Loading...
PLN197400006-8363 (2)A EDMONDS COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 5, 1974 -2- MOTION: SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN GELLERT TO APPROVE THE CABARET LICENSE FOR THE PARLOR CAR TAVERN WITH THE STIPULATIONS EXPRESSED IN M RS. SPORE'S LETTER. CARRIED. Lill Z In ans;•rer to a question from Councilman Anderson, Attorney Wallace stated that �• the Police Department: would be the best agency within the city to determine z rn whether or not a special police officer is necessary. Councilman Anderson said that if there are any other associated ordinances, it might be a good • idea to look at them also. HEARING: ON PETITION FOR VACATION - UNNAMED STREET WEST OF ANDOVER AND SOUTH OF OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE. City Engineer, Leif Larson, reported that he had received a petition for _ vacation in the above -mentioned matter and the sufficiency has been verified. He projected a map of the proposed vacation on the screen. He explained that in 1966 we accefted the subdivision with the requirement that a dedication be made for access to the property. He thought perhaps there is justification for vacating the street, however, it should be subject to a survey of the existing easement road. Also, subject to possible review by the Planning Commission to determine from a planning standpoint whether such a road is required in the area. Mayor Harrison opened the hearing. Mr. Walter Struck stated that he had granted this easement, but now is asking for it back as he does not believe that there will ever be a street there. There was some discussion. Mr. Bob Gustafson showed some slides of the area in question, and suggested that the city retain its interest until it has been decided what will be done with the County property which abuts the end of this easement. Following more discussion, Mr. Larson stated that if the vacation were approved, he would suggest that it would be as originally dedicated by the Strucks to the south right-of-way line of 180th, if it exists. The hearing was then closed. COUNCILMAN ANDERSON /. MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN NELSON TO INSTRUCT THE ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN ORDINANCE WITHOUT PROVISION FOR PAYMENT TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS, AND WITH MOTION- n PROVISION FOR POSSIBLE UTILITY EASEMENTS. Attorney Wallace stated that the city does not deed, or by ordinance direct the property back to any named person. The city just releases its rights to public access over that particular property by ordinance. Mrs. Struck wondered why the city could not Quit Claim it back to them. Mr. Wallace -said that the'city does not make that legal determination of ownership, but that a title company would probably issue a title report showing the ownership in the person that originally dedicated the street. MOTION WAS VOTED UPON AND CARRIED. SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PLAN On advice of the City Attorney, Councilmen Gellert, Nelson and Welling announced that they own property covered by the Shorelines Act. City Planner, Joe Wallis, reviewed for council,and people in the audience what has taken place on this matter to this point. He then reviewed the points of difference between the document submitted by the Citizens Shoreline Committee and the Planning Commission document. He pointed out that the Shorelines Committee Plan indicated the following designations: marsh - natural; intertidal zone and beaches, railroad and Puget Sound - conservancy; uplands —urban; Port and commercial waterfront - urban; Lake Ballinger Shore - urban and Lake Ballinger - conservancy.' The Planning Commission Plan listed the environments as urban for the marsh, intertidal zone and beaches and the railroad; and the rest were the same as the Committee Plan. Councilwoman Shippen inquired if the studies had encompassed the county portion of the marsh, or just the part inside the Edmonds city limits. Planner Wallis said only the city portion was considered. Councilman Nelson, said that he had just read in the Washington Administrative'Code 173.16.040, the Master Program of any legislative jurisdiction should not be a zoning ordinance, but it should be in the nature of a comprehensive plan. He pointed out that all of our comprehensive plan activity in this city has always extended beyond our boundaries. Councilman Nelson asked how the county designated the EDMONDS COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 5, 1974 -3- marsh, and Mr. Wallis replied that they designated it urban. Mr. Wallis stated that there were several people present who had asked to speak on this matter this evening. Kay Shoudy, Assistant City .Planner, pointed out the Shoreline Area on the map. Elizabeth Sears stated that she was speaking as an Edmonds resident, property owner and taxpayer, and biology teacher in Edmonds School District #15. She said she would like to voice her support of the natural environmental designation for the marsh area. She explained the evolution of a marsh, and said that more than half of such available wetlands have been lost in Western Washington alone. George Yount, stated that he has been an Edmonds resident since 1960, and is a history teacher at Mountlake Terrace High School and had served on the Snohomish River Basin Citizens Advisory Committee, the Snohomish County Shoreline Management Committee and has been a contributor to the Puget Sound and Adjacent Waters Study. He projected slides of various marshes on the screen, some of which were being filled so that they could be used for apartment developments, etc. He indicated that every little marsh should he preserved, as they are a non- renewable resource. Anette Hoyt, an advanced biology student at Edmonds High School, presented a written report on a study of the marsh in Edmonds. She said that she and a partner made their study on the productivity of the marsh. Miss Hoyt pointed out that the wetlands are the most productive areas in the world. She also urged a "natural" designation for the marsh area. Scott Geddes, also a student from Edmonds High School, stated that his group did a micro -habitat study. He said there are a tremendous amount of insects in the marsh that feed on the cattails, birds that feed on the insects, and there are mice, raccoons, fish, muskrats, spiders, snakes, frogs and they even saw a fox den. He said we are running out of marshes and he would rather like to see it turned into a wildlife refuge, or bird refuge. Jerry Geschke, a member of the Shorelines Study, went through the history of the Shoreline Management Act and read a statement which had been made by Governor Evans expressing a need for a Comprehensive Shorelines Management Plan. He urged approval of the Citizens Shorelines Advisory Committee version of the Shorelines Plan. Dennis Derickson, stated that he,,is a resident of Edmonds, is on the Snohomish County Planning Staff and was the Project Leader for the County's Shoreline Management Master Program planning effort. He said that the County was basically following Edmonds' lead in regard to the marsh, since the area of County jurisdiction is largely an island surrounded mostly by the City of Edmonds; and they felt that sometime in the future the City might have jurisdiction here. He said that the County study was ahead of the Edmonds Citizens Study so that when it was time for the County Commissioners to make their decision they did not have the benefit of the citizen decision, and as a result they tried to follow what they felt was the trend of events in the City of Edmonds. He said it is possible; though he could not speak for the Commissioners or anyone else; that if we change the designation that the Planning Commission recommended, the County might reconsider its action. Mr, Derickson, said that personally speaking, he thought the citizen committee designation for the area north of the ferry dock (conservancy) was quite appropriate, and was consistent with our own Comprehensive Plan. ti Theodore Nickum, an Edmonds resident, said that he has lived in eight states and that Edmonds is the finest place he has ever lived. He said there is plenty of access to the marsh now, and that development would not be in the interests of preserving the high quality of life in Edmonds. He would, therefore, support EDMONDS COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 5, 1974 -4-- a "natural" designation for the Union Oil Marsh. Dave Larson, stated that he was speaking this evening as a private citizen, but that he was on the Planning Commission at the time this matter was heard by that body. He said that: the Planning Commission had been charged by the State Department of Ecology to incorporate uses within the Plan, and had to come up with a. way to coordinate it with the present Zoning Code. Mr. Larson said that the thought that in designating an area "urban" opens it up to unlimited uses, is not true. He said the present zonings would still hold, with all restrictions of that zoning in effect. Mr. Larson said that, personally speaking, with the developments surrounding the marsh, we have long since passed the point where it can be designated a significant marsh. He said that he felt, through the zoning process, is not the way to acquire property; but that we should address ourselves to the question of by whom and how it should be acquired, but not how it should be designated for zoning purposes. Jerry Hillis, an attorney representing Union Oil Company, stated that the Shorelines Act does not open land up to the public, as some people think. He said that there is not use under the "natural" designation for the Union Oil Marsh from the private owner's standpoint. He said that the Planning Commission designation of "urban" does not grant them the right for substantial development. It is limited by the fact that it is zone IP (Industrial Park), and IP provides that no development can occur on that piece of property unless a site plan is submitted to the Planning Commission and approved following a public hearing. If it is not approved, then nothing can occur. In addition, even if the Planning Commission approved the site plan; before any development can occur on that property; they would have to obtain a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit. Mr. Hillis pointed out that this is not an easy thing to do, as that would have to come before Council and be either granted or denied and conditions could be imposed. It then goes to the State Department of Ecology. They in turn would examine what kind of damage would occur under the proposed development. Along with the whole process, would be an Environmental Impact Statement. Mr. Hillis urged support of the Planning Commission recommendation for designating the Union Oil Marsh "urban". In answer to a question from Councilman Welling, Mr. Hillis replied that the Union Oil Company is not resisting the Shorelines Management Act, but that they do not want a "natural" designation on that property, as it allows no use. Glenn Gustafson urged that the council designate the property "urban". Steve Burger, a teacher at Woodway High School, presented a letter and petition with about 180 signatures urging that the beaches and wetlands be left in their natural state. He is a member of the Edmonds School District Science Council and the Environmental Education Council. He said that both these organizations have sent letters in support of the Citizens Committee Plan. Sam Felton, a beach property owner, stated that the Citizens Committee is trying to preserve something for the future, not take anything away. Following this, the audience portion of the discussion, was closed. Councilwoman Shippen thought that the council should not be concerned with the "taking" issue, and that this is best left to the courts. She said that Edmonds did not capriciously decide to rezone parts of the waterfront or parts of the marsh - we had a State mandate to do it. MOTION: COUNCILWOMAN SHIPPEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN ANDERSON TO ACCEPT THE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE DESIGNATION OF URBAN FROM THE FERRY DOCK SOUTH TO THE SOUTH CITY LIMITS AND OUT TO THE OUTTER HARBOR LINE. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MOTION: COUNCILWOMAN SHIPPEN THEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN GELLERT TO ADOPT THE CONSERVANCY ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGNATION AS SUGGESTED BY THE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE FROM THE FERRY DOCK TO THE NORTH CITY LIMITS, EXCLUDING THE LAEBUGTEN WHARF. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. EDMONDS COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 5, 1974 -5- MOTION: COUNCILWOMAN SHIPPEN MOVED THAT THE LAEBUGTEN WHARF PROPERTY ALSO BE DESIGNATED CONSERVANCY. THIS MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. MOTION: COUNCILMAN WELLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN GELLERT THAT THE LAEBUGTEN WHARF PROPERTY BE DESIGNATED URBAN. MOTION CARRIED 'WITH COUNCILWOMAN SHIPPEN VOTING AGAINST. There was some discussion with regard to Use Regulations and existing zoning. Attorney Wallace stated that it may take rezoning or the equivalent of rezoning in those areas that have a proposed environmental designation that would not be compatible with the existing zoning classification that is on the property. MOTION: COUNCILWOMAN SHIPPED, MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN GELLERT THAT THE EDMONDS SECTION OF THE WETLANDS, COMMONLY CALLED THE UNION OIL MARSH, BE DESIGNATED NATURAL, BECAUSE IT WILL PREVENT THE COMPLETE LOSS OF A UNIQUE RESOURCE AND KEEP THE MARSH ENVIRONMENTALLY PRODUCTIVE AS A HABITAT AND DRAINAGE BASIN AND IT WILL PROTECT THE WATER QUALITY OF THE PORT AREA BY PROVIDING A SETTLING POND FOR URBAN RUNOFF. AMEND: COUNCILMAN GELLERT SAID THAT HE WOULD LIKE TO AMEND THE MOTION TO RECOMMEND TO THE STATE THAT THE WETLANDS CONTIGUOUS TO THOSE WITHIN THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WHICH ARE OUTSIDE THE CITY, ALSO BE DESIGNATED NATURAL. Councilman Nelson stated that he thought we were headed in the direction of purchasing the property for public use. Following some discussion, the AMENDMENT WAS VOTED UPON AND CARRIED, WITH COUNCILMAN WELLING VOTING AGAINST. THE MAIN MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MOTION: COUNCILMAN GELLERT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN NORDQUIST TO DESIGNATE THE AREA NORTH OF THE FERRY DOCK EAST OF THE RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY URBAN. MOTION CARRIED. MOTION: COUNCILMAN NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN ANDERSON TO DESIGNATE THE SHORES OF LAKE BALLINGER URBAN. MOTION CARRIED. MOTION: COUNCILMAN NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN ANDERSON TO DESIGNATE THE LAKE ITSELF AS CONSERVANCY. MOTION CARRIED. MOTION: COUNCILMAN GELLERT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN ANDERSON THAT AS CLARIFIED BY ALL PREVIOUS MOTIONS, WE ADOPT THAT MASTER PROGRAM AS DRAFTED BY THE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MOTION: COUNCILMAN WELLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN ANDERSON THE ADOPTION OF THE CLASSIFICATION CONSERVANCY FOR THE AREA SOUTH OF THE FERRY DOCK TO THE SOUTH CITY LIMITS LYING WEST OF THE OUTER HARBOR LINE. MOTION CARRIED. MOTION: COUNCILMAN NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN NELSON TO ADJOURN. FOLLOWING A ROLL CALL VOTE THE MOTION FAILED TO CARRY. DISCUSSION ON SALE OF CITY - OWNED PROPERTY MOTION: COUNCILMAN GELLERT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN ANDERSON TO POSTPONE THIS ITEM TO A LATER MEETING. CARRIED. GRANADA ESTATES - REVIEW OF WALKWAY REQUIREMENTS MOTION: COUNCILMAN GELLERT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN ANDERSON TO POSTPONE THIS ITEM TO A LATER AGENDA. CARRIED. 4' REPORT ON LANDSCAPING ON SR104 ,,_.MOTION: COUNCILMAN GELLERT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN ANDERSON TO POSTPONE THIS ITEM TO A LATER MEETING. CARRIED. EDMONDS COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 5, 1974 -6- RESOLUTION RE/IAC APPLICATION FOR SEAVIEW PARK PROJECT MOTION: COUNCILMAN GELLERT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN WELLING TO PASS RESOLUTION #320 FOR THIS PROJECT. CARRIED. ORDINANCE RE/REMOVAL OF JAIL SENTENCES FOR CERTAIN OFFENSES COUNCILMAN GELLERT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN ANDERSON TO PASS ORDINANCE #1738. MOTION FAILED FOLLOWING A ROLL CALL VOTE WHICH RESULTED IN A "YES" VOTE BY COUNCIL MEMBERS GELLERT, SHIPPEN AND ANDERSON AND THE REMAINING MEMBERS VOTING AGAINST. MAYOR'S BUDGET MESSAGE Mayor Harrison presented a balanced 1975 preliminary budget and message to the council. CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES Council acknowledged receipt of a Claim for Damages from Marjorie L. Miller. This was referred to the City Clerk for processing. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 11:50 P. M. Edmonds Plannint, emission - September 18, 1974 - Pag( 4. SHORELINES MANAGEMENT (continued) Mrs. Bruns stated that the ownership of that property .as well as the property -north of the ferry dock, unless she could be convinced that was -not the reason, it was the idea -that they were inhibiting private ownership to develop. Mrs. Bruns stated that she was not questioning someones right to believe this way but felt they should be honest with themselves in saying. that contributed to the reasons -that vote was made and those reasons were given publicly. Mr. Larson said he wanted to assure Mrs. Bruns that it was not a consideration in any comments or motions he made. He said he thought it did lead to some misunderstanding by other commission members and perhaps by the public and he was suggesting that rather than perpetuating that misunderstanding that they use -some designation other than Union Oil Marsh. • Mr. George Grant, 18716'Sound View Place asked to address the Commission to help clarify their. problem. Mr. Grant stated that he was .a member -of the Shoreline Advisory Committee --and there was no question that the Shoreline Act that was -passed took away some of his rights. Mr. Grant stated that he was a shoreline property owner- Mr. Grant emphasized that they were careful in the committee to point out that this was privately owned property, regardless of who owned it, and should be compensated for it if they took it. -and used it the way it was suggested. Mr. Grant explained that that*isin'thei-r report .and did not feel there should ever be -any question ,one-way or. another. -'here was no further discussion of this item. F.R-6-74 Adoption of Use -Regulations for Environments defined in Shoreline :taster Program. -Mrs.. Shoudy stated that this relates to -the revised .Use Activities that were given to 'the Planning Commission. which related to the zoning district. -Mrs. -explained that in the Comprehensive Portion of the Draft Master Program they were asked to address certain functional elements of use in the Shorelines Management Act, specifically in the law. They were asked also to address the envirohments in the State Guidelines and these are pretty much related to each other by the natural definitions which are part of the guidelines and which relate to the natural physical characteristics of the shoreline. Mrs. Shoudy said that essentially they designated various environments ..on the basis of their natural characteristics. They then related goal and policy state- ments under the elements to the environment. They were also asked to address specific use activities which are Aquacuiture, Commercial Development, Marinas, Mining, Outdoor Advertising and Billboards, Residential Development, Utilities, Piers and related structures, Ports and water related industry, Recreational Facilities, Bulkheads, Breakwaters, Groins, Landfills, Solid Waste Disposal and Educational Scientific Facilities. Mrs. Shoudy explained that since they determined to do this on the basis of the existing aoning district they then addressed each one of these under each relevant zone on the Shoreline. -Under the Shorelines Management Act -they were asked -only to address 200.feet from the mean high high water line in, but in writing it this way they will be changing .the -entire zoning district, to incorporate these use regulations. Mrs. Shoudy also stated that she did advertise that we were hearing the use regulations as a revision to the -zoning ordinance and the shoreline was posted. This was done in July and the hearings have been continued from that time. Airs. Shoudy stated that they had followed the proper procedures for revising the zoning ordinance. -Mrs. Shoudy reviewed the Use Regulations as they relate to the various -zones and -there was considerable discussion. -Mr. Wallace pointed out that all of Sunset Beach and.8racketts Landing were acquired through federal arant and can only be used for park purposes for -which they were acquired without permission of the Federal Government. The public portion of the hearing was opened. Edmonds Plan 1 Commission - September 18, 1974 - 7 R-6-74 Adoption of Use Regulations (continued) Mr. John Phillips stated that if the Planning Commission was going to go ahead and adopt the Use Regulations he did not believe that proper procedures were followed, that posting of notices were not sufficient notice. Mr. Phillips also stated that he did not receive information distributed to the Commission or have the opportunity to review the material that was distributed. He said he felt he should have had the opportunity to review that material prior to the hearing and have the opportunity to comment on it. Mr. Phillips stated that he felt the marsh should be referred to as the "oil marsh. . Mr. Phillips reviewed the proposed Use Regulations pointing out that Union OIl would have no uses open to them under the proposed uses.Mr.Phillips reviewed the recommendations that Union Oil had made to the Commission earlier to allow some industrial use on the property with some strict controls. Mr. Phillips pointed out in their recommendation that they had suggested that the Union Oil property be designated. Urban/commercial-Industrial. Mrs. Shoudy stated that Mr. Phillips had made an error, that she did send him the material that was distributed to the Commission and that Mr. Phillips had called her upon receiving it, discussed it with her and made some suggestions. She pointed out that the only material he did not receive were the two pages written largely at his suggestion. The public portion of the hearing was closed. Mr. Larson asked what the reasoning was for including the IP zone with the Commercial Waterfront rather than having it Urban-IP. Mrs. Shoudy stated it had been done primarily because she did not feel the Citizens Committee felt that Industrial uses were appropriate there and the uses permitted in IP are not necessarily shoreline dependent or shoreline related. Mr. Larson referred to the RSW designation pointing out that the word "public" access to the shoreline within a subdivision indicates to him that it means private owners with private beach rights must provide beach access for the public. It was suggested that the word "'public"be deleted. Mr. Larson also referred to the section on streets and roadways (2) and recommended that it read "Roadways in the shorelines zone shall not impair pedestrian access to the shorelines" and that the remainder of the sentence be deleted. Mr: Larson stated that he would also like to see some offices on the water front suohas art studios. Mrs. Shoudy said she felt the committee was concerned with having another "Harbor" building.on the waterfront or an office building such as the one built on Lake Union. Mr. Larson said he would agree with some restrictive language but did feel it was an appropriate use on the waterfront. Under Hotels and Motels Mr. Larson suggested that "Boatels" be included under CW-Commercial Uses. Mrs. Shoudy asked if he wanted to make some provision for office buildings. Mr. Naughten stated he felt a conditional use permit should be required for office buildings on the waterfront. There was considerable discussion of the types of business that would be allowed in the waterfront area. There was also considerable discussion of uses in related zones.and designations within zones. Mrs. Bruns asked for some response to the statement made by "fir. Phillips that he had not heard of any other plan that included use regulations. Mr. Wallace stated that this is just one method of doing it, that a number of jurisdictions that Mr. Phillips is familiar with have such large and substantial shorelines that they are not in a position to go forward on this process. There was some discussion of the demarkation line and the effects of the use regulations north and south of the ferry terminal. r Edmonds P14 ng Commission - September 18, 1974 -, ;ge 8 R-6-74 Adoption of Use Regulations (continued) Dr. Goodhope asked if they were essentially accepting the existing zoning. Mrs. Shoudy stated that they are changing the permitted uses within the zones. She further stated that the only place they are. rezoning is that portion of the marsh that comes within the Shorelines Managemeni plan where they are rezoning it to-CW. Mr. Larson stated that the only parcel of property in. tfieCity that is zoned IP is the Union Oil property and that includes 2,4', acres within the city and of that about 10 acres is the marsh area. Mrs. Shoudy stated that they are.. not removing the IP zone that they are only rezoning that 10 acre portion of the marsh to a commercial waterfront. Mr. Larson stated that he made the same observation as Mr. Phillips, that there are not many permitted uses in the CW zone that would be applicable to that area and felt if they eliminated the IP zone for the marsh area and designated it CW they would have essentially done the same thing if they had allowed it to be natural. Mr. Larson stated that was not the intent of the motion he made. Mr. Larson stated that the uses permitted should retain the IP zone. He further stated that he was not convinced that the salt water marsh is marine oriented, that it had been so severly impacted by other developments it no longer retains any marine characteristics if were filled. After considerable discussion MRS. BRUNS MADE A MOTION TO ADOPT THE USE REGULATIONS FOR THE ENVIRONMENT AS AMENDED WITH THE DELETION OF THE WORDING "PUBLIC" ON PAGE 7 UNDER RSW=Residential (1) AND THAT ROADWAYS IN THE SHORELINE ZONE SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR SAFE PEDESTRIAN AND OTHER, NON -MOTORIZED TRAVEL(STREETS & ROADS (Pg.9) DR. r,00DHOPE SECONDED THE MOTION. Mr. Naughten asked if she meant to include "Boatels" in her motion. Mrs. Bruns stated that in view of the fact that there were no regulations at this time governing "boatels" that she did not ..wish to make that a part of her motion. Mr. Larson pointed out that the reference to "public" was also included on page 6 (RS). Mr. Larson stated that he felt "boatels" should be included under Marinas (page 1 of use activities). Mr. Larson said he would also like to add under CW that offices and studios, not buildings, be allowed subject to a conditional use permit. Mr. Naughten asked if Mr. Larson wanted to designate the type of offices and studios. Mr. Larson said he felt the stipulation that uses be shoreline oriented is already there and "offices and studios" should be included on page 1,CW zone, Commercial Development (2). Mr. Wallace stated that the if studios and offices were added and a conditional use permit required they would have to have some specific conditions or criteria. After some discussion, Mr. Larson withdrew that part of his motion. MR. LARSON MADE A MOTION TO AMEND MRS. BRUNS MOTION BY ADDING "BOATELS" ON PAGE 1 UNDER MARINAS. SECONDED BY MR. NAUGHTEN. Mr. Wallace was asked to clarify the effect that the motions would have on the present zoning if passed. Mr. Wallace stated that it would be a recommendation by the Plannina Commission to alter the existing uses permitted in the basically 3 or 4 existing zones that are within the Shorelines Management Act. ,The most drastic effect would be on the present IP zone. THE AMENDMENT TO THE FIRST MOTION WAS CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MR. LARSON MADE A MOTION TO RETAIN THE IP ZONE DESIGNATION AND ITS RESTRICTIONS AND REQUIREMENTS WITHIN THE AREA PRESENTLY ZONED IP WHICH INCLUDES THE MARSH AREA. SECONDED BY MR. HAYES. MOTION CARRIED WITH MRS. BRUNS AND MR. VOTING NO. LON THE CALL FOR THE ORIGINAL MOTION MADE BY MRS. BRUNS THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY TO ADOPT THE USE REGULATIONS AS AMENDED. .-A Edmonds Planning Commission - August 21, 1974 - Page 7 . .... ... ...... . _.. ...... 5. SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PLAN (continued) CP-5-74 Adoption of Draft Master Program (continued) R-6-74 position of saying they would be prepared to buy it for that use. Mr. Larson said it would be his feeling considering the severe impact that, has been made on the marsh area already by the roads around it, the railroad and the fill that has already been done there, makes it something less than desirable for open space and certainly for park purposes. He stated that he felt the City's resources would be better applied in the acquiring more of the beach property, more of the wooded land remaining for park purposes than putting ourselves in the position where we are taking piece of property, which is in his way of thinking, has doubtful benefits to large numbers of the citizens of the city of Edmonds. Mr. Hayes said that he felt if the City was going to designate the use of property they should also be willing to pay for it. Chairman Sittauer asked if there was a second to Mr. Larson's motion. Mr. Hayes seconded the motion. Mrs. Bruns stated that she was not persuaded by the fact that just because the marsh is not a great number of acres that it necessarily means that it is not worth declaring a Natural environment. ON THE CALL, THE MOTION CARRIED WITH MRS. BRUNS AND MR. DICKSON VOTING NO. Mr. Wallace pointed out that the Commission did not.cover.south of the ferry dock in their previous motions. Mr. Wallis said that a motion would be in order to accept the recommenda- tion of staff on any other areas not previously designated by the Planning Commission. There was general discussion by the Board. MR.HAYES-MADE A MOTION THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACCEPT THE RECOMMENDA- TIONS MADE BY THE SHORELINE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON THOSE AREAS NOT OTHER- WISE DESIGNATED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION. MOTION SECONDED. CARRIED. There was some clarification of the area covered in the motion, that it covers the area north of the ferry dock and is designated urban. Mr. Larson thanked the advisory committee and the staff for their efforts And MADE A MOTION THAT A LETTER OF COMMENDATION BE SENT TO EACH MEMBER OF Z4E COMMITTEE AND STAFF. MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED. Adoption of Use Regulations for Environments defined in Shoreline Master Proqram Mrs. Shoudy stated that because the City Attorney did intrepret this as essentially a rezone on the waterfront properties she compiled a chart . to compare the uses that were allowed in the zones as compared to the environment. Mrs. Shoudy reviewed the chart for the Board and the audience# Edmonds Planning Commi5�ion - August 21, 1974 - Page 8 R-6-74 Adoption of Use Re ulations for Environments defined in Shoreline Master Program continued Mrs. Shoudy stated that uses that are permitted in a CW zone would generally be permitted in an urban environment, uses that are permitted in a marine resources zone would be permitted in a conservancy environment with some limitation. The major limitations -would mean that the shorelines committee felt that professional office buildings should not be within the . 200 feet of the shoreline, hotels and motels should not be there, metal fabrication, manufacturing, convalescent homes, woodworking shops, labs are not appropriate uses within the 200 feet, under the Shorelines f9anagement Act. Shipbuilding operations would be allowed if they are dependent on the shoreline. In the marine resource zone, filling and dredging were limited and there was a minor limitation on scientific and educational institutions. Mrs. Shoudy stated that the impact is lessened now somewhat by the changes the Planning Commission has recommended. There was general discussion by the commission with Mrs. Shoudy answering questions. The public portion of the hearing was opened. fir. John Philips, representing Union Oil, stated he was concerned with the chart of uses presented by Mrs. Shoudy, that he had not seen it before. His main concern was the permitted uses on the marsh area owned by Union Oil. John Wallace stated that uses might be somewhat more restricted than what is presently permitted under IP but it does not run afoul of the problems that Mr. Philips raised in the past with his contentions as to a conservancy or natural environment. The uses permitted in that designation with the designation of urban as suggested by the commission are all listed on the chart under the first column. Joe Wallis,stated that if the entire shdreline process is going to be nothing more than a reiteration of what presently exists hd did not see any need for havina gone through the process, and consequently did not see any need for necessarily adapting it to !4hat is presently or is indicated as the use there now, since we had that before the shoreline program got underway. He said that he felt it was much more important to take a look at that in view of the shoreline and what the shoreline means to this community and what this community sees this shoreline as being in the next 50 years, than it is to react to what is presently on there and presently regulated in that circumstances. Mr. Wallis said he felt the Commission should take a look at it as the optimum in relationship to a very unique feature that this community enjoys rather than what is necessarily permitted under the present regulations. Mrs. Bruns stated that she agreed and Mr. Dickson stated that that was exactly the thinking he had when he voted against the previous motions. r Edmonds Planning Comm ion - August 21, 1974 - Page � R-6-74 Adoption of Use Regulations for Environments defined in Shoreline Master Program continued There was further discussion by the Commission. Mr. Philips again reviewed the problems that have been encountered by Union Oil and•problems they -anticipate in the future with the proposed designation. Dave Larson pointed out that there appeared to be a conflict between the uses allowed in the existing zones and the Shoreline Program. John Wallace said the Shoreline Program supplant the present zoning designations in the Shorelines zone; in other words, the zones will be scrapped viithin the 200 foot shorelines zone and new classifications will be created. Mr. Larson was concerned about two He also felt the uses in the urban down by commercial and residential. separate sets of permitted uses. environment would have to be broken Joe Wallis stated that he believed that there would be a sifting of uses at the two levels and the shoreline program would be superimposed over the zoning ordinance. There was considerable discussion on the relationship of the'use regulations to the shorelines program. Dave Larson felt that because the chart was new to -them this evening they were unclear what uses would-be permitted. Mrs. Shoudy stated that the chart was not new information, that it was available to everyone. She pointed out that the Commission members all had zoning ordinances and maps and could very well have made the same comparison. Joe Wallis stated that it was time the citizens of this community "bite the bullet" and decide the policies, that the planning staff can display it every way from Sunday but there comes a point which the citizens of the community have to decide what they want for this community. Dave Larson stated that he felt there appeared to be a difference of understanding between the legal staff and planning department as the City Attorney says the Shoreline program supplants the zoning ordinance and the planning staff assumed that it was superimposed on the zoning ordinance. MR. LARSON MOVED THAT R-6-74 BE CONTINUED TO THE SECOND MEETING IN SEPTEMBER FOR CLARIFICATION OF THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE PLANNING STAFF AND CITY ATTORNEY ON THE EFFECT OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGNATION ON THE ZONING DISTRICTS. MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED. ZO-13-74 Amendment to (MR) zone to cinlude certain uses associated with uses permitted under existing Sec.12.13.410 A. Mr. Wallis stated that this item was directley related to R-6-74 and should be continued to be heard with the other item. IT WAS MOVED AND SECONDED THAT THIS ITEM BE CONTINUED TO SECOND MEETING IN SEPTEMBER. 'CARRIED. Edmonds Planning Commiss." July 17, 1974 - Page 5 CP-5-74 Adoption of Draft Master Program (continued) Chairman Sittauer advised Mr. Hanvey that he would have to make a'Specific request to be heard before the Planning Commission to change the designation on Sunset Way by removing it from the Comprehensive Street Plan as a community arterial. The public portion of the hearing was closed. There was general discussion of the Laebugten Wharf area and how it would be designated, with Mrs. Shoudy answering questions. Mr.Naughten asked if there was a re -designation from Industrial to natural 4 is there a compensation for the parties concerned. John Wallace, City Attorney stated there is not unless the City elected to buy it. He further stated that F if the use of the property was prohibitive to the point that was there was no longer a reasonable use of the property by the owner he would have an opportunity to bring action to have the particular regulation declared void under a theory of unconstitutional taking. At that point the public body must make a decision, if that claim were upheld, whether to purchase it or have their use regulation void. Mr. Larson stated that the question was raised as to whether the proper procedures were being followed, particularly in view of the status of the Enviornmental Impact Statement. Mr. Wallace responded that he felt the proper procedures were being followed particularly in view of the fact that the City has elected to implement the Master Program under its Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Larson also + made reference to the definition of "marsh" and where that definition came from. Mrs. Shoudy stated that there are two defintions and read them to the Commission. Mrs. Bruns responded to comments made by Mr. Philips, that we have lots of time, stating that the time for community to decide how they want to see their area in the future is not at the time we are faced with a building permit but that some of these decisions need to be made that are tough ones, before that time. Mrs. Bruns stated that she felt strongly that it is time to make some decisions. Mr. Naughten stated that he would be concerned with designating the property as natural nog/ in light of the fact that if it has a public use need if we are going to extend public use of the waterfront to allow more people to the area to enjoy the waterfront. He stated that he would be against designating it natural because it would preclude its use for public parking or some other public use. There was general discussion of designations that would allow public use, and also environmental impact statements and their function. Mrs. Shoudy reviewed the procedure for the environmental impact statement. Mr. Larson asked if this item could be postponed until after the draft impact statement was heard by the Council. Mr. Larson expressed concern about t designating the Union Oil property as natural and would like to have input available from the Council before a decision is made. The Council has the environmental impact statement review scheduled for August 6. The draft master program is scheduled for August 20, but the Commission could ask for an extension on that date. Mrs. Shoudy stated that she would not re -write any part of the Impact Statement but would just incorporate all the comments that were made and present them to the Council at the time they review the draft statement. Then they can say how much research they want to do on these items and some they may not want to address at all. A MOTION WAS MADE TO CONTINUE CP-5-74 TO THE SECOND MEETING IN AUGUST TO ALLOW TIME TO WORK ON THE IMPACT STATE11MENT. MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. CA OTION WAS MADE TO CONTINUE ITEMS ZO-13-74 AND R- - TO AUGUST 21 SINCE Y A IRECTLY RELATED TO THE CP-5-74 ITEM. MOT ECONDED AND CARRIED. ST-3-74 Amendment to Street Standard Code Sec. 7.01.050 (0) Street Classifications for Residential Access St. (Cul-de-sac) Mr. Wallis recommended that this item be continued to the August 14th meeting to allow time for input from the Engineering Department and to present a specific proposal. A MOTION WAS MADE TO CONTINUE ST-3-74 TO AUGUST 14, 1974. SECONDED AND CARRIED. Meeting adjourned AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION STATE OF WASHINGTON ss COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH THOMAS J. COAD, being first duly sworn, on oath deposes and says that he is the Publisher of the EDMONDS TRIBUNE -REVIEW, a weekly newspaper. That said newspaper is a legal newspaper and has been designated as such by Court Order No. 38282, and is now and has been for more than six months prior to the date of the publications herein- ,_ after referred to, published in the English language continually as a weekly NOTICE.QF;PUBLIC newspaper in Snohomish County, Washington, and it is now and during all of <HEARING SHORELINE said time was printed in an office maintained at the aforesaid place of publication MANAGEMENT DRAFT of said newspaper, and that it was of general circulation in said Snohomish MASTER PROGRAM i All interested persons are County hereby notified that That the annexed is a true copy of a Notice of Public Wednesday, the 17th day of JULY,1974, has been set as the H e a r i n g File #R - 6 -w 7. date for hearing by ' the Edmonds Planning Commission as it was published in regular issues (and not in supplement form) of said news - on proposed adoption in the paper once each week for a period of ono XonwecWj3x weev, Zoning Ordinance of the Use Regulations for the Conser= commencing on the day of Ju 1y 1974, vancy, Urban and Natural 7II'' and ending on the loth day of July 19�, Environments defined in the Draft Master Program for tho both dates inclusive, and that such newspaper was regularly distributed to its property described as follows: 200 feet upland from the line of subscribers during all of said period. That the full amount of the fee charged ordinary high water to. the for the foregoing publication is the sum of $ 6.65 which amount has limits of the City's jurisdiction on Puget Sound . anal . Lake been paid in full, at the rate of $ a hundred words for the first insertion Ballinger and Associated and $ 1. 0 a hundred words for each subsequent insertion. Wetlands.. (Union Oil ,Marsh): Said hearing will be at 7:30'1 p.m. in the Council Chambers of- ` the Civic Center, Edmonds,: Washington, and all interesteda Subscribed and sworn to before me this 1 day of Ju 1y 1 IOU, persons are invited to appear.f IRENE VARNEY MORAN " _.- City Clerk, City of Edmonds•', Notary Public in and for the St a of Washington, residing at Edmonds, Wash. File No. R-6-74 Published: July 3 and July 10'.1 1974 — 6 w AFFIDAVIT OF POSTER FILE NUMBER R040 "7 i, do hereby certify that I posted Notice of Public Nearing as prescribed by City Ordinance at the following locations: ;�V;pp T_Z a�wwc.S X Notices on or near property Post Office Ci vi c Center Signed on the v a[o'"'day of 19 NOT CE OF PUBL C HEAR NG NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN TO ALL INTERESTED PERSONS THAT A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE EDMONDS CITY PLANNING COMMISSION an �aG�e io as ....... for -.%/he --------- . .......... kha* ut,d- <....... DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY: ---- f.A/t@�--.-._t'Q�J�t ------ Ali Pow-.61 ----- --- -y /r'._ ........ .Y� .... /�nrcfs..o�7�i�P.C' . _.'s�. ?f�%rro�'•��e�r._..1n_... �.¢.efSaw� 4nd----- .ui('G.._��allii�. _Gr.......... -.1; . . ........ TIME &DATE OF HEARING: 7:30 P.M4Ww,%e1,&._-!���� DAY A THE MEETING WILL BE HELD IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS OF THE EDMONDS CIVIC CENTER, 5th AVENUE AND BELL STREET. ANY PER- SON INTERESTED IN THIS CHANGE MAY APPEAR IN SUPPORT OF OR IN OPPOSITION TO IT. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION MAY BE OBTAINED AT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT IN THE EVENT THE AGENDA IS NOT COMPLETED ON THE ABOVE DATE, THE PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE CONCLUDED THE FOLLOWING WEDNES- DAY EVENING AT THE SAME TIME AND PLACE.;P~4E 77-f•Z5Xr FILE NO...)?.:...�._�.7'�.......... PUBLISHETh Jr/1��/!► _ y .�s7!ll�h'Sky b C 'The removal, mutilation, destruction, or concealment of this notice is a WARNING misdemeanor punishable by fine and imprisonment. CITY of EDiMONDS Civic Center • Edmonds, Washington 98020 • Telephone (206) 775-2525 Office of City Planning June 27, 1974 Mrs. Jeanne Edwards Western Sun 4303 - 198th Street S. W. Lynnwood, Washington 98036 Dear Jeanne: I would appreciate it if you could write a small paragraph about the forthcoming hearing on the Shorelines Master Program, as I would like to make sure as many people know about the hearing as possible. The first hearing date will be before the Planning Commission at 7:30 P. M. on Wednesday, July 17, 1974. They will be reviewing the Draft Master Program and Use Pegulations. I am going on a much needed vacation for the first two weeks of July, but Joe and Jan can answer any questions. Thanks. Kay Shoudy As stant City Planner E d and t. 160 4 THESE MAPS ARE CURRENT THROUGH V ORD. NO. 1512, DATED DEC. 1, 1970 RD RUB 4 W� off • 3 W ; _ —IbH `eT 5W^+> 0 4 • 1 f.... 19 q II 192. ST Si/ / yoF,� 196 ,T SW - I J�� '-KLI 9 - A'PER 5f _r' o f _ 4 w � J W r !!! 1. u o .,, r / MAIN STAY I a ur HL1f 3I tH •.I laIu r r Iy WPINE ST if n Et.M 1 220 ST i +'r. ♦. u� 3 ra -i �' tY " �a 4 � 226�5 W f 5 w • Y \" a s� zze srw " a 4 '� t � \ A 4 25b ST-S �r a s�'w�23 sw 238 LAKL li w EIA LINGER ' j i 1 • \ 'L ram_-. _ _.. w 11\,J w 4 MA. �Ftll(N-l: FL At1 Ni N:+ CF ,ARin•F r" ,a•q:. v I. Cl - If 7140" 17 i m�0 /G // / -74 'x 4e- 514. 5 AGt�'��rpep a Y .t NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING SHORELINE MANAGEMENT DRAFT MASTER PROGRAM All interested persons are hereby notified that Wednesday, the 17th day of JULY , 19 74 , has been set as the date for hearing by the Edmonds Planning Commission on proposed adoption in the Zoning Ordinance of the Use Regulations for the' conservancy, DrDan and NaturalEnvironments detined in tne Dratt Master Program for oc� xl:bcarxpc�apcea�bcR xkaaarpcecd Jcegac1Jq xdaK-%MV j 0(d xxx xfockkaxac x the property described as follows: 200 feet upland from the line of ordinary high water to the limits of the City's jurisdiction on Puget Sound and Lake Ballinger and Associated Wetlands (Union Oil Marsh). 7: 3 0 Said hearing will be at WgC p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Civic Center, Edmonds, Washington, and all interested persons are invited to appear. File No. R-6-74 Publish:__,1,11V I and .luly 10, cc: Tribune and Western Sun IRENE VARNEY MORAN City Clerk, City of Edmonds 1974 CIo/a CFi�m- st� Permitted. PERMITTED USES IN CW ZONES in Urban _ Conservancy Na !_oral Boat and motor sales, livery, repairs, etc. Yes No No Gasoline sales for boats Yes No No Dry land storage Yes No No Ships Stores Yes No No Water Moorage Yes No No Yacht and Boat Clubs Yes No No Restaurants Yes No No Residential Yes No No Professional and business Offices No No No Hotels, Motels No No No t Aquariums Yes No No Building Material No No No Welding and metal fabrication No No No Woodworking Shops No No No Manufacturing Limited No No Labs No No No Nursing Convalescent Homes No No No MARINE RESOURCES ZONE Comm. fishing, sports fishing, shell fishing Yes Yes No Movement of ships, boats, etc. Yes ; Yes No Swimming and recreation activities Yes Yes No Filling and dredging Limited Limited No Scientific Installation Yes Limited 'Lifm ted Mineral Extraction Limited Limited No !urine Agriculture Yes Yes No Educational Facilities Yes Limited Limited C PETER L. BUCK H. RAYMOND CAIRNCROSS MARK S. CLARK JEROME L. HILLIS GEORGE W. MARTIN, JR. JOHN E. PHILLIPS PAUL E. S. SCHELL LAW OFFICES OF HILLIS, SCHELL, PHILLIPS, CAIRNCROSS, CLARK & MARTIN A PROFESSIONAL SERVICE CORPORATION 403 COLUMBIA STREET SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104 June 24, 1974 City Clerk City of Edmonds Civic Center Edmonds, Washington Re: Proposed Shoreline Master Program City of Edmonds Dear Sir: 623-1745 AREA CODE 206 On behalf of Union Oil Company we wish to be 'informed of any and all hearings with respect to the proposed Master Shoreline Program adoption by the City of Edmonds. This will include any hearings or meetings held by the Shore- line Advisory Board, Planning Commission or other public or quasi -public agencies. L Thank you for your attention to this matter. tr yours, Phillip JEP:db cc: Union Oil Planning Director, City of Edmonds 41 USE ACTIVITIES AQ! IACt1LPIR'E_ Urban Environment: Propagation and harvest of Marine 1 Vegetation or animals will be allowed provided the following conditions are met: ` C Y ERCIAL � 1ID,rCW1P1 Li 1 1 (1) There is access to the use from non- residential areas. (2) Structures are predominately underwater. (3) Structures will not be a hazard to naviga- tion or impede access to the water from the uplands. (4) Visual impact of the use is minimized. Conservancy Environment: As regulated in the Urban Environment. Natural Environment: Prohibited in the Natural Environ- ment. Urban Environment: (1) Dashed line indicates wording taken from zoning ordinance. (1) Because of the limited area available on the Edmonds waterfront for commercial uses, priority should be given to the following shoreline - dependent uses: (a) Any commercial use allowed by the Zoning Ordinance which requires piers, wharves, or docks in order to function. (b) Commercial fishing, sport fishing and shell, fishing as_regulated b� apalicable_govere- meet —agencies. (c) Aquaculture, as further regulated in this master pram. (d) Commercial uses which provide public access — to water. (2) The following uses shall be considered shoreline - oriented uses:' (a) Boat and motor sales livery and repairs. (b) Dry land storage, construction, and repair — -- — -- ----------- of boats_ (c) Ships stores, for pleasure boats. (d) Aquariums. (e) Yacht or boat clubs and similar organizations_ (f) Restaurants. 41 19 .,� f (3) Parking for all commercial uses shall be located away from the immediate waters edge and shall be designed to have minimal impact on theieter quality from run-off. (4) Landscaping shall be provided as regulated by the.Zoning Ordinance to alleviate the effects of large, paved areas and should be designed to enhance the scenic vistas and aesthetic qualities of the shoreline. (5) Commercial buildings shall be located and designed in a manner which will minimize obstruction of views of the water or public waterfront areas. (a) A public walkway 10' wide shall be provided between the buildings and !HHW. (6) The cooperative use of docking, parking, and storage facilities should be encouraged to fully utilize the limited central waterfront. (7) Chemical or fuel handling and storage shall be inspected and approved by the City of Edmonds. Safe handling shall be the responsibility of the owner who shall be required.to provide a safe means of handling spills or accidental discharges. Conservancy Environment: No commercial uses shall be al1ovied in the conservancy environment except: (1) Aquaculture, as further regulated in —this master ------------ grogram. (2) Commercial fishing, sport fishinq,_and shell fishin_ as_regulated b_r applicable government agencies_ (3) Transportation. Natural Environment: No commercial uses shall be allowed. For purposes of this Plaster Program, Marinas will be de- fined as facilities which provide overnight and permanent boat moorage facilities on the water and related services. Urban Environment: The central waterfront of Edmonds represent the principal marina location. The facilities existing provide for local as well as regional needs. Marinas should be permitted only if it can be shown that the resultant development will not dominate the limited central waterfront. They shall also meet the following criteria: (1) Open pile or floating dock construction shall be required. - 20 - (2) Chemical or fuel handling and storage shall be inspected and approved by the City of Edmonds. Marinas operators shall be responsible for safe handling of such materials and shall be required to provide a means of handling any spills that occur. (3) Marina design shall minimize damage to fish and shellfish resources. (4) Marinas shall be designed in a manner which is aesthetically compatible with adjacent areas and will not prevent pedestrian access to public shorelines. (5) Boats shall be prohibited from discharging chemicals, fuel or sewage. Conservancy Environment: Marinas shall be prohibited in this environment. Natural Environment: Marinas shall be prohibited in this environment. MIIIIJG Urban Environment: Mineral extraction from v.ater, subject to approval � t e City �OUnCI� ana applicable—agencies EVE excluding submerged land mining, drilling for petroleum or gas, or excavation in connection therewith. Mining of sand and graveT from marine beaches or vaet lands, shall be prohibited. Removal of rock, sand, gravel and minerals from uplands areas for commercial purposes shall be pro- hibited. Conservancy Environment: As regulated in Urban Environment. Natural Environment: Mining is prohibited. ME DOR 0 RTISIIG For purposes of this Master Program all outdoor advertis- ing, signs, and billboards shall be designated "signs". AdD Urban Environment: LI=NRMS (1) Signs shall be no larger than 150 square feet. Where there is conflict with this "taster Program, the most stringent regulation shall apply. (2) Signs shall be located where they will not degrade or obstruct views. All signs except traffic and public information signs shall be constructed against buildings and belovi the roof -line. Future pole signs shall be prohibited. (3) Signs in the central waterfront should be encour- aged to adapt layouts, techniques, and materials consistent with the marine motif. - 21 - Conservancy Environment - Natural Environment: Signs shall be prohibited except for signs which provide traffic direction, identify recreation or public facilities, or provide public information. RESIDEMAL DL1.:,P"EfC Urban Environment: (1) Residential development shall be governed by the zoning and subdivision ordinances of the City of Edmonds. (2) Subdivisions should be required to provide public pedestrian access to the shorelines within sub- divisions. (3) Residential development over water or in the intertidal zone shall not be permitted. (4) Residential development should be sited to cause the least disruption of waterfront views. (5) Residential developers shall indicate methods to be used to control erosion during construction and preserve shore vegetation. (6) Because of limited accessibility to the shoreline area north of the ferry terminal, multiple -family residential uses should be located only in the south of the ferry terminal and shall meet the following criteria: (a) Multiple -family buildings should be sited to minimize visual obstruction of the water- front. (b) No building shall be hi gher,than two stories, or 25' whichever is less. Height shall be measured as defined in the zoning ordinance. (c) Parking should be incorporated within the building wherever feasible. Conservancy Environment: (1) Residential development shall not be permitted in the conservancy environment. (2) Private residential docks shall be allowed pro- vided they meet the criteria defined in the regulations for piers and related structures in this Master Program. Natural Environment: Residential development or docks shall not be permitted. IWIM PIERS U) RE-ATO Urban Environment: All docks, moorage, wharves, piers and related structures shall be regulated by the appropriate STRUCTURES section of the Edmonds Zoning Ordinance. Conservancy Environment: Private and recreational docks shall be allowed provided they meet the following criteria: (1) Because of their visual impact, no buildings shall be allowed on docks near residential areas. (2) Joint use of docks and private mooring facilities should be encouraged. Docks shall be allowed on or near property lines when shared jointly. RECPUTIO! FACILITIES Urban Environment: Public, private, and commercial recrea- tion facilities shall be allowed provided they meet the provisions of the zoning ordinance, and the regulations for commercial uses in this Master Program. Conservancy Environment: Public and private recreation facilities should be related to the natural characteristics of the shoreline and require minimum alteration of the natural conditions. The following uses and development shall be allowed: (1) Trails, paths, pedestrian ramps and stairs to provide public or private access. (2) Public or private recreational piers, non-com- mercial boat moorage, picnic docks and similar structures. (3) Picnic facilities, including fire places and shelters. (4) Floats or other structures for divers and swimmers where they may be located without hazard, and provided they are no larger than 100 square feet in area. (5) Restroom facilities where they may be connected to the City sewer system.. (6) Emergency boat launching ramps for search and rescue only. (7) Landscaping, provided it is compatible with the natural vegetation and will prevent erosion. (8) Motorized wheeled vehicles shall be prohibited in the intertidal zone. (9) Parking for public recreation should be located outside the conservancy environment, wherever possible. Natural Environment: Limited recreational activity should e allowed in this environment, primarily trails, paths, public viewpoints and other activities which do not re- quire permanently enclosed structures. - 23 - UTILITIES Urban Environment: (1) New utility installations shall be underground. (2) Upon completion of installation or maintenance projects on shorelines, banks shall be restored to pre -project configuration, re -planted with native species and provided maintenance care until newly planted vegetation is established. (3) In order to minimize disturbance of the shore- line, the City of Edmonds should attempt to incorporate major trnasmission line right-of- way on shorelines into their program for public access to and along water bodies. (4) When utility lines are carrying fuel, waste or other dangerous substances which may endanger public health or cause environmental damage if released inadvertently, provisions shall be made by the responsible agency to prevent, minimize and repair damage. Conservancy Environment: Utilities shall be regulated by requirements of the Urban Environment. Natural Environment: Utility installations shall be pro- hibited. ROP S NO ;IA- ER Urban Environment: (1) Because the Emonds port and central waterfront uLIATD, I MI!STRY primarily serves commercial and recreational needs, industrial uses shall not be allowed. (2) Port facilities should be designed to provide public access to all port areas except where private boats are moored. (3) The Port should encourage viewing of harbor areas from viewpoints, waterfront, restaurants and similar public facilities which would not inter- fere with port operations or endanger public health and safety. (4) The Port should develop additional boat launching facilities to increase public access to the water. Conservancy Environment - Natural Environment: Port development should not be expanded into these environments. - 24 - $LILMAD$ Urban Environment: (1) Bulkheads should be located and constructed only to protect upland facilities, and should blend with the natural shoreline. (2) effectsdonshould beacheseandsrto minimize adverse aiteationofthe natural shore. (3) Bulkheads should be constructed to allow safe access over the bulkhead in public shoreline areas. (4) Bulkheads shall not be used to create new land by buttressing landfills. (5) Bulkheads should be of open pile construction wherever possible. Conservancy Environment: Bulkheads are allowed as regulated in the Urban Environment. Natural Environment: Not permitted in this environment, except to protect the.natural character. B� � °'� J� I E'�S '� Urban Environment: Future breakwater construction shall be of a non -permanent, temporary nature, i.e., floating breakwaters. Conservancy Environment: Breakwaters should not be constructed in the conservancy environment. Natural Environment: Not applicable. GROj'ds Urban Environment: The primary purpose for constructing groins is to prevent the drift of sand down the shore and to build up beaches. Because this affects distribution of beach -building material all along the shore, groins should not be built unless the development would clearly benefit the public. Groins should be installed only under the supervision of a licensed engineer and shall be designed to minimize disturbance of the shoreline. Conservancy Environment: Permitted as regulated under the Urban Environment. Natural Environment: Not applicable. LNIIAID;=ILLS Urban Environment: ) Conservancy Environment:) Landfills shall be permitted only to replace shcreland areas removed by wave action or normal erosive processes and for minor filling behind bulk- heads. - 25 - Natural Environment: No landfilling shall be permitted in Natural Environments. SOLID WASTE DISMS;I. Urban Environment: - (1) No sanitary landfills shall be allowed. (2) There shall be no discharge of ballast sanitary ------------ — — — — — — — facilities or effluent, chemicals, petroleum Eroducts, aarbage,_ cargo texc_eat to save Tife or_pro y� , or a& oti�er tnii ng fluid or soli d of and inert7 or description vrFether—by desicn or accident regardless of precautions exercised, from sFiins, boats, —bar es, etc. —j— --— Conservancy Environment: As regulated under Urban Environ- ment. Natural Environment: As regulated under Urban Environment. T2,DGIIS Urban Environment: ) _ ConservancyEnvironment: ) Dredging shall be carried out only for the prupose of maintaining safe navigation or natural character. Dredging for any other purpose shall be classified as mining and shall be prohibited. Spoil deposits from dredging shall be used only for landfill purposes as regulated by this Master Program or for beach feeding through the use of groins as regulated by this Master Program. Natural Environment: Dredging shall be prohibited. EDUCATIOINAL N'D SCIEUIFIC Urban Environment: Educational and scientific facilities should be regulated under the requirements for commercial FACILITIES development in this ^faster Program. Conservancy Environment: Because of the more natural characteristics in this environment, educational and scientific uses should meet the following criteria: (1) The facilities required should be impermanent and temporary. (2) The facilities should be designed to respect aesthetic and ecological values. (3) The activities should be designed for small groups in order to minimize damage to the intertidal zone. Natural Environment: The Natural environment may be utilized for educational and scientific purposes when no facilities or activities are required which would damage the environment. -26- LROND Urban Environment: (1) Because of the limited area available on the Edmonds waterfront, the railroad use should not be expanded. (2) Utilities incident to the railroad should be placed underground whenever possible to minimize impairment of visual qualities. ConservanccEnyviironment: The regulations of the urban environment shall apply, as well as the following criteria: (1) Repairs to the existing railroad should minimize damage to tidelands. (2) The City of Edmonds and the Burlington Northern railroad shall cooperate to develop neighborhood access over the railroad right-of-way. Natural Environment: Railroads are prohibited. STIRLIUS AD IJADI S Urban Environment: Conservancy Environment: (1) Roadways shall be constructed in a manner which will minimize erosion and storm run-off. (2) Roadways in the shorelines zone shall not impair pedestrian access to the shoreline and shall provide for safe pedestrian and other non -motorized travel. (3) The primary purpose of roads in the shoreline zone is to provide local access to the shore and to uses on the shoreline. Major roadways should be located outside the shorelines zone. Natural Environment: No raadways shall be constructed in tlis environment. - 27 -