Loading...
336 ADMIRAL WAY (5).pdfZ Z W W 0— a �- LU LU Ly Z LU rn L) Z Ex FApp.7.7 Ninutes App ve Claim W... I The Edmonds City Council Special Work Meeting was cal ed to order at 7:00 p m. by Mayor Barba Fahey in the Library Plaza Room, 650 Main Street, followed I by the flag salute. - ra ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Barbara Fahey, Mayor Dave Earling, Council President John Nordquist, Councilmember Roger L. Myers, Councilmember Dick Van Hollebeke, Councilmember Gary Haakenson, Councilmember Thomas A. Miller, Councilmember ABSENT Jim White, Councilmember STAFFPRESENT Michael Springer; Fire Chief Robin Hickok Police Chief Paul Mar, Community Services Director Art Housler, Administrative Services Director Scott Snyder, City Attorney Sandy Chase, City Clerk Jeannie Dines, Recorder APkROVAL OF A COUNCILMEMMER VAN HOLLEBEHE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MYERS, FOR APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA AS PRESENTED- MOTION CARRIED. , COUNCILMEMBER VAN HOLLEBEKE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER. MYERS, FOR APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED. The agenda items approved are as follows: (A) ROLL CALL (B) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUT ES OF APRIL 22,1997 (C) APPROVAL OF CLAIM WARRANTS #15181 THRU #17100 FOR THE WEEK OF APRIL 21,1997, IN THE AMOUNT OF $90,81OA4 A APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW REGARDING A CLOSED RECORD APPEAL HELD ON MARCH 25,1997, ON THE DECISION Wy THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD To APPROVE AN APPLICATION BY TEE PORT OF EDMONDS TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF NEW COVERED MOORAGE STRUCTURES AND FLOATS TO REPLACE DAMAGED STRUCTURES IN THE PORT MARINA WHICH IS GENERALLY LOCATED AT 336. ADMIRAL WAY (Appellant: Robert Van Citters Jr. & Roy NcCorchuck / Applicant: Port of Edmonds. File Nos. ADB- 'Oi-6 nd AP-97-15) Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 29,1997 Page I In Ermetmgen WORKSHOP -EMERAGENCYNIEDICA CES (EMS) Medical i serlices Council President Earling explained the Council felt it was necessary to hold a workshop meeting to Z review issues that took place at the end of last year surrounding the disposition of the Medic 7 Program < and to lay the groundwork for flirther consideration of this issue, including budget implications for next LUI year. Although interest had been expressed regarding an opportunity for public comment this evening, he explained this was intended to be a workshop for the Council. He noted Mayor Fahey will be LU receiving citizen input regarding Medic 7 and EMS at a meeting scheduled on May 12 regarding L) 0, V) C31 preparation of the 1998 budget. Further, there would be opportunity for public comment during ch LU upcoming meetings as the 1998 budget policy is formulated. Council President E g introduced LU X, arlin -i I-- I guests making presentations to the Council: Tom Foster, Snohomish County Fire District 1/11; Pat cn LL U.1 01� Cordova, Mountlake Terrace City Council and current Medic 7 Board Chair; Connie Fessler, Mountlake Terrace City Manager and a member of the Medic 7 Transport Fee Taskforce; Tom Petruzzi, former -31 Edmonds City Councilmember and Medic 7 Boardmember at the time the Transport Fee policy was < ,n formulated; and Michael Springer; Edmonds Fire Chief. Z I-- Councilmember Haakenson, who replaced Mr. Petruzzi on the Medic 7 Board, expressed his appreciation ;7- for the opportunity presented by this workshop for further education regarding the EMS issue, noting it Z was an area of high public interest. He urged citizens who still had questions followin th W W�I g is presentation, Is :n to write him (in care of the Council office) which he would follow up with a letter or telephone call. 0 Edmonds Fire Chief Michael Springer described the history of the Edmonds Fire Department, in t L" W established in 1904 as a volunteer department and continued as a volunteer department until 1963 when the first full-time employees were hired. At that time, transports were handled by a private ambulance 1— �U 0! ZI company. When the private ambulance companies went out of business in 1971, the Edmonds Fire W cn� Department established aid and transport service using a 1965 Ford Station Wagon. In 1973, Fire Fighters were trained and certified as Emergency Medical Technicians (EMT), a first response level. At that time, aid cars were used for transports to Stevens Hospital as well as medical facilities in Seattle. In Z 1979, the Medic 7 Program began with one paramedic vehicle, staffed 24 hours a day and two paramedics, based at Stevens Hospital. At that time, the tiered response, Basic Life Support (BLS) and Advance Life Support (ALS), also began and continues today. In November 1979, the first 6-year EMS levy ($0.25/$1,000 assessed valuation) was passed in Edmords with 83% approval. In 1985, a second 6-year EMS levy was passed. In 1990, the Washington State Legislature raised the cap to $0.501$1,000; Edmonds was levying $0.25/$1,000 at that time. In 1991, a third 6-year EMS levy failed; however, the Council maintained EMS service via alternative funding until a $0.41/$1,000 EMS levy was passed in 1992 with a 94% approval. Edmonds City Council action 0 capped the levy at $0.45/$1,000. In 1993, a second half-time paramedic vehicle with two paramedics was established. In 1996, South Snohomish County Fire District I announced their plans to withdraw from the Medic 7 program at the beginning of 1997. In 1997, Fire District I maintained a partial service area for Medic 7 response and a one year funding adjustment was made. Also in 1997, a fee for Medic 7 transport was established by the Medic 7 Board. Further, the Paramedic Mutual Aid agreement was enacted, and a contract for Edmonds Fire Department to Provide paramedic services to the unincorporated Esperance area was established. F9 1;; LU 0 a ul X F- LL. E 0 EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL Agenda Memo cc Originator: Planning Division For Action: X For In Subject: APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW REG, RECORD APPEAL HELD ON MARCH 25,1997, ON THE DECIS�ON BY THI DESIGN BOARD TO APPROVE AN APPLICATION BY THE PORT OF ED] THE CONSTRUCTION OF NEW COVERED MOORAGE STRUCTURES REPLACE DAMAGED STRUCTURES IN THE PORT MARINA WHIC LOCATED AT 336 ADMIRAL WAY (APPELLANT: ROBERT VAN CII NCCORCHUCK / APPLICANT: PORT OF EDMONDS (FILE NOS. ADB-97-6 A M Clearances: Departmentlinitials Agenda Time: Consent Admin Svcs/Finance— Comrr City Attorney_ Engini Agenda Date: April 29, 1997 City Clerk Parks Court Planni Exhibits Attached: Personnel Public 1. City Council minutes of 3/25/97 Fire Treatn Police city C 2. Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law Mavor Reviewed by Council Finance__ Committee: Com—nity Services Public Safety Approvedfor Consent Agenda: RecommendReview by Full Council: Expenditure Amount Appropriation Required: $0 Budgeted: $0 Required: $0 Funding Source: N/A Previous Con On March 18, 1997, the City Council held a closed record hearing regarding an appeal filed by Robert VanCitters, Jr. and Roy NcCorchuck of a Architectural Design Board decision, The hearing was continued in order to provide a full transcript of the underlying proceeding before the ADB. On March 24, 1997, the City Council held a continued public hearing. The Council voted to uphold the decision of the ADB and denied the appeal (see Exhibit 1). Each student introduced his/her parents. Mayor Fahey noted the quality of the students' work is indicative of the parental support each receives. Councilmember Myers acknowledged the students' teacher, Ms. Rautenberg, a graduate of the Edmonds School District and an outstanding student and athlete at Edmonds-Woodway High School. Mayor Fahey and COuncilmembers personally congratulated each student and thanked their parents for their support. �- —M." z I-- City Attorney Scott Snyder explained due to changes in State law, appeals to the Council are reviewed 0 using a Closed Record Appeal process. The Council may hear argument from the appell ant and the LU LU applicant but no public hearing is held nor can any new testimony be provided by any party. Mayor Fahey asked if any Councilmembers wished to make an Appearance of Fairness disclosure. 0 Councilmember Haakenson said he is familiar with Mr. Van Citters and Mr. NcCorchuk as a result of his LU LUI serving as the City's liaison to the Port and he was knowledgeable of both sides of the issue. 01 z2: 11 Mr. Snyder asked Councilmember Haakenson whether he was aware his decision must be based solely 6i oil upon the record and -not any knowledge he acquired outside the record. Councilmember Haakenson i= answered he was, 0 Z There were no challenges to Councilmember Haakenson's participation. Current Planning Supervisor Jeff Wilson explained the Architectural Design Board (ADB) held a public hearing on Fehruar� 5, 1997, on a request by the Port of Edmonds for a permit for reconstruction of the Port facilities that were damaged as a result of the New Year's storm. The ADB must make three findings on each application they review and determine that the proposal is, 1) consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and adopted City policies, 2) meet the requirein n of the Zoning dinance or s e ts Or City has approved a variance for modification of the Zoning Ordinance, and 3) satisfies criteria and purposes of this Chapter. After making those findings, the ADB then reviews all projects for consistency 0 with specified criteria (ECDC Section 20.10.070) which include building design, site treatment, and other criteria. On February 5, 1997, the ADB issued its decision to approve the application subject to conditions which are included in the Council packet. On February 6, an appeal of the ADB decision was filed by Mr. Van Citters and Mr. NcCorchuk; their appeal letter is Exhibit 4. Their appeal raises several issues regarding the project's inconsistency with Findings in ECDC Section 20.10-060 and Criteria in Section 20.10.070. He noted the Council packet contained a transcript of testimony provided at the February 5 ADD hearing (Exhibit 2). The original Staff Report to the ADB which includes the design submitted by the applicant is Exhibit 3. Roy NeCorchuk, 7730 222nd Street Southwes4 Edmonds, (reserving five minutes for rebuttal) said he represented himself as well as hundreds of interested parties from marina tenants to marina passerbys. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 25,1997 Exhibit 1 Pap 3 0 He referred to roof heights and their design and said he favored covered m6orage but in a conservative way. He said a petition, signed by many tenants who wish to have the marina rebuilt the way it was, was on record in the Planning Department. He expressed concern with the three pitched roofs per dock, a design not used elsewhere in the Puget Sound area and pointed out the old design, which stood for 35 years, could be seen over and was more user friendly. He pointed out the floats are nearly twice as large as the old floats (in depth and width) which reduces the amount of boat space for tenants. He said the roof, which was designed for safety, sheds snow onto the main walkway and may require closure of the docks in a heavy snow load, This would prevent access to the waterfront for recreational use. He noted the information he submitted highlighted aspects of the waterfront —the precious resource and the view. corridor. Although comments have been made that the roofless moorage looks nice, he preferred Z covered moorage but with a flatline design. He pointed out the Port Orchard marina, which also collapsed, is being rebuilt with a flatline-type roof to preserve views. He urged the Council to give the citizens of Edmonds the same consideration. Robert Van Citters, appellant, stated the final plan for covered moorage may be incomplete with regard to final dimensions and exact locations of the covered moorage on the docks. He referred to the City's permit handbook which states that an applicant must file complete plans. He said the Port's application is a generic proposal which shows only those docks that are aesthetically favorable. He referred to the drawing of the first dock which has 28 foot slips on both sides, pedectly balanced with the roof in the middle and felt a drawing of all docks should be available to the public, as the roof sizes will vary. He noted there have been numerous proposals; one proposal had a balanced roof on both sides with a walkway in the center. His understanding now was that some docks would only have a roof over the walkway with covered moorage on one side of the dock. In his opinion, this would present an unbalanced view., Mr. Van Citters directed the Council's attention to page 22 of the ADB transcript in which Port Executive Director Bill Toskey addresses the float from the boaters perspective. This reveals the height of the covered moorage will be extended in the lower docks approximately 3 feet 6 inches to accommodate larger and taller boats, not only to shed snow for safety reasons. He disagreed with the proposal for increased height. He directed the Council's attention to pages 22, 36 and 37, noting the proposal in the packet shows gaps in sections of covered moorage on B dock. He felt the gaps presented a major engineering problem as well as with aesthetics. He pointed out the open slips are used by sailboat owners in the marina; the sailboat masts are so tall the crossbars on the sailboats hit the side panels of the roof. He preferred the covered moorage be moved closer to shore and the buildings not be broken up as it creates cost and engineering difficulties that have yet been solved. As a result, the Port may return to the ADB in the future with a proposal for a continuous barn -like structure. Bill Toskey, Executive Director of the Port of Edmonds, 336 Admiral Way, Edmonds, explained 0 marina roofs protect boats from weather conditions thus protecting owners' substantial investment and reducing the need for maintenance. In answer to the question why more marina roofs are not present in Puget Sound, he explained roof sections have not been allowed by the State in recent years for environmental reasons due to their impact on fisheries. As the Edmonds Marina had roof sections before, Federal and State laws allow it to be rebuilt. He pointed out there is a very active marine life. within the Port of Edmonds marina. Mr. Toskey explained the existing roofs had been in place 35 years but obviously that design was not good enough. The roof collapse caused approximately $10 million to public property (Port of Edrnonds) and also an additional $10 million to private property, Significant changes were made in. the design to Edmonds City CouncilApproved Minutes March 25,1997 Page 4 V 1��'!7­,.��",��!,- 7 7 0 77M F4 F_ z M U LU U_ 0 z minimize future risk such as to increase the floatation system which was the prima ca of e roof collapse. Another reason for the collapse was the catastrophic failure Of the wood rY use th the structure is proposed to be rebuilt with steel. The third change was to inc structure; therefore rease the pitch of the roof to allow snow to self -shed from the approximately 6 acres of roof at the marina. He Pointed out it is impractical to shovel that- volume of snow from the marina roofs in an emergency. The Port Orchard marina is a flat design, and the community has committed in their planning to remove snow with water or shoveling. If the roof sections were not approved and a redesign to eliminate the roofs is required, other permits would be impacted as the Port has all State, Federal and local permits necessary to proceed Bids will be opened on April 8 and construction will begin by the end of April with completion before next winter. Delays impact the construction schedule and expose the Port to further risk of dainage to public and private property. Mr. Toskey agreed with the appellants' suggestion to eliminate the gaps in the roof section and would support that change if the Council has the authority to overrule the decision made on that issue by ADB. Since the gaps were designed, other ways have been determined to resolve that issue. View corridors have not changed —they remain the same or larger than prior to the roof collapse. Only the peak height of the roof sections has changed. At certain tide conditions, there 11 be more roof e posed a e on the waterfirOnt but the view will be approximately the same as b w' x to vi wer agreed it may be necessary to close some dock sections during hea on ti n . e efore during other tide c di o s H vy snow loads to remove Snow from walkways and to ensure snow does not fall on people. He pointed out their docks are non-public (accessed by boat owners only); therefore, closure would not impact public access to the waterfront. W Toskey pointed out the Edmonds waterfront has been significantly improved since the Port of Edmonds became actively involved. He agreed the eve level of the roofs were increased somewhat; this plan was underway for the past two years due to the number of boats that cannot get under the old eve and other boats that required special modifications. The proposed eve height is closer to industry standard for current boat heights and anticipated future boats. He explained the Port has met all requirements for Federal, State, and local permits and have received those Permits. As the roofs do not violate any Federal, State, or local codes, the Port requests the City approve the roofs and allow construction to proceed. For Councilmember White, W Toskey explained the Port would like to close the roof gaps and bring all the moorage closer to shore so there would be more open moorage on the west end. This would not change the square footage, only close the gaps and bring the square footage of covered moorage into one continuous roof section. Councilmember Van Hollebeke recalled the appellants referred to balance and proportion and requested Aft. Toskey explain the intention on either side of each dock. Mr. Toskey explained there would be no 0 roof on A -dock. Therefore, the South end of the marina will have a wider View corridor. Slips on docks the south section as there was not previously a roof on that side. On the n I er the no side of roof sections from the center to the south end. Ile City has denied the bui ding to cov th 13 - G each become longer and the roofs higher, a view from town would show a slight tapering of e I or h section of the rth na, e original proposal was higher floats in the center and lower roof sections on t t inari th he north end. Ile south end of I -dock will not have a roof due to modifications necessary to meet City staffs concerns. This results 0 is some loss I of the tapering as the tallest roof on the north will not be I-dobk but J-dock. Mr. Snyder displayed a colored drawing of the moorage to the Council to assist in visua the roofs. lizing the gaps in Edmonds City Council �j�rovcd' Minutes March 25,1997 Page 5 0 Z tjj _j 0 Cn U1 U3 _j (n U. 01 T) Z 5 1 Z 1!_ Z LU L" 2 =) D U 0 0— W UJI :E LY LL 0 Z! LU Cn 0 Z LE J11 7 COUnCilinember Van Hollebeke recalled the ADB transcript indicated the highest rootlines would be in the center of the marina, graduated down symmetrically on the north or the south, He asked if the covered south side and walkway were a consistent pattern. Mr. Toskey answered the tapering affect on the south side has been preserved; the tallest roofs would be in the center and each succeeding dock structure to the south would be smaller and lower. This is the same on the north side of the marina, except for I -dock which will -not be as high as J-dock to the north. The two center docks (G on the south and I on the north) will not have roof structures over the center portion of the floats (two roofs rather than three). Councilmember Miller asked if the Port reviewed alternative roof designs. Mr. Toskey said they reviewed several alternatives but determined all roofs with a lower pitch would require operational activity to remove snow, Ile Port believes the docks should be constructed so no one is required to be on the roof during a snow storm. Mr. NcCorchuk displayed one of the original specification documents for design of the Port which read, "for construction of the Port of Edmonds small boat harbor in Edmonds Washington", dated April 1961. He pointed out the minutes of a previous Port meeting indicated the construction contractor for the Poi-t suggested the marina be constructed of wood. The Port chose concrete and steel due to the security, strength, and look of the marina. Mr. NcCorchuk felt if the marina had been constructed of wood, all the former fingers could have been included, no boat slips eliminated, and the roofs kept the same. Mr. Van Citters reiterated the City's handbook states there must be plans. He indicated the Port's documents showed a very symmetrical view which is not what will be constructed. He recommended the Port re -submit the ir proposal showing A-G dock roofs and any unbalance. Although he attended all Port meetings, he noted it was difficult to keep up with proposed changes. He pointed out the importance of the roof heights on view blockage and noted the Port of Edmonds has a permit from the City for an exemption from the State Shoreline Hearings Permit. He read from the exemption section of the Shoreline Management Act, "replacement of a structure or development may be authorized as repair where such replacement is the common method of repair for the type of structure or development and the replacement structure or development is comparable to th� origin-a-1 structure or development, including but not limited to its size, the shape, the configuration, the location, and the external appearance and replacement does not cause substantial adverse affects to the shoreline resources or the environment." He felt the roofs were not the same size; they are an average of 10 feet higher. Further, the shape is completely different as the old roofs 'Were flat and overlapping and the new roofs are V-shape& The configuration has also changed; the old structures were highly efficient as *they were close to shore and left the outer areas for sailboats. He noted the location has also changed as the covered moorage area has been moved. He stressed if the Port wanted to make the proposed changes, they should get a Shoreline permit. He pointed out no other areas are building covered moorage due to the environmental issues nor were other areas increas�ng existing waterfront moorage by 10 feet. Mr. Wilson clarified the covered moorage sections were removed from the south side of I -dock and the north side of G-dock due to the Port's shoreline exemption request and was issued to allow the Port to proceed without obtaining a Shoreline permit. A proposal to provide covered moorage in those areas would require a separate Shoreline permit. Councilmember Nordquist asked when the City would received a firrn set of plans. . Mr. Wilson explained the applicant has received exemption from the Shoreline permit requirement. They are no w* Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes, March 25,1997 Page 6 ; , � 0 z LU V) U) UJ LU CJ) Lt. 0 LL z z LU Lup 0— a t= LIJ W 0! Z L) 0 z T - DI M COUNCILIVIEMBER MILLER I-VIOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMENIBER HAAKEiNsoN, TO EXTEND THE DISCUSSION FOR 15 M114UTES. MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Myers asked if the allegation regarding a 1 10 foot height increase was accurate, jVfr. Wilson answered the pitch of the roof structure was changed and the clear height raised. Between the two factors, there was a height increase Of up to 10 feet in some areas.- Councilmember White asked if the Council could affirm the ADB's decision and uphold the portion of the appeal that would require the port to close the gaps on the dock. Mr. Snyder answered yes. Councilmernber Miller asked if the proposed moorage exceeded two stories in height as defined by City Code. Mr. Wilson answered the City's code addresses feet rather than the number of stories as story height varies. The maximum height of the covered moorage woL Id not e ceed 35 feet over ordina water mark —the threshold used under the Shoreline Managern n t ry high e t Act. Mayor Fahey remanded the matter to Council for deliberation. COUNCILMEMBER WHITE MOVED, SECONDED By COUNCILMEMBER MYERS, TO AFFIRM THE ARCIIITECTURAL DESIGN BOARDS DECISION.AND UPHOLD THE AppEAL REGARDING CLOSING THE GAPS IN THE ROOFS BETWEEN THE DOCKS (AS BY A11R. TOSKE Y AND THE COUNCIL). DISCUSSED Councilmember Haakenson referred to several comments contained in the � ADD transcript which indicated the ADBs review of the issue. MOTION CARRIED. Mayor Fahey indicated any future building plans submitted to the City for permit must show that the gaps have been closed. Mayor Fahey declared a brief recess. 5. REPORT O?VqTD AMl-rpq I — Planning Manager Rob Chave explained discussion would consider what remains of the Edmonds urban growth areas described -in the Comprehensive Plan as the remainder of Esperance, Perinville, and Norma Beach/Picnic Point. The Comprehensive Plan identified Esperance and Perrinville as fliture potential annexation areas; Norma BeachMicnic Point was ideritified as an area of interest. Several years ago, as a result of the request of residents in the Norma Beach/Picnic Point to be annexed, the Council undertook a study of issues including revenues, expenditures, gr;wth patterns, what would b e necessary to serve the area, etc. It was determined the Council did not wish to commit to any annexation efforts in this area because, although expenditures and revenues were roughly balanced, there were huge unknowns regarding drainage and necessary improvements in the future. He noted the topography of the western portion of the Norma Beach/picnic point area is similar to the Meadowdale area which has a history of Ed-nds CitY Council Approved Minutes March 25,1997 Page 7 .0 ID 3. Staff represented that the plans presented by the applicant were prepared in 0 accordance with standard practice and provide the detail and the scale typica]R of an application before the Architectural Design Board. 4. Increases in the potential height and, structure'due to changes im the roof pitch are within the Edmonds Community Development Guide and Shoreline Managennent Act's 35foot height� limitation over ordinary high water mark. 4- Exhibit 2,.' 0, 2 D U 0 Q U4 LL 0 Z Iq :0 H. CONCLUSIONS 'J. No substantial and competent evidence was presented indicating that the plan,was notili-coiJapliancewith the provisions of the Shorelines Management Act, State Environmental Protection Act or the City's Comprehensive Plan and zoning amendments. 2. The applicant and appellant agree that elimination of gaps in the roof design by the cr6ation,of a continuous roof structure concentrated at the landward end of the site would be in the public's best interests, both aesthetically and from a safety viewpoint. 3. The City Council concludes that the design as presented, viewed in its intended purpose as a replacement for an existing Marina structure complies with the criteria of the Architectural Design Board as set forth in ECDC Sections 10.20.060 and 20.10.070. Jhe City Council specifically notes that the appeal as presented does not address specific characteristics of the proposed covered moorage which would tend to indicate that a particular aspect is not in harmony with the texture, lines, color and masses of the proposed structures nor that they are not compatible in height and scale with other structures in the area other than as a conclusion. The City Council finds that there is not competent evidence in the record to overturn the findings of the Architectural Design Board, particularly considering its special. expertise in this area. 4. The proposal is being reviewed by the City Council as a replacement facility for a facility comparable in size, shape and relationship to its surroundings to the proposal. The City Council is not charged to either design the project nor to d*etermine whether a better project might be designed but rather to determine whether the project as submitted complies with the criteria of City code. The City Council concludes that it does so, particularly in context with the limited direction provided by the City's design manual to a Marina of this type. DECISION 1. The appeal of the applicant is upheld with respect to elimination of gaps in the' roof, design [(see appeal, I � (0)) - A design incorporating a continuous roof structure of equal square footage and roof pitch at the landward end of the docks is therefore approved, The rest of the appeals raised are denied. The City Council notes that only those design elements specifically shown in the plans and diagrams submitted to the Architectural Design Board are approved as amended and any significant changes are �utject to future review and approval by the Architectural Design Board and the further proceedings. Issues relating to the specific details of construction and engineering are deferred to the building permit process. The Architectural Design Board review process is established for generalized design review and a determination of whether a structure, as proposed, complies with Architectural Design Board review criteria. The detail shown in the plans and drawings are appropriate to this process. -2- 9 z z uj 2 D u 0 a LU 0 z Ell Z LU, cc < LU -J 0 U) LU LU U) U.! U— 0 J ; 2�1 < LL 3: 1'- 3: z �- �- 0 Z �- LLI LU 2 n =) C3 L) T) 0 LL- 0 Z LU Cn 0 z M IV] Councilmember Myers acknowledged the students' teacher, Ms. Rautenberg, a graduate of the Edmonds School District and an outstanding student and athlete at Edmonds-Woodway High School. Mayor Fahey and Councilmembers personally congratulated each student and thanked their parents for their support. WIMM M 11 II#y-V4 .11-171MOVI # ONO 41 RLY.IMU-T-TUM-M � -1 R-111 # 0-117- I =Itipwl City Attorney Scott Snyder explained due to changes in State law, appeals to the Council are reviewed using a Closed Record Appeal process. The Council may hear argument from the appellant and the applicant but no public hearing is held nor can any new testimony be provided by any party. Mayor Fahey asked if any Councilmembers wished to make an Appearance of Fairness disclosure. Councilmember Haakenson said he is familiar with Mr. Van Citters and Aft. NcCorchuk as a result of his serving as the City's liaison to the Port and he was knowledgeable of both sides of the issue. Mr. Snyder asked Councilmember Haakenson whether he was aware his decision must be based solely upon the record and not any knowledge he acquired outside the record. Councilmember Haakenson answered he was. 'Mere were no challenges to Councilmember Haakenson's participation. Current Planning Supervisor Jeff Wilson explained the Architectural Design Board (ADB) held a public hearing on February 5, 1997, on a request by the Port of Edmonds for a permit for reconstruction of the Port facilities that were damaged as a result of the New Year's storm. The ADB must make three findings on each application they review and determine that the proposal is, 1) consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and adopted City policies, 2) meets the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance or City has approved a variance for modification of the Zoning Ordinance, and 3) satisfies criteria and purposes of this Chapter. After making those findings, the ADB then reviews all projects for consistency with specified criteria (ECDC Section 20.10.070) which include building design, site treatment, and other criteria. On February 5, 1997, the ADB issued its decision to approve the application subject to conditions which are included in the Council packet. On February 6, an appeal of the ADB decision was filed by Mr. Van Citters and Mr.*NcCorchuk; their appeal letter is Exhibit 4. Their appeal raises several issues regarding the project's inconsistency with Findings in ECDC Section 20.10.060 and Criteria in Section 20.10.070. He noted the Council packet contained a transcript of testimony provided at the February 5 ADB hearing (Exhibit 2), The original Staff Report to the ADB which includes the design submitted by the applicant is Exhibit 3, Roy NeCorchuk, 7730 222nd Street Southwest, Edmonds, (reserving five minutes for rebuttal) said he represented himself as well as hundreds of interested parties from marina tenants to marina passerbys. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes Match 25,1997 Page 3 0 -N He referred to roof heights and their design and said he favored covered moorage but in a conservative way. He said a petition, signed by many tenants who wish to have the marina rebuilt the way it was, was on record in the Planning Department. He expressed concern with the three pitched roofs per dock, a design not used elsewhere in the Puget Sound area and pointed out the old design, which stood for 35 Z < years, could be seen over and was more user friendly. He pointed out the floats are nearly twice as large 12, = Z' as the old floats (in depth and width) which reduces the amount of boat space for tenants. He said the Lu� roof, which was designed for safety, sheds snow onto the main walkway and may require closure of the < docks in a heavy snow load. This would prevent access to the waterfront for recreational use. He noted LU -J U Q 1 the information he submitted highlighted aspects of the waterfront —the precious resource and the view U) corridor. Although comments have been made that the roofless moorage looks nice, he preferred U) LU covered moorage but with a flatline design. He pointed out the Port Orchard marina, which also LO LL collapsed, is being rebuilt with a flatline-type roof to preserve views. He urged the Council to give the LU 0 citizens of Edmonds the same consideration. 2 U- <' Robert Van Citters, appellant, stated the flnal plan for covered moorage may be incomplete with regard U) to final dimensions and exact locations of the covered moorage on the docks. He referred to the Citys permit handbook which states that an applicant must file complete plans. He said the Pores application Z is a generic proposal which shows only those docks that are aesthetically favorable. He referred to the �- 0, Z �- drawing of the first dock which has 28 foot slips on both sides, perfectly balanced with the roof in the LU UJ middle and felt a drawing of all docks should be available to the public, as the roof sizes will vary. He 2 =I M noted there have been numerous proposals; one proposal had a balanced roof on both sides with a 0 T walkway in the center. His understanding now was that some docks would only have a roof over the C3 walkway with covered moorage on one side of the dock. In his opinion, this would present an X. Ly unbalanced view. Zi Mr. Van Citters directed the Council's attention to page 22 of the ADI3 transcript in which Port Executive LU U): Director Bill Toskey addresses the float from the boaters perspective. This reveals the height of the covered moorage will be extended in the lower docks approximately 3 feet 6 inches to accommodate 0 Z larger and taller boats, not only to shed snow for safety reasons. He disagreed with the proposal for increased height. He directed the Council's attention to pages 22, 36 and 37, noting the proposal in the packet shows gaps in sections of covered moorage on B dock. He felt the gaps presented a major engineering problem as well as with aesthetics. He pointed out the open slips are used by sailboat owners in the marina; the sailboat masts are so tall the crossbars on the sailboats hit the side panels of the roof. He preferred the covered moorage be moved closer to shore and the buildings not be broken up as it creates cost and engineering difficulties that have yet been solved. As a result, the Port may return to the ADB in the future with a proposal for a continuous bam-like structure. Bill Toskey, Executive Director of the Port of Edmonds, 336 Admiral Way, Edmonds, explained 0 marina roofs protect boats from weather conditions thus protecting owners' substantial investment and reducing the need for maintenance. In answer to the question why more marina roofs are not present in Puget Sound, he explained roof sections have not been allowed by the State in recent years for environmental reasons due to their impact on fisheries. As the Edmonds Marina had roof sections before, Federal and State laws allow it to be rebuilt. He pointed out there is a very active marine life within the Port of Edmonds marina. Mr. Toskey explained the existing roofs had been in place 35 years but obviously that design was not good enough. The roof collapse caused approximately $10 million to public property (Port of Edmonds) and also an additional $10 million to private property. Significant changes were made in the design to minimize future risk such as to increase the floatation system which was the primary cause of the roof collapse. Another reason for the collapse was the catastrophic failure of the wood structure; therefore, the structure is proposed to be rebuilt with steel. The third change was to increase the pitch of the roof to Z allow snow to self -shed from the approximately 6 acres of roof at the marina. He pointed out it is impractical to shovel that volume of snow from the marina roofs in an emergency. The Port Orchard marina is a flat design, and the community has committed in their planning to remove snow with water LU; or shoveling. If the roof sections were not approved and a redesign to eliminate the roofs is required, < LU other permits would be impacted as the Port has all State, Federal and local permits necessary to proceed. O� L) Bids will be opened on April 8 and construction will begin by the end of April with completion before LO Lo UJ next winter. Delays impact the construction schedule and expose the Port to further risk of darriage to Xi 1`-� public and private property. V) LL LU Mr. Toskey agreed with the appellants, suggestion to eliminate the gaps in the roof section and would C2 support that change if the Council has the authority to overrule the decision made on that issue by ADB. U- Since the gaps were designed, other ways have been determined to resolve that issue. View corridors have not changed —they remain the same or larger than prior to the roof collapse. Only the peak height Y of the roof sections ha's changed. At certain tide conditions, there will be more roof exposed to a viewer Z l'-, 0 on the waterfront but the view will be approximately the same as before during other tide conditions. He 1-- agreed it may be necessary to close some dock sections during heavy snow loads to remove snow from Ui LU walkways and to ensure snow does not fall on people. He pointed out their docks are non-public (accessed by boat owners only); therefore, closure would not impact public access to the waterfront. LU Mr. Toskey pointed out the Edmonds waterfront has been significantly improved since the Port of X Edmonds became actively involved. He agreed the eve level of the roofs were increased somewhat; this ol plan was underway for the past two years due to the number of boats that cannot get under the old eve Zi LU (n, and other boats that required special modifications. The proposed eve height is closer to industry X, standard for current boat heights and anticipated future boats. He explained the Port has met all violate any Federal, State, or local codes, the Port requests the City approve the roofs and allow requirements for Federal, State, and local permits and have received those permits. As the roofs do not Z construction to proceed. For Councilmember White, Mr. Toskey explained the Port would like to close the roof gaps and bring all the moorage closer to shore so there would be more open moorage on the west end. Ibis would not change the square footage, only close the gaps and bring the square footage of covered moorage into one continuous roof section. Councilmember Van Hollebeke recalled the appellants referred to balance and proportion and requested 0 Mr. Toskey explain the intention on either side of each dock. Nft. Toskey explained there would be no roof on A -dock. Therefore, the south end of the marina will have a wider view corridor. Slips on docks B - G each become longer and the roofs higher; a view from town would show a slight tapering of the roof sections from the center to the south end. The City has denied the building to cover the north side of the south section as there was not previously a roof on that side. On the north section of the marina, the original proposal was higher floats in the center and lower roof sections on the north end. The south end of 1-dock will not have a roof due to modifications necessary to meet City staffs concerns. This results is some loss of the tapering as the tallest roof on the north will not be I -dock but J-dock. Mr. Snyder displayed a colored drawing of the moorage to the Council to assist in visualizing the gaps in the roofs. Edrnonds City Council Approved Minutes March 25, 1997 page 5 Xi 0 0 Uj W 0 0 P LU X_ Z W CO 0 Z F H rA Councilmember Van Hollebeke recalled the ADB transcript indicated the highest rooflines would be in the center of the marina, graduated down symmetrically on the north or the south. He asked if the covered south side and walkway were a consistent pattern. Mr. Toskey answered the tapering affect on the south side has been preserved; the tallest roofs would be in the center and each succeeding dock structure to the south would be smaller and lower. This is the same on the north side of the marina, except for I -dock which will not be as high as J-dock to the north. The two center docks (G on the south and I on the north) will not have roof structures over the center portion of the floats (two roofs rather than three). Councilinember Miller asked if the Port reviewed alternative roof designs. Mr. Toskey said they reviewed several alternatives but determined all roofs with a lower pitch would require operational activity to remove snow. The Port believes the docks should be constructed so no one is required to be on the roof during a snow storm. Mr. NcCorchuk displayed one of the original specification documents for design of the Port which read, "for construction of the Port of Edmonds small boat harbor in Edmonds Washingtoif', dated April 1961. He pointed out the minutes of a previous Port meeting indicated the construction contractor for the Port suggested the marina be constructed of wood. The Port chose concrete and steel due to the security, strength, and look of the marina. Mr. NcCorchuk felt if the marina had been constructed of wood, all the former fingers could have been included, no boat slips eliminated, and the roofs kept the same. 1�ft. Van Citters reiterated the City's handbook states there must be plans. He indicated the Ports documents showed a very symmetrical view which is not what will be constructed. He recommended the Port re -submit their proposal showing A-G dock roofs and any unbalance. Although he attended all Port meetings, he noted it was difficult to keep up with proposed changes. He pointed out the importance of the roof heights on view blockage and noted the Port of Edmonds has a permit from the City for an exemption from the State Shoreline Hearings Permit. He read from the exemption section of the Shoreline Management Act, "replacement of a structure or development may be authorized as repair where such replacement is the common method of repair for the type of structure or development and the replacement structure or development is comparable to the original structure or development, including but not limited to its size, the shape, the configuration, the location, and the external appearance and replacement does not cause substantial adverse affects to the shoreline resources or the environment." He felt the roofs were not the same size; they are an average of 10 feet higher. Further, the shape is completely different as the old roofs were flat and overlapping and the new roofs are V-shaped. The configuration has also changed; the old structures were highly efficient as they were close to shore and left the outer areas for sailboats. He noted the location has also changed as the covered moorage area has been moved. He stressed if the Port wanted to make the proposed changes, they should get a Shoreline permit. He pointed out no other areas are building covered moorage due to the environmental issues nor were other areas increasing existing waterfront moorage by 10 feet. Mr. Wilson clarified the covered moorage sections were removed from the south side of I -dock and the north side of G-dock due to the Ports shoreline exemption request and was issued to allow the Port to proceed without obtaining a Shoreline permit. A proposal to provide covered moorage'in those areas would require a separate Shoreline permit. Councilmember Nordquist asked when the City would received a firm set of plans. Mr. Wilson explained the applicant has received exemption from the Shoreline permit requirement. They are now Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 25,1997 Page 6 0 z F— LIJ U —j U 0 (n 0� U) Ul LLJ -j U) N Uj 0 U. co z l.- 0 Z �- LU U.I. D) 0 0 �-1 LLJ Uji zl� LU Cly C-) 0 z Le, Y, required to submit a full building permit application to the City, including a full set of plans. Full construction drawings are not typically submitted on discretionary plans; usually only conceptual drawings are submitted. He explained the Ports original submittal included conceptual design of different cross sections based on the various firlger-pier lengths proposed throughout the site. COUNCILMEMBER MILLER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCELMEMBER HAAKENSON, TO EXTEND THE DISCUSSION FOR 15 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED. Councilmernber Myers asked if the allegation regarding a 10 foot height increase was accurate. Mr. Wilson answered the pitch of the roof structure was changed and the clear height raised. Between the two factors, there was a height increase of up to 10 feet in some areas. Councilmember White asked if the Council could affirm the ADB's decision and uphold the portion of the appeal that would require the Port to close the gaps on the dock. Mr. Snyder answered yes. Councilmember Miller asked if the proposed moorage exceeded two stories in height as defined by City Code. Mr. Wilson answered the City's code addresses feet rather than the number of stories as story height varies. The maximum height of the covered moorage would not exceed 35 feet over ordinary high water mark —the threshold used under the Shoreline Management Act. Mayor Fahey remanded the matter to Council for deliberation. COUNCILMEMBER WHITE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER. MYERS, TO AFF1RM THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD'S DECISION AND UPHOLD THE APPEAL REGARDING CLOSING THE GAPS IN THE ROOFS BETWEEN THE DOCKS (AS DISCUSSED BY MR. TOSKEY AND THE COUNCIL). Councilmember Haakenson referred to several comments contained in the ADB transcript which indicated the ADB's review of the issue. MOTION CARRIED. Mayor Fahey indicated any future building plans submitted to the City for permit must show that the gaps have been closed. Mayor Fahey declared a brief recess. FF—. 5* REPORT ON STRATEGIES FOR FIMURE ANNEXATIONS lAnnexations Planning Manager Rob Chave explained discussion would consider what remains of the Edmonds urban growth areas described in the Comprehensive Plan as the remainder of Esperance, Perrinville, and Norma Beach/Picnic Point. The Comprehensive Plan identified Esperance and Perrinville as future potential annexation areas; Norma Beach/Picnic Point was identified as an area of interest. Several years ago, as a result of the request of residents in the Norma Beach/Picnic Point to be annexed, the Council undertook a study of issues including revenues, expenditures, gr�wth patterns, what would be necessary to serve the area, etc. It was determined the Council did not wish to commit to any annexation efforts in v this area because, although expenditures and revenues were roughly balanced, there were huge unknowns regarding drainage and necessary improvements in the future. He noted the topography of the western portion of the Norma Beach/Picnic Point area is similar to the Meadowdale area which has a history of Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes MaTch 25,1997 Page 7 0 Z �-: 0. Z LU UJ; =x LU Z LU rn Z 1*1 E Public Works projects as well as difficulties with building and regulations. Further, there were concerns expressed regarding the City's ability to adequately serve the area. in response to continued requests for annexation from residents in the Norma Beach/Picnic Point area, staff has indicated the City has no active interest in annexation and refer them to the previous Council discussion. Staff wishes to confirm the Council has no annexation plans for the Norma Beach/Picnic Point area and are not expressing any interest to residents. Council President Earling recalled staffs projections on infrastructure costs as well as water runoff issues in the Norma Beach/Picnic Point area were the main reason the Council chose not to pursue annexation of the area. It was the consensus of the Council that the Norma Beach/Picnic Point area was an area of interest but the City had no plans for annexation. Mr. Chave referred to the staff memo to the Council Community Services Committee dated March 11, 1997, which described an approach to annexing the remaining Esperance area at the end of the year. As discussed with the Community Services Committee, staff proposes three annexation proposals in November. If this is the Council's desire, efforts will begin in April. Current Planning Supervisor Jeff Wilson advised the only two election dates available this fall are the September primary and the November general election. A November election would also be an optimum time for minimizing the resulting financial impacts to the City prior to receipt of income from annexed areas. Councilmember Myers recalled Esperance was an area presently served by the Edmonds Fire Department and the City receives revenue for calls into this area. Mr. Wilson agreed, noting this occurred with the last annexation and acquisition of the Fire Station from Fire District 1. Councilmember Myers pointed out the City would be annexing an area with limited commercial income as well as losing income from the Fire District. Mr. Wilson said he was not aware of the complete agreement regarding the annexation. He identified undeveloped and under -developed commercial parcels in this annexation area. The assessed valuation of the three areas combined is over $300 million and has a total population of approximately 3,000. Councilmember Nordquist asked whether the City had made any effort to hold meetings with key players in this proposed annexation area as he recalled there was some opposition to annexation. Mr. Wilson agreed a key element would be devoting adequate time to answer residents' questions. He explained there was a small annexation proposal, less than 10 acres of commercial frontage on Hwy. 99, in process which will come before the Council on May 6. Councilmember Nordquist recalled a key question during the last annexation was the City's plans for the Olympic View Water District. Mr. Wilson agreed the affect on the Olympic View Water District was raised during the last annexation. Mr. Mar explained under current law, the City must annex all of the Esperance area for the City to qualify to take over the district. Staff has discussed with the Olympic Water District how and when that could happen. It was the consensus of the Council to proceed with time line for annexation as outlined. Edtwnds City 60uncil Aoroved Minutes Mamh 25,1997 Page a 0 Z LU -j U 0 U) a (f) LU LU -j LU LL < D LIJ Z F- �- 0 Z F- LLI LU 0- 0 �-I LIJ Lui �-L 0 z L . Lj F- 0 z T� N 5 APFI�JPAVON ROUTING FORM "`FlM-';:7A0B47,,6� ANn tHECKLIST: W, -,,,:;.��.FROW�`PLANNIN -pl.A NIN G== ROUTED TO: :RETURNED JAN 199 7 Engine . ering &Z Fire, kS Public Wor ___jajj!U Public Wo Parks 81 Rec. 1/21/97 Parks er Roc.' Zfee �J4 Staff Comments: oirike� 19 *PEWWHAT SECrION OF THE CODE 0 Owner- 1 Property Ad i Date of App Type REBUILD 14 FLOATS Hearing Required:Yes-)(— ---.7 -.— ­ TV, AUUMUMUal OUr7r7VOLVU U119 I�JLY wmilucl tt %ILY ividuagur Lorin 01 government rather than hiring an assistant for the Mayor. He said this issue will likely be on the ballot at Z the next mayoral election as a result of a strong initiative effort. Further, he felt if the City could fund an < assistant for the Mayor, it should be able to fimd Emergency Medical Services. He commented the a: Z Financial Center renovation would eliminate the need for out-of-town Council retreats, the expense of l— Wi xm� hotel rooms, and allow citizens to attend. He questioned why all Councilmembers submitted the same < :D UJ t I mileage for the Council retreat when each live in different areas of Edmonds. V) UJ Al Rutledge, 7101 Lake Ballinger Way, Edmonds, submitted written comments for Council's review. He suggested citizens be allowed to have input on the Telecommunications Officer. He also suggested U) LL If the City contact the Port of Edmonds regarding a boat owner who was unable to cash a check written by 0i his insurance company. 02 -j LL In response to comments, Mayor Fahey advised the transport fees for EMS service are being charged by 0, Medic 7; concerns should be expressed directly to the Medic 7 Board. The City of Edmonds does not UP assess transport fees for Basic Life Support transport. Z Z 11. CLOSED RECORD APPEAL OF THE DECISION BY THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN 80 W W 2 n TO APPROVE AN APPLICATION BY THE PORT OF EDMONDS TO ALLOML2M ::) 0, C CONSIRUCTION OF NEW COVERED MOORAGE STRUCTURES AND FLOATS TO L) cl); R= 0 Appeal - File REPLACE DAMAGED STRUCTURES IN THE PORT MARINA WHICH IS GENERALLY AP-97-1 5 LOCATED AT 336-ADIRRAL MUM Robert Van Citters Jr. & &y NcCorchuck Applicant: Port of Edmonds. Fil 11nd AP--97-45.) U- 0!�t Z� Mr. Snyder explained that in his review of the transcript received by the Council, and in comparison to Lii MY the minutes, it has been determined that the Council has received only a partial record. He explained the closed record appeal allowed the Council to review only the record of the prior proceeding. Therefore, 0 Z the Council cannot hear and decide this matter as the full evidence is not available to the Council. He suggested the appeal be continued to the next available hearing date in order to allow preparation of a full transcript. COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCELMEMBER HAAKENSON, TO SCHEDULE AGENDA ITEM 11 (CLOSED RECORD APPEAL OF THE DECISION BY THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD BY THE PORT OF EDMONDS) ON THE COUNCIL WORK MEETING AGENDA ON MARCH 25,1997. At the request of Councilmember Myers, Mayor Fahey asked the appellants if continuing this hearing 0 would be convenient for them. Mr. Van Citters answered yes, provided it was at 7:00 p.m. MOTIONCARRIEED. Introduc 4. INTRODUCTION OF CAROL PIDDUCK, CIVIL SERVIC BQAR% Board KAUFMAN, LIBRA" BOARD Members Mayor Fahey explained several citizens applied for this position and it was a difficult, decision. Personnel Manager Brent Hunter introduced Carol Pidduck and described her background and qualifications. Ms. Pidduck expressed pleasure for the opportunity to serve the City. Edmonds City Council Approved Minuw March 18,1997 Page 4 0 40 PYKIN Item J, Auth s Scho Ballfield Maintenan e and Schedulina Councilmember Myers said he pulled this item to point out how well the school district and the City c Z an < work together to provide better ballfields. X 2! COUNCILMEMSER MYERS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WHITE, FOR < LU APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEM L MOTION CARRIED. The item approved is as _j & U follows: Ul! Ballfield Lu Maintenance (J) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH U) U-1 EDMONDS SCHOOL DISTRICT 15 FOR BALLFIELD MAINTENANCE AND oil SCHEDULING Item M: Authorization for Out -of -State TraycHor Specialized School LL < Councilmember White said this item was reviewed by the Public Safety Committee after it was pulled from a previous Consent Agenda. Staff requests out-of-state travel for the Fire Department Mechanic for Z 1-- 0! specialized school for repair and maintenance of a high pressure air compressor. The Public Safety Z Committee confirmed the cost to bring in an out-of-state technician for repairs is exorbitant and LU Lul M: recommended an employee be certified in maintenance and repair which conforms to the requirements of the warranty. Councilmember White pointed out certifying an employee would result in substantial 0 savings to the City. a E�j W LU COUNCILMEMBER WHITE MOVED, §ECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MYERS, FOR APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEM M. MOTION CARRIED. The item approved is as Zi follows: Uj C* te Travel Iou" M AUTHORIZATION FOR OUT-O&STATE TRAVEL FOR SPECL&-LIZED SCHOOL 0 Z Item S: E=osed0rdinance nactine,.No Rem -Parking in the Same 100 Block on a Permanent Basis Council President Earling stated he pulled this item in order to vote against the ordinance. This is consistent with previous votes related to this matter. COUNCILMEMBER MYERS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER VAN HOLLEBEKE, FOR PASSAGE OF ITEM S. MOTION CARRIED, COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING OPPOSED. The item approved is as follows: (S) ORDINANCE NO. 3138 ENACTING NO RE -PARKING IN THE SAW 100 BLOCK ON A PERMANENT BASIS. The Ordinance reads as follows: 0 ORDINANCE 3138 ADDING NEW SECTION 8A8.162 TO THE EDMONDS CITY CODE IN ORDER TO CREATE A NEW PARKING INFRACTION To PROHIBIT THE MOVING OF A VEHICLE FROM ONE SPACE TO ANOTHER WITHIN A CITY BLOCK IN ORDER TO AVOID A PARKING TIM LIM[T 3. AUDIENCE Mayor Fahey explained that while she respects the public's freedom of speech and right to expre ss their views, she would no longer allow vitriolic attacks on herself or the. Council.. She indicated a speaker , Z" would be asked to leave the podium if their testimony was presented 'in an mappropriate manner. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes Match 18, 1997 Page 3 77 0 Agenda Memo Originator: Planning Division For Action: X For Information - Subject: CLOSED RECORD APPEAL OF THE DECISION BY TIM ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD TO APPROVE AN APPLICATION BY THE PORT OF EDMONDS TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF NEW COVERED MOORAGE STRUCTURES AND FLOATS TO REPLACE DAMAGED STRUCTURES IN THE PORT MARINA WHICH IS GENERALLY LOCATED AT 336 ADMIRAL WAY. (APPELLANT: ROBERT VAN CITTERS J1;L AND ROY NCCORCHUCK/ APPLICANT: PORT OF EDMONDS, FILE NOS. ADB- 97-6 AND AP-97-15) (45 MIN.) z z Clearances: Departmentlinitials UJ W Agenda Time: 45 min. Admin Svcs/Finance Community Svcs 0 City Attorney Engineering Agenda Date: March 18,1997 City Clerk Parks & Rec LU Court Planning,, Exhibits Attached: '—.—�-5t Personnel Public W&ks LUL- 0:; zi 1. Vicinity Map Fire Treatment Plant UJ U)! U m Police City Council 2. ADB Hearing Transcript Mayor z 3. ADB Staff Report, including plans Reviewed by Council Finance subrnitted by the applicant Committee: Community Services 4 Letter of Appeal. Public Safety Approvedfor Consent Agenda Recommend Review by Full Council. J Expenditure Amount Appropriation Required: $0 Budgeted: $0 Required: $0 Funding Source: 0 N/A Narrative: On February 5, 1997, the Architectural Design Board held a hearing to consider an application by the Port of Edmonds to allow the construction of new covered moorage structures and floats to replace damaged structures in the port marina which is generally located at 336 Admiral Way (see Exhibit 1). At 0 that hearing the Board heard testimony from staff, the applicant and the public. After deliberation a motion was made by Board member Oaklief, and seconded by Board Member Sullivan to approve the application with the following conditions: a) Massing breaks between covered moorage buildings as proposed by the applicant are to be retained, 0 "MOM .......... .. ... ...... F� I-- z 0 a LU 0 z E 'SEC By. 0-11-87 2*:24Pbi iOME4 NWHY WALLAM- 2067710221; 1 # bl Aim _11:, !rherp at there's whArG-the'Pauzes are cOminu from. got Our terminology. The 31#5 or docking r rGas are going to be slightly longer, slightly wider than previouas in ma=Y' of the cases, not all 'Of the cauez, of the proposed, the Proposed covered moorage in this case. And that Will, by increasing the! 1 2 the -h 01 of the, the width rather of the f loat:ng+ with the Covers above them With a pitchad roof, you increase the width of the Pitched portion Of the roof which, in turn, as a function will increase the height over what was there previously. In addition, the Port hao proponed a gteeper P1 t0hed roof than What was there prev I ously, simply because the roofs that were there did 3not Shed Snow, as Illustrated by the collapse from snow acc%=Ulation on the roof. The applicant is Proposing a 5-12 pitch where previously, I don't know what the pitch was, but I would guess it Was 2 02: 3-12, Somewhere in there. It was substantially lower than what it is now. Vh, r.6, so the function of increasing the width and increasing the pitch causes the new proposea 'covered moorage to be aPProximately 10 feat taller in many places from what the previous covered moorage wam The Port has at the Part. Provided a cite crome-section I don,t believe was in Your packet, but is On the Wall for 'YOU to look at, denonstrating. Basically, the CrOr-s-Rection goes through 'the outer, the outer marina bulkhead, then across the marina water, then through the covered moorage buildings, then through the landward site through a building on the landward site, to kind Of give you an idea of bow the covered moorage buildings will relate to the On -site buildings. The applicant is proposing a, like I said, a standing sean metal roof. The applicant has two roof colors proposed that were in Your Packet and they-*rs also on the board behind YOU. One is Whiter, More of a water color, which would tend to blend into tho water a little bit More from above, from, you know#* ViGW areas throughout town. The other color proposed is a dark blue, which is a color that iS More identified with both City and Port logos, keeping in mind that they're separate Jurisdictions. They both mean to Use the same color logo, uh, on some existing Fort �Uild'ng$ and Port roofs. So therals, 1: guQjjr. ould you color. say' there are strong arguments to use either Uh, one is more neutral and Would blend in and One is more Compatibla with existing buildings. SO that would be a point for your discussion ae to Which Yon want, and I Im sure the applicant haz ek, ,Waltz"-LSX"W8-2NW ADM 0 F:;, U 0 0 LU U_ W L) 8 Z 3-11-97 1 2:201 ;OGDIN MMHY WALLACE- 206771 1 0221 V 0 a Preference that the npplican . t may want to ate. applicant in, X wamted to sa y proposing signages. We wouldnt Call What. the 'applicant is proposing zignage in that it's simply for the dock number, excuse me, the pier number of letter, Pier A, Pler a, kind or a thing, But it's worth noting what they are. In your packets youill see in the elevations of the buildings, those elevations are what you would r from the lanaward side looking at it. And the applicant hasnrt given a, actually, a scale of that, but in scaling it off on the scale Provided, appears to be about 9 feet in diameter. So it's a pretty big letter, and so it"s worth Mak ng a note. M, the uh. In looking &t Whether Or not the application is in compliance with the three criteria required far you to, the three findings that you have to make. It appears as far as looking at the Comprehensive Plan, uh, the elements that you're going to look at there are how the buildings relate to the existing buildings in the surrounding area. Ac this is not an emergency replacement. type of a hearing, yourre looking at this as if it's a now building, not as if it's, -you know, what's better, what's here now, and *-*at waa there before kind of a, kind or a uh Way of looking at things. So, you going to look at it on the comprehensive plan, As -I said, how it relates to its surroundings, pitch. of the roof, height, view, well, view blockage, in the raalm at the, as we talked about in the last building, the m0ndlitivitY to the SUMOUndingrS and the naadg of the area. The colors chosen again have Comprehensive Plan type arguments for either one, and you guYs will need to d1scuss that issue. Uh, as far am the zoning ordinanca,.the applicant does have to Comply with all permits that would be required. 1n this caGGP the aPPlicant ham chosen to make an Architectural Desigh Board applicatioTL while 'Waiting to find out if the projeCt might be exempted from shoreline Permits and the City has issued a determination that would not be exempt from shoreline permits and the applicant still has some recOurves. So, in our motion simply to say as a condition that the applicant needs to comply with Permits of the City of Edmonds, 'whether the applicant still manages to obtain a waiver from that requirement or not, Just, that Would be how YOU would, You would work your notion on that. And then, uh, the Criteria for the uh design guidelines in this cagG are very similar to what youtre 0 SENT BY;, -37 2:2eFM ;OMEN MMM 2067710221;# at 0 looking at in the COmPreftensive Plan issues ho 't relates to the suFFoundings and whether Or not it Oarries a consistent theme throughout the Z develOPMentr that sort Of thing. That concluder. that report. O.K. thank YOU, kTohn. Is there anyone on Oh, 0i 6XCUBG me. Mr. TOSJCy, is there anything that y ou would like to add to the staff report? LM Toskylo I think it Might be helpful to give you a few additional comments, Some of these I gave you last Ln U0- time, but I'll uh bring you up to date. Some of LU the 'reasons that we made chancier, in the roor design, uh, there were structural as well as U_ < D aesthetic, but Primetrily structural. rhe roof bay D 01 error was primarily because there was insufficient float Capacity to hold the Antira of the wet snow Z and the roof s were not ateep enough to shad the snow. so We're corrected that in two Ways. One, is to incrp'aa the flotation, LU Lu� and that doesn't show in this because it's not an architectural it's a structural issue, but you should be aware of 0 LA that- Along with increasing the flotation werve- also L_ gone to concrete and steel construction as Lau: LLU)II opposed to wo*d which is in the original Structural. And then to help shad the snow, warve �L_ 0. done some testing and the 5-12 pitch Should shed Z LU UY. snow. We went �to the standing, same metal roof becaurie that's what vea agreed With you on other Projects that weive done that seemed to be 0 and we thi preference nk it's a good idea anPiuf Z helped shed snow better and 5-12 pitch will also do It- SO We actually got two ways to help overcome the future problms. One, is shedding the snow and steeper roof, and increasing the structural strength in the flctatjon� capacity. In terms at the COlor issue, we haven't voted on the Issue, so we're PrOPared to go to wherever way you want to 9Or and if you don't have a preference, we,21 Prcb&blY pick. one. But there's arguments you rjade for both, for either One and we have no strong issue- 0 Most Of the roots we have had Other than blue, but we recognize if—fjo—Z. distance Or the People in town who have view f it, the off-white, sea white, qurf white, which is actually a Pal* green, may boa mra acceptable. I think that covers the main questions, the 2jain comments I had and I'm prepared to answer .queatione. -4- R. r 4 2 SEW BY. 3-11-97 2:27PM ;OGDEN MURMY WAU 20677102214 fil 9- #MA K HE: Okay- Thank you, mr. To Sky. Does the Board have ?4. any questions of staff or or the applic ant's representative?. Z James: So questions. LU[ aeft. LU _j 0! OnA for the applicant. Uj; LU _j Cl) LL 0 aef f Did, you a bring a chip of that 4hite jby any chah-Ce? An aCtual? < :31 No, I did not, U_ kTef f Other than the colored Z 1-t Tooky: No. 0: Z 1--i LU UJ; 'Greg, Ifm sorry, wel d re�yqu one7 :D i3i Crag: 0 HE2, Okay. Greg? W Uj X Q NO Questions. Z HE; steve? R 0 -Steve: NO qUestions. HE, I may direct one to the staff before we the open audience portion, again on a technical, level. There a re other P*=its that will have to be acquired besides through the City of Edmonds, i that not correct? ?71 The Port will probably WA required to obtained the Permits from the Army corps; of Engin*Qra and perhaps some state permits. The City. ionrt respons ible for review or enforcement o:e that issue, 80 Irm not completely familiar with all the Other Permits that the applicant Might be required with that. That wou:L4 be out of the scope of your criteria where you're suppose to make sure it,g in compliance with zoning, community Development Code, that would contain City permits, but wouldn't deal with Permits from other agenciev. 0 �j 0 N. i M, U: ot Uji Z I.- �- R! Z LJJ LU! mi U 13 0 LU wj� X Z LU (n 0 Z El Okay. SO we just$ in a situation like this, which�, is obviously going to be very rarer you know, but just in case we get another applicant who needs an ArMY Corps of Engineers permit, that dcHasnit really have to be part of the notion because we have no Control Over that because thatte a superior level ot government thatis going to take care of that anyway Okay. I just wanted to clarify that because I know that his permits reguired all three lovela. Okay . lid like to open the audience Participation, or the audience portion, Of ADS 97- S. Is there anyone in audience Who VOUld like to address this Proposal? Would you please come forward to the podium and state your name and addreSS for the record please. Csiitleman in the 'blue coat raised his hand first and then warll move to the gentleman in the rod shirt. �cCorchek.-. ROY Kccorchak, 7730 222nd Street S.W., ilia also a boat tenant. Hie 4 ExcucQ M. does the recorder nee&,that last name spelled. Recorder- Please. RES Okay. Could you spell? Nocorchek; N c,,c a R C H H X� Tbat's an N, not M. Recorder.: Okay. Nocorchek.: Okay, addressing the building style. If u yo Piet -are a plateau, you know, its generally' pretty flat and there was a pretty slight grade on the old design of the Port building. The new one, like you said, is going to be 5-12 pitch, so, you know, if you look at a piece of paper, you knov, the old roof was like this, now you,re going to' have basically a three dimensional type viow like this, which will be, :1 believe, 10 foot taller than the original plans. SO as far an your horizon 4joes looking In the water and Btufte you're going to' have breakage. Youfro not going to be able to have aftY type Of Panoramic view on say above average tide or even probably a regular GvOrftge tide because of the height. Also, the lettering of the feet. I believe on the 50-foot stall it'll be like 33 feet in the air. I've got pretty poor eyesight, but 10m sure you could sea that Maybe from 6th Avenue if it was a clear day. 0 Ai� LL. 0 z F- z LU LL. 0 z Da SENT BY; 8-11-07 2:2WM ;OGDEN NLRPIiY WAW 206771022141 �donft believe thatpe a] _I that necessary either. Also in the drawings that I bavep in fine print down thera, it says, I'M is not resPonsible for .,Safety programs, methods, Procedures of operation or the construction of the design shown on those drawings," Now if you look at the drawings, you have two large Yeaks and YOU haVe a small one in between there, and from what I can tell, the ap&ce in between the two large peaks and the amallar one the middle is about a 4-foot difference in between the two. Now this in your main gangway to walk out on the boats. NOW if YOU have a anow like We've had before,youtre 90ing tO have Mno- coming down that middle fairway if it"s designed to shed Stow and it's going fall an somebodys head. So that's something else to consider besides the view Pointe. Thank you very much. Thank you. I believe the gentleman there in the third row. Art staney (7), 622 Bell Strout. rom also a twmnt within tne Fort iiistrict. r would like to have ft. Tosky address the reasons for the rationale for, including covered moorage in the reconstruction of ths marina. Okay# Mr - �Pbakv can you addre—� +1�=-1-7 Toskys C'grtainlY- The Port's had covered moorage since it was first installed starting in 1962. Therein two major reasons that werve continued to have it. One, is People want it and they pay an extra price for that. And they want it for a variety of reasons but all Pay fees for maintenance for their kkoat, care and cleaning, but also help gave the structure. We found out, although it didn't survive this disaster, if YOU look at it afterward, YOU Mae that it had, the uncovered portions were not nearly in good condition as the coverea So Portion. theyFve helped support in those facilitift3 covered last longer, but also helps the boaters vho want keep their boatg in covered Another point that boaters should be aware ot, there Isn,t more Covered moorage being granted basically in the state, around Puget Bound. 30 if WO do not rebuilt this, youill never gilt it again. Any new marinas that come out and there are vez7 few that can Come because of the environmental regulations, they would not have covered Zoorage either. So it"s a declining Commodity in t -7- 0 IL 0- SENr BY. 11-97 2:80M ;OGDM MRM WALLACE7 2067710221;# a/ 6 boating cow""unity, and Edmofids is one of the few �Placca that has that or could havia that back. z HE., Do 013 that Onswer your question ag to covored moorage? LU < 51 Clark:: It answers the rationale set forth for r1cluding the roofs, L4 but the, faCt that they 'wart there before Oi doesn't neceasarY mean that th*y should be included in the LU reconstruction. And furthermore, the very fact that other marinae LU -j that are being congtmcted and bAvQ been constructed do not include U) U. 0 moorage. covered 1 refer to Shilshole; I rerar to the :Marina built LU M at the base Of Magnolia. And fUXthQ=*re,, from an aesthetic Standpoint, :31 U- covered M400ragO IMPdrta a warehouse effect. X� z Uj LU! 0 UJ LU, 3: '0 U-- z 0 z 0 VM AMU 7 ic 0) 01 ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD STAFF REPORT January 30, 1997 Z X WK X 21 ADB-97-6. REQUEST FOR AL APPROVAL OF NEW COVER ui U MOORAGEAND FLOATS TO REPLACE COVER D UO MOORAGE' AN"n OA DESTROYED BY RECENT STORM UJ EVENTS LU A. Applicant/Propert-Y Owne Architect/Representative 2 Port of Edmonds ca 336 Admiral Way U- Edmonds, WA 98020 Dal 2:i B. Site Location: 336 Admiral Way Z 1-1 Z C. Introduction: During the snow and heavy rain storms at the end of December and the beginning of Lu LU: January, the Port covered moorage was destroyed. The port is making applicationto rebuild the covered moorage. 0 D. Background: U LU �L- 01 1. Zoning: The port property is zoned Commercial Waterfront (CW). Z tii Cd 2. Environmental Review: The proposal requires a SE�A review. Since the �ort is a public U :F� jurisdiction, the Port has chosen to act as the lead agency. The Port has issued a SEPA determination on I , 0 F-) this project. Z 3. Issues: Design of the building, site, and landscaping have all been addressed by the applicant in their proposal, and the Architectural Design Board must determine the appropriateness of the proposal. E. Staff Analysis:. 1. Building Design: The covered moorage which was destroyed was made with unfinished metal roofs with low slopes. The applicant is proposing to replace the roofs with painted st anding seam metal roofs with a 5 inch in 12 inch pitch. a) Materials: Standing seam metal roofs 0 b) Lighting: interior down lighting above the slips and flood fighting at the, gangways is proposed. c) Colors: The applicant has two color options, either a medium shade of blue called Tahoe blue or a light green called surf white. d) Signing: The applicant has proposed a nine foot round wood sign with the letter reprinting the pier at th e gangway end of each pier. EXHIBIT 3 0 Vicinity and Zoning Map Aftachment I File# ADB-97-6 ZT.