09/28/2004 City CouncilEDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES
September 28, 2004
The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:03 p.m. by Mayor Haakenson in the Council
Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute.
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Gary Haakenson, Mayor
Michael Plunkett, Council President
Jeff Wilson, Councilmember
Mauri Moore, Councilmember
Peggy Pritchard Olson, Councilmember
Dave Orvis, Councilmember
Richard Maun, Councilmember
Deanna Dawson, Councilmember
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
STAFF PRESENT
David Stern, Chief of Police
Duane Bowman, Development Services Director
Noel Miller, Public Works Director
Rob Chave, Planning Manager
Dave Gebert, City Engineer
Darrell Smith, Traffic Engineer
Steve Bullock, Senior Planner
Frances Chapin, Cultural Resources Coordinator
Scott Snyder, City Attorney
Sandy Chase, City Clerk
Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst.
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON,
FOR APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, FOR
APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows:
(A) ROLL CALL
Approve
9/21/04
Minutes (B) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 21, 2004.
Approve (C) APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #74079 THROUGH #74197 FOR THE WEEK OF
Claim Checks SEPTEMBER 20, 2004, IN THE AMOUNT OF $138,287.52. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL
DIRECT DEPOSITS AND CHECKS #39210 THROUGH #39301 FOR THE PERIOD
SEPTEMBER 1 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 15, 2004, IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,086,780.55.
Liquor
Control Board (D) APPROVAL OF LIST OF EDMONDS BUSINESSES APPLYING FOR RENEWAL OF
THEIR LIQUOR LICENSES WITH THE WASHINGTON STATE LIQUOR CONTROL
BOARD.
Steimnan's (E) FINAL APPROVAL OF A 12 LOT PLAT/PRD ON 172No STREET SW AND 6Tx PLACE
Meado,vdale W. THE PROJECT WILL BE RECORDED AS STEINMAN'S MEADOWDALE
Estates ESTATES. (APPLICANT: MERLE STEINMAN/FILE NOS. P-2002-93 & PRD-2002-40).
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 28, 2004
Page 1
Anderson
Center (F) REPORT ON FINAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR THE FRANCES ANDERSON
PotablAsbestos ewater
Asbestos CENTER POTABLE WATER ASBESTOS ABATEMENT PROJECT AND COUNCIL
Abatement ACCEPTANCE OF PROJECT.
Design of (G) AUTHORIZATION FOR THE MAYOR TO SIGN SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT NO.
220" St. SW 2 TO THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH PERTEET
Improvements ENGINEERING FOR THE DESIGN OF 220TH STREET SW IMPROVEMENTS (9TH
AVENUE SOUTH TO 84TH AVENUE WEST) PROJECT.
Physical
Therapy
Month (H) PROCLAMATION IN HONOR OF PHYSICAL THERAPY MONTH, OCTOBER 2004.
3. PROCLAMATION IN HONOR OF NATIONAL ARTS AND HUMANITIES MONTH OCTOBER
ational Arts 2004
& Humanities
Month Mayor Haakenson read a Proclamation declaring October as National Arts and Humanities Month. Art
Commissioner Julie Long accepted the proclamation and expressed appreciation for the continued
emphasis the community places on arts and humanities.
Tree House 4. THE CITY COUNCIL RECEIVED A REQUEST THAT THE FOLLOWING MATTER BE
Issue at 18312 CONTINUED TO OCTOBER 19 2004: CLOSED RECORD REVIEW — APPEAL OF THE
18151Pl w HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION TO DENY AN APPEAL OF A STAFF CODE
INTERPRETATION THAT A 6-FOOT BY 6-FOOT TREE HOUSE IS A STRUCTURE AND
THEREFORE SUBJECT TO THE CITY ZONING STANDARDS AND SETBACK
REQUIREMENTS. THE TREE HOUSE IS LOCATED AT 18312 — 81ST PLACE W. AND IS
ZONED SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RS-12). (APPELLANTS: KEITH KEMPER OF
ELLIS, LI & MCKINSTRY, PLLC FOR MARK AND JANA LOEWEN / FILE NOS. AP-04-102
AND AP-04- 67).
Mayor Haakenson advised this item was continued to October 19, 2004.
Proposed 5. CLOSED RECORD REVIEW OF THE PLANNING BOARD'S RECOMMENDATION TO DENY
Contract A PROPOSED CONTRACT REZONE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 546 PARADISE
Rezone at 546 LANE. THE REQUESTED REZONE WOULD CHANGE THE ZONING FROM RS-6 TO RM-2.4
Paradise Lane WITH SOME LIMITING CONDITIONS. (APPLICANT: WARREN LAFON/FILE NO. R-2004-7)
Mayor Haakenson advised this was a quasi judicial matter and inquired whether any Councilmembers had
any conflicts or ex parte communication they wished to disclose.
Councilmember Wilson disclosed that Mr. LaFon's son and he work for the same firm; they work in
different divisions and have had no interaction or discussion regarding this matter. Councilmember
Wilson advised he felt able to participate in the discussion of this matter.
Mayor Haakenson asked for any objections to Councilmember Wilson's participation. No objections
were voiced and Mayor Haakenson advised all Councilmembers would participate. He established a 20
minute time limit for the applicant's presentation with time reserved for rebuttal and 20 minutes for staff's
presentation.
Senior Planner Steve Bullock explained the LaFons submitted a contract rezone for the property they own
at 546 Paradise Lane. He displayed a Comprehensive Plan map identifying the LaFon property,
properties designated single family, and medium density multifamily designations which correspond to
zoning classifications of RM-3 or RM-2.4. He explained the applicant's contract rezone requested their
property be zoned RM-2.4, the most intense zoning classification allowed under that Comprehensive Plan
designation. The applicant also submitted elements they were willing to restrict in the development to
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 28, 2004
Page 2
ensure their project was compatible with the single family neighborhoods, particularly those to the
northeast.
Mr. Bullock explained the initial staff report to the Planning Board recommends approval of the project.
However, shortly before the hearing, the applicant chose to eliminate one of the conditions they initially
proposed regarding stepping back the third floor of their building which staff determined would minimize
the bulk of the fagade as it faced the single family neighborhood to the northeast. As a result of removing
that condition, staff changed their recommendation to the Planning Board to deny the requested contract
rezone. Mr. Bullock recalled some of the testimony at the Planning Board's public hearing was in
support of the project and a number of residents who lived in the area were in opposition to the project.
The Planning Board's decision was to recommend denial of the project to the City Council.
Mr. Bullock directed the Council's attention to pages 2-4 of the packet, the Planning Board's Findings of
Fact & Conclusions and Recommendations with regard to this project. He referred to page 3, Item A
which enumerated the items the applicant submitted to limit future development on their property: 1) no
more than 12 units, 2) at least two buildings, 3) no more than three surface parking stalls (remainder
under the building), 4) significant trees to be retained as shown on submitted plan, 5) landscaping
required along Paradise Lane, and 6) site to be kept in an inoffensive order.
Mr. Bullock recalled another issue considered by the Planning Board was the width of the pavement on
Paradise Lane which was also described on page 3 of the record. He explained that although the right-of-
way on Paradise Lane was 60 feet wide, it was improved to only 18 feet from edge of pavement to edge
of pavement in some places. He explained when this project was developed, the applicant would be
required to improve the right-of-way (curbs, gutters, sidewalk, increase the width of the pavement) along
the frontage of their property, but substantial portions of Paradise Lane would remain in its current
condition with no sidewalks. He recalled this was a concern for the Planning Board.
With regard to the elimination of the condition that would have stepped back the third floor, Mr. Bullock
explained the Comprehensive Plan had very specific policies with regard to the Westgate Corridor. He
noted the Westgate Corridor included properties that front along Edmonds Way from Westgate (Robin
Hood Lanes to approximately this property). Although the Comprehensive Plan indicates the location of
properties with frontage on Edmonds Way lends them to commercial/multifamily type development, it
also contains specific policies regarding the care and consideration that needed to be given to ensure a
project would not have an undue impact on adjacent single family neighborhoods.
Mr. Bullock recalled when providing information to the applicant and to the Planning Board, Planning
staff took direction from the Council's review of a Comprehensive Plan amendment and rezone request
for the properties east of the Robin Hood Lanes property. He explained the request for that property was
to designate it multifamily high density and rezone to RM-1.5. He recalled the Council chose to amend
the Comprehensive Plan to multifamily high density but deny the rezone request to RM-1.5 in favor of a
simple rezone. He noted the circumstances in that instance were similar, adjacent to single family
neighborhoods, and the direction from the Council was they would be willing to consider a contract
rezone on properties where access was coordinated and design characteristics/features were incorporated
into the design to ensure the impact to the adjacent single family neighborhoods was minimized. Mr.
Bullock summarized the elimination of the condition to stepback the third floor, potentially resulting in a
fairly massive 3-story building on a rockery facing the single family neighborhood, was a concern to staff
and the Planning Board.
Mr. Bullock recalled another issue the Planning Board considered was the intersection of Paradise Lane
and Edmonds Way including the awkwardness of the intersection, amount of traffic and difficulty
entering/exiting Paradise Lane particularly on the weekends when ferry lines back up. He noted there
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 28, 2004
Page 3
was testimony in the record from the Traffic Engineer documenting there are not an excessive amount of
accidents at the Paradise Lane/Edmonds Way intersection that would justify a requirement to upgrade the
intersection with this project. However, there remains a perceived concern with the intersection and
additional development along Paradise Lane. He referred to the conclusions of the Planning Board
documented on page 4 of the Council record.
Mr. Bullock displayed a land use map of the area, identifying the subject property, single family and
multifamily developed properties. He displayed an aerial photograph and identified the subject property,
noting a number of trees on the site would be eliminated with the construction of the proposed
development although some trees along the eastern and southern edge would be retained as well as trees
in the public right-of-way. Mr. Bullock summarized the Planning Board recommended denial of the
proposed contract rezone.
Councilmember Marin observed if the Council denied the proposed contract rezone, the only options
available to the applicant were to develop the property at RS-6 or request a rezone to RM-3. Mr. Bullock
answered the existing zoning was RS-6, a single family zoning classification. The applicant could
propose a development under the existing zoning classification or submit a new rezone request to RM-3
or submit a substantially different contract rezone request at RM-2.4. He noted the applicant was
precluded from submitting the exact application again.
City Attorney Scott Snyder explained if the Council were to deny the proposed contract rezone, the
Council would make written Findings, Facts & Conclusions of Law that described the reasons for the
denial. The applicant could then revise their contract rezone in a manner that addressed the reasons cited
by the Council which would constitute a substantial change.
Councilmember Marin asked whether the applicant could resubmit and include the item they removed.
Mr. Snyder answered that was at the Council's discretion.
Councilmember Wilson asked whether the neighborhood's primary concerns were the mass, bulk and
height of the building in relation to the single family properties or traffic issues. Mr. Bullock answered
the majority of the concerns raised by the neighborhood were related to traffic and access.
Councilmember Wilson inquired about the SEPA determination for the proposed contract rezone. Mr.
Bullock answered a Determination of Non -significance (DNS) was issued with the assumption another
SEPA would be conducted at the time a project was proposed. Mr. Bullock asked for an opportunity to
verify the SEPA determination during the applicant's presentation.
Councilmember Orvis referred to Attachment 8 (pages 21-23 of the Council record), inquiring whether
the photographs were computer generated or photographs of buildings. Mr. Bullock answered they were
computer generated renderings of what a building might look like on the property.
For Council President Plunkett, Mr. Bullock advised the public comments in the Council record were in
response to the applicant's proposal that was made to the Planning Board at their July 28 meeting which
included the conditions offered by the applicant as he read from the Planning Board's findings.
Council President Plunkett pointed out if the applicant offered changes tonight, there would be no
opportunity for public input. Mr. Snyder advised the record of the proceeding was fixed; the Council
could approve, deny, or remand the proposed contract rezone. If the Council denied based on the
stepback condition and it was later changed, that would constitute a substantial change and the applicant
would need to reapply. Council President Plunkett observed any member of the public could then
respond to the change. Mr. Snyder answered yes, if the application was denied or remanded.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 28, 2004
Page 4
AApplicant
Warren LaFon, 546 Paradise Lane, Edmonds, advised the property had been designated multifamily
since they purchased it 30 years ago and the condominium was constructed the year after they purchased
the property. He advised they made a decision to have the property rezoned in accordance with the
Comprehensive Plan designation at the end of Paradise Lane in preparation for eventual resale; they had
no immediate plans to sell or develop the property. He explained they decided on a contract rezone at the
recommendation of planning staff and because they felt it was the best alternative for the neighborhood.
He explained a survey had been done and he prepared some floor plans to determine what would fit on
the property but he did not design the exterior. Planning staff requested an elevation and the individual
who prepared the drawings based them on the existing house. He noted the back of the property
contained a 20-foot hedge that would create a buffer for the building and amenities that would be in the
back. He noted the 12 units would not overburden the site and more could be constructed if the property
were zoned RM-1.5.
Mr. LaFon compared the traffic volumes with development of 12 units on the property at RM-2.4 versus
developing five houses on the property at the existing zoning. He recalled a member of the Planning
Board made a statement that RM-3 was more appropriate but did not support it with any reasoning. He
explained at RM-3 zoning, the units would be approximately 3,000 square feet; the units illustrated in the
propose contract rezone were approximately 2,200 square feet per unit, basically the same building for
either.
Mr. LaFon pointed out a great deal of the public testimony at the public hearing and the Planning Board's
discussion centered on the width of the street, ferry traffic, etc. He read a statement by Mr. Bullock from
the Planning Board's June 9, 2004 minutes (page 42 of the Council record), "Mr. Bullock advised that the
engineering department has acknowledged traffic concerns with Paradise Lane, specifically how it
accesses onto and off of Edmonds Way. But this is a City problem and not something created by the
potential rezone. It is an existing situation and will never be the sole responsibility of a developer on this
property to resolve. There may be some requirement that the developer pay their share of the
improvements, but that is a separate issue from the contract rezone application that is being considered
at this time. No one should expect what happens on this property to fix all of the problems that exist at
Paradise Lane and Edmonds Way. The traffic engineer reviewed a traffic study that was submitted by the
applicant. While they acknowledge that Paradise Lane would be impacted, the conclusion is that the
impact would not be enough to change the level of service that has been identified for that street. "
Mr. LaFon pointed out construction of a condominium would impact the neighborhood less than the
construction of five houses because the houses would likely be constructed over a longer period of time.
He referred to a comment by a neighbor regarding the amount of dirt that would need to be removed from
the site and explained the amount of dirt removed for construction of a condominium was not
significantly different than the amount that would need to be removed for construction of five houses with
basements.
Mr. LaFon referred to the August 11 meeting between the Planning Board and Planning Staff where the
Planning Board changed "what they really meant at the hearing." He noted they did not attend the August
11 meeting and only received the information yesterday. He recalled the Planning Board had stated most
people do not want to live along the highway as the backs of the houses would face the ferry cutoff and
traffic. He noted the design of the condominiums would eliminate that problem. He pointed out the units
would be accessed from the back, providing more dense walls to reduce traffic noise. He noted houses
would not provide that function.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 28, 2004
Page 5
Mr. LaFon clarified the rendering was the result of staffs request for an elevation. He assured this
building would not be built and was only an idea.
Mr. LaFon explained the street would be widened to 24 feet, there would be 5 feet for curb, gutter and
sidewalk and 5 feet of landscaping, a 15 foot setback to the building (approximately to the existing
house), an additional 6-61/2 feet setback, and building heights of approximately the height of the existing
house. He commented the existing house was not visible from the street due to the trees.
With regard to the third floor stepback, Mr. LaFon noted staff changed their approval of the project based
on the stepback of the third floor. He reiterated the building illustrated would not be built. He noted the
actual building design may include the stepback. He explained staff felt the stepback would reduce the
bulk, but he felt there were better designs to meet that requirement such as turning the buildings so there
was less impact to the street or adding more modulation. He concluded a 6-foot stepback on the third
floor would restrict whoever designed the building and would not necessarily result in as good a design.
Mr. LaFon summarized all building codes with regard to condominiums would need to be met. He
explained the reason the 6-foot stepback was removed was because it was too restrictive and the goals of
the Westgate Corridor list a number of design techniques such as modulation of facades, pitched roof,
stepped -down building heights, multiple buildings, and landscaping to provide designs compatible with
single family development. He noted they would not object to including these other methods in the
contract rezone. He reiterated staff recommended approval of the contract rezone prior to the elimination
of that one condition.
Mr. LaFon questioned the Planning Board's Conclusion D that states the current proposal does not
comply with some major goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. He referred to page 7 of the staff
report that lists the factors to be considered and described how they were addressed.
Bill Foster, attorney representing the LaFons, 4300 198`h Street SW, Lynnwood, commented the only
evidence in the record regarding traffic was the information contained in the traffic report submitted by
the applicant and staff concurred with those conclusions. As staff noted in the recommendation, there
would be no significant difference in the peak volumes of traffic between the development of this parcel
with single family residences and development as a condominium, both equate to five peak hour trips.
Mr. Foster noted the bulk of the testimony in opposition to this project, which was based on the original
proposal with the 6-foot stepback on the top floor, remained the same — traffic. He pointed out neither
this applicant nor any other single applicant could be required to remediate the existing conditions on
Paradise Lane. Even with the significant public outcry in opposition to this application, the personal
preferences and general fears of the public in general regarding a condition were not the proper basis for
denial of an application; denial or approval of an application must be made if the applicant complies with
the ordinances adopted by the City.
Mr. Foster agreed that until the one condition was withdrawn from the contract rezone, the 6-foot
stepback of the top floor, staff recommended approval. He argued there was no justifiable difference
based on the language of the Comprehensive Plan that would warrant the change in staff s
recommendation. He referred to staffs reference to compatibility, noting Mr. LaFon did not object to
complying with the City's Architectural. Design Board (ADB) process. He referred to page 34 of the
Comprehensive Plan that states via the design process, design issues are to be addressed. He referred to
Goal F5 of the Westgate Corridor which states design review should be used to ensure development
provides transition to adjacent residential neighborhoods. He clarified the applicant would be required to
participate in the ADB process and it was via that design process that the building design would be
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 28, 2004
Page 6
approved or denied. The rezone of the property to bring it into conformance with the Comprehensive
Plan was not the proper time to design the structure.
With regard to the statement that the proposal was incompatible with the surrounding single family
residences, Mr. Foster referred to Section C on page 30 of the Comprehensive Plan that describes
compatibility with surrounding single family residences, noting height was one of the compatibility
issues. He explained the height of the buildings would not be affected by stepping back the top floor six
feet. With regard to the fagade and preservation of views, Mr. Foster noted none of that would change via
stepping back the top floor. He concluded there was no nexus between the six foot stepback and the
policies staff relied upon to justify their recommendation.
Mr. Foster explained this was a rezone to bring the designation of the property into compliance with the
Comprehensive Plan. Usually, the applicant was required to show a substantial change in circumstances
to justify the rezone; however, that was no longer required under GMA in a rezone to bring zoning into
compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. The applicant need only show that the rezone was intended to
bring the designation into compliance with the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Foster responded to comments regarding environmental review, agreeing there would be a second
environmental review at the time a building was proposed. He reminded the Council the DNS was not
appealed, therefore, any environmental issues were moot at this point.
Mayor Haakenson opened the public hearing to comments from parties of record, cautioning they could
only provide comment on information already in the record.
Parties of Record
Bruce Lambrecht, 1355 6t" Place S, Edmonds, referred to the six items considered by the Planning
Board in ECDC 20.40.010 A-F, pointing out the most important was public health, safety and welfare.
He acknowledged the property on SR 104 had been determined to be appropriate for use as commercial or
higher density residential; however, this was a unique property because the applicant could not provide
access to the property from SR-104 but had to provide access from Paradise Lane. He questioned the
existence of any other commercial property on SR 104 where that was the case. He suggested
consideration be given to changing the Comprehensive Plan designation of this property in view of its
inability to be accessed from SR-104. He also questioned the RS-6 zoning of the property between the
bank and this property. He concluded much of the concern would be eliminated if the property could be
accessed from SR 104.
Michael Connolly, 1350 6t" Place S, Edmonds, agreed with Mr. Lambrecht's comments regarding
access to the property, noting 18 feet wide, 40-year old pavement was not a suitable access road for a
condominium development. He questioned whether the existing road met the Fire Department's
regulations for access and questioned the advisability of allowing further development if it did not. He
commented on the effect the development would have on the neighborhood's quality of life due to the
noise from SR-104 if the trees were removed and the difficulty/danger accessing SR-104 from the
neighborhood.
Ardell Morgan, 619 Paradise Lane, Edmonds, commented on cars that back up past her property and
often into the ditch. She recommended the safety of exiting onto SR-104 be addressed.
Diane Nasa, 557 Paradise Lane, Edmonds, agreed with the Planning Board's decision not to rezone the
property. She noted the primary concerns with a 12-unit condominium were increased traffic, more air
and noise pollution, downing of trees that buffer the neighborhood from SR-104, the potential for
condominium units looking down into their yards, devaluation of property due to the proximity of the
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 28, 2004
Page 7
condominiums, more calls to the Police Department from residents on Paradise Lane who are unable to
access their homes because of ferry traffic blocking the intersection, water drainage, lack of on -street
parking, and a visually unappealing entrance into Edmonds. She referred to the protections described in
the Residential Development section of the Comprehensive Plan (page 31, Section B.5.a-d), and how the
proposed condominium development would violate those protections by intruding on residents' privacy
looking down on their homes, the condominium's access through their neighborhood, devaluation of
property by views of the large building, and not protecting the neighborhood from adverse environmental
impacts of development. She urged the Council not to rezone the property.
Hearing no further public comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the opportunity for testimony from parties
of record.
Councilmember Wilson asked Mr. LaFon why he chose to pursue a contract rezone. Mr. LaFon answered
it was the recommendation of the planning staff, their rationale was it would help buffer the comments
from the neighbors. Councilmember Wilson asked what the conditions proposed in the non -project action
contract rezone were intended to accomplish. Mr. LaFon answered he felt amenities were owed the City
to allow them to do this. He noted they could have requested RM-1.5 or RM-3.0 zoning. He reiterated
no matter what was developed on the property, the traffic would be the same.
Mr. Bullock advised a Mitigated Determination of Non -significance (MDNS) was issued on the contract
rezone because they proposed a specific number of units and there were conditions related to traffic
impact such as a contribution to the intersection of Paradise Lane and SR-104 for their share of the traffic
impacts.
Mr. Bullock observed the applicant and his representative painted a picture that staff designed the project.
He clarified what he told the applicant with regard to this project and what he advises on many rezones or
contract rezones is that a contract rezone may have a broad range or be a simple rezone with some minor
textual commitments such as limiting the type of use on the site to residential. He noted the RM zone
allowed multifamily dwelling units as well as a number of conditional uses. He explained a contract
rezone could also be as complex as a site -specific, project -specific proposal that includes project design.
He recalled previous discussions with the Council on similar sites where rezones have been requested,
specifically the Council's concern with protecting adjacent single family neighborhoods. He recalled
encouraging the applicant to add bulk or design commitments to their proposal to guide the future design
of the project. He felt the Council was not comfortable leaving the appropriate amount of modulation,
stepback, etc. to ensure compatibility between the development on the property and the adjacent single
family neighborhood up to the ADB. He noted this put the ADB in the awkward position of establishing
bulk regulations which was beyond their typical responsibilities. Therefore, his recommendation to the
applicant was to include conditions that would limit the bulk and appearance on the northeast side of the
building.
Mr. Bullock recalled a number of options were discussed and the applicant suggested stepping back the
third floor to which he responded that would address his concerns about the mass of the building and
indicated he would be willing to support that to the Planning Board. He clarified he did not propose the
stepback or attempt to design the project; it was the applicant's proposal.
Mr. Snyder asked whether a level of service analysis was done on the intersection. Mr. Bullock answered
there was but because it was not appealed, that information was not in the record provided to the Planning
Board. He noted that information was contained in internal memos between the Engineering Department
and himself regarding the environmental determination.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 28, 2004
Page 8
Council President Plunkett asked whether the record indicated that the traffic would be approximately the
same whether developed single family or multifamily. Mr. Bullock answered yes, if developed as single
family rather than multifamily as requested by the applicant, the traffic would be approximately the same.
Council President Plunkett asked whether the access would be from Paradise Lane whether it was
developed single family or multifamily. Mr. Bullock answered it would be the same.
Council President Plunkett observed the applicant appeared to be saying there was no nexus between the
stepback and the compatibility test; however, he found a nexus and must detennine whether the
compatibility test was met on the bulk and design. He asked whether there was and/or should be a nexus
between the design and the compatibility test. Mr. Bullock answered yes, agreeing there were a number
of ways that could be accomplished. The applicant initially proposed a way that staff could accept; the
applicant chose to remove that condition and now state they would prefer the ADB consider that issue
during the design process. He explained he informed the applicant that the Council had not been
comfortable with that in the past, finding it did not provide enough certainty to approve rezones in the
past nor did it provide staff enough certainty to recommend approval. He agreed there was a nexus
between compatibility issues and design proposals that ensured compatibility was accomplished.
Councilmember Wilson asked the minimum design standards for a road with the classification of Paradise
Lane. Mr. Bullock answered it was 24-feet wide if it were constructed today. He explained that although
portions of Paradise Lane were less than that, a developer would only be required to improve their half of
the cross-section along their frontage, not the entire length of the roadway.
Councilmember Wilson noted under GMA the Council was also required to consider concurrency,
whether improvements were adequate for the level of development and if it was deficient, the City was
obligated to have improvements installed or not approve development. Mr. Snyder agreed, explaining a
City may only require a developer to install improvements equal to the impacts the development has.
Concurrency was different; a City may deny development until such time as they can find either the
improvements are installed or are on the City's 6-year Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) and would
be available at a time concurrent with development. He explained developers could install improvements
via a late comers agreement which allows contributions to the developer as other properties develop.
Mr. Snyder pointed out there did not appear to be credible evidence in the record to support a finding that
the intersection did not meet level of service requirements. However, he noted Councilmember Wilson's
question targeted a City requirement that did not appear from the record was being met, width of the
roadway.
COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, TO
EXTEND THIS ITEM FOR 30 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mr. Snyder explained the architectural design review requires a fording that a project is consistent with
the Comprehensive Plan, the same finding the Council would need to make to approve the proposed
contract rezone. If the Council had concerns with the project based on compatibility with the
neighborhood issue, the project would need to meet the same test at the design review stage.
Councilmember Wilson stated his understanding that with a contract rezone, the Council could accept the
contract rezone as proposed or reject it but could not modify it. Mr. Snyder answered the Council could
not modify it but "a little horse trading was allowed in the process," the Council could announce the
reasons for their decision and continue the matter to allow the applicant to respond.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 28, 2004
Page 9
Councilmember Wilson asked whether the Council's dissatisfaction with the conditions in the contract
rezone was sufficient reason to deny the rezone even if was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan in
terms of land use and density. Mr. Snyder answered whether a straight rezone or contract rezone, the
Council must determine it was consistent with all the provisions of the City's Comprehensive Plan that
the Council determined were applicable and relevant.
Councilmember Wilson noted one of the criteria was relationship of the proposed rezone to the existing
land uses and the zoning of sounding properties. He observed it appeared the contract rezone as written
was intending to address that issue via stipulating certain design parameters for development of the site.
If the Council found the conditions in the contract rezone were not sufficient to ensure the criteria were
being met, was that an appropriate basis for denial. Mr. Snyder answered yes, noting the Council should
specify which Comprehensive Plan policy is not met and why the contract rezone does not meet it.
Councilmember Wilson asked whether the record contained any documentation that there would be a
negative impact on the property values of single family residents located across from multifamily. Mr.
Bullock answered the record did not contain that information.
Councilmember Moore asked whether there would be a requirement for each house to have a stepback on
the upper floor if the property were not rezoned and remained single family. Mr. Bullock answered if the
applicant chose to develop the property under the current single family zoning, 6,000 square foot lots,
they could develop a subdivision proposal and homes would not go through the design review process
and no additional setbacks would be required other than typically required in the RS-6 zone.
Councilmember Moore asked whether the proposed buildings would be the same height as the existing
house. Mr. Bullock answered the existing house was somewhat taller than what would be allowed under
the current single family regulations. He explained the applicant's request was to rezone to RM-2.4
which had a maximum height of 30 feet. He noted that was one of the issues of compatibility between
single family and multifamily zoning, additional height was allowed in a multifamily zone; staffs
concern was that that height to the setback on a higher elevation property would be significantly different
than the single family properties across the street.
Councilmember Moore referred to a comment by a party of record that she did not want condominium.
owners looking into her windows, noting if houses were constructed on the site, residents of those houses
could look into the existing homes' windows. Mr. Bullock agreed. Councilmember Moore noted there
appeared to be two issues, the traffic and the stepback. With regard to traffic, the impact of the rezone
was negligible and the applicant cannot be required to correct an existing condition. With regard to the
stepback, she noted it would not be applicable to single family, only the contract rezone. She noted the
Planning Board's findings indicated that condition alone made it incompatible with the neighborhood.
Mr. Bullock answered that was staff s finding; the Planning Board made some additional findings. He
pointed out it was not necessarily a stepback issue but rather a compatibility issue which could be
resolved in a number of ways.
Councilmember Marin recalled another project where it was difficult to visualize the modulation and it
was suggested a rendering might assist in visualization. He referred to the rendering on page 21 of the
record and inquired how far along the building was in the design process. Mr. Bullock referred to the
applicant's testimony that indicated that was a graphic designer's impression of what could be constructed
on the site and was not intended to represent the design of an actual building.
Councilmember Marin observed if the Council denied the contract rezone, the applicant could propose a
project with the same density and a different rendering that illustrated different methods of modulation.
Mr. Bullock advised if the reason the Council found to deny the project was that it was not compatible
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 28, 2004
Page 10
with the adjacent single family neighborhood and the applicant developed another proposal that attempted
to address the Council's concerns and staff felt it was substantially different and addressed the issue, staff
would present it to the Council for consideration of whether it met the criteria.
Mr. Bullock suggested the Council not make a judgment based on the photographs as it was not the
applicant's intent to build that structure. In his conversations with the applicant, he encouraged them to
establish parameters to guide future designers in addressing the issue of compatibility. Mr. Snyder
advised the developer was neither vested in a design proposal nor limited in a proposal based on the
application before the Council.
Councilmember Wilson asked whether the subject property was one parcel. Mr. Bullock answered yes.
Councilmember Wilson noted if the contract rezone were denied or withdrawn, the property would need
to be subdivided to develop it under the single family zoning. Mr. Bullock agreed, noting the site would
yield a maximum of five lots. He pointed out a five lot subdivision was subject to SEPA review.
Councilmember Wilson asked whether rezones were considered on a project versus non -project basis.
Mr. Bullock answered yes. Councilmember Wilson observed this was a non -project rezone with some
contractual conditions to address some of the concerns that might arise in the neighborhood. Mr. Bullock
agreed.
With regard to the suggestion to change the Comprehensive Plan designation for this property,
Councilmember Wilson asked why it has remained multifamily. Mr. Bullock described extensive efforts
in the past to study this area such as the Westgate Corridor Study even prior to the 1995 adoption of the
Comprehensive Plan which led to the designation of these properties. He noted the multifamily
designation of the property had been reaffirmed multiple times since the 1995 adoption of the
Comprehensive Plan.
Councilmember Wilson noted the Council could not deny the rezone based on a desire to change the
Comprehensive Plan designation; the Council must consider the existing Comprehensive Plan.
designation. Mr. Snyder agreed. He read rezone criteria E, whether the property is economically and
physically suitable for the uses allowed under the existing zoning and under the proposed zoning — one
factor could be the length of time property has remained undeveloped compared with the surrounding
area and parcels elsewhere in the same zone.
Councilmember Wilson referred to the renderings on pages 20-22 of the Council record, noting it
appeared to be one structure. Mr. Bullock referred to the rendering on page 22, pointing out the
separation between the two structures. He noted although there was a covered breezeway between the
buildings, they would be separate structures as described in the proposed contract language.
Councilmember Dawson pointed out if a maximum of five lots were developed under single family and
the current average daily trips per residence was ten, that equated to a total of 50 daily trips versus the
estimate of 70 daily trips based on the R.M-2.4 designation, a 40% difference. Mr. Bullock answered
average daily trips per day for a single family residence was ten, the average peak PM trips was one. The
average daily trips for multifamily was 5.4 and the peak PM trips for a 12-unit condominium was five.
He clarified the number used to calculate traffic mitigation fees was peak PM trips.
Councilmember Dawson clarified her point was traffic volume and referred to the total average weekday
trips, 70 versus 50 for five single family residences. She concluded a 40% increase in the number of daily
weekday trips was not negligible. Mr. Snyder pointed out the difficulty with the record before the
Council was there was an unappealed SEPA determination that found there would not be a significant
environmental impact. He advised the City had adopted a policy of mitigating traffic impacts via
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 28, 2004
Page 11
payment. Absent a determination that the level of service at the intersection of Paradise Lane and SR-104
was inadequate, the applicant would be in compliance with adopted environmental policies and the
Council was bound by the determination of non -significance. Had that determination been appealed, that
issue could have been pursued. The Council was bound in that determination by the detail in the code,
absent some indication in the record that there would not be concurrency within the 6-year TIP. He
pointed out the issue Councilmember Wilson raised that the pavement width was not adequate was a
different issue.
Councilmember Wilson clarified the Council could not question the environmental determination with
regard to traffic but could consider whether the street design was sufficient based on the City's standard.
He asked whether that fact alone was sufficient to deny the contract rezone if the Council chose. Mr.
Snyder answered yes, explaining if the Council denied it on that basis, it was not that the developer was
required to improve the street but because the street was not adequate for the project and was not in the 6-
year TIP.
Councilmember Moore referred to Mr. Snyder's reference to the language in ECDC 20.40 regarding the
length of time a property remained undeveloped. Mr. Snyder read the factors to be considered in
reviewing a proposed rezone, a) consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, b) consistency with the
Zoning Ordinance, c) compatibility with the surrounding area, d) whether there have been sufficient
changes in the character of the immediate or surrounding area to justify the rezone, and e) suitability.
Councilmember Moore observed it counted against a property owner if the property had remained
undeveloped. Mr. Snyder answered it was the opposite, it would be an indication that it was unsuitable
for the zoning category it is currently zoned. Mr. Snyder noted these factors were not mutually exclusive.
The code states that at least those factors were to be considered and could be balanced against each other
in making a determination of whether the rezone was consistent with the public safety, health and welfare.
Mr. Snyder referred to Section 20.40.020 in response to an earlier question by Council President Plunkett
that states if an applicant wishes to propose a contract rezone, the proposed conditions shall be reviewed
in all public hearings on the rezone. He clarified if a condition were changed the Council would be
obligated to remand the matter.
Mayor Haakenson remanded the matter to the Council for action.
Council President Plunkett commented it was one thing when the Council was asked to approve a rezone
in a location where a condominium could be built; this was an instance where the Council was being
asked to change a residential zone to a zone that allowed condominiums. He noted a rezone was the
highest standard/test an applicant must make. In this instance, he found the applicant failed to meet the
test, specifically failed to meet ECDC 20.40.01 O.C, relationship to surrounding properties.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, TO
UPHOLD THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING BOARD AND DENY THE REZONE
APPLICATION.
Councilmember Wilson spoke in support of the motion, explaining the two biggest problems with the
application were the deficiency in the street width of Paradise Lane and the need for concurrent
improvements. He found a deficient roadway segment could restrict traffic movements, making it
inconsistent with public safety, health and welfare provisions. He commented there was nothing that
precluded an applicant from volunteering to construct improvements greater than their property frontage.
He commented an additional 60 daily trips was too much to add to that roadway section without bringing
it up to the City's minimum street standards.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 28, 2004
Page 12
With regard to compatibility with surrounding neighborhoods, Councilmember Wilson appreciated the
applicant's intent to craft a contract rezone that attempted to address those issues and provide some
assurances to the surrounding neighborhood. He commented the condition the applicant removed may
have been the most important in conveying their intent to minimize the bulk of the building in
relationship to the surrounding area. He commented the contract rezone could have been crafted to
provide more assurances to the neighborhood without restricting the applicant to one design. He used the
example of the condition that indicated high quality landscaping would be provided along Paradise Lane,
suggesting more detail could have been provided such as the depth of the buffer, type of materials,
compatibility with the surrounding area, preservation of trees, etc. Therefore, he did not find the rezone
was consistent with criteria C (relationship of the proposed rezone to the existing land uses and zoning of
surrounding or nearby properties).
With regard to whether the property should be rezoned to multifamily, Councilmember Wilson pointed
out it was designated multifamily in the Comprehensive Plan and unless the Comprehensive Plan was
amended, the neighborhood should expect it to be rezoned to multifamily. He referred to the record over
the past 20 years and extensive study that indicated single family on that property was not a use
compatible with the surroundings due to the relationship of the property to SR-104.
Councilmember Marin spoke against the motion, observing there had been a recommendation for
approval of the rezone from staff until the applicant eliminated solution to modulation, leading him to
believe that factor had a significant role in the recommendation to deny. He agreed eventually a rezone to
multifamily will be approved.
MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER MARIN OPPOSED.
6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Ron Wambolt, 530 Dayton Street, Edmonds, responded to Councilmember Moore's speech at the
conclusion of the September 21 meeting which was precipitated by his letters to the newspapers. He
concluded there were now two Councilmembers who found citizens comments of little value, recalling
Councilmember Marie's comment on April 6 when referencing the Ten Habits of Highly Effective
Governing Bodies. Mr. Wambolt also referred to Council President Plunkett's comment on September 7
that a citizen attending his first meeting in 38 years was the type of citizen he appreciated. He pointed out
ignoring "curmudgeons" could be a serious error and citizens who regularly wrote letters and spoke to the
Council were only the tip of the iceberg. He recalled a central point in Councilmember Moore's speech
was that she was not the leader of the Council to which Mr. Wambolt agreed, clarifying his statement was
that among the Councilmembers supporting higher ceilings, Councilmember Moore was the leading
proponent. He referred to Councilmember Moore's comment that he did not know what he was talking
about, operates without the facts and spreads disinformation; commenting on the considerable time he
spends verifying the accuracy of his statements. He concluded he began focusing on Councilmember
Moore with her actions at the March 23 Council meeting when she introduced and facilitated the passage
of an amendment to an interim ordinance that had passed unanimously after a public hearing one week
earlier and ignored the concerns expressed by Councilmembers Dawson and Wilson. Mr. Wambolt
pointed out those actions caused many to lose confidence in the Council. He concluded Councilmembers
were elected to represent all citizens and not just developers, commenting this statement was also directed
to Council President Plunkett and Councilmembers Marin and Olson.
Ray Martin, 1.8704 94t" Avenue W, Edmonds, referred to Councilmember Moore's comments at the
September 21 Council meeting. He recalled the subject of Mr. Wambolt's letter was higher building
heights which was entirely missing from Councilmember Moore's discussion. He suggested
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 28, 2004
Page 13
Councilmember Moore stick to the issues and avoid put-downs, name calling and character assassination.
He agreed Councilmember Moore was not a leader but it appeared she was acting as the Mayor's point
person for raising building heights. He emphasized Councilmember Moore did not dictate the terms of
citizen participation as citizens had the right to their opinion. He pointed out citizens did not want higher
building heights in the bowl area and the Council's efforts to raise them would be resisted and some
Councilmembers would likely be replaced as a result if they persisted against the will of the people.
Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, Edmonds, referred to Councilmember Moore's comments at the
September 21 Council meeting, agreeing that disinformation campaigns were bad if the information was
really disinformation. He recalled Councilmember Moore characterized a member of the public as a
curmudgeon due to her objection to his comments. He referred to the definition of curmudgeon — churlish
nature — commenting the use of that language constituted name calling which was not a way to achieve
the civility that Councilmember Moore urged the public to provide the Council. He continued with the
definition of curmudgeon — boorish, rude, difficult to work with, irascible nature, easily provoked to
anger — pointing out by definition Councilmember Moore was easily provoked to anger, qualifying her as
a curmudgeon. He expressed his opinion that Councilmember Moore was in favor of raising building
heights in Edmonds.
Rowena Miller, 18711 182ud Place SW, Edmonds, thanked the Council for their vote to uphold the
Planning Board's recommendation on the previous item. She was pleased the Council tried to follow the
criteria in the Comprehensive Plan.
Mayor Haakenson declared a brief recess.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DAWSON,
TO REVERSE THE ORDER OF AGENDA ITEMS 7 AND 8. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
violence 18. PRESENTATION BY THE SNOHOMISH COUNTY HEALTH DISTRICT REGARDING
Prevention I VIOLENCE PREVENTION
Councilmember Marin recalled approximately 1'/2 years ago, the Edmonds Police Department brought in
a nationally known speaker, Dave Grossman, who provided an interesting presentation including the
tendency for video games to promote anti -social behavior without the benefit of natural emotions that
prevent the acting out of criminal behaviors. After Ms. Wessel -Estes provided a presentation to the
Snohomish County Health Board including clips from video games, he suggested the presentation be
provided to the Council. He cautioned some of the clips of video games may be too graphic for citizens.
Mayor Haakenson advised due to the graphic nature of the clips, they would not be televised as part of the
Council meeting. Anyone wishing to see the clips could contact Councilmember Marin.
Pam Wessel -Estes, Snohomish County Health District, explained one of her responsibilities at the
Health District was to talk about learned violence, particularly media violence. She provided a
presentation entitled "Learning Violence: Our Children at Play." She relayed the World Health
Organization's statement that violence was the world's #1 health threat. She explained violence was a
learned behavior and a public health problem. Research has found exposure to violent media is a cause of
aggressive behavior. She described how violence differs from the violence that has always existed due to
the availability, reality of media violence and number of acts of violence particularly in children's
programming.
Ms. Wessel -Estes reported that in 1999, the average household reported having a TV on 7 hours per day,
43% of viewers watching whatever was on and that watching TV was a dominant pastime, consuming
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 28, 2004
Page 14
40% of the average person's free time. She commented on the number of acts of violence in an average
hour of children's programming and reported on the conclusions of the National Television Violence
Study that the context in which most violence is presented on TV poses risk for viewers, risk of viewing
most common depictions of televised violence, unpunished violence on TV, and the occurrence of humor
in much of the violent scenes on TV. Ms. Wessel -Estes reported on public opinions about television,
displayed a clip from a television website as an example of what children were watching, and reported
studies have shown watching violent television was among the best predictors of later violent behavior.
Next, Ms. Wessel -Estes reported on research regarding interactive media games including who was
playing interactive games, the results of recent content analyses, results of a study of 55 popular video
games rated E ( Everyone), research on children 11 and under, and research regarding the ability to
separate fact from fantasy. She concluded parents needed to be savvy consumers of media as much as
any other product; remember that media, music and toys influence our children and youth every minute,
hour and day that they use it; and take screen technology seriously by paying attention to what and how
much is consumed in their home. Ms. Wessel -Estes showed clips from several teen and mature rated
video games.
Ms. Wessel -Estes provided a list of video games to avoid and a list of recommended video games. She
provided her telephone number at the Snohomish County Health District for those interested in further
inforination: 425-339-8703 and/or www.shd.org.
76"' Ave. w / 7• WORK SESSION ON 76TH AVENUE WEST AND MEADOWDALE BEACH ROAD
Meadowdale PEDESTRIAN SAFETY INTERIM SOLUTION
Beach Rd.
Pedestrian
Safety Traffic Engineer Darrell Smith reviewed why this issue was being discussed: no sidewalks north of
Meadowdale Beach Road, narrow roadway — 22-foot width, all -way stop warrants at 76th & Meadowdale
Beach Road were not met, community concerns about pedestrian safety, and challenging topography. He
displayed photographs depicting a blind curve, lack of shoulders, and steep side slopes.
Mr. Smith described the following potential interim solutions considered by Engineering:
• Doing nothing — does not address citizens' concerns
• Installing traffic calming features — the City has a long standing history of not installing traffic
calming devices on arterials
• Construct pedestrian refuge at key locations — prohibitive due to amount of structural walls and
grading that would be required
• Lower speed limit
• Fund and construct walkway
Mr. Smith described funding options considered including funding the design cost only for now, fully
funding design and construction of walkway improvements, fully funding the project via a LID, and fully
funding the project with a combination of City and LID funding. He commented on funding issues
including that Transportation Fund 112 was maxed out, there were not sufficient funds in the
transportation budget for even a small incremental improvement, and either additional funds would need
to be identified or other projects eliminated from the capital budget. He concluded a LID was the only
viable option at the present time.
Mr. Smith explained physical improvements were an all -or -nothing proposition due to topographical,
structural and constructability issues. The project is likely to cost $200 per linear foot compared with $20
per linear foot for a typical walkway project. Designing the project now will give the City a better idea of
project issues and costs.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 28, 2004
Page 15
Council President Plunkett asked for clarification on whether there were funds available for the design.
Mr. Smith confirmed there were no funds available for design. Mayor Haakenson inquired about the cost
for design. Mr. Smith answered the cost of design could be approximately $150,000 due to the
requirement for geoteehnieal surveys to determine slope stability, etc.
Councilmember Wilson asked whether the project needed to be designed in order for staff to apply for
grants. Mr. Smith answered it was difficult to pursue grants without a design study. With a project
design, staff s ability to secure grants increased although this type of project did not score well because it
was not near a school which was one of the primary priorities for state funded walkway projects.
Councilmember Wilson inquired about the shelf life for a design. Mr. Smith answered approximately
seven years, commenting beyond that timeframe, environmental and building codes were likely to
change.
Councilmember Wilson asked whether the Meadowdale Beach Road walkway project would be in the
2005 budget. Mayor Haakenson answered it would not be included in his recommended budget; if the
Council wanted to consider funding the design, they would need to identify the $150,000.
Councilmember Dawson asked whether staff had been contacted by any of the neighbors expressing
interest in the LID. She pointed out unless there was a desire by the neighborhood to fund this via a LID,
it was unlikely it would be pursued. Mr. Smith answered the LID had not been discussed with the
neighbors; he was seeking direction from the Council regarding strategy such as a questionnaire regarding
interest in an LID, etc.
Council President Plunkett thanked Mr. Smith for the time he has spent researching this issue.
Councilmember Marin commented at some point in the future the Council wanted to do something and
one method would be to fund a study or do some planning.
Council concluded no further work on this issue was appropriate at this time due to the lack of funding.
9. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Motorized
Scooters Public Mayor Haakenson advised the Council would be conducting a public hearing on Tuesday, October 5
Hearing regarding a draft ordinance on the regulation of motorized scooters.
10. INDIVIDUAL COUNCIL REPORTS ON OUTSIDE COMMITTEE/BOARD MEETINGS
Parking Councilmember Olson reported on the Parking Committee meeting which included review of a map of
Committee
the 3-hour parking zones and potential expansion of the 3-hour parking zone. She noted this may affect
the parking near the Edmonds Center for the Arts. She also reported on the Lodging Tax Advisory
Lodging Tax Committee meeting where funds were allocated and indicated her plans to report next week on how the
Advisory
eouunittee funds were allocated.
Port Councilmember Orvis reported the Port Commission meeting included discussion regarding an Interlocal
Commission Agreement for the north seawall, an issue that will also be presented to the Council due to the sewage
treatment plant outfall and storm drains.
seashore Councilmember Moore reported the SeaShore Forum that Councilmember Olson and she attended
Forum included a dire report from Washington State Department of Transportation regarding the lack of funding
to preserve transportation facilities around the State as well as lack of funds for new capacity. The report
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 28, 2004
Page 16
provided at SeaShore also indicated their plans to seek solutions from the State Legislature. An update on
the Aurora Avenue Corridor was also provided at the SeaShore Forum that included the Hwy. 99 task
force's findings.
Health Councilmember Marin reported the Health Board discussed the West Nile Virus surveillance work that
istrict Board has been conducted over the past couple of years. He noted Washington was the one state in the lower 48
without West Nile Virus occurrences this year. He explained the surveillance teams have identified sites
throughout Snohomish County via capturing mosquitoes. The Health Board concluded a presentation to
the Association of Cities and Towns was appropriate to alert cities with areas containing large qualities of
mosquitoes.
Snohomish Councilmember Wilson reported the agenda for the upcoming Snohomish County Tomorrow (SCT)
c°only meeting included dues calculation for 2005, fair share housing allocation and a SCT short course
describing the history of SCT and the future role of SCT. Councilmember Wilson noted the City's SCT
dues were likely to increase by approximately $2,300. He encouraged Councilmembers and the public to
attend the SCT meeting on Wednesday, September 29 at 6:00 p.m. at the Everett Senior Center.
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 9:55 p.m.
G NSON, MAYOR
SANDRA S. CHASE, CITY CLERK
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 28, 2004
Page 17
AGENDA
- EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL
Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex
250 5t' Avenue North
7:00 - 10:00 p.m.
SEPTEMBER 28, 2004
7:00 p.m. - Call to Order
Flag Salute
1. Approval of Agenda
2. Consent Agenda Items
(A) Roll Call
(B) Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of September 21, 2004.
(C) Approval of claim checks #74079 through #74197 for the week of September
20, 2004, in the amount of $138,287.52. Approval of payroll direct deposits
and checks #39210 through #39301 for the period September 1 through
September 15, 2004, in the amount of $1,086,780.55.
*Information regarding claim checks maybe viewed electronically at www.ci.edmonds.wa.us
(D) Approval of list of Edmonds businesses applying for renewal of their Liquor
Licenses with the Washington State Liquor Control Board.
(E) Final approval of a 12 lot Plat / PRD on 172"d Street SW and 69t'' Place W. The
project will be recorded as Steinman's Meadowdale Estates. (Applicant:
Merle Steinman / File Nos. P-2002-93 and PRD-2002-40).
(F) Report on final construction costs for the Frances Anderson Center potable
water asbestos abatement project and Council acceptance of project.
(G) Authorization for the Mayor to sign Supplemental Agreement No. 2 to the
Professional Services Agreement with Perteet Engineering for the design of
220t' Street SW improvements (9t'' Avenue South to 84t'' Avenue West) project.
(H) Proclamation in honor of Physical Therapy Month, October 2004.
3. ( 5 Min.) Proclamation in honor of National Arts and Humanities Month, October 2004.
Page 1 of 2
CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA
SEPTEMBER 28, 2004
Page 2 of 2
4. ( 5 Min.) The City Council received a request that the following matter be continued to
October 19, 2004:
Closed Record Review - Appeal of the Hearing Examiner's decision to deny an
appeal of a staff Code interpretation that a 6-foot by 6-foot tree house is a
structure and therefore subject to the city zoning standards and setback
requirements. The tree house is located at 18312 - 81st Place W. and is zoned
single-family residential (RS-12). (Appellants: Keith Kemper of Ellis, Li &
McKinstry, PLLC for Mark and Jana Loewen / File Nos. AP-04-102 and AP-04-67)
5. (60 Min.) Closed Record Review of the Planning Board's recommendation to deny a
proposed Contract Rezone for the property located at 546 Paradise Lane. The
requested rezone would change the zoning from RS-6 to RM-2.4 with some
limiting conditions. (Applicant: Warren LaFon / File No. R-2004-7).
6. Audience Comments (3 Minute Limit Per Person)*
*Regarding matters not listed on the Agenda as Closed Record Review or as Public Hearings.
7. (30 Min.) Work session on 76th Avenue West and Meadowdale Beach Road pedestrian
safety interim solution.
S. (20 Min.) Presentation by the Snohomish County Health District regarding violence
prevention.
9. ( 5 Min.) Mayor's Comments
10. (15 Min.) Individual Council reports on outside committee/board meetings.
ADJOURN
Parking and meeting rooms are accessible for persons with disabilities.
Please contact the City Clerk at (425) 771-0245 with 24 hours advance notice for special accommodations.
A delayed telecast of the meeting appears on cable television - Government Access Channel 21.