No preview available
19810602 City Council MinutesJune 2, 1981 • The regular meeting of the Edmonds'.City Council was called to. order at 7:30 p.m.. by Counc,i1member. Ray Gould in the Council Chambers`of.the Edmonds Civic Center. All present joined in the flag salute. Prior to the arrival of Mayor -Harrison, COUNCILMEMBER JAECH MOVED, SECONDED.BY COUNCIL- MEMBER-GOUL:D,.THAT COUNCILMEMBER.NAUGHTEN BE THE ACTING CHAIRMAN., IN THE ABSENCE OF'THE.MAYOR AND THE MAYOR PRO TEM. MOTION CARRIED. (Councilmember Kasper was not.present.for the vote.). Council - member Naughten conducted the meeting through the Consent. Agenda, during which time Mayor Harrison arrived. PRESENT ABSENT STAFF PRESENT Harve Harrison,.Mayor John Nordquist Jack Mitchell, Acting Public Works Dir. Bill Kasper.. Patrick Wilson, Asst'. City Engineer Jo -Anne Jaech Irene .Varney Moran, City Clerk Mary Goetz Mary Lou Block, Planning Director Ray Gould.. Duane Bowman,.Associate Planner Katherine..Allen Jack Weinz,.Fire Chief Larry Naughten Jim Jessel, Parks & Recreation Director Wayne Tanaka, City Attorney Mark Eames, .City Attorney Jackie Parrett, Deputy City Clerk Councilmember.Kas.per was not present for the early part.of the. meeting, arriving at approximately 10:00 p.m., during the recess preceding the hearing on PRD-1-81. CONSENT AGENDA Items (D), (CE), and (F).were removed from.the.Consent Agenda. COUNCILMEMBER GOETZ-MOVED, SECONDED • BY COUNCILMEMBER.GOULD, TO APPROVE .THE BALANCE OF THE -CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED.. (Council" member Kasper was not present for the -vote.,) The approved items on the Consent Agenda included the following: (A) "Roll call. (B) Approval of Minutes of May 26, 1981. (C) Acknowledgment of receipt of.Cl.aim for Damages,from Marvin L. Jenkins in the amount of $25,000. PROPOSED.RESOLUTION AMENDING.RESOLUTION 493 REGARDING PROCEDURE FOR SELECTION OF CONSULTANTS [Item (D) on'Consent Agenda] Councilmember.Gould noted that the:City Attorney had.provided a memorandum regarding.a new State statute dealing with the award -.of contracts to architects, engineers, and landscape architects, and setting forth new procedures which' cities.must follow after January 1, 1982. COUNCILMEMBER GOULD MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER GOETZ,'THAT THE CITY ATTORNEY BE INSTRUCTED TO PREPARE AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING:THE PROCEDURE FOR..CONSU.LTANT SELECTION FOR BOTH ARCHITECTURAL AND ENGINEERING WORK, AND ALL OTHER CONSULTATION.WORK,"IN.CORPORATING THE PROVISIONS OF THE NEW STATE STATUTE, AND BRING IT. BACK TO THE COUNCIL FOR CONSIDERATION. Ci.ty Attorney Wayne.Tanaka clarified that the intent was to make the -requirements of the new State law applicable to the consultant selection process even though it is not.strictly required to do so in some instances, and Councilmember Gould said that was his intent. THE MOTION CARRIED.. (,Councilmember Kasper was,not.present for the vote.) PARKS AND RECREATION STAFFING LEVEL [Item (E) on Consent Agenda] Councilman Naughten noted.that:ther.e.was a memo from the.Parks and.Recreation Director asking for an additional.$11,000. Parks and.�Recreation Director Jim Jessel.responded•that the request was only in • the event.they,do not get their anticipated grants, and at this -time he.was only asking for $16,200 as previously indicated. COUNCILMEMBER:NAUGHTEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ALLEN, TO APPROVE ITEM (E) ON THE CONSENT.AGENDA,'PROVIDING ADDITIONAL.FUNDING IN THE AMOUNT OF $116,200 FOR PARKS AND RECREATION STAFFING THROUGH 1981. MOTION.CARRIED. (Councilmember Kasper was not present for the vote.) REPORT ON.ALLEY.FROM.5TH TO 6TH.BETWEEN.ALDER AND WALNUT.- [Item.(F)_on Consent Agenda] Councilmember.Jaech thought this .should not have been placed on the Consent Agenda because there were concerned citizens who would not be aware of what had -been recommended to remedy the situation. She read aloud the memorandum from the Acting Public Works Director and the Police Chief. The citizens in.the neighborhood had petitioned to reduce the speed.limit in the alley. The alley grade is approximately 1.0% and has limited .sight distance. Themajor flow of traffic is westbound down- h ill, the mai.n .traffic generator being a condominium that.has parking adjacent,to the alley. The residents at the.bottom of the hill have single family garages and have difficulty entering and exiting due.to grade and.the speeding vehicles going down the hill. The situation was investigated by the Engineering Division, .the Planning Department, and the Pol.ice Department; and their recom- mendation was to install warning'signs before the hill indicating "LIMITED SIGHT DISTANCE" and "SLOW." If the new signing does.not'solve the problem of speeding vehicles, other solutions such as one-way traffic.or a barricade at,the top of the hill willbe explored. Assistant City Engineer Patrick Wilson..stated.that.speed-bumps have been declared:illegal by the State as they tend to reduce contact time on the pavement and create a skid situation. He also said alley speed limits cannot be less than the street speed limits. Several people in the audience wished to comment. Charles Davison. of 519 Walnut.said they are willing to go..along with.anything the Council decides but the alley currently was very dangerous. He said they.have.commercial vehicles, mail trucks, and private vehicles going beyond: a::,safe..speed and the 10% grade_is.difficult on which to stop. He asked for something to slow the traffic. Verna Shaw of 515.Walnut said you cannot hear the cars 265 • June 2, 1981 - continued coming -but they travel very.quickly and are upon you. Cynthia.Baker, 529 Walnut, said there should be signs -at -each -,end of the alley, not•just-at the -.grade. COUNCILMEMBER NAUGHTEN THEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER GOULD,_:TO:AP.PROVE.I:TEM (F) ON THE CONSENT.AGENDA, ACCEPTING THE REPORT, -AND FURTHER, TO PUT' THIS MATTER ON' THE; JULY'7,:T981 AGENDA FOR REVIEW TO SEE IF -THE SIGNS .ARE. WORKING OR IF SOMETHING ELSE MUST BE TRIED..;"'Councilmember Goetz.,suggested'that in the interim the Staff be considering.other remedies-li`f"the signing is not successful. THE MOTION'CARRIED. (Councilman Kasper was not present for the vote.) PRESENTATION BY J. GARY LAWRENCE,.BLOCK GRANT COORDINATOR, ON.BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM Mr. Lawrence, the Community Development Block Grant Coordinator for Snohomish .C.ounty, reviewed the functions of the block grant program. All of the cities in'Snohomish County.with the exception of Everett participate in the program. Everett has a popul.ation over 50,000 so it participates on its own. Block grant funds must.be used to better low and moderate income persons, eliminate a slum or blighted area, or meet an emergency need. A local example of use of funds is the handicap access currently being installed at.the Anderson Center, the assumption being that the.handicapped are low and.moderate income persons. Mr. Lawrence listed some.types of projects that are categorically eliminated, and with regard:to.sewers he said they can fund only neighborhood lateral collection stations. They are accepting pre -applications until September 30, 1981, and anticipate that the funding will be at approximately•the same level.that now exists--$2,700,000 per year. Mr. Lawrence noted that the.City of Edmonds is well represented in the block grant program. He was thanked.for his presentation. HEARING ON APPEAL FROM HEARING_.EXAMINER DECISION RE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR CAR WASH BEHIND EXXON STATION AT 8339 212TH."ST'. S:W. (CU-15-81) This item had.been heard,..by the Hearing Examiner on .April 16,-1981,' and on April 24, 1981 the • Hearing Examiner issued:h-s findings and decision to'approve conditionally CU=.1.5=81. An appeal .of his decision was filed by Barry Birch on May 12, 1981. Associate.' Planner Duane Bowman.:showed slides of the site.and he.circulated photographs of a similar car.wash which had been constructed in Kent. The,.original plot plan was shown as.well as a revised plan which had been submittedbecause the Staff had:not been satisfied with.the first plan. The revised plan.provided.a 15' wde.landscape buffer entirely around the site of the car wash, as well as a 6" solid cedar.fence.. It al.so provided a.changed.circulation system and relocated the vacuum cleaners to the south side of the site, away from the adjoining.residential area. Mr. Bowman reviewed the conclusions. o.f.the Hearing Examiner and read*his decisions: Councilwoman Goetz ques- uestioned Finding 9 on page 3 as opposed to Conclusion 5 on page 4. Finding 9 indicated that the Planning Department found the proposed use not consistent with the zoning outlined in .purposes Chapter 16.40,:000 of the'.Community Development Code,.specifical'ly, that the car wash would not provide.the area with various.goods and services needed 'in -the area. Conclusion 5 indicated that the use is consistent withAhe BN zoning in that it meets the general purposes,as.set forth in Chapter 16.40.000 of the Community Development Code., Mr. Bowman responded that the'Hearing Examiner found that the testimony.of the applicant demonstrated that it would in fact meet.the purposes of the BN zone.. The photographs .circulated this evening had.been shown.and it was stated that the photographed car wash is located near multiple residential homes which need the service. The Staff had felt the BN zone was not the best place for this..activity, but the applicants demonstrated that it is a needed use, based on their experience with multiple residential properties, and the use would be beneficial to those residences. Mr. Bowman said he supported.the.findings of the Hearing Examiner, based on the testimony. The hearing was opened to the.public. Frank Blogett of Federal Way, representing the contractor, said they have similar establishments in Kent.and Fife and they .seem,to serve.a definite need-for.the communities. He said, with regard to equipment, that they have one of the quietest of car washes, and he.thought locating the vacuums on the south.side and providing a.6' solid cedar fence -and a 15'. wide landscaping buffer.around the perimeter should offset any noise,problems. He noted that many,apartments and',.condominiums do not have facilities to wash cars. Also, he said private property owners wash some things at these facilities that they would --not do on.their own property.. Although they..provide.24-hour service at their other, locations, after midnight they close three of the six bays. One of the Hearing Examiner's conditions of approval of.the Edmonds facility was that the hours of operation be limited to 8:00 a.m. to 1,0:00 p.m. Robert Terhune of Federal:Way., one of the.principal.s.of the proposed car wash, said.the proposed site is somewhat less than esthetically pleasing with the junk and old .cars located there, and he thought the.landscapi.ng and fence..would be a good buffer between the residential and.commercial. uses. He.said the traffic.flow would not be changed as the gas station currently serves 10,000 cars a month, and they.expect most.of the cars going to the car.wash will be existing customers. He said this., -is' -designed as a neighborhood business, especially for a multi -family area,, and the Kent facility is in.the...same kind of area as -..this Five -Corners area. They had only.one comphaint at.that facility, regarding Lighting, and they.had.remov.ed the offending lights and use only the.lights within the bays, and their intent.at the Edmonds location was to do the same. Mr. Terhune.felt this site to be well suited for the proposal.'.He said the.current hours of the gas station are 6:00.a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Councilmember Allen advised.him that 24-hour operations had not been.allowed in neighborhood business areas of Edmonds. He said they -can put an automatic..timer on the lighting system so the lights will go off,at.10:00 p.m. and :that they are willing to abide by the 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. hours limitation. He said there will be an attendant on duty at all times, and that the principals are Frank Blogett, Gary Wheeler:(who operates the gas station at that location), and himself, and that the land is leased from the Stricki.and'estate. The car wash buildings are poured.,in place concrete with cedar mansard roofs. He said they.are well maintained and .are intended to be in place a long time. (Planning Director Mary Lou Block said the design had.been approved by the ADB.) Gary Wheeler, Edmonds, sa1d.they feel the venture will.be beneficial to the City, and that he was present to answer any questions. '266 June 2, 1981 - continued • Des Steele,.21005 Woodlake Dr..,.Edmonds, asked where the.draina.ge would go --into the storm drain or the sanitary sewer. City Eng,ineer,Pat Wilson responded that it will go into the sanitary sewer. Mr. Steel asked technical questions about the oil separator (Mr. Blogett had indicated their drainage would have.an.oil.separator to. prevent damage from the runoff), and•Mr. Wilson responded that details re.gardi.ng the oil-separator.should be answered by the City's Technical Studies Engineer, Bob Franklin.....Mr.,Steele then said the' .Hearing -Examiner had only considered a 48-unit condominium complex.north.of,the facility and he''had not considered the single-family units in the area. He did not think the.'Hearing Examiner came to a reasonable decision'on this. Mr. Terhune.said,they had been confronted with the question of the oi-1 separator in each municipality because each wants to know what kind of effluent will run into the treatment plants. He said they have a Iarge..4'x 4'.sump in each,bay and it is pumped out -on a regular basis, and the ingredients that leave the sump are.of a .liquid nature,'going to an.'oil. separator. ' Not being an engineer, he did not know.the.technical.ities:of•,the;separator, but he said Tacoma, Fife,.Kent, and Snohomish. County have accepted the oil separators that they use. As far as serving the area, he anticipated having 5.,000. people a month using the facility, and he said it would not be just the 48 families in the condominium.using it. Mr. Steele,said the :problem:with that particular coin -operated type of facility is that it is used readily as a..steam.cleaner-and that:i.s why there is a great.deal more oil in the runoff. Gary Wheeler.res.ponded that they have -.no proposals for steam cleaning. Barry Birch, 20.905. Woodl ake. D.r...,.,-. approximately five houses . to the north of the proposed , p.roject, referred .t.o,.,his'.letter of appea:ld ,,, ;saying a coin-operate.,ca:r•,,,wash is .a commercial venture and should be restri'cted:to.Highway 99, He,said-there had been no traffic study provided at the Hearing Examiner meeting, and 84th is his.only way in and out. He*was concerned about the heavy traffic, especially on.weekends. He - noted -that the -l-andscape plan did not' indicate what kind of trees.would be used and.how large they would be. His -main objection was:the noise, especially on the weekends. • Gary Wheeler.responded that -across from this site is the Tradewell grocery store, a.rather major operation. He said egress/ingress.for`his proposal will not create anymore outlets to the City streets. He,noted .that.currently.:.ther.e.are-18-wheel trucks.serving the businesses already at that location,..and that the car. wash: -,will be•quieter. He noted .that the 18-wheel trucks are there all night,,whereas the car wash will -.be .closed at 10:00 p.m. He .also noted that there are over 700 condominiums and rental units. in the area --not 48. Ken Schmidt, 17411 76th Ave., -.said he would like to see.someth.ing like this go in, and he thought a sump system"would-catch most of..the oil. No one else wished.to speak, and the hearing was -closed. Councilmember Gould observed,that.this.was.an-interesting.issue,..partly because Edmonds has not had a Hearing,Exam.iner very long and,th.is-was'.the first appeal;,.,and he.:thought that alone had a bearing on the case. .He thought the key:issue was--are.car washes .wanted in neighborhood business districts or not. He was.aware tha.t.the ADB had.examined•.the landscaping, and he had no problem with the question o.f,:the.oil separator.'. He -..had examined the Policy Plan regarding the BN zone, and he now read aloud.the.permitted.primary:uses... He said.his concept, of.the Policy Plan was that uses in the BN zone are to:provide the.ser.vices i.n-a neighborhood that.service the residential customer --grocery stores, gas stations, etc., but ;they do•not-.tend to be•a commercialized kind of enterprise. He thought Mr. Birch was.right, that this.kind.of'.business be,longs on Highway 99, and he said if he lived in that area he would.not.want.a car wash there. 'If..it'were 'allowed in this BN zone, he thought it should -be allowed'in all.the'other.BN zones also:;..He•thought there would be a noise level problem,.a traffic problem, heavy weekend.use in,both.:early and late hours --and he did not think it met the intent of the BN zone. Councilmember Naughten .interpreted,the criteria for a BN zone as allowing a very low profile business, and he said one of the specifics..is.that all activities should.be contained mainly within the building. He thought a car wash in this area would not meet..the:standards for a BN zone, that it was appropriate for a commercial area.. . Councilmember Goetz observed.,that .if'.you examine Five Corners,it really is not BN, it is commercial. She noted that.the photographs showed'a better than usual car wash, and she.thought it would be an asset for the people. Councilmember Allen said Five .Corners is .not a low profile.neighborhood business area,'but a highly commercialized area, with,service.stations on three corners,- a church on one corner, and a good - .sized supermarket on one corner; and. -there are.heavy trucks -delivering groceries and .gasoline. She said it probably does.not deserve.the.designation of neighborhood.business. She thought this was a needed ser.vice,.with the Westgate.'car wash.no longer in business. She thought the apartment areas behind.it need.some place for washing cars, as well as a.1ot of other -people, and she thought the City.to be better .off if.the oil is.being caught in a sump than: running down the street. From the photographs.and the drawings. s.he..:did not_think.large truck.s.could get in there, and she said a dirt bike will get.in.and out fast. She hought'this was a.needed service, and she said it is very close to a.CG zoned.area. Counc.ilmembe.r,-.Jaech said this�is:a BN.zone and therefore they must maintain the objectives they want in BN zoning. She.did not. think this fit into.the primary.or.secondary uses of this zone, and she noted that the:P.lanning.Department originally had recommended denial of the Conditional Use Permit. ,If the property is,mis-zoned, she suggested that might be looked at., but she did not think this item met the intent of the.zoning.....Councilmember Goetz responded.to her that she was satisfied with the Planning Department's decisi'on't_hat subsequent changes.in'the'amen.ities warranted the change in their recommendation to approval. Councilmember Gould observed:that.-it is not very far to .the nearest car wash, and he asked that the BN zones in-the.City be.identified.,.which.Ms..Block did..,000NC.ILMEMBER.GOULD THEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NAUGHTEN,,. TO:REJ,ECT''THE-HEARING.EXAMINER'.S .FIND.INGS.AND NOT APPROVE.THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, BASED ON THE FACT THAT.THIS USE.DOES NOT MEET.THE..000NCIL'S INTERPRETATION OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE, CHAPTER 16.45.000, AND THE POLICY PLAN, AND THIS TYPE OF ENTERPRISE LJ 77, t� �"(: � � `r y i..h .J sly .''7•; June 2, 1981 - continued 267 1 SHOULD NOT BE.PERMITTED IN THE BN ZONE AND IT WOULD.CAUSE NOISE AND TRAFFIC PROBLEMS, HEAVY.WEEKEND USE, AND EARLY AND LATE.EVENING HOUR USE. Councilmember Goetz said the hours that have -gone into this by'others exceeded what -.-she had put into it, and she-favored•the Hearing Examiner's recommenda- tion.. Councilman Gould'responded.that'the Hearing Examiner has not been with the City long and he will have to be exposed to''how:;the'Council'feels}about the City of Edmonds and the.'Policy Plan, and how the people here feel,-. about...it. A'ROLL CALL VOTE-WAS'TAKEN ON THE`MOTION, W'ITHCOUNCILMEMBERS GOULD,- NAUGHTEN, AND JAECH.VOT7ING..YES,,AND WITH COUNCILMEMBERS GOETZ AND ALLEN VOTING NO. Council - member Kasper..was'not'presen.t. THE MOTION CARRIED.., The appeal was upheld. HEARING ON APPEAL -FROM JOHN TAYLOR ON PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD RECOMMENDATION FOR DENIAL OF REZONE (R-2-81) Associate-Pl'anner Duane Bowman explained that•174th St. S.W. had divided the RS-2.0..to the north from the RS-8 to the south. .The roadway later was 'realigned to,the right-of-way causing a small portion of•the RS-8 to be on the..RS=20 side of the road.. The applicant -was seeking,reclassification of the property, which included.RS-20 and the small'portion of RS-8, to RS-12.' Surrounding zoning is RS-20 to the north and west, RS-.12 to.the east, and RS-8.to.the south across 174th St. S.W. Although it may appear that this could:be,'.a logical extension of.the RS-12 zoning to the east, Mr. Bowman had noted at :the PAB hearing that. when that property was. subdivided in 1976 the `lot .sizes created, because of steep topography., ranged from two 19,000.sq. ft. lots to one 14,215.sq.. ft. lot and one of.12,800 s.q..ft. The subject•.property has steeper topographic:�constraints.and., therefore, the Planning Department felt the existing zoning should.be retained. There had been no.change in the character.of the.area or in City policy to justify the rezone. Minutes.of the Planning Advisory Board hearings on this*matter'were furnished,.prov'iding details of'the'review. The hearing was opened. Ken Mattson,'.a member°of.the.Planning Advisory Board, said he was speaking as.a private.citizen, but • he -read aloud .a letter, 'captioned "A Second Opinion -from the Planning Advisory Board," and signed by Fred Ross, John:Hodgin, and himself, -'all member.s.of'the PAB'. Their letter stated that.the existing RS720 zoning is for slope protection but the.steep slope exists'only-,on the north half of the property,.and-they recommended a compromise,.to rezone the southerly half of the.property to RS-12 and leave the northerly'ha,1f.RS-20. This; they said, would restrict development to a maximum of three lots, whereas.the.,request.of the applicant could result in four lots. They stated, further, that future platting or construction should be contingent upon sewer availability and compliance with all City drainage.retention requirements. 1 1 1 Maurine Bell, 7023 174th S.W.; directly west'.of the subject property,:said if the property were to change.hands after a.rezone the.plat proposed.by.the applicant would not necessarily be what would be developed. She.said the existing house is on the only flat part of the property, and the rest drops*off.extremely sharply:•to Meadowdale Beach Rd. She•was concerned that putting two more houses there would cause the removal'of-so many trees that it'would affect the stability -of the land.. She noted that the RS-8 at.the.f.ront was a mere accident and never -was intended to be a piece of property. -She understood,, -Mr. Taylor's wanting to get the highest.'return on his.investment, but she said he knew it was RS-20 when he bought the property. Harl.an Bell, 7023 174th.S.W..,.said his concern was for the condition of the land.. He had purchased his property approximately 10 years previously and,it was RS-20-and he had assumed his property and adjacent:properties would.retain their zoning. -He said when'the'Comprehensive Plan was written that bore out his beliefs that the RS=20 would remain. He did not look at'his property,as.an investment to sell later,'but planned.to live there.a long time, and hoped to see the property stay.the same. He said the.beauty of the property'wo.ul.d be severely damaged -by the addition of two or three houses. He said he had the right to.expect when something is.zoned in a given manner it.will not be rezoned for somebody to build more houses. Dale Kramp,*7008 174th S.W..::, did not.think 174th could:handle.another three houses, and if the houses were built and did:not..sell:he was concerned.about the resultant erosion with empty houses and no one to care for them and put in landscaping. Jerry.Lovell of Lovell,-Sauerl.and & Associates, representing,the-.appellant, said Mr. Taylor bought this property with the idea of remodeling the older existing home on the 'front and subdividing the rear of .the property into.two:.lots, making a total of three lots including the.existing home. Mr. Lovell.had told Mr. Taylor that in his -memory the reason for the zoning in this area was •that the area.had somewhat steep slopes and at the time it was zoned there were no sewers in the area. Mr. Lovell said there is a sewer..system there now and it is their contention that change has occurred and elimina.ted.one of the reasons for which most of.this property was•zoned as it .i.s. They had devised.a plan.that divided _the property into three lots, the front two lots having just over 12,000 sq..ft.. and:the rear .lot having.almost a half acre,(21,500), not including the area.:for access and utility easement and.roadway'. ..Heysaid they probably erred in their original submittal and if they had asked that all but the north-175' of property be -',rezoned to RS-12 it might be more acceptable. He said there had been a.concern that in rezoning this to RS-12 it could.have resul..ted in four lots instead of three, but at,'the.:con.tinued PAB hearing they had advanced a proposal that'all but the north 175' be RS-12 and the`.remaining be RS-20, which..woul.d preclude a four-lot:.subdivision. He noted that there are many.: steep' -properties in Edmonds.which are well developed, and.he said they were only -asking for a, -compromise to allow them to develop the property with two new homes in the rear and the.existing house, and leaving the 20,000 sq. ft. lot in'the north end which is.the steepest part of the property. Ken Schmidt, 17411 76th Ave..,.said he thought the request -should be -granted on'the.sole basis of increasing the.tax base. No one else wished to speak, and.the hearing was closed. Councilmember Naughten did. -,not think it would increase the density by rezoning,.but he saw no benefit to the public to -'rezone this property. He supported the PAB's-decision.to deny the rezone. Councilmember Gould observed that when personal minority opinions are'heard theymust also remember the majority .opi ni on.'of the. PAB. ' .He had studied .the'. •seven . criteria for rezone and he discussed 268 June 2, 1981 - continued • them. He did not find any changes in the character of the neighborhood to substantiate the rezone. As to relative ,gain to the public as compared to the hardship on the property owner, he did not think there was any hardship to the property owner and he saw no'benefit to the public. He noted that this property had been zoned,RS=20 since 1964--for 17 years. In looking at the facts,.he had difficulty,in finding that:the Council should do anything but support the PAB decision. He had looked at.Chapter 15.15 of the Code, having to do with environment, and he noted that low density development.is.desirable in areas:of steep slopes, and that this was something to consider in deciding this issue. COUNCILMEMBER.JAECH.MOVED, SECONDED.BY COUNCILMEMBER GOETZ,.TO UPHOLD THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD TO DENY R-2-81 BECAUSE SHE DID NOT FEEL THERE HAD BEEN ANY CHANGES IN THE AREA SINCE 1964 THAT WOULD_WARRANT A REZONE, OTHER. PROBLEMS WERE BROUGHT.UP..BY.THE PAB SUCH AS HAZARDS.WITH WATER RUNOFF..AND-TOPOGRAP.HY7-.THE..STEEPNESS*OF THE SLOPES, AND WHETHER OR NOT THIS AREA WOULD BE ACCESSIBLE BY EMERGENCY VEHICLES.TO..GET IN.AND OUT OF THE SITE --SHE SAID THERE HAVE BEEN TOO MANY QUESTIONS.NOT PROPERLY ANSWERED._ THE MOTION CARRIED. (Councilmember Kasper was not present for the vote.) A short recess was.announced, during which Councilmember,Kasper arrived at the meeting. HEARING ON.PRELIMINARY PRD (PETER BILDER/PRD-1-81) The Hearing Examiner',s repo.rt:on.this proposal was provided.. .The Hearing Examiner.recommended approval,..subject to conditions l:isted.in,his findings and recommendations. Paul Forsander, Planning Director with Whiteley Jacobsen. -Associates, architects for the project, introduced Peter Bilder; Stan Casperson, attorney for the. project; William Bliton, geologist; and Bill Yeager of TDA who did the traffic analysis. He.said they.had.been working for 13-14.months on this and Mr. Bilder had instructed them to follow.all the codes,'.and during the project the Community Development Code was revised.:..,Mr.,Bilder's.intent:.was.to protect the environment. Mr. Forsander said they had held two • community meetings.and discussed traffic'as a major issue.- Some.changes were made in*the plans as a result.of..the input at the community meetings. He referred to the PRD criteria in the Code and said the 'develo:pment`-:.h'ad,been developed to.meet the -criteria. He gave -a slide presentation and Associate .Planner Duane.Bowman said.those slides were of the plans,on file which had been reviewed by the. Hearing Examiner,.and:his'condit:ions were imposed on the drawings. Mr. Forsander stated that Phase I of the project is entirely within'the RS-12 zone, that.being the portion reviewed at this time. Phase II was to go the the ADB the following evening.. The:units are oriented to maximize views. The.soils,are..primarily.a mixture of glacial till and esperance.sand, and the area proposed for development.is.almost all'.within .the glacial till soils area, on -which -residential development has slight to moderate limitations. Construction of the homes., roads,.and utilities will cause the removal of.300 trees and.associated groundcover, but at -least 150 new trees will be planted. Development is planned away from.the steep slopes...''Surrounding development to the south, southwest, and west is single-family,residential, and-.to.the.north and east the.properties are undeveloped. Access to Phase II will be.from Meadowdal.e.Beach Rd.., but they could not get -access to Meadowdale Beach Rd. for Phase.I because of the steepness.- The buildings will be horizontal condominiums with roof decks and decks off the living areas. Courtyards will be developed for parking, so there will be no parking along the loop access road..which.will be 16' wide and one-way. Phase I will generate 120 additional vehicle trips per day,' and Mr: Yeager of TDA said they -found -no unusual hazards in the project. Mr. Bowman said the project,had:..been_.reviewed and approved by all City departments, including those with emergency vehicles. The hearing was opened. Harlan Bell, 7023 174th S.W., said he lives on the street that will feed this project. He said Mr. Bilder had called the neighbors to discuss the project, and that it is people like Mr. Bilder who leave a good name when they develop, and he thought it was commendable the way this project was being.done. He noted that all-the,peop-le involved on the.project team cost a lot of money, and that Mr. Bilder had.really put forward an effort to fit this project into the neighborhood. ' • Peter Bilder thanked the entire City staff for helping him to address the problems. He said he is trying a new concept to provide living within a city but still not in the city. Earl Morris, 17306 73rd Ave. W.,. an -architect, said he had lived in the area for 53 years and very little planned development had:occurre'd in this area until now. He was very enthusiastic about it and he complimented Mr. Bilder's staff for a job very well done. He urged approval. Ken Schmidt, 17411 76th Ave., also said,the project should be approved. The hearing was then closed. Councilmember.Gould said when he looked at -this he also referred. -to the PRD section of the Code. He said this project, indeed, was,well done, addressing the preservation of natural landscapes, clus- tering of structures to create.open space, and providing utilities and street systems. He saw no reason not to approve this, feeling -it met all the PRD criteria. COUNCILMEMBER GOULD MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ALLEN, TO APPROVE PRD-1-81, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS SET FORTH BY THE HEARING EXAMINER. Councilmember Jaech added.that it is a beautiful project, very well done, and that she usually had not looked on PRDs.very-favorably. Councilmember Kasper complimented Mr...Bilder and his. staff on the development, saying it'had been done as well7as it possibly could be done. THE MOTION CARRIED. REPORT FROM.PUBLIC WORKS ON TRAFFIC.STUDY.AT DAYTON AND RAILROAD AVE. Assistant City Engineer Patrick Wilson said this intersection functions as the gateway to the Port of Edmonds and the waterfront area. The traffic volume on Dayton on an average weekday is 1,700 and on Railroad is 700. The intersection has a large volume of, -pedestrians also. The Burlington Northern Railroad tracks crossing Dayton are protected by standard crossing arms, signing, and pavement markings. The three-year accident history is nine total accidents, or three each year, with only one being considered•a.serious accident (a head-on collision).. Mr. Wilson said multiple traffic control means are not recommended'for-this type of intersection and are not warranted by • June 2, 1981 - continued the traffic counts. He said the intersection will.continue to be monitored, at least in one-year intervals, and they will.respond to,the conditions-that,develop as the Port develops. He recommended that.the traffic control remain and that at the time that Admiral Way is relocated the intersection control and channelization:_be upgraded as a part of.the Comprehensive Port Development Plan. His report was accepted by the Council. COUNCIL Councilmember Naughten said he would be absent June-..9, 1981, and therefore COUNCILMEMBER NAUGHTEN- MOVED;•-SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER GOULD, THAT THE AGENDA.ITEM, "PROPOSED ORDINANCE AND CONTRACT IN REGARD TO MAYOR'S DUTIES.," SCHEDULED FOR THAT DATE BE CHANGED TO JUNE 30, 1981. There was some discussion*in an attempt to select a date when the entire Council could be present. THE MOTION THEN CARRIED•, WITH COUNCILMEMBERS`ALLEN AND KASPER VOTING NO. Councilmember Goetz advised`that.:she will not be present for_the June 15, 1981 meeting. She will be in Spokane and will go to the AWC convention from there. Regarding the vacation of�8th;Ave., Councilmember Allen noted,that there was a memorandum from the City Attorney noting that by -vacating Parcel E there was the possibility that the owner of that parcel could agree to use'that piece as a driveway and give the church an easement. Mr. Tanaka's memorandum indicated that:if the City were not to vacate Parcel E, then the church would not have access onto 8th Ave. and Daley St. without expre•ss:Council.,approval. This,.combined with the pledge by the church at the conditional use proceeding that they would not exit onto 8th Ave., would give the City a good basis for:denying.the church access onto 8th'AVe.', in light of the extensive and numerous problems that -could be encountered if such.an event were to happen. COUNCILMEMBER ALLEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER.GOETZ, TO RECONSIDER�ITHEIR PREVIOUS ACTION AND NOT TO VACATE PARCEL . E. Councilmember Gould c1arified.that the previous.action had.been to vacate 8:th Ave. without the compensation for Parcel E. THE MOTION CARRIED, WITH COUNCILMEMBER KASPER ABSTAINING BECAUSE HE WAS ONE OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS:.INVOLVED IN THAT STREET VACATION. Councilmember Kasper advi:sed.that the.second item on.the,June.9•,•l981 agenda, "Review Bonding Require- ments and Collection of Fees from~Developers," had:been• discussed by the -Staff --and him and it was felt it should go to committee, and the Staff wants..to.meet with several different departments 'before bringing it to Council COUNCILMEMBER KASPER MOVED, SECONDED.BY COUNCILMEMBER ALLEN, THAT THE PUBLIC WORKS/COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE CONSIDER THE STATED SUBJECT ON JULY 14, 1981, AND THAT IT BE REMOVED FROM THE'COUNCIL AGENDA OF JUNE 9, 1.981, TO BE SET ON:A FUTURE AGENDA AFTER REVIEW -BY THE COMMITTEE. _MOTION CARRIED. There was no further business to.come before the Council., andthe meeting adjourned at ll:00 p.m. r IRENE VARNEY MORAN, CitfjClerk HARVE H. HARRISON, Mayor June 9, 1981-- 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 -ABSENT STAFF PRESENT Harve Harrison, Mayor Larry Naughten Jack Mitchell, Acting Public Works Dir. Jo -Anne Jaech John Nordquist Jim.Adams,'City Engineer Mary Goetz Irene Varney Moran, City Clerk Ray Gould Mary Lou Block, Planning Director Katherine Allen Bill Kasper Hal Reeves, Building Official Art Housler, Finance Director Jim Jessel, Parks & Recreation Dir. Wayne.Tanaka,'City Attorney Jackie Parrett,..Deputy City Clerk Prior to•the meeting, ballot positions were drawn in`alphabetical order for those:Council positions which will be on the primary election ballot. Position l was drawn by Councilmember. Goetz, Position 2•by Councilmember Allen, and Position 3'will be Councilmember Naughten's position. CONSENT AGENDA COUNCILMEMBER ALLEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBERIGOETZ,-TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED. The approved items on the Consent Agenda included the following: (A) Roll -call. (B) '-Approval'of Minutes...of June 2; 1981. (C) Acknowledgment.of receipt of Claim for Damages ..from.'Dan iel P. Winn 'in the amount of $10,000. • (D) Authorization to purchase play equipment for Mathay-Ballinger Park.