19781024 City Council Minutesr:
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
8
•
October 24, 1978.- continued
that no bids were received at the first invitation and only one was received at this second invitation,
he recommended that this one be accepted. His memorandum indicated that a State grant and City
matching funds totaled'$19,000 which left a deficit of $4,517.74, and he suggested a -transfer of
$5,000 from the Council Contingency Fund to cover the deficit and minimal. contingencies which may
MOTION: arise. COUNCILMAN CARNS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN GOULD, TO ACCEPT THE BID OF PIONEER CONSTRUCTION
COMPANY ON THE REHABILITATION OF THE EDMONDS MUSEUM, IN THE AMOUNT OF $23,514.74 INCLUDING SALES
MOTION: TAX, APPROVING ITEM (E) ON THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED. COUNCILWOMAN ALLEN FURTHER MOVED TO
INSTRUCT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE A RESOLUTION TRANSFERRING $5,000 FROM THE COUNCIL CONTINGENCY
FUND TO THE GENERAL FUND TO COVER THE DIFFERENCE IN THE BID AND THE AMOUNT AVAILABLE AND ANY MINIMAL
CONTINGENCIES WHICH MAY ARISE. COUNCILMAN GOULD SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED.
COUNCIL
Councilman Nordquist said he would like, on advice of the City Attorney, to ask for a brief Executive
Session following this meeting for discussion of the possible purchase of a piece ofproperty.
MOTION: COUNCILMAN ALLEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN HERB, TO CALL AN EXECUTIVE SESSION FOLLOWING THIS
EVENING'S MEETING. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Naughten reported that City Engineer Fred Herzberg and he had attended the mini -convention
of the Association of Washington Cities on October 21. He commented that some cities are involved
in downzonings and it is not as difficult as it seems on the surface. Also, he noted that Tukwila
has an ordinance requiring smoke alarms in homes which has resulted in a decrease in insurance
costs, and he had requested a copy of the ordinance for review.
Councilman Gould noted that Councilman Clement had called him this evening, advising that he would
arrive at this evening's meeting between 8:00 - 8:30 p.m.
Councilman Carns inquired about the personnel. manual and -job ratings on which Tom Purton had been
working for an extended period. M.A.A. Charles Dibble responded that the job descriptions have been
completed and they are in the process of being reviewed. He said Mr. Purton is away for one month
but it was anticipated that the project will be completed by the end of this year.
Councilman Carns noted that a letter had been received from Clari.s Hyatt, Health Officer with the
Snohomish Health District, indicating that the per capita assessment would be increased for 1979
from $1.10 to $1.20. Councilman Carns asked what the City was getting for its money. Councilman
Nordquist responded that the South Snohomish County Health Office, located in Lynnwood, is available
to all residents and is highly used. He noted a few of the services that are available and that it
would be far more expensive for the City'to have its own health department. Councilman Carns
suggested that perhaps the funding should be based on usage rather than population: He felt the
City of Edmonds may be helping to'subsidize the County. Mayor Harrison commented that the more
dense areas benefit more than the rural areas. Councilman Nordquist said he was sure Dr. Hyatt
would be happy to come before the Council to elaborate if the Council desired. It was agreed that
Councilman Nordquist would invite Dr. Hyatt to come to the City Council meeting of November 28.
Councilman Herb was concerned that one of the motions made at last week's meeting may be a case of
MOTION: exclusionary zoning. COUNCILMAN HERB MOVED THAT THE CITY ATTORNEY BE ASKED FOR A LEGAL OPINION ON
Failed WHETHER THERE IS A POSSIBILITY THAT THE CITY IS GETTING INTO EXCLUSIONARY ZONING IN THE THIRD MOTION
ON PAGE 6 OF LAST WEEK'S MINUTES WHERE THE RESTRICTIONS ARE INCREASED FOR THE RML AND RMH ZONES.
COUNCILWOMAN ALLEN SECONDED THE MOTION. Some discussion followed, and Councilman Gould felt the
request was unnecessary because the City Attorney indicated he would advise the Council if they
asked for an ordinance that was illegal. THE MOTION FAILED, WITH COUNCILMAN HERB HAVING THE ONLY
YES VOTE. ``
Councilwoman Allen commented on a memorandum from M.A.A.Dibble suggesting early morning budget work
meetings, rather than having them in the evening. She said she did not especially care for early •
morning meetings, but she felt his suggestion had some merit. Mr. Dibble said that at next week's
meeting the Staff would be asking the Council to set the dates for the work meetings and the public
hearing.
AUDIENCE
Rachel Bell of 264 Beach P1. announced that Lillian Carter would be.at.the Edmonds Yacht Club at
9:00 a.m., October 30, for a political fund raising breakfast, instead of October 31 as previously
announced.
HEARING ON P.C. RESOLUTION 600 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT.TO ZONING CODE,
COMPREHENSIVE POLICY; PLAN, AND SHORELINES MANAGEMENT:MASTER PROGRAM.TO CHANGE'THE PERMITTED
USES AND DEVELOPMENT'REGULATIONS`IN:THE CW ZONE AND.SHORELINES MANAGEMENT MASTER PROGRAM
AND TO ADD WATERFRONT AND WALKWAY DESIGNS POLICIES TO SECTION 208:OF THE'COMPREHENSIVE
POLICY PLAN (Files ZO-9-77 and CP-2-78
This item was continued from the September.5 meeting. Councilman Carns noted that a motion in the
October 10 minutes referred to this hearing and stated the items.in the,amendment would be considered
one at a time. Mayor Harrison opened the hearing to comments from the audience. Inasmuch as a
number of items were being considered, the audience comments were solicited during the entire hearing
rather than opening and closing the discussion for each item. Bill Wilson, an attorney representing
interested parties, said their main objection was to the limitations on uses in the CW zone. He
felt the restriction against construction over the water could be fought in court. He said his
client owns the tidelands and other agencies have bought tidelands rights and if the City thought
it would take those rights it could expect a fight. June Friesendahl of 181 W. Dayton requested
that residential:uses continue to be allowed in the CW zone as her property and that adjoining had
been residential for years. She said she could then remove the old buildings and provide open
spaces for view, enhance the area with new buildings, and increase.the tax base. She also voiced
objection to the requirement that lower floors of commercial buildings be used for retail only. And
r1
U
•
2
October 24, 1978 - continued
I
1
MOTION:
Failed
1
MOTION:
Failed
MOTION:
MOTION:
MOTION:
MOTION:
Withdrawn
r-I
MOTION:
MOTION:
MOTION:
MOTION:
MOTION:
Failed
she felt the lower level should not be required to be enclosed if it is used for parking. She
further asked that a limit not.be'.placed on the area used for parking, feeling the other restrictions
would limit- the parking. Marie.King`.of'713 Laurel ,'a-membe'r.of the Shorelines Advisory Committee,
reminded the Council of some mod.ifications.that Committee had suggested: She said the Committee had
asked that "(either land'or water moorage)" be eliminated.from.the.permitted use of boat storage in
the.CW zone, and that the permitted..use ofaquariums be included.in Item 5 They felt over -water
constru"ction was.tota1ly unn'ecessary.and would be a detriment to -the waterfront. They .felt there
should not be new residential. construction.in this area, with.the understanding that those now
having residences there would be.grandfathered in to retain their residential zoning. She said
their concern was regarding new residential uses in areas not presently used for such. She then
read a list of waterfront design concepts which the Committee had formulated and had sent to the
Council. At this point Mayor Harrison -said the proposed amendment would be discussed item by item.
Jerry Hann of Reid, Middleton & Associates, representing. the Port of Edmonds, suggested that in Item
7 of the permitted uses the proviso that.offices not be located at street grade or -on the first
floor be stricken. He said they were concerned that in areas of this nature.where you are trying to
develop'a highly specialized retail center the economics of such..a venture were shaky and to restrict
the ground floor use may create some problems on a temporary basis. He said in some cases businesses
cannot make it and in the interim the.ability-to lease these spaces for some kind of use, office or
other, is desirable. He.noted that a vacant structure attracts no one and he suggested such allowance
on a temporary basis. Community Development Director John LaTourelle said he would have no objection
to removing that requirement as he felt that as the area develops that`situation'will be'dictated.
Councilman Nordquist said he would like .to see retention of residential uses., He said he would not
like to see two residential units there with a commercial development between them and he would like
to see that particular area retained as a residential zone. He did not think those residential uses
would damage the waterfront but would be an asset. He felt there was enough shoreline for the
citizens to use. COUNCILMAN NORDQUIST THEN MOVED THAT RESIDENTIAL USES BE RETAINED IN THE CW ZONE.
COUNCILMAN NAUGHTEN SECONDED THE MOTION. Councilman Naughten.then asked for clarification, that
Councilman Nordquist meant.to restrict the residential use to where it now is located•, which.Councilman
Nordquist affirmed. Mr.'.LaTourel.le stated that there is the problem that if"new residential construction
is permitted in'the CW zone it has to_apply throughout the zone. He said his Staff had.tried to
figure out a way to preserve the residential use for the Friesendahl property but could not do so.
He noted that present regulations will allow existing residential development to stay and be substantially
improved. He was asked if the option had been considered of allowing.residential and commercial
uses together.. He responded that it had been considered but they had not proposed such because
residential uses mixed in -with the highly active public uses there are innately incompatible.' -He
said they have had innumerable complaints about people using the public beach and bothering the
people who.live there: Mrs: Friese"ndahl suggested that'the policing'provided by having year around
residences there would be beneficial. Councilman Gould-said..he did not want to see the Edmonds
waterfront'look Pike Mukilteo and he felt it would be.a prime candidate for condominiums if residential
uses were allowed, so he would vote against the motion. Councilman Clement noted that one of the
purposes'was to reduce the'bulk along the waterfront so the view would not be a series of walls; and
people could see through.the glass,of retail areas, walkways, -etc. _He asked if that purpose could
be accomplished,.by reducing.setbacks and heights of buildings and eliminating residential uses on
the first floors. Mr. LaTourelle said i't would be economically disastrous to squeeze the buildings
any more and reduce height.more. He said he favored allowing office uses on the first floor but did
not think a series of offices on.the first floor and then two floors of apartments on top of that
would.accomplish the.public access goals of the City. Councilman Clement noted that the Staff had
opposed the Density Review Committee's recommendation to eliminate residential use from the BC zone,
and Mr. LaTourelle responded that in this case you are essentially abutting a recreation area. A,
ROLL CALL VOTE WAS TAKEN ON THE.MOTION, WITH COUNCIL MEMBERS NORDQUIST AND NAUGHTEN VOTING YES, AND
WITH COUNCIL MEMBERS HERB, CLEMENT, ALLEN, GOULD, AND CARNS VOTING NO. MOTION FAILED. COUNCILMAN
HERB THEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN NAUGHTEN, THAT ITEM 7 UNDER PERMITTED USES BE AMENDED TO
ELIMINATE "PROVIDED THEY ARE NOT LOCATED AT STREET GRADE OR ON THE FIRST FLOOR." AND THAT ITEMS 1-7
THEN BE APPROVED. AFTER SOME DISCUSSION, COUNCILMAN NAUGHTEN WITHDREW HIS SECOND. THE MOTION THEN
FAILED FOR LACK. OF A:SECOND. COUNCILMAN GOULD THEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN NAUGHTEN, THAT
-ITEM 7 UNDER PERMITTED USES BE INCLUDED, BUT READING ONLY: "OFFICES." MOTION CARRIED. COUNCILMAN
NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN CLEMENT, TO STRIKE ITEM 2 UNDER PERMITTED USES, ENTIRELY.
MOTION CARRIED. COUNCILMAN HERB MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILWOMAN ALLEN, TO ADOPT ITEM 1 UNDER PERMITTED
USES. MOTION CARRIED. COUNCILMAN NAUGHTEN MOVED, SECONDED BY,COUNCILWOMAN ALLEN, TO STRIKE "WATER
MOORAGE" FROM ITEM 3. Jerry Hann stated that by striking that, the entire Port area would be made
nonconforming and other'ordinances are very restrictive when it came to nonconforming uses. He was
concerned with the resulting restrictions which may be placed on the Port. THE MOTION AND THE
SECOND WERE WITHDRAWN. Mr. Hann added that water moorage is one of the most water dependent uses.
Don Martin of Anchor Boats said to strike the "land and water moorage" from Item 3 would be doing
the boating community and the City an. injustice. Mr. LaTourelle said the Staff felt a few guest
mooring buoys would be a good idea, and that was the kind of water moorage they contemplated when
evolving the uses. .He said the new fishing pier might also have a dinghy moorage for sailboats.
Discussion revealed the feeling that "limited building" of boats was vague and Mr. LaTourelle said a
definition would be included. It was suggested that "custom building" would more nearly delineate
the intent. 'COUNCILMAN HERB THEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN NAUGHTEN, THAT ITEM 3 UNDER PERMITTED
USES BE ACCEPTED. MOTION CARRIED. COUNCILMAN CARNS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILWOMAN ALLEN, THAT
ITEM 4 UNDER PERMITTED USES BE ACCEPTED. MOTION CARRIED. COUNCILWOMAN ALLEN MOVED, SECONDED BY
COUNCILMAN HERB, THAT "AQUARIUM" USE BE.ADDED TO ITEM 5 UNDER PERMITTED USES. MOTION CARRIED.
COUNCILMAN HERB MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN NORDQUIST,.TO ADOPT ITEM 6 UNDER PERMITTED USES.
MOTION CARRIED. Discussion then went to limitations on uses in the CW zone, the next section of the
proposed amendment. The first item restricted parking within 60' of bulkheads. Mr. LaTourelle said
the intent was that new parking would not be permitted within 60' of the bulkhead, but existing
parking would remain, so this would not affect the Port except that he felt eventually even the Port
should plan not to have parking near the bulkhead. Gordon.Maxwell, Port Commissioner, said the Port
has had a waiting list of several hundred citizens residing.in the Port District who are waiting for
moorage, and with the addition of more moorage.he felt the.60'.restr.iction on parking would be
detrimental because parking will be limited anyway. He asked that.the 60' restriction be reduced,
and he suggested 20'. Jerry Hann suggested that the 60' could apply except for.that property
serving water -moorage. COUNCILMAN HERB MOVED THAT SECTION A UNDER LIMITATIONS OF USES IN THE CW
ZONE BE ADOPTED, WITH THE RESTRICTION IN ITEM 1 BEING AMENDED TO READ "WITHIN 20' OF BULKHEADS."
9
2,9 0
October 24, 1978 - continued 0
MOTION:
MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. COUNCILWOMAN ALLEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN GOULD, THAT
ITEM 1 UNDER SECTION A OF LIMITATIONS ON USES BE ADOPTED AS WRITTEN. ..MOTION CARRIED, WITH COUNCILMAN
HERB VOTING NO. Regarding Item 2 under Section a, Mr. LaTourelle said this recommendation had come
from the Shorelines Management Committee, but he did not believe.construction over the water should
MOTION:
be absolutely precluded. COUNCILMAN HERB MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILWOMAN ALLEN, TO ELIMINATE ITEM 2
UNDER SECTION A OF THE LIMITATIONS OF USES. MOTION CARRIED, WITH COUNCILMAN GOULD VOTING NO.
Regarding Section b of use limitations„ which listed uses excepted from bei.ng.conducted in an entirely
enclosed building, Jerry Hann said the Port was.uneasy that all the.uses were stated as some may be
omitted. For instance, he was sure that parking of boat trailers was not intended to be in an
enclosed place. Mr. LaTourelle said parking is considered an accessory use unless it is a commer-
cial parking lot. The question was asked as to whether the sale of products over the counter to
people standing outside a building would be precluded, but that dial not appear to pose a problem.
MOTION:
COUNCILWOMAN ALLEN MOVED, SECONDED BY.000NCILMAN NORDQUIST, TO.APPROVE SECTION B OF THE LIMITATIONS
OF USES. COUNCILMAN HERB MOVED TO AMEND THE MOTION TO INSERT IN.SECTION B THE WORD "STORAGE" SO IT
Amendment
WOULD READ: "ALL STORAGE USES SHALL BE CONDUCTED WHOLLY WITHIN AN ENTIRELY ENCLOSED BUILDING EXCEPT:"
Failed
THE MOTION TO AMEND FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. THE MAIN MOTION THEN CARRIED. Discussion then
went to the bulk and dimensional regulations in the CW zone, the,next,section of the proposed
amendment.. There -had been some discussion suggesting reduction of the stated 35' maximum building
height.to 30'. Mr..LaTourelle said he did not -recommend that reduction. He.felt that there would
be no increase in view impairment with 35', as opposed to 30', because of the distance at which
other properties would overlook the waterfront. Jerry Hann added.to this the thought that 35' would
allow some architectural manipulation of roof lines, creating a more pleasing view, whereas by
reducing the height to 30' the result would be only flat roofs, and this could create more bulk and
mass. Further, he noted that it was anticipated that the waterfront would be developed for commercial
and office space but the market had not been tested, and he encouraged as much economic flexibility
as possible. Regarding the 15' minimum setback, he said that would.make the Port office and the
State restaurant/concession building nonconforming and could.lead.to.restrictions on.remodeling in
the future. He noted that construction over the water was being permitted, but this requirement
•
called for a minimum 15' setback on the landward side of the existing bulkhead. Bob Pantley, a
member of the Shorelines -Advisory Committee., said that requirement was included in order to provide
for a future walkway. Regarding the height limitation, he said the Planning Staff was putting a lot
p 9
of faith in the Architectural Review Board which he hoped always would
p y w ul have the outstanding membership
it now does. He said e h would rather see a taller, narrower building on o the waterfront than a
lower, wider building. Bill Wilson said 15' was a lot of area to take from a person. COUNCILMAN
MOTION:
HERB MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN GOULD, TO ADOPT SECTIONS A, B, C, AND D OF THE PROPOSED BULK AND
DIMENSIONAL REGULATIONS IN THE CW ZONE- INCLUDING THE 15' SETBACK AND THE 35' BUILDING HEIGHT.
MOTION CARRIED. The next section to be reviewed was on building design policies. Mr. LaTourelle
MOTION:
recommended that the word "totally" be removed from Item 3.. COUNCILMAN NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY
Amended
COUNCILWOMAN ALLEN, THAT ITEMS 1, 2, AND 3 OF BUILDING DESIGN POLICIES BE APPROVED, WITH THE DELETION
OF THE WORD "TOTALLY" FROM ITEM 3. COUNCILMAN CLEMENT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILWOMAN ALLEN, TO
,Amendment
AMEND THE MOTION TO CHANGE ITEM 2 SO THAT'INSTEAD OF SAYING "FIRST FLOOR, PEDESTRIAN LEVEL SPACE
SHOULD BE RESERVED FOR RETAIL USES. . ." IT WILL SAY "FIRST -FLOOR, PEDESTRIAN LEVEL SPACE SHOULD ENCOURAGE
RETAIL USES. . ." THE MOTION TO AMEND CARRIED. THE.MAIN MOTION, AS AMENDED, THEN CARRIED. The
next section to be reviewed was regarding site design policies. It was suggested by a member of the
audience that the word "and" be changed to "or" in Item 1 where it .states "The site layout should be
coordinated with existing buildings and proposed improvements. . .." The response was that there are
already proposed improvements, namely those of the Port, the walkway, and other City plans. COUNCILWOMAN
MOTION:
ALLEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN NORDQUIST, TO -APPROVE THE SITE.DESIGN POLICIES AS AMENDED IN THE
PROPOSAL. MOTION CARRIED. The next section to be reviewed was regarding landscaping policies. Mr.
LaTourelle said he already had made a note to have the Park Superintendent look into sig'nage at the
MOTION:
beach areas. COUNCILWOMAN ALLEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN NORDQUIST, TO ADOPT'THE LANDSCAPING
POLICIES. MOTION CARRIED, WITH COUNCILMAN HERB ABSTAINING BECAUSE HE.WAS NOT PRESENT DURING THE
DISCUSSION. COUNCILMEN CARNS AND NAUGHTEN.HAD DEPARTED. The wal.kway design policies were the next
MOTION:
to be reviewed. COUNCILWOMAN ALLEN MOVED., SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN NORDQUIST, THAT THE WALKWAY DESIGN
'Amended
POLICIES SECTION BE ADOPTED. COUNCILMAN CLEMENT MOVED TO AMEND,THE MOTION. TO INCLUDE ITEM 6 OF THE
SHORELINES ADVISORY'COMMITTEE'S WATERFRONT DESIGN CONCEPTS MEMORANDUM WHICH HAD BEEN READ EARLIER BY
Amendment
MARIE KING (AN EDUCATIONAL DISPLAY TYPE OF SIGN EXPLAINING THE ECOLOGY OF THE BEACH MARINE LIFE
ORGANISMS). COUNCILWOMAN ALLEN SECONDED THE MOTION TO AMEND. THE MOTION TO AMEND CARRIED. THE
MAIN MOTION, AS AMENDED, THEN CARRIED.
MOTION:
COUNCILWOMAN ALLEN THEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN GOULD, THAT THE CITY.ATTORNEY BE INSTRUCTED TO
DRAFT THE APPROPRIATE ORDINANCE TO INCORPORATE THE ABOVE, FOR CONSIDERATION AT THE OCTOBER 30, 1978
MEETING, AND THAT THE BUILDING MORATORIUM IN THE CW ZONE.BE EXTENDED TO NOVEMBER 7,1978,, AT WHICH
TIME IT WILL BE RECONSIDERED. MOTION CARRIED.
HEARING ON P.C. RESOLUTION 704, RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF PETITION FOR VACATION AND
AMENDMENT TO'THE OFFICIAL STREET MAP, ON 84TH AVE. W., SOUTH OF 202ND ST. S.W.
.
File ST-5-78
Community Development Director John LaTourelle stated that the subject right-of-way is the only
legal access to two building lots. Further, it is on an officially designated recreational walkway
of the City and provides access -to one of the City's major parks. Denial was recommended by the
Planning Department, Parks & Recreation Department, Public Works Department, and the Planning Commission.
The public portion of the hearing was opened. Gaylord Riach, an attorney representing Mr. and Mrs.
P 9
Moore,.the.owners of Parcel B indicated on Exhibit A to the Planning Commission Resolution, said
they did not want the right-of-way to be -vacated. The public portion of the hearing was then closed.
MOTION:
COUNCILMAN NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN GOULD, TO UPHOLD PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION
604, DENYING THE PETITION.FOR VACATION OF THE SUBJECT RIGHT-OF-WAY. MOTION CARRIED.
HEARING ON EDMONDS.GOAL.- CONTROL OF ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS
Mayor Harrison opened the public hearing on this item, no one wished to speak, and the public hearing
MOTION:
was closed. After some discussion, mostly in relation to PRDs, COUNCILMAN HERB MOVED, SECONDED BY
COUNCILMAN CLEMENT, TO CONTINUE THIS ITEM TO NOVEMBER 7, 1978 TO BE HEARD TOGETHER WITH THE REVIEW
OF THE PRD ORDINANCE. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Gould noted that in Goal 1 of Mr. LaTourelle's
9
October 24, 1978 - continued
1
October 19, 1978 memorandum, a- statement -should be added,regarding density. Councilman Clement suggested
that the Staff provi.de.some information on.acqusition candidates for environmentally sensitive
areas, and Mr. LaTourelle.asked.that they be given more time to..accomplish that. COUNCILMAN CLEMENT
MOTION: MOVED, SECONDED.BY COUNCILMAN HERB, THAT.THE STAFF BE REQUESTED TO PROVIDE.INFORMATION ON ACQUISITION
CANDIDATES FOR ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS FOR THE NOVEMBER 14, 1978 MEETING. MOTION CARRIED.
There was. no.further business to -come before the Council, and the meeting adjourned to Executive
Session at.10:10 p.m.
IREN .VARNEY MORAN,, Ci Clerk
October,30, 1978 - Work Meeting
HARVE H. HARRISON, Mayor
The regular meeting of the Edmonds City Council was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Mayor Harve
Harrison in the Council Chambers of the Edmonds Civic Center. All present joined in the flag salute.
PRESENT
Harve Harrison, Mayor
• Phil Clement
Katherine Allen
John Nordquist
Ray Gould
Tom Carns
CONSENT AGENDA
ABSENT STAFF PRESENT
Mike Herb Charles Dibble, M.A.A.
Larry Naughten Leif Larson, Public Works Director
Mary Lou Block, Assistant City Planner
Irene Varney Moran, City Clerk
Art Housler,.Finance Director
Jim Murphy, City Attorney
Jackie Parrett, Deputy City Clerk
MOTION: COUNCILMAN.CARNS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILWOMAN ALLEN, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA EXCEPT FOR
ITEM (D) WHICH.THE STAFF HAD REQUESTED TO BE DELETED FROM THIS EVENING'S AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED.
The Consent Agenda contained the following:
(A) Roll call.
(B) Approval of Minutes of October 24, 1978.
(C) Setting.date of November 7, 1978 for hearing of P.C. Resolution 608
recommending denial to change number of members on the Board of Adjustment.
(File ZO-11-78)
(E). Passage of Resolution 415, authorizing interfund loan for the purpose of
providing funds for legal and consulting services in the acquisition and
development of the Edmonds Elementary School.
(F) Adoption of Ordinance 2029, amending Tax Levy Ordinance 2026'.
(G). Adoption of Ordinance 2030, amending Ordinance 1964 (1978 Budget),
• authorizing an increase in revenues and appropriations of the.Street Arterial
Fund 112 and to establish Edmonds Elementary School. Acquisition/Development
Fund 336.
COUNCIL
Councilwoman Allen noted that.the City Attorney had distributed a proposed resolution in connection
with Coun.cil.action taken last week relating to rehabilitation of the Edmonds Museum. 'COUNCILWOMAN'
MOTION: ALLEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN CARNS, TO PASS RESOLUTION 416, AUTHORIZING THE TRANSFER OF THE
SUM OF $5,000 FROM THE COUNCIL CONTINGENCY FUND 119 TO THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND 325 FOR THE
PURPOSE OF REHABILITATI.ON�OF THE EDMONDS MUSEUM. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Carns referred to a letter to the Mayor from Ken Rose, Manager of the new Shoreline
Savings. Bank in Edmonds, in which Mr. Rose asked if there would be objection to displaying a 2' x 3'
flag with the.City of Edmonds logo alongside the State of Washington and the American flags. The
MOTION: Council found no objection to this. COUNCILMAN CARNS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN GOULD, THAT THE
MAYOR'S.OFFICE.RESPOND TO THE LETTER FROM SHORELINE SAVINGS INDICATING FAVOR OF THEIR PROPOSAL TO
FLY A FLAG WITH THE EDMONDS LOGO. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Clement inquired about the procedure being used to obtain compliance with the new Sign
Code. He had. been contacted -by a a merchant regarding a sign.he..has had in place for over seven.
years, predating the Sign Code,. and this merchant was now being.asked to go through ARB review and
to pay a sign.permit fee of $1.00 per sq. eft. of signage. Assistant City Planner Mary Lou Block
responded that in an attempt to enforce the Sign Code, letters had been sent because a number of
signs never had -permits and some were nonconforming'. The letters advised of the sign permit fee.
After the letters were sent it became obvious that problems.were going to develop, so it was decided
that anyone. -who received the letter and whose sign conformed to the Sign Code could call the Planning
Department and they would be advised that they would not have to pay the sign permit fee.