Loading...
19800422 City Council MinutesApril 22, 1980 The regular meeting of the Edmonds..City Council was called to order at 8:00 p.m. by Mayor Harve Harrison,in`the Council Chambers. of the Edmonds.Civic Center..,_. Al l.present joined in the flag salute. PRESENT ABSENT STAFF .PRESENT Harve Harrison, Mayor Mary Goetz Charles Dibble, M.A.A. Jo -Anne Childers-Jaech Bill Kasper Fred Herzberg, Public Works Director Jim Adams., City Engineer .-Katherine Allen John LaTourelle, Planning Consultant John Nordquist Mary Lou Black, Acting Planning Div. Mgr. Ray Gould Richard Pearson, Assistant City Planner Larry Naughten Irene Varney .Moran, City Clerk Jack Weinz., Fire Chief Jim Jessel, Parks & Recreation Div. Mgr. Felix deMello, Bldgs. & Grounds Supt. Jim Murphy, City Attorney Jackie.Parrett, Deputy City Clerk CONSENT AGENDA MOTION: Items (B), (E), and (G) were removed from the Consent Agenda. COUNCILMAN NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN. KASPER, TO APPROVE THE BALANCE OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED. The approved items on'the Consent Agenda included the following: (A) Roll.call. • (C) Acknowledgment of receipt of Claim for Damages from.Scott Sawhill in the amount of $87.01. (D) Setting date of May 6,. 1980 for hearing on preliminary review of four -lot subdivision at 9122 Main St. (File P-1-80) (F) Approval of Street Use.Permi.t.for.marquee at Bal.inka's, 104 5th Ave..N. (H) Adoption of Ordinance 2131,.establishing Council.President's salary of $200 per month. (I) Acceptance of Fishing Pier.Park.i.ng Lot constructed by Knowles Construction Co., and establishment of 30-day.lien period. M . Passage of Resolution.466, authorizing Mayor to sign IAC application and related documents. APPROVAL..OF MINUTES OF APRIL 15, 1980 [Item (B) on Consent Agenda] Councilwoman Allen noted that in the second line of the motion in the first paragraph on page 5, the word "postpone" should be "continue." Also, Councilman Kasper noted that following the last motion on the the last page of the minutes, -"MOTION CARRIED" was omitted and that should be inserted. MOTION: COUNCILWOMAN ALLEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN GOULD, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF APRIL 15, 1980, AS CORRECTED. MOTION CARRIED. AUTHORIZATION_TO CONTRACT WITH TRANSPORTATION PLANNING CONSULTANT FOR TRAFFIC STUDY IMPROVEMENTS Item Mon Consent Agenda. Councilwoman Allen stated she only wanted to mention, because:it was worthy of note, that $7,000 in federal money had been received for the traffic study.improvements, and she commended the Public MOTION: Works Department on this approach.. COUNCILWOMAN ALLEN THEN MOVED, SECONDED'BY COUNCILMAN NORDQUIST, • TO APPROVE ITEM (E) ON THE CONSENT AGENDA, AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH NORTHWEST ENGINEERING CO. AS THE TRANSPORTATION PLANNING CONSULTANT TO CONDUCT A STUDY TO IDENTIFY AND PRIORITIZE SPECIFIC PROJECTS TO IMPROVE TRAFFIC SAFETY. MOTION CARRIED. PROPOSED ORDINANCE PROHIBITING PARKING.ON.WEST SIDE OF ADMIRAL WAY [Item (G) on Consent Agenda] City -Attorney Jim Murphy had removed this item from the Consent Agenda, saying the ordinance had been reworded as there had been some inconsistencies in the ordinance which came forward from Engineering. MOTION: He distributed copies of the reworded ordinance. COUNCILWOMAN ALLEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN NORDQUIST, TO ADOPT ORDINANCE 2130, PROHIBITING PARKING ON THE WEST SIDE OF ADMIRAL WAY. MOTION CARRIED.. COUNCIL Councilman Naughten said he thought -the majority of the people.in the audience were present for the hearing on the Community Development Code, so he felt it.should be moved up on the.agenda. COUNCILMAN MOTION: NAUGHTEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN GOULD, TO MOVE THE.HEARING ON THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE TO ITEM 5, THE.:FIRST.,ITEM FOLLOWING AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION.`. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman.Nordquist suggested that the last item on the agenda, "Discussion on Senior Center Insurance," be moved to next week's agenda inasmuch as Leo Gese, attorney for the Senior Center, could not be MOTION: present this evening. COUNCILMAN NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILWOMAN ALLEN, TO PLACE THE DISCUSSION ON SENIOR CENTER INSURANCE ON THE APRIL 29, 1980 AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Nordquist read aloud an:invitation to the swearing in of the new County officials on May 1, 1980 at 10:00 a.m. Councilman Nordquist noted that last evening the Nile Country Club had been annexed to the City of Mountlake Terrace so Snohomish County.wi.11 have no jurisdiction.over any part of Lake Ballinger. Edmonds now will have to decide whether to enact legislation similar to that of Mountlake Terrace b April 22, 1980 - continued MOTION: regarding boat operations. COUNCILMAN NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN NAUGKTEN,.TQ PLACE,. THE SUBJECT OF BOAT OPERATIONS ON LAKE BALLINGER.ON THE MAY 13, 1.980 AGENDA: MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Nordquist stated that Councilwoman Goetz had received correspondence from a.representative of the Harbormaster Condominium requesting restricted parking of two or four hours'in front of their building, and Councilwoman Goetz suggested it be discussed at a Council work meeting. COUNCILMAN MOTION: NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN GOULD, THAT THE PARKING PROBLEM AT THE HARBORMASTER CONDOMINIUM BE DISCUSSED AT THE MAY 13, 1980 WORK MEETING.. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Nordquist expressed appreciation to Judie Gilbo during National Secretaries' Week for her work as the Council secretary and for her recent project in coordinating the Council/Staff Retreat. He distributed a -summary of the items covered during the retreat which Mrs. Gilbo had prepared, along with a critique which he asked the participants to complete and return to her as an aid to planning future retreats. Councilman Naughten.complimented Councilman.Nordquist and Mrs. Gilbo for their work on -the retreat, feeling it was very well organized and.a very worthwhile experience. Councilman Kasper reported that Councilman Gould and he had met with the Library Board on April 21, and that he would like the Council to have a hearing regarding the proposed library on the Frances MOTION: Anderson Center site. COUNCILMAN KASPER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILWOMAN ALLEN, THAT A HEARING BE SCHEDULED FOR MAY 27, 1980 REGARDING THE PROPOSED LIBRARY AT THE FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER SITE. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Naughten observed that the April 29 agenda was very lengthy, and he asked if any of the MOTION: items could be moved to another date. After discussion, COUNCILMAN GOULD MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL- WOMAN ALLEN, TO MOVE THE DISCUSSION OF THE COMMUNITY SCHOOLS PROGRAM FOR THE ESPERANCE AREA TO MAY 13, 1980. MOTION CARRIED. City Attorney Jim Murphy said he had.been contacted by representatives of the 7-11 convenience stores who would like to be heard regarding the proposed ordinance to regulate hours of operation of such stores, but they.cannot be present at the,. -April 29 meeting: "'COUNC.ILMAN • MOTION: GOULD MOVED,,SECONDED BY COUNCILWOMAN ALLEN,TO RESCHEDULE FROM APRIL 29, 1980 TO MAY 20, 1980 THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE REGARDING OPERATING HOURS -OF CONVENIENCE/GROCERY STORES. MOTION CARRIED. Councilwoman Allen noted that a memorandum had been received regarding possible acquisition of property for Public Works Department storage space, and she asked that this be considered at the end of this evening's agenda. HEARING ON COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE -.SECOND READING Assistant City Planner Richard Pearson commented on changes to the current draft which should be addressed if the the proposal were to be approved. He also distributed a chart comparing parking standards locally and nationally. Councilwoman Allen suggested that a time limit be established for the public hearing as the proposal was lengthy and the Council would,want adequate time for con - MOTION: sideration. COUNCILWOMAN ALLEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN GOULD THAT THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE BE LIMITED TO ONE HOUR. MOTION CARRIED. Ray Martin of.18704,94th Ave. W. said pages 40 and 41 (15.25.020) were virtually useless because they were out of date, making no mention of the Community. Transit or.the arrangements between Metro and Community Transit. He recommended that this section either be updated or removed. He approved of the hearing examiner concept because he felt a hearing examiner.would be motivated to be fair and consistent and would know the rules, and therefore would be less likely to be swayed by irrelevant information. However., he felt that if the applicant does not like the hearing examiner's decision he may appeal to the Council and the hearing examiner will resent that. He felt it was essential that the applicant.have .the right to review a verbatim transcript of the hearing before the hearing examiner, even if.he has to make it himself, -because then he can -present that which may be omitted by the hearing examiner. He felt that the Planning personnel probably-would"continue" to present a positive or negative image on the application. He asked to whom.the hearing examiner would report, • as.the proposal indicated the Mayor would make the appointment but the Council could fire him. Mayor Harrison stated that the hearing examiner would report to the Mayor. Don Kasmar of 725.Driftwood Lane said that in the interest of keeping Edmonds a small community he was concerned that there were three areas in the proposal which would be open to apartments which had not been.previously.. Mr. Pearson explained that the*Staff had recommended that*all uses be allowed in the CG zone,which is, mainly. along Highway 99; that in,the downtown area of BC the current code does not allow more than one unit.per lot and the proposed code would allow apartments as a secondary use.to retail or office use; and in the RS zone the proposed code would allow the Council to consider apartments in PRDs, whereas townhouses only can now be proposed. He said the Staff has felt that at times a little more flexibility should be possible in PRDs. Jim Shields of 709 6th Ave. N. said hewas concerned that the City.already.has advertised for.a hearing examiner when the proposed code -has not yet been adopted. He felt.the hearing examiner concept would remove City government still farther from the peopl.e.. He said the neighborhoods have the right to.express themselves and they would like to express themselves to seven citizens, rather than have an adversary system with a hearing examiner. He noted that on many occasions the neighborhoods have had to go en manse to a board, and this would cut off one avenue from them by replacing seven citizens with a civil servant. He felt that was too much government at the local level. Martha Reardon of.1004 Daley St. was concerned about building heights. She said the Planning Com-, mission had recommended that there be nochange in the code regarding building heights, two or three people had gathered several hundred names opposed to he change, and at.the last hearing a number had stated their opposition to.any change -in the building heights., She felt if the hearing examiner and Council were to have the ability to grant building height variances there would be too much pressure on them to do so, and she felt the City would end up with'high-rise apartments along the coastline. She asked..that any authority given to,the Councilor hearing examiner to grant variances in building heights be deleted from the proposed code. 27 • Apri1 22, 1980 - continued Lloyd Ostrom.,of -711,Puget.Lane.saw no reason to try to.pass.this immediately. He felt the proposed code should be considered section by section, and that it was.diff,icu.lt for the layman to understand what was in the old code and what was new. Natalie Shippen of 1022 Euclid asked.what.the purpose was -of combining the BC and the BN zones. Mr. Pearson responded that although.they.were combined.into.one,..three-page zoning section, the differences were kept and they would still appear on the zoning map as BC.and,BN. Mrs. Shippen did not think any uses should be added to the BN zones. •Harley Crain of 17,126 68th.Ave. W. felt that the proposed.changes would change Edmonds froma home town to a large'town,.and he felt the.proposal should be studied more thoroughly. He agreed, -that the hearing examiner process had efficiencies, but he.felt ..it left a person.subject to one person's interpretation of the code. He felt the'citizens could be better heard -by talking.to.a diverse group. Roberta Kasmar.of 725 Driftwood.Lane read.a.letter which she. -had addressed to the Council saying the majority of Edmonds citizens wou.ld.be.shocked to find that the new code would allow apartment buildings in RS areas of.Edmonds. Her letter discussed the changes for PRDs which she felt.would result in more apartments: :She asked that apartments be prohibited from RS zones, that.the requirement of an unusual site be retained for PRDs, that a minimum area requirement be established for.PRDs (preferably five acres), that 10' minimum side yard setbacks be established, -and that common wall construction _be pro- hibited -in RS zones. Patty Price of.515 5th Ave. S. said the.citizens had,not been aware that this proposal was under study in recent months. She felt there should -be compromises. between builders and.those.who want'to keep Edmonds a small town, and she spoke of ,the ways other towns had developed in comparison. She felt time should be • .taken to make the changes. Roger Hertrich.of 1020 Puget Dr...said..the.new code refers to PRDs.being applicable in the RS and RM zones and also that mobile homes would be allowed in PRDs which he did.not understand. He said he would like to -see -it added that if buildings are grouped in a ravine area that there should be a trail for the public to,use. He asked what was meant by "minimum encroachment of view" (in 15.20.000). He felt the parking requirements discussion i n . Ti tl e 17 were ',too`r 1oose,'..tfiat aherelwi 1.1', be `.a :1 ot..of :d s- cretion regarding.parking requirements. He felt comments should.be- solicited from the surrounding neighborhoods which will be affected since there will not be two hearings (the Planning Commission and the City Council). No one else wished to speak, and the public portion of the hearing was closed. Councilman Naughten agreed that.the issues were complex, and he saw no reason to rush approval.of the proposed code. Councilman Gould.said.he would like to approach the code section by section., utilizing'the.appendix which lists the changes being proposed. Possible dates -for reviewing -the sections were discussed, with Plann-ing.Consultant John LaTourelle suggesting that there be two heari.ngs:on each section'instead_of one, the second hearing providing the update from the first: MOTION• hearing. 000NC.TLMAN NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN GOULD, TO RESCHEDULE THE CONTINUED DISCUSSION ON WATER/SEWER RATES FROM.MAY.6, 1980 TO MAY 13, 1980 TO OPEN THAT DATE FOR HEARING A SECTION OF THE PROPOSED CODE.. MOTION CARRIED. Mr. LaTourelle recommended that the critical issues to be discussed be identified.' He 'said th-is evening's hear.ing.was-the-l9th.public meeting or hearing that.had been conducted on this.subject and the two Planning Commission hearings which preceded this, hearing were held to packed houses. Also, he noted that this was the second packed house the Council had. He said most of what is in the code is either housekeeping or is identical to what was in the previous code,.and his department had a lot of pride of authorship in it. They felt the hearing examiner process will be a good thing for the -City and for all the citizens. He recommended that the Council -identify -the critical issues to be discussed and.his department could come back with those items for discussion and the rest of the code could be adopted. Councilwoman-Chi-lders-Jaech • said there was a lot of -citizen input:at the P1anning.Commission hearings but the'publi,c did not get much response from the Planning Commission. She said this was an important document and they should take the time�to hear it, and.just because something was in the old code does not mean'it is right. She said she would like to see a.schedule established for.hearing the sections and then not deviate from the schedule so the citizens will know when to attend. COUNCILMAN GOULD THEN MOVED, SECONDED MOTION: BY COUNCILWOMAN CHILDERS-JAECH, TO HEAR TITLE 15 ON MAY 6,.1980. MOTION CARRIED, WITH COUNCIL MEMBERS..ALLEN AND KASPER VOTING NO.: COUNCILMAN GOULD MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN NAUGHTEN, THAT BOTH TITLES 16 AND 21 (TITLE.21 BEING DEFINITIONS WHICH WOULD.APPLY TO TITLE 16) BE HEARD ON MAY 20 and JUNE•'3,. 1980. MOTION CARRIED., Councilman Kasper said he had voted ­no on the first motion pertaining'to Title 15 because he thought it would do more harm than good to go through this -in this manner. He did not think the whole thing should be scheduled until these titles had been heard. No further hearing dates were set. Councilman Gould noted that in Title 15 the transportation section should.be updated as recommended by Mr. Martin. Councilman Naughten added that Mr. Hertrich's question as to what is meant by."min-imum encroachment of views" also should be addressed. A short recess.was announced. MOTION: When the meeting was reconvened, COUNCILMAN. NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED -BY COUNCILMAN GOULD, THAT THE HIRING OF THE HEARING EXAMINER BE DELAYED UNTIL JULY 1,.1980. MOTION CARRIED. HEARING ON .PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE OFFICIAL STREET MAP TO EXTEND THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY FROM HILLCREST PL. SOUTH AND.WEST..TO SHELL VALLEY RD. (File ST-10-79) This item had been approved by the Planning Commission in.May of 1979, but when heard by the Council it was sent back to the Planning, -Commission for -reconsideration as the Council felt there should be a terminus before the right-of-way.reached.Shell Valley Rd.,, thereby -not providing access to Shell Valley from..Hillcrest. The Plann,ing.Commission again heard -the proposal in January of 1980 and determined that a need still.existed.to,provide.additional- access to Shell Valley and that there was no assurance.that the extension of..P.ioneer Way would ever..be accomplished, so they again approved the proposal... The Planning Division also recommended approval.... Acting Planning Division Manager Mary Lou Block said the two properties adjoining the proposed extension on either side of it were s April 22, 1980 - continued • currently undeveloped, and if this extension were put on the Official Street Map the road, when developed, would have to be built to City standards and the proper setbacks would be required. She added that when this had been discussed'previously there had -been some question as to what the grade would be on the extension. Since that time the Engineering Division had accomplished a study of .it and determined that it would have an average.10% grade. In comparison, Shell Valley Rd. has an average 18% grade, with some points being close.to 24%. Fire Chief. Jack Weinz said.one`of the big problems for the Fire Department .is thatthere is only one access to that area, and he strongly supported provision of another access to Shell Valley. The public portion of hearing was then opened. Maybelle Chapman of 20915 Hillcrest P1.. said she was opposed to the•idea of extending Hillcrest P1. down to the bottom of the valley. She said.a 40' wide road would go.thr.ough several existing houses, and she felt -the answer to the problem was the development of.the extension of Pioneer Way. Allen Jones of 20828 Hillcrest-Pl. agreed with Mrs. Chapman's comments, and he said all 15 residents on Hillcrest P1. want it to be a dead-end street. No one else wi.shed.to speak, and the public portion of the hearing was closed. Councilwoman Allen felt that Pioneer.Way would be preferable access to Shell Valley and she was MOTION: opposed to -amending the. Official Streep Map.in this way. COUNCILWOMAN_ALLEN.MOVED, SECONDED BY - ;COUNCILMAN KASPER, TO DENY THE PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE OFFICIAL STREET.MAP TO EXTEND THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY FROM`HILLCREST PL. SOUTH AND WEST. Councilman Naughten felt that somehow •the Pioneer Way access should be acquired, and Councilman Gould expressed agreement. THE MOTION CARRIED. MOTION: COUNCILMAN.NAUGHTEN THEN MOVED THAT THE EXTENSION OF HILLCREST PL. BE PUT ON THE OFFICIAL STREET MAP (Failed) BUT THAT IT BE SHOWN WITH A DEADEND AT THE BOTTOM (SOUTH). MOTION" FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. MOTION: COUNCILMAN NORDQU.IST THEN -MOVED, SECONDED.BY COUNCILMAN GOULD,.THAT THE MAYOR'S OFFICE BE ASKED FOR A REPORT FOR THE MAY 20,:1980 MEETING ON.WHAT IT WOULD TAKE TO EXPEDITE THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE EXTENSION OF PIONEER WAY THROUGH.TO MAIN ST. MOTION CARRIED. HEARING ON PROPOSED.AMENDMENT TO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO CHANGE DESIGNATION OF FOLLOWING•FROM INDUSTRIAL TO BUSINESS: A 14.61 ACRE PARCEL ON EAST SIDE OF.BURLINGTON.NORTHERN RAILROAD,'WEST SIDE OF SR 104, NORTH SIDE OF UNION OIL MARSH, AND ON SOUTH SIDE OF.DAY.TON ST.; AND HEARING ON CONTRACT REZONE FROM IP TO CG (Files CP.-2-.79.and R-4-79) Acting Planning Division Manager Mary Lou.Block.indicated the Planni-ng Commission had recommended. approval of the proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and of.the contract rezone, and the Council had_ been provided copies of the minutes of their.meetings and of drawings of the proposed business park. An EIS had been required for the project, and the draft"EIS had been provided to the Council in November of 1979. The final EIS was issued January 21, 1980. The originally submitted contract had been revised several times and the Council had been provided a draft of the revised contract. It was noted that the applicant..was requested to include a maximum height -limitation of 35'.' Ms. Block introduced Herb Carpenter of Reid., Middleton & Associates',"representing the Port.of Edmonds, who'described the project.. (During'this'hearing Counc.ilman'Nordquist left the meeting.) Mr. Carpenter"discussed the Port's Master Plan.together with this proposal. He said the Port will not construct the buildings, except'possibly one, but it'.will lease the sites and there will be a control in the building design so the.buildings will be uniform. He added that the building height maximum will be 35' and two stories.. Parking was discussed and.Mr..Carpenter said approximately 150 parking spaces will. be gained by the -realignment of.Admiral Way. Ms. Block noted that some of the benefits the City would derive from this contract would be a commitment to a certain design theme, the site plan as presented, and a walkway along the marsh. The hearing was opened to the public.... Laura Hall of 1140 Edmonds St., and a member of the Planning Commission, expressed concern regarding traffic,on Dayton St. and asked if the Council.could put some pressure on the State to provide an exit on SR 104. She was concerned about many cars being trapped between the railroad tracks and the light at Dayton and SR 104. Public Works Director Fred Herzberg said that having an exit there would cause a safety problem because of the sometimes heavy traffic from the ferry. It was asked whether any consideration had been given to provide more public boat launching and the response was that parking would not be adequate to accommodate more transient boat launching, two spaces being needed for every.:boat launched. The discussion returned to parking,.and Mr. -Carpenter said they thought it had been satisfactorily addressed in.the Port's Master Plan and in the Harbor'Square proposal;, and he felt they were"making a•significant improvement to the pa'rki'ng.- Planning Consultant John LaTourelle noted that part of the -plan was to remove"some'of the 'commerctal4nd industrial uses that create traffic and replace them.with marina use which would -not generate that kind of .traffic. He added that the Highway Department .right-of-way.extends_greatly.into the marsh and in order to build a road-it-woul-d have to be suspended or -.on -pilings because they never would get a shorelines. permit. Regarding the -suggested additional exit onto SR 104, he was opposed to that. He said the slow moving truck -.traffic exiting�to,the 'ferry traffic was a.poor.idea, and the best traffic control you can have is two entries to a site,, and when you add numbers of curb cuts you multiply points of conflict. 'He not that it also makes extremely inefficient -use of interior land. He agreed"with the proponents that •the,two entries, coupled withithe free right hand turn to SR 104 was the best traffic plan. Councilman Kasper wondered if they should let all.that property go to industrial use in one blanket project and not hold back some in reserve. The public portion of the hearing was closed. MOTION: COUNCILWOMAN ALLEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN NAUGHTEN, THAT THE CITY ATTORNEY BE INSTRUCTED TO DRAFT AN ORDINANCE ADOPT"ING1THE CONTRACT REZONE.WITH�THE PORT COMMI.SSION.FOR SUBMISSION ON THE - CONSENT AGENDA, THAT THE COMPREHENSIVE.PLAN BE AMENDED.AS PROPOSED:, AND THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S"FINDINGS OF.FACT.;.THEREBY APPROVING.CP-.2179 AND R-4-79. MOTION CARRIED. HEARINGS ON: AMENDMENT TO OFFICIAL STREET MAP TO DELETE A CUL=DE-SAC, SHOWN ON THE OFFICIAL STREET MAP AT THE NORTH'END OF 6TH AVE. S.•.(File.ST-1-80); PROPOSED VACATION OF A'PORTION OF THE RIGHT -OF WAY OF 6TH AVE. S.'WHICH EXTENDS SOUTH FROM�ELM;ST., AND AMEND THE.OFFICIAL STREET -MAP ACCORDINGLY; CONTRACT REZONE FROM RS-6 TO RMH AT 22200 6TH AVE. S. (File R-12779); AND ON A 50-UNIT PRD AT 22200 6TH AVE. S. AND SR 104 (EDMONDS WAY) NEAR THE SOUTH END OF 5TH AVE S (File PRD 4 79) ff F L7 1 is 1 0 r: April 22, 1980 - continued 29 1 Acting Planning Division Manager..Mary Lou. Block showed slides of this area and noted that all of the actions were integral parts of the..same application.. She.said:when.the proposal was brought in for review it was noted that two things''on'the Official Street,Map-would make it'difficult, the cul-de-sac which they were proposing to delete and -the right-of-way given by the State when they developed SR 104, from which the units would have to set back.. The zoning on.the site is part RMH and part RS-6, and that would accommodate 62 units. The rezone request was not.to.increase density,.the proposed number of units being 50, but to make it possible to cluster units and not.limit.the development to townhouses or duplexes. Much of the site would not be-easily.developable and they wished to cluster the units on the southern side. Most of the northern area of the site would be dedicated to the City for park use. The homes will be staggered on the hills so.as...not to.intrude into the views of surrounding lots. The applicant had received a hydraulics permit from the Department of Game for work in the stream. Full details of the proposal were provided in the Planning Commission minutes. The ADB had felt this was a good proposal for the site and minutes of their review also were provided. In.answer to a question, Ms. Block said that a large part of the area to be given to the City is peat and it could be used for trails. There is an upland part that.could accommodate picnic tables. The public portion of the hearing was opened. An unidentified lady said she saw.a.problem with traffic getting in and out on Elm and she said there is no visibility from Elm as you come around -the corner. Robert Young, the architect for the project, said that intersection would be straightened out to alleviate that problem. Jerry Lovell, of Lovell-Sauerland and Associates, Inc., also representingthe applicant, said they recognized the necesssity to reconstruct the 6th Ave..spur.as an extension down to this property.: He said .it probably will be overlaid or reconstructed and at that time they should address proper visibility. He felt some simple realignment and broadening the entrance should provide better sight distance. Robert Young described the project., noting that the buildings ..are tucked into-the.hillside and that great care was taken to be sure they.would not block views of the people above.. He said there is a stream running through the site.and peat on the north part of the site and somewhat steep grades on • the south side. He noted that the PRD development addresses.those problems. He added that the entire site -will be landscaped, as.well as the west'side along SR.104. They do not want to fence the site, preferring to keep.it as open as possible. He noted that much time had been spent with the State Fisheries Department, the Engineering Division, the Planning Division,•and the Fire Depart- ment. He asked for favorable consideration, and he added that this was not a flatland PRD. City Engineer Jim Adams said he was concerned about the stream crossing but that could be solved. He felt a culvert may.not be the best solution and they may have.to go to a bridge. He also noted that the developer will have to provide improved -water -service to the site. With regard to the area intended to be given to the City. M.A.A. Charles Dibble stated that it had been his experience that small park sites become an economical burden to the City because it costs more for maintenance when they are split up in several areas. .He said this proposal.had not been reviewed by'the Park Depart- ment or Park Board.. Parks & Recreation Division Manager Jim Jessel added that since his review of this proposal the problems had arisen with the 7th and Elm property; and because of that experience he would like to have a week's time to review it again.and.coordinate it with the Park Board. Ms. Block said Mr. Jessel and she had reviewed this with Mr. Taylor, the applicant, approximately one year ago, and she had based her recommendation on that review. Mr. Jessel noted that if the dedication of property were not provided,. the in -lieu :park fee would be $15,000. He said that -although the Park Board would not be meeting within a week, he could review.it with the members individually and with the -Staff prior to the following Tuesday. Councilman.Gou.ld:observed that -the proposal appeared to fit the PRD-concept and the only issue was whether they wanted that area for open space or for MOTION: park land.. COUNCILMAN NAUGHTEN-MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN COULD, THAT THIS ITEM BE CONTINUED TO APRIL 29, 1.980 FOR FINAL DECISION AFTER HEARING WHAT THE STAFF AND PARK BOARD WANT TO DO ABOUT THE DEDICATION FOR PARK LAND, AND THAT THIS ITEM 14ILL BE FIRST ON THE AGENDA. THE MOTION CARRIED, WITH COUNCILWOMAN ALLEN VOTING NO. Councilman Kasper inquired what would happen to the property vacated to the east. CONTINUED -REVIEW OF FEES FOR.USE,OF.BALL FIELDS • Parks and Recreation Division Manager Jim Jessel said the Council had asked what the impacts would be if the ball field fees were..lowered for youths twelve years old and younger. He said a 50¢ per hour reduction for youth.league players would reduce the expected 1980 revenue by $800, and a'$1.00 per hour reduction would reduce it by $1,600. The proposed 1980 fees --with no reductions to -youth players --would pay only 18% of the .total cost of the ball field maintenance program. Reducing the fees for youth .players would cause minimal administrative .impacts, but rosters would have to be checked.to see how many players were over 12 years of age —Also, refunds would have to be made to all leagues that already had paid their field use fees at the approved fees. Any maintenance work accomplished by the youth league would.not reduce the City's maitenance costs as the City.is only providing a•minimum field maintenance program. Mainly, the City fertilizes and mows the lawns. :Mr. Jessel concluded that their existing fees appeared to be warranted from the standpoint that they are similar to those charged by other cities. Fred Grucker, associated with Little League, had been the complainant regarding the ball field fees,.and he now said he no longer objected to the costs for this year because their scheduling now el.iminated one day in Edmonds. Further, there appeared to have been a problem in communication i.n.that he actually had not needed the number of playing hours for which he was scheduled. He said, however, that he felt the City had an obligation to insure that the.youth programs continue. No further action was taken. ACQUISITION OF -PROPERTY FOR.PUBLIC WORKS.DEPARTMENT STORAGE SPACE Public Works Director Fred Herzberg had morted. that there was an'opportunity toacquire property south of the horse..rink (owned..by.the Ciat Perrinv.ille. City Attorney'Jim Murphy.had made some inquiries and obtained a quick.appraisal of the property, and he suggested that he .be authorized to MOTION: pursue negotiations. COUNCILWOMAN ALLEN.MOVED, SECONDED.BY..000NCILMAN NAUGHTEN; THAT THE CITY ATTORNEY BE AUTHORIZED TO CONTINUE NEGOTIATIONS REGARDING THIS PROPERTY. MOTION CARRIED. There was no further business to come before the Council,. and the meeting was adjourned at 12:45 p.m. • IRENE VARNEY MORAN, City'Clerk HARVE H. HARRISON, Mayor