08/01/2000 City Council1
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES
AUGUST 1, 2000
Following a Special Meeting at 6:30 p.m. for an Executive Session regarding real estate and legal
matters, the Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:03 p.m. by Mayor Haakenson in the
Library Plaza Room, 650 Main Street. The meeting was opened with the flag salute.
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Gary Haakenson, Mayor
Thomas A. Miller, Council President
Dave Earling, Councilmember
Michael Plunkett, Councilmember
Jim White, Councilmember
Lora Petso, Councilmember
Dave Orvis, Councilmember
Christopher Davis, Councilmember
ALSO PRESENT
Kim Boese, Student Representative
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
STAFF PRESENT
Peggy Hetzler, Administrative Services Director
Rob Chave, Planning Manager
Don Fiene, Assistant City Engineer
Meg Gruwell, Planner
Scott Snyder, City Attorney
Linda Hynd, Deputy City Clerk
Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst.
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
Change to I Mayor Haakenson advised staff requested Consent Agenda Item E (Report on Bids Received July 10,
genda 1 2000 for the Construction of the Perrinville and North Perrinville Sanitary Sewer — LID 215 and 216, and
Award of Contract to Shoreline Construction Company in the Amount of $2,252,740.84; Including Sales
Tax) be removed from the Consent Agenda and presented to the Council next week. Mayor Haakenson
requested the title of Consent Agenda,Item G be revised to reflect parking lot improvements at Woodway
Elementary, rather than Madrona Elementary.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, FOR
APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA WITH THE CHANGES DESCRIBED BY MAYOR
HAAKENSON. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
Council President Miller requested Item B be removed from the Consent Agenda.
COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, FOR
APPROVAL OF THE BALANCE OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows:
(A) ROLL CALL
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 1, 2000
Page 1
Approve
Claim (C) APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #35993 THROUGH #42535 FOR THE WEEK OF
hecks
JULY 17, 2000 IN THE AMOUNT OF $124,762.88
Hwy 99
Project (D) UPDATE ON HIGHWAY 99 PROJECT
164" SW & (F) REPORT ON FINAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR THE MEADOWDALE STORM
1589,
Improve- DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS (164TH STREET SW) AND SANITARY SEWER LINE
ents REPLACEMENT (158TH STREET SW) AND COUNCIL ACCEPTANCE OF PROJECT
Woodway (G) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH
Elementary EDMONDS SCHOOL DISTRICT 15 FOR CITY TO MANAGE PARKING LOT
Parking Lot IMPROVEMENTS AT AC4BRON WOODWAY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL IN
Improve-
ments CONJUNCTION WITH THE CITY WALKWAY IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
Item B: Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of July 25, 2000
Council President Miller requested the third sentence, fourth paragraph, on page 11 be revised to read as
follows: "He agreed with Councilmember Earling regarding the need to develop a plan to consider other
City's need but cautioned against waiting until August next year to make a decision."
Approve
7/25 COUNCIL PRESIDENT MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DAVIS, FOR
Minutes as APPROVAL OF ITEM B AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The item
Amended approved is as follows:
(B) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JULY 25, 2000
Application
for Rezone -
3. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION TO DENY THE
Elm Way & APPLICATION BY INES ANGIONO- FOURNO, ET. AL. TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY TWO
6 °i Ave. S ACRES FROM RM -3 TO RM -1.5. THE REZONE INCLUDES THE FOLLOWING
Angiono- PROPERTIES: 533, 539, 551, 553, 558, 560, 561, 563, 565, 570, 572, 580, 582, 588 AND 590 ELM
F - WAY: AND 1122 6TH
File ile N o. AVENUE SOUTH (File No. R -99 -231)
N
R -99 -231
Planner Meg Gruwell displayed a map of the proposed rezone. She explained the entire area was
currently zoned RM -3 and was located behind the Highland Park Condominiums and north and south of
Elm Way. The proposal was to rezone the area from RM -3 to RM -1.5.
Mayor Haakenson advised this was a quasi judicial matter and asked if any Councilmember wished to
disclose any ex -parte contact. Councilmember Petso said she received a telephone message regarding
the matter as well as had a conversation prior to receiving the Council packet. She said the contacts
would have no impact on her decision. City Attorney Scott Snyder explained ex -parte contact under the
Appearance of Fairness Doctrine, required a Councilmember to put the substance of the comments in the
records so that they could be addressed in the hearing. Once the comments have been placed in the
record, the Councilmember was free to participate.
Councilmember Petso asked whether she needed to state who made the comments or merely the
substance of the comments. Mr. Snyder answered only the substance. Councilmember Petso
paraphrased both comments as "watch out for condominium creep" and not to allow condominiums to
crawl up the hill.
Councilmember Earling advised his company had a property listed in the project immediately adjacent to
the property proposed to be rezoned. Mr. Snyder asked Councilmember Earling if he would receive any
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 1, 2000
Page 2
direct compensation due to the rezone or if the value of the listed property would be impacted by the
rezone. Councilmember Earling answered no. Mr. Snyder asked Councilmember Earling if he was the
listing agent. Councilmember Earling answered no, one of the agents in his office was the listing agent.
Mr. Snyder advised this was not a conflict.
Mayor Haakenson asked if there were any challenges . to Councilmembers Petso or Earling's
participation. There were no challenges stated. Mayor Haakenson advised all Councilmembers would
participate in the public hearing.
Mayor Haakenson reviewed time limits for the hearing, stating the applicant would be allowed 15
minutes for their presentation and could retain some of that time for rebuttal.
Ms. Gruwell explained the proposed rezone from RM -3 to RM -1.5 would reduce by half the amount of
area required for a unit, essentially doubling the density of the area. She referred to the reasons for and
against the rezone that staff had outlined in the staff report. She said staff recommended approval of the
rezone because the location along 5t" Avenue had a lot in common with properties that were currently
zoned RM -1.5. Ms. Gruwell said a great deal of testimony was received at the Planning Board public
hearing where the primary concerns were parking, particularly from residents of the Highland Park
Condominiums who cited the lack of guest parking and limited parking in the area, traffic particularly
due to the S -curve and difficulty backing out of existing angle parking, as well as concern for the stream
in the Willow Creek Condominiums. The Planning Board's discussion focused on the Comprehensive
Plan map and the bubble diagram of the area. She commented this area was outside the bubble
designating high - density residential and was nearer to the single - family residential designation. She said
the Planning Board raised a concern that the proposal was not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan
map. The Planning Board was also concerned with providing a buffer between the single - family
residential area and the condominiums /apartments on 5`h Avenue. She said the Planning Board
recommended denial, stating the proposal did not match the Comprehensive Plan, they desired a buffer,
there was no change to justify the rezone, and felt the rezone would harm the single - family residential
neighborhood to the north and east.
Ms. Gruwell advised the City received two letters since the Planning Board public hearing opposing the
rezone citing traffic, safety, parking and the quiet area. The City also received one letter in favor of the
rezone from the applicant's representative, Michael Smith, Lovell - Sauerland, stating the Architectural
Design Board (ADB) could ensure compatibility. Ms. Gruwell commented the density, setbacks, etc.
would not be regulated by zoning and could not be changed by the ADB.
Ms. Gruwell explained the Council's options were to 1) adopt the Planning Board's recommendation to
deny the proposed rezone and direct the City Attorney to prepare a resolution, or 2) reject the Planning
Board's recommendation to deny the proposed rezone and direct the City Attorney to prepare an
ordinance to amend the City's Zoning Map.
Mr. Snyder explained this was a mixed legislative/quasi-Judicial. matter. The Council was not limited to
the record such as in a closed record hearing and could ask questions of staff or the public. Mr. Snyder
referred to the Planning Board minutes which reference the line on the bubble diagram and asked if the
Planning Board had any other findings regarding inconsistency with the Comprehensive Plan. Ms.
Gruwell answered she did not recall any other. Mr. Snyder referred to the Planning Board minutes which
cite a comment from Mr. Karber (Ogden Murphy Wallace) that half the properties exceed the density
allowed under the .current zone but the record was unclear how many might be non - conforming. Mr.
Snyder inquired whether staff had researched how many properties might currently have illegal uses
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 1, 2000
Page 3
versus non - conforming uses. Ms. Gruwell said Mr. Karber was referring to information provided by the
applicant. She said information regarding the number of units on the site gathered via her research on
Metroscan and City records did not correspond.
Mr. Snyder explained the City currently had an enforcement action in suspension regarding the applicant
and the additional apartment. He was not aware of any other situations that required abatement. If the
Council failed to approve the rezone, staff would proceed with enforcement action against the applicant.
For Councilmember Orvis, Ms. Gruwell identified the high- density multi- family designation (bubble) on
the Comprehensive Plan map.
Councilmember Petso asked whether recent decisions regarding accessory dwelling units made
residential property capable of higher density. Ms. Gruwell answered no as the 6,000 square foot (per
unit) zone was the smallest single - family zoning and adding one additional unit would bring it to 3,000
square feet per unit.
Councilmember Orvis referred to the first item in the Planning Board's recommendation, "the current
zoning is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan" and asked if this meant before or after the rezone.
Ms. Gruwell answered the Planning Board felt the zoning was not in compliance with the
Comprehensive Plan when the property was rezoned in 1966 or at the present time and appeared to be an
area that should be single - family residential.
Councilmember Plunkett pointed out ECDC had standards that must be considered when reviewing an
application such as consistency with the surrounding area. He observed staff's indication that the area
appeared to be economically and physically suitable and asked if staff considered aspects other than
economic and physical such as an increase in vehicles and population. Ms. Gruwell said one reason staff
felt it was a good area for a higher density was the proximity to downtown which provides residents the
opportunity to walk to services versus other areas of the City where, if the density was increased,
residents would still need to use their vehicles to access services. She acknowledged that adding density
would change the area somewhat.
Councilmember Plunkett acknowledged the relationship to the west may be suitable but asked whether
consideration had been given to the relationship to the area to the east. Ms. Gruwell pointed out the
Willow Park Condominiums accessed onto 6' and staff felt there was some continuity as there was
already a fair amount of traffic accessing onto 5`h and possibly utilizing Elm Place to travel east.
Mr. Snyder commented Councilmember Plunkett's point was particularly relevant as the Comprehensive
Plan had both traffic and parking elements; therefore, consistency with those elements was a
requirement.
Applicant
Steven Michael Smith, Lovell Sauerland, reserved five minutes for rebuttal. Mr. Smith said staff was
presenting the project today as if it was not a good project or in the City's best interest, whereas at the
previous public hearing before the Planning Board, staff recommended approval of the project. He
concluded, therefore, that the project was at least moderately approvable in staff's estimation. He
referred to issues identified by staff such as the potential doubling of density. He said this issue also
arose as a primary concern at the Planning Board. He acknowledged doubling the density would have
significant impact to the properties on which the doubling could occur as well as surrounding properties.
He pointed out the importance of considering the value of the properties to be rezoned and the buildings
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 1, 2000
Page 4
as currently developed. He said the 6,000 square foot lots were valued at $350,000- $400,000 as
currently developed; a $350,000- $400,000 land price would not allow redevelopment of a 2 -3 unit
building to a 4 -unit building. He said there was little chance for a major change in the character of the
neighborhood as a result of this rezone.
Regarding parking, Mr. Smith pointed out there had been no quantification of the impact that would take
place as a result of a rezone. He emphasized the rezone would not add any vehicles to the area or require
additional parking spaces, therefore, discussing parking as a part of the rezone was .not appropriate. He
said parking spaces for a potential building would be addressed via the building permit. Further, no
additional traffic would be generated as a result of the rezone and any additional traffic as a result of
potential development would be addressed via the building permit. He said Edmonds' Sensitive Areas
Ordinance would address impacts to the stream and nothing in the rezone would impact the stream as
there was no development proposed with the rezone. Any further development would be required to
comply with the City's Sensitive Areas Ordinance.
Mr. Smith said the Comprehensive Plan was discussed extensively by the Planning Board; at that time,
staff indicated the bubble diagrams had never been "followed to the letter" and approximate locations
had been used with the intent there was to be some flexibility in the interpretation of those areas. He said
this could be the reason the Comprehensive Plan does not have property -by- properly designation. His
interpretation was the bubble diagrams did not identify which parcels the higher density applied to.
Based on staff's comments regarding proximity to downtown and resident's ability to walk to amenities
in downtown, it made sense to increase density in this area over time.
Mr. Smith pointed out another discouragement to a large condominium or apartment project was the
small sizes of the lots. He doubted the feasibility of a developer purchasing several lots to develop a
larger project as well as doubted a developer purchasing one lot to redevelop it with a 4 -unit building.
Regarding the relationship to the east, he said a traffic study was conducted which determined only
approximately 10% of the vehicles would travel east, approximately one peak hour trip per unit or 3 -4
vehicles during peak hours. He said their staff engineer determined this was not a significant number
and the City's Traffic Engineer agreed with this estimation. He summarized traffic would not be a
significant detriment even if all potential unit increase was realized.
Councilmember Plunkett pointed out the traffic study was not included with the Council packet. _Mr.
Smith offered to circulate the traffic report to the Council. Mr. Snyder asked if the traffic study was in
the Planning Board record. Ms. Gruwell answered no. Mr. Snyder said the traffic study could be
circulated to the Council and to the public for review.
Councilmember Plunkett asked if Mr. Smith's professional opinion was that the density in the area
would not be doubled. Mr. Smith answered he would be surprised if any new construction occurred in
that area in the next couple years due to the expense of the property for development. He said
redevelopment most often occurs on larger parcels and on less expensive properties. He said the
buildings in this area appeared to be in fairly good condition; therefore, the structures were very
valuable, making redevelopment unlikely.
Councilmember Plunkett asked if the rezone would allow a doubling of the density. Mr. Smith answered
hypothetically yes or close to it.
Mayor Haakenson requested staff make copies of the traffic report for the Council and copies to circulate
in the audience.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 1, 2000
Page 5
Councilmember Earling asked if a traffic study had been part of the planning process. Mr. Snyder
pointed out page 4 of the Planning Board minutes referred to the traffic study under comments made by
Mr. Smith, indicated he had submitted a traffic study and it was found by the City's Traffic Engineer to
meet the City's standards.
Council President Miller asked Mr. Smith to explain this comment that the lots were too small for
condominium development. Mr. Smith answered potentially the duplexes on the 6,000 square feet lots
could be demolished and replaced with 4- plexes, however, accommodating the required parking,
setbacks, landscaping, etc. would be difficult. He commented that although underground parking was an
option, it was very expensive. He said it was possible a developer could purchase all the lots and
develop a monolithic structure that was completely incompatible with surrounding properties but he
indicated he would be very surprised if that happened given the price of the property.
Councilmember Petso observed one of the criteria for a rezone was whether there was a change to the
neighborhood that justifies the change. Mr. Smith pointed out the Growth Management Act states the
intent to place density close to the urban core consisted somewhat of a change. Therefore, placement of
density close to urban cores was supported by GMA.
At Mayor Haakenson's suggestion, the Council recessed briefly to allow the Council an opportunity to
review the traffic study.
Councilmember Petso asked if the Council found no change in the surrounding neighborhood to justify
the rezone, whether that was a requirement for a rezone or allowed the Council to deny the rezone. Mr.
Snyder said it would allow the Council to deny the rezone. He said the court gave a great deal of
deference to a legislative bodies' determination of appropriate boundaries between zoning districts. He
recalled rezones had occurred in the past in areas where, because of the zoning designation, it was
practically impossible to sell the property which would be an example of changed circumstances
providing the basis for a rezone. He said in this neighborhood, although there had been some change, it
was not sufficient in his opinion to require the Council to change the zoning but left it to the Council
discretion to determine the boundary of the zoning district.
Councilmember Orvis inquired whether the traffic study was done on the maximum density. Mr. Smith
answered the traffic study was based on the potential impact (assuming an additional 25 units over the
existing traffic) so the existing units were not calculated into the impact.
Councilmember Orvis observed the traffic study indicated no specific peak level analysis was performed.
Mr. Smith answered a peak hour analysis would be appropriate at the time of a building permit as a peak
hour analysis determines level of service to an intersection. At the time of a building permit, if the level
of service of an intersection was determined to be in arrears (not performing to the City's minimum
standard), the building permit would either be denied or include mitigation to bring the intersection to the
City's minimum operating standard. Councilmember Orvis commented the traffic study was not a full
study. Mr. Smith responded it was a full study for the action before the Council; performing a level of
service analysis now was not warranted as there would be no new trips generated as a result of this
action. He clarified there were different parts of a traffic analysis such as peak hour analysis, total daily
trips and level of service analysis and not all were appropriate for every project. Mr. Snyder clarified
mitigation measures would be addressed at the permit level and further traffic analysis would be
conducted at that time.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 1, 2000
Page 6
Councilmember Plunkett observed it was appropriate for the Council to, consider any potential
increase /decrease in the value of the properties to be rezoned. Mr. Snyder answered unlike some criteria
where the Council was required to find all requirements had been met, in this instance, the Council must
consider all the criteria. The only criteria that was imperative was that zoning must be consistent with
the Comprehensive Plan.
Mayor Haakenson advised the City received a letter. from Carla Talvey, 500 Elm Way, Edmonds,
recommending the rezone be denied based on limited parking on Elm Way and potential increase in
traffic.
Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Rosa Messing, 1140 Avenue A, Edmonds, asked why the rezone was being pursued if there was no
benefit. She said this action would increase taxes, thereby increasing her taxes as well.
Erna Dawson, 1220 6" Avenue S, Edmonds, said there was a considerable tax benefit to the City but
the Planning Board was opposed to the rezone. She said the Planning Board's opposition was "good
enough for me."
Thomas Bennett, 500 Elm Way #48, Edmonds (Highland Park Condominiums), said his philosophy
was that anything that could happen would happen. Although there was no immediate affect anticipated,
the economics could change (allowing redevelopment) and he intended to live in the area for a long time.
He referred to the comment that traffic would not have a large impact because residents could walk to
downtown, pointing out it was 0.9 miles to Main Street, making it time consuming to walk and it could
not be assumed there would not be a traffic impact from increased development. He pointed out hazards
due to the S -curve in that area and felt any additional traffic would be a recipe for more accidents.
Larry Pauls, 112 Oh Avenue S, Edmonds, whose property was included in the proposed rezone, said
prior to Ines Fourno contacting him and other property owners due to the enforcement action, she
contacted staff and the Mayor who recommended she pursue the rezone. His research of Metroscan
indicated four of the nine properties were subject to enforcement action. He said although there was
potential for "big buck" development, the $350,000- $400,000 value of the 65 -70 foot wide properties as
well as limited access would limit the potential for redevelopment. He said all Ines Fourno was trying to
do was work through the proper process to "get this thing accepted." He pointed out there had not been
any public comment from Fir Place or from either side of 6"' South, the residents abutting this property,
because they all understood what this was, accepting what exists. He emphasized there was zero
potential for redevelopment.
Mayor Haakenson clarified Ms. Fourno may have been informed by staff that a rezone was an option to
enforcement. Mr. Pauls said his understanding was staff recommended a rezone rather than
enforcement.
Councilmember White asked Mr. Pauls what he was referring to as enforcement. Mr. Pauls said
apparently there was a complaint regarding too many units for the zoning of the property.
Marilyn Parker, 11116 1h Avenue South, Edmonds, said her intent was to learn more about the rezone.
If the intent was not to develop a larger condominium, she questioned why the property was being
rezoned. She questioned what the plans were for the property if the rezone was approved.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 1, 2000
Page 7
Rick Schaeffer, 535 Fir Place, Edmonds, said the argument that this action would have no impact on
parking or traffic was disingenuous. If the Council allowed the rezone to occur, the Council could not
deny a future project without denying the highest and best use of the property under the new zoning.
Although it was estimated no change would occur within two years, he planned to live in the area a long
time. He said the incremental parking affects could be assessed without a quantitative study by viewing
the parking situation in early evening or early morning — the street was lined with vehicles. He said the
street was quite narrow at the S -curve and had parking on both sides and would be affected by even one
more unit on the street. He said the area provided a nice transition from the higher density multi - family
residential on 5`h Avenue to the residential on 6 " and other cul -de -sacs. He suggested another solution to
address the pending enforcement action be identified rather than upzoning the entire area such as an
individual rezone. He questioned whether the traffic analysis considered the intersection at 01' Avenue,
pointing out more vehicles would likely result in more accidents.
Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, Edmonds, stated it was important to maintain the residential
character of neighborhoods and the current situation provided buffering. He said staff's conclusions
indicated the subject property was currently a buffer area between single- family and dense multi- family
and that homes adjacent to the properties in the single - family residential zones could experience a
decrease in property values. He referred to page 5 of the Planning Board minutes where staff indicated
buffering was desirable to step from a high - density residential area to single - family but that the
Comprehensive Plan did not provide that type of buffering in this area. He said the Comprehensive Plan
was in error, not the present zoning. He said his understanding was buffering was the key to prevent
single - family homes adjacent to high - density multi - family development. He commented this action was
to address a problem on one property. He said although the City did not recommend single property
rezones, a single property rezone versus a mass rezone would solve the problem and not impact the
neighborhood.
Hearing no further public comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public participation portion of the
public hearing.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT,
TO EXTEND THIS ITEM FOR 10 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Applicant Rebuttal
Mr. Smith referred to issues raised by the public including that a couple years was not a long enough
assurance that the property appearance would be consistent with the existing condition. Mr. Smith said
although he could not predict the future, he did not anticipate any change would occur within the next 20
years. Regarding the safety of the S- curve, he said the City's Traffic Engineer did not request an
accident history evaluation, leading him to believe that in her opinion, the situation was not unsafe.
Regarding the question why there was a request to rezone the property if there was no significant
development proposed, he answered he also was unsure why the suggestion to pursue a rezone was
made. He recalled former Planning Supervisor Jeff Wilson stated a single rezone would not be approved
and recommended pursuing a rezone for all the properties. Regarding buffering, he said even if the lots
abutting single- family development to the east redeveloped, there would be no significant change in the
neighborhood character.
Ms. Gruwell apologized that the traffic study was not included in the Council packet. She pointed out
the Mitigated Determination of Non - Significance (MDNS) indicated mitigation of $200 per p.m. peak
hour trip would be required. Although the Planning Board did not have an opportunity to review the
traffic study, they reviewed the MDNS that incorporates the findings of the traffic study and the
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 1, 2000
Page 8
mitigation of $200 per p.m. peak hour trip. Regarding the bubble diagrams, she explained it had been the
practice of the Comprehensive Plan not to identify exact property lines but rather an expandable bubble.
Regarding any potential tax increases, Ms. Gruwell said there were no proposed tax increases such as an
LID, however, property zoned for higher density often has higher taxes than property zoned for lower
density. She said there were no improvements proposed as a result of the traffic mitigation assessed, the
funds would be used for intersection improvements identified in the TIP.
Mr. Snyder observed staff indicated in the staff report that one of the benefits of the rezone would be
increased density in the downtown area. He asked whether the City was not in conformance with GMA
or Snohomish County population densities and would be required to add additional density. Ms. Gruwell
said the City was not required to add any additional density.
Mr. Snyder referred to discussion regarding the enforcement action, he said staff did not believe other
properties in the area with additional density were not legally non - conforming. Properties developed
prior to adoption of the City's zoning code which may now have more units than are permitted could be
continued unless destroyed or there was a change in use. He said the Fourno property was different
because the additional unit was developed without a building permit, therefore, the additional unit was
not vested.
Mr. Snyder commented the bubble diagram was utilized in prior Council decisions, therefore, it would
appear to be arbitrary and capricious in light of the Council's past decision - making using a bubble. He
agreed with staff's analysis that approving the rezone of one lot to recognize an existing illegal situation
that was not in conformance with the City's Comprehensive Plan and zoning map would represent an
illegal spot zone. Although the Council had the option of approving all or part of a proposed rezone,
approving a rezone solely to cure a problem would be difficult unless the other required fmdings could
also be made.
For Councilmember White, Ms. Gruwell identified the Fourno property on the map. Councilmember
White observed that was the only property that exceeded the maximum number of units and had an,
illegal structure. Ms. Gruwell answered it was the only property with a pending enforcement action.
Councilmember White observed there was an illegal structure and staff advised the property owner to
apply for a rezone to make it a legal use. Councilmember White expressed frustration that the situation,
after 1' /2 hours of discussion, was only now becoming clear. Mayor Haakenson explained a citizen filed
a complaint against the Fourno property because an addition was made without a building permit. Ms.
Fourno contacted him several times and staff worked with her to identify a way to "get her out of her
enforcement situation" and the only way staff found was a rezone. Mr. Snyder clarified an additional
unit was added without a building permit.
Councilmember White asked whether there had been any investigation regarding other properties with
similar problems. Mr. Snyder answered the City takes enforcement action based on complaint.
Following the Planning Board review, he asked staff to indicate, based on the age of the structures,
whether there was any reason to believe any were legally non - conforming structures. Staff's response
was there was nothing that would require the City to investigate and take further action. Mayor
Haakenson observed if the Council denied the rezone, the enforcement action would go forward. Mr.
Snyder agreed.
Councilmember Plunkett questioned the relevance of Councilmember White's inquiry, pointing out this
was a non -site specific rezone and regardless of the reason, an individual had the right to apply for a
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 1, 2000
Page 9
rezone. Mr. Snyder agreed. Councilmember Plunkett asked whether the background regarding the
rezone was irrelevant. Mr. Snyder answered yes, in terms of the criteria. A decision to rezone an
individual property based solely on its illegality and non - conformance with the Comprehensive Plan
would represent a spot zone. If an applicant satisfied the criteria, the Council could approve a rezone and
why the rezone was initiated would be irrelevant.
Councilmember White answered the relevance was that staff recommended a citizen pursue a rezone and
he had assumed there was some effort by a developer to upzone the area. However, that was not the
reality. Mr. Snyder explained staff advised the property owner that unless the property was rezoned, the
City would pursue the enforcement action.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, TO
EXTEND DISCUSSION OF THIS ITEM FOR TEN MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
Councilmember White said while he appreciated staff's efforts to accommodate the citizen, he did not
know what was going on with this matter until the past five minutes. He commented he had been
making erroneous assumptions because what was going on behind the scene had not been presented to
the Council.
Councilmember Petso asked if the City would pursue enforcement against any other illegal units in the
area unless the rezone was approved. Mr. Snyder answered yes.
Councilmember Davis asked if this was the only place a buffer existed between RM -1.5 and RS -6. Ms.
Gruwell identified the zoning line between the RM -1.5 and RS -6. Councilmember Davis observed there
were no buffers between the properties north of the subject property. Ms. Gruwell agreed. Mr. Snyder
said the zoning code defined "buffer" as landscaping and additional setbacks for transitions to buffer
between zoning districts. He said the courts gave great deference to the Council as they determined
where zoning lines were drawn and how the neighborhoods should transition. Councilmember Davis
clarified there was no transitional zoning between the properties north of the subject property.
Mayor Haakenson closed the public hearing and remanded the matter to Council for deliberation.
Council President Miller shared Councilmember White's concern, commenting this was a thinly veiled
spot zone to correct an illegal modification to a property. His greatest concern was the possibility of
future development of the property and although it would not "pencil out" at the present time, if it
became economically feasible in the future, it would require a monolithic apartment house to realize
sufficient financial yield from the property.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, TO
UPHOLD THE PLANNING BOARD'S DECISION AND TO DENY THE APPEAL.
Councilmember Orvis agreed with Council President Miller's comments, pointing out his concerns with
parking, the S -curve and potential detrimental impacts to surrounding properties.
Councilmember Earling indicated he would support the motion, pointing out there was little risk that the
$350,0004400,000 properties would be redeveloped for a long time. He said this was one of the best
transition areas in the community, providing a transition between the higher density area and the single
family residential area.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 1, 2000
Page 10
Councilmember Plunkett pointed out the ECDC had six standards the Council must consider for rezones.
The proposed rezone was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan which clearly did not have buffering.
The rezone met the standard of the zoning ordinance as it was consistent with the multi - family zone.
The rezone met the standard regarding change as growth had resulted in sufficient change. The area was
economically and physically suitable for multi - family zoning. He expressed concern with the standard
regarding compatibility with the surrounding area. He said the traffic study indicated there was no peak
hour level of service analysis performed and was unconvinced the traffic study measured the build -out.
He said staff recognized homes in the single - family residential zone could experience a decrease in
value. He said it was not in the City's best interest to decrease property values. He sought additional
Council input regarding these issues.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Application 4. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THE
to Rezone APPLICATION BY THE PLANNING DIVISION TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY .85 ACRES
3002 d Ave. FROM "NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS — BN" TO "PUBLIC — P" TO IMPLEMENT THE LAND
South USE AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ADOPTED UNDER FILE NO. CDC -98 -1
File No.
R -99 -149 AND PRESERVE THE WETLANDS PRESENT ON THE SITE. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED
AT 300 2ND AVENUE SOUTH (File No. R -99 -149)
Mayor Haakenson advised this was a quasi judicial matter and inquired whether any Councilmembers
had any ex -parte contact to disclose. Councilmember Petso stated she received a telephone message
urging her to ask why the City wanted the rezone. Mayor Haakenson asked if there were any challenges
to Councilmember Petso's participation. There were no challenges.
Councilmember Earling advised an agent in his company had a listing in the property across the street at
217 Alder. Mr. Snyder asked if Councilmember Earling would realize any direct benefit as a result of
the Council's decision. Councilmember Earling answered no. Mayor Haakenson asked if there were any
challenges to Councilmember Earling's participation. There were no challenges. Mayor Haakenson
advised all Councilmembers could participate in the public hearing.
Planning Manager Rob Chave explained the proposal was to rezone property that was currently zoned
Neighborhood Business. The property, located immediately south of the City's Wastewater Treatment
Plant, was acquired by the City several years ago as a wetland. The Comprehensive Plan designates the
property "Public," similar to the property to the north. The requested administrative action was to clarify
on the zoning map that it was not possible to develop the property for commercial use and zone it
"Public" consistent with the neighboring property. He said there were no plans by the City to develop
the property as it was a wetland. Even if the City wanted to develop the property, he said it would be
virtually impossible due to the highly protected wetlands and the value to the City of the property
remaining as a wetland.
Councilmember Orvis observed the "Public" zone had a 60 -foot height limit. Mr. Chave agreed,
commenting a Conditional Use Permit would be required. Councilmember Orvis asked if staff could
foresee any structure such as a cell phone tower. Mr. Chave answered no, not in a wetland.
Councilmember Orvis asked why the City desired to zone the property "Public." Mr. Snyder answered
the City was required by GMA to have consistency between its Comprehensive Plan and zoning map. If
the City did not zone the property public, the Comprehensive Plan designation would need to be
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 1, 2000
Page 11
changed. Mr. Chave answered this was a housekeeping action to bring the zoning into compliance with
the Comprehensive Plan and the current character of the property.
Councilmember Orvis inquired whether BN zoning would be appropriate. Mr. Chave answered the
property was a wetland and would be difficult if not impossible to develop.
Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Clara Stendaken, 233 3rd Avenue, Edmonds, said the trees south of the treatment plant had grown 60-
70 feet in the past five years and blocked the view from her condominium. She asked if the trees could
be removed.
Hearing no further public comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public participation portion of the
public hearing.
In response to Ms. Stendaken, Mr. Chave answered it was not permitted to remove /cut trees on public
property to provide for views. Even if the City wanted to remove the trees, it would be nearly impossible
to permit due to the wetland and native vegetation.
Mayor Haakenson remanded the matter to the Council for deliberation.
COUNCILMEMBER EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WHITE, TO
APPROVE REZONE R -99 -149 AND DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE THE
NECESSARY ORDINANCE FOR CONSENT APPROVAL. MOTION CARRIED,
COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS OPPOSED.
5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Hank Sitco, 4008 212th Street SW, #A205, Mountlake Terrace, a member of the Edmonds Police
Edmonds Foundation, described the Edmonds Challenge, sponsored by the Edmonds Police Foundation and local
Challenge
Walk/Run businesses such as Premiere Blue Cross, Harbor Square Athletic, Arnie's Restaurant, City Bank,
Edmonds Bingo, Poulsbo RV, Hagen's CPA, Sepia Construction and Edmonds Home and Loan. He
explained the Edmonds Challenge was not a competitive race but an opportunity for the public to
challenge themselves. There would be two tracks, a 2 -mile and a 4 -mile; the 2 -mile was for families to
walk and the 4 -mile for more serious runners. He said the registration fee was $20, $25 at the event and
$30 for families with three or more participants. The Challenge would begin and end at City Park where
there would also be entertainment and food. He said Al Bonny, the race director of the Seattle St.
Patrick's Day race volunteered to coordinate the Edmonds Challenge. He commented the Challenge
brought together several aspects of the community, the businesses, law enforcement and citizens. The
income from the Challenge benefited the Edmonds Police Youth Services Unit who provided several
scholarships to D.A.R.E. role model recipients, funded high school speakers regarding gang violence and
drug activity, and funded development of a youth services yellow pages that was distributed to social
service professionals in the area to assist youth in crisis. He encouraged the public to participate.
Railroad Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, Edmonds, asked what efforts were being made to shift the railroad
Avenue tracks and preserve Railroad Avenue as a 2 -way street. Mayor Haakenson explained Sound Transit had
not applied for a permit. He emphasized the City could not take any action until.Sound Transit's plans
were known. Mayor Haakenson commented the public was welcome to attend the Sound Transit citizen
advisory taskforce meetings. Councilmember Earling said his last conversation with the engineer
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 1, 2000
Page 12
overseeing the alignment in Edmonds was that the alignment would include 2 -way traffic on Railroad
Avenue. At Mr. Hertrich's request, Councilmember Earling offered to provide him with a contact at
Sound Transit.
6. MAYOR'S REPORT
Card Room Mayor Haakenson advised the positions on the card room taskforce had been filled by Council President
Taskforce Miller and himself and they were awaiting further action by the taskforce chairperson, Councilmember
Davis.
7. COUNCIL REPORTS
sound Councilmember White, who serves on the Sound Transit Technical Advisory Committee, said the
Transit architect for the Sound Transit project understood the traffic on Railroad Avenue was to remain two
lanes and had made a preliminary decision it would not be necessary to reduce the traffic to one lane.
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 9:08 p.m.
RY H ENSON, MAYOR SANDRA S. CHASE, CITY CLERK
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 1, 2000
Page 13
AGENDA
"EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL
,.
Plaza Meeting Room - Library Building
650 Main Street
7:00 -10:00 a.m.
AUGUST 1, 2000
SPECIAL MEETING
6:30 P.M. — EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING REAL ESTATE AND LEGAL MATTERS
7:00 P.M. - CALL TO ORDER
FLAG SALUTE
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
(A) ROLL CALL
(B) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JULY 25, 2000
(C) APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #35993 THROUGH #42535 FOR THE WEEK OF JULY 17, 2000, IN
THE AMOUNT OF $124,762.88
(D) UPDATE ON HIGHWAY 99 PROJECT
(E) REPORT ON BIDS RECEIVED JULY 10, 2000, FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PERRINVILLE AND
NORTH PERRINVILLE SANITARY SEWER — LID 215 AND 216, AND AWARD OF CONTRACT TO
SHORELINE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,252,740.84, INCLUDING SALES
TAX
(F) REPORT ON FINAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR THE MEADOWDALE STORM DRAINAGE
IMPROVEMENTS (164TH STREET SW) AND SANITARY SEWER LINE REPLACEMENT (158TH
STREET SW) AND COUNCIL ACCEPTANCE OF PROJECT
(G) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH EDMONDS SCHOOL
DISTRICT 15 FOR CITY TO MANAGE PARKING LOT IMPROVEMENTS AT MADRONA ELEMENTARY
SCHOOL IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE CITY WALKWAY IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
3. (40 Min.) PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION TO DENY THE APPLICATION BY
INES ANGIONO- FOURNO, ET. AL. TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY TWO ACRES FROM RM -3 to RM-
1.5. THE REZONE INCLUDES THE FOLLOWING PROPERTIES: 533, 539, 551, 553, 558, 560, 561, 563,
565, 570, 572, 580, 582, 588, AND 590 ELM WAY; AND 1122 6th AVENUE SOUTH. (FILE NO. R -99 -231)
4. (10 Min.) PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THE
APPLICATION BY THE PLANNING DIVISION TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY .85 ACRES FROM
"NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS — BN" TO "PUBLIC — P" TO IMPLEMENT THE LAND USE
AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ADOPTED UNDER FILE NO. CDC -98 -1 AND
PRESERVE THE WETLANDS PRESENT ON THE SITE. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 300 2nd
AVENUE SOUTH. (FILE NO. R -99 -149)
5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS (3 Minute Limit Per Person)
6. (5 Min.) MAYOR'S REPORT
7. (15 Min.) COUNCIL REPORTS
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 46 Delayed telecast of this meeting
appears the following Wednesday at noon and 7:00 p.m., as well as, Friday and Monday at noon on Channel 46
[1