Laserfiche WebLink
.April 1, 1980 - continued • <br />dissatisfaction with the City's notification system, especially in regard to this subject. Council- <br />woman Childers-Jaech said she would like.the Council to set a date to discuss the notification <br />system on the various hearings, and'she asked that the City Attorney provide in writing the legal <br />notification requirements. She also asked that the City Clerk provide information as to the pro - <br />MOTION: cedures the City follows in giving notification of hearings. COUNCILWOMAN CHILDERS-JAECH THEN <br />MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILWOMAN ALLEN, THAT A DISCUSSION OF NOTIFICATION PROCEDURES BE SCHEDULED FOR <br />APRIL 29, 1980. MOTION CARRIED. <br />Councilman Naughten asked that the Staff use caution and,not put too many items on an evening's <br />agenda. He noted that the April 15 agenda had too many items to hear in one evening, several of <br />MOTION: them being major items. COUNCILMAN NAUGHTEN THEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILWOMAN GOETZ, TO RETAIN <br />THE FOUR HEARING ITEMS ON THE APRIL 15 AGENDA, TO MOVE THE BALLFIELD.ITEM TO APRIL 8, AND THAT THE <br />STAFF RESCHEDULE THE OTHER ITEMS. MOTION CARRIED. <br />HEARING ON REVISED LANDSCAPE PLANS FOR JEDCO <br />The new landscape plan (marked by the Clerk as Exhibit 1) was displayed. Acting Planning Division <br />Manager Mary Lou Block said representatives of Walcker Homes had discussed the plans with the <br />neighbors, and a letter had been received from Ron Norman, of the Woodlake Homeowners Association, <br />who listed several recommendations for changes. Ms. Block reviewed their requests. The letter also <br />expressed confusion regarding the legality of the proposal because the site had been rezoned. City <br />Attorney Wayne Tanaka reviewed the legal actions which had taken place and noted those still pending. <br />The City had rezoned the property and Walcker Homes challenged that, and their lawsuit is scheduled <br />in June. However, Mr. Tanaka stated that in Washington the courts recognize a point in time where a <br />developer has vested rights, and there is a certain point where the City cannot change the zoning <br />and deprive him of what he was able to build under the previous zoning. He has vested rights when <br />he applies for a building permit and meets the requirements. At the time this building permit was <br />applied for it met the zoning, and even though the property is now zoned for RS-8 they can build • <br />this project within the time limit of the.building permit. Anyone else applying for a building <br />permit for this site could only build to the RS-8 zoning. Ms. Block noted that the Staff had the <br />same concern as that of the neighbors that the cedars, Douglas firs, and hemlocks on the west buffer <br />zone be rearranged so the taller trees will be at the top of the slope, so as to give as much buffering <br />as possible. She commented that this was the most extensive landscape plan that had ever been <br />submitted to her office, and the plantings were very substantial in size and numbers. The Planning <br />Division Staff felt it was a good landscape plan. It was asked whether Walcker Homes was agreeable <br />to the recommendations made in Mr. Norman's letter and George Kresovich, attorney for JEDCO (Walcker <br />Homes), said they would have no objection if the Council decided they should be imposed --except that <br />there was one they would question from the design standpoint, and the landscape designer who developed <br />the plan would discuss that. The public portion of the hearing was then opened. <br />George Kresovich, 403 Columbia, Seattle, attorney for JEDCO, said the issue before the Council was <br />whether this landscape plan complied with the conditions and requirements set forth in 12.20.50 of <br />the Edmonds City Code. He said this plan not only did comply with the requirements, but it was a <br />big improvement over the previous plan. He noted that John Walcker was present to answer any <br />questions, as well as Diane Thompson, the professional landscape designer who developed the plan and <br />who would discuss it. Ms. Thompson then gave her credentials and said she had been given the <br />transcripts of the previous hearings so she would be aware of the problems. She had walked the site <br />with Mr. Walcker and had driven through the adjacent neighborhoods to get that relationship. She <br />said she wanted to complement the neighborhood as much as possible with the design. The back <br />screening on the west was uppermost in her mind, and the front screening where the entrances are was <br />also very important. She wanted evergreen screening so it would be there in the winter, and she <br />also wanted some color. The cherry trees were a big aspect of the design, and she wanted the design <br />for the people in the apartment buildings, not just for the public on the outside. She said the <br />plant sizes stated on the plan will be the sizes that are planted. She noted that room must be <br />allowed for growth, and a deodora cedar will be 16' across in 15 years. She had discussed her <br />design with Ms. Block and Mr. Walcker and then proceeded to find the large cherry trees which she • <br />felt would be a great benefit to the design. She said she had tagged 15' hemlocks and 13' Douglas <br />firs and they were waiting to be planted. Some of the cherry trees.she found are 20' and 25' high, <br />and she said they are specimen trees. She noted.that although the cherry trees are deciduous they <br />will be backed up with deodora cedars, holly, and laurel, and there also are some existing trees on <br />the property. She said she had grouped the cherry trees around the entrances and from a design <br />standpoint she felt they should be grouped, rather than spread out as recommended by the neighbors. <br />She said she would hesitate putting in any more deodora cedars because she would not want them to <br />crowd out the cherry trees. She agreed with the recommendation to put the taller trees at the top <br />of the hill on the western border. On the interior she felt vine maples, rhododendrons, and pieris <br />japonica would complement the building design. She noted that the plan calls for ivy on top of all <br />rockeries, something the neighbors had asked for but which was already included. She said the trash <br />container could be moved and the fence added as requested by the neighbors. Councilman Naughten <br />complimented her on the design and he asked if there would be any problem with the trees living <br />because of their large size. She responded that the cherry trees are balled and burlapped and there <br />should be no problem with their living. <br />Ron Norman, 21004 Woodlake Dr., said he had personally delivered his letter to Mr. Walcker this <br />morning because the address on the letter was incorrect. He asked that his letter become a part of <br />the record so there would be no dispute at a later date. The letter is marked Exhibit 2 and will be <br />attached to these minutes. Mr. Norman said they would like a commitment that somebody will be <br />assigned to monitor this to be sure everything is done according to the plan, and he agreed that it <br />was a fine plan. Mayor Harrison stated that Ms. Block will monitor it. Mr. Norman also said they <br />would like to meet with Ms. Block before the occupancy permit is issued to review the plan. He <br />asked if the builder's vested rights would be waived at any time, and Mr. Tanaka responded that if <br />he lets the buildi.ng permit or an extension of it elapse then his.rights will end. He added that <br />during the litigation the time does not run. Mr. Norman was asked the reason for the request to <br />move the trash containter and he said it was because of the proximity to the homes and the noise <br />is <br />