Loading...
19790417 City Council MinutesApril 10, 1979 - continued MOTION: 1 MOTION: 40 REPORT FROM COMMITTEE STUDYING POLICY ON PROFESSIONAL SERVICES Public Works Director Leif Larson submitted a report.which.was comprised of.a recommended policy to cover the procurement of all consulting services for th6­City except those which, in the judgment of the program manager, are minor in nature or are of such a scope that they can reasonably be assigned to an obviously well -qualified professional who possesses particular background or experience to perform the work. The Professional Services Policy Review Committee consisted of Councilmen Carns and Gould, and Mr. LaTourelle, Mr. Larson, and Mr. Herzberg. COUNCILMAN CARNS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN GOULD, TO ACCEPT THE REPORT OF THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES POLICY REVIEW COMMITTEE, AND TO ADOPT THE PROPOSED POLICY. There was.a brief discussion.. Councilman Herb asked for assurance that the Reid -Middleton contract would be reviewed prior to its renewal. THE MOTION THEN CARRIED. REVIEW.APPEAL PROCESS ON DECISIONS MADE BY CITY EMPLOYEES City Attorney Wayne Tanaka said there were two categories of appeals involved: (1) Decisions of the responsible official under SEPA, and (2) Those decisions made by officials that are not subject to review of the Planning Commission or Board of Adjustment, such.as building permits. The discussion began, but Councilman Herb commented that Felix Reisner will.be discussing the whole regulatory system and this should be brought to his attention. Councilman Clement agreed, but he commented that going to court is an expensive way to appeal a decision and should be a kind*of last resort way of,appea.ling a decision for the average citizen. Mr. LaTourelle said he had met with Mr. Reisner and in discussion they determined .that. they will try to internalize as many appeals as. they can, but he noted that.some are specified by State law. Councilman.Clement said another thing that bothered him was that it appeared it was more difficult to get a favorable ruling on an appeal if it was to undo something on which somebody has already spent money. He felt if there was going to be an appeal process there should be some finite period and if that period has elapsed work does not start--that.would.be almost an automatic injunction. Mr.'LaTourel-le responded that in most cases the work does stop when an appeal.is filed and any progression of work is at the developer's risk. There was no further discussion on this item. Mayor Harrison, at this time, introduced Don Drew, the owner.of Pacific Fast Mail. Mr. Drew's company had published a book, "The Great Northern Railway," a pictorial study about the prototype railroad from Minneapolis to the west coast, a copy of which he presented to.Kathy Turner for the Edmonds Library. DISCUSSION..OF..HOME OCCUPATIONS Community Development Director John LaTourelle said there are thousands of home occupations in the City of Edmonds.but they have not.presented an administrative problem. He said that when they do go wrong itisusually because the applicant has given inadquate information or has withheld information at the beginning, or the business becomes too successful and outgrows the. intent of the home occupation. He said there.also are some people who.just do not adhere to established conditions, but they are the minority. The bulk of home occupations consist of a desk, a telephone, and a filing cabinet. Councilman Nordquist added that home occupations have been a problem in years past when people cannot afford to.go into business in a commercial area. He then provided photographs he had taken o.f.,two current homes that house home occupations which he felt presented problems, and he said ,,residential neighborhoods should be..kept.res.idential and not..look commercial. Councilwoman Allen noted.that,there are many obvious home occupations. Councilman Gould suggested that the Council may want to state thei-r philosophy.more definitely in the home occupation criteria. He commented on one hearing he..had.observed when the.app.l.icant did automotive repairs.in his home, and in that case Councilman...Gould.felt the Board.of.Adjustment did not have enough guidance and criteria to deny that for cause. Councilman Carns suggested a work meeting with the Board of Adjustment to go over the criteria and he noted that evenif the City should go to a hearing examiner process there will still have to be criteria established.. COUNCILMAN CARNS THEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN NORDQUIST, TO INVITE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TO.MEET..WITH THE COUNCIL TO DISCUSS HOME OCCUPATION CRITERIA ON MAY 8, 1979. MOTION CARRIED. There was no,fur.ther business to come before the Council and the meeting adjourned to Executive Session.at 9.:35 p.m. IRENE VARNEY MORAN, Cig Clerk April 17, 1979 The regular -meeting of the Edmonds City Council was called to order at 7:35 p.m. by Mayor Harve Harrison in the Council Chambers of the,Edmonds Civic Center.. All present joined in the flag salute. 'PRESENT Harve Harrison, Mayor Mike Herb Katherine Allen Phil Clement* John Nordquist Ray Gould Tom Carns Larry Naughten STAFF PRESENT Charles Dibble, M.A.A. John LaTourelle, Community Development Director Fred Herzberg, City Engineer Jim Jessel, Parks.& Recreation Manager Irene Varney Moran,.City Clerk Mary Lou Block, Assistant City Planner Wayne Tanaka, City Attorney Jo Ann Fischer, Recording Secretary 0 5 4 r: April 17, 1979 - continued - CONSENT AGENDA Item.(D) was removed from the Consent Agenda. The approved portion of the Consent Agenda•included the following: (A) Roll call. (B) Approval of Minutes of April 10, 1979. (C). Acknowledge receipt of Claim for Damages (Peterson). PROPOSED ORDINANCE 2065 ESTABLISHING REGULATIONS FOR PUBLIC FISHING PIER [Item (D) on Consent Agenda] Councilman Naughten commented on Item D of the Consent Agenda stating he had no opposition to this proposal and he was happy to see this ordinance come about for the Fishing Pier regulations. COUNCILMAN MOTION: NAUGTEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN CARNS,'TO APPROVE ITEM (D) ON THE CONSENT AGENDA, ADOPTING ORDINANCE 2056, ESTABLISHING REGULATIONS FOR PUBLIC FISHING PIER. MOTION CARRIED. COUNCIL. Councilman Naughten complimented the Community Development Department and the Planning staff on the action taken regarding the apartment complex.on 5th Ave. He pointed out that these ordinances are passed to protect the public and this action confirms the fact that the system does work. Councilman Gould passed out the Resource Work Booklets prepared for.the Council/Staff retreat planned for this weekend. Councilman Gould thanked the staff for a good job, well done, on the Resource Booklet. He emphasized the fact that, in order for the retreat to be.effective, members of the Council • must do their homework and be prepared to make decisions about the items on the agenda for Friday and Saturday. Councilman Gould said that the plan is to leave from the Public Works building on a bus Friday, April 20, at noon. He further reminded the Council members that they would not be returning to Public. Works so they should take their suitcases with them on the bus. He asked that they call ei:ther.himself or Mr. Dibble should they have any questions regarding the material in the Resource Booklet. Councilman Carns commented that because Port Ludlow is difficult to get to, and because the press is the eyes and ears of government, he would like to propose to the Council for consideration that an ordinance be prepared inviting members of the press who may want to attend the retreat, taking their expenses out of the Council Contingency Fund. Councilman Gould asked the * members of the press present for their opinion on this matter. Ms. Pam Witmer of the Western Sun said she appreciated the consideration but she would not be able to accept the invitation. Councilman Nordquist asked if any consideration had been given to taping the session. Councilman Gould commented that he thought that was a good idea and that the more critical portions of the session should be taped. Councilman Clement stated that he would not be able to make the Friday afternoon session because of other obligations. Councilman Herb suggested doing something of a more practical nature in the future which would be more convenient for all attending the retreat. Councilwoman Katie Allen agreed that this should be given some thought. Councilwoman Katie Allen reported on the dual meeting she and Councilman Gould had attended of the Juvenile Conference Committees. She said the meeting was comprised of members from both Conference Committees. A family therapy consultant spoke to the group on the problems that juveniles have in relation to their parents -and suggested various ways to approach the people who are being interviewed. Councilwoman Allen stated that the interest•by the community in these committees is fantastic. The City of Edmonds, however, is having a problem in monitoring the activities and time of the juveniles who are doing their community service.with us. She ended her report by stating that, since the Council is represented by Councilman Gould.and herself, they should be aware of the fact that this program is working. Councilwoman Al.len.also reported that the Recreational Task Force was voted into existence by the community. It includes the school district, three cities, and the county. She went on to state that -the Recreational Task Force is looking at a needs assessment for the whole southwest • County where recreational needs in the area are concerned. She said that there is a shortage of $857 and it is hoped that amount will be picked up somewhere along the line. She pointed out that the City of Edmonds already has put in $1,600. She statedj;that Edmonds will need a comprehensive recreational plan and the cost of this probably will be in the neighborhood of $10,000. The City of Edmonds is not eligible for any IAC funds until the comprehensive plan is in hand. Councilwoman Allen felt this was a subject which should be placed on a Council agenda so that it may be discussed in greater detail. She suggested the meeting of May 1, 1979. COUNCILWOMAN ALLEN MOVED, SECONDED BY MOTION: COUNCILMAN NORDQUIST, TO PLACE'THE COMPREHENSIVE RECREATIONAL PLAN DISCUSSION ON THE MAY 1, 1979 COUNCIL AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED. Councilwoman Allen asked Mr. Jim Jessel, Parks & Recreation Manager, to provide supportive material for this.discussion. Councilman Carns stated that�,he serves on the SNOCOM Board. He stated that SNOCOM presently is using the former Lynnwood City Hall but this facility is not going to be available to SNOCOM in.the long range. Councilman Carns said feasibility studies had been made and it has been determined that the best location for the SNOCOM operation would be on the Civic Center grounds in Lynnwood, adjacent to the Police Department. Plans are to expand these facilities in Lynnwood,and, at the same time, it is hoped that SNOCOM facilities could be built... Councilman Carns stated that,; -.the City of Lynnwood is going to be discussing these -plans and he encouraged the Edmonds Council members to express their feelings. He went on to say that SNOCOM is thinking of.asking the City of Lynnwood for a period of time. Councilman Carns..suggested a 20-year leaseback so as to keep it cost-effective. M.A.A. Charles Dibble stated he thought this discuss.ion.was related to the discussion on Consolidation of Services which is.scheduled for the April 24 Council meeting. Councilwoman Katie Allen was also of the same opinion that the SNOCOM issue would be brought up under the discussion on Consolidation of Services. Councilman Carns asked the members of the Council to consider what type -of a lease they would prefer s with the City of Lynnwood for the SNOCOM facilities. Councilman Nordquist inquired as to whether we were now at a point where we are completely segregated from the idea of doing anything with the County. Councilman Carns stated that SNOCOM does not do the dispatching for the County Sheriff, yet the County Sheriff's Department contributes some $40,000 to SNOCOM's budget. He stated that as soon as * See correction April 24, 1979 0 • April 17, 1979 - continued 7L 1 the County Sheriff's Departmentgets a of SNOCOM. Councilman Nordquist asked Councilman Carns stated that Edmonds' is based on assessed value, one-third. assessed in the same way. The members to the community. Councilwoman Allen the April 24 meeting. precinct in:South County they will consider dispatching out whether our share would.be in relation to what we now contribute. contribution,is figured. on a one-third basis; that is, one-third on the. -.actual usage,'and.one-third on the population. Everyone is of the Council agreed that-SNOCOM definitely has been an asset suggested that:this..discussion be continued on the agenda of Councilman Nordquist stated that.he.had just received wor& that a contract had been let for a signal Tight at 236th and Edmonds Way.and.he expressed his than to the legislators, staff, and citizens who were instrumental in getting.this.project accomp;li.shed. The signal light is expected to be installed by September. AUDIENCE Mr. James Demmert of 21028 80th 11., W. requested a count of people in the audience who might be in attendance regarding the parking.on 80th Pl. W.and,.asked that this. item be moved from seventh place MOTION: on the agenda to fifth. COUNCILMAN NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN GOULD, TO MOVE ITEM 7, HEARING TO PROHIBIT PARKING ON 80TH PL. W. FROM 212TH S.W., 750' NORTH, TO ITEM 5 ON THE AGENDA.. MOTION CARRIED. MOTION: Amendment Mr. Roger Hertrich of 1020 Puget.Dr. stated that the last -item on the agenda.was regarding the final plans from the state on, 196th St. and.inquired as to whether this discussion would include the drainage problems. He stated that.he had heard some rumors regarding this project and that these rumors had filtered down from some areas in the. State regarding the widening of•the street and the alignment. Mr. Hertrtch heard,that the State was going toshelve the project until they could get 10' of additional.width..on one side ofthe-street. He further stated that he felt this information should be taken into consideration in the public discussion taking place at this meeting. He also told the Councilthat there would be a gentleman in the audience tonight who is an expert on drainage problems and who may well be able to answer,any questions that members of the Council may have. This gentleman is from the State Department of Fisheries. HEARING TO PROHIBIT PARKING ON 80TH PL. W. FROM 212TH S.W..,.750' NORTH City Engineer Fred Herzberg presented a map which indicated the area where parking is to be limited. He stated there is a 25' right-of-way, 23' of paving, and two 6" curbs, which does not allow much room for parking. Parking presently is allowed on both sides of the.street. Mr. Herzberg stated he had been receiving:calls from concerned citizens in the area, particularly regarding the problem of emergency vehicles getting into this area. With parking on both sides of the street, it is almost impossible for emergency vehicles to have access.to the area. Councilman Phil Clement inquired as to how this became a City street -in the first place. Mr. Herzberg stated that this was not very well developed when it became a City street. Since that time therehas been a number of multipledevelopments on the west side, all except one of which were prior to.the code requiring on -site parking for developments of this nature. Mr. Herzberg stated that the entire east side of the street.hase.;singl.e;'family residences. There is insufficient off-street parking and he said the situation could..not be tolerated with parking on both sides of the street. He went on to say that perhaps a compromise of parking only on the west side, where the actual demand is, would resolve the problem. The public portion of the hearing was opened. Mary Driscoll of 21010 80th P1. W. stated that all of the.multiple dwellings have adequate parking except for the building directly north of 21010 80th P1..W. She went on to say that she could not see parking on both sides of the street and that.she proposed parking on one side only. Ms. Driscoll said there was a petition out proposing no'parking at all on the street. James Demmert of 21028 80th P1. W. presented the Council with a petition.he had circulated among the people in the neighborhood. He said several people had expressed concern about the speed ofvvehicles on the streets. Mr. Demmert'had spoken to Bill Nims, Assistant Engineering.Coordinator for the City, and Mr. Nims had stated -,.that speed bumps could be placed in this area. The public portion of the hearing was closed. COUNCILMAN LARRY NAUGHTEN MOVED..TO.ADOPT ORDINANCE 2066, WITH PARKING ON THE WEST -SIDE OF THE'STREET ONLY. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN TOM CARNS. COUNCILMAN NAUGHTEN AMENDED THE MOTION TO PROHIBIT PARKING ON THE EAST SIDE OF.THE STREET IN ORDINANCE.2066.. MOTION CARRIED AS AMENDED. There were people in the audience.wishing to comment further on this issue. COUNCILMAN.MIKE HERB MOVED TO REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. COUNCILWOMAN KATIE ALLEN SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED. Bob .,Driscoll of. '514 Holly .Dr.. stated: -that residents have a . seri o,us .problem .with people parking in front of'their driveways. Councilwoman'Katie Allen stated this was.illegal'ana`if"a per'son,`s driveway is blocked by a vehicle it should be reported to the Police Department. The public hearing was then closed. HEARING TO AMEND ZONING CODE AND SIGN.CODE TO ADD RRB ZONE AND DELETE RM-0 ZONE (FILE ZO-1-79) Assistant City Planner Mary Lou Block.stated':.that in Decembe.r..of.1978 theC.City Council approved the establishment of a new zone which was designated Multiple Residential -Downtown (RM-D). This zone was proposed to be used in the downtown.area where a large number..of single family dwellings exist. The purpose of this was to provide.for...a lower density multipleresidential use than RML or RMH and to encourage retention of existing single family buildings.. However,.some of the existing dwellings are located in BC zones and contain small businesses, and the RM-D zone does not allow business uses. Ms. Block said that as the Planning Division of the Community Development Department looked at this to see.how..i.t would be used, it.became,apparent that, although some single family homes might be retained, it would not.be economical.to do so.unless they would be used,for commercial uses. Therefore, rather than go with -the RM-D zone, an ordinance would be written in: such a way that it would include or encourage retention of these older.homes.for commercial uses... She went on to state that the purpose of the new zone is.to try to retain the single family dwell.ings that now exist in the area and to provide for a -low density multiple zone where.offices and other commercial uses could be located in the old single family dwellings, or as a secondary use in a.multi-family dwelling. This was an attempt to try to provide a transition between commercial.and residential areas. 0Oil April 17, 1979 - continued MOTION: MOTION: • Councilman Tom Carns stated that when the City Council passed the RM-D zone, they specifically did not allow joint use of the buildings for commercial and multiple family residentail. He went on to say that the statement you made in wanting to encourage the use of these older homes for commercial uses leaves me with a problem accepting this because there are still elderly people in the area. Councilman Carns stated that he did not like the idea of someone buying the house nextdoor and turning it into a restaurant or using it for some other commercial purpose. Councilman Larry Naughten said that the people with homes in this zone would have the benefit of the property value increase in -the area. Ms. Mary Lou Block stated that many of the areas down- town are presently zoned BC. Councilman Phil Clement asked for clarification that this would not rezone any piece of land in the area, but it would just provide for a definition of uses in the area. Ms. Block said that this was correct. Councilman Carns stated that this would be more re- strictive than the code now allows because of the -fact that we now have a downtown BC zone which does -not require a Conditional Use_Permit to transfer the use of a single family residential unit into a restaurant. Ms. Block stated that this would simply be establishing the zone and would not be rezoning any area in the downtown at the present time. She further stated that this was a staff originated revision. A considerable discussion ensued as to the problem with noise levels should commercial uses be established in these residences. Mr. John LaTourelle, Community Develop- ment -.-Director, stated that all businesses require a Conditional Use Permit, thereby allowing us to take a close look at the businesses which would be established in the area. Councilman John Nordquisf�stated that at the Health Department level, they are now going over a noise regulation law which will be in conjunction with the state -law and which will be applicable to local levels. This will apply to single family residents and should be out in about a year's time. The public portion of the hearing was opened. Ms. Natalie Shippen of 1022 Euclid asked if the RM-D zone hadn't been established to cover an area larger than the downtown business zone. She said that, in her opinion, the purpose of this was to reduce the density i-n the downtown area. Councilman Clement answered by stating that this only allowed for commercial use in an existing single-family dwelling in that zone. Ms. Block stated that RRB as. defined is "residential restricted business". The density proposed under this is the same as RM-D, but it would provide the opportunity of having limited commercial use. Council- • man Carns stated that with the exception of the BC zone, we, currently cannot take a single family residential unit and make a restaurant out of it. He further stated that we will be expanding the amount of.commercial uses in the residential -zone. Mr. LaTourelle stated that it all depended upon how you apply this zone geographically.. He said that if you apply this zone to areas which are now zoned BC, you will be cutting back on the density of commercial development. Mayor Harrison stated that it was his understanding that the concern did not deal with the RM-D zone, but rather the BC zone and whether or not there should be limited residential uses within the BC zone. He went on to say that he did not think we were going to change the RM-D zone and that he felt the issue should be postponed so that it could be studied further. Councilman Larry Naughten recommended that the Council remove this item and schedule it for another date. The public portion of the hear- ing was closed. Councilman Clement stated that one of his main concerns is the BC zone where we mi.g.h.t,el.iminate single-family homes. He felt that allowing restaurants in this zone would be in- cre�sing the activities level in this area a little too much and questioned where you draw the line as to the types of restaurants. He stated that in establishing restaurants you become in- volved -in - -liquor licenses, traffic, increased density, and all of the problems that go with it. He furthestated that he would like to eliminate the dispensing of foods in any of these homes where .small businesses might be established. Mr. LaTourelle said the ordinance could be worded to read, "retail enterprises dispensing commodities except food". Councilman Carns stated that he thought the Conditional Use Permit procedure is necessary because if a business becomes a nuisance to people in the area, the neighboring people can request that the permit be revoked. COUNCILMAN CARNS MOVED, SECONDED BY MIKE HERB, TO INSTRUCT THE CITY ATTORNEY.TO DRAFT AN ORDINANCE SIMILAR TO THE ONE PRESENTED TONIGHT EXCEPT, IN PERMITTED USAGE, WE SHOUL_D,NOT,ALLOW THE DISPENSING OF FOODS. Councilman Gould stated that he would Ilike to see Items A and D stricken entirely from the proposed ordinance amendment. Limitations to the types of fabrication of products was discussed. Council- man Clement stated that the county has a stipulation for allowing the fabrication of products that are going to be sold on the premises. COUNCILMAN CLEMENT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN CARNS, TO AMEND THE MAIN MOTION TO ALSO RESTRICT THE METHOD OF FABRICATION AND ASSEMBLY TO HANDCRAFTS, OR ARTS AND CRAFTS. Mr. LaTourelle stated that -he felt there would be a real problem with this word- • ing in the ordinance. Councilman Clement withdrew his motion to amend the main motion. THE MAIN MOTION CARRIED.* RECOMMENDATIONS FROM MAYOR ON SIGN CODE Mayor Harrison went over the proposed sign code changes which were outlined for the Council. In the General Regulations Section, the first paragraph would include the location of signs to be under -the consideration of the Architectural Design Board. This would permit the use of roof signs. Paragraph 2 would read . . . Enterprises or site occupants sharing a common parking area may use a Igroup free standing sign . . . This would permit more than one sign. Under paragraph 3 of the total -allowable signs, it is proposed to allow the allotment of one square foot per lineal foot to each face of a building that faces the street. It is also proposed to allow a building set back from ,the street a 10 percent increase for each 25 feet of setback from the building setback line unless,the enterprise has a free standing sign. If they have a free standing sign, there would be no increased allotment. This paragraph also proposes that there shall be no maximum allowable signage:.-in. the General Commercial zone. Paragraph 5, as it now stands, states that there will be a limit of 2 feet in height on the sign face of a marquee sign. It is proposed to eliminate this restriction on marquee signs. It is further proposed to eliminate the restrictions against signs extending above the roof line. It was also proposed to reduce the fee from $1.00 per square foot of sign area to 50¢ per square foot of sign area, leaving the $15.00 fee for all per- mits as it now stands. Councilman Gould had.a question regarding proper procedure in that since this item was listed on the agenda as a recommendation from the Mayor on proposed sign code changes, was it necessary to have a public hearing. City Attorney Wayne Tanaka stated that there was no requirement for a public hearing -on these recommendations from the Mayor. Mayor Harrison stated that these proposed amendments would allow the Architectural Design Board -to make the de- terminations and to exercise discretion in their decisions. Councilmen Naughten and Clement ex- pressed opinions that these changes would limit the amount of control the Architectural Design Board would have over signs and Councilman Gould stated that he was not in favor of changing the sign code at all. He went on to,say that a very long and complete process as gone through when * See correction April 24, 1979 • E April 17, 1979 - continued 35 i MOTION: I 40 the sign code was drawn up and he sees no reason for making the proposed changes at this time. Counc-ilman' Carns agreed that there should be no changes made in the sign code. He stated that since the sign code wasput' into effect', there had 'only,,been-two appeals and, -in both cases, the applicant received the request made. Councilman Naughten.stated that the Architectural Design Board could allow variances where they deem them .neces-sary-. Councilman Nordquist stated that he was concerned about.the illumination situation and said that he.woul'd Pike to see a restric- tion placed on the illumination of signs in Edmonds. COUNCILMAN CARNS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL- MAN NORDQUIST, TO TABLE.ITEM 6. RECOMMENDATIONS FROM MAYOR ON SIGN CODE, INDEFINITELY. Council- man Gould asked.for clarification on a motion to table an item on the agenda. City Attorney Wayne Tanaka stated that this was an improper motion. COUNCILMAN CARNS THEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL- MAN GOULD, TO POSTPONE ITEM 6, RECOMMENDATIONS FROM MAYOR ON,SIGN CODE, INDEFINITELY. Council- man Herb stated that he'felt the Mayor -had made some good -recommendations. Mayor Harrison stated that he felt the Mayor ha-d made some good recommendations. Mayor Harrison stated that he did not think the proposed changes should be turned down carte blanche, but that they should be consid- ered individually by the Council. He further stated -that -if -there is a majority agreement on any one of these points, the sign code should be measured*to that extend. Councilman Clement stated that there were at least four people opposed to all of the proposed changes. THE MOTION THEN CARRIED:* HEARING ON THE FINAL PLANS FROM STATE ON 196TH FROM 11TH TO 88TH. City Engineer Fred Herzberg stated that the purpose of this hearing was. to discuss the improve- ments taking place in phase.one.which consists of the portions from 81st P1. W. to 11th P1. W. on 196th. He ;.pointed out the fact.that there are approximately 8,000 vehicle trips per day down this particular street and approximately 133.property owners who are involved along with -this development. He stated that the Edmonds staff.has invested over $20,000:00 in this project to date. He pointed out that this was- the sixth hearing in eight months and these hearings take up a considerable amount of valuable.time. He.went on to say that the state representatives were not present because of the fact that they have already -responded to -the questions which will be brought up during .this hearing and have also alreadyoverspent their budget on this project. Mr. Herzberg went into the problems the City is faced with in excessive runoff from.storms. He said that last November we had a "100-year storm He went on to say that a 100-year storm means that there is a 1% chance each year of that storm occurring. Mr. Herzberg pointed out on a map the number of calls which the City received from various.areas during the November storm. There were approximately 150 calls, -and within the Northstream.basin'to the downstream side of the Puget Drive culvert there were only three calls: Mr.. Herzberg stated that there is sufficient capacity to carry a 100-year storm; and, therefore, he feels at this time there is no need for a retention basin in Maplewood Park. He did state, however, that if, per chance, the Engineering Department is proven wrong, -the .state has assured him that they -will contribute.to the construc- tion of a detention pond in that area. Mr. Herzberg referred to a letter which he received from a -concerned citizen. Inasmuch as this letter was extremely lengthy, Mr. Herzberg said that he would only respond to those questions which pertained to phase one. Mr. Herzberg did not see any contradiction concerning the require- ments for handling traffic. The citizen writing had mentioned the need for storing additional water runoff. Mr. Herzberg replied that the impact of this was insignificant and, therefore, he did not respond to it in answering the citizen's letter. Mr.'Herzberg stated that the storm water system is going to be improved by the state as it comes down the hill. Mr. Herzberg pre- sented construction drawings for.the improvement of the storm water system as it is planned at the bottom of the draw. Councilman-Carns inquired as to whether the state had made any changes from the preliminary.plans-whTch'the City granted them several months ago. 'Mr. Herzberg -'stated that there had been no changes from the design concept. Mr. Herzberg referred to a letter which he received from PUD concerning undergrounding. He said the City had asked PUD to investigate the costs of street crossings, that is, putting conduit across the Phase I portion. He went on to say that PUD indicated that from 81st P1. W. to 88th (the section on top of the • hill) they can put in all of the street crossings for just over $11,000. For the lower section (the portion between llth and 12th) that portion could be done for just over $6,000. PUD is willing to. -share, on a 50% basis, the cost of these road crossings. The City's participation in these costs would be approximately $8,000. The public portion of the hearing was opened. Roger Hertrich of 1020 Puget Dr. stated that Mark Shuller from the State Fisheries Department was present to address the problem of drainage. Mr. Hertrich. stated that, upon his request, the State made a survey of thelseven:streams in Edmonds. Mr. Hertrich had received a letter from. the department wher.e.i.n:the_sseven streams were taken into consideration; however, only one wasL,u►ider`discus'sion this evening. Mr. Hertrich stated that since the extension of the road will cover two streams in Edmonds, he believed that the impor- tance of the drainage problem was number one. Mr. Mark Shuller from the State Fisheries Department addressed the Council stating that the Fisheries Department was very concerned about the runoff problems in the State. He stated that runoff problems not only affect the physical boundaries of a stream, but they have an adverse effect on the fisheries recources. He further indicated that the drainage situation in Edmonds could well present some very serious problems. Mr. Shuller stated that the State Fisheries Department would be in favor of placing retention systems where necessary. Mr. W. Brock of.840 Hi'nd4leyLane stated that he had spoken in previous meetings about"the increased rate of runoff on his property. He said that after the rainfall of last week the runoff from that storm had cost him $500 in damage to;his property. He reminded the City that between the State and the City of Edmonds they must assume the responsibility of the runoff problems. He further stated that his problems had reached the point of insisting that some action betaken. N—C. Johnson of 722 Hindley Lane asked who was responsible for damages such as.those:menti-oned`by Mr... Brock and,who the residents should call when they have damage resulting from runoff. Mr. Herzberg informed him that the Public Works people are the people to call in the case of an emergency from runoff. Mayor Harrison suggested that the Council consider where funds may be made available for emergency problems which arise from runoff. Councilman Gould asked City Attorney Wayne Tanaka what citizens could do when they have damage problems such as those mentioned by Mr. Brock. Mr. Tanaka stated that if citizens wish to file a claim with the City they may do so. Mayor Harrison stated there was extensive damage to streams • * See correction April 24, 1979 J e) S. • April 17, 1979 - continued throughout Edmonds during the November storm and he asked the citizens present to offer their input as to what provisions might be made for future handling of problems.resulting from runoff. He stated that perhaps the entire citizenry should raise the money to alleviate these conditions. He further stated that it is a decision that the City Council has to deal with. Mayor Harriosn said that they should look at building a storm drainage system. Steve Callender of 820 Hindley Lane stated that Edmonds is a classic Juanita Creek problem. He said that Edmonds, Mountlake Terrace, and Lynnwood have passed drainage ordinances over the years which will help with this problem. If the City were hopeful of alleviating this problem, he felt they would have to buy back a good portion of.the private property and redo the streams as they were 50 years ago. He went on.to say that.he thought the Council is going to have to decide whether they can mitigate some of this drainage problem as well as the traffic problem. Mr. Callender felt that the Engineering Division proposal was one which would aid in many problems where safety is concerned and that resolving the major safety problem on 196th from llth to 88th was much more important than worrying about the stream runoff problem which ad been created over a period of years. Art Jones of 843 Hindley Lane stated that hisproblem was that each time there is a heavy rainfall he has to retrieve his gravel from the property below him. He said that if the road widening involves any more runoff down to Hindley Lane he will have major problems with which to deal. Mayor Harrison stated that it appeared they would have to do more extensive studying of this problem if they were to have an answer to this drainage problem. Mr:. Herzberg stated that a study of this nature would run in the neighborhood.of from $20,000 to $30,000. The public portion of the hearing was closed. Councilman Gould stated that the City should advise the State Highway Department of the City's approval of the plans encompassing 88th to llth and tell them that the City is going to take care of the runoff problem. He said it should also be emphasized that when they get down to llth, there will be only MOTION: 5' taken off of each side. COUNCILMAN CARNS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN GOULD, TO ACCEPT THE • FINAL DESIGN PLAN OF THE STATE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT ON THE ROAD FROM 88TH TO 11TH WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THE CITY WILL RETAIN THE EXCESS WATER RUNOFF AT THE MAPLEWOOD ARCH,* THAT WE WILL MATCH UP THE ROAD AT 11TH DURING THE,NEXT PHASE, AND.THAT ONLY.5' WILL BE TAKEN FROM EACH SIDE OF THE ROAD.* MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Gould stated that the Council needed to make a motion regarding the PUD undergrounding, the total amount.of which will be $17,145 and PUD will pay for one-half of this cost. The City of Edmonds portion of these costs will be taken from Fund 115. Mr. Herzberg stated that the City might take a look at having a contractor do the undergrounding rather than PUD as.it might prove to be more reasonable. Councilman Carns stated that we should investigate the Water/Sewer.'Fund-in rel.ationship MOTION: to the water retention problem. COUNCILMAN GOULD MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN CARNS, THAT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LETTER OF MARCH 24, 1979 FROM PUD, THE CITY SHARE, ON A 50/50 BASIS, THE COSTS OF UNDERGROUNDING AS OUTLINED AND THAT THE CITY'S PORTION OF THIS EXPENSE WILL COME FROM FUND 115. MOTION CARRIED. There was no further business to come before the Council and the meeting adjourned at 11:00 p.m. J�� v " A,-t� IREN VARNEY MORAN, §ity Clerk _ 1 r HARVE H. HARRISON, Mayor * See correction April 24, 197.9