Loading...
19820119 City Council Minutes• January 12, 1982 - continued 3.71 11 LJ 1 COUNCILMEMBER JAECH MOVED TO NOMINATE BILL KASPER AS THE COUNCIL PRESIDENT.FOR'1982, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ALLEN. Councilmember Gould noted that.a format should be designed to assure that each Councilmember has the opportunity to be Council President during his term of office, so if Council - member Kasper were followed by'Councilmembers Jaech, Naughten, and Hall, that would be accomplished. MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Jaech said the Finance/Public Safety Committeee had discussed changing the fees for land use applications and she would like to set a date for review by the Council. COUCILMEMBER JAECH MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER GOULD, TO SET.JANUARY 26, 1982 FOR DISCUSSION OF CHANGING THE FEES FOR LAND USE APPLICATIONS. MOTION CARRIED. The material provided to the committee for this discussion is to be provided to the other Councilmembers. COUNCILMEMBER JAECH MOVED; SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST,.THAT A LETTER BE SENT TO THOSE PEOPLE WHOSE SIGNS ARE NOT IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE SIGN -CODE., WITH EMPHASIS ON THE FIVE CORNERS AREA WHERE THERE IS A PREPONDERANCE OF UNAUTHORIZED SANDWICHBOARD SIGNS. MOTION CARRIED. COUNCILMEMBER GOULD MOVED; SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NAUGHTEN, TO AUTHORIZE THE RETENTION OF FRANK 'HANSCHE AS ARBITRATOR IN THE EDMONDS VS. MOUNTLAKE TERRACE ARBITRATION, WITH COMPENSATION AS STATED IN THE DECEMBER 29, 1981 LETTER FROM.CITY ATTORNEY WAYNE TANAKA. MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Gould requested.that the City Clerk provide him with a copy of his most recent public disclosure statement. Regarding the question of whether Price Waterhouse should be invited to address the Council again about the water/sewer rate structure, Councilmember Gould said that would be held in abeyance until the City Attorney'.s„opinion .is received.. Councilmember Gould referred.,to a memo from City Attorney.Douglas Albright which recommended the continued use of Cabot. Dow & Associates through March.31, 1982 for labor negotiations. COUNCILMEMBER GOULD MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JAECH, TO AUTHORIZE THE CONTINUED USE OF CABOT DOW & ASSOCIATES THROUGH MARCH 31, 1982 OR THE EARLIER RESOLUTION OF ALL OF THE LABOR AGREEMENTS; ON THE SAME TERMS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED. MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Gould requested a copy of the State law having to do with the procedure citizens must follow when they turn in found items if they wish to have such items returned to them if unclaimed. He had received a citizen complaint about the procedure in Edmonds, and ,City Attorney Wayne Tanaka advised him that State law governs the procedure. COUNCILMEMBER NAUGHTEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ALLEN, TO PLACE ON THE FEBRUARY 2, 1982 AGENDA A REVIEW OF THE CITY'S CONSTRUCTION AND DESIGN CONTRACT POLICY. MOTION CARRIED. Mayor Harrison advised that Jim Roberts had attended.the Boundary Review Board meeting this evening at which they waived jurisdiction regarding the annexation north of Perrinville. Mayor Harrison asked for A.replacement for former Councilmember Goetz on the Professional Consultant Selection Committee. COUNCILMEMBER NAUGHTEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ALLEN, THAT COUNCILMEMBER HALL BE APPOINTED TO THE PROFESSIONAL CONSULTANT SELECTION COMMITTEE. MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Hall read a letter from Doug Egan regarding the proposed Bell Street parking triangle in which he expressed opposition'to the proposal. There was no further business to come before the Council, and the meeting adjourned to Executive Session at 10:10 p.m. IRENE VARNEY MORAN, Cit# Clerk January 19, 1982 v HARVE H. HARRISON, Mayor The regular.meeting of the Edmonds City Councii 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 ABSENT STAFF PRESENT Harve Harrison, Mayor John Nordqu.ist Jim Adams, City Engineer Bill Kasper Irene Varney Moran, City Clerk Laura Hall Mary Lou Block, Planning Director Larry Naughten Marlo Foster, Police Chief Ray Gould Jack Weinz, Police Chief Katherine Allen Jim Jessel, Parks & Recreation Director Jo -Anne Jaech Art Housler, Finance Director Wayne Tanaka, City Attorney Mark Eames, City Attorney Jackie Parrett, Deputy City Clerk • S72January .19, 1982 - continued Councilmember Nordquist had notified the Council President that he would be absent this evening because of business. CONSENT AGENDA Items (L) and (N) were removed from.the Consent Agenda. COUNCILMEMBER NAUGHTEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER 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 January 12, 1982. (C) Set date of February 2, 1982 for hearing on preliminary 6-lot plat - Northwood Development (P-6-81). (D) Set date of February 2, 1982 for hearing on Amendment to Official Street Map to add proposed street east and north of intersection of.8th and Driftwood Lane - Rowe (ST-9-81). (E) Acceptance of Quit Claim Deed from Ted and Daphne Kopp. (F) Adoption of Ordinance 2257, vacating right-of-way along east side of 72nd, north of 176th St. S.W. (G) Adoption of Ordinance 2258, vacating Spruce P1. (H) Adoption of Ordinance 2259, amending Official Street Map regarding Spruce P1. • (I), Acceptance of Quit Claim Deed from Nettie S. Preston. (J) Adoption of Ordinance 2260, vacating portion of alley between 8th and 9th Aves. N. and between Sprague and Edmonds Sts. (K) Adoption of Ordinance 2261, rezoning property located at 7301 Meadowdale Beach Rd. from RS-20 to Open Space. (M) Authorization for Reid -Middleton & Associates to study Lift Station 5 capacity. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN'LaPIERRE REZONE CONTRACT (R-4-81) Item L on Consent Agenda City Attorney Wayne Tanaka advised that information had been received that one of the owners of the property, Bob Tj.ossom, was disavowing any intent to agree to the covenants proposed by Mr. LaPierre on the part of.the owners. Mr. Tanaka suggested that any approval be conditioned on agreement by the other property owners to the identical terms of the contract. Mayor Harrison said it had been explained to him that the option had run out, so there may not be any other property owners. COUNCILMEMBER NAUGHTEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ALLEN, TO APPROVE THE CONTRACT WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT ALL PROPERTY OWNERS MUST AGREE WITH THE CONTRACT. MOTION CARRIED. FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WORK BY JAS ELECTRIC ON EDMONDS JUNIOR HIGH FIELD LIGHTING PROJECT [Item (N) on Consent agenda Councilmember Hall asked if the $2,000 which will be needed to reduce the light intensity was over and above the contract price of the lighting. Parks and Recreation Director Jim Jessel responded that the estimate for the lighting was $72,000 and they had only spent $52,000, so there were • adequate funds for the $2,000 in-house project to reduce the light intensity to the neighbors' satisfaction. COUNC'ILMEMBER HALL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NAUGHTEN, TO APPROVE ITEM (N) ON THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED. MAYOR Mayor Harrison offered three names for appointment to the Edmonds.Arts Commission. The Arts Com- mission had conducted interviews for the open positions and made these recommendations. For Position 5, a 4-year term, Ken Rose was recommended; for Position 6, a 1-year unexpired term, Jack Dublin was recommended; and for Position 7, a 2-year unexpired term, Jerilyn Brusseau was recommended. Mayor Harrison had background information on each of the candidates which he said he would furnish to the Council. COUNCILMEMBER NAUGHTEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JAECH, TO INTERVIEW THE ARTS COMMISSION CANDIDATES AT 7:00 P.M., FEBRUARY 2, 1982. MOTION CARRIED. AUDIENCE Michele McFadden, an attorney representing a joint owner of four lots in the Plat of Meadowdale Beach, requested a change to the Community Development Code regarding nonconforming lots. Each of her client's lots is substandard.in lot area and width but if paired they would create two lots which would exceed the minimum lot area and width. Her client wished to so aggregate the lots and she believed that Section 17.40.030 of the Code allowed this, but. the City Attorney's interpretation was that the lots must be:.replatted. City Attorney Wayne Tanaka stated that the reason his office had taken that.positi.on was because so many times there are lots that were divided many years ago and now more dedications of streets and other requirements are needed and if you take the position that they are conforming you cannot get the necessary improvements. He thought there was merit on both sides of the question. COUNCILMEMBER'GOULD.MOVED, SECONDED BY.000NCILMEMBER KASPER, TP REVIEU1 SECTION 1.7.40.030 OF THE CTIMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE ON FEBRUARY 16, 1982 AND TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THIS REQUEST. MOTION CARRIED. r1 LJ • January 19, 1982 - continued John Clark of the Washington State Licensed Beverage Association spoke in opposition`to the ordinance recently passed.which raised the license fee for video games. He represented Edmonds business people who have video games in their establishments and said the fee has gone from $25.per year to $480 per year ($40 per month) per game and that the.small.business people here, mostly tavern owners, do not make enough off tfie games to pay that fee.. He asked for reconsideration of the ordinance. g He noted that Seattle charges.$125 per year per machine, the highest fee in the State except for Edmonds, and that they have other considerations such.as police protection on First Ave. and in arcades where games are located. Councilmember Naughten told him the fee was based on information the Council had received and that they probably should re-examine the data. He also asked that Mr. Clark assist by providng some data as to the income the local machines generate. Councilmember Hall acknowledged receipt of letters from two of the local tavern owners who also had expressed concern about the fees. COUNCILMEMBER ALLEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NAUGHTEN, TO HAVE A HEARING ON FEBRUARY 16, 1982 TO REVIEW THE VIDEO GAMES LICENSE FEE. Councilmember Gould noted that the data they were looking for from Mr. Clark should be on the machines located in Edmonds (63 were known at the time the ordinance was passed). THE MOTION CARRIED. Lou Oskowski said he had been reading about the severe.impact the new library is having.on the City budget and that utilities are now being taxed very severely and he wondered how the tax rate was devised to fund the library. He said as cost of utilities increase the taxes increase so the City is getting more money for the library, so he thought the tax rate should be rolled back. Council - member Allen advised.him that although the utility rates have increased the consumption has decreased so the increase in revenue to the City is not that great. The tax on utilities was briefly discussed and then Mr. Oskowski'said he would call for an appointment with the Finance Director for a more detailed explanation. . Mrs. Arthur King, 817 Hindley Lane, discussed the 9th.Ave. improvement and asked that a City engineer look at.the intersection at Hindley Lane because it is so narrow that if one car is stopped while waiting to exit onto 9th another car cannot enter Hindley Lane. 'City Engineer Jim Adams said he had already discussed this problem with the State and there'.was no question in his mind that'the street was too:narrow and would have to be'changed. He will contact Mrs. King regarding the solution. CONTINUED HEARING (FROM DECEMBER 15) ON PETITION FOR VACATION OF ALLEY LOCATED BETWEEN .8TH AND "B" AND BETWEEN NORTH SIDE OF LOT 4, BLOCK 10, YOST'S FIRST ADDITION, AND ELM ST. (ST-7-81) Planning Director Mary Lou Block noted that the Council had requested additional information regarding the location of the subject property, how it was acquired, and the wording of ordinances pertaining to compensation for alley vacations. She said the alley in question.was acquired with the subdivision of Yost's First Addition, and a copy of that plat was provided. Also provided was a copy of Section 20.70 of the Community Development Code which governs alley vacation requests. She said compensa- tion for a vacated alley -is determinedby the City Council... In answer to a question, City Attorney Wayne Tanaka said the City owns property to the west and.that it was likely that the City would get one-half of the vacated alley, and since zoning usually goes to the middle of the street, if the. City's property is zoned OS.the portion of the alley vacated to that property also would become OS. The hearing was opened to the public. Tim Murphy, owner of Lot 4, said the alley is a 20' wide alley and there is approximately a 20' dropoff from the property down to the alley. He said it is a mess down there and needs to be cleaned out.. His intent was to acquire the entire 20' and clean it up as he said it is a terrble sight now with an abandoned car and a lot of trash. No one else wished to speak, and the hearing was closed. • COUNCILMEMBER NAUGHTEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER GOULD, TO VACATE THE 20' OF ALLEY AND ASK' FOR AN APPRAISAL OF THE PROPERTY TO DETERMINE THE FAIR VALUE.SO THAT THE CITY CAN BE COMPENSATED. Ms. Block"noted that the Hearing.Examiner had recommended retention of a 10' utility easement, centered on the existing storm sewer line. COUNCILMEMBER NAUGHTEN THEN AMENDED HIS MOTION, ACCEPTABLE TO THE SECOND, TO INCLUDE. RETENTION OF THE 10' UTILITY EASEMENT, CENTERED ON THE EXISTING STORM SEWER LINE. Mr. Murphy added at this time that the north one-half of Lot 4 has not yet been developed and he thought the rear yard setback of that lot should remain the same in spite of the alley, vacation. That was not a part of this action. THE MOTION CARRIED. HEARING ON PROPOSED RESTRICTION OF ON -STREET PARKING ON 76TH AVE. W. FROM 216TH S.W. TO 218TH S.W. City Engineer Jim Adams said there has been considerable development between 216.th and 218th on 76th resulting in abundant off-street parking and also in a significant increase in traffic. He recom- mended that on -street parking -be -eliminated and that the street be changed to four lanes. He noted that the 1990 Transportation Plan from Snohomish County recommends elimination of all on -street parking on 76th from Highway 99 all the way north. His recommendation at this time, however, was that the parking -be eliminated only in this specified area because there still are some residences south of 218th which probably still need on -street parking... He thought the elimination of the on - street parking should be accomplished in stages as the.development continues. The hearing was opened, no one wished to speak,.and the hearing was closed. COUNCILMEMBER GOULD MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ALLEN, TO INSTRUCT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO DRAFT AN ORDINANCE TO INCORPORATE THE PROPOSED RESTRICTION OF ON -STREET PARKING ON 76TH AVE. W. MOTION CARRIED. At this time Mayor Harrison asked for a motion to move up on the agenda the item pertaining to the Public Defender- so that he could be.excused. COUNCILMEMBER NAUGHTEN MOVED, SECONDS"„ BY COUNCIL - MEMBER HALL, TO HEAR THE PUBLIC DEFENDER ITEM NEXT ON.THE AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED. n �J 374 January 19, 1982 - continued • DISCUSSION ON NEGOTIATING CONTRACT WITH PUBLIC DEFENDER Steve Conroy, the Public Defender, had written to request renegotiation of his contract. He ex- plained that when the City had its own municipal court the clerks set all his cases at the same time, once a month, but since going to the South District Court he is there on Edmonds cases two days a week or more and all his free time at his office is filled interviewing the indigents. The case load has increased also, from 30 cases in 1978, 33 cases in 1979, 37 cases in 1980, to 133 cases in 1981. His fee has been $45 per case and he asked.if that could be renegotiated to some- thing similar.to what is paid in.other cities: Councilmember Gould suggested that the Finance Director determine what the other Public Defenders in the area are paid. COUNCILMEMBER ALLEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER GOULD, TO CONTINUE THIS TO.THE FEBRUARY 9, 1982 WORK MEETING AT WHICH TIME THE FINANCE DIRECTOR WILL PROVIDE THE INFORMATION AS TO PAYMENT TO OTHER PUBLIC DEFENDERS IN THE AREA.. MOTION CARRIED. HEARING ON PREL'IMINARY 5-LOT PLAT - (WILLISON/P-4-81) Planning Director Mary Lou Block located the property on a vicinity map. The Hearing Examiner had recommended approval of the plat, subject to certain conditions. The lots will access from a cul- de-sac to be built by an LID, and Ms. Block said there is some question as to obtaining the neces- sary property for the LID but that is a condition of the subdivision. Ms. Block read aloud the - Hearing Examiner's conclusions. The conditions of his recommendation for approval were: (1) There is to be no clearing of vegetation 10' on either side of Talbot Park Creek where it flows between Lots 1 and 2 of the subject property. (2) The maple tree on Lot 1 is to be retained. (3) There is to be total compliance with all Engineering requirements set forth in Exhibit4 to his report. (4) Lot 3 is a flag lot which shall have the following setbacks: street to the west, rear to the east, and sides to the north and south. .(5).As provided in Chapter 20.50 of the Community Development Code, the street setbacks on Lots 1, 3, and 4 shall be reduced to 12.1/2' to keep the building pads off the steep portions of the lot. (6).The cul-de-sac within the subject property shall conform to those plans that were approved for LID 209. (7) An erosion control plan must be filed prior to any clearing on the subject property. (8) The Engineering Department shall determine the stability of any slopes on the subject property and prior to any clearing the applicant or her successors must receive the approval of the City of Edmonds Engineering Department for clearing and building. In addition, the Planning Department recommended a condition that no building will be closer than 15' to the creek. The hearing was opened. Jerry Krell, 5013 Elm, Everett, represented Mrs. Willison, the applicant, and said he would answer any questions. The Council had none at this time. Van McKenny, 8025 Cyprus Pl., said he had made an agreement with Mrs. Willison for access over a portion of his property but he had received a letter from Wayne Tanaka saying the amount they agreed on was not sufficient and that double the amount was wanted. Mr. McKenny said he had allowed 18' along Cyprus Pl. and there already was a 12' access easement, which totaled 30', and he asked why more was needed. City Engineer Jim Adams said he had been under the impression that the.City was getting 18' across as the legal. description had described.the 18' the other way. He thought there may have been a misunderstanding as to what was needed. He said the property actually needed is approximately.equal to the existing road. The road designed follows the existing road and does not infringe any farther than what'is now being used by the Mausers for access. Mr. McKenny said the agreement had been that the least necessary amount of land.would.be given and his 18' together with the existing 12' easement should be al.1 that is needed. He added that there is a telephone pole right in the middle so the Mausers have to use more to get.in to their home. He was interested in preserving as much of his property as he could., He asked that this be examined. No one else wished to speak, and the hearing was closed. COUNCILMEMBER ALLEN MOVED, SECONDED FOR DISCUSSION BY COUNCIL - MEMBER NAUGHTEN, TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY PLAT P-4-81 WITH DUE CONSIDERATION BEING GIVEN TO MR. McKENNY'S REQUEST TO USE THE LEAST AMOUNT OF LAND AND TO KEEP THE RIGHT-OF-WAY AS WITHIN REASON AS POSSIBLE, THE APPROVAL BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS BY THE HEARING EXAMINER, AND INCORPORATING HIS RECOMMENDATIONS. Councilmember Naughten asked if by adopting the Hearing Examiner's recommendation they were also adopting the Planning and Engineering Departments.' recommendations, including that adequate property be acquired to construct the road to City standards and also including the condition that no building be closer than 15' to the creek. Councilmember Kasper suggested that possibly any additional property should be taken from the property on the other side of the road as that property would benefit. Mr. Adams responded that they would not benefit from this and further that the terrain would require a great deal.of rockery for retention as they would be going into a bank that would need some stabilization. He also thought it would make too sharp a turn. He said this was the best solution they had been able.to get and it would not infringe terribly on the McKenny or the Leifer property but it does take some of both properties. Mr. Tanaka advised that the subdivision will be conditioned on acquisition of sufficient property to construct the road and the property will have to come off either the Leifer or the McKenny property. Maurine Willison, 7802 173rd St. S.W., said she had lived on this property since 1950 and the road the Mausers use has been there since she bought the property and takes up the same area it always has. Mr. McKenny said it had been a small road, more of a path, next to the power pole but it has now been extended considerably. He said what they were now asking for will expose his driveway to the traffic. Further, the reason he: -wanted the least amount'of property given was to make a little "S" there to slow down the traffic for his family's protection. He said since he is giving the land he thought that was the least he deserved, and the-18' was the minimum amount of land needed to complete the project and any more would be unnecessary. THE MOTION CARRIED, WITH COUNCILMEMBER KASPER VOTING NO. HEARING ON PRELIMINARY 7-LOT PLAT:-'(HENNING/P-5-81) Planning Director Mary.Lou Block.identified the plat on a vicinity map. It will access off a new street to be dedicated, Vista'P1. There are three existing -houses on the property. One will be removed as will a garage. The site is almost flat with little vegetation. It is in a generally 1 1 • 1 0 1 1 C1 375 • January 19, 1982 - continued developed area zoned RS-8. Lot 1 is capable of further subdivsion. Ms. Block read aloud the conclusions of the Hearing Examiner Pro tem, noting.that.no opposition testimony was presented at the hearing., The Hearing Examiner Pro tem recommended approval, subject to the following: (1) The applicant is to comply with all the engineering requirements as outlined in Exhibit 7 to -the Hearing Examiner report: (2) At the time'the`building permits are applied for, the applicant.shall submit a plan.whereby noise levels .and traffic congestion shall be kept to a minimum during construction .because of the location `of.the Holy Rosary School near the subject property. (3) Lot 1 must access onto the proposed Vista Pl. Since there is a possibility that Lot 1 may be_further subdivided, any new lot also will have to access onto Vista P1. The hearing was opened. Jurgen Sauerland, 23108.100th Ave. W., representing the applicant, said they concurred with the findings of the Hearing Examiner but did not want a restriction placed on the plat dictating the hours during which._construction may be in progress. He said they can keep the street clean but do not want to be restricted as to hours of construction. Councilmember Gould observed that the condition required that the applicant develop the noise level and traffic plan and he would expect it would be one that would be responsive to the neighborhood. No one else wished to speak, and the hearing was closed. COUNCILMEMBER NAUGHTEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER. ALLEN, TO APPROVE 'PRELIMINARY PLAT P-5-81, BASED UPON THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, PLANNING DEPARTMENT, AND THE HEARING EXAMINER. MOTION CARRIED. A short recess was announced. HEARING ON APPEAL OF ADB APPROVAL REGARDING HOLY ROSARY CHURCH Councilmember Kasper-left,the Council Chambers during this hearing. Planning Director Mary Lou Block stated that on December'2, 1981 the ADB had approved changes.to the previously approved plan for the Holy Rosary Church and gymnasium at-770 Aloha St. On December 14, 1981 Donald Schroeder filed an appeal of that decision. He contested the items in the ADB motion dealing with the.cross on top of the church, the total number of parking stalls required, and changes in the previously • approved ADB plans. The.ADB motion had been to approve with the following changes: "As funds are available the plantings which have died will be replaced; the trash containers will be relocated out of sight and will be screened, that plan to be submitted for final approval; the addition of the cross is approved as it is very appropriate and a handsome addition to the church; the two parking stalls in the drop-off loop to be moved to the northeast corner of the parking area; and that the blue shed go before the Board for approval after a Conditional Use.Permit is obtained for it." At that meeting the architect for the project spoke, addressing the changes, some of the neighbors spoke, and Mr. Schroeder spoke. The architect had responded to a list of items to be completed which was prepared by the Planning Department, indicating how they would be accomplished. Ms. Block noted that the only thing actually changed by the ADB motion was to move two parking spaces. The hearing was opened. Al Bumgardner, senior partner of Bumgardner Architects, said his client was willing to comply with the ruling of the ADB. Forrest Wall, 831 Daley, said he had objected to this project in the early stages but withdrew his objections because the landscaping plan called for forsythia and low growing plantings but somewhere along the line those were replaced with fir trees and although they are only 8'- 10' tall now they will be much taller in a few years. His home has a view almost exclusively over the parking lot and it -will be obscured when the trees grow. He had discussed this with Mr. VanHollebeke who was in charge of the landscaping program and who expressed a willingness to remove whatever firs that would block the views and put in forsythia and lower growing shrubs. However, Mr. VanHollebeke wanted City approval. Mr. Wall asked that the City include a provision that the existing trees surrounding the parking lot be replaced with forsythia or other screening shrubs that will not impair views. .Don Schroeder, the appellant, said in April of 1979 he had been the first one to suggest.a cross on the church --but at that time he was fighting the steeple that would'cut out the view and he had asked what was wrong with just a simple cross. He said he does not mind the cross, but the real • point is whether an individual or an organization can break the City's laws, ignore its ordinances, and break a contract with the City. He thought the church had done all this willfully and that this was an issue of ethics. He said this was a classic example of�a powerful organization coming in and .doing exactly what they want to do. He said he had commented on the floodlights shining on the steeple at the ADB meeting --that there is a skylight at the base with lights inside the church and he would like one of the conditions to be that the lights illuminating the steeple go off on the same restrictions as the parking lot --one to one and one-half hours after the church is used. Regarding landscaping, he said he had fought long and hard trying to get .the best screening he could. because he looks at the parking lot. He said it is a.constantly moving thing and they have lights of the cars flashing right into their house at all hours. He noted that at one time the plan showed a tree at the head of the driveway that he thought would take care of.some of the problem, but that tree was not put in, and at the ADB hearing Mr..LaFon had.said it might be a hazard for cars driving up .into the parking lot, so the one little thing he got they eliminated. He added that normally 8% of the parking lot is landscaped but that was waived so they could use the parking lot for a play - field. He said they were short nine parking spaces, but Ms. Block responded that -the applicant had shown the ADB where they would put those stalls. Mr. Schroeder said that�on the previous Sunday almost all of the parking was used, as well as that on the streets, to there undoubtedly will be a problem when future development occurs in the area. He added that there had been a 35' trailer parked in the lot recently and also that a recycling shed was now there, painted a bright blue, and it is in the church's back lot but in his front lot. He said that at the ADB hearing the church was told to file for a Conditional Use -Permit for it but that has not been done, and if they wait long enough it will be like the cross --a fait accompli. 'He said this is a residential area and should not.have that kind of shed, and it takes parking spaces.. Another individual spoke of a personal incident -with Mr. Schroeder which was not pertinent to this action. No one else wished to speak, and the hearing was closed. Councilmember Naughten said he woul.d-like to see .some.sort of'declaration.that the fir trees be. changed to other plantings that will not obscure views. As to the lighting, he thought the least that could be done was that the 'lights to the steeple be turned off in the evening, and if the shed • is to remain it should have a Conditional Use permit for some control. Mr. Bumgardner stated that 376 January 19, 1982 - conti;nued the congregation put in the landscaping so it is not a matter of having a landscaper return to remedy it. Councilmember Jaech commented that in some ways Mr. Schroeder had some good points --she thought it was wrong for the City's laws to be violated, regardless of who does it. COUNCILMEMBER NAUGHTEN MOVED, SECONDED FOR DISCUSSION BY COUNCILMEMBER HALL, TO UPHOLD THE ADB DECISION WITH THE FOLLOWING MODIFICATIONS: A NEW LANDSCAPING PLAN WILL BE PRESENTED REPLACING THE EXISTING TALL EVERGREENS WITH SHORTER EVERGREENS, AND THE LIGHTS SHINING ON.THE STEEPLE ARE TO BE TURNED OFF WHEN THE CHURCH IS NOT IN USE. Councilmember Gould was interested in hearing what could be done to control the lighting. A lady in the audience said she di:d not think the lights were offensive but instead are aesthetically attractive and do not block views. She said that, knowing the parish priest, she did not think he would want to cause anyone anxiety and would have them turned off in the early morning hours. She also thought the people of the church to be intelligent and that this should be left to their discretion. Mr. Schroeder said it is the steeple that is illuminated and causes a shaft of light to penetrate into the view. THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR CARRIED. Councilmember Gould said it would be his expectation.that the church would follow through with any other permits that are required to meet the City's requirements. Councilmember Kasper returned to the rostrum. HEARING ON IN -LIEU PARKING ORDINANCE Planning Director Mary Lou Block stated that when this matter was previously heard two recommenda- tions were discussed but were not acted upon. They were: (1) To modify the ordinance establishing the in -lieu fund to.allow use of the fund for development and enhancement of on -street as well as off-street parking; and (2) If it is.not practical to provide off-street parking to meet the code requirements, then in -lieu parking should be allowed to satisfy all requirements, at the discretion of the Planning Director. She recommended that an ordinance be prepared allowing for on -street as well as off-street use of the in -lieu parking fund, and that approval of the number of in -lieu spaces be subject to the procedure outlined in Section 20.95.050, Staff Decision --Optional Hearing, so that if opposition were generated from neighboring property owners there would be a hearing held without a special requirement. Mayor Harrison said he would not feel comfortable allowing the Planning Director to have the discretion of deciding to allow all in -lieu parking, although he has great confidence in the Planning. Director, but he thought this would be so controversial that it should be a decision of the elected officials. Councilmember Gould thought that decision should properly be with the City Council, and he said if it is controversial it eventually will get to them anyway, so it might as well be.made faster for the applicant. Ms. Block pointed out that if they all have to go to the Council it could delay projects. The hearing was opened. Natalie Shippen, 1022 Euclid, supported the first recommendation of the Staff, saying it complied with the goals of downtown parking. Regarding the second recommendation, she said she would not want to say everyone could have all in -lieu parking, but she liked the idea of a maximum upon which the Planning Director could decide. She gave.an example as Brusseau's, saying she thought that aesthetically it would be better if'they did not have a requirement for parking if there is satis- factory parking.on the street, and she thought that to be the case in that instance. She said she would like to see a clear definition of a parking plan because of the recent controversy regarding the Mayo remodel. City Attorney'Wayne Tanaka responded that it was his interpretation that the requirement of a plan related only to on -site parking spaces, and in the Mayo case he was not proposing to construct any parking spaces on -site but was buying in -lieu and providing other parking off -site and off-street. He said it was his interpretation that the plan was not required in that case and the Council could impose any.reasonable requirement, but it was Ms. Shippen's suggestion that a person who is'going to provide off -site, off-street..parking should show a definite plan on a piece of paper, including leases, etc.,.to show where the parking specifically will be. He said if that is what the Council wants then the Council should initiate procedures for amending the Code. Councilmember Jaech asked if it would not be better to have.such a plan than to try to enforce a covenant without the specifics. Mr. Tanaka responded that covenants do work and are not ineffective but there are problems with them as he previously has stated. Ken Mattson, 725 Daley, asked if .allowing the in -lieu fee to be used for on -street parking could be retroactive. He also advised that the PAB again.will be discussing downtown parking in February. Councilmember Naughten said he still was not convinced that there is a parking need downtown for things such as remodels. The hearing was closed. COUNCILMEMBER GOULD MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NAUGHTEN, TO MODIFY THE ORDINANCE REGARDING THE IN -LIEU FUND TO ALLOW USE OF THE FUND FOR DEVELOPMENT AND ENHANCEMENT OF ON -STREET PARKING AS WELL AS OFF-STREET PARKING, AND SECONDLY, THAT IF IT IS NOT PRACTICAL TO PROVIDE OFF-STREET PARKING TO MEET THE CODE REQUIREMENTS THEN IN -LIEU PARKING SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO SATISFY THE REQUIREMENTS AT THE DISCRETION OF THE PLANNING DIRECTOR WHEN THE TOTAL NUMBER OF SPACES IS 10 OR LESS, AND THE DIRECTOR WILL HAVE DISCRETION UP TO 50% OF THOSE SPACES, AND WHEN THE TOTAL IS 11 OR MORE THE RATIO OF OFF- STREET PARKING WILL BE DECIDED BY THE CITY COUNCIL. MOTION CARRIED. COUNCILMEMBER ALLEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JAECH, THAT ON FEBRUARY 9, 1982 THE COUNCIL DISCUSS THE DEFINITION OF PARKING PLAN. MOTION CARRIED. PROPOSAL REGARDING PORT/CITY PARKING LOT Councilmembers Kasper and.Naughten left the rostrum during this discussion because they both have family members employed at Pantley's restaurant. City Attorney Wayne Tanaka had provided a written review of the latest proposal. He said the Port is proposing that the language in the amendments be clarified so it is understood by both parties and spelled out that the parking lot is to be used only by certain specified classes of users --users of the fishing pier, the City beach and park, and of Port property. He said the City's position is that the current agreement with the Port is not so restrictive and this would represent a major decision on the part of the City. He said the second issue is where the rental is to be paid. The Port proposes.that they receive the rent from Pantley instead of the -City, and they are talking about deducting the costs of regulating, such as towing and potentially the security officers. The money figures are the same. A major change in.the parking lot addendum is whether Pantley could lease other space.from the Port in addition to the parking deck. The other change is the provision that the City cannot start a lawsuit for partition 1 0 1 0 377 • January 19, 1982 - continued if the parties.should have,a falling out later. Mr.. Tanaka said.this would be a -recognition that the City has to live with this agreement. He said,if.they reach an agreement.that everyone can accept then the City is not giving up much as long as this is in effect. He said he would not suggest agreeing never to partition. He said under Pantley's proposal for the parking deck he was looking at being able to build it without being requested to do.,so by the City or the Port, but the new proposal says he can only do it if the Port requests it, but that does not concern the City that much. Pantley had wanted some assurance that he could build the deck if the Port and the City said he was out, but under the Port's proposal either the City or the Port could say he is out but that he could not build a deck. Councilmember Gould said the language prohibits some of the people frow. using the lot that he thought should be able to use it. He understood that the concept was reasonably close between the parties, and he suggested that a.Councilmember meet with a Port representative to work out the details, perhaps Councilmember Allen. Mr. Tanaka referred to a letter from IAC regarding the use of the lot, inasmuch as the lot was developed with IAC funds, but he said the proposal would be an increase in public use of the parking lot, not.a decrease, so he saw no problem. He noted that there is a court date coming up, February 10, 1982, and -if an agreement is not reached he will have. to prepare to go to court. Councilmember Allen said she would talk to Gordon Maxwell again. As to guidelines, the City will stay with its definition of public, which is broader than the Port's definition; the rent is to be split 50/50 but there is to be no deduction for towing charges or other regulatory means; and the issue of whether there should be a parking deck should be addressed in the future when the need arises. The discussion.concluded and Councilmembers Kasper and Naughten returned to the rostrum. REVIEW PROCEDURES FOR PURCHASE OF FURNITURE FOR NEW LIBRARY Parks and Recreation Director Jim Jessel said the Library Furniture Committee will meet within two weeks to determine the criteria for the furniture to be used. Arai/Jackson's interior designer then will prepare the bid form, based..on the committee's recommendations, and Mr. Jessel will complete the bid specifications and go out to bid. The built-in shelves and audio equipment will be purchased through -Prime Construction since both should be installed by.the contractor. The audio equipment will be based on the horseshoe City Council configuration with individual stacking desks for both Councilmembers and Staff. The built-in shelf designs will be coordinated through Vicki Williams and Jim Jessel and then reviewed by the Furniture Committee before the change order is prepared. Minimal change orders will be necessary for Arai/Jackson to complete the furniture specifications and the audio design. All of these projects should be completed by August 1982. COUNCIL Councilmember Naughten referred to a request from the Police Chief for a motorcycle to replace the one the department previously had. COUNCILMEMBER NAUGHTEN MOVED,, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JAECH, TO APPROVE THE PURCHASE OF -THE REQUESTED 1978 KAWASAKI FULLY EQUIPPED POLICE MOTORCYCLE AT A COST OF $3,500, FUNDS.TO COME FROM THE "B" FUND. MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Hall said she had attended the AWC conference last Saturday and Edmonds was held up as how not to.conduct City business. She said they hit very hard on the separation of powers, and they also stressed the fact that councilmembers should leave.the room when they have excused themselves from an item. City.Attorney Wayne Tanaka has always stressed this point. COUNCILMEMBER GOULD MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER KASPER, TO PLACE ON THE FEBRUARY 23, 1982 AGENDA A DISCUSSION REGARDING REGULATION OF THEATER OPERATIONS. He asked for all information specific to the particular problem of adult theaters. MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Allen read aloud a letter from Cecilia Leyda thanking the Council for the plant and for their concern. Councilmember Allen said the Student Representative from Woodway has taken a job.in the evenings so cannot participate. Another.representative will be appointed.. Councilmember Allen noted. that at the December 22, 1981 Personnel Committee.meeting some titles were changed.: COUNCILMEMBER ALLEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER HALL TO AFFIRM THE PERSONNEL COMMITTEE ACTION TO CHANGE SOME TITLES IN THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, HAVING TWO SECRETARIES INSTEAD OF ONE SECRETARY AND A RECORDS COORDINATOR; AND CHANGING THE TITLES OF DIVISION FOREMEN TO SUPERVISORS. MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Allen noted that the next meeting of the Snohomish County Cities and Towns will be at the Silver King restaurant in Snohomish on January 28, 1982. Councilmember Allen reported that 25 pints.of blood were given by City employees at the December drawing and that the next one probably will be in July. Councilmember Allen advised that. the Puget Sound Council.of Governments had provided the Memorandum of Understanding for Establishing the Snohomish Subregion's Energy Planning Policy Council, and requested that it be.signed. COUNCILMEMBER ALLEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER GOULD, THAT THE MAYOR BE AUTHORIZED TO SIGN THE AGREEMENT AND APPOINT A DELEGATE. MOTION CARRIED. City Attorney Wayne Tanaka advised that Roger Hertrich had requested that a member of the Council meet with him as the proposal set forth in Mr. Tanaka's letter was not acceptable to him. There was a consensus of. the Council that the Council's position already had been set. Council President Kasper stated.that the Training and. Education Policy memorandum from the Mayor would be'discussed at the February 23, 1982 Personnel,Committee meeting. There was no further business to come before the Council.; and the meeting adjourned at 11:50 p.m. e ._ IRENE VARNEY MORAN, City Clerk HARVE H. HARRISON, Mayor