19800715 City Council Minutes7 8 July 15, 1980
The regular meeting of the Edmonds -City Council was called to order at 8:05 p.m. by Mayor Harve
Harrison in the Council Chambers of the Edmonds Civic Center. All present. -joined in the flag salute.
PRESENT ABSENT STAFF:PRESENT
Harve Harrison,'Mayor Larry Naughten. Charles Dibble, M.A.A.
Jo -Anne Jaech Fred Herzberg, Public Works Director
Bill Kasper Irene Varney Moran, -,City Clerk
Katherine Allen. John LaTourelle, Planning Consultant
John Nordquist Mary Lou Block, Planning Division Manager
Ray Gould Richard Pearson, Code Revision Project Mgr.
Mary Goetz Jim Adams, City Engineer
Jim Jessel, Parks & Recreation Director
Jack Weinz, Fire Chief
Dan Prinz, Assistant Police Chief
Art Housler, Finance Director
Jim Murphy, City Attorney
Jackie Parrett, Deputy City Clerk
CONSENT AGENDA
MOTION: Items (D), (E), (F), and (G) were removed from the Consent Agenda. COUNCILMAN•GOULD MOVED, SECONDED
BY COUNCILWOMAN ALLEN, TO APPROVE THE BALANCE OF THE CONSENT AGENDA.. MOTION CARRIED. The approved
items on the Consent Agenda included the following:
(A) Roll call.
(B) Approval of Minutes of July 8, 1980.
•
(C) Setting date of July 22, 1980 for hearing on desi n review of 14-unit PRD located west of
9
2nd Ave. S. and north of Elm St.,-- Harbor Properties (File PRD-1-80)
(H) Passage of Resolution 472, sett.ing,date of August 5,. 1980.for hearing on P.C. Resolution
659, proposed vacation of right -of. -way to remove a portion of.84th Ave. W., located south
of 202nd St. S.W. (File ST-6-80)
REPORT ON BIDS OPENED JULY 9 FOR SEWERS •AND,WATER MAINS (LID 206).AND.FOR.WATER/SEWER EXTENSION
(LID 207). [Items (D) and (E) on Consent Agenda,. respectively].
Councilman Gould observed that almost all -of the bids received were lower than the engineer's
estimate and that the low bidders were very much lower than the engineer's estimate,.and he asked
why. Ted Stricklin of Reid, Middleton, & Associates responded thatAhe estimates were made a year
ago when the LID -first was formed., and unit prices were much higher then.. He said there is not much
work at this time for the contractors and they are bidding very low. In addition, the engineer's
estimate was intended to be on the -safe side. Public Works Director Fred Herzberg added that the'
low bid -in the smaller project -for -putting the pipe in place.is the same price as it would cost the
City just to buy the pipe. He observed that there were.12-14.bidders and usually only 2-3 bids are
MOTION: received for a project. COUNCILMAN GOULD.MOVED, SECONDED BY.000NCILMAN NORDQUIST, TO APPROVE ITEMS
(D) AND (E) ON THE CONSENT AGENDA, AWARDING TO THE LOW BIDDERS,,LOW'S CRANE & EXCAVATING FOR LID 206
IN AMOUNT OF $337,685,"AND-B & M•CONSTRUCTION FOR LID 207 IN AMOUNT OF $56,446, BOTH BIDS EXCLUDING
SALES TAX. MOTION.CARRIED.
PROPOSED RESOLUTION OF INTENTION AMENDING RESOLUTION OF INTENTION 255, TO ESTABLISH A NEW HEARING
DATE FOR PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR PROPOSED STREET LID ON SPRAGUE BETWEEN 7TH AND 8TH [Item (F) �
on Consent Agenda]
Mayor Harrison advised that one of the petitioners,
p Sproule McGinness, had asked that this be removed
because he would like to request that a water line replacement be,made a part of the LID and he will
have to -get the approval -of the other petitioner. Therefore, Item (F) on the Consent Agenda was not
approved.
APPROVAL OF. CONSULTANT'S CONTRACT FOR PROPOSED SPRAGUE ST. LID. [Item (G) on Consent Agenda]
Councilman Gould asked if it was necessary to go through the selection procedure of a consulting
service for such a small job as this. Public Works Director. Fred Herzberg.responded that the time
is not available to do it in-house. He said that instead of .having a formal selection board he
could just give the -job to somebody, but instead it was discussedwith several consultants and then
this one was determined -to be acceptable. He added that the developer would like to get the work
done before the rainy season and his staff would not have time to do a good job on it. COUNCILMAN
MOTION: GOULD MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILWOMAN ALLEN, TO APPROVE ITEM .(G).ON THE CONSENT AGENDA, APPROVING
THE U.R.S. COMPANY OF SEATTLE FOR CONSULTING SERVICES ON.LID 208-FOR SPRAGUE ST. IMPROVEMENTS.
MOTION CARRIED.
COUNCIL.
Councilwoman Allen noted that a memo had -been received from the Recreation Department indicating
some means of transportation would be,needed..for the CETA employee who wil-1 be patrolling Seaview
Park and other parks. Parks & Recreation Director Jim Jessel.stated that additional funds would be
MOTION: needed to provide a moped and maintenance of it. COUNCILWOMAN.ALLEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILWOMAN
GOETZ, THAT FUNDS BE APPROPRIATED FROM.THE COUNCIL CONTINGENCY:FUND..FOR THE PURCHASE OF A MOPED FOR
THE PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT.. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Gould noted that a letter had beenreceived from.the..Chairman of the Arts Commission
stating they did not understand how much their budget is from.the.City. Mayor Harrison responded
that the Finance Director is responding by letter to explain the budget procedure. . •
79
1
1
C�
1
1
1
July 15, 1980..- continued
Counci.lman Gould.noted that the recent Safety Committee report.indicates.a high'.ine idence.''Of:'
dents during the reporting period. 'He asked for a.report,indicating the current OSHA.incident rate
for the City in comparison with others... He also felt that.some of..the corrective actions taken were
not sufficient.
Councilman:.Nordquist stated that.a.letter.had-been received.from the Port of Edmonds responding to
the-City's.recommendations regarding the.. .parking lot owned.jointly by .the City and -the -Port, and
stating. that the City's recommendations were not acceptable -to the Port. The Port's letter outlined
their proposal and it will be considered at the discussion previously scheduled for - July 22, 1980.
Councilman. Nordquist commented that it was his understanding that the Port had -not yet paid the City
for its share -of -the parking lot, and -he felt until they did so they should take their signs down.
MOTION: COUNCILMAN NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILWOMAN ALLEN,.THAT A LETTER BE SENT TO THE PORT STATING
THAT THE SIGNS SHOULD BE TAKEN DOWN IMMEDIATELY AND REMAIN.DOWN UNTIL THE COUNCIL CONSIDERS THE
PORT'S LETTER. Councilman Gould noted that Councilman Naughten had been working on this problem and
it was Councilman Gould's-understanding that an agreement had been reached regarding the signs in
that they -would be covered. He suggested that if the signs were covered it should be left alone
until the problem is solved.. Councilman Nordquist responded .that he had been down there the previous
day and -.two signs -were covered, one was uncovered, and one was partially torn away. He suggested
that if the Port can wander down there and put the signs up, the City can wander down and take them
down. Councilman Gould noted that itwas his understanding that.the City maintains-the'lot and any
signs must be approved by the C-ity,.and he commented that the first proposal in the Port's letter
was contrary ,to the maintenance provisions established. THE MOTION THEN CARRIED, WITH COUNCILMAN
GOULD VOTING NO.
Mayor Harrison stated there was another piece of correspondence regarding the parking lot which was
from the Finance Director. The C-ity's.share of the cost of the.lot was $11,102.84 and the Finance
Director requested authorization to transfer that amount from.the Off -Street Parking Fund to the
Capital Improvements Fund. The Off -Street Parking Fund currently had a balance of $25,459. COUNCILMAN
MOTION: NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILWOMAN.ALLEN TO INSTRUCT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO,DRAFT AN ORDINANCE
TRANSFERRING $11-102.84 FROM THE OFF-STREET PARKING FUND...TO<.TA, CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND TO PAY THE
CITY'S SHARE OF THE COST OF'THE CITY/PORT PARKING LOT. MOTION CARRIED.
AUDIENCE'
Dr. Robert Anderson, 7370 N. Meadowdale Rd., presented a letter requesting passage of a resolution
by the Council to place on the September.16, 1980 ballot a proposition to give.the citizens of
Edmonds the opportunity to decide whether the City should adopt a.Council-Manager.form of government.
The letter was signed by Robert Anderson, Maybelle Chapman, Orland Christensen, Max Gellert, Brick
Haines, R. E..Hallowell, Tom Purton,.Anne Wermus, and Joe Wermus.. Councilman Gould responded that
normally the Council places something brought before.them on an.agenda.for hearing. He noted that
the time was short to get the requested proposition on the.September ballot and, in.addition, that
something like that usually requires concentrated effort by.•a group of .peopl-e.to lead it to success.
Dr. Anderson said it would be his group's intent to provide.that leadership. COUNCILWOMAN ALLEN
MOTION: MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN GOULD.,._T0_INSTRUCT THE. CITY. ATTORNEY -TO PREPARE A RESOLUTION TO PLACE
THE REQUESTED PROPOSITION ON THE SEPTEMBER 16,. 1980 BALLOT,.TO.BE_BROUGHT TO THE CITY COUNCIL ON
JULY 22, 1980 FOR DISCUSSION, CONSIDERATION, AND HEARING.. Councilman Gould advised Dr. Anderson
that the Council -will want to know why they should spend,$5,000 or whatever it will cost to put this
on the ballot, and they would like the proponents as well as any.opponents to come before the Council.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Walter Brauniger, resident of.Birch..St.., referred to.the animal..control ordinance and stated that it
is not being enforced. He related probl.ems he has had with..dogs-running loose and he felt the
Police Department was not enforcing the legislation passed.by the Council. Mayor Harrison said he
had discussed this with Mr. Brauniger andhad detailed the.Animal;.Control Officer .to his area, and
that Mr. Brauniger had reported that there was improvement. :Mr..Brauniger agreed that there had
been improvement, but he said there still were.dogs running.at.large. He felt the'An-imal Control
Offi'cer was not issuing citations as frequently as was necessary. .City Attorney Jim Murphy commented
that his dog had been cited several times, with no warning notice, and.it had been quite costly to
him, so citations were being issued.. After Mr. Brauniger.had.spoken at length, Councilman Gould
stated he:felt the Mayor had addressed the problem properly,. that the citizen had been given the
opportunity to go before the Council, and that there had been -improvement made in the problem. He
stated there really was nothing morethe.Council could do. (Following this discussion, Councilwoman
Goetz left, at 9:00 p.m.)
Philip Chung, President of Go 'N.,Joy.Foods Corporation, requested that the Council reconsider its
actionregarding that corporation's application for a.C1ass.E and:F liquor license .for their proposed
convenience store at 212th and 72nd. The Council had recommended approval of a license at another
site in Edmonds and stated it wished to observe that operation prior to approving any others in the
City. Mr. -Chung said they had lost that site so they wou.ld.not.�have a store there. However he
stated they now have two other stores operating in Seattle, at•4200 University Way'N.E. and at 14300
Greenwood Ave.-N., and he invited the Council to visit those stores to observe their operation, and
MOTION: then to -reconsider the Go 'N Joy application. COUNCILMAN NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN
GOULD, TO RECONSIDER THE CLASS E,AND F.LIQUOR LICENSE.APPLICATION BY GO 'N JOY FOODS,.AT THE 212TH/72ND
SITE, ON -DULY 22, 1980. MOTION.CARRIED.
Ray Martin, 18704 '94th Ave. W. was unclear as.to the result.of the discussion -on Title 16 of the
Community Development Code: Councilman Gould explained the.results of that discussion.. Mr. Martin
also asked if the public will have the.opportunity to.review the changed material prior to passage'
of the Code: ---Councilman Gould replied that when there is a final.rough.draft there should be some
extra copies.made.for the public to see. ,.
C7�i�f
July 15, 1980 - continued •
HEARING.ON.PETITION FOR VACATION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY AND AMENDMENT TO OFFICIAL- STREET MAP TO REMOVE
PORTION OF 8TH AVE. N.,. BETWEEN.ALOHA.AND DALEY.- P.C. RESOLUTION 653 .(FILE ST=17-79),..and
HEARING ON PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO OFFICIAL STREET MAP TO ADD PROPOSED.CUL-DE-SAC IN VICINITY OF
8THilAVE :.N.".AND�'ALOHA..ST. -. P.C. RESOLUTION 65.4 (FILE ST-5-80)
Planning Division Manager Mary Lou Block said.a.request had been received from Father McEnnis to
continue these items to July 22. One.person had.signed up to speak on this matter, but he said he
MOTION: would defer his.comments. until. the rest.of the hearing was held. ..COUNCILWOMAN ALLEN.MOVED, SECONDED
BY COUNCILWOMAN JAECH, TO CONTINUE THESE TWO.ITEMS TO JULY 22, 1.980.. MOTION CARRIED, WITH COUNCILMAN
KASPER ABSTAINING BECAUSE HE IS ONE OF-THE,PETITIONERS.
HEARING ON _REQUEST TO DECLARE SUNSET:BEACH/BRACKETT.'S-LAND.ING A SANCTUARY
Parks and Recreation Director Jim Jessel.reported.that the existing ordinance regarding the Under-
water Park prohibits only divers from collecting intertidal sea life from Brackett's Landing beach,
but an excerpt from the ordinance had been posted at the beach to:discourage school children from
doing too much collecting. He said if there was a,desire, a task force could be established to work
on a preservation program for the beach. City.Attorney Jim Mu.rphy.added that the ordinance referred
to was written to prohibit divers from..having any fishing paraphernalia preparatory to diving•because
there were claims that they were denuding the Underwater Park. Frances Murphy, a teacher at Lynndale
Elementary School, had originated this discussion, and she said nonedible animals are not protected
by the Department of Fisheries. She said she visits the beach regularly, summer and winter, and has
done so for years, and she has noticed that a number of animals are disappearing. She had contacted
several State agencies and had received offers of help in studying.the beach, and she asked for
permission to put together a research study .of the beach, that a community task force be appointed
to examine the research and develop a plan to accomplish.a protection program, and to allow her to •
build a,program to protect the life of the intertidal area and make.the beach a place for all the
people to spend their leisure hours enjoying the beach. She said everyone in the State is extremely
concerned about the beaches and sealife on Puget Sound,.and,she.would.like to -coordinate this beach
patrol with all the public beaches on Puget Sound. She felt 'there could be a positive enforcment
approach, educating the people regarding the beach rather than restricting them from using it.
Councilman Gould stated that the base of the task force should be fairly.broad, but he felt a_police
MOTION: officer should be included. Councilwoman..All.en was very pleased at the offer of such a research
study and urged that it be accepted. COUNCILWOMAN JAECH MOVED,.,SECONDED BY COUNCILWOMAN ALLEN,•THAT
THE STUDY PROCEED AND THE TASK -FORCE BE ESTABLISHED AS PROPOSED.. Mr. Jessel said he would work on
putting together a task force. THE MOTION.CARRIED. A report wil.1-be made to'the Council November 4,
1980.
REVIEW NEWSLETTER AND/OR OTHER ALTERNATIVES
Councilwoman Allen stated that Councilwoman Goetz.was very.interested in,this item and she had to
MOTION: leave the meeting because of illness. THEREFORE,.000NCILWOMAN.ALLEN..MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN
NORDQUIST, TO CONTINUE THIS DISCUSSION TO AUGUST 5, 1980.. MOTION..CARRIED.
A short recess was -announced.
COUNCIL REVIEW OF TITLE 20 OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE
Planning Division Manager Mary Lou Block.said.the Council had requested.a comparison of PRD develop-
ments and traditional subdivisions on the same...sites. She discussed three PRDs for which at some
time standard subdivision applications had been received. The first was Forest Ridge at 174th and
71st/72nd Ave. W. This was a 7-unit PRD for which an application had been received for an 8-unit
subdivision. In the standard subdivision the access.street would have.destroyed a stand of large
trees. Three cuts would have been necessary.on..72nd Ave. W. for..access:to three lots. The. Planning •
Division recommended to,.the'applicant that.it be redesigned -as a PRD.in order to save the stand of
large trees and -to avoid extensive cutting and..fi.11ing.. The access road.of the resulting 7-unit PRD
is,circular.*and follows an .existing .road on the.site. This access road provided access to all lots,
circumventing -the stand of trees,.and reducing the amount of impervious surface as less paving was
required. Because of the.change in access, the steep slope was preserved. Ms. Block was asked why
the builder would be willing to reduce the number of units. She responded that it is costly to
build houses on steep slopes, the additional paving required -for -driveways would add expense, and
the owner of -this property did not want to lose the large stand of trees. The second PRD. examined
was Parkside West, a site which had very steep and irregular topography.. The application was for a
29-unit PRD. There were three kno:lls on.the site,.at the.top of which,it.was.proposed to construct
clustered units. The applicants were asked.what they.could do...with.a standard subdivision, and they
came in with a drawing of.a 33-unit subdivision. The roads and houses -were laid out to show it
could be done on the site. Because of the.clustered units in the proposed PRD, impervious surfaces
were decreased immensely. 'Ms. Block noted.that the..difference in the.quality of open space is
particularly graphic. The natural, undisturbed open area absorbs water,.acts as a habitat, and
retains the quality of a natural environment. The domestic open area planted with grass, landscaped
with bark, etc., does not -provide the same qualities. .S.he was asked if the drawn subdivison actually
was buildable, as many people feel area is allowed to be used in the.computations which actually is
not buildable. Ms. Block responded that this was buildable. The third PRD was Brookacres, a
spectacularly beautiful site. A 12-unit PRD was developed on..it,wi_th $500,000 homes on small lots.
Eighty percent of the site is open space,. which creates a park -like situation. The units were built
near the road in order not to disturb the.steep,terrain.. In 1972 a.subdi.vision was proposed for
this site and was given Council'approval.. It was.for.20.1ots and then .was reduced to 19 lots. It
would have resulted in a much less satisfactory development. .Ms. Block showed slides of the Brookacres
PRD after it was developed to illustrate her description of the PRD. She said she.had examined a
number of other PRDs to see if searching further would substantiate the kinds of things these PRDs
had shown, and she found essentially the.same results. She noted:that Shell Valley was the one
• July 15, 19.80 - continued
about which there.had been the most, -complaints, but she felt -that any _kind of development in Shell
Valley would have created controversy, and she added that the density -in Shell Valley is not that
high. Councilwoman Jaech stated that the citizens are concerned.that PROs often are multiple
complexes and -that such should not be..i.ncluded in RS zones... Councilman Kasper pointed out that you
already can build multiple complexes in RM zones but builders don't build PRDs there because it
takes so much longer, so the benefits of .the PRDs are lost to.the.RM zones.
Following the discussion of PRDs_, Code.Revision Project. Manager Richard Pearson responded to comments
made at the previous hearing on Title.20. He was amenable to some,of the changes proposed by the
.Council:of Concerned Citizens and.recommended that those changes be made. For those with which he
.did not agree he stated his reasons. The Council then discussed specific issues.
Regarding .the appeals.of Hearing.Examiner decisions, Cou"nc.ilman Gould stated that the -whole purpose
of having a Hearing Examiner was to provide documentation..and to.make the process simpler and easier
to understand. He felt appeals should be on the record and.that there should not be a de novo
hearing. --He-felt there might as well not be a Hearing Examiner if appeals were to be de novo.
MOTION:
REGARDING THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS ON PAGE.224 (20.95.050 B.) COUNCILMAN GOULD MOVED, SECONDED BY
COUNCILWOMAN JAECH, THAT MAILED NOTICES WILL BE REQUIRED IN ADDITION TO POSTING. MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION:
COUNCILWOMAN:JAECH MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN GOULD.; THAT.ON.PAGE 231a REGARDING .THE HEARING
EXAMINER, ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE BE.ADDED TO STATE THAT THE.HEARING EXAMINER MAY NOT BE EMPLOYED BY
ANOTHER CONTRACTOR FOR THE CITY OF EDMONDS. MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION: COUNCILMAN NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED:BY.000NCILWOMAN JAECH, THAT THE RECORDS REQUIREMENT STATED ON
PAGE 220 (20.90.020 H.) BE CHANGED TO. -STATE THAT SUMMARY MINUTES'AND A TAPE RECORDING WILL BE REQUIRED.
• Ms. Block responded that most hearing examiners do a very -formal decision and write a document
making their decision. The decision is made after the hearing, so most do,not,keep minutes of the
meetings because it is not where the decision is made, and.a tape .recording generally is kept.
Councilman Nordquist stated that he would be more comfortable having both. THE.MOTION CARRIED.
.MOTION: COUNCILMAN--GOULD MOVED, SECONDED.BY COUNCILWOMAN ALLEN, THAT THE HEARING EXAMINER SERVE A PROBATIONARY
PERIOD OF ONE YEAR. MOTION CARRIED.
Regarding PRDs, Councilman Gould felt they should be used for topographic reasons and not on -flat
ground. Planning Consultant John-LaTourelle said he would..like to have the flexibility to work with
that most difficult of al.l sites --the flat', featureless.site. He agreed that there should be a
requirement of demonstration of substantial benefits and that.the burden of proof should be on the
proposer of the PRO or it will be.rejected. COUNCILMAN GOULD.MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILWOMAN JAECH,
THAT THE"STAFF BE DIRECTED TO REWRITE THE SECTION ON SITE REVIEW CRITERIA FOR PRD DEVELOPMENTS IN
LIGHT OF THIS EVENING'S .DISCUSSION.TO TIGHTEN THE LANGUAGE. .MOTION CARRIED.
Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Dr., asked to -speak. He felt the..old.requirements should.be kept for the
PRDs and that work should be done toward a townhouse zoning.. Mr. LaTourelle responded that the
development of such townhouse zones is really a dodge.. He said that under the provisions of the new
code there is -no distinction between townhouses and any other.common wall dwellings, and the question
becomes where should they be'bui.lt? .He did not believe `.it served any -purpose to create a townhouse
zone as-that:is already available.in.a 1 ow.density multiple zone. Laura Hall, 1140 Edmonds St.,
called attention to the roads in the Emerald Hills PRD which.were maintained.by the.homeowners
association for several years, but then they finally turned them over to the City to maintain because
of the expense. -
The question.of.the duties of ..the Planning.Advisory Board was. raised, and Mr. Pearson advised that
they will. be in a separate section,of the Code and had been furnished to the Council in a separate
• document.
Discussion then went to when the.final.draft of the Code could. -be reviewed. COUNCILWOMAN-ALLEN-
MOTION: MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN NORDQUIST, TO CONSIDER THE.FINAL.DRAFT OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
CODE ON.AUGUST 26, 1980. MOTION.CARRIED. A copy of the document will be available approximately
August 12 for review by the Council -and by the public.
Councilman Nordquist thanked -Richard Pearson for a commendable..job in writing the new Code. Mr.
Pearson will be'leaving the City's employ to move to California..
Councilman Gould noted that in...light.of,.a.written opinion.of.the .City Attorney the method.of appointment
of the Planning Advisory Board w.ill.,have to be_rewritten.to.state.that appointment will be made by
the Mayor and confirmed by,the Council.
There was no further business to come before the Council,, and the meeting was adjourned at 11:30 p.m.
1
IRENE-VARNEY MORAN, City er
- -vv�
HARVE H. HARRISON, Mayor