Loading...
19781017 City Council Minutesz83 October 10, 1978 - continued 1 C� 1 OLYMPIC BE ACCEPTED EXCEPT THAT 4' WILL BE ELIMINATED FROM THE PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLE LANE, SO THERE WILL BE A 6' SHOULDER, 28' OF PAVING, A CURB OR BUTTONS AND THEN THE 4' PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLE LANE. Councilman Herb said he would vote against the motion because he thought there should be environ- mental details furnished by the State on the rest of the project. MOTION CARRIED, WITH COUNCILMAN MOTION: HERB VOTING NO. COUNCILMAN CARNS THEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN GOULD, THAT FROM OLYMPIC TO MAIN ST. THERE BE A 50' MAXIMUM RIGHT-OF-WAY WITH 36' OF PAVING, WITH ONLY TWO-MOVING.LANES AND A TURNING LANE, AND THAT THERE BE A SIDEWALK ON THE NORTH AND WEST SIDE OF THE STREET. A ROLL CALL VOTE WAS TAKEN, WITH COUNCIL MEMBERS CARNS, GOULD, CLEMENT, AND NAUGHTEN VOTING YES, AND COUNCIL MOTION: MEMBERS HERB, ALLEN, AND NORDQUIST VOTING NO. MOTION CARRIED. COUNCILWOMAN ALLEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN CLEMENT, THAT THE ENTIRE PROJECT INCLUDE UNDERGROUND WIRING. Mr. Larson said he did not know where they would find the funds for the undergrounding. THE.MOTION CARRIED. COUNCILMAN MOTION: CLEMENT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILWOMAN ALLEN, THAT THE ISSUE OF BUS TURNOUTS BE LEFT TO THE SNO- HOMISH COUNTY PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT AREA CORPORATION STAFF AND THAT THE ENGINEER AND HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT COORDINATE WITH THEM ON THE DECISION AS TO WHERE TO PUT BUS PULLOUTS ONLY IN THE SECTION BETWEEN OLYMPIC AVE. AND 3RD. MOTION CARRIED, WITH COUNCILMAN CARNS VOTING NO. It was determined that the State Highway department would not be asked by the City to furnish an environmental impact statement as the State'would bear the burden of environmental issues. A short recess was announced following this hearing. REVIEW OF WATERFRONT (CW ZONE, P.C. RES. 600) WITH COUNCIL, PLANNING COMMISSION, STAFF, SHORELINES ADVISORY COMMITTEE, PORT, AND CW PROPERTY OWNERS Community Development Director John LaTourelle said the instructions had been that those who wished to make written input for this meeting could do so, and that the Planning Staff would meet with the Shorelines Advisory Committee to discuss their recommendations. He said he had received no written comments but had met with the Shorelines Advisory Committee and had submitted to the Council the Committee's recommendations. It was noted that the Council had received written input from June. and,Leonard Fri.esendahl. At this. time comments were distributed from,J;acque L.. Mayo and.Douglas Dove, owners of the old Merry Tiller property. Jerry Hann of Reid, Middleton & Associates noted that the Comprehensive Plan shows manufacturing use on the east side of Admiral Way and to the west of the railroad tracks. He said there is a strip about 200' wide there. The Council.reviewed the proposed amendment for the CW zone with the recommended changes of the Shorelines Advisory Committee and the Community Development Department. No actions were taken at this time as the hearing had MOTION: been continued to October 24. A MOTION WAS MADE BY COUNCILMAN CARNS, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN NAUGHTEN, THAT AT THE OCTOBER 24 HEARING ON THIS MATTER EACH OF THE ITEMS IN THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT WILL BE CONSIDERED, ONE AT A TIME WITH DISCUSSION, IN ORDER TO HAVE A FORMAT FOR THE HEARING. MOTION CARRIED. There was no further business to come before the Council, and the meeting was adjourned at 11:00 p.m. IRENE VARNEY MORAN, CVty Clerk October 17, 1978 HARVE H. HARRISON, Mayor The regular meeting of the Edmonds City Council was called to order at 7:35 p.m. by Mayor Harve Harrison in the Council Chambers of the Edmonds Civic Center. All present joined in the flag salute. PRESENT ABSENT STAFF PRESENT Harve Harrison, Mayor John Nordquist Charles Dibble, M.A.A. Mike Herb Leif Larson, Public Works Director Phil Clement . John LaTourelle, Community Development Director Katherine Allen Marlo Foster, Police Chief Ray Gould Art Housler, Finance Director Tom Carns Fred Herzberg, City ,Engineer Larry Naughten Noelle Charleson, Assistant City Planner Mary Lou Block, Assistant City Planner John Wallace, City Attorney Jackie Parrett, Deputy City Clerk CONSENT AGENDA MOTION: COUNCILMAN CARNS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN GOULD, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED. The Consent Agenda contained the following items: (A) Roll call. (B) Approval of Minutes of October 10, 1978. (C) Acceptance of Quit Claim Deed in conjunction with short subdivision. (File S-43-78 - Brubaker) (D) Acceptance of smoke testing, preparatory cleaning, and internal inspection of sewerage lines by Faulkenberg, Inc.--Cal-Tom, Inc., and establishment of 30-day retainage period. (E) Proposal to simplify and modify the Mountlake Terrace, Edmonds, and Ronald Sewer Agreements. • 284 October 17, 1978 - continued • COUNCIL Councilman Herb referred to last week's discussion on the proposed improvement to SR 524 and the vote that the entire project include underground wiring. He said he had voted for the motion but there were many questions in his mind. He was concerned that the costs to underground this project would deplete funds so that Main St. could not be undergrounded. He felt more information as to MOTION: overall impact was necessary before making this decision. COUNCILMAN HERB THEREFORE MOVED TO RESCIND (Failed) THE DECISION TO INCLUDE UNDERGROUND WIRING FOR THE ENTIRE SR 524 IMPROVEMENT PROJECT BECAUSE MORE INFORMATION IS NEEDED BEFORE MAKING THAT DECISION, AND THAT THIS BE CONSIDERED ON NOVEMBER 7, ALONG WITH THE QUESTION OF UNDERGROUNDING MAIN ST. MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. Councilman Gould referred to a memorandum from Community Development Director John LaTourelle regarding the viewing of a slide show of low cost housing in the region which has been put together by the Puget Sound Council of Governments. COUNCILMAN GOULD MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN CARNS, MOTION: TO SCHEDULE THE LOW COST HOUSING SLIDE PRESENTATION FOR NOVEMBER 14, 1978, IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE REVIEW OF THE FAIR HOUSING COMMISSION ORDINANCES ON THAT EVENING'S AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED. MAYOR Mayor Harrison announced that the Shorelines Savings Bank will be having a parade October 18,' at 10:45 a.m., in connection with their new bank opening, and the Council and Staff had been invited to attend. Mayor Harrison also announced that the fountain at 5th and Main St. will be dedicated to Al Kincaid on October 19, at 11:30 a.m., in recognition of his service to the City. Among other activities Al Kincaid had served as the President of the Edmonds Chamber of Commerce and also as a City Councilman. Mayor Harrison made presentations recognizing service to the City. A certificate was presented • to Ray Sittauer for his service on the Planning Commission from December 1972 until October 1978. A certificate was also presented to Dick Cole for his service on the Park Board from October 1972 until September 1978. Mayor Harrison noted that Mr. Cole had never missed a meeting during that period. AUDIENCE John Wells of 120 Edmonds complained about the signage on SR 104 at the 205th St. approach to Edmonds in that it directs to Everett and Lynnwood but not to Edmonds. Laura Hall of 1140 Edmonds St. noted that a large sign at 9th and Caspers obscures a sign directing to the museum and also the street sign designating 9th Ave. INVESTMENT ACTIVITY REPORT FROM FINANCE DIRECTOR At the October 10 Council meeting Councilwoman Allen had inquired why.the Investment Activities Report indicated a -number of accounts in banks outside of Edmonds and why the accounts were placed in numerous places. Finance Director Art Housler had been asked to report on this. Mr. Housler stated that the City.is limited by State statu.testo $100,000 that can be invested in a savings and loan institution --per fund, per institution. He said in most instances savings and loan banks provide a better rate on investments than commercial banks. He said with the exception of one certificate of deposit in a commercial bank, all investments were in savings and loan institutions outside the City. Further, he noted that financial institutions will have low interest rates if they do not need the money. He said he contacts all the institutions within the City and several outside the City and then he makes an analysis as to where the rate of return can be maximized. HEARING ON P.C. RESOLUTION 605, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO SECTION 12.14.020(H)(2) TO ALLOW UP TO 25% COMPACT CAR STALLS IN ALL REQUIRED PARKING AREAS (FILE ZO-8-78) • Assistant City Planner Mary Lou Block stated that this proposal had been initiated by the Staff. She noted that a large percentage of the cars presently being sold are compacts or subcompacts, and the use of compact stalls would provide greater flexibility in lot design and would encourage the use of more .landscaping. Such use had been approved in multi -family developments with over 13 parking stalls and had worked out favorably. She noted that other municipalities in the aea had provisions for compact parking stalls, and generally the amounts permitted were larger than being requested in this proposal. The size of a compact car space would be 8'x 16' so subcompacts as well as compacts could be accommodated easily. Presently such stalls arerequired to be labeled for compact cars. The Planning Commission had approved the proposal, and the Staff recommended approval. The public portion of the hearing was opened, no one wished to speak and the public MOTION: portion was closed. COUNCILMAN CARNS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN NAUGHTEN, TO ADOPT ORDINANCE 2027 PURSUANT TO P.C. RESOLUTION 605. MOTION CARRIED. HEARING ON ESTABLISHING A NO PARKING ZONE NORTH OF SEAVIEW PARK ON 184TH ST. S.W. City Engineer Fred Herzberg reported that during peak summer usage of Seaview Park local residents have trouble getting into their driveways because of the many cars of park users. He discussed possible ways to alleviate this situation, including restricting parking completely, restricting it during certain hours or during certain months, and signing to indicate driveways should be kept clear. He noted that there is parking available near the tennis courts but it had not been determined whether that parking is utilized fully. The public portion of the hearing was opened. Margaret Lerfalt of 8034 185th S.W. said that Seaview Park is L-shaped, with the parking area far from the ballfield so it is not used. She asked if the proposed parking restriction would be just on the street or if it would include the off-street parking. Mr. Herzberg said there is off-street parking for 11 cars near the ballfield and that would still be available. No one else wished to. speak at this time, and the public hearing was closed. Councilman Carns noted that it already was illegal to park in driveways so he did not see the sense in passing another ordinance if that one LJ October 17, 1978 - conti-nued 2 8 5h was not enforced. Councilman Gould noted that there are some residences on the north side of 184th St. which would be impacted if parking were allowed in front of their homes; but they may want some parking there•sometimes.' He"suggested that if'more parking were needed for the ballfield perhaps it could be created on the park property. The public portion of the hearing was reopened for additional -testimony. Peter Vanthorndyke of 8133 184th St. S.W. said he had called the police on numerous occasions when his driveway had been partially blocked and they had responded but indicated they could do nothing about the situation. `He said this situation had existed for a number of years. He provided photographs to illustrate the problem, and he noted that there is abundant parking availabl'e in the park but over at the tennis court area. Donna Ernst of 702 7th Ave. S. asked whether parking could be restricted to all but the residents there. She was advised this question had arisen in regard to other areas and it had been determined that it was not feasible. Vern Weber said he lived next to the park and he would like to see parking stopped completely. He said he had waited while as many as five cars turned on his lawn and parked to go to play ball. He said there never, are cars in the parking lot and most of the property owners in the area provide enough parking on their own properties for their needs. Margaret Lerfald of 8034 185th S.W. said she and about four other neighbors live on a deadend street that was developed to minimum width and she felt if parking were prohibited on 184th the cars would park on their narrow street. She was sympathetic to.the residents who wanted the parking restriction but asked that if it were effected that .the City do something to keep her street from being the impacted one. .The public MOTION: portion of -the hearing was closed again.. COUNCILMAN.NAUGHTEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN HERB, TO ADOPT ORDINANCE 2028.PROHIBITING PARKING ON THE NORTH SIDE OF 184TH ST: S.W. FROM 80TH AVE. W. TO ANDOVER. MOTION CARRIED, WITH COUNCIL MEMBERS CARNS AND ALLEN VOTING NO. Councilman-Goul,d commented that people should be encouraged to park by the.tennis courts. The Staff will investigate the situation discussed by Mrs. Lerfalt. HEARING ON PRELIMINARY PRD, EAST OF YOST PARK, NORTH SIDE OF SHELL VALLEY RD. (FILE PRD-3-78 - KINDERFATHER) • Assistant City Planner Mary Lou Block said this site was proposed for PRD development because of some steep slopes and large trees. The site.was laid out so only 2 of the 31 trees on the site will have to be removed: The units are clustered around a private road. The 20' wide private road is bounded by a sidewalk on the east side which shifts to the west as it goes farther into the property. Impervious surface will be less than it would be if the site were developed in a standard development. There is a stream on the site, actually a drainage swale, which will be riprapped' to direct it along the walkway. It will be bridged, not culverted, and will enter and leave the property where it currently does. Mrs. Block showed slides of the site which illustrated the dense vegetation. She said a traditional single family development would be the alternative but parts of the site.have 50% slopes which -would only be suitable for specially engineered homes unless there was heavy grading. She felt the PRD development was much better suited for this site as there would be considerable retention of natural vegetation. This site is in an environmentally sensitive area, and Mrs. Block indicated this type of development should not have a significant negative environmental • MOTION: 1 Amendment (Failed) Pi impact, and a negative declaration had been made. She recommended that the proposal be'approved with the changes suggested by the City Staff and agreed to by the applicant, namely, relocation of one unit and the road. She -.said it was the Staff's opinion that'this,is the best type of development for a site such, as` this as it, preserves the natural features,, is' compatible` with the surrounding uses, and it.should provide for a,high quality living environment for future purchasers. The public portion of the hearing was opened. David-Kinderfather, architect for the proposed PRD, described the -proposal. He said the value to the City in approving this would be the avoidance of disruption to the site, the reduction of impervious surfaces, the large amount of open space, and the efficiency in installation of*utilities because of the clustering of the homes. He said 78% of the site would be left undisturbed. The soil is well drained and stable and -Mr. Kinderfather said there will be a thorough soils analysis provided on which the structural engineering and foundations will be based. The development: will have a bike path/pedestrian walkway in accordance with the Edmonds Master Plan. Drainage will be based on.the Edmonds Engineering Department requirements.' Mr. Kinderfather said the design was revised to relocate one of the dwelling units and the road in order.to,avoid cutting into one of the existing steep slopes. This had been at the suggestion of the'Staff. They had also worked to save two large maple trees. as recommended by Mrs. Block. Mr. Kinderfather then answered several questions from the Council.. There was.some concern expressed about diverting the stream on.the site. Dan Ganfield, a member of Mr. Kinderfather's staff, said the streambed is somewhat migratory and it would be improved by clarifying its course. Ken Bausch of 292 6th Ave. S. commented that in Mercer Island they inventory all the trees and undergrowth so the developer cannot remove them, even uninten- tionally. The public portion of the hearing was closed. COUNCILMAN HERB MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL- WOMAN ALLEN, TO GIVE PRELIMINARY APPROVAL TO PRD-3-78 ACCORDING -TO THE SITE PLANS, DRAWINGS, AND DESIGNS SUBMITTED THIS DATE, INCLUDING RELOCATION OF ONE UNIT AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION. Considerable discussion followed as to whether PRD.developments were actually being used -to the best advantage of, the City. Councilman Gould noted that this proposal has the appearance of apartments.and single family homes actually -could be built there. But he felt the City was getting a good trade in the large amount of open space and the saving of 29 of 31 major trees on the site. He felt the proposal met the requirements of the Policy Plan. Council- man Clement's concern was that PRDs tend to develop the maximum number of units allowed and he noted that the sites being developed wou-dhave-been considered marginal in other times. Councilman Carns felt the one single family unit should be eliminated because of the dropoff in topography where it is located. COUNCILMAN CARNS MOVED TO AMEND THE MOTIONTO ELIMINATE THE SINGLE FAMILY UNIT NEXT TO THE TRIPLEX, REDUCING THE PROPOSAL FROM 14 TO 13 UNITS. COUNCILMAN GOULD SECONDED THE MOTION TO AMEND. Councilman Herb commented that;,.every time a PRD comes before the Council the applicant is told the Council is suspicious of his intentions. He cautioned the Council to remember that the applicants have been encouraged by the Planning Staff to use this type of development. Further, it had been approved by the Architectural Review Board. He felt there should be come consistency as to what the applicants can expect. He discouraged voting for the amendment because he felt the Council should follow the advice of the Staff, the Architectural Review Board, and :thez::Planning--Com- mission. Community Development Director John LaTourelle added that the Edmonds PRD ordinance is the only one of which he knows that does not offer a bonus on density for.PRDs. He said everything should be done to make this kind of development profitable and attractive for both the developer and the City. He said people try to squeeze plats onto this kind of property veryvfrequently and the 286 • October 17, 1978 - Continued Staff encourages them to go PRO in order to be less damaging to the site. A ROLL CALL VOTE WAS TAKEN ON THE MOTION TO AMEND, WITH COUNCIL MEMBERS CARNS, CLEMENT,.AND GOULD VOTING YES, AND WITH COUNCIL -MEMBERS HERB, ALLEN, AND NAUGHTEN VOTING NO, RESULTING -IN A TIE VOTE. MAYOR HARRISON VOTED NO TO BREAK THE TIE. THE MOTION TO AMEND FAILED. THE MAIN MOTION THEN PASSED, MOTION: WITH COUNCILMAN CLEMENT VOTING NO. COUNCILMAN NAUGHTEN THEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN HERB, TO SCHEDULE A REVIEW OF THE PRD ORDINANCE ON NOVEMBER 7, 1978. MOTION CARRIED. A large number of people were in the audience for Items 10 and 11 on the agenda. THEREFORE, MOTION: COUNCILMAN CLEMENT MOVED, SECONDED BY.000NCILMAN CARNS, TO MOVE ITEM 9 TO THE END OF THE AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED. HEARING ON PLANNING COMMISSION EVALUATION.AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON DENSITY and REVIEW OF MORATORIUM RESOLUTION PASSED.JULY 11, 1978 Assistant City Planner Noelle Charleson reviewed the backgound of these items. She noted that when the density question in the City of Edmonds was referred for a study to a Density Review Committee, that Committee had concentrated their study on the downtown Edmonds bowl area. Although a number of problems had been addressed, she felt there were basically two issues: (1) Density., pertaining to impacts density can have in terms of people, traffic, and other impacts; and (2)'the appearance of multiple residential properties in the City. She said the alternatives put to the Council would be to keep the status quo in accordance with existing zones or to adopt reduced density with changed development regulations. The second alternative was being presented in the form of a proposal for a new zoning, designated RM-D. The proposed RM-D zoning would amount to approximately a 50% reduction in density in the RM areas and would effect a significant reduction in building height--25' maximum height for a flat roof and 30' for a pitched roof. It also would have a significant change in lot coverage. The resulting • units should be low level, homelike appearing, triplex type of units, differing substantially from the existing RM properties in the City. Although the Planning Commission had addressed other alternatives, Ms. Charleson felt there were no feasible alternatives other than the proposed RM-D or the status quo. She said the Staff had attempted to look at the economic impact which would be felt by individual property owners by reductionin property values when the density is reduced, and that had to be weighed against the benefit the public will achieve. Because of the view of Puget Sound she noted that all condominiums built in the downtown area in recent years had been built to maximum height. Sizes of individual units in the downtown are considerably larger than anywhere else in the City, being 1,500 sq. ft. and more. Because the property is expensive and in order to recoup land value, these units must be of the luxury type. Most of the downtown area is covered with.small, one-story, single family homes, built many years ago, and they exist side -by -side with the large condominium projects so there is a compatibility problem. This problem does not exist in other areas of the City. In addition, the bowl area is highly visible from a large area of Edmonds. Units in the 196th St. area usually are 1,000 sq. ft. or less and the compatibility problem is not as great as in downtown Edmonds. This area is not as highly visible as the bowl area. In the 212th St. area the new apartment buildings are only two stories high and this area already has been developed RM. Ms. Charleson reviewed the recommendations and findings of the Planning Staff which had been provided to the Council. The Staff receommended creation of the RM-D zoning classification, to be considered only for areas in downtown Edmonds currently zoned RM which are predominantly single family in character; reducing height and lot coverage in the RML and RMH zones; maintaining RMH uses in the BC zone with the reduced height and lot coverage; maintaining the RMH and RML zones in those areas outside of the downtown with the reduced height and lot coverage; and establishing design standards for multiple residential buildings, addressing specific issues. The public portion of the hearing was opened. Warren Berkey of 23919 100th W. asked if a building could be rebuilt to its present size if it were to be destroyed by fire. City Attorney John Wallace responded that on any nonconforming • building destroyed to 50%, reconstruction would have to conform to current codes. Walt Payne, a builder, expressed concern about existing apartment buildings that might burn down and not be permitted to be rebuilt to their original height. Dick Van Hollenbeck of 580 Hemlock said he was strongly opposed to RMH being maintained in the BC zone, but the rest of the proposal was what the people wanted. Bill Mathias of 540 Holly also felt RM development should be kept out of the BC zone entirely. He felt 25' would be a reasonable height for the business area because it is the most visible area in town. Joe Wermus of 752 Dayton felt retention of the BC area was important to keeping the character of the City. He suggested RM be kept out of the BC zone and the height berestricted'.to 25'..:"'He noted that most of theexisting businesses do not have very high buildings. Joseph Dwyer of 529 Holly also felt the BC.zone should be restricted to BC development. Mel Steinke of 341 12th N., a realtor, said the population is moving and it is going to sprawl. He said the culprit is the sprawl of people moving in --not the architects, builders, realtors, etc. He said the developer is not making any money than anyone else although people accuse him. He said he is involved in both ends of the transactions and there are individuals.that will lose money if the property is downzoned, and they too are the public and should be considered. Vince Bors.icht of 527 Maple suggested if RM was not allowed in the BC community existing zoning would not have to. be changed. He asked exactly what the differences would be, and Ms. Charleson explained. Ms. Charleson was asked what boundaries were being used in'd;iscussion of "downtown." Ms. Charleson demonstrated the downtown area and the BC zone on a map.�Jhe public portion of the hearing was closed. Discussion followed regarding economic impact of the proposals and it was noted that there were MOTION: no studies of the economic impact. COUNCILMAN HERB MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN CLEMENT, THAT THE CITY ATTORNEY BE INSTRUCTED TO DRAFT AN ORDINANCE TO PROHIBIT RM USES IN THE BC ZONE. Councilman Gould noted that there are specific criteria to speak to on any rezoni-ng., and especially downzoning, and he felt in doing so that would take care of the question on the point of economic impact. Councilman Naughten felt it was useful to have RM in some areas of the BC zone so people can walk to the business district. Councilman Carns was against having RM in the BC r: 25 = October 17, 1978 - continued 1 I is 7 zone. He said that in the 1.975 survey the people had'expr.essed.a desire for strict controls on RM development. THE MOTION THEN CARRIED; WITH COUNCILMAN.NAUGHTEN VOTING NO. COUNCILMAN GOULD THEN MOTION: MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN NAUGHTEN, TO INSTRUCT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO DRAFT AN ORDINANCE TO ESTABLISH A NEW RM-D ZONING, AND'THAT IT BE THE DOWNTOWN MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL ZONING AS STATED IN ALTERNATE #3 PRESENTED BY THE STAFF; THAT IS, REQUIREMENTS.ARE A MINIMUM OF 2900 SQ. FT. PER UNIT, MAXIMUM OF 15 UNITS PER ACRE; MAXIMUM 30' PITCHED ROOF OR 25' FLAT ROOF; SETBACKS --CHOICE OF: 10 ` EACH SIDE.WITH 15' FRONT AND 20' REAR,. OR WITH 20'`FRONT AND.15' REAR, OR A VARIABLE PROVIDED THE SUM OF ALL SETBACKS IS 55' WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE ADB; LOT COVERAGE 40%; AND NO LIMIT ON NUMBER OF UNITS PER BUILDING. FURTHER, THE RM-D ZONING WILL APPLY ONLY TO THE DOWNTOWN AREA FOR THOSE AREAS CURRENTLY ZONED RM. Councilman Clement commented that if a new zone is created and then the process of rezoning is accomplished, that would be difficult and time consuming. He suggested it would be better to go back to changing -the bulk and dimensional requirements of buildings. Mr. LaTourelle responded that, in effect, that would create a downzone and an environmental impact statement would be required. He said the proposed ordinance would only create a classification and would not rezone MOTION: any property. THE MOTION CARRIED, WITH COUNCILMAN HERB VOTING NO. A MOTION WAS THEN MADE BY COUNCILWOMAN ALLEN, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN GOULD, THAT THE CITY ATTORNEY BE INSTRUCTED TO DRAFT AN ORDINANCE CHANGING THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS IN SECTION 12.13.130 FOR THE RML AND RMH ZONES TO 35' HEIGHT -FOR A PITCHED ROOF AND 30' FOR A FLAT ROOF AND TO REDUCE THE MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE TO 45%. MOTION: MOTION CARRIED, -WITH COUNCILMAN.HERB VOTING NO. COUNCILMAN•GOULD THEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN Amended CARNS, THAT THE STAFF FORWARD TO THE COUNCIL DESIGN STANDARDS.ESTABLISHED FOR MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS,.ADDRESSING SUCH ISSUES AS VIEW OBSTRUCTION, HEIGHT: -IN RELATION TO EXISTING•TOPOGRAPHY AND Amendment VEGETATION, AND COMPATIBILITY WITH ADJACENT BUILDINGS. COUNCILMAN CARNS MOVED TO AMEND THE MOTION TO HAVE THE INPUT FROM THE STAFF SUBMITTED FOR THE WORK MEETING OF DECEMBER 12, 1978. THE MOTION TO AMEND CARRIED. THE MAIN.MOTION, AS AMENDED, CARRIED. ' The discussionthen went to the.moratorium on building permits for construction of projects having more. than ten units. It was felt it should be continued until the ordinances asked for this evening go before -the Council. City Attorney John Wallace noted that environmental checklists will -have to MOTION: be accomplished. COUNCILMAN.CARNS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN CLEMENT, THAT THE CURRENT MORATORIUM ON ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS FOR PROJECTS OF MORE THAN TEN UNITS BE CONTINUED UNTIL.NOVEMBER 21, 1978 AND THAT REVIEW OF THE MORATORIUM BE PLACED ON THE AGENDA FOR THAT EVENING. MOTION CARRIED. HEARING ON EDMONDS GOAL - PARKING PLAN_AND OTHER TRANSPORTATION Community Development Director John LaTourelle had prepared a report on the Parking Commission review of the problems. No one in the audience had input,to.offer. COUNCILWOMAN ALLEN MOVED, MOTION: SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN HERB, TO ACCEPT THE STAFF REPORT. MOTION CARRIED. The meeting was then adjourned at 11:20 p.m. IRENE VARNEY MOR N, C y Clerk October 24, 1978 HARVE H. HARRISON, Mayor The regular.meeting of the Edmonds.City Council was called.to order at 7:35 p.m. by Mayor Harve- Harrison in the Council Chambers of the Edmonds Civic Center. All present joined in the flag salute. PRESENT STAFF PRESENT Harve Harrison, Mayor Charles Dibble, M.A.A. Mike Herb Leif Larson, Public Works -Director Phil Clement John LaTourelle, Community Development Director Katherine Allen Noelle Charleson, Assistant City Planner John Nordquist Fred Herzberg, City Engineer Ray Gould Lila Crosby, Administrative Services Director Tom Carns Jim Murphy, City Attorney Larry Naughten Jackie Parrett, Deputy City Clerk CONSENT AGENDA MOTION: Councilman Carns asked that Item (E) beremoved from the.Consent Agenda. COUNCILMAN GOULD MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN NORDQUIST, TO APPROVE THE BALANCE.OF THE CONSENT AGENDA., MOTION CARRIED. The balance of the Consent Agenda contained the following: (A). Roll call. (B) Approval of Minutes of October 17, 1978.. (C) Acceptance of Quit Claim Deed in conjunction with short subdivision. (File.S-20-78 - Box) (D) Acceptance of Quit,Claim Deed in conjunction with short subdivision. (File S-45-78 - Lindberg) . REPORT ON BIDS'OPENED OCTOBER 18..FOR.REHABILITATION OF EDMONDS MUSEUM [Item (E) on Consent Agenda] Councilman Carns inquired as to, how the,bid received compared to the Engineer's estimate on the project. Public`Works Director Leif Larson responded that it was higher, but in view of the fact