Loading...
19800401 City Council Minutes.April 1, 1980 - continued • dissatisfaction with the City's notification system, especially in regard to this subject. Council- woman Childers-Jaech said she would like.the Council to set a date to discuss the notification system on the various hearings, and'she asked that the City Attorney provide in writing the legal notification requirements. She also asked that the City Clerk provide information as to the pro - MOTION: cedures the City follows in giving notification of hearings. COUNCILWOMAN CHILDERS-JAECH THEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILWOMAN ALLEN, THAT A DISCUSSION OF NOTIFICATION PROCEDURES BE SCHEDULED FOR APRIL 29, 1980. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Naughten asked that the Staff use caution and,not put too many items on an evening's agenda. He noted that the April 15 agenda had too many items to hear in one evening, several of MOTION: them being major items. COUNCILMAN NAUGHTEN THEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILWOMAN GOETZ, TO RETAIN THE FOUR HEARING ITEMS ON THE APRIL 15 AGENDA, TO MOVE THE BALLFIELD.ITEM TO APRIL 8, AND THAT THE STAFF RESCHEDULE THE OTHER ITEMS. MOTION CARRIED. HEARING ON REVISED LANDSCAPE PLANS FOR JEDCO The new landscape plan (marked by the Clerk as Exhibit 1) was displayed. Acting Planning Division Manager Mary Lou Block said representatives of Walcker Homes had discussed the plans with the neighbors, and a letter had been received from Ron Norman, of the Woodlake Homeowners Association, who listed several recommendations for changes. Ms. Block reviewed their requests. The letter also expressed confusion regarding the legality of the proposal because the site had been rezoned. City Attorney Wayne Tanaka reviewed the legal actions which had taken place and noted those still pending. The City had rezoned the property and Walcker Homes challenged that, and their lawsuit is scheduled in June. However, Mr. Tanaka stated that in Washington the courts recognize a point in time where a developer has vested rights, and there is a certain point where the City cannot change the zoning and deprive him of what he was able to build under the previous zoning. He has vested rights when he applies for a building permit and meets the requirements. At the time this building permit was applied for it met the zoning, and even though the property is now zoned for RS-8 they can build • this project within the time limit of the.building permit. Anyone else applying for a building permit for this site could only build to the RS-8 zoning. Ms. Block noted that the Staff had the same concern as that of the neighbors that the cedars, Douglas firs, and hemlocks on the west buffer zone be rearranged so the taller trees will be at the top of the slope, so as to give as much buffering as possible. She commented that this was the most extensive landscape plan that had ever been submitted to her office, and the plantings were very substantial in size and numbers. The Planning Division Staff felt it was a good landscape plan. It was asked whether Walcker Homes was agreeable to the recommendations made in Mr. Norman's letter and George Kresovich, attorney for JEDCO (Walcker Homes), said they would have no objection if the Council decided they should be imposed --except that there was one they would question from the design standpoint, and the landscape designer who developed the plan would discuss that. The public portion of the hearing was then opened. George Kresovich, 403 Columbia, Seattle, attorney for JEDCO, said the issue before the Council was whether this landscape plan complied with the conditions and requirements set forth in 12.20.50 of the Edmonds City Code. He said this plan not only did comply with the requirements, but it was a big improvement over the previous plan. He noted that John Walcker was present to answer any questions, as well as Diane Thompson, the professional landscape designer who developed the plan and who would discuss it. Ms. Thompson then gave her credentials and said she had been given the transcripts of the previous hearings so she would be aware of the problems. She had walked the site with Mr. Walcker and had driven through the adjacent neighborhoods to get that relationship. She said she wanted to complement the neighborhood as much as possible with the design. The back screening on the west was uppermost in her mind, and the front screening where the entrances are was also very important. She wanted evergreen screening so it would be there in the winter, and she also wanted some color. The cherry trees were a big aspect of the design, and she wanted the design for the people in the apartment buildings, not just for the public on the outside. She said the plant sizes stated on the plan will be the sizes that are planted. She noted that room must be allowed for growth, and a deodora cedar will be 16' across in 15 years. She had discussed her design with Ms. Block and Mr. Walcker and then proceeded to find the large cherry trees which she • felt would be a great benefit to the design. She said she had tagged 15' hemlocks and 13' Douglas firs and they were waiting to be planted. Some of the cherry trees.she found are 20' and 25' high, and she said they are specimen trees. She noted.that although the cherry trees are deciduous they will be backed up with deodora cedars, holly, and laurel, and there also are some existing trees on the property. She said she had grouped the cherry trees around the entrances and from a design standpoint she felt they should be grouped, rather than spread out as recommended by the neighbors. She said she would hesitate putting in any more deodora cedars because she would not want them to crowd out the cherry trees. She agreed with the recommendation to put the taller trees at the top of the hill on the western border. On the interior she felt vine maples, rhododendrons, and pieris japonica would complement the building design. She noted that the plan calls for ivy on top of all rockeries, something the neighbors had asked for but which was already included. She said the trash container could be moved and the fence added as requested by the neighbors. Councilman Naughten complimented her on the design and he asked if there would be any problem with the trees living because of their large size. She responded that the cherry trees are balled and burlapped and there should be no problem with their living. Ron Norman, 21004 Woodlake Dr., said he had personally delivered his letter to Mr. Walcker this morning because the address on the letter was incorrect. He asked that his letter become a part of the record so there would be no dispute at a later date. The letter is marked Exhibit 2 and will be attached to these minutes. Mr. Norman said they would like a commitment that somebody will be assigned to monitor this to be sure everything is done according to the plan, and he agreed that it was a fine plan. Mayor Harrison stated that Ms. Block will monitor it. Mr. Norman also said they would like to meet with Ms. Block before the occupancy permit is issued to review the plan. He asked if the builder's vested rights would be waived at any time, and Mr. Tanaka responded that if he lets the buildi.ng permit or an extension of it elapse then his.rights will end. He added that during the litigation the time does not run. Mr. Norman was asked the reason for the request to move the trash containter and he said it was because of the proximity to the homes and the noise is March 24, 1980 Mr. John Walcker Walcker Homes. 21026 6th Ave. West Lynnwood, WA 98036 Dear John: As a follow up to our conversation on March 11, 1980, I have listed the recommendations of the various neighbors regarding your new landscape plans for the Woodridge development: 1. Utilize a 6 foot cedar fence on the parking lot in the South West corner of the plan. This will maintain noise and lights on the corner where the homes are only 30 feet away. 2. Rearrange the cedars, douglas firs and hemlocks on the west buffer zone with the taller trees at the top of the slope. 3. The neighbors to the East would like more Deodora cedars at the entrance and the (6) flowering cherries spread out North and South. 4. We suggest a continuous planting of Ivy at the top (west of fence) of the rockery. 5. We would like the trash container in the North West corner moved to a more easterly point. The quantity of planting and quality of plan is much appreciated. Our main recommendation to the City will be a request to assign a specific employee or position for the accountability of following construction and planting with regular reports to the council and a specific review before the occupancy permit is issued. Other requr_st will include replacing all trees and shrubs that die within the first 18 months. Amending landscape plan notes, regarding subsitution approval to include the city planning department. We still have some concerns and confusion regarding the legal aspects of the project. The zoning is now low density residental yet the city is reviewing your permit request for apartments. Hopefully the city attorney can clarify this at the public hearing.; EXHIBIT 2 - HEARING ON REVISED LANDSCAPE PLANS FOR JEDCO 4-1-80 --- - - _ - - Thank you .for sharing your plans and we seek your acceptance of our suggestions. Sincerely, gip•,...._ 1rt�-s-..�-,,,' Ron Norman Wooclake Homeowners Association r cc: Mayor Harve Harrison City Council Members Mary Lou Block, Planner Neighbors 11 April. 1, 1.980 . =,.continued ; from the large equipment used to move it. Mr. Norman asked for Mr. Walcker's response to his letter. John Walcker said he had no objection to the recommendations except for #3 regarding the cherry trees and more deodora cedars. He agreed with the landscape designer's plan and remarks. He suggested the trash container could'be moved to the north side and he indicated the place on the plan. Barry Birch of 20905 Wbodlake Dr. said nothing had been said about the northern boundary of the landscape plan. He noted that there are some existing Douglas firs that have been trimmed and ,.he asked if they would remain or come down. Mr. Kresovich responded that they could not commit to which trees would stay because they do not know precisely where they are. He said the north end is a -ravine and there are many trees there and nobody knows which will remain. Also, the area shown as untouched on the plans will remain untouched,. but where there is grading to be done the.trees must come down. The public portion of the hearing was closed. Councilwoman Allen complimented the landscape designer and everyone involved, noting that this had been a very touchy subject and it appeared to have come out well. COUNCILWOMAN ALLEN MOTION: MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN.NAUGHTEN, TO APPROVE THE JEDCO LANDSCAPE PLANS AS PRESENTED, TOGETHER.WITH.THE RECOMMENDATIONS.OF.THE NEIGHBORS WHICH WERE ACCEPTED BY JEDCO--THAT IS, ALL ITEMS EXCEPT #3. MOTION CARRIED, WITH COUNCILMAN KASPER ABSTAINING BECAUSE HE HAS AN INTEREST 'IN NEARBY PROPERTY. For the interest of the audience, Councilman Gould stated that the estimate from Sprague's for the landscaping was $51,000. HEARING ON MEADOWDALE AREA MOTION: COUNCILWOMAN ALLEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN KASPER, THAT THIS HEARING BE CONCLUDED AT 10:00 P.M., WHICH WOULD GIVE THE PEOPLE,:WHO HAD SIGNED UP.TO.SPEAK 2 112 MINUTES EACH. MOTION CARRIED. • Technical Studies Engineer Bob Franklin discussed the recommendations of the Public Works Department. These recommendations were made after reviewing the County Health District report and a proposal submitted by two members of the Meadowdale community. The first recommendation of the Public Works Department was that trench drains beused to control groundwater from the area east of the landslide complex. It .was felt this would be.less expensive and possibly more effective than storm sewers. Storm sewers would be required in•the west area with the trench drains. Capital cost for trench drains and surface drains was estimated to be $280,000, and storm sewers in the west would be approximately $$360,000. The se and reco mendation wa tat sanitary sewers be required in all parts of.the Meadowdale area where exis�1ng or potensiia� health hazards exist due to on -site sewage disposal. Mr. Franklin identified the areas not well suited to on -site sewage disposal. He also displayed.payment tables. Two alternatives were offered regarding sanitary sewers: (1) Sanitary sewers.for the entire area, responding to Dr. Hyatt's report which declared the entire area to be a health hazard, at -a capital cost estimate of-$2,000,000; and (2) Recognition that some sites, primarily the upper plateau inland areas, have soils of sufficient depth and sufficient porosity to support on -site sewage disposal systems for extended periods. Mr. Franklin detailed how the parts of the east area to be sewered would be defined, after which the hearing was opened•to the public. D. L. Brechner of 15908 68th W. said he had been on the Snohomish County Planning Commission for six years and when the Meadowdale.area was brought into.the.City of Edmonds. He had been president of.the Meadowdale Community Club at one time and.had been in real estate business. He questioned whether Dr. Hyatt had the authority to mandate a "potential" health hazard. He said an informational meeting had.been..held at the Meadowdale Community Club and an ad hoc committee formed of the eastern area people --those opposed to mandatory sanitary sewers. They had made a recommendation to the Engineering Division and generally were in accord with the recommendations. Bill Alguard of.:15915.70th Ave. W. said they appreciated the meeting at the Meadowdale Community Club and.the.time the Council had spent on this, as well as the help from the Engineering Division. He submitted.a proposal to the Council, marked Exhibit 1, copies of • which had already been furnished the. Council by the Public.Works.Department. Mr. Aiguard felt the trench drains were the most effective and he noted that the water does not come only from within the City limits. He felt Dr. Hyatt's report was basically the same as the 1968 Health Department report, but he felt her report had a fair amount -of speculation in it, and he asked that the Councilconsider that. He felt a 15% slope was too restrictive (Engineering had indicated for on -site sewage disposal the slope in the area of the drainfield could not be greater than 15%). John Johnson of 16122 72nd W. whose property is 6 112 acres said his zone front footage was'699' and for sanitary sewers and trench drains with a 15 year payment schedule it would require a monthly payment -of $499, with a total.payout of $90,000. He said it would not increase the value of his property and would mandate his destroying that greenbelt and developing the land into 25 - 30.homes. He said that financial burden was too great and did not include inflationary factors. He was against sanitary sewers and did not believe they were necessary. He felt offenders could install holding tanks if all.else failed, and he noted that Russ Johnson had managed.to solve.his problem nicely so others could do so also. He said he lives on the south side of Meadowdale Rd. but he thought.he would be considered in the east area. He is'directly above Laebugten,.Wharf. John Minear of 16020 70th W. said the runoff and slide's had existed as long as he could remember, and he had been a resident over 70 years. He said he lives on the edge of the hill and never had a slide problem or septic tank problem. He felt this was a very expensive project and he said he is retired. His 93 yea'r old mother lives in the area also and is in.good health and would like to live in her home the rest of her life, but he said she is on Social Security and that will not pay for sewers. He urged' -the Council not to approve the project. Richard_Hankinson of 15925 75th P1. W. complained about the lack - of notification of this hearing. He said sewers should have been put in when the rest of the north end was -done, and the-longer.it is.delayed.the higher.the.costs will be. He urged that the entire'_area be'sewered. Gail.Hank,inson, same address,.said..they are on the east side of .75th P1. W.---the victims of the law of gravity--and,she said the smell sometimes is so.bad that they have'to leave. She felt it was essential that they have the drains for excess water and that all�o.f the area have sanitary sewers. Howard.Glazer.of_15927 75th P1. W., at the bottom of the hill, said water runs downhill and everything they get.originates at the top of the hill whether in the City or the County. He said the problem exists at the bottom of the hill and he April 1, 1980 - continded' • 'fel't'the people at the top of the hill did not have a problem becrause,,water runs downhill. He has a year-round stream in his yard and when it rains it swells to three and four times its normal size. They have erosion problems because of the runoff. He saidthey have septic tank problems even though the drainfields were engineered and properly installed. He said.their problems added to those of his neighbors up the hill have gotten worse over the years, and at times in the summer they are ashamed of.the sewage running down the driveway and through the street. He said Mr. Johnson had commented that Russ Johnson had taken care of his problem, but the creek running through Russ Johnson's yard also runs through his yard and when the Johnsons do their laundry the creek is soapy. He said there is sewage being pumped into the creek somewhere up the hill. Jack Linge of 6970 160th S.W., the upper area, said he had discussed.this with an expert in Seattle who endorsed the trench drains and who stressed that if you do not have a dense popu- lation in the upper area you are fortunate. Mr. Linge said sewage.in the lower area is not created in the upper area and he referred to a magazine article which stated septic tanks can function effectively where the land is sufficient and has proper drainage. He said there is up to 150' of sand in the upper portion which would give adequate drainage. He felt the trench drains should be included in the City-wide storm system and notin an.LID, and he did not believe those in the upper area should pay for the burden of those at the bottom who paid less for their property and had paid less taxes over the years. Michael Rusnaf of 15620 72nd Ave. W., on the bluff, asked if the drains would go through people's properties.' Mr. Franklin displayed a drawing of a trench drain and showed on a map some of the places they would run, but he could not at.this time state where.they all would be. Mr..Rusnaf said he also has a large piece of land.(3 acres) with a house in the.middle of it, and.he would like to keep it that way. He also has another lot, and he was interested in the future for that lot. Alan Kaufman, employee at Laebugten Marina, said everyone is proud of the Sound and people go down and dig clams in the sand under the pier at the Laebugten Marina, but he would not eat them because sewage is filtering through to the beach. He said you can tell in the sand where • sewers end and septic tanks begin. The public portion of the hearing was closed. Councilman Gould observed that there were a number of issues to address, and he listed them as follows: 1. flake a look at what the State code says about what percentage slopes are required for sewer systems. 2. There is a large impact on people who have substantial property holdings --need to consider some way to shelter the impact on them. 3. Consider what incentives can be developed to retain large parcels. 4. People on fixed incomes have a real.problem. 5. Some feel to delay the project will escalate costs. - 6. Issue of owning property in that area and not being able to develop it. 7. Issue as to whether or not the drainage part of the project should be expense only to the area or City-wide. 8. Decide whether or not the health hazard exists --that issue must be handled and addressed by the Council. 9. Review layout of proposed trenches and sewers. 10. What to do about the moratorium. • 11. Environmental impact on the beach, and environmental. impact on the residences in the lower area. Regarding the first item, Mr. Franklin said that State code indicates.that 15% is a limit beyond which you should go only in certain cases, and 30% is a maximum. He said the 15% should only be exceeded when there is -no material below the surface to make thewater run parallel to the surface. Mr. Herzberg suggested that the Council consider authorization of a consultant, with costs to be allocated against whatever project develops, to get working on the layout. He said his staff was exploring some alternative funding, and inasmuch as the County had declared this to be a health hazard he felt the City should fall high on a list for any funds. Also, he said if the Council considered trench drains the solution, he would suggest the same consultant start the design of the trench drains so the design portion is done when the funding is addressed. MOTION: COUNCILWOMAN ALLEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILWOMAN GOETZ, THAT THE WATER/SEWER DEPARTMENT BE AUTHORIZED TO INVESTIGATE A CONSULTANT FOR PRELIMINARY SEWER LAYOUT, TRENCH DRAINS, AND THE COST OF SAME, AND REPORT TO THE COUNCIL SHORTLY. Mr. Herzberg said they could have information on general costs to do. the job in two weeks but would not necessarily have a consultant on board in that period. THE MOTION CARRIED. A short recess was announced. DISCUSSION OF FUNDING MECHANISM FOR.DRAINAGE PROJECTS Public Works Director Fred Herzberg listed four possible funding. sources: LID, Revenue Bonds, General Obligation. Bonds., and increase in property tax by special levy. He discussed each. He did not recommend LIDs because of the administrative expense and because properties abutting the drainageway would be assessed higher than those farther away who also are contributing to the problem. Revenue bonds would charge all properties relatively equally and no provision would be made for different sizes of structures, different sizes of property, or other things contributing to storm water runoff. General Obligation Bonds and special levies are based on E 13 • April 1; 1980 - continued' assessed value of the property and,`indirectly, to storm water runoff. If a property has more impermeable surface contributing to storm water runoff, such as pavement, structures, and other improvements most likely it -will -be assessed at a higher valuation than one not so improved (and not contributing so much to runoff):.- However, General Obligation Bonds and special. levies must be voted on by the populace and those on upper slopes and not badly affected may be opposed, while those badly affected would vote in favor. Approximately $1,000,000 could be raised per year by levy and the entire sum.could.be raised at once by bonding. Mr. Herzberg recommended the Revenue Bonds as the most equitable.and practical approach to a solution when the bond market will justify it. All improved properties, whether hooked up.or not-, would be billed, but unimproved properties would not be.contributing to the runoff and would not be billed as they would not have water hookups. Councilman Kasper commented that most of the areas other than Meadowdale are built up and the.probl.ems are "after development"; and the drainage problems in Meadowdale were there before developmentand it is questionable whether they will ever be solved. Further; the expense of the Meadowdale area will materially raise the value of those properties. Councilman Kasper felt some way should be found to levy against the property which will increase in value after improvement. .City Attorney Jim Murphy said the rates -do not have to be equal City-wide and the factors that can be classified are statutory (RCW 35.67.020) and there is quite a bit of flexibility, so-Meadowdale users could pay a higher rate. is 1 DISCUSSION ON LIBRARY FEASIBILITY STUDY Council President Nordquist reported.that at the Council's.dinner meeting earlier this evening they had discussed the space needs of the City and that discussion had focused around the library. They had considered the recommendation of the Sno-Isle Regional Library and discussed expansion at the present site, and...they discussed the Anderson Center in its current condition as well as.with the architect's proposal. No vote was taken but the general consensus was to continue to consider the library for the Anderson Center with the possibility of asking the architect for a.proposal with the library above ground. Also, -the Council did not want to stress the sports center concept, but rather*to consider a facility across the street on the School District athletic field, therefore separating the.sports area from the cultural area of the City. Councilwoman Allen added that Arai Jackson had based their plans on information the Council gave them at that point, but now.the Council wished..to back off a little and think of a sports facility.at the sports field. Mayor Harrison stated that the Friends of the Library had $5,000 and had discussed coming up with a preliminary sketch.of what they could do by adding to the existing library without taking out either.of the annex. buildings. Councilwoman Allen responded that the Council felt it,would be very difficult to come up with 20,000 sq. ft. by extending`the-existing library, and when .the Anderson site was purchased one of the primary considerations was that the library..be moved there. Mayor Harrison, however, felt the present site was the most salable location to.take to the public. Councilman Kasper said the Anderson Center library, as proposed, had not been studied adequately and -the Council should see at least one more plan of what could -be done there. Ann Wermus,.Library Board Chairman, said the basis of her presentation had been how.to sell a library,,and she asked how long a study would take. Parks & Recreation Division Manager Jim Jessel said they have a plan on the board of a library in the place of the sports:arena. Councilman Gould said,the Friends of the Library could do whatever they wanted with their money, and they could spend it for a schematic on the current site if that was their. desire. At the same time, he felt'it was important that the people know the Council is not satisfied with the development plans for the Anderson Center. It appears to them that it will..be too densely used and the sports complex bothers them. They prefer that the sports activities.be focused in the area of the sports field. They want to see what can'be done for a good library and other cultural facilities and still maintain open space at the east end of the field. A e felt Arai Jackson should be at*the April 15 meeting to demonstrate what they can do. Councilwoman Allen commented to Mrs. Wermus that the Council is 1•ooking for a long term amenity in the form of the library, while the library people are looking for extra space. Before the meeting was adjourned, D.-L. Brechner of 15908.68th.W. asked if someone would check the contamination of the beach at the area of the Laebugten.Marina which had been reported this evening*., Councilman Nordquist said he would contact Dr..Hyatt. There was'no further business to come before the Council, and.the meeting adjourned at 11:25 p.m. IRENE VARNEY MORAN, Ci -Clerk HARVE.H. HARRISON, Mayor April 8, 1980 - Work Meeting The regular meeting of the Edmonds.Ci.ty.Council was called to order at 8:05 p.m. by Mayor Harve Harrison in the'Council he of the Edmonds Civic Center. All present joined in the flag salute. PRESENT Harve Harrison, Mayor Jo -Ann Childers-Jaech Katherine Allen John Nordquist Ray Gould Larry Naughten Mary Goetz ABSENT STAFF PRESENT Bill Kasper Charles Di.bble., M.A.A. Fred Herzberg, Public Works Director Jim Adams, City Engineer- John-LaTourelle,.Planning Consultant Art Housler,',Finance'Director Jack .Wei.nz;.. Fire Chief Dan Prinz, Acting Police Chief Gary McComas, Fire Marshal Jim Jessel, Parks & Rec. Div. Mgr. Nancy Dilworth L nddsca e Architect Jim Murphy, City ttorn�y Jackie Parrett, Deputy City Clerk