19800701 City Council Minutes70
June 24, 1980 - continued .
MOTION: agenda was not already full, COUNCILMAN KASPER MOVED.THAT THE TWO HEARINGS.SCHEDULED FOR JULY 15
Withdrawn REGARDING THE VACATION"OF A PORTION OF 8TH AVE. BE RESCHEDULED TO JULY 22, 1980 AS.THE ADJACENT
PROPERTY OWNER HAD REQUESTED SUCH AND HE, AS ONE OF THE PEOPLE INVOLVED, HAD NO OBJECTION. City
Attorney Jim Murphy advised that street vacationhearing dates are set by.Council resolution.
COUNCILMAN KASPER WITHDREW HIS MOTION. It.was decided that the.street vacation hearing could be
continued at the July 15 meeting, but if.anyone wished to give testimony that evening that would be
MOTION: taken. COUNCILMAN KASPER THEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN NAUGHTEN,,TO SCHEDULE THE COUNCIL
MOTION: REVIEW OF TITLE 20 FOR JULY 15, 1980. MOTION CARRIED. COUNCILWOMAN.JAECH MOVED, SECONDED BY
COUNCILWOMAN GOETZ, THAT THE JULY 15, 1980 AGENDA BE CLOSED. MOTION:.CARRIED.
There was a request to reopen the hearing on Titles 17, 18, and 19, and there was some expression
that this was a Council review and the hearing should not be reopened. COUNCILMAN NAUGHTEN THEN
MOTION: MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILWOMAN GOETZ, TO.REOPEN THE HEARING ON TITLES .17, 18, AND 19 FOR TEN
MINUTES OF PUBLIC INPUT. MOTION CARRIED,.WIT.H.COUNCIL MEMBERS.KASPER AND ALLEN VOTING NO. Roger
Hertrich of 1.020 Puget Dr. referred to in -lieu parking on page 102, saying he did not believe the
in -lieu parking was working the way it was intended. If it is kept, he noted that the percentage of
the amount that can go "in -lieu" is not stated but it is only stated "partially," and he felt that
should be defined. He felt the fee indicated in 17.50.070D does.not.take into consideration infla-
tion. He felt there was a conflict in 18.30.020C.1.a. which has a 2,000 sq. ft. requirement and
18.30.020E which provides a waiver. There was no other input from the audience, and the hearing
again was Closed.
There was no further business to come before the Council, and.the meeting was adjourned at 10:55 p.m.
. //' /`4" Ewa.//l/ �- ._� •
IRENE VARNEY MORAN, City Perk Harve H. Harrison, Mayor
July 1, 1980
The regular meeting of the Edmonds City Council was called to -order at 8:00 p.m. by Mayor Pro
tem John Nordquist in the Council Chambers of the Edmonds Civic Center.. All present joined in
the flag salute. Mayor Harrison arrived shortly after the meeting was called to order.
PRESENT STAFF PRESENT
Harve Harrison, Mayor Charles Dibble, M.A.A.
Jo -Anne Jaech Fred Herzberg, Public Works Director
Bill Kasper Irene Varney Moran, City Clerk
Katherine Allen John LaTourelle, Planning Consultant
John Nordquist Mary Lou Block, Planning Division Manager
Larry Naughten Richard Pearson, Code Revision Project Manager
Mary Goetz Marlo Foster, Police Chief
* Jack Weinz, Fire Chief
Jim Jessel, Parks & Recreation..Director
Jim Murphy, City Attorney
Jackie Parrett, Deputy City Clerk
CONSENT AGENDA •
Items B and D were.remo e
MOTION: ( ) ( ) removed from the Consent Agenda. COUNCILMAN NAUGHTEN MOVED SECONDED BY
COUNCILMAN GOULD, TO APPROVE THE BALANCE OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED. The approved
portion of the Consent Agenda included the following:
(A) Roll call.
(C) Acceptance of Quit Claim Deed. -from Dr. Curtis Smith.for..right-of-way.
(E) Adoption of Ordinance 2152,.amending Lake Ballinger boating ordinance.
(F) Acceptance of completed work on Railroad Ave. walkway by Knowles Construction Company,
and establishment of.30-day.retainage period.
APPROVAL OF. MINUTES OF JUNE 24, 1980 .,[Item ('B) on Consent Agenda]
City Attorney Jim Murphy referred to page 3 of the Minutes, the motion in the first paragraph,
wherein it was stated that it`be specified.on.t.he bonds for.the Anderson.Center and the water/sewer
capital improvements that .M will be for the arts, and he said the bonds cannot have that
inscription but.i.t was -his understanding .that it wasthe sense of the Council that those projects
MOTION: would be subject to the 1% assessment. COUNCILWOMAN ALLEN MOVED, SECONDED.BY COUNCILWOMAN
GOETZ,.THAT THE MINUTES OF JUNE 24, 1980 BE AMENDED $O THAT IN.THE.FIRST PARAGRAPH OF PAGE 3
THE WORDS "ON BONDS" BE STRICKEN FROM THE MOTION.. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilwoman Goetz noted that -on page 2, the second paragraph.under."COUNCIL," the motion had
MOTION: been seconded by her, rather than by Councilwoman Allen. •COUNCILWOMAN.ALLEN MOVED, SECONDED BY
COUNCILWOMAN GOETZ, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JUNE 24, 1980, AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED.
*See correction, July 8, 1980 (Councilman Gould was present)
7.1
July 1, 1980 - continued
PROPOSED RESOLUTION FOR'SIX'-YEAR.TRANSPORTATIOPJ'IMPROVEMENT..PROGRAM; 1981.THROUGH 1987 [Item (D) on
Consent -Agenda)
City Attorney Jim Murphy stated that this item must be made available for public comment,.so there
should -be a hearing. After some discussion as'to-whether..it should be added to this evening's.
agenda or be set for another date; it was determined that.it.would be better to have the report go
MOTION: in late in order to afford.it'a proper hearing. *COUNCILWOMAN.ALLEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN
GOULD TO PLACE*ITEM (D) ON'THE JULY 8, 1980 AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED.
MAYOR.
Mayor Harrison.advised that the.Department of Transportion.will.have an open meeting in the Council
Chambers on July 10, 1980, from 4:00 to 8:00 p.m., to acquaint the public with the proposed site
locations.for an Edmonds Park and Ride lot -and to encourage..c.itizen participation.
Mayor Harrison stated he had attended.the regular Port Commission meeting the previous evening at
which time the parking lot'owned.jointly.by the City and the..Poi•t.,.near the fishing pier, was
discussed. The Port took action to,post signs in the.lot stating that the lot would .be for fishing
pier and beach use only, and'they asked that the City concur or suggest an alternative way to treat
the lot. Councilman Nordquist responded that it was his understanding that the Mayor had taken
negotiations upon himself in dealing with the problem of the lot. fie said the City provides many
facilities for the Port, and the Port is also thinking of running a ferry to Port.Townsend.and those
people will be using the'lot also. Councilman Nordquist said that lot was put in there for everyone
and he would not like to see any cars towed away from it. He added that he would be happy to make a
motion that those signs never be installed.- Councilman Gould.said this had been discussed recently
• by the Public Works/Community Development Committee, and the.issue essentially is how should the lot
be'used as far as servicing the fishing pier, the restaurant,.and the Port. Asa proposed solution,
MOTION: COUNCILMAN GOULD MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN KASPER, THAT THE CITY PROPOSE TO THE PORT AND TO*BOB
PANTLEY THAT SPACES 1-41 OF THE PARKING LOT BE RESERVED FOR THE FISHING PIER USE, SPACES 42-81 BE
DESIGNATED AS.FIRST COME, FIRST SERVED, AND THE REMAINDER BE FOR THE PANTLEY RESTAURANT; AND FURTHER,
THAT THERE. BE A $2,500 PER YEAR MAINTENANCE FEE TO BE PAID BY BOB PANTLEY. -In response, Mayor
Harrison stated that he took exception to Councilman Nerdqu.ist's.remarks re ardi pg the Ma or ne tiating
with the"Port. He said he is not negotiating for the City at.all., but the fort �istrict ook a��ion
because they did not get a response from the City. Councilman Kasper noted that the Council had
placed this on the agenda for discussion on July 29. He said he did not think there is a problem
there. He had been observing the lot and had never yet.seen it full. He felt Councilman Gould's
motion was reasonable. Councilwoman Goetz commented that this is a public use parking lot and for
MOTION: the City to have this kind of disagreement from the Port is inappropriate. COUNCILWOMAN ALLEN MOVED
THAT THE=MOTION ON THE FLOOR. BE TABLED UNTIL JULY 29, 1980. THE MOTION TO TABLE FAILED FOR LACK OF
(Failed) A SECOND, THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR THEN CARRIED, WITH COUNCILWOMAN ALLEN VOTING NO.
Regarding the.annexation of.Lake Ballinger, Mayor Harrison.invited Public Works Director Fred Herzberg
to present a proposal. Mr. Herzberg displayed a drawing indicating a diagonal line across the lake,
southeast to northwest`from the Edmonds city limits points.adjacent to lake, with the exception of
the island in -the lake, the line circumscribing the island at.a distance of 250', and he suggested
this as the division point for the two annexations. He had discussed this proposal with the Mount-
lake Terrace City.Manager-who.had no particular problems with.it, although no definite commitment
MOTION: had been made. COUNCILWOMAN'ALLEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN .GOULD, TO APPROVE THE CONCEPT
PROPOSED BY.MR..HERZBERG FOR THE ANNEXATION OF LAKE BALLINGER. MOTION CARRIED.
COUNCIL
Councilwoman Allen noted that.the Council had received,a.notice from the Mayor that he had joined
• the Edmonds Committee of Concerned Citizens.. She said..she,consi.dered that to be a noteworthy group,
but she thought 'it may be a conflict of -interest for a City official to belong to the group. Mayor
Harrison said he is in'agreement with the concepts they are advocating. This was discussed and the
\,City Attorney stated that the Mayor could not vote in a tie -vote situation wherein this group may be
involved. Mayor Harrison said he could not envision such a situation. It was suggested that the
City Attorney provide a written opinion on this,subject.
Councilwoman.Jaech advised that_she.would.not be present for..next week's meeting.
Councilman Naughten requested that..the.Public Works Directorprovide a list of areas under consideration
for annexation to Edmonds:
Councilwoman Allen noted that a.letter.was received from Reid, Middleton & Associates and another
from'Kinderfather Chaffos Dunn PS,.-Inc..and Warren LaFon regarding the awarding of -the design
contract for the new library. She said..a committee had.worked on this and she thought a decision
'had been made. Councilman Gould.also said.a committee had.worked on this, and his understanding of
the Council's,.action on the selection -was that the architect that was selected was to do the master
plan and.that.would include the detailed plans. He said it had been his understanding that such
architect would do the complete job, and that firm now had completed the initial job.' Mayor Harrison
said it was his understanding that the.contract.was for the.master.plan only and a new contract
would have to be drawn for the working drawings to design the library. He thought it would be in
MOTION: order for the Council to take action.along that line. 'COUNCILMAN.*GOULO THEN MOVED, SECONDED BY
COUNCILWOMAN ALLEN, THAT THE MAYOR..AND STAFF BE AUTHORIZED .TO, DRAFT -A CONTRACT 'WITH ARAI/.JACKSON FOR
.COMPLETE'DETAILED PLANS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF.THE-SITE. Councilman Kasper asked whether it had
been in the minutes that this was included. Councilman Gou.l.d responded that there was a listing of
what the Council wanted them to do and..that was included— Mayor Harrison suggested that there
should be some meetings with the architect to determine the scope.of work, fees, etc. Warren LaFon
was i,n the audience and'he-sa`id he thought some consideration should be given to local firms as well
as Seattle firms. He noted that the Council had been sent.a letter -from their joint venture firm
asking. to be considered for this. He.was under the impression from speaking with Mr. Jessel, as
72
July 1, 1980 - continued •
recently as last.Friday, that the selection..committee was still being formed, and he said the product
of the last contract is basically a schematic that is not of much use to the architect in doing the
working drawings., as the next step is a whole new concept. Louie Chaffos said he thought it would
be appropriate for the Council to -look at the contract to see what it actually states as nobody is
clear as to what it was intended that:the other.f.irm do. He said -the Council will be obligating the
City to a great amount of money and if.they were not clear as to the extent of the scope of the
contract --which was the impression given --then it•would be important to clear up the question of
what the contract says and how far it goes. He also felt the local firms were slighted as they were
not invited or approached -to submit anything with respect to this project, and they wondered what
Amendment the selection process was. COUNCILWOMAN JAECH MOVED TO AMEND THE MOTION TO REQUEST THE CITY ATTORNEY
(Withdrawn)
TO REVIEW THE CONTRACT AND THE MINUTES OF, THE ACTION, AS IT WAS ACCOMPLISHED PRIOR TO,THE TENURE OF
AT LEAST THREE COUNCIL MEMBERS, AND TO REPORT TO THE COUNCIL WHAT. THE -PROJECTS WERE UNDER THE
CONTRACT: COUNCILMAN KASPER SECONDED THE MOTION TO AMEND. Councilwoman Allen said she had no
objection.to the delay, but she said a number of meetings were held in the selection process and
some Council -members sat in�on the meetings. She sai-d invitations were sent to a great many firms
to make presentations an& a number of those -presentations were reviewed. Further, at the time they
made the decision they did not sign a contract for more than'the.original planning concept because
they had no way to fund anything more. Mr. Chaffos asked why the local firms were not contacted.
Councilman Gould -said he.saw no reason for the amendment to the motion as they had interviewed
various firms andreviewed their proposals. He noted that one of the proposals had been.from
Kinderfather Chaffos Dunn. The committee's determination was that.Arai/Jackson was the'best firm to
use for this'project, and Councilman Gould said -it was his feeling.that at the conclusion of that
they indeed had a firm to carry the project to its completion --which would ..include the final detailed
drawings. He saw no reason to go through -that process again. COUNCILWOMAN JAECH WITHDREW HER
MOTION, AND COUNCILMAN KASPER HIS SECOND. Councilwoman Jaech requested.that background information
and minutes reflecting the actions -be furnished to Council members Goetz, Kasper, and herself so
they could be better informed'on this.matter... Councilman Kasper questioned whether the library
itself had been included .in the master plan, and Councilman Goul.d..responded that the parameters
given to the architect at the offset included considering the li.brary as.a possibility for the site.
Mr. LaFon stated that he.was told by Mr. Jessel just a few days ago.that he had just turned in the
selection committee names three -weeks ago and that Mr. LaFon's firm was on the list to.be interviewed,
and he.was also told that -three -projects were -involved. Mr.-Jessel then enumerated those projects:
the recreation.pavi1ion,-the architectural barrier removal project,for the handicapped, and the
library. Mr. LaFon asked whether the other -firm would do all.three.projects, and he stated that he
felt.their joint venture firm should be considered as everyone involved.is local and would be more
in tune to local interests. -He was told that there had only been.one.contract, that for the archi-
tectural' barrier removal, and that the sports pavilion had been removed from the Anderson Center and
will beat a different place enti.rely.• A:ROLL CALL -.VOTE WAS.TAKEN ON THE MOTION, WITH COUNCIL
MEMBERS JAECH, ALLEN, GOULD, AND NAUGHTEN VOTING YES, AND WITH COUNCIL MEMBERS KASPER AND GOETZ
VOTING NO. COUNCILMAN NORDQUIST WAS NOT PRESENT FOR THE VOTE., THE,MOTION CARRIED.
Councilwoman.Allen noted that a request.had.been received from the Snohomish County Department of
Emergency Services for additional funds, and.M.A.A. Dibble had suggested that the Director, John
Brownson,be invited to a Counci.l.meeting to explain the services they provide and why they need the
MOTION: additionalfunds. COUNCILWOMAN ALLEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN COULD, THAT JOHN-BROWNSON BE
INVITED TO SPEAK TO THE COUNCIL AS.SOON'AS.HE CAN, JULY 8,.1980 IF POSSIBLE. MOTION CARRIED.
AUDIENCE
Natalie Shippen, 1.022 Euclid; noted that both Warren LaFon and David Kinderfather are on the ADB,
and if their joint venture firm were to do the library there woul-d.be.no architects on the ADB to
review the project because they would have to.disqualify themselves.
CONTINUED DISCUSSION RE SEAVIEW P.ARK:PROBLEM AND..RECOMMENDATION..FROM:PARK BOARD
•
This problem was reviewed at..the June.25,.1980.Park Board meeting and several of the -people involved
spoke at that meeting. Sharon Johnson,. a member of the Park Board, reported that after a lengthy
discussion the Park Board suggested the fol..lowing: (1).That the Park Department investigate -a -cost -
sharing program with the Van Thorndykes for.the provision of double pane windows and additional wall
insulation on the south face of their home to lessen the noise impact from the ball field; and (2)
That the Park Department hire.a staff person to.work at Seaview playfi.eld and be present during the
March -June softball/baseball season and work staggered shifts throughout the rest of the summer
season, to.enforce the rules and regulations. The cost for insulation.would.be $800 and for the on -
site supervision it would be$3,'000. 'The Park Board felt that the noise insulation improvements
would be "bending over backwards"' to resolve a problem peculiar to.one neighbor, but they felt that
continued cooperationwith the entire neighborhood dictated -that -resolution. Councilman Naughten
asked whether -it had been confirmed,that there is.a noise problem, such as with noise measuring
equipment or with verification by a. -staff person who had observed the problem. He felt that this
could seta precedent, and that the problem.would have.to be.substantiated before public funds could
be spent for the noise insulation. 'Par.ks.& Recreation Director Jim Jessel said he wanted to solve
the problem, and there are,other.neighbors-who have.felt the Van Thorndykes do have a problem that
should be solved: Councilwoman Goetz stated that there appears.to be.a reverberation from the
backstop.which seems to settle on the Van Thorndyke home, and Councilman Naughten accepted that but
said it'should be documented. Counci1woman.A1len observed that generally the noise from a backstop
is directed out to the field, -and -she said she would have trouble voting.$800 of City funds to
insulate,one faMily's dwelling.,.. City.Attorney Jim Murphy stated that if the City were going to do
that,.a release would'be obtained,from.the Van.Thorndykes and it would be recorded so as to put any
future property owner on notice.: `Mr..Jess'el noted.that.some of..the other'solutions discussed would
cost much more than $800, and Councilwoman All -en -responded that.those.solutions were not seriously
considered. Councilman Gould felt some equipment could be. borrowed, probably from his company, to
check the decibel factor.. Councils -roman.. ll en asked whether any of the Park Board members had been
there when the noise was supposed.to-be'at its worse. Sharon Johnsonresponded that she had been
73
• July 1, 1980 - continued
there during-ball"games and'it had..been no noiser or less.noisey than other games she.had gone to at
any park. Mr.�Jessel said he was trying to work out a. CETA.pos.i•tion to do the on -site supervision.
He said the. scheduled season i's-fini:shed.but there still -.are games played there which are not
scheduled. Margaret Lerfald,:8034.".185th-S.W., directly across...f.rom the playfield, asked if there
were any legal restrictions as to using.public funds to.improve private property, and Mr. Murphy
said there is such State provision, but.the City has a.clear:right to defend itself against legal
claims and ,if the person could.establish that the City had,.,in effect,.taken his property it would
be a matter of settlement of a claim.- Floyd Smith, 814 Dayton St., spoke in a somewhat tongue-in-
cheek manner, saying he was glad.to.hear.the City Council has money as he.lives cater -corner from
the backstop at 8th and Dayton, and..his house needs insulating.from.the noise so he needs double
windows, and further, George Law lives at 8th and Main and has..to keep his windows closed because of
the noise from the playfield, so.if this was going to be,done at Seaview it should be done in other
places.
Councilman.Naughten summarized.that this was a question of public property impacting a neighborhood,
and there is the whole question of what other City activities do to neighborhoods. He said he would
have a problem putting up public funds to improve on a private home because of the impact of public
property. He thought there should be some money put in.the budget for supervision of the park,
MOTION: however. COUNCILMAN NAUGHTEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN NORDQUIST, THAT NO MORE THAN $3,000 BE
AUTHORIZED FOR SUPERVISION OF THE PARK THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30,,..1980. A ROLL CALL VOTE WAS TAKEN ON
THE MOTION, WITH COUNCIL MEMBERS.NAUGHTEN,'NORDQUIST, KASPER.,.AND GOULD VOTING YES, AND WITH COUNCIL
MEMBERS JAECH, ALLEN, AND GOETZ-VOTING NO. MOTION CARRIED... Councilman Gould further recommended
that at the end of September Mr. Jessel document this and..that something be put into the 1981 budget
in consideration of this problem, and if this solution.is:not successful something,else will have to
be done.,. -.Councilwoman Jaech observedthat a number of the parks have the same problem,. and it
eventually would .get .to the point of logistics and how much money is available to do this.
APPROVAL OF.FINAL PLAT FOR 5-LOT SUBDIVISION AT 9122 MAIN ST..,-.(BP,UBAKER - P-1-80)
This subdivision was given preliminary Council approval on.June 3, 1980. Planning Division Manager
Mary^Lou.'Bl'ock said'it was -on -the agenda -this evening because the applicant had requested the.
opportunity to amend.a covenant which was included as part of;the approval of the subdivision. The
required covenant states that Lot-.5 is subject to all conditions and requirements of the pending
PRD-3-78 at such time as said PRD.may be approved and recorded...After the covenant was placed on
the drawing Mr. Brubaker indicated a.future owner may want to.fence the property. After discussing
this with.the City Attorney the Staff developed the following language to add 'to the covenant: ". .
excepting that Lot 5 may be fenced.in accordance with..ADB design requirements, including but not
limited to height and materials." It:was felt that if,the.fence would not interfere with the open
'space concept of the PRD it would not be objectionable. Therefore, Ms. Block recommended approval,
with the covenant and the amendment.. Ms. Block said Mr. Brubaker wanted further changes in the
wording and had requested the opportunity to address the Council with his proposal.. Ms. Block
displayed.a-drawing of the PRD and indicated the location.of Lot,.:5.. The public portion of the
hearing was opened.
Mr. Brubaker read the covenant again..and pointed out that this plat received preliminary approval by
the City Council on June 3 1980 with.the condition that Lot 5.would be required to be developed in
accordance with-PRD-3-78. He said.it.also received Planning Commission approval with the same.
condition but it also was stated.that it must be compatiblewith the plan for the PRD. He said the
new wording saying it`is-subject to "all requirements" of the PRD threatens those.rights to privacy
and use, and the Tot presently is -free of any such encumbrances. Mr. Brubaker said.that by signed
agreement he had with'the developer of the PRD the developer had never had ownership of this parcel
or any.right to encumber it in any way,and subsequently gave up a purchase option when another
purchaser became avail.able. ' Mr..Brubaker did not think..it.fair..for the City to,ask him to give up
benefits ,in order.'to preserve the PRD without compensation. He .had no objection'to the requirement
• that Lot-.5 be developed in accordance with plans compatible with.the' PRD but he was requesting that
the covenant in question either be stricken entirely or be amended to read: "Lot-5 shall not be
encumbered'by,requirements for PRD-3-78 except that it.shall...be developed in accordance.with plans
compatible to. that PRD but maybe fenced on its-per.imeters.."..The public portion of the hearing was
closed:
Councilman Kasper felt thi s._..shou:1 d be.. referred. to the City Attorney as- it. appeared to be a very
complex situati.on.: City Attorney..Jim.Murphy said-he.was somewhat surprised at Mr. Brubaker's
position because it was:understood Lot 5 would be'subject.to the requirements of the PRD.. Mr.
Murphy said he could not accept.the word"compatible" because there is nothing to show what that
means; and as to the fence, the way. -Mr. . Brubaker was proposing it now, the fence could be 6'.high
and not an:open space concept, and a 6'; high fence could:be deleterious to the rest of the PRD. Mr.
Murphy :said the: -property iswi-thin the PRD and has always beenwithin the PRD, and he found it
rather peculiar that it be suggested -otherwise. He said it :is within the Counc_il's power to impose
full PRD conditions.on that lot; and, the only.question;was how far the Council wished to continue
.the.PRD requirements on.Lot 5, but if they were all removed there would be no PRD. The hearing was
reopened to allow Mr. Brubaker's attorney .to speak.
Don Hedges, attorney representing -Mr. -Brubaker, said'there..,is,an.easement,from Shell Valley Rd. to
Lot 5 so i-t has access. He said. the.. owner never was a"stgnatory'.to.the PRD so the property could
not be a part of the.PRD... He felt the-word:"compatibl:e"..was the.essence of the work the ADB does,
so he questioned:the`objection:.to,it.. He said the essence was.what was,pl.easi.ng to the people on
the'Board who review''it:' He.s:ta.ted that..the PRD application applied for by Mr. Hovde was approved
prior to'his purchase of the property -.-Mr. Murphy responded that this was fully.known as a PRD at
all times, and he added that the Staff.had "jumped through hoops" to expedite this for the.parties.
Councilman Gould called Mr.:Hedges-'.attention to the portion of the Code which the ADB follows in
their review.
Mr. Brubaker then stated that he was under the understanding that Mr. Hovde was planning a single-
family subdivision when they had their first negotiations for the land, and Mr. Hovde later asked'
74
July 1, 1980 - continued
•
him if it could be changed to a PRD. He said he_had seen Shell Valley.which is a PRD and has defined
lot lines, and which.he believed had some fences, so he had.no.objection. .He said th&.day before
this came up -for hearing of the PRD Ms.:Block asked if he had'given.an approval that he was knowl-
edgeable of the-PRD. He said he did so with the thought.that,Mr. Hovde's:encumbrances to him would
continue, and he fi.rst saw the details of the PRD at the hearing.. He said he was told that when the
covenants were written all the things would be defined. Now, since being told this evening that he
would have to sign the PRD-before it is finally approved, he,felt he would not do that --Mr. Hovde
would have to meet his first encumbrances to him. The -public portion of the hearing again was
MOTION: closed. COUNCILWOMAN ALLEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN NAUGHTEN, TO GIVE FINAL APPROVAL TO THE
FIVE -LOT SUBDIVISION OF P-1-80, SUBJECT.TO ALL OF THE CONDITIONS.AND MODIFICATIONS STATED IN THE
APPROVAL OF THE FORMER -FOUR -LOT SUBDIVISION OF THIS PROPERTY, AND.SUBJECT TO PLACEMENT OF A COVENANT
ON LOT 5 REQUIRING IT TO BE DEVELOPED -IN ACCORDANCE WITH-PRD-3-78 AND TO THE REQUIREMENT THAT AN
ASPHALT ROADWAY BE PROVIDED FROM SHELL VALLEY RD. TO LOT 5 BEFORE A BUILDING PERMIT IS ISSUED.
(These were the same conditions placed on the preliminary approval ofthis plat.) MOTION CARRIED.
A short recess,was announced.
HEARING ON.TITLE 20'OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE
Code Revision Project Manager Richard Pearson reviewed the signif.icant.changes in Title 20. Planning
Division Manager Mary Lou Block then discussed PRDs. She noted that since 1969 there had been 20
applications for-PRDs, 13 approved, but only 5 built. She displayed the site plans of those which
were built and slides of some of the homes built in those PRDs. The.public portion of the hearing
then was opened.
Lloyd Ostrom, 711 Puget Lane, speaking for the Council of Concerned Citizens, reviewed a memorandum
his group had addressed -to -the Council regarding Title 20. They.felt the Hearing Examiner system
may work but must have some safeguards, and they suggested a trial period of one year to test the -
concept. They felt the Hearing Examiner should.be a lawyer and should be appointed in the same
manner that Council vacancies are filled.. Regarding PRDs,-Mr. Ostrom said clustered housing--
expecially common wall housing --is contrary to what a person thinks he is getting in RS zoning. He
suggested they be permitted in RM,zones but not RS zones. He asked.that 16.20.010 E.I. also be
stricken from the Code`(having to do with multiple family dwellings in PRDs).
Bob Morrison, 250 Beach Pl., said some specifics should be developed about how the various points in
the Code will be addressed. He suggested improvements in notifications to the citizens such as the
local newspapers cooperating to list such things as variances in one place, in readable type; -Cable
TV coverage; mailings in utility bills.
Patti Price, 515 5th Ave. S.,,asked that the last sentence of 20,.95..010 D... be deleted. It states:
"Any interested party may.apply fora rezone on any property." City Attorney Jim Murphy said that
is current law and cannot be deleted.' He explained that if it were not so, all rezones would be
spot rezones.
Ann Derleth, 8223 Frederick Pl., referred to 20.95.050, "STAFF DECISION - OPTIONAL HEARING," and
paragraph A.1. in that section which has,to.do with ..setback adjustments. She felt that on notice
requirements -it -would be good to mail notices.to.affected parties..if there is a setback adjustment.
Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Dr.,.said Lloyd Ostrom had sum marized,.most.of his feelings. He said,
with regard to PRDs, that'the existing. PRD code indicates the minimum setbacks should be the same as
area zoning requirements and Council action could increase that,.but.this code would allow a building
right on the
street. He felt that PRDs increase density. He did.not.object to detached homes in a
.PRD configuration as much as he did to common lot.l.ine.construction.
-wall or zero He felt the new
requirements were -less restrictive.than the existing ones,. and.:that the existing ones should be
retained.. He felt the'City should develop a townhouse zoning for.the..RM zones. Regarding the
Hearing Examiner's qualifications,- he did not believe that
person should be a planner as planners
have certain ideas of how things should be laid out and that might lessen the impartiality of the
.
review process. He. thought the Hearing. Examiner should act.mor.e..as a.judge and base his findings on
facts. .
Bjorn Thuesen, 322 Main St., said PRDs should be retained as they offer a change of pace in housing
in Edmonds. He noted that there had not been many PRDs constructed. in Edmonds.and he said -to do one
is a long, laborious, costly, drawn-out,.*uncertain vehicle fo.r.planning and carries a substantial
number of safeguards. He said the Hearing Examiner concepthas been well received in both Snohomish
County and King County, and'it is a good and fair system. He did not.believe the Hearing Examiner
had to be an attorney, but he said the person should be sharp and fair, and he felt that system
should simplify matters.
Jerry Lovell, 8927 192nd S.W., did.not'feel the Hearing Examiner should be an attorney but he should
have some background in the planning area.; He..felt it was most,important that it be a fair minded
.individual -who -is capable of impartial decisions and who is very.conversant with the Edmonds code.
He said he has a professional. interest as well as a personal interest -in this matter, and he has had
good experiences with Hearing Examiners in both King County and Snohomish County, even though he may
not always have come out winning. He asked that the PRD be available to them as a planning and
development tool to develop some,of the remaining property in Edmonds that is difficult to develop.
He said he also would like to have the option of the townhouse configuration of buildings. He noted
that most of the PRDs in Edmonds so far had been developed as.single family dwellings.
Dean Echelbarger, 555 Alder, said density cannot be.increased with PRDs.because underlying zoning
must be retained. He did not think God gave.attorneys.all.the good.sense and he said there are
other people who have good backgrounds who could be good, fair,:equitable people for that job, and
the Hearing Examiner should not necessarily be an attorney.
Roberta Kasmar, 725 Driftwood Lane, said .the re should not be.duplexes,, townhouses, or apartments
built in RS zones, and she did,not want PRDs in RS zones.. She felt they.would increase density
because unbuildable areas are counted in establishing the number of units allowed.
•
July 1, 1980 - continued
1
1
1
1
Ray Martin, 18709 94th Ave. W., asked if it would be indicated.on the.postings for setback adjust-
ments to be made by the Community;:Development.Director that.the neighbors could request a hearing,
and he was told it would. He said he would like to see the Hearing Examiner be a person not influ-
enced by, -planners or City officials,. so he can be intelligent,and..use his best judgment. Mr. Martin
noted that.there are some fine .PRDs:, but he felt there is a.potential for some bad ones, and he felt
_very tight:control should be exercised over them. He felt.there could be a density problem. He
observed that a PRD might be a small segment of the development of the'City, but it would be very
big in the local neighborhood.
Falk Kelm, Director of the Snohomish County Master Builders Association, congratulated the Planning
staff on their foresight in drafting,the Code as presently -proposed.. He stated that.in each instance
where his association had seen the land use hearing examiner system adopted they had found it worked
extremely well. As to qualifications, he said an.attorney.is not necessarily.better qualfied than a
person who has dealt in land use matters or as a planner, engineer, or in an allied field. However,
if an attorney is considered, .he felt it should be one who has experience in land use issues, and he
said that when .that person is hired it is important that everyone agree that this is a nonpolitical
appointment and neither the Mayor nor the Council can exert pressure on him. Mr. Kelm felt that in
appeals -'de novo hearings would defeat the use of a land use hearing examiner --any appeal should be
on the record. -Regarding PRDs, he said they allow for.a.mix-of housing.
Bi'orn.Thuesen responded to Mrs..Kasmar's comments regarding increased density caused by PRDs. He
said there is no such thing as a piece of land that is unbuildable--but there is the option of
better development such.as in saving trees. He said it,was his intention to ask a number of builders
to band together informally to see if they can work with,the Council of Concerned Citizens as he
would.l-i-ke.to see the information which is.being disseminated.be factual. Lloyd Ostrom said they
welcomed that kind of sentiment,:and.that they never wanted.to,be.in a position of fighting City
Hall or being -anti -builders. He said they would be delighted to work with the builders and developers.
Councilman Gould asked the Staff to prepare, before the July 15 review of Title 20, some.sketches of
the existing five PRDs in the City and demonstrate what they would have looked like fully developed
in the underlying zone, including trees, impervious surfaces,.etc.. Councilman Kasper felt drainage
also should -be included, as one of the main benefits of PRDs is the ability to reduce runoff. The
Staff responded that drainage is very complex and it would.be difficult to do that in anything but a
cursory manner for this purpose.
Greg Farrar_, 133 4th Ave. N., said he was one of the youngest people present, and he was grateful
for the values he had learned in growing.up in Edmonds and for the benefits of having small neigh-
borhoods. He asked that the -Hearing Examiner be someone who has a value.system and that everybody
in the neighborhoods be made aware of what is happening.
Jim Shields, 709 6th Ave. N. said he hoped the Hearing Examiner. hearings Would be scheduled at a
time convenient to the citizens, which probably would be evenings. -
There was no further business to come before the Council.,.and the meeting was adjourned'at 12:00 p.m.,
the scheduled Executive Session being cancelled because of the late hour.
IRENE VARNEY14ORAN, C' y Clerk HARVE.H. HARRISON, Mayor
July 8, 1980 - Work Meeting
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.. All present joined in the flag
salute.
PRESENT
Harve Harrison, Mayor
Bill Kasper
Katherine Allen
John Nordquist
Ray Gould
Larry Naughten
Mary Goetz
CONSENT AGENDA
ABSENT STAFF PRESENT
Jo -Anne Jaech Charles Dibble, M.A.A.
Irene Varney Moran,.City Clerk
John LaT-ourel.le, Planning Consultant
Mary Lou Block, .Pl anni.ng ..Division .Mgr.
Jim Adams.,.City Engineer.
Marlo Foster; Police Chief.
Jack Wei nz, Fire Chief
Art Housl-er,• Finance Director,
Bill Nims, Traffic, Engineer
Steve Simpson, Recreation Administrator
Ji'm Murphy, City Attorney
Jackie Parrett, Deputy. City Clerk .
MOTION: COUNCILMAN GOULD MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILWOMAN ALLEN,.TO:.AP.PROVE.THE CONSENT AGENDA, INCLUDING A
CORRECTION TO THE MINUTES [ITEM (B.) ON THE CONSENT AGENDA] -SUBMITTED BY THE DEPUTY CITY CLERK.
The correction to the Minutes was a notation that Councilman Gould's name.had been omitted from
40