05/29/1990 City Council13�❑❑❑«❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑0"❑❑U❑n❑n❑q❑r❑r❑NORMAL.STY❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page ❑ MAY 29, 1990
THESE MINUTES SUBJECT TO
JUNE 5, 1990 APPROVAL
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
May 29, 1990
The regular City Council meeting was called to order by Mayor Naughten at
7:00 p.m. following a special dinner meeting at Marchello's Restaurant,
101 Main St., Edmonds, at 5:30 p.m. All present joined in the flag
salute.
PRESENT ABSENT
Larry Naughten, Mayor Steve Dwyer,
Mgr.
John Nordquist, Council President
Comm. Svc. Director
Roger Hertrich, Councilmember
Chief
Jo -Anne Jaech, Councilmember
Official
William Kasper, Councilmember
Works Supt.
Jeff Palmer, Councilmember
Rec. Mgr.
Jack Wilson, Councilmember
Brian Mason, Student Representative
Richards, Recorder
STAFF
Mary Lou Block, Planning Div.
Councilmember Peter Hahn,
Dan Prinz, Police
Dick Mumma, Building
Bobby Mills, Public
Arvilla Ohlde, Parks &
Jackie Parrett, City Clerk
Margaret
The purpose of the special dinner meeting was to meet with a
representative of the Snohomish Health District to discuss Health
District concerns.
Councilmember Nordquist arrived at the regular meeting a few minutes late
and did not vote on the Consent Agenda.
CONSENT AGENDA
Items (D), (E), and (F) were removed from the Consent Agenda.
COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER HERTRICH, TO
APPROVE THE BALANCE OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED. The approved
items on the Consent Agenda include the following:
(A) ROLL CALL
(B) APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF MAY 22, 1990
(C) AUTHORIZATION TO CALL FOR BIDS FOR VEHICLE EXHAUST REMOVAL
SYSTEM FOR FIRE STATIONS 1
and 2 ($10,000) (1610)(3911)
(G) ADOPTED ORDINANCE 2775 IMPLEMENTING RECYCLING PROGRAM
PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE TO
ESTABLISH LANDSCAPE STANDARDS FOR ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD 3ITEM (D) ON
THE CONSENT AGENDAa(5880)
COUNCILMEMBER PALMER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER KASPER, TO APPROVE
THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE. COUNCILMEMBER HERTRICH MOVED TO INCORPORATE AN
AMENDMENT IN THE MAIN MOTION, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JAECH, TO INCLUDE
A "WHEREAS" SECTION IN THE ORDINANCE TO DEFINE THE PURPOSE OF 20.12.030-
(PAGE 3)-GENERAL DESIGN STANDARDS- AS ENHANCING BUILDING DESIGNS,
SOFTENING THE VISUAL IMPACT OF STRUCTURES, AND ENHANCING VIEWS AND
VISTAS. MOTION CARRIED WITH COUNCILMEMBER KASPER OPPOSED.
Councilmember Hertrich referred to 20.12.020(P) and recommended that the
height limit of trees be consistent with the height limit of buildings.
Councilmember Jaech inquired if the intent of Councilmember Hertrich's
recommendation included restricting a tree to the 25 foot building height
maximum in an area that is not view sensitive. Councilmember Hertrich
pointed out that the Architectural Design Board (ADB) has the ability to
interpret and modify the requirements of the proposed ordinance, provided
that such modification is consistent with the purposes of chapter
20.10.000. Planning Division Manager Mary Lou Block said there is a
legitimate reason to allow trees to grow higher than the building height
maximum in areas that are not view oriented. She believed the scale of
trees should be determined by the ADB because they are an aesthetic
element of development that cannot be predetermined. Councilmember
Hertrich thought a blanket restriction on tree heights should be applied
throughout the City with the ability to deviate from that height on a
case -by -case basis when it is appropriate. Councilmember Jaech and
Councilmember Palmer disagreed. Councilmember Palmer said nothing would
be gained by imposing a blanket restriction except a lot of Staff time
spent in an inefficient manner. Councilmember Hertrich noted that the
height limit of a tree can be predetermined by the species of tree that
is selected. Councilmember Palmer foresaw a problem arising if the
height restriction recommended by Councilmember Hertrich were imposed and
a tree was selected that was expected to grow to a certain height but it
exceeded its growth pattern.
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page ❑ MAY 29, 1990
Having voted on the prevailing side, COUNCILMEMBER HERTRICH MOVED,
SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON, TO RECONSIDER ITEM (D). MOTION
CARRIED. (The Council wanted to discuss the matter further following the
regular agenda if time permitted.)
AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE 1990 CHEVROLET LUMINA FOUR -DOOR SEDAN FROM
SEAVIEW CHEVROLET ($15,091.81, INCLUDING SALES TAX) 3ITEM (E) ON THE
CONSENT AGENDAa(1450)
Councilmember Kasper inquired about the options that are included on the
vehicle. Police Chief Dan Prinz replied a V-6 engine, automatic
transmission, power steering, tilt steering wheel, 60/40 power split
seat, AM/FM radio, and air conditioning.
COUNCILMEMBER KASPER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON, TO APPROVE
ITEM (E), EMPHASIZING HIS RECOMMENDATION THAT THE VEHICLE BE ROTATED
WITHIN THE DEPARTMENTS. MOTION CARRIED.
AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN PERSONAL SERVICES CONTRACT WITH HARRY
WHITCUTT FOR PLAN CHECK SERVICES 3ITEM (F) ON THE CONSENT AGENDAa(2710)
Councilmember Jaech noted that recently hired Building Official Dick
Mumma will be conducting a percentage of the plan check services that
were contracted for by outside agencies. She suggested that the contract
be reviewed within six months by the Council.
COUNCILMEMBER JAECH MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER KASPER, THAT THE
CONTRACT TERM BE SIX MONTHS WITH A POTENTIAL FOR A SIX-MONTH EXTENSION
WITH THE STIPULATION THAT IT IS SUBMITTED TO THE COUNCIL FOR DISCUSSION.
MOTION CARRIED.
AUDIENCE
Mayor Naughten opened the audience portion of the meeting.
Natalie Shippen, 1022 Euclid, said the Growth Management Act specifies
that the Comprehensive Plan must provide for low-income housing. She
inquired why housing for low-income elderly was not included in the City
code. Councilmember Kasper said that section was removed from the recom-
mendations because there were amendments that he wanted to make. Ms.
Shippen noted that the provision for low-income housing expires in twenty
years unless it is updated. She was concerned that low-income elderly
people will be unable to afford housing in the future because developers
may target their rentals to middle and upper income elderly people. She
said that scenario could arise if the Code only calls for housing for the
elderly and does not specify housing for low-income elderly.
Councilmember Palmer said Ms. Shippen's concern was a legitimate concern
that should be resolved. He requested Councilmember Kasper to submit his
amendments to the Council before the end of June. Councilmember Kasper
said they will be available to the Council on June 26, 1990. (2155)(3460)
Ms. Shippen noted that the Growth Management Act also requires all plans
to be coordinated and consistent, especially among contiguous entities.
She inquired if Kitsap County is considered a contiguous entity. Ms.
Shippen noted that growth on the Kitsap Peninsula has never been a
consideration in discussions regarding the ferry, and she felt that
growth on the Peninsula as it relates to Snohomish County should be
included in long-range planning.
Ms. Shippen suggested that the Council review the transportation section
of the Comprehensive Plan because she said it is "very skimpy" in terms
of any discussion regarding the ferry. (3850)(2155)
Mayor Naughten closed the audience portion of the meeting.
REPORT ON UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON WATERFRONT STUDY BY PROFESSOR
KASPRISIN AND STUDENTS(7530)
Planning Division Manager Mary Lou Block introduced Ron Kasprisin,
Professor of Urban Planning at the University of Washington, as well as
his students.
Professor Kasprisin, representing twenty-five first year graduate
students in Urban Design and Planning Studio 507, thanked the Council for
their cooperation in assessing and critiquing during the course of the
students' study. He noted that the Council will receive a bound report
in two weeks summarizing the background work and recommendations.
Professor Kasprisin said he was hopeful that the presentation provides
the Council with a starting point for additional discussion amongst
themselves and the public in reaching a resolution towards the waterfront
issues.
Kevin MacDonald said the students' planning education has been done in
the classroom and outside of the classroom on occasion. He said they
have studied waterfront issues in southeast Alaska, Oregon, Vancouver,
B.C., and in several central Puget Sound cities to provide them with some
context of what a waterfront is and how it connects with the cities.
Mr. MacDonald said the students have been studying the Edmonds waterfront
for the past five months and have conducted research in the areas of
transportation, the physical environment, land use, urban design, and the
social/political context. From that data, he said the following options
were formulated:
(1) Enhanced Existing Conditions - the ferry terminal is located
at its present site
but safety concerns are
pedestrian and vehicular traffic
patterns.
(2) Increasing Accessibility
consolidation of transportation -
related barriers on the
redevelopment of some of
addressed through redesign of
of the Waterfront - involves
waterfront, safety concerns, and
the waterfront properties.
(3) Centralizing Transportation - relocation of the ferry
terminal somewhere along the
central waterfront linked with other modes of transportation.
(4) Ferry Moves to Unocal - involves the open space, pedestrian
and commercial oppor-
tunities of the vacated ferry infrastructure.
(5) Design and Development - provides ideas for intensifying
waterfront development with an
environmentally sensitive and pedestrian approach.
(The presentations were conducted with the use of conceptual
illustrations.)
Steve Sindiong reviewed option #1, which encompassed a long-range plan to
divert ferry traffic to SR-104 and down to Pine Street; construction of
overhead pedestrian walkways from the waterfront to the downtown area;
widening the sidewalks and providing streetscape designs; constructing an
esplanade going out to the waterfront; providing more holding lanes, if
necessary, where Skippers is currently located; providing an overhead
pedestrian linkage to what is envisioned as a mixed use retail site where
Safeway currently exists with 50,000 square feet of retail and 100,000
square feet of residential that would be connected to the overhead
pedestrian link to the esplanade; constructing a walkway along the length
of the waterfront connecting to the transit hub to the north. He
reviewed a short-range plan to construct a park south of the ferry dock
connecting it to a transit hub north of Main Street to link pedestrian
traffic from the downtown area to the waterfront. Mr. Sindiong also
reviewed a second option whereby the transit hub could be located to the
south of Main Street to encourage transit use; through traffic would
travel on the left side of the road and ferry traffic would travel on the
right side of the road; and an additional holding lane would be
constructed with a capacity for 105 vehicles.
Sanford Beppu said the first action required in short-range planning
would be to relocate the ferry holding lanes to the west side of SR-104,
followed by construction of the ferry terminal and transit mall. Mr.
Beppu recommended that the Safeway site be acquired and redeveloped to a
mixed use, predominantly for housing for the elderly.
With respect to medium -range planning, Mr. Beppu recommended: 1) that
the State adopt a policy to acquire suitable sites for satellite parking;
2) new holding areas are constructed; 3) park development at the Anderson
Marina site; and 4) construct an esplanade.
With respect to long-range planning, Mr. Beppu recommended widening the
sidewalk located on the east side of SR-104 between Main Street and James
Street to complement any retail development that would occur in that
area.
Councilmember Jaech inquired if option #1 would impact Brackett's Landing
or the underwater park. Mr. Sindiong replied negatively. Councilmember
Jaech inquired if the ferry dock is proposed to be widened. Mr. Sindiong
replied negatively. Councilmember Jaech inquired about the ferry holding
lanes. Mr. Sindiong explained that the right lane would be designated
for through traffic and ferry traffic would be diverted to the left lane.
He said additional ferry holding lanes for 215 cars would allow the
sidewalk to be widened on the east side of SR104.
Councilmember Hertrich inquired how the potential danger at the railroad
crossing is proposed to be mitigated. Mr. Sindiong said traffic would
still cross over the tracks, but some of the traffic congestion at the
intersection of Main Street and SR-104 would be reduced by relocating the
ferry lane to the west lane on SR-104.
Councilmember Wilson inquired if the study took into consideration an
increase in ferry traffic in the future. Mr. Sindiong replied
affirmatively. He explained that the additional holding lanes were
proposed to address that problem.
Todd Jacobs reviewed option #2, which involved retention of the ferry
dock where it currently exists. He said the Unocal site was considered
as a possible location for the dock, but a concern was expressed that
Marina Beach would be impacted and, in addition, Edmonds' merchants
seemed to prefer the dock in its current location.
Mr. Jacobs said because the students perceived the railroad tracks and
holding lanes as barriers to pedestrian traffic moving to the waterfront
from the downtown area and from downtown to the Safeway site, they
proposed the following: 1) relocate the ferry holding lanes so they are
adjacent to the railroad tracks; 2) redevelop the existing holding lanes
to a mixed use with retail business on the ground level and housing on
the second level; 3) increase pedestrian and automobile safety by a)
separating ferry traffic and local traffic, b) prohibiting traffic on
Railroad Avenue and allowing transit only; c) unite the different zones
in the City to an integral whole by relocating the holding lanes,
reclaiming one of the holding lanes as a pedestrian area, introducing a
park node near the waterfront, and constructing an overhead pedestrian
crosswalk.
David Loutzenheizer said it will be necessary to provide signage to
direct ferry traffic and to improve the intersection by the ferry
terminal. He recommended: 1) create an entrance to Harbor Square to
alleviate conflicts with ferry traffic; 2) construct a transit hub near
the ferry terminal to facilitate pedestrian access to the ferry lanes and
downtown area; 3) construct a pedestrian overpass to provide access to
the waterfront park; 4) redevelop the areas where the ferry lanes,
Safeway, and Skippers exist to a mixed use and pedestrian -oriented area;
5) retain the holding lanes near the railroad tracks, which requires
closing SR-104 and rerouting traffic through the Unocal site and onto the
east side of the railroad tracks.
Mr. Jacobs reviewed a second option whereby ferry traffic would access
the terminal in a similar fashion as described by Mr. Loutzenheizer but
the Amtrack station would be relocated to the existing boat storage area,
which would be displaced near the Unocal site, and the former Amtrack
site would be utilized as a holding lane for four hundred and fifty
vehicles.
Councilmember Hertrich inquired if any of the proposals recommend
overhead loading onto the ferry. Mr. Loutzenheizer replied negatively.
Councilmember Hertrich inquired why the transit hub is proposed to be
located north of Main Street and just south of Skippers. Mr. Jacobs said
it was proposed in that location so that it is in close proximity to
where a considerable amount of activity takes place at Brackett's
Landing.
Allan Johnson reviewed option #3, which encompassed: 1) an attempt to
soften the impacts of the forecasted increase in ferry traffic; 2)
improving access from the Central Business District (CBD) to the
waterfront through the elimination of SR-104 as a barrier; 3) improving
safety at the intersection of Main Street and Railroad Avenue and from
Main Street to Sunset by separating ferry and local traffic; 4)
protecting and improving open space and providing additional open space
where possible; 5) supporting and improving the vitality of Main Street
businesses and the Senior Center; 6) centralizing transportation
facilities.
Mr. Johnson said the Safeway site was selected as the location for the
centralized transportation facilities because it encompasses an area
approximately 125,00 square feet, which is necessary to accommodate such
a facility, and because it will have the least impact to the surrounding
area. He said the Safeway store and Senior Center would be relocated on
Main Street close to where the dock currently exists. Mr. Johnson said
the vitality of Main Street and the Senior Center will be enhanced when
they are relocated because a community focal point will be created at the
site of the existing dock. He noted that the dock will be utilized as a
public pier, and a new park and a new pedestrian walkway will be created
along the waterfront. He said relocation of the Anderson Marina to the
Safeway site will create a unique entry point to the waterfront district.
Mr. Johnson said the new retail area at the base of Main Street will help
support the CBD and will create a continuous pedestrian path to the
waterfront.
Mr. Johnson noted that the rerouted ferry traffic will interact with
local traffic on SR-104 south of the Dayton Street intersection, which
would become a five point intersection. Ferry traffic would not flow
with local traffic at that point because it would be routed onto Railroad
Avenue. Safety would be increased by developing a series of gateways
(similar to the gates that are used at railroad crossings) that would
descend on ferry traffic while local traffic is flowing and would open
for ferry traffic to load onto or off of the ferry, thereby closing
Railroad Avenue to through local traffic. All four gates would close
when a train passed by the intersection.
Mr. Johnson said the primary environmental impacts associated with the
proposed redevelopment are the creation of a new air, noise, and water
pollution corridor; surface intrusion created by the new dock;
disturbance of landscape through necessary landscaping and grading; point
pollution sources at the revised intersections; and decreased views along
the central waterfront area. Conversely, he said the proposal will
provide increased safety; provide the community with an opportunity to
reclaim its place on the waterfront; and will provide space for
additional holding capacity to accommodate increased traffic.
In response to a question by Councilmember Wilson regarding above grade
loading, Mr. Johnson said a 600 foot dock would be necessary to cross the
railroad tracks above grade, which would create an extensive intrusion
onto the waterfront, as well as a sizable expenditure.
Councilmember Hertrich expressed concern that the proposal to establish a
five -point intersection at Dayton Street would be difficult to control
and would create a financial hardship for merchants in Harbor Square
because the plaza would be harder to access. Mr. Johnson assured
Councilmember Hertrich that the same amount of ferry traffic that exists
at the present time would flow through that intersection.
Councilmember Jaech inquired if multilevel parking was considered near
the waterfront. Mr. Johnson said multilevel parking could be constructed
near the Anderson Marina site, but he noted that would involve an
additional expense.
Councilmember Hertrich noted that funding may be available from the
Department of Transportation (DOT) to construct a multilevel parking
area. Mr. Johnson stated that the proposal assigns most of the
responsibility on the State for taking lead on redevelopment and
providing the funding but it would be supplemented with City funds in
areas where the City would gain a benefit, i.e, the new park.
Deb Barker reviewed option #4, which proposed to relocate the ferry
terminal to the Unocal site.
Ms. Barker said ferry -only traffic is proposed to travel along SR-104 out
to Pine Street where there will be a heavily signaled intersection.
Vehicles will then turn left at the intersection and traverse the base of
the Unocal hill and cross either at grade or above grade to a new ferry
dock with two slips and holding lanes on the dock. It is proposed that
pedestrian traffic, transit traffic and local traffic access the ferry
terminal via Admiral Way.
Ms. Barker said a transit hub and park n' ride lot is proposed on Admiral
Way, as well as a multilevel parking area just to the north of the new
ferry dock for commuter parking. Short-term parking is proposed to be
retained at Marina Beach.
Ms. Barker said SR-104 could be reduced in width to a two-lane roadway
because ferry traffic would be diverted to another location. A transit
hub at Sunset Avenue is proposed, and the CBD would extend all the way to
the waterfront along the Main Street pier.
Ms. Barker reviewed a second option to access the ferry terminal at an
above -grade crossing along the Unocal hill over the railroad tracks. She
noted that DOT specifications maintain a 23-1/2 foot clearance above the
highest rail, but she proposed a 25 foot clearance at a 5% grade out to
the water and onto the holding lanes.
Ms. Barker noted that both of the above -mentioned options are heavily
landscaped to protect the view corridors.
Tom Barrett stated that asphalt that once existed on the Unocal site in
1971 is a known source of contamination, and there are also other sources
or toxicity in the soils throughout the chamber areas.
Mr. Barrett said rerouting the ferry traffic will impact the marsh, but
the noise of traffic flowing across the marsh could be mitigated with a
berm. He noted that the lowest point of the road should be no closer
than 300 feet from the marsh and a green buffer should be provided along
the perimeter of the marsh.
Ms. Barker said the at -grade crossing along the Unocal hillside is
proposed to be configured in a curvaceous manner to slow traffic and to
mitigate noise pollution and air pollution.
Ms. Barker reviewed renderings which depicted several buildings in the
area that are currently occupied by Skipper's and the holding lanes with
a transit hub, an open space area for the community, and another
building. She also proposed another open space area for the community
that she personally named "Shingle Mill Point" just north of the Senior
Center that would provide an opportunity to discover some of Edmonds'
history with pictures of shingle mills that used to exist along the
waterfront. She said the waterfront points and parks would serve to
connect the open space areas, Brackett's Landing, the Main Street pier,
Shingle Mill Point and Olympic Park.
Councilmember Palmer inquired if a parking area could be provided on the
Unocal site rather than on the Port property to avoid intrusion on the
marshlands. Ms. Barker said the concept behind providing parking on Port
property was to reduce the number of cars and people that traverse the
railroad tracks.
Councilmember Jaech said the City may be able to obtain federal funding
to construct a large intermodal complex. She inquired if the transit hub
could be incorporated with the intermodal complex. Ms. Barker felt it
was important to construct the transit mall in the CBD to provide a link
to the south ferry dock with transit.
Kit Perkins reviewed option #5 which involved a number of design ideas
and guidelines, most of which could be applied to any of the options that
were presented to the Council.
Ms. Perkins said option #5: 1) establishes pedestrian connections between
park nodes, the downtown area and the waterfront; 2) recognizes and
integrates a ferry presence as a dominant element in the Comprehensive
Plan; 3) establishes environmental sensitivity and performance as an
integral base for design and development standards; 4) considers safety
issues in all design and development standards; 5) softens edges along
the waterfront and creates better transitions between uses on the
waterfront; 6) creates and maintains view corridors throughout the CBD
and waterfront.
Ms. Perkins reviewed a conceptual design for a pedestrian corridor
starting at Brackett's Landing and going along the waterfront to Marina
Park, noting that the greenbelt would be more of a landscaped -type path.
Pedestrian crossings, a transit hub, and park nodes where the Anderson
Marina currently exists would be established. Ms. Perkins also reviewed
conceptual designs illustrating possible ways to implement the options
that were presented to the Council, which included: a plaza to intensify
retail uses utilizing both existing and new buildings; CBD connec-
tion/pedestrian link crossing SR-104 with an overhead walkway to the
Safeway site and out to a pier between the ferry terminal and Olympic
Beach Park; proposed walkway along the waterfront; crosswalks between
Harbor Square and the Safeway site; pedestrian crossing over SR-104 to
connect the waterfront area by the marsh to the City park; soften the
waterfront by creating a more welcoming atmosphere with the use of
landscaping, bollards, etc,. and a pedestrian accessible design.
Val Kirsis discussed possible options for redevelopment of the Unocal
site. He noted that the nonprofit organization, Quest Northwest, has
advocated general design and development of a community learning
center/environmental interpretive center on the southern portion of the
marsh with boardwalks along the periphery of the marsh. Quest
Northwest's vision, he said, emphasizes significant environmental
alterations of the marsh in terms of rechanneling old streams and estab-
lishing new streams while not penetrating much of the marsh with human
use.
Mr. Kirsis discussed another concept for that area which involved the
same looped trail but with the addition of viewing platforms and
interpretive stations located within the marsh itself and crossing the
marsh in various locations, and small boardwalks scattered throughout
the marsh intended for low -intensity use with many small isolated viewing
platforms and secluded seating areas.
Mr. Kirsis said the following conceptual designs for housing on the
Unocal site are proposed: 1) townhouses/condominiums; 2) one to three -
acre estate sites; 3) a suburban housing tract; and 4) clustered housing
units. Mr. Kirsis said the clustered housing approach is particularly
suited for steep sites with fairly long access from parking lots. It
allows for a great concentration of people to inhabit an environmentally
sensitive area with a great amount of view space. He said a number of
scattered public open park nodes could be provided that are connected
with the network. The existing road, he said, would be reconfigured.
Mr. Kirsis stated that the suburban housing approach also reconfigures
the road and creates residential plots that isolate the internal hilltop
for development as a residential park. He noted that the general public
would be welcome to use the park but access would be fairly restricted
because of its general location and configuration.
Mr. Kirsis said the one- to three -acre estate concept establishes fairly
large residences on the flatter portion of the site. It allows the same
amount of development as the clustered housing approach but consolidates
much more of the open space into a single area, allowing a combination
for both residential use and general public space.
Mr. Kirsis emphasized that all three concepts steer away from development
of the upper portion of the Unocal site.
Mr. Kirsis said the townhouse/condominium concept establishes smaller
units of privately owned, upper scale housing that is scattered
throughout the site.
Mr. Kirsis stated that the events necessary to implement any of the
options involve redesigning the intersection, rehabilitation of the
Safeway complex, relocating traffic access to SR-104 via Dayton Street,
increasing the landscape buffer to the adjacent marsh and daylighting
Shellabarger Creek, constructing a pedestrian overpass that connects the
marsh and Unocal site (if it is developed) with the City park,
development of a transit station, relocation of the holding lanes,
establishment of physical and visual corridors, intensification and
redesign of the marina, development of a grass landscape, development of
a long-term boat storage area, redevelopment of the Unocal site to a PRD
with open spaces (as discussed).
Councilmember Hertrich inquired if commercial use was considered on the
Unocal site. Ms. Perkins replied negatively. Mr. Kirsis said the Unocal
site is one of the most visual sites in the City. He questioned if a
commercial use at that location was something that the citizens of
Edmonds envisioned.
Councilmember Hertrich complimented the students for making an excellent
presentation to the Council. He noted that the idea of "Shingle Mill
Point" was innovative and was overlooked in the planning for Edmonds
Centennial.
REVIEW OF PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION ON PREDESIGN BY ATELIER, P.S., OF
BRACKETT'S LANDING UPLAND DEVELOPMENT PROJECT(1750)
Parks & Recreation Manager Arvilla Ohlde reported that on June 30, 1987,
the City Council approved the enhanced Brackett's Landing project with
the modification that the project is phased in.
Ms. Ohlde said in October 1989, Phase I was completed, which included
removal of the existing jetty, construction of a new jetty, tide pools,
beach enhancement and a jetty pathway with seating areas.
Ms. Ohlde said the Brackett's Landing project was awarded Interagency
Committee for Outdoor Recreation funding through the Land and Water
Conservation Act and reimbursed the City 90o of the grant award ($81,000)
with authorization to award the final 10% ($9,000) upon completion of the
interpretive center.
Ms. Ohlde noted that the 1990 budget ($140,000 from Fund 125) and CIP
called for completion of the next phase of upland improvements, which
included final designs, an interpretive shelter, walkways, parking
improvements, landscaping and reconstruction of the bulkhead.
On March 27, 1990, Ms. Ohlde said the City Council approved the contract
with Atelier, P.S. to prepare the predesign for the upland improvements
phase. Atelier held three public meetings, reviewed the Brackett's
Landing Foundation recommendations, met with the foundation, divers, the
City Council, Planning board, Beach Rangers, and Ground Maintenance.
Atelier submitted three long-range options to the Planning Board on May
9, 1990 and the costs (alternate #1 - new structure - $648,100; alternate
#2 - remodel existing structure - $485,300; alternate #3 - new structure
and retain existing restroom - $438,700). All three options include new
parking lot entry, parking improvements, bulkhead renovation and walkway
widening, interpretive signs and bulletin boards along the boardwalk,
reconfiguration of the turnaround area, a barrier wall on the railroad
tracks, natural landscaping, video equipment, showers, and shelter
structure changes.
Ms. Ohlde said the Planning Board reviewed the alternatives and
recommended that revisions be presented to them on May 23, 1990. Atelier
presented alternative #4, which diminished the building size, positioned
the structure closer to the east property line, eliminated mechanical
equipment and Beach Ranger storage, and reflected a bare minimum cost of
$233,300 plus cost option additions of entrance and turnaround
improvements to add safety features to the park. Long-range cost
estimates for alternative #4 were presented in the amount of $456,100.
Ms. Ohlde said the Planning Board recommended that the City Council
approve alternative #4 as a long-range master plan for the upland
improvements for Brackett's Landing and approve the budget proposals for
construction of the project in phases.
Janice Snoey, Atelier, P.S., noted that the design process was a lengthy
process that included a lot of input from the public and Planning
Department. She said the five main objectives that were identified were:
1) provide interpretive opportunities for marine and shoreline environ-
ments; 2) enhance the marine and shoreline environments; 3) create a more
usable park; 4) enhance pedestrian and vehicular circulation in the park;
and 5) encourage use of the north end of the park.
Ms. Snoey said the parking area is very congested because the turnaround
area looks like a dead-end and the building limits the use of the north
end of the park. She said vehicular circulation can be relieved by
enlarging the parking lot turnaround to 60 feet in diameter and removing
the planting area in the middle. She said a drop-off area near the
existing restroom at the end of the turnaround is proposed as a
convenience to divers and interpretive facility users.
Even though perpendicular parking is more efficient, Ms. Snoey said
diagonal parking is preferred because divers typically use larger
vehicles and unload their equipment from the back of their vehicles. She
noted that the parking lot is in need of resurfacing and can be restriped
for perpendicular parking if diagonal parking proves to be
unsatisfactory.
Ms. Snoey said it is proposed to extend the sidewalk into the parking
area to improve pedestrian access into the park. Although the existing
bulkhead is 10 feet in width, she said its space is somewhat restricted
by the overhand of parked cars and pedestrians. To improve the usable
area of the bulkhead, she said the existing parking lot can be reduced in
width by 7 feet to provide more room on the bulkhead. An intermediate
step off of the bulkhead can be provided for people to sit and for divers
to place their equipment.
Ms. Snoey reviewed option #3, which incorporates the public desires for
an interpretive facility with a covered space to protect them from the
elements, a wet table to bring specimens into the area, audio-visual
equipment, storage for Beach Ranger equipment, and interpretive displays.
She noted that option #3 preserves the existing restroom. Ms. Snoey said
a new structure could be added to the existing building but modifications
to integrate the two structures would be desirable to create a more
architecturally appealing appearance. Ms. Snoey said translucent roofing
is proposed for the structure to improve lighting in the restroom because
it is dark inside.
Ms. Snoey said interpretive and diver information signs are proposed to
be located at the waterfront in a fairly low position where people could
look down at the signs and look out over the Sound at the same time.
Ms. Snoey said option #2 maintains the existing restroom and provides a
second story on top, as well as an interpretive facility tied in with the
existing building. She noted, however, that the second story was not
desired by the public.
Ms. Snoey reviewed option #1 to construct a new building that follows the
curve of the existing jetty and maintains a view of the Sound. People
would be able to pass through the interpretive facility to the restroom,
changing room, and showers. Ms. Snoey said people generally like the
idea of removing the existing restroom but they did not like the size of
the proposed structure and the ancillary items because they detract from
the most important resource --the beach.
Ms. Snoey said the Planning Board recommended that the structure be
located closer to the eastern property line near the railroad tracks.
She noted that the title indicates that the fence is the property line,
but she said an accurate survey should be conducted to determine where
the actual property line is. Alternative #4 accomplishes the directive
of the Planning board and maintains the beach area and enhances the use
of the park. She said there is a storage area within the interpretive
facility that can be locked, and a vegetative garden is proposed next to
the structure on the north elevation.
Councilmember Wilson inquired about the size of the shelter. Ms. Snoey
said it is proposed to be 1,125 square feet, and the storage area is
proposed to be 267 square feet. Councilmember Wilson inquired if Ms.
Snoey believed that people will utilize the north beach more extensively
if the facilities are located closer to the eastern property line. Ms.
Snoey replied affirmatively. She explained that the building will front
onto the beach, and people will walk towards the building and see the
beach rather than the building face.
Councilmember Hertrich noted that the amount of money required to
implement any of the options deviates extremely from the budgeted amount.
Councilmember Hertrich recalled that the existing restroom was recently
remodeled and funded partially with grant monies. He inquired if the
City would be required to pay back the grant monies if the structure is
relocated. Ms. Ohlde said that was a possibility. She noted that the
greatest amount that would be reimbursed would be $9,000 but it could be
less because ramping and the asphalt would not be changed.
Councilmember Hertrich said he envisioned emergency access to the north
parallel to the railroad tracks. Mayor Naughten questioned the necessity
for emergency access. Councilmember Hertrich envisioned a second jetty
in the future, and he wanted emergency vehicles to have the ability to
access the north side of the beach. Ms. Snoey said there will be
approximately 15 feet in front of the building that would be accessible
by maintenance and emergency vehicles. Councilmember Hertrich pointed
out that access is restricted because there are several obstructions in
that area. Ms. Snoey recommended that emergency access be further
reviewed if option #4 was implemented. She noted, however, that the site
is a marine sanctuary and there is a great deal of concern to develop not
too far north because it would diminish that resource.
As a procedural matter, Mayor Naughten adjourned the meeting at 10 p.m.
COUNCILMEMBER PALMER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON, TO EXTEND
THE MEETING FOR THIRTY MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Hertrich inquired why option #3 is more costly than option
#4. Ms. Snoey said option #3 includes site development costs. She
explained that the bare minimum cost to improve the existing building and
make necessary site improvements is $180,000. She said a cost savings
of approximately $75,000 can be realized by retention of the existing
restroom. Councilmember Hertrich thought it would be an unwise use of
funds to spend $75,000 to construct a restroom when one already exists.
he said he would rather apply those funds towards an interpretive
facility because the citizens of Edmonds are interested in such a
facility.
Councilmember Palmer also expressed concern regarding the cost figures
that were presented to the Council because he said they are so far out of
the realm of monies that were budgeted for the project that the options
are no longer a consideration. He said he was not in favor of demolish-
ing a functional building and would rather see a structure connected to
the existing facility in an easterly direction with some kind of
breezeway or glass covered open area tying the two structures together in
an "L" shape. He noted that an extra wide path was put in when the new
jetty was constructed to allow emergency vehicles to access the beach.
Councilmember Jaech pointed out that a large percentage of the monies in
Fund 125 are needed for other projects that are in the planning phase.
Councilmember Hertrich suggested that Atelier submit a revised proposal
of options #3 and #4 to the Council that retains the existing facility
with the possibility of creating an "L" shaped structure.
Ms. Ohlde pointed out to the Council that the City must submit a
predesign concept to the State by June 15 in order to receive a Coastal
Zone Management grant. She said, however, Ms. Snoey cannot possibly meet
that deadline if she is required to submit a revised concept. Ms. Ohlde
suggested that the City submit the predesign concepts that were presented
to the Council in order to meet the June deadline, which will allow Ms.
Snoey to draft revised concepts and submit them to the Council upon
completion. Councilmember Hertrich inquired if the City would be
obligated to implement the particular design that was submitted to the
State. Ms. Ohlde replied negatively. She explained that a predesign
concept has to be submitted for the sole purpose of obtaining grant
funds.
Francis Murphy, Brackett's Landing Foundation, said the main objective of
the Foundation has always been to protect the beach area.
Nancy May, Brackett's Landing Foundation, reiterated that the
Foundation's foremost concern is preservation of the beach and,
therefore, she was in support of a concept that would be more costly if
it positioned any structure away from the beach.
PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE TO
ESTABLISH LANDSCAPE STANDARDS FOR ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD 3ITEM (D) ON
THE CONSENT AGENDAa
COUNCILMEMBER HERTRICH MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER KASPER, TO TABLE
DISCUSSION OF ITEM (D) UNTIL JUNE 26, 1990. MOTION CARRIED.
MAYOR
Mayor Naughten said the Memorial Day Ceremony was well attended and went
very well.
Mayor Naughten inquired if the Council wished to respond to Admiral
Parker's request for the City to participate in the study for alternative
locations for the Edmonds ferry terminal. Council discussion ensued.
Because the discussion was becoming complicated, Mayor Naughten suggested
that the issue be tabled until the Council had more time to discuss it.
With consensus of the Council, Mayor
the Edmonds City Council and Mukilteo
the Seahorse Restaurant in Mukilteo.
COUNCIL
Naughten scheduled a meeting with
City Council on June 25, 7 p.m., at
It was the consensus of the Council to schedule a discussion on June 5 of
the information that was presented to them at the dinner meeting.
Councilmember Hertrich said he read an article in the Bremerton Sun
stating that Councilmember Kasper was in favor of making a trade for the
second ferry slip as an incentive for them to do the study.
Councilmember Kasper said he was misquoted.
The meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m.
THESE MINUTES ARE SUBJECT TO June 5, 1990 APPROVAL.
UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU€❑❑❑-❑❑❑w❑®❑❑❑r❑A❑❑❑w❑e❑❑❑w
❑❑❑❑❑m❑F❑❑❑w❑T❑❑❑m❑V❑❑❑w❑�❑❑❑m❑o❑❑❑m❑o❑❑❑w❑ce❑❑❑w❑❑❑❑❑r❑"❑❑❑w❑�❑❑❑w❑❑❑❑❑m❑
❑❑❑❑w❑F❑❑❑m❑❑❑❑0❑❑❑❑0❑@❑❑0❑❑F❑❑❑❑❑❑❑w❑c❑❑❑r❑d❑❑❑w❑❑❑❑❑r❑°o❑❑❑w❑`❑❑❑r❑U-❑❑w
❑2-
❑❑r❑�t❑❑w❑❑u❑❑r❑❑u❑❑w❑❑u❑❑r❑1£❑❑w❑`£❑❑r❑0£❑❑r❑]�❑❑w❑b�❑❑r❑a;❑❑w❑❑❑❑0❑❑❑❑0
❑❑❑❑0❑❑a;❑❑g;❑❑v❑°§❑❑r❑',�§❑❑v❑0"❑❑r❑°o❑❑❑w❑`❑❑❑r❑U-❑❑w❑2-
❑❑r❑�t❑❑w❑❑u❑❑r❑❑u❑❑w❑❑u❑❑r❑1£❑❑w❑`£❑❑r❑�£❑❑r❑]tt❑❑w❑b�❑❑r❑a;❑❑w❑❑❑❑0❑❑❑❑0
❑❑8❑❑❑❑-❑❑X❑❑❑X
❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑L❑❑❑❑❑L❑
❑❑❑L❑L❑❑❑L❑0❑❑❑L❑-❑❑❑L❑SEDDL❑2❑❑❑L❑u❑❑❑L❑•❑❑❑L❑—❑❑❑L❑TM❑❑❑L❑X
TM❑❑❑1�❑❑❑L❑3�❑❑❑L❑
❑❑❑L❑f❑❑❑LD❑❑❑L❑p❑❑❑L❑0❑❑❑L❑z❑❑❑L❑�❑❑❑L❑:❑❑❑L❑<❑❑❑L❑I❑❑❑L❑X
I❑❑❑N❑❑❑L❑D❑❑❑L❑F❑❑❑L❑V❑❑❑L❑X❑❑❑L❑Y❑❑❑L❑[❑❑❑L❑k❑❑❑L❑m❑❑❑L❑—
❑❑❑L❑TM❑❑❑L❑o❑❑❑L❑X❑❑.<❑-❑❑❑❑❑❑❑�❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑a❑❑❑8❑❑❑€❑❑❑8❑❑❑❑-❑❑X ❑❑
o❑❑❑❑❑❑❑L❑❑❑❑❑L❑T❑❑❑L❑V❑❑❑L❑y❑❑❑L❑y❑❑❑L❑a
❑❑L❑a�
❑❑L❑n❑❑❑L❑o❑❑❑L❑TM❑❑❑LEI o❑❑❑L❑X
o❑❑❑❑❑❑L❑"❑❑❑L❑�❑❑❑❑❑a❑❑❑❑❑y❑❑❑L.<❑-��❑❑❑❑❑8❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑3❑❑❑8❑❑❑€❑❑❑8❑❑❑❑
❑❑❑a❑❑❑.❑❑❑L❑N❑❑❑LGP❑❑❑L❑I❑❑❑L❑K❑❑❑L❑G❑❑❑L❑❑❑❑❑L❑•❑❑❑L❑—
❑❑❑L❑oe❑❑❑L❑ZEEDL❑$❑❑❑L❑X ❑❑.<❑-❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑a❑❑❑8❑❑❑€❑❑❑8❑❑❑❑-❑❑X
❑❑
$❑❑❑o❑❑❑L❑"❑❑❑L❑•❑❑❑L❑N❑❑❑L❑0❑❑❑L❑
❑❑❑L❑
❑❑❑L❑0❑❑❑L❑0❑❑❑L❑>-❑❑L❑❑-❑❑L❑U-❑❑L❑X
O-❑❑O-❑❑L❑:❑❑L❑<❑❑L❑0❑❑L❑O❑❑L❑6!❑❑L❑8!❑❑L❑❑"❑❑L❑❑"❑❑L❑}#❑❑L❑❑#❑❑L❑91$❑❑L❑X
$$❑❑.$❑❑L❑❑%❑❑L❑k%❑❑L❑x%❑❑L❑0%❑❑L❑+&❑❑L❑I&❑❑L❑£&❑❑L❑a&❑❑L❑<'❑❑L❑m'❑❑L❑I'❑
❑L❑X❑❑.<❑-❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑CC❑❑C❑❑a❑❑❑8❑❑❑€❑❑❑8❑❑❑❑-❑❑X ❑❑
❑❑L❑.❑❑L❑O.❑❑L❑a/❑❑L❑a/❑❑L❑AO❑❑L❑e0❑❑L❑X
60❑❑❑3❑❑L❑❑3❑❑L❑e4❑❑L❑g4❑❑L❑S5111IL7U5❑❑L❑�677L❑a6❑❑L❑❑:❑❑L❑❑:❑❑L❑6<❑❑L❑i<❑
❑L❑X❑❑.<❑-❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑CC❑❑CC❑a❑❑❑8❑❑❑€❑❑❑8❑❑❑❑-❑❑X ❑❑
i<❑❑[>❑❑L❑]>❑❑L❑
@❑❑L❑
@❑❑L❑„B❑❑L❑tB❑❑L❑1EEll] LEI iE❑❑L❑°oF❑❑L❑<F❑❑L❑OI❑❑L❑2I❑❑L❑X
OH. <❑-❑❑❑❑❑❑❑5❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑a❑❑❑8❑❑❑€❑❑❑8❑❑❑❑-❑❑X ❑❑
2I❑❑❑K❑❑L❑YK❑❑L❑°L❑❑L❑ZL❑❑L❑PN❑❑L❑RN❑❑L❑;0❑❑L❑=0❑❑L❑IP❑❑L❑IP❑❑L❑OQ❑❑L❑2Q❑
2Q❑❑pR❑❑L❑❑S❑❑L❑oS❑❑L❑oS❑❑L❑uT❑❑L❑uT❑❑L❑EV❑❑L❑GV❑❑L❑,V❑❑L❑°V❑❑L❑„W❑❑L❑tW❑
tW❑❑AX❑❑L❑AX❑❑L❑IY❑❑L❑-Y❑❑L❑❑\❑❑L❑-
\❑❑L❑R]❑❑L❑T]❑❑L❑❑^❑❑L❑Y^❑❑L❑P_❑❑L❑R_❑❑L❑X
110.<0-❑❑❑❑❑❑❑8❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑a❑❑❑81100€❑❑❑811111111-❑❑X ❑❑
R_❑❑-a❑❑L❑6a❑❑L❑•e❑❑L❑le❑❑L❑a�g❑❑L❑eg❑❑L❑ni❑❑L❑pi❑❑L❑ik❑❑L❑6k❑❑L❑Em❑❑L❑Gm❑
Gm❑❑❑n❑❑L❑Yn❑❑L❑❑o❑❑L❑❑o❑❑L❑±o❑❑L❑3o❑❑L❑2r❑❑L❑❑r❑❑L❑As❑❑L❑As❑❑L❑£t❑❑L❑yt❑
❑L❑X❑❑.<❑-❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑CC❑❑CC❑a❑❑❑8❑❑❑€❑❑❑8❑❑❑❑-❑❑X ❑❑
Yt❑❑%u❑❑L❑'u❑❑L❑eu❑❑L❑iu❑❑L❑•v❑❑L❑1v❑❑L❑iw❑❑L❑6w❑❑L❑px❑❑L❑❑y❑❑L❑,I❑❑L❑°I❑
°�❑❑��❑❑L❑e�❑❑L❑a❑❑❑L❑a❑❑❑L❑�❑❑❑L❑E❑❑❑L❑£f❑❑L❑¥f❑❑L❑
... ❑❑L❑❑... ❑❑L❑ f❑❑L❑"$❑❑L❑X1111.<11-11111111111111❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑a❑❑❑8❑❑❑€❑❑❑811111111-1111X
❑❑
"$❑❑Ao❑❑L❑A°o❑❑L❑�S❑❑L❑zS❑❑L❑Z<❑❑L❑❑<❑❑L❑k❑❑❑L❑m❑❑❑L❑I❑❑❑L❑N❑❑❑L❑e`❑❑L❑i`❑
❑L❑X❑❑.<❑-❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑CC❑❑CC❑a❑❑❑8❑❑❑€❑❑❑8❑❑❑❑-❑❑X ❑❑
i`❑❑z'❑❑L❑I'❑❑L❑ "❑❑L❑""FIEIL❑1-❑❑L❑n-
❑❑L❑2`❑❑L❑4`❑❑L❑,s❑❑L❑°s❑❑L❑?❑❑❑L❑A❑❑❑L❑X
A❑❑❑0❑❑❑L❑0❑❑❑L❑zz❑❑L❑ z❑❑L❑®j❑❑L❑°i❑❑L❑5�❑❑L❑7G❑❑L❑/£❑❑L❑1£❑❑L❑0£❑❑L❑0£❑
0£❑❑[tt❑❑L❑]tt❑❑L❑dtt❑❑L❑ftt❑❑L❑»tt❑❑L❑l�tt❑❑L❑%;❑❑L❑';❑❑L❑�;❑❑L❑a;❑❑L❑e;❑❑L❑e;❑
6:DDx§❑❑L❑z§❑❑L❑q"❑❑L❑s"❑❑L❑""❑❑L❑6"❑❑L❑I"❑❑L❑N"❑❑L❑0"❑❑L❑a;❑❑L❑e;❑❑L❑e111
❑bDAND/❑❑8EOH❑❑6-❑❑❑❑❑J❑0❑AND/❑❑ ❑€C❑❑6-
......................................................................................................................................
❑❑❑❑❑JUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU
..............................
UUUUUUUUUUUUUUU
!❑❑64❑❑OI❑❑❑[❑❑"n❑❑G❑❑❑A"❑❑^;❑❑R"❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑
❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑ ❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑
............................................................................................................................................
❑❑❑UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU
UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU❑❑❑❑i❑❑❑❑❑❑ ❑❑R"❑❑❑❑❑•❑❑S'•❑❑❑❑sysyo
..................................................................................................................................................
UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU
........................................
UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU