03/21/1995 City CouncilApproved City Council Minutes
on 4/4/yJ
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES
MARCH 21,1995
A Special Meeting of the Edmonds City Council was held at 6:15 p.m. for the purpose of interviewing a
candidate for the City Engineer position, followed by an Executive Session on litigation. The Edmonds
City Council meeting was called to order at 7:10 p.m. by Mayor Laura Hall in the Library Plaza Room,
650 Main Street followed by the flag salute.
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Laura Hall, Mayor
Barbara Fahey, Council President Pro-Tem
William J. Kasper, Councilmember
Michael Hall, Councilmember
Dave Earling, Councilmember
John Nordquist, Councilmember
Roger L. Myers, Councilmember
ABSENT
Tom Petruzzi, Council President
STAFF PRESENT
Tom Miller, Police Chief
Gary McComas, Fire Marshall
Jim Walker, City Engineer
Paul Mar, Community Services Director
Jeff Wilson, Planning Supervisor
Brent Hunter, Personnel Manager
Rob Chave, Planning Manager
Scott Snyder, City Attorney
Rhonda March, City Clerk
Christine Laws, Recorder
�y Mayor Hall asked Council for confirmation of Jim Walker as City Engineer.
COUNCILMEMBER JOHN NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
DAVE EARLING, TO CONFIRM JIM WALKER AS THE NEW CITY ENGINEER MOTION
CARRIED.
Jim Walker thanked the Council for their support and indicated he was glad to continue to work for the
City of Edmonds.
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO-TEM BARBARA FAHEY MOVED, SECONDED BY
COUNCILMEMBER ROGER MYERS, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED.
2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
Council President Pro-tem Barbara Fahey pulled Items D and J.
COUNCILMEMBER DAVE EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO-
TEM BARBARA FAHEY, TO APPROVE THE BALANCE OF THE CONSENT AGENDA.
MOTION CARRIED. The agenda items passed are as follows:
(A) ROLL CALL
(B) APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF COUNCIL RETREAT ON FEBRUARY 24 AND 25, 1995
APPROVED CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
MARCH 21,1995
PAGE
(C) APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF MARCH 7,1995
(E) APPROVAL TO AMEND MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 21, 1995 TO CORRECT SCRIVENER
ERROR
(F) APPROVAL OF CLAIMS WARRANTS #951103 THRU #951277 FOR WEEK OF MARCH 6, 1995
AND #950642 THRU #999951358 FOR THE WEEK OF MARCH 13, 1995
(G) ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES FROM DAVID SITTAUER
($1,564.13), NANCY R. MCALLISTER (AMT. UNKNOWN), AND WORN THUESEN ($2,196.65),
yu� AND CHARLES L. MALLOW ($1,408.03), KIM ALLAN FENN ($452.16), SCOTT MAYHEW
gyp/ ($475.76), AND SCOTT MAYHEW ($291.71)
(I) AUTHORIZATION TO CALL FOR BIDS FOR BURGLAR/FIRE ALARM FOR HISTORICAL
MUSEUM
`
-1
(1)
REPORT ON BIDS RECEIVED MARCH 3, 1995 FOR UNIT #20, A 1980 GMC SURPLUS DUMP
TRUCK AND AWARD OF BID TO CITY OF GOLDBAR ($7,501)
,q N�
0� ""
(K)
AUTHORIZATION TO CALL FOR BIDS TO PURCHASE 3 SETS OF HAND TOOLS AND 3
ROLLAWAY TOOL BOXES (referred from Finance Committee of March 14, 1995)
Ga'o
&IS
(L)
AUTHORIZATION TO EXTEND EIS CONTRACT AND TRANSFER $15,390 FROM COUNCIL
CONTINGENCY FUND FOR GMA (referred from Finance Committee of March 14, 1995)
�pI!
iv1 R
(M)
AUTHORIZATION TO REALLOCATE FUNDS TO EXTEND GMA PLANNER CONTRACT
(N)
APPROVAL OF ARTS RESOURCE COORDINATOR JOB DESCRIPTION (referred from
Finance Committee of March 14, 1995)
(0)
APPROVAL OF RECLASSIFICATION OF OFFICER TO SPECIAL OPERATIONS/TRAFFIC
R
SERGEANT (referred from Finance Committee of March 14, 1995)
A
W
(P)
ORDINANCE 3013 FOR STORM WATER REGULATIONS (from Hearing of February 7, 1995)
(Q)
ORDINANCE 3014 FOR CRITICAL AREAS
(R)
AUTHORIZATION TO ALLOW THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE TO USE THE OLD PUBLIC
WORKS FACILITY TO BUILD THE 4TH OF JULY FLOAT
(S) AUTHORIZATION TO CALL FOR BIDS FOR THE GOODHOPE POND RESTORATION
A PROJECT
(,ate v%�' Council President Pro-tem Fahey stated that because of technical difficulties the minutes of the March 14
meeting were not in the packets
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO-TEM BARBARA FAHEY MOVED, SECONDED BY
COUNCILMEMBER BILL KASPER, THAT APPROVAL OF THE MARCH 14 MINUTES
SHOULD BE DEFERRED TO THE MARCH 28 MEETING.
Council President Pro-tem Fahey pulled Item J because of a change being needed in the Findings of Fact.
She deferred to City Attorney Scott Snyder who indicated that on page 2, paragraph 2 of the decision there
is a grammatical error. The corrections are redlined for reference and do not change the decision.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO-TEM BARBARA FAHEY MOVED, SECONDED BY
COUNCILMEMBER JOHN NORDQUIST, TO APPROVE ITEM J SUBJECT TO THE
CORRECTIONS AS SUBMITTED. COUNCILMEMBER DAVE EARLING ABSTAINED.
MOTION CARRIED. The agenda item passed is as follows:
APPROVED CITY COUNCIL. MINUTES
MARCH 21, 1995
PAGE 2
(J) APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FROM HEARING OF
MARCH 7, 1995 ON HEARING EXAMINER RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE
PRELIMINARY PLAT APPLICATION TO SUBDIVIDE APPROXIMATELY 6.83 ACRES INTO
15 SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS AT 9117 OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE, AND APPROVAL OF A
CRITICAL AREAS REASONABLE USE EXCEPTION TO REDUCE REQUIRED CRITICAL
AREA BUFFER AND BUILDING SETBACK FROM THE TOP OF A STEEP SLOPE HAZARD
AREA (APPLICANT: GEORGE KAMEZ / FILE NO. P-93-216)
3. AUDIENCE
Syd Locke, 110 Pine Street, reminded Council that two weeks ago he was before Council regarding the
park and removing the maintenance facility. He has not had any contact from the City with regard to his
P, questions. He stated he had been working on this since 1992. Mayor Hall will meet with him March 23.
Councilmember John Nordquist advised Mr. Locke that at last week's meeting the subject of moving the
building was discussed. He read from the minutes to update Mr. Locke on the what had been discussed.
Mr. Locke expressed concern over the fact that moving that building was to be a high priority and now
$120,000 is being spent on a play area that was not designated as high priority.
Audrey Reis, 434 Third Avenue South, advised that she had spent two days in the Mayor's office during
which time she had asked three people about the speaking rules for tonight's meeting and was advised that
each speaker would have three minutes. She went on to state that tonight they were told only one person
could speak. Ms. Reis wished to make a strong objection to that in view of the fact that the one who will
act as spokesman was also told that every person who wished would have three minutes in which to do so.
Mayor Hall acknowledged that Ms. Reis had come to her office unannounced when she was out of town.
When the Mayor got into town and called the office, she was advised a lady was waiting for her, and the
Mayor spoke with Ms. Reis at that time. Ms. Reis did not have a concern over that, only with the
information she was provided. Ms. Reis was invited to call Dee McGrath and set up a time to meet with
Mayor Hall. Ms. Reis indicated that material had already been delivered to the park and that she would
like to have the work stopped until they had a chance to speak. Upon questioning by Mayor Hall, it was
determined that many in the room had not seen the orange flyer that was being distributed. She read the
flyer which announced a City of Edmonds Informational Meeting on City Park, Phase I Improvements
Project, on Thursday, March 23, from 6-7:00 p.m. in the Edmonds Library Plaza. Room, 650 Main Street.
She invited anyone interested to attend. Ms. Reis said that last week's meeting, Mr. Petruzzi made it very
clear that it was immaterial whether they had the meeting 'or not, that they were all to know that no input
would be considered — it was a done deal. Mayor Hall responded that all input would be considered.
Henry C. Winters, 434 Third Avenue South, Unit C-103, acted as spokesperson for his neighbors. He
began his presentation by stating they were not opposed to providing access for handicapped persons to all
(� facilities of the park by paths and otherwise; they were not opposed to replacing old playground equipment
"D with state-of-the-art new equipment. They are opposed, to 1) removal of the only lawn area in the park
r where individual families or small groups of friends can picnic, play and relax; 2) replacing the only green
lawn in the park with construction of a new play area consisting of sand, cement and playground equipment
including pipe immediately adjacent to the only private residences not separated from the park by a public
street; 3) deviation from the Park Master Plan, originally adopted in 1992, in several material respects,
without good reason, and without securing approval by an informed decision of this City Council. If the
deviation had come up for consideration by the Council, it would have become evident that the Master Plan
as originally adopted was flawed and the location of the new play area was contrary to the wishes of the
citizens who participated in the user's survey of 1992 where it was felt there were three areas of the park
that were important to preserve: trees, play area and lawn. Mr. Winters indicated that the play area could
have been left where it was without eliminating lawn; the sunlight could have been increased without the
APPROVED CITY COUNCIL. N04MS
MARCH 21, 1995
PAGE 3
removal of any more than the three trees now being removed. He went on to compare the present plan with
the original. Lastly, Mr. Winters expressed opposition to the construction being done without compliance
by the City with the requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and with the terms of the
funding grant from the Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development which requires compliance
with state environmental laws. He had requested copies of the Environmental Checklist and Determination
of Nonsignificance referred to on page 6 of the Architectural Design Board's Staff Report dated May 5,
1993, and was told by Mr. Bissell, an employee of the City Planning Department that these documents
could not be located and probably do not exist. Their follow-up letter of February 8 has not yet been
answered. Mr. Winters has consulted with Ecology, counsel for HUD and a private attorney experienced
in environmental law. He is convinced the City is in serious non-compliance with SEPA and HUD
requirements. He respectfully urged the City Council to order a halt to the construction of the project until
the questions raised have been satisfactorily answered. Mr. Winters advised Council he is a retired
attorney and federal Administrative Law Judge familiar with the requirements of administrative procedures.
Jack Bevan, 19210 - 94th West, spoke on behalf of his neighbor Mylo Charleston. He handed out and
read a letter from Mr. Charleston. The letter addressed to Mayor Hall advised that Mr. Charleston had
been negotiating with the City of Edmonds in good faith for four years. He was notified late last year by
the City that "the ball is in our park", meaning the City of Edmonds. The ball park issue came mainly
because the City has not been able to comply with the Environmental Protection Agency rules as directed
by Barbara Ritchie of the State of Washington EPA. There has been ample time to resolve any problem.
Consequently, on Friday, March 24, 1995 this matter is being turned over to Mr. Charleston's legal counsel
to bring this matter to a conclusion. Mayor Hall indicated the City Clerk would log in the letter, and the
City Attorney will review it.
Rich Demeroutis, 921 Pine Street, brought to everyone's attention that he has been working with local
residents on a plan to change the form of government to a City Manager form, eliminating the Mayor's
position, and a ward system council. The city would be divided into seven districts, with an elected
representative from each area. As areas continue to be annexed, they will have representation. He invited
assistance in gathering signatures on the petition. He indicated his displeasure with the representation and
/ the way the money is being spent. As an example he cited the waterfront litigation that has been going on
for some time. He announced that his phone number is 771-2090.
Al Rutledge, 7101 Lake Ballinger Way, explained that he had been instrumental in making the changes
necessary to get the Medic One measure passed by the public. He said he was formerly in the trucking
ow business and familiar with the traffic system. He says someone who knows the traffic problems and can
address them should be on the committee. When the RTA comes around again, Mr. Rutledge suggests that
he be placed on the committee to help get Snohomish County to go with the plan. Mayor Hall said that the
RfA Council does not assign the RTA, but recommended that he contact the RTA directly.
Mr. Rutledge also touched on Mr. Locke's and other's comments about not getting answers, about
Councilmember Fahey's previous comments about responding more adequately to public inquiries, and how
the Council needed to get more organized and run the meetings as they are supposed to be. He also spoke
to Councilmember Hall's comments regarding parking and suggested that Council read the letters received
from the citizens who were unhappy about parking.
IRoland Messer, 517 Fourth Avenue South, announced he had a letter from Byron E. Norman who lives in
the building adjacent to Mr. Messer in the Parkview Twin Condominium. They wish to strengthen the
present zoning laws as far as housing is concerned. After his presentation, City Attorney Scott Snyder
reminded those in attendance that there was a hearing later in the agenda on the Land Use Element of the
APPROVED CITY COUNCIL MINMS
MARCH 21, 1995
PAGE
Comprehensive Plan, and that the comments contained here more appropriately belonged at that time.
[Accordingly, the bulk of this presentation has been relocated to Item 6 discussion.]
Janie Blodgett, 7309 - 215th SW, said that her concern is with the land use with the Edmonds City Park.
She agrees with the support of using it. Since the City has already signed the contract, it should go ahead
t� with it. If the money isn't used, she feels it will be lost. She has used that park for 26 years, now has two
P children, works for the School District, and supports children's activities. As long as the ball field is not
being torn up, she enthusiastically supports the plan. She thinks it is a great development and growth for
the city of Edmonds.
Council President Pro-tem Fahey indicated understanding for the people in the audience who came to voice
their views and learned there would be only one speaker and asked for a show of hands for those who
supported Mr. Winters' views and Ms. Blodgett's views.
Councilmember Mike Hall thought it might be important for the people at home to see how many people
were here and on one side or the other. He asked for a repeat of the show of hands for the video.
[Unofficial count showed a 24-7 vote.]
Mayor Hall again reminded the audience of the March 23 meeting and closed the audience portion.
4. PRESENTATION ON 800 MEGAHERTZ RADIO SYSTEM
Dan Prinz, former Edmonds Police Chief, said that after 26 years as a police officer, one of the things he
recognized was the problem with two-way communications system between fire, police and medics. In the
early 1980s a study was done by Motorola, and at that time they indicated the city needed a new system
and probably an 800 megahertz system priced at about $8 million. Nothing more was done until 1988
when Snopac had a study done by Adcom Engineering. That study also indicated the need for an 800
megahertz trunk radio system. They were working with the Law and Justice Committee at that time to
prioritize the needs the of public safety sector in the county. One of the things early on was the need for the
new Denny Youth Center which was voted on about a year and a half ago and is currently under
construction. The second priority was the communications problems.
The top three problems are congestion, reception, and interference problems. The present system is a
conventional system. He likened it to a party line in a 10-12 person office. These three problems create the
access problems which, in turn, creates safety problems for personnel. He indicated the procedure is to
normally call the dispatcher when dealing with someone of a suspicious nature or when making a traffic
stop. Not all of the time can they get through. He cited the example of the problems encountered by
Officer Rider of Lynnwood who was shot while making a traffic stop.
Mr. Prinz addressed safety issues and noted there are also productivity issues and service problems as well.
Law enforcement officers are trying to be more proactive in the things they do. It is very important for the
officers to access information of a variety of types.
Mayor Hall asked for clarification on the area being discussed. Mr. Prinz advised that this 800 megahertz
project is for Snohomish County in total.
Mr. Prinz provided further detail of the deficiencies of the current system relating to police operations as
well as the advantages and improvements to be gained with the new system.
APPROVED CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
MARCH 21, 1995
PAGE 5
He explained user committee groups are being assembled throughout the county to look at the interlocal
agreements that are needed to put this system together. The backbone of the system will be operated by the
E-911 Board. The communications centers will then access the system, and the user groups/departments
will access the system through the communication centers. Each department will have replaced their
mobile radios in vehicles, their portable radios worn on the belt, and the replacement of Motor Data
Terminals in the vehicles.
This is a county -wide project, $22 million in total, or about 8.30 per $1,000 of assessed valuation. It
would cost the average homeowner of a $150,000 house about $12.45 per year for nine years. It is hoped
this can go on the ballot in September 1995.
Councilmember Roger Myers expressed his willingness to do whatever he can to support the effort.
Councilmember Dave Earlmg asked if there was to be a consolidated and organized effort to inform the
public of the benefits of this system. He does not want the voters in September to look upon this as another
tax issue. He asked if there was going to be some sort of proactive campaign to get the campaign to get the
public to understand the project. Mr. Prinz responded in the affirmative. County Executive Bob Drewell is
going to help put together interest in the project so a citizen's committee can be formed to put out a
campaign. Councilmember Earling asked to be kept apprised of those efforts so that it can better
understand how the public can gain access to the information.
Councilmember Hall expressed 100% support for this project and asked if it would be possible to link City
officials together during a local emergency. Mr. Prinz indicated it would not be a problem in the future and
they would like to enlarge the system to include Public Works and all public users.
In response to Councilmember Earling's question concerning the length of time to complete the project if
approved by the voters in September, Mr. Prinz indicated that best case scenario would be 1998, but that it
would probably be 1999. There is a tremendous amount of engineering to take place, site selection for the
different repeaters, and actual building. Each site must be built separately. Hopefully the MDT project
would come up first because that would take a lot of traffic off the air.
5. MEETING WITH PROPONENTS OF PROPOSED ANNEXATION OF SHERWOOD
VILLAGE, WOODWAY MEADOWS & HOLIDAY HILL AREA (FILE NO. AX-95-24)
Planning Supervisor Jeff Wilson introduced the subject of the request to initiate an annexation process for
Sherwood Village, Woodway Meadows and Holiday Hills. Certain steps must be taken by the City to
address the annexation. Will the area be subject to the City's existing bonded indebtedness, what the zoning
for the area should be, and what the boundaries of the proposed annexation area should be when we
proceed to an annexation request.
On February 16 there was a neighborhood meeting to obtain information on annexation. On February 21
the petition letter with signatures was presented to the Council. Staff has been setting zoning and
boundaries in preparation for a meeting with the proponents to reach some resolution on that and hopefully
come back with a subsequent public hearing on adopting the resolution to initiate an annexation process
sometime in the middle of April.
Using overheads of Agenda Memo exhibits, Mr. Wilson described what the petitioning group submitted as
perspective boundaries and discussed the larger picture in that area so the Council could consider all of the
issues that may be brought up during the annexation process.
APPROVED CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
MARCH 21,1995
PAGE 6
The area is compatible and tied to the city with existing rights -of -way. It is contiguous and would help to
resolve certain present boundary problems in that portion of the unincorporated county in that it would
provide logical boundaries rather than irregular ones. Regarding the boundaries, Staff believes they do
meet the test and would stand the tests of the Boundary Review Board review. The questions are whether
we wanted to consolidate into a much larger picture and what those boundaries might be and what process
would be used to address the area.
Zoning is another topic that needs to be considered. As in past annexations, the City has adopted as an
interim measure comparable zoning and land use designations to that which exist in the county. There
should not be a change in general of any of the development or density patterns as the lots are mostly
established. There would be no appreciable change to the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Wilson
thinks it would be very easy to transfer over existing zoning classifications to address the present zoning
patterns in that area.
Another area for consideration is the question of whether or not the area should be subject to any existing
bonded indebtedness of the City. The City does not currently have any bonded indebtedness. Therefore,.
there is no additional debt that area would have to take on.
Council President Pro-tem Fahey asked for clarification of Exhibit 4.
Heather Marks, 10522 - 235th Place SW, opened the audience portion. She desired clarification of what
would become of home businesses in that area if it were to become a part of Edmonds. City Attorney
Snyder answered, with the proviso that Ms. Marks contact Staff.to get a copy of the City's ordinances, that
legally non -conforming businesses that are licensed in Snohomish County would remain non -conforming.
By The City has a very liberal Washington State Standards Home Occupation Permit requirement. If you
are legally established and licensed and recognized by Snohomish County, you would be recognized as non-
conforming, meaning that you could continue your business. If it were to cease and later decide to re-
establish it, you have to get a home occupation permit. Mr. Snyder again suggested she contact Staff to get
a copy of the City Ordinances.
Bart Kronin, 10615 Robin's Roost Road, stated he was not a proponent of the annexation. He has six
concerns brought up in some of the other annexations in the area. The bonded indebtedness question was
answered. His first concern deals with the area just behind what was the Woodway Elementary School
which is now the Evangel Church. It is owned by the School District and, allegedly, it has been put on the
market or is about to be put on the market. It is a large block just north of Woodway Meadows and south
of the area he is in which is just south of the Sherwood Forest area. The area has several sports fields,
woods, old Woodway Elementary School. He would like some kind of commitment that would be left in its
presentstate as open field or an open area with trees. The building use itself doesn't really matter as long
as it is not multi -family residential. Mr. Kronin's second concern was fire protection and the difference in
travel time between different stations and his house. He thinks Fire District 1 has good fire protection and
good Medic One protection. Mr. Kronin pointed out the difference between Olympic Water District's and
Edmonds' means of replacing plants and existing pipes. He would not like to see an L.I.D. happen. He
also questioned the source of Edmonds' water from the Alderwood District as opposed to Olympic View
from Seattle which he saw as meaning fluoridated versus non -fluoridated water. In the area by Sherwood
Elementary and Woodway High School there are no parking signs. Today he drove by there a couple of
times and saw between 9 and 13 cars parked in front of the signs. He feels if the signs are going to be up,
they should be enforced. His last concern dealt with the option of annexing into the Town of Woodway. In
the past Woodway has not been receptive to the idea of expansion, but Mr. Kronin understands the Mayor
and several members of the Town Council decided this might be a plan to look at which has been tabled for
further review. There are also plans for the development of the Town of Esperance. He would rather see
APPROVED CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
MARCH 21, 1995
PAGE
all of the ideas being considered rather than just going ahead with the City of Edmonds. He would
personally prefer to stay in the county.
Mayor Hall invited Mr. Kronin to City Hall so that all of his concerns can be addressed.
As one of the Council's public safety representatives, Councilmember Hall responded on the issue of the
dilapidated fire station and Council's choice not to maintain the facility. There has not been a conscious
choice not to maintain it. Recently, with the earthquake there were some problems, and they had to act
quickly. They are presently making a conscious choice to try to get it up to speed. With regard to the
question of Fire District 1 versus the City of Edmonds, there are certain areas to which Fire District 1 can
respond more quickly, and vice versa. In reality there is an interlocal agreement that provides for that give-
and-take.
Mayor Hall turned the response on the L.I.D. question to City Attorney Scott Snyder. Mr. Snyder said the
City does use L.I.D.s to extend distribution line. Once distribution lines or facilities are in place, you can't
use a Local Improvement District to replace an existing facility because the benefit to the property owner
already exists. Mr. Snyder also advised Mr. Kronin that the purpose of this meeting is to meet with the
proposed incorporators and, if the Council chooses, it can authorize preparation of a resolution which
would address the factors that Mr. Wilson addressed. That would be put on a Council agenda for
consideration after a public hearing.
Councilmember Nordquist suggested that Staff present at the meeting could answer Mr. Kronin's question
concerning the water source. City Engineer Jim Walker said that the area would continue to be served by
Olympic View. He did acknowledge that Edmonds gets its water from two sources, but says most of the
south side gets its water from Seattle. In the event Edmonds takes over 60% of the district, it would have
the ability to take the entire district in. There would be no change in service to the people in the annexation
area.
John Beck, former State Representative, 200 Beach Place, # 103, Edmonds, spoke on behalf of the owner
of the cemetery with the address of 23800 - 104th Avenue West and known as Rest Lawn Memorial Park
Cemetery. Mr. Beck is personally very interested in the annexation to Edmonds. He feels that the majority
of the landowners are in favor of annexation. His biggest concern is police protection and response. When
they do have problems, they mail in reports to the Sheriffs office as they very seldom come out.
Sherwood rillare Area
Ivar Eines, 10530 Nottingham Road, has lived in Sherwood Village for over 30 years. He has always
wanted to be part of the city of Edmonds and has been very surprised that prior annexations issues have
been defeated. This started as a volunteer group of three people, and a larger area was envisioned until
they found that the motivation in some of the other communities to join Edmonds was not there. He
reminded the Council that there were over 90 people present at the meeting held, and over 71 petition
signatures were collected. The majority of people there favored annexation.
Woodway Meadows
Dorothy Gross, 106215 - 237th Place SW, reiterated many of Mr. Eines' comments. She further advised
that after canvassing the neighborhoods, they were able to present 105 signatures with the letter of
proposition. She has had no indication from any of the 59 households in Woodway Meadows that there is
any strong opposition. She called for a raise of hands of those supporting annexation. She feels they
identify more with Edmonds than any other entity. Ms. Gross would like to see the choice on the ballot.
APPROVED CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
MARCH 21, 1995
PAGE 8
Holiday Hill
Jim Reynolds, 10608 - 231st Street SW indicated they moved into their house 40 years ago. He thinks the
majority of residents of that area also favor annexation and asked for a show of hands. Many of the
neighbors have lived there for 35-40 years. They are solid citizens, he thinks Edmonds would be happy to
have them, and he would be happy to live in Edmonds.
Jeff Wilson summed up the process from this point for an election method annexation. Best case would
have this matter on the ballot in the Fall. He asked for the issue of boundaries to be resolved at this
meeting, with the end result being the squaring off of some irregular boundaries that currently exist.
Council needs to consider is the issue of bonded indebtedness. The third question, again, is what the land
use or zoning patterns for the area are to be. The various time lines between now and the end of the
process was explained.
COUNCILMEMBER JOHN NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
ROGER MYERS, TO DIRECT THE STAFF TO PREPARE A RESOLUTION TO INITIATE AN
ELECTION METHOD ANNEXATION, THAT THE ANNEXATION RESOLUTION SHOULD
CONTAIN THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION IN RESPONSE TO THE ABOVE QUESTIONS:
1. THE BOUNDARIES OF THE ANNEXATION AREA AS DETERMINED BY THE
COUNCIL. WHICH WOULD BE AS SHOWN ON EXHIBIT 4
2. THE ANNEXATION SHOULD BE SUBJECT TO THE EXISTING BONDED
INDEBTEDNESS OF THE CITY
3. THE CITY SHOULD ADOPT COMPARABLE ZONING AND COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN DESIGNATIONS FOR THE AREA, AS CURRENTLY EXISTS UNDER THE
SOUTHWEST SNOHOMISH COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
Councilmember Myers asked if there had been contact with individuals outside the reduced area presented.
Mr. Wilson has had individual contacts with parties that would be part of the larger area. The group this
evening pretty much focused on those three neighborhoods and had a strong core group willing to do the
work. Individuals in the other area didn't tie into the core group right away. Mr. Wilson stated he has
requested the City Clerk be liberal in the posting of notices so that people within that expanded area could
come and be heard. Councilmember Myers asked further about the benefit and possibility of a mail
election. Mr. Wilson advised that mail ballots were generally not done on primary and general election
days. It depends upon timing. Mayor Hall interjected that she had been assigned by County Auditor Bob
Terwilliger to a committee regarding an all mail ballot on the September primary as a trial. There is no
formal word on that exercise, but it is expected in the next few weeks. Councilmember Myers suggested a
summer mail ballot and was advised there were no ballots during the summer.
Councilmember Nordquist clarified his motion that he was not opposing annexing in a larger area. The
only thing is that due to the respect for the work of these individuals, Council should go ahead at this time
which may encourage the next area to move more quickly.
Discussion followed concerning the determination on the annexation process. Mr. Wilson believes an
election method is the best and most efficient way to make the decision. The question was raised and
discussion held as to whether the number of petition signatures alone would equal the 60% necessary.
Councilmember Earling supports the motion, and indicated it seemed to him reasonable to stay within the
bounds of Exhibit 4. The one concern he has is that the Council is considering a number of annexations,
and Council needs some sort of cumulative cost and revenue projections for all of those annexations. It has
APPROVED CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
MARCH 21, 1995
PAGE 9
been a concern that the City does not over extend itself so that outstanding obligation will exceed the
revenues.
Councilmember Nordquist called for the question.
MOTION CARRIED.
Mayor Hall called a five minute break at 8:47 p.m., and the meeting reconvened at 9:07 p.m.
6. CONTINUED HEARING ON APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION TO DENY AN
APPEAL OF THE ENGINEERING DIVISION'S DECISION REQUIRING A PAVED SURFACE
ON A PROPOSED TEMPORARY PARKING LOT APPLIED FOR BY CLAY ENTERPRISES
AND LOCATED AT 7521 - 212TH STREET SOUTHWEST (Appellant/Applicant:
Lovell-Sauerland - File No. AP-94-203) (Cont'd. from February 7.1995)
P �-r
City Attorney Snyder informed the Council that Ms. March had distributed copies of the letter received via
fax on March 20, requesting withdrawal of this appeal by the applicant.
'
COUNCILMEMBER JOHN NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
W� ROGER MYERS, TO ACCEPT THE WITHDRAWAL OF THE APPEAL BY THE APPLICANT.
V114v-MOTION CARRIED.
7. HEARING ON UPDATED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN — LAND USE ELEMENT
Caft,f Planning Manager Rob Chave reported that the purpose of tonight's meeting is to address some specific
P areas discussed by the Planning Board in its review of the plan. The first overhead showed the general
draft map, conceptual in nature but showing that the majority of the city is and will remain single-family.
eQi The next identifies two activity centers. One is the downtown area with a mixture of uses very similar to
V ' the existing development pattern but showing some extension of uses toward the waterfront linking
Uo" downtown and the waterfront. Within activity centers there is a mixture of uses that support transit,
pedestrian activity, commercial with resident population, and single-family fits within that type of activity
center. On the Highway 99 activity center there is a mixture of uses. It is a continuation of the corridor
development pattern that has developed over the years. It is significant to note that within the core
development pattern there is also a mixture of uses. Commercial uses are concentrated along Highway 99,
with a stepped arrangement where the intensity of uses decreases and is buffered as you move away from
Highway 99. The high rise nodes shown will continue into the future.
Mr. Chave further commented that the Planning Board has looked at the general policies and the maps and
over the past years also attempted to address some specific areas that have come to light during the
process. Those have come about through letters people have written to the City or the Planning Board
requesting that their specific location be considered during the planning process. There have been 11 areas
identified. At the hearing tonight, they will be addressed one at a time, with general comment to follow.
Mr. Chave called audience attention to copies of the mailings were available summarizing the Planning
Board recommendations on the small areas (Exhibit 3, page 37).
Area 1
Mayor Hall announced no one had signed up for Area 1. Mr. Chave showed an area/vicinity map. This
area is currently zoned multi -family, but the existing Comprehensive Plan shows it as part of the
commercial business district. The Planning Board's recommendation is that this be changed to high density
residential in the updated Comprehensive Plan.
APPROVED CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
MARCH 21,1995
PAGE 10
Area 2
Mr. Chave described the area and advised it is currently designated as high density residential. It is
currently zoned as single-family. The Planning Board's recommendation is that this area should remain
designated on the new Comprehensive Plan as single-family, but that some consideration be given for its
future development as a transitional area through the PRD process. Right now the PRD structure is that
within single-family areas the PRD would still have to be detached single-family. However, in the
Comprehensive Plan now and in the proposed update, there is a policy that states that there should be some
flexible development in transitional PRDs like this area.
Roland Messer, 517 Fourth Avenue South, read a letter from Byron E. Norman. It reiterated Mr.
Norman's previously -expressed concern over his condominium complex at 517 and 519 Fourth Avenue
South. This area is located across the street between Third and Fourth, South of Howell and is full of neat
single-family houses, with lawns, trees, shrubbery, and all of the things help keep the area looking like the
old days of Edmonds. It is a nice contrast to the multiple buildings east of Fourth Avenue South. Before
buying, Mr. Norman checked the zoning in the area and was assured by City building officials that it was
zoned for single-family use. Recent memos seem to indicate that should stay that way, but consideration
might be given to modify an approach like the PRD. This would allow more homes to be built on a given
area and, if properly planned, this approach could be an acceptable way to accommodate more people and
yet keep the single-family look. More apartments and condos don't fit. They would clutter single lot views
and intensify traffic. Copies of the letter were presented to the City Clerk.
Dale E. Hoggins, former State Representative, 21826 - 95th Avenue West, also owns property at 510
Fourth Avenue South. He was present on behalf of that property, the location of which he described in
detail. He also advised he was authorized to speak on behalf of Mr. Alex Patrick, 318 Howell Way, and
Mr. and Mrs. Jim Rasbon, 516 Fourth Avenue South. They desire no change in the Comprehensive Plan
as it relates to those properties. They have had this designation since 1977. No change has previously
been sought. They believe that the change proposed in the Planning Board's recommendation would take
away from them a valuable asset without compensation and would severely limit the use of their property.
They feel it hard to understand how a high density designation is out of character in view of the zoning in
some of the nearby properties and the nearby commercial development. They also find it hard to understand
why it is preferable to have buildings of low and declining value occupied by temporary residents rather
than owner -occupied multi -family structures that are well designed and well maintained. The land value
exceeds the structure value by about 40%. The land value increased nine times faster than the building
value. There is no reason to expect this to change in the future. Mr. Hoggins said builders had suggested to
him that unless money was not an issue and they were willing to take a risk, it would not be economical to
tear down the structure and replace it with a new building until the current structure had little or no value.
They believe the neighborhood would be better served by having the well designed, owner -occupied quality
residential structures. Mr. Hoggins has been advised by Staff that these properties are in one of two areas
that do not continue as high density on the Comprehensive Plan. There is no compelling reason to change,
and they ask that no changes be made to the Plan as it relates to these properties. Their goal is to live
downtown with a reasonable amount of living space which is affordable. They ask that the high density
designation be continued on these properties.
Mrs. R. E. Messer, 517 Fourth Avenue South, spoke to the issue of views. She indicated their
condominiums are in a low building and do not block anyone's view. She expressed her understanding that
a group of five families wish to build some sort of combined unit on the comer. If this is allowed, there
should be some type of height limitation so as to not obstruct views of other residents.
APPROVED CITY COUNCIL, MINUTES
MARCH 21, 1995
PAGE 11
Area 3, 4, 5 and 11
Rob Chave reported that these areas are all located in what is normally referred to as the Westgate
Corridor, so he asked to combine those and take all the testimony on all of those areas at one time since
they are inter -related. Mr. Chave showed via overhead the Planning Board's recommendation for that
entire strip. Generally, they are talking about having some kind of special design review district that would
encompass the Westgate Corridor. Within there would be a combination of two uses -- planned business
and medium density residential. The concept is that within that area there needs to be control through this
design review process as to entrances, curb cuts, retaining the median strip, etc., and also controlling the
types of businesses that would go in there. Planned businesses are distinct from other business categories
in the city and would be similar to neighborhood business but somewhat broader. They would be geared to
neighborhood level that can take advantage of the traffic. They would not interfere with traffic because
that corridor serves an important transportation purpose.
John Maher, 6650 NE Bayview, Bainbridge Island, is a land use consultant. He represents all of the
owners of the property on the frontage of SR-104 on the southwest side of the 700 block on Edmonds Way.
This is between 102nd Place West and 226th Avenue West. These owners desire to have their collective
properties designated as planned business. It is his clients' wishes that the projected planned business
designation line conform to the rear lot lines of the subject property. They acknowledge that the steep
wooded slopes along the rear lot areas cannot be cleared or built upon, but if included in the ultimately
zoned areas will aid the owners in lot coverage and rear lot setback computations. His clients support, with
the requested change, the Comprehensive Plan and strongly urge Council to adopt its Planned Business
designation for the subject property.
Diane Nasa, 557 paradise Lane (Area 3) opposes the change in land use designation between SR 104 and
Paradise Lane. She wants the area to remain single-family residential and does not want multi -family and
planned business as is recommended. On November 9 a letter signed by 22 residents in the neighborhood
was sent to the Planning Board. This letter conveyed their opposition to changing the designation from
single-family residential. The area consists of two homes on SR 104 and three on Paradise Lane. The
potential for development of these properties under current land use would permit substantial development.
One parcel is large enough to handle as many as five single-family residences where now there is just one.
Increasing the land use to planned business or multi -family residential, even if medium density, would
impact the surrounding single-family residences negatively. Paradise Lane itself would need to be redone
since it is only 16' wide. Parking is limited now. How would development provide for parking without
imposing on single-family street parking. Development would also require removal of trees that currently
buffer the single-family homes from SR 104, resulting in more noise, air pollution, visual detraction and
wildlife detriment. She questioned what would happen to property values of single-family residences
located in the area. She asked further why this neighborhood designation should change when other sites
are available. She urged Council to maintain the present designation.
Tony Shapiro, 10609 - 226th Street, is an architect who has resided here with his wife for about two
years. They moved to Edmonds because of the stability. They are opposed to the Comp Plan designation
of medium or high density residential. He expressed the belief that the steep slopes in the area lend
themselves as a division between density designations. Mr. Shapiro has been advised by his neighbors who
have talked to Staff that they are already encountering higher densities over the past year. His comment
was that it complies with the zoning criteria of a 12,000' lot which they feel is more appropriate to this
area. Mr. Shapiro questioned the density designations -- he sees high and medium but no low density areas.
He questioned zero lot lines. Mr. Shapiro said he would not be opposed to duplex zoning on the parcels
behind them. It would create a buffer and is a good concept. He said the planner spoke of this, but does
not feel the written documentation supports what was expressed. Another question he presented concerning
APPROVED CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
MARCH 21, 1995
PAGE 12
the front of the goals of the state land use rezone. This is all driven by the State mandated Growth
Management Act. The projected growth in the city of Edmonds over the last 10 years has achieved the goal
that the state law has mandated by 2012 (pg. 4 of the report). He asked, are we maxing out existing land
and thus not able to achieve the 10% increase in density maintaining the existing land use patterns? Does it
require changing densities, or can lots be in -filled? In summary, they are opposed to the rezone primarily
because of the instability of the neighborhood.
Maryjean Zarick, 556 Paradise Lane, expressed concern over the deteriorating condition of the homes
between SR 104 and Paradise Lane. She noted that three of the five homes are owned by absentee owners.
She says these owners have demonstrated no effort at all to keep these properties up to the standard of the
surrounding neighborhood. She does not understand why someone would want to continue to live around
deteriorating single-family dwellings as opposed to well designed, well planned, owner -occupied multiple
residences. She sees them as being owner -occupied condominium units because even at a second story
level there is a view on all of these properties. There needs to be some incentive for the property owners on
that island to keep those properties up or develop them in such a way that they conform with the standards
of the rest of the neighborhood. Her second concern is the business zoning for the property at 560 Paradise
Lane. If that property were developed as a planned neighborhood business, any business that goes beyond
that 6th Place intersection would be disruptive to the entire neighborhood. She urged Council to draw the
line on the opposite side of 560 and end the business designation short of the 6th Place intersection.
Councihnember Earling asked Mr. Chave for, and was shown, the location of Area 11. Mr. Chave had
advised there had been some discussion concerning the changes on one side of SR 104 applying equally to
the other side. Council President Pro-tem Fahey asked for clarification of the map on Area 3. In his
explanation, Mr. Chave advised that lines at the land use level are approximate. They would have to go
through a rezone process at some later point to actually nail down where the zoning boundaries would
occur. The rezone is a separate process after the land use plan is approved.
Ardel Morgan, 619 Paradise Lane, asked for a description of what would happen if she were rezoned as
business and what it really means. She doesn't understand what would happen to her property values or
those of her neighbors. Mayor Hall suggested she call Mr. Chave tomorrow.
Mike Miller, 16029 NE 153rd, Woodinville, represented his parents who live at 549 Paradise Lane and
spoke specifically to Area 3. He drew Council's attention to pages 134-143 of Exhibit 6 which has quite a
bit of correspondence between himself and some of the neighbors and the Planning Commission to see
about the rezoning. He indicated he had some land use proposals that had been submitted to the Planning
Board but wasn't sure whether they had been forwarded in the packets. He provided a set to the City Clerk.
Area 3 is probably the most contentious area. After hearing quite a bit of testimony, the Planning Board
decided to wrap them all up together in the Westgate Corridor study. What they tried to explain to the
Planning Board was that the Paradise Lane island was unique from all the other parcels within the
Westgate Corridor in the fact that the parcels on the island do not have access onto SR 104 as do all the
other parcels along SR 104 from Paradise Lane. One of the exhibits presented to the Planning Board is on
page 134 of Exhibit 6 which is a highway map that shows the limited access on SR 104 starting at about
the property line of the real estate office at the very tip of the island. From there on into Edmonds it is all
limited access. If any additional development were to occur on the island, access would have to be off
Paradise Lane. Mr. Miller feels that the maps presently used show the business zoning extending father
than what was discussed at the Planning Board. He thinks that from the Planning Board perspective it
appears that everyone along SR 104 should receive upgraded zoning, even though not all properties have
direct access. He had a planner look at that area in the aggregate and see how it could be redeveloped
under the existing R-6 zone and how it could be developed if the City adopts a PUD ordinance similar to
APPROVED CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
MARCH 21, 1995
PAGE 13
other PUD ordinances. That would allow for 16 units on that island as opposed to the existing 4 or 5
houses presently there.
Alex Goldmar, 540 Edmonds Way, also spoke to the limited access to SR 104. If the zoning goes
through, he asked if the City or State would eliminate that limited access. Mr. Chave responded in the
negative.
Mervin Weebe and his wife are out of state owners of property on Edmonds Way which they rent to their
daughter. He extolled the benefits of having her as a neighbor and took exception to what had previously
been said. Mr. Weebe asked for a definition of medium density. He also asked what this would do to his
taxes. These questions had both been asked of Staff with no answers provided. With regard to the limited
access, Mr. Weebe doesn't see how the City is going to provide the access necessary for a higher zoning.
He does not think these things should be addressed in a block form because they don't pertain to everything.
Mr. Chave explained there is not a specific answer as to definition of intermediate density because there is
a range of possibilities. In general, medium density residential is a multi -family classification that would
translate to, most likely, either RM-3 or RM-2.4 zoning. High density residential would translate to either
RM-2.4 or RM-1.5. In other words, you are likely to get a higher density with multi -family use under high
density residential than under medium density. The reason for the range is that it is going to have to vary
by the specific circumstances. Mr. Chave indicated his belief that in their discussions, the Planning Board
was considering the lowest multi -family density which to them would most likely be an RM-3 designation.
COUNCILMEMBER BILL KASPER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ROGER
MYERS, TO EXTEND THE MEETING. MOTION CARRIED.
Discussion followed on the definition of low density and whether such a designation exists. Low density is
generally single-family, high density is multi -family, and medium density is in between. Mr. Chave
believes that in general, throughout the city, there will be seen very few zoning changes if the concept maps
proposed at this point continue. The areas discussed tonight may be the only ones considered for rezones
other than reclassifications such as around the hospital.
Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, indicated he was on the Council when the Westgate Corridor was
studied and was never completed. He thinks a lot of these ideas came from some of the things suggested
but never finalized at that time. This is probably one of the most important corridors to consider in the city
because it provides access to downtown Edmonds and the ferry terminal. Any increase in the usage of the
ferry and any increase in any of the activities in downtown Edmonds means more traffic down that
corridor. What we do in regard to the number of vehicle trips accessing this corridor is very important. To
increase the zoning allowance to increase the number of vehicle trips actually increases the problem of cars
getting down to Edmonds, backing up to Westgate, and making shopping almost impossible for citizens
trying to get to Westgate and the businesses there. He thinks it will additionally be a detriment to the
downtown business area if that corridor effect is not retained. We need to know how many vehicles trips
access that corridor now and how many will in the future. From that, the uses can be determined. Mr.
Hertrich does not think strip commercial areas benefit Edmonds. He thinks commercial centers benefit
Edmonds. The only reason the Westgate Corridor Study was not completed was lack of traffic
information. We still do not have traffic studies of this area.
Mayor Hall read into the record correspondence from Pat and Lorna Fawn, 546 Paradise Lane, Edmonds.
They agree with the proposed land use designation for the Westgate Corridor except for the segment known
as Paradise Island.
APPROVED CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
MARCH 21, 1995
PAGE 14
Area 6
Rob Chave described the area encompassed by Area 6. It is a mixture of high and low density residential.
It also has a split where multi -family is along 196th while the back end is single-family. The
recommendation of the Planning Board is that designation in the Comp Plan should not change, that it
should still show single-family back behind. However, they feel that properly done the PRD provisions
could allow some alternative housing that would provide a transition and resolve some of the land use or
zoning issues without changing the zoning.
Courtney Williams, 2609 East Beaver Lake Drive SE, Issaquah, handed out a letter, part of which he read
into the record. He and his father Kenneth own the property located at 7833 - 196th Street S.W. The
property is dual zoned. They request that the Comprehensive Plan designation on the northern 63,000
square feet of their property be changed from RS-8000 to RM-2400 on the revised plan. The northern
portion of the property is landlocked from access to single-family zone. Its only access is across the multi-
family zone. He explained how the split occurred. He called Council attention to Exhibit A of his handout.
The City has arranged it so that 1.5 prime acres of property is unusable because of the zoning issues. He
questioned when the Council was going to address the problem. He further noted that the precedent for
their proposal already exists in Edmonds on a piece of property four blocks west of their property on 196th
Street. Known as the Nord Homes case, the City of Edmonds File R572 involved property exactly the
same as his, with dual zoning. The case resulted from the City rezoning the property in 1971 in the dual
zones of single-family and multi -family, land locking the single-family access. Mr. Williams' problem was
caused by the same action. They feel they should receive the same solution from the Edmonds City Council
as Nord Homes received. He feels the northerly portion of property should be zoned the same as the
southerly portion. Councilmember Myers asked for clarification of the property involved in the Nord
Homes case.
Greg Burton, 7919 - 194th Place SW, speaking for every homeowner whose property abuts the property
in question and whose signatures he has on a petition so saying that has been presented to the Planning
Board, they agree fully with the Planning Board recommendation that the zoning remain unchanged. They
ask that any PRD follow any zoning codes applicable to RS-8 which is the current zoning and was the
zoning at the time Mr. Williams purchased his property. He does not feel it is landlocked. This was
discussed many times. Mr. Burton even had a land use lawyer walk the property, talk to the Planning
Board, and he stated it was in no way landlocked. They ask that Council follow the Planning Board's
recommendation.
Janie Woods, 7923 - 194th Place SW, has lived there since 1972. Their property is close to the single-
family zoning, and they want it to remain single-family. They have had problems in the past with multi-
family along 196th. The fire department cannot access most of those properties unless they go through
their culdesac and put their hoses and firemen over the fence. This is not a proper way to handle the
situation. They need to deal with health, fire and safety reasons, and access. She asked that Council go
along with the Planning Board recommendation.
Area 7
Mr. Chave reported that it was the recommendation of the Planning Board for this area to remain with
existing zoning. The Planning Board felt the area needed further study before a final decision was made.
Discussion followed on previous study of this area to the West. Using the overhead, Mr. Chave detailed
the area.
APPROVED CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
MARCH 21, 1995
PAGE15
Carl and Lela Forsbeek, 22319 - 76th Avenue West, indicated there had been prior action on this
particular property. Mr. Forsbeck reported to Council that he had a letter from his neighbor authorizing
him to represent him. He has written the Planning Department (green handout on page 199) setting out
their concerns. Except for times of transfer throughout the United States the Forsbecks have lived in this
house since 1957. Item 7 indicates that it designates the small area as both high density and commercial.
They believe it should be commercial. The small wedge is an island. They live right behind the old Jackpot
station. He described other businesses in the area. Intermixed with this are several 12-15 unit apartments.
They have appealed to the Planning Department, but it is believed the Planning Board decision for this to
remain 2.4 is out of order. They live in an island of commercial activity. They would like Council to read
the letter sent in November 1994 and take into consideration their concern and recognize that this is a
commercial area. They would like to see their property designated commercial. Unlike those on the other
side, they are Edmonds residents and feel they have the right to have their property zoned commercial.
Council President Pro-tem Fahey asked for clarification of the map she was reviewing. Mr. Forsbeck again
described the commercial neighbors they have and asked why the property was designated commercial
before. Apparently the change happened during one of their periods of absence. Mayor Hall suggested the
records could be looked up if he wished to call and talk to the Planning Department. Mr. Forsbeck feels the
Council is the last place to go for relief other than an attorney.
Area 8
Mr. Chave indicated Council would recall this area from recent land use action regarding multi -family
development where Mr. Koo was the applicant. Letters were received from some of the surrounding area
asking that consideration be given to looking at the land use there. The Planning Board did not reach a
consensus. There were two proposals on the table at the time of the deadlock: making that entire area
multi -family or alternatively stopping the multi -family so that the eastern boundary of Mr. Koo's property
will remain single family. The existing Comprehensive Plan does not show that area as multi -family at all,
so it is a conflict between the existing plan and the current zoning, and the current development. At this
point the Board was not able to make a recommendation.
Al Rutledge, 7101 Lake Ballinger Way, Edmonds, called attention to two maps. It shows 244th going
past 76th West, and 244th ends on 76th and goes to Lake Ballinger Way on that side of the lake. He would
like that corrected. Also, there is a light that was put on Lake Ballinger Way by 76th that was put in
because of the traffic. Traffic has increased, and businesses exist that are not shown. He stressed the need
for map corrections.
Area 9
Mr. Chave advised that Area 9 is on the east side of 76th just north of 228th Street and is including some
of the properties fronting on 76th. They are currently zoned BC and shown on the Comprehensive Plan as
both commercial and multi -family. Under the new Plan it would be shown in the corridor area. The
request from the property owners is that subsequent to the new Comprehensive Plan that they would be
able to come in and get multi -family rather than the BC zoning they presently have. The Planning Board
considered this favorably. The RM 2.4 is immediately south of the BC.
Council President Pro-tem Fahey asked for further clarification of this area as well as the proposal for Area
8. Mr. Chave indicated the Planning Board discussed two options: 1) showing this entire area high
density, multi -family under the new Plan (right now it is single-family with multi -family zoning for quite
some time), and 2) taking out of the multi -family designation most of the eastern -most properties. They
could not get a consensus between the choices. Council President Pro-tem Fahey said she now understood
why so may people at the Koo hearing thought the area single-family.
APPROVED CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
MARCH 21,1995
PAGE 16
City Attorney Snyder reminded the audience that after this hearing, the Council would be discussing this
matter in more detail next week.
Area 10
This area is on the east side of Fifth Avenue, straddling Homeland Drive. The zoning map shows it is
essentially the last piece of land on the east side of Fifth that has a single-family zoning on it. The current
Comprehensive Plan does show it as multi -family, and part of the debate was what it should be in the
future. It is a bluff -like area. The recommendation of the Planning Board thought it most appropriate to
designate it downtown commercial, or BC. Mr. Chave thinks part of their discussion was also dealing with
heights. It would make sense to be BC if the orientation were on Fifth. If there was not a way to do that, it
might be difficult to provide some type of buffer.
Jan Zickefoose, 539 Homeland Drive, said they were at the Planning Board meeting and were disappointed
with the recommendation. She had hoped that the Planning Board would have recommended the area stay
as single-family, but it did not. She asked for an explanation of mixed use commercial. Mr. Chave
explained that was an instance where the first level has to be commercial, and above can be multi -family,
but over half the building must be commercial. Ms. Zickefoose called Council's attention to the fact that
Homeland Drive is a culdesac. The last Comprehensive Plan map showed that it included more of
Homeland Drive in the Comprehensive Plan. This changes the two to four homes .that can be included in
the Comprehensive Plan as commercial or mixed use. She asked if anyone had taken into consideration the
fact that they were cutting a culdesac in half and causing access problems. She believes that Homeland
Drive was one of the first subdivisions in downtown Edmonds, and she would like to keep it that way. She
would like the final recommendation to provide for maintenance as a single-family zoning.
Nancy Grim, 527 Hemlock, is deeply concerned about the Comprehensive Plan. Homeland is single-
family; it's a culdesac; and it has covenants that go with the land. The promise is that it remain single-
family. Somehow the Building Department has ignored this. She is concerned about traffic impact and
safety. Visibility is bad because of parked cars. If you start putting more bulky buildings along Fifth, it
will increase the traffic problem. She also feels if zoning is changed, views will disappear. As a realtor she
sees an excess of empty office space and unsold condos on Fifth. She doesn't think we need to encourage
that kind of development along Fifth Avenue. She wants to leave homeland single-family.
Carmen Hudlow, 523 Homeland Drive, advised that she supports the previous two speakers. She feels
that Ms. Grim summarized well the people's feelings. She also commented on the traffic issue to which
Mr. Hertrich referred earlier.
At City Clerk Rhonda March's suggestion, Mayor Hall acknowledged receipt of and read the first
paragraph of a letter from Jim Grigsby of 560 Homeland Drive. He feels the rezone of these two properties
would be detrimental to the lifestyles and property values of all residences in the re -plat of the Homeland
Addition. It was clearly the intention of the original developers that this area remain single-family. The
letter will be inserted in the record in total.
Councilmember Myers asked what the legal status of the protective covenants as regards the
Comprehensive Plan. City Attorney Snyder said there was no effect. A private legal covenant is a
covenant enforceable by property owners within the subdivision. It is a right which they can use to protect
that property right. It gives them a cause for action. They are not honored by, nor enforceable by, the
City.
APPROVED CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
MARCH 21,1995
PAGE 17
The public portion of the hearing was closed.
This matter is scheduled for 60 minutes next week. City Attorney Snyder suggested that at the close of this
session they continue the deliberations next week so there is no need to re -advertise.
Councilmember Kasper wanted to get on the floor that the issue of the Growth Management Act is going to
be binding more than zoning.
COUNCILMEMBER MYERS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER KASPER, TO
CONTINUE THIS MATTER TO NEXT WEEK MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Nordquist left the meeting.
City Attorney Snyder stated he and Mr. Mar thought it would be an appropriate time to discuss the train
speed appeal to the City Council. That was filed in order to meet the deadline. Some discussion of strategy
on the appeal needs to be discussed. Mr. Mar summarized the history of this matter as a reminder to
Council. After the decision was made, Mr. Mar had indicated he did not think they were going to appeal.
The appeal was filed on the last day for filing.. He received four phone calls from the DOT which he has
not returned since last week.
Council President Pro tem Fahey understood that in order for commuter trains to run on those tracks that
the tracks needed to be upgraded to a much higher level. She asked if there was talk about upgrading the
tracks before allowing the higher speed. Mr. Snyder answered that the testimony at the hearing indicated
that the tracks that are in place are welded and are classed in a classification that would allow 80-90 mph
train speeds. The problem had more to do with the bottleneck caused by single tracking through the city
and the difficulty that you obviously can't run trains in both directions on the same set of tracks. Her
conversation with one of the representatives on the demonstration run indicated the speed was not as fast
as expected because the tracks were not sufficient to handle the speed. Mr. Mar said there are a number of
segments that have to be upgraded between Everett and Seattle in order for the commuter rail and all others
to be able to attain the speed limits if the speed limits were raised. He does not think that is the case in the
city limits. Mr. Snyder summarized the situation as trying to maintain the lowest train speed consistent
with the safety of the citizens. Mr. Snyder's suggestion to Council would be to find out if it is to the City's
collective advantage to drop that opposition and what the incentives that might be offered are. This is a
relatively low percentage appeal.
The only request Mr. Mar had for tonight was to bring the Councilmembers up -to -speed and allow him to
respond to the DOT and update them on what has happened. Discussion of various appeal issues followed.
It was suggested Mr. Mar report to Council again following his return of the DOT phone calls. Hopefully
that can be done next week when he gives his report on the multimodal project.
Mr. Mar reminded Council that the WUTC and the DOT are two different entities. The DOT is one of the
three applicants, along with Burlington Northern and Amtrak for the speed increase, so they are the
applicant and not the body that will make the decision or influence the UTC.
It is a regional pre -application that Snohomish County is listed as high priority project for about $800,000.
At the statewide STP competition on March 16 we submitted an application for about the same amount of
money for the multimodal project. In all three cases Edmonds was the lead; the co -applicants were DOT
and Community Transit.
APPROVED CITY COUNCIL hMq(MS
MARCH 21,1995
PAGE 18
City Attorney Snyder advised that it was tried through the hearing process to present a case distinct from
the feelings of citizens. That is, while we appreciate their concerns about safety, that our concern is that
the City has followed through on the direction from the WUTC received after the last hearing which is that
the only ultimate safety solution to the Edmonds waterfront is grade separation, and that the City in good
faith has initiated a process that could spend hundreds of millions of dollars in state, local and federal
money. We are actively trying to pursue a solution to the problem, and what we are looking for is that the
train speeds throughout Edmonds be maintained until that ultimate safety solution of grade separation can
be brought about on the waterfront. We are not saying no forever, but would like the opportunity to
complete the project that we have committed so much money to bring about.
Councilmember Earling led further discussion with regard to train speeds. Concern was expressed that the
door would be opened for higher speeds for freight trains. It was suggested by Councilmember Hall that
they need the increase in passenger rail so they can subsidize that and make money off the freights.
Councilmember Kasper thinks it will kill the waterfront.
8. MAYOR
Mayor Hall reported on the NLC Conference in Washington DC which was held from March 10 - 15. She
rj U C' found it interesting that transportation was rarely mentioned or addressed. There was one Amtrak meeting,
and she heard Tom Downs paint a picture of Amtrak that was not very good as far as its future. They need
the subsidy because money is to be cut. She went on to discuss other factors effecting their situation. One
of the items discussed was ways to market themselves. Mayor Hall mentioned to our Congressmen that
perhaps there could be a five year cap, some monies to subsidize it and get linkages, get it healthy and
cooperate with BN.
L Mayor Hall further reported that she had been appointed by the State AWC to serve on the Crime Policy
and Prevention Committee which was well attended. Three criteria were decided upon: (1) There is money
available which we do not want categorized. We want those funds flexible. (2) Coordination of all the
entities in the law and justice system. (3) Communication.
� Mayor Hall briefly described the topics of a presentation by Newt Gingrich. Welfare reform was another
big issue. She met with Congressmen Rick White and Randy Tate, and Senator Slade Gorton. It did not
seem that hopeful for transportation at this time. The new Congressmen are eager and enthusiastic.
President Clinton spoke very well about his plan. Afterward, he came down and shook hands. The title of
the meeting was "Stronger Communities and Brighter Futures". The tone was more subdued than negative.
Mayor Hall recommended at least one NLC conference to each Councilmember.
Mayor Hall said there had been a HUD policy meeting in Everett on Thursday. There were some revisions
dtA,D to the money allocations, to which Mayor Hall agreed. The Mayor attended the SRC meeting that
P afternoon and evening. Present was Mr. Horsely who works under Secretary of Transportation Pena and
who remembers the multimodal project. On Monday, Councilmembers Earling and Myers and Mayor Hall
` attended a session on land use.
Elected officials from all of Snohomish County have been invited to the City of Everett meeting for the
RTA on April 4 at 2:00 p.m. in Everett City Council Chambers. RSVPs are requested as soon as possible.
Mayor Hall announced receipt of a fax from Washington Wildlife and Recreation Program. We need to get
action to the legislature. Some of our funds for Brackett's Landing may be in jeopardy. The Governor did
request $77,365; the House proposal has nothing. Calls are needed because floor action is expected as
early as Friday. If there are questions, contact Maureen Morris of AWC.
APPROVED CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
MARCH 21, 1995
PAGE 19
9. COUNCIL
Council President Pro-tem Fahey asked City Attorney Snyder about the question that was still pending
regarding the one year residency requirement for running for City Council on behalf of Mike Huisman.
Mr. Snyder responded that it is a statutory requirement. He asked if Council wants him to do a legal
opinion on the subject. What is typically done is an individual files, and if elected goes through an action to
see whether they can hold office. What makes it difficult is that the legal definition of residency depends
upon a variety of factual contexts. This is covered under state statute and may be mentioned in the City
Code.
Council President Pro-tem Fahey indicated she is very concerned about Initiative 164 which is currently in
committee in the Senate. Conventional wisdom says unless it is killed in committee, it will probably be
b passed into law. The only hope is to contact Mary Margaret Hoggin to encourage her to keep it in
committee. There is a lot of pressure from groups for her to pass it out. She commented on some of the
items that would be effected by its passage. Councilmember Myers interjected that unofficial word had the
Senate committee hearing on the matter scheduled for next week.
She fiirther reported that there will be a Miss Edmonds Pageant this year. Young women from 18-22 can
-�►"' 1 get applications at their high schools or at the Chamber cottage. The deadline for filing is April 21, and the
p pageant will be May 6. Councilmember Hall added that the winner of that pageant will represent Edmonds
P in the Miss Seafair pageant. (Councilmember Kasper left the meeting.) Ms. Fahey said the winner will
receive a school scholarship.
Councilmember Hall brought up that as the City annexes different areas, Council ought to look at the
opportunity of putting TV coverage into those areas as well. There are 18,000 households in this cable
area, and Viacom and TCI are in a lot of the areas being annexed. He suggested that without cost those
cable companies would air Council tapes. There are now two copies of meeting tapes available at the
library.
Councilmember Myers suggested a congratulatory note be sent to Puget Sound Bible College who went to
the National Bible College Athletic Association's national basketball tournament for the second year in a
row. They returned home with the tournament championship, winning three straight games to capture the
national title.
Councilmember Earling noted that the meetings seem to be running long.
There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 11:22 p.m.
THE ORIGINAL SIGNED COPY OF THESE MINUTES, AS WELL AS A TAPED RECORDING OF ALL
COUNCIL MEETINGS, CAN BE FOUND IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE.
F. •
4Ro nda J�Ma �,Cty CIerk
APPROVED C= COUNCIL MIM=
MARCH 21, 1995
PAGE 20
AGENDA
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL
PLAZA MEETING ROOM - LIBRARY BUILDING
Nlw
7:15 -10:00 p.m.
MARCH 21, 1995
SPECIAL MEETING
INTERVIEW CANDIDATE FOR CITY ENGINEER POSITION AT 6:15 P.M.
EXECUTIVE SESSION ON LITIGATION BEGINNING AT APPROXIMATELY 6:40 P.M.
CALL TO ORDER - 7:15 P.M.
FLAG SALUTE
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
2. (10 Min.) CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
(A) ROLL CALL
(B) APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF COUNCIL RETREAT ON FEBRUARY 24 AND 25, 1995
(C) APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF MARCH 7, 1995
(D) APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF MARCH 14, 1995
(E) APPROVAL TO AMEND MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 21, 1995 TO CORRECT SCRIVENER ERROR
(F) APPROVAL OF CLAIMS WARRANTS #951103 THRU #951277 FOR WEEK OF MARCH 6, 1995 AND
#950642 THRU #951358 FOR THE WEEK OF MARCH 13, 1995
(G) ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES FROM DAVID SITTAUER ($1,564.13), NANCY R.
MCALLISTER (AMT. UNKNOWN), AND BJORN THUESEN ($2,196.65), AND CHARLES L. MALLOW
($1408.03), KIM ALLAN FENN ($452.16), SCOTT MAYHEW ($475.76), AND SCOTT MAYHEW ($291.71)
(H) AUTHORIZATION TO CALL FOR BIDS FOR BURGLAR/FIRE ALARM FOR HISTORICAL MUSEUM
(1) REPORT ON BIDS RECEIVED MARCH 3, 1995 FOR UNIT #20, A 1980 GMC SURPLUS DUMP TRUCK
AND AWARD OF BID TO CITY OF GOLDBAR ($7,501)
(J) APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FROM HEARING OF MARCH 7, 1995
ON HEARING EXAMINER RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY PLAT APPLICATION TO
SUBDIVIDE APPROXIMATELY 6.83 ACRES INTO 15 SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS AT 9117 OLYMPIC VIEW
DRIVE, AND APPROVAL OF A CRITICAL AREAS REASONABLE USE EXCEPTION TO REDUCE
REQUIRED CRITICAL AREA BUFFER AND BUILDING SETBACK FROM THE TOP OF A STEEP SLOPE
HAZARD AREA (APPLICANT: GEORGE KAIREZ / FILE NO. P-93-216)
(K) AUTHORIZATION TO CALL FOR BIDS TO PURCHASE 3 SETS OF HAND TOOLS AND 3 ROLLAWAY
TOOL BOXES (referred from Finance Committee of March 14, 1995)
(L) AUTHORIZATION TO EXTEND EIS CONTRACT AND TRANSFER $15,390 FROM COUNCIL
CONTINGENCY FUND FOR GMA (referred from Finance Committee of March 14, 1995)
(M) AUTHORIZATION TO REALLOCATE FUNDS TO EXTEND GMA PLANNER CONTRACT
(N) APPROVAL OF ARTS RESOURCE COORDINATOR JOB DESCRIPTION (referred from Finance
Committee of March 14, 1995)
CONSENT AGENDA CONTINUED
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
MARCH 21, 1995
PAGE 2
(0) APPROVAL OF RECLASSIFICATION OF OFFICER TO SPECIAL OPERATIONS/TRAFFIC SERGEANT
(referred from Finance Committee of March 14, 1995)
(P) PROPOSED ORDINANCE FOR STORM WATER REGULATIONS (from Hearing of February 7, 1995)
(Q) PROPOSED ORDINANCE FOR CRITICAL AREAS
(R) AUTHORIZATION TO ALLOW THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE TO USE THE OLD PUBLIC WORKS
FACILITY TO BUILD THE 4TH OF JULY FLOAT
(S) AUTHORIZATION TO CALL FOR BIDS FOR THE GOODHOPE POND RESTORATION PROJECT
3. AUDIENCE
4. (20 Min.) PRESENTATION ON 800 MEGAHERTZ RADIO SYSTEM
5. (20 Min.) MEETING WITH PROPONENTS OF PROPOSED ANNEXATION OF SHERWOOD VILLAGE, WOODWAY
MEADOWS & HOLIDAY HILLS AREA (FILE NO. AX-95-24)
6. (20 Min.) CONTINUED HEARING ON APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION TO DENY AN APPEAL OF
THE ENGINEERING DIVISION'S DECISION REQUIRING A PAVED SURFACE ON A PROPOSED
TEMPORARY PARKING LOT APPLIED FOR BY CLAY ENTERPRISES, AND LOCATED AT 7521 212TH
STREET SOUTHWEST (Appel lant/Applicant: Lovell-Sauerland - File No. AP-94-203) (Contd. from
217195)
7. (60 Min.) HEARING ON UPDATED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN — LAND USE ELEMENT
8. (5 Min.) MAYOR
9. (15 Min.) COUNCIL
Parking and meeting rooms are accessible for persons with disabilities. Contact the City Clerk at 771-0245 with 24
hours advance notice for special accommodations. The Council Agenda appears on Chambers Cable, Channel 32.
Delayed telecast of this Meeting appears the following Wednesday evening at 7.00 p.m. on Channel 36, and the following
Friday and Monday at noon on Channel 32.