Loading...
19800520 City Council Minutes• 43 May 20, 1980 The regular meeting of the Edmonds.City.Council was called to order at 8:05 p.m. by Mayor Harve Harrison in the Council Chambers of the Edmonds Civic Center. All present joined in the flag salute. PRESENT STAFF PRESENT Harve Harrison, Mayor Charles Dibble, M.A.A. Jo -Anne Jaech Fred Herzberg, Public Works Director . Bill.Kasper Jim Adams, City Engineer Katherine Allen John LaTourelle, Planning Consultant John Nordquist Mary Lou Block, Planning Division Manager Ray Gould Richard Pearson, Code Revision Project Manager Larry Naughten Irene Varney Moran, City Clerk Mary Goetz Marlo Foster, Police Chief Jack Weinz, Fire Chief Art Housler, Finance Director Jim Jessel, Parks & Recreation Manager Jim Murphy, City Attorney Jackie Parrett, Deputy City Clerk CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Harrison advised that the 'suggested hearing date in Item (F) on the Consent Agenda should'be changed to June'1*6,­ 1*q80. Items (B), (C), (D), and (E) were removed from the Consent Agenda. COUNCILMAN MOTION: 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. (F) Setting hearing date of June 16, 1980 for proposed annexation of Albertsons property. (G). Setting hearing date of June 3, 1980 for 5-Lot Subdivision at 9122 Main St. (Brubaker) (H)' Adoption of Ordinances 2141 and 2142, vacating portion of 98th Ave. W., north of SR 104, and amending Official Street Map. (I) Authorization for Mayor to execute amendment to Collective Bargaining Agreement for police employees. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF MAY 13; 1980 [Item (B) on Consent Agenda] Councilman Kasper asked that the Minutes be corrected on page 3, the second paragraph. In the fifth line from the bottom of that paragraph, in his discussion of the motion, the word "preparation" near the end of that line should be corrected to "information." He was stating that his reason for voting against the ordinance the previous week was.because of the lack of information on his part and the whole Council had not discussed the proposal adequately, and that the Mayor.claimed he had not seen the MOTION: proposal nor*approved the raises set forth in the ordinance. COUNCILWOMAN ALLEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN NORDQUIST, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF MAY 13, 1980 AS CORRECTED. MOTION CARRIED. REPORT FROM MAYOR REGARDING UNSIGHTLY CORNER AT WESTGATE Item (C) on Consent Agenda] Councilman Naughten said he had asked that the use of this lot be'investigated because there had been numerous complaints that it was unsightly. M.A.A. Dibble had provided a written report which he discussed., He said the corner is unsightly because of the weeds and lack of landscaping, and because numerous private parties park used cars there displaying "For Sale" signs. He said this is an undeveloped lot, not a.part of the shopping center, so the City cannot require landscaping. Further; it'has been an excellent spot for selling cars, the turnover being high, so in a sense it has been a benefit to the citizens. He stated that the lot is no more.unsightly than autos in a parking lot, which one finds on many corners. He suggested that a prohibition of -the practice may appear to some as an unnecessary governmental interference into private activity which produces no significant public benefit, in view of the presence of parked vehicles on all corners of that inter- section.' Councilman Naughten asked .if the property might be for sale, as it would make a good location for a mini -park. Mr. Dibble responded that it is owned by.the same individual who owns other -parcels on that corner, and that could be pursued. Councilman Naughten asked that the possi- MOTION: bility be pursued. COUNCILMAN NAUGHTEN THEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILWOMAN ALLEN, TO APPROVE ITEM (C) ON THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED. REPORT FROM MAYOR ON PROCESS TO EXPEDITE DEVELOPMENT OF EXTENSION OF PIONEER WAY [Item (D) on Consent Agenda A recommendation had been made to form an LID for the extension of Pioneer Way to Main St. Councilman Naughten asked what should be done to move that along. Public Works Director Fred Herzberg responded that he would like an indication of how the Council feels in order to go forward. COUNCILMAN NAUGHTEN MOTION: MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILWOMAN GOETZ, THAT THE STAFF BE INSTRUCTED TO PURSUE THE EXTENSION OF Amended PIONEER WAY TO MAIN ST. BY MEANS OF AN LID. Councilman Kasper requested that the next report go to the Public Works/Community Development Committee. COUNCILMAN NAUGHTED ADDED TO HIS MOTION,'APPROVED Amendment BY THE SECOND,'THAT THE NEXT'REPORT'ON'THIS MATTER GO TO THE PUBLIC WORKS/COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE. Councilman'Gould, Chairman of that Committee, said they will be sure the-rest'of the Council is advised of any proposed actions. THE MOTION CARRIED.. Item (D) was considered to be approved. C� in M May 20, 1980 - continued , REPORT FROM PUBLIC WORKS/COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE ON REQUEST FROM STEVENS MEMORIAL HOSPITAL REGARDING SUPPORT.FOR LONG RANGE'PLAN [Item (E) on Consent Agenda] Councilwoman Allen stated that there was no report from the Committee, and all they had was the report from John LaTourelle. In order to advise two committees on which she serves, she said she would like to have a feel from the Council as to how they felt about the hospital's expansion plans and the costs involved. Councilman Gould said he had seen the hospital report and he supported the concept. Councilwoman Allen noted that the first phase was only to fill in their two empty floors. There was a brief discussion, the Council members indicating they had read the hospital report and M�JTION: found it acceptable. COUNCILWOMAN ALLEN THEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILWOMAN GOETZ, THAT THE COUNCIL LEND ITS SUPPORT TO THE STEVENS MEMORIAL HOSPITAL LONG RANGE PLANS. MOTION CARRIED. MAYOR Mayor Harrison announced that he was vetoing Ordinance 2139, passed by the Council last week. He read the following veto message: "Proposed Ordinance 2139 is hereby vetoed. This ordinance pro-o poses to raise the water rate from $4.75 for 500 cu. ft. plus 45¢ per 100 cu. ft. to $2.50 plus 81t per 100 cu. ft. This ordinance also proposes to raise the sewer utility charge from $3.50 to $6.84 plus 25t per 100 cu. ft. of water used. An alternate proposal before the Council would finance the expansion of the treatment plant property and theelimination of infiltration by the sale of revenue bonds and thereby reduce the proposed monthly sewer utility charge from $6.84 plus 25¢ per 100 cu. ft. of water used to $4.75 plus 25t per 100 cu. ft. of water used. I recommend the alternate proposal." Councilwoman Goetz distributed a prepared response and read it aloud. She stated that the alternative the Mayor supported would pass on the costs to the future generation when they should be paid today, and only those high -priority situations that no longer can be tolerated by the citizens.were being addressed by this action. She urged approval of the $6.84 monthly rate which would pay off the Treatment Plant property and infiltration equipment in one year. Then she felt, is next year with just a few cents, not dollars, the drainage problems of the entire City could be solved. She stated that the Mayor's recommendation would cause the citizens to pa $4.75 a month, encumbering them.for 20 years, and costing the City nearly $300,000 in interest, whereas the slight increase of $2.09 per month would pay for the Treatment Plant property and the infiltration equipment in one year. She felt this was sound business practice and the kind of action the F� electorate expects from the City Council. In comparing her own utility bill for two months with the new rates she found that it will increase by $9.59 for two months, less than 16t per day, which she felt was worth paying to start to resolve the utility problems. Mayor Harrison stated that saving the $300,000 over 20 years was not really a savings of that amount and he discussed the effect of bonds being sold. The Finance Director was asked what the City's bonding rating is and he responded that it is Baa-1 which is relati.vely low. Mayor Harrison said the proposal did not intend to drop MOTION: any of the programs, just to finance.them in a different way. COUNCILWOMAN GOETZ MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILWOMAN ALLEN, TO AFFIRM THE ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE 2139, OVERRIDING THE MAYOR'S VETO. A ROLL CALL VOTE WAS TAKEN ON THE MOTION, WITH ALL SEVEN COUNCIL MEMBERS IN ATTENDANCE VOTING YES. THE MOTION CARRIED. COUNCIL Councilman Nordquist said he had attended the Mountlake Terrace Council meeting the previous evening to discuss the ordinance passed by the City of Edmonds prohibiting the use of internal combustion engines on Lake Ballinger. They understood the ordinance but were not prepared for it, and a meeting was scheduled for May 21 to discuss it. Councilman Nordquist will report on that meeting next week. Councilman Gould noted that there will be a hearing on next week's agenda regarding the Anderson Center, and he requested that the Staff provide the Council for that hearing the information regarding the costs of the proposed project and the associated bonding methods available and, also, what would have to be paid per month and what options were open in the way of generating those revenues. • Councilman Kasper noted that the Department of Transportation will have a meeting on May 21 to discuss the subject of a 220th.St. access to I-5, and he was concerned with problems that would arise if there were a four-way interchange there, feeling the streets in the area would be greatly overloaded. He'felt therereally should be two separate exits, and he noted that both 212th and 220th deadend within.a very few miles. Mayor Harrison said the City had taken a position to support that interchange, and Councilman.Nordquist added that it had been discussed several years back, one of the concerns being to provide more access to Stevens Memorial Hospital. He said the City is on record as supporting.the interchange. Councilwoman Allen said the people she had talked to in Mountlake Terrace were' -in favor of it as it will take a lot of traffic off the Mountlake Terrace streets. Councilman Gould commented, in relation to the effects of Mount St. Helens, that it would be wise if the City were to do some thinking about what would happen if the wind would change and the problems that would develop with water, electrical service, the treatment plant, protection of emergency vehicles, etc. Mayor Harrison responded that the Staff had met to discuss that possibility on Monday and to come up with possible solutions. A large supply of air filters for the vehicles has been obtained and also extra respirators. Councilman Gould was.pleased to hear that action had been initiated. AUDIENCE John Gilmore, 921 Puget Way, directly across the street from the City P-Patch, said he did not oppose the concept of the P-Patch but he was concerned about the related problems that were going to impact his neighborhood. He said the street is not fully developed there and he could foresee parking problems and blocking of hi-s street when people came to work on their gardens. He said' there will be 28 plots there and the neighborhood of four homes will feel the effect. He noted that the parking is provided at the rear of the area and he felt it would be unlikely that the people 6 • May 20, 1980 - continued would drive way to the back to park and then walk up to the front areas to work.. He felt this activity was inappropriate in a -single family residential district, and he asked that it be watched closely and that the neighborhood be protected. Mayor Harrison assured him the project would be watched. Chester Bennett, 843 Bell St., suggested that a "sunset" clause be included in the water/sewer rate ordinance. He approved of the action taken in passing the ordinance, feeling the improvements should be paid for this year, but he felt the payments should automatically stop when the year is finished and then if additional funds are needed for capital improvements or drainage, it could be voted on again next year. There was general agreement from the Council on this suggestion. MOTION: COUNCILWOMAN GOETZ MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN NAUGHTEN, THAT THE WATER/SEWER RATE ORDINANCE COME BACK TO THE COUNCIL ON MAY 27, 1980 FOR APPROVAL WITH A "SUNSET" CLAUSE INCLUDED. MOTION CARRIED. HEARING ON SECTIONS 16 AND 21 OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE Richard Pearson, Code Revision Project Manager, suggested that the reference to PRO uses in RS and RM zones be considered at the.time Title 20 is considered because the details are there. The hearing was opened for public comment. Lloyd Ostrom, 711 Puget Lane, had provided the Council with copies of Title 16.in which he had marked changes recommended by the "Committee of Concerned Citizens" for. whom he was speaking. Mr. Ostrom discussed each of the recommended changes. Some of the concerns expressed were regarding the encroachment of RM into RS zones,, discretion being given to the ADB to allow increased heights, residential use in commercial zones, and heights of buildings. Mr. Ostrom also provided to the Council a "Position Statement on Zoning" from the committee he represented, as well. as additional petitions signed by people • supporting a 25' building height limit in the downtown area of Edmonds. He sai.d they now had gathered approximately 1100 signatures. He was questioned about the number of people on the committee he represented. He could not say exactly how many were involved but he said they had met many times. He finally said there had been about 20 people actually working on the document presented. (During this discussion Councilwoman Goetz left the meeting, at 9:15 p.m.) Peter Bilder, 7406 Meadowdale Beach Rd., said he felt professional people should make the changes after the public has been heard and their recommendations made. Tom Belt, 9808 215th S.W., a builder and developer, said he builds mainly in Edmonds. He discussed the costs of building as related to downzoning, saying any reduction in the present zoning will do nothing but increase the costs of the units. He said he tries to keep costs down but the City in the past had not taken costs into consideration when imposing new requirements, and those increased costs are passed on to the buyers of the new units. He mentioned the in - lieu park fee, increase in price of water meters, and other fees. He -noted that a lot of people want the town to remain small but 90% of the growth is already completed. Later, another speaker spoke and said "profit should not be a consideration, as stated in the variance criteria," and Mr. Belt responded to that, saying he did not believe profit should enter into it either, but costs should enter into it. He said costs to the individual have nothing to do.with profit, that he will make a profit on his construction anyway, but the costs are passed onto .the' buyer. He said he tries to keep the costs down so people can afford to move into a house', but most people cannot move into a single family residence in Edmonds now because the costs are too high. Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Dr., concurred with Mr. Ostrom's presentation and said he felt a good majority of the people also agreed with -it. He added that the general feeling of everyone he had talked to was that the ADB should not have -the ability to waive'height restrictions, and even the Planning Commission had indicated that. He.felt the downzoning aspect should be • worked out so Edmonds will be able to retain its downtown character. Bert Stole, 8704 182nd Pl. S.W., said a lot of the things being discussed were hard to understand. He gave the example of the manner in which the height of a building is determined, and said most people did not really understand that. He said the.City is about'95% developed and he would like some clearly stated objectives of what was intended. He .noted that there already had been a lot of hearings and some people did not participate, so,possibly.all of the new input should go back to the Planning Commission. He thought the intelligent thing to-do was to take the Planning Commission's recommendations and act on them, and.he added that a lot of time was spent on them.. He also said he wished -a specific code could be developed to apply.to an in -town, 30' lot in order to encourage people to use them for single family homes. He felt that was one type of lot which had been overlooked. Councilman Kasper agreed with that, saying that was what he was speaking of recently when he mentioned townhouses.: Jurgen Sauerland, 9010 202nd P1. S.W., said the Planning Commission had spent a lot of time studying the various sections and their recommendations should have some meaning to the Council. He felt if the Council was going to rehear all of the sections then the Planning Commission had wasted a lot of time going through all of them, and some of them were asking why they had all those he if their recommendations were not going to produce something fruitful. Martha Reardon, 1004 Daley St., agreed with Mr. Ostrom's presentation and asked what had generated the changes in the code. She had been under the impression that the changes came from the Planning Commission but now she understood they did not make; the changes that and their recommendation was that no change should be made in the heights of buildings. She felt they -should know what the Planning Commission's recommendations were and whether there is to be something else inserted in the code as to who authored those changes. Planning Consultant John LaTourelle explained that the Staff was directed to rewrite the code, and in their original draft they recommended that no changes be made from the existing requirements. The changes were made insistence at the of the public and the City Council who asked the Staff to insert those changes on the question of height when the document went back to the Planning Commission. Mr. Pearson added that the 6 May 20, 1980 - continued I I . 1 0 document being considered now was essentially the Staff's proposal that was heard by the Planning Commission in March. The Planning Commission recommended adoption of that document with five changes, which were presented to the Council in the Planning Commission minutes. Those five changes were not changed in the document itself because throughout the hearings whenever the Staff made a change there was an uproar from the public that the Staff was making changes and they did.not have the changed documents. Mr. Pearson said the changes recommended by the Planning Commission were: (1) All existing height regulations be retained. A proviso to that was that if the Council lowered height limits as proposed by some in the RMH zone, then the Planning Commision thought it would be appropriate to allow the ADB to grant changes in certain cases to prevent hardship. In general, however, they did not like the ADB having that kind of discretion. (2) Retain existing density for RML zone. The strike -outs on the draft were done by the Council last August (regarding RM-2.4 zoning). (3) Make the requirements consistent for subdivision applications and drainage plans. (4) All rezones should be heard by the Planning Advisory Board and none should go to the Hearing Examiner. (5) In the Shoreline Plan, the issue of whether to require public access to the waterfront in commercial developments. The Council had acted on that, but not the way the Planning Commission recommended. Mr. Pearson stated that, regarding height limits, the Staff recognized when they did their first draft that there was a conflict between the Council and the ADB regarding height in the downtown area because there had been some hotly contested projects proposed in downtown Edmonds. The Council had restricted height to 25' and the ADB had allowed 35' as permitted by the existing ordinance. The Staff therefore came up with what they thought was a reasonable compromise. They recommended that 25' be allowed as a right and that up to 35' be subject to ADB review. The other recommended change was in the CG zone along Highway 99--that there be no height -restriction in that height beyond 35' could be allowed by the ADB. When the Council discussed that concept the ADB discretion was extended to some other zones. Mr. Ostrom stated at this time.that.he had no objection to the RM-2.4 zone. Keith LaBelle, Chairman of the Planning Commission, said that basically what they were trying to do was take a number of City policies and codes and put them together.in one series of codes that deal with land use. He said the comments regarding the Planning Commission tonight were very accurate in that they thought height changes and density were matters that deserved a great deal more attention than the Council and the Planning Commission gave them in putting together the whole series of chapters dealing with land use. The Planning Commission thought they should study them in more detail and give firm reasons for any changes. Ken Claussen, 810 Alder, said he was not a member of Mr. Ostrom's committee, but he supported everything he had -to say. Hugh Cheesman, 801 Alder, said they were talking about the quality of life in Edmonds and he did not believe that increased density improves living conditions or the quality of living in this area. He believed it increases traffic and attracts transient people who are not lifelong citizens. He said he chose to live here in 1972 after having lived in the northend area all of his life. Ray Martin, 18704 94th Ave. W., said he is associated with Mr. Ostrom's committee and he believes in the basic principles outlined in Title 15 of the new code. He said he wants his elected representatives making.the decisions on this, not the planners, and that planners are supposed to propose --not make the decision. He also referred to one of -the criteria used in granting variances and quoted it: "Profit should not be a consideration." Forrest Walls, 831.Daley St., said he had not been a member of Mr. Ostrom's committee but he commended their fine work and endorsed their position. His concern was the language relating to the ADB's discretion as to height limitations. He felt that to give full discretion to any board was to have, in effect, no limitation at all. He suggested that the code state the maximum height limits so everyone can see them, and that the matter be laid to rest. He felt the proposed language would place an unreasonable burden on the people to "watchdog" the applica- tions. Patti Price, 515 5th Ave. S., read excerpts from Title 15 which she supported, relating to goals for the City. She said she would like to give a slide presentation. There was a short recess while she set u her slide.projector. (During the recess, Councilman Nordquist left the meeting, at 10:15 p.4 When the meeting reconvened Ms. Price showed her slides and discussed the low profile concept, objecting to the ADB's having any decision on heights. She noted that many of the new condominium units were empty and had not yet sold, and said that to her that was indication that there are enough condominiums in the City. Bob Morrison, 250 Beach P1., asked why the ADB had to be allowed to review the building heights. Councilman Naughten responded that his statement may be premature, but he felt the responsibility for City policy belongs to the elected officials, and although the ADB may recommend an increase, the Council must make the decision. He said it is a political decision and it is not fair for the ADB to have to make that decision, so it would be his recommendation to delete the ADB approval and leave it with the Council. Bill Harpham, 625 Giltner Lane, said he thoroughly endorsed Mr. Ostrom's proposals. He said when he first heard about the proposed plan for the zoning of Edmonds,he thought possibly something beneficial and reasonable was going to happen, but after studying.it he suddenly realized there was nothing wrong with the old rules. He said he had been involved in a matter where an individual wanted to put a 20' road under his bedroom window, and they had opposed it and finally won, but he felt if the Planning Commission makes the kind of judgment they made on. his case a new Planning Commission was needed. Elizabeth Taylor, 748 Laurel, said she is a new resident of Edmonds and she moved to Edmonds because she found what she wanted --but she paid three times what she should have. When she 47 • May 20, 1980 - continued tried to get full insurance coverage for her home she could n.ot, 4.nd�5he.eould get'only`60%'.coverage, the insurance agent telling her that 40% of the cost of her home was for intangibles she got by living. in Edmonds, and -they would not burn down. She asked that the ADB discretion be eliminated from the height provisions. Chester Bennett, 843 Bell St., endorsed Mr. Stole's recommendation that after the Council's review this should go back to the Planning Commission for re-evaluation. He commented that the schools have been lost in downtown Edmonds and over the last 10-15 years a number of people, including him, had sought very hard to keep the downtown in a single family kind of place, but it is difficult now with the severely increasing costs of property. He noted that there isn't anything under $60,000 - $70,000 in the downtown area and young people cannot afford to live here. He felt a way should be found to reduce setbacks so remodeling of the single family homes, wil'1 be encouraged and additional single family homes could be built in the downtown area. .He noted that a major concern of everyone is reducing the height of buildings, but then if you have a building that does not conform to the lower heights you will have a nonconforming building which results in problems with such things as'insurance. He also commented that when you already have yours and you want to reserve yours, it is easy to come to these meetings and say you want the town preserved. * Forrest Walls, 831 Daley St., commented on high-rises, saying he hardly sees 30' as a high-riise. Ho' sai d, goed arch�teeture i_s i!mpor: tantt.+an�d there are good architects in this community, so 30' height does not bother him if it will enable a person to make the maximum development of his property. He added that when you buy property in the central business district you really have to pay for it, and if you restrict a person's development of his property you have hurt him seriously. He noted that Edmonds is constantly changing and the Planning Commission tried 30 years ago to restrict apartments, but they had to come, and condominiums are the absolute replacement of the single family home and you cannot pretend they are not. He urged that reduction of the height be considered very carefully. He did not think there should be random development but he thought architects can come up with decent designs, although he may not agree with the next person as to what decent design is. He felt people should be able to do what they want with their property as long as they do not harm somebody else. and he felt "views" are -very subjective things. He stated that the reason the condo- miniums have not sold right now is that people cannot qualify for loans, but that will change when the prime rate comes down --and that is the specific reason they have not sold. He noted that those are owner units and those people have rights in this community. He also commented that about 15 years ago they tried to put a rest home in this community at 7th and Bell, below the bluff where nobody's view would have been hurt; and it would have been a good location for the occupants, but - you have to go above two stories to make such units reasonable. He cautioned the Council that the image of Edmonds is low but it is their duty to consider the whole community and where it -is going, and he said if you keep everything at two stories it will look "ratty." He also urged them to consider the recommendation to send the code back to the Planning Commission to have them resift the input before making a decision. Chuck Cain, 1060 6th Ave. S., a businessman (Edmonds Lumber), said when they built the lumber store they made a mistake and did not go high enough. They are only one story and planned to go up someday. He stated that a 25' high building in town will not pay, and that most of the people present were a special interest group and -did not represent all of Edmonds. He also said that when he bought his property he made a mistake --he should have bought all the way down to the waterfront to protect his view. He stated that business was going to be killed if the height limit is reduced to 25' and that this special interest group was looking out for themselves and not for Edmonds. Jack Whiteley, 1121 Edmonds St., a resident of Edmonds over 20 years, said he bought his first house in Edmonds when he was in his 20's, but none of his children will be buying a house in Edmonds because they cannot afford it, and people who buy condominiums in Edmonds have the same pride of ownership as the owner of a single family residence. He felt the code was well thought out and • sound, and that it must be flexible and not be an absolute. He thought that when an area is downzoned to a lesser height it is counterproductive and frustrates the goals and objectives of the community. Also, he said it serves no useful purpose to talk about a 25' height for homes --that trees should be restricted to 15' of growth because they block more views than homes do in Edmonds. He felt there should be a way for the ADB or the Council to provide some flexibility in making decisions that are not based on an arbitrary, subjective limit, or the community will suffer --tile design professionals will be restricted and there will be no variety in Edmonds. He felt the community must be something that is constantly changing.. He was in agreement with desires to make.Edmonds a better community, but he did not think 25' absolutes with no consideration for design were reasonable. The public portion of the hearing was closed.. Councilman Kasper asked for a show of hands of those people who would like to see the heights 'remain as they are, and Mr. Pearson explained the existing height requirements. The Council Chambers were full and there was some confusion, so it was difficult to determine the response. Mr. Pearson then discussed Title 21 which contains the definitions that are separated from the rest of the code. If a term is peculiar to only one place in the code, it is defined there. Most of the definitions in Title 21 are zoning definitions. For example, the definition of single family homes precludes the necessity of a suggestion made by Mr. Ostrom to restrict mobile homes from RS zones as that defintiion states exactly .what is permitted. Mr. Pearson noted two definitions which needed mention. He said for the definition of "height" it was proposed to take the highest and lowest points covered by the building to determine the height, as the existing definition is difficult to understand. The new proposal would use two points instead of four. The four points are extensions of the building lines and in a recent instance a.problem-arose in'an "L" shaped house because when . the building line was extended it went to a place on the property which had a steep drop. The building was designed to circumvent that drop, but the drop affected the height to the degree that a variance was necessary. The other definition he called attention to was that of "hedge" which has no definition in the existing code. He felt the one proposed in the new code was too loose and he said he would work on that. Mayor Harrison commented that he thought 18" was not enough to allow for vent pipes to extend above the height limit as 2 1/2' is needed for stand pipes. *See correction May 27, 1980 May 20, 1980 - continued • Bert Stole said .a ,working definition is needed .on specific things that crop up frequently, and he believed,the code they had been.working.with since 1.9.64 was the best protection for. views. Ann Derleth, 8223 Frederick P1., felt the height definition should remain the same. She is on the Board of Adjustment and she said the instance cited by Mr. Pearson is the only one which had occurred in her several. years on the Board, and she did not feel that one instance was.enough to cause'a change. She said she has been concerned that a."seconda:ry",use could become the greater use on -a piece of property, and she.felt "primary" and "secondary" uses should be spelled out better. Mr.' Pearson responded,that they -meant to suggest on "secondary" a further ,line stating that the floor area devoted tosecondary use could not exceed the floor area -devoted to.the primary use. No-one else wished.t,o speak, and the public.portion of'the hearing on -Title 21 was closed. Councilman Naughten commented that .the Density.Review Committee had.:done an extensive study on.density i-6-the City and provided two excellent reports with a lot of good information. He suggested that those be ' retrieved from the files and reviewed. There was no further discussion this evening on these MOTION: sections of the -code. COUNCILWOMAN ALLEN.MOVED,..SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN NAUGHTEN, THAT JUNE 10 AND JUNE 24, 1980 BE SCHEDULED FOR REVIEW OF TITLES 17, 18, AND 19 OF THE PROPOSED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE. MOTION CARRIED. HEARING ON PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO OFFICIAL STREET.MAP-FOR,REDUCTION OF DEAD-END OF 242ND•ST. S.W. , N- FR60'-'.�TOt�40t AT WEST END OF 242ND ST.. S.W.-(FILE ST-3-80) Planning Division. Manager .Mary_ Lou Block showed the location on a vi ci,ni ty map and noted that there is.an existing turnaround at the west end of .this street with an 80' diameter and 40'. existing right-of-way.. The -Blume Deve lopment.Company'had requested.this reduction in order to work.out the parking on their site which is'very steep. The Engineering Division had i'nd'icated this would be reasonable and the Planning -Division concurred. Ms. Block said a 40' right-of-way should be adequate to handle the. potential load on the street with a,turnaround already in place, and 40' would.be-wide • enough to develop the str.eet,to current City standards. Blume Development is required by their contract rezone to put a walkway.on the south side..of.the street_...The Planning Commission had recommended approval. The .hearing was opened to..the public. Donald. Counsel,l', .14.60,7.56th.�Ave..,,.W.., said he, ,is the project architect for .this project. He- stated that the right-of-way on:242nd St. currently,is-40' and.all.they were..asking to do was to reduce the proposed 60' right-of-way for that area. He said it appeared to be adequate for the traffic there, but the Official Street Map proposes 60'.sometime in the future. If the 60' right-of-way were imposed the required setback would not allow them to provide the required two parking spaces per unit. He noted that the.street does not go to Highway 99 but ends -in a turnaround, and most of the traffic would be going easterly, away from.the.site. No one else wished to speak, and the public MOTION: portion of the hearing was closed. COUNCILMAN GOULD.MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN KASPER, TO -ADOPT ORDINANCE 2143, REDUCING THE PROPOSED RIGHT-OF-WAY FROM 60' TO 40', PURSUANT TO P.C. RESOLUTION 652. MOTION CARRIED. CONTINUED REVIEW OF SUNSET AVE. TRAFFIC CONFIGURATION Parks and Recreation Director Jim Jessel said.a meeting had been held of -the Sunset Ave. residents on May 8, 1980 at which time the traffic configuration proposals were discussed and questionnaires completed by'those'present.' The survey questions and results of responses were provided to the Council. "The results of the survey and the comments from those at the meeting reflected -the follow- ing major recommendations from the residents: (1) Develop Union Oil Park --especially critical will be -the need for additional parking. (2) Sunset.Ave. should be changed to a one -way -north traffic*patte'rn between Edmonds St. and Caspers St._ (3) Police enforcement will be necessary at Union Oil Park and Sunset Ave. Mr.'Jessel stated that the Union Oil parking, lot.was rehabilitated last year to remove the speeding and illegal consumption problems and to promote family usage of. the. ark and he felt.'that p th t had. worked verywell and he was not in favor v of any change that would promote or provide for illegal activities at that park. The Sunset Ave. residents' first recommendation was • intended to take the pressure off of Sunset Ave. City Engineer Jim Adams presented a new traffic design concept which he felt would be effective and acceptable to the residents. It provided -one- way north traffic o,n..Sunset beginning at Edmonds.St. Access would be provided to traffic going west on Caspers,.beyond 2nd Ave. but a raised curb island would prevent that traffic from continuing through.to Sunset.. A.raised curb also would prevent a right turn from'Caspers to'2nd,,but that curb would taper so that two way traffic would be permitted beyond.it on 2nd Ave. There would be no left turn from Caspers to 2nd Ave. and a sign would be at 3rd Ave.' to indicate that Caspers would terminate beyond it. A new.'white edge line would be painted at 3rd Ave. to direct the westbound traffic onto 3rd from Caspers. Drawings of this traffic configuration were distributed to the'Council and were shown to the audience. The discussion was opened to the public. Herb Wright, 400 Sunset Ave., said the proposal looked feasible to him. He asked if the police could control the configuration. Police Chief Marlo Foster responded that the engineering would control it. Cecelia Leyda, 342 Sunset Ave., thought..the street configuration should be adequate, but she asked to speak to the park situation. She said she has worked a lot with young people and understands,.their needs, and she commended the Police Department for what.they had done to.improve the situation, but,she sa.id something is going to have to be provided for young people other than what there now is. She'said Edmonds is people, and the concern must be for -people --including young people.- S 9 y he would like o 9 P p t see the citizens in the community be concerned about what can be done for young people. No one else wished to speak, and the.public portion was closed. .City Engineer Jim.Adams said it. would cost '. . MOTION: about $1500 - $1600 to implement his -proposal. The parking would remain-es'sentiall .as it.currentl 'A' y y is. COUNCILWOMANMOVED, SECONDED BY COUN I C LMAN GOULD, TO ADOPT THE TRAFFIC CONFIGURATION FOR SUNSET AVE. AS PRESENTED THIS EVENING. MOTION CARRIED. Councilwoman Allen added that Mrs. Levda had a very important point that this community should address, and there should be more done about MOTION: it than talk. COUNCILMAN NAUGHTEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILWOMAN ALLEN_, THAT THE COUNCIL BE PROVIDED A REPORT ON JUNE 22, 1980 AS TO HOW THIS TRAFFIC CONFIGURATION IS WORKING. MOTION CARRIED. • May 20, 1980 - continued DISCUSSION ON OPERATING HOURS OF CONVENIENCE STORES 1 1 E 1 • 1 1 0 Several people were present to speak on behalf of the 7-Eleven Food Stores, asking that operating hours not be limited. John Westman, 3625 Geyer Lane, Everett,.District.Manager for 7-Eleven Food Stores, discussed the history of the Southland Corporation, parent.company of 7=Eleven, and the operation of the company. He-discussed.the items sold., stating -that only 20% of their business is in beer and wine, and he said just because their door may close.from 11:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. would not mean that the problems would stop.and.he quoted figures regarding their Alderwood Manor store which is not open 24 hours which indicated -problems still -existed. He said only six of the 208 stores in.Washington are not open 24 hours. He asked.that his company be given an opportunity to work with the Planning Division to reach a fair and equitable solution to the problems. Jim Nugent, 9640 Blake P1., Edmonds, who has the store at 212th and 76th, said he offers a service to the community -and something the community wants. He said he has an early morning clientele, as well as late night, but 35% of his business is .at night. He discussed the many ways he had helped the community and he submitted petitions from customers who would like him to stay open 24 hours. Ron Beavin, 6503 148th P1. S.W.,.Edmonds, who has the store at.24300 76th W., said he was not aware of any complaints or problems from the City of Edmonds or any of.his neighbors in the'surrounding community in relation to his store. He said his store is located on a main arterial that carries moderate traffic 24 hours a day, so his store does not create the traffic in the -neighborhood. He described his clientele who use the store after 11:00 p.m. as including nurses, Boeing workers and other swing and night shift workers, and family people who may come in for emergency items. He said he has had some women come in and ask to use the phone to call the police because someone was following them, and that he has assisted people in reporting accidents on 76th and 205th Sts. He felt if his store were closed during the late hours the people in the area would find another convenience store that probably would be out of their way. He described his community activities in support of Edmonds. He stated that from 11:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m, he does 31% of his business, but to eliminate those hours would also affect his other business adversely. Paul LaRue, 25050 Lake Fenwick Rd., Kent, Security Manager for the Southland Corporation, said he designs and implements crime prevention programs for the stores and he works with local law enforcment and other businesses within the community to ensure the success of those programs. He suggested -that Southland and the City draft a program directed at loitering or juvenile shoplifting. He said that due to their prevention programs the robberies in their northwest stores have decreased more than 37% in the past two years and the violence has decreased by 60%. Chuck Love, 8017 234th S.W.,.s'aid he works,two jobs and.one involves a late shift, and he uses the 7-Eleven frequently during the hours being proposed for closure. He felt the store is a benefit to the neighborhood. Dulcie Hart, 18227 66th Ave. N.E., Seattle, an employee of one of the local 7-Eleven stores, said to close the stores during those hours would put someone out of work. She said Southland had never discriminated against age, and if she were put out of work she would have trouble finding a job because of her age. James Falconer, 23829 74th W., President of the.Lake Ballinger Community Club, said that club supports the closure of the stores from 11:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. if they are in residential areas. He said the members of the club were concerned about peace andquiet at night, and the traffic, noise, and nighttime activity at the store were not conducive to peace and quiet. Jim Chapman,.23321 75th Ave. W. said his family are frequent customers of the local 7-Eleven, and he agreed the.store,had been a good neighbor in many instances, but he supported the ordinance to close it.during. the late night hours because there had been conflicts, and when conflicts.arise between a business and homeowners in a residential neighborhood, then philosophically preference has to be given -to the homeowner. He said other problems were traffic and littering by people patronizing the store. He felt if Southland wanted to work with the City to solve some of the problems, that would.be good, but in the meantime he supported the proposed ordinance. No one else wished to speak, and the public input was closed. Councilman Naughten felt the 7-Eleven people should be given the opportunity to work with the Ballinger people to try to resolve some of the problems there. He was not comfortable with putting a ban on late night hours for all convenience stores in the BN zones. Councilman Gould agreed, and acknowledged that they have.been good neighbors.in many. aspects. But he noted that there had been problems. Chief Foster said the issue had nothing to do with 7-Eleven,. and he reminded the Council that another company had wanted to open a convenience store in a residential area. He discussed the report he had previously submitted which listed the problems, but he said his report was not intended to indicate they generate the activity. His.concern was where al•l-night stores should be located, and whether they -should be restricted from residential neighborhoods. He said his report showed that most of the -police responses to 7-Eleven occur after 11:00 p.m., and that is a fact of life; but not the fault of 7-Eleven. It was suggested that the recreation machines in -the stores might be restricted from use in the late hours, and that might lessen the attraction for young people. Councilman Gould suggested that Southland be given an opportunity to work with the community and the Police Department, but he said in terms of real life the traffic problem could not be solved. He felt the undesirable elements might be improved, and littering and loitering could be controlled. But in the long run he agreed that they had to decide where they wanted such stores to be built. Councilwoman Allen said she was in favor of an ordinance regulating the hours of operation, but she was willing to defer it for a three-month trial period. Councilman Kasper felt such stores are contrary to the nature of residential neighborhoods, but he recognized the hardship in these cases. He felt much of the business they were generating.after hours was from outside .the neighborhoods, and he felt the zoning should be examined. He thought .the zoning at the 76th/21.2th store may no longer be proper because of the way that area has developed, but in the Ballinger area he said that definitely is residential. MOTION: COUNCILWOMAN ALLEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN GOULD, THAT THIS MATTER BE BROUGHT BACK TO THE COUNCIL FOR CONSIDERATION ON AUGUST 19, 1980. Councilman Naughten asked Southland to work with the community to solve some of the problems and that the Police Chief provide a follow-up report to see if changes are reflected. Mr. Nugent.noted that if he calls the police for a woman in need that will be shown as an incident and count against him, but he was assured it would not. THE MOTION CARRIED. CONSIDERATION OF A PROPOSED ORDINANCE TO REZONE TO RML AREA SOUTH OF 208TH S.W. NORTH OF 210TH S.W. EAST OF*76TH An. W., AND WEST OF 70TH:AVE. W. Councilman Kasper said he had raised the question as to whether this was the proper zoning after some letters were received from affected property owners. He was concerned that this basically would be downzoning, and a contract rezone had not been considered, and there now was the possibility 5U May 20, 1980 - continued that RML may be further reduced as to.density. He thought this action would clearly give anti- . annexation people ammunition in the future. Further, he felt that in the future annexations should only be considered after prezoning by the Council. He felt that by passing this ordinance they were not accomplishing for the people what those people thought they were getting. He added that he has no interest in any property in that area, nor was he financing anything for his company in that area. If the area were zoned to RML he felt the people would come in fora rezone.. Connie Root, owner of Lot 7 of Aurora Homesites, asked to speak. She said most of the property owners were under the impression that since RMH was supported at the Planning Commission hearing. that was what their zoning would be, and they were totally surprised at the RML. She said they supported RMH and if RML were adopted they would like to go for a contract to keep.it at the number of units provided in .their County zoning. City Attorney Jim Murphy said this would not be a good application for a contract rezone as a contract rezone is done.to meet a problem and there are concessionsgoing both ways, which was not happening here. Planning Consultant John LaTourelle said his staff was totally surprised when the Council reduced the zoning.to RML. He noted that one of the things the Council has talked about is increasing development.possibilities in the Highway 99 corridor. Also, this area is virtually -surrounded by the heavy traffic arterials in the City and is served superbly by mass transit. It is very close to four of the.major employers of moderate income people --the hospital, the high school, the college, and John Fluke. It had appeared to the Planning staff that if there was a place in the City that was ideal for high density, -low cost housing, this would be it. Gene Kennealson, one of the property owners in this area, said his purpose in buying MOTION: his property was for.investment, and he thought he was going to get RMH. COUNCILWOMAN ALLEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN KASPER, THAT THE CITY ATTORNEY BE INSTRUCTED-TO.DRAFT ANOTHER ORDINANCE, PROVIDING RMH.ZONING FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, BASED ON THE FINDINGS ORIGINALLY PROVIDED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION. Councilman Gould said he thought he now understood something he previously had not, regarding the proximity of the CG zoning to this area, and he felt RMH next to CG was appro- priate. THE MOTION CARRIED. There was no further business to come before.the Council, and the meeting adjourned at 1:20 a.m. Ael��_ IRENE VARNEY MORAN, Cit Clerk HARVE H..HARRISON, Mayor May 27, 1980 The regular meeting of the Edmonds City Council was called to order at 8:05 p.m. by Mayor Harve Harrison in the Council Chambers of the Edmonds Civic Center. All present joined in the flag salute. PRESENT ABSENT STAFF.PRESENT Harve Harrison, Mayor Larry Naughten Charles Dibble, M.A.A. Jo -Anne Jaech Fred Herzberg, Public Works Director Bill Kasper Jim Adams, City Engineer Katherine Allen John LaTourelle, Planning Consultant John Nordquist Mary Lou Block, Planning Division Manager Ray Gould Irene Varney Moran, City Clerk Mary Goetz Jack Weinz, Fire Chief Art Housler, Finance Director Jim Jessel, Parks & Recreation Director Jim Murphy, City Attorney Jackie Parrett, Deputy City Clerk • CONSENT AGENDA MOTION: Items (B), (D), (G), and (H) were removed from the Consent Agenda. COUNCILMAN NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILWOMAN ALLEN, 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 Gary W. Nelson in the amount of $1,837.47. (E) Adoption of Ordinance 2145, designating recently annexed property.(College Place area) as RMH, pursuant to P.C. Resolution 651. (F) Authorization for Mayor to execute agreement with Washington State Department of Transportation for construction of flume on SR 524. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF MAY 20, 1980 [Item (B) on Consent Agenda] Councilwoman Allen acknowledged a memorandum from the Deputy City Clerk advising of a correction to the minutes. On page 6, the last paragraph should be a continuation of Chester Bennett's remarks, the speaker in the previous paragraph. The minutes should be corrected to delete the name and .address of Forrest Walls and to' insert ,in theirnlace: "Mr. Bennett... .. ." COU"JCILWO!".AN ALLEN MOTION: MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN NORDQUIST, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF MAY 20, 1980 AS CORRECTED. MOTION CARRIED.