10/29/1991 City CouncilTHESE MINUTES SUBJECT TO
NOVEMBER 11,1991 APPROVAL
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
October 29, 1991
The special meeting of the Edmonds City Council was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Council Presi-
dent Jack Wilson in Room 115 of the Francis Anderson Center, 700 Main St, Edmonds. All present
joined in the flag salute.
PRESENT
Larry Naughten, Mayor
Jack Wilson, Council President
Steve Dwyer, Councilmember
Roger Hertrich, Councilmember
Jo -Anne Jaech, Councilmember
William Kasper, Councilmember
John Nordquist, Councilmember
Jeff Palmer, Councilmember
Amanda Foote, Student Representative
CONSENT AGENDA
STAFF
Jeff Wilson, Planning Supervisor
Rob Chave, Planning Manager
Peter Hahn, Community Services Dir
Bob Alberts, City Engineer
Rhonda March, City Clerk
Jacqui Austin, Office Admin.
Scott Snyder, City Attorney
Buzz Buzalsky, Fire Chief
Barb Mehlert, Recorder
Councilmember Hertrich requested Item (B) be removed from the Consent Agenda. Councilmember
Kasper requested item (C) be moved to the end of the meeting for discussion. COUNCILMEMBER NORD-
QUIST, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JAECH TO APPROVE THE BALANCE OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. The ap-
proved items are as follows:
(A) ROLL CALL
114 &'f,_(D) APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE 2854 AMENDING OFFICIAL STREET MAP AND VACATING 275 FEET OF ALLEY EAST
Y OF 7TH AVE. S. BETWEEN SPRUCE AND HEMLOCK STS. (APPLICANT: MCBRIDE, ET AL/FILE ST-3-91)
APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF OCTOBER 22,_1991 (ITEM_(B) ON -THE CONSENT -AGENDA)
Councilmember Hertrich said there was an omission to the minutes, and he would like the Council
Assistant to listen to the Council tape of October 22, 1991 and include his comments regarding
the Perrinville Postal Office Construction. Per Councilmember Hertrich's request, the following
information is added to public record:
Councilmember Hertrich referenced the zoning at the current Postal Construction site. Councilmem-
ber Hertrich said it was indicated in a letter sent to the Council on October 17, 1991 from a Mr.
Jeff Jones, that the Postal site was a multi -family residential site and it was changed to neigh-
borhood business. Councilmember Hertrich inquired if that included the whole section, and Peter
Hahn, Community Services Director, replied the only part that was changed in the rezone was the
{j horse corral. Councilmember Hertrich inquired on the hours of operation in a neighborhood busi-
ness according to City code. Councilmember Hertrich thought it was 11:00 p.m. until 6:00 a.m.,
unless they applied for a conditional use permit, and Mr. Hahn replied that sounded correct.
Councilmember Hertrich indicated the hours of operation for the Post Office in Perrinville will
intrude into the the night time close down time in a BN zone, which: is 11:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m.
Councilmember Hertrich said if this facility opens up before 6:00 a.m., will they be required to
apply for a conditional use permit, and Mr. Hahn replied the hours of the Post Office operation
will be 4:30 a.m. until 6:00 p.m. Mr. Hahn said the position of the Postal Service is they do
not have to get local permits, which includes a conditional use permit. Councilmember Hertrich
expressed his concern that the business is located in a residential area which has more restric-
tions applied to that business.
AUDIENCE PORTION
Council President Wilson inquired if anyone from the audience wished to address the Council on
any issue. No member of the audience came forward. Council President Wilson closed the audience
portion of the Council Meeting.
Mayor Naughten arrived at the Council Meeting at 7:10 p.m.
HEARING ON APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER DECISION REGARDING SETBACK ADJUSTMENT TO REDUCE
SETBACK TO 16 FEET TO ALLOW A DOT-ADDITION23$ 0 74 H AVE. W. (APPELLANT: CLAREN
t 0
Jeff Wilson, Planning Supervisor, noted the matter before the Council is an appeal on a decision
of the Hearing Examiner, which was an appeal of a Staff decision relating to a setback adjust-
ment. Mr. Wilson stated the applicant is Helen Mae Deller, represented by her daughter, Heidi
Marier, and the appellant in both instances is Clarence and Tina Capon.
Mr. Wilson explained the issue under appeal is a request by Helen Mae Deller for a Setback Adjust-
ment to allow a deck addition to be located within 12-feet of the east property line of the sub-
ject. The subject property is an existing residence located on a corner lot, of which both the
south and east property lines are adjacent to public rights--of-way. Mr. Wilson said the request-
ed deck addition is located on the east: side of Mrs. Deller's residence. The appellants (Mr. and
Mrs. Capon) are owners of the adjacent property located to the west of the subject property.
Mr. Wilson explained that on October 3, 1991, the appellants, Clarence and Tina Capon submitted
to the Planning Division a letter of appeal of the Hearing Examiner's decision on a appeal of a
Setback Adjustment granted to Helen Mae Deller (appellee). The appeal filed with the City Coun-
cil is a direct response to the September 20, 1991 decision of the Hearing Examiner to uphold the
approval of a Setback Adjustment for a deck addition granted to the appellee by the Planning
Divison's Hearing Officer for the residence located at 23800 74th Ave. West.
Mr. Wilson referred to an exhibit within the Council Packet, which showed the configuration of
the proposed deck.
Councilmember Dwyer said the original application appeared to be for a reduction of a setback
from 25 to 16 feet. Councilmember Dwyer noted the decision seems to reduce it from 25 to 12.5
feet, and asked Mr. Wilson if these statements were correct. Mr. Wilson replied the intrusion
was up to 16 feet into the setback yard and the approved reduction was to 12-1/2 feet because in
their setback adjustments, it can only be approved up to half the required setback. Councilmem-
ber Dwyer referenced the letter marked Exhibit D from Mrs. Stella Boecher, who states that if
this deck and hot tub are placed where the applicant requests, then the Dellers would be able to
look down from their deck and hot tub right in her windows. Councilmember Dwyer inquired if the
deck was built without a setback adjustment, would this statement by Ms. Boecher hold true. Mr.
Wilson replied the property slopes from the west to the east and the way Ms. Boecher describes
her property, she lies further east of Ms. Deller's property, which is down hill, therefore, any
structures built on the Deller property are all going to be above grade or higher up. Mr. Wilson
said with regards the issue of being able to see into Mrs. Boecher's windows, he doesn't believe
that issue was ever fully resolved or the facts were fully drawn out.
Councilmember Nordquist brought up the fact that Ms. Boecher's residence is across the street on
the lake, which would abut the access to the lake, which is really below street level to some
degree.
Council President Wilson asked Planning Supervisor Jeff Wilson if the proposed structure ob-
structs any view at all in any other direction, and Mr. Wilson replied that the issue of view
lost is one of the reasons why Mr. Capon is appealing the decision. Mr. Wilson said Mr. Capon
feels the proposed structure and possibly, the security fence would have an impact on their
view. Mr. Wilson said to some degree the proposed structure will be visible within Mr. Capon's
view corridor to the lake, however, Council President Wilson pointed out this is different than
view blockage.
Councilmember Palmer asked Mr. Wilson if Staff determined that the shape of the lot was irregular
or had a non -typical frontage orientation when they did their review of the proposal, and Mr.
Wilson replied the two decisional issues are 1) Is it a creative design, and 2) does it preserve
a natural feature on the property. Mr. Wilson said Mr. Bissell, Code Enforcement Technician, did
not seem to make a conclusion with regards to preservation of natural features. Councilmember
Palmer explained that in the City Code Book, under Setback Adjustments, it splits it into two
areas, which he had just mentioned. Councilmember Palmer said he is trying to find out whether a
determination was made solely on preservation of natural features or creative design, and whether
there was some decision by staff that this was an irregular shaped lot. Mr. Wilson said the
conclusions were based on creative design and not an irregular shape of the lot.
Councilmember Hertrich inquired if Mr. Bissell made on on -site visit and determined if there was
view loss, and Mr. Wilson replied that Mr. Bissell did perform a site investigation on the sub-
ject property, but Mr. Wilson has no way of knowing exactly where Mr. Bissell stood on the proper-
ty when he made his determination. Mr. Wilson noted that Mr. Bissell generally looks at a situa-
tion from as many different angles as possible.
The Council proceeded to review various exhibits with the packet. After a review of the exhib-
its, Mayor Naughten opened the public portion of the hearing.
Heidi Marier, 1338 N. 150th, explained she is the representative for the applicant, Helen Mae
Deller as well as her daughter. Ms. Marier stated this is the third appeal on her mother's deck
and hot tub. Ms. Marier said all of the matters that were brought forward in the first two ap-
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 2 October 29, 1991
peals were investigated and debated. Ms. Marier noted six neighbors have testified the deck and
hot tub location are acceptable as designed.
Ms. Marier addressed the issue of a letter written by Ms. Boecher which said that if the proposed
deck and hot tub were built in the requested location, people would be able to look in her win-
dows. Ms. Marier responded there exists a great slope of the land, and there is a six foot hedge
which grows up on 74th West, and the only way somebody could look over that down into Mr.
Boecher's yard is if you used a ladder. Ms. Marier said the City's Planning Department reviewed
the original design and recommended changes for compliance to the City's code for a setback ad-
justment to allow a 12-1/2 foot setback, and to allow the addition of a deck to an existing
deck. Ms. Marier noted these conditions were incorporated into a revised design. Ms. Marier
also said a land survey was completed, and furnished to the Planning Department per instructions
of the Hearing Examiner.
Ms. Marier addressed the issue of lost view that Mr. Capon has stated. Ms. Marier stated views
are not the issue in a setback, rather the issue is whether the deck meets the setback require-
ments, which it does according to the City's Planning Department and the Hearing Examiner.
Ms. Marier submitted photos marked "Exhibit 1" to the Recorder, Barbara Mehlert, for distribution
to the Council. The photographs depicted the existing deck from several different areas, includ-
ing Mr. Capon's property. Ms. Marier said the pictures show that very little view is lost, if
any, as Mr. Capon has suggested.
Ms. Marier said Mr. Capon has suggested the deck be built in the back yard. Ms. Marier said if
she was to build back there, the land would have to bulldozed, two Magnolia trees would have to
be cut, and open space would thus be destroyed. Ms. Marier submitted photos marked "Exhibit 2" to
the Recorder, Barbara Mehlert, for distribution to the Council. The photos depicted the back
yard, where Mr. Capon has suggested the deck be built.
Councilmember Palmer referenced the Exhibits which made reference to the open space between the
four houses. Councilmember Palmer inquired if the applicant would be willing to record a cove-
nant in favor of the City designating that feature to be preserved, and Ms. Marier replied affir-
matively.
Walt Sellers, Attorney for Clarence and Tina Capon, who reside at 7410 McAleer Way, Edmonds, said
he is representing them on this appeal. Mr. Sellers set up two exhibits, Marked "Exhibit 3",
which is the Proponents Proposal, and "Exhibit 4"; the Appellants Alternative Plan. Mr. Sellers
proceeded to review Exhibit 3 with the Council. Mr. Sellers noted the City's Planning Department
stated the Capons have no view, and it is Mr. Sellers opinion they were incorrect when they made
this assumption. Mr. Sellers said the proposed deck and hot tub location would present a view
obstruction to the Capons. Mr. Sellers said it was his opinion the applicant could place the
deck down within three feet of the ground, which would not be in violation of any setback guide-
lines. Mr. Sellers said the applicant wants the deck to be built higher to take advantage of
view, and that is what the real issue is. Mr.. Sellers introduced Stuart Clark, a licensed Real
Estate Appraiser, 313 Prospect Street, Seattle. Mr. Sellers asked Mr. Clark to explain to the
Council his findings with regards to the matter at hand. Mr. Clark said he made a preliminary
inspection of the property, and concluded there would be a minor view coridoor loss, approximate-
ly 10 to 15%, to the Capon property. Mr. Clark distributed a written report to the Council which
included his findings of fact to the City Council. Mr. Sellers asked Mr. Clark if he found any
economic losses as well to the Capon property, and Mr. Sellers replied affirmatively, and estimat-
ed the loss in view would result in 10% to 15% of the total estimated $40,000 real estate value.
Councilmember Hertrich inquired if there was a view loss from the house proper or the house and
the deck, and Mr. Sellers responded there was a slight loss from the house. Mr. Sellers referred
to "Exhibit 4" which illustrated the Appellants Alternative Plan. Mr. Sellers said this exhibit
showed an alternative, in that the deck could be moved three feet to the north, thus eliminating
any problems, as Mrs. Deller would get her deck, and Mr. Cappon's view would be restored. Mr.
Sellers believed this matter should be remanded and the applicant should be required to move the
deck three feet to the north.
Councilmember Hertrich inquired on the location of the hedge, and Mr. Sellers referred the ques-
tion to his client, Mr. Capon. Clarence Capon, 7410 McAleer Way, stated there were some overgrown
shrubs located on the right of way. Councilmember Hertrich inquired as to the height of the hedg-
es, and Mr. Capon replied they vary in height from five, six feet on up.
Councilmember Nordquist inquired on the covenant on the Garvie property and asked if that was
something the Garvies' yielded to, and Mr. Sellers replied he was not familiar with the actual
language of the covenants.
Randy Garvie, 23816 74th West, said he has spoken at previous hearings on behalf of Mrs. Deller.
Mr. Garvie said he feels the deck is an asset to the neighborhood and he has no problems with it
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 3 October 29, 1991
whatsoever. Mr. Garvie noted he has four large windows which overlook Mrs. Deller's deck, and
feels it does not present a problem for him. Referencing the issue of views, Mr. Garvie said the
proposed deck and hot tub does not cause a loss of view to anybody.
Robert Wayston, 23734 74th West, suggested that a representative from the Council go and view the
subject at hand. Mr. Wayston said there is no view loss to any parties as a result of the deck
Mrs. Deller wishes to build.
Dane Stoke, 7403 McAleer Way, stated he is not affected by the building of the deck, however, he
and other neighbors have written a letter stating that the proposed deck and hot tub does not
present any problems in the neighborhood. Mr. Stoke brought up the fact that the deck concept
was included in the original plans of the house where it stands today. Ms. Stoke said the
Dellers have met the setback criteria and should be allowed to continue.
Heidi Marier, representative for the applicant reviewed Exhibit 1, which showed the existing
deck. Ms. Marier addressed the issue of view, and reiterated there is no loss of view. Ms.
Marier also stated the house her mother lives in was originally built by Mr. Capon, and it seems
to her if he was so concerned with view, this subject would have come up years ago.
Councilmember Dwyer asked Ms. Marier if she thinks it is reasonable to consider Mr. Seller's
suggestion that any additions should be built three feet to the north, and Ms. Marier replied the
deck is 95% completed. Councilmember Dwyer asked Mr. Marier to start from the premise that it
was not 95% completed. Ms. Marier replied it would not work as there is a slope of the land,
which is one of the reasons the contractor planned the hot tub in its present location.
Councilmember Palmer referenced the appellant's alternative proposal, and asked Ms. Marier if she
could get the same square footage as her original proposal, but have the deck three feet to the
north, would that be a viable option. Ms. Marier's son replied negatively due to the fact that
the steps at that distance would have to be at a greater angle, and his grandmother is elderly,
and would not be able to maneuver up and down the steps.
Councilmember Palmer commented that the appellant is claiming they are incurring somewhere be-
tween a $4,000 and $6,000 loss to their view if the deck is constructed as proposed, and Council -
member Palmer said he doesn't know if the applicant has shown interest in moving the deck to the
point of financial participation. Ms. Marier replied they have changed many of their original
plans to come into compliance with City standards.
Councilmember Nordquist asked if the original south lot line of the deck is the same line that
exists today, and Ms. Marier replied affirmatively. Councilmember Nordquist said it is his under-
standing that the concern is the view down that corridor.
Mayor Naughten closed the public portion of the meeting.
Councilmember Dwyer suggested the Council as a whole visit the property and view it for them-
selves. Councilmember Dwyer feels a collective visit to the property might be better than trying
to discern whether or not there is a view loss, and a variety of other concerns. Councilmember
Dwyer said if view loss is determined to be a factor, then it is relevant. Ms. Marier and Mr.
Capon gave the Council permission to enter upon their property, respectively.
Councilmember Palmer stated a visit to the property would be a good idea. Councilmember Palmer
also noted he has some additional concerns regarding the Hearing Examiner's decision and believes
those can be addressed later on in the process.
COUNCILMEMBER DWYER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JAECH, TO HAVE THE COUNCIL PRESIDENT CHOOSE
A DATE WITHIN SIX WEEKS FOR THIS MATTER TO RETURN ON THE AGENDA, AND IN THE INTERIM, STAFF IS TO
ARRANGE A SITE VISIT TO EITHER OR BOTH OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES. MOTION CARRIED, with Council
President Wilson voting no.
City Attorney commented for the benefit of the parties involved and the public, that when the
Council comes to view the property, -it should be• understood they will not be there to take testi-
mony or respond to questions or comments.
CONTINUED HEARING ON APPROVAL OF HEARING EXAMINER RECOMMENDATION REGARDING PROPOSED 5-LOT
PRO/SUBDIVISION AT 18208 -_76 . W. (APPLICANT: I M E 0-2- 0 -2- AND
CONTINUED HEARING ON APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER RECOMMENDATION REGARDING PROPOSED 5-LOT
-. -18218 76TH AVE. W. (APPELLANT: WILEIAM AND PAMELA HAL;
Jeff Wilson, Planning Supervisor, distributed information to the Council which consisted of infor-
mation regarding the new site plan. Mr. Wilson said he also has a copy of a letter sent to Mr.
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 4 October 29, 1991
Bob Tjossem, attorney and representative to the applicant, Mr. Belt, from Mr. Dick Meyers, who
works with Shapiro and Associates, which is the firm that conducted the wetlands analysis. Mr.
Wilson noted that analysis was received today, and distributed a copy of the letter to the Coun-
cil.
Councilmember Palmer noted the Council is about to be presented with a new proposal for a 4 lot
subdivision versus a 5 lot PRD previously presented. Councilmember Palmer asked City Attorney
Scott Snyder at what point does a revised application considered to be a new application,
and Mr. Snyder said that is a factual decision for the Council to make. Mr. Snyder said one
thing the Council may wish to consider is whether all preliminary procedures reviews that were
conducted from SEPA through Staff reviews have adequately considered the issues as they relate to
4 as opposed to 5 lot subdivision.
Councilmember Jaech said she was looking at the letter that Mr. Wilson just distributed, and
realized that Mr. Tjossem, attorney representing Mr. Belt, is listed on that letterhead. Council -
member Jaech said she deals with a trust, and Mr. Tjossem is co -trustee of the trust, and wanted
to disclose that fact. City Attorney Scott Snyder said it is not an automatic disqualifier under
the Conflict of Interest statute, and asked if there were any members of the public present that
would object to Councilmember Jaech's participation in the proceeding. No one in the audience
objected to Councilmember Jaech's participation.
Planning Supervisor, Jeff Wilson, noted this subject was last reviewed by Council in December of
1990. Mr. Wilson said the proposal before the Council consisted of two items; 1) presentation to
the Council on a recommendation by the Hearing Examiner to approve a 5 lot PRD for Mr. Belt, and
2) at the same time, The Council also considered an appeal of the Hearing Examiner's recommenda-
tion regarding the 5-lot PRD subdivision proposal. Mr. Wilson referenced the Council minutes
from the December, 1990 meeting, and said the Council had continued the item until additional
information was provided. Mr. Wilson said the scope of that information related to the issues
surrounding presence of wetlands on the subject property.
Mr. Wilson noted there has not been any additional information presented to Staff prior to this
hearing, and basically the packet of information before the Council is the same packet that they
reviewed in December of 1990.
Mr. Wilson stated the information that Staff received in looking at the revised proposal for a
4-lot PRD provided the additional wetlands that was requested, however, Mr. Wilson feels that he
would like additional information in order to evaluate the new site plan proposal. Mr. Wilson
said he would like a delineation of the wetland boundaries, along with the field notes.
Mr. Wilson noted that because that information is not available at present time, Staff is unable
to make a recommendation regarding the new proposal. Mr. Wilson stated it would be a Staff recom-
mendation to continue the hearing until the additional information is received.
Councilmember Hertrich stated he would like to discuss french drains, specifically the one on the
upper right hand part of the subject property. Councilmember Hertrich inquired if this drain
would be closed in, and Mr. Wilson deferred the question to City Engineer, Bob Alberts. Council -
member Hertrich said he brought this question up because the City has made quite an effort in the
area of daylighting of streams whenever possible.
City Engineer, Bob Alberts, presented a view foil to the Council which showed the existing french
drain located on the eastern property line. Mr. Alberts noted that according to engineering
requirements, you cannot build a structure within 10 feet of that drain. In response to Council -
member Hertrich's question concerning daylighting, Mr. Alberts stated he believed the intent was
to leave it open and not build within 10 feet. Councilmember Hertrich asked Mr. Alberts if he
needed information concerning this subject, and Mr. Alberts replied negatively.
Councilmember Palmer asked City Attorney Scott Snyder if this was the appropriate time for the
Council to make a decision whether they consider this to be a new application versus a continua-
tion of the existing application, and Mr. Snyder replied if the Council felt the matter should be
remanded or tabled, those would be nirn debatable motions that would take precedence.
Councilmember Hertrich asked if a conflict existed, as Mr. Wilson indicated more information is
needed for Staff to make a decision, and Mr. Alberts doesn't feel any more information is need-
ed. Mr. Alberts replied that Planning and Engineering are looking at what they need from two
different positions. Councilmember Hertrich assumed Mr. Wilson was looking for additional infor-
mation regarding wetlands and boundaries, and Mr. Wilson replied affirmatively.
Council President Wilson said he would like to continue the hearing in order to receive all the
necessary information.
Councilmember Kasper asked Planning Supervisor Jeff Wilson if he had previously asked for this
information, and Mr. Wilson replied affirmatively. Mr. Wilson referred to the minutes of Decem-
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 5 October 29, 1991
ber 4, 1991, and reviewed the request of the applicant at that time. Mr. Wilson said the Council
motion was to gather additional wetlands information. It was noted in the December 4th minutes
that "Councilmember Hertrich asked Staff how to proceed in obtaining the information, and Plan-
ning Director Mary Lou Block said she would request the applicant to have its engineering firm
conduct a wetland delineation or hire another firm with expertise in wetland delineation". Mr.
Wilson stated the minutes reflected a statement by Councilmember Dwyer; "Councilmember Dwyer
clarified the motion allowing the hearing open only to hear additional information regarding
wetlands, but the motion did not require anyone expend any amount of money to obtain that informa-
tion".
City Attorney Scott Snyder said before the Council reached a decision, it was his suggestion the
Council listen to the applicant in light of Councilmember Dwyer's comments previously. Mr. Sny-
der said basically, the Council had continued this hearing for a limited time to gather informa-
tion. Mr. Snyder said some of this information has been provided.
Councilmember Kasper inquired as to who activated this hearing again, if all information has not
been received, and Mr. Wilson replied the applicant had requested this continued hearing.
Mr. Snyder commented it was important the Council not change the rules mid -stream and continually
ask for new information from the applicant.
The Council discussed the issue of continuing the hearing to another date or continue on this
evening. Mayor Naughten suggested to continue the entire hearing and in the mean time, let the
people testify who were present. Mayor Naughten said at that time, the Council could make a
decision as to whether enough information has been gathered.
Councilmember Palmer was concerned that the wetland information that Staff asked for has not been
received to the degree that Staff wished.
Councilmember Palmer said he would like the Council to hear from the applicant and ask specific
questions having to do with this information rather than going straight to another delay of un-
known dimension.
Mayor Naughten asked Councilmember Palmer if he wanted the Council to hear only from the appli-
cant ❑n one specific issue, and Councilmember Palmer replied he did not want to delay the entire
proceeding as suggested. Mayor Naughten clarified his position that the Council hear from the
applicant, appellant, and public, then the Council can make a decision as to whether the hearing
should be continued.
City Attorney Scott Snyder said the Mayor might want to remind the public present that this is a
continuation of a previous hearing called for to gain specific evidence requested by the Council,
and the parties involved might find themselves out of order if they repeat prior testimony.
Bob Tjossem, 1313 Market Street, Kirkland, Attorney, representing the applicant, Mr. and Mrs. Tom
Belt, distributed copies of the December 4th, 1991 Minutes to the Council regarding this sub-
ject. Mr. Tjossem reviewed those minutes with the Council and pointed out the warding of the
motion on Page 9 at the top stating "COUNCILMEMBER HERTRICH MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
DWYER TO OPEN THE HEARING TO ALLOW THE APPLICANT OR STAFF TO PROVIDE INFORMATION WITH RESPECT TO
WETLANDS". Mr. Tjossem said "Allow" is the key word, as the motion did not request— any specific
information.
Mr. Tjossem also noted the area of the December 4th minutes where Councilmember Dwyer made the
following statement: "Councilmember Dwyer clarified the motion allowed the hearing to be open
only to hear additional information regarding wetlands The motion did not require anyone expend
any amount of money to obtain the information. He said the motion simply defined the scope of
what may be testified t❑ at the next hearing." This information is located on Page 9, paragraph
7 of the December 4, 1991 minutes.
Mr. Tjossem also quoted Councilmember Palmer's statement included in the December 4, 1991 min-
utes, page 9, paragraph 8, "Councilmember- Palmer inquired, then, if Staff was not directed to
gather any particular information if the Council would await information from either the appli-
cant ❑r the appellant. Councilmember Dwyer said a directive was not given to anyone. He said,
however, it would be incumbent upon Staff, the applicant ❑r the appellant to produce that informa-
tion if it was at their disposal."
Mr. Tjossem said it was his opinion that Council continued the hearing to allow people to gather
information if they so desired. Mr. Tjossem said the applicant has ❑btained a wetland reconnais-
sance, and it is Mr. Tjossem's opinion it delineates the general line ❑f the wetland area, and
Mr. Tjossem said he doesn't see the need to spend the additional $2,000 t❑ $3,000 to define the
line. Mr. Tjossem said what the applicant did in light of the reconnaissance, which the Council
has before them, is make a new proposal which reduced the 5-lot PRD to a 4-lot PRO. Mr. Tjossem
reviewed with the Council, the plans for the previous 5 lot PRD, as well as the new 4-lot PRD.
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 6 October 29, 1991
Mr. Tjossem noted the previous 5-lot PRO indicated a 25 foot setback from the stream, with every-
thing west being open space. Mr. Tjossem noted the new 4-lot PRD allows for much better siting
of the four houses. Mr. Tjossem noted the new 4-lot PRD allows for a 50 foot setback from the
stream. Mr. Tjossem stated this revised plan allows the four houses to be further away from the
stream.
Mr. Tjossem noted the new proposal of a 4-lot PRD is an enhancement over the previous 5-lot PRD
and the information provided concerning this proposal should be enough for the Council to make a
decision. Mr. Tjossem introduced Mr. Dick Meyers, Wetland Mitigation Specialists for Shapiro and
Associates, Inc. Mr. Tjossem said Mr. Meyer will address the issue of the need or lack of need
for further delineation.
Dick Meyers, 506 2nd Ave, Seattle, Wetland Mitigation Specialist, said he has done an approximate
wetland boundary, and has not been requested to perform studies which would actually delineate
that boundary. Mr. Meyers said there is a difference between delineation and wetland reconnais-
sance. Mr. Meyers referred to the exhibits of the proposed 4-lot PRD. Mr. Meyers noted that
mitigation for wetland impacts resulting from the development could include enhancement of the
existing wetland area through planting of additional coniferous trees, in order to hasten the
process of natural succession from a primary deciduous forested wetland to one that supports a
greater variety of trees and thus a more diverse habitat. A small amount of wetland could be
created near the south property line by shortening the existing french drain and installing a
level spreader that would encourage sheet flow of the drainage water and greater soil saturation.
Mr. Meyers noted the under development proposal, a majority of the wetlands would be preserved,
and the creek would be protected by a 50-foot buffer. A limited amount of mitigation for impacts
to the wetlands appears to be possible to offset the intrusion of two of the houses into the
wetlands.
Councilmember Hertrich asked if they were going to create wetlands and dry up or fill in other
areas where it would be wetlands, and Mr. Meyers said that is possible. Councilmember Hertrich
asked Mr. Meyers to describe the difference between the delineation process and the process Mr.
Meyers used. Mr. Meyers responded a wetland reconnaissance is a less specific look at the site,
which may or may not flag an actual line. Councilmember Hertrich asked if the wetland reconnais-
sance included a certain criteria, and Mr. Meyers said the reconnaissance is more on a general
level, where vegetation, soil, and hydrology are looked at, but a detailed study is not per-
formed, however, in some cases, field notes are collected. Mr. Meyers noted a delineation is a
much more involved process, where the field notes are evaluated and incorporated into a report
which gives a conclusion about the field notes.
Councilmember Hertrich asked Mr. Meyers if the results from the field work are available for
Staff to review, and Mr. Meyers said the notes by themselves don't mean very much.
Councilmember Palmer inquired if a reconnaissance is generally less specific than a delineation,
and Mr. Meyers responded affirmatively. Councilmember Palmer inquired on the accuracy between
the two. Mr. Meyers said it depended on the level of the reconnaissance. Mr. Meyers said on
this specific reconnaissance, it is between 70% to 90% accurate. Mr. Meyers noted it is hard to
determine the accuracy until a delineation is performed and evaluate the data that was gathered.
Mr. Meyers explained to the Council if he was requested to complete the wetland delineation, then
that would be completed, then he would overlay that with the proposed improvements to the site
and come up with a calculation with how much square footage was affected by the improvements.
Mr. Tjossem noted he doesn't feel it is a legal obligation on the part of the applicant to per-
form a delineation, but the applicant is willing to commit as a condition of approval.
Councilmember Hertrich inquired if the delineation process completely eliminated the majority of
the area where the two center houses were going to be, could that be mitigated, and Mr. Meyers
said at this point, it is hard to say what the exact mitigation calculations would be, but he
said it appears at this time to be possible.
Councilmember Palmer asked what the distance is between the 50-foot buffer and the nearest struc-
tures, and Mr. Meyers replied approximately a minimum of 20 feet.
City Attorney Scott Snyder interjected the fact the City has only a 15 foot setback requirement
as a substantive generalized requirement that is applicable to all development in the City across
the board. Any development, particularly one that is located in an environmentally sensitive
area, and has wetland implications, are subject to SEPA review, and specific mitigation measures
can always be imposed in response to observed environmental conditions that are project specific.
Councilmember Hertrich inquired, under SEPA do you have to approve the proposal before that route
is taken, and Mr. Snyder said he feels that is the issue the Council is struggling with now. Mr.
Snyder said there are two ways to deal with it. The Council could remand it if they feel there
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 7 October 29, 1991
is not sufficient information, or the responsible official is always free to pull the mitigated
declaration of non -significance and request further information. The ability of the SEPA
official to do this, however, ends when a permit is issued.
Mayor Naughten opened up the public portion of the public hearing.
Marilyn Adams, 7310 Soundview Drive, representing the appellants, William and Pamela Harold,noted
William and Pamela are only two of several appellants who ❑ppose the proposed subdivision.
Ms. Adams distributed a letter to each Councilmember, that stated the opinion of several appel-
lants. In essence, Ms. Adams said the appellants were pleased that the 5 lot subdivision was
reduced t❑ a 4 lot subdivision, however, several outstanding requirements have yet to meet the
appellants approval. Ms. Adams noted there were several conditions that should be met before any
permits are issued including: Supplying a wetlands delineation map showing current boundaries;
Producing field notes ❑f any wetlands study; Identifying all locations where water emerges on the
site; and, Provide plans for erosion and sedimentation control consistent with the proposed De-
partment of Ecology storm water management manual.
Ms. Adams urged the Council to consider this information, and requested that the wetlands informa-
tion received be verified by the Washington State Department of Ecology. Ms. Adams also stated
the City's Planner has indicated that he has not yet received essential information necessary to
make an informed decision on these issues.
Mayor Naughten inquired if any other member of the public would like to speak on this issue.
Dean Rodnick, 6724 188th, expressed his concern over the subdevelopment, due to the fact, in his
opinion, it would greatly affect the wildlife in the area. Mr. Rodnick said that wetlands also
plays a key factor in this issue. Mr. Rodnick believes no building whatsoever should take place
in the proposed area.
Councilmember Palmer asked Mr. Rodnick how it would affect the wildlife. Mr. Rodnick replied the
runoff from sewage, and other water runoff would eliminate the current stream system. Mr.
Rodnick noted salmon used to run through the stream years ago, however, that is not the case
today. Mr. Rodnick also commented that rapid erosion is taking place in that valley, and there-
fore, no building should take place.
Mr. Tjossem encouraged the Council not to require a wetlands delineation. Mr. Tjossem stated he
admits the proposed houses intrude into the wetland, however, Mr. Tjossem said his client is
proposing to mitigate that and comply with the State and City requirements on erosion control.
Mayor Naughten closed the public portion of the meeting.
Councilmember Dwyer said this hearing originally came to the Council to approve a Hearing Examin-
er's recommendation for a 5-lot PRO. Councilmember Dwyer asked if it is sufficient to call it a
modified Hearing Examiner's recommendation, since it is now a 4-lot PRD. City Attorney Scott
Snyder said the Council could condition the approval on reduction from 5 to 4 lots, so the re-
quest to amend seems to be within the general range of approval that the Council could have given
to the original appeal. Mr. Snyder said the Council could approve it as a modified or amended
application. Councilmember Dwyer asked if this was approved by Council, what would be the impact
of the Council taking action on the SEPA process. Mr. Snyder said tf the City granted the per-
mit, the City would be putting an end to ability of the Staff to conduct a SEPA review. Up until
a development permit, the responsible official can pull the SEPA determination based ❑n new evi-
dence.
Councilmember Dwyer inquired if there is any fashion in which City can avoid a good faith dis-
agreement three or four months from now, whether the mitigation was sufficient. Mr. Snyder said
his understanding of the application is what the Council has is a PRO approval and a preliminary
subdivision plat approval. As with all subdivision plats, when the interstructure is complete,
it would come back to the Council f&r final approval: Mr. Snyder said his opinion, which could
be built into the findings could include the fact that the applicant has gone through a formal
subdivision process, has amended down to 4 lots, where it might be subject to short subdivision
requirements, it has been reviewed as a formal subdivision, conditioned as a formal subdivision,
and would come back to the Council for final approval. Councilmember Dwyer assumed then, that
this would not be the last time the Council would review this issue. Mr. Snyder suggested the
Council require the delineation of the wetlands program and the SEPA mitigation review as a condi-
tion ❑f preliminary plat approval, when that was done and the interstructure was complete per
City plan, the final approval, based on that review would be required before the final subdivi-
sion plat was approved and before building permits would be issued.
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 8 October 29, 1991
Mr. Snyder said the Council would have to carefully scrutinize the findings that he prepares,
because when you are dealing with a preliminary versus a final plat, it differs in that a final
plat is not discretionary, it is basically a check list.
Councilmember Palmer inquired if the check list portion would be something the Council would be
able to review to the degree of making adjustments, or would it be an acception or denial of the
list. Mr. Snyder said there are two ways the Council could approach the issue. The Council
could ask to see the delineation up front in order to determine what the mitigation measures are,
and that could be accomplished two ways; refer it back to the responsible official for their
review, or ask to see it before it is approved. The other method would be to craft into the
findings and approval of this PRO, a requirement that is more procedural which is who does the
delineation study, what issues does it address, and what are the results to be, and then you
could go down and check it off.
Councilmember Hertrich addressed the wetland issue. Councilmember Hertrich said he is dealing
with an unknown as he doesn't know how much mitigation would be required, as he doesn't know how
much wetlands actually exists. Councilmember Hertrich stated nothing would be able to be built
if the whole property was found to be a wetland, and inquired on the boundaries of the wetland.
Mr. Snyder reiterated if the Council approves this, basically what the Council is doing is review-
ing the preliminary plat conditions, and the alternative is to use SEPA, which is a more open
ended up participatory approach.
Councilmember Kasper commented that this will be not be converted to a short plat, it is a modifi-
cation of the plat as originally presented, and Mr. Snyder agreed with Councilmember Kasper.
Councilmember Dwyer stated his preference would be to pass a resolution giving intent of a motion
the Council would want to pass, and ask City Attorney Scott Snyder to draft a motion that would
include all of the Council's concerns. Councilmember Dwyer said this motion could come before
the Council at the next meeting for passage.
COUNCILMEMBER DWYER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER KASPER, THAT THE COUNCIL RESOLVE TO PASS A
MOTION WHICH CALLS FOR THE APPROVAL OF THE HEARING EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION WITH THE HEARING
EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION BEING MODIFIED FROM FIVE LOTS TO FOUR LOTS AND INCLUDE AN ACCEPTANCE OF
RELIANCE UPON THE APPLICANT'S STATEMENT THAT THEY WILL FURTHER DELINEATE THESE WETLANDS AND THEN
MITIGATE THE IMPACT OF BUILDING THE FOUR STRUCTURES AS PROPOSED.
Under discussion, Councilmember Hertrich noted that the motion doesn't address the possibility in
his opinion, the fact that the property as a whole might be considered wetlands, and no building
would be able to take place.
Councilmember Dwyer said if that case can be made from what materials are available, he would
consider it, however, if a case can't be made, a decision must be made which would produce the
best possible result.
Councilmember Hertrich feels not enough thought was put into the process, and more studies should
be done with regards to wetlands. Councilmember Hertrich believes wetlands cannot be mitigated.
Councilmember Kasper said he seconded the motion because it is a PRD,'and the City does not have
a wetlands ordinance, however, at some point, maybe the City may need one. Councilmember Kasper
said he feels the Council has gone as far as they can go.
Councilmember Palmer agreed that Councilmember Dwyer's approach is a good one, as far as it ac-
cepts the applicant's conditioning of delineation actions. Councilmember Palmer addressed Coun-
cilmember Hertrich's concerns and said there is information entered into the record from Shapiro
and Associates which includes their reconnaissance and the line they have delineated indicated,
had a 70 to 90% accuracy factor, so the likelihood of the entire site being a wetland is almost
completely eliminated, if that accuracy is accepted.
Councilmember Dwyer made reference to the nfinuteg of December 4, 1990 which illustrated his evalu-
ation of the project:"Councilmember Dwyer asked Mr. Snyder in terms of a public benefit, if the
Council was involved in a balancing act whereby they would search for a benefit and balance it
against potential detriment, or if the Council was searching ❑nly for a benefit. Mr. Snyder said
the working of the ordinance states that the application must establish a clear public benefit,
and it was not a balance test".
Councilmember Hertrich stated it is a fact that some of the proposed houses will settle upon a
wetland. Councilmember Hertrich said without a delineation process, you don't know where the
line is, and thus it makes it difficult to know what you are really dealing with. With regards
to Councilmember Dwyer's comments on public benefit, Councilmember Hertrich said you have to
weigh what the public benefit is in regards to natural streams, waterways, and wetlands.
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 9 October 29, 1991
Councilmember Dwyer said he asked that question to City Attorney Scott Snyder and reiterated it
is not a balancing process, in terms of whether or not they have met the criteria of a PRD.
MOTION CARRIED with Councilmember Hertrich voting no.
City Attorney Scott Snyder said while he is drafting a motion, he assumes the Staff will also
consider whether the information which has been provided is new significant information, which
should or should not result in withdrawal of the MONS. Mr. Snyder said this is a staff decision
made independently of the Council.
REPORT ON IMPLEMENTATION OF MULTI -FAMILY RECYCLING PROGRAM
Peter Hahn, Community Services Director, introduced a new staff member, Ms. Jacqui Austin, Office
Administrator. Mr. Hahn noted that Ms. Austin has been involved in the recycling program in the
City of Edmonds, and will be addressing the Council on the multi -family recycling.
Ms. Austin noted on May 24, 199 , Ordinance 2775 was passed, which outlines the recycling program
in the City of Edmonds. Subsequently, the City obtained a grant from Snohomish County for
$50,000. There remains a balance of $27,800 from this grant which is due to expire December 31,
1991.
Ms. Austin stated that because the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission did not
grant temporary rates until July 30, the implementation date for the multi -family recycling pro-
gram was delayed. The effects of the delay included difficulty in procuring an adequate supply
of containers and providing financial information to interested associations and manager. Ms.
Austin said implementation procedures are now proceeding, and both hauling companies have printed
informational material for disbursement to the multi -family associations and managers, Ms. Aus-
tin noted educational information has also been printed for disbursement to the residents of
these dwellings.
Ms. Austin said the remaining $27,800 of the $50,000 grant from Snohomish County will lapse, if
not expended by December 31, 1991, and suggested ways that this money could be used to promote
multi -family recycling within the City of Edmonds. Ms. Austin provided the Council with four
suggestions:
1) Purchase 6 1/2 gallon promotional bins. Ms. Austin noted these bins could be used by multi-
family residents to store and then carry recyclable materials to the central recycling contain-
er. One of the main difficulties faced by residents of multi -family dwellings is storing recycla-
ble materials and then transporting it to a bin. If these bins were available to the residents,
the recyclables could be taken to the central recycling container on the way to the resident's
car in the morning. Ms. Austin noted the cost of providing these bins would be approximately
$15,000.
2) Hire a part-time/non permanent assistant to assist the hauling companies. Mr. Austin
stressed this would be non permanent, and estimated the cost to be $10.00/hr for nine weeks for a
total expenditure of $1,440. Ms. Austin said this person would work one day a week at each of
the two hauling companies.
3) Second Information Mailing. Ms. Austin said a city-wide informational mailing was done in the
spring for a cost of $5,800, however, Ms. Austin didn't think there was enough time to distribute
a second mailing.
4) Purchase Informational Refrigerator Magnets. Ms. Austin said the magnet would include recy-
clable information and could be purchased for a unit price of 26 cents. The purchase of 6,000
magnets would be $1,700.
Councilmembers discussed various ways in which the grant money could be expended effectively.
Council President Wilson inquired on what is done with all the recyclable materials-. Don
Nicholson of Sound Disposal responded that at the present time, many recyclable materials are
stockpiled, especially glass and plastic, however, plants are being built to handle all the recy-
clable materials, and the market for recyclable materials will be a lot stronger five years down
the road when the plants are completed.
Councilmember Palmer suggested expending funds to hire a person to create design standards for
the multiple family structures, which would be forwarded to the ADB for approval.
COUNCILMEMBER JAECH MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST, TO EXPEND APPROXIMATELY $1700 ON
THE MAGNETS, AND EXPEND FUNDS TO ESTABLISH DESIGN STANDARDS FOR ADB REVIEW WITH REGARDS TO RECY-
CLING AT MULTI FAMILY STRUCTURES.
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 10 October 29, 1991
A ROLL CALL VOTE WAS TAKEN. MOTION CARRIED WITH COUNCILMEMBER JAECH, COUNCILMEMBER WILSON, COUN-
CILMEMBER PALMER, AND COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST VOTING IN FAVOR; COUNCILMEMBER KASPER, COUNCILMEM-
BER DWYER, AND COUNCILMEMBER HERTRICH OPPOSED.
COUNCILMEMBER PALMER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST, TO EXTEND THE MEETING. MOTION
CARRIED.
AUTHORIZATION TO CALL FOR BIDS TO PURCHASE NEW AID CAR ITEM C ON CONSENT AGENDA
Councilmember Kasper inquired why the aid cars seem to wear out so fast, and asked about City
maintenance of the vehicles. Fire Chief, "Buzz" Buralsky replied they haven't been maintained
they way they should, however, the unit needs to be replaced, due to excessive repairs, and costs.
COUNCILMEMBER KASPER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JAECH, TO APPROVE ITEM (C). MOTION CARRIED.
COUNCIL
Council President Wilson noted Port Ludlow is offering a retreat packet that is substantially
lower than their regular rates. The one catch is there could only be one menu selection for all
a retreat participants. Council President Wilson asked the Council if they would like consider
this as a possible Council/Staff retreat site for 1992. The consensus of the Council was not to
consider Port Ludlow as a possible retreat site under those conditions. Council President Wilson
noted the current date for the retreat is still set up for February 14 and 15, however, Council -
member Kasper will be out of town that weekend. The retreat details will be decided at a
later date.
!f Councilmember Palmer said there is a problem in the Perrinville area with regards to the roads
'Ft being left muddy by the trucks hauling earth out of the Post Office site, and asked Staff to take
whatever action is possible in order to have them clean up the roads after those trucks leave the
site.
Councilmember Hertrich noted he recently had occasion to be in the vicinity of the Lynnwood Sew-
age Treatment Plant, and experienced very strong odors permeating from the plant, and he feels
this poses a serious health problem. Councilmember Hertrich reiterated his desire to get togeth-
�P er with the Lynnwood City Council to discuss the issues.
Councilmember Hertrich said he was recently in the area of 80th, and said a school bus went speed-
ing down 80th at approximately 40 miles an hour. Councilmember Hertrich feels the police don't
have the citizens afraid of the law, and they are speeding. Councilmember Hertrich also said
this same instance happens on Meadowdale Road, and it is not just the school buses, but everyone.
Councilmember Dwyer thanked City Attorney Scott Snyder for providing a memo to the Council regard-
ing Regulating Contractors on Federal Government project.
Amanda Foote, Student Representative, apologized for being absent the last two meetings, however,
she has been home ill.
The meeting adjourned at 10:09 P.M.
THESE MINUTES ARE SUBJECT TO NOVEMBER 4, 1991 APPROVAL.
THE OFFICIAL SIGNED COPY OF THESE MINUTES IS ONE FILE IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
RH NDA �. MARCD, CITY CLERK
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 11 October 29, 1991
AGENDA
EDMONDS CITY COUNCI
OCTOBER 29, 1991
SPECIAL MEETING
LOCATION: ROOM 115, FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER
700 MAIN ST., EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
CALL TO ORDER
FLAG SALUTE
1. CONSENT AGENDA
(A) ROLL CALL
(B) APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF OCTOBER 22, 1991
(C) AUTHORIZATION TO CALL FOR BIDS TO PURCHASE NEW AID CAR
(D) PROPOSED ORDINANCE 2854 AMENDING OFFICIAL STREET MAP AND VACATING
275 FEET OF ALLEY EAST OF 7THAVE. S. BETWEEN SPRUCE AND
HEMLOCK STS. (APPLICANT: MCBRIDE, ET AL / FILE ST-3-91)
2. AUDIENCE
3.
HEARING ON APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER DECISION REGARDING SETBACK
(30 MINUTES)
ADJUSTMENT TO REDUCE 25-FOOT SETBACK TO 16 FEET TO ALLOW A DECK
ADDITION AT 23800 74TH AVE. W. (APPELLANT: CLARENCE CAPON;
APPLICANT: HELEN MAE DELLER / FILE NOS. A-12-91/AP-12-91/AP-18-91)
4.
CONTINUED HEARING ON APPROVAL OF HEARING EXAMINER RECOMMENDATION
(60 MINUTES)
REGARDING PROPOSED 5-LOT PRD/SUBDIVISION AT 18208 - 18218 76TH AVE. W.
(APPLICANT: THOMAS BELT / FILE NOS. PRD-2-90/P-2-90); AND
CONTINUED HEARING ON APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER RECOMMENDATION
REGARDING PROPOSED 5-LOT PRD/SUBDIVISION AT 18208 - 18218 76TH AVE. W.
(APPELLANT: WILLIAM AND PAMELA HAROLD, ET AL; APPLICANT: THOMAS BELT
FILE NOS. AP-25-90/P-2-90)
5.
REPORT ON IMPLEMENTATION OF MULTI-FAMILY'RECYCLING PROGRAM
(20 MINUTES)
6.
MAYOR
7. COUNCIL
THE PUBLIC IS INVITED TO ATTEND
PARKING AND MEETING ROOMS ARE HANDICAPPED ACCESSIBLE