliminate the future possibility of 88' Avenue West going through to Main Street." She observed this was different than Mr. Snyder's comments. She concurred with Mr. Hertrich's comments, recalling she was on the Council when action was taken on 881i Avenue, whereby that Council, over the objections of the Fire Department, agreed to dead -end 88' ' and provide for it never being a through street although no action was taken to abandon -the right -of -way. She requested clarification of the request. Ms. Kawamoto referred to the drawing of the proposed plat, stating the lot width is shown as 99.99 feet by 253.18 feet. In an RS -12 zone, the minimum lot size is 12,000 square feet. When Engineering required the 30 -foot right -of -way dedication as shown on the Official Street Map, the lot sizes were reduced sufficiently to Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 1, 1999 Page 4 prevent approval of a subdivision in an RS -12 zone. In order for the applicant to proceed with a subdivision application, both Planning and Engineering recommended the requirement for an additional 30 feet of right -of -way be eliminated to allow the applicant to proceed with the subdivision. She explained the request is not for a reduction in the existing 30 feet but eliminating the additional 30 feet, which would make the right -of -way 60 feet. Mr. Snyder explained the City has 30 feet of right -of -way, there is 60 feet of plan-lined right -of -way. The proposal is to remove the additional 30 feet of plan-lined right -of -way. Ms. Kawamoto said a 2 -lane roadway with a pedestrian path could not be provided within the existing 30 feet. Council President Haakenson observed the minutes from the June 7, 1988 Council meeting are provided in the Council packet, but not from the meeting Mayor Fahey was referring to in 1994/1995. He asked if the Council needed this information. Ms. Kawamoto said the minutes could be provided if the Council wished to review that information. Mayor Fahey said the minutes would indicate that when the LID was constructed, residents on 881 petitioned the Council requesting 88'' Avenue be dead -ended so that it would never intersect with 207'. The Fire Department at that time was opposed to this because it was counter to the grid patterns the City was seeking to establish to provide better emergency response in the area between 196' and Main Street. Despite the Fire Department's objection, the Council took action at that time to designate 88'h Avenue as a dead -end. Mr. Snyder asked the City Engineer if the existing 30 feet of right -of -way was adequate to provide emergency access and pedestrian access. City Engineer Jim Walker answered yes, explaining fire access requires a 20 -foot minimum. Mr. Snyder observed 30 feet would also be adequate for a 2 -lane roadway but not in combination with a roadway and pedestrian path. Mr. Walker said likely a sub - standard sidewalk could be provided on one side. COUNCILMEMBER WHITE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MILLER, TO ADOPT THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER AND APPROVE THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE OFFICIAL STREET MAP AND DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE THE APPROPRIATE ORDINANCE. MOTION CARRIED. 4. PUBLIC HEARING ON A REQUEST TO VACATE A 10 -FOOT WIDE BY 113 -FOOT LONG PORTION OF THE 218TH PLACE SOUTHWEST RIGHT -OF -WAY IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO 9405 - 218TH PLACE SOUTHWEST: (Applicant: Larry Wax / File No. ST- 99 -52) ublic Mayor Fahey asked if any Councilmember wished to make any disclosures. There were no disclosures. Baring Mayor Fahey asked if any member of the audience objected to the participation of any Councilmember T -99 -52 in this process. There were no objections. Mayor Fahey explained staff would be given five minutes to describe this issue, the applicant would be given five minutes to explain why he is seeking this action, and audience members will be given three minutes each to provide comment. Planner Karissa Kawamoto explained this is a request for street vacation that arose as a result of a subdivision application. There is currently an additional 10 feet that has been dedicated in front of this property, unlike other properties around it. She displayed a vicinity map and identified the site. The property was subdivided under Snohomish County regulations; 218'h originally stopped at the end of the property; so Snohomish County required a hammer -head type turnaround which required 80 feet between Lot 21 to Lot 20. She explained the hammerhead turnaround is no longer necessary for emergency Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 1, 1999 Page 5 vehicle turnaround as adequate turnaround space is provided in the cul -de -sac to the east. Although the vacation should have been done in the early 1960's when development occurred, the applicant is now requesting vacation of a 10 foot by 113 -foot strip of City right -of -way. The applicant has provided a MAI appraisal, which determined property in the area is valued at approximately $9.40 per square foot. The right -of -way is 1,130 square feet for a total value of $10,600. The ECDC allows the City to require payment of half the fair market value, or in this instance, $5,300 for vacation of the 10 foot by 113 -foot strip of right -of -way. She recommended the Council direct the City Attorney to prepare a resolution of intent to vacate that portion of 218' Place in front of the property at 9405 218' Place SW. Councilmember White asked what factors the Council should consider with regard to this request. Mr. Snyder answered the Council must consider whether this property is reasonably foreseeable for current or future public use. As this is street right -of -way, it can be vacated if the Council does not believe it will be used for street purposes. Councilmember White asked if the Council could consider any other factors. Mr. Snyder cautioned the Council not to consider the impact the vacation may have on the development process. He clarified if the record indicated there was no future need for this right -of- way, it would be inappropriate for the Council to refuse to vacate it solely to prevent the property from developing. Applicant Larry Wax, 1006 N Bayshore Lane, Camano Island, said he lived on this property for 32 years and assumed the property line included the 10 feet he is now requesting be vacated. He said the, properties on both sides have the 10 feet. He has landscaped and maintained most of the 10 feet of the property. Mayor Fahey opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. Rita Matthews, 9325 217" Place SW, Edmonds, owner of the property adjacent to the Wax property on the northeast side, expressed concern with construction planned on the property if the vacation is granted. Mr. Snyder explained the City's ownership interest in the property is for street right -of -way, the City does not own the fee. Mr. Wax continues to own the underlying rights associated with the property. The issue before the Council is whether there is some valid public purpose for retaining this right -of -way. Ms. Matthews asked if Mr. Wax was requesting the vacation so that he would have two sections of 8,000 square feet so that he can build on the property. Mr. Snyder agreed that is indicated in the record. Ms. Matthews reiterated her concern with construction on the property. Mayor Fahey clarified the ultimate use of the property following vacation of the right -of -way cannot be considered by the Council in making its decision. The Council can only determine whether the right -of -way is necessary for a future street; if not, there is justification for vacating the right -of -way. The Council cannot refuse to vacate the right -of -way based on future use of the property. Mayor Fahey advised Ms. Matthews that her concerns would be addressed during the subdivision of the property. Neil Cloud, 9317 217" Place SW, Edmonds, asked if the vacation was being requested so the applicant would have two conforming lots on which to build. Mayor Fahey referred to Exhibit 2, which indicates the vacation would provide insufficient square footage to allow a 2 -lot short plat in the R8000 zone. She clarified if the vacation is granted, that could ultimately occur but is not part of the Council's decision tonight. Mr. Cloud asked whether the City Engineer would visit this property (if the vacation is granted and a subdivision applied for) to determine whether there are wetlands on the property, etc. Mayor Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 1, 1999 Page 6 1 i i i I i I Fahey responded that when the subdivision process takes place, residents would have an opportunity to be involved in the process. Mr. Cloud asked if there was precedence for vacating a street like this. Mayor Fahey answered yes. She explained the public hearing was not an opportunity to enter into a dialogue with the Council or staff. Input is limited to opposition or support for the, proposed action. Mr. Cloud said he is not necessarily opposed to the vacation but wanted to ask questions. He asked about sidewalk space. Mayor Fahey said those questions have not yet been addressed as that is part of another process. The only issue before the Council tonight is the abandonment of 10 feet of right -of -way. Mr. Cloud inquired whether a citizen could question the abandonment of a right -of -way based on future potential uses. Mayor Fahey said those issues have been analyzed by staff before a recommendation was made to abandon this right -of- way. She pointed out the right-of-way does not adjoin any other right -of -way that would provide capacity for a future sidewalk, emergency access, etc. Mr. Snyder pointed out the difficulty of having a dialogue during a public hearing. The issue before the Council is whether to vacate City right -of -way based on the likelihood of the City having some future public use for the right -of -way. Issues related to wetlands, development of the property, etc. will be addressed at a subsequent short plat process, which is a staff determination. Sidewalks are required as part of City street development standards; if the property is subdivided, sidewalks will be required. Ed McMarrow, 1024 4`h Avenue S, Edmonds, said the City does not own the property being requested for vacation. Mr. Snyder explained Mr. Wax owns the underlying fee; the City has the right to install a roadway, a sidewalk, or utilities in that strip as they do throughout the adjacent right -of -way. Mr. McMarrow asked if the property owner had been paying taxes on that property. Mr. Snyder explained on any street easement, the property owner owns the underlying fee to the center of the property. If this was public property that the City had paid fair market value for, the Council has absolute discretion regarding retention. With street right -of -way, the City has only the right to construct a street in that location; if it is not needed, the property can be vacated. Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, Edmonds, said his understanding was during a public hearing, the public can ask or say whatever they want. He objected to Mayor Fahey stating Mr. Cloud could not ask questions. He said staff should be asked to provide information and answer the questions. He felt Mayor Fahey owned Mr. Cloud an apology. Mayor Fahey commented that there is a process that is normally followed with regard to public hearings which are intended to address specific issues and facts that are germane to the Council's decision. The issues being raised are not germane to this issue and cannot be used to influence the Council's decision. For that reason, information provided at a public hearing is typically limited to opinion -type information due to the difficulty of answering other questions, particularly when many of those issues have not yet been addressed because they are part of another process. She apologized if it appeared she was rude to Mr. Cloud and said she did not intend to be. Hearing no further public comment, Mayor Fahey closed the public participation portion of the public hearing. She emphasized this is only one part of the process. If the Council makes a decision to vacate the property which would allow the potential for short platting, there will be another process that residents will be notified of and have an opportunity to participate in. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 1, 1999 Page 7 Council President Haakenson said Mayor Fahey is correct regarding the information the Council is allowed to consider when making this decision, whether this 10 -foot strip of land is needed now or in the future for public use. He agreed it is frustrating that this is the only public hearing the City is permitted to hold. He offered to have Mr. Walker answer some of the questions raised and suggested the possibility of the Council suspending the rules to allow further testimony. Council President Haakenson asked what the width of 218' Street would be if the street vacation is approved. Mr. Walker answered Development Services Engineer Gordy Hyde considered it and determined there was sufficient space for any improvements, including 2 lanes and sidewalks. Mr. Walker said there is no need for additional improvements on a road that accesses a dead -end neighborhood. Council President Haakenson asked if there were sidewalks there now. Mr. Walker answered no. Council President Haakenson asked if there are plans for sidewalks regardless of the street vacation. Mr. Walker said sidewalks in that area are not currently included in the Walkway Plan. As this area develops, consideration will be given to whether sidewalks will be needed. He agreed this is an area where sidewalks would be desirable but is not a priority in the Walkway Plan. Council President Haakenson asked if emergency vehicles currently can access the cul -de -sac as well as if the vacation is approved. Mr. Walker said emergency vehicle access would be unchanged. The area where the vacation is being requested would never be used as a turnaround. He said this 10 foot strip was created as a turnaround because the street dead -ended prior to the creation of the plats to the east (217' Place SW and 93`d Place W). Council President Haakenson asked whether there would be a public hearing regarding any future subdivision of the property (if the Council approves the vacation). Planning Supervisor Jeff Wilson answered the short plat process is an administrative review, not a public hearing process. However, public notice is provided for the two -week public comment period to solicit written comments from anyone who wishes to comment on the application. That information is considered in the decision - making process. Following the administrative decision, the public has the right to appeal the decision to the Hearing Examiner, which will include a full public hearing. Council President Haakenson asked how the public is notified of the comment period. Mr. Wilson answered notices are mailed to property owners and residents within 300 feet of the subject property and notices are posted in the vicinity of the subject property informing of the two -week comment period. COUNCILMEMBER WHITE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MILLER, TO SUSPEND THE RULES TO ADDRESS THE CONCERNS OF THE, CITIZENS PRESENT WHO MAY STILL HAVE QUESTIONS. MOTION CARRIED. Al Rutledge, 7101 Lake Ballinger Way, Edmonds, said if a property owner does nothing with property over a seven year period, the property reverts back to the City. However, in this instance, the property owner has maintained the property for over 30 years. He asked whether the City owed the property owner for maintaining the property. Lucian Schmidt, 454 3rd Avenue S, Edmonds, said he was pleased to see a dialogue develop between the Council and citizens. His understanding was there would be no subsequent public hearing following the Council's decision regarding the vacation, other than before the Hearing Examiner, and the Council would be bypassed on a public hearing. Mayor Fahey agreed staff will make an administrative decision but there will be an opportunity for the public to comment on the short platting before a decision is made. Mr. Schmidt said the Council would not be included in that decision and this hearing represents Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 1, 1999 Page 8 residents' only opportunity to provide comment to the Council. He said it appears the Council does not want to hear residents' problems later when the lots are subdivided. Council President Haakenson disagreed and said the Council is not saying they do not want to hear what residents have to say. Mr. Schmidt clarified the rules do not permit the Council to hear it. Council President Haakenson agreed. Mr. Schmidt said too much authority has been given to the Hearing Examiner in order to avoid presenting matters such as this to the Council. In response to Mr. Rutledge's comments, Mr. Snyder said private property owners cannot adversely possess against the public. The City, like other jurisdictions, is limited by state law to an administrative process for short plats. A variety of reviews are required for this type of decision such as Critical Areas ordinance, State Environment Protection Act (SEPA), etc. The issue before the Council is a decision .regarding the vacation of a strip of land and whether the property is necessary for a turnaround in this location. When staff considers the short plat, a decision will be made using rules adopted by the Council after numerous public hearings. COUNCIL PRESIDENT HAAKENSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MILLER, TO EXTEND DISCUSSION OF THIS ITEM FOR 10 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED. Neil Cloud, 9317 217" Place SW, Edmonds, said the reason this vacation is being sought is so the property can be subdivided. His concern is once the property is subdivided, a house that is incompatible with the neighborhood will be built behind an existing house. He explained properties to the east are 4 -6 feet higher than the subject property and asked what provisions would be made to keep the bank from sloughing. He was also concerned the rear portion of the property could be a wetland and inquired whether the City Engineer visited the site. He asked whether there was adequate space for a sidewalk. He was not concerned about the ability of a fire truck to turnaround but with the ability of a fire truck to get through once sidewalks are constructed on both sides. His major concern is any home built there would not be compatible with the immediate area. He acknowledged this issue would be addressed later but was disappointed it would not be done at a public hearing. Larry Wax, 1006 N Bayshore Lane, Camano Island, said, in response to Mr. Cloud's comments regarding incompatibility, four years ago four new .homes were built behind his home. He said old homes and new homes could be combined in an area. He said the City's engineers would address any slope or wetland issues at the time a building permit is applied for. Mr. Wax said he informed Mr. Cloud he planned to short plat the property eventually. Hearing no further comment, Mayor Fahey closed the public participation portion of the hearing. Due to the numerous issues that have been raised, Mayor Fahey asked Mr. Snyder to define what the Council can consider in its deliberations regarding this matter. Mr. Snyder explained there are two issues before the Council, 1) a determination whether this property has some reasonable likelihood for public purposes for street or utility purposes in the future, 2) if not, what compensation should be paid to the City for its vacation. In response to comments made by the public, he explained the City's wetland provisions are contained in the Critical Areas ordinance as well as the Stormwater retention and detention requirements. Further, the state building code, particularly. appendix 70 regarding cuts, fills, and slopes governs embankments and construction on property. Mayor Fahey remanded the matter to Council for deliberation. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 1, 1999 Page 9 Councilmember White said the process illustrates the frustration with Regulatory Reform which limits the City's ability to hold public hearings on certain issues that the Legislature felt would streamline the process for development. He said the Council cannot consider sloughing, subdivision, development, sidewalks, etc. and can only consider whether there is a public need for the 10 -foot strip. If the Council considers other issues, the applicant could overturn the decision. COUNCILMEMBER WHITE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MILLER, TO APPROVE THE RECOMMENDED ACTION (DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE A RESOLUTION OF "INTENT 'TO VACATE" THE PORTION OF THE 218"' PLACE SOUTHWEST RIGHT -OF -WAY ADJACENT TO 9405 218"; PLACE SOUTHWEST. PURSUANT TO ECDC SECTION 20.70.140 THE APPLICANT MUST PROVIDE PAYMENT OF $5,300 (ONE HALF THE FAIR MARKET VALUE) WITHIN 90 DAYS OF THE ADOPTION OF SAID RESOLUTION, OTHERWISE THE VACATION APPROVAL SHALL BECOME NULL AND VOID), WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT ANY DEVELOPMENT ON THE PROPERTY WILL BE SUBJECT TO POSTING, NOTIFICATION TO ALL LAND OWNERS WITHW 300 FEET, AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THEM TO BE HEARD AND IF THEIR DESIRES ARE NOT ADDRESSED BY STAFF, THERE WILL BE AN OPPORTUNITY TO APPEAL TO THE HEARING EXAMINER. Council President Haakenson stressed staff has indicated there is no public use for that 10 -foot strip and the applicant has hired an MAI appraiser to determine the value. The applicant has followed the requirements of ECDC 20.70.140. Councilmember Earling thanked citizens for raising their issues. Although the City shares the frustration with the process, the only issue before the Council is whether there is a need for this 10 -foot strip. MOTION CARRIED. Mayor Fahey explained one of the reasons the names and addresses of speakers are recorded is so staff has the ability to notify them in the future. She said anyone who spoke to this issue would be notified if/when future development occurs on this property. She apologized for the perception that she was trying to prevent citizens from getting information. Unfortunately, when questions of this nature arise, often there are not answers available because information becomes available as the next steps of the process take place. She stressed it was impossible to enter into dialogue on these issues tonight and it is her responsibility as chair to ensure public hearings proceed according to the established time line. She said City staff and her office are available to answer any questions. 5. PUBLIC HEARING ON INTERIM ORDINANCE NO. 3247 AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 17.40.010(C) TO LIMIT THE APPLICATION OF THE CITY'S ABATEMENT PROCESS TO NONCONFORMING COMMERCIAL, BUSINESS AND INDUSTRIAL USES LOCATED IN RESIDENTIAL ZONES ublic City Attorney Scott Snyder explained state law permits cities to enact interim zoning ordinances or earing moratoria and requires a public hearing be held within 60 days. He explained this ordinance returned the rd. 3247 City to the non - conforming use provisions, which were initially enacted in 1971. At that time the Council enacted.provisions that required industrial, commercial and business uses located in residential neighborhoods be amortized (phased out) over a period of years. When those provisions were codified in 1980, an innocuous change was made to the ordinance that eliminated the words "commercial, business and industrial" and termed them "non- residential." A number of years later, the City adopted a Public zoning category and earlier this year when matters concerning the school district arose, the City Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 1, 1999 Page 10 i i discovered that the innocuous change. in language made churches, schools, and a variety of public facilities non - conforming uses. Citizens raised the issue whether the City should amortize out the school district's property. This raised three issues and he recommended the Council adopt an interim zoning ordinance. The first issue is the school district's power under state law to maintain and site schools subject to the City's police power regulations. The City could enact those provisions but would need to do so evenhandedly which would require 1) removal of the City's own essential facilities from neighborhoods or change the rules, and 2) act regarding non - conforming uses such as churches, which is unconstitutional. Both federal and state law require cities to attempt to accommodate the practice of religion and to do so in an affirmative way including reasonable provisions for places of worship in residential neighborhoods. Therefore, it was determined the City's ordinance would apply unconstitutionally and would be in violation of state statute. He recommended the Council adopt an interim zoning ordinance which restored the 1971 language regarding commercial, business and industrial uses in residential zones and avoid the unintended consequences. The Council enacted this interim ordinance on April 20; this is the City's required public hearing. Based on public testimony, the Council has the ability to continue or repeal the ordinance and direct preparation of Findings of Fact. Mayor Fahey opened the public participation portion of the hearing. There were no members of the audience who wished to address the Council on this matter; therefore, Mayor Fahey closed the public participation portion of the hearing. Mr. Snyder advised, in light of the lack of public comment, he would prepare Findings based on the Council's past legislative findings. Council President Haakenson asked how many members of the audience were present to comment on the Holly Drive Comprehensive Plan issue. Approximately half of the audience raised their hands. Council President Haakenson requested a brief recess. 6. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION REGARDING PROPOSED TEXT AND LAND USE MAP AMENDMENTS TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. (Applicant: Edmonds Planning Division / File No. CDC- 98 -1). THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS ARE: A. REOUEST BY MR. RON GARD, TRUSTEE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, TO CHANGE THE EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 506 6TH AVENUE SOUTH FROM "SINGLE-FAMILY — SMALL LOT" TO MULTIFAMILY HIGH DENSITY," TOGETHER WITH A CONCURRENT APPLICATION TO REZONE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM "RS- 6" TO "RM -1.5." FILE NO. CDC -98 -1, CDC -97 -139, & R -97 -140 Public Mayor Fahey advised this item is a series of issues that were reviewed by the Planning Board. In Hearing response to a question that arose during the break, Mayor Fahey explained there would not be an appeal DC -98 -1A process. The Planning Board is an advisory board and reviews information and makes an advisory determination that is referred to the Council. It is the Council's decision whether to accept the Planning Board's recommendation or make some other determination. She advised each of the requested amendments would be addressed separately. Mayor Fahey asked if any Councilmember wished to make any disclosure. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 1, 1999 Page 11 Councilmember Miller advised during the break he explained to citizens that this item includes consideration of the Holly Street issue. Councilmember Earling said his company listed an eight -unit condominium complex on Walnut Street located on the property formerly owned by JoAnn Jake. It is not immediately adjacent to this property, and he did not feel it would present a conflict. City Attorney Scott Snyder asked Councilmember Earling if this was his personal listing. Councilmember Earling answered no. Mr. Snyder said it would not fall within the technical parameters of the state statute but could be the basis for an appearance of fairness doctrine challenge. In the absence of an objection from the audience, Mr. Snyder said there would not be a problem with Councilmember Earling's participation. Mayor Fahey asked if any member of the audience wished to challenge the participation of any Councilmembers. There were no objections and Mayor Fahey advised all Councilmembers were empowered to participate in the decision regarding Item A. She further advised that all comments made at the Planning Board hearings have been provided to the Council and the public would have an opportunity to comment on this item following staffs presentation. Planning Supervisor Jeff Wilson said this request to amend the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map was initiated by the applicant and involves two actions, 1) amend the Comprehensive Plan designation to change it from "Single - Family - Small Lot" to "Multifamily - High Density" and 2) a concurrent rezone of the property (if the Comprehensive Plan is amended) to implement the land use classification, changing from RS -6 to RM -1.5 (density one unit per 1.500 square feet of lot area). Mr. Wilson displayed a map illustrating the existing Comprehensive Plan designation in the vicinity of the applicant's property including the area designated Multifamily - High Density. He pointed out that the boundary extends mid -block between Walnut and Holly. He explained when the Comprehensive Plan was initially adopted, designations were not intended to be exact boundaries of the land use designation but approximate boundaries to be determined on a situation -by- situation basis. The Planning Board felt there was a clear separation between where multifamily should exist in this area of the City and where it should transition to single - family in the mid -block area. The subject property and properties to the east, south and west are designated as Single- Family - Small Lot RS -6. The Planning Board held a public hearing in December 1998; following their review of the materials provided by the applicant and staff and testimony provided by the public, the Planning Board determined the current Comprehensive Plan designation is appropriate. Further, allowing the designation to be extended south to encompass this one lot would be inconsistent with the City's adopted Comprehensive Plan and would be an intrusion into the existing, well established single - family residential area on Holly Drive. The Planning Board recommended the request to amend the Comprehensive Plan be denied and the existing designation remain. Mr. Wilson advised if the Council adopted this recommendation, the concurrent rezone request would be inconsistent with the land use designation in the Comprehensive Plan and would not be permissible. City Attorney Scott Snyder asked if the record before the Planning Board or staff s analysis included an indication that the City did not have adequate urban density to meet Snohomish County Growth Management Board urban density requirements. Mr. Wilson said this issue has been discussed by the Planning Board numerous times during the amendment process. When the City initially adopted its Comprehensive Plan and land use maps, it was determined there was sufficient density to meet the population targets that were determined by Snohomish County under the Growth Management Act Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 1, 1999 Page 12 (GMA) based on the land use classifications in the plan. Mr. Wilson explained the GMA allows cities to amend their Comprehensive Plan only once per year; therefore, staff bundles multiple requests and presents them to the Council at one time. A_uplicant Ron Gard, 1114 811 Avenue S, Edmonds, representative of the Frances E. Gard Trust (the entity that owns the property at 506 6' Avenue S, Edmonds) requested the City's Comprehensive Plan map be amended and the property at 506 61 Avenue South be rezoned from Single - Family RS -6 to Multifamily.- High Density RM -1.5. He commented color photographs were provided to City staff that were clearer than the black and white copies provided to the Council. He said members of the Trust have been in favor of the request to change to a multifamily designation. Although they would prefer the City grant their request, which would allow a multiple housing unit, they are aware of the immediate neighbors' concern and opposition. He said a multiple unit condominium or 3 -unit townhouse would be their first choice as the best use of the property, but they realize they face an uphill struggle to obtain this. He observed that the Council has the authority to approve, reject or modify the Planning Board's decision and requested the Holly Drive neighbors support a compromise proposal for a variance that would allow subdivision of the property. He referred to his letter dated April 25, 1999, addressed to Council President Haakenson, the Mayor and Council, which stated the property is large enough to accommodate multifamily units, which the Planning Board, Planning Department and neighbors accept. He said this would allow the neighborhood to maintain the single- family atmosphere and still allow fair use of the property. Mr. Gard explained the property is 99 feet by 120 feet, totaling 11,800 square feet, only six inches short of the City's current minimum building size for each proposed lot. He stressed this represented 5,940 square feet versus 6,000 square feet for each lot, only 1% less square footage than required in the current lot size requirement. He pointed out Snohomish County addresses these scenarios with an administrative variance whenever there is a 10% or less difference from the minimum lot size via a Planned Residential Development (PRD). This allows the property owner to subdivide into smaller lots than zoning would otherwise allow, thereby increasing housing density slightly. He referred to an article in a recent edition of the Citizen Link and Snohomish County Executive Bob Drewel's comments in the May 12, 1999 Enterprise "to accommodate growth, we need to find ways where neighborhoods are able to accept smaller lot single family and townhouses and in some areas multiple family housing." Mr. Gard pointed out the recent visioning process recommended square footage requirements for building lots be relaxed to allow more dense multiple family housing. He said Edmonds is growing and will continue to grow and the community must address density restrictions and existing codes must be modified if necessary. He requested the Council consider their proposal and grant either the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map amendment or at least the variance to subdivide the property. Mr. Snyder clarified the only application before the Council is the amendment of the Comprehensive Plan. The Council may refer any issue regarding density requirements to staff or the Planning Board for action in the future. Councilmember Plunkett asked if the color photos Mr. Gard referred to were available. Mayor Fahey advised the color photographs were being circulated to the Council at this time. Mayor Fahey opened the public participation portion of the hearing. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 1, 1999 Page 13 Joseph Dwyer, 529 Holly Drive, Edmonds, suggested the Council concur with staff and the Planning Board's recommendation and deny the requested change to the existing Comprehensive Plan designation for this property as well as the rezone of the property. Victoria Oace, 525 Magnolia Lane, Edmonds, spoke in opposition to the proposed rezone and amendment to the Comprehensive Plan as she believed it would negatively affect the neighborhood where they chose to purchase a single- family home three years ago. She referred to their former high density, residential neighborhood on Capital Hill, commenting they chose Edmonds because of its single- family home atmosphere. She said there is sufficient high density housing elsewhere in Edmonds to accommodate the need for multifamily use. She indicated she was also speaking on behalf of Phyllis and Chuck Becker, residents of Magnolia Lane, who were unable to attend tonight's public hearing. She said the Planning Board reviewed the technical issues raised in this application and chose to recommend denial. Their recommendation should be followed. Shirley Dunphy, 545 Holly Drive, Edmonds, owner of the house west of the subject property for the past two years, said a large part of their consideration was the impact the Walnut Condominiums have on their view and the fact that the lot behind them, owned by the Gard's, was a single - family home with trees that would lessen the impact of the condominiums. She urged the Council to support staffs recommendation. Kurtis Dunphy, 545 Holly Drive, Edmonds, recommended the Council accept staff and Planning Board's recommendation to deny the modification. When they moved to this property, their view disappeared as the condominiums were built. They were aware of this and accept it. The request under consideration would "hem them in" and would result in their not being part of the single - family neighborhood. He urged Council to support staffs recommendation. Robert Stevenson, 548 6`h Avenue S, Edmonds, said the GMA encourages growth within already . developed areas but does not encourage spot rezones that would allow multifamily projects in nicely settled single - family areas. He said the visioning report encouraged more high rise business and residential development in the Edmonds bowl but also respected the community of long established homes that sustain the ambiance of the Edmonds area. Multifamily zoned blocks north of the subject property contain numerous single - family homes that are surrounded by apartments and condominiums. He said these homes could be converted without a rezone or change to the Comprehensive Plan. Significant financial gain to the property owner is obvious if the request is granted but should not be permitted at the expense of the neighbors. Increased structure height and. lot coverage would be permitted but would be incompatible with adjoining single- family residences. The Planning Board, after careful consideration of information in favor and opposed to the request, concluded approval of the request would not be in the City's best interest as the conditions of the site and the neighborhood have not changed. Absent new and compelling evidence to the contrary, the Planning Board recommendation to deny the request should be upheld by the Council. He submitted written comments. Earl Lavery, 556 Holly Drive, Edmonds, spoke in opposition to the rezone of this property. He pointed out Mr. Gard indicated in his letter of November 30, 1998, that his property was quite a ways away from the subject property. In fact, his property abuts the subject property, is directly oriented to the subject property, and multifamily development would adversely affect his property as well as other properties in the immediate area due to increased noise, loss of view and lack of privacy. Mr. Lavery explained on the west side of the property, there is one single - family home, on the east side there are two single - family homes (including his property), across Holly Drive (approximately 60 feet) there is another Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 1, 1999 Page 14 single - family home, and opposite the southwest corner there is another single - family home. Any multifamily structure built on this property, amongst these single - family homes, would have a very negative impact on the area and would be a terrible mix for this residential neighborhood. He concluded the property is currently zoned Single - Family - Small Lot and that zoning should remain. Carol Eychaner, 2348 Franklin Avenue E, Seattle, Land Use and Community Planner, explained she was asked by the Holly Drive neighbors to do an analysis of the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment and rezone (Attachment 11 of Exhibit A, pages 37 -68 of the Council packet and supplemental comments on page 117 and 121). Her analysis did not find that the property met the criteria for a Comprehensive Plan amendment to multifamily designation or a rezone to a multifamily zone and that the property was appropriately designated and zoned for single - family use and development. She pointed out the extension of the Multifamily - High Density designation would be equivalent to a spot zoning, which is explicitly discouraged in the City's Comprehensive Plan which states the primary purpose of the Comprehensive Plan is to discourage infill spot or strip zoning and inharmonious subdivision. Further, her analysis found that Holly Street, which is developed almost entirely with single - family use, is economically viable for single - family use and many of the houses have been expanded, remodeled, or demolished for new single - family construction. She was concerned if the Council changed the Comprehensive Plan designation for this property in a spot or piecemeal manner, it would set precedence for other similar actions throughout the City. A cursory review of the Edmonds Comprehensive Plan map indicated there are approximately 24 locations that have a similar zone edge where it would be difficult to deny a similar Comprehensive Plan amendment if this is granted. Ms. Eychaner said the impact of a change to the Comprehensive Plan designation would ' include degradation of the single- family character of this single - family zoned street. Other impacts include loss of privacy, loss of a sense of open space and views, and parking and potential impacts on the substandard Holly Drive. She summarized numerous Comprehensive Plan policies support the continuance of single - family designation and zoning of this lot on Holly Drive and on Holly Drive in general. She found no valid land use, environmental, economic. or GMA reason for approving the Comprehensive Plan amendment or rezone or increasing the density along Holly Drive. Mel Steinke, 22133 Chinook Road, Woodway, owner of the triplex at 502 and 504 6`' South, spoke in opposition to Mr. Gard's request and recommended the Council accept. the Planning Board's recommendation. He said the triplex's views have been "boxed in" by many condominiums on Walnut although the neighborhood was aware this could occur because the property was already zoned for that use. He said the 17 foot entrance to the Gard's property would impact the entrance to the triplex' garages and there is no curb parking in that location which will cause ingress and egress problems. He echoed the previous comments regarding spot zoning and said a number of citizens in the RS -6 zone would like to take advantage of a similar change in their designation and zone. He recommended the Council adopt the Planning Board's recommendation. Bob Driscoll, 514 Holly Drive, Edmonds, displayed a map illustrating residents in the surrounding neighborhood who are opposed to the change as proposed by Mr. Gard. He recommended the Council deny request. Mayor Fahey advised Mr. Driscoll his map would be entered into the record as an exhibit. Marge Hampton, 548 Holly Drive, Edmonds, said their house is located on a flag lot that is accessed by a driveway on Holly Drive, directly across from the lot at 506 611 Avenue. She said they recently completed an extensive remodel one year ago. She said it was obvious to them that a multifamily building on this site would be detrimental to the property values of the adjacent single - family homes on Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 1, 1999 Page 15 Holly Drive. The proposed rezone is not compatible with the Edmonds Comprehensive Plan and is not in the interest of the general public or the residents of Holly Drive. She urged the Council to support the Planning Board's recommendation. Melinda Beck, 550 Holly Drive, Edmonds, said when she purchased her house in 1977, the Mayor at that time said Holly Drive would remain single family. Since the Planning Board and Planning staff recommend the neighborhood remains single family, she recommended the Council follow their advice. Ed McMorrow, 1024 4th Avenue S, Edmonds, asked if the City's Comprehensive Plan has been tested in court regarding whether it meets the requirements of GMA. Mr. Snyder answered no one has ever challenged the City's Comprehensive Plan. Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, Edmonds, recalled a number of years ago there was an attempt at the other end of Holly Drive to change the zoning. At that time, a line was drawn to protect the area and no extension of zoning other than residential was permitted. He hoped this Council would "hold the line" again. He pointed out the need to protect the character of this neighborhood, commenting there has been no change to warrant changing the Comprehensive Plan. He referred to page 41 of Ms. Eychaner's report, which addresses street setback and lot coverage, advising there is a 20 -foot street setback in a residential zone such as Holly Drive but a multifamily zone would require only a 15 -foot setback. This would result in a multifamily building appearing out of place with other buildings on the street. Lot coverage can be increased from 35% in a single- family zone to 45% in a multifamily zone. He stressed these changes would be out of character with the residential character of this neighborhood. Melissa Chapman, 610 Maple Street, Edmonds, said she has owned her home for 11 years and has seen the small town beauty of Edmonds replaced by condominiums. She urged the Council to preserve the small town feeling in the single - family zone. Al Rutledge, 7101 Lake Ballinger Way, Edmonds, said rezone to multifamily would increase the population in neighborhoods which would result in financial gain for City businesses. However, it appears citizens do not want that. ' Hearing no further comment, Mayor Fahey closed the public participation portion of the hearing Councilmember White asked why the Multifamily - High Density designations on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map had curved edges and bisects lots. Mr., Wilson answered it was a function of the graphic tools available.when the map was developed. Further, when the Land Use Map was developed, a decision was made not to show designations as sharp lines that follow property lines. The rounded corners were intended -to indicate there is some latitude to adjust the designation for properties on a situation -by- situation basis. Mayor Fahey remanded the matter to the Council for deliberation. COUNCILMEMBER EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER VAN HOLLEBEKE, TO DENY THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP CHANGE FROM SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO MULTIFAMILY - HIGH DENSITY AND REZONE FROM RS -6 TO RM- 1.5. Councilmember Earling recalled a couple of years ago the term "zone creep" was introduced. This occurs in areas throughout the community where exceptions are made for one property, which begins to Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 1, 1999 Page 16 change the character of a neighborhood. He said the City has made designations in the Comprehensive Plan for a reason and it is clear this is a residential neighborhood that should be maintained to uphold the integrity of the community. Councilmember White said that although the City is required to create high density areas to be consistent with the GMA, the' Comprehensive Plan is reviewed each year to ensure it is consistent with the criteria of the GMA. He said the most common theme among residents is "maintain the character of Edmonds," and this request does not seek to maintain the character of Edmonds. He did not find any justification.in the criteria in ECDC 20.00.050 that would require the City to 1) determine the proposed amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, 2) determine that the amendment would not be detrimental to the public interest or 3) whether it would be compatible with the current use. Councilmember Van Hollebeke said this is a good example of zoning creep. He supported the motion as he felt approving it would "open a can of worms" in the City. Council President Haakenson recalled during the past four years, citizens have asked that the City stop allowing construction of condominiums, townhouses, and apartments; in some cases, this cannot be done because the zoning allows it. However, this is an instance where the Council has an opportunity to stop that from occurring. He observed the subject property is surrounded on three sides by the single - family designation. MOTION CARRIED. B. REOUEST BY JERRY & MILLIE GIRMUS, PROPERTY OWNER,_ TO CHANGE THE EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 534 4m AVENUE SOUTH FROM "SINGLE- FAMILY -SMALL LOT" TO MULTIFAMILY —HIGH DENSITY," TOGETHER WITH A CONCURRENT APPLICATION TO REZONE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM "RS -6" TO "RM -1.5." FILE NO. CDC -98 -1, CDC -98 -150, R -98 -151 Lu I Planning Supervisor• Jeff Wilson said this is a similar request where the property owner is seeking an Baring amendment to the Comprehensive Plan as well as a concurrent rezone. He displayed a vicinity map DC -98 -1B illustrating the Comprehensive Plan designations in the area and identified the property. He explained the request is to amend the Comprehensive Plan from Single - Family - Small Lot to Multifamily - High Density as well as a concurrent rezone to multifamily to allow redevelopment of the site from single - family use to a higher density, multifamily use. This parcel is far detached from the multifamily designation area to the north and only slightly related to the multifamily designation across 41 Avenue to the east of the property. The Planning Board reviewed this request in December 1998, determined an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan in this area would not be consistent with the criteria and recommended the amendment be denied. As a result, the concurrent rezone would be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation. Mr. Wilson recalled the Council approved a rezone for parcels further north via a contract rezone to allow the multifamily designation to permit construction of two units per lot (a duplex) on each parcel. His conversations with the applicant and Planning Board indicates this is what the applicant is seeking. The applicant was advised there were other options for accomplishing that action without amending the Comprehensive Plan or a rezone such as under the City's existing accessory dwelling unit ordinance if the second unit was for a member of the family. Future planned amendments to the accessory dwelling. unit provisions may allow them to accomplish their goals. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 1, 1999 Page 17 Councilmember White asked if the Council was to consider both the Comprehensive Plan amendment and the rezone and, if so, were there any different standards to be considered. City Attorney Scott Snyder advised if the Council chose not to amend the Comprehensive Plan, the rezone could not be approved because it would not be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. If the Council denied the request for change in the Comprehensive Plan designation, absent any discussion on the rezone, his findings would indicate the rezone was also denied. Mr. Snyder asked if there was any indication in the City's Comprehensive Plan process that the City does not have sufficient density to meet its growth planning guidelines. Mr. Wilson answered the City has sufficient density in the current designations to meet the density projections. Applicant The applicants, Jerry and Millie Girmus, were not present. Mayor Fahey opened the public participation portion of the hearing. Henry Larsen, 514 3rd Avenue S, Edmonds, a 37 -year Edmonds resident, was opposed to this request. He asked for a clarification of Multifamily - High Density and asked if it could result in a three -story condominium behind his house. Mr. Wilson explained the Multifamily - High Density designation equates to RM -1.5 zoning, one unit per 1500 square feet of lot area. Any development would be subject to the same 25 -foot height limitations, but would have the ability to obtain an additional 5 feet if certain design parameters are met. He said there is no stipulation on the number of floors, the City measures height only by feet. Mr. Larsen urged the Council to consider that there are six other lots on the west side of 4' who could request the same change in their Comprehensive Plan designation and the Council likely could not deny their requests if this request is granted. He referred to jokes about the number of condominiums in Edmonds, commenting there are a lot of feelings against condominiums. He asked if County growth figures put pressure on the City to increase density and felt the County's growth figures should be only projections of what might occur and not a target to be met by eliminating single - family housing. Ed McMorrow, 1024 4 " Avenue, Edmonds, observed south of Howell Way there is a lot that is zoned for condominiums. Mr. Wilson identified the three parcels that are part of a contract rezone. They could have had higher density under the RM -2.4 zoning but the contract rezone stipulated that no more. than two units per lot would be permitted (duplexes on each of the three lots). Mr. McMorrow asked if that same parameter was stipulated in this request. Mayor Fahey answered no. Mr. McMorrow said he was opposed to the requested change in the Comprehensive Plan designation. Gwen Diason -Wood, 900 5 " Avenue S, Edmonds, said she lives in a condominium that faces 41. She was saddened to see more and more of Edmonds changing, noting the area under consideration has single - family homes on both sides of 41 and on 3`d. She said if one property changes to a multifamily designation, others would follow. She said some residents have indicated their plans to move because they fear this happening. She requested the Council not change the zoning. Hearing no further comment, Mayor Fahey closed the public participation portion of the hearing. In response to a question raised by Mr. Larsen, Mr. Snyder explained the GMA requires that all future urban growth occur in urban areas. Each county establishes growth guidelines /targets and each city's Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 1, 1999 Page 18 7 i Comprehensive Plan is required to make adequate provision for that density. Mr. Wilson indicated the City has adequate density to meet its needs; therefore, there is no change in circumstances (one of the criteria for approving a change in the Comprehensive Plan designation). As long as the City has adequate urban density to meet its projections, there is no compelling reason to increase the areas for multifamily development. COUNCILMEMBER EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WHITE, TO DENY THE REQUEST FOR THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP CHANGE FROM SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO MULTIFAMILY - HIGH DENSITY AND THE REZONE FROM RS- 6 TO RM -1.5. MOTION CARRIED. C. REVIEW AND CONSIDERATION OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR PROPERTIES WITHIN THE "WESTGATE CORRIDOR." SPECIFICALLY THE FOLLOWING: 1) REVIEW AND CONSIDERATION OF . CHANGING THE CURRENT "CORRIDOR DEVELOPMENT - MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL" DESIGNATION FOR THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 540, 550, 600, 606, AND 612 EDMONDS WAY; AND 10826 KULSHAN ROAD TO "SINGLE- FAMILY" LAND USE DESIGNATION. ublie Senior Planner Steve Bullock displayed a map of the Westgate Corridor identifying locations 1, 2 and 3 Baring (which correspond to areas A, B, and C in the Council packet) and their Comprehensive Plan DC -98 -1C designations. He directed the Council's attention to page 144 of the packet, a vicinity map illustrating the existing zoning. Mr. Bullock referred to the area under consideration (C 1) that is currently zoned RS -6 and RS -12. The Comprehensive Plan map identifies the property as Medium Density Residential. Approximately one year ago, when the Council deliberated on Comprehensive Plan designations for the Westgate Corridor, these three areas were remanded to the Planning Board for further consideration and recommendation on the appropriate Comprehensive Plan designation as the Comprehensive Plan designation and the zoning were inconsistent. Following testimony received at the Planning Board's public hearings, they recommended the Comprehensive Plan designation for this area be changed to Single- Family - Small Lot, making a majority of the existing zoning consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation. Councilmember Earling asked if the property at 10826 Kulshan Road was within Edmonds. Mr. Bullock answered yes. Councilmember Earling inquired about the size of the existing lot. Mr. Bullock advised he was uncertain of the exact size; it is the northern most lot on the map and is in the RS -6 zone and possibly a small corner in the RS -8 zone. He said the Town of Woodway indicated to the Planning Board that they would not allow more than one unit to access this lot from Kulshan Road; therefore, it cannot be subdivided and access provided from Kulshan Road. The Department of Transportation also will not permit additional access from SR 104 so the lot is effectively undividable. Mayor Fahey opened the public participation portion of the hearing. Theresa Molnar, 540 Edmonds Way, Edmonds, a resident of Edmonds Way for 16 years, said when they purchased the property, they were aware there were restrictions on access from SR 104 that the previous owner agreed to. They would like the property to remain a single- family residence but questioned whether they were paying taxes on single- family or multifamily zoned property. Mayor Fahey answered that would be a question for the County Auditor as the City does not have the formula basis for the assessment. At this time, according to the City's map, the property is designated Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 1, 1999 Page 19 Medium Density Residential, which would allow more than one residence. Mr. Bullock clarified the current Comprehensive Plan designation would allow multifamily zoning but the current zoning is single family. Mayor Fahey said the County Auditor would not assess the property based on a potential change. Mayor Fahey clarified the recommendation was to maintain the status quo of the current zoning. Ms. Molnar asked if the Council had the power to overrule DOT's decision. Mr. Snyder answered the City zones property but cannot waive rights that have been acquired by the state. Ms. Molnar said her concern was if the City planned to rezone their property to multifamily, they would be required to pay taxes on that basis but the property could only be used as a single- family residence. Mayor Fahey explained the recommendation is not to change the zoning to multifamily, the intent is to bring the Comprehensive Plan into compliance with the existing zoning and use. Ms. Molnar summarized the property is zoned single family and the intent is to maintain the single - family zoning. COUNCIL PRESIDENT HAAKENSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MILLER, TO EXTEND THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR 45 MINUTES AND THE MEETING AN ADDITIONAL 15 MINUTES (FOR A TOTAL OF 60 MINUTES). MOTION CARRIED. Thomas Pointer, 550 Edmonds Way, Edmonds, said according to the information provided, the property is already designated "Corridor Development - Medium Density Residential" rather than single family. He said it appeared the intent was to change it to single family in the future. Mr. Bullock explained the City has two maps, the Zoning Map, which drives and controls development and the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. The Zoning Map currently identifies this area as single family, an RS zoning classification. The Comprehensive Plan identifies it as Corridor Development - Medium Density Residential. The Planning Board discussed this and recommended changing the Comprehensive Plan designation to single family so that it is consistent with the zoning. Hearing no further comment Mayor Fahey closed the public participation portion of the hearing. She asked if any Councilmember wished to make any disclosures. There were no disclosures. Mayor Fahey asked if any member of the audience objected to the participation of any Councilmember in this process. There were no objections. Mayor Fahey remanded the matter to Council for deliberation. COUNCILMEMBER MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST, TO APPROVE THE CHANGE FROM MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO SINGLE - FAMILY - SMALL LOT. MOTION CARRIED. Mr. Snyder said the Findings would cite the restriction on access and the incompatibility of developing the property with the existing access and right -of -way. 2) REVIEW AND CONSIDERATION OF CHANGING THE CURRENT "CORRIDOR DEVELOPMENT - PLANNED BUSINESS" DESIGNATION FOR THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 601 EDMONDS WAY AND 560 PARADISE LANE TO A "MULTIFAMILY - MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL" LAND USE DESIGNATION. Mayor Fahey asked if any Councilmember wished to make any disclosures. There were no disclosures. Mayor Fahey asked if any member of the audience objected to the participation of any Councilmember in this process. There were no objections. Senior Planner Steve Bullock displayed a map illustrating the Comprehensive Plan designations in the area, identifying this triangular shaped group of properties which is identified on the Comprehensive Plan map as Planned Business. This was presented to the Council a year ago as a rezone request because Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 1, 1999 Page 20 the current zoning of the property is single family and a rezone was sought to make the area consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation of Planned Business. Following the Council's review of that proposal, a decision was made to remand the Comprehensive Plan designation of the three properties to the Planning Board as it was felt a Planned Business designation was not appropriate. The Planning Board reviewed this issue including input from the neighborhood. Mr. Bullock pointed out there are some access limitations due to SR 104, as well as concern on Paradise Lane due to the single - family nature and character of the properties on the north and east. As a result, although it began as a Medium Density Residential designation to the Comprehensive Plan for these properties, the Planning Board recommends the properties be designated in the Comprehensive Plan as single - family residential. Ed McMarrow, 1024 4 " Avenue S, Edmonds, said the agenda indicates a change to Multifamily - Medium Density. Mr. Bullock explained staff s original recommendation to the Planning Board was to consider designating this area as Multifamily - Medium Density Residential. The original notification language has been maintained throughout this process. The Planning Board recommended single- family residential rather than Multifamily - Medium Density Residential. For Council President Haakenson, Mr. Bullock explained staff s original recommendation was Medium Density Residential. The matter has been advertised the same to maintain consistency. Council President Haakenson clarified staff recommended Medium Density Residential and the Planning Board recommended single family. Mr. Bullock agreed. Council President Haakenson questioned whether the audience understood this. Mr. Bullock said it was clear at the Planning Board meeting that their recommendation was single - family residential. City Clerk Sandy Chase said specific letters were sent to the area indicating the Planning Board's recommendation. Mayor Fahey asked if the Planning Board's recommendation to designate the properties single - family residential was made in response to comments made by the public. Mr. Bullock answered yes. Mayor Fahey said the Planning Board's record would demonstrate the people in that area expressed a desire to have the property designated single family rather than multifamily. Mr. Bullock answered yes, overwhelmingly. Al Rutledge, 7101 Lake Ballinger Way, Edmonds, said it appears some property owners are not interested in single family. Mayor Fahey advised a letter was received prior to tonight's meeting from Diane and Takashi Nasa (557 Paradise Lane) and copies distributed to the Council stating their opposition to Multifamily and Medium Density Residential and in support of the Planning Board's recommendation to change the Comprehensive Plan designation to single family. Hearing no further comment, Mayor Fahey closed the public participation portion of the hearing and remanded this issue to the Council for deliberation. COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER VAN HOLLEBEKE, TO UPHOLD THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING BOARD (APPROVE THE CHANGE TO SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENTIAL). MOTION CARRIED. Mr. Snyder advised the Council's findings would cite the inappropriate traffic impacts and conflicts listed on page 147 and 148 of the Council packet. 3) REVIEW AND CONSIDERATION OF CHANGING THE CURRENT "SINGLE - FAMILY - SMALL LOT" DESIGNATION TO THE "CORRIDOR . DEVELOPMENT - PLANNED BUSINESS" DESIGNATION FOR THE Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 1, 1999 Page 21 PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 744, 745 748 AND 749 15TH WAY; AND 717 AND 720 STREET SOUTHWEST. Mayor Fahey asked if any Councilmember wished to make any disclosures. There were no disclosures. Mayor Fahey asked if any member of the audience objected to the participation of any Councilmember in this process. There were no objections. Senior Planner Steve Bullock identified the two properties on the corner of 15" Street SW where the Council approved a rezone to Planned Business approximately a year ago as those properties were part of the Westgate Corridor. During their consideration, the Council directed staff and the Planning Board to determine where the line for Planned Business designation should be. The Planning Board took considerable public testimony on this issue in December /January and, almost without exception, the neighborhoods that are adjacent to the Planned Business area, both on 15' Street SW and within the 15' Way cul -de -sac indicated they had viable single - family neighborhoods and did not feel the noise or traffic from Edmonds Way impacted their neighborhoods. They felt any expansion of the Planned Business zone would be an intrusion into their single - family neighborhoods. The Planning Department agreed this is a viable single- family neighborhood and the impact from Edmonds Way is not sufficient to justify a change to the Planned Business designation. Mayor Fahey opened the public participation portion of the hearing. Charles Brady, 727 15" Street SW, Edmonds, urged the Council to uphold the Planning Board's recommendation. He pointed out the concern for small children in their neighborhood who catch the school bus nearby. He said additional business activity would increase traffic on 151 Way SW, which many people currently utilize to reach 9' Avenue. He said the Police Department has worked to enforce the use of the signal but often people run the red light. He urged the Council to maintain this as a viable neighborhood. Brenda Banger, 1508 8" Place S, Edmonds, said their back garden would become part of the business zoning if the designation is changed. She explained they moved to this house 20 years ago because of the cul -de -sac, the cemetery next door, and the peaceful, quiet neighborhood. If the zoning is changed, a business could be located along their back fence. She said if the Planned Business zone is extended to include their house and a block the other way to 9` ", the entire area may as well be Planned Business. William Banger, 1508 8" Place S, Edmonds, said currently a row of trees and the neighbor's trees shield them from the noise of Edmonds Way. If that area became business, he was uncertain what type of business would locate there. He was vehemently opposed to changing 151" Way to anything other than single- family residential. Craig Roloff, 7010 226" Place SW, speaking for his mother who resides at 720 141 Way SW, Edmonds, said his mother has lived in the neighborhood for 35 years. He stressed the area is truly residential. He said it would be a safer area if the traffic were kept to a minimum. Sheila Anderson, 723 15" SW, Edmonds, said she has a six -year old and intends.for him to grow up in Edmonds. She felt Edmonds was a good place and supported the residents' desire to keep Edmonds the way it is. Richard Johnson, 717 15" Street SW, Edmonds, concurred with the staff report regarding retaining the single - family zoning. Although the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Map agreed the area was single Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 1, 1999 Page 22 family, a change-was proposed due to the Comprehensive Plan change for the two corner lots. He agreed there is a significant sound barrier provided by those buildings and the trees. He observed a 15 -foot setback must still be maintained if those properties are developed as Planned Business. Mayor Fahey closed the public participation portion of the hearing. She advised correspondence was received tonight from Gerdene Adams (1506 81 Place S) regarding changing the current Single - Family - Small Lot designation to Corridor Development - Planned Business. Ms. Adams indicated her property is behind 744, 745, and 748. She purchased her house in 1992 because it was close to shopping but quiet. She said the cemetery, single - family zoning, and trees provide a buffer to the traffic on 1001 and Edmonds Way. Although traffic has increased since she purchased her home, it is still quiet in the 8'' Place cul -de -sac. She indicated business development would make the noise unbearable, the property would decline in value and would be difficult to sell. She strongly objected to the change in designation. Mayor Fahey remanded the matter to the Council for deliberation. COUNCILMEMBER MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WHITE, TO UPHOLD THE PLANNING BOARD'S RECOMMENDATION AND DENY THE PROPOSAL TO CHANGE THE SINGLE - FAMILY DESIGNATION. Councilmember Nordquist said this area was designed by Lloyd Black many years ago and is a unique, classic residential area. MOTION CARRIED. Mayor Fahey expressed her appreciation for the public's patience with this process and residents' willingness to maintain this area as single family. D. REVIEW AND CONSIDERATION OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR THE PROPERTY OWNED BY THE CITY, LOCATED SOUTH OF THE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT (230 2ND AVENUE SOUTH) FROM "MIXED -USE COMMERCIAL" TO "PARKS /OPEN SPACE." Public I Planning Supervisor Jeff Wilson displayed a map and identified the property. He said 5 - 7 years ago, caring the City acquired this property as part of some additional City -owned property because a majority of it DC -98 -ID I contains wetlands that exist to the south as part. of the Union Oil wetlands on the west side of SR 104. Although the intent was to maintain the property in its present state and prevent development, the Comprehensive Plan identifies it as a Mixed -Use Commercial area. The intent of the proposal is to change the designation from Mixed -Use Commercial to Parks to recognize the intent to maintain the property as open space and to preserve the wetlands. Mayor Fahey asked if any Councilmember wished to make any disclosures. There were no disclosures. Mayor Fahey asked if any member of the audience objected to the participation of any Councilmember in this process. There were no objections. Mayor Fahey opened the public participation portion of the hearing. Cliff Barlo, 233 3'd Avenue S, Edmonds, asked what.the City planned to do with the Parks /Open Space. Mayor Fahey answered there are no plans for additional development other than maintaining the .property as it is. This action is only to make the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Map consistent. Mr. Barlo said this area is a jungle with trees at every angle that block views and there are rats. He recommended Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 1, 1999 Page 23 the Parks Department do something about the property, specifically cut some of the trees to restore their views. Mayor Fahey closed the public participation portion of the hearing. City Attorney Scott Snyder suggested the Parks Department notify Mr. Barlo when the Parks Open Space Plan is reviewed. Mayor Fahey remanded the matter to Council for deliberation. COUNCILMEMBER MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST, TO UPHOLD THE PLANNING BOARD'S RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST TO CHANGE THE DESIGNATION FROM MIXED -USE COMMERCIAL TO PARK/OPEN SPACE. MOTION CARRIED. i E. HEARING ON PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE TEXT PORTIONS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO UPDATE THE UTILITIES ELEMENT (STORMWATER DRAINAGE) BY ADOPTING THE COMPLETED MEADOWDALE AND PERRINVILLE CREEK DRAINAGE STUDIES Public Mayor Fahey asked if any Councilmember wished to make any disclosures. There were no disclosures. Baring Mayor Fahey asked if any member of the audience objected to the participation of any Councilmember DC -98 -1E in this process. There were no objections. City Engineer Jim Walker advised these are two studies undertaken to update the existing Utilities Element of the Comprehensive Plan. The Perrinville Street Stabilization Study is a more detailed pre- design study related to the Perrinville Creek study done in 1991. The other study is the Meadowdale Drainage Investigation, which was completed following the landslides that occurred and new complaints regarding drainage issues that the City was previously unaware of The study recommended improvements in the area to reduce the landslide hazard and address drainage problems in that area. The Planning Board recommended inclusion of both studies in the Comprehensive Plan. Mayor Fahey opened the public participation portion of the hearing. Hearing no comment, she closed the public participation portion of the hearing. COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER VAN HOLLEBEKE, TO ADOPT THE STUDIES AS PART OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. MOTION CARRIED. i Council President Haakenson thanked the Planning Board for their review of these issues. i 7. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Running for At Rutledge, 7101 Lake Ballinger Way, Edmonds, announced his intent to run for political office this Pffice fall. He advised he attended the joint City Council /School Board meeting on May 27 regarding the siting of an aquatic center. He was impressed with the comments made by Mr. Nordquist and indicated he faxed him some information regarding the aquatic center that could be provided to anyone who called him. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 1, 1999 Page 24 9. MAYOR'S REPORT Lulation Mayor Fahey acknowledged the Fire Department and Police Department for their participation in the accident scene simulation at Edmonds - Woodway High School. She said the simulation clearly demonstrat ed the trauma of an accident and the problems that can be created by driving under the influence. She felt it was an excellent presentation and has heard a great deal of feedback regarding its impact. She thanked Councilmember Van Hollebeke for his participation in the presentation. emorial Mayor Fahey acknowledged the efforts of the Cemetery Board for the Memorial, Day Ceremony. She Day thanked the Councilmembers as well as the members of the public who attended the ceremony to eremony recognize the sacrifices made by veterans and their families. 10. COUNCIL REPORTS COUNCIL PRESIDENT HAAKENSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MILLER, TO EXCUSE COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST FROM THE MAY 18 MEETING. MOTION CARRIED, COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST ABSTAINED FROM THE VOTE. Council President Haakenson wished Councilmember Plunkett a Happy Birthday. Councilmember Nordquist commented the meeting with the School Board was a wonderful experience ja ting d that should be repeated in the near future. He was impressed with the young families' interest in the ool B rd P P Y g morial Memorial Day Ceremony at the cemetery. He thanked Dale Hoggins, Chair of the Cemetery Board, for emony his efforts. He commented Councilmember Earling's son's recitation of the Gettysburg Address was remarkable. He hoped the Memorial Day Ceremony would continue to be an annual event. Councilmember Miller commended Mr. Hoggins and the Cemetery Board for their efforts. He said it was nice to see youth taking an interest in Memorial Day. COUNCILMEMBER WHITE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER VAN HOLLEBEKE, TO EXCUSE COUNCILMEMBER MILLER FROM THE MAY 25 AND MAY 27 COUNCIL MEETINGS. MOTION CARRIED, COUNCILMEMBER MILLER ABSTAINED FROM THE VOTE. Councilmember Earling echoed the comments regarding Mr. Hoggins. He reiterated Councilmember Youth Nord uist's comments regarding the value of youth coming to events such as the Memorial Da Participation q g g Y g Y in the Ceremony and their parents' recognition of the history. He commended Mr. Hoggins' efforts. to Community encourage participation by youth in the community. Downtown Mayor Fahey announced a Subcommittee of the City Council will hold a Special Meeting on Parking Wednesday, June 2 at 4:00 p.m. in the Human Resources Conference Room in City Hall to discuss Committee financing options for the proposed downtown parking garage. She said anyone interested in this issue Meeting was invited to attend the meeting. With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:50 p.m. BARBARA S. FAHEY, MAYOR SANDRA S. CHASE, CITY'.CLERK Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 1, 1999 Page 25 AGENDA EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL — b Plaza Meeting Room - Library Building 650 Main Street 7:00 -10:00 mm. JUNE 1, 1999 7:00 P.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 25, 1999 (C) APPROVAL OF CLAIM WARRANTS #29388 THROUGH #33075 FOR THE WEEK OF MAY 24, 1999, IN THE AMOUNT OF $152,003.30. (D) ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES FROM MARGARET V. QUINE ($500,000.00), PATTI ANN HOY ($15,121.42), ERIC AND CHRISTINE THUESEN ($243.00), AND DR. BRUCE BARNES, ATKINS- BARNES CHIROPRACTIC CENTER (Approx. $4,915.00) (E) UPDATE ON HIGHWAY 99 PROJECT AND COUNCIL CONCURRENCE WITH CITY OF LYNNWOOD AWARD OF BID TO WILDER CONSTRUCTION (F) REPORT ON BIDS OPENED MAY 25, 1999 FOR FURNISHINGS, FIXTURES AND EQUIPMENT FOR THE PUBLIC SAFETY PROJECT, AND AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR BASE BID ITEM C TO INTERIOR DEVELOPMENT EAST LTD. IN THE AMOUNT OF $47,716.67 (Including Sales Tax) (G) REPORT ON BIDS OPENED MAY 25, 1999 FOR FURNISHINGS, FIXTURES AND EQUIPMENT FOR THE PUBLIC SAFETY PROJECT, AND AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR BASE BID ITEMS A, R, S AND T TO BANK & OFFICE INTERIORS IN THE AMOUNT OF $16,902.11 (Including Sales Tax) (H) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT RELATED TO THE 800 MHz PROJECT (1) PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF CITY CODE CHAPTER 5.01, PRELIMINARY ARTICLE, BY THE REPEAL OF SECTION 5.01.040, CONTEMPT, AND THE ENACTMENT IN ITS PLACE OF A NEW SECTION 5.01.040, CONTEMPT 3. (20 Min.) PUBLIC HEARING ON THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER REGARDING AN APPLICATION BY HOWLAND HOMES, LLC TO AMEND THE OFFICIAL STREET MAP FOR THE PLAN - LINED RIGHT -OF -WAY OF THE 88TH AVENUE WEST RIGHT -OF -WAY IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 8729 MAIN STREET. THE RIGHT -OF -WAY ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY 30 -FEET WIDE, WITH AN ADDITIONAL 30 -FOOT DEDICATION REQUIREMENT. THE APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED THE CITY REVIEW THE NEED FOR 60 -FEET OF RIGHT -OF -WAY AND CONSIDER CHANGING THE MAP AND THEREBY REDUCING THE REQUIREMENT TO 30 FEET. (Applicant: Howland Homes, LLC / File No. ST- 99 -26) 4. (30 Min.) PUBLIC HEARING ON A REQUEST TO VACATE A 10 -FOOT WIDE BY 113 -FOOT LONG PORTION OF THE 218TH PLACE SOUTHWEST RIGHT -OF -WAY IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO 9405 - 218TH PLACE SOUTHWEST. (Applicant: Larry Wax / File No. ST- 99 -52) 5. (95 Min.) PUBLIC HEARING ON INTERIM ORDINANCE NO. 3247 AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 17.40.010(C) TO LIMIT THE APPLICATION OF THE CITY'S ABATEMENT PROCESS TO NONCONFORMING COMMERCIAL, BUSINESS AND INDUSTRIAL USES LOCATED IN RESIDENTIAL ZONES CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA JUNE 1, 1999 Page 2 6. (75 Min.) PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING PROPOSED TEXT AND LAND USE MAP AMENDMENTS TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. (Applicant: Edmonds Planning Division / File No. CDC- 98 -1). THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS ARE: A. REQUEST BY MR. RON GARD, TRUSTEE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, TO CHANGE THE EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 506 6TH AVENUE SOUTH FROM "SINGLE- FAMILY —SMALL LOT" TO "MULTIFAMILY —HIGH DENSITY," TOGETHER WITH A CONCURRENT APPLICATION TO REZONE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM "RS -6" TO "RM -1.5." FILE NO. CDC -98 -1, CDC -97 -139, & R -97 -140. B. REQUEST BY JERRY & MILLIE GIRMUS, PROPERTY OWNER, TO CHANGE THE EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 534 4TH AVENUE SOUTH FROM "SINGLE- FAMILY —SMALL LOT" TO "MULTIFAMILY —HIGH -DENSITY," TOGETHER WITH A CONCURRENT APPLICATION TO REZONE THE .SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM "RS -6" TO "RM -1.5." FILE NO. CDC -98 -1, CDC -98 -150, R -98 -151. C. REVIEW AND CONSIDERATION OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR PROPERTIES WITHIN THE "WESTGATE CORRIDOR." SPECIFICALLY, THE FOLLOWING: 1) REVIEW AND CONSIDERATION OF CHANGING THE CURRENT "CORRIDOR DEVELOPMENT – MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL" DESIGNATION FOR THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 540, 550, 600, 606, AND 612 EDMONDS WAY; AND 10826 KULSHAN ROAD TO "SINGLE- FAMILY" LAND USE DESIGNATION. 2) REVIEW AND CONSIDERATION OF CHANGING THE CURRENT "CORRIDOR DEVELOPMENT – PLANNED BUSINESS" DESIGNATION FOR THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 601 EDMONDS WAY AND 560 PARADISE LANE TO A "MULTIFAMILY – MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL" LAND USE DESIGNATION. 3) REVIEW AND CONSIDERATION OF CHANGING THE CURRENT "SINGLE- FAMILY – SMALL LOT" DESIGNATION TO THE "CORRIDOR DEVELOPMENT – PLANNED BUSINESS" DESIGNATION FOR THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 744, 745, 748, . AND 749 15TH WAY; AND 717 AND 720 15TH STREET SOUTHWEST D. REVIEW AND CONSIDERATION OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR THE PROPERTY OWNED BY THE CITY, LOCATED SOUTH OF THE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT (230 2ND AVENUE SOUTH) FROM "MIXED USE COMMERCIAL" TO "PARKS /OPEN SPACE." E. HEARING ON PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE TEXT PORTIONS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO UPDATE THE UTILITIES ELEMENT (STORMWATER DRAINAGE) BY ADOPTING THE COMPLETED MEADOWDALE AND PERRINVILLE CREEK DRAINAGE STUDIES. 7. AUDIENCE COMMENTS (3 Minute Limit Per Person) (5 Min.) PROCLAMATION IN RECOGNITION OF NATIONAL FLAG DAY ON JUNE 14, 1999 9: (5 Min.) MAYOR'S REPORT 10. (15 Min.) COUNCIL REPORT Parking and meeting rooms are accessible for persons with disabilities. Contact the City Clerk at (425) 771 -0245 with 24 hours advance notice for special accommodations. The Council Agenda appears on Chambers Cable, Channel 32. Delayed telecast of this meeting appears the following Wednesday, Friday and Monday at noon on Channel 32.