Loading...
19680402 City Council MinutesAPPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR SEAVIEW AND SIERRA PARKS O Plans for development of Seaview and Sierra Parks had been presented to and studied by coun cil, and a motion was made by Councilman Bennett, -seconded by Councilman Haines that the development plans for Seaview and Sierra Parks be approved. Motion carried. PROPOSED RESOLUTION OF INTENTION TO PAVE HOWELL WAY BET14EEN 3RD & 5Lh A petition had been received for paving of Howell Way between 3rd and 5Lh, and a motion was made by Councilman Haines, seconded by Councilman Nelson that proposed Resolution of Intention #221 be passed, for paving of Howell Way between 3rd and 5!h, with the hearing on the preliminary assessment roll set for May 21. Motion carried. REPORT ON BIDS - WATER METERS JVID BRASS FITTINGS FOR WATER DEPT. Bids had been opened for water meters and brass fittings for the Water Dept. on Monday, March 18 at 2:00 P.M. in the Mayor's Office. Present at bid opening were the Mayor, City Supervisor, Assistant City Clerk, Director of Public Works, Donald Callahan from Neptune Meter Co. and Lee Drake from Western Utilities, Inc. Bids were: Meters: 5/8" x 3/4" Hersey-Sparling Meter Co. $33.23 each Neptune Meter Co. 33.20 It Brass Fittings: Pacific Water Works Supply Co. $12,901.31 Western Utilities Supply Company 13,267.03 e The City Supervisor recommended the acceptance of the low bids in both cases. A motion was made by Councilman Nordquist, seconded by Councilman Haines that the bid -of Neptune Meter Co. be accepted for supplying the city with meters for 1968 at the price of $33.20 each. Motion carried. It was moved by Councilman Haines, seconded by Councilman Haines, seconded by Council- man Nordquist that the low bid of Pacific Water Works Supply Co. in the amount of $12,901.31 be accepted for supplying the City of Edmonds with brass goods requirements for the Water Dept. for 1968. Motion carried. APPROVAL OF CHITTENDEN PLAT The plat of Chittenden's Addition was submitted to council for approval, and a motion was made by Councilman Bennett, seconded by Councilman Haines that the final plat of Chittenden's Addition be approved. Motion carried. SET HEARING DATES ON LID'S #153 AND #157 It was moved by Councilman Haines, seconded by Councilman Nordquist that the final assessment roll hearing date for LID #153 be set.for April 16. Motion carried. A motion was made by Councilman Nordquist, seconded by Councilman Haines that the date for hearing on the final assessment roll for LID #157 be set for April 16. Motion carried. AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE NEW MASTER WATER METER A letter was read from the Director of Public Works explaining that a wrong size meter had been installed for metering Alderwood water under the Phase 1 water system. The Alderwood Water District asked for installation of a smaller meter, but it does not meet the fire underwriter's specifications, so now a new meter is needed at an expenditure of approximately $1,200.00, less a possible trade-in on the old meter. A motion was made by Councilman Bennett, seconded by Councilman -Nelson that author- ization be given for purchase of a new meter. Motion carried. There was no further business, and the meeting adjourned. 1 i Irene Varney Moran, ity Clerk Harve Harrison, Mayor April 2, 1968 ROLL CALL Regular meeting was called to order by Mayor Harrison with all councilmen present. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Minutes of the council meeting of March 19 had been mailed and posted, and with no omissions nor corrections, they were approved as presented. HEARING: ON PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLL - RESOLUTION OF INTENTION #218 Hearing was held on the preliminary assessment roll for Resolution of Intention #218, proposed paving of "A" Street. A petition had been received in favor of this project. Since the notice of the hearing had been mailed, however, the engineer had received a e • petition of protest signed by 60% of the assessment owners, and the council therefore declared the proposed project dead. HEARING: PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLL - RESOLUTION OF INTENTION #220 Hearing was held on the preliminary assessment roll for Resolution of Intention #220, proposed paving of Main Street from 5Lh to 200' NW of Five Corners, City Engineer Leif Larson explained that this would be an Urban Arterial project, with the state paying 90'16, and the property owners only assessed 10016 of the improvement. He then went on to explain the zone and termini method of assessment. Mr. Brooks, from the consulting engineering firm of Gray & Osborne, gave the cost estimate of the project. City Attor- ney James A. Murphy gave an explanation of the LID procedure from the receipt of a pe- tition to the actual payment of the assessments. Hearing was then opened. Ben Westmoreland, representing Mrs. Emery, a property owner, presented a petition signed by several property owners in protest of the project. Mr. Westmoreland stated that the city would be taking some of Mrs. Emery's property and then assess her for a project she would not benefit from; and that the street would come within 2 feet of her building wall. He noted that Mrs. Emery would not have access to Main Street, where the project was. Mr. James Murphy, 8u and Main, was against widening the street between 6Lh and 9t, and because of this, was against the project. A gentleman at 824 Main questioned having the project go down as far as 6Lh, and he felt an arterial from 6!b to 9Lh on Main would devaluate properties. A.woman representing Mrs. Rickert, 923 Main, asked how many owners it would take to stop the =D. Mr. Jack Bevan, not in the assessed area, stated that he and many other tax payers would appreciate an arterial on Main from 60 to Five Corners. He felt the property owners involved, who were being assessed only 10'9 of the project, certainly should not complain as.they were having to pay far less than he • and other property owners did for a neighborhood street in front of his house. Mr. Sam Saindon, 623 Main, questioned in regard to sidewalks and the possible elimination of the parking strip. Dorothy Drobner, 1043 Main, asked if the platted 60, width would remain the same. The answer was yes. Robert Mundt, 1580 Main, stated he would not put money into an arterial highway.. Mrs. Day, 6Lh and Main, was concerned that Main from Five Corners to 6Lh might be closed during the summer season, which is the prime season for Day's Drive -In. She also inquired as to the footage to be taken off her sidewalk, which is at present 10 ft. Approximately 4 ft. would be taken. In ans- wer to a question concerning slope easements, Gray & Osborne would have an appraiser go through the properties requiring slope easements, then have an attorney contact the property owners for negotiations to acquire same. Mr. Murphy, Main Street, wondered why Main Street would be wide all the way down to 6th. A gentleman asked if this would become a four lane highway, and was answered that for now it would be 2 lanes and two parking lanes. A woman asked about the effective date of the lien against the property, and was answered that this was usually set forth in the purchase agreement between the buyer and seller, or that it was roughly 45 days from letting of the contract for the project. Councilman Tuson felt that it would be well to eliminate the wide street from 6!b to 9tb, and do the rest of the project as planned. Marian Isaakson, 479 Main, said she lived across from the school and was amazed at the speeding of cars along the school area. A gentleman living at 20702 82nd W., stated that nothing needs to be done to Main Street that it doesn't already have. A woman asked why sidewalks were needed up Main Street hill. She was answered that there was a park on the south side of Main, and more people would be using this and sidewalks had been designed for the entire.project. George Anderson, 207Lh Pl. S. W., said his property borders on that of Mrs. Emery, and that the project would not harm his property, but he felt Mrs. Emery would need a good retain- ing wall to protect her property. Wayne Smith, a property owner in the 1500 block on • Main, asked what about sewers there. He was told that dry sewers would be placed wherever wet ones were not in use, so that the street would not have to be torn up in the future. Hearing was then closed. A motion was made by Councilman Bennett, seconded by Councilman Slye that proposed Ordinance #1357 be passed, ordering the improvement of the property according to Reso- lution of Intention #220. It was then moved by Councilman Tuson to amend the previous motion to stop the pro- ject at 91h. Attorney Murphy suggested that the ordinance be passed, and if the major- ity of the council wished deletion of the area from 60 to 9Lh, they could ask the engi- neers to inquire of the Urban Arterial Board as to the consequences of the deletion. Councilman Tuson then withdrew his motion to amend. A roll call vote was taken on the motion to pass Ordinance #1357, and it passed with a unanimous vote of the council. Councilman Tuson then made a motion to instruct the engineers to inquire of the Urban Arterial Board if the portion between 6Lh and 9ih can be deleted or narrowed to 40 ft. without jeopardizing the rest of the project in any way. This motion died for lack of a.second. FINAL CONSIDERATION ON DOG LEASH ORDINANCE Mayor Harrison opened the hearing on the final consideration of the dog leash ordi- nance. A gentleman giving his address as 20702 82nd W. agreed with the nuisance por- tion, but was opposed to a leash being required at all times as long as the dog was not causing damage or creating a. nuisance. He was also opposed to the severe penalty for violation. Another gentleman noted the petitions for dog control has been num- erous, and then on the advisory ballot the people had voted 2 to 1 in favor of the • leash law. Mr. Gazewood presented bills in the amount of $700.00 for hospitalization for his mother, who had fractured her hip when a dog knocked her down. Paul Robbin, 420 O a Seattle attorney, was spokesman for PAWS, and he was opposed to anti-vivesection, and most interested that the abandoned animals would be humanely treated and not sold to institutions for experiment. Harry Cunningham, 187Lb and 84th W., stated that the proposed dog leash ordinance has been under considerable study for some time, and that for 3 years or more Edmonds has needed a leash law for protection of children. Council- man Tuson said he was definitely in favor of humane dog disposal, and the Edmonds Pound Master, Henry Bass, answered that this was done on contract with the City of Everett, and that they kept the dogs for sale to homes by people wanting pets, but that after a number of days, the dogs were put to sleep the same as a family pet would be if taken to the veterinarian for this purpose. Captain Shields said a minor- ity was against the leash law, most people had voted for it, and Edmonds needed a leash law now. Mrs..Knause felt that education of people to take care of their animals was needed, but the leash law was not the answer to the problem. Jack Bevan felt that a dog kept on his own property does not need a license unless he goes off his own premi- ses, and then the owner could be fined. Petter Sater, Sound View Place, was in favor of the leash law to protect people's property. He added that a minority of the people who do not take care of their dogs make it bad for the majority who own dogs and care for them. The Citizen's Laison Committee had suggested to the Mayor that dogs be held for 7 days instead of 3, and the word "attempt" be deleted from one section of the ordinance, as well as a notice be given by call or card to the owner. Police Chief Grimstad suggested an impound fee of $10.00 if the owner is found, and eliminate the court charges and citation. Councilman Bennett said he would favor eliminating the reference to cats. John Frothingham Glen Street, was opposed to the leash aspect and in favor of the sight leash. Mrs. Knause felt that the.Everett pound should put into writing their policy of disposal. No one else wished to add anything new, and the hear- ing was declared closed. A motion was made by Councilman Bennett, seconded by Council- man Kincaid that proposed Ordinance #1358 be passed as amended, with the deletion on licensing of cats, and elimination of the word "attempt" to notify owner. A roll call vote was unanimous, and the motion carried. Councilman Nelson then proposed the following points as his reasons for considering the sight leash provision, and asked that his comments be made a matter of record. They were:: 1. The advisory dog leash ballot does not stipulate what kind of leash control can be implemented and any assumption of what might be intended is beyond the bounds of how the council should enact and vote on any ordinance. 2.. The sight leash provision allows citizens to harbour and protect their dogs with an alternative, less physical controlled measure, yet still remain subject to all other aspects of the ordinance as outlined. It provides the important individual right of freedom of choice in how to control their dogs. It permits lawful, intelligent people the privilege of training their dogs by one or the other form of leash control. 3. The ordinance without the sight leash provision places the council in a position of indiscriminately imposing an inhumane restriction on many dogs that up until now have been well behaved without any physical leash. They have actually been under the "sight leash" provision by their masters. It is quite possible that dogs in this cat- egory, those not heretofore required or trained to wear a leash, may become broken in spirit or perhaps worst of all, vicious and harmful to all persons (including unsus- pecting children) because of this sudden change in discipline. 4. The sight leash provision is not new. It has been tried and found to be quite successful in many other cities. 5. The sight. leash provision plays an important part in depicting Edmonds as a homey, suburban city.. This is the atmosphere that people want and are entitled to enjoy. The stricter, non -chose restriction of the physical leash, and nothing else, is something for the metropolitan city that can no longer enjoy this.atmosphere. 6.. The sight leash provision gives everyone an opportunity to test and then criticize, O and even accept its failure if shown, but then the reverse is true also, by permitting a trial. There is a good probab ility of being successful. If the trial is thrown out altogether, the council is turning its back on testing the ordinance from all view- points. The sight leash provision can be rescinded if the trial does not prove accept- able. 7. It is my personal belief that the people of Edmonds will enthusiastically support the sensible sight leash provision in the spirit in which it is written, but will pos- sibly ignore or resist the more confining non -selective physical leash without the companion sight leash. I would ask that the council support the trial of this provi- sion for one year, subject to removal from the ordinance at that time if observed to be non -workable. I so move. This motion was made by Councilman Nelson, that an amendment be prepared by the City Attorney to include the sight leash provision as originally included in Chapter 5.04.100, paragraph B, for Council consideration at the next meeting. This motion died for lack of a second. Attorney Murphy noted that the ordinance would be redrafted to include the sight leash. Councilman Bennett was opposed to watering down the ordinance with a sight leash provision, as he felt it would open up a can of worms. Councilman Kincaid agreed. Councilman Tuson felt the sight leash was not originally considered when the proposed leash law was first discussed. CORRESPONDENCE A letter was received from the Chairman of the Seaview Heights School District request- ing permission to put up block parent signs in the area. Mr. Gilbert was present and explained the block parent plan to the council, who referred this to the Safety Comm- ittee. 0 CONTINUATION OF PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION #248 - CONTRACT WITH DOCES Since Doces had not come in with their plans in regard to the contract, this item was continued to the next meeting on April 16. AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION There was no one in the audience who had anything to bring before the meeting but Councilman Nordquist reported at this point that Edmonds would be serving as•host city for the South Snohomish County Joint Planning Council, and this would be held in the Civic Center on Wednesday, April 3. He urged attendance. CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES Council acknowledged receipt of a claim for damages from Benjamin S. Asia, and this was referred to the City Clerk for processing. FIRST READING: UNIFORM BUILDING AND UNIFORM MECHANICAL CODES The Uniform Building Code and Uniform Mechanical Code came before council for their first readings, and a motion was made by Councilman Haines, seconded by Councilman Nordquist that April 16 be set as the date for hearing on both codes. Motion carried. SET HEARING DATE ON APPEAL FROM PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTIONS #268 AND #269 A motion was made by Councilman Bennett, seconded by Councilman Slye that April 16 be set as the date for hearing on the appeal of the Sierra Village Committee from the re- commendations of the Planning Commission in their Resolutions #268 and #269, Files CP-8-67 and R-17-67. Motion carried. SET HEARING DATE ON APPEAL FROM PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION #270 It was moved by Councilman Nordquist, seconded by Councilman Kincaid that May 7 be set as the date for the hearing on the appeal of Harold Groat from the recommendation of the Planning Commission in their Resolution #270. Motion carried. PRESENTATION OF PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTIONS #266 AND #267 Planning Commission Resolutions #266 and #267 were presented to council for setting of dates for hearing. It was moved by Councilman Nordquist, seconded by Councilman Kincaid that hearing on Planning Commission Resolution #266 be set for May 7. Motion carried. A motion was made by Councilman Nordquist, seconded by Councilman Nelson that May 7 be set as the date for hearing on Planning Commission Resolution #267. Motion car- ried. APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT The final plat of "Ter Mar' was submitted to council. City Planner Logan felt one area in this plat was steep and sloping, and should be designated as not a buildable lot. However, following discussion, a motion was made by Councilman Kincaid, second- ed by Councilman Slye that the final plat of "Ter Mar" be approved as submitted. APPOINTMENT TO LIBRARY BOARD • Mayor Harrison made the appointment of Mrs. Gldays Eckhart to the Library Board, term of office from Jan. 1, 1968 to Dec. 31,.1972. It was moved by Councilman Tuson, seconded by Councilman Nordquist that the Mayor's appointment of Mrs. Eckhart be con- firmed. Motion carried. PARK BOARD REPORT The Park Board reported that since the Snohomish County Bond issue had passed, it was requested that the Mayor make application for county aid on City of Edmonds park sites, especially for the two lots deleted from the application to HUD on the Sunset Park ac- quisition. REQUEST BY COUNCILMEN FOR CONSOLIDATION STUDY ON FIRE PROTECTION AND PURCHASING Councilman Haines noted that with Lynnwood in the process of setting up a Fire Dept., Edmonds perhaps should look into the possibility of joining with them for fire pro- tection in the area, as we have several common boundaries. Councilman Bennett also added that it would be a good opportunity for the citizen's laison committee to look into the advisability of coordination and cooperation with the other cities in regard to joint purchasing if it would result in a savings to both cities. There was no further business, and the meeting was adjourned. Irene Varney Moran, Cit Clerk Harve Harrison, Mayor 0