Loading...
19730213 City Council Minutes408 r LJ recommended that these claims be rejected, therefore, a motion was made by Councilman Nordquist and seconded by Councilman Winters that the claims submitted by Bennett A. Box and William A. Wilson two weeks ago for attorney fees be rejected. Carried. Mr. Whaley stated that he had received a letter from the IRS notifying us that our Application for Exemption has been approved effective January this year. Councilwoman Shippen questioned Councilman Nordquist about the.delay on item #10, the proposed amendment to the Salary Ordinance regarding the Planner and Assistant Planner. She was wondering if the proposed Assistant Planner would still be available. City Planner, Joe Wallis, stated that she would still be available. Mayor Harrison asked the Council what their position was on the resolution to support Mountlake Terrace's effort in regard to Sign Route 104 realignment. A motion was made by Councilman Nordquist and seconded by Councilwoman Shippen to make this an agenda item. Motion carried. There being be further business to come before the Council the meeting adjourned at 7:59 P.M. Irene Varney 46ran, City Clerk Harve R. Harrison, Mayor February 13, 1973 ROLL CALL The Edmonds City Council regular meeting was called to order at 7:30 P. M. by • Mayor Harve Harrison, with all council members present except Tuson and Nelson. Councilman Nordquist arrived at 8:06 P. M. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Minutes of the council meeting of February 6th had been posted, mailed and dis- tributed, and with no omissions nor corrections, they were Approved as written. COUNCIL PARTICIPATION Mayor Harrison announced that there would be a meeting of the Association of Snohomish County Cities and Towns at 6:30 P. M. on Thursday, February 22 at the Viking Restaurant in Stanwood, and he noted that reservations should be made and asked any council members who wished to attend to call the Mayor's secretary so that they would know how many would be going. Mayor Harrison read a memo from CAO Ron Whaley reminding him and council of the legislative hearing on Wednesday the 14th at 7:30 P. M. in Olympia. Councilwoman Shippen reminded council of the joint meeting with the Park Board, aa)so scheduled for Wednesday evening the 14th in the Mayor's office. CORRESPONDENCE The City Clerk advised council of the re ceipt of a new letter of Intent to commence annexation proceedings in the Chase Lake area. The petition had been signed by owners of not less than 10% of the assessed valuation of the area . requesting annexation, and the City Clerk noted that two separate petitons were being presented, each with a slightly different boundary on one end. The City Engineer explained that Petition A included the area south of`.the city limits and north of 220th between 76th W. and 85th Pl. W. Petition B was south of the Edmonds city limits and north of 220th between a line 127 feet east of 80th W. and 85th P1. W. The percentage of property owners signing the petition amounted to 26% in Area "A" and 28% in Area "B", being adequate on both. City Engineer Larson stated that a meeting had been held by the proponents for the proposed annexation, to which representatives of the City had been invited and attented. The result of that meeting was the submitting of the two petitions. Deputy City Attorney John Wallace advised that at this point, council could meet with the initiating parties to determine if the city will accept the proposed annexation, and whether the city will require the adoption of a proposed zoning regulation and assumption of existing city indebtedness. Approval must be a condition pre- cedent to circulation of the petition. Upon the Attorney's recommendation that this meeting for a hearing could be held tonight, since there were a group of property owners from the area present, it was moved by Councilman Gellert, seconded by Councilman Haines that this meeting be placed on tonight's agenda following the item of Correspondence. Motion carried. HEARING: ON LETTER OF INTENT TO COMMENCE ANNEXATION PROCEEDINGS The hearing was opened on the letter of Intent to commence annexation proceed- ings for the Chase Lake area. Colleen Brown stated that from experience with obtaining signatures in the area now proposed, she felt they could quite easily get the required 75% and should be able to complete the petition quickly. She noted that the sewer problem in the area of the Chase Lake School was getting worse all the time. 0 • 409 1 1 1 Councilman Gellert asked the City Engineer if the change in the proposed annexa- tion boundaries would affect the sewer plan. Engineer Larson answered that it would not. Councilman Haines said he would recommend considering acceptance of this smaller area now being presented, since the original purpose was to help with the sewer problem near the school. There were no further comments from the audience, and the hearing was closed. Following discussion, a motion was made by Councilman Haines, seconded by Councilwoman Shippen that council authorize circulation of both Petitions "A" and "B".,and that if there are ade- quate signatures, the larger area "A" would take priority; and pursuant to the terms of the annexation petiton, all property within this territory to be an- nexed shall be assessed and taxed at the same rate and on the same basis as property within the city, including assessments or'taxes in payment of any bonds issued or debts contracted, prior to or existing at the date of annexation; and that said area requesting annexation shall retain the existing county zoning pursuant to the City Code of the City of Edmonds until such time as the same may be officially designated on the official zoning map of the City. The motion carried. HEARING: FINAL ASSESSMENT ROLL - LID #186 Hearing was held on the final assessment roll for #186, undergrounding wiring on Sunset Avenue. Assistant City Engineer Dick Allen briefed council on the project. He read three letters of protest that had -been filed with the City Clerk. These were from Lester Hanvey, John & May Reddington, and Dewey Leyda. Councilman Gellert questioned the difference in the preliminary and final costs. Engineer Allen answered that this was in part due to extra engineering costs, and to property research and survey because of some discrepancies between county and title records. Councilman Gellert also asked if the PUD shared in the extra costs, but the greatest difference was found in the indirect costs. Hearing was opened. Dewey Leyda questioned the PUD costs in moving of one light from one location to another. There was a great deal of discussion on costs, and Attorney Wallace explained that the property owners were equally assessed on a per lot basis, not to exceed 1/3. Mr. Leyda mentioned that in the preliminary estimate, it was $339.15 per lot, and $350.91 in the final. He noted that the lines were also supposed to be kept at least 4 feet from the gas main for safety reasons, but that they had been installed extremely close. Mr. Leyda was concerned about the interest charges on the project cost. Mr. Hanvey reaffirmed his objection to the project and read a letter from Burlington Northern, sent to Mayor Harrison, in which BN had stated they would not participate in any way. Mr. Wright asked why the PUD had been paid before the job was completed; who in- spected the project and gave the notice of completion; and also stated that he was dissatisfied. City Engineer Leif Larson answered that the Engineering Department had made the decision on completion of the,project; that it was completed except for some restoration work. There was a great deal of discus- sion, with council questioning the Engineer on both this project and under - grounding projects in general, as well as engineering standards for under - grounding of utilities in,Edmonds. Councilman Gellert suggested that Edmonds pattern its standards for undergrounding after the best of both Seattle and Bellevue. After some further discussion, the hearing was closed. Mayor Harrison, who is a property owner living on Sunset Avenue, stated that he thought it was a nice project and he had no complaints. . Councilman Gellert moved, seconded by Ordinance 41638 be passed, approving for LID #186, and the motion carried. Councilwoman Shippen that proposed and confirming the final assessment roll Councilman Gellert then suggested that the Engineering Department come up dJith definite external standards on undergrounding, for the benefit of the residents of Edmonds. HEARING: FINAL ASSESSMENT ROLL - LID 4189 Hearing was held on the final assessment roll for LID #189, sewering of 85th Pl. W. and vicinity. City Engineer Leif Larson reported on the project, and read one letter of pro- test received from Mrs. Amorin who objected to being included in the LID and stating that she neither had a sewer problem nor was contributing to anyone else's. Engineer Larson noted that the cost per zone front foot was $13.11 on the preliminary estimate and $12.1464 on the final. Hearing was then opened. Mr. Danner, 85th Place West, stated that he was tickled to death with the pro- ject and wanted to thank whoever was responsible for getting the job done so quickly. He also complimented the contractor on the project. Mr. Gerry Lowe, who said he lived next door to Mr. Danner, spoke about a problem of sinking in the pavement, and said he hoped this would be restored to grade. No one else in the' audience wished to comment, and the hearing was therefore closed. A motion was made by Councilman Haines, seconded by Councilman Nordquist that proposed Ordinance #1639 be passed, approving and confirming the final assess- ment roll for LID 4189, and the motion carried. 0 410 • HEARING: PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION #401 Hearing was held on Planning Commission Resolution #401, recommending approval of a proposed amendment to the zoning map, to rezone from RML to CG property described in File R-7-72. Councilman Nordquist noted that he would abstain from voting on this agenda item, and he stepped down from the council platform and took a seat in the audience. City Planner E. Joe Wallis briefed council on the area, projecting maps on the screen to show the zoning, comprehensive plan, etc. of the surrounding area, and also projected colored slides showing the parcel in question from different directions. He then recommended that some type of screening be required be- tween the CG and RML surrounding it if this is rezoned. Hearing was opened. Councilman Nordquist, in the audience, advised council that he was abstaining, on this agenda item because (1) Monogram Lumber, who owned the property, has donated strips for his campaign signs, and (2) Monogram has been a sort of symbol to the residents in the area where he lives, where you could drop by for a cup of coffee around an old-fashioned wood stove and feel welcome for coffee and conversation. He noted that there had been some conflict with both Blume Chevrolet and Doces anting the freeway to take their properties, so the freeway ended up by'goina° hrough the Monogram Lumber property. They however wanted to stay within the confines of Edmonds, so they purchased this property before council tonight for a rezone. Councilman Nordquist stated that Monogram would improve the property as far as aesthetics was concerned, and the building would act as a barrier against noise level. He added that the Planning Commission minutes regarding this particular hearing showed that the vote had been unanimous • to change the zoning here, and Mr. Erickson had assured the city that he would put up a green belt and do everything within reason to cooperate with the city. Councilman Nordquist remarked that this was a fine ownership, and he would hope council would vote favorably for the rezone. He said that the apartments to the south were most appreciative of this operation moving in and clearing the area. Council discussed green belt requirements for the city. Councilwoman Shippen stated that she was not at all sure of expanding uses in this area, and wondered if it was wise. After general discussion, the hearing was closed. It was moved by Councilman Winters, seconded by Councilman Haines to uphold the recommendations of the Planning Commission:;in Resolution #401. and their requirements. Councilman Haines stated that his reasons were that the property was not extremely large; it was in a split zone; adjacent to CG; part conform- ing and part non -conforming; and to make it more,compatible;he,recommended-`:the-:--_ zoning be unified, and it would be an actual upgrading of use rather than having a pre-fab which would be more noisy to the area. Voting in favor of the motion, which would be passage of an ordinance, were Councilmen Gellert, Winter and Haines. Councilwoman Shippen voted against. Because it takes four votes to pass an ordinance, the motion failed. Councilwoman Shippen `inquired of the City Attorney if this could be reconsidered at a meeting when an extra councilman could be present, and Attorney Wallace answered that one councilmember who had voted in favor may then move to have the matter recon- sidered. It was therefore moved by Councilman Gellert that this hearing be reconsidered on Planning Commission Resolution #401 at the February 20th meeting. Councilwoman Shippen seconded this motion, and it carried, with Councilman Haines voting against. HEARING: PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 4402 • Hearing had been continued from February 6 on Planning Commission Resolution 4402, recommending approval of a proposed amendment to the zoning map to rezone from Public Use to CW property described in File R-8-72. City Planner Joe Wallis projected maps on the screen showing the area in question as it related to the comprehensive plan and zoning. He also showed slides of the parcel asking for rezone, being adjacent to the recently annexed Anchor Boat Sales. Mr Wallis stated that the proposal would comply with the zoning plans to make a contiguous CW zone in that area. Hearing was opened. There was no one in the audience who wished to comment on the proposed rezone, and the hearing was therefore closed. Councilman Gellert made a motion, seconded by Councilman Winters that proposed Ordinance #1640 be passed, amending the official zoning map of the City of. Edmonds by changing the zoning classification of this parcel of property from Public Use to Commercial Waterfront, pursuant to Planning Commission Resolution ■. No. 402. Motion carried. FIRE ZONE STUDY Mayor Harrison read a list of comments regarding Fire Zone I restrictions being a deterrant to building in downtown Edmonds. He then read a letter from the Assistant Fire Chief which stated that after careful and extensive research into the Fire Zone situation, the Fire Department recommended that Fire Zone I designation be deleted; that Fire Zone II include all commercial zoning and all multiple residential units, triplex and larger, and include buildings in Zone III 0 • 1 1 • allowed through Conditional Use Permit or any other reason; and that Fire Zone III include the remainder of the City. The letter also noted that although the Washington Survey and Rating Bureau advised that deleting Fire Zone I would cause additional deficiency points to be assigned to the city fire insurance rating, the deficiency could be offset by sufficient water supply for closely - built commercial areas, and by Fire Zone II Code regulations being strictly interpreted and enforced. The Mayor noted that the main difference between Fire Zones I and II would be interiors of buildings in terms of fire resistive construction, and exterior walls and roofs would continue to be of fire re- sistive construction. Mayor Harrison then read a letter from the Edmonds Chamber of Commerce asking that the proposed changes in the Fire Code, in ref- erence to Fire Zone I in particular, be given every consideration towards im- proving the climate in Edmonds to facilitate increased building in the downtown business area. The letter noted that a change would give a chance for use of more desirable and aesthetically modern materials to enhance the attractiveness of the area without endangering the safety of the city or the insurance rates. The Chamber therefore urged council consideration and action on this particular subject. This was signed by A. L. Kincaid, President of the Chamber. Councilwoman Shippen remarked that she hesitated to discuss the fire code without any representation from the Fire Dept. present. She stated that she would like to have this continued and in the meantime be shown some information that might pursuade council relative to the thought that im- proving a building under Zone I is so much costly than under Zone II. She felt more emphasis should be placed on fire protection, and although she had no objection to hearing comments from interested people in the audience, she would still like to postpone any action by council at this time. Councilman Gellert said that he was in sympathy with Councilwoman Shippen, and he would like to be told how many deficiency points would be added if there were a deletion of Zone I or any other change. He noted that Edmonds was presently a Class 5 city, and he would certainly like to see fewer deficiency points to perhaps reduce Edmonds to Class 4. Building Official Harry Whitcutt stated that the Rating Bureau had said Edmonds had an 18 point deficiency charge now, and the proposed change in Zone would increase this 12 points. Mr. Pete Scobby, in the audience, said he worked for the Snohomish County Fire Prevention Bureau, and he told the council that the city would have to install an alarm system and upgrade its water system and supply before it could become a Class 4, and this would be a long way to go. It was also noted for council -clarification that upgrading of buildings would improve the structures and in fact decrease fire hazards. Upgrading of the fire protection also provides better protection to indivi- duals and this gives a position to }begin reducing requirements. At this point, Councilman Nordquist made a motion, seconded by Councilman Gellert to postpone this Fire Zone Study item to the meeting of March 6 when both Councilmen Nelson and Tuson will be present and also a represen- tative from the Fire Department. CAO Ron Whaley explained to council that Fire Chief Cooper was at present on a scheduled vacation and Assistant Chief Klein had come down with the flu this afternoon. Building Official Whitcutt brought to council attention a recommendation from the city's code committee to revise the Fire Zoning and delete Zone I. The Mayor then opened the hearing for any public comments. Mr. Ward Phillips stated that he had been out of town when this subject first came up. He said • he has purchased the Yost Building (Ford Motor C6mpany garage), and intends to turn it into something attractive. However, if he has to build it the way the Fire Code is now, it would cost fifty thousand dollars more than under Zone II. Also, Zone II would allow a more creative building. He said the only way he could develop the building the way he would like would be if the Fire Zone were changed. Al Kincaid reminded council that Lynnwood had elim- inated Fire Zone I, and perhaps Edmonds should take a long, hard look at what other communities have done. It was stated that there could be a real turn -around in the downtown economics if there were a change to Zone II. Councilman Gellert then stated that he would withdraw his second to Council- man Nordquist's motion to postpone. Councilman Haines, however, said he would like to have a vote taken now that evidence has been presented. The motion was then seconded by Councilwoman Shi-peen (for postponement). On call for the question, the motion failed to carry. Mr. Dave -Larson told council that he had an office in downtown Edmonds, and he felt the fire risk would be from the old buildings, and he said he was interested in seeing Edmonds upgraded. He added that most owners of these downtown properties were waiting until the climate is right to develop, and the fire zone is a substantial reason why this hasn't been done. He urged council to give consideration to the incentive to upgrade the buildings by recommending that they designate downtown as Fire Zone II. Larry, Bailey, an.architect in Edmonds, stated that he had done some research and came up with recommendations which he read to council. It dealt -:with': fire protection and control as it applies to Edmonds, and Fire Zones in re- gard to buildings. He said he felt the buildings could be altered and re- paired, and suggested changing the boundaries of Fire Zone I downtown'. He felt there was no appreciable difference or increase in building between • 41 • Zones I and II. There followed a great deal of discussion. Ward Phillips stated there was a substantial difference between an architect and a developer. He said the biggest problem in Edmonds was cost of renovating buildings in the downtown area, and especially as regards type of lumber or material used for such as signs, awnings,etc. He highly recommended that council make the change in Fire Zone to upgrade downtown, and he urged them to act on the expert recommendations heard tonight and eliminate Zone I. Councilman Gellert inquired, and Mr. Whitcutt answered that property owners downtown can make inside changes if the Building Official approves, and it does not increase the fire hazard. During further discussion, Mr. Larson said he was opposed to two Fire Codes in a single land use zone, and suggested the entire downtown area be designated Zone II. A motion was made by Councilman Gellert, seconded by Councilman Winters to instruct the Attorney to prepare an ordinance to delete Fire Zone I and divide the city into Fire Zones II and III in accordance with the recommenda- tions of the city's Code Committee. Motion carried. Councilman Haines abstained from voting because of ownership of property in Fire Zone I. PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO SALARY ORDINANCE A proposed amendment to the 1973 Salary Ordinance regarding the Grade for Planner and Assistant Planner had been continued from the meeting of February 6th. This would establish the position of Planner at Grade II and the Assis- tant Planner at Grade 6. A motion was made by Councilwoman Shippen, seconded by Councilman Gellert that proposed Ordinance 41641 be passed, and the motion carried. • SET HEARING DATE ON APPEAL UNDER 5-38-72 An appeal had been received from Bennett A. Box on the engineering requirements imposed by the Planning Commission at their hearing on 5-38-72. It was moved by Councilman Haines, seconded by Councilwoman Shippen that March 6 be set as the date for hearing of this appeal before council. Motion carried. ENGINEER'S REPORT ON SUFFICIENCY OF PETITION FOR SEWERING AREA SOUTH OF MEADOWDALE City Engineer Leif Larson reported that the petition for sewering the area south of Meadowdale Junior High School had been evaluated to determine the sufficiency, and the percentages were 61% of the lineal frontage upon the improvement and 61% of the area within the proposed local improvement dis- trict boundary. Accordingly, the petition is sufficient. Engineer Larson recommended going ahead with the engineering estimate and handling this via the petition method. It was moved by Councilman Gellert, seconded by Councilman Haines to instruct the Attorney to prepare an ordinance for creating an LID for sewering of this area south of Meadowdale, and hearing be set for March 6. Motion carried. LETTER FROM MOUNTLAKE TERRACE RELATING TO SR104 REALIGNMENT A letter had been received from Mayor Dan Coulter of Mountlake Terrace soli- citing Edmonds' support in their endeavor to request local legislators to introduce such legislation as would be required to direct the State Highway Department to study the feasibility and benefits of a realignment of SR104 • eastward. A motion was made by Councilman Haines, seconded by Councilman Winters that the City of Edmonds lend its support to Mountlake Terrace for this realign- ment of SR104, and the motion carried. CAO REPORT CAO Ron Whaley reported that all forms, documents, etc. for the HUD project are in the hands of HUD at the present time. There was no further business, and the meeting adjourned at 11:10 P. M. Irene Varney Mori, City Clerk Harve'H. Harrison, Mayor February 20, 1973 ROLL CALL The 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 Tuson and Nelson. 0