SE Corner 72nd W - 212th SW Area Annexationlity of Edmond >
INTEROFFICE CORRESPONDENCE
TO _ FROM DATE-d
SUBJECT
CITY OF EDMONDS
?•-=• 2300 WESTIN BUILDING, 2001 SIXTH AVENUE • SEATTLE, WA 98121
(206) 448-4000
CITY ATTORNEY
DATE: July 6, 1987
TO: Jackie Parrett, Mary Lou Block, Peter Hahn
City of Edmonds
FROM: W. Scott Snyder
RE: Allied Roofing Annexation
LARRY S. NAUGHTEN
MAYOR
Enclosed, please find, with Jackie's copy of this memo,
a signed concomitant zoning agreement and the annexation petition
from Edmonds Associates (Allied Roofing Company). I previously
forwarded the pre -annexation zoning ordinance, which should be
placed on the consent agenda at the next convenient meeting,
along with a copy of the concomitant zoning agreement.
With the passage of this ordinance, all preliminary
steps will have been taken necessary to annex this tract to the
City. As we have discussed in the past, both the Mayor and the
Council, particularly Mr. Caspar, have expressed an interest in
utilizing this tract in order to assist the City in annexing a
larger area, including the Toyota dealership adjacent to the
City. Recognizing this interest, Mr. Hahn previously requested
that an addendum to the original agreement with Allied Roofing be
executed, which obligates them to execute additional annexation
petitions, should the City determine to proceed with an attempt
to annex the adjacent side. There are several ways which the
City could proceed, if it wishes to annex the Toyota property.
In order that the Council may make an informed decision
on the subject, I would suggest that you have the staff review
the background factual situation in light of the various statutes
available for annexation.
1. Petition Method. If the City can accumulate
properties interested in annexation that comprise 75% or more of
the assessed valuation of the property to be annexed, the site
may be annexed by ordinance. Since the Allied Roofing property
is currently undeveloped, you would wait until after it is
developed and assessed. I would suggest that this matter be put
on the Council's extended agenda for review following completion
of the Allied Roofing improvements. The staff could then provide
information regarding the assessed valuation of the Toyota
dealership, the Allied Roofing property, and any other adjacent
sites which would be targeted for annexation to see whether the
required assessed valuation could be obtained.
�-
(T-
P � r INCORPORATED AUGUST 11, IB90
July 6, 1987
Page 2
2. "Island" Annexation. I apologize for being a bit
hazy on geography in the area, but my recollection is that the
Toyota dealership boarders the City (including the Allied Roofing
property) on a number of sides.
RCW 35A.14.295, Unincorporated territory
containing less than 100 acres and having at
least 80% of the boundaries contiguous to a
code city can be annexed by resolution and
ordinance.
While there, is a provision for a referendum election by the
persons living in the area, there would be no registered voters
residing on the site. I would suggest that the staff review the
boundaries of the Toyota site and determine whether, with the
existing city boundaries and that created by the Allied Roofing
property, the 80% requirement would be met.
3. Election Method. If the Council determines there are
other properties in the area upon which registered voters reside,
that are interested in annexation, you could also utilize the
election method. This methods is far more expensive, and it is
for that reason that it is usually used only for larger tracts of
land. Projected sales tax revenues may make this method feasible
for the Toyota site. It would be necessary to accumulate other
areas interested in annexation, and contiguous with the Allied and
Toyota sites in order for this method to be feasible.
CONCLUSION
I would suggest that this matter be periodically reviewed
and a final decision made regarding the feasibility of annexing
the Toyota site. Waiting too long will cost you property tax and
sales tax revenues from the Allied Roofing site. The contract
addendum is open-ended, and the City may request a new petition
from the Edmonds associates at any time. As a practical matter,
each year which the decision is delayed will cost the City
corresponding property and sales tax revenues.
WSS:rds
dct Mayor Larry S. Naughten
0006.010.038/WSS50074d
NOTICE OF INTENTION TO COMTII:NCE ANNEXATION PROCEEDINGS
RECEIVED
TO: The City Council of
Civic Center
Edmonds, Washington
Gentlemen:
the City of Edmonds
FF B - 5 1987
The undersigned, who are the owners
in value, according to the assessed
taxation of the property for which
advise the City Council of the City
desire of the undersigned residents
commence annexation proceedings:
McCANN CONSTRUCTION CO., INC
of not less than ten percent
valuation for general
annexation is sought, hereby
of Edmonds that it is the
of the following area to
The property herein referred to is described on Exhibit "A"
attached hereto and is depicted on Exhibit "B" further attached
hereto.
It is requested that the City Council of the City of Edmonds set
a date not later than sixty days after the filing of this request
for a meeting with the undersigned to determine:
(1) Whether the City Council will accept the proposed
annexation.
(2) Whether the City Council will require the simultaneous
adoption of proposed zoning regulations for the
proposed area to be annexed.
(3) Whether the City Council will require the assumption
of existing City indebtedness by the area to be
annexed.
This page is one of a group of pages containing identical text
material and is intended by the signers of this Notice of Intention
to be presented and considered as one Notice of Intention and may
be filed with other pages containing additional signatures which
cumulatively may be considered as a single Notice of Intention.
*OWNER'S SIGNATURE PRINTED NAME ADDRESS & LEGAL DATE
(Husband and Wife) DESCRIPTION SIGNED
*See special instructions on cover sheet.
-7e,
CONCOMITANT ZONING AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, dated this lQ day of 1987,
between Edmonds Associates ("Associates"), a New Jersey
partnership, and the City of Edmonds (the "City"), a municipal
corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State
of Washington,
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, Associates desires to construct a building supply
distribution facility ("Facility") on a parcel of property
(the "Property") located in Snohomish County and adjacent to
the City on three sides, which parcel is legally described as
Tract 5 of Solner's Five Acre Tracts, recorded in Volume 7 of
Plats, records of Snohomish County, Washington; and
WHEREAS, development of this property requires extension
of utility services by the City; and
WHEREAS, in partial consideration for such utility
service, the City desires to consider annexing this property;
and
WHEREAS, to establish a process for consideration of
utilities extension, annexation and concomitant zoning, the
City and Associates entered into an Agreement to Extend
6105a
1
-'7 H q
���_ f, 3
Utility Services and Establish Process for Concomitant Zoning
and Design Review on March 3, 1987; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to that March 3, 1987 agreement, the
City has provided a Letter of Intent to provide utility
services to Associates; and
WHEREAS, Associates desires that on annexation, the
Property be zoned to allow outright the development and use
contemplated by Associates; and
WHEREAS, Associates has made a request for preannexation
zoning to zone the property CG2 (General Commercial) upon
annexation to the City, and allowing outdoor storage as a
permitted use, and allowing a nine -foot fence as a permitted
use, and allowing grading work to be carried out under the
standards of Snohomish County; and
WHEREAS, a SEPA determination of nonsignificance has been
issued by the City on the preannexation zoning request; and
WHEREAS, the City's Architectural Design Board has
reviewed and approved the project design; and
WHEREAS, on March 25, 1987, the City's Planning Board has
reviewed and approved the Concomitant Zoning Agreement terms
proposed by Associates; and
WHEREAS, on March 31, 1987 and May 5, 1987, the Edmonds
City Council held two hearings on preannexation zoning as
required by state law; and
6105a 2
WfIEREAS, following the May 5, 1987, hearing on
preannexation zoning, the City Council, upon determining that
the proposed zoning classification is in compliance with the
Comprehensive Plan of the City and is within and consistent
with the public health, safety, morals and general welfare,
voted to approve the zoning proposal and directed that a
concomitant zoning agreement be prepared,
NOW, THEREFORE,
In consideration of the mutual covenants and promises
contained herein, and other valuable consideration, receipt of
which is hereby acknowledged, the City and Associates do
hereby agree as follows:
1. The City shall adopt by ordinance a zoning regulation
for the Property pursuant to RCW 35A.14.330 which shall zone
the Property for CG2 (General Commercial) modified to allow
(1) outdoor storage permitted outright and not as a
conditional use, but subject to the performance standards of
Chapter 17.60.010.H of the Edmonds Community Development Code
("ECDC"), (2) fence height of nine feet permitted outright and
not as a conditional use, but subject to the ECDC design
criteria; and (3) grading permitted in accordance with the
requirements established by Snohmish County. Except as
specifically provided herein, the use and development of the
Property shall comply with all ordinances of the City of
6105a 3
Edmonds, and specifically, the Edmonds Community Development
Code, as the same shall exist upon the date of annexation of
the Property, or shall thereafter be amended.
2. This Agreement shall be binding upon the parties
hereto including the City and its legislative body,
notwithstanding any change in the membership in that body, and
Associates as owners of the Property, its successors and
assigns.
3. This Agreement is specifically enforceable by the
City and by Associates, and the City and Associates may
institute and prosecute any proceedings at law or in equity to
enforce the provisions of this Agreement.
4. The partial waiver or waiver by acquiescence by the
City or by Associates of any covenant, condition or
restriction of this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver of
any other covenant, condition or restriction of this Agreement.
S. Invalidation of any portion of this Agreement by
judgment or court order shall in no way affect any other
portion of this Agreement and the same shall remain in full
force and effect.
6105a 4
ICI WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this
instrument the day and year above written by and through their
authorized officers or representatives.
CITY OF EDMONDS:
LARRY S. E-MAYOR
ATTEST:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
[A
Wty Attorne
APPROVED AS TO FOR :
Attorney for Edmonds Associates
STATE OF NEW JERSEY )
) ss.
COUNTY OF BERGEN
EDMONDS//f ASSOCIATES
R s
By f �I ` G�
General artner
I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that
Ile-o-hel-r' �rh,'/dc.�,'tz signed this instrument, on oath stated
that es was authorized to execute the instrument and
acknowledged it as the General Partner of Edmond Associates, a
►J�,,, ]e.,, partnership, to be the free and voluntary
6105a 5
act of such partnership for the uses and purposes mentioned in
the instrument.
DATED: June 16 1987.
(Seal or stamp)
otary Pub is in d for the State of
New Jersey , residing at Rt.17N.E.Rutherford,NJ
My appointment expires 8/23/89
SARA L. REGINA
RIH/cb NOTARY PUBLIC OF NEW JERSEY
6/4/87 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES AUG. 23, 1989
6105a 6
7�Z�
WSS/naa
03/10/87
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
This Memorandum of Understanding is executed in
amendment of an agreement between the City of Edmonds
("City") and Edmonds Associates ("Associates"), dated
1987 (hereinafter "Agreement") in order to
clarify and make certain the parties' obligations with
respect to the presentation of a duly executed annexation
petition addressed in the Agreement, the provisions of the
Agreement being incorporated by this reference as fully as if
herein set forth.
1) Combination. Associates confirm that it is the
agreement and understanding of the parties that the City
Council of the City in its sole discretion may join the
subject tract with any other tracts or parcels of land for
the purposes of annexation so long as such combination
complies with the provisions of RCW 35A.14 and the conditions
set forth in paragraph 2 hereof. In the event that such
combination is required, Associates agree to execute or
reexecute such petition or petitions as may be necessary in
order to join or combine the subject tract with other parcels
sought to be annexed by the City.
2) Conditions:
2.1. Associates right to receive utility services
as set forth in paragraph 3.4 of the Agreement shall vest
with the completion of the obligations set forth in
paragraphs 3.1 through 3.4 inclusive of the Agreement. The
City shall not withhold hookup of utility services pending
future annexation determinations but the Associates'
obligation to join in additional petition(s) shall be
specifically enforceable.
2.2 Any additional petition(s) shall contain and
reflect preannexation zoning and/or a concomitant zoning
agreement for the subject tract which meets all of the
criteria of paragraph 3.7 of the original agreement.
2.3 Such additional petitions shall be prepared at
the cost of the City.
3) Effective Date and Merge. This agreement shall
become effective immediately upon execution of this agreement
by the parties. It amends and merges with the previous
agreement between the parties in all respects as if therein
set forth. In the event of conflict the provisions of this
memorandum shall control. In the event of ambiguity, this
document shall be used as a guide to interpretation.
ATTEST: n
CI -CLERi-i
-2-
UARRY 4.A- HTEN , MAYOR
.
APPROV AS TO FORM:
CITJ J�.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
talt"'T' 0.- L1.42
ATTORNEY FOR ED ONbS AS TES
EDMONDS ASSOCIATES
By: kER!-LP ENARTNER
STATE OF NEW JERSEY )
ss.
COUNTY OF )
I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that
Herbert Smilowitz signed this instrument, on oath stated that
e was authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledged
it as the General Partner of EDMONDS ASSOCIATES to be the free
and voluntary act of suc party for the uses and purposes
mentioned in the instrument.
DATED this day of M(3, �,� ,, 1987.
otary Public Yn and for the
State of New Jersey, residing
at cs
My Commission Expires:
3'p % - -
SARA L. REGI NA
NOTARY PUBLIC OF NEW JERSEY
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES AUG, 23, 1069
-3-
AGREEMENT TO EXTEND UTILITY SERVICES
AND ESTABLISH PROCESS FOR CONCOMITANT ZONING
AND DESIGN REVIEW
WHEREAS, Edmonds Associates ("Associates") desires to
construct a building supply distribution facility ("Facility")
on a parcel of property located in Snohomish County and
adjacent to the City of Edmonds ("City") on three sides; and
WHEREAS, development of this property requires extension
of utility services by the City; and
WHEREAS, in partial consideration for such utility
service, the City desires to consider annexing this property;
and
WHEREAS, the City desires to provide water and sewer
service ("utility services") to Associates on and subject to
the terms and conditions herein contained; and
WHEREAS, Associates and the City have agreed that
Associates will apply to Snohomish County for a building
permit; and
WHEREAS, prior to processing a building permit for this
property, Snohomish County requires a letter from the City
stating that the City intends to provide utility service to
the Property (the "Letter of Intent"); and
WHEREAS, Associates and the City have agreed that
Snohomish County will be the SEPA lead agency on this project,
5468a
4
r c�
41 �3 ��
3 _3, e-7
00�1-143
with input from the City as to whether the project is
consistent with the City's land use policies and development
standards and whether identified impacts of the development to
the City are adequately mitigated, with particular review and
emphasis on the mitigation of site -generated traffic impacts;
and
WHEREAS, Associates desires that on annexation, the
Property be zoned to allow outright the development and use
contemplated by Associates; and
WHEREAS, Associates has the right to purchase said
property under a real estate purchase and sale agreement, but
is not presently the record owner thereof;
NOW, THEREFORE, the City, a municipal corporation and
Associates, a New Jersey partnership, in consideration of the
mutual benefits to be derived and described herein, enter into
this Agreement this 3rd day of March, 1987, subject to the
terms and conditions hereinafter set forth:
1. SUBJECT TRACT.
This Agreement concerns a tract of land (the "Property")
located at the southeast corner of the intersection of 212th
S.W. and 72nd Avenue W. in unincorporated Snohomish County and
as legally described and shown in attached Exhibit X to this
Agreement.
5468a 2
2. CONDITIONS.
2.1 Associates hereby provides notice of intent to
commence annexation proceedings. However, Associates shall
have no obligation to petition for annexation of the Property,
and the City shall have no obligation to provide utility
services to the Property, until and unless the City
establishes pre -annexation zoning under the provisions of RCW
35A.14.330, thereby authorizing execution of a Concomitant
Zoning Agreement, as set forth in 3.7 hereof, which shall
allow the Facility to be annexed into the City as a fully
conforming use.
2.2 Associates shall have no obligation to petition
the City for annexation of the Property, and the City shall
have no obligation to provide utility services to the
Property, until Associates has acquired fee title to the
Property. If this condition does not occur on or before
December 31, 1987, the agreement shall become totally null and
void as of that date.
2.3 If after Associates has performed its
obligations under Section 3.1 hereof, the City Council of the
City shall, in its sole discretion, exercise its prerogative
not to annex the Property in accordance with Associates'
petition under the conditions, if any, set forth therein, the
parties are released from their obligations under this
5468a 3
Agreement, except that the City shall provide water and sewer
service to the Property as provided in Section 3.3 hereof.
3. COVENANTS.
In consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein,
and other good and valuable consideration, Associates and the
City hereby agree to carry out the covenants set forth below.
However, until the condition set forth in Paragraph 2.1 above
has been satified, and Associates has submitted annexation
petition to the City, no connection shall be permitted to the
sewer and/or water system of the City, nor shall any right to
service accrue to the benefit of Associates.
3.1 Aareement to Petition for Annexation.
Immediately upon satisfaction of the conditions set forth in
Sections 2.1 and 2.2 above, Associates shall submit to the
City a written application and petition for annexation duly
executed by its properly authorized officers and conforming in
all respects to the requirements of RCW Chapter 35A.14.
3.2 Application for Development. Associates agrees
to apply to Snohomish County for the appropriate land use and
building permits for construction on the Property, including
SEPA review. Associates further agrees to provide agencies
and officials of the City with information which they require
in order to provide input to the SEPA review process,
including a traffic study requested by the City Engineer.
5468a 4
3.3 Architectural Design Board Review. The
Architectural Design Board ("ADB") shall review the proposed
Facility as to compliance with the ADB's criteria as set forth
in Edmonds Community Development Code Chapter 20.10.070. The
ADB's review procedure shall consist of the actions set forth
in Exhibit A to this Agreement, and shall comply with the
timetable therein. The City Council action on the ADB
recommendation shall be a final legislative determination, but
approval shall not be unreasonably withheld.
3.4 Extension of Water and Sewer Utility Services.
Following Associates' submittal of a petition for annexation
of the Property, as provided in Section 3.1 above, the City
agrees to extend water and sewage services to the Property on
the same terms and conditions as such services are offered to
other consumers of utilities services within the City and
within the same classification of consumption. Associates
agrees to pay for such services, to pay all costs, connection
fees and utility charges and to otherwise abide by all the
terms and conditions established by the City by rule or
ordinance for consumers of utility services, including, but
not limited to, provisions regarding payment and deposit for
services. Nothing herein shall be interpreted to prevent and
prohibit the City from amending such provisions, including,
but not limited to, the rates for such services or the
5468a 5
connection charges to be incurred, provided, however, that no
such changes shall apply solely to Associates, but rather
shall be generally applicable to the class of consumers of
which Associates is a member.
3.5 Letter of Intent re Provision of Utilities
Services. The City agrees to provide to Associates and to
the Snohomish Health District, with a copy to the Snohomish
County Building Department, immediately upon execution of this
Agreement, a Letter of Intent to provide water and sewer
utility services to the Property as necessary to support
Associates' application for a Snohomish County land use and
building permit. Nothing herein shall be interpreted to
create a right to connection or service until such time as the
conditions set forth in this Agreement have been met. All
risks associated with development upon such Letter of Intent
and prior to final satisfaction of the conditions set forth
herein are expressly undertaken by Associates, who shall hold
harmless and indemnify the City from any cost, claim or loss
attributable thereto.
3.6 SEPA Review. The City agrees to carry out
timely review of Associates' application to Snohomish County
for SEPA purposes, and to complete its review of the proposed
development as to all SEPA impacts no later than 15 working
days following submittal to the City of a traffic study and a
drainage plan conforming with City requirements.
5468a 6
3.7 Concomitant Zoning Agreement and Timetable.
The City agrees to consider, according to the process and
timetable set forth in Exhibit A attached, a Concomitant
Zoning Agreement to establish pre -annexation contract zoning
for the Property, consisting of the following provisions:
General Commercial zoning (Chapter 16.60 of
the Edmonds Community Development Code)
("ECDC") modified to allow (1) outdoor
storage permitted outright and not as a
conditional use, but subject to the
performance standards of ECDC Ch. 17.60.010.H;
(2) fence height of nine feet permitted
outright and not as a conditional use, but
subject to the ECDC design criteria; (3)
grading permitted in accordance with the
requirements established by Snohomish County
in the SEPA review process.
City action on the Concomitant Zoning Agreement is subject to
determination that the Agreement is consistent with the public
health, safety and welfare.
4. ASSIGNABILITY.
4.1 Upon completion of conditions precedent 2.1 and
2.2 herein, the right to connect to and receive the utility
service shall touch and concern the land and shall run with
the land upon its sale, lease or devise to all successors and
assigns of Associates.
4.2 All other rights and privileges of this
Agreement are personal to Associates and shall not be assigned
without the express written consent of the City.
5468a 7
S. NONSEVERABILITY.
The provisions of this Agreement are intended as mutual
consideration and shall not be severable. In the event that
any provision hereof shall be struck down by a court of
competent jurisdiction, this Agreement shall be null and void;
provided, however, that should this Agreement be declared null
and void subsequent to issuance of a building permit for the
Property by Snohomish County, the City shall continue to be
obligated to provide water and sewer service to the Property
in accordance with the provisions of Section 3.4 hereof.
7. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RISKS.
Associates acknowledges that the SEPA review process is a
discretionary governmental function and the City does not
guarantee that Snohomish County will issue a building permit
for this project, or that additional development conditions
over and above those required herein will not be imposed to
mitigate adverse environmental impacts identified in the
environmental documents for this project as part of the SEPA
review process.
EXECUTED this 3rd day of March, 1987.
5468a 8
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Office of thfjCity Attorney
ATTEST:
JP24QUELINE PARRETT
CITY CLERK
STATE OF WASHINGTON)
} ss.
COUNTY OF KING }
CITY OF EDMONDS
�JL
JP_CK 'M. WILSON,, .r-IAYOR PRO TEM
EDMONDS ASSOCIATES
;� . r '
B
G -,
General pa' trier
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
J. i d- &_�
Attorney for Edmonds Associates
I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that JACK M.
WILSON and JACQUELINE G. PARRETT signed this instrument, on oath
stated that they were authorized to execute the instrument and
acknowledged it as the MAYOR PRO TEM and CITY CLERK, respectively,
of the CITY OF EDMONDS, to be the free and voluntary act of such
corporation for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument.
DATED: ,3 , 1987.
Ndtary Public: in and for the State of
Washington, residing at e.-
My appointment expires: (4/Z G%Pr_
5468a 9
STATE OF NEW JERSEY )
ss.
COUNTY OF �Q )
I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that
Herbert Smilowitz signed this instrument, on oath stated
that he was authorized to execute the instrument and
acknowledged it as the General Partner of Edmonds Associates,
to be the free and voluntary act of such partnership for the
uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument.
DATED: ��� , 1987.
i
-Notary Public in And tor the
States off New Jersey, residing
at
My Commission Expires:
op/o�JldCp,'l
SARA L REGINA
NOTARY PUBLIC OF NEVI JERSEY
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES AUG. 23, 1989
EXHIBIT A
PROCESS AND
TIMETABLE FOR REVIEW OF CONCOMITANT ZONING
AND ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN ISSUES
February 24
Review by Community Services Committee
March 3
Council meets with petitioner, reviews and
approves Agreement To Extend Utility
Services and Establish Process for
Concomitant Zoning and Design Review,
approves timetable and sets hearing dates
March 4
Preliminary review of Facility design by ADB
March 17
Council holds first Public Hearing on the
proposed zoning regulation (RCW 35A.14.340)
March 25
Planning Board review of pre -annexation
Concomitant Zoning Agreement
April 1 Final ADB review and recommendation
April 20 Second Public Hearing on Pre -Annexation
Zoning
Council reviews and acts on:
(1) ADB recommendation
(2) Pre -Annexation Concomitant Zoning
Agreement and Ordinance
After April 20 City holds annexation hearing and considers
annexation ordinance
RIH/jb
3/2/87
5468a 11
EXHIBIT
to
AGREEMENT TO EXTEND UTILITY SERVICES
AND ESTABLISH PROCESS FOR CONCOMITANT ZONING
AND DESIGN REVIEW
Legal description:
Tract 5, Solner's Five Acre Tracts, according to the
plat hereof, recorded in Volume 7 of Plats, page
25, records of Snohomish County, Washington.
APPROVAL OF PURCHASE OF INSTALLATION/MODiFICATION OF RADAR UNIT FOR FIRE BOAT ($5,299.25
Councilmember Kasper noted that the funds for the radar unit for the fire boat were not in the
budget but it was explained to him that the funds had been included in the preliminary budget but
were cut from the final budget. Fire Chief Jack Weinz added that the request for the radar equip-
ment and installation was included in the preliminary budget. However, the fire/rescue boat was
eliminated from the budget but was later funded and he assumed that included radar equipment.
Councilmember Kasper inquired if the radar would be used in foggy weather or to detect and appre-
hend other boats. Chief Weinz said the radar will be used in limited visibility conditions and
emergency situations.
Councilmember Nordquist inquired about the scope of service of the fire boat. Chief Weinz said
the fire boat will respond to fires and life threatening situations within the jurisdiction of
the City of Edmonds, which is designated by the north and south boundaries out to mid channel.
Councilmember Nordquist said it was his understanding that the Coast Guard wishes to reduce their
services and consign a percentage to local jurisdictions. Chief Weinz affirmed his understand-
ing. Councilmember Nordquist suggested that the Coast Guard allocate funds to the local jurisdic-
tions for those services. Chief Weinz said a meeting is scheduled on May 12 to discuss those
issues. He noted that the Coast Guard wishes to reduce services because of a limited budget, and
it is not likely that they would be willing to help local jurisdictions with funding.
Councilmember Kasper stated his opposition to the fire/rescue boat. He said the boat should be
manned under the control of the Port of Edmonds and not the City.
COUNCILMEMBER DWYER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST, TO APPROVE ITEM (D). MOTION
CARRIED WITH COUNCILMEMBER KASPER OPPOSED.
Mayor Naughten noted that a Scout troop was in attendance at the meeting. The Scout leader iden-
tified the troop as Troop 265 of Edmonds.
Councilmember Hall raised a point of order. COUNCILMEMBER HALL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMB€R
WILSON, TO CONVENE AN EXECUTIVE SESSION FOLLOWING ITEM #8 ON THE AGENDA TO DISCUSS A POTENTIAL
LAND ACQUISITION. MOTION CARRIED WITH COUNCILMEMBER DWYER AND COUNCILMEMBER OSTROM OPPOSED.
AUDIENCE
Mayor Naughten opened the audience portion of the meeting.
Jeff Palmer, 17510 - 76th Ave. W., offered a recommendation for the Council's consideration. He
said several counties have used balloting by mail very successfully. He compared costs, using
1984 figures, as follows: primary or general election - $344 per vote cast; mail -in ballot -
$1.64 per vote cast. Mr. Palmer said the turnout for regular and special elections have been
approximately 25% whereas mail -in ballots average a 52% to 53% response.
Mayor Naughten closed the public portion of the hearing.
SECOND HEARING ON PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION REGARDING PROPOSED CONCOMITANT ZONING AGREEMENT
FOR PREANNEXATION ZONING OF UNDEVELOPED LAND ON SOUTHEAST CORNER OF 72ND AVE. W. AND 212TH
S7 S W
Staff distributed a packet of information to the Council (which was later described as a petition
from adjoining residents).
Planning Division Manager Mary Lou Block reported that on March 25, 1987, the Planning Board
reviewed and approved the enclosed concomitant zoning agreement proposed by Edmonds Associates
(also known as Allied Building Products, Inc.) in conjunction with the anticipated annexation of
their property located at 72nd Ave. W. and 212th St. S.W. to the City of Edmonds.
On March 31, 1987, the City Council held a first hearing on the matter. Since State law requires
two hearings on preannexation zoning, the item was scheduled before the Council for a second
hearing. In the interim, the project has been reviewed and approved by the Architectural Design
Board (ADB).
Ms. Block said Staff recommends that the Council accept the proposed project and ADB approved
site plan and instruct the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance which incorporates the concomi-
tant zoning agreement and establishes preannexation zoning for that area.
Councilmember Kasper raised a point of order. He said he objected to receiving the packet dis-
tributed to the Council during the meeting.
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 2 MAY 5, 1987
Mayor Naughten inquired about the packet contents. Ms. Block said it was the neighborhood ,peti-
tion.
Councilmember Ostrom observed that the petition was received by the City on April 8. He inquired
why it was not included as part of the Council packet. Ms. Block said the information was only a
petition and was not voluminous material. She said she intended to briefly address the petition
and circulated the petition for the Council's benefit. Ms. Block said the petition was not in-
cluded in the Council packet because she thought it might change the focus of the hearing:
Councilmember Hall suggested that the Council take a few moments to review the petition as a
courtesy to those people who signed it.
City Attorney Scott Snyder clarified that the proceeding before the Council was legislative and
not quasi-judicial.
Ms. Block referred to Exhibit A, Process and Timetable for Review of Concomitant Zoning and Archi-
tectural Design Issues. She said the proposed annexation and proposed building permit is being
processed by Snohomish County with input from the City. A meeting is scheduled on May 8, 1987
with both entities to review the SEPA determination.
Ms. Block referred to the petitions from Aldercrest Nursing Home and Madison House, which ad-
dressed concerns regarding traffic impacts. She said the Mayor and Staff members met with those
residents to discuss their concerns, as did the applicant on a separate occasion.
Councilmember Dwyer inquired about the result of those meetings. Mayor Naughten said the resi-
dents were assured at the conclusion of the meeting that the impact would not be as devastating
as they had believed it would be. They preferred that a warehouse be constructed on the property
rather than a retail use which would generate a high volume of traffic. He noted that Allied
Building Products demonstrated to the residents the truck volume and noise impacts.
Mr. Snyder said he would review normal regulator procedures regarding truck traffic at the close
of the hearing if the Council desired.
Edwin Reife, Allied Building Products, said John Olson, branch manager, and Robert Heller,
attorney, had accompanied him to the meeting.
Mr. Reife said the company was a community -conscious company. He said he believes that the
ADB requirements have been satisfied. Mr. Reife added that he met with Snohomish County repre-
sentatives, reviewed the project with them, and the requirements made by the County have been met.
Mr. Reife said he has not had an opportunity to review the petitions. Ms. Block provided Mr.
Reife with a copy of the petitions.
Mr. Reife said representatives of the company met with the residents of Aldercrest Nursing.
Home and Madison House to discuss their concerns and followed the meeting up with a letter con-
firming the issues discussed at that meeting. He said it was his understanding that the parties
were in agreement.
Mayor Naughten opened the public portion of the hearing.
Vince Responte, 840 - 171st Pl. N.E., Bellevue, owner of the 212th Medical Center, requested
that a rendering of the project be made available for his review. Mr. Reife reviewed a plot
plan with Mr. Responte. Mayor Naughten recommended that Mr. Responte contact the City Plan-
ning Department for further details. Councilmember Dwyer suggested that Mr. Reife and Mr.
Responte discuss the details amongst themselves at the close of the hearing.
Mr. Heller explained that the letter sent by Allied Building Products to the participants of the
meeting held at Madison House was included in the Council packet because of a request he had made
of the City Clerk. He said the issues of traffic impact were reviewed at that meeting and an
actual demonstration was made at that time. He said the consensus of the residents was that the
impact was minimal. Mr. Heller said a clockwise circulation pattern will be used which will
minimize traffic volumes. He noted that Allied Building Products has agreed to widen 72nd
Avenue.
Councilmember Kasper inquired about the status of the jog in the street. City Engineer Bob Al-
berts said the road, at the widest point, is 36 feet and will remain a two-lane road. The
applicants are requested to widen the road to a minimum of 30 feet, and at the time that the area
develops that it be further widened to 36 feet and that curbs, gutters, and a sidewalk be provid-
ed.
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 3 MAY 5, 1987
Councilmember Ostrom inquired if Aldercrest Nursing Home and Madison House were notified of the
hearing. Ms. Block replied affirmatively.
Councilmember Kasper inquired if the Park 212 Homeowners' Association has made any comments in
connection with the proposed project. Ms. Block said representatives of the association attended
the aforementioned meeting and signed the petition. She noted that the petition was received by
the City prior to that meeting.
Community Services Director Peter Hahn clarified, for the audience's benefit, that Snohomish
County is the lead agency with respect to the SEPA determination. He referred any inquiries in
that regard to the County Planning Department.
Councilmember Kasper noted that the proceeding before the Council was the final review. However,
the County would still have further input. Mr. Hahn concurred. Ms. Block noted that an ordi-
nance drafted by the City Attorney would be subject to Council review.
Mayor Naughten closed the public portion of the hearing.
COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON, TO INSTRUCT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO
PREPARE AN ORDINANCE WHICH INCORPORATES THE CONCOMITANT ZONING AGREEMENT AND ESTABLISHES
PREANNEXATION ZONING FOR THE AREA.
Councilmember Ostrom inquired about the regulatory procedures with respect to truck traffic. Mr.
Snyder said there are available a variety of tools to adjust the traffic pattern even after com-
pletion of the project.
Mr. Snyder noted that the proceeding before the Council at the present time was the final step
short of adopting the ordinance and annexing the property. He said under the agreement, Adminis-
tration will be authorized, after Council action and adoption, to issue a letter committing utili-
ty services to the project.
Councilmember Kasper said he understood that the Council may determine the annexation period at
their discretion. Mr. Snyder concurred. He said a memorandum of understanding has been drafted
and included in the agreement which states that if it is necessary to execute a new petition at
some later date in order to add property, delete property, or change boundaries, the applicant
will execute that agreement.
MOTION CARRIED. (The complete report of the Planning Board is available in the Planning Depart-
ment.)
HEARING ON HEARING EXAMINER RECOMMENDATION TO VACATE NORTHERLY 120 FEET OF UNDEVELOPED RIGHT-
OF-WAY OF 7TH AVE. S. SOUTH OF FIR ST. ST-4-86/SHIRLEY ABRAHAMSON
Planning Division Manager Mary Lou Block reported that in September of 1986, Shirley Abrahamson
applied to short subdivide ties- property at 640 Fir Street into two lots. Because 7th Ave. S. is
unopened immediately east of her property, she was faced with improving that right-of-way in
conjunction with the subdivision of her property. Rattier than developing the right-of-way, Ms.
Abrahamson and the property owner on the east side of 7th Ave. S. petitioned the City to vacate
the right-of-way.
On December 18, 1985, the Hearing Examiner held a public hearing on the petition of Shirley
Abrahamson and Dwight Jackson to vacate the northerly 120 feet of 7th Ave. S. south of Fir
Street. The Hearing Examiner, in his report dated January 5, 1987, recommended approval of the
requested street vacation subject to a number of conditions, including compensation to the City
for vacating the right-of-way.
Ms. Block said it is Staff's recommendation to adopt the Hearing Examiner's recommendation to
approve street vacation ST-4-86 subject to the conditions listed in the Hearing Examiner's
report. The conditions shall be set forth in a covenant to be recorded with the Snohomish county
Auditor. The City Attorney will prepare the necessary ordinance and covenant.
Mr. Block reviewed the Hearing Examiner's recommendation as follows: "Based on the preceding
Findings of Fact and Conclusions, the testimony and evidence submitted at the public hearing, and
upon the impressions of the Hearing Examiner at a site review, it is hereby recommended that the
City Council approve the vacation of the northern 120 feet of undeveloped right-of-way of 7th
Avenue South south of Fir Street in the City of Edmonds. This right-of-way should be vacated
subject to the following conditions: 1) the City shall be paid compensation for the vacated
right-of-way based upon the formula of 75% of the assessed value of the adjacent properties; 2)
the right-of-way shall be required to be maintained in its present natural state; 3) the
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
r- Page 4 MAY 5, 1987
.cSE MINUTES SUBJECT TO
'�N 19, 1987 APPROVAL
The regular
Naughten in
lute.
PPFCFNT
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
MAY 12, 1987
(WORK MEETING)
meeting of the Edmonds City Council was called to order at 7 p.m. by Mayor Larry
the Plaza Meeting Room of the Edmonds Library. All present joined in the flag sa-
ABSENT
CTOFF PPFCFNT
Larry
Naughten, Mayor Lloyd Ostrom
Mary Lou Block, Planning Div. Mgr.
Jack
Wilson, Council Pres. Tony Russell,
Jack Weinz, Fire Chief
Steve
Dwyer Student Rep.
Bob Alberts, City Engineer
Laura
Hall
Art Housler, Admin. Svc. Director
Jo -Anne
Jaech
Jim Barnes, Parks & Rec. Div. Mgr.
Bill
Kasper
Peter Hahn, Conun. Svc. Director
John
Nordquist
Bobby Mills, Public Works Supt.
Dan Prinz, Police Chief
Chris Beckman, Engineering Coord.
Scott Snyder, City Attorney
Jackie Parrett, City Clerk
Margaret Richards, Recorder
rnNCFNT arFNnh
Item (B) was removed from the Consent Agenda. COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEM-
BER KASPER, TO APPROVE THE BALANCE OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED. The approved items on
the Consent Agenda include the following:
(A) ROLL CALL
(C) ADOPTED ORDINANCE 2612 INCREASING PENALTY PROVISIONS FOR VIOLATION OF CITY CODE SECTION
ENTITLED "CONTEMPT"
(D) ADOPTED ORDINANCE 2613 REPEALING CHAPTER 4.38 OF EDMONDS CITY CODE RELATING TO RENTAL
OF HALLS
(E) ADOPTED ORDINANCE 2614 INCREASING MAYOR'S SALARY
(F) ADOPTED ORDINANCE 2615 AMENDING COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE TO ALLOW MOBILE HOME PARKS
IN PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS IN CG OR-CG2 ZONE DISTRICTS OF CITY
(G) ADOPTED ORDINANCE 2616 AMENDING COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE TO CLARIFY RECONSIDERATION
PROCEDURES FOR HEARING EXAMINER DECISIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
(H) SET JUNE 2, 1987 FOR HEARING ON APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER DECISION REGARDING VARIANCE
TO REDUCE SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 20828 - 80TH PL. W.
(AP-7-87/APPELLANT: PATRICK DUFFY)
(I) SET JUNE 30, 1987 FOR HEARING ON PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE
SECTION 18.80 REGARDING STREET STANDARDS (CITY OF EDMONDS)
(J) AUTHORIZATION TO ADVERTISE FOR BIDS ON ANDERSON CENTER GYMNASIUM FLOOR AND RELATED WORK
($30,000)
APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF MAY 5, 1987 [ITEM (B) ON THE CONSENT AGENDA
City Attorney referred to page 4, paragraph 8, and made the following correction with respect to
his statement: "He said under the agreement, Administration will be authorized, after Council's
action toni ht, to issue a letter committing utility services to the project". Mr. Snyder
said wit the actions last week and acceptance of the Architectural Design Board's and Planning
Board's recommendations, Edmonds Associates has completed their obligations under the utility
extension agreement.
Councilmember Hall referred to page 12, paragraph 16, and noted the following addition: "I want
reference to the $300 to $400 per month expenditures. And benefits are over and above that".
PORTLAND, OR
(503) 285.6611
ALLIED BUILDING PRODUCTS CORP. SALEM, OR
(503) 501.3932
3303 FREMONT AVENUE NORTH, SEATTLE, WA 98103 TACOMA, WA
(206) 633-4600 (206) 588-6604
ANCHORAGE, AK
C907) 274.6675
RECEIVED
APR
ENGINEERIfIG
April 16, 1987
Mr. Dwight Hall
Resident Manager
Madison House/Edmonds
21500 - 72nd Avenue West
Edmonds, Washington 98020
Re: Allied Building Products Corp.: Edmonds Facility
Dear Mr. Hall:
First, I want to thank you for providing a forum for me
and Robert Heller, our attorney, to meet with you, residents
of Madison House, and representatives of the Aldercrest
Convalescent Center, Park 212 Apartments, the 212th Medical
Center and Stevens Memorial Hospital. I am sending copies of
this letter to each of the persons who attended our meeting on
April 10, 1987, and also to City of Edmonds officials.
I thought the atmosphere of our meeting was cordial and
the outcome productive. I am glad you all had the opportunity
to observe and hear firsthand the largest of our diesel
delivery trucks while it circled the block. I hope the
meeting and truck demonstration went a long way toward
addressing your concerns about our project. All of us at
Allied are very proud of our first-class facilities and
equipment. Our customers expect it, and our 37-year
reputation for excellent service depends on it. As I stressed
at the meeting, Allied Building Products Corporation is
committed to being a good neighbor. Our Edmonds facility will
have negligible impacts on the surrounding uses and will
contribute positively to the location and the city.
Below, I will summarize our discussion at the meeting as
it addressed each of the issues you raised in your April 3,
1987 letter to the City of Edmonds.
Mr. Dwight Hall
April 16, 1987
Page 2
1. Traffic Impacts. The traffic study carried out for
our project and submitted to the Edmonds City Engineer shows
that our facility will generate a total of 216 vehicle trips.
As we said at the meeting, our plan is to use a clockwise
circulation pattern, with the larger trucks approaching our
site by proceeding northbound on 72nd, and leaving the site by
proceeding eastbound on 212th. With the cooperation of the
City, we will sign our site access points to establish this
pattern, and enforce it by binding orders issued to our own
drivers and the delivery firms which serve us. This clockwise
traffic pattern will reduce the number of truck trips in front
of your facilities, since the semis and larger flatbed trucks
will be leaving the site by proceeding east on 212th.
The City Engineering has requested us to fund improvement
of 72nd, to consist of widening the street to a uniform 30
feet between our site and 216th Street. We are willing to do
this. With the clockwise circulation patterns, and the
uniform street width, the larger trucks to our site will
always be in the far lane of 72nd across from your facilities,
not in the lane adjacent to your sidewalks. Also, our traffic
will never proceed west of 72nd on 216th, so there will be no
interference with persons crossing to the Kruger Clinic.
Even before we proposed this clockwise circulation pattern
to reduce trips on 72nd, the traffic consultant predicted that
our additional total trips on 72nd Avenue would add less than
4% to the existing traffic on that street. And, please
remember that only a small percentage of these are large
trucks. Our facility will receive a daily maximum of only 4
deliveries from our suppliers via semitruck, and will generate
only 12 delivery trips to our customers by large flatbed
truck. Since Allied emphasizes its delivery capability to
serve contractors in the field, and aggregates deliveries on
our own vehicles, we reduce the number of larger trucks from
our customers entering our site. For those of our customers
who do pickup for us directly, the majority use pickup trucks,
automobiles, or E1 Camino -type vehicles.
2. Existing Traffic Problems. As you point out in your
letter, there is currently rush hour congestion in the area.
Although this situation exists, it must be recognized that our
new facility will be adding much less traffic to the local
streets than almost any other use that would go in at that
five -acre site.
In your letter, you say that an office building or
apartment might be preferrable. However, you should be aware
that these uses would generate much more traffic than our
Mr. Dwight Hall
April 16, 1987
Page 3
facility. Our 60,000 square foot warehouse results in 216
average daily trips. We asked our traffic consultant to
calculate the traffic impacts of development of commercial
office space or apartments on that site. Based on the
International Traffic Engineers (ITE) trip generation
methodology, our consultant advised us that 60,000 square feet
of office space would result in 740 vehicle trips per day,
while 60,000 square feet of apartments would result in 460
average trips per day. Even these figures represent doubling
or tripling of our projected traffic loads. Furthermore, the
office or residential use have much more impact on rush hour
congestion, due to commuting patterns. Our warehouse use, on
the other hand, has few employees and spreads out its
warehouse trips over the midday period, when traffic in the
area is free flowing.
Also, as our traffic consultant informed us, and I am sure
the City Engineer will agree, a warehouse/distribution use is
one of the lowest trip generators of all land uses. This is
because warehousing/distribution is not land -intensive. It
needs a lot of space, but has few employees and few vehicle
trips. Our 60,000 square foot facility covers only a small
fraction of the site. It is almost entirely a one-story
warehouse, with only a small two-story office component in one
corner. Remember that a five -acre tract is very large. On
this site, a commercial office development or an apartment
complex would certainly have much more than 60,000 square feet
of development. Three-story or even two-story apartment or
office development on this site would result in thousands of
vehicle trips, a great multiple of the 216 maximum trips our
warehouse facility will generate. Furthermore, our vehicle
trips are not all large trucks by any means. The large semi
and flatbed truck trips are definitely limited in number. The
majority of trips consists of pickup trucks, individual
automobiles and vehicles such as E1 Caminos, etc.
3. Air Quality. Your letter raised a concern that
additional truck traffic might result in clouds of black,
sooty smoke. This will certainly not occur. As I told you at
the meeting, and as our truck demonstration graphically
showed, Allied's diesels are new equipment and run very
clean. Allied strictly adheres to its policy of buying new
equipment and maintaining it rigorously. Also, as I assured
you at the meeting, we do not keep our vehicles idling. The
only diesels are our own or our suppliers; and we do not allow
their engines to run during load, unload, or waiting time.
Mr. Dwight Hall
April 16, 1987
Page 4
4. Noise Impacts. I believe our physical demonstration
of truck noise was the most realistic way to demonstrate that
there is no real problem here. After the meeting, we all went
outside the Madison House to listen to the noise produced by
our largest diesel delivery truck as it circled the block.
The consensus of everyone there was that the truck was very
quiet. Even when passing in front of the Standard Brands
store, the truck noise was not loud or objectionable in any
way. In fact, when a loud noise was heard and everyone looked
up expecting to see our truck, it was instead a teenager in a
Mustang. In short, our trucks are not going to create a noise
problem on 72nd.
5. Alternative Uses for the Site. As our attorney
pointed out, this site is in unincorporated Snohomish County,
outside the Edmonds city limits. It is zoned by the County as
General Commercial, which is the county's most wide-open
commercial classification. However, since our project would
use City sewer and water, we have agreed to bring our project
before the City in an extensive hearing schedule involving the
Edmonds City Council, the Edmonds Planning Board and the
Edmonds Architectural Design Board. Our project has been
reviewed by the Edmonds Architectural Design Board, the
Edmonds Planning Board and is subject to two public hearings
before the Edmonds City Council. Public notice has been and
will be provided for the various hearings, and in addition,
some of your organizations were contacted directly by City
staff at the request of the Edmonds City Council.
But, if a use is proposed for the site which does not
require water or sewer, all permitting would take place within
Snohomish County, and the City of Edmonds would have little
input to --and no control over --the land use decision. A use
proposed under County zoning would be subject to none of
Edmonds review process or stricter zoning controls. For
example, the County would allow outdoor storage on the entire
site, with no screening or landscaping requirements along
street frontage and no design review. Many high -impact
general commercial uses that do not require sewer or water
could go in under County zoning. For instance, outdoor sales
of auto, boats and mobile homes would be allowed outright.
Such uses would likely operate weekends and evenings, unlike
our facility which is a weekday only operation, closing at 5
p.m. in the winter and 6 p.m. in the summer. I know your
desire would be to have the site remain a wooded five acres in
perpetuity, but you must recognize that this is just not going
to happen. If the Allied facility is not built, the next use
proposed for the site could be one which truly would have
negative impacts on your adjoining uses.
Mr. Dwight Hall
April 16, 1987
Page 5
In conclusion, I want to thank you again for providing the
opportunity to meet with all of you. We are, as I stated
earlier, very committed to being good neighbors and want to do
all we can to answer your questions and respond to your
concerns. I would be happy to return to meet with any or all
of you, in a group or individually, if you wish to discuss
these issues further. Also, do not hesitate to call me at my
office at any time, 633-4600.
Sincerely yours,
,5n Olson, Manager
Allied Building Products Corporation
2744L
4/15/87
cc: Julie Kester, Park 212
Don Thompson, Park 212
Sandi Lowder, Madison House
Henry Hanson, Madison House
Harvey Hill, Madison House
Mr. and Mrs. Pepin, Madison House
Bud Ritter, Aldercrest Convalescent Center
Joanne Wheaton, Aldercrest Convalescent Center
Carol Johnson, Stevens Memorial Hospital
Vince Responte, 212th Medical Center
Larry S. Naughton, Mayor
v/Bob Alberts, City Engineer
Peter Hahn, Community Services Director
Edmonds City Council, c/o City Clerk
Scott Snyder, City Attorney
Ed Rieff, Corporate Construction Manager, Allied
LAW OFFICES
Riddell, Williams, Bullitt &Walkinshaw
Suite 4400 - iooi Fourth Avenue Plaza
Seattle,Washington 98154
(2o6) 624-3600
Bob Alberts
City Engineer
City of Edmonds
250 5th Avenue N.
Edmonds, WA 98020
RICHARD H. RIDDELL
AEDERICK T. RASMUSSEN
MAUDE ANDERSON
J. VERNON WILLIAMS
JOSEPH E. SHICKICH, JR.
KAREN F. JONES
STIMSON BULLITT
PATRICK D. MCVEY
IRENE M. BRONSTEIN
WALTER WALKINSHAW
THOMAS W. BURT
HARRY E. GRANT, JR.
STEPHEN E. DEFOREST
DANIEL S. GOTTLIEB
MORRIS G. KREMEN
DOUGLASS A. RAFF
MICHAEL D, CARRICO
PAUL 1. KUNDTZ
VIN CENT R. LARSON
G. MICHAEL ZENO, JR.
DAVID D- HOFF
OF COUNSEL
ROBERT I. HELLER
GEORGE E. FRASIER
SNYDER 1. KING
KRISTI M- WALLIS
NYLE G. BARNES
PATRICK W. DUNN
HOWARD A. COLEMAN
LYN TANGEN
MICHAEL D. PIERSON
W. MICHAEL HAFFERTY
HUGH R. TOBIN
IRA S. RUBINSTEIN
JOHN D. LOWERY
THOMAS G. HAMERLINCK
STEPHAN M, SALZBERG
GORDON W. WILCOX
SUSAN G. LOITZ
EDUARDO MUNOZ
BRUCE T. BIERKE
DAVID M. BRENNER
GARY L. BAKER
DAVID D. BUCK
KYLE R. SAMUELS
MICHAEL NAVE
DONALD M. CURRIE
RODNEY L. BROWN, JR,
PAUL MUTTY
April 23, 1987 RWEIVED
APR 2 7 387
Re: Acceptance of Offer for Road Improvement
Contribution; Allied Facility at 212th and
72nd S.W.
Dear Mr. Alberts:
Edmorrls City Clam
This letter is to confirm our conversation of April 22,
1987. You have agreed to the offer of Allied Building
Products Corp/Edmonds Associates to contribute $8,000 for
road and traffic improvements related to the proposed
facility. Your acceptance of the $8,000 amount is pursuant
to the terms set forth in my April 2, 1987 letter to you
(attached) and in full satisfaction of road improvement or
traffic -related expenditure requirements for this project.
Also, Allied does not object to future dedication of property
to the City as required for widening of 212th, provided that
such dedication is consistent with setback and parking
requirements for the facility.
This payment is made as a voluntary agreement within
the terms of RCW 82.02.020, and such payment will be for-
warded to the city upon permit approval.
Please call me if I have misstated our understanding in
any way.
Sincerely,
RIH/sh Robert I. Heller
Enclosure
cc: Edward Rieff/with enclosure
John Olson/with enclosure
Bill Maibusch/with enclosure
Tom Sconzo/with enclosure
Scott Snyder/with enclosure
✓Edmonds City Council, c/o Jacqueline Parratt,
City Clerk/with enclosure
Mayor Larry S. Naughten/with enclosure
TELEX RCA 296338 RWBW UR • TELECOPIER (2o6) 467-1914
LAW OFFICES
Riddell, Williams, Bullitt & Walkinshaw
Suite 4400.1oo1 Fourth Ax,enue Plaza
Seattle,Washington 98154
(2o6) 6z4-3600
Bob Alberts
City Engineer
City of Edmonds
250 5th Avenue N.
Edmonds, WA 98020
RICHARD H RIDDEI I
VERNON WILLIAMS
STIMSIFN BULLITT
WALTER WAI KINSHAW
STEPHEN E DEFOREST
DOUGLASS A RAZE
VINC.ENT R LARSON
DAVID D HOFF
GEORGE E FRASIER
NY'LE G BARNES
LYN TANGEN
W MICHAEL HAFFERTY
)OHN D LOWER Y
GORDON MWILCOX
BRUCET B)ERKF.
DAVID D. BUCK
DONALD M CURRIE
April 2, 1987
Re: Road Improvements; Allied Facility
Dear Bob:
FREDERICK T RASMUSSEN
IOSEPH E SHICKICH, JR
PATRICK D MCVEY
THOMASW BURT
DANIEL S GOTTLIEB
MICHAEL D CARRICO
OF COUNSEL
SNYDERI KING
PATRICK W DUNN
HUGH R TOBIN
THOMAS G HAMERLINCK
SUSAN G. LOITZ
DAVID M BRENNER
KYLE R SAMUELS
RODNEY L BROWN, IR
As we agreed in our meeting yesterday, I am now writing
you to present the position of Allied Building Products
Corp./Edmonds Associates ("the Applicant") regarding road
improvements in connection with the proposed facility at
212th Street S.E. and 72nd Avenue.
MAUDE ANDERSON
KAREN F. )ONES
IRENE M BRONSTEIN
HARRY E GRANT, )R
MORRIS G KREMEN
PAUL ) KUNDTZ
G MICHAEL ZENO, IR
ROBERT I HELLER
KRISTI M WALLIS
HOWARD A COLEMAN
MICHAEL D PIERSON
IRA S RUBINSTEIN
STEPHAN M. SALZBERG
EDUARDO MU&OZ
GARY L. BAKER
MICHAEL NAVE
PAUL M UTTY
The Applicant offers to pay to the City of Edmonds, in
full upon final building permit approval, a total lump sum
amount of $8,000 for road and traffic improvements related
to the proposed facility. It is our understanding, based on
our meeting with you yesterday, that the City would use
these funds to carry out off -site improvements consisting of
widening 72nd Avenue south of the Applicant's property, and
for surface improvements to 72nd Avenue and/or 216th Street
along the route between the proposed facility and highway
99. However, this money payment could be used for any road
or traffic -related purpose desired by the City. It is
further understood that no additional road improvement or
traffic -related expenditures will be required of the Applicant
as a condition of project approval.
TELEX RCA z96338 AWBW UR • TELECOPIER (2o6) 467-19�4
Bob Alberts
April 2, 1987
Page Two
The Applicant expressly represents that it will consider
this payment, if accepted by the City, to be part of a
voluntary agreement within the terms of RCW 82.02.020.
Please call me if you have questions or require additional
information.
Sincerely,
Robert I. Heller
RIH/sh
cc: Edward Rieff
Bill Maibusch
Tom Sconzo
Scott Snyder
Chris Beckman
RICHARD H. RIDDELL
.kEDERJCK T. RASMUSSEN
MAUDE ANDERSON
I. VERNON WILLIAMS
JOSEPH E. SHICKICH, JR.
KAREN F. JONES
LAW OFFICES
STIMSON BULLITT
PATRICK D. McVEY
IRENE M. BRONSTEIN
WALTER WALKINSHAW
THOMAS W. BURT
HARRY E. GRANT, IR,
STEPHAN E. DEFOREST
DANIEL S. GOTTLIEB
MORRIS G. KREMEN
DOUGLASS A. RAFF
MICHAEL D, CARRICO
PAUL J. KUNDTZ
Riddell,
JR
Williams, Bullitt &Walkinshaw
DAVIDND. HOFFRSON
OFCOUA`SEL
RO EG.IRT{1.EHELLER
GEORGE E, FRASIER
SNYDER J. KING
KRI5TI M W'AI.IIS
NYLE G. BARNES
PATRICK W. DUNN
HOWARD A. COLEMAN
Suite 4400 10OI Fourth Avenue Plaza
LYN TANGEN
%V. MICHAEL HAFFERTY
HUGH R. TOBIN
MICHAEL D, PJERSON
IRA S. RUBINSTEIN
Seattle,Washington 98T54
JOHN D. LOWERY
GORDON W. WILCOX
THOMAS G. HAMERLINCK
SUSAN G. LOITZ
STEPHAN M. SALZBERG
EDUARDO MUNOZ
(2o6) 624-3600
BRUCE T. BIERKE
DAVID D. BUCK
DAVID M. BRENNER
KYLE R. SAMUELS
GARY L. BAKER
MICHAEL NAVE
DONALD M. CURRIE
RODNEY L. BROWN, JR,
PAUL MUTTY
RECEIVER
April 23,
1987
APR 2 71987
Peter Hahn
Community Services Director
City of Edmonds
250 5th Avenue North
Edmonds, WA 98020
Re: Tax Revenue; Allied Building Products Corp.
Facility
Dear Mr. Hahn:
Edmorws city cjajh
As you have requested, I have obtained sales tax
information useful for projecting tax revenue for the Allied
Edmonds facility. In 1986, the Allied Seattle facility paid
$67,964.08 to the State of Washington for sales tax. As I
explained to the City Council at the public hearing on March
31, 1987, the majority of Allied sales are wholesale trans-
actions, and sales tax revenue for these sales is generated
at the point of use, rather than the point of sale. However,
as indicated above, the Allied Seattle facility did generate
sufficient retail sales in 1986 to result in payment of
almost $68,000 to the State of Washington, and increased
retail sales for future use at the Edmonds location are
anticipated.
Also, the City of Edmonds should recognize that in-
creased real estate tax revenue to the City will result from
Allied's purchase of this site and construction of the
facility. According to the Snohomish County Assessor,
Edmonds receives $2.296 per $1,000 of assessed valuation for
properties within the city limits. Subsequent to annexation,
Edmonds will be receiving an inflow of new real estate tax
revenue from the Allied parcel and improvements constructed
thereon.
TELEX RCA 296338 RWBW UR • TELECOPIER (2o6) 467-1914
Peter Hahn
April 23, 1987
Page 2
I hope this information will be useful to you and the
City Council. Please let me know if more information is
needed.
Sincerely,
Robert I. Heller
RIH/sh
cc: City Council, c/o Jacqueline Parrett, City Clerk
Mayor Larry S. Naughten
Edward Rieff
John Olson
Bill Maibusch
CITY OF EDMONDS
CIVIC CENTER • EDMONDS, WASHINGTON 98020 • (206) 775-2525
April 3, 1987
Mr. Robert I. Heller
Riddell, Williams, Bullitt & Walkinshaw
Suite 4400 - 1001 Fourth Avenue Plaza
Seattle, WA 98154
Dear Mr. Heller:
LARRY S. NAUGHTEN
MAYOR
As you requested, enclosed is a copy of the executed Memorandum of Under-
standing between the City of Edmonds and Edmonds Associates related to the
presentation of an annexation petition.
Very truly yours,
A:
JACQUELINE G. PARRETT
Edmonds City Clerk
Encl.
INCORPORATED AUGUST 11. 1 890
LAW OFFICES
Riddell, Williams, Bullitt &Walkinshaw
Suite 4400 • iooi Fourth Avenue Plaza
Seattle,Washington 9$154
(2o6) 624-3600
HAND DELIVERED
W. Scott Snyder
Edmonds City Attorney
2300 Westin Building
2001 6th Avenue
Seattle, WA 98121
RICHARD H. RIDDELL
:RICK T. RASMUSSEN
MAUDE ANDERSON
J. VERNON WILLIAMS
I :H E. SHICKICH, JR.
KAREN F. JONES
STIMSON BULLITT
PATRICK D. MCVEY
IRENE M. BRONSTEIN
WALTER WALKINSHAW
THOMAS W. BURT
HARRY E. GRANT, )R.
STEPHEN E. DEFOREST
DANIEL S. GOTTLIEB
MORRIS G. KREMEN
DOUGLASS A. RAFF
MICHAEL D. CARRICO
PAUL J. KUNDTZ
VINCENT R. LARSON
G. MICHAEL ZENO, JR.
DAVID D. HOFF
OF COUNSEL
ROBERT 1. HELLER
GEORGE E. FRASIER
SNYDER 1, KING
KRISTI M. WALLIS
NYLE G. BARNES
PATRICK W. DUNN
HOWARD A. COLEMAN
LYN TANGEN
MICHAEL D. PIERSON
W. MICHAEL HAFFERTY
HUGH R. TOBIN
IRA S. RUBINSTEIN
JOHN D. LOWERY
THOMAS G. HAMERLINCK
STEPHAN M. SALZBERG
GORDON W. WILCOX
SUSAN G. LOITZ
EDUARDO MUNOZ
BRUCE T. BJERKE
DAVID M. BRENNER
GARY L. BAKER
DAVID D. BUCK
KYLE R. SAMUELS
MICHAEL NAVE
DONALD M. CURRIE
RODNEY L. BROWN, JR.
PAUL MUTTY
March 16, 1987
Re: Edmonds Associates Annexation
Dear Scott:
Enclosed for the City files are the following documents
which have been signed and notarized by Edmonds Associates:
1. Agreement to Extend Utility Services and Establish
Process for Concomitant Zoning and Design Review
2. Memorandum of Understanding
Please return to me a copy of the Memorandum of Understanding
after it has been signed by the Mayor.
As you know, I was distressed to learn last week that
the City has not placed the proposed zoning regulation on
the public hearing agenda for the City Council meeting on
March 17, as required by Section 3.7 of the Agreement to
Extend Utility Services and Establish Process for Concomitant
Zoning, and the timetable (Exhibit A) to that agreement.
I understand that the City, to remedy this problem, is
proposing that the Council schedule a public hearing on the
proposed zoning regulation for its March 31, 1987 session.
On behalf of Edmonds Associates, I strongly urge that this
be done. A first public hearing on March 31, coupled with a
second public hearing on May 5, would satisfy the 30 day
requirement of RCW 35A.14.340. Edmonds Associates has
planned its acquisition of the property in reliance on the
Exhibit A timetable, and, at this point, additional delay
would be costly.
TELEX RCA 296338 RWBW UR • TELECOPIER (2o6) 467-1914
W. Scott Snyder
March 16, 1987
Page 2
Please inform me of the City's proposal for revision of
the Exhibit A timetable as soon as possible.
Sincerely,
Robert I. Heller
RIH/sh
cc: Ed Rieff
Bill Maibusch
Peter Hahn
Enclosures
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA MEMO
Item number:
Originator: Planning Division For Action: X For Information:
SUBJECT: HEARING ON PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION REGARDING
PROPOSED CONCOMITANT ZONING AGREEMENT FOR PREANNEXATION
ZONING OF THE UNDEVELOPED LAND ON SOUTHEAST CORNER OF
72ND AVE. W. AND 212TH ST. S.W.
AGENDA TIME: 60 Minutes
AGENDA DATE: March 31, 1987
EXHIBITS ATTACHED:
1. Planning Board Findings
2. Concomitant Agreement
3. Vicinity Map
4. Site Plan
5. Building Elevations
EXPENDITURE
REQUIRED: $ 0
Clearances: Dept./Indiv./Initials
ADMIN SVCS/FINANCE
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY CLERK
COMMUNITY SERVICES
ENGINEERING
PARKS & PARS
TION
PLANNIN
PUBLIC W
FIRE
PERSONNEL
POLICE
COMMITTEE
MAYOR
COMMENTS:
AMOUNT
BUDGETED:
HISTORY AND SUMMARY STATEMENT:
APPROPRIATION
$ 0 REQUIRED: $ 0
On March 25, 1987, the Planning Board reviewed the enclosed
concomitant zoning agreement. This agreement was proposed by
Edmonds Associates in conjunction with their anticipated annexation
to the City of Edmonds of the large undeveloped parcel of land
located on the southeast corner of 72nd Ave. W. and 212th St. S.W.
The Planning Board unanimously approved the proposed concomitant
agreement, subject to the conditions listed in the attached copy of
their findings of fact.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Accept the Planning Board recommendation regarding the concomitant
zoning agreement, in anticipation of officially zoning the subject
property upon annexation.
EXHIBIT 1
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
EDMONDS ASSOCIATES PREANNEXATION ZONING
CITY OF EDMONDS FILE: #R-3-87
After notification in conformance with law, the Planning Board of the
City of Edmonds conducted a public hearing on March 25, 1987 on the
application of Edmonds Associates and the City of Edmonds. Edmonds
Associates has requested approval of a preannexation zoning agreement
for the property located on the southeast corner of 212th St. S.W and
72 Ave. W., in unincorporated Snohomish County. Based upon the
evidence presented thereat, the Planning Board makes the following
findings of fact:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The subject property contains 198,303 square feet of area. It is
legally described as Tract 5 of Solner's Five Acre Tracts.
The lot is presently undeveloped. The site is covered with a
mixture of deciduous and evergreen trees and associated ground
cover. Presently, the subject property is zoned GC (General
Commercial) in Snohomish County.
2. The lot is bordered by commercial development to the south and
east. To the north is a mixture of commercial and residential
uses. The adjacent property to the west is developed as high
density multi -family residential, a park and ride lot, and office
use.
3. The Applicant intends to build a large building supply
office/warehouse facility on the subject property. Building
permits will be obtained from Snohomish County, after review of
the development plans by both the County and the City of Edmonds.
The proposed preannexation zoning agreement will zone the property
CG2 (General Commercial) upon annexation to the City of Edmonds,
allowing outdoor storage as a permitted use; a nine foot high
fence as a permitted use; and grading work to be allowed under the
standards of Snohomish County.
4. A determination of nonsignificance has been issued by the City on
the preannexation zoning request.
5. The subject property is designated by the Comprehensive Plan Map
as Highway 99 Commercial Area/High Rise Node. The proposed zoning
would not conflict with the Comprehensive Plan.
6. The proposed zoning agreement would allow a use that is permitted
in the CG2 zone district.
Plannina Board Rec, jendation P, _ 2
#R-3-87
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The proposed zoning agreement conforms to the Comprehensive Plan
for the Highway 99 Commercial Area of the City of Edmonds.
2. The proposed zoning agreement will allow the City of Edmonds to
review and approve the design of the proposal in conjunction with
annexation of the property in the city.
3. The proposed zoning agreement will allow a use consistent with the
CG2 zone district.
4. The public health, safety, and welfare should be served by
providing proper zoning and development review for the subject
property prior to annexation of the property into the City of
Edmonds.
5. The proposed agreement, as conditioned, will provide the City of
Edmonds with a method to control the development of the site,
prior to annexation into the city.
RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL
The Planning Board of the City of Edmonds recommends to the City
Council that Application R-3-87 be approved subject to the following
conditions:
1. The proposed zoning agreement provide for a binding site plan,
approved by the Architectural Design Board (ADB).
2. The ADB should specifically look into the amount of parking that
is proposed to insure that it is adequate.
3. The proposed zoning agreement include provisions for posting
adequate maintenance bonds, and compliance with all land use
standards of the City of Edmonds.
This recommendation was approved unanimously by the Planning Board.
rnMMFNTC
While the proposed project is well designed and will provide increased
tax revenues to the City, the Planning Board does not recommend that
the City encourage this type of annexation process. The Board views
the fast tracking of this process as a special favor to the applicant.
DONE this 26th day of March, 1987.
Planning Board Rec iendation P 3
#R-3-87
SHARON CLAUSSEN, CHAIR
EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD
EXP'gIT 2 DRA_ T_FC)R DISCUSSION
AGREEMENT TO EXTEND UTILITY SERVICES
AND ESTABLISH PROCESS FOR CONCOMITANT ZONING
AND DESIGN REVIEW
WHEREAS, Edmonds Associates ("Associates") desires to
construct a building supply distribution facility ("Facility")
on a parcel of property located in Snohomish County and
adjacent to the City of Edmonds ("City") on three sides; and
WHEREAS, development of this property requires extension
of utility services by the City; and
WHEREAS, in partial consideration for such utility
service, the City desires to consider annexing this property;
and
W_^_EREAS, the Citv desires to provide water and sewer
service ('futility services") to Associates on and subject to
the terms and conditions herein contained; and
WHEREAS, Associates and the City have agreed that
Associates will 'apply to Snohomish County for a building
permit; and
WEREA.S, prior to processing a building permit =or this
property, Snohomish County requires a letter from the City
stating that the City intends to provide utility service to
the ProDerty (the "Letter of Intent"); and
WHEREAS, Associates and the City have agreed that
Snohomish County will be the SE ---PA lead agency on this project,
5468a 1
with input from the City as to whether the project is
consistent with the City's land use policies and development
standards and whether identified impacts of the development to
the City are adequately mitigated, with particular re,-iew and
emphasis on the mitigation of site -generated traf-fic impacts;
and
WHEREAS, Associates desires that on annexation, the
Property be zoned to allow outright the development and use
contemplated by Associates; and
WHEREAS, Associates has the right to purchase said
property under a real estate purchase and sale agreement, but
is not presently the record owner thereof;
NOW, THEREFORE, the City, a municipal corr)oration and
Associates, a New Jersey partnership, in cons ideratlon of the
mutual benefits to be derived and described herein, enter into
this Agreement this 3rd day of March, 1967, subject to the
terms and conditions hereinafter set forth:
1. SUBJECT TRACT.
This Agreement concerns a tract of land (the "Property")
located at the southeast corner of the intersection of 212th
S.W. and 72nd Avenue W. in unincorporated Snohomish County and
as legally described and shown in attached Exhibit A to this
Agreement.
5468a 2
2. CONDITIONS.
2.1 Associates hereby provides notice of intent to
commence annexation proceedings. However, Associates shall
have no obligation to petition for annexation of the Property,
and the City shall have no obligation to provide utility
services to the Property, until and unless the City
establishes pre -annexation zoning under the PrO-Visions of RCW
35A.14.330, thereby authorizing execution of a Concomitant
Zoning Agreement, as set forth in 3.7 hereo-f', v;nich sh=_11
allow the Facility to be annexed into the City as a =ul'v
conforming use.
2.2 Associates shall have no opliC_tior, to petition.
the City for annexation of the Property, and the City s_,all
have no obligation to provide utility ser%'ic=s to the
Property, unti 1 =.ssoci aces has acquired tl= to �h=
Property. If this condition does '10-�- oc0:,- on or b=-G_c
December 31,' 1587, the agreement s_.a _1 b=: omme t0tall'v 'lu a-;d
void as of that date.
2.3 If after Associates has Performed its
obligations under Section 3.1 hereof , the City Council of the
City shall, in its sole discretion, exercise its prerogative
not to annex the Property in acco=daMce wi-__ AssOciateSf
petition under the conditions, if any, sep forth therein, the
parties are released fro« their obligations under this
5466a 3
Agreement, except that the City shall provide water and sewer
service to the Property as provided in Section 3.3 hereof.
3. COVENANTS.
In consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein,
and other good and valuable consideration_, Associates and the
City hereby agree to carry out the covenants set forth below.
However, until the condition set forth in Paragraph 2.1 above
has been satified, and Associates has submitted annexation
petition to the City, no connection shall be permitted to the
sewer and/or water system of the City, nor shall any right to
service accrue to the bene=it of Associates.
3.1 Agreement to Petition for Annexation..
immediately upon satisfaction of the conditions set forth in
Sections 2.1 and 2.2 above, Associates shall submit to the
City a written application and petition for annexation duiv
executed by its properly au thori.' ed o"icers and conforrr:ing in
all res?efts to the re _lirements of RCW Chapter 35A.1^_.
3.2 Application for Development. Associates agrees
to apply to Snohomish County for the appropriate land use and
building permits for construction on. the Property, including
SEPA review. Associates further agrees to provide agencies
and officials of the City with information which they require
in order to provide input to the SEPA review process,
including a traffic study requested by the City Engineer.
5-58a 4
3.3 Architectural Design Board Review. The
Architectural Design Board ("ADB") shall review the proposed
Facility as to compliance with the ADB's criteria as set forth
in Edmonds Community Development Code Chapter 20.10.070. The
ADB's review procedure shall consist of the actions set forth
in Exhibit A to this Agreement, and shall comply with the
timetable therein. The City Council action on the F.DB
recommendation shall be a =final legislative determination, but
approval shall not be unreasonably withheld.
3. r 7_xtension_ of Water and Sewer. Ozility Services.
Following Associates' subm.-ittal of a petition =or annexation
of the Frooerty, as provided in Section 3.1 above, the City
agrees to extend water and sewage services to the Property on
the same terms and conditions as such services are offered to
other consumers of utili ties services H*i t_-i_^_ :"?? (-i ty and
within. t^e same classification of consumption. _"-_sSociate s
agrees to pay for such services, to may all costs, co__^_nect:on
fees and Utility charges and to otherwise abide by all the
terms and conditions established by the Citv by rule or
ordinance for consumers of utility services, including, but
not limited to, provisions regarding payment and deposit for
services. Nothing herein shall be interpreted to prevent and
Prohibit the City from amending such provisions, including,
but not limited to, the rates for such services or the
5468a 5
connection charges to be incurred, provided, however, that no
such changes shall apply solely to Associates, but rather
shall be generally applicable to the class of consumers of
which Associates is a member.
3.5 Letter of intent re Provision of Utilities
Services. The City agrees to provide to Associates and to
the Snohomish Health District, with a copy to the Snohomish
County Building Department, immediately upon execution Of this
Agreement, a Letter of 7:tent to provide water and sewer
utility services to the _roperty as necessary to support
Snohomish County land use and
FSSOC1ates appllCatlOn . Or a
building permit. Nothing herein shall be interpreted to
create a right to connection or service until such time as the
conditions set forth in this Agreement have been met. All
risks a5sociazed w1i1? u'non such Letter o_ Intent
and prior to ___al satin -action of the conditions Set forth
herein are Eti:preSSlV bV =.ssoc'_ates, who shall hold
harmless and indemnify the Cizy from any cost, claim or loss
a ttributable thereto.
3.6 SPA Review. The City agrees to carry out
timely review of Associates' application to Snohomish County
for S--:*?A purposes, and to complete its review of the proposed
development as to all Ste?=. impacts no later than 15 working
days following submittal to the City of a traffic study and a
drainage plan conforming with City requirements.
5456a 6
3.7 Concomitant Zonina Agreement and Timetable.
The City agrees to consider, according to the process and
timetable set forth in Exhibit A attached, a Concomitant
Zoning Agreement to establish pre -annexation contract zoning
for the property, consisting of the following provisions:
General Commercial zoning (Chapter 16.60 of
the Edmonds Community Development Code)
("ECDC") modified to allow (1) outdoor
storage permitted outright and not as a
conditional use, but subject to the
performance standards of ECDC Ch. 17.60.010.H;
(2) fence height of nine feet permitted
outright and not as a conditional use, but
subject to the ECDC design criteria; (3)
grading permitted in accordance with the
requirements established by Snohomish County
in the SEPA review process.
City action on the Concomitant Zoning Agreement is subject to
determination that the Agreement is consistent with the public
health, safety and welfare.
4. ASSIGNABILITY.
4.1 Upon completion of conditions precedent 2.1 and
2.2 herein, the right to connect to and receive the utility
service shall touch and concern the land and shall run with
the land upon its sale, lease or devise to all successors and
assigns of Associates.
4.2 All other rights and privileges of this
Agreement are personal to Associates and shall not be assigned
without the express written consent of the City.
5468a 7
a
5. NONSEVERA.BILITY.
The provisions of this Agreement are intended as mutual
consideration and shall not be severable. In the event that
any provision hereof shall be struck down by a court of
competent jurisdiction, this Agreement shall be null and void;
provided, however, that should this Agreement be declared null
and void subsequent to issuance of a building permit for the
Property by Snohomish County, the City shall continue to be
obligated to provide water and sewer service to the Property
in accordance with the provisions of Section 3.3 hereof.
7 . ACKNOWLEDGMENT Or RISKS.
Associates acknowledges that the SEPA review process is a
discretlonary governmental function and the City does not
guarantee that Snohomish County will issue a building permit
for this ^rOject, or th-at additional develoDmen_t conditions
over and above those recuired herein will not be 1mDosed to
mitigate adverse enviro=.ental impacts identified in the
environmental documents =or t_.is project as Dart of the SEPA
review process.
EXECUTED this 3rd day of March, 1987.
ATTEST:
City Clerk, Jacqueline Parrett
5468a
8
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Office of the City Attorney
CITY OF EDMONDS
LARRY S. NAUGHTEN, MAYOR
EDMONDS ASSOCIATES
By
General Partner
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Attorney for Edmonds Associates
ST_-_TE 07 W S; INGTON )
) ss.
COu-NTTY 0: KING )
I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence
that signed this instrument, on oath stated
that he was authorized to execute the instrument and
acknowledged i t as the of to be
the free and voluntary act of such corporation for the uses
and -ourooses mentioned in the instrument.
DATED: . 1987.
(Seal or stamp)
Notary Public in and for the State of
Washington, residing at
My appointment expires
5468a 9
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
) ss.
COUNTY OF KING )
I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence
that signed this instrument, on oath stated
that he was authorized to execute the instrument and
acknowledged it as the of , to be
the free and voluntary act of such partnership for the uses
and purposes mentioned in the instrument.
DATED:
(Seal or stamp)
RIH/jb
2/26/87
1987.
Notary Public in and for the State of
Washington, residing at
My appointment expires
5468a 10
r*VZ"T 0 TT n
PROCESS AND
TIMETABLE FOR REVIEW OF CONCOMITANT ZONING
AND ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN ISSUES
February 24 Review by Community Services Committee
March 3 Council meets with petitioner, reviews and
approves Agreement To Extend Utility
Services and Establish Process for
Concomitant Zoning and Design Review,
approves timetable and sets hearing dates
March 4 Preliminary review of Facilitv desian by ADB
March 17 Council holds first Public Hearing on the
proposed zoning regulation (RCW 35A.14.340)
March 25 Planning Board review of pre -annexation
Concomitant Zoning Agreement
Aril 1 Final ADB review and recommendation
rpr,l 20 Second Public Fearing on -
Zoning
Council reviews and acts on:
(1) ADB recommendation
(2) F-e-Annexation Concomitant Zoning
Agreement and Ordinance
After F.pril 20 City holds annexation hearing and considers
annexation ordinance
RI /=g
2/2 7/87
5468a 11
E I d";H- ! r --
Ti1 .S -- - Qf j EXHIBIT 3
aIVISI
0--U R
�dY11
• 'v' y lo4s I, ;, k � I f
2 1 r)TN ST. S.W. 06.E J,
r o oz
ZONING � ���� • g ---
1K-71 ,W ,WC
U I I-G
r R _ 3 E.�p��IO
kk
ll.l � � •'y-5 G w,,c 4 � Ipu 7a � �v a5 3
_ 4 ❑ � I �•02i
0
T7:911 5 1 J4;9
~ r Ll 3
7 5 ❑ �I �� �IJ
N -- r3ozo y
(o leay
60 _ m•t 7 , I i
to .11
s. v.E6 _...—,-•,�I�.n, 6a—._.—.---•-----•---212TH-•—•----ST—•—•
t 1�
COL
N.ORT HGI:
x I
Lu
j x i i
S iry 311.18 > I• •�• -J•'�
le O
>,C• (9}23
' • ~
L U S
I V R
_ ,,� T
IZ - 22 �� 3 a�4
_o
0 4.
ti y
—. co a up.ay Lo.ca v7
60 V
IOTH 'v.'
6§. S.E._ "° 2i6TH
s`
� STot
■6ogl
r rN�v..+vv
I I I I r Nri S' Q'
r la � �; ' V Q32 GQRQ Gfl ���N
30
n!
r 33 34
""'
i"I��LII`#fHAI� SI i '�L'A��II�t-iDSGhi P'LA 1
....... ......
-::
--'..:....................
...•...............?s
61
................. cos•-- ^ -
i
t
PLANT GNE RULE
•.y
5iTB7l' eotrHwu W.I7'/�r'ItiH KYiE
Sz�57X�./COt:81f NQ
�1liR R4HAS7IFF% IY.ZE '
'-Hn 1 M' 4uIF1 _ - '1C -
' ALr} c:e:dV.71df/w+E r�T.L
r9'nV. WE 4
• .E
_ �clhus �E�Nsi/Y�f•1�11�-S=y
21Ct uv-eta I
•
�
�t']� ra Cw p6 r.�.•ul/� ;.vi P1z
C HN. Y[ - T
k
^ '
CY ,.� aa....
no' •<. ra..
55
® PIHf6 CGMDF..`ISticRL rhE
- e MS- YC
Z
•
i
o I�o��c¢�f'uffauE
Is'nRWT. r. f'
O FV-X* JvGK.•-'/lL"q Tao-Un
.
•
c
:Gj IIg71NK ew-xWiwscT fwnwl _
- IS HY.YC '•E• - _- yr'K • .
Wri
ry
�...rvwn,•,.oners..wa'orz wrxen�..-•I
v+-___ -: -: �'=.-x1
t•
-
-® FE'3`3d.'�yL` vfRy-fs.l{gM � _-•.•I4L
]e'3r'':•J!.'r `► ,^='aG-�
�17�lil�LlV �'� �a4� Lr�Lr 1ll�J THOMAS A_ SCONZO A.I.A.
ARCHITECT
!d. n...i f,nq ..n • Nn. ••a..-L •eua•ua. •� •.m.
..
m
x
w
TUT
• rx-. •nrx-�c=.a-
mil
W— — -
•nvr-.• ya.� �•s{
--
�r. moo r_:•r.�y
= -
n.o-.k
oo�•: voa '— - man: oca-n
aK ax.ea ca,Y - a[o
012.�ruj�
0
a
nic..ryl
r..� nris ..�v�a z rzi .rlDi. ra..v.s
THOMAS A. SCONZO A.I.A.
ARCHITECT
STATE OF WASHINGTON, }
COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH, Jr �
JAMOLINE G. PARRETT
Edmore& 0} Clerk
PublFshed. INurch 27, 1987.
Affidavit of Publication
The undersigned, being first duly sworn on oath deposes and says
that she is Principal Clerk of THE HERALD, a daily newspaper
printed and published in the City of Everett, County of Snohomish,
and State of Washington; that said newspaper is a newspaper of
general circulation in said County and State; that said newspaper
has been approved as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior
Court of ohornish County an th the notice ............. .........r.........
a printed copy of which is hereunto attached, was published in said
newspaper proper and not in supplement form, in the regular and
entire edition of said paper on the following days and times, namely:
and that said ne sp er was regularly distributed to its subscribers
during all of d eriod.
— � ......... ........... P.5�24�
Principal Clerk
Subscribed and sworn to before me this.Lo�....
'ublid in and for the State of Washington,
at Everett, Snohomish County-
B-2-1
STATE OF WASHINGTON, ss
COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH,
Ir THE tTEM Is CONTINUED TO
WILL BE
v AT TfiE
Affidavit of Publication
The undersigned, being first duly sworn on oath deposes and says
that she is Principal Clerk of THE HERALD, a daily newspaper
printed and published in the City of Everett, County of Snohomish,
and State of Washington; that said newspaper is a newspaper of
general circulation in said County and State; that said newspaper
has been approved as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior
Court g homish County and th a notice ........................................
�(.. 41114.
a printed copy of which is hereunto attached, was published in said
newspaper proper and not in supplement form, in the regular and
entire edition of said paper on the following days and times, namely:
NYI...............................................................................................
�ncauE�INE G. pgRtt�rr
published: Momh 2HY a i9$r. and that said ne a er was regularly distributed to its subscribers
during all of d period.
r ��-�--
--------------------........
Principal Clerk
Subscribed and sworn to before me this ..................
day of........... -----------
- 19_.._.....
.
Na. '' Pubhe State
liein and for tof Vf�ashington,
re�idi. g at erett, Snohomish County.
B-2-1