19781205 City Council Minutes304
November 28, 1978 - continued •
they would approve a pedestrian -only activated signal. Police Chief Marlo Foster described the
accident rate at this intersection during the past five years. Of 15 accidents, 5 had been west-
bound.. Three of those had been trucks coming down -the hill which lost their brakes and 1 had been
overloaded. He said a stop sign would not have stopped any of these and if cars were stopped going
in two directions and children were in the crosswalks there was no place for a truck out of control
to go. He said -his department is very concerned about this intersection, but he did not feel a stop
sign was the answer to the problem. Mr. Larson said attempts had been made to reroute trucks to SR
104 but local truckdrivers who know the area disregard that signing. A gentleman in the audience
said the citizens had asked for a 5,000 pound weight limitation for trucks using SR 524, and Mr.
Larson responded that the weight limitation must be based on the capacity of the road and not on
what you would like to have, and that he could not say this street could not accommodate a load of
over 5,000 pounds. Don VanDriel of 630 Aloha noted that Councilman Carns was concerned because of
the absence of citizens interested in the budget, but there were citizens present to express concern
on this matter and they were being told they had.to get relief from the State. He felt if trucks
could not be controlled coming down the hill then they should be rerouted, and he asked for an.
interim traffic light for the safety of the children. Mayor Harrison felt there should be a three-
way stop, 24 hours a day, at this location. Councilman Clement pointed out that the State Highway
Commission sees their role as that of,.moving cars, and they would not be willing to stop 800.cars an
hour on that road.; Councilman Herb, who.has children crossing at that location, felt.the proposal
put forward.by the City Staff was a good one and he did not believe -temporary measures discussed.
MOTION: would be any safer than.the,present situation. COUNCILMAN GOULD MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN
CARNS, THAT THE PROPOSED PLAN FOR THE TRAFFIC SIGNAL AS PRESENTED THIS EVENING BY THE ENGINEERING
DIVISION BE IMPLEMENTED AND THAT THE NECESSARY RESOLUTIONS AND/OR ORDINANCES BE DRAFTED TO TRANSFER
THE $50,000 AND DELAY PROJECT NO. 1 ON PAGE 133 OF THE 1979 BUDGET; FURTHER, THAT THE STAFF REPORT
BY THE JANUARY 23, 1979 COUNCIL MEETING„AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS AN INTERIM DEVICE THAT CAN
BE INSTALLED TO GIVE SOME PROTECTION UNTIL THE PROPOSED PLAN CAN BE IMPLEMENTED. Mr. Larson noted
that a traffic signal is a long lead time type of installation, and with this approval they could go
ahead with the design. THE MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Clement noted for the information of those •
in the audience that the City Engineer would make a report at the January 23 meeting as to what
interim alternatives he may find.
There was no further business to, come before the Council, and -the meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m.
XXz4� Z:�4 - -
IRENE VARNEY MORAN, Citty Clerk
December 5, 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 Phil Clement Leif Larson, Public Works Director
Mike Herb John LaTourelle, Community Devel. Dir.
Katherine Allen Irene Varney Moran, City Clerk
John Nordquist Art Housler, Finance Director
Ray Gould Mary Lou Block, Asst. City Planner
Tom Carns Dan Prinz, Assistant Police Chief
Larry Naughten John Wallace, City Attorney
Jackie Parrett, Deputy City Clerk
CONSENT AGENDA
MOTION: Items (C), (D), (F), and (H) were removed from the Consent Agenda. COUNCILMAN CARNS MOVED,
SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN NAUGHTEN,.TO APPROVE THE BALANCE OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED.
The balance of the Consent Agenda included the following: -
MOTION:
(A) Rol.l call.
(B) Approval.of Minutes of November 28, 1978.
(E) Passage of Ordinance 2042, adopting 1979 Budget.
(G) Acceptance of Police Chief's report on 3rd Ave. parking between Main St. and Bell St.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RECEIPT OF CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES (Item (C) on Consent Agenda
Claims for damages.had been received from William Skinner and Michael W. Herb, both claims
relating to a rain storm which -occurred November 3, 1978. Councilman Naughten asked the Director
of Public Works how it is determined if the claims are justified. Mr. Larson responded'that
all such claims are referred to the City's insurance carrier to determine whether the City is
liable. COUNCILMAN NAUGHTEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN CARNS, TO APPROVE ITEM (C) ON THE
CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED.
d
I.
• December 59 1978 - continued
APPL-ICATION FOR CABARET DANCE LICENSE FOR "REF'S TIME OUT" TAVERN [Item (D) on Consent Agenda]
Councilman Naughten inquired why this Cabaret Dance License was being considered for only special
occasions. City Clerk Irene Varney Moran responded that'was all the applicants had requested. They
have a.juke box and when customers.have birthdays, anniversaries, etc., they sometimes wish to
include in their celebrations dancing to,the juke box. The Police Chief and City Clerk recommended
a trial period of 60 days, after which an annual licensecould be issued if no problems developed.
Councilman Naughten said he had only removed this from the Consent Agenda because he could see no
MOTION: reason.for the restriction to only "special occasions." COUNCILMAN NAUGHTEN THEN MOVED, SECONDED BY
COUNCILMAN CARNS, TO APPROVE ITEM (D) ON THE CONSENT AGENDA, APPROVING A 60-DAY TRIAL CABARET DANCE
LICENSE FOR THE "REF'S TIME OUT" TAVERN. MOTION CARRIED.
PROPOSED..ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING NEV ZONING CLASSIFICATION RM-D ELIMINATING RM USES IN BC ZONES)
,Item F on Consent Agenda
Councilman Naughten said he did not feel the Council had given enough consideration to the portion
of the proposed ordinance relating.to the elimination of RM uses from the BC zones. COUNCILMAN
MOTION: NAUGHTEN MOVED. .THAT THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE BE AMENDED TO.DELETE THAT PORTION RELATING TO RM USES IN.
(Failed) THE BC ZONE AND THAT THE CITY ATTORNEY BE INSTRUCTED TO REDRAFT THE ORDINANCE. THE MOTION FAILED
MOTION: FOR LACK:OF A SECOND. COUNCILMAN CARNS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILWOMAN ALLEN TO APPROVE ITEM (F) ON
THE CONSENT. -AGENDA, ADOPTING ORDINANCE 2043. A ROLL CALL.VOTE WAS TAKEN, WITH COUNCIL MEMBERS
CARNS, ALLEN, NORDQUIST, AND GOULD VOTING YES, AND WITH COUNCILMAN NAUGHTEN VOTING NO. (Councilman
Herb had not yet arrived.) MOTION CARRIED.
AUTHORIZATION.TO EXECUTE UPDATED AGREEMENT FOR FURNISHING WATER BETWEEN THE CITY OF EDMONDS AND OLYMPIC
VIEW WATER -DISTRICT Item H on Consent A enda
Councilman Nordquist inquired whether administrative costs were -billed into the Olympic View Water
District charges so that the City of Edmonds is not losing on the costs. Public Works Director Leif
Larson responded that the City is losing a little, but when the combined sewer and water rates are
MOTION: considered.it is coming out all right. COUNCILMAN NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN CARNS, TO
APPROVE ITEM (H) ON THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED.
COUNCIL
The Council -acknowledged receipt of a letter from David R. DeLamater supporting low cost housing for
Senior Citizens.
Councilman Nordquist asked the Public Works Director to provide a report to the Council on January 9
on the loss of revenue from the Olympic View Water District, relative to Item (H) on the Consent
Agenda. Mayor Harrison requested that the Council make all such requests to him, rather than to the
Staff, and .he.said he would see that the Council is provided the requested information. He said he.
was making an effort to delineate the legislative and administrative functions. Councilman Nordquist
then redirected his request to the Mayor.
Councilman Carns advised he would not be present December 19 and 26 and January 2 and 23. Councilman
Nordquist advised he would not be present December 26 and January.2. (The December 26 meeting will
be cancelled inasmuch as the 1979 Budget has been approved,.and a motion was passed to cancel that
meeting if the budget was approved.).
Councilman.Gould,reported that he had.attended a Juvenile Conference Committee meeting last evening
and he was impressed with the way the Committee was handling.the situations going before them. -He'
briefly explained for the audience the functions of the Committee.
•
Councilwoman.Allen reported that she had not been at last week's Council meeting because she had
been in attendance at the National Congress
of Cities annual meeting in St. Louis. She thanked the
Council and City for the opportunity to attend.
MAYOR
.Mayor Harri.son.indicated the Puget Sound Seafood store at Five Corners wished to expand their liquor
license to include beer by the bottle. Their license currently is for wine only. The Police Chief
MOTION:
had recommended approval. COUNCILMAN.CARNS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILWOMAN ALLEN, TO APPROVE THE
REQUEST BY PUGET SOUND SEAFOOD FOR A LIQUOR LICENSE TO SELL BEER BY THE BOTTLE OR PACKAGE IN ADDITION
TO THEIR EXISTING PERMIT TO SELL WINE BY THE BOTTLE OR PACKAGE. MOTION CARRIED.
Mayor Harrison advised the Council
of several appointments he wished to make. COUNCILMAN CARNS
'MOTION:
MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN GOULD,-TO CONFIRM THE MAYOR'S.APPOINTMENT OF MAYUMI WHITE TO POSITION
5 ON THE LIBRARY BOARD, TERM TO EXPIRE DECEMBER 31, 1983. MOTION:CARRIED. COUNCILMAN NORDQUIST
MOTION:
MOVED, SECONDED BY .COUNCILMAN CARNS,.TO CONFIRM THE MAYOR'S.APPOINTMENT OF ALICE STOLE TO POSITION 7
ON THE BOARD.OF.ADJUSTMENT, TERM TO EXPIRE DECEMBER 31, 1982. MOTION CARRIED. COUNCILMAN NORDQUIST
MOTION:
MOVED,.SECONDED BY COUNCILWOMAN ALLEN, .TO CONFIRM THE MAYOR'S APPOINTMENT OF ALLEN ALBERS TO POSITION
4 ON THE BOARD,,_;OF.APPEALS,-TERM TO EXPIRE DECEMBER 31, 1982.. MOTION CARRIED. COUNCILMAN CARNS
MOTION:
MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN GOULD, TO CONFIRM THE MAYOR'S APPOIINPIENT OF HALT PA` NE T^ p^CITION, 5
ON THE BOARD.OF APPEALS, TERM TO EXPIRE DECEMBER 31, 1982. MOTION CARRIED. COUNCILMAN NORDQUIST
MOTION:
MOVED,,SECONDED BY COUNCILWOMAN ALLEN, TO CONFIRM THE MAYOR'S APPOINTMENT OF RICHARD THORPE TO A NEW
FOUR-YEAR TERM AS MUNICIPAL COURT JUDGE, TERM TO EXPIRE JANUARY 8, 1983. MOTION CARRIED.
Mayor Harrison read a memorandum from.Public Works Director Leif Larson requesting approval of the
selection of the Morse Stafford Partnership as the architect for the design of Phase IV of the
Senior Center.. Mr. Larson stated that his office had contacted a number of firms and a selection
committee,had reviewed the proposals and found that of the Morse Stafford Partnership to be the most
outstanding. Councilman Carns felt that with the amount of money being spent for this the Council
u6
December 5, 1978 - continued •
MOTION:
MOTION:
Amended
Amendment
MOTION:
MOTION:
should have been provided with more background as to how this particular firm was selected --the
rating system, etc. He felt that if firms were found to be equal then the money should be
spent in Edmonds. Mayor Harrison said he agreed with that and he had made in-depth inquiries
of the selection committee and found they had done an exhaustive selection procedure. He was
very satisfied with their process and said the information was available for the Council's
perusal and he would provide it for them. 000NCILMAN CARNS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN
GOULD, TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE -AGREEMENT WITH THE MORSE STAFFORD PARTNERSHIP FOR
THE DESIGN OF PHASE IV OF THE SENIOR CENTER. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Herb added that he felt
whenever there are -engineering or other professional services to be provided that this should be on
the agenda for discussion and there should be criteria for a bidding and selection process. He had
long been disturbed that the firm of Reid, Middleton & Associates does all of the City's engineering
work. COUNCILMAN HERB MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN NAUGHTEN, TO PLACE ON THE FEBRUARY 13, 1979
AGENDA REVIEW OF THE REID, MIDDLETON & ASSOCIATES CONTRACT WITH THE CITY AND THE POLICIES AND
COMPETITIVE BIDDING PROCESS FOR SELECTING ENGINEERING AND ARCHITECTURAL FIRMS. COUNCILMAN
CARNS MOVED TO AMEND THE MOTION TO DELETE THE REFERENCE TO A PARTICULAR CONTRACT. COUNCILMAN
GOULD SECONDED THE MOTION TO AMEND. THE MOTION TO AMEND THEN CARRIED, WITH COUNCILMAN HERB
VOTING NO. THE MAIN MOTION, AS AMENDED, THEN CARRIED.
Mayor Harrison referred to a memorandum from the Community Development Director requesting
authorization for the Mayor to execute contracts to initiate the 1978 HUD Block Grant programs. One
contract was an interlocal agreement with Snohomish County setting forth HUD's payment procedures,
equal opportunity requirements, and other standard federal requirements. The second contract was
with the Senior Services of Snohomish County to provide hot, home -delivered meals to low income,
housebound elderly people. Each contract was for one year only. COUNCILMAN CARNS MOVED, SECONDED
BY COUNCILMAN GOULD, TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE TWO CONTRACTS TO INITIATE THE 1978 HUD
BLOCK GRANT PROGRAMS. MOTION CARRIED.
Mayor Harrison advised that the City Attorney's Office had reported that the State had elected not •
to appeal in the City of Edmonds vs. State of Washington law suit,.and the Clerk of the Court had
forwarded a check in the amount of $17,268.59, the amount of the judgment plus interest and court
costs. Also, regarding City of Edmonds vs. General Telephone Company of the Northwest, Inc., a
check had come from'General Telephone in the amount of $25,810.48, representing payment of the
judgment. Further, General Telephone had completed the remainder of the obligation by paying for
all the remaining costs of the undergrounding attributable to their facilities.
SNOHOMISH COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY REPRESENTATIVE TO MEET WITH COUNCIL REGARDING LOW INCOME HOUSING
Steven Holt, Housing Program Development Coordinator of Snohomish County, had responded to a letter
from Assistant City Planner Noelle Charleson regarding the possibility of the City's increasing its
supply of low income housing. In his letter, copies of which had been provided to the Council, he
described the rental assistance for existing housing program and the rental assistance for new
construction program. He had also enclosed a draft of a resolution for possible wording to authorize
the Housing Authority of Snohomish County to function within the City of Edmonds. He noted that the
resolution was broad in scope, permitting a range of federally assisted housing programs, and that
it may be the Council's desire to limit that scope, although that was not his recommendation. Mr.
Holt answered questions from the Council and from Al LaPierre, a builder who was in the audience.
Councilman Herb asked if it would be of benefit to the program if Edmonds went into it now,.and Mr.
Holt responded that they were not soliciting business but that they were a public service agency and
their purpose is to provide housing wherever they can. He said if the City was in favor of helping
the Housing Authority to find sites then that would be a plus. Councilman Gould felt the sample
resolution was, in fact, too broad in scope but he was in favor of the City's participation. COUNCILMAN
GOULD MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILWOMAN ALLEN, TO DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PROVIDE A RESOLUTION
DECLARING THE NEED FOR THE HOUSING AUTHORITY OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY TO FUNCTION IN THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
BUT THAT THE RESOLUTION WOULD DEAL WITH ONLY TWO ISSUES: (1) THE RENTAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM FOR
EXISTING HOUSING AND (2) THE RENTAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION. Councilman Carns was
opposed to this action, and'Councilman Herb commented that the Policy Plan calls for diversity of •
housing in the City. THE MOTION'THEN CARRIED, WITH COUNCILMAN CARNS VOTING NO.
HEARI'NG ON APPEAL FROM ADB DECISION ON JEDCO--48-UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX AT 84TH W.. AND,210TH S.W.
Councilman Herb stated that he had represented Elmer Walcker, the principal in Walcker Enterprises,
several years previously. Councilman Herb said*Mr. Walcker was not a client at this time and it had
been four or five years since he had represented Mr. Walcker: City Attorney John Wallace -advised
that this did -not constitute a conflict of interest situation. Assistant -City Planner Mary Lou
.Block reviewed the background of this item and the actions which eventually lead to the appeal.
After about seven hearings before the Amenities Design Board the building was finally approved; but
eight Douglas fir trees had been removed from the site by the.owner before the building permit was
i.ssued. A stop work order had been placed on the property because the.cutting of the trees had made
the plans approved -by the ADB no longer possible, the trees being a part of the approved landscape
plan. The applicant had been advised he would have to go before the ADB to get another landscape
plan approved before a building permit could be issued. A revised landscape plan was then approved
by the ADB in November, and this appeal by Linda and Barry Birch of 20905 Woodlake Dr. was against
that ADB approval.. Mrs. Block displayed drawings of the last plan approved by the ADB as well as
the plan beforethe trees were cut. The Council had been furnished copies of the appeal.letter; the
landscape plan legend; the ADB approved plan; minutes of the November 1, 1978 ADB meeting; a letter
from Jerome L.. Hillis, attorney for Walcker Homes (owner of the property), responding to the appeal
letter; a letter to the ADB from John Walcker (JEDCO) reviewing the sequence of events leading up to
the appeal; and a copy of the agreement made between JEDCO and the neighbors relating to the develop-
ment of this site. City Attorney John Wallace advised the Council on the procedure of the hearing
and what their options were in ruling on -this appeal. He also read from the Edmonds City Code the
criteria on which.they would base their decision. The hearing was then opened to the public.
a,im Krider of 14212 59th Ave. W., Edmonds, an attorney representing the appellants, said the City
Attorney. had advised that the agreement between JEDCO and the neighbors should not be considered but
,y* l
• December 5, 1978 - continued
307 .
Fj
1
0
7
0
1
1
the neighbors had given up a valuable right --a petition for rezone asking that the property not be
developed in this manner --in exchange for'the agreement. He said the trees had been cut intentionally
and Mr. Walcker should replace the 50' trees as he had stated he would in a newspaper report.
Councilman Herb commented that the ADB.has'-professio-ials who.fel.t trees of that size could not be
replaced because they would not'survive'. Mr..Krider sai,d,the appellants had researched that and
would pro,V.ide�:thei,r�:i;nformati�on. ',:He_;stated=-.that::the�:agreement... required that if there were any
change in the design no further.'development of the property would occur without approval of the
neighbors. City Attorney John Wallace stated that the fact that a.private contract exists may or
may not give rights to the neighbors with respect to their..relationships with Mr. Walcker, but the
City does not enforce this type of contract and it is up to..the parties to work out whether or not
there has been.a breach. He said the only.consideration the Council should give to the contract is
that it basical-ly shows an intent*or..concern of the neighbors and developers, but that is the only
basis on which .the contract is'relative.to.this hearing. Barry'Birch, one of the appellants,'said
he is an architectural draftsman and.had.been for 10 years, and the scale on the drawings was not
accurate and-10' trees would not screen a three story building and the neighbors on 84th St. would
view it more.than those on Woodlake where he lives. He said he had seen some of Mr: Walcker's work
which is good, but this development,was not good work. He. -charged that the ADB are pro -builder
oriented and...that the neighbors had not gotten any results from them with regard to their wishes.
He said the bui..ldings were not designed for this site and he would like to see the structure completely
thrown out— He submitted some photographs of the area. Exhibit l consisted of three photographs
and a .site.p.lan. Two of the photographs were from Woodlake Dr. looking east before the trees were
cut and one was. -from Woodlake Dr. looking east after the trees were cut. Exhibit 2 consisted of
three photographs, one viewing.the site from 83rd St. looking northwest and showing the vegetation
and two .viewing the site from 83rd St. looking west and showing a number of cut logs after the trees
were cut. . Mr.. Birch also said they felt they may have drainage problems because the trees were
removed. Exhibit 3 which he submitted consisted -of a newspaper article about the tree -cutting
incidentand a..photograph of a logging truck removing the logs. Mr. Birch read two proposals for
planting,.trees, one from Van's Landscape Service with quotations for planting 22'- 25' trees, and
one from.,.Olympic Tree Service for.20' trees. These proposals were submitted as Exhibit 4. Linda
Birch,_ the.:other appellant, stated that Nancy Luster from the Planning Department had told her that
the applicant would have to -redesign .the building since the trees were removed, because the original
design.had been.approved having.a softening effect from the trees. Anthony Waver of 8215 210th P1.
said he felt .it.was too late for..any landscaping to remedy this situation. Ron Norman of 21005
Woodlake Dr —reviewed the chronology of events from the neighbors' viewpoint. He said their original
action was a.rezone and they had felt that they had the support of the Policy Plan for that action
but they had been encouraged by the Planning Commission to cooperate with the builder. He said his
goal once again.was now 'a rezone.' Dave Johnson of 20901 Woodlake Dr. said he originally had somewhat
supported Mr. Walcker, but he now lacked confidence in Mr. Walker's ability to _live up to the contract
because he had.removed the trees.and then went with a building plan to which the neighbors had not
agreed. Mr. Johnson.said he was not against.the building being constructed there but he had no
confidence in Mr. Walcker any more and'felt the whole plan was in Mr. Walcker's favor. He felt
there shouldbe a rezone of the property and he said the -property could never be restored to the'
natural beauty which had been there. Mrs. Block said it should be clarified that the buildings had
been moved on the plans at the request of the City because of the ravine situation. The City Staff
had felt.the ravine should be saved and in order to do so the buildings had to -be moved and the "
parking plan revised, giving up a large open space area. Mark Knudson of 21005 Woodlake Dr. said he
now agreed that.the neighbors had taken the wrong course of act ion when they withdrew their petition
for rezone. He felt that the contract was morally binding.on the Council, even 'if it was not legally
binding. He said this site probably was zoned incorrectly to begin with, and he felt that the
topography of.the land had been changed when the trees were removed as it previously had been an
area of swales and gullies. He sa-id it was impossible -for anything put on that land to be compatible
with the original agreement which stipulated that any changes made would be made in consultation
with the neighbors. He said the neighbors had heard nothing from Mr. Walcker until just before the
ADB hearing.on.the final plan and that Mr. Walker .had not lived up to his agreement. He felt they
deserved some redress through the City by the City's either forcing him to submit a new plan or
withdrawing the building permit application until the rezone hearing is accomplished. He also felt
a substantial performance bond should be demanded. He said.he had gone into this with a feeling
that he would.try to work with the builder to better the City of Edmonds and demonstrate that citizens
working with builders could make aesthetically pleasing buildings of ,this kind. He urged that some
strong action ;be .taken_.to` demonstrate to Mr. Walcker and other- developers that-- they cannot change
the intent, topography, and environment of an area to make it,fit to their plan. He said the design
is no longer harmonious with the topography and there had been an outright disregard for the aesthetic
qualities of that particular parcel of land. Further, that .the effective height of the trees was
even greater than their measured.height and now there will( -be 30' high buildings -'screened by 20'
high trees. He said the land had been leveled rather than designing the building to meet the topography.
He felt,if time had been taken to really design the buildings,to fit the site it would have been.a
nice development, but that the builder from the outset had been determined to make the site.fit.the
building he wanted to put there.. Richard Kopstead of 8208 210th P1. (a neighbor.on.the 84th St.
side) said.he was disturbed that the site had been leveled. He said he would like to see.a rezone
but he was a.realist enough to know that a rezone may be remote. He said he would feel very comfortable
if the building height were.reduced and the number of units reduced to lessen the traffic. He also
felt the quality of the units should be improved. George Kresovich of the law offices of Hillis,
Phillips, Cairncross, Clark & Martin, representing JEDCO, described the original plan and said Mr..
Walcker. had not changed the plan because of his desires, but that he had done it to satisfy the
Planning Staff who felt the ravine should be saved. He said the original proposal for 64 units
eventua1.1y.was reduced to 48. He said that when the final plan'was approved the old landscaping
plan unfortunately was used with the new.building design. He said Mr. Walcker had believed it had
been acknowledged that the trees were to come down. He said there had been a lack of communication
here. Community Development Director -'John. LaTourelle stated that the permit that will be issued
will bein accordance with the -plans that indicate the trees will be relocated or remain. He said
that to cut them down was in violation of the approved plans. Mr. Kresovich noted that in following
the criteria it should be'considered that the appeal was to the landscape plan approved by the ADB.
He described the.landscape plan and a copy was submitted as Exhibit 5. He noted that there is a 50'
border of landscaping from the parking lot to the property line, so the parking lot is separated
from the Woodlake residents by 50' and'a 4'- 5' berm. He said the plan had been proposed by his
3V8
December 5, 1978 - continued
•
client, modified.by the Planning Department, and modified further -by the. ADB. He urged the Council
to uphold.the decision of the ADB. John Walcker, the developer,.said he had spent thousands of
dollars trying to come up with a plan acceptable to himself and to the neighbors, but he had run
into a stumbling block with the City. He said he had not intended to put anything over on the
neighbors, but only -wanted to get his.building done. He said it is 48 units with a 50' site screen
on the west side and the plan was the best they.could do. He said the outside of the buildings
will have a cedar shake soffit with yellowish stucco and brown trim. He said the only reason the
trees were taken down was because he thought he had approval from the ADB to do it. Further, he
said the property, was not graded --that the contours had not changed, but the blackberry bushes had
been 8'- 10' high in front. He said he had hauled away only two loads of rubbish from eight acres.
Blaine Price of 20904 Woodlake Dr. said he was not a party to the original agreement with the
contractor and he had moved in only about ten days before the site was leveled. He said his business
is insurance and he insures building contractors and it had been his experience that these people
know what they are doing. The public portion of the hearing was then closed. Mark Knudson asked to
MOTION:
speak again. COUNCILMAN HERB MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN GOULD TO REOPEN THE HEARING FOR BRIEF
REMARKS FROM MARK KNUDSON. MOTION CARRIED. Mr.. Knudson said the intent of the appeal was to have
this site looked at by.the City Council in light of the changes that had occurred on it, and the
fact that it was an appeal of the landscape plan may not be a broad enough appeal. He asked that
the Council consider the landscape plan in its broadest context which includes siting and size of
the buildings.- The public portion of the hearing again was closed.
Councilman Carns expressed the view that Mr. Walcker deliberately cut down the trees. COUNCILMAN
MOTION:
CARNS MOVED THAT.THE COUNCIL REVERSE THE DECISION OF THE ADB, BASED ON THE CRITERIA SET FORTH IN
SECTION 12.20.050 OF THE CITY CODE, PARAGRAPHS (3)(a), (3)(c), AND (3)(e), WHICH.STATE: "(3)(a)
WHERE EXISTING TOPOGRAPHICAL CONFIGURATION CONTRIBUTES TO THE CONSERVATION OF NATURAL BEAUTY AND
.
OTHER NATURAL RESOURCES THEY SHOULD BE CONSERVED." "(3)(c) LANDSCAPE TREATMENT SHOULD BE.PROVIDED
TO ENHANCE ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES AND IMPROVEMENTS, ENVIRONMENTAL HARMONY, MINIMIZE VISUAL CONFLICT
WITH THE STRUCTURE OR BUILDING, PROVIDE SHADE FOR WALKWAYS AND OTHER PEDESTRIAN PROVISIONS AND TO
CONSERVE AND RESTORE NATURAL BEAUTY AND OTHER NATURAL RESOURCES." "(3)(e) WHERE BUILDING OR STRUC-
•
TURE SITES ELIMINATE PLANTING, THE PLACEMENT OF TREES, SHRUBS OR OTHER PLANTINGS SHOULD BE ENCOURAGED
IN PARKWAYS AND PAVED AREAS WHERE ADEQUATE PROTECTION MAY BE PROVIDED." COUNCILMAN NAUGHTEN SECONDED
THE MOTION. Councilman Naughten said he did,not feel Mr. Walcker had done th.i.s.out of malice, but
he"felt there was�an error in calculation. He felt'the agreement should have been conformed to and
.that there had been a trust and cooperation,between the parties at one time and it could be reestablished.
He said he would like to see a compromise worked out and presented to the ADB, and that was why he
seconded the motion. Councilman Herb was against the motion. He said Mr. Walcker was not on trial
for intentionally cutting down the trees, but rather, the Council. was reviewing the last ADB decision
which was made after the trees were cut.. He*said this was not supposed to be a moral. evaluation of
the property owner. He felt the main problem was that the open space had been taken away and he
noted that the City Staff put the parking into that open space area. He felt the only sensible
thing to do.was to uphold'the,ADB decision. Councilman Gould said he did not like to see a building
site plowed up before a building permit is issued. He cited 12.20.050(2) of the City Code having to
do with the relationship of building and site to adjoining area and he felt the environmental
considerations.were.too many and a visual blight had been created. He felt that a 25' Norway Maple
that loses its leaves would not provide much screening, and he felt the trees proposed were not
adequate and a better plan could be developed to provide the screening needed. It was noted that
•,.the.
motion was not to remand, that the builder would have to start from the beginning. A ROLL CALL
VOTE WAS TAKEN, WITH COUNCIL MEMBERS CARNS, NAUGHTEN, NORDQUIST, AND GOULD VOTING YES, AND WITH
COUNCIL MEMBERS HERB AND ALLEN VOTING NO.' THE MOTION CARRIED. A short recess was announced.
Because of the late hour and in order to give the last agenda item proper consideration, it was felt
MOTION:
it should be continued. COUNCILMAN NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN HERB, TO CONTINUE THE
DISCUSSION OF POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVES TO THE PRESENT DEVELOPMENT PROCESSING SYSTEM TO DECEMBER 12,
1978 AND TO PLACE THAT ITEM FIRST ON THE AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED. There was no further business to
come before the Council, and the meeting was adjourned at 11:00 p.m.
'A
IRENE VARNEY MORAN, Ciyy Clerk
December 12, 1978 - Work Meeting
7WAe����
HARVE H. HARRISON, Mayor
The regular meeting of the Edmonds City Council was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Mayor..Pro tem
Tom Carns ip the Council Chambers of the. Edmonds Civic Center.- All present joined in the flag
salute, following which Mayor Harrison arrived.
PRESENT
Harve Harrison,
Mike Herb
Phil Clement
Katherine Allen
John Nordquist
Ray Gould
Tom Carns
Larry Naughten
STAFF PRESENT
.Mayor Charles Dibble, M.A.A.
Leif Larson, Public Works Director
'John LaTourelle, Community Development Director
Marlo Foster, Police Chief
Art Housler, Finance Director
Irene Varney Moran, City Clerk
Fred Herzberg, City Engineer
Jim Jessel, Parks & Recreation Manager
John Wallace, City Attorney
Jackie Parrett, Deputy City Clerk
1
1