19740528 City Council MinutesCI
135)
MOTION:
MOTION:
1
1
and Sewer Revenue Bonds. He handed out sheets indicating four alternate
proposals for 25 years, 26 years, 27 years, and 28 years. Following dis-
cussion, Mr. Kennedy recommended Alternate #4 for 28 years at an interest
rate of 6.942%. COUNCILMAN WINTERS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN NORDQUIST
TO REJECT THE OFFER OF PURCHASE. FOLLOWING A ROLL CALL VOTE THE MOTION
FAILED WITH NELSON ABSTAINING, NORDQUIST AND WINTERS VOTING "YES" AND THE
REMAINING MEMBERS VOTING "NO".: COUNCILMAN GELLERT THEN MADE A MOTION,
SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN ANDERSON TO ACCEPT THE $2,0009000 * PURCHASE PROPOSAL
UNDER ALTERNATE #4 AT AN INTEREST RATE OF 6.942%. FOLLOWING A ROLL CALL VOTE,
THE MOTION CARRIED WITH COUNCIL MEMBERS WELLING, GELLERT, SHIPPEW AND ANDERSON
VOTING "YES" AND COUNCILMEN NELSON, NORDQUIST AND WINTERS VOTING "NO".
THERE BEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS, THE MEETING ADJOURNED AT 11:10 P.M.
Eleanor Queal , Deput ity Clerk Harve H. Harrison,•Mayor
May 28, 1974
WWI. r'AT.T.
The regular meeting of the Edmonds City Council was called to order by Mayor
Harve Harrison at 7:30 P.M. All council members were present.
MAYOR ' S ND1 GAVEL
• Mayor Harrison noted that he had a new gavel, fashioned of walnut and oak. He
announced that.it had been made and presented to him by Perry Spanfelner, Building
Inspector.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Minutes of the meeting of May 21 had been posted, mailed and distributed, and with
no omissions nor corrections, they were approved as -written.
COUNCIL• PARTICIPATION
Councilman Gellert stated that he wished to reiterate that the Cable TV committee
would appreciate as much input as possible from council members. They were looking
for factors to determine if the rate increase is applicable. Councilman Anderson
suggested that the index of customers and how many may have dropped the service
would be one factor to look into.
Councilwoman Shippen.asked about the warrant on the Claims List she had inquired
about at the last meeting. City Engineer Larson distributed a memo on this to each
-council member, and explained the meftd of transfer of funds.
Councilwoman Shippen made the request that discussion to initiate a sidewalk improve-
ment project be placed.on the June 11 work meeting agenda:'
Councilman Gellert had a question concerning the Capital Improvement Committee and
its meetings, and City Engineer Leif Larson answered that a plan was being developed
by himself and the -Finance Director,.and this would be ready soon. They would then
call another meeting of the Committee.
• Councilman Welling added that it would be wellto discuss.the priority of sidewalks
on the Capital Improvements program. Councilman Ander�son,ssaid he.felt new side-
walks should be discussed also, as well as the maintenance and repair of the dxisting
ones. The City Engineer mentioned the city's 1963 Resolution 81 that dealt with
that type of situation. A MOTION WAS THEN MADE BY.COUNCILMAN WELLING, SECONDED BY
COUNCILMAN ANDERSON THAT THE DISCUSSION OF A SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENT PROJECT BE -PLACED
ON THE AGENDA, AS SUGGESTED BY COUNCILWOMAN SHIPPEN. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Nordquist reminded council that they had neglected to pass a resolution
of commendation to send to former Councilman Don Tusonl.s.widow, and HE MADE THE
MOTION,• SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN NELSON TO INSTRUCT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE A-``'
RESOLUTION OF COMMENDATION IN MEMORY OF FORMER COUNCILMAN DON TUSON.. MOTION
CARRIED:
Mayor Harrison reported that the.city had received -the offer of a grant in the amount
Of $199,632 from the Washington Futures Program for development of water storage tank
and it would require acdeptance by the city to comply with state regulations. He
asked what action council wished to take, and following some discussion, A MOTION
WAS MADE BY COUNCILMAN GELLERT, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN NORDQUIST TO AUTHORIZE THE
MAYOR TO ENTER INTO CONTRACT -FOR ACCEPTANCE OF THE GRANT AND TO COMPLY WITH THE
STATE REGULATIONS. MOTION CARRIED.
Mayor Harrison noted that no� action had been taken on the request for mileage
allowance increase for city employees who use their own cars on city business. He
asked what council wished to do about this. The present allowance is 10a per mile.
Councilman Nordquist noted hhat the trend seemed to be swinging toward 15(z, and he
MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN WINTERS TO SET THE MILEAGE ALLOWANCE AT :15(r PER MILE.
- 36
Councilman Gellert stated that a study had indicated that 13(t per mile was adequate •
for mileage, and would -take care of gasoline, insurance, depreciation, and other
related necessities in operating a private vehicle, and HE MOVED TO AMEND THE MOTION
AND SET -THE ALLOWANCE AT 13(t PER MILE. This amendment died for lack of a second,
AND VOTE ON THE ORIGINAL MOTION THEN CARRIED, WITH COUNCILMAN GELLERT VOTING
AGAINST.
CORRESPONDENCE
At this point, City Planner Wallis read a humorous letter dealing with the
red tape involoved in permits, applications, environmental impact statements,
etc.
HEARING: PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTIONS 434 AND 435
City Planner Joe Wallis asked that Resolutions 434 and 435 be heard simultaneously.,
#434 was recommending approval of an amendment -bo the zoning ordinance, section
12.13.170 (c), (2), minimum setback requirements, -File ZO-4-74. Resolution
#435 recommended approval of an amendment to the zoning ordinance, section
12.13.160 (e), limitations on uses in BN districts, File ZO-3-74.
City Planner Wallis explained under Exhibit A of #434 that the present regulations
do not completely prohibit mechanical equipment in the setback areas outside
buildings in the BN district, and this measure is needed to insure appropriate
sound nuisance protection of adjacent R designated districts. Exhibit B showed
provision for bulk and dimensional regulations in the BN district; minimum setback
requirements inside yards to be ten feet where abutting an R classified zone.
Explanation for Resolution #435 included findings under Exhibit A. noting that
the city had continuing problems relating to the control of noise from BN to RS •
zones, and present regulations do not completely prohibit -mechanical equipment
in the setback -areas outside building in BN zones, and additional space between
noise producing equipment and abutting R classified zones would insure appropriate
sound conditions of adjacent R designated districts. Recommendation under Exhibit
B, limitations on uses in BN districts, would add under section 12.13.160 (e) the
notation that -noise producing mechanical equipment shall not be installed within
the building setbacks.
Hearing was then opened. No one in the audience wished to comment, andthe hearing
was closed. Following some short discussion, A MOTION WAS MADE BY COUNCILMAN
NORDQUIST, SECONDED BY COUNCILWOMAN SHIPPEN THAT PROPOSED ORDINANCE•#1`1.2 BE
PASSED, AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING ORDINANCE BY AMENDING SECTION 12.13.170 (c)
(2) BY CHANGING THE SIDE YARD SETBACKS WHEN SUCH ZONE ABUTS AN R CLASSIFIED
ZONE FROM FIVE FEET TO TEN FEET PURSUANT TO PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 434.
MOTION CARRIED.
COUNCILMAN.NORDQUIST THEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILWOMAN SHIPPEN THAT PROPOSED
ORDINANCE #1713 BE PASSED, AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING ORDINANCE BY AMENDING
SECTION 12,13.160 (e), LIMITATIONS ON USES IN BN DISTRICTS, TO PROHIBIT THE
INSTALLATION'OF NOISE PRODUCING MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT WITHIN BUILDING SETBACKS
IN SAID ZONE, -PURSUANT -TO PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 435. MOTION CARRIED.
HEARING: PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 439
Hearing was held on Planning Commission Resolution 439, recommending approval
of an amendment to the zoning -ordinance, section 12.14.020, general parking
requirements. Planning Commission File ZO-8-74.
City Planner Wallis stated that it was the findings of the Planning Commission •
that Section 12.14.020, general parking requirements, should be amended as the
reasons for provisions are unclear and there is inconsistency when provision
is applied to one and.two dwelling units in RM zones. This condition became
apparent to the staff when some subdivisions were developed. The zoning code,
when applied to RML zones, does not allow parking in the setbacks but in all
RM zones, all parking is allowed within the setbacks. It was also determined.
that provisions for landscaping for said areas are needed. Under Exhibit B.
the amended section would include the new statement, "those areas where two
or more parking spaces occur in the setbacks shall be landscaped to a height.
of not less than three feet at maturity and the landscape screening planting
area shall be not less than four feet in any horizontal dimenti6n1l.,,'The
deleted statement was "if the required parking space for a one or two family
dwelling is not provided in a covered garage, then such space shall be not
less tfan two hundred square feet, and shall be so located and/or constructed
that it may later be covered by a garage structure in accordance with the
provisions of this zoning code and the city building code".
Hearing was opened, and with no one wishingrto comment, it was closed.
There was a great deal of council'discussion. Councilman Gellert then stated
that the city should regulate the type of parking by a zone, rather than the -
use in a zone. Following some further discussion, COUNCILMAN GELLERT MOVED,
SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN ANDERSON TO REFER THIS MATTER BACK TO THE PLANNING
COMMISSION, TO MAKE PARKING CONSISTENT WITH ZONES RATHER THAN WITH USES, WITHIN
A ZONE.. MOTION CARRIED.
CONTINUED DISCUSSION ON FINANCING OF PARKING
Mayor Harrison asked council if they had any new thoughts on alternates for
•
137
• financing of parking, -Councilman Anderson referred to the copies of the
Kirkland ordinance which council members had received. He had a question on
the language in section 10, page 5, and some trouble in attempting to figure
out their financing, Attorney John Wallace explained that they give credit to
existing assessments,.and there followed some discussion on the Kirkland
ordinance,
In answer to reporting on the matter, City Planner Joe Wallis told council that
he would prefer to review and then report back. IT WAS THEREFORE MOVED BY COUNCIL-
MAN ANDERSON, SECONDED BY COUNCILWOMAN SHIPPEN TO HAVE THE CITY PLANNER BRIEF THE
COUNCIL ON THIS ORDINANCE AT THE JUNE 4 MEETING. MOTION CARRIED.
SHORELINES MANAGEMENT MASTER PROGRAM
Assistant Planner, Kay Shoudy, had distributed copies of the amendments to the
master program. She stated that she hoped council would clarify what they felt
should be included before the draft is again sent to the�.Dept-._of.Ecology by
June 20. Mrs.-Shoudy-went on to.explain.the..changes made, with the aid.of
drawings projected on the screen. Following this, and after a period of dis-
cussion, Mrs, Shoudy asked council for recommendation on.handling of the changes
in the program before resubmitting. She advised that she would proceed with the impact
statement in order to send copies to the agencies and also make them available to
the public. Council discussed in particular the Laebugten Wharf .area, and
Councilman Welling inquired if council thought about whether or not this Shorelines
Management Act would prohibit some rights at this location. Councilman Gellert
suggested that there might be a need to create another type of zoning on the
waterfront to include areas, and activities such as Laebugten Wharf. It was
noted that if the city did not come up with an acceptable program, the state
can inflict one on it. Councilman Nelson mentioned that on the original draft,
• "urban recreational" designation was removed, and there followed some discussion
on uses allowed in this type of area, as well as uses allowed in other designations.
Following some further comments by council,,: with particular reference to Laebugten
Wharf, IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILMAN WELLING, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN GELLERT THAT
THIS BE REFERRED BACK TO THE PLANNING DEPT. FOR THE PURPOSE OF.COMING FORTH WITH
SOME KIND OF PROGRAM WHICH -WOULD, IN -EFFECT, PROTECT.LAEBUGTEN.WHARF.IN ITS PRESENT
CONFIGURATION, TOGETHER WITH A REASONABLE PROBABILITY OF IT BEING ALLOWED TO EXPAND
ITS FACILITIES WITHIN THE LIMITS OF ITS PRESENT OWNERSHIP.. There was further
council discussion, during which time -Assistant Planner Shoudy said she would
recommend changing it to a marine resource zone, and Councilwoman Shippen sug-
gested redefining or expanding the marine resource zone. On call for the question,
a roll call vote was taken, with Councilmembers Welling, Gellert, Nelson, Nordquist
and Winters voting in favor; Shippen and Anderson against, and the motion carried.
Mr, Robert:Woehrman, representing Union Oil Company, stated that his former
concern had been for continued use of the pier facility at Union�0il dock, but
that now the recommendation for open space of the marsh area concerned.him. He
felt there were no reasonable uses allowed under -open space designation. He
then said that priority should be given to acquisition of this area,- and council
should address itself to this. City Planner Wallis noted that open space is a
use; that -it provides -as a valuable buffer from the.Union Oil refinery.- Mayor
Harrison then had the City Planner read the uses for "Open Space". Mr, Woehrman
said Union Oil would prefer development of an industrial park in this area, and
they can do nothing with the property under the open space zoning.
City Attorney John Wallace advised that the city would have to hold public
hearings in order to adopt the program, if it is to be as specific as the state
is requesting, as was his impression from the letter received from the state.
There was discussion on state regulatory concepts, and COUNCILMAN GELLERT MOVED,
• SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN ANDERSON THAT WE CONTACT THE STATE DEPT.. OF ECOLOGY AND
REQUEST -AN EXTENSION OF SIX MONTHS, DURING WHICH TIME THE CITY OFFICIALS AND THE
STATE INFORMALLY THRASH OUT THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN WHAT THE STATE THINKS IS
REQUIRED AND THE CITY THINKS IS REQUIRED, AND THEN SUBSEQUENT TO THAT, ADOPT A
FINAL PLAN FOLLOWING.STATE INFORMAL REVIEW. MOTION CARRIED.
PRESENTATION OF 1973 UNIFORM BUILDING, PLUMBING. AND MECHANICAL -CODES
Harry Whitcutt, Building Official, presented the 1973 Uniform Building, Plumbing,
and Mechanical Codes, with recommendations contained 'in a memo distributed to
each council -.member. Mr..-Whitcutt explained that the ordinances were not drawn,
'the
as he had contents of the memo for council consideration. He then read the
suggested amendments, as recommended by the Board of Appeals, which also serves
as.the Code Committee. There were no amendments suggested for the Mechanical
Code. There was discussion on the changes in the Building Code, and A MOTION
WAS THEN MADE BY COUNCILMAN WINTERS, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN GELLERT TO DELETE
THE PLAN CHECK FEE SCHEDULE FOR SINGLE RESIDENCES. MOTION CARRIED.
Following discussion on the Plumbing Code, IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILMAN GELLERT,
SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN NELSON TO•ELIMINATE THE SECOND SENTENCE UNDER ITEM 6 ON
PAGE 5 OF THE MEMO. THIS MOTION ALSO CARRIED.
COUNCILMAN NORDQUIST THEN MADE THE MOTION, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN ANDERSON TO IN-
STRUCT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN ORDINANCE, INCORPORATING THE CHANGES AS
NOTED IN THE FORMER MOTIONS, AND ALSO DELETING CHAPTER 11, PAGE 4, ITEM D IN THE
MEMO. THE MOTION CARRIED.
APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT - SEAVIEW PINES 41
• City Engineer Leif Larson gave a brief summary of the plat, reminding council it had
138
deleted the sidewalks with a motion on December 26, and recommending approval. •
A MOTION WAS THEREFORE MADE BY COUNCILMAN GELLERT, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN NELSON
TO APPROVE THE FINAL PLAT OF SEAVIEW PINES #1, SUBJECT TO ANY EINGINEERING RE-
QUIREMENTS. MOTION CARRIED.
PROPOSED RESOLUTION FOR CONDEMNATION, IF REQUIRED, 220TH UAB PROJECT
City Engineer Leif Larson advised -council that he was submitting a proposed
resolution for 220th only, omitting 196th, and teat -he did not anticipate any
problems with 220th.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY COUNCILMAN NELSON, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN ANDERSON THAT
PROPOSED RESOLUTION #304 BE PASSED, AUTHORIZING CONDEMNATION ONLY IF NECESSARY
FOR THE ACQUISITION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR STREET PURPOSES ALONG 220TH. PURSUANT
TO THE RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE UAB. MOTION CARRIED.
ACCEPTANCE OF 5FT. DEDICATIONS - PLANNING COMMISSION FILES S-20-74 AND 5-18-74
City Planner Joe Wallis explained the situation requiring the dedication of
the 5 feet -to the city; and stated that the Staff recommended acceptance of
these two dedications.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY COUNCILMAN NORDQUIST, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN ANDERSON
THAT THE CITY ACCEPT THE-5 FT. DEDICATION FROM WM. ROBINSON, TALBOT ROAD,
FROM A 2 LOT SUBDIVISION, -NOTED IN PLANNING COMMISSION FILE S-20-74. MOTION
CARRIED.
COUNCILMAN NORDUST ALSO MOVED , XCONDED BY COUNCILMAN ANDERSON THAT THE CITY
ACCEPT -THE 5.1FT. DEDICATION FROM K & K HOMES, SPRUCE STREET, FROM A 3 LOT
SUBDIVISION, NOTED IN PLANNING COMMISSION FILE 5-18-74. THIS MOTION ALSO •
CARRIED.
CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES
The City Clerk reportedthat a claim had been filed by Robert & Pamela Dzawala
for indemnity and reimbursement arising out of a lawsuit filed against them
by the father of a 10 year old bicyclist who was injured ina collision with
Mrs. Dzawala at the intersection of 160th SW and 68th W. Mrs. Dzawala claimed
the accident occurred because the city failed to erect and maintain a stopsign
for westbound traffic on 160th P1. SW, and to maintain and repair the roadway
at that point. Receipt of the claim was acknowledged and it was referred to the
City Clerk for processing.
ADJOURNMENT
There was no`: further business to come before council and the meeting was
adjourned at 10:30 P.M.
Irene Varney Mor , City Clerk Hakve H. Harrison,'Mayor
June 4, 1974
ROLL CALL
Regular meeting of the Edmonds City Council was called to order by Mayor Protem •
John Nordquist at 7:30 P.M. Mayor Harrison and Councilwoman Shippen were both.
attending graduation ceremonies, and all other council members were present except
Winters.
Mayor Protem Nordquist stated that this being graduation week for the Edmonds
School District as well as for various sftools throughout the country, he wished
to offer his personal congratulations and also from the City to all graduating
seniors. He added that he thought it was tremendous that we have a school system
such as we do and we can see our students from Edmonds go on to higher and better
things, and we want to wish them the best.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Councilman Gellert noted that on page 2 of the May 28 minutes, in the first para-
graph his statement that 130 per mile was adequate for mileage, it should read that
the study indicated that amount.would take care of gasoline and maintenance, and
one half of the insurance and depreciation costs. Councilman Gellert also.men-
tioned on page 4, second line of first paragraph.,.he questioned the word "owner-
ship" in Councilman Welling's motion. Councilman Welling agreed that it was an
unfortunate choice of words and asked if it could be changed to "use" in place of
"ownership". The minutes were approved as corrected and amended.
COUNCIL PARTICIPATION
Councilman Nelson invited council members and staff to the transit meeting to be
held tomorrow evening at 7:30 in the student lounge at the Community College. He
stated that citizen participation was being invited, since the public would be
called upon to vote to finance a system via a 3/10th of 1% sales tax, and tomorrow
was a time to voice opinions.