Loading...
19800415 City Council Minutes• April 8, 1980 - continued 17 fl 1 1 1 1 DISCUSSION OF CITY'S RESPONSIBILITY.REGARDING PROBLEMS SUCH AS.BRAUTASET/RINE CASE City Attorney Jim Murphy said the City has ordinances patterned -after public nuisance ordinances, as distinguished from private nuisances. He said you cannot define every nuisance that will come along, and only the courts can deal with private nuisances. He felt the City basically has adequate ordinances. Planning Consultant John LaTourelle said in:this case there was really nothing -the City could.put-its fingeron and quantify . He noted that the Health Depart-' ment found no violations. Chuck Ca.in,of 1060 6th Ave. S..,.a.neighbor across the street from where this problem occurred, said he thought there should -be some kind of ordinance against back yard boat building. He had visited the Brautaset home and said the smell was terrible from boat construction being done next -door. Mayor Harrison suggested there should be some limit as to how big a project can be, or -that greater setbacks be established for such activity. He commented that fiberglas has a:very.noxious odor, and -that he would hate to live next to it. This was discussed further., but no action was taken. PRESENTATION OF ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT Finance Director Art Housler presented the Annual Financial Report of the City of Edmonds for 1979 which had been submitted to the State Auditor, together.with.a General Purpose Statement which summarizes the financial. position of .the City. Mr.*Housler reviewed the two documents with the Council: -to familiarize them with,the composition of ..the documents for ease in use. He said this type of document will enhance- the City's position to bonding companies. The State Auditor's opinion is expected approximately May 1, 1980 and it will be inserted at that time. The report will not be submitted to any rating companies until that is received. There wasno further business to come before the Council, and the meeting adjourned to Executive Session at 11:25 p.m. IRENE VARNEY MORAN, CityUClerk April 15, 1980 a HARVE H. HARRISON, Mayor - The regular meeting of the Edmonds City Council was called to order at 8:10 p.m. by'Mayor Harve Harrison in the Council Chambers of the Edmonds Civic Center. All present joined in the flag salute. PRESENT Harve Harrison,. Mayor Jo -Anne Childers-Jaech Katherine Allen John Nordquist Ray Gould Larry Naughten Mary Goetz CONSENT.AGENDA ABSENT STAFF PRESENT Bill Kasper Charles Dibble, M.A.A. Fred Herzberg, Public Works Director Jim Adams, City Engineer John LaTourelle, Planning Consultant Jack Weinz, Fire Chief Jim Jes.sel, Parks & Rec. Div. Mgr. .. Mary Lou Block, Acting Planning Div. Mgr. Richard.Pearson, Asst.. City Planner Irene Varney Moran, City Clerk Jim Murphy, City Attorney Cindy Noack, Secretary MOTION: Councilwoman Allen removed Item (E) from the Consent Agenda. COUNCILMAN NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN GOULD, TO APPROVE THE BALANCE OF THE CONSENT'AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED. The approved items on the Consent Agenda included the following: '(A) Roll call. (B) Approval of Minutes of April 8, 1980. (C) Acknowledgment of receipt of Claims for Damages from Shi.rley.Wendlandt in the.amount of $3,000 and from Joseph Louis Perez in the amount of $44.9 + tax. (D) Authorization to sign amendment to the HUD Sen.ior.Center Contract. (F) Authorization to negotiate Meadowdale Consultant'Contract. (G) Setting date of May 6, 1980 for hearing on control of commercial vehicles in residential areas. TRAFFIC REVISION ON ADMIRAL WAY [Item (E) on Consent Agenda] Councilwoman Allen asked Public Works Director Fred Herzberg how muchitwas ,going to cost to install the channelization. Mr. Herzberg indicated that it would just involve some paint work. COUNCILWOMAN ALLEN MOTION: MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN GOULD, TO APPROVE ITEM (E) ON -THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED. • Is April 15, 1980 - continued P • COUNCIL Councilman Naughten called fora brief Executive Session following this evening's meeting to discuss a personnel matter. Councilman Naughten, indicating that he has had residents asking him, asked Parks and Recreation Division Manager Jim Jessel why there has not been replacement of trees.at the 7th and Elm property. Mr. Jessel stated that the City was to replace trees only if there had to be trees cut down. No trees had to be cut, so there is no need for replacement. Councilwoman Goetz indicated that she will not be at the April 22, 1980.Council meeting due to a prior commitment. Councilman Nordqui•st informed the Council that he had received communication from the Senior Center regarding their insurance premiums and referred to his memo to the Council on this 'item and asked MOTION: that this item be placed on the April 22, 1980 Council agenda. COUNCILMAN NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILWOMAN GOETZ, TO PLACE THE REVIEW OF INSURANCE PREMIUMS FOR THE SOUTH COUNTY SENIOR .CENTER ON THE APRIL 22, 1980 COUNCIL AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED. Councilwoman Childers-Jaech stated that she had received several complaints.from citizens about services they receive from.Liberty TV Cable indicating that they are very dissatisfied. In discus- sions she has had with .the the head office in Oregon,. they have indicated they are dissatisfied with the services the Edmonds office is providing. The head office indicated they spend most of their MOTION: time dealing with complaints from Edmonds citizens. COUNCILWOMAN CHILDERS-JAECH MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN NORDQUIST, TO SET A HEARING ON THE LIBERTY TV CABLE SITUATION FOR MAY 13, 1980 (WORK MEETING). MOTION CARRIED. Councilwoman Goetz wanted to call attention to the youth of the community indicating that Union Oil • Beach is now open and that they may enjoy the water and sun there and perhaps take,a little pressure off Sunset Ave. Councilman Naughten brought up a point concerning the fatality at Union Oil Beach last Saturday and stated that one of the things the newspaper article mentioned was the fact that safety standards are not imposed at Union Oil Beach as they are at Sunset Beach. COUNCILMAN NAUGHTEN MOTION: MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILWOMAN ALLEN,.THAT THE COUNCIL REVIEW THE,SAFETY.STANDARDS.AT�UNION OI-L BEACH AT THE MAY 6, 1980 COUNCIL MEETING. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Nordquist asked if Item 9 could be moved between Item 4 and Item 5 so that it could be taken care of quickly since it was a housekeeping matter. Item 9 was then moved to be heard between Item 4 and Item ,5 on the agenda. Councilwoman Allen announced that the stained glass window is going to be dedicated at the Frances Anderson Cul:tural and Leisure Center on Saturday, April 19, at 3:00 p.m. Councilwoman Allen also announced that there will be a management breakfast meeting for the first quarter financial review on Friday, April 18, at 7:00 a.m. at the Pancake Haus. REPORT RE LANDFILL COMPLAINT AT 7TH AND.SPRAGUE Acting Planning Division Manager Mary Lou Block stated that there had been a meeting on'Thursday, April 10, of City Attorney Jim Murphy, Mr: McGinness and his attorney Chester Bennett, and the adjoining neighbors. near 7th and Sprague -and their attorney Thomas Rakus. At the conclusion of the meeting an agreement was made that Mr. McGinness' attorney, Chester Bennett, would write a letter' indicating the conditions to which the parties had agreed. Mr. McGinness agreed, in accordance with Mr. Rakus, to do the following: (1) To follow through with his subdivision application with the City; (2) Mr. McGinness and Mr. Carl Harris are to apply to the City for an LID for a street improve- ment on Sprague St.; (3) He will remove 500 cu. yds. of dirt from his Sprague St. property as soon as the City Engineer establishes the street grade for Sprague St., per the LID (all in accordance with the Office of the City Engineer). This removal is to occur within 30 days after the grade is established. Mr. McGinness' subdivision was to. be heard at the Planning Commission hearing of Thursday, April 17, and the grading plan,was to.be.determined at that time. Following the April 10 meeting, Mr. Rakus was going back to the neighbors who did not attend the meeting to see if these arrangements were agreeable. Ms. Block indicated she had not heard any response since that time and assumed the arrangements were agreeable. Councilman Naughten complimented all the people who were involved in this situation, since they joined together and worked out their problems. HEARING ON PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLL, PROPOSED LID FOR SEWERS AND WATER MAINS, VICINITY OF 72ND AVE.' W. AND 175TH S.W. City Engineer Jim Adams stated this item was first heard by the City Council on February,26, 1980, when they passed Resolution of Intention 254, creating the LID.. Mr. Adams stated that this is one of the areas .that is a little island in tlie'center of the City that is not currently severed. The people in this area got together and petitioned .the City for an LID to put in a sewer and to extend the water main. There are 16 units in this LID and the preliminary assessment is approximately $140,000. Mr. -Adams indicated that all people in this area were notified of this hearing. Mayor Harrison asked if this included a new plat. Mr. Adams indicated that there is a new subdivision going into this area. The hearing was then opened to the public. Ed Nelson of 7311 175th St. S.W. stated that he is getting his.,water from 174th at this time and when he signed.the LID it was his understanding that he would be excluded from the water assessment, but when the legal documents were sent out he found that -he was:.inc.luded in the assessment. He indicated that since he is already getting his water from 174th, he wanted to be excluded from this 1 1 • April 15, 1980 - continued 19� 1 1 MOTION: 1 1 0 water assessment. Mr. Adams stated that Mr.. Nelson currently was hooked up with 174th but that his water main.would be replaced in.the improvements and.a water main wil1.run down the street i:n front of .his house. This will improve.his.water.service and also.provide fire protection since a fire hydrant.wi-ll.be located in front of -his -house. Mr. Nelson felt he was misinformed when he signed the LID.. Heindicated that the price of this assessment.had gone up about 100% since he signed the LID. Mr. Adams°said that the estimate was prepared by.the City's consultants and to the best of his knowledge. this was the original one and the total cost had been distributed.properly. Michael Gibb of 17521 72nd Ave. W..stated he also is a property.owner in this area. He stated he was in favor of the LID and the sewer program; however,.he had a question on the manner of paying for it. He also had a question on -the-prices the people were first.given versus the prices that were printed on the legal document they.received. Mr. Gibb.stated that Reid -Middleton gave a°price to one of his neighbors of $22 per -frontage foot for the assessment and the neighbor passed.it on to others. With this information -they all,signed the LID.petition thinking it would be the price they would pay: 'After signing the petition,. Mr. Gibb indicated he received a price of $46 per frontage foot. Mr.-.Gibb,requested that these people be given the maximum amount of -'time to pay this assessment. Councilman Naughten asked Mr. Gibb when he had gotten the $22 -figure. Mr. Gibb indicated that it was justprior to signing the LID. On March 17, 1980 he got the $46 figure from the City." Mr. Adams stated that originally some neighbors were going to go together and do this without the use of an LID. At that time they went to Reid -Middleton and got an estimate of what'it might cost, which probably was an estimate without any engineering, and thi.s was the cost they were going by when they signed the.petition. The City made a more thorough engineering study, and Mr. Adams said it probably costs a little more to go.through an LID procedure because of .the costs the City incurs. Mayor Harrison indicated that possibly these people inquired about prices just on sewers or just on water -- not both combined. Councilman Gould asked City Attorney Jim Murphy what the maximum payback time was, and what was allowable. The ordinance indicated ten equal payments to be paid within 12 years, after installation. Mr. Murphy stated that it could be any amount of time as long as it does not exceed the lifetime of the improvements. Twenty years had been placed in ordinances in the past. Mr. Gibb then stated that all the residents were quite surprised with the difference in prices, and were asking for more flexibility in the payback. The hearing was closed. COUNCILWOMAN ALLEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN NORDQUTST, TO PASS ORDINANCE 2129 ADOPTING LID 207 for sewer and water mains:.;. vicinity of,.7M. AVE. W..,..AND ,175T,H S.W. , WITH THE AMENDMENT ON PAGE FOUR OF CHANGING THE 10 EQUAL ANNUAL INSTALLMENTS TO 20-EQUAL ANNUAL INSTALLMENTS, AND CHANGING THE PAYBACK FROM,12 YEARS AFTER DATE OF ISSUE TO*BEING PAYABLE 22 YEARS AFTER DATE OF ISSUE. MOTION CARRIED. HEARING OW.WATER/SEWER RATES Public Works Director Fred Herzberg stated that in 1979 the City's income from water bills and the expenses would.just about break even. In 1980, going with the current rate, the City will lose about $110,000; in 1981, at the current rates the City will lose up to $150,000; and, in 1982, at the current -rates the City will have a $188.,000 loss --these are cumulative losses. There is not enough money in the bank to sustain these losses. Therefore, the City is recommending an -increase in water rates. Mr. Herzberg then compared the increases in the average water bill in Edmonds. A residence with 3.2 people and the cost -of -living index for the Seattle area over the past year show that the cost -of -living has increased substantially, whereas the average water bill has only increased slightly. Mr. Herzberg stated that the City has.defin.i.te.needs for improvements in the water system. There are two mains needed--one-from the King County line and one from the Alderwood side --which need additional transmission mains. In addition, t.here.are about 2.5 million dollars' worth of water main improvements in isolated areas of the City that.are needed in the next ten years. Mr. Herzberg then showed the recommended water rate schedule,. indicating that at this time there is a $4:75 minimum charge for 500 cu. ft.. �He recommended that..there :be: no, mi.n.imum..charge. °Instead, :that $2.00 be charged for being on the system, and'then charge for the amount of water used. A rate system:like,%this will.help those people that do not use much water since they would only pay for what they use. Without the replacement lines or new transmission lines and the light.gain the City expects this year, the average water bill'would be $7.78.. When replacement lines are included, and new transmission lines and the replacement reserve, the average water bill will be $12.82. Mr. Herzberg then showed the recommended sewer rate schedule, stating that for 1979 the City had projected a loss of $188,000, and an additional loss of $186,000 in 1980, an additional $339,000 in 1981, and a like amount in 1982, with which they would never catch up. He then compared the sewer rates to the cost -of -living index over the past ten years. There are a number of items needed .to bring.the sewer system up to'good condition. One of these is infiltration, water getting into ,the system. All the water going -into the sewer system needs to go through the treatment plant, which costs money. Manpower, equipment, and material to fix the sewer system will be approximately $150,000. Another item is the sewage -treatment plant, as determined by the EPA, which must be expanded sometime in the next few years. Land must be purchased by the City and is available immediately adjacent to the plant. Another item is drainage throughout the City, since people living in low areas are experiencing some flooding. For about $688,000 this problem can be remedied in those problem areas. Mr. Herzberg stated that the average sewer bill at this time is $3.50, no matter what the size of the house. The'City has established .a system whereby people pay for the amount of sewer they use. Without the drainage and replacement -reserve the average sewer bill would $8.64; with these two items the average bill would be $12-.16. At this time Edmonds has'the lowest water and sewer rates in the..State, and with these increases they will be higher than most'in the State, but.they will not be the highest. - Mayor Harrison stated that the proposed sewer rates are overly inflated when you include the treatment plant property and infiltration figures that are one-time figures, as opposed to established annual debt service or revenue bonds and that at least $2 - $3 could be eliminated for the sewer service charge.in this proposal. He suggested that the treatment plant property and the infiltration could go on bond issues or be reduced to keep the annual figures lower. Councilwoman Goetz had some concerns on infiltration in the Meadowdale area since some citizens had stated that they have sewage going .into their drains and pipes breaking. She stated that it may amount to over $150,000 for damage suits against the City.,The.public portion of the hearing was opened. 20 April 15, 1980.- continued Paul Roy of 840 Alder St. stated that he was flabbergasted that the water was going to cost $110,000 more, and he asked how this was projected. He felt that water is plentiful, sewers are adequate, the treatment plant is working and has substantial capacity, so he could not see why it.would cost more to operate that plant in coming years. He said the City was saying it wants to build up funds for future growth, but in the public eye he.had.never known funds to be kept for what they were intended in the future. Mr. Herzberg indicated that the rates were established in 1977 and that costs had gone up so rates must go up. He said -the City's bonding stature is Baa, not an Aaa bonding rating, and part of this was because the income is sufficient to�pay off the bonds the City has, but it does not have enough reserve for coverage. He said the difference between a Baa rating and an Aaa rating is that if you wanted to float.a million dollar bond issue.it would save $50,000 per year for 20 years, so it would Abe a .si.zabl.e' savings .for �a; relatively.,sma1l:.increase.:that' can: be used in the following years to pay for some of the other improvements. Roberta Kasmar of 725 Driftwood Lane confirmed that the average water bill on a home will go up about 50%. She asked Mr. Herzberg if salaries were also going up.50%. Mr. Herzberg clarified that when you look at salaries in 1977 and the cost of operation since then, it has increased signifi- cantly to 1980. Bjorn Thuesen, a builder, stated that.it costs.the builders about.$300.for water meters to new facilities, and also additional charges.for infiltration. He said draining costs had gone up and now the customers were being hit with additional usage charges, and that the water meter charge established a few years ago should be eliminated in the new rate structure. Also, that the water meter surcharge should be eliminated on new construction. He felt the citizens were getting hit from both sides. Don Shroeder, 528 8th Ave., asked whether the water rate was based on the size of the pipe and what . sewer rates were charged for septic tanks. Mr. Herzberg stated that .if you'are on a septic tank you pay only the base charge. The base charge is there since you are getting benefit from surface water drainage, from the beach not being polluted, and from not having surfacing of septic wastes in.the neighborhood which alleviates health hazards. Chuck Cain, 1060 6th Ave., felt that these added water and sewer.rates were just adding.to inflation. He felt the City of Edmonds should be cutting costs just as the citizens are. He said the City should find a way to get money, other than from the citizens. Councilwoman Goetz said she appreciated his concern but asked him how the City is to cut costs when it is losing hundreds of thousands of dollars each year? Mr. Cain indicated the City should cut employment and cut services. He felt the citizens could do the services; e.g., the businesses could sweep the streets in front of their stores. Mayor Harrison stated that this program was too.ambitious and should be stretched out over a peri.od of time. Councilman Gould stated that there needs to be a hard look .taken at both the water.and sewer rates and what has to be done, and possibly some things could be omitted. He suggested that Finance Director Art Housler determine what would be required and what could be omitted, such as MOTION: placing the infiltration and treatment plant property on a bond issue on a one-time basis. COUNCILMAN * NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN-GOULD, TO POSTPONE* THE HEARING ON WATER/SEWER RATES UNTIL MAY 6, 1980 I,N.ORDER-TO OBTAIN ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. MOTION CARRIED. HEARING ON COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE - FIRST READING Assistant City. Planner Richard Pearson stated that the purpose of the hearing was for the Council to review the entire Code and to go over the Planning Commission's recommendations. Mr. Pearson - stated that the basic Planning Commission recommendations were: (1) Keep the existing height limits, rather than revise them downward (if the Council does revise them downward the fallback is that there will -be some -flexibility); (2)'Retain the RM 2.4 zone, which is known as the RML zone --just • retain the existing density in the zone; (3) The subdivision application requirement be made consistent with the drainage' ordinance in the Code;(4) Retain the requirement for the Conditional Use Permit whenever there is grading in excess of 500 cu. yds. on any one site; (5) Require that applicants for grading permits designate where they are.taking the soil off the site; (6) All rezone proposals be heard by the Planni.ng:Advisory Board. The Staff had no objection.to these amendments.. The one item to which the Staff took exception was the motion to the section in the Shorelines program that requires public pedestrian access in the area between the ferry dock and the Port of Edmonds. Last June the Council had decided not to go ahead .with the walkway plan, so it was deleted from the Code. The Department of Ecology pointed out that this was the only provision.that addressed public pedestrian access in the area, so Staff proposed'to the Commission that rather than have it deleted that it be placed with general policy, and when commercial development occurs in that area the provision would exist.' The public portion of the hearing was opened. Mayor Harrison stated that each speaker would be limited to five minutes. William. Mathias, 540 Holly Dr., stated.that the Environmental_Impact Statement failed to address changes mainly in.the BC zones. Mr. Mathias then pointed out the BN, BC, and CW and CG zones and compared them to the rest of the size of the City which is R zoned, stating that these areas make up a small part of the City and this is where the most density is. If there is any reduced density in RM areas the,impact would get greater, such as apartments and condominiums. Mr. Mathias commented on 20.105.040, Council review, stating that communication is a very difficult thing.when the public has to constantly review the legal notices that appear in the.paper (which is.the basic means of notifying the citizens) that there is something going on. He said...this Code was over nine -months in the making and a•large..number.of•people knew nothing about these hearings. In that regard., he felt that the changing from.a de novo hearing to a hearing strictly on the record; in hearing examiner appeals to the Council, that if the citizens are not notified properly they may miss the first hearing and will not be on the record, so when it goes before the Council they will have no say. Ray Martin of 18704 94th Ave. W. indicated he had a petition to deliver to the..Council which stated: "In order to'preserve the small-town appearance of downtown Edmonds and -to 0eevent the "Big Box" • *See correction, April 22, 1980. • April 15, 1980 - continued architecture which.threatens-it, we; the undersigned;..request.that>.: M The Edmonds .City Council establish a height -limit of.25'..or, up to 30' if -the roof..is..pitched., in the multiple residential zones (RMH, RML, RMD) and commercial zones (BC, CW, CG) of -the Downtown Business Area (that area east of Puget Sound, south of Caspers St., west of 7th Ave. and north of Pine St.), except in view sensitive areas. Regardless of the selected height, no building shall exceed two stories above gound.level. (2) The Edmonds City Council direct the Architectural Design Board (ADB) to consider only heights of 25', or less in.the view sensitive areas of the above multiple and commercial zones, ' and that the City Council automatically review those AN decisions. This:petition was signed by 865 citizens. Mr. Martin felt the Comprehensive Plan is a..good idea, but that there is.a large amount of material there and a l.ot of controversial material.. He said the major area is what is going to -happen to the downtown' area? The unlimited height restriction concerned.him, and he requested that the Council take:its time in examining. the Code. Ann Derleth:of 8223 Frederick.Pl._.supported the concern regarding theheight limitations in the downtown Edmonds area. She was concerned with the changes .in :the side yard setbacks which would d require 5' on one side and 10' on the other for a .residential home, regardless of lot size. She said the amount of side yard setback:.varies with the size..of.the lot and if you compare the side yard setback for a home in RS-20 now -it must be a total of.35', and in the proposed Code it would be reduced to 15'.., She said in the RS-.12 and.RS-20 lots this would be have an impact on how wide the house will be.and how views would be.affected. She stated that issue should be looked at closely. She felt°the move to a hearing examiner was a good one and would allow for consistent decisions and she felt appeals on the record would. be good. She said.if the hearing examiner is not carefully selected,And that should be done by .the Council, the Council w ll.fi-nd themselves flooded with appeals. 'She added that the hearing examiner is a staff.person to the Council and the,Council should.be comfortable with this person. • Natalie Shippen of 1022 Euclid spoke in.support of the measures that were -outlined in the petition read by Ray Martin, indicating that the petition height limits were more in keeping with the goals of the City. She.did not agree that the ADB should have the authority to exceed the restricted height limits established for each zone. Steve Dwyer, 529 Holly St. felt.the P-lanning Commission.proposal to let the ADB waive a particular height limit was illfounded.. He said.the.logic behind it was lacking and there is a need for maximums which should be carried through. He felt the ADB was a poor mechanism for allowing additional heights. He said the purpose of.the ADB was to be a design board to act within the requirements, above.the minimums and within the.'maximums of the Code. Instead, he thought the group's function had been changed to being a super legislative body to supersede the maximums. Lloyd Ostrom of 711 Puget Lane statedthat he did not.think.the petition or the proposed Code would do anything to change the directionin which Edmonds is going. He .did not think the height restrictions were a problem. He stated that Edmonds is a town that is attractive because it has a lot of diversity in architecture. He said the proposals.just did not go far enough and did not address preserving the:nature of Edmonds. He felt downtown Edmonds should be made a historical preservation. Irene Nagy of 271 4th Ave. S. stated that if codes are set they should be adhered to.and should not be continually changed. Since the -.City. of Edmonds is so unique, she felt it should. be kept that way since that is -why most people live here. Don Kasmar of-725 Driftwood Lane summarized that the consensus of all that had been said on this issue was to maintain Edmonds the way.it,is. He said Edmonds would do better not to allow apartments where they now are prohibited. Roberta Kasmar of 725 Driftwood Lane stated that she was not -happy with the changes that had happened -in Edmonds in the past 18 years. She said the whole south end is.apartment.bui.ldings and the people • do not want more apartment buildings.. She said the new.Code would allow apartment buildings in two more areas where they now are prohibited, and she asked.that.Edmonds be kept the small town it is. Mayor Harrison then asked Richard Pearson where these apartment buildings would be permitted in the new Code that they are not permitted now. Mr. -Pearson -stated that they were referring -to the proposal to allow -apartments above the ground floor in the BC distri-ct.. Currently in the BC district there can be one residential unit per lot. Under the proposed Code multiple residential uses are allowed in the CG zone along Highway 99. Councilman Nordquist read a letter.he.-received from Louise and Joseph Dwyer of 529 Holly who were unable to attend the Council meeting.. Some of their comments included wanting to have the hearing examiner appointed.by the City Council,, and not by the.Mayor,.which they felt was a much more democratic process. Further,'that the area from 5th Ave. S., from Pine to Main St., be made -a separate zone to be treated differently from the other BC -zones since it.'is a._view sensitive area.. They also were opposed to the ADB's having the authority .to waive the height limitations in the BC, CW, and RM zones at this was not in keeping with<.the Community Development Code. Roger Hertrich of 1020 Puget Dr.: referred to page 18, Title 15.15.030, Beautification and Urban. Design,` Section. B.1.b. which. discusses..the.Highway 99..commercia.l.area. He asked if this had to do with the height of the buildings,.stating. that..Highway.99,should.not.be a skyscraper.area. Mr. Hertrich-also noted Title 15.15.30,..Section B.-2., regarding downtown appearance and two-story buildings in the area.. He stated that the new Code relates to three-story buildings in the downtown area. Mr. Hertr.ich then..referred to.15.20.005 B.,.regarding the high quality residential.development which should be maintained or promoted and,.paragraph 3 of that.section.regar-ding minimum encroachment on views of,ex.i.s.ting homes,by new construction or-additi.ons..,.to existing. homes. He said it states "homes".but°he asked about development.in :the downtown --area. He said this proposed Code has a complete1.y ,new section.on PRDs that allows the flat land.de.velopment.rather than hills and gullies. He was opposed to the PRDs: • 2 April 15, 1980 - continued • Paul Roy of 840-Alder'stated that the City had grown in an orderly manner .with the current -height restrictions. He did not see anything wrong with the size of Edmonds,.which was planned with a Comprehensive Plan.' He said Edmonds had improved considerably and those people who.want Edmonds -to stay small are selfish, wanting everything for themselves. He said.People do not own views. Lee Patten of 8902 205th P1. S.W.. stated.that.he was, for keeping things the way they are. He owns a piece of property that is zoned for 35' height limitation and he plans to build something on it that is 35', will provide parking, and will look good, and will help the citizens with the services it will provide. He said you,,ca.nnot put parking under a building.and-build one story --you have to go up two, and you cannot build that in 25', you have to do it in 35'... Therefore, he felt there should not be a 25' height restriction. Ilene Owen of.18508 9th Ave. W. said.she had heard people saying they had lived in Edmonds 18-20 years and did not like to see What -is -happening. She had been here.for three years and did not like what is happening. She felt that heavy traffic.and high-rises were not -improvements for Edmonds, and she said she would like to see Edmonds remain unique and orderly. Lee Doolittle of 7.14 Laurel Way stated that some can live with the height restrictions_as.they are. - He was against the ADB which he felt had the.potential .to allow a.building to go higher than 35'. He felt .that neither the Council nor the ADB should be allowedto raise it. Bert Stole, a builder, felt the ADB has':the expertise,and that they should be able to make the decisions to allow higher buildings. He stated that the City Council should go along with the recommendations of the Staff and the Planning Commission because they have gone over this and spent a great deal of time on this to set these standards. He said if the City is going to develop in an orderly manner.it should go by the Comprehensive Plan just as it always has, and he asked what is • wrong with the way the City is now., .He said the City .could do better .if the Boards would listen more carefully, such as the ADB. He stated.that.the parking problems. .in Edmonds have expanded so that it is almost impossible to park at all. He suggested that the new parking requirements be examined and that the Mayor direct that a study,of the parking be made. Bjorn Thuesen, a developer, stated that most of the RML is not.in the downtown area but somewhat outlying. He related the history of downzoning this City has had, stating that just a couple of years ago the density was reduced by 20% and now they want to downzone another 20%, from 2400 sq. ft. per unit to 3000 sq. ft. per unit. He said .there is a great economic impact in that, that typical land cost is $10,000 per unit, and if you downzone ]0% you add another $2,000 per unit in land cost. He wanted to point out that it is getting so expensive that people cannot afford to live in homes. He felt the density in the RML.zone should be left alone and.not be reduced, and that the recommendation of the Planning Commission should be taken. Keith LaBelle, Chairman of the Planning Commission, wanted to clarify the Planning Commission's recommendations,on the Community Development Code. He stated.that this Code is a single osurce of all the City codes and requirements put together, and the major concerns were the density require- ments and height restrictions. The Planning Commission's recommendation was based primarily on the overall zoning ordinance.and it was felt that instead ofjumping in and.changing it, that it should be left as it is to be reviewed by a committee, to afford the time.and attention necessary to do a good and accurate job. He said the Planning Commission did not like the idea of the ADB waiving the height restrictions. He had not heard anything extremely negative regarding the hearing examiner process and it appeared to.him to be a. good step in the right direction to simplify the process of development within the City in an organized manner. He stated that•the basic .zoning in the City had been in existence since 1964. Mayor Harrison noted that a point to be considered in the height limitations was that all of the existing buildings which -are -at 35' will become.nonconforming, and in the event they were burned or seriously damaged rebuilding should be allowed. • Dan G_anfield, employed by Kinderfather, Chaffos &.Dunn Architects, stated that concerning the.CG zone you could now build a three-story.buildi.ng;.however, should the height -restriction be reduced you probably.would be building two-story buildings and rather than covering 50% of the site you. would be covering 70% of the site. He said square footage would not be reduced because the building has to be of sufficient size to make it pay. Also, reducing the heights would'; in effect, support an increase in lot coverage and less open space in the CG zone, and that would be a type of construction which is lesssufficient and more costly to the tenant. The publicportion of the hearing was then closed. Councilman Gould thanked all the people for coming and indicating their interest in',the City. He said that. basically what had been heard this evening could be,classified into six categories to which the Council must speak:. (1) The building height issue;.(2) Setbacks; (3) View encroachment and protection; (4) Hearing examiner appointment; (5) Authority of the ADB; and (6) Protection of one's investment. Councilman Gould said the Council needs to.address each of those issues as they review the Code, and he favored taking it one section at a time to make sure they thoroughly understand it. He felt the Council should be slow and.deliberate on it, rather than moving over it fast and not knowing what they did. HEARING ON ANDERSON CENTER'DEVELOPMENT.AND. SITE PLANS Parks and Recreation Division Manager. Jim Jessel stated that C1iff.Jackson of Arai Jackson Architects would be presenting the°Anderson Center development and.site plans. The three major elements in the master plan were a new Tibrary/parking and.plaza complex, a cultural project area, and a handicapped and barrier removal project. The City.already had a grant of $345,000 .for the handicapped improvements project. Mr. Jessel indicated that this plan had been presented to .,the City Council and the Park Board on numerous occasions, but this was the first time it had been presented without a major recreation improvement. He stated that he had had discussions regarding the possibility of using • April 15, 1980 - continued the Church of the Open Bible property next to the field as a potential gym and raquetball site, and he hoped within the next several .weelks,to bring a proposal to the City Council on this development. Cliff Jackson then presented the master plan.to the Counci.l. :Phase 1 of the Master Plan was to develop the existing structure to comply with handicapped codes- The development for the.handicapped will be -in two -phases --first, to have a handicapped access to all..areas, elevators and toilet facilities. The first phase is to be completed in 1980-81, to be started.in August or September. The last phase of the handicapped project will be done in.1981. The library will:be built on the west side of the building.. All sports functions'wi.11 be located on other property away from this site. One wing of the old building which presently houses the day care facilities.will be demolished and an entry plaza will be constructed with parking under it. This entry plaza will create a lid which will be for a pedestrian deck that will connect -to the top of the library. The parking, lid, and pedestrian deck will:be approximately $450,;000. .The library will be..a.,single story with 20,000 sq. ft. and will cost about $2,000,000. Councilman. Gould asked what.would.happen to the gym, and Mr. Jackson responded that with the sports activities moving away from the Anderson Center,,' it will move toward cultural arts. The'master plan shows the gym walls opened, -up and having an amphitheater. These gym wal.ls wil1 open and close for both indoor and outdoor activities.. The public portion of the hearing was opened. Ann Wermus, Chairman of Library Board,. asked how high.the building would Abe. Mr. Jackson stated that there is a lot -of flexibility with the height of the library since it will be nestled in the ground, and although to say there would be a 12'- 14' ceiling.was a little premature, he felt it would be somewhere in that range. Mrs. Wermus asked whether..the $2,000,000 included any furnishings, and he responded that the cost was just for the building structure. - The audience.had some question as to.the setback from Durbin.St:.-'.Mr. Jackson indicated that it will be about 35' from the street, and he indicated it was a little more than that on the Dayton St. • side. There also was a question as to whether the traffic or.parking on Dayton would be changed. Mr. Jackson stated there_ were no plans for that, at least at this time, and the on -site parking meets the Code. It was commented that $2,000,000 i.s a lot.for a building, and he responded that a building like this is built to last.a longtime, and probably.w.ill be constructed of masonry and casting. There were some objections .from a citizen in.the audience regarding the amphitheater in reference to the noise it might create. .Mr. Jackson responded that this was just an idea, and nothing definite. Marie King, 713 Laurel St., stated that she.felt the tennis courts should be retained since there are not many in.the.City now. She stated that -the City needs more recreation facilities instead of an amphitheater. Ms. King also stated.that the existing library should be expanded,.not.a new one.built at a different site as the seniors are not able to make it up the hill. Mr. Jackson responded that the new library. -location is centrally.located and is on a bus line. Mr. Jessel stated that the City does have $345,000 in handicapped funds for the barrier removal program and he was awaiting approval to go ahead with.it. Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Dr., stated that he.could see an investment going towards putting a top on the Yost Park pool instead of spending money on the cultural center, feeling.covering the pool was more of a.priorit than the,library. Councilwoman Allen responded that the pool' cover had been on.a.bond issue andywas voted down. Councilman Gould stated that the Council/had made up a five-year list and a ten-year list of improve- ments for the City, and one of the items on the list was the pool cover, but in searching for priorities for the City the cover comes out low in most people's views. Someone in the audience stated she had read somehwere that the Council had .tentatively committed $100,000 to a Performing Arts Center at the Community College, and she asked_why.not spend that.in..the City.of Edmonds. Another citizen from the audience asked what had caused the.library to expand and why it has to be relocated. He was in favor of expanding the library where it presently is located. He was told if the City needs 20,000 sq. ft. now --for a.,library that would be locking themselves in on the present site. In response to a question about expansion in the future, Librarian Kathy Turner stated that • the idea of expanding the library was initiated in 1968.. In.1977 space calculations were made based on population in -the City and 15,000 sq. ft. was needed, and.-in.1985 it will be somewhere around 17,000 sq. ft. So if you;were going tobuild with.the idea you would not have to expand for 20-30. years, you would want to get as much.space as is available. I.t.was.then asked if 17,000 sq. ft. was needed.now•and 20,000 sq. ft. was being looked into now., how.would it be expanded in years ahead. .Mr. Jackson indicated,that there are other buildings on. this site that would be available to expand the library up to -another 7,000 sq..ft. Ms. Turner asked Mr..Jackson if the parking area would be screened, or.if there would be.a covered entrance, and whether footsteps could be heard on the ceiling of the library. Mr. Jackson indicated that these­pl.ans.mere..'.for-:the'.buiTd:ing onhy,:�.and'those MOTION: items would be determined in:the design that the City wants. COUNCILWOMAN ALLEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILWOMAN GOETZ, TO APPROVE THE -TOTAL CONCEPT OF THE MASTER PLAN WHICH INCLUDES ALL THREE PHASES; * AND TO GIVE APPROVAL ON THE HANDICAPPED FUND PROJECT.* With no further.business to go before the City Council, the meeting was adjourned at 11:25 p.m., Due to the.hour; the Executive Session.was canceled. i, IN VARNEY MORAN, prty Clerk HARVE.H.. HARRISON, Mayor * See correction, April 22,1980