Loading...
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