Loading...
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