19801104 City Council MinutesOctober 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
146
•
November 4, 1980 - continued
PRESENT STAFF PRESENT
Harve Harrison, Mayor
Fred Herzberg, Public Works Director
Bill Kasper
Jim Adams, City Engineer
John Nordquist
John LaTourelle, Community Development Director
Ray Gould
Mary Lou Block, Planning Division Manager
Mary Goetz
Duane Bowman, Associate Planner
Larry Naughten
Irene Varney Moran, City Clerk
Jo -Anne Jaech
Marlo Foster, Police Chief
Paul Christensen, Student Rep.
Jack.Weinz, Fire Chief
Katherine Allen
Art Housler, Finance Director
Jim Jessel, Parks & Recreation Director
Jim Murphy, City Attorney
Mark Eames, City Attorney
Jackie Parrett, Deputy City Clerk
CONSENT AGENDA
Councilwoman Allen removed Item (D) from the Consent Agenda, following which COUNCILWOMAN ALLEN
MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN NORDQUIST,..TO APPROVE THE BALANCE OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION
CARRIED, WITH COUNCILWOMAN GOETZ ABSTAINING FROM VOTING ON ITEM (B) BECAUSE SHE HAD NOT BEEN PRESENT
AT THAT MEETING. The approved items on the Consent Agenda included the following:
(A) Roll call.
(B) Approval of Minutes of October 28, 1980. •
(C) Passage of Resolution 478, transferring $500 from Council Contingency Fund to Municipal
Arts Fund for Arts Assistance -Program (funding a series of music presentations in,Edmonds
elementary schools).
APPROVAL TO PROCEED WITH SPACE FOR FIRE.ENGINE ON PORT PROPERTY [Item (D) on Consent Agenda]
The request was for.funds in the amount of $2,285 to.remodel a portion of the old Barton Building
for placement of a fire -engine in the.Port area, west of the railroad -tracks. The Port had -advised
that this building may be demolished within .two.or three years and that there was no assurance that
substitute space would be available. Councilwoman Allen said she did not want to approve this.
unless it could be shown that it isessential. COUNCILMAN GOULD.MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILWOMAN
ALLEN, THAT THIS ITEM BE PLACED ON THE NOVEMBER 18, 1980 AGENDA, AND THAT THE COUNCIL BE PROVIDED
PRIOR TO THAT DATE WITH DOCUMENTATION AS.TO WHY THIS SHOULD BE.DONE. MOTION CARRIED.
Council President John Nordquist introduced.Paul Christensen, the first student from the Edmonds
School District to serve as representative to the City Council. He is a senior at Edmonds High
School, a national merit commended scholar, a member of the Evergreen Boys' State, in the Concert
Band, and in the Model United Nations Club. He will serve as student representative to the Council
for two months. Councilman Nordquist also recognized Jack Cooper, Edmonds School Board President;
and Dr. Harold Reasby, Superintendent of Schools,.who were.in the audience.
MAYOR
Mayor.,Harrison asked for. Council. confirmation of his appointment of Walt .Sellers to the position of
Hearing Examiner.. .He said Mr...Sellers.is an..attorney who has had.a great.'deal of experience in,
municipal governmentwith the.City,of E.verett......The Council had'.interviewed Mr. Sellers prior to
this evening's meeting. COUNCILMAN GOULD MOVED,.SECONDED'BY COUNCILWOMAN GOETZ, THAT CONFIRMATION
BE DENIED. THE REASONS GIVEN WERE THAT IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE CODE THE COUNCIL HAD A LONG AND
ARDUOUS DEBATE ABOUT THE HEARING EXAMINER POSITION AND THEY FEEL VERY STRONGLY THAT THIS POSITION
MUST BE ONE FILLED WITH A VERY HIGHLY QUALIFIED AND EXPERIENCED PERSON AND IT MUST BE AN IMPARTIAL
PARTY. COUNCILMAN GOULD FELT THERE WAS A CONFLICT IN THIS MAN'S BACKGROUND AND DID NOT FEEL HE WAS
QUALIFIED AT THIS TIME. THE MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Gould then asked the City Attorney whether
the Council could see the applications for the Hearing Examiner position or whether they were privy
to the Mayor. Mr. Murphy responded.that he thought it was possible for;�the Council to review them.
If they were.privacy records he would say no, but it was his assumption 'that there were no privacy
matters in the applications and a person submitting an application to a public entity could not
expect his application not to be made public. He noted that every record in the possession of the
City is a public record unless it is -statutorily exempt. Councilman Kasper stated that the Council
did not know..what they had to choose.from,:and even though it is a weighing process they did not
know whether -there were any applicants who actually have experience in.this field, so it was very
difficult to weigh somebody against the -unknown. COUNCILMAN.GOULD THEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL-
WOMAN JAECH, THAT COPIES OF THE APPLICATIONS .AND. RESUMES FOR THE HEARING EXAMINER POSITION BE SENT
TO THE COUNCIL:SO THEY HAVE THE BEST.POSSIBLE INFORMATION ON WHICH TO BASE THEIR CONCLUSIONS. THE
MOTION CARRIED.
COUNCIL
Councilman Naughten advised that he will not be present December 2 and December 9.
Councilwoman Goetz said she will not.be able to..attend the November 17 budget meeting, if it is
needed, because of a work related conflict.
Councilwoman Jaech said she will not be able to attend the November.13 budget meeting and that she
will be out of town on November 25 so she cannot attend that Council meeting.
•
14
November 4, 1.980 - continued
*
Councilman Gould said his packet must not have been complete regarding the Arts Assistance Program
because he had received a call from Joan. Swift and was not fami..liar with what she was discussing.
Harry Hise' Chairman of the Arts Commission, said he believed she was just asking his support for
the item on this evening's Consent Agenda. He said the Arts Commission had voted to match funds
with the PTSAs for this program.
Councilman Gould noted th'at.a letter had.*been received from the.Department of Transportation saying
they will. not approve the SR 524 project as proposed by the City because they feel it is not safe.'
He noted that .this was set for the November 10 agenda, but asked if any discussion was necessary at
this time. Councilman Kasper said.he had asked fora drawing showing the street as amended and he
would like to see those drawings to scale to compare with what actually is being done. City Engineer
Jim Adams said there is a drawing.at his office which he could have duplicated, but Councilman
Kasper said he,would go to the Engineering Office to look at it. Councilman Gould asked if a DOT
representative would be present.at the November 10 meeting, and he said he would like to see one of
their drawings marked with the Council's plan as well as the DOT's plan marked on it and have them
show how it is not safe. Public Works Director Fred Herzberg was asked to provide the information
to the Council by the November 6 budget meeting.
Councilwoman.Allen expressed concern regarding the effectiveness of the Sign Code because an infraction
was reported this date regarding a campaign sign, and the Mayor had done his job regarding enforcement
and the Planning Division had done their.job notifying the -person responsible, but the sign was
still displayed. City Attorney Jim Murphy explained the normal procedure for enforcement, noting
that since this was a short-term election sign the alternatives were not great. He said they could
start a civil action, or a police officer could write a ticket, but since it is on private property
the City cannot take it down, so they could only go through the judicial process. He added that the
civil process is too slow and the criminal process is really too much. Councilwoman Allen said she
approved of:the.judicial process but .she was upset with such a flagrant infraction being flaunted in
their faces. COUNCILWOMAN ALLEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILWOMAN GOETZ, THAT THE MAYOR BE REQUESTED
TO ASK THE'POLICE DEPARTMENT TO WRITE.A TICKET FOR THIS OFFENSE. Chuck Cain, in the audience, said
he thought:they were overdoing it, that this sign was no worse than those at 5th and Pine. Council-
woman Alien.responded that those are authorized by code and are of the correct size. Councilman
Gould said they should take some.action.to get people's attention,. and somewhere along the line the
Council has to say it is too much, and this incident was a major infraction of the Sign Code. THE
MOTION CARRIED. COUNCILMAN GOULD_THEN MOVED, SECONDED BY.000NCILMAN NAUGHTEN, THAT.THE COUNCIL
PRESIDENT BE REQUESTED TO WRITE.A.LETTER.TO.THE OWNER OF.THE STORE WHERE THE SIGN WAS DISPLAYED,
EXPRESSING TO HIM DIRECTLY THE FEELINGS OF THE COUNCIL ON,THIS MATTER. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Kasper requested that the Staff look into remedying situations wherein there sometimes
are some major fees due at the time of application of which the applicants are unaware, and he noted
that some cities do not require them until the certificate of occupancy is issued. He said he is in
the lending -business and lenders are not in the position to advance these large amounts up front.
AUDIENCE
Harry Hise., Arts Commission Chairman, said he also is Vice Chairman of the Cascade Youth Symphony
whose concerts-unfortunately;are.held the same evenings on which City Council meetings are held. He
invited the Council and Staff to a dress rehearsal of the next concert, to be held Sunday, November 23,
1980, from 3:00 to 5:00 p.m., at -the Edmonds High School.
HEARING ON:PROPOSED USE FOR.REVENUE.SHARING
The purpose of this hearing was to provide citizens the opportun'ity�to make oral`o'r'written*comments
regarding.possible uses of general revenue sharing funds. At. -this time the Revenue Sharing Act had
• not been renewed.and would not;.be considered until after.the Congress reconvenes.on November 12.
The amount -budgeted, based on preliminary allocation figures, was $172,077. The hearing was opened
to the public, no one wished to speak, and the hearing was closed. There was no other action to be
taken at -this time.
HEARING ON_PROPOSED.REZONE EROM.RMH TO. BC, PROPERTY AT.601, 605,.AND 611 MAIN ST. (R=3-80)
As'sociate.Planner Duane Bowman -located the subject properties on a vicinity map. The Council had
beerr�,'furnished copies of minutes of the Planning Commission hearings on this proposal. Mr.'Bowman
said the Planning Commission had been concerned that some types of uses not appropriate for that
corner would be allowed under BC zoning, so the applicant, Bert Stole, had proposed a contract
rezone. The owner of Lot 39, the second of four contiguous�-T is in the area proposed for rezone,
was not opposed to the rezone but did not want to participate in a contract rezone. That particular
property. has a rental home on -it which the owners someday may wish to live in to be close to the
downtown area. .The owners of the other properties (the Stoles and the Harrises),then agreed, voluntarily
to impose limitations on their properties in consideration of granting of the rezone, which would
allow onlyr..esidential, business and professional, and..some.limite.d retail uses.. Those properties
already have Conditional Use Permits for professional offices. They would have to provide the
required parking on site or pay into the in -lieu parking fund. The Harris property is providing the
required parking on the site, and the Stole property is similar. The hearing was opened to the
public.
Carolynne Harris, owner of the lot.at 601 Main St., said the zoning across the street in both
directions is BC, and this is..not a good.residential location because of the constant traffic,
including that of emergency vehicles. The house is 85 years old and is in the process of being
restored., A Conditional Use Permit.had.been obtained with the .intent that her husband, a CPA, would
use it as an office but he subsequently -obtained office space elsewhere. Mrs. Harris has a Persian
carpet business at 409 Main St. which she wished to relocate.to.this location. She said it is more
of an art business with little traffic. She said her purchase of this house had been rather emotional,
*See amendment 11-10-80.
November 4, 1980 - continued •
and she had spent thousands of dollars to save it. She felt it was a historic and quality building
and she hoped to have a quality business there. No one else wished to speak, and the public portion
of the hearing was closed. COUNCILMAN NAUGHTEN:MOVED, SECONDED BY:000NCILWOMAN ALLEN, TO ADOPT
ORDINANCE 2168, PURSUANT TO P.C. RESOLUTION'662, AND ADOPTING -THE FINDINGS CONTAINED THEREIN, AND
SUBJECT TO THE AGREEMENT AND COVENANTS CONSTITUTING THE PROPOSED CONTRACT REZONE. Councilman Gould
asked what the City would get for granting this rezone, and Mr. Bowman responded that the contract
would preclude the noxious uses that might be permitted under BC zoning. Councilman Gould was
uncomfortable that one,piece-of property with.in.this.area would be free of those restrictions, but
he was told -by -City Attorney Jim Murphy that.to.leave•that single piece of property RMH would constitute
spot zoning. Mr. Bowman added that if that property were to.be developed the new building would be
reviewed by the ADB in relation to the -other buildings, the.par.king would have to.be provided, and
in the case of a proposed tavern the Liquor..Control Board would ask.the City for a recommendation on
issuance of a license. THE MOTION THEN CARRIED, WITH COUNCILMAN GOULD VOTING NO.
DISCUSSION REGARDING REQUEST FROM.RUSS..JUCKETT, COUNTY PROSECUTOR
Councilman Kasper said this item had.been assigned to the Public Safety Committee, but that com-
mittee had not met and was not scheduled to meet until -November 18, so he had no input -to offer.
Police Chief Marlo Foster said the County Prosecutor had asked what kind of prosecution should be
given the highest priority since his staff was going to be cut. Chief Foster said the Prosecutor's
office had always been understaffed and there is a rapid turnover in,deputy prosecutors -because of
their low pay. He said the Prosecutor has-written'guidelines.as to what cases should be given the..
highest priority. Chief Foster though_t.the question before the Council was whether they made some
type of noise of support to raise the level -of the Prosecutor's office or whether support was•given
individually by calling some of the County Council members. He said the City of Edmonds probably
has fewer problems with the Prosecutor's office than most cities because Edmonds has its own municipal
court and screens cases. He felt that if Edmonds does offer -support it should call to the County
Council's attention -the low pay of the deputy prosecutors. He said the City of Edmonds files
•
approximately 225-250 cases per year, virtually all of them being felonies, and they should be filed
as felonies because the City screens.out those that'are marginal...He felt each case'should•be:
handled on an individual basis, so there should be no categorization of any that.should be reduced
to misdemeanors. His main displeasure with the Prosecutor's office was not the amount of staff, but
the quality of staff. Councilwoman Allen felt the County departments should be left to struggle
with their budget while the City struggles with its"own, and she said she would not•be in favor of
seeing any other department heads on the Counci-l's agenda between.the present time and the time
when the County adopts its budget. -Councilman Naughten suggested a letter be.sent•to Russ Juckett
stating that the Council. had reviewed the matter and decided to take no action. Councilman Gould
noted that Mr. Juckett was made aware of the Council's feelings the evening that he made his presenta-
tion. COUNCILMAN NAUGHTEN MOVED, SECONDED BY .COUNCILMAN GOULD, THAT THE:PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE
CHAIRMAN WRITE THE LETTER TO THE COUNTY PROSECUTOR. MOTION CARRIED.
REVIEW OF AMENDATORY ORDINANCES TO EX.ISTING'CITY.CODE TO IMPLEMENT PENDING RECODIFICATION
City Attorney Jim Murphy said the proposed ordinances were just technical amendments to the Code
prior to final adoption. The draft ordinances had been provided for the Council's review and
comment, but adoption was scheduled for November 10. There was no comment.
There was no further business to come before.Ahe Council, and the meeting adjourned at 9:10 p.m...
IRENE VARNEY'MORAN., C ty Clerk HARVE HARRISON, Mayor
November 10, 1980 - Work Meeting
A special (Monday) meeting of the Edmonds City
Council was called to order at 8:00 p.m. by Mayor Pro tem
John Nordquist.in the Council Chambers of the -Edmonds
'Mayor
-Civic Center. All present joined in the flag
salute. Harrison arrived shortly after
the call to order. ..
PRESENT ABSENT
STAFF PRESENT
Harve'Harrison, Mayor Jo -Anne Jaech
Charles Dibble, M.A.A.
John Nordquist
Fred Herzberg, Public Works Director
Paul Christensen, Student Rep.
-Jim Adams, City.Engineer
Ray -Gould'
John-LaTourelle, Community Devel. Dir.
Bill Kasper -
Mary Lou Block, Planning Division Mgr. -
Mary Goetz
Irene Varney Moran, City Clerk
Katherine Allen
Jack Weinz, Fire Chief
Larry Naughten
Dan Prinz,,Asst. Police Chief
Art Housler, Finance Director
Jim Jessel, Parks & Recreation Dir.
Jim Murphy, City Attorney
Mark Eames, City Attorney
Jackie Parrett, Deputy City Clerk