Loading...
Elm St and 7th Park PropertyZ-70 32 Soo December 6, 1979 MEMO TO: Harve H. Harrison Mayor FROM: Fred F. Herzberg Director of Public Works SUBJECT: WATER/SEWER PROPERTY - SEVENTH AND ELP� PROPERTY On November 28, 1979, the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board discussed the desirability of purchasing the above property. A motion was made and carried that they do not desire the prop- erty inasmuch as mini parks are a bad investment for the community because of their high maintenance costs and low utility. Therefore, it is respectfully requested that this property be appraised, subdivided and put up for sale. JBM : j ak J� V P 41 G� 4 � CITY of EDMONDS Civic Center • Edmonds, Washington 98020 • Telephone (206) 775-2525 MEMO TO: Charles Dibble, MAA FROM: Office of the City Attorney DATE: September 12, 1979 RE: 7th and Elm Property You have asked this office to provide legal opinion as to the obligations of the City with respect to the property located at 7th and Elm. The property was acquired from funds in the Water/ Sewer Department and presently remains undeveloped. RCW 35.92.010 authorizes cities to operate a municipal water system and gives cities the right to purchase private property for this purpose. This specific authorization is in line with the gen- eral rule that a city may buy and hold real property for municipal purposes. However, the city's authority to buy and hold pro- perty extends only to municipal purposes. Cities are not, in absence of some specific authority, empowered to hold property for non -municipal purposes and to become, in effect, a real estate speculator. 10 McQuillan Municipal Corporations §28.11. When property is no longer needed for municipal purposes, cities are authorized to sell it. 10 McQuillan §28.38a. In this case the property, which was acquired with Water Department funds, would be limited to use by the Water Department. If the property is no longer to be used for that purpose, then the City should sell it to another City department to be used for other municipal purposes, or should sell it to third parties. In any case holding property which is not intended to be used for municipal purposes would be beyond the City's powers. August 3, 1979 MEMO TO: Harve H. Harrison Mayor FROM: Charles Dibble M.A.A. SUBJECT: 7TH & ELM PROPERTY The property in question is an asset of the City's Water Department. Fred Herzberg's memo attached discusses the alder trees and stream issues and John LaTourelle's memo addresses the question of use of the property as park land on open space. As a result of its review of the future use of this property, the staff concluded that the property should be sold. No "business reason" could be found for retaining it as a Water Department asset. The Water Department would have to receive market value if the property were transferred to Parks & Recreation. Two or three residential lots could be developed on the property. It should be sold to one buyer with conditions covering preservation of natural vegetation, etc., consistent with the Herzberg memo. The proceeds of sale could be allocated to purchase of the property needed for expansion of the treat- ment plant. CD:er U�, July 19, 1979 MEMO TO: Harve H. Harrison Mayor FROM: John A. LaTourelle, Director Community Development Department SUBJECT: 7TH & ELM PROPERTY The Community Development Staff has reviewed the 7th and Elm property for its potential as park and open space land. The site provides wildlife habitat and open space for the community, but has no development potential for recreation use. Since the property would have to be purchased from the Water/Utility funds, acquisition of this site for open space must be viewed in light of the alter- natives in the City. As there are many other areas in the City that offer superior recreational and open space opportunities, we do not recommend purchase by the Park and Recrea- tion Division. JAL/le August 2, 1979 MEMO TO: Harve H. Harrison Mavor FROM: Fred F. Herzberg Director of Public Works SUBJECT: HEARING ON TREE CUTTING/TRIMP•IING ISSUE UTH & ELM) This report provides information regarding the proposal to remove some portion of some of the trees on the subject property. Figure 1 shows the relation of the property to surrounding properties. Figure 2 shows details of the City property at an enlarged scale. This figure shows existing conditions including topography, tree heights, and the location of the Shellabarger Creek headwaters. The technical arguments against topping include effects on the trees themselves and effects on water resources. First, topping the Red Alder (sp. Alnus Rubra) is anticipated to lead to rotting of the main trunk, from the top down. In addition, the response of the tree to topping involves the upturning of remaining branches to form one or more "new trunks" which are subject to splitting at the main trunk. Both the rotting and the new trunks can lead to safety and maintenance problems. Figure 3 shows that topping also removes about two-thirds of the main food -producing parts of the tree as well as two-thirds of the areas effective in transpiration. This removal would put the tree under stress which can directly or indirectly kill the tree, again leading to possible safety and maintenance problems. We anticipate that water resources would be adversely affected by the proposed topping. Removing vegetation which shades streams can increase water temperatures. Increased temperatures have an adverse impact in terms of habitat protection and maintenance of desirable species of plants in the stream. Vegetation also helps filter runoff entering the stream and prevents erosion. The process of removing vegetation, now or during any required future maintenance, will probably disturb soils causing sediment to enter the creek and causing subsequent downstream sedimentation. We anticipate that the watertable in the area of cutting will increase very slightly but that any increase in the bordering watertable will be insignificant. The possibility of increased runoff was investigated and is projected to be negligible. The principal argument for topping the trees centers on enhancement of views. As can be seen by site inspections and by Figure 4, a profile of the property, the visibility of Puget Sound and more dis- tant features would be increased for several property owners who live south and east of the subject City property. Memo to Harve H. Harrison Page Two August 2, 1979 Public Works recommends that the trees on the City property not be topped. This recommendation is based on the projected adverse impacts on water quality, increased maintenance requirements within the area topped, and potential safety hazards resulting from dead branches, dead trees, and the branching trunks which result from topping the Red Alders. In addition to this recommendation, we recommend that: 1. Existing slopes which are in excess of 15 percent adjacent to the stream corridor should not be disturbed or developed. 2. Existing vegetation on these slopes and in the stream corridor should be retained. This vegetation provides erosion control, some filtering of overland flows from adjacent areas, and shade for the stream during summers. If this course of action is selected, we recommend that in the event the property is sold, the City retain easements or other interest in the north portion of the property to implement the previous recom- mendations in this report. 17 RF:JEA:jak + end �,��� cn S nd os I Hi 8 .s 'End. H1L 0 OCID (� u � LL- Z — oy � ,0 a �- f D � L> -a.J z a > L r M _ C.5 kA 0 cog i rn r 90 � d "h do N. r d9 0 ;7 U. �Ln o L, + 1 Cc , O� NO a LLJ` �L Lo cm o a a. CL f— ® cry \ k` U O LLJ 1 � � a V) r� a W � R. N O v0. U1 3 o� ♦1 owl j �� ul oC J W Z zodiv J Q (r f- � 0 (.7 cr W 0 p W lh N r+ U � J c u C V JJ� MAIN FOOD - PRODUCING AREA FOLIAGE ENVELOPE RED ALDER SCUEMATIC FIGURE 3 m NORTH 6 AVENUE CITY i PROPERTY t W Iwo 22h0 200 MOR1,LoWTAL NORTP- SOUTH PROFILE FIGURE 4 MEMO TO: Harve Harrison Mayor FROM: Fred F. Herzberg Director of Public Works SUBJECT: REFORESTATION OF SEVENTH AND ELM STREET PARK As directed by the Council on August 7, 1979, following is the plan and recommended program to restore and reforest the Water/ Sewer property at Seventh and Elm: 1. Replacement of existing alders with trees that are compatible to the location and soil composition. The following are a selection of species that will do well in this particular location: a. Big Leaf Maple b. Cottonwood c. Most Willows d. Western Red Cedar e. Redwood (Sequoia) 2. Restoration/reforestation will be concentrated on the northern side of the property, along the creekbed. Selected number of Alders will be removed and the recommended specie planted. The recommended specie should be the weeping willow (salix baby- lonica). If allowed to grow under ideal conditions, the estimated maximum height is around 65 feet, but with a pruning program we can control the height and size of each tree. This will allow a healthy and aesthetically pleasing stand of trees that will be a greenbelt for the area. We recommend that we do the planting of 30 willows within the Fall/Winter period and also institute a maintenance program for the success of these trees. Trees of 1-1/2' - 2' caliper should be used as this will ensure success of the restoration plan. Harve H. Harrison Page 2 September 4, 1979 The prices of 1-1/2' - 2' caliper are about the same from most wholesale nurseries in the area. A price quote of $80 per tree is about average. #30 salix babylonica @ $80/each Tax Initial preparation of site, fertilizer soil conditionin vehicle time, rental of equipment at 50 per site x 30 $2,400.00 129.00 1,500.00 $4,029.00 There are no funds available in the Water Division budget to improve this unneeded property belonging to the utility. It would be improper to mix funds from other city sources with the net assets of the utility. FFH : j ak January 4, 1979 MEMO TO: Harve H. Harrison Mavor FROM: Leif R. Larson Director of Public Works SUBJECT: REPORT ON DRAINAGE PLAN FOR 7TH AND ELPZ The Engineering Division has investigated the drainage problem reported by Mr. John Claus at 1137 7th Avenue South. Mr. Claus reported in- creasing peak flows resulting in flooding of property, channel erosion and shifting of channel location. Increasing peak flows are one typical result of increasing impermeable surfaces associated with land development. Ordinance 1924 provides some control of peak flow from new construction. Two local solutions to the reported current problems were considered and found infeasible. A detention basin in the Elm Street Park site would involve excavation in unstable material where topography is un- favorable. Channel modification to increase channel capacity would simply transfer the problem to downstream locations and would also involve unfavorable topography. A larger scale solution to the reported problem is possible. New lines would divert much of the surface runoff from the Shellabarger Creek problem site. The approximate area diverted is Area B on Exhibit 1. Area A would continue to drain toward the Elm Street Park site. This would reduce the peak 25-year storm flows by about 40 percent. The cost of installing new storm sewers involved in'this plan is estimated to be in excess of $130,000. Alternate plans are being reviewed in an effort to divert a greater quantity of water at a cost nearer $60,000. Current plans are to evaluate entire basins for storm water management prior to pursuing construction of this magnitude. Basin planning is underwav with initial efforts focusing on the Meadowdale drainage area. The Shellabarger Creek drainage basin, having fewer overall storm drain- age problems, is scheduled for later work. BF: FFH:jak '� C/ J O }[ LIB H17 LEY �� dnu: t PL.0 t.�.ryE.RE ❑ x co W DR mBROO"MERE 2 a w' SW m0 r1sl �200TH mT yatr U CASPER ST Z Q" VISTA WY 3 Z W GlLTNE 1. Z MOUNTAIN ( VISTA Z CASCADE 0 m MAPLEWOOD W 3co a ¢ SATER L LN w DR LN a m HILL ELEM SCH = > ALOHA W ALOHA ST ORCHARD N CASCADE 202ND ST SW cc a 20 NO HOLY CAROL W SIERRA = DR 2c2ND a m PL SW 3 ED CAROL y ROSARY K LANE Fx PL > SW < � m JR SCH > GLEN ST a 3 SIERRA STS x °o 203RD PL SW 204TH Sr HI GLEN 5C ST a ,_ - - -... F ti ¢ 20y` e` �• SW m 204 ST SW r n: t� Z Z DALEY DALEY Z S'T Z p �. 3 c W > rn ❑ r+ 2C 3 a SPRAG ST SPRAGUE SPRAGUE PLTH < ST N PL PINE y (., ST ..? wJr. ST >Playf1d High> ¢ �!� S H1UM'INGW'R1) H1L.1 AE1 EDMONQ z r ¢ a: W t A a. 205TH SW (L = RIDGE �f > 20! PARK - 2 ® < Station EDMONDS ST z EDMONDS ST ST O OT�� W ;TSw H •_1 . �: • a 4r P > z BELL ST EMERALD c7 S J 207TH 207TH ST _.� 207TH N BELL ST ¢ HILLS ' Y PL SW 5W ST SW .n��!s}�»i� m x Water DR a N208 ST MAIN n ST OD ST MAIN ST * _ id i�/ T SW 2pc Z G wi EDM DS _ r ;y w m ELEM SCH �ir.y :i,,. , r,r�•: W w ❑ MAPLE WAY 'Y�=` r, [' 1 = 209TH a ❑ a MAPLE m ST N m m [ �rsr. �� F¢ J r+ 2 Pool m coPL SW F 3 0 O x w w W Water 0 YOST W �. W Q 3 ' ID ALDER a ST a ¢ Tank q PARK A ti x WALNUT x F ST F- OD 0 A4 Wsler Tonk x�n �7 ( ,--, ((E z t Fire m a rt Station 212TH .L ;' r 4NJ y'4'17 3 ® DR S�[y Q i Q z 3 s�C m CEDAR ST SPR WY eOW 3 DOr� 3 ¢` ❑ a rn Water m ((q a- A� -7 SPRUCE ST a x Tank 21 q�+ > SPRUCE a ST w > LAUREL Y 3 Z fl Wy (ID 0D 214TH PL SW 21 ¢ > 0% 3 MCA 'EM{WY HEMLOCK 214THLPL SW N d 8 W +� > = 215TH ST SW 21 JIM LN ST LAUREL AUREL WAS gr SW Q 215TH F 215TH a 3 Y 5- n Gate xM Io Y 21, � a 5T _ 3 rn S SW c 0 co 3 SW 216TH rn ST * 3 PINE ST 216THPLSW w W CHASE a y City ` Paris l m fn 3 > 5� 217THVTLAKE an d Go a c FORSYTH ` w •• W ¢ w S ¢ 217TH SW r� > x m 217TH 3 ELEM ST SW a SCH m LN W > ¢ a > SP j 218TH ST a FI ST a a > _ 3 2"i TH a < i N FIR PL a� n P, PL a }r�J a W y.�`0. Q ❑ LM x r SEA> 19T Q SW ¢ 3 Z 1 s " r p 3 ST ¢ n w w ~m SAS` tr' m m o m m m h a+ rn a P20TH ST SW ELM a W ST i E ° x r — — sub3 Stag a 2zaTH 1� S M PL DpIRR SC� 22%°�� S�0 xr PLSW F3 �a � 221ST p SLE Wy r 11 J � � a �S St w 222ND ST PLSW SW 3CFfA878r 3 < BIRCH ST -1 S x a to 3 3 3 223RDST > LAKE PA SW .40^�SF a W S 13 Tli WAY BIRCH ST a F]3TH 16TH ST SW < 224714 ST SW 3 v WY 14TH w Cy IPA 104 W Y Y of w a SW 3 F a W o+ CIO225cc 226TH ST SW 1�jH Sp SW rH PL T ❑ p SW z w s ?_48TH 31 a 226TIl rn a PLSW �, 3 a PL h��� SV4 Cemetery 226-rHFL $7T SVY x Pi it Z,�j T S� sa pSW co • 228TH PL SW w: �- 3 0. y \ x 2�FH s o SW 0— SHERWOOD �,..:..u., ^ �w ..... �.... ... _._..... „ m 729TH ELEMENTAR N Power Sub Station FL 5W cri�[7C�L n / October 19, 1981 MEMO TO: Harve H. Harrison Mayor FROM: Mary Lou Block Planning Director SUBJECT: STATUS OF APPRAISAL OF CITY PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 7TH AND ELM STREET AND 76TH AVENUE WEST, NORTH OF 244TH STREET S.W. On June 18, 1981 Charles Peterson submitted a proposal to appraise these two properties. A copy of that proposal is attached. The matter was briefly addressed at the June 23rd and June 30th Council meetings. On July 7, 1981 there was further discussion, which was continued to Executive Session. A copy of the minutes from the July 7th meeting is attached. There appears to have been no discussion on this item subsequent to the meeting in July. t2l MLB/mt attachments copy CHARLES V. PETERSONjD ASSOCIATES Real Estate Appraisers W Consultants a 4210 198th S. W. . O June 18, 1981 O Mayor Harve Harrison City of Edmonds a Civic Center co Edmonds, WA. 98036 = Re: Proposal to Appraise 20 Two unimproved, City- Owned, Surplus Sites y p Dear Mayor Harrison: Z In response to your request, I have obtained descriptive data from co o the Manager of the Planning Division and then inspected two parcels rn referred hereafter as #3 and #6. The purpose was to understand the appraisal problem and then to 0 make a proposal,(fee and timing). Further, time will only begin rn when and if I am authorized to proceed. V rn PARCEL #3: is unimproved, rectangular in shape,(80'x 105'), commer- cially zoned site. This parcel is located along the west side of Q 00 76th Ave. West, about 150 feet north of 244th Street S.W. PARCEL #6: is unimproved, rectangular in shape,(310'x 252') and zoned residential. This parcel is located along the north side of Elm St. between 7th and 8th Ave. South. The appraisal fee and delivery time will be a function of which type of written report is requested. Specifically, is a short form,"letter- report", one to three pages, merely identifying the property and con- cluding the market value is acceptable, then the fee/time will be: "LETTER REPORT" PARCEL # MAXIMUM FEE DELIVERY TIME #3 $500 #6 $900 Not to exceed: $1,400 10 days If "narrative reports",(15 pages, plus) are required, i.e. a report which describes the property and its environment, explains the apprai- sal reasoning, and supports with market evidence, then the following schedule is appropriate, as found on the following page. A± � A.A.C.I. — M.A.I. — ACCREDITED APPRAISERS, APPRAISAL MEMBER OF THE AMER!CAN INSTITUTE OF INSTITUTE OF CANADA REAL ESTATE APPRAISERS l Mayor Harve Harrison June 18, 1981 Page 2 of 2 PARCEL # #3 #6 Not to exceed: "NARRATIVE REPORT" MAXIMUM FEE $ 750 $1,200 $1,950 DELIVERY TIME 20 days The above fees are based upon a billing time of $60/hour with fees listed as maximum - not to exceed basis. Enclosed is our standard form appraisal agreement. If acceptable, then just "XX" out the report which is not applicable. Thank you for involving me . Sincerely, Charles V. Peterson, MAI, AACI Real Estate Appraiser CVP/llp Encl: Appraisal Agreement CHARLES V. PETERSON & ASSOCIATES JNIVERSITY PRINTIN4 -, . „ No. 55 1410 E. 62ND ST„ CHICAoo 60637 APrRAISAL/CONSULTATION AGREEMENT , i'IHTED 1977 UCHICAGO REAL ESTATE BOARD ALL RIrHTS RESERVED APPRAISER/CONSULTANT CLIENT Name and Title........ Company Andress .. , , .. . .... City, State, Zip ...... Telephone ............ CHARLES V. PETERSON, MAI MAYOR HARYE HARRISON PETERSON APPRAISAL CITY OF EDMONDS Ste. 202 4210 198th S.W. Civic Center Edmonds WA. 98020 206776-1108 206 775-2625 IDENTIFICATION OF ADDRESS/LOCATION ❑ESCH I PTION-LAND DESCRIPTION -IMPROVEMENTS PARCEL t�3 and PRRCEL #6 Unimproved.Cotmterciai zoned 80'x 105+tan west side of 76th Unimproved Unimproved Un m"oved.Res.zone x NQ2nN9fP&sA4F RvePlAtn Appraisal/Stud► Date Jul Y • 198I Legal Interest (e. g. Fee Title): AbsoI Cite Fee 5I cup I e Special Instructions and/or Limits of Assignment This contract is explained in transmittal letter _ as attached and dated June 18. 1981 Items to be supplied to Appraiser/Consultant: A Legal Description ❑ Spotted Survey ❑ Other as listed: ❑ 1 Real Estate Tax Bill (s) for 19 ❑ Operating (Income and Expense) Statements for last years. ❑ Plans and Specifications ❑ Project Cost Information. lIattar Ranart_ S1.400 TOTAL C 0 M .P E N 5 A T I O N Narrative Report: , COMPLETIOW TIME RETAINER BALANCEFLITIGATION FEE LATE CANCELLATION FEE CHARGE i dry' days S N/A Si 1111 S ° []per hour A I S ❑ per /s day 6Q . Qfl per day 1.5 % I per from Agreement or 3 s . ❑ Per day per hour month of trani- Date P,rlettor APPRAISER/CONSULTANTS NORMAL OPERATING AREA: SEATTLE/EVERETT No OF REPORT COPIES three FEE FOR ADDITIONAL REPORT COPIES per copy ADDITIONAL INSTRUCTIONS: Client to instruct Appraiser of Letter Report v.�s. Narrative Report. Appraiser will return sinned copy of agreemnt after client's acceptance & instructions as to which type of report to be done. Client hereby engages Appraiser/Consultant and Appraiser/Consultant hereby agrees to perform services and Client hereby agrees to furnish information and pay compensation in 'accordance with the foregoing and with the agreements and conditions set forth on the reverse side hereof, all of which are fully' and completely a part of this Agreement for Professional Appraisal/ Consulting Services. This Agreement and the Report shall be subject to the Appraisal/Consultants contingent and limit- ing conjitions which are attached hereto and Incorporated herein by specific reference if so checked in the following space [� Appraiser/ Consultant : i By. Client: By Title Title 'f �- t t ` 1 r�r � lei?�9 May 21, 1984 Jacquelin G. Parrett 44 Edmonds City Clerk P R P- 505 Bell Street Edmonds, Wa. 98020 Dear Ms. Parrett: With regards to the hearing on Parking Alternatives on Elm Strset we wish to let it be known we are in favor of continued parking on the street. We have four cars in our family with parking space for only two in the garage. If there was no parking on the street we would have a major problem as to where to put the other cars. All cars are needed for trans— portation to work as we all go in different directions at different times. There is room for widening the street and we are in favor of this alternative rather than taking the parking away. Sincerely t - Zelda H. Forgey 724 Elm Street Edtnondso Wa. 98020 �%r March 20, 1984 City Council Members, et al.: We are homeowners who live at 730 Elm Street in Edmonds. We have lived at this address for almost 7 years. In the past two or three years we have noticed a significant in- crease in the traffic on our narrow, residential street. We must back out onto Elm Street from our driveway to leave our home, and at times we feel that we are taking our lives in our hands to do so as the traffic is so heavy. Less than one block down our street (Elm) two condominium complexes are being built. There are 86 units which will probably increase the traffic using Elm Street by as many as 150 cars. These condo units, as we understand it, will not have more than one access road (Elm St.), even though there is a blacktop road leading up to and abutting the south side of the condominium property. This means all traffic from these units will be using Elm Street. Elm Street is not even a regular width street. It is much narrower than, for instance, Eighth Avenue and surely was not planned for this amount of traffic. We feel the City of Edmonds should keep the 60 ft. right-of-way between Sixth and Seventh Avenues on Elm Street. Further, that the street should be widened so that traffic can be more efficiently served to benefit all residents in the area. Sincerely, l Linnae McAnally James McAnally lm maw wy ai.e aVh-. Q J �LUY�'1 ,(,UhPlit- A�(- U rep - 1 V► CMOel7Ce O(,1,f2 AA � kilinnL la-eu� sfmzonL a+ UA0 f wh wt #A k)�& 1,&t hwe W11 "Z+� xo cvy . OVA kar 17unC an aoeua�iL a-6 lynito-rot ofto ,min ImaA tb 6&) a/10 9/,5/915- e2J) 7ao. s. 3JO4-2-� - i %2��ll h�Gt°t�1-cozy XlCCei; Cco1 �/f GEC%�2C¢� X0 �I�� .1/4-) G�u� Gr te�ry E�Z)�Ioo September 3, 1985 Carol Hayes 709 Elm Pl. W. Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds City Council Members 300 Bell St. Edmonds, WA 98020 Dear City Council Members: Thank you for planning to meet on site at 7th Ave. S. for your September 10, 1985 work session. I feel it is extremely clear that given the current width of 7th Ave. S. (22') street parking cannot be allowed and still insure the safety of motorists. The fact that there is not room for two lanes of traffic plus parked cars is comp- licated by a blind hill that adds another obstacle to the already dangerous situation. I feel that the solution to the problem is a wider road that would allow for two lanes of traffic and on street parking for the residents on 7th Ave. S. It is unfair to ask them to give up parking space for their guests. Each developer has the responsibilty to provide the necessary improvements to roads for his/her development. Thank you very much for your thoughtful consideration in this matter of safety. Sincerely, Carol Hayes September 4, 1985 To the Edmonds City Council: As a resident on 7th Ave. South between Elm & Birch streets, we want to once again tell you about our problem. Our street is now to narrow. Originally the street was only half a street at 20 ft. wide. The Edmonds planners let the developers, Homeland Homes, add only 2 ft. to the existing street leaving it very narrow. With the impact of up to 500 vehicles coming and going from this development every day on our narrow streets plus the regular traffic and the opening of 220th off of I-5, it really will be a problem. We want 7th Ave. South to be widened. Even and extra 10 ft. would be a blessing. Paint out the yellow center line except on the 7th & Birch hill. This will eliminate the arterial highway look. Do not restrict parking on 7th Ave. This is only a band -aid approach and will not solve the problem. Also not to mention property devaluations which could result in lawsuits. Your attention and consideration will be greatly appreciated. Sincerely, Ron & Dee Dudeck 1237 7th Ave. South July 10, 1985 To: Mayor Larry Naughton Edmonds City Council From: Ned & Evelyn Laurine ke: PARKING RESTRICTIONS ON 7th AVENUE We are sorry that we are unable to attend the hearing on July 16th. However, we are not sure that we would be able to accomplish anything if we did attend. Ever since Homeland Homes proposed their project across the street, we have attended every hearing and everything that we have talked about has fallen on "deaf ears". Homeland Homes had to provide places for guest parking in their project and then proposed to take the guest parking away from the residents on 7th Ave. by not widening the street and the city did not require that they do so. So first we asked that the other. half of our street be completed, but that didn't happen. Then when we saw that there was going to be a stupid sidewalk on the west side of the street, when we had an adequate one on the east side, we again attended a council meeting. Again nothing. Now we have a street with two wide concrete sidewalks on both sides!! After someone else protested that there were cars parked on 7th Ave., the city came the vernext day and painted a SOLID yellow line down the middle of the street. Does this mean that WE could protest that there was parking on someone elses street and the city would immediately go paint a solid yellow line down the middle? All the city has accomplished is to make 7th Ave. look like an arterial and increase the speed of the traffic. Removing or restricting the parking will make it appear more like an arterial. Our recommendations would be that the city paint out the yellow line, erect an impaired vision sign on the hill just before 7th Ave. veers down to Birch Street and leave 7th Ave. alone. There is not that much parking on the street except when we have guests and it does hold down the speeding. SireI ed�Eelyn aurine 1233 7th Ave. So. Edmonds, Washington 778-5050 Mav 15. A980 MEMO T0: Harve H. Harrison Mayor FROM: Fred F. Herzberg Director of Public Works SUBJECT: 7TH & ELM WATER DIVISION PROPERTY On a number of occasions, it has been suggested that the above subject property be sold since it is of no value to the Water Division and is not of a benefit to the citizens. The money from the sale of this property could be utilized to purchase another parcel of land to be used as a Public Works' storage area, space which we are in dire need of at this time. Another short or long-term alternative would be to develop this land into a "pea patch" for the benefit of the citizens. If you decide upon this alternative, we would appreciate your concurrence as soon as possible as the "plant- ing season" is here. ,-7 FFH/ j f e---ro � c. T 0 T 1-4 E E D M 0 N C I T'-,' C Cl U N C I L : J.-Jr-- THE L11-Ilf-JU Jf-J THE NEICZARORACiCiri ROUNDING THE CIT'-i' PF;'QPEF;-'T'-c' COMMOHL'c K-NOWN AS -.:*'TH ELM, P,F:T-I"'rf"IN THE C.I'T''-!" C- C-1 11 N C 11 Iwo F F n m f"i N n!=,, T n P, r- T A 'r 1-4 THE AF,10 UEMENT I ONED F,P!IDFIEF;., TY I N THE CIESICHATED 'CIFIEW ZCINIWC� C:LA'---;SIF-II2ATlCjN AND REMCIL.Ir. F:-PQM THE ISLIP., PL LIS LANDI LIST. N A t-1 E 1- 1% A DEIRE S S PHONE NO OF''T . . . . . . . . . Au"e. . . 1.13 ------- ? ...... Jo ............ 1...... {�i..1�'Y; ........... V Ll - .3 ) 1 .7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 12- 13-- ..... . ........................... ......... I 15. ... .... ........ ...... 16 4 /1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -7 -- . . . . . 7,,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ta? �-4 0 1 ............/ .. ,-. ........ 1 ...... �. '. �� /� z � ......... ..-S.. ....... . .................. ................ ................. . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . 22. 23 ................................................. ...... 24 ............................................. ......... ....................................................... T CD T H E: E D PI C—I N [I!=-; C: I T 'V C: 0 U N C: I L : WE THE LINDERS. I C�NED.. L I IJ I NC I k.-I T H E ME I C H G: Ci F? H 0 Ci ri S; L-1 R — R0IJN01k-4j:; THE CIT'V PRI—..JF'El:;:-r'-e' COMMONL.'e' V*:NOWN H ".TTH r..jk-JCI ELM, Ci 0 IA E R E E:'-,-' P E I T I Ci N T 1-4 E C: I C: 0 Ll N CI L. C, F E C, N 0 )--1 Cl; T Cl F., E T 0 1 N T H E A 2 Ci 11 E M E P-4 T I Ci FA E* M P ReD P E f-;T'-i-' I N T H 1-1-. ri ES I C FA A T E D 0 F:, 17.- N !; P A C: E — Q t -41NC U R, P I-- U G; I— If4 I -A Q L- I G; 0 P **r* ) 7 7& 7 ........... .............. �30. .54 ......... a'7 /0. it ..... 77r ........ -166 cz -7 -7 vo� - ........... .. ,4,-e - ./ ;;;�- ..... .......7 ............. .............. . ........... .......... .......... �.:� .. c .. /1.31� ..� f fie.. -.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... -7 -7 .......... 1 1 5 . . -7 ,6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 '7 6 ........... 3.6 . ...... ............. 17 ........... ....... ................ 7 7!g. 217:3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....1. , , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 ....................................................... 21-f ............................... ........................