Loading...
10/03/1989 City CouncilTHESE MINUTES SUBJECT TO OCTOBER 17, 1989 APPROVAL EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 3, 1989 The regular meeting of the Edmonds City Council was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Larry Naughten at the Library Plaza Room, 650 Main St., Edmonds. All present joined in the flag salute. PRESENT Larry Naughten, Mayor Bill Kasper, Council President Steve Dwyer, Councilmember Laura Hall, Councilmember Roger Hertrich, Councilmember Jo -Anne Jaech, Councilmember John Nordquist, Councilmember Jack Wilson, Councilmember Doug Meriino, Student Rep. STAFF Mary Lou Block, Planning Div. Mgr. Dan Prinz, Police Chief Brent Hunter, Personnel Manager Chuck Day, Accounting Manager Bobby Mills, Public Works Supt. Greg Ramsland, Equipt. Supvr. Gordy Hyde, Engineering Coord. Bob Alberts, City Engineer Peter Hahn, Comm. Svc. Director Scott Snyder, City Attorney Jackie Parrett, City Clerk Margaret Richards, Recorder Councilmember Dwyer arrived a few minutes late and did not vote on any Consent Agenda items. CONSENT AGENDA Items (E) and (K) were removed from the Consent Agenda. COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JAECH, TO APPROVE THE BALANCE OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED. The approved items on the Consent Agenda include the following: (A) ROLL CALL (8) APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 26, 1989 (C) APPROVAL OF LABOR AGREEMENT WITH EDMONDS POLICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION (D) AUTHORIZATION TO SELL SURPLUS VEHICLES TO WASHINGTON STATE REDISTRIBUTION CENTER IN AUBURN F) FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WORK BY LAKESIDE INDUSTRIES ON PHASE I OF THE 1989 STREET OVERLAY PROGRAM, AND SET 30 DAY RETAINAGE PERIOD 11%-e-�G) FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WORK BY LAKESIDE INDUSTRIES ON PHASE II OF THE 1989 STREET OVERLAY PROGRAM, AND SET 30 DAY RETAINAGE PERIOD ' (H) FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WORK BY ROBISON CONSTRUCTION, INC. ON THE 1989 WATER MAIN n J REPLACEMENT PROGRAM, AND SET 30 DAY RETAINAGE PERIOD (I) FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WORK BY ASSOCIATED SAND AND GRAVEL CO. ON THE 212TH ST. S.W. ROADWAY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, AND SET 30 DAY RETAINAGE PERIOD (J) FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WORK BY GORDON KRUSE CONSTRUCTION CO. ON BRACKETT'S LANDING IMPROVEMENTS, AND SET 30 DAY RETAINAGE PERIOD (L) ADOPTION OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW REGARDING APPEAL OF ARCHITECTURAL 3 DESIGN BOARD DECISION ON POLE SIGN AT 22130"HIGHWAY 99 (DOUG'S LYNNWOOD MAZDA) (APPELLANT: STEVEN BARNES/AP-31-89/ADB-83/89) (CARRIED OVER FROM SEPTEMBER 26, 1989) - (M) ADOPTION OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW REGARDING APPEAL OF ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD DECISION ON READERBOARD SIGN AT 22214 HIGHWAY 99 (DOUG'S RV REPAIR) (APPELLANT: STEVEN BARNES/AP-30-89/ADB-82-89) (CARRIED OVER FROM SEPTEMBER 26, 1989) (N) ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RECEIPT OF CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM LEROY D. FORS ($439) (0) ADOPTION OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW REGARDING APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER DENIAL OF RIGHT-OF-WWCONSTRUCTION PERMIT AT 18303 - 81ST. AVE. W. (APPELLANT: ROBERT MEYERS/AP-23-89) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT WITH JOHN GALT FOR HEARING • E NER PR TIF RVICES ITEM N THE CONSENT AGEND Councilmember Hall noted that the Council, as a whole, has not had an opportunity to interview �J Mr. Galt. COUNCILMEMBER HALL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON, TO SCHEDULE A PERSONAL INTERVIEW WITH JOHN GALT, TIME TO BE SET BY THE COUNCIL PRESIDENT. MOTION CARRIED. COUNCILMEMBER HALL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON, TO APPROVE ITEM (E). MOTION CARRIED. AUTHORIZATION TO LEASE SIX 1990 CHEVROLET POLICE CARS FROM FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS INTERNATIONAL taw($83,204) UTEM (K) UNW-THRE—ZONSENT AGENDAJ Councilmember Kasper recalled that Staff had recommended to the Council in the past to purchase the vehicles and not lease them. Police Chief Dan Prinz said the City has experienced problems with the leasing company in the past by not delivering the vehicles in a timely fashion or not getting the options on the vehicles that the City wanted. Chief Prinz said Equipment Rental Supervisor Greg Ramsland researched whether purchasing the vehicles would be more feasible than leasing them and ascertained that it would be more economi- cal to lease the vehicles at this time. Chief Prinz noted that discussions took place at the Council retreat regarding the police cars, and he had stated at that time that there was not enough money in the "B" Fund to purchase the vehicles at this time but monies could be deposited into that Fund to purchase vehicles next year. Councilmember Hall said the Council was convinced in the past that the City should purchase the vehicles. She recalled that Staff had stated that the City would recoup its costs when the vehi- cles were resold because the City maintains its vehicles so highly. Councilmember Hall suggested that the Police Department's budget be carefully scrutinized if there are no monies in the "B" Fund to purchase the vehicles, as was initially recommended. Chief Prinz said the City's used vehicles are valuable to the leasing company because they can re -lease them for the amount of the residual and they have a market for them. Mr. Ramsland said the leasing company makes a profit by leasing the cars at a monthly rate but the cars are under warranty. He said the City is not in a position to lease its used vehicles to an entity on a monthly basis. He said private vehicles are more valuable when they are sold, but the same used City vehicle would not bring much of a profit. COUNCILMEMBER KASPER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER HALL, TO REFER THE MATTER TO THE FINANCE COMMITTEE. MOTION CARRIED. Mayor Naughten recognized Tina Roberts, Lynnwood City Councilmember and Chairperson of Community Transit, and Bill MacCully in the audience. AUDIENCE Mayor Naughten opened the audience portion of the meeting. Tom Pinkham, 18610 Soundview Place, requested the Council to consider enacting a more stringent Code with respect to the ADB standards that are currently under consideration. He asked that the setbacks that are required for buildings in all but commercial zones be considered for parking lots and driveways. Mayor Naughten closed the audience portion of the meeting. PRESENTATION TO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL BY EDMONDS BOYS & GIRLS CLUB Michelyn Allen, Director of the Edmonds Boys & Girls Club, 601 - 167th St. S.E., Bothell, thanked the Mayor and City Council for the work that Staff did in refurbishing the Club. Ms. Allen said some of the Club members wanted to personally thank the Mayor and Council. Katie Williams, age 13, said she loves the Boys & Girls Club because the people are really friend- ly and because it is a "cool" place to hang out. She thanked the Mayor, Council, and Staff for painting the clubhouse. g EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 2 OCTOBER 3, 1989 Nicole said she loves the Club because she likes to play basketball. She thanked the Mayor, • Council, and Staff for painting the Club and remodeling it. The children presented eight letters to the Mayor and City Council expressing their appreciation. Ms. Allen read a large card that the members of the Club made. It said, "Thank you for the remod- eling and painting project of 1989. Presented to the Edmonds City Council October 3rd, 1989". Ms. Allen presented the card to the Mayor. - Mayor Naughten thanked the members for the card and the letters. PRESENTATION BY COMMUNITY TRANSIT ON "TRANSIT 2001" COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Bill MacCully, Community Transit, 8905 Airport Road, Everett, said "Transit 2001" is a program that has been under consideration for approximately a year and a half. Mr. MacCully said everyone is affected by the traffic congestion. He noted that employment in Snohomish County will increase by one-third (or 60,000 jobs) by the year 2,000; the population will increase by approximately 36%; and the total travel demand within Snohomish County will increase by approximately 50%. As a result of these forecasted increases, Mr. MacCully said "Transit 2001" was conceived in an attempt to deal with the congestion issue. Mr. MacCully explained that "Transit 2001" is a strategic plan of action that is developed to guide the future of Community Transit (CT) over the next 10 to 15 years. He said it is a system plan as distinguished from a service plan because it is a broader view of the transportation issue. Mr. MacCully said input from previous meetings was taken into account as well as some of the needs of special groups, when the plan was under review. Mr. MacCully showed the Council a slide and tape presentation. The presentation included the following information: Traffic congestion impacts everyone... it lowers the quality of our lives and lessens our enjoy- ment in everyday activities. Experts predict a population increase of over 36% in Snohomish County by the year 2,000, which can be equated to adding another Everett, Lynnwood, Mountlake Terrace and Edmonds to the County, and approximately one-third more jobs will be created. An increasing number of jobs and people mean more automobiles. Local governments, businesses, and citizens must act together to imple- ment practical solutions. Community Transit believes that an improved system is a vital component to the overall solution of Snohomish County Transportation problems. The transit system makes better use of the roads and highways, reduces congestion around major activity centers; helps senior adults and disable individuals and people without cars for basic mobility; cuts down on the use of cars; and encour- ages economic development and growth. Community Transit already helps by providing over 4 million rides each year. In July of 1989, CT adopted "Transit 2001", which is a document to help provide services for the transit needs of today and of the future. As early as 1990, improved service on local routes will be implemented (expanded evening hours, increased Sunday hours and Sunday schedules, increased service on commut- er and university routes, additional service for senior adults and disabled people, more van pools and employer services). CT's plan of action responds to the region's transportation needs on a long-term basis with improvements phased into the year 2,001. To help traffic move smoother and faster, high occupancy vehicles lanes (NOV) will be built on local arterials. NOV lanes are being completed on major highways in Snohomish County. In the north end of the I-5 corridor, NOV lanes carry 26% of all peak -hour traffic in only 5% of the vehicles. Some of the solutions can be implemented at the present time, but all of the growth costs more dollars than CT resources will support. One of the alternatives is to increase the sales tax by .03% with voter approval. Studies show that a workable rail system depends on an efficient bus system to get to and from the rail stations. All of the improvements identified by CT complement rail service. R EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 3 OCTOBER 3, 1989 Councilmember Hall encouraged CT to pursue a rail system. Mr. MacCully said discussions are taking place with respect to implementing a rail system in the Puget Sound area. * ` Tina Roberts, Chairperson of CT, asked the Council for their consideration and endorsement of the comprehensive plan "Transit 2001". ON REQUEST FOR LIMITED DURATION PARKING ON 2ND AVE. N., FROM EDMONDS ST. TO CASPERS ST. p�HEARING Mayor Naughten noted that the City received a petition requesting a five hour parking restriction on 2nd Avenue North, between Edmonds Street and Caspers St., between the hours of 9 a.m. and 2 a p.m. The petition was signed by approximately 56% of the residents. Gordy Hyde, Engineering Coordinator, noted that the typical parking restriction that presently exists in the City is for a three-hour period between the 'hours of 8 a.m. and 6 p.m., Monday through Saturday. He said Staff does not oppose a parking restriction but feels the restriction should be consistent with the existing restriction in the area. Mr. Hyde said parking restrictions can cause problems of their own. Vehicles currently parked on 2nd Avenue North will most likely be displaced to another neighborhood if a restriction is im- posed. He said the restriction would also apply to the residents and their guests. He said it would be difficult, at this time, to know what the impact would be. An increase in parking would probably occur east of 3rd Avenue North and north of Edmonds Street, and residents of that area would most likely petition the City for a parking restriction if problems did occur. Mayor Naughten opened the public portion of the hearing. Dell Lowell, 207 - 2nd Ave. N., did not believe that three-hour limited parking will solve the problem. He said the area in which he lives is signed for limited parking but motorists do not obey the restriction and parking is not enforced. Mr. Lowell said commuters are constantly parking on the street overnight. Bob Crump, 501 - 2nd Ave. N., was in support of limited parking. Mr. Crump said he has lived on 2nd Avenue for approximately 12 years and has noticed the parking situation getting worse every year. He estimated that 50% of cars that park on the street belong to commuters. Mr. Crump asked the people in the audience who were in support of limited O.arking to stand. (Approximately 30 people stood ... a majority of the audience.) Carol Gittins, 7205 - 173rd St. S.W., said she is a commuter and parks on 2rfd Avenue. She said she, too, would be unhappy if she was a resident of downtown Edmonds and��ias unable to park in front of her residence. f// Ms. Gittins said she applied for a permit at City Hall to park in,,the Park 'N Ride lot but the City Clerk would not take her name on a waiting list because the waiting list has had twenty- three people on it for over a year. Ms. Gittins requested the Council to / q provide more Park-'N Ride lots. She said commuters do not want to bother the community and are looking for and willing to pay for legitimate places to park. In response to a question by Councilmember Hertrich, Ms. Gittens said there used to be 101 park- ing stalls at the Park 'N Ride lot in downtown Edmonds but 20 stalls were signed for 3 hour park- ing. She said she does not park in the Diamond parking lot because the cost is prohibitive. Robert Senseny, 121 Edmonds St., said there is a fence along the perimeter of his backyard. He said ferry commuters throw an incredible amount of garbage into his yard and have damaged his fence by backing into it. Mr. Senseny said the time has come for the City to seriously consider the problems caused by commuter parking in residential areas. Paul Wagner, 505 - 2nd Ave. N., said a plan has to be devised that allows residents to park on the streets outside of their homes. * See Council Minutes of October.17, 1989 EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 4 OCTOBER 3, 1989 Phil Johnson, 300 - 2nd Ave. N., Breakwater Condominium, said the tenants are discouraged from parking in the condominium visitor parking but are forced to park there when on -street parking is unavailable. He said the majority of the tenants are elderly, and their visitors have to park at least a block and a half away. Louise Drake, 300 - 2nd Ave., N., said in addition to the problem of on -street parking, the street cleaning vehicles cannot clean 2nd Avenue because there are always cars parked on that street. Will Tuson, 403 - 2nd Ave. N., said the parking problem seems to be getting worse. He surmised that 90% of the cars that park on the street are owned by commuters. He thought restricted park- ing may solve the problem. Mayor Naughten closed the public portion of the hearing. In response to a question by Mayor Naughten, Mr. Hyde said the request to restrict parking be- tween 9 a.m. to 2 p.m, would still allow people to park on the street for extended periods of time. He said Staff recommends, for continuity, that a 3 hour restriction be posted from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m., Monday through Saturday. Councilmember Jaech recalled that discussions have taken place in the past with regard to obtain- ing permission from churches to allow commuters to park in church parking lots. To solve the problem, Councilmember Hertrich said parking lots must be available to commuters and parking restrictions must be enforced. He recommended that Staff identify areas in Edmonds that can be used as a Park 'N Ride facility. City Clerk Jackie Parrett said when she receives inquiries she always suggests to commuters to park in the Diamond parking lot. She said, however, they resist that option because even though they pay for parking in advance, a parking stall is not assigned to them and a stall may not always be available to them when they need it. Councilmember Hall recalled that approximately eight years ago the Council was looking at land in downtown Edmonds to construct a multi -level parking garage. She said that particular facility would have had little impact to the City and the lower level would not be visible. Councilmember Hall said it is incumbent upon the City to build parking lots in downtown Edmonds. She asked the Mayor and Staff to research what land is available for parking purposes in Edmonds. COUNCILMEMBER HERTRICH MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JAECH, TO DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO DRAFT AN ORDINANCE TO COMPLY WITH A THREE-HOUR PARKING RESTRICTION BETWEEN THE HOURS OF 8 A.M. TO 6 P.M., MONDAY THROUGH SATURDAY, EXCEPT HOLIDAYS, BETWEEN EDMONDS STREET AND CASPERS STREET, WITH A REVIEW AFTER SIX MONTHS. At the request of Councilmember Dwyer, COUNCILMEMBER HERTRICH AMENDED THE HOURS FROM 6 A.M. TO 8 P.M. THE AMENDMENT WAS ACCEPTABLE TO THE SECOND. Councilmember Jaech suggested that hours of the parking restriction in residential areas be stan- dardized throughout the City. MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Jaech requested Staff to submit a map to the Council by November 6th depicting the ��i areas that will have restricted parking as posed in the motion. 1�!"�- HEARING ON APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER DECISION REGARDING ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT AT 7400 - 169TH PL. S.W.(APPELLANTS: R BERT AND SUSAN ALLEN AND ROBERTA MAURICE; APPLICANTS: R. DENNIS W LKER AND LEAH BILDER P- -8 CU- 1- 9 , ' — o�,,/ "�Planning Division Manager Mary Lou Block reported that on August 14, 1989, the Hearing Examiner ail held a public hearing on the request of R. Dennis Walker for a conditional use permit for an accessory dwelling unit for the property located at 7400 - 169th Pl. S.W.. The applicant request- ed that the unit be allowed to be constructed on an existing deck attached to the house by a breezeway. Ms. Block said Staff recommended that the accessory dwelling unit be approved only if the unit was established in the existing house or was located in an addition immediately adjacent to the existing residential structure. s Ms. Block said the Hearing Examiner issued his decision on September 6, 1989 approving the appli- cant's request subject to numerous conditions listed in his report. EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 5 OCTOBER 3, 1989 Ms. Block noted that a copy of the appeal letters, the Hearing Examiner's decision, a vicinity map, and the plot plan were included in the Council packets. She said the file on this matter was in the Council office for review prior to the hearing. Ms. Block said both Staff and the Hearing Examiner have recommended approval of the accessory dwelling unit on the basis that it meets the City's criteria. Ms. Block reviewed the Hearing Examiner's decision. Ms. Block submitted five photographs of the house in question to the City Clerk (marked Exhibit #1) for distribution to the Council. Conceptual building elevations were also provided (marked Exhibit #2), which were submitted as Exhibit #8 at the Hearing Examiner hearing. Councilmember Kasper inquired about access to the house. Ms. Block said access is provided di- rectly from Meadowdale Beach Road. Councilmember Kasper inquired if access can be provided through Eagle's Nest Division 2. He noted that the design of the accessory unit will be depen- dent upon access to the house. (City Engineer Bob Alberts answered his questions in later testi- mony.) In response to a question by Councilmember Hertrich, City Attorney Scott Snyder stated that the Hearing Examiner recommended that the accessory dwelling unit permit lapse if and when Peter Bilder terminated his occupancy in the subject home. In response to questions by Councilmember Kasper regarding access, Mr. Alberts said he has always assumed that access rights were available on the road through Eagle's Nest Division 2. Mayor Naughten noted that the residents of the area could clarify that issue. Dennis Walker, 547 - 3rd Ave. N., said many of the conditions contained in the Hearing Examiner's report were posed by him in consideration of the neighbors. Mr. Walker said he does not need the accessory dwelling unit to meet the house payments. He said he only wanted to provide an area for his father-in-law to live. Mr. Walker explained that a breezeway was incorporated into the building plans when he and his wife learned of the City's interpretation of a single family residence at the Hearing Examiner's proceeding so the structure would lend itself more to a single family residence. Since then, Mr. Walker said the plans have been redesigned to convert the breezeway to living space, making the accessory dwelling unit even more attached. He said he and his wife are willing to make a lot of concessions to get the permit approved. Mr. Walker said the unit will be a one -bedroom structure with a kitchen, and it will share the same power and water meter as the main structure. Mr. Walker said the accessory dwelling unit will have very little impact to the neighborhood. He said the main structure is a unique architectural style and does not appear to be a single family structure, but the accessory unit will give it the appearance of a single family structure. Mr. Walker said he is presently using the easement for access, and lots 4 and 5 exit onto the easement. He said construction vehicles have been using it. Mr. Walker said the easement is the sole legal access to his property. Mr. Walker said the accessory dwelling unit meets all of the criteria of the Code and satisfies the concerns raised at the Planning Board meetings. Mr. Walker asked the City to help him develop a plan that is acceptable to both the City and the neighborhood. Robert Allen, 22131 - 80th Ave. W., clarified that the easement is the only legal easement to the house in question, but he said it is a nonexclusive easement (anyone can use it). He said Mr. Walker does not have the right to head in an easterly direction and use the new improved access because he does not belong to the homeowner's association. Mr. Allen said families with six toddlers live or will move into the immediate area. He said the neighbors are very concerned about their safety because the easement is a very narrow, winding road with poor visibility in one location. Mr. Allen said the neighbors, in general, would like to see the easement "disappear" and would like Mr. Bilder and Mr. and Mrs. Walker to use the improved access. Susan Allen showed a video tape of the two access roads to the Council (marked Exhibit #3). EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 6 OCTOBER 3, 1989 Councilmember Dwyer inquired why Mr. Allen thought access was relevant to the application before the Council. Mr. Allen said the traffic will increase on the easement if Mr. Bilder and his daughter and son-in-law reside together. Councilmember Dwyer pointed out that Mr. Bilder has a right to reside with his daughter and if he moved into the home with his daughter and son-in-law, he would have a right to use the easement and, thus, no more traffic would be generated if he lived in the house or in the accessory dwelling unit. Mr. Allen said the criteria for an accessory dwelling unit protects neighbors from incompatible additions to existing buildings that do not harmonize with the existing structures in the area. He believed that the proposed accessory unit was in conflict with that criteria. Susan Allen, 22131 - 80th Ave. W., was concerned that the additional traffic would threaten the safety of the small children and people who walk on the easement. She said the other access road is a much safer road. Ms. Allen said the neighborhood is comprised of single family dwellings. She said she did not understand why Mr. Walker is allowed an exception to the standard in the existing Code. Ms. Allen said the accessory unit is proposed to be constructed on top of the garage, but she questioned the structural integrity of the house. She said the house is twenty-five years old and many additions have been made to it which had not been inspected. She did not feel that the house was safe. Ms. Allen said she would like the unit to be completed within a year if it is permitted and not over a ten year period as proposed by Mr. Walker. Councilmember Hertrich inquired about the number of people who use the easement. Ms. Allen said Mr. Bilder is the only person at the present time who uses that road. Councilmember Hertrich inquired if the owners of the homes currently under construction will use the easement. Ms. Allen replied negatively. Mr. Allen clarified that lots 4 and 5 will partially use the easement, but the City is requiring them to widen it down to their driveways. Tom Maurice, 15508 Woodfern Lane, Millcreek, said the residents are unsure of the building plans for the accessory unit because they keep changing. He said the neighbors do not want an accesso- ry unit of a duplex nature to be constructed north of the main structure and connected only with a breezeway. Mr. Maurice felt the City should include the application for the proposed accessory dwelling unit in the moratorium that was recently enacted for accessory dwelling units. City Attorney Scott Snyder stated that an applicant's rights are vested at the date of their application, and the City has to hear their application under the Code as it is currently written. Mayor Naughten opened the public portion of the hearing. Richard Raab, 16912 - 73rd P1. W., said residents of Eagle's Nest are willing to allow Mr. Walker to use the new improved access. Mr. Raab said Mr. Bilder's house was constructed before the houses in Eagle's Nest were and so the new houses do not conform with his home, nor do homes built later conform to the Eagle's Nest homes. Mr. Raab requested the Council to approve the accessory dwelling unit. Conrad Matlock, 16410 - 60th Ave. W., said his home is for sale and he represents the interest of his buyer. Mr. Matlock said the owners of lot 5 gave him a letter that they wanted the Council to consider. He said they have no objections to the Walkers living with Mr. Bilder but hoped that that situa- tion would not be allowed anywhere else in the neighborhood. He said the easement was one of their greatest concerns, and they purchased the home because they thought they were buying into a secured area. Mr. Matlock submitted the letter to the City Clerk (marked Exhibit #4). Ray Freeman, Mr. Walker's architect, 3-D, Seattle, said the easement issue is a completely sepa- rate issue from the accessory dwelling unit. EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 7 OCTOBER 3, 1989 Mr. Freeman said the home in question is distinctly different from the homes in the surrounding area, and the addition will be designed to create a cohesive single family -appearing structure. Mr. Freeman noted that the Hearing Examiner recommended that the Architectural Design Board be consulted which, he said, will insure that the appearance of the structure remain as a single family dwelling and in keeping with the style of the neighborhood. He noted that the home is located on a very large parcel of land, and the grounds in and of themseif comprise the neighbor- hood. Earl Morris, 17306 - 73rd Ave. W., architect, thought Mr. Walker selected the best architect in the area. He was confident that Mr. Walker's talent in landscape and design would insure a pleas- ing addition to the residence in question. Mr. Morris strongly urged the Council to approve Mr. Walker's request. Mr. Walker said the issue before the Council was in reference to a conditional use permit and not a conditional easement access use/accessory dwelling request. He said the easement or right of access through the back property or safety or security gates were a separate issue. Mr. Walker said he seeks to be in as much compliance with the neighbors as possible and is asking the Council for approval based on the use itself. Mayor Naughten closed the public portion of the hearing. Counciimember Hertrich said the proposed project meets the criteria of the Code "as closely as we can imagine for what we are trying to have in the City for accessory dwelling units". COUNCILMEMBER HERTRICH MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON, TO DENY THE APPEAL. MOTION CAR- RIED. D HEARING ON APPEAL OF ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD DECISION REGARDING PROPOSED TRIPLEX AT 222 DAYTON APPELLANT: TOM PINKHAM• APPLICANT: PINNED & MICHEL AP-38-8 / DB- 1-89 /�- Planning Division Manager Mary Lou Block reported that on September 6, 1989, after a series of hearings, the Architectural Design Board (ADB) approved a proposed new triplex at 222 Dayton Street. The subject property is 60 feet wide and parking is proposed up to the east property line with no setback. (The Edmonds Community Development Code allows parking in all but the street setback.) Ms. Block said a major issue the Board debated over was the necessity for landscaping to buffer building walls versus the recent Edmonds Community Development Code amendment to reduce the re- quired parking lot aisle width to 24 feet. There is no landscaping at the east property line of the subject property under the proposed plan. Ms. Block noted that there is a required setback in an RM zone and construction is not allowed right up to the property line but is allowed up the property line in a BC zone because there is no required side yard setback. Councilmember Hertrich asked what is on the west side of the applicant's property. Ms. Block said the City's Public Works building. Greg Pinneo, Pinneo & Michel, 21010 - 76th Ave. W., requested that his testimony be allowed at the end of the public portion. Tom Pinkham, Pinkham's Pillow, 202 - 3rd Ave. S., residing at 18610 Soundview Place, expressed concern, as a citizen, with the type of development that the project in question represents and how it and other similar projects may affect downtown Edmonds. Mr. Pinkham said the current Code allows parking right up to a property line. He noted that ADB standards are currently under consideration for codification, but Mr. Pinkham said he did not want to be the only person in Edmonds with a parking lot abutting his property line because of the timing of the City's deliberations. Mr. Pinkham displayed the proposed parking plan on the overhead projector. He said he would prefer that parking and driveway accesses be subject to the same setbacks as buildings are or at least require 4 feet of landscaping along the property line, as recommended by the ADB. By use of an identical parking layout, Mr. Pinkham illustrated the effect that would occur if abutting properties constructed their parking lots adjacent to one another and right up to the property line. EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 8 OCTOBER 3, 1989 Mr. Pinkham requested the Council to either deny the proposed project, require 4 feet of landscap- ing along the property line, or table the decision on the particular application until the new Code is enacted. In response to an earlier question by Councilmember Dwyer, Mr. Pinkham said his business provides one on -site parking stall, two in -lieu of parking spaces, and five leased spaces by the Alaska Publishing Company. Mr. Snyder said the example that Mr. Pinkham gave and his own situation present two completely different scenarios. He said the Council has the obligation to decide the issue before them based on the Code as it is presently written. He said the Code, in Section 20.10.070(B)(3), Site Treatment, states, "Landscape treatment should be provided to buffer the development from sur- rounding property where a conflict may result, such as a parking facility near yard spaces, streets or residential units and differing building heights or color". Mr. Snyder said in Mr. Pinkham's situation, the parking stalls that he described basicalay back onto his yard space and near a residential unit so Mr. Snyder believed the Council has ample opportunity to require screening if they thought it was appropriate. On the other hand, he said if Mr. Pinkham put parking up to the property line abutting the project in question, a conflict would not exist and the screening would not be required. Mr. Snyder said the Council's authority to require screen- ing where a conflict exists is not taken away when there is a lack of setbacks and certain aisle widths exist. Mayor Naughten opened the public portion of the hearing. Don Williams, 210 - 3rd Ave. S., said his property abuts the proposed project. Mr. Williams said the notice of this hearing was the first notice he was given of the proposal and he had not been aware of previous ADB hearings. Councilmember Jaech inquired why Mr. Williams was not notified of previous meetings regarding the proposal. Ms. Block said notice is not required if the project is under four units. Councilmem- ber Jaech stated that a person's rights expire when the appeal period lapses. She felt property owners should be notified. She asked that a revision to the Code be made. Mr. Williams said he objected to the proposed project because it will be constructed very close to his residence. Mr. Snyder stated that although Mr. Williams had a right to voice his con- cerns, setbacks and building height are governed by City Code and are not part of what is under review by the Council. Ruth Robertson, 12510 - N.E. 128th, Kirkland, ADB member, said the proposed project is a test case. But, she said, screening should be required between incompatible uses or between parking lot. She said she would hate to see the proposed parking configuration with no screening on the side property lines become a standard in Edmonds. Ms. Robertson said there is a retaining wall to the east of the proposed project, which will act as a partial screen because of its height. On the west elevation she said there is no screening except for grass. Mr. Pinneo said the proposed project has been through exhaustive ADB review, meets all of the standards of the Code, and has met with unanimous approval of the ADB. He noted that the land- scape plan was drafted by former ADB member Shawn Parsons, landscape architect. Mr. Pinneo pointed out that two-thirds of the east property line is heavily landscaped. Mr. Pinneo reiterated that the project has met with the approval of the City. He asked, then, why the proposal was before the Council. He suspected that the issue related not to the site or the impact to the community but to an ulterior motive on the part of Mr. Pinkham. Mr. Pinneo said the scenario that Mr. Pinkham described of nose -to -nose parking could not occur to the adjoining properties in the case before the Council. He said the parking at Pinkham's Pillow could not fill up the landscape buffer, and the City would not allow him to back out onto Dayton. Mr. Pinneo thought Mr. Pinkham was upset because he was not the owner of the property in ques- tion. He said Mr. Pinkham offered Pinneo & Michel a purchase and sell agreement for twice the amount they purchased their lot for. Mr. Pinneo said he would like to submit a copy of a letter that Mr. Pinkham wrote to the former property owner and read it into the record. EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 9 OCTOBER 3, 1989 Mayor Naughten asked Mr. Pinneo to address only the merits of the issue and refrain from attack- ing Mr. Pinkham. Mr. Pinneo felt the case would not before the Council if Mr. Pinkham did not have an ulterior motive. Mayor Naughten did not allow the letter to be read into the record. Mr. Pinneo said financial considerations were due on October 1st for the property in question. He said Mr. Pinkham was aware that that consideration would not be met by October 1st because the issue was under appeal. Mr. Pinneo said Mr. Pinkham asked the former owner not to renegotiate with Pinneo & Michel and offered him a larger amount of money. Mr. Snyder advised the Council to decide whether or not to admit the letter into the record be- fore they entered into their decision -making process. Mr. Snyder asked Mr. Pinneo if the letter related to any financial interest of any members of the Council. Mr. Pinneo replied negatively. Mr. Pinneo submitted several copies of the letter to the City Clerk (marked Exhibit #1). The City Clerk provided one copy to Mr. Pinkham. Mr. Pinneo believed that the proposed project was under appeal not for issues relating to the development but because Mr. Pinkham wanted the property. Mr. Pinneo asked the City Council to uphold the ADB's decision. Mayor Naughten read the letter and did not feel that the information contained in the letter was relevant to the issue, but he said he did not have any problem with the letter. Councilmember Dwyer encouraged the Mayor to allow the letter to be disseminated. Mr. Snyder noted that rebut- tal is usually not allowed to be used to produce evidence that was not offered in direct testimo- ny. He suggested that Mr. Pinkham be given a copy of the letter and an opportunity to respond to the letter if it was admitted into the record. COUNCILMEMBER KASPER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DWYER, TO ACCEPT THE LETTER. Councilmember Hertrich objected to admitting the letter into the record because he said Mr. Pinneo should have presented evidence in his direct testimony but he chose not to give any direct testimony. He said introduction of new evidence was not proper at the time that he did so. COUNCILMEMBER HERTRICH MOVED TO REFUSE TO ACCEPT THE LETTER. Councilmember Hall pointed out that a motion was already on the floor. MOTION CARRIED (TO ACCEPT THE LETTER) WITH COUNCILMEMBER KASPER, COUNCILMEMBER DWYER, COUNCILMEM- BER HALL, AND COUNCILMEMBER WILSON IN FAVOR; COUNCILMEMBER HERTRICH, COUNCILMEMBER JAECH, AND COUNCILMEMBER NOROQUIST OPPOSED. Copies were distributed to the Council. Mr. Pinneo pointed out that there is a 3 foot elevation difference between the parking level and the east property line (abutting Mr. Pinkham's property). In addition, he said there is a 6 foot fence along the entire length of the east property line. Mr. Pinneo said someone would have to stand on top of the fence and look down 9 feet to see any landscaping. Mr. Pinneo said it was Shawn Parson's opinion (former ADB member and landscape architect), that landscaping would not survive in that area. Mr. Pinneo said there are two major sewer lines on the west boundary that the City owns, and the City cannot excavate to construct a parking lot at that location. He pointed out that the scenar- io that Mr. Pinkham depicted of nose -to -nose parking could not exist on either property line. Mr. Pinkham said he did offer Pinneo & Michel more money for the lot in question, and he was aware of the cash -out agreement. Mr. Pinkham said he appealed the ADB decision not for ulterior motives but because he objected to the proposed design of the parking lot. - Mr. Pinkham said the Council must consider only the issue of whether the reduced aisle width of parking lots will be a standard in the City. Mr. Pinkham did not believe the ADB would have approved the proposal if they were aware that they had the authority not to. As a matter of procedure, Mayor Naughten adjourned the meeting at 10 p.m. COUNCILMEMBER DWYER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER KASPER, TO EXTEND THE MEETING FOR 15 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED. A EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 10 OCTOBER 3, 1989 Councilmember Hail said the ADB was concerned with landscaping for the proposed project, and she quoted one member as saying, "The parking code change would have a negative impact on aesthetics and set an unfortunate precedent". Councilmember Hall said it behooves the Council to "take a hard look at that". COUNCILMEMBER HERTRICH MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JAECH, TO UPHOLD THE APPEAL BECAUSE SCREENING SHOULD BE REQUIRED BECAUSE OF THE CONFLICT BETWEEN THE TWO USES. Councilmember Dwyer said he did not think it was relevant that Mr. Pinkham got caught with his hands in the cookie jar, even though he had crumbs on his fingers, or that it was relevant what might happen elsewhere in the City with respect to parking lot configurations in solving the issue before the Council. He said although it is important to consider the potential impact of nose -to -nose parking in the City in RM 1.5 zoning, it does not present a problem in the case before the Council. He noted that the proposed project meets all of the requirements of the Code. Councilmember Dwyer said it was reasonable for the ADB to assume that existing landscaping would remain on Mr. Pinkham's property when they reviewed the proposed project because conces- sions were made on his property in exchange for in -lieu parking. Councilmember Dwyer said prob- lems may be encountered in the future with reduced parking aisle widths, but he did not believe a problem existed with the proposal before the Council. Councilmember Kasper concurred with Coun- cilmember Dwyer. Councilmember Jaech noted that Mr. Pinkham and another adjacent resident wanted landscaping be- tween their properties. She said it is the Council's job to try to mitigate an impact when it is perceived as being detrimental to adjoining properties. Councilmember Jaech said she was not opposed to the proposed project but believed more of a buffer was needed. Councilmember Wilson concurred with Councilmember Dwyer regarding the necessity of addressing, the nose -to -nose concept in general and the potential problems that may occur. Councilmember Wilson objected to the Mayor's resistance to enter Mr. Pinneo's letter into the record. He said he does not recall ever precluding a speaker from testifying in any manner that he saw fit. He said it was not the Council's place to dictate what a speaker may say. Mayor Naughten said he has the discretion, as Chairman, to preclude testimony if he feels it is not relevant. A ROLL CALL VOTE WAS TAKEN. MOTION FAILED WITH COUNCILMEMBER HALL, COUNCILMEMBER HERTRICH, AND COUNCILMEMBER JAECH IN FAVOR; COUNCILMEMBER KASPER, COUNCILMEMBER DWYER, COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST, AND COUNCILMEMBER WILSON OPPOSED. COUNCILMEMBER DWYER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON, TO DENY THE APPEAL. A ROLL CALL VOTE WAS TAKEN. MOTION CARRIED WITH COUNCILMEMBER KASPER, COUNCILMEMBER DWYER, COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST, AND COUNCILMEMBER WILSON IN FAVOR; COUNCILMEMBER HALL, COUNCILMEMBER HERTRICH, AND COUNCILMEMBER JAECH OPPOSED. COUNCILMEMBER HALL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DWYER, TO REOPEN THE MEETING UNTIL 10:45 P.M. MOTION CARRIED. CENTENNIAL COMMITTEE 1990 BUDGET REQUEST Barbara Kindness, Chamber of Commerce, said the Edmonds Centennial Committee is increasing its -� fund raising and public education efforts. She said it is dedicated to having a first-rate cele- bration involving the entire community. Ms. Kindness said the City was involved in the State Centennial celebration in 1989. Ms. Kindness said several projects, although revenue generating, will require up -front dollars, e.g., an historic calendar, Liberty Cup Drum and Bugle Corps Championship, and a Birthday Celebra- tion with Centennial Ball. Ms. Kindness said the Committee also needs a paid Staff coordinator who will work part-time at approximately $10 an hour. The coordinator will serve as organizer of the fund raising efforts and contact for clubs and organizations. Councilmember Hall inquired what percentage of the 1990 Centennial Committee budget ($162,500) is going to be generated by revenues. Ms. Kindness said through sponsorship and sales of some of the projects, the Chamber hopes to generate more money than the events will cost. EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 11 OCTOBER 3, 1989 Ms. Kindness said the Council has allocated $15,000 to the Chamber for 1990 but an additional $35,000 is needed. She said the sale of the Centennial bricks, for example, will offset the cost for the Centennial Plaza and funding from the Council for the Plaza will not be necessary. Mayor Naughten inquired if the Chamber will be, in essence, borrowing money from the City and reimbursing it as the funds are generated. Ms. Kindness replied affirmatively. Councilmember Kasper inquired if the budget has been approved by the Centennial Committee. Ms. Kindness replied affirmatively. Councilmember Nordquist inquired from what City fund the monies would be derived. Mayor Naughten replied the Council Contingency Fund. Councilmember Dwyer inquired how the City would recoup the monies it loans the Centennial Commit- tee if the events do not generate enough money. He suggested that that issue be discussed at the special Saturday meeting. In response to a question by Councilmember Nordquist, Accounting Manager Chuck Day said monies have been derived from the Council Contingency Fund in the past for the Centennial Committee and also from the 120 Fund. Mayor Naughten suggested that the budget request be considered on a project -by -project basis rather than as a whole. Ms. Kindness said some of the projects will not materialize if they cannot be funded by sponsors. Mayor Naughten recommended that each of the projects be reviewed at the special Saturday meeting. MAYOR Mayor Naughten reminded the Council that a town hall meeting for FATE (the pro -annexation commit- tee) is scheduled on October 18th at Woodway High School at 7 p.m. and the Council, Staff and City Attorney were requested to attend. Mayor Naughten noted that a meeting is scheduled on October 5th in Snohomish regarding the Snohomish County "Tomorrow" presentation. i City Attorney Scott Snyder noted that the City expanded its original application to the UTC to reduce train speeds of all trains passing through Edmonds. He said the UTC has scheduled a local hearing on November 6th at the Senior Center in Edmonds. Mr. Snyder said he contacted the Attorney General regarding the Port condemnation. He said he would like to discuss that issue with the Council in the near future. An executive session was scheduled at next week's committee meeting to discuss the issue. COUNCIL Council President Kasper said he declined a request from a speaker from Snohomish County Communi- ty Project "Kids -Talk" several times but the Council has received another request to make that presentation. Councilmember Dwyer suggested that ten minutes be set aside at the November 28th meeting for the presentation. Student Representative Doug Merlino felt that some of the 1990 Centennial projects were unrealis- tic with respect to the fund raising projections. Councilmember Hertrich said he received a copy of the minutes of a recent Council meeting which confirmed his recollection that the directive of the Council was to study height variances in PRD's in the City and not to study heights on sloped lots in general, as Councilmember Wilson had thought. Councilmember Wilson disagreed with Councilmember Hertrich. In response to a question by Councilmember Jaech, Community Services Director Peter Hahn said one of the new sewer lines will be constructed on Alder Street west from 3rd Street. COUNCILMEMBER JAECH MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILM£MBER HERTRICH, THAT THE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW IN THE NEAR FUTURE THE CITY'S NOTICE REQUIREMENTS FOR HEARINGS AND THE RAMIFICATIONS THEREOF. MO- TION CARRIED. EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 12 OCTOBER 3, 1989 Inasmuch as the extended meeting period had expired, COUNCILMEMBER HALL MOVED TO REOPEN THE MEET- ING. MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. Councilmember Hall said the City has received many requests for a pick-up/clean-up week this Fall. She asked Staff to see if it is possible. The meeting adjourned at 10.45 p.m. THESE MINUTES ARE SUBJECT TO OCTOBER 17, 1989 APPROVAL. JAC ELINE G. PARRETT, City Clerk w EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 13 OCTOBER 3, 1989 AGENDA EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL PLAZA MEETING ROOM -LIBRARY BUILDING 7:00 - 10:00 P.M. OCTOBER 3, 1989 CALL TO ORDER FLAG SALUTE 1. CONSENT AGENDA (A) ROLL CALL (8) APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 26, 1989 (C) APPROVAL OF LABOR AGREEMENT WITH EDMONDS POLICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION (D) AUTHORIZATION TO SELL SURPLUS VEHICLES TO WASHINGTON STATE REDISTRI- BUTION CENTER IN AUBURN (E) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT WITH JOHN GALT FOR HEARING EXAMINER PRO TEM SERVICES (F) FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WORK BY LAKESIDE INDUSTRIES ON PHASE I OF THE 1989 STREET OVERLAY PROGRAM, AND SET 30-DAY RETAINAGE PERIOD (G) FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WORK BY LAKESIDE INDUSTRIES ON PHASE II OF THE 1989 STREET OVERLAY PROGRAM, AND SET 30-DAY RETAINAGE PERIOD (H) FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WORK BY ROBISON CONSTRUCTION, INC., ON THE 1989 WATER MAIN REPLACEMENT PROGRAM, AND SET 30-DAY RETAINAGE PERIOD (1) FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WORK BY ASSOCIATED SAND AND GRAVEL CO. ON THE 212TH ST. S.W. ROADWAY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, AND SET 30-DAY RETAINAGE PERIOD (J) FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WORK BY GORDON KRUSE CONSTRUCTION CO. ON BRACKETT'S LANDING IMPROVEMENTS, AND SET 30-DAY RETAINAGE PERIOD (K) AUTHORIZATION TO LEASE SIX 1990 CHEVROLET POLICE CARS FROM FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS INTERNATIONAL ($83,204) (L) ADOPTION OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW REGARDING APPEAL OF ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD DECISION ON POLE SIGN AT 22130 HIGHWAY 99 (DOUG'S LYNNWOOD MAZDA) (APPELLANT: STEVEN BARNES/AP-31-89/ADB-83-89) (CARRIED OVER FROM SEPTEMBER 26, 1989) (M) ADOPTION OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW REGARDING APPEAL OF ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD DECISION ON READERBOARO SIGN AT 22214 HIGHWAY 99 (DOUG'S RV REPAIR) (APPELLANT: STEVEN BARNES/AP-30-89/ADB-82-89) (CARRIED OVER FROM SEPTEMBER 26, 1989) (N) ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RECEIPT OF CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM LEROY D. FORS ($439) (0) ADOPTION OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW REGARDING APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER DENIAL OF RIGHT-OF-WAY CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AT 18303 81ST AVE. W. (APPELLANT: ROBERT MEYERS/ AP-23-89) 2. AUDIENCE 3. PRESENTATION TO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL BY EDMONDS BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB ( 5 MINUTES) 4. PRESENTATION BY COMMUNITY TRANSIT ON "TRANSIT 2001" COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (20 MINUTES) 5. HEARING ON REQUEST FOR LIMITED DURATION PARKING ON 2ND AVE. N., FROM (30 MINUTES) EDMONDS ST. TO CASPERS ST. 6. HEARING ON APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER DECISION REGARDING ACCESSORY (45 MINUTES) DWELLING UNIT AT 7400 169TH PL. S.W. (APPELLANTS: ROBERT AND SUSAN ALLEN AND ROBERTA MAURICE; APPLICANTS: R. DENNIS WALKER AND LEAH BILDER) (AP-34-89/CU-71-89) 7. HEARING ON APPEAL OF ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD DECISION REGARDING (45 MINUTES) PROPOSED TRIPLEX AT 222 DAYTON (APPELLANT: TOM PINKHAM; APPLICANT: PINEO-MICHEL) (AP-38-89/ADB-71-89) 8. CENTENNIAL COMMITTEE 1990 BUDGET REQUEST (15 MINUTES) 9. COUNCIL DISCUSSION ON EXEMPT EMPLOYEES (WITH REFERENCE TO SCHEDULED (15 MINUTES) OCTOBER 7 MEETING) 10. MAYOR 11. COUNCIL THE PUBLIC IS INVITED TO ATTEND PARKING AND MEETING ROOMS ARE HANDICAPPED ACCESSIBLE