19730116 City Council Minutes•
There being no further business to come before Council, the meeting adjourned at 10:25 PM.
Irene Varney Mo an Cit lerk Harve H. Harrison, Mayor
January 16, 1973
ROLL CALL
Regular meeting of the Edmonds City Council was called to order at 7:30 P.M.
by Mayor Harve Harrison, with all council members present except Nordquist.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Minutes of the meeting of January 9 had been posted, mailed and distributed,
and with no omissions nor corrections, they were approved as written.
COUNCIL PARTICIPATION
Mayor Harrison welcomed a group of students in the audience, and a spokesman
said they were from a History Class at Woodway, and had come to observe.
Councilwoman Shippen brought up the matter of the Senior Citizens hot lunch
program and the letter from Deputy City Attorney Wallace regarding the con-
tribution council had voted upon at a previous meeting. It was noted that
such monies cannot be appropriated from the general revenues of the City,
which is prohibited by state law. The question as to whether or not these
monies might'be appropriated from revenue sharing funds apparently is also
in the negative. The Attorney had stated that the State Auditor's office
had sent a preliminary opinion that such a function is in the nature of a
welfare appropriation and that welfare has traditionally been a function of
the state, and not of individual municipalities, and that neither general
funds nor revenue sharing funds could be used for this purpose. However,
the State Auditor's office believes an opinion is forthcoming from the State
Attorney General, and the Deputy City Attorney therefore advised that the
matter be postponed on this particular appropriation until the purported
Attorney General's opinion is published in respect to this matter. Council-
woman Shippen stated that she would like to direct the Attorney to contact
the State Auditortfor the Attorney General's opinion on financing of this
hot lunch program from January 1973 to May 1973, and also an opinion as to
what prevails in regard to state or revenue sharing information. Council-
woman Shippen made this in the form of- ;a motion, modified to request that
Councilman Nelson, now a state legislator, directly contact the Attorney
General's office in behalf of the City. The motion was seconded by Council-
man Haines, and carried. Deputy City Attorney John Wallace said he would
draft a letter and Councilman Nelson answered that he would then hand carry
it to Olympia.
CORRESPONDENCE
The City Clerk read a petition, sighed by 14 people, residents of Northstream
Land and one each from Talbot Road and from 9th Avenue N., stating that they
were not in favor of having a fountain constructed at Fifth and Main Streets.
A letter was read from Roberta Peterson, urging council to work out a plan
for development of the City and again stating her opinion that a fountain at
the Fifth and Main intersection would be a mistake.
HEARING: FINAL ASSESSMENT ROLL - LID #185
Hearing was held on the final assessment roll for LID #185, Phase III of the
UAB project on 76th from 196th to Olympic View Drive.
City Engineer Leif Larson gavea brief rundown on this Phase III for council
clarification, and also gave figures from the final cost sheet on the project.
Hearing was then opened. There was no one in the audience who wished to
comment, and the hearing was therefore closed. It was moved by Councilman
Nelson, seconded by Councilman Haines that proposed Ordinance 41634 be passed,
approving and confirming the final assessment roll for LID #185, and the motion
carried.
HEARING: PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION #397
Hearing was held on Planning Commission Resolution 4397, recommending the
adoption of an ordinance to create a Design:Commission, File ZO-5-72.
City Planner Merlin Logan gave the council background on this proposal, and
stated that during Planning Commission hearing, there was virtually no
public comment; that perhaps two people had attended and they supported the
proposal. i�r. Logan added that there would have to be a number of amendments
made to the Planning Code if the ordinance went into effect. He said that
Council was being asked for their feelings of approval and direction in order
to give the Planning Commission consensus of opinion on whether or not it
should then go over the necessary amendments throughout the zoning code.
•
I
•
1
40
397
City Planner Logan then followed with a brief summary of the proposed Design
Commission ordinance, stating its intent and purpose for orderly community
growth; that it would consist of 7 members; that it would apply to all
buildings, excluding single family dwellings; that consultants or City
Officials charged with design responsibilities for capital improvements
shall obtain preliminary recommendations from the Design Commission, but the
City Council would have final say on projects paid for by the City. Rules,
records, and meetings would,be open to the public; minutes would be kept and
findings of fact published; there would be no posting required prior to the
hearings, however. Duties of the,;Commission would be to review for approval
or disapproval all buildings and -property improvements within the City except
those related to single-family'structures. It could review and supply advice
to both the City and the general public regarding design on buildings or pro-
jects. Mr. Logan then summarized the criteria for evaluation of proposals,
and told of the procedure for applicants, as well as the appeal, which would
be to the City Council, who could rule regarding unfair or improper procedure
by the Commission. The City Planner went on to say that Mercer Island has
adopted a Design Commission, and there are similar bodies in Oregon and in
Vancouver, B. C. King County has one, but only for Public Works contracts.
Mr. Logan suggested that perhaps council might consider this for Public
Works contracts as a beginning step, and then review advertising signs also,
using the present sign regulations as guidelines.
Councilman Haines questioned procedure for the builders, and City Planner
Logan answered that a site plan and exterior elevations must be submitted
to the Design Commission for approval, with the estimate of time between
the submitting and the review by the Commission to be about two weeks.
• Following some discussion, Mayor Harrison stated that in order to clarify
many of these questions, he had given this a good deal of study, and he had
at first thought a Design Commission would be of benefit to the City because
he felt it would improve the quality of design and make available profes-
sional expertise. But in carefully analyzing this, he would recommend against
the establishment of a Design Commission for the following five reasons:
(1) A Design Commission would add another agency of city government, which
would create a greater burden on our Planning Department and our Planning
Commission; and for those cases which are appealed, it would create a
greater burden on the City Council. The increased burden on the Planning
Department would mean increased cost to the City, or to the applicant.
(2) A Design Commission would add costly and time-consuming procedures to
the owner who desires to build something on his land. The owner would be
required to hire an architect and invest•in preliminary drawings on specu-
lation of getting approval from the Design Commission. The owner would be
required to wait for up to 60 days for a decision by the Design Commission,
and perhaps an additional 45 days if he appeals the decision to the City
Council. (3) Design is too controversial; and this is especially true among
,architects; and design is already reviewed by lending agencies, (4) A Design
Commission is not applicable to the City of Edmonds because Edmonds has no
theme to protect. The Design Commission concept was created -by communities
which want to establish a uniform architectural style, such as Spanish,
Western, or New England. (5) He believes that our existing zoning and
building codes, and our sign ordinance are adequate to protect the public
interest.
There was further council discussion, during which time Councilman Tuson
said he would not want to see any non-resident of Edmonds on any Design
• Commission. Councilwoman Shippen asked if it would be possible for council
to go through the proposal section by section and discuss it in this manner.
Councilman Haines felt council should postpone any action until comments
could be heard from the community to see if it meets with favor, and notices
could be sent to the Chamber of Commerce, Builders, etc. Then would be time
to go through the proposal section by section, if it met with favorable
acceptance. Councilwoman Shippen answered that she thought if we were going
to solicit community opinion, then we would have to really solicit it by
sending out notices to any firm.or municipal service organization that might
be interested; and secondly, in order to really give weight to their opinion,
it would not seem to be asking too much if they appear and speak on the
subject if they're sincerely interested in a public matter; and the Council
should not be able to stifle a matter simply by sending in a letter saying
they don't like it, without bothering to come and discuss it with the council.
Councilman Haines agreed that copies of the proposal should be sent to solicit
comments from Builders in the area, also from architects, Chamber of Commerce,
and service orgainizations. Councilman Gellert said in order to make all the
residents aware in the community, publicity could be done through the news-
papers. He agreed with the Mayor on problems the Design Commission might
create, but he didn't feel the idea should be abandoned, since it could come
up with a joint effort between the Design Commission and the builders which
would benefit the City. City planner Logan advised council that in con-
nection with the Planning Commission hearing, there was local publication via
newspapers, announcements on three radio stations, and notice sent to the
Chamber of Commerce.
Mayor Harrison opened the hearing; and no one in the audience wished to
0
•
comment. Following some further discussion, a motion was made by Councilman
Haines, seconded by Councilman Gellert to postpone action on a Design Com-
mission until the March 6 meeting, with copies of the proposal to be sent to
builders of commercial structures, architects, Chamber of Commerce, sign
companies, other service organizations, and any other local building asso-
ciation. Motion carried.
REQUEST OF DR. CAMERON STEWART FOR CITY REVIEW OF ENGINEERING REQUIREMENTS
IMPOSED BY PLANNING COMMISSION ON 3 LOT SUBDIVISION
In regard to the request of Dr. Stewart for city review of engineering re-
quirements imposed by the Planning Commission on a 3 lot subdivision located
at 84th Ave. W. and 184th S.W., Planning Commission File 5-28-72;
City Engineer Leif Larson repotted_that the Dr. and engineer had been asked
if they would make estimates and bring them in for discussion purposes.
However, since they haven't done this, Engineer Larson said he would recom-
mend this be continued until the next council meeting so that they would
have something before them for discussion. It was therefore moved by
Councilman Tuson, seconded by Councilwoman Shippen to continue this item to
the next regular council meeting. '=Motion carried.
CONSIDERATION OF SEWERING AREA SOUTH OF MEADOWDALE JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL
City Engineer Larson reported --.that the actual sewering proposal had started
about four years ago, but due to the fact we did not have this area covered
by agreements with Lynnwood, Edmonds was unable to proceed with the project.
He noted that estimates made at that time were considerably lower, and he
quoted comparisons costwise on similar districts. He then distributed cost
estimate sheets.and an area diagram to each council member. He stated the
total project cost as noted on the sheet to be $118,000.00 including side
sewers, with the cost per zone front foot being $22.96. He noted that a
petition had been filed with the City,Clerk this evening, with signatures
representing over 50% of the area involved.
The City Engineer then asked council -to authorize him to proceed with the
final design, in view of the fact that this petition had been received. He
said that following the design, a review could then be made regarding means
of financing. Councilman Nelson asked.if the signers of the petition were
aware of the $22.96 figure? A gentleman in the audience, who had carried
the petition, said the figure was told -to these people, and he added that
from the figures quoted four years ago, you should have heard some of the
comments he received.
Further council discussion followed, and Councilman Nelson then moved,
seconded by Councilman Gellert to instruct the City Engineer to proceed with
the final design to obtain a more accurate estimate of what this project will
cost. Councilman Tuson asked how much the engineering costs would be.
Engineer Wayne Jones from Reid, Middleton & Associates, Inc., answered that
it would amount to about 6%, or between $6,000 and $7,000. Councilman Tuson
then questioned that if this should go for a year ok two before the project
was approved by the people, would the design still be useable? He was told
yes, the design could still be used.
There was discussion on the cost increase and the design, with the possibility
of including Olympic View Drive. Engineer Larson told council the average
cost to each property owner would be approximately $2,000, and he remarked
that this was awfully high. Councilman Gellert asked if the City Clerk's
office would have this petition verified within a week, and the City Clerk
answered yes, it would be done in that time. Councilman Nelson asked the
Engineer how soon the project could be started, and he was told that after
the City Clerk's verification of the signatures, it could probably go by
the petition method, and notices could possibly be ready to send in 6 weeks.
On call for the question, Councilman Nelson's motion carried.
PRELIMINARY PLAT - PANORAMA POINT
City Planner Merlin Logan presented the preliminary plat of Panorama Point
for council review. He stated that it was 15 lots on the north side of
184th S.W., with Preview Building Corporation being the owner and the engineer
being Ruskin Fisher. He noted that the lots were all 12,000 feet or larger,
and there was no alternative street plan possible.
There was discussion and questions from council on storm sewering in the
area. The City Engineer had the engineering drawings for storm drainage.on
a map, which he explained to coun&-il. In answer to a question from Council-
man Tuson, Engineer Larson agreed that the builder would run his own storm
sewer.
Councilman Haines then moved, seconded by Councilman Gellert that the 'Pre-
liminary plat of Panorama Point be approved, subject to Planning and Engineer-
ing requirements, and the motion -carried.
•
I�
E
1
n
0
•
CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES
39
Claims for damages were acknowledged from: Dewey Le§rda; John E. & Maybelle L.
Kosco; Don & Janet Cortez; and from Richard S. Marsh. These were all re-
ferred to the City Clerk for processing.
CAO REPORT
CAO Ron Whaley reported that last week a notice had been received from HUD
of the approval for grant funds for the Snohomish County Senior Citizens
Center. For backup data on this,,he stated that following a letter received
from HUD dated January 5th, we received contract documents together with some
other exhibits, preliminary resolution forms, etc. that will have to be pro-
cessed. These had been forwarded to Attorney Wallace last week, and he will
have to give his legal opinion with any additions, modifications, etc. , of
the contract with HUD. The letter accompanying those documents indicated
that they would like to have completion by council.:.action, of the agreements,
the contract, etc. within 30 days, so we are looking at February 4th, assuming
everything will go right. It is hoped that Attorney Wallace and the CAO can
bring this to the council next Tuesday night, and for passage by the 30th. The
amount approved by HUD is $329,000; that, together with the $100,000 in cash
that the city is putting up, and the $9,700 of in -kind service, is the same
figure as originally requested - $438,700 in total project costs. In budget
assigned by HUD, it was noticed that they are looking forward to a completion
date of the project by December 31, 1973.
The CAO then stated that his second item was wages - again. He said that
very timely, after the council's action last Tuesday night (of passing
•
Ordinance #1633), based on that passage, information had been given out to
Finance, Payroll, and all Department Heads. On Thursday afternoon he walked
out of the building, ggt'-.into his car and turned on the radio and heard the
Wage Board didn't exist anymore. He noted that last week council had been
presented with two different proposals - Plan A and Plan B. 21an B was
adopted, and looking there at the unit of non -union supervisory staff positions,
which would total about 50 people, 9/10th of 1% had been taken off the proposed
salary -in order to be down to the 5.5% limit. This was across the board on each
and every position. CAO Whaley said he would like to request that council
consider modifying Ordinance #1633 as passed last week and add back that
percentage for each employee, or in other words, adopt Plan A.* 9/10th of 1%
amounts to $397 per month for 50 people or $7.58 per person on an average.
If this action is taken, as a group that unit would be at some 2z°A below the
average curve as adopted by the council in the salary policy adopted September
5 from the Prior Report. He noted, after some questions from council, that the
curve had been raised 3.6% for the cost of living from December 1971 to December
1972. Upon this recommendation, a motion was made by Councilman Haines, seconded
by Councilman Nelson to pass proposed Ordinance 01635, to allow the CAO to
raise those employees as noted, by using Plan A as had been presented. Motion
carried.
Councilman Gellert inquired when council members would receive a copy of the
1973 Final Budget. CAO Whaley answered that the final typing was now in
progress.
APPOINTMENTS TO BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Mayor Harrison remarked that there was a critical situation on the Board of
• Adjustment in that one member had resigned and two terms had expired, and it
was difficult to have a meeting with a quorum. He therefore said he was
making appointments as follows: Howard Anderson, owner of Andy's Boat House,
to finish the unexpired term of George Grant; Paul Roy, a contractor; and
Lee Drake, sales representative for Western Utilities; the latter two to be
new terms. The Mayor added that all three of these men had lived in this
area over 15 years and were active in civic affairs.
Councilman Gellert referred to his suggested policy that before action is
taken on new appointments.for the boards and commissions, council be given
a resume' stating their qualifications, and/or a personal appearance by the
proposed appointee before council. Mayor Harrison answered that he questioned
if the council could do this, for in all cases we have a tough time talking
people into serving, and to ask them to come and be interviewed would in no
way be a successful procedure. Councilman Haines noted that he knew two of
the candidates quite well, and would have no reservations on voting for them.
Councilwoman Shippen stated that she had one reservation in that one of these
appointees had been involved for a long time in a dispute with the Board of
Adjustment, but Mayor Harrison assured Councilwoman Shippen that this person
had stated that he would abstain from any action on that patticular matter.
Following further discussion, it was moved by Councilman Winters, seconded
by Councilman Nelson to confirm the appointments of Howard Anderson, Paul Roy,
and Lee Drake, whom the Mayor had selected for the Board of Adjustment. The
motion carried, with one councilman against, and Councilwoman Shippen abstain-
ing for the previously stated reason of no women, having been considered for
these positions. Mayor Harrison, however, said that he had asked Peggy Harris
if she would like to accept an appointment, and she had declined. Councilman
0
4.00
•
Nelson remarked that the Mayor has purged his files of suggested names for
women appointees, and if there was opportunity to obtain qualified women for
these boards and commissions, he felt everyone should be encouraged to submit
names to the Mayor. Councilwoman Shippen answered that she had suggested, and
the Mayor had appointed, a couple women to the Liaison Committee, and she felt
this committee would be a training ground to go on to boards and commissions,
and she would prepare a list of women who would be glad to serve: She felt
these women were perfectly capable and she cannot believe there aren't women
who would want to be appointed; that it did not take professional training to
serve, only a genuine interest in government and the effort to understand the
problems that come before them. Councilman Gellert offered the suggestion of
the Stevens Memorial Hospital Auxiliary as one source of women who might be
qualified and available to serve the city.
Mayor Harrison asked council for an executive session following the meeting
in order to deal with about three personnel and salary matters.
There was no further business, and the meeting was adjourned at 9:10 P.M.
Ire e Varney Mo p1n, City Clerk Harve. H. Harrison, Mayor
January 23, 1973
ROLL CALL
Regular meeting of the Edmonds City Council was called to order at 7:30 P.M. •
by Mayor Harve Harrison, with all council members present except Gellert.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Minutes of the meeting of January 16 had been posted, mailed and distributed,
and with no omissions nor corrections, they,were approved as written.
COUNCIL PARTICIPATION
Councilwoman Shippen said she understands that the City cannot appropriate
$2,000 for the Senior Center Hot Lunch Program on advice of the City Attorney.
She therefore, made a motion seconded by Councilman Nordquist that the City
appropriate the sum of $2,000 to be paid to the South County Senior Center
for the purpose of operating recreation classes for senior citizens extending
our City recreation program. Following a roll call vote, the motion carried
unanimously.
Councilwoman Shippen reminded the Council that they had received a memorandum
on the Equal Employment Opportunity Act about two months ago. She said she
thought the Council should begin to discuss affirmative action programs.
Councilwoman Shippen then made a motion seconded by Councilman Haines to set
February 20th as a hearing date for a discussion on the Equal Employment
Opportunity Program. Motion carried.
AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION
Margaret Lerfald read a letter dated January 19, 1973 from the Edmonds Park
and Recreation Advisory Board. The letter said they had unanimously passed •
a motion to ask the City Council to design and approve an ordinance which
would require an environmental impact statement to be prepared for any sig-
nificant development or construction in city parks and recreation areas.
The Park Board is concerned about developments which have been accomplished
on park property which would be detrimental to the park. One of these projects
is the recently constructed storm drain in Pine Ridge Park. The south portion
of this park is now flooded and they are fearful of further damage being
inflicted.
Mayor Harrison said he thought the storm sewer in Pine Ridge Park is what
brought all this to ahead. He asked Mr. Larson if any thought had been given
to an open ditch instead of the enclosed one now in use. The City Engineer
answered that this had been considered, however it was thought that during
storm run-off periods there would be a hazard to small children. Another
consideration was that quite a few trees would have to be cut in order to
bridge an open ditch. Mr'. Larson said that he plans to make a presentation
to the Park Board at their next meeting. He will then outline plans affecting
park development and at that time would be happy to discuss ways and means.,
to solve any problems or perhaps come up with alternate solutions.
During further discussion it was suggested by Councilman Nordquist that the
council members attend a Park Board meeting and go into these matters in
more detail. Councilman Haines thought this was a good idea and then made
a motion that any engineering project contemplated will be cleared with the
Park Board before final engineering is done. Councilwoman Shippen seconded,
and the motion carried. She added that she would like the council to get
copies of any environmental impact statements.
•