19800730 City Council Minutes Special Meeting9
July 29, 1980 - continued •
the absence is excused or not excused. COUNCILMAN GOULD MOVED, SECONDED, BY COUNCILWOMAN ALLEN, THAT
THE CITY ATTORNEY BE -INSTRUCTED TO DRAFT AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 2033, INCORPORATING THE.
IDEAS SET FORTH•IN THE EDMONDS ARTS COMMISSION CHAIRMAN'S LETTER OF JULY 9, 1980, BUT LEAVING THE
POWER OF REMOVAL ONLY TO THE MAYOR. MOTION CARRIED.
PAY PARKING ORDINANCE
The Council had discussed and approved parking.meters for the ferry parking lot and the parking
meters have been installed and are in use, but existing ordinances do not clearly grant enforcement
power, so the proposed ordinance was drafted. It contained an emergency clause to make it effective
immediately. COUNCILWOMAN ALLEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN KASPER, TO ADOPT ORDINANCE 2155
DEALING WITH PAY PARKING LOTS. MOTION -CARRIED.
There was no further business to come before.the Council, and the.meeting adjourned to Executive
Session at 10:25 p.m.
IRENE VARNEY MORAN, Ci Clerk HARVE H. HARRISON, Mayor
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL and ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD - Special Joint Meeting
July 30, 1980
A special joint meeting of the Edmonds.City Council and the Architectural Design Board was called to
order at 7:30 p.m. by Acting Council President Larry Naughten in the Council Chambers of the Edmonds
Civic Center.
CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT ADB.MEMBERS PRESENT STAFF PRESENT
Larry Naughten Ken Mattson Mary Lou Block, Planning Div.
Jo -Anne Jaech Greg Selvidge Manager
Bill Kasper Mike -Mitchell, Duane Bowman, Associate Planner
Katherine AllenJim Murphy, City Attorney
Ray Gould Jackie Parrett, Dep. City Clerk
Mary Goetz
Acting Council President Larry Naughten welcomed those present and stated that the purpose of this
meeting was to find a solution to a -conflict in the City Code which has been of frustration to the
Council, the Staff, and to Boards and Commissions. The conflict has to do with PRDs in residential
zones. Up to six attached units are permitted by the Code in PRDs, but at the same time the Code
defines the RS zone as residential in character.with detached, single-family units. Councilman
Naughten said the goal this evening was to.seek.to find a solution to this dilemma and to be as
objective as possible, although this is a very emotional issue.
Councilman Naughten noted that a major -issue was that of common.wall.units in RS zones because such
units give the impression of and have.the.stigma of apartments. At its regular meeting the previous
.
week the City Council had disapproved such.a.PRD after the ADB and the Planning Commission had
reviewed and approved it, and following .that denial the ADB had requested this meeting. Ken Mattson
said another issue, and one of the reasons the ADB had requested this meeting, was that the Council
essentially was "playing games" with property owners and developers because those people are -presenting
proposals according to the Code and on the advice of the Planning.Department which interprets the
Code, and those proposals are being -reviewed -and approved by the various boards only to reach the
Council and be denied. Mr. Selvidge asked if the Council needed the ADB since the Council turns
down so much that the ADB approves, and he felt jf the ADB is not needed it.should be abolished.
Those were the main issues addressed. Some of the responses,were that possibly the City Council
have
should a site review to approve or disapprove the concept at the beginning of the review process,
rather than at the end. It was felt that the ADB was doing -an excellent job in most cases, but
Councilman Gould felt they were not using their.full power and that both the ADB and the Planning
Commission were not doing their jobs because they.were overlooking the philosophy of the Code. A
number of citizens were in the audience and -they expressed the views that they did not want "apartments"
in single family areas, and to them common wall units were apartments. One lady suggested that PRDs
be eliminated altogether from single family zones. Planning Commissioners Laura Hall and John
McGibbon were present and took exception.to Councilman Gould's comments. They explained the depth
of their reviews, and discussed the recent PRD the denial of which had resulted in the request for
this meeting. Mr. McGibbon also felt it made no sense not to allow common walls but allow possibly
a 2' setback as that creates no usable space but causes maintenance.problems. Councilman Kasper saw
the PRD as a secondary use in the RS zoning, and he.noted that RS-6..(the.zoning of the recent PRD)
is designed to be a dense area. He felt that.PRDs could -be built.without common walls by using zero
lot lines and patios. He said if no change.and no growth was wanted .then they should say so, and
that it was unfair to everyone involved -to bring a projectall the way and then turn it down: *He
thought the Council should commit itself up ,front. He also believed that.,the majority of the people
in Edmonds do,not want no g'rowth;'but they want good growth.'
rowth. -
r1
U
July 30, 1980 - conti.nued (Council/ADB special meeting)
1
Ll
No final conclusions were reached at.th.is meeting but the issues were discussed frankly and Councilman
Gould submitted a draft of proposed changes to the existing sections of the Code relating to PRDs.
The City Council will consider the .final draft of'the.new Community Development Code on August 26, 1980
acid it "s expected that PRDs will be discussed again at that time. The meeting adjourned at 9:35 p.m.
IRENE VARNEY MORAN, Ci Clerk
August 5, 1980
RY,Nf G W—, Acting Council President/Mayor Pro tem
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
Harve Harrison, Mayor
• Jo -Anne Jaech
Bill Kasper
Katherine Allen
John Nordquist
Ray Gould
Larry Naughten
Mary Goetz
STAFF PRESENT
Charles Dibble, M.A.A.
Jim Adams, City Engineer
Mary Lou Block, Planning Division Manager
Art.Housler, Finance Director
Jim Jessel, Parks & Recreation Director,
Jack Weinz, Fire.Chief
Jim Murphy, City Attorney
Jackie Parrett, Deputy City Clerk
Mayor Harrison requested that Item 10 on the Agenda be moved to Item 3 because the Finance Director who
was on vacation was present to make a presentation on Item 10. COUNCILMAN GOULD MOVED, SECONDED BY
COUNCILWOMAN ALLEN, TO MOVE AGENDA ITEM 10, DISCUSSION ON.INSURANCE POOLING, TO ITEM 3 ON THE AGENDA.
MOTION CARRIED.
CONSENT AGENDA
Item (D) was 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.
(B) Approval of Minutes of July 29, 1980.
(C): Adoption of Ordinance 2156, providing for excused absences by members of•boards•and commissions.
PROPOSED -RESOLUTION OF INTENTION, AMENDING RESOLUTION OF INTENTION 255, TO SET DATE OF SEPTEMBER 9, 1980
FOR HEARING ON PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR PROPOSED LID.ON SPRAGUE ST., BETWEEN 7TH AND 8TH
_Item D on Consent Agenda
•
Councilwoman Allen noted that this Resolution of Intention was for the street LID only and there was some
concern because the applicants had amended their application to include a water line.. She said this
Resolution of Intention which was proposed this evening did not include a water line and that should be
understood. Sproule McGinness, one..of .the petitioners, said they'had.requested the amendment to include
the water 1-A ne because the Engi.neering Division insisted the water line be replaced, and if it -is to be
required -they wanted it in the LID. His understanding was that the existing water line was not adequate
to service -fire equipment. Peggy Harris, another of the petitioners, noted that there, had just.been an
increase.in the water rates which is supposed to be used to replace inadequate lines in Edmonds, so she
asked why.their line could not be included. She felt the City should replace the line since it is needed
to serve fire equipment. Mayor Harrison explained that the line should be put in when the street goes in
rather than wait until it
comes up on a priority list and then tear up the street to install it. George
Walsh, 739 Sprague, said the residents on the street are not interested in
putting in -a water line at
this time. He said when the Fire Department tested their water mains a few days previously they were
told they were as well protected as 80% of the people in Edmonds. They did not want to pay for new water
mains. Fire Chief Jack Weinz stated that the
water main there is 4" and it should be 8", and it would
not."be adequate when the additional houses are built there. Mayor Harrison suggested that the City
establish that street as a priority for upgrading the water.main. The Council discussed the problem,
after which COUNCILWOMAN ALLEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN
NORDQUIST, THAT THE DISCUSSION'REGARDING
PASSAGE OF THIS PROPOSED RESOLUTION OFA NTENTION BE CONTINUED TO AUGUST 19, 1980 IN ORDER TO OBTAIN
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AS TO THE WATER LINE COSTS, WHAT THE CITY NORMALLY WOULD CONTRIBUTE_, WHERE THIS
PARTICULAR IMPROVEMENT IS ON
THE CITY'S PRIORITY LIST, AND THE PERCENTAGE OF OWNERSHIP OF THE SIGNERS OF
THE PETITION. MOTION CARRIED. [Item (D) on the Consent Agenda
was not approved.]
MAYOR
Mayor Harrison read a letter from the Snohomish County Boundary Review Board, addressed to -the City of
Mount lake Terrace, giving notice -that the
Board may hear the Nile annexation at the September 9;
1980 meeting,_that determination to be made at the August 11, 1980 meeting.
DISCUSSION ON INSURANCE POOLING
•
Finance Director Art Housler reported on a study made on the feasibility of twelve Puget Sound