Loading...
07/17/1990 City CouncilTHESE MINUTES SUBJECT TO JULY 24, 1990 APPROVAL EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES July 17, 1990 The regular meeting of the Edmonds City Council was called to order at 7:OO.p.m. by Mayor Larry Naughten at the Library Plaza Room, 650 Main St., Edmonds. All present joined in the flag salute. PRESENT Larry Naughten, Mayor John Nordquist, Council President Steve Dwyer,-Councilmember Roger Hertrich, Councilmember Jo -Anne Jaech, Councilmember William Kasper, Councilmember -Jack Wilson, Councilmember ABSENT Jeff Palmer, Councilmember STAFF Peter Hahn, Comm. Svc. Director Brent Hunter, Personnel Manager Duane Bowman, Asst. City Planner Arvilla Ohlde, Parks 6 Rec. Mgr. Bob Alberts, City Engineer Bobby Mills, Pub. Wks. Supt. Scott Snyder, City Attorney Jackie Parrett, City Clerk Karin Noyes, Recorder Councilmember Dwyer arrived at 8:15 p.m. and did not participate until after conclusion of the appeal hearing then in progress. PRESENTATION OF CENTENNIAL GIFT FROM PUGET SOUND CHRISTIAN COLLEGE TO THE CITY OF EDMONDS ;&,,vtvt� Dr. Glen Basey, President of Puget Sound Christian College, thanked the Council for the opportuni- ty to speak and referred them to the packet of information distributed to each Councilmember. Dr. Basey explained that the citizens of Edmonds established a cornerstone for the First High School in Edmonds on December 30, 1909. 'At that time a time capsule was placed in the corner- stone. With the help of the City, they located the time capsule on June 20, 1990. He briefly described some of the events which took place in 1909. He said the College of the Bible would like to donate the contents of the time capsule to the City as historical items. Dr. Basey de- scribed and displayed the contents of the time capsule and then presented the items to the City of Edmonds. He said he trusts that programs will continue to improve the education opportunities of all the citizens of the City. Mayor Naughten thanked Dr. Basey and accepted the items from the time capsule saying the City has located a picture taken the day the time capsule was placed in the cornerstone. He displayed the picture and said it would be included with the other documents at the Edmonds Museum. CONSENT AGENDA Items (C), (G), and (I) were removed from the Consent Agenda. COUNCILMEMBER JAECH MOVED, SECOND- ED BY COUNCILMEMBER HERTRICH, TO APPROVE THE BALANCE OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED. The approved items on the Consent Agenda include the following: (A) ROLL CALL (B) APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF JUNE 26, 1990 (D) ADOPTION OF -ORDINANCE 2784 REPEALING CITY CODE SECTION REGARDING TRAIN SPEEDS (E) REPOCONRT ONTBIMARYATNED DULY 3, 1990 FOR TWO-YEAR PUBLIC WORKS UNIFORM CONTRACT,`AND AWARD OF (F) APPROVAL OF AWARD OF CONTRACT TO ATELIER, P.S., FOR CONSTRUCTION DESIGN OF BRACKETT"S LANDING UPLAND IMPROVEMENTS Pp �(H) REPORT ON BIDS FOR THE 1990 STORM DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT AND AWARD OF CONTRACT TO DEBRA TRUCKING AND EXCAVATION, INC. ($240,152.26, INCLUDING SALES TAX) �(J) APPROVAL FOR PAYMENT OF DUES TO SNOHOMISH COUNTY TOMORROW APPROVAL OF 1990 TASTE OF EDMONDS CONTRACT [ITEM (C) ON THE CONSENT AGENDA] iztCouncilmember Hertrich said he had some concern as to the methods to be used to monitor the sound level at the Taste of Edmonds. He inquired how the City intends to monitor this problem and how the complaints will be handled. Parks and Recreation Manager Arvilla Ohlde, responded that Councilmember Hertrich's concern is the same as the main concern voiced by the Planning Board. The Planning Board suggested the City look into the possibility of renting or purchasing a monitor which would adequately monitor the sound level throughout the event. Bobby Mills has indicated the City has this type of instrument which is currently being used to monitor the noise level of the City construction machinery. He has indicated that the equipment could be made available for this event. Councilmember Hertrich inquired how complaints would be processed and whom an individual could contact on the weekend to voice a complaint. Ms. Ohlde explained that the a person would call 911. The officers on duty would then be notified of the problem. She said the Police Department has a process to follow to monitor the sound. Ms. Ohlde said an individual visiting the event could contact Stan Dickison if they wish to voice a complaint. Councilmember Kasper noted that the map distributed to the Councilmembers has the same configura- tion along Sixth Avenue as last year. He reminded the Council of the "bottleneck" which occurred because stands were placed across from each other at the end of that street. Mr. Dickison, Co- chair of the Taste of Edmonds, said the map is not accurate and the point of the sidewalk Council - member Kasper referred to is farther north, so the booths will not be directly across from each other. Councilmember Hertrich noted that the map indicates the same configuration at the beer garden as used last year. He reminded the Council of the problem with the music bouncing off the Boys Club. Mr. Dickison said the music will be located at an angle to the Boys Club Building, which should help control the noise. COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER KASPER, TO APPROVE THE 1990 CONTRACT FOR THE TASTE OF EDMONDS. MOTION CARRIED. FORMAL APPROVAL OF ITEMS APPROVED AT JULY 10. 1990 ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES COMMITTEE MEETING LITEM (G) ON THE CONSENT AGENDA] Council President Nordquist recommended that this item be divided into two parts as was discussed at the Committee Meeting. The two items on which to vote were: (1) APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT (McCALLISTER VS. CITY OF EDMONDS) (2 APPROVAL OF PUBLIC WORKS TEAMSTERS LABOR AGREEMENT Councilmember Nordquist indicated that he would abstain from voting on the second item because his son is a City employee and a member of that union, and although his son has a separate domi- cile the City Attorney had advised Councilmember Nordquist he should abstain. COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER HERTRICH, TO APPROVE THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT (McCALLISTER VS. CITY OF EDMONDS). MOTION CARRIED, WITH COUNCILMEMBER WILSON OPPOSED. COUNCILMEMBER KASPER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON, TO APPROVE THE PUBLIC WORKS TEAM- STERS LABOR AGREEMENT. MOTION CARRIED, WITH COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST ABSTAINING. - PROPOSED RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AN INTER -FUND LOAN FROM GENERAL FUND NO. 001 TO THE EDMONDS CENTENNIAL FUND NO. 625 FOR CENTENNIAL N DA COUNCILMEMBER KASPER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON, TO APPROVE THE PROPOSED RESOLUTION 703 SUBJECT TO THE REPAYMENT DATE BEING CHANGED TO OCTOBER 31, 1990. Councilmember Kasper said he was concerned that the budget year would be over befolre the money was repaid if the date were not changed. MOTION CARRIED. RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL FROM HUTT COMMITTEE Parks and Recreation Manager Arvilla Ohlde reminded the Council that on April 24, 1990, the City Council appointed a Citizens Committee to review and make a recommendation to the Council regard- ing the long-range plans for the park. This Committee researched and discussed this issue and prepared findings and recommendations they wished to present to the Council at this time. She introduced Dr. Robert VanCitters, spokesperson for the Committee. EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 2 July 17, 1990 Dr. Robert VanCitters explained that although the controversy which lead to the appointment of the Committee was regarding the use of the house, the charge to the Committee was to review the long-term usage of the house as well as the long-range plans for the park. He said the Committee members came away with a conviction that the Hutt property is vulnerable. There is nothing to prevent the property from being sold at a future date. They also felt the property should remain in a natural state and improvements such as playfields, etc., are not appropriate for this park. The Committee could not find an alternative use for the house and could find no justifiable rea- son to maintain the house further. Dr. VanCitters said the Committee had prepared four recommen- dations which,follow: 1. The Committee recommends that the City Council adopt an ordinance to insure that the park site is not sold.or traded, but rather will be preserved in its natural setting as a public park in perpetuity. 2. The Committee recommends initiation of a Master Plan which is consistent with the intent of the Hutts in deeding the park to the City, i.e., Hutt Park be preserved as a natural setting recognized as a neighborhood passive park. Inherent in this concept is enhance- ment of natural flora and fauna, limiting park improvements to minimal maintenance and establishment of natural walking trails, while banning amenities such as ballfields, vehicular access and parking, lights, fire pits, picnic tables, restrooms, etc: 3. The Committee recommends that the house, garage, and cottage be demolished and removed, and the space which they occupy be restored. Concurrent with this, the existing driveway should be eliminated so that there is no vehicular access to the park from the street. 4. The Committee recommends that the City Council accept the recommended time schedule as outlined in an "Action Plan" which they submitted. Councilmember Hertrich asked what the Committee proposes for the other building on the site. Dr. VanCitters said the small cottage is not as bad as the house, but the Committee feels the cottage is still an infringement on the park and has found no justification for keeping it. Councilmember Hertrich inquired what the current zoning of the park is. Assistant City Planner Duane Bowman said the current zoning is public use. There are currently no specific standards in the City Code regarding public use zones. Mr. Bowman explained that the property could be re- zoned to open space through the hearing process. He noted that open space is the most restric- tive zone. COUNCILMEMBER HERTRICH MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JAECH,-TO APPROVE RECOMMENDA- TION NUMBER 2. MOTION CARRIED. COUNCILMEMBER HERTRICH MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NORD- QUIST, TO APPROVE RECOMMENDATION NUMBER 3. MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Hertrich suggested, in reference to recommendation number 1, that the zoning be changed to open space so the protection of that restrictive zoning will be in effect, and that it be set for public hearing by the Parks Board to consider that suggestion. COUNCILMEMBER HERTRICH MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JAECH, TO FORWARD RECOMMENDATION NUMBER 1 TO THE PARKS BOARD FOR HEARING WITH THE IDEA THAT THE ZONING BE CHANGED TO OPEN SPACE. MOTION CARRIED. COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JAECH, THAT ITEMS 2, 3, AND 5 OF THE ACTION PLAN (REFERRED TO IN RECOMMENDATION 4) BE REFERRED TO THE COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMITTEE. Councilmember Wilson considered Item 1 of the Action Plan to be redundant as it was covered in Recommendation 1, and he said Item 4 regarding police protection would be handled by the Mayor. In regard to Recommendation 1, Ms. Ohlde said one of the most important concerns to come from the Committee was the neighbors' fear of the park's becoming something other than a park, and in discussions with the City Attorney he had indicated that at the time the Council accepts Recom- mendation 1, he could prepare a document restricting the City from ever selling or trading the property. City Attorney Scott Snyder clarified that an ordinance can be undone as easily as it is done, and the best way to accomplish the result recommended by the Committee would be through a combination of ordinance and dedication to the public which could tie up the property in perpetuity. Mr. Snyder said if the Council wishes to make sure the property is not.used for any other purpose, they can accomplish that through an ordinance and trust deed of dedication stating that the prop- erty would never be sold or be taken out of the existing use. Councilmember Hertrich inquired if the City Attorney could provide the Council with written opin- ions to review at another time. Mr Snyder said he could provide copies of ordinances used for this particular type of situation for the Council's consideration. COUNCILMEMBER KASPER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JAECH, THAT TM E COUNCIL HAVE THE CITY ATTORNEY WORTH THROUGH THE ADVISO- RY COMMITTEE TO DRAFT THE WAY THE COMMITTEE WANTS TO GO IN RECOMMENDATION 1. MOTION CARRIED. EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 3 July 17, 1990 Ms. Ohlde said that because of the Committee's concern for the protection of the park, they ask that no demolition be done until there is agreement on Recommendation 1. Councilmember Hertrich pointed out that there has been some vandalism on the property and the City could be held liable if an accident were to occur. Ms. Ohlde noted that the City is required to give the current tenant of the cottage until October 1, 1990 to vacate the premise and demolition costs would be less for both buildings at the same time. Mr-. Snyder confirmed that the City is required to give the tenant 20 days' notice beyond the next full term, or until September 30, to vacate the premises. COUNCILMEMBER JAECH MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON, THAT THE COUNCIL GIVE THE TENANT NOTICE OF. VACATION IMMEDIATE- LY. MOTION CARRIED. The Council scheduled a review of the draft ordinances on the August 14 Community Services Committee agenda. Dr. VanCitters said it was disappointing that the Council has not accepted Recommendation 1. He said it was the intent of the Committee to put this before the Council to get their intent to preserve the property and what they are getting is something less. Mayor Naughten assured him that the Council's desire was the same as the Committee's, and Mr. Snyder clarified that there is -no question as to the intent of the Council, that they also want the park to be preserved. But he said the question is, do they want to go beyond a Council intent and create a third -party right to insure it takes place. HEARING ON APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER DECISION APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND EXTENSION ..... .. ..v _... _. ..... --- .w .. —1., -0 JLGG VVnVVlI\ nftl APPELLANTS: BETTY H NSEN . AL. -10-90 -99-89 an HEARING ON APPEAL OF SAME DECISION BY APPLICANTS EDWARD AND CHARLENE MAUSER (FILE AP-12-90/ C - -89 Mr. Bowman reviewed the staff report. He explained that in 1985, the City notified the Mauser's that they needed to file an application to extend the amortization period on their property. The letter was returned to the City and filed. The City learned in 1988, that the Mausers had not filed for an extension so they sent them another letter in 1988. In 1989, the Mausers came to the City to file for an extension of the amortization period. Council President Nordquist inquired how many nonforming uses there are in the neighborhood. Mr. Bowman said there are two other nonconforming uses. Both of these property owners have been granted brief extensions of the amortization period. Councilmember Hertrich inquired if staff has observed any of the complaints registered by the neighbors. Mr. Bowman said he has experienced the fumes coming from the workshop. He said staff recommends the Mausers be allowed a six-month amortization time to find a new location for the business but abide by the rules set by the Hearing Examiner immediately. Mr. Snyder briefly described case law regarding amortization periods. He said Washington Courts have upheld amortization periods of as little as 90 days. He reminded the Council that the Unit- ed States Supreme Court began in 1986 dealing with a series of zone taking issues. There have, to his knowledge, been amortization cases since that time. The City is looking at whether or not to grant an extension of the 15-year period now going on 19 years. They must weigh the detriment to the neighborhood against the detriment to the Mausers. Councilmember Kasper asked if staff has copies of the appraisals. Mr. Bowman said they do. He also indicated that the Hearing Examiner reviewed both appraisals. Mr. Snyder noted that the Hearing Examiner's recommendation is part of the Council record and if they would like, they should take time to review it before making a decision. The public hearing was opened. Ray Johnson, 9215 Bowdoin Way, said he appealed the decision of the -Hearing Examiner because he is concerned about the five-year extension of the conditional use permit. He believed the Hear- ing Examiner failed to give significant consideration to the neighborhood. One of the require- ments of the Code states that residential compatibility be considered. The Community believes that the 9 years beyond the 15 years specifically written in the ordinance is contrary to the purpose of the ordinance. He requested that the extension be reduced to six months as per the staff's recommendation. Councilmember Kasper inquired how long Mr. Johnson has lived in the area. Mr. Johnson said he has lived in his current home for 36 years. Councilmember Kasper inquired why there had been no complaints regarding the workshop until now. Mr. Johnson said they live in a good, quiet neigh- borhood but the activity at the workshop has gotten progressively worse. EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 4 July 17, 1990 Tom Mullins, 21407 92nd Avenue West, said he has been a resident for 15 years. Four of his neigh- bors to the left and four to the right have moved from the area to other communities because of the toxic fumes in the area. He did not feel he and the other neighbors should have to put up with the toxic fumes and noise generated from this property. He suggested that the Councilmem- bers place a business similar to this in their neighborhood and see how they like it. Mr. Mullins did not feel the Mausers should be allowed to continue and cause such an impact on the neighborhood and felt this activity had gone on too long already. He inquired if the City is prepared to take on the responsibility if someone gets sick from the fumes or if property values drop lower. He said he strongly objects to the extension of an additional five years. Betty Hansen, 9104 Bowdoin Way, said she lives on the private road directly in back of the cabi- net shop. She said the noise begins at 7 a.m. and goes until 8 p.m. many times. The odor is also very bad. She said she cannot stay out in the back yard when they are spraying. She also indicated that the sawdust covers her pool as well as her deck. When the big trucks are at the workshop, she cannot see to get out of her driveway without going into the road. She has been there for over 10 years and she objects to the fact that the Mausers want an extension. Donald Phillips, 21412 92nd Avenue West, said the workshop has no place in the residential neigh- borhood. The neighbors cannot enjoy their property because of the noise and fumes coming from the workshop. He said the Mausers have had ample time to phase out their business and' the neigh- borhood should be protected by enforcing the Code and ordinance. Mike Rogers, Bellevue, attorney representing Mr. and Mrs. Mauser, said it is important to recog- nize the background because they are not talking about amortizing a use, they are amortizing a family profession and livelihood. His arguments were: Mr. Mauser is 52 years old and has been a woodworker since he was 12 years old. The Mausers purchased the property in 1967 with the assur- ance that they could operate a woodworking business for the rest of their working lives. This property has been used as a woodworking shop since 1946. The Mausers have said there has not been an increase in the amount of business at the shop since they purchased it. Mr. Mauser is only able to work approximately half a day. These people have been contributing members of the community and they do not have the means to go out and purchase commercial property or rent re- tail space. Mr. Mauser does not have a pension or profit sharing plan. Mr. Rogers said that what he presented to the.Hearing Examiner was the only economic analysis that is valid. One of the criteria is to look at the economic analysis of the impact to both parties. The appellant presented another review done by Brooks Saunders which Mr. Rogers assert- ed was just an observation he made and not an appraisal. Mr. Rogers indicated that Glenn Forrest, the appraiser for the Mausers, has traveled the area up to three times a week. It is, his professional opinion and economic analysis that Mr. and Mrs. Mauser would be damaged over $130,000 if they were required to relocate. Mr. Rogers said they are requesting three changes to the Hearing Examiner's decision which are: 1. They wish to extend the amortization period to 15 years rather than 5. 2. They wish the operating hours to be from 7 a.m. to 4 p.m. rather than 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. 3. They wish to be allowed to store materials outside as long as it is not visible to the neighbors or to the street. Other than those changes, Mr. Rogers indicated that his client is willing to abide by all other criteria set by the Hearing Examiner. Mr. Rogers pointed out that the Mausers have not done anything illegal. They did not receive the letter in 1985. He asked that the amortization period be extended to 15 years to allow Mr. Mauser to work in the shop until retirement age. (Councilmember Dwyer arrived at the hearing, at 8:15 p.m.; but did not participate.) Council President Nordquist noted that when the .15 years' amortization period was established in 1971, the idea was that these types of uses be phased out by the end ,of the 15-year period. Glenn Forrest, 23700 102 Pl. W., reviewed his credentials for the Council. He said -he was asked to analyze and appraise the Mauser's property with respect to the amortization period. He ex- plained that in his analysis, he inspected the property and has been by the property two to three times a day for 15 to 20 years. Until recently, he said he thought the property was vacant. He visited people in the area in the past and never heard any complaints from the neighbors. 11 EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 5 July 17, 1990 Mr. Forrest said his economic analysis is that the business has another 15 years in its economic life and the use could continue for that period and longer. In reference to the workshop being incompatible to the pristine environment, Mr. Forrest referred to pictures showing some of the other concerns the Council should consider which may have an impact on the neighborhood, such as: Yost Pool, telephone company trucks, old tires and cars outside of homes, and other run-down homes in the neighborhood. He suggested that this is not what could be considered a pristine environment. Mr. Forrest explained that it is his conclusion that if the use of the property were terminated this would result in a loss to the Mausers of approximately $136,000. Mr. Hertrich inquired if Mr. Forrest's analysis included a visit to the adjoining properties to determine if the problems do occur. Mr. Forrest said he was around the properties but inspected the conditions from the street only. Councilmember Jaech noted that the telephone company is not in the neighborhood all the time. They do not operate a business from the area. Mr. Forrest said that in a two week period, the telephone company has had trucks in the area doing heavy work. Mr. Snyder requested clarification about Mr. Forrest's methodology. In reference to the $136,000 difference, Mr. Snyder inquired what value he assigned to the property as it is used now. Mr. Forrest said he valued it as a woodworking shop at $180,000. Mr. Snyder inquired what Mr. Forrest used as comparable for that figure. Mr. Forrest said compa- rable sales were based on properties that are being used as woodworking facilities in Edmonds, Seattle and Lynnwood. He said he used the income capitalization approach based on what it would cost to rent a facility which would permit a woodworking use. Mr. Snyder asked if, in determining the value, Mr. Forrest assumed that current use would be transferable to someone else. Mr. Forrest said he did not. He assumed what was there in place as of today. Mr. Snyder asked if Mr. Forrest made any assumption in regard to how long that use could be continued. Mr. Forrest said he used an amortization period of 15 years, the minimum economic life of the building. Mr. Snyder inquired if the sale and income approaches were the same. Mr. Forrest said they are different. Mr. Snyder inquired what rental period does Mr. Forrest use to determine the capital- ization income approach. Mr. Forrest said he used 15-year time period.- Mr. Forrest said the sales approach does not depend on the amortization period. It is determined by what the property is worth as of that time. The income measures it into perpetuity or to some specific time period. Mr. Snyder said if you have a 15-year period, that assumes that you could transfer a 15-year period to someone else. Mr. Forrest said that does not assume that: If that is the case, Mr. Snyder inquired how Mr. Forrest could use the sales approach. Mr. Forrest said the sales ap- proach measures the value of a particular property as of a given date. It does not anticipate one year or 15 years from now. It simply says it is the highest and best use of the property at the time of the appraisal without artificial constraints. Mr. Snyder inquired if Mr. Forrest could apply the sales approach to a property that cannot be transferred in its current use. Mr. Forrest said it would have less applications than an income approach would. Mr. Snyder inquired what was the residual value Mr. Forrest attached to the property in the sin- gle family category. Mr. Forrest said he attached $44,000 which is the gross value of the lot less the cost of razing the present facilities. Mr. Snyder asked if Mr. Forrest inquired or discussed with the Mausers any investments which they may have made in the property since 1971. Mr. Forrest said he did not. Mr. Snyder asked if Mr. Forrest knew if there was an outstanding mortgage value on the property. Mr. Forrest said he learned tonight that there is not. Mr. Snyder asked if Mr. Forrest was aware of any capital improvements or investments made since 1971. Mr. Forrest said he was not aware of any. Mr. Snyder asked if any of the equipment used on the property would be lost or could not be utilized or transferred to another site. Mr. Forrest said there was. Most of that equipment is woodworking equipment such as large saws and planers which are set in their present location and ,mounted in the concrete facility. It would not be economically justifiable to move. these. Mr. Snyder inquired if Mr. Forrest felt this equipment would not have a value anywhere else. Mr. Forrest said for the most part it would not but that is not really his field of expertise. EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 6 July 17, 1990 Mr. Snyder inquired if Mr. Forrest knows of any investment or other value personal to the Mausers that would be destroyed; that is, something that would be unique to them personally. Mr. Forrest said the use of the property as it is is unique to them and that would be destroyed if the abate- ment is required. Councilmember Kasper inquired if Mr. Forrest is stating that it would cost $180,000 to rent a similar building. Mr. Forrest said he is not inferring that it would cost $180,000 to rent a building— Mr. Forrest said it would cost at least $180,000 to acquire another facility. A new facility would cost much more than $180,000. Dorie Herschap, 9119 Park Road, believes the City had the right idea in mind when they originally intended to remove nonconforming structures in the area of Edmonds. As she understands the amor- tization process, by not responding to the problem originally, they gave themselves that much more time and are now being able to ask for the extension. She said this property affects all the neighbors. She said they were making a comparison to businesses along 196th which is a major thoroughfare and does not compare to Bowdoin Avenue. .Ms. Herschap said the City can hire appraisers who can come to any decision. She said she did not feel the Council should be looking at only the one appraiser. She said she works as a real estate agent and after listening to this appraiser, she would not recommend him to any of her clients. He has been very negative about the area. She lives in the area and there are a lot of beautiful homes. In any area you go to, you will be able to find negative houses in each area. She feels the appraiser over -analyzed the bad aspects of the neighborhood. Ms. Herschap said she noticed how this business has never improved. The business has looked the same for many years and they have never done anything to make it look any better. She asked what kind of controls the City has to enforce the criteria set by the Hearing Examiner. Mayor Naught - en said the City will be able to enforce the conditions. Ms. Herschap said the Council should ask themselves how 'they would feel if the workshop were their neighbor. This is really affecting people in more ways than will be mentioned this eve- ning. She did not feel the City is making the right decision when they say the business can remain for another 5 years. She feels it is only fair that the Council ask other appraisers to come in and give their opinion before they make a decision this evening. Allen Lucin, 9119 Park Road, said he has lived in the area for 10 years. He said his main con- cern is that property values are decreasing. Standard bank appraisals take points off for the surrounding abnormalities like businesses or multiple family units. Mr. Lucin pointed out that contrary to the appraiser's opinion, Yost Park is a value to the neighborhood. From his profes- sional standpoint, he feels that $44,000 is a low figure for the lot. Mr. Lucin noted that you cannot compare the neighbors' rights to the utility companies' rights. Mark Hipnew, 21403 92nd Avenue West, said he has lived in the area for three years. In answer to why the complaints were not heard from the neighbors before, he said it was because up until now, they did not realize there was anything they could do about it. He noted that the workshop has been open for long hours the last couple of weeks. Mr. Hipnew noted that the appraisal had nothing to do with the impact on the neighbors' back- yards. He said he did not have a problem with the outside storage of materials at this time. However, he said even when the paint is sprayed inside, the residents can still smell it out- side. Mr. Hipnew said it is a beautiful neighborhood and there are very few things which could come close in comparison to the impact created by the workshop. In rebuttal, Mr. Rogers said the Council should go back to the ordinance 17.40.010 (E) which states that an economic consultant should determine an amortization period which would be economi- cally feasible for the applicant. He said Mr. Forrest had presented expert testimony and there are instances where extended amortization periods are necessary to avoid substantial impacts. Again he said they were talking about amortizing someone's livelihood and profession. The appli- cant is willing to abide by the Hearing Examiner's recommendations. He felt these conditions would meet the concerns of the neighbors. He stated the Mousers have indicated that they will abide by the hours set by the Hearing Examiner and the neighbors have said there is no problem with the outdoor storage. His only other exception to the Hearing Examiner's decision was to increase the amortization period from 5 years to 15 years to allow time for Mrc Mauser to work until retirement. Mr. Rogers asked that the Council consider the economic impacts and the economic circumstances of the Mausers themselves. When they bought the property, it had been used for 20 years as a work- shop prior to their purchase of the property so these uses had been in existence for 44 years. He asked them to look at the pictures in the appraisal report. He said this is not a neighbor- hood which should be picking on one use. They should be more concerned with some of the other things they see out there. No one has come to the Mousers in the past to request. them to follow certain guidelines. EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 7 July 17, 1990 Councilmember Hertrich asked how the applicant proposes to completely eliminate the noise and odor from the workshop. Mr. Rogers said the conditions set forth by the Hearing Examiner will help control these problems but they will not totally eliminate them. Councilmember Hertrich pointed out that since this property is within a residential zone, the applicant must show that they can eliminate the problems. He has seen no evidence making him think this type of operation should exist in a residential zone. Mr. Rogers said the Hearing Examiner spent two full evenings hearing this issue and came up with a reasonable balance. Councilmember Kasper noted that the applicant has appealed the Hearing Examiner's decision and is requesting amortization for 15 years rather than 5. Mr. Rogers said they are trying to keep the business in its current location until Mr. Mauser retires. Councilmember Kasper asked if there were any recorded complaints to the staff between 1971 and 1985. Mr. Bowman said the complaints began once the neighbors were aware of the expiration of the amortization period. Councilmember Hertrich said he knows what it is like to have other uses in a residential zone and it seems very bad that the people have had to put up with it for 15 years. These people deserve a break at this time. He thinks the property owner also deserves a break. In his mind the busi- ness should be removed. It is a matter of how long they should be allowed to find another loca- tion. He did not feel the odor or noise could be eliminated, therefore, he felt the smallest amount of time reasonable should be set. He felt a year and a half would be more than ample time. COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JAECH, THAT THE COUNCIL UPHOLD. THE APPEAL OF BETTY HANSEN, ET. AL., FILE AP-10-90/CU-99-89 REGARDING APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND EXTENSION OF THE AMORTIZATION PERIOD AND THAT A TIME LIMIT OF SIX MONTHS BE PUT IN PLACE FOR THIS NONCONFORMING BUSINESS TO CLOSE AND THAT THE CONDITIONS OF OPERATION AS PROPOSED BY THE HEARING EXAMINER BE IN PLACE IMMEDIATELY. IN ADDITION THE COUNCIL IS NOT CONVINCED BY EVIDENCE THAT THERE IS ANY SUBSTANTIAL OWNERS INVESTMENT IN THE PROPERTY SINCE 1971. COUNCILMEMBER KASPER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER HERTRICH, TO AMEND THE MOTION TO ALLOW AN AMORTIZATION PERIOD OF 18 MONTHS. AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION. FAILED WITH COUNCILMEMBERS KASPER AND HERTRICH IN FAVOR. MAIN MOTION CARRIED WITH COUNCILMEMBER DWYER ABSTAINING FROM THE VOTE BECAUSE HE WAS NOT PRESENT FOR THE ENTIRE HEARING. PROPOSED ORDINANCE 2785 AMENDING 1990 BUDGET AS A RESULT OF UNANTICIPATED TRANSFERS AND EXPEN- ��� �L 0DITURES OF VARIOUS FUNDS COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JAECH, TO APPROVE ORDINANCE 2785. MOTION CARRIED. RECONSIDERATION OF ACTION ON PROPOSED ORDINANCE ADDING SECTION 18.95.030 TO EDMONDS COMMUNITY Councilmember Dwyer pointed out that Councilmember Palmer requested that this item be carried over to a future agenda. Because Councilmember Palmer is not in attendance, Councilmember Dwyer suggested that this item be rescheduled to a future agenda to allow Councilmember Palmer to par- ticipate. COUNCILMEMBER DWYER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JAECH, THAT THIS ITEM BE SCHEDULED TO AN AGENDA IN WHICH THERE WILL BE A FULL COUNCIL IN ATTENDANCE. MOTION CARRIED. BUDGETARY REQUIREMENT FOR NEW POSITION IN BUILDING DEPARTMENT Personnel Manager Brent Hunter indicated that this budget change reflects the cost of the new position of building inspector which was effective July 1, 1990. The budget amount is $18,600. Mr. Hunter asked that the Council reconsider the changes they placed on the job requirements for the positions of building inspector and building official. He said he called several different cities in regard to the qualifications they require. Other cities' qualifications are not as EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 8 July 17, 1990 high as the new requirements. They are more similar to the original requirements. Mr. Hunter pointed out that it is difficult, if not impossible to find someone who meets the new qualifica- tions. The Council continued to discuss the new requirement that individuals applying for these two positions have a bachelor's degree. Mr. Hunter pointed out that an associate degree is one of the higher qualified individuals. COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER KASPER, TO CHANGE THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE BUILDING, INSPECTOR POSITION AND NOT REQUIRE A BACHELOR'S DEGREE BUT MAKE AN ASSOCIATE DEGREE DESIRABLE BUT NOT MANDATORY; THE BUILDING OFFICIAL POSITION SHOULD STILL REQUIRE A BACHELOR "'S DEGREE. COUNCILMEMBER DWYER MOVED TO AMEND THE MOTION, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON, THAT THEY REMOVE THE REQUIREMENT OF A BACHELOR'S DEGREE FROM THE BUILDING OFFICIAL POSITION AND REPLACE WITH A STATEMENT THAT A BACHELOR'S DEGREE IS PREFERABLE. MOTION CARRIED, WITH COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST OPPOSED. MAYOR Mayor Naughten reminded the Council that there will be a meeting on July 31, 1990 with the Mukilteo city officials. He inquired if any of the Councilmembers had any changes to make to the draft resolution provided to them. No changes were made to the draft. Mayor Naughten provided two liquor licenses for consideration, a Class E and F license for Jay's ial �1� Beverage & Mini -Mart, and a Class H license for Las Flores Restaurant. There was no objection expressed from the Council, so the Mayor will recommend approval to the Liquor Board. Mayor Naughten announced the Cities and Towns meeting on July 26 at the Ballinger Clubhouse. If anyone would like to attend, they should contact the Council secretary. The discussion will be regarding recycling programs. Mayor Naughten reminded the Council of two Centennial receptions which are RSVP. One is the Soroptimists reception on August 9 and the other is the Arts Festival reception on August 12. COUNCIL Council President Nordquist reviewed the Centennial activities in which he encouraged Council participation. Councilmember Hertrich referred the Council to an article in the paper entitled Edmonds is Chok- ing. He noted that the Central Sound Advisory Committee is made up 'of representatives from t e J surrounding jurisdictions. He suggested that the Council make an effort to contact these people u to discuss the ferry issue and point out the City's concerns and plans. Councilmember Jaech suggested that the Council invite the Kingston City. Council to come for dinner and show them what the City plans to do so they fully understand what the City is planning and both sides can bene- fit. The Council discussed and decided against doing either of the two suggestions. Councilmember Hertrich inquired if Mr. Snyder has replied to Michael Lantz's letter. Mr. Snyder said he is preparing a reply and he will supply the Council with a copy of this letter. Councilmember Dwyer said he would be absent from the next meeting due to vacation. Councilmember Kasper said he was the only one voting against refunding the 1980 G.O. bonds at lQ 80this time, but he still feels the City will be stuck with high rates. He said rates are going down and he suggested they postpone the action until March. Councilmember Jaech expressed agree- ment. COUNCILMEMBER JAECH MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER KASPER, .THAT THE COUNCIL RECONSIDER THEIR MOTION CONCERNING THE REFUNDING OF THE BONDS AND THAT THIS BE DELAYED UNTIL MARCH. Councilmember Hertrich asked if the City could set the up the bonds .so all they have to do is trigger the sale. Councilmember Kasper felt this could be done. MOTION CARRIED, WITH COUNCILMEMBER DWYER VOTING AGAINST THE MOTION. The Council noted that this item -should be removed from July 24 agenda. nGd c3r. Councilmember Kasper suggested that the Council discuss the recommendations made by Puget Sound Council of Governments (PSCOG) to try to come up with a consensus on the views of the Council. The Council agreed to place this discussion on the agenda in September. EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 9 July 17, 1990 `111 Councilmember Kasper, in reference to tandem parking, said he feels the Council should hold a public hearing. He felt the public was not given the proper opportunity to understand the is- sue. The Council asked Council President Nordquist to work this hearing into a future agenda. Councilmember Jaech referred to a memorandum concerning a local voter's pamphlet. She did not desire a presentation from the County Auditor's office, and there was no comment from the other Councilmembers. COUNCILMEMBER JAECH MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON, TO APPROVE COUNCILMEMBER KASPER'S ABSENCE OF JULY 10, 1990. MOTION CARRIED. In regard to the land use notification process scheduled for next week's agenda, Councilmember Jaech stated this item could be removed from the agenda because the Planning Board will be dis- cussing it at that time. To give the Board an idea of the problem, Councilmember Jaech said the problem is that according to the Code, any multiple family development with four or less units do not have to notify surrounding property owners. If the surrounding property owners do not like the development for some reason, by the time they find out about it, it is too late. When this -issue was reviewed by the Community Services Committee, they suggested that the notices could be put up so that people could be informed of land use changes. Councilmember Jaech referred to a letter from he Northwest Intertribal Court System in Edmonds. She said she did not know the City had this. She said the staff could handle the request in the letter. Councilmember Wilson asked why the planters at Puget and Ninth and Ninth and Caspers are so ugly and unattractive. Mayor Naughten said he would look into the problem. Council President Nordquist said next week two Councilmembers will be absent. In light of this, he suggested that the discussion of the cemetery structure be rescheduled to a time when the entire Council will be present. The Council agreed they should all be present for that discus- sion. There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m. THESE MINUTES ARE SUBJECT TO JULY 24, 1990 APPROVAL. EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 10 July 17, 1990 AGENDA EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL PLAZA MEETING ROOM -LIBRARY BUILDING 7:00 - 10:00 P.M. JULY 17, 1990 CALL TO ORDER FLAG SALUTE 1. PRESENTATION OF CENTENNIAL GIFT FROM PUGET SOUND COLLEGE OF THE BIBLE TO CITY OF EDMONDS 2. CONSENT AGENDA (A) ROLL CALL (B) APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF JUNE 26, 1990 (C) APPROVAL OF 1990 TASTE OF EDMONDS CONTRACT (D) PROPOSED ORDINANCE 2784.REPEALING CITY CODE SECTION REGARDING TRAIN SPEEDS (E) REPORT ON BIDS OPENED JULY 3, 1990 FOR TWO-YEAR PUBLIC WORKS UNIFORM CONTRACT, AND AWARD OF CONTRACT TO MARYATT INDUSTRIES ($30,000.00) (F) APPROVAL OF AWARD OF CONTRACT TO ATELIER, P.S., FOR CONSTRUCTION DESIGN OF THE BRACKETT'S LANDING UPLAND IMPROVEMENTS (G) FORMAL APPROVAL OF ITEMS APPROVED AT JULY 10, 1990 ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES COMMITTEE MEETING (H) REPORT ON BIDS FOR THE 1990 STORM DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT AND AWARD OF CONTRACT TO DEBRA TRUCKING AND EXCAVATION, INC. ($240,152.26, INCLUDING SALES TAX) (I) PROPOSED RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AN INTER -FUND LOAN FROM GENERAL FUND NO. 001 TO THE EDMONDS CENTENNIAL FUND NO. 625 FOR CENTENNIAL EVENTS/ACTIVITIES (J) APPROVAL FOR PAYMENT OF DUES TO SNOHOMISH COUNTY TOMORROW 3. AUDIENCE 4. RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL FROM HUTT COMMITTEE 5(A) HEARING ON APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER DECISION APPROVING CONDITIONAL (70 MINUTES) USE PERMIT AND EXTENSION OF PERIOD OF AMORTIZATION FOR A NONCONFORMING USE AS A WOODWORKING SHOP AT 9122 BOWDOIN WAY (APPELLANTS: BETTY HANSEN, ET. AL., FILE AP-10-90/CU-99-89) AND 5(B) HEARING ON APPEAL OF SAME DECISION BY APPLICANTS EWALD AND CHARLENE MAUSER (FILE AP-12-90/CU-99-89) 6. PROPOSED ORDINANCE 2785 AMENDING 1990 BUDGET AS RESULT OF UNANTICIPATED TRANSFERS AND EXPENDITURES OF VARIOUS FUNDS 7. RECONSIDERATION OF ACTION ON PROPOSED ORDINANCE ADDING SECTION 18.95.030 TO EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE RELATING TO TANDEM PARKING (FROM JUNE 19 CONSENT AGENDA/MOTION TO RECONSIDER ACTION OF JUNE 5, 1990) 8. BUDGETARY REQUIREMENT FOR NEW POSITION IN BUILDING DEPARTMENT 9. MAYOR 10. COUNCIL THE PUBLIC IS INVITED TO ATTEND PARKING AND MEETING ROOMS ARE HANDICAPPED ACCESSIBLE