19831206 City Council Minutes2 IT
• November 22, 1983 - continued
F
C�
Councilmember Nordquist reported on the continued program of development of Community Transit. He
said they have progressed to the point that they.are ready.to develop the site on Paine Field for a
bus barn which will be a $5,000,000 construction project.
Councilmember Nordquist introduced Jo Pendergast, the Council Resource Person, for the benefit of
those who had not met her. He then wished to echo Councilmember Naughten's remarks in thanking
Councilmember Allen for.her time on the Council, andhe especially thanked her for her notes to him
when his daughter was experiencing medical problems and for her contributions on the Health Board.
Councilmember Kasper added his commendation for her activity on the funding and working for shared
services.
There was no further business to come before the Council, and the meeting adjourned to a budget work
session at 9:05 p.m.
IRENE VARNEY MORAN, Wy Clerk
•
HARVE H. HARRISON, Mayor
No meeting was held November 29, 1933 as several Councilmembers were out of town at the National
League of Cities conference.
December 6, 1983
The regular meeting of the Edmonds City Council was called to order at 7:35 p.m. by Mayor Harve
Harrison in the Plaza Meeting Room of the Edmonds Library. All present joined in the flag salute.
PRESENT
Harve Harrison, Mayor
Jo -Anne Jaech
Ray Gould
Larry Naughten
Bill Kasper
John Nordquist
Laura Hall
Wendy Wahl, Student Representative
AUDIENCE
STAFF PRESENNT
Jim Adams, City Engineer
Irene Varney Moran, City Clerk
Art Housler, Finance Director
Jack Weinz, Fire %hiof
Dan Prinz, Assistant Police Chief
Mary Lou -Block, Planning Director
Steve Simpson, Parks and Recreation Director
Pat LeMay, Personnel Director
Bobby 111i l l s, Acting Public Works Supt.
Wayne Tanaka, City Attorney
Jackie Parrett, Deputy City Clerk
Frances Murphy, Chairman of the Brackett's Landing Marine Preservation Task Force, said there has
been a lot of comment about removing some trees from the beach and that she had been told by an
experienced nurseryman that the trees would not survive if moved. She said her group has worked
very hard on their project and she thought the landscaping is very nice as it is now and that any
change should be submitted to the Planning Board as the Task Force has done and continues to do in
changing the beach and protecting it. She said they do not want to see the beaut-ifal park left
naked and she wanted to be involved in any action taken. Mayor Harrison responded that he is equally
concerned but some of the trees have completely outgrown the planter boxes and they ha-ve the potential
of cutting off the traffic flow unless they are trimmed very much, which he thought would damage
them. He said it is being studied and he thought agreement had been reached on what should be done
and that plan should be submitted :his evening.
Mike Terry, 19223 80th Pl. W., said he has a flooding problem, along. with several of his neighbors,
because of the recent rains. He had discussed this with tin City Engineer and was told there is a
plan for storm drains for the area but it is a matter of getting City Council approval. City Engineer
Jim Adams said this is an area that has been a continuing problem and a design has been started for
the storm drains but firm costs are not yet available. He said he hopes to bring it up when the
utility contracts for next year are discussed and it should be a top priority.
James Fahey, 7219 Lake Ballinger Way, asked for a dispensation of the ordinance prohibiting power
boats on Lake Ballinger during the Christmas season. He has a barge on which:he puts a Christmas
tree and he runs it around the lake for the enjoyment of.the people in the area and he needs the
power of an outboard.motor to do this. He has tried an electric motor but it does not have enough
power. City Attorney Wayne Tanaka stated that 5.41.065A of.the Edmonds.City Code provides that the
Mayor or his designee may authorize special occasion permits for operating an internal combustion
motor powered watercraft on Lake Ballinger for periods not to exceed six hours on any one day for
ceremonial and other appropriate purposes. Mayor Harrison will give that authorization anti he so
advised Mr. Fahey.
Jeanie Johnson, 107 1/2.5th Ave. S., returned to the subject of the trees at Crack:ett's Landing and
asked when during the meeting the plan would be provided. Parks and Recreation.Director Steve
December 6, 1983 - continued
•
Simpson provided the plan which shows the.removal of five trees (two cedar and three pine) from the
parking lot and replacement with low growing shrubs. He said the trees would have to be moved
professionally, not in-house, with.a large tree removing spade. The approximate cost is $1,200,
although an estimate has not yet been received. He said the trees probably would be moved to the
cemetery but.there is not yet a plan for.that. The cemetery lost.some trees in the recent'storm.
Councilmember Hall questioned him as to whether there is a safety or sight problem and if views are
involved. He responded.that there is potential for a safety problem and.that views could be in-
volved at some future date. Councilmember Gould said he.had a great deal of trouble seeing the need
to do this at all. He noted that people are interested in what is happening, and he thought the ADB
could be asked to look at it. Councilmember Jaech added that there is also the Planning Board in
its role as Park Board and.the Cemetery Board to be considered., She said there is a lot of interest
in this and.it is a public area and she thought the public should be allowed to participate in the
decision. COUNCILMEMBER JAECH MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NAUGHTEN, TO SEND THIS TO THE
PLANNING.BOARD SO THEY MAY HOLD HEARINGS ON IT AND TO REQUEST THE LANDSCAPE MEMBER OF THE ADB AND A
MEMBER OF THE CEMETERY BOARD TO'BE INCLUDED IN THE DISCUSSION. MOTION CARRIED. Chet Bennett, in
the audience, stated .that there is a resolution setting.Council policy regarding tree removal and
that he did not think Mr. Simpson answered Councilmember Hall's question. He referred to the three
reasons given for removal of trees --safety and sight distance hazard, diseased, or damaging other
public improvements such as roadways or sidewalks, and said that this is set forth in a Council
resolution which is just as effective to set policy as ordinances. He asked if the trees are
healthy, and Mr. Simpson said they are all healthy trees. He challenged that Mr. Simpson did not
state there is a safety problem, and Mr. Simpson again said there is potential for a safety problem
with trees growing in the roadway, especially with the cedars. Mr. Bennett did not accept that,
stating that he thought that to be "pure baloney." He called for a point of order as there is a
Council policy on this. City Attorney Wayne Tanaka stated that there is evidence that there may be
a potential safety problem and if the Council finds it is consistent with the resolution they would
have to amend the resolution to change the policy. Councilmember Jaech agreed that the trees should
not be removed but said she would like to try to utilize the procedures that until.now have been
circumvented to see if there is a problem and to receive a report. Mr. Bennett was satisfied with
that. Mayor Harrison said he sees that they are going to present a safety hazard and if they are,
then now would be the best time to remove them as they eventually will be lost. Mr. Bennett re-
sponded that as a citizen he thinks there should be findings and he does not think trees should be
taken down as they are too hard to grow.
CONSENT AGENDA
Items (H), (K), AND (L) were removed from the Consent Agenda. COUNCILMEMBER HALL MOVED, SECONDED BY
COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST, TO APPROVE THE BALANCE OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED. The approved
items on the Consent Agenda included the following:
(A) Roll, call.
(B) Approval of Minutes of November 22, 1983. (The November 29 meeting was cancelled.)
(C) Acknowledgment of receipt of Claim for Damages from William D. Plommer in the amount of
$151.50.
(D) Adoption of Ordinance 2406, levying 1984 property taxes.
(E) Adoption of Ordinance 2407, amending the Official Street Map to reduce the proposed right-
of-way of Viewland Way and change the proposed cul-de-sac turnaround (ST-1-83).
(F) Adoption of Ordinance 2408, amending speed laws.
(G) Adoption of Ordinance 2409, concerning alcoholic beverages in motor vehicles.
(I) Adoption of Ordinance 2410, amending LID 209 Bond Ordinance to extend maturity date.
(J) Approval of final 7-lot plat at 18829 88th Ave. W. (Homeland Heights/P-7-83)
PROPOSED ORDINANCE PROVIDING THAT THE HEARING EXAMINER HEAR VARIANCES TO THE SIGN CODE
ITt-e—m—FRY on Consent Agenda
Councilmember Gould referred to a letter from Warren LaFon, Chairman of the ADB, expressing concern
about the passage of this ordinance and saying the ADB feels strongly that aesthetic issues belong
with them and not with the Hearing Examiner. He polled the ADB and all members expressed a desire
to meet with the Council to discuss this before action is taken on the proposed ordinance. COUNCIL -
MEMBER GOULD THEREFORE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NAUGHTEN, THAT THE COUNCIL MEET WITH THE ADB
TO DISCUSS THIS BEFORE ANY ACTION IS TAKEN TO PASS THE ORDINANCE, THE DATE TO BE WHEN THE ADB HAS AN
OPENING ON THEIR AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED.
AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN CONTRACT WITH WARREN LaFON TO PROVIDE ARCHITECTURAL
SERVICES FOR MUSEUM ELEVATOR AND WADE JAMES THEATER IMPROVEMENTS AS BLOCK GRANT PROJECTS
Item K on Consent Agenda
Councilmember Nordquist noted that the memo said all current letters of interest were reviewed. He
asked'if the contract was published. Planning Director Mary Lou Block responded that there is no
requirement to advertise for contracts under $15,000 and it is only required that the letters of
interest that have been solici.ted.on an annual basis be reviewed. They had interviewed the local
architects and determined to recommend Mr. LaFon. Councilmember Nordquist asked the City Attorney
if there is any conflict as this person is the Chairman of a City board. Mr. Tanaka responded that
there is not, in of itself, but there may be some.future meetings in which he could not participate.
The two contracts totaled $14,700.. COUNr.TLMEMRFR ninp*nni11ST mnvrn, cFCnnmr:n BY COURICILm"P.FP P.n!ILD,
TO APPROVE ITEM (K) ON THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED.
1
1
E
1
•
1
24.
•
December 6, 1983 - continued
APPROVAL OF MERIT ADJUSTMENT_ FOR.PARK_S AND RECREATION DIRECTOR
Item L on Consent Agendas
Councilmember Jaech said there. -are some other items which are being held for budget action and
possible reorganization, and.she asked if this should be added to that group. Councilmember Gould
said he would like to do.that, adding this to the actions regarding the Planning Director and the
Personnel Director. He added that he has prepared proposed guidelines for organizational change
which he will submit, and he thought it would be'better to do it all at one time. COUNCILMEMBER
KASPER (MOVED, SECONDED BY.COUNCILM EMBER JAECH, TO DEFER THIS ITEM AS STATED ABOVE. MOTION CARRIED.
DECLARATION OF VACANT COUNCIL POSITION
Councilmerber Gould read aloud the announcement published by the City Clerk inviting submission of
resumes from qualified persons who desire to be appointed to the vacant Council position. All
resurijes.must be filed with the City Clerk no later than 5:00 p.m., Thursdav, December 15, 1983.
COUNCILMEMBER GOULD MOVED., SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JAECH, THAT THE COUNCIL DECLARE A VACANCY FOR
THE POSITION OF EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL AND SCHEDULE FOR RESUMES TO BE RECEIVED BY THE CITY CLERK NO
LATER THAN 5:00 P.M., DECEMBER 15, 1983, WITH INTERVIEWS OF THE CANDIDATES BEING HELD ON DECEMBER 17,
1983, AND APPOINTMENT WILL BE CONSIDERED BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL AT THE MEETING OF DECEMBER 20,
1933.. MOTION CARRIED. Resumesmust be notarized and a Notary Public is available in the City
Clerk's. office. Councilmember Nordquis-t noted that there obviously will be another vacancy after
the first of the year and tie said it is his intent that resumes received at this time will be con-
sidered only for the current vacancy and will not be held over for the next vacancy, but those
people can apply again at that time. There was general agreement from the Council.
HEARING (CONTINUED FROM NOVEMBER 7) ON APPEAL FROM ADB APPROVAL OF MODIFICATION TO
EXISTING FREESTANDING SIGN FOR DRIVE-IN RESTAURANT AT 7530 212TH ST. S.W.
•
(APPELLANT: DWYER)
Planning Director Mary Lou Block explained that Lyle Olmsted, the applicant, had applied to the ADB
for approval of his existing sign and the ADB had denied that application. He then reapplied for
modified signs which.the ADB did approve, but that approval was appealed by Joe Dwyer. Two letters
were provided to the Council which had recently been received. One was from Mr. Olmsted, dated
November 28, 1983, stating he wished to withdraw the application for the modified signs as he had
made the proposal without consulting the franchisor (Dairy Queen) and subsequently was told that the
franchisor did not want the readerboard removed, which was part of the modification Mr. Olmsted had
proposed. Tile other letter, dated November 30, 1983, was from Arthur L. Hayes, President of Dairy
Queen Stores, Inc., located in Bellevue, Washington, which stated that For. Olmsted had no authority
to commit to altering the existing sign package, and that any permanent action to alter their
signage for this unit will place Mr. Olmsted's franchise in jeopardy. Councilmember Gould observed
that Mr. Hayes does not want his tenant, Mr. Olmsted, to negotiate with the ADB but the Council does
not know what Mr. Haves wants to negotiate. He thought perhaps Mr. Hayes should start again with an
application, which would make tiie appeal moot. City Attorney Wayne Tanaka said Mr. Olmsted made
the original application and now lie wants that withdrawn, so 'there is no application pending before
the City. Therefore, there is no issue and no appeal.
HEARING ON 10-LOT PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION AT 18123 80TH AVr. W. (P-8-83/EDMONDS .
DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
Hearings on this proposed subdivision were held before the Hearing Examiner on October 6, 1983.and
Oct -Ober 20, 1933. The Hearing Examiner recommended approval, subject to certain conditions. Ms.
Block read the conclusions of the Hearing Examiner which are on record in his report. His recom-
mendation was as follows: All engineering requirements are to be met. It is noted that the extension
of the water main from 184th St. to the subject property alonq 80th Ave. W. is a substantial improve-
ment, and the applicant should negotiate with the City of Edmonds on the extension of this water
main in a manner that is acceptable to both parties. However, if the applicant and the City are
•
unable to reach an agreement with regard to the extension of the water main, the applicant will be
required to extend the water main from 184th St. to the subject.property: Setback adjustments will
be: Lot 1: No setback adjustment; Lots 2 and 3: The required 25' rear setback should be reduced
to a 20' real, setback; Lot 5: The street setback should be reduced to 12 1/2'; Lot 6: The required
10' east side setback should be reduced to 5'; and Lot 7: the west rear setback should be reduced
to 12 1/2' and the north side set -back reduced to 5'. The final recorded plat shall show a restriction
on development of the steep bank. No development on Lots 4, 5, 6, and 7 shall occur until the
Building Department of the City of Edmonds determines whether soils tests are necessary. The steep
bank of Lots 4, 5, 6, and 7 should be left as natural area with no clearing, grading, or cutting of
_
vegetation. The only exceptions would be to allow for the removal of dead, diseased or dying trees
that pose a hazard to the public or are associated with improvements to Olympic View Nr. A tree
cutting plan must be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to the issuance of any
building permits for Lots 1, 2, and 10, and this restriction is to be shown on the face of the
recorded plat. Care is to be taken to.preserve as many trees as possible on the site. All trees 8"
in diameter and greater shall be preserved in all lot setbacks unless they are dead, diseased, or
dying. The applicant will be required to install a 5' raised asphalt sidewalk on the north edge of
the proposed roadway within the subdivision. The sidewalk shall be constructed in a manner that
will preserve trees and a meandering sidewalk will be allowed. Proof of all lot dedication must be
established prior to the issuance of any building permits. Ms. Block said the developer and the
City had worked out an agreement on the 8" water main. The hearing then was opened.
Chet Bennett, attorney for the applicant, Bjorn Thuesen, said there is 700' of line before you get
to the plat, and it is not realistic to consider a latecomer's agreement because the development
there will not change. Fie said they had recommended that the City Engineering Department do all of
the engineering and show the "in -field" location of all existing utilities; that it also provide "as
built" drawings for the project; that the City purchase all materials for such water line and have
the materials delivered to the site; that the City handle the changeover of water services (i.e.,
'the wet tap); and that the City patch the street and provide for.asphaltic restoration of it. Mr.
Thuesen, in turn, would hire a contractor and pay for the digginq and laying of all the nine. The
engineering requirements in Exhi-bit 4 of the Hearing Examiner's report would thereby have to be
•
amended.
2- 4
December 6, 1984 - continued •
Bjorn Thuesen, the applicant, said this is a nice piece of property from the standpoint of topography
and has mature trees on it, and he will save as many as possible. The homes will be in the price
range of $125,000 - $135,000, the typical home having 1,600 sq. ft. with a full basement and up to
2,000 sq. ft. with no basement. He said the last subdivision he did was Seaview.Pines #2 which
was a difficult site, and they did an excellent job in siting the homes on difficult sites and
preserving the trees. He requested that the sidewalk requirement be eliminated, noting that.there
are only one or two subdivisions in the 12,000 sq. ft. Seaview area that have sidewalks. He does
not think they are needed and he said if he is going to save trees it is difficult to meander
sidewalks between the trees, so it will be a question of trees or sidewalks in certain locations.
He discussed the slope in the green area and said it will not be interrupted or have any equipment
on it except.for the storm drainage. He said he would like, under the supervision of the Planning
Department, to selectively remove some alders near the top of the slope because they absorb a lot of
sunlight from the east. He will not have any equipment on the slope to do that. Other than that,
he will not interrupt the vegetation of the slope which he said is one of the amenities of the site.
No one else wished to speak, and the hearing was closed.
City Engineer Jim Adams displayed a drawing of where the water pipes are and explained the drainage '
problem. There is an old steel water line there that needs to be replaced, and there are two fire
hydrants on it which will not put.out the volume of water needed to fight a fire, so they do not
want to add more homes on that system without upgrading it. Mr. Thuesen was willing to participate
in replacing it, as explained earlier by Mr. Bennett. Mr. Adams said the cost of the pipe is
approximately one-half the cost of the installation, and it will be $8,000 - $10,000 for the City's
part. The pipe can be purchased from the 412 Fund, if the Council so authorizes. He estimated
that if the City does the entire job itself it will cost $34,000, including the loop. COUNCILMEMBER
GOULD MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER HALL, TO APPROVE P-8-83 WITH THE FOLLOWING MODIFICATIONS:
(1) INCORPORATE THE AGREEMENT IN THE LETTER OF DECEMBER 6, 1983 FROM CHET BENNETT WHICH DESCRIBES
THE DETAILS OF HOW THE WATER LINE WILL BE INSTALLED AND PAID FOR BY BJORN THUESEN AND THE CITY; AND
(2) APPROVE SELECTIVE REMOVAL OF ALDERS ALONG THE EAST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY, WITH THE APPROVAL OF •
THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. Councilmember Gould said he would like to see a sidewalk there and he
thought it could be done, and he noted the Hearing Examiner had indicated it could be either a
straight or a meandering sidewalk. He complimented Mr. Thuesen on his developments, saying he does
a very nice job on developments in Edmonds. THE MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Kasper added that he
thought 700' for ten houses was excessive. He said there is a lot of area with no water pressure.
He noted that there is a policy in this City not to charge for water line replacement as it is done
by the sewer charge. He thought.they should look at some kind of prorating, and he said Mr. Thuesen
had no choice in this case as he could not do the plat without the water line. He asked that this
be studied by the Community Services Committee.
HEARING ON APPEAL OF ADB DECISION ON 555-WALNUT ASSOCIATES CONDOMINIUM AND APPEAL OF
SEPA THRESHOLD DETERMINATION (APPELLANTS: JAECH, YOST, DOFSEN, BRADLEY)
Councilmember Jaech said she lives across the street from the subject proposal and, after discussing
this with the City Attorney, she would not participate in this hearing. She left the room. Planning
Director Mary Lou Block said this was heard by the ADB on November 2, 1983 and was approved, subject
to certain landscaping comments. Minutes of that meeting were provided to the Council. In addition
to the ADB decision, the appellants challenged the SEPA determination. The Council was provided
information from the City Attorney setting forth the criteria for appeals from SEPA threshold
determinations, together with a blank Environmental Checklist of the type necessary for all develop-
ments not exempt from SEPA requirements. Ms. Block had prepared a statement which included a run-
through of the SEPA checklist, along with each item of the appeal and her response to each item.
She read this into the record, and a copy of that statement is attached to these minutes and is
marked "Exhibit A."
City Attorney Wayne Tanaka asked everyone who intended testifying to stand and be sworn. All were
sworn, including the City staff. He then stated, in answer to a question, that as a practical
matter it would be easier to combine both matters in the hearing and then to take separate actions •
on the two appeals.
Ms. Block identified the proposal as a 15-unit condominium to be located at 555 Walnut which is the
present site of an existing church and home that will be removed.from the site. She was asked if
the ADB minutes on this hearing had been approved yet, and she said they had not as their next
regular meeting after the hearing is December 7, 1983, at which time they will be presented for
approval. Ms. Block displayed a map showing the surrounding land use and zoning and she also
displayed the landscape plan, following which the hearing was opened.
Ray Martin, 18704 94th W., said this appears to be one more case of a multi -family type approach
being maximized in accordance with the maximum allowable.portions of the Community Development Code,
with the residents of the neighborhood on the other side seeking to maintain the quality of life
'that they have enjoyed. He sa-id Chapter 15 has several places with statements concerning the
aspirational goals of the City and it appeared that these were overlooked by both the Planning
Jepartment and the ADB. He believed it the responsibility of the Planning Department.and the ADB to
review each project based on not just one portion of the Code, but on the entire Code as it applies,
and he said Chapter 15 had been left out, for example the reference that says the downtown concept
is of two-story buildings and architectural compatibility. He said Ms. Block had stated that this
building does not abut single-family residences but across the street is RS-6. He said there had
been a discrepancy at the ADB meeting regarding fill dirt, and he asked whether there had been a
soils test in accordance with the UBC. He said there will be a lot more traffic and parking in the
area as a result of this as.there previously had beena church there and churches meet on Sundays
and Wednesday nights and do not have continuous traffic and parking: He said at the ADB meeting not
one person spoke.in favor of this development except for.the developer and there was a room full of
concerned residents. He had testified and said he was somewhat dismayed at the attitude of the ADB.
He charged that the Chairman had removed himself becauseof a conflict of interest and the Board
openly stated they had already made up their minds because the project conformed to the Code and it
was not necessary for citizens to address the issue before them. He said they already had been told
2 7 5.
• December 6, 1984 - continued
by the Planning Department and the City Attorney that.it.qualified completely.. He further charged
that the attitude of the ADB members toward the citizens was the worst case of insensitivity he had
ever seen, and he thought the ADB did not understand.that their job includes making sure the development
is compatible to the surrounding. He said there was•no attempt by the ADG) to address this issue,
and the Board is more concerned with the type of shrubbery, the color of the bricks, or the building
as it sits, excluding the City and the world about it. He did not think there were any "generalists"
on the Board who are concerned about the Code. Ile thought. this development could be done in such a
manner to fit the neighborhood, but he said it does not at the present tiiae.. Councilmember Nordquist
told him that he indicated the church has traffic on Sundays, .but as Councilmember Nordquist had
reviewed the drawing there is parking provided under the building which seemed -to be quite ample.
Councilmember Nordquist further asked for his rationale in his statement that it would create
traffic. Mr. l4artin said there will be additional cars in the neighborhood --visitors to 15 residences --
which will change -the character of the neighborhood, and he said he doubted that there has been a
study of that.
Jean Marr, 504 6th Ave. S., said there is a policy that there be no height over 25' above undisturbed
soil and.disregard of the policy by digging below the grade -is a slap in the face of the citizens.
She said people in this cap-,itaiistic community do not deny a builder a fair profit but the builders
are making far more than that, to the detriment of their community, and the builder is finding a way
around the intent of the policy.. She said all multiple dwellings should conform to the intent of
the policy to grow fairly to the betterment of those who enjoy living in 'Edmonds.
Richard Marr, same address, said they live on the adjacent corner to the south of the development
and said he has lived there 1 .1/21 years and had never seen more than 10-15 cars at the church and
none during the week,'whereas the condominium just to the west of this one has cars in front of it
all day --service trucks,, guests, and tenants. He s&id parking at 6th and IiIalnut will be a danger
because people go very fast coming over the hill and you cannot see them. He did not think the ADB
considered that a condominium was being built adjacent.to a residential zone. He said the residentially
zoned area cannot possibly gain any value --he is a residential appraiser by occupation and has never
seen the value of a residential area increase when multiple units are put across from it.
Mel Steinke, 341 12th Ave. N., said Mr. Harr rents a triplex from him across the street from the
project, and he pointed out tine location. Having been through the development of a number of condominiums
in the area, he Felt he had to speak on this. He said all of that property is zoned for multiple
and it is not a single-family area, and the nonconforming is the residential area. He thought they
were trying to delay vested interests that are there through the comprehensive zoning which gets all
of the multiple -zoned property in the downtown area rather than having it scattered throughout It.
town. He could not agree �.ith their objections, and he said the single residence across the street
is the only single residence, along with two small houses in the area that are rentals and probably
will be developed by their owiner who is a realtor. He noted that about seven years ago there was a
conquest center there and a church and he said this is a much better development than that. Fie said
that except for the topography there, it is a safe place to be, even for children. He added that he
is not involved in -;.his as -far as any real estate deal but is one of the generally silent majority,
but he thought he should speak his piece.
Bill Mathias, 540 Holly Dr., said the area to the east of 6th Ave. is RS-6 and although the south
side of Walnut is zoned multiple it is for the most part used as single-family, and the prevailing
use in that immediate area is single rather than multiple, and he asked that they consider that. He
said the development: should be compatible with the usage, and -;.Ire mass of the building should be
compatible with the surrounding area and surrounding buildings. Further, that the exterior design
should also be somewhat compatible Frith the sourroundings. He felt the declaration did not consider
the increase in traffic as being significant. He said he is not a traffic engineer but on one
project with 10 stalls the estimate was 70 car trips a day, and in this case there are 33 stalls so
that would imply at feast 200 car trips a day. He noted that 5th Ave. is the main traffic arterial
and Walnut is an arterial but not as major, and people coming onto 5th Ave. in the evening or
• morning have a difficult time coming on because it is difficult to see up or down 5th Ave., and with
another substantial number of cars on Walnut St. there will eventually need to be a stop light at
5th and Walnut. fie referred to 15.20.060 of the Code regarding growth management, and he said it
states it is up to the community to determine their desired growth level and it is up to the government.,
particularly elected officials,. to implement the desired policies --and he said that was what he was
asking. He noted that under "Goals" it says decisions affecting growth patterns should be made with
maximum citizen 'part'icipation and that under "Overall Goals" it says the roles of commercial enter-
prises should be considered as secondary to the residential aspects, rather than as dominant.
Steve Dwyer, 21620 81st W., said the issue was not whether or not this is a building which structurally
meets the rninimum requirelments of the building code, but rather whether or not a multiple dwelling
shcuid,go in this multiple-zone:i area, and what has caught frost people's attention is its size and
bulk. He sai:i it meets the 25' limitation but when you add up the stories it adds up to a four-
story building. lie said there is a feeling that the 25' limitation means a two-story building, and
that a second. concern is the worry about compatibility --whether or not this would blend in. He said
to the east therL is single-family zoned property and to the south, although zoned multi -family, it
consists solely of single-family &tellings which are abutted by ?lolly Dr. which will regain singl.e-
family. 'He said Vhe third concern is the excavation and there is a necessity for a Conditional Use
Per?r,it because it is Tore t:an E'00 cu. yds. and the reason it requires so much excavation is to fit
the building into the 25' limitation. He asked if it is desirable to indorse an architectural
design which requires that much grading over.what is 'normally permitted. Fle noted that there is
pressure on the Council from both sides of the argument and it is also a difficult decision because
it gets into some grey areas of implementing the Community -Development Code. He said there are
reasonable people on one side saying they do not want the project because they understood there
would be two-story buildings, and reasonable people,on the applicant's side saying they are entitled
to build this project there. he suggested they may want to defer the decision until the Conditional
Use decision is made, and he noted that everyone wants.as clear a decision as possible as evervonp
should understand in the future the type of build.ing.wanted in Edmonds.
z7 6
December 6, 1984 - continued •
Jean Yost, 536 Walnut St., across.from the proposed condominium, submitted a petition which she said
has about 200 signatures of neighbors who object to the building and want it reduced to two stories.
�,�.. She said the applicant is trying to fit the site to the building, rather than the building to the
site. She noted that recently traffic was lined up because the people in the condominium across the
street were having a coffee, and she said that is a small condominium, not 15 units.
Arthur Skolnik, 307 3rd Ave. S., Seattle, spoke on behalf of the appellants, saying he is a registered
architect and consultant dealing with land use, and he expanded on his credentials. He referred to
his involvement with the United South Slope Residents of Queen Anne Hill vs. Polyglon and said they
were successful in that case which gave smaller communities the discretion to make the decisions
indicated in the intent of legislation but not specified in the language. He said the present
zoning in this area has put the Council in a difficult position because there is the highest resi-
dential zone abutting the lowest density zone, which will create transition problems. He said the
error in the checklist normally would require a new application so the population has that infor-
mation, and the SEPA requirements of the State require full information so you cannot assume that
because an error is made everyone knows about it, but you must modify the documents and readvertise
that information. He had reviewed the checklist and found it inadequate in providing basic in-
formation. He said the description of the proposal is simply a 15-unit condominium and is not
sufficient information to describe the project. Also, he said the physical setting of the proposal
is not adequate, and it raises serious doubts that it is a biased document. He said this is not a
standard project in that the developer has proposed the maximum development on the site. He dis-
cussed the manner of determining the elevation, using the four corners, noting that the highest
point on the site is one corner. He charged that they created the courtyard to get the view cor-
ridor for the units on Walnut. He felt the applicant had presented the maximum developable situa-
tion. He said it is the developer's right to find out how to best utilize the property, but it is
the Council's job to see how it best conforms. (During the following testimony several Council -
members left the room for very short periods. Councilmember Hall left at 10:00 p.m. and returned at
10:04 p.m. Councilmember Naughten left at 10:09-p.m. and returned at 10:12 p.m. Councilmember
Kasper left at 10:30 p.m. and returned at 10:35 p.m.) Mr. Skolnik said whether this building should
have underground parking and whether it is within the height limit are issues that should be pre-
sented to the Council. He said there are citings throughout the Code that give the Council the
authority to create the aesthetic quality requirements, and this community has an aesthetic nature.
He said the manipulation of this design for the convenience of the developer is something the
Council should be aware of, and he noted that there is a beautiful madrona tree next to the sidewalk
which is not shown on the plans, saying they are deprived of the information that allows them to
look at that tree. Also, he said there is a driveway at an angle which if perpendicular to the
street would require a grade change. He said there seems to be a problem in the ADB's ability to
deal with their legislative quasi-judicial responsibilities, and they seem to be throwing them back
into the Council's laps even though they have the authority to help the Council make those authoritative
decisions. He said the Council should be talking about the quality of the design and highest and
best use implies quality of design.
John Keegan of Cohen, Andrews, Keegan & Goeltz, 2200 4th Ave., Seattle, attorney for the appellants,
submitted a copy of the appeal statement. He noted that Councilmember Jaech's name no longer was
listed as an appellant but that of her husband was. He said they are not trying to stop all con-
dominiums here, but that there can be a better transition. He noted that the ADB did not have the
benefit of the decision on the Conditional Use Permit, and also that whatever the decision is there
probably will be an appeal by the nonprevailing party. He said when you lower your height limit to
25' you put a premium on excavation. It was his understanding that no drainage plan had been
applied for yet, and he said the threshold determination under SEPA was not made until the day of o
the ADB review on November 2 and was not available at that hearing so the ADB did not know if an EIS
was being requested at that point. He alleged that no findings were made by the ADB, and he contended
that there are significant impacts in several areas. He felt that all of these things meant the
Council did not have the full story in front of them with which to make a final decision. He discussed
the Magna Hagen project at 5th and Holly which he said was similar although the height limit at that
time was 35'. He provided to the Clerk a copy of the Trial Brief and Findings of Fact as part of
this record, and he briefly reviewed some of the issues. He then discussed the reasons for the
•
appeal on page 2 of the Appeal Statement and indicated items he did not feel the Planning Department
and ADB had addressed. He said the Code talks about two-story buildings with common walls in the
downtown area but said this is a four-story building creating a solid wall with no vertical break,
and the height is not compatible with the height -of the single-family homes adjacent to it. He said
the 33 parking stalls could be expected to cause 210 vehicle trips per day and said that is a safety
concern, given the dip at 6th and Walnut. He thought better environmental information should -be
provided and said the SEPA document is inadequate because it does not provide traffic and soils
information. Also, he said there should be alternative designs provided. He stated that this
project is 36' in height at one point on Walnut and that the Council should ask for some alter-
natives that show 25' height along Walnut St. Further, he said that the Council should determine
that because of the acute conflict between the character of this project and the single-family and
historic single-family sites near it that there should be a limited EIS which limits itself to areas
of soil impacts, land use, transportation, aesthetics, and impacts on historic areas. Secondly, he
said they should make the finding that this project does not comply with the policies that he had
cited in the Comprehensive Plan, particularly the purposes of the ADB, and mainly that the project
is not being developed in accordance with the natural topography of the site and it is out of
character with existing uses of.the neighborhood. He thought they should direct the ADB and staff
to ask for two residential stories of units, and he said this„is a subject of some flexibility of
design but it would seem reasonable to reduce the traffic on Walnut. He suggested that one-third of
the number of units should be taken from the project and that the solid facade on Walnut be broken
by some vertical breaks on the building. Also, that the project be limited to no more than 25' from
the existing contours of any part of that site.
Milton Hassel, 717 4th Ave. S., said the beautiful hillside of Edmonds is a mecca for developers
because they can charge for the view,. and he asked if it is desirable to continue the erosion of the
hillside and eventually have the entire hillside filled with these concrete monsters. He said he
does not know how much 3,700 cu. yds, is but it is a lot. He,recalled a lot of concern expressed a
2771
• December 6, 1983 - continued
few, weeks previously because of the preponderance of the older age group of people in Edmonds --to
which he said he belongs --and ;re said if that is true they would be ailing the cause by approving
more and more expensive condominiu^rs as the older people are the ones most apt to buy them, .and if
younger families are wanted.in Edmonds then the land of housing .they can afford had better be
provided.
Clarice Dofsen, 503 6th Ave. S., said her house is cater -corner from the church that swill be moved
and her living room and kitchen look out on this site. She said the church was not a problem, and
she and her husband live on.four'lots in a house that was remodeled'by her husband's father who was
an architect. She gardens and enjoys landscaping and she said her future has been darkened by this
condominium as it is too big and is not good looking and does not fit in, and the thought of all
those people, cars, noise, and pollution darkens her future. She suggested starting over on this
project because the Truman element had been forgotten, and she is one of those humans. She said a
lot of people moved to Edmonds because the houses are small and the people are neighborly, ;gut the
homeowner is becoming an endangered species. She said the '1ayor and Council whom the people elected
planned and built a marvelous library and they have the righ-c to thin'< of their citizens' needs.
Helen Lambe who has houses at 620 and at 630 Alder said she has lived here since 1921 and there used
to be a creek going down Alder and now with all the condominiums on the west side of 6th she has a
lake in the bank, of her !come riost of the winter as the storm sewer does not carry the water down the
street. She said there is a traffic problem at 5th and Walnut and more traffic signs will be needed
them.
At the suggestion of the attorney for the applicant, a recess was announced.
Lindsey Echelbarger, 23614 1.07th Pl. W., representing the 555 Walnut Associates, said he had sub-
mitted.a revised landscaping plan as required by the AD3, and lie submitted a copy to the Clerk at
• this time. He said the Comprehensive Plan must be complied with, and he read aloud the first policy
of the Comprehensive Plan regarding encroachment on views of existing homes. He noted that there
was no testimony at the AD3 hearing on the part of the appellants regarding view obstruction, and he
said that is an important test of the Comprehensive Plan. He submitted photographs to illustrate
the surrounding properties and he said this is a rare site. He said the Commodore condorinium rises
about 50' above his site, whereas his site is basically level, and the Commodore cuts off everyone's
view to Mire north. The Heritage House condominium, fie said, cuts off the view to the west, but his
project satisfies tile test of view blockage. He said tare existing church will be moved to the site
north of Shoreline Savings Bank. He said the intent of the policy quoted earlier this evening is to
protect residential areas morn commercial use, not from r�iultipl'e-residential use. They early on
decided to excavate in order to provide underground parking, rather than have a sea of asphalt, and
he said it is untrue that tinny put their parking underground to get extra units and more stories
and, in fact, all of their parking can be fit on the site without going underground, but with the
resulting expanse of asphalt. He had spoken to one of the appellants and she did not want the
parking outside either. He subr!ri tted a comparison with the SeaCrest condominium which has 20 units
and was built in 1983. It has more than half exterior parking and he said it is a nice project but
it has 35°o building coverage, 46,1' asphalt, and only 19% in landscaping, whereas his project has 45%
building coverage, 8 1/2% asphalt, and.46 1/2% landscaping and open area. He said there are trade-
offs to have underground parking and one of those is the removal of the ground, and he noted that
there is >190,000 of extra expense for the underground parking, gut the result is a better project.
He discussed slopes in reference to the Comprehensive Plan and said the excavation is similar to
that for a basement for a house and in this case it is from Walnut. As the building sits on the
site 1/8 of the quantities -being r&*!roved (380-450 cu. yds.), will be the quantities that will be
rearranged outside of Mire building, which he said is not very much. There is not much natural
topography on thy? site and he said -it is being preserved. He said it is basically a level site
going up to the allE!yway steeply on the side and the vegetation currently existing is mainly foundation
shrubbery around the -church. He believed they were in close compliance with the section regarding
residential development. He read 15.20.005 C.2. and said nine projects meets that, which says that
stereotyped, boxy buildings are to be avoided, and his project has approximately 150 planes. He
said from the first meetings with the architect the Comprehensive Plan was utilized, and they. knew
what -then Code ;intended and what was desired by the City, and the architect worked in the spirit of
the requirements. He noted. -that this has been referred to as a concrete box and a monstrosity, but
it has cedar siding and is not a box. !le referred to the section which states that RM uses should
be located near arterial or collector streets and he said they are on Walnut which is an arterial
and within 150' of another. i!e said their orientation -is dorm. Beck Lane north and south and Walnut
north and south and they do not have flat windows that are perpendicular to the street looking at
the Jaechs' front yard birt 'Have angled them dowry the street to the west and to the east on the other
side, so they have attempted to preserve privacy, and any lack of privacy in these cases is separated
by 60' of right-of-way. He noted that there is a public right-of-way on Beck Lane and they comply
with than point of tare Code. He referred to the requirement twat the height of ,M buildings abutting
RS be similar to surrounding abuti;-iing 'ones, and he said on three sides there is high density
* multiple and across 5th Ave. is tRS-6, but they do not abut it but adjoin it and it is the highest
density single-family zone. The height permitted there is 25' and he said they are under the 25'
height restriction, giver their rlat roof. 'gip referred to the, photographs of houses marked "House
3" and "!-o'use C" which depict modern architecture, this in connection with; the statement that 'X l
buildings should be: similar to thos , surrounding, and hie also referred to the yellow house marked
"Duplex," .f+hich is very fii f f :rent and. 'he said his architect said the duplex is a hybrid of styles.
He said it is located in a single-family zone but is currently used as a duplex. He said tine design
of his building might _)e considered similar to the design of the single-family residences, and they
did not force the site to accept their plan --the site was there and the building adjusted to it. He
asked to correct something said at the AD13 meeting and reflected in the crinutes. It had been stated
in testimony that a four-story building alongside a residential area is not maintaining the character,
but this is not a four-story building. Further, it was stated that it should be two -stories because
it is downtown, but that:refers to commercial buildings, not to residential uses. Also, he said the
staff indicated he is in. comnl.iance with the zoning ordinance. ^.eca,�ci„g tine
driveway, he said he was not aware that driveways must be perpendicul"ar*to streets, and -the configura-
tion shown allows them to have an underground garage and if modified they could not have the under-
ground parking. City Engineer Jim Adams stated that driveway entrances are required to be not
*See 12-13-83 Minutes
278
December 6, 1983 - continued
sharper than 45°. Mr. Echelbarger went on to say that this is a large building but it is not
massive nor monotonous, and it is surrounded by high density multiple. He noted that the Jaechs'
house across the street sits on four lots and the Dofsen property cater -corner has been subdivided
into two lots for development, while the building to the east across 6th Ave. is the nonconforming
two-story residence. He said this is a nice quiet neighborhood of mixed uses, and half of the site
is heavily landscaped so cars are hidden, and it will be a good neighbor to the condos, the duplex
and the single-family across the street. He said the findings in 20.10.060 can be made with assurance
that the impacts have been mitigated to the "nth" degree.
He addressed. -the appeal regarding SEPA, saying the Council was being asked to require an EIS which
isa redundant requirement as the environmental impacts have been addressed. He said the City has
properly considered the known aspects of environmental impact and issued a declaration of nonsig-
nificance. He said this property hadbeen purchased with the understanding and relying on the Code
and Official Zoning Map as to requirements on the property, and any objections to the use, height,
or density should have been made when the property was zoned. Further, that the impacts of this
project are small and readily identifiable and what little impact there is can be considered without,
an EIS. He noted that Ms. Block had reviewed the environmental checklist, and he said there were
perhaps some things taken for granted which are apparent in a small town.
Phil Carter, attorney for the Echelbargers, discussed some of the issues brought up by the appellants'
counsel and he noted that Mr.-Skolnik, their expert who was called, had avoided dealing with the
real SEPA issues but addressed the fact that the checklist basically said this is a 15-unit condo-
minium: However, the plans were on file. Further., that Mr. Skolnik said the checl.ist-was inadequate
but the staff showed that in every instance the information is adequate. Mr. Carter said the SEPA
process is an informational process and an EIS could not do anything additional to help to decide on
this. Regarding the grading issue, he said the developer understood from communications with the
City that in determining if a permit is needed it does not include basements and footings and this
understanding was because of what is contained in the UBC, but Edmonds has an additional paragrpah
to the UBC which requires a Conditional Use Permit for over 500 cu. yds. He said they applied for
•
it when told it was needed, but prior to that they believed it was not needed. He noted that the
staff had indicated they had the plans and knew what the excavation would be, and they determined
that a negative declaration was in order. He had a hard time seeing how anybody in good conscience
could even suggest an EIS should be made when the staff is perfectly capable of assessing the
impacts of the project. He said this is a very unique development and the parking is being put
underground at considerable expense and the benefit is a substantial increase in open space.
Further, the drainage constraints are to be much improved without the impact of the expanse of
asphalt. He said this is not a four-story building and the Jaech house across the street appears to
be 25'- 30' high, while the Victorian house used as a duplex is actually a three-story house. He
said this development will meet all the zoning code requirements and will be no higher than any of
the surrounding buildings, and there is no view blockage. He had asked Lindsey Echelbarger to go
through the Comprehensive Plan section by section, and 20.10, the ADB review, so it would be known
that they tried to deal with every element of the Comprehensive Plan and the ADB section so they
would be in full compliance with the Code. He added that this property was zoned in 1980 as high
density multi -family, after the necessary hearings, and they believed that since the property was
purchased in recognition of that zoning to develop it in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan
guidelines, that they had shown that they have met them in every instance. He said the opponents
had talked about general things in not meeting the guidelines, but they had been diffused. He said
the key one is height, and there is no way that they have not complied with that. He observed that
it is interesting that there is a section that says boxy buildings are not wanted and another
section that says carry out the character of the residential community, and that Mr. Keegan says the
building is too boxy and his architect says the building of itself is not boxy and has an appeal
from an architectural perspective because it has broken lines and thereby is not consistent with the
nearby buildings. He said it is impossible to match all of the different types around it. He
concluded that they believe they have met all the tests of 20.10 and are in compliance with the
Comprehensive Plan and zoning ordinance, and nobody has come up with any testimony that there is any
lack of compliance, and he asked that it be approved. The hearing was closed.
Councilmember Gould asked if it was necessary to delay action until the Conditional Use Permit is
:acted on.by the Hearing Examiner, and Mr. Tanaka replied that it was not. Councilmember Gould said
the decision may take some time, and he asked about new Councilmembers that might get appointed to
the City Council before the action is taken, and if someone who has testified and subsequently is
appointed to the Council could act on it, and Mr. Tanaka said such person could not as predisposition
would already have been expressed. Councilmember Gould said he tried to think about how to make a
decision on this, and when he has to choose between the wishes of his friends and the regulations
the Council is guided by, he will focus on objectivity; and when he ponders about what would be nice
versus what is right, he will concentrate on being just.
Councilmember Naughten said there have been a lot of challenges to the Code and he would feel more
comfortable going through some of the testimony that has been recorded before making a decision
because of the time, effort, and money that has been devoted to it.
Councilmember Nordquist agreedthat in all fairness to the testimony and because of the hour, it
should be continued to December 13. Councilmember Kasper said no later than December 13 because he
did not want to get into the problem of a new Councilmember who has not heard the testimony and
there is a lot of new reading and testimony. Some adjustments to future agendas were necessary to
accommodate the continuance of this hearing. THEREFORE, COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY
COUNCILMEMBER GOULD, TO MOVE THE SLIDE PRESENTATION BY THE EVERETT HERALD ON SNOHOMISH COUNTY
GROWTH TO THE BEGINNING OF NEXT YEAR, THE REPORT ON THE CIVIC CENTER FIELD TO DECEMBER 20, THE LAST
THREE ITEMS REVIEWING SECTIONS OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE TO LATE JANUARY, AND RETAINING THE
SUSAN HALL LOG CABIN ITEM ON THE DECEMBER 13 AGENDA. After some discussion, COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST
AM-NDED HIS MOTION, ACCEPTABLE TO THE SECOND, TO MOVE THE REPORT ON THE CIVIC CENTER TO JANUARY 10,
AN) TO REMOVE THE RESTRICTION ON AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION FROM THE DECEMBER 13 MEETING BECAUSF A
HEARING IS INVOLVED. MOTION CARRIED, AS AMENDED. Mr. Tana!:a admonished the Council not to discuss
this matter: -!ith anybody, including themselves, but that they could review the notes and exhibits
and listen to the tapes and read the minutes. Further, that they were not to make any decision that
r
RESPONSE TO APPEAL OF ADB-86-83 DECISION ON 555 WALNUT ASSOCIATES CONDOMINIUM
AND APPEAL OF SEPA THRESHOLD DETERMINATION
AND CONDITIONING OF DENIAL DECISION UNDER CHAPTER 20.15
A. DECLARATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE
A final declaration of nonsignificance was issued (between 4:00 and 5:00
p.m.) on Wednesday, November 2, 1983.
B. COMMENTS ON ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST ITEMS
1. Earth - The proposed project requires the removal of 3,700 cubic
yards of material to allow for the development of all required off-
street parking underneath the subject building and for lot contouring.
The soil is Everett sandy loam, which is well -drained and suitable
for urban development. Given this type of soil, there do: not appear
to be any problems with the proposed excavation.
There will be some minor changes to the existing topography after
completion of the subject development.
2. Air - There will be a minor amount of air quality deterioration during
construction. The overall impact on the air environment will be in-
significant.
3. Water - There is no impact on water. Ordinance #1924 requires a storm
drainage plan to prevent increased storm water run-off.
4. Flora - The existing flora will be substantially removed and replaced
with landscaping according to an ADB approved landscape plan. The
net impact on area flora will be insignificant.
5. Fauna— The proposed development is in an urban neighborhood. No
unique or endangered species have been identified in this area. The
impact on fauna will be insignificant.
6. Noise - There will be a temporary increase in noise due to construc-
tion on the project. The overall noise level at the subject develop-
ment should not increase significantly, partly due to the fact that
all required off-street parking will be underground.
7. Light and Glare - No significant light or glare sources are proposed
with this development. The site plan indicates low-level, localized
lighting.
8. Land Use - The subject site is zoned for high -density residential
development (RM-1.5). The proposed number of units (15) conforms
to the zoning density prescribed in the Edmonds Community Develop-
ment Code.
Response to Appeal of ADB-86-83
555 Walnut Associates
Page 2
9. Natural Resources - No significant increase in the use of any
natural resource will result from the development of the proposed
project.
10. Risk of Upset - No risk of upset is known or anticipated to occur
because of the development of the proposed condominium.
11. Popuation - The population will increase to a level permitted by
the existing zoning density. (The existing church had a greater
population during services and some church events.)
12. Housing - The subject site now contains a single-family residence
and a church. The proposal will increase the housing stock to a
total of 15 dwelling units. This density is consistent with the
City of Edmonds Community Development Code requirements for an
RM-1.5 zone.
13. Transportation/Circulation - Sixth Avenue South and Walnut Street
both can support the increased traffic volumes that will be gener-
ated by the subject development. There will not be a significant
change in the level of service of these streets and, therefore,
no significant impact.
All required off-street parking will be on site, screened from the
public view, because it will be located underneath the building.
Three additional guest parking spaces will be located off of the
alley to the north of the proposed building. There will not be
a significant impact on parking in the area. The planned residen-
tial and guest parking should satisfy anticipated parking needs.
It is very likely that the existing church on the site, when in
operation, had a much greater impact on traffic and parking in the
area than would a 15-unit condominium. The number of persons and
cars attending church services and events would exceed those in
the condominium, and vehicles would all be arriving and departing
at the same time.
14. Public Services - The increased density of the proposed develop-
ment will create a slightly higher demand for some public services,
but it will not significantly burden the City to provide services
such as fire and police protection, schools, parks and other recre-
ational facilities, maintenance of public facilities, etc.
15. Ener9 - There will be a negligible increase in electrical energy
ea mand, but not to a significant level.
16. Utilities - Existing utilities are of sufficient capacity to handle
the addition of the proposed 15-unit condominium.
Response to Appeal of ADB-86-83
555 Walnut Associates
Page 3
17. Human Health - The subject proposal will not result in any health
hazard to the public.
18. Aesthetics - The proposal will meet all zoning requirements for.
density, height, setbacks, and lot coverage. Parking will be
provided underneath the building, which will allow for a substan-
tial portion of the site to be devoted to landscaping. 'The pro-
posed height of 25 feet is lower than the maximum height allowed
in an RM-1.5 zone, which is 30 feet, with a 4:12 pitched roof.
19. Recreation - No significant impact on the City's recreational fa-
cilities is anticipated as a result of the subject proposal.
20. Archeological/Historical - The existing church will be preserved
and moved to another location in the downtown area of Edmonds,
where it will be modified for use as a retail/office building.
C. RESPONSE TO REASONS FOR APPEAL
l.a. Appeal Statement
The decisions are in violation of the City of Edmonds Compre-
hensive Plan purposes and policies, including but not limited
to those dealing with height, bulk, beautification, urban design,
and residential development.
l.b. Response
(1) The proposed development conforms to the height limitations
of the single-family zone located across 6th. Avenue South.
to the east and to the surrounding multi -family zoning.
(2) The subject development does not abut a single-family zone,
but is located across 6th Avenue South from such zoning.
The proposed development is compatible with other multi-
family development in the area.
(3) The policies of Section 15.15.030 dealing with "Beautifi-
cation and Urban Design" apply to commercial development,
but do not address residential development. However, the
applicant has made a special effort to design an aestheti-
cally pleasing project. They have tried to avoid a boxy
look by extensively jogging the facade of the building and
by opening up the interior courtyard to view from 6th Avenue
South. The applicant has placed all required off-street
parking underground and maximized the amount of landscaping
of the site.
Response to Appeal of ADB-86-83
555 Walnut Associates
Page 4
2.a. Appeal Statement
The decisions are in violation of the applicable Zoning Code
provisions (Chapter 16.30) relating to site development standards.
2.b. Response
The proposed development conforms to the minimum lot. area per
dwelling unit, setbacks, height., lot coverage, and required
parking requirements specified in the Edmonds Community Develop-
ment Code.
3.a. Appeal Statement
The decisions will permit adverse traffic, parking, and other
environmental impacts, which have not been mitigated.
3.b. Response
The proposal provides for the required number of off-street
parking spaces (two per unit or a total of 30 spaces) and an
additional three guest parking spaces. On -street parking space
is currently available on both 6th Avenue South and Walnut Street
in front of the subject development.
The amount of traffic that will be generated by the subject de-
velopment will not be sufficient to significantly change the
level of service of 6th Avenue South or Walnut Street.
We cannot respond to the broad reference to "other environmental
impacts", unless they are specifically identified. We have re-
viewed the possible impacts of the various elements in the en-
vironmental checklist and find none of them to be significant.
4.a. Appeal Statement
The decisions violate the purposes and criteria of the Archi-
tectural Design Review Code (Chapter 20.10) for reasons including
but not limited to: incompatibility with existing character of
the nearby area; failure to minimize grading, vegetation removal
and other changes to the site; failure to buffer the development
from surrounding property, and blockage of view.
4.b. Response
(1) The subject block contains two other large multi -family de-
velopments, specifically the Commodore Condominium and the
Heritage House Condominium. The area is presently a mixture
of single-family, multi -family, and institutional uses. The
proposed condominium would be compatible with the plan and
zoning of the area for multi -family use.
Response to Appeal of ADB-86-83
555 Walnut Associates
Page 5
(2) The primary area of grading will occur underneath the building.
This will provide for the required off-street parking to be
located out of public view, and also will allow for a large
percentage of the site to be devoted to landscaping instead
of an asphalt parking area.
(3) All the required setbacks have been met, and landscaping of
the setback areas is proposed according to an ADB approved
plan. The east elevation of the condominium will be softened
by the planting of Red Maple trees.
The Architectural Design Board required additional trees on
the Walnut Street side of the site to dress up the develop-
ment, add to the character of the project, and lower the
visual height on the south side of the condominium.
This, coupled with the requirement of Linden street trees
along Walnut.Street, will help to soften the appearance of
the condominium for the single-family homes in the RM-1.5
zoned area to the south.
(4) Inspection of the site indicates that the view from homes in
the immediate vicinity of the site are already blocked by
the existing church and other condominiums and apartments in
the area, and that the subject development will not further
block views.
5.a. Appeal Statement
The Architectural Design Board did not make findings, pursuant to
Section 20.10.060.
5.b. Response
The Planning Department made findings, pursuant to Section 20.10.060,
and the Architectural Design Board adopted the staff findings, as
consistent with the Board's review.
6.a. Appeal Statement
The applicants have failed to apply for or obtain the necessary
development permits for the proposed project.
6.b. Response
All necessary applications for the subject development have been
applied for, with the exception of a building permit.
Response to Appeal of ADB-86-83
555 Walnut Associates
Page 6
7.a. Appeal Statement
The Community Development Director has erroneously either made
a threshold determination of nonsignificance or failed even to
make a threshold determination.
7.b. Response
The threshold determination of nonsignificance was made on
November 2, 1983. It was based on consideration of all potential
adverse impacts. No impacts were found to be significant.
8.a. Appeal Statement
The Community Development Director and the Architectural Design
Board have failed to mitigate or deny the project based upon
identified adverse environmental impacts.
8.b. Response
The Community Development Director and the Architectural Design
Board did not believe that there were any significant adverse
environmental impacts that needed to be mitigated. The applicants
have applied for a conditional use permit for the excavation of
the basement parking area. Any adverse impacts associated with
that excavation are being addressed, and mitigating conditions
will be established as necessary.
9.a. Appeal Statement
The environmental checklist dated October 12, 1983, is incomplete,
inaccurate, and fails to disclose all adverse impacts from the
project.
9.b. Response
Generally, all items in the environmental checklist and environ-
mental assessment were answered accurately. The only significant
error found was the figure given for the amount of grading to be
done on the project. This error resulted because of the applicants'
interpretation of an initial staff opinion that they were not re-
quired to count the excavation beneath the building itself and
only must count the excavation beyond the building when considering
the need for a conditional use permit. This led them to only indi-
cate the amount of excavation beyond the building. The City Attorney
issued a revised opinion, and the staff advised the applicant on
the date of the hearing (November 2, 1983) that they must count all
Response to Appeal of ADB-86-83
555 Walnut Associates
Page 7
grading when determining the need to obtain a conditional use
permit and that they must apply for such a permit.
From review of the plans, the staff was aware of the fact that
there would be a total of 3,000 to 4,000 cubic yards of grading
(more than the 385 cubic yards indicated in the environmental
assessment) prior to issuing the threshold determination.
BGF/tq
12/06/83
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
A. BACKGROUND
1. Name of Proponent 555 Walnut Associates
2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent
PO Box 30; Lynnwood, WA 98036
3. Date Checklist Submitted oct. 12 , 1983
4. Agency Requiring Checklist Community Development
5. Name of Proposal, if applicable
6. Nature and Brief Description of Proposal (including but not limited to
its size, general design elements, and other factors that will give an
accurate understanding of its scope and nature:
Fifteen unit condominium project
7. Location of Proposal (describe the physical setting of the proposal, as
well as the extent of the land area affected by any environmental im-
pacts, including any other information needed to give an accurate under-
standing of the environmental setting of the proposal):
Northwest corner of 6th Avenue and Walnut
Site is currently occupied by vacant church and
vacant house.
8. Estimated Date for Completion of the Proposal Summer 1984
9. List of all Permits, Licenses, or Government Approvals Required for all
Proposal (federal, state, and local — including rezones):
ADB Approval, building permit sign permit
10. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansions, or further
activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain.
We have proposed under separate prior application to
move the vacant church to 414 Fifth Ave for rehabbi_n-g—
11. Do you know of any plans by others which may affect the property covered
by your proposal? If yes, explain.
No.
12. Attach any other application form that has been completed regarding the
proposal; if none has been completed, but is expected to be filed at
some future date, describe the nature of such application form:
-1-
B. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required).
YES MAYBE NO
1. Earth. Will the proposal result in:
a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes
in geologic substructures?
X
b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction
or overcovering of the soil?
X
c. Change in topography or ground surface
relief features?
X
d. The destruction, covering or modifica-
tion of any unique geologic or physical
features?
X
e. Any increase in wind or water erosion
of soils, either on or off the site?
X
f. Changes in deposition or erosion of
beach sands, or changes in siltation,
deposition or erosion which may modify
the channel or a river or stream or the
bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or
lake?
X
Explanation: Some compaction of so i l may
accompany work on
foundation or slab floor. The topography
may be altered
slightly to accomodate parking garage
below building.
2. Air. Will the proposal result in:
a. Air emissions or deterioration of
ambient air quality? X
b. The creation of objectionable odors? X
c. Alteration of air movement, moisture
or temperature, or any change in climate,
either locally or regionally? X
Explanation:
3. Water. Will the proposal result in:
a. Changes in currents, or the course
or direction of water movements, in either
marine or fresh waters? X
b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage
patterns, or the rate and amount of sur-
face water runoff? x
-2-
.✓ YES MAYBE
c. Alterations to the course or flow
of flood waters?
d. Change in the amount of surface water
in any water body?
e. Discharge into surface waters, or in
any alteration of surface water quality,
including but not limited to temperature,
dissolved oxygen or turbidity? _
f. Alteration of the direction or rate
of flow of ground waters?
g. Change in the quantity of ground
waters, either through direct additions
or withdrawals, or through interception
of an aquifer by cuts or excavations?
h. Deterioration in ground water quality,
either through direct injection, or through
the seepage of leachate, phosphates, deter-
gents, waterborne virus or bacteria, or
other substances into the ground waters?
i. Reduction in the amount of water
otherwise available for public water
supplies?
Explanation:
4. Flora. Will the proposal result in:
a. Change in the diversity of species,
or numbers of any species of flora (in-
cluding trees, shrubs, grass, crops,
microflora and aquatic plants)?
b. Reduction of the numbers of any
unique, rare or endangered species
of flora?
c. Introduction of new species of
flora into an area, or in a barrier
to the normal replenishment of exist-
- ing species?
d. Recution in acreage of any agri-
cultural crop?
Explanation:
NO
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
M
M
X
592
YES MAYBE NO
5. Fauna. WIll the proposal result in:
a. Changes in the diversity of species,
or numbers of any species of fauna (birds,
land animals including reptiles, fish and
shellfish, benthic organisms, insects or
microfauna)?
X
b. Reduction of the numbers of any
unique, rare or endangered species
of fauna?
X
c. Introduction of new species of
fauna into an area, or result in a
barrier to the migration or movement
of fauna?
X
d. Deterioration to existing fish or
wildlife habitat?
X
Explanation:
6. Noise. Will the proposal increase
existing noise levels?
X
Explanation: There might be a slight -increase
due to change in
density: one house and one church versus
15 units. Large events
such as church services, weddings &
receptions would be eliminated.
7. Li hg t and Glare. Will the proposal
produce new light or glare?
X
Explanation: New light or glare, if produced,
would be within
neighborhood standards.
Es11
Land Use. Will the proposal result
in the alteration of the present or
planned land use of an area?
Explanation:
9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal
result in:
a. Increase in the rate of use of any
natural resource? X
b. Depletion of any nonrenewable
natural resource? X
0
Explanation: Project will cause very slight increase in use of
_building materials, some of which are renewable resources (lumber,
for example) and some nonrenewable (e.g. gravels).
_4_
YES ''"� MAYBE NO
10. Risk of Upset. Does the proposal involve
a risk of an explosion or release of hazard-
ous substances (including, but not limited
to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)
in the event of an accident or upset condi-
tions? X
Explanation:
11. Population. Will the proposal alter the
location, distribution, density, or growth
rate of the human population of an area? X
Explanation: Proposal would increase density to that permitted
by zone.
12. Hou_ sing. Will the proposal affect existing
housing, or create a demand for additional
- housing? X
Explanation: Proposal would increase housing stock bynet gain
of 15 units.
13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the pro-
posal result in:
a. Generation of additional vehicular
movement? X
b. Effects on existing parking facili-
ties, or demand for new parking? X
c. Impact upon existing transportation
systems? X
d. Alterations to present patterns of
circulation or movement of people and/or
goods? X _
e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or
air traffic? X
f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor
vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? X
Explanation: The use as church has at times in the hi'stary of the
congregation generated traffic and impacted existing systems,__and
arterials. The change of site from public institutional use to
residential use should not unduly burden existing transportation
systems or create traffic hazards
&I!
YES MAYBE NO
14. Public Services. Will the proposal have
an effect upon, or result in a need for
new or altered governmental services in
any of the following areas:
a. Fire protection?
X
b. Police protection?
.X—
c. Schools?
X
d. Parks or other recreational
facilities?
X
e. Maintenance of public facilities,
including roads?
X
f. Other governmental services?
X —
Explanation: Increased density on site would create a slightly
higher demand for some public services. The property will for
the first time in over thirty-seven
years be added to the property
tax rolls (previously exempted as a
church) and contribute its fair
15. Energy. Will the proposal result in:
share to the community.
a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel
or energy?
X
b. Demand upon existing sources of
energy, or require the development
of new sources of energy?
X
Explanation: There will b.e negIigible
increase in energy (electrical)
demand.
16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in
as need for new systems or alterations to
the following utilities:
a. Power or natural gas? X
b. Communications systems? X
c. Water? X
d. Sewer or septic tanks? X
e. Storm water drainage? X
f. Solid waste and disposal? x
Explanation: Utilities are installed in street and no extensions
other than hook-ups at property line are anticipated. Infrastructure
and capacity are basically sufficient in this urban area.
��
YES MAYBE NO
17. Human Health. Will the proposal result
in the creation of any health hazard or
potential health hazard (excluding
mental health)? X—
Explanation:
In
Aesthetics. Will the proposal result
in the obstruction of any scenic vista
or view open to the public, or will the
proposal result in the creation of an
aesthetically offensive site open to
public view?
Explanation:
19. Recreation. Will the proposal result
in an impact upon the quality or quan-
tity of existing recreational oppor-
tunities?
20.
Explanation:
Archeological/Historical. Will the
proposal result in an alteration of
a significant archeological or his-
torical site, structure, object or
building?
Explanation:
C. SIGNATURE
X
X
A
I, the undersigned, state that to the best of my knowledge the above information is
true and complete. It is understood that the lead agency may withdraw any declaration
or non -significance that it might issue in reliance upon this checklist should there
be any willful misrepresentation or willful lack of full disclosure on my part.
PROPONENT:
,4w
a + 279
• December 6, 1984 - continued
they would decide this in any particular way before returning to the hearing. COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST
MOVED,,SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER GOULD, TO CONTINUE. THIS ITEM TO DECEMBER 13, 1983. MOTION CARRIED.
Regarding -the next meeting, Mr. Tanaka advised the Council that all the evidence is before them and
they can, if they desire, reopen the hearing on December 13, but if they do not wish to reopen the
hearing they can ask questions.of.a.strictly technical nature of the staff.. However, if they ask
questions of the applicants or the appellants that would be opening the hearing. He added that the
checklist submitted by the applicant should be part of the record. COUNCILMEMBER GOULD MOVED,
SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST, TO MOVE THE LAST THREE ITEMS ON THIS EVENING'S AGENDA TO
DECEMBER 20, 1983. MOTION CARRIED. (Those items were: Report on request from Youth Club for
reduced rent on space at the Anderson Center, Report regarding the walkway on 176th, and Discussion
on Insurance Pool.)
MAYOR
Mayor Harrison requested passage of two resolutions commending certain individuals, said resolutions
to.be presented at the City's holiday party. COUNCILMEMBER KASPER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
NORDQUIST TO PASS RESOLUTION 569 COMMENDING GORDON HYDE FOR HIS EXTRAORDINARY EFFORTS AS LOANED
EXECUTIVE FOR THE UNITED WAY CAMPAIGN,.AND TO PASS RESOLUTION 570 COMMENDING CHUCK CAIN FOR HIS
OUTSTANDING SERVICE TO THE COMMUNITY. MOTION CARRIED.
Mayor Harrison called attention to the letter from the South County Chamber of Commerce commending
the City for steps taken toward mitigation of sign code problems along Highway 99 and offering
Chamber assistance in resolving the concerns.
Mayor Harrison noted that there will be a retirement party on.December 12 for Alby Albright of Fire
District 1.
. COUNCIL
Councilmember Gould provided his suggested process for organizational change. He suggested three
steps: (1) Development by the Council of guidelines for organization restructuring, suggested
completion date of February 28, 1984. (2) The Administration to.formulate its thinking regarding a
desired organization, and check this against the Council guidelines, suggested completion date of
April 30, 1984. (3) The Council and Administration to review, discuss, and reach consensus as to
the organization, suggested completion date of May 31, 1984. As to guidelines, he offered some
thoughts: (1) Assess the number of levels or layers of the organization from the Mayor to the
working person, allowing no more than four levels. (2) Broaden the span of control. Establish a
goal to be reached within five years calling for the ratio of hourly employees to salaried employees
at 8:1. (3) Reduce the total number of employees through attrition. Find ways to do more with
less.
Councilmember Kasper said it is urgent to get the insurance pool matter resolved and that it should
not be delayed until December 20. COUNCILMEMBER KASPER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER GOULD, TO
MOVE THE INSURANCE POOL ITEM TO THE DECEMBER 13 AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Gould noted that a budget work session is necessary this week, and after deliberation
it was decided to have it on Saturday, December 10, at 8:00 a.m., in the Community Services Conference
Room. (This later was cancelled because not enough Councilmembers could be present.)
Regarding the interviews of the candidates for City Council, it was decided that they would be
scheduled every 20 minutes, beginning at 8:00 a.m.
There was no further business to come before the Council, and the meeting adjourned at 12:20 a.m.
IRENE VARNEY MORAN, City Jerk HARVE H. HARRISON, Mayor
December 13, 1983
The regular riieeting of the Edmonds
City Council was called to order.at 7:35 p.m. by 'labor Harve
Harrison in the Plaza Meeting Room
PRESENT
of the Edmonds Library. All present joined in the flag salute.
STAFF PRESENT
Harve Harrison, Mayor
Irene Varney Moran, City Clerk
Jo -Anne Jaech
Art Housler, Finance Director
Laura Hail
Mar; Lou Block, Planning Director
John hordquist
Pat'LeMay, Personnel Director
Larry Naug.hZen
Dan Prinz, Asst. Police Chief
Ray Gould
Bill Kasper
Jack Weinz, Fire Chief
Bobby Mills, Acting Public Yorks Suet.
Wendy Wahl, Student Representative
Jim Jessel, property Manager
Wavne Tanaka, City -Attornev
Jackie Parrett, Denuty Ci t'i Clerk
CONSENT AGENDA
I -.ens (D) and IN were removed froni
the Consent .Agenda...._000NCILMEMBEP GOULD. MOVED, SECONDED PY
COUNCILMEMBER HALL, TO APPROVE THE
BALANCE OF THE CONSENT AGENDA.- MOTION CARRIED. The approved
items.on the Consent Agenda included
the following: