Laserfiche WebLink
386 <br />June 11, 1979 - Work Meeting <br />The regular meeting of the Edmonds City Councilwas called to order.at.7:40 p.m. by Mayor Harve <br />Harrison in the Council Chambers of the Edmonds.Civic Center. All. present joined in the flag <br />salute... <br />PRESENT STAFF PRESENT <br />Harve Harrison, Mayor Leif Larson, Public Works Director <br />Mike HerbJohn LaTourelle, Community Development Director <br />Bill Kasper Art Housler, Finance Director <br />Katherine Allen Marlo Foster, Police Chief <br />John Nordquist Jack Weinz, Acting Fire Chief <br />Ray Gould - Mary Lou Block, Assistant City Planner <br />Tom Carns,� Fred Herzberg, City Engineer <br />Larry Naughten Jim Murphy, City Attorney <br />Jackie Parrett, Deputy City Clerk <br />OATH OF OFFICE FOR COUNCILMAN WILLIAM J. KASPER <br />Judge Richard Thorpe administered the oath of office to William J....Kasper who was selected by the <br />Council to. fi.l:l% the Council position vacated by Phil Clement. <br />CONSENT AGENDA <br />MOTION: COUNCILMAN CARNS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN.NORDQUIST, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. <br />MOTION CARRIED. The Consent Agenda included.the following: <br />(AY' Roll call. <br />(B) Approval of Minutes of June 5, 1979. <br />(C) Passage of Resolution 445 for the City of Edmonds to join other cities in <br />the funding of a feasibil.ity.s.tudy regarding pooling of risk management <br />and/or insurance coverage. <br />(D) Setting of June 26, 1979 for hearing of preliminary approval of PRD -1-79 <br />located in Shell Valley. <br />MAYOR <br />Mayor Harrison asked for confirmation of two:appointments to the Arts Commission. The Council <br />MOTION: had interviewed the candidates prior to this evening's Council meeting. COUNCILMAN GOULD MOVED, <br />SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN NORDQUIST, TO CONFIRM THE MAYOR'S APPOINTMENTS OF A. LYALL LUSH TO <br />POSITION 2 ON THE ARTS COMMISSION, TERM TO.EXPIRE DECEMBER 31, 1980, AND OF DICK MARKLE TO <br />POSITION 6 ON THE ARTS COMMISSION, TERM TO EXPIRE DECEMBER 31, 1982. MOTION CARRIED. <br />HEARING ON P.C. RESOLUTION 616 RECOMMENDING_DENIAL OF A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE <br />OFFICIAL'ZONING MAP TO REZONE LOTS 6;'7.;.:8;,AND 9; BLOCK 5; YOST:S FIRST'ADDITION <br />TO THE CITY'OF EDMONDS;'FROM'RS'6 TO RS=12 File R=1-79 <br />Assistant City Planner Mary Lou B.lock.reviewed..this item. The rezone had been proposed by the <br />neighbors because of the environmentally sensitive nature of the.site. Shellabarger Creek <br />bisects the property from north to south. The Planning Commission.had heard this item on March <br />45 1979 and recommended denial because the property is located in an area near to downtown <br />Edmonds where RS -6 is an appropriate density..and they.found it'would be improper to single out <br />this one block and zone it RS -12, and because.they felt there were alternatives to protect the. <br />stream in this area which were more desirable than changing the zoning. The Community Development <br />Department recommended to the Council that the Planning Commission's denial be upheld, but in <br />addition, at such time as any action is taken on this property that it be a requirement that <br />vehicle access be from the alley to the.east and that the alley be improved accordingly. The <br />purpose of that requirement was to prevent the culverting of Shellabarger Creek as it would be <br />culverted in numerous places if the access.were to be from "A" Ave. which borders the property <br />on the west. Although zoning in the surrounding area is RS -6. it has generally been developed <br />with one house on two lots. When thismatter went before the Planning Commission the Staff had <br />recommended approval of the rezone, concern being for the protection of the stream. However, <br />they now felt the same result could be accomplished if the stream is allowed to be left in its <br />natural state, and it appeared that there was enough space to develop as RS -6 lots with certain <br />restrictions to protect.the stream. The question was asked if this could not be considered <br />"spot zoning" if this one block were rezoned -to RS -12 when the surrounding zoning was RS -6. <br />City Attorney Jim Murphy responded that..if the property is different from other surrounding <br />properties, such as by having a creek on.it, it could justify having a.different zoning classification. <br />Ms. Block was asked what the alternatives were for preserving the stream, and she responded <br />that access from the.alley was the best,.alternative. She added that the Policy Plan strongly <br />recommends leaving streams in their natural...state, and that this is identified as an environmentally <br />sensitive area. She said the properties.would.have to be subdiv.ided.before.they could be <br />developed as RS -6 and at that time conditions as to access could be placed on them. She showed <br />slides ..of;the.site which included some taken after the April rainstorm and they demonstrated <br />engorgement of the creek. The hearing was -then opened to the public. Dean Shepherd of 112 3rd <br />Ave. S., attorney for the owner of the property under consideration, said any decision on the <br />future use of the right-of-way should be deferred until some definite proposals have been made <br />and appropriate studies completed. Other than that, he supported the Planning Commission's , <br />recommendation. The public portion of the hearing was then closed.-. Councilman Gould observed-.: <br />that to leave the property RS -6 would result in having more homes on the property and he was <br />