Loading...
19801028 City Council Minutes• October 21, 1980 - continued No one else wished to speak, and the public portion of the hearing was closed. The Council.d.iscussed some of the suggestions made. COUNCILMAN.KASPER THEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN COULD, TO REMOVE THE _THIRD LANE BETWEEN OLYMPIC VIEW AND.11TH AVE.. AND GO TO 12' LANES-- 24' GUTTER"TO GUTTER, WHICH WOULD ADD ANOTHER 5' FOR THE CURB.AND GUTTER --AND WITH.4' FOR SIDEWALKS; ALSO, SLOPE EASEMENTS WILL BE HELD TO A MINIMUM AND ROCKERIES WILL BE USED WHERE POSSIBLE; AND THE STOP LIGHT WILL BE PUSHBUTTON ACTIVATED. MOTION CARRIED. After further discussion, COUNCILMAN KASPER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN.GOULD, THAT AT THE BEGINNING OF SAID PROJECT`THE RIGHT-OF-WAY BE ESTABLISHED TO MAKE A LEFT TURN LANE SOUTH TO OLYMPIC.AVE._AND THEN RETURN AS SOON AS PRACTICAL AS NEAR THE ORIGINAL RIGHT -OF -WAY -AS FEASIBLE WEST OF OLYMPIC AVE. WITH NO LEFT TURN LANE NORTH TO OLYMPIC, AND TO CONTINUE ON A TWO-LANE ROADWAY TO THE INTERSECTION OF OLYMPIC VIEW DR./196TH, AND FROM THAT -POINT -TO CONTINUE DOWN 196TH PROVIDING FOR THREE LANES TO CASPERS AND 7TH. MOTION CARRIED, WITH COUNCILWOMAN GOETZ VOTING.NO. Mr. Herzberg commented that this violates most of the rules of traffic safety. Regarding the execution of the agreement, COUNCILWOMAN ALLEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN KASPER, THAT AUTHORIZATION TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT WITH THE STATE BE CONTINUED UNTIL NOVEMBER 1.0, 1980. .Councilman Kasper said he would like to see a sketch of what they were talking about. THE MOTION CARRIED. COUNCILWOMAN.ALLEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN KASPER, THAT THE LAST ITEM ON THE AGENDA, "HEARING ON FILING FEES FOR EDMONDS," BE CONTINUED TO THE NOVEMBER 10, 1980 MEETING. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Kasper suggested the wording of the subject of that hearing be changed as it is misleading. The word "FILING" will be changed to."PERMIT." There was no further business to come before the Council, and.the meeting adjourned to Executive • Session at-12:30 a.m. IRENE VARNEY MORAN, Ci Clerk HARVE H. HARRISON, Mayor October 28, 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 Mary Goetz Charles Dibble, M.A.A. Jo -Anne Jaech Fred Herzberg, Public Works Director Bill Kasper. Jim Adams, City Engineer Katherine Allen John LaTourelle,.Community Development Dir. John Nordquist Mary Lou Block, Planning Division Manager Ray Gould Duane Bowman, Associate Planner Larry Naughten Irene Varney Moran, City Clerk Marlo Foster, Police Chief • Jack Weinz, Fire Chief Art Housler, Finance Director Jim Jessel, Parks & Recreation Director Wayne Tanaka, City Attorney Jackie Parrett, Deputy City Clerk CONSENT AGENDA Item(C) was removed from the Consent Agenda. COUNCILWOMAN ALLEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN KASPER, 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 October 21, 1980. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO EXECUTE.SUBSEQUENT PRINCIPAL PARTY AGREEMENT FOR ONE -CALL SUBSURFACE WARNING"SYSTEM. [Item (C) on Consent Agenda] This system will allow the utility divisions to call one number to obtain underground locations of .the -various utilities at a certain location when they to dig want an area to install a utility, and thereby prevent any dig -ups or damage to existing utilities. It will be in place of the Snohomish "Dial County -a -Dig" program. The charge will.be based on the number of water customers at 1/2t per customer, or $42 per month at this time. Councilman Gould.asked what the length of term of the agreement.wou.ld:be, whether this was budgeted, and whether -Reid -Middleton would have any obligations. Public Works Director Fred:Herzberg..responded.that it.is budgeted, being basically the -same amount as the exist-ing Snohomish County program, but this would cover a The -larger area. term would be for as long as�the City continues to pay the fee. (City.Attorney Wayne Tanaka stated that 90 days' notice would%be required for termination:) Mr..Herzberg said there would be no relationship with Reid -Middleton with regard to this. • COUNCILMAN GOULD MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN KASPER, TO APPROVE ITEM {C) ON THE:CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED. 140 October 28,1980 - continued • COUNCIL Councilman N'ordquist said there was a request to move Agenda Item 10 to Item 6 this evening as the party concerned had.to_leave early and it was expected the matter would be brief. COUNCILMAN NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN.KASPER, TO MOVE ITEM 10 TO ITEM 6 ON THIS EVENING'S AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Naughten asked if there could be some rescheduling.of the items on the November'4, 1980 agenda as it looked rather lengthy. Councilwoman Allen noted that there was a request to reschedule the report from the task force on the,sea life at-Brackett's Landing to.November 18, 1980. COUNCIL- WOMAN ALLEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN GOULD TO CHANGE FROM NOVEMBER 4, 1980 TO NOVEMBER 18, 1980 THE REPORT 'FROM TASK FORCE RE RESEARCH STUDY OF SEA LIFE AT SUNSET BEACH/BRACKETT'S LANDING. MOTION CARRIED. COUNCILMAN KASPER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN GOULD, TO.RESCHEDULE FROM NOVEMBER 4, 1980 TO NOVEMBER 18, 1980 THE HEARING•ON TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE. MOTION CARRIED. Councilwoman Jaech asked whether the Council would get in the next packet the biographical informa- tion on the person selected to fill the Hearing Examiner position, and Mayor Harrison said they would. Councilman Gould noted that the Council had been furnished four items.from the City Attorneyy having to do with the codification of ordinances and he said it was his understanding that they will•be part of the item scheduled on the November 10 agenda. City Attorney Wayne Tanaka responded that the item is on the November 4 agenda for discussion and on the'November 10 agenda for adoption'. Councilman Naughten had questions about two items as to whether they would be subject to the noise ordinance when passed. One was the loud train whistle when the traincomes into town and the other was an incident such as the helicopter which was in Edmonds over the weekend. City Attorney Wayne Tanaka said he thought the train whistle would be exempt as a type of safety device which is dependent on a loud noise in order to function, and Police Chief Marlo Foster said the helicopter would be exempt as it falls under FAA jurisdiction. Councilman Naughten stated that Bob•Pantley would like to have.a copy of the last lease agreement draft for the fishing pier parking lot which the Council had discussed. COUNCILMAN NAUGHTEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN NORDQUIST, THAT BOB PANTLEY BE PROVIDED,A COPY.OF THE,'MOST.RECENT PROPOSED'.LEASE AGREEMENT REGARDING THE FISHINGING PIER PARKING LOT. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Naughten asked when the final listing of excess City property would be available,, and Public Works -Director Fred Herzberg responded that he would try to have it available for the first. budget work meeting. COUNCILMAN NAUGHTEN THEN..MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN GOULD, THAT THE QUESTION OF SURPLUS CITY OWNED PROPERTY BE PLACED ON THE NOVEMBER 10, 1.980..AGENDA. MOTION•CARRIED. Councilman Nordquist noted that there -was a memo from the Public.Works Director asking for recon- sideration of last week's Council action on.SR.524. COUNCILMAN.NO.RDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL- MAN GOULD, TO PLACE THIS AS ITEM 11 ON THIS. -EVENING'S AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED. Councilwoman Jaech reported that she had received favorable comments from people regarding the newsletter. She said she would like to have confirmed her understanding that there are to be no, editorials or -opinion items in the newsletter from the Mayor or the Council, and that it is'to be strictly an -information bulletin. Councilman Naughten said he thought the items were'to be after the fact to let the people know what has happened. COUNCILMAN..NAUGHTEN.MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL- WOMAN JAECH, THAT ANYTHING FROM THE MAYOR OR COUNCIL TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE NEWSLETTER SHOULD BE APPROVED FIRST BY THE COUNCIL. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Gould reviewed the schedule .for adopting the budget. AUDIENCE Mrs. Cassie.Reschke, 507 Bell, said there are cars parking in front of her home all day, and she asked if there could not be one -hour or two-hour parking there. Councilman Kasper said he thought. that area was included in the limited parking zone but signs had not been installed, and he had brought it to the attention of the Traffic Engineers. He asked that it be checked. * Ray Martin, 18704 94th Ave. W., said that from'last week's minutes he .did not recognize anything he had to say other than his name and.the.fact that he represented the ECCC. He said he had only represented the ECCC in his first statement.regarding the Planning Advisory Board, and that it was probably his fault for.not making that clear, and the rest that he.said was as an individual. He said the minutes did not state the nature of.his criticism of the Mayor, and he was objecting to the continuing "harrassment" of certain City employees by the Mayor in the newspaper and voicing his disgust for that practice. He asked that these comments be placed in the minutes. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION PRESENTATION ON THREE PROPOSED PARK & RIDE SITES Harold Morgan, Project Engineer from the State Department of Transportation, reported that a prime Park & Ride site for Edmonds had.been selected, that being the old North Star gravel pit at 212th and 72nd, and they..now would work on the environmental assessment and the design for the lot. The first alternate site selected was.that.at 208th, a joint -use parking lot with the proposed Performing Arts Center in Lynnwood, and the second alternate was that at Highway. 99 and 230th. Mr. Morgan said start of actual construction was scheduled for January 1983, with completion late in 1983. Council- woman Allen did no.t believe any of.the.bus.es went to 212th and:72nd, and -Mr. Morgan stated•that Community Transit i,s willing to run buses towhatever site is selected.. Councilman Kasper commented that there had been considerable proposals by.the owner'of•the selected.site for upgrading it, and he asked whether the DOT had considered the. -landscaping requirements in order to keep that property *See 10/21/80, page 136 • L' October 28, 1980 - continued 1 U 1 i 1 0 , in conformance with the surrounding area,, if they go in with a parking lot. Mr. Morgan responded that they had,.but Councilwoman Allen said. she had seen'a lot of Park & Ride lots and there was no landscaping;,and she specified the one at 192nd and Highway 99. Mr. Morgan said there were no federal funds at present for the landscaping but it will be done when the funds become available. Counc.ilwoman.Allen advised himthat other. -people are not allowed to -build in this City unless they landscape when they build, and.she was putting him on notice of this. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN,.INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT AND,.APPOINT.A MEMBER AND ALTERNATE TO THE GOVERNING BOARD FOR REGIONAL..ARTS.& CONVENTION COMPLEX (Agenda Item 10) Planning Division Manager Mary -,Lou Bl.ock.reported that City.Attorney Jim Murphy and she had met with Robert Woodruff, Ed A1iverti,:and.Tom Nielsen to review a revised draft of the subject agreement which was revised to meet concerns expressed by Mr. Murphy. This resulted in a draft which addressed all of the earlier concerns except that,Phase II was still.a part.of the agreement. It was pointed out to them that it is essential to retain Phase II as a part of the agreement for the following reasons: 0 ) To -insure the participation by those groups who need the larger facility; (2) The concept is to develop Phase I .(the 1,000 seat facility) and, as soon -as -it is authorized for con- struction, to use it as a match for federal funding for Phase I_I; and (3) With development of the whole complex as the goal it is necessary to include Phase II in the present agreement to ensure its role in the process and so that there will be no question on.the.parts of federal and state agencies of the group's intent. The financial commitments of the City would be: (1) Edmonds will collect a 2% Hotel/Motel Tax and commit a minimum of 50% of the money so collected to the maintenance and operation of the complex until it becomes self-sustaining; and,(2) Edmonds will agree to rent, at the commercial rate (currently estimated'at $1,500 per day), ten days per year of the Phase II facility, when and if it is constructed. Both of these commitments were consistent with the earlier agreement made -by .the City which will be superseded by the new agreement. Ms. Block provided the latest draft which had been approved by the Task Force. She advised that if the Council chose to remain a participant in the project an elected official.should be selected as a member, and either an elected official or a staff member selected as an alternate to the governing board. .The signing of the interlocal agreement was scheduled for October 31.at a South County C.hamber.of Commerce breakfast, at which Senator Jackson wouldbe the featured.speaker. Ms. Block recommended continued participation, feeling that the projected $15,000 commitment would be more than offset by the benefit to the community. COUNCILWOMAN .ALLEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN NAUGHTEN,.THAT THE.MAYOR BE AUTHORIZED TO.SIGN THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR THE FUNDING, DEVELOPMENT, AND OPERATION OF A TWO- PHASE PUGET SOUND REGIONAL ARTS AND.CONVENTION COMPLEX, AND THAT COUNCIL PRESIDENT JOHN NORDQUIST BE APPOINTED -TO THE GOVERNING BOARD. MOTION CARRIED. COUNCILMAN NAUGHTEN THEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN NORDQUIST, THAT MARY LOU BLOCK BE APPOINTED AS.THE ALTERNATE TO THE GOVERNING BOARD. MOTION CARRIED. HEARING ON.,APPLICATION FOR_LIQUOR LICENSE FOR D'S DRIVE-IN Police Chief Marlo Foster reported that the application.was for the sale of beer and wine on premises. 'In the'the past.a large number of.the patrons were students but with the closure of:the downtown schools most of the.present customers are adults.. The applicant would like to have sit-down service after 6:00 p.m.,.He has previous restaurant experience and no criminal record or liquor control law violations. Chief Foster recommended approval of the applicant.. The location of the restaurant, however, is approximately 400'-from the First Church of Christ Scientist, located at 551 Maple, and liquor.control laws prohibit the..issuance of Class A, B, C, or D licenses within 500' of any church or school .unless the Liquor Control Board receives written notice from the church or school stating they have no objection -to the issuance of the license. As of 2:00 p.m. this date the Liquor Control Board had not received such notification. On that basis, Chief Foster recommended disapproval of the location.: He noted that if the application were approved the name of the restaurant would have to be changed...to omit the "Dri-ve-In" and any facility.for selling through.a window to the street would have to..be closed. The public portion of the hearing was opened. William C. Keegan, the applicant, said he had been unaware of this restriction regarding the church until this date. and he had called the president and the chairman of the board of the church. They said theywould.have a meeting of the church December 2 and consider this matter -at that time. They indicated the philosophy of the church was not against liquor so it was probable that the church membershi.p.would approve the location,.but that could.not be assured. Councilman Kasper commented that the City was not questioning the location, but it did not comply with State law. M.A.A. Charles Dibble suggested a conditional approval, subject to no opposition from the church. COUNCILMAN KASPER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILWOMAN JAECH, THAT CONDITIONAL.APPROVAL BE GIVEN TO THIS APPLICATION, TO BE DEPENDENT UPON THE STATE'S RECEIVING A LETTER FROM. THE NEARBY FIRST CHURCH -OF CHRIST SCIENTIST WITHIN-20'DAYS OF THEIR PROPOSED MEETING OF DECEMBER 2, 1980, STATING NO OBJECTION. Councilman Gould said he knows this applicant and believes him to be a good owner, but he felt.there is good reason for that State law, and he did not believe the City should allow beer and wine to be sold there.as there are a lot of youngsters who use it and there is a church nearby. A ROLL CALL VOTE WAS TAKEN -ON THE MOTION, WITH COUNCIL MEMBERS JAECH, KASPER, AND ALLEN-VOTING YES, AND WITH COUNCIL MEMBERS NORDQUIST, GOULD, AND NAUGHTEN VOTING NO, RESULTING -IN A TIE VOTE. MAYOR HARRISON THEN VOTED YES TO BREAK THE TIE. THE MOTION CARRIED. CONTINUED -HEARING ON WATER/SEWER RATES AND COMPARISONS Public Works Director Fred Herzberg reported that after numerous discussions on this subject the recommendation was that a consultant be brought in as soon as.possible to study and make recommendations' as to the restructuring of the water/sewer rates to meet the.needs of the City in an equitable manner. He said the study essentially would be a financial study as all, capital improvements had been identified by engineering consultants and the engineering staff and the volume of sewage processed from other cities had been determined. He listed financial'determinations which should be made -and recommended that a consultant be brought in as soon as possible. Finance Director Art Housler'read a list of suggested consulting firms which have participated'in rate studies and structures locally as well as nationally: The list consisted of accounting firms, engineering firms, and bonding October 28, 1980 - continued • agencies, and..hi.s recommendation was.that an: accounting firm be selected because what was left was basically a financial problem (cost accounting and auditing)., the engineering work -already having been accomplished. He felt some specifications should be developed and sent. to the various companies. Councilman Nordquist objected to the inclusion of Seattle -Northwest -Securities because they previously had been involved in a bonding issue which was supposed to take care of the problems but had not. Councilwoman Jaech clarified that they were not involved in establishing the current rates. After some discussion it was generally agreed that a CPA firm should be selected, but it was felt work should continue on determining the costs involved in providing services to other cities. The hearing was opened to.the public. Denise Day, 18730 94th W., asked whether there would be a rollback. on .the rates during the proposed study. She was told that would be discussed later. She said she understood Everett soon would "gouge." them and asked if it was the City's intent to do so.first so the people would not.be so upset when Everett's charges came.. She added that she is a very angry and unhappy homeowner and feels inferior people are running the City's affairs. Loretta Adair, 1226 8th Ave. S., did.not feel the people should continue to pay the increased rates during the study, and she felt the.rates should be rolled back retroactive to the rate increase. Vernon Martin, 20006.82nd Ave. W., felt the rates were unjust and had been increased beyond any inflationary -schedule. He suggested a bond initiative for necessary improvements. Lucille Jones, 19004.Dellwood Dr., recited her rates for three successive billing periods, saying they had increased 150%. She asked if they should not water their.yards and lose the beauty of Edmonds. Swan Seberg, 8006 206th S.W., asked if anything had been done to.adjust the apartment rates, saying. • some of them -were paying very.1ow rates... William Mathi-as, 540,Holly.Dr., noted that -he had been.before the.Counc.il many times, usually in opposition to their actions, but this.time he.wanted to offer a.vote of confidence to the Council members. He said their -actions had -been -anything but capricious as far as these water rates were concerned. He thought they were aware of other capital projects that would have to come along in the near future and were trying to prepare for them. He was glad that they were going to have an outside study. Robert Bell, 8528 Bowdoin, disagreed with Mr: Mathias. He said he could not understand how seven or eight intelligent business people could arrive at rates without studying and making sure of'all of the ramifications. He did not object to -the -water charge because he uses a lot of water, but he objected to the sewer charge. He felt it should be a certain amount per capita and that a way should be found to adjust it accordingly. The -public portion -of -the hearing was then closed. Councilman Goul.d.said he was convinced when.the.Council did something they ha,d to be sure it is right. He said they -.already had taken a.quick look at the flat.rate suggestion and it appeared that it would have to be over $10 per month,.resulting in the rates going..up•for the average person--2/3 of the people would get a higher bill -than they currently were getting. He thought the City should get a consulting firm which has some'exper,ience in.this to -give the City an unbiased opinion, and he thought a CPA firm.would.be the best and that the report should be;received before February 15. Mr. Housler responded that the timeliness.of the report would depend on how soon the City started by preparing specifications.. Councilman Gould did not think the recommended $10.40 flat rate should be used in the interim because too'many people would have their rates -increased further. Councilman Nordquist also favored going to an outside consultant and said he would be willing to accept the recommendation -of -an outside firm: He. responded to Mrs. Day's allegations, saying the City of Everett would like to get out of building the required treatment.plant because it will be expensive, and he said there is no collusion between -Everett and Edmonds on that as she seemed to think. • COUNCILMAN NORDQU.IST.THEN .MOVED, SECONDED.BY COUNCILWOMAN JAECH,, THAT THE RATES BE ROLLED BACK TO . WHAT THEY WERE -AT -.THE BEGINNING OF THIS .UNTIL.THE COMPLETION OF THE STUDY, AT WHICH TIME THE COUNCIL WOULD ACCEPT THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE,STUDY AS THE FINAL FACT.AND FIGURE THAT THE CITIZENS WILL BE CHARGED. The question arose as to a rollback and equity to all the citizens as billing is done on a cycle. It*was determined that if.a rollback were not to become effective until December. 1, then everyone would have been treated the same for six months.- Also, it takes some time to program the computer. -Councilman Naughten did not -think a.rollback-should go so far as to lose money again, but only to a break even point, and he said the citizens should want.that. A charge of 125% of the previous rates was suggested. Mayor Harrison then suggested a compromise. He said that since the water/sewer fund -is a single fund and will not be used for capital improvements in the next three or four months, he.would suggest that.the.25� per hundred cu.-ft:.in.the sewer rate be eliminated and only the base rate.be charged. That appeared -to be a reasonable interim solution. THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR THEN FAILED, WITH COUNCILMAN NORDQUIST CASTING THE ONLY YES.VOTE. COUNCILMAN NAUGHTEN .THEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN.KASPER, THAT -EFFECTIVE DECEMBER 1., 1980 THE WATER RATES REMAIN AS THEY CURRENTLY ARE BUT.THAT ONLY THE $6.84 BASE -RATE BE CHARGED.FOR SEWER, ELIMINATING THE 25t PER HUNDRED CU. FT. -OF -WATER USED, AND THIS WILL CONTINUE UNTIL THE RATES ARE RESTRUCTURED; AND THAT THE CITY ATTORNEY BE INSTRUCTED TO PREPARE AN ORDINANCE EFFECTING THE.ABOVE. MOTION CARRIED, WITH . COUNCILMAN NORDQUIST VOTING NO. COUNCILMAN GOULD THEN MOVED THAT',THE MAYOR AND.STAFF BE AUTHORIZED TO PROCEED POST HASTE WITH THE WATER/SEWER RATE STUDY BY AN INDEPENDENT CPA FIRM, BY WAY OF THE DISCUSSED SELECTION..PROCESS.,.WHO WILL BE..CHARGED WITH THE FOLLOWING:. (1) DETERMINE A CHARGE TO ADJACENT.CITIES BASED -UPON THE TOTAL COSTS. OF THEIR USAGE OF CITY.FACILITIES; (2)_ DETERMINE THE ,..FiINANCIAL POSITION OF.THE.OPERATION BY.CONDUCTING A FINANCIAL AUDI:T..OF THE ANNUAL REPORT; (3) DETERMINE IF EXISTING RATES ARE.ADEQUATE..TO.MEET.OPERATIONAL,..MA.INTENANCE, AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR THE.YEARS 1981, 1982, AND 1983; IF -NOT, RECOMMEND THE RATE'THAT SHOULD. BE IN EFFECT ONE MONTH AFTER COMPLETION OF THE STUDY AND-ON.JANUARY 1 OF EACH.YEAR THEREAFTER;,(4) DETERMINE IF THE EXISTING -RATE STRUCTURE IS EQUITABLE TO EACH,AND EVERYCLASS IF NOT, RECOMMEND A RATE STRUCTURE..THAT,,I-S; (5) DETERMINE.WH-ICH ALTERNATIVE OF FINANCING CAPITAL.IMPROVEMENTS IS MOST r1 U Ay; . 143 4 1. • October 28, 1980 - continue.d APPROPRIATE; AND (6) DETERHINE._WHAT.RATES.SHOULD. BE CHARGED TO.APARTMENT OWNERS BY THE NUMBER OF UNITS. COUNCILMAN NORDQUIST SECONDED THE MOTION FOR DISCUSSION...He said he would like to see the Finance.Committee included in the de.cis ton making process..to select -the consultant, or at least the chairman of that committee:. THE MOTION'CARRIED. The question arose as to payment for the study, and Mr. Housler said .it had -been .included in the 1981 budget in the Water/Sewer Fund since that fund will benefit from the study. It was also noted that it.should be determined how'to make public the result of -the study. A short recess was announced. During the recess Councilman Kasper.left, excusing himself fromthe next two.agenda items (Design Review for,Completion of Parkview Firs PRD, and Discussion Regarding Imposition of Building Permit Moratorium) because a portion of the Parkview Firs property is.owned by his employer and that project could be affected by a Buildin.g.Permit moratorium. Councilman Kasper did not return to the meeting because he -was not called back for the last item. When the meeting was reconvened City.Attorney Wayne Tanaka introduced Mark,Eames,,a new attorney with his firm who is interested.in municipal law and will,be involved in some of the City work. HEARING ON DESIGN REVIEW FOR COMPLETION OF PARKVIEW FIRS PRD AT 8406-19 MAIN ST. (PRD-2-80.). Councilman Kasper was not present for.this hearing, as stated above. The Council had been provided copies of the application and plans, as well as minutes from.the Planning Commission and Architectural Design Board hearings on the project. Associate Planner Duane.Bowman described the project, stating that the City originally had approved.the PRD for 25 units and only 16 were constructed. The application now was to complete the remaining 9 units. The site plan.was shown, and Mr. Bowman noted that there is a natural screen of dense trees along the back (southeast) property line.' The units wil'1'be • similar to the existing units, and the elevations were shown. Slides of the.property were shown, depicting the existing units and the area yet to be developed. (Councilman Nordquist had not been present -at the beginning of the hearing, and he arrived during the showing of the slides.)' Mr. Bowman had reviewed the project with the Engineering Division, specifically looking at drainage, utilities, and traffic,.after which a declaration of nonsignificant environmental impact was issued. The basis -of that declaration was that adequate water.and sewer utilities are present to serve the site, there will be no significant increase in drainage, and all.automobile circulation is contained on the*site-with the existing entrance used for egress/ingress and the sight distance being good up and down Main St. Regarding the.:drainage, the proposal will have to conform to the Drainage Ordinance and will be connected to existing storm sewer facilities,.including catch basin and' -oil separator. Mr.'Bown!6n had discussed with Technical Studies Engineer Bob Franklin the effects of these units on the pond.in the northwest corner of the project, and his preliminary calculations indicated that even if they did not conform to the City's Drainage Ordinance, in a 100-year storm for a six -hour period this..project.would raise.the water level in that pond.only 1/3" (this pond serves as a major drainage area::for that particular.section of town). Mr. Bowman.said the project conforms to the Policy Plan and to the,Land Use Guidelines, Section 12.14.060. He read aloud the "Purpose" section. Also, he said it conforms to the specific general design requirements of -that section. He said it meets the allowable density and recited the figures to support that. The total area would support 31.5 units and the proposal would complete 25 units as previously approved by the City. Buildings will be 25' in.height. Parking conforms to City Code and three -additional -guest parking stalls will be provided...The design does.not exceed.the lot coverage allowed.and 20% of the propertywill be left in open..space. The Planning Commission and Architectural Design Board -had recommended -approval, the ADB recommending a fence along the south property line to the southeast corner of the property and a revised parking plan which adds.the three extra stalls. One of the adjacent property owners on Woodlake Dr. requested at the.ADB hearing that a perimeter fence not be installed on the southeast property line because of the buffer of trees which he did not want disturbed. Councilman'Naughten referred to the Planning Commission minutes wherein the homeowners in the existing units felt there • would be adverse environmental impacts because of unstable earth conditions and changes in'geologic substructures in the area under Traet'2, an increase in erosion of soils, change in drainage patterns and soil water content, and additional water.in Catfish Pond from.additional runoff. He asked Mr. Bowman to address those. Mr. Bowman said a letter had been received of that meeting from the Homeowners' Association citing those things, and a soils report could be required with the.Building Permit application but the general soils map indicates the soils are not that bad in that particular area. Regarding the.pond, by conforming to. the Drainage Ordinance all of the runoff must be taken from the property and..retained and then it is released at its natural rate. The 100-year storm he had referred to earlier would be the worst situation to happen and even without conforming to the drainage requirements it had been indicated the pond would be raised only 1/3" in a six -hour storm of that magnitude. Mr. Bowman said -anything beyond that cannot be calculated. Councilman Gould asked if it was proper for them'to come back again for the 9. units which were not built, and.City Attorney Wayne Tanaka said if it is not completed within two years of final approval.it is deemed abandoned so they have to come back for new a approval. Councilwoman Jaech asked how the area of the first parcel could be included in computation for the second if all.of the original units had been sold. Mr.'Tanaka responded that the condominium owners own their individual units and an undivided interest in the greenbelt, just as Lovor Corporation owns 9/25's, so the total calculation must involve both parcels since Lovor owns an interest in all of the common area. He noted that it is'not a function of the City to sort out the questions .of ownership between particular owners of property, and Lovor has a commitment for title insurance for the entire.parcel with their proportionate interest in it. He said for the purposes of'calculating square footage that whole property can.be considered. He added that they have may a -problem selling the condominiums because of a cloud on the title, but that -is their problem, and for the -purpose of calculating square footage they have an interest in the parcel. Councilman Gould observed that.this brought the 'a up question.o.f.whether developer could fail to fulfill al-1 the requirements of a.PRD by.not buildi.ng.all the units they stated they would build. It was asked, whether they had put..in.all the open space, parking, etc. -for 25-'buildings or if they October 28, 1980 - continued • only did 16/25's of the project. Planning Division.Manager Mary Lou Block responded that they.,did. 16/25's but'the'rest was open space.. The public portion of the hearing was opened.. Bernard Heavey, attorney for the Homeowners' Association,.123 3rd Ave. S., Suite 220, saIid'it was his understanding from 'Mr. Tanaka"th-at'the,Council had received a.copy of his Notice 'of.Appeaf.`of the Planning Commission.determinations.and the'actions.of the ADB. He -discussed his,interpretation of a PRD--that it is a zoning contract --and said the purpose of the.appeal- was to protect their_ position. He said that the Edmonds Code provides that after the abandonment there is to be no building or.occupancy permits issued, renewed, or extended, so the PRD is finished after two years, and it was.thei.r position that this .could.not.be considered as..a new-PRD.,or an extension. of,the old one. He thought the right way was.to amend the PRD down to .this particular tract, get back -to the original zoning and'calculate from there, and the proper way to do so would be to revise the-PRD and after that change the zone back to RS-8 for that iract-and go in for a new PRD for that tract. based on the current Code. He said then you are not faced with the problem of whether or not.you count the square footage.in the adjacent area: He said the majority of the property is owned by the.16 people now there and their contract says that if.the later -units are,completed they will.substantially conform to the existing units. Also, the applicant had not been to .the homeowners association to see if they would approve, and is relying on the total area for calculations. He charged that -'the' homeowners were not.faced with only the applicant, but that they now..were faced with the City.of Edmonds which was paying its attorney to take somebody else's position. He said the new buildings do not conform to the existing buildings.in terms of square.footage or in terms of daylight basements, and that.has been -an -economic decision by the developer, which is unfair to the homeowners. He'felt the City -should -demand that the basements,be included, -that the square footage be the same, and that the layout conform, interior.and exterior.. Beryl Barker, President of.the homeowners' association, and speaking for it, said the property is • owned jointly by Parkview and Security P'acifi'c.Mortgage Company, and serious differences exist between Security -Pacific and -the homeowners' association. He.said Lovor Construction is a joint venture partner. with Security Pacif.ic.'in this project, and.the homeowners' association must bear the long term problems,created.by.this construct ion. He noted that.the.proposal calls for reduction .in size and elimination of the daylight,base'men'ts, and the developer,had.given them only cursory sketches, the first being received the day.of the. ADB meeting..'He recounted, that they had. -requested consideration be given to fencing the.enti.re property, .and that _the. present „16 members have already paid for the present•fenced area, but -the developer was willing to.pay only 9/16. He also -said he had been told this must be pushed through .fast because this'wou.ld.not be approved under the new Code, but for five years nothing had been.done..there and now they were pushing it through. He said they would support the development if.the units were comparable to the existing ones, the fencing were completed, and there were some assistance in upgrading the recreation facilities. Also, they had asked that additional guest. parking' be provided. - He added.. that the developer was`-us.i.ng the existing area to get the amount.necessary for.9 units.. He did'note that Lovor had tried to be agreeable in working with the homeowners. Ed Voris of Lovor Corporation, said this represented the.comple.tion of a previously approved PRD, and in Phase 116 units were completed.. Under.Phase II they purchased the property along with its proportionate share of the.common area. .He.said.the bylaws of.the.homeowners' association were constructed to.recognize these.9.units and.all the values and.percentages of interest in the home- owners' document were based on 25 un.its._ They..purchased 36% of the.common area attributable -to the 9 units along with their'4% each interest...Mr..Voris said they had tried to make the last 9 units compati.ble';wit{i':.th& ori�gin61. j.one5,,:and the only. changes made were to. recognize the realities of today's energy restraints --greater insulation,.insulated.glass, making -.the units somewhat smaller,, and omitting energy using basements. He said that as..a matter,of courtesy they had attempted to make the homeowners aware of the changes they were.making and thei.r.intentions. Also; that the homeowners' declaration•indicated..any reasonabl.e changes could..be made without the homeowners' approval as long as only 9 units were.bui1t.,, He said they were aware of the opposition because of the appeal , but they. real ly bel ieved' i't . grew out 'of two": sources '. that had 'nothing to do wi th -them, • e and thoswere -deficiencies in construction 'by th'e original ,bui.lder.. Mr."Voris stated that Lovor is not a joint venture with Security.Pacific, that:Security Pa_ ifi.s the seller of the land. He said they have had minorsuccess i"n trying to alleviate the problems, and he'noted that the homeowners had enjoyed the -use of the.undeveloped,area. ..He requested.approval. David Rockwell:,.attorney with the firm of Jones;,Grey & Bayley, 14th..Floor.,.Norton Building, representing Lovor Construction, addressed the homeowners' fourpointsof contention: (1) The question of whether .it was one tract or.two,-and he agreed.with the ,City Attorney Ihat it is one,parce.l.. because.the Declaration of Condominium filed encompasses...the whole property, describing 25 units, which only .of 16 were built.... (2 ) Whether the construction was in substantial: ;conformance with the existing ., .units on the property.: He -did not believe this was, relative to this heari.ng.. He said that despite that, the Planning Commission had taken a hard look'.at what, -was being constructed and.they.,found;substantial conformity. He said the declaration i s •a, doc.umen,t whi"ch affects ti tle; land al.l of the owners -of the property are bound.by it. Further, that it coul.d'.not.be a:rgued.that, given, the. configuration of the, individual units to make them,esthetical-ly compatible with existing units, they are* not in con- formance.- (3) Security Pacific was the construction lender in this.and because of the default of the original•contractor.Security Pacific foreclosed by..way'of trustee sale on the property, and it now was.under.,contract to sell the property'to:the'.petitioner. (4) Regarding vandalism, he said nothing had been demonstrated to merit..an-a'rgument of increased.vandalism or harm to people on -the property. No one else wished to speak., and.:the public portion of the hearing was closed. Mr. Bowman added at this time that the.ADB did not.want to.see a fence put in along the east property line because of the intrusion it would.make into the existin.g.buffer.already there. Mr. Tanaka advised the.Council..that they should look at this as a new application, that the City had granted approval for 25 units six or seven years ago,.but this basically was starting over with these 9 units. He said the developers will be held to the declaration requirements but the City require- ments will be imposed on these 9 units. But he said the 16 existing units cannot be ignored and the October 28, 1980 - continued application encompasses the entire tract., Phase I and Phase.II, and the applicants own 36% of the common areas of the entire tract.'.Councilman Gould analyzed.the proposal, saying the Council should ask several questions. He asked if this was where they wanted to.have a PRD, and his conclusion was yes, noting that this particular PRD had been discussed at..some length in the past as an example of a PRD that looked good. Secondly; if the developer.had gone ahead and built the 25 units in the beginning the people might not.be thinking the things they were thinking now. He said the hang-up was that only.l6 were built, but -the City Attorney advised that the Council had to consider the total parcel as one unit as..far.as.the process goes. As to whether all the other requirements of the PRD were met, he said the building site appeared to be all right, the setbacks were all right, and the open area was all right. He felt the,question of the basements not being included.was not a question for the Council. Mr.'Tanaka added that as far as being'considered abandoned if not.completed in two years, that did not mean..,you cannot come back in and get a new approval; it was never intended that once you abandon a project it.was open space forevermore. He.also said that the density in a PRD.is not differentfromthe underlying zoning. Councilman Gould said he thought the Planning Commission did a good job and the ADB had gone to extra lengths to work out the amenities of'the project, and he would favor approval along with the recommendations of'the ADB. He said he understood the problemsof the people who live there but they should.be worked out between themselves and the developers. Mr. Tanaka noted that the Council also should look at the environmental aspects, and make a finding of whether or not they agree there will be no significant adverse environmental impact. COUNCILWOMAN ALLEN THEN MOVED TO APPROVE PRD-2-80 FOR THE REASONS GIVEN BY BOTH THE PLANNING COMMISSION.AND THE ARCHITECTURAL.DESIGN BOARD, INCLUDING THE FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE ENVIRONMEN.TAL.!IMPACT. COUNCILMAN GOULD.SECONDED THE MOTION, WITH THE AMENDMENT THAT THE APPROVAL INCLUDES THE REVISED SITE PLAN.IB.AS-STATED BY THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD WITH THE REVISED PARKING AND THE FENCE. COUNCILMAN..NAUGHTEN FURTHER AMENDED THE MOTION THAT A SOILS STUDY BE REQUIRED AT THE BUILDING PERMIT STAGE. BOTH..AMENDMENTS WERE ACCEPTABLE TO THE MAKER OF THE MOTION. THE • MOTION CARRIED, AS AMENDED. DISCUSSION REGARDING IMPOSITION OF BUILDING PERMIT MORATORIUM.PENDING ADOPTION OF NEW COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE . Councilman Kasper was not present.for this discussion, as stated above. City Attorney Wayne Tanaka reviewed his memorandum to,the Council .on this subject, saying that the City Attorneys' opinion was that a building permit moratorium such.as proposed -would not act to divest a person of any vested rights for a building permit that would be acquired by virtue of submitting an application that meets all.current City codes. PRDs and subdivisions are treated slightly differently since approval must be received before any rights vest. However, as a practical matter, PRDs already are subject to a moratorium of sorts because any applications filed would not receive final City approval before January 1, 1981, so they could.not bevested under the old Code. Subdivisions are in the same position as.PRDs. As far,as Building. Permits are concerned, he said that is covered by State law and, as he stated last week, the reason the Supreme Court had adopted this was to prevent moratoriums, lawsuits, etc.,, -from clouding the issue. In the City Attorneys' opinion, a moratorium would not have an effect on the ability to vest rights under the existing Code. There was no further discussion. RECONSIDERATION OF SR 524 Public Works Director Fred:Herzberg said he had not meant for this to -be considered tonight, but on November 10. He felt everyone involved should have the opportunity to be present when it is discussed. Councilman..Gould asked several questions about statements in'his memo and said the Department .of Transportation .should come and,.te.11...the Council why the requested configuration is not safe. Natalie Shippen; 1022 Euclid, commented that,they will not do what they call a "full improvement" for less than they have shown, with curbs, gutters, and sidewalks,-.but.they could make a non=full improvement of two lanes and sidewalks. Councilman Gould said what:he wanted was safe crossing" for the children and the drainage improvement at.Hind.ley.Lane. Councilwoman Allen observed that this route essentially .became a residential street with the widening of Edmonds-Way,.but the improvement is needed because of the drainage. There was no further,discussion at this time. There was no further business to come before the Council, and the meeting adjourned"at 11:40 p.m. IRENE VARNEY MORAN, Cig Clerk HARVE H. HARRISON, Mayor November 4, 1980 The regular.mee.ting 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.. 1