Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout19840904 City Council MinutesI I I I August 28, 1984 -continued MAYOR Mayor· Naughten reported the. Department of Ecology:,haa s.ent written authorization. for operation of the new sewer system .at Meadowdale, and side s.ewer p~rmits will be issued this week. Hydraulics Engineer Jerry Hauth stated in a memorandum that several springs will be watched. during the fall and winter and asked Public Works to make frequent, regular inspections of ground water interceptors and storm sewers during the winter. The Mayor announced there would be a brief executive session following the regular meeting to discuss property easements. Mayor Naughten asked Council members to notify the Council office if they will be riding in the Olympic Athletes. parade on September 8. The Mayor said the Snohomish County Visitor Information Center had 4,440 visitors in July. Mayor Naughten asked for confirmation of Bill Mathias to the Planning Board. COUNCILMEMBER HALL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DWYER, TO CONFIRM APPOINTMENT OF BILL MATHIAS TO THE ALTERNATE POSITION ON THE PLANNING BOARD, TERM TO EXPIRE DECEMBER 31, 1984. MOTION CARRIED. The Mayor asked Ms. Block to report on the Main Street program. Ms. Block said the kick-off was Thursday, August 23, at the Chamber of Commerce luncheon. She said there was enthusiasm expressed and everyone is hopeful Edmonds will be chosen as one of the first Main Street Cities. COUNCIL Council member Ostrom asked if .the City is working with the Puget Sound Management Executive Directorate as described in the memorandum he had. received. Mayor Naughten said there is no connection with what Edmonds is attempting to accomplish and that entity. Councilmember Jaech announced that the topic of the Spring Council retreat will be City Policies and Plans. Councilmember Jaech described an article she had read in which cities had made·a list of projects thatrieeded to be accomplished, a 11 Wish List", which was published and distributed to citizens. When donations were made by a citizen or business, they received a tax benefit and the City was able to fund the projects. She suggested the idea be utilized in Edmonds for the 1985 budget year. Councilmember Kasper reported that the Community Services Committee had gone'through all the items on Mr. Jessel 1 s memorandum. The committee di scus.sed subjects from undergrounding and wa 1 kways to bicycle paths and will try to deal with 2-3 items each month. He said a satisfactory time has not yet been found for the meeting. He said a di~cussion was held on vacation of properties and the need for a pricing formula. Another item discussed was sale prices for segments of property too small to be appraised. Councilmember Hall read a portion of a· letter from residents in the.Park View condominium requesting that maple tree·s in City Park be topped. Acting Public Works Superintendent Bobby Mills said the maple trees in City Park are evaluated yearly to determine which are dangerous and should be re-moved~ He indicated that four maple trees are now slated for removal. He said, if the trees are topped, water has access to the trunk and they begin to rot, but he will look into the possibility of topping them. Councilmember Hall said the employee picnic was well attended and lots of fun. Councilmember Hall attended the HUD Block Grant celebration for the. Boys' and· Girls' Club on,; Wednesday, August 22. Councilmember Hall noted that the Jabor negotiations process has now gone into Augu~t. She ~\ expressed hope that there woul~ be a.faster process next year and urged the Mayoi to get them back to th~ table and do some hard bargaining. The meeting was recessed to Executive session at 9:35 p.m. and adjourned at 10:15 p.m. LARRY S. NAUGHTEN, Mayor September 4, 1984 The regular meeting of the Edmonds City Council was call.ed to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Larry Naughten in the Plaza Meeting Room of the Edmonds Library. All present j~ined in the flag salute. PRESENT Larry Naughten, Mayo'r Jo-Anne Jaech Steve Dwyer Laura Hall Bill Kasper John Nordquist Lloyd Ostrom Jack Wilson Steve Dahl, Student Rep. STAFF PRESENT Linda Mccrystal, Information/Arts Coordinator Art Housler, Finance Director Mary Lou Block, Planning Director Pat LeMay, Personnel Director Jack Weinz, Fire Chief Jim Adams, City Engineer Bobby Mills, Acting Public Works Superintendent Jim Jessel, Property Manager Jackie Parr~tt, City Clerk Scott Snyder, City Attorney Shirlie Witzel, Recorder 46J: September 4, 1984 -continued CONSENT AGENDA Item (D) was removed from the Consent Agenda. COUNCILMEMBER KASPER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER HALL~ TO APPROVE THE BALANCE OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED. The approved items on the Consent Agenda included the following: (A) Roll call. (B) . Authorize Mayor to sign interlocal government agreement to continue participation in the Snohomish County Block Grant Consortium. (C) Report on bids opened August 27, 1984 for Aid Car and award to Advanced Emergency Systems in the amount of $30,631.37. (E) Adoption of Ordinance 2457 providing for special event video game permits and fees. (F) Adoption of Ordinance 2458 establishing provisions relating to home day care facilities. .-. ~ ; I ..• 1 (G) Passage of Resolution 596 commending Olympic Athlete Steve Erickson. (H) Passage of Resolution 597 commending Olympic Coach Bob Ernst. (I) Passage of Resolution 598 commending Olympic Athlete Alan Forney. (J) Passage of Resolution 599 commending Olympic Athlete John Stillings. (K) Passage of Resolution 600 commending Olympic Athlete Susan Broome. (L) Passage of Resolution 601 commending Olympic Athlete Robert Shannon. (M) Approval of funds for sidewalk on 7th Ave. in amount of $5,000. (N) Final approval of 5-lot subdivision at 7802 173rd St. S.W. (Meadowdale Lane/P-4-81). REPORT ON BIDS OPENED AUGUST 24, 1984 FOR DAYTON ST. RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT AND AWARD TO LOW BIDDER [Item (D) on Consent Agenda] In reference to the cost for installation of electrical ducts for future underground service, Councilmember Jaech said installation at the time of construction would avoid the neccesity to tear up the street again. She noted that $34,000 will be spent for beautification during this project and it would be best to install the pipe now. Councilmember Kasper, in past discussions with the State Highway Dept., the PUD, and former Public Work.s Director Fred Herzberg, determined that underground pipe was not used when Highway 104 was done because, in most cases, less than 50% would be used at a later date. From that standpoint, Councilmember Kasper noted it would be less ex- pensive to tear the street up when undergrounding was done. He added that another aspect to · consider is the availability ·of alleys on Dayton, Bell and Main St. that could be used for under- grounding utilities. City Engineer Jim Adams said the conduits; if installed at this time, would be installed at random and it is probable that more would be installed than would be used. However, later installation would result in cuts on the street: Councilmember Jaech said the Council plans to discuss an undergrounding policy in the near future. She suggested that, if a decision is reached requiring undergrounding, it would be less expensive to do so now. Mr. Adams replied that the cost would be approximately the same; however, a decision to install the conduits now would delay paving of the street until next spring. He said the award could be delayed until a decisio~ has been made on an underground policy. Councilmember Hall favored undergrounding but had deter-· mined that installation at this time would not be the best time. In addition, she noted the 1 state of the art 1 could change by the time undergrounding was needed. Mr. Adams commented that the PUD had suggested installation of the conduit under the existing lines on the north side of Dayton St., under the sidewalk. He said there are some problems in locating surface mounted transformers and it might be better to try to put the services through the a 11 ey. However, he has not had time to determine the feasibility of that idea. Councilmember Kasper raised a question concerning the funding of the corner parks. He said funding should not be from the 112 fund but from the Park Capital Improvement fund. He said it is a misuse of street funds. COUNCILMEMBER KASPER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON, THAT THE CORNER PARKS BE FUNDED FROM THE 125 PARK FUND. MOTION CARRIED. COUNCILMEMBER KASPER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER HALL, TO AWARD THE CONTRACT TO LAKESIDE INDUSTRIES IN THE AMOUNT OF $131 ,925.25 WITH FUNDING FROM 125 FUND FOR CORNER PARKS. MOTION CARRIED. HEARING ON PROPOSED VACATION OF RIGHT~OF~WAY ALONG 12TH AVE. N. (ST-1-84) Planning Director Mary Lou Block reviewed the recommendation of the Hearing Examiner following a public .~.~~ring on May 3, 1984. She recommended that the Council adopt the Hearing Examiner 1 s recom- mendation. Mayor Naughten opened the public hearing; however, there was no one wishing to speak and the hearing was closed. Councilmember Kasper asked if vacation of this right-of-way would leave adequate street width and be consistent with the remainder of 12th Ave. N. Mr. Adams said the width would be the same as the remainder of 12th Ave. N., would provide adequate room at Puget Dr. for a turn radius, and saw no necessity to keep the triangular piece of property. The easement has been signed but is being held by the property owner until needed. Mr. Adams added that the City will receive a needed drainage easement in compensation for the vacated right-of-way. COUNCILMEMBER KASPER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OSTROM, TO ADOPT THE HEARING EXAMINER 1 S RECOMMENDATIONS, DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE THE NECESSARY ORDINANCE AND OBTAIN A DRAINAGE EASEMENT ON THE ADJACENT PROPERTY AS CONSIDERATION BEFORE GRANTING THE QUIT-CLAIM DEED. MOTION CARRIED. I I I I I I I I I I September 4, 1984 -continued HEARING ON PROPOSED 30-LOT PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION BETWEEN 172ND ST. S.W. AND MEADOWDALE BEACH RD., WEST OF 72NDAVE. W. (P-4~84/0LD NATIONAL BANK FINANCIAL SERVICES) Ms. Block explained ~hat the proposed subdivision consists of PRD-1~81 and PRD-2-81 which were proposed by Peter Bilder and approved by the City Council. This. subdivision would be done con- currently with the completion of the PRD's to allow ~pplicants to sell sites individually rather than as units.. She said .the development, site plan and building .configuration would remain as approved for the PRO. The Hearing Examiner recommended approval of the subdivision following a public hearing on July 19, 1984. The Planning Department recommends adoption of the Hearing Exam- iner's findings of fact and recommendation to approve P-4-84. In response to questions from the Council, Ms. Block said the PRO proposal was to sell only the houses with all land held in common. The subdivision proposal would allow sale of the house and a small unit of land with all other land held in common. The general size of the sites would be 2000-4000 square feet. Transparencies of the proposed development were displayed. Mayor Naughten opened the hearing. Pete Bilder, 7406 Meadowdale Beach Rd., reviewed the history and various financial arrangements involved with the property. He asked that any approval granted be transferable to future owners. After losing the property to Old National Bank Financial Services, he has endeavored to obtain financing to buy the property back. He believes the original intent to sell only the houses is a preferable approach and would like to see that plan pursued. He said the plat was approved in 1982. He noted that the plans for the PRO were included in the foreclosure on the property. Lee Dastis, 7202 172nd S. W., said their property is located on the northwest corner of the proposed Phase I development. She asked if the order of development will remain the same, Phase I and then Phase II. ·Ms. Block replied that a developer would not be required to develop the property in that order. In response to a question from Ms. Dastis, Mr. Adams said entrance to the Phase I develop- ment would be from 172nd.St. S.W. and egress would be onto72nd Ave. W. He explained that 72nd Ave. W. would be a two-way street past Ms. Dastis' property. Lisa Verner, 11415 N. E. l28th St., Kirkland, of Triad Associates, represented Old National ·• Financial Services. She said the request before the Council is in conformance with the PRD's that were approved in 1981, which were extended in 1983. Ms. Verner said the proposal will allow sale of individual lots, retaining common ownership in the rest of the property. She said Old National Financial services agreed with the Hearing Examiner's report and recommendations. According to Ms. Verner, the bank intends to sell the ~roperty, not develop it. She noted that all City codes had ; been met. and requested the Council grant preliminary approval for the subdivision. She said the sequence of development would depend upon who developed the property, but the roads would probably be developed first. In response to questions from the Council, Ms. Verner said individual lots cannot be sold until a final subdivision has been approved by the Council. At that point, she said, there would have to be road improvements, utilities, and other site improvements before any lots could be sold. She added that Phase I and Phase II could be sold to different developers although the Bank intention is to sell the property as one parcel. Sh.e agreed that small building lots could be sold after the final subdivision is approved. Ms. Verner noted that whoever purchases the prop- erty must comply with the.PRO rules. They would be obli.gated to use the same plans that Mr. Bilder had presented to the Council. She said the Bank is precluded from selling to individual purchasers because the final subdivision mu.st be approved before the individual lots can be sold. If the Bank were willing to develop the property, it could sell to individual builders but those builders would have to comply with the PRO. Councilmember Kasper said the Council is concerned because of previous experience in developments on steep terrain, when the Council screened the builder to determine the qualifications for building on that type of property. However, after the development was approved, it was sold to someone with no experience, resulting in a tremendous problem for the City. He said the same problem could occur in this instance if a consumer bought a lot and was not aware of what was involved. He said there could be scattered water problems generated over the hillside. He asked how the City would be protected from that probability. Ms. Block suggested that the City might ·require that the property be.developed by one developer for at least each Phase with the units being sold after they were constructed. City Attorney Scott Snyder said the condition is typically handled through bonding to bring about the improvement being discussed and is not usually handled by ordinance. Councilmember Hall said she liked the configuration and appreciated the PRO concept. However, she pointed out the steep grade of the streets .. She noted that the Homeowner's Association in the Emerald Hills_development had asked.the City to take over their streets. Ms. Verner said that is a possibility; at times people do come to the City and ask that private steets become City responsibility. If the City is considering placing a condition on the property that one developer would complete the PRO, including construction, before sale to the consumer, Mr. Snyder said the matter should be tabled until he has an opportunity to draft something and discuss it with the Bank. Ms. Verner said plats are recorded and the conditions of the plat are shown on title reports, which would furnish warning to the person buying the lot. Councilmember Kasper objected that the general public does not have the experience to know what the conditions might mean for them. Dick Massie, 17229 72nd Ave. W., asked if access to the 30 new homes through 72nd W. would make that street an arterial~ if all the traffic for the 30 homes would be on 72hd W., if the street improve- ments would be on Meadowdale Beach Rd or on 72nd. w~, and if the improvements on 72nd W. would run from 174th to 172nd St. .. Mr. Adams replied that 72nd Ave. W. would not be designated as an arterial. Ms. Verner showed h.im a site plan indicating that 18 homes would be accessed from Meadowdale Beach Rd. Ms. Block explained that.street improvements would be made on 72nd and 172nd adjacent to the property. Mr. Adams noted that 72nd W., which is not an asphalt street, will be maintained by the City as are all publi.c. rights;..of-way. Mr. Massie expressed his concern about the increased traffic and lack of improvements on 72nd Ave. W. south of the proposed development. Harlan Bell, 7023 174th St. S.W., commended Mr. Bilder for the PRO plans. He expressed concern that denial of the request could result in unorganized and dense development. He said this would be opposed by current residents. Since no one else wished to speak, Mayor Naughten closed the hearing. 4.63 4ti4 September 4, 1984 -continued Councilmember Kasper asked \'Jhy the Bank wished to break the property down into individual lots. Ms. Verner replied that the Bank believes the property will be more marketable because people wish to buy the land beneath their units. COUNCILMEMBER KASPER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JAECH, TO CONTINUE THIS.MATTER TO SEPTEMBER 19 TO AFFORD THE CITY ATTORNEY AN OPPORTUNITY TO RESEARCH A MEANS OF AVOIDING SALE OF LOTS TO INDIVIDUAL CONSUMERS. MOTION CARRIED. HEARING ON APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER DENIAL OF VARIANCE FOR REDUCED SIDE. YARD SETBACKS AT 8324 . 198TH SJ;0 S.W. {APPELLANT: BEN HAMMOND) . Ms. Block read from the ~eport of the ~earing Examiner denying the appli~ation for a variance. She suggested the Council look at two elements that were not considered separately in the report. One aspect would be the circular structure on one corner of the proposed accessory building, and the other aspect would be the variance request on the west side of the proposed structure. She noted there are trees on the property which make the selected site the best location for the structure. Ms. Block illustrated these points on the overhead projector. Mayor Naughten opened the hearing. Ben Hammond, 8324 198th St. S.W., read a letter of support from adjacent neighbors. He maintained that style· was not considered by the Hearing Examiner.· He said eliminating the circular portion would result in a basic square shack and, he reiterated, design should be given as much considera- tion as anything else. In addition, he said this was the only possible location because of the cellar and driveway. Councilmember Dwyer asked if ther_e were anything special about Mr. Hammond's lot in comparison to his neighbors' lots that would force him to get a variance to build the struc- ture. Mr. Hammond replied that there were trees and the driveway on the lot. If the structure were built 7.5 ft. from the lot line, it would be 3 ft; into the driveway. He said it is necessary to evenly distribute the weight on the cellar.· In addition; he said any other location would not look right. He said he owns a quarter interest in the propertyand constructed the cellar approximately 3 years ago. He noted that this may be the result of his own doing; however, a law like the one in question should be flexible enough to allow people to get out of their problems. Councilmember· Hall commented that she had seen the property, had noticed other structures that migh~ have required a variance in the past, and saw the beginning of the proposed structure. She noted that there' is. space available for the structure and believed the driveway could be moved. She suggested Mr. Hammond design another building that would be aesthetically p·leasing as well as meeting the code. Mr. Hammond said he did not wish to move the driveway or design a different building.· Councilmember Wilson asked if the Hearing Examiner's finding, that there was sufficient room for the building, would place the proposed structure on the other side of the driveway. Mr. Hammond said that the Hearing Examiner must have meant moving the building into the driveway, but he refused to build the structure on the driveway. Councilmember Kasper asked if the circular portion could be moved to the north side of the building, narrowin~ the appearance of the building from the front. Mr. Hammond said that would destroy the design and would also be impossible to do because of the design. Since no one else wished to speak, the hearing was closed. Council member Ostrom noted that the Council would like to do someone a favor by granting the , ... variance, but the Hearing Examiner's decision was proper and granting the variance would be granting a spec1al privilege. He recommended that Mr. Hammond design a structure that would fit the site or move it to another site. COUNCILMEMBER OSTROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER KASPER, TO DENY THE APPEAL OF THE HEARING EXAMINERiS DECISION. MOTION CARRIED~ HEARING ON ESTABLISHMENT OF APPEALS FEES Ms. Block reviewed the history of the subject. The staff recommended establishment of a m1n1mum fee of $25.00 to cover notification costs and require that appellants cite specific code sections they believe are or are not being met. Councilmember Hall suggested any public testimony be taken and the subject be continued to another date to afford the Council an opportunity to hear from the Hearing Examiner on September 25 in regard to this subject. Mayor Naughten open~d the hearing. Dean Nordquist, 111 Elm St., asked how many appeals are being heard during a year and what percent- age of total actions is respresented. Ms. Block replied there had been 20 appeals in 1983 and estimated that 13% of the major projects were appealed. She also reviewed the types of actions that may be appealed. Mr. Nordquist asked if the purpose of the fee were to raise revenue or to hold down the number of appeals. He said $25.00 may be a lot of money to someone who would like to appeal an action. He suggested that any attempt to avoid frivolous appeals would be better handled on the basis of the appeal rather than a dollar amount on the appeal. In reference to citing statutes in the appeal, Mr. Nordquist said it is difficult to determine which statutes and ordi- nances apply and would be an additional difficulty for the average person. Hank Lewis, 21723 97th Ave. W., supported the staff proposal for appeal fees. He said there had been a significant increase in the number of appeals. He would not want to take away the right of appeals because there are valid reasons for appeals; however, when the applicant is meeting the intent of the code and complying with the comprehensive plan of the city, he has rights that should be protected. He said many people are learning that the appeal process causes delay in a develop- ment. He would support a fee structure and would hope to eliminate the ihtentional delay or frivo~ lous appeal, not the valid appeal. Mr. Lewis suggested a fee could be half the original application fee to a maximum of $200. He suggested that neighbors make application together and share the fee cost. He said the fee should be refundable if the decision is in favor of the appellant. An appeal by an applicant should also be subject to a fee. He noted that many of the appeals have been in connection with sign design. Anne Linge, 6970 160th St. S.W., expressed concern regarding a fee for an appeal. She noted that the appeal process is beneficial to people who feel the neighborhood has not been treated fairly. She.observed that the City has a responsibility to serve the public and taxes should cover the appeal process. She attributed the increase in appeals to the fact that Edmonds is a growing City. I I I I I I I I September 4, 1984 -continued She believes it would be unfai.r· to charge for an appeal, knowing that it is not always easy for nei·ghbors to combine resources. Ms. Linge said a requi.rement to cite statutes may also impose a hardship on people. She believes a charge would benefit the party who would benefit if the appeal were not made. The appeals process, she said, is a way to insure a fair conclusion and the private cit.izeri with a valid concern would be penalized by a fee. Ms. Lfoge said some decisions are made when a concerned person is ill or away from home and they may .feel it should be looked at again. If a pers6n were unable to attend a hearing at whi~h a project was: approved, they would be handicapped if a filing fee were placed on appeals. Counci1member Kasper asked if Ms. Linge believed a specific issue should be reheard if someone were unable to attend the initial hearing. Ms. Linge said a person should be able to appeal a decision if they were not able to attend. ~he does not believe frivolous people attend City Council meetings to state a case. She said someone affected by a decision should be able to appeal if they were · ~ot~~ abl~ to attend when the decision was made. Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Dr., agreed ~ith Ms. Linge's statement. He said he does not believe ··.there are ·frivolous appeals in the city. He described a mistake that was made in connection with a sign at the Old National Bank, which was subsequently used as a point of reference for another sign height. Mr. Hertrich noted that the ONB sign presentation before the ADB mentioned the allowed sign area, the proposed sign area~ and the existing sign area. There was mention of the sign being lighted and a description of the sign. However, there was no mention of the height of the sign. This was a mistake and should have been appealed but no one noticed and there is now a 20 ft. high · sign. He disagrees with a charge for an appeal when a person finds a mistake in a procedure or a judgement. He said there are many cases where appeals are made because people are concerned with the character of the City and want to do something about it and they should not be penalized. Mayor Naughten indicated there was time remaining for one more speaker and asked if anyone wished to speak to the other side of the issue. Jerry Lovell, 8927 192nd St. S.W., said as a surveyor he represents many property owners on small subdivisions and short plats. He said there have been appeals of three difference short plats in the last few months. The Planning Department decision ha~ been appealed to th~ Hearing Examiner and ·in one case the Hearing Examiner decision was appealed to the City Council .. The appeal was unani- mously denied by the. Council. H~ said there is a problem with frivolous appeal~ and supports a minimum fee. He said there seems to be a feeling that the property owner or builder should share in the cost of the administrative procedures, which is not fair. He has no obj~ction to the subdivi- sion fees that are paid by the property owners. He emphasized that those·affected are mainly property owners who are selling or splitting off one cir two lots. He noted that delays caused by appeals are very costly, mov.ing a project into a completely different real estate and financial market. He said the administrative process is to ultimately approve a project without the appeals that are brought for no ~ood reason. Councilmember Kasper asked if Mr. L9vell would agree that criteria are needed and asked his opinion of what they should include .. Mr. Lovell said the criteria should be that a fee would be applicable to appeal a department level decision. He added that a concession should be made to the property owner and taxpayer in Edmonds. The hearing was closed at this point due to time limitations. Councilmember Kasper asked that the Council be furnished with accurate statistics on the number of appeals, the percentage of actions that are represented, and the percentage of increase in appeals . . He said the Council should have these statistics and have an opportunity to hear from the H~aring Examiner before making a decision. Councilmember Ostrom cautioned the staff in preparing the requested statistics. If all appealable actions are considered, he believes the percentage will be very low. He stated the only purpose for imposing. fees.would be to place a roadblock in the .. way of citizens who want to question the ~ctions of the City government. He noted that a large number of appeals during the last year have been because of the sign code question and said the appeals have aided the Council in clarifying the problems that existed in· application of that code. ·He felt•a fee -0f $25.00 would be no obst~cle to a developer but might be to an individual. Councilmember Ostrom felt the cost as~ect of an app~al would not be alleviated by a fee of $25.00. He said there have not been any ffivolous appeals and a fee would be a means of stifling public input. He added that it is not a waste of the Council's time to listen to any appeal. He saw no reason to continue the discussion •to another time, regard- less of information from the Hearing Examiner and staff, and felt a decision should be reached this . evening. Councilmember Hall said all the Council members are willing to heat any appeals .. She believes the. information from the staff and Hearing Examiner will be helpful in reaching a decision. The costs of some appeals are running upward of $400, which she believes is a concern for the taxpayers of the City. She agreed that anyone should be allowed to have his s~y. Councilniember Dwyer said the term "frivolous appeal" had been used in the beginning of this . discussion but had been changed to recouping costs ~nd this evening is recouping notification costs . . He npted that $25.00 will not recoup costs and said the· plan is strictly punitive. He opposed any fee. He was not convinced that the majority of appeals are not taken by applicants and used the example of appeals by applicants for the Robin Hood Lanes and Edmonds Theater signs. He.said the result of imposing a fee would be detrimental to. the City. ·He emphasized that the purpose of the hearing system it to arrive at the best decisions possible for the City of Edmonds, not just to approve projects. Councilmember Dwyer said imposition of a fee presents the danger of poorer decisions being made and, as evidenced by the day care and other recent issues, the end result could be poorer laws and ordinances. He does not believe that an appeal fate of 1.5 ~er month is · 46!l I 4.66 September 4, 1984 -·continued overwhelming for the Council or the staff. Often government response to a problem is to charge money and try to make the problem go away. He opposes any attempt to charge people to speak before the Council. He also opposes any continuation of the question. Councilmember Kasper acknowledged Councilmember Dwyer' s position regarding a fee for an appeal. However, he said the Council had asked to consider the fee and the criteria, with emphasis on the criteria, which is his concern. He recalled his earlier question, whether someone who was absent should be afforded the opportunity to appeal because they were not heard. He noted that anyone may be heard through a letter or representation by another. He said much stronger criteria is needed as to what must be contained in an appeal so the Council ~ould hear the appeal even if the appellant. were not present. He said it is important to avoid the delays that have been occurring, which often r~sul't in ~pplicants not being able to exercise options that are expiring after they have spent all of the necessary monies to make their applications. He stated that the applicants also have rights. He believes the information from the Hearing Examiner should be heard and would also like to have the opportunity to examine the statistics to be furnished by the staff. He said he is not out to block letjitimate appeals, but believes that the reasons for the appeal should be stated in writing. He suggested ·the discussion be continued. . COUNCILMEMBER DWYER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER HALL, TO DISCONTINUE DISCUSSION OF IMPOSING A MONETARY FEE ON APPEALS FROM DECISIONS MADE UNDER THE EDMONDS COMPREHENSIVE CODE. MOTION CARRIED. COUNCILMEMBER .KASPER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER HALL, TO CONTINUE DISCUSSION OF CRITERIA FOR APPEALS TO OCTOBER 9 AND INCLUDE DISCUSSION OF FEES FOR ENGINEERING AND PUBLIC WORKS~ MOTION CARRIED. CLARIFICATION OF INTENT RE ONE PERCENT FOR ARTS AND BUDGET DISCUSSION OF MUNICIPAL ARTS FUND (117) Information and Arts Coordinator Linda Mccrystal reported that the Edmonds Arts Commission considers the intent of the public art ordinance should include only capital improvement projects. They believe regular maintenance, repair, or remodel projects should not be included. She then .used several examples of what would or would not be considered a capital improvement project by the Arts Commission. Councilmember Nordquist agreed with the interpretation, based upon his participation in dr~wing up the ordinance. He said the Council's intent was to provide support to the arts. He said upgrading roads and building sidewalks were not intended to be included. Mr. Adams commented that the wording of the ordinance includes all projects of the City, although that may not have been the intent. He noted that the Finance Director must transfer one percent of everything spent into the public art fund unless the Council makes some change in the ordinance. Councilmember Kasper com- mented that he had raised this issue. He feels that a building should have some artistic aspects such as the statue for the Library~ He said the intent of the law was to generate money for the arts, but not from every project in the City. He suggested that, when the temporary period expires for which the hotel tax has been committed, that tax might be used for funding for the arts. City Attorney Scott Snyder explained that the hotel tax may not be used for that purpose. ' ' In response to a question from Councilmember Wilson, Ms. Mccrystal said $10,000 came from the Meadowdale sewer project this year, which would not have been available if the ordinance were changed~ She described some prospective plans for placement of art within the City. Councilmember Wilson said the money i·s not being misspent but is being used in a constructive way within the community. He asked that any revenue that is taken away from the Art Commission be funded from a different::,sourGe·.·~ Councilmember Kasper said there are other sources of money and believes the Council should clear up the intention of the ordinance. Councilmember Wilson agreed that the ordinance should be clarified and funding for the Art Commission should be dealt with in the budget. Councilmember Kasper asked to see the statistics in regard to any reduction in funding before action is taken. Councilmember Nordquist commented that the budget for the arts commission was created by the project at Meadowdale this year. He ask if that money was budgeted when the project was , approved or when the project was completed. Finance Director Art Housler said the money is given to the arts fund when the project is initiated. Councilmember Kasper commented that the money is given to the arts fund when.a project is started and yet the City does not know exactly where it is until the project is completed. Mr. Adams commented that if road and utility projects are taken out of consideration for the one percent for the arts, there will not be very much money available in the next few years. Councilmember Jaech scheduled continued discussion on one percent for the arts and the municipal arts fund for October 9 and requested that the staff furnish the information that had been requested. · MEMORIAL STREET TREE FUND (118) Acting Public Works Superintendent Bobby Mills reviewed the history of the fund. He noted that the fund is replaced as people purchase the trees for memorials and acts as a revolving fund. He asked· for Council direction in regard to the areas the Council would like to have planted. Councilmember Hall suggested that the old tree planting map be updated and presented to the Council for their consideration and suggestions. CONVENTION/PERFORMING ARTS FUND (120) Councilmember Ostrom described a call he had received concerning the auditorium at the Puget Sound College of the B.ible. He asked if the Convention/Performing Arts Center would consider improving that auditorium building since it is an existing building and is located in Edmonds. Councilmember Hall replied that the Performing Arts Center is composed of many jurisdictions and is the South County center .. She noted that the .auditorium in question is not that satisfactory. In addition she believes t~e traffic patterns of a Performing Arts Center would have to be investigated very care- fully and feels there would be a great problem in the area in which the auditorium is located. - Council member Wilson commented that the funding of the Convention/Performing Arts Center should continue until it becomes self supporting~ Councilmember Nordquist left the room. I I I I I I I I I I :: "· September 4, 1984 -continued MAYOR Mayor Naughten asked for confirmation of Kwang H .. Baetk to the Architectural Design Board .. COUNCIL- MEMBER HALL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON, TO CONFIRM THE APPOINTMENT OF KWANG H. BAECK TO POSITION 7 ON THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD, TERM TO EXPIRE NOVEMBER 5, 1984. MOTION CARRIED. The Mayor reminded the Council the HUD .Block Grant applications are due on October l and the staff needs their pfiority lists this evening. Council President Jaech scheduled discussion of the HUD Block Grant priority list for September 25. Mayor Naughten proclaimed Saturday, September 8, 1984, as Olympic Athletes and Coaches Day in Edmonds and invited all citizens to view the parade at 10:00 a.m. The Mayor reported that a consultant, Reid Shockey, had been ·selected for the Planning Department projects. Mr. Shockey's resume will be included in Council packets for next week. Mayor Naughten said there will be a dedication at 3rd and Edmonds of the 100 year old site of the first school in Edmonds. He noted that September 12th is Edmonds Night at the Mariners game. COUNCIL Councilmember Kasper asked that the area at 9th and Caspers be completed. He said residents in the area are tired of waiting the last three years for completi-0n of the project. ' Councilmember Ostrom said Councilmember Nordquist had asked him to determine when the hearing on the Ballinger Lake access was scheduled. Ms. Block replied that this item is scheduled for October 2nd at the same time the other park hearing is planned. Because there is no relation to the other park issues, Council President Jaech rescheduled the B~llinger Lake access discussion to October 9. Council President Jaech had received a call from Marie. King expressing concern that the property at Chase Lake was the other site the Shoreline Management Committee had designated as a wildlife pres- . ervation area. Councilmember Kasper. reassured her that the area is not the same. The area. Ms. King is concerned about is on the west side of the bridge. Councilmember Wilson suggested that the school district program.could .be enhanced with the City's program if the property is acquired. Councilmember Hall asked for clarification of action taken and recorded in the January 12, 1981 minutes. She asked if the hiring and reclassification freeze had been lifted. Council President Jaech commented that there was never an ordinance adopted in this regard. Councilmember Hall asked the City Attorney to bring information back to the Council. The meeting recessed to Executive Session at 9:45 p.m. and adjourned at 10:15 p.m. September 11, 1984 -Work Meeting The regular meeting of the Edmonds City Council was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Larry Naughten in the Plaza Meeting Room of the Edmonds Library. All present joined in the flag salute. PRESENT Larry Naughten, Jo-Anne Jaech Steve Dwyer Laura Ha 11 Bi 11 Kasper John Nordquist Lloyd Ostrom Jack Wilson Mayor ABSENT STAFF PRESENT Steve Dahl, Art Hous1er, Admin. Svcs. Director Student Representative' Pµt leMay~ 'Personnel Director Jim Jessel , Property Manager Jack Weinz, Fire Chief · Dan Prinz, Police Chief Mary Lou Block, Planning Director Steve Simpson, Parks & Rec. Director Bobby Mills, Actg. Pub. Wks. Supt. Jim Adams, City Engineer Jackie Parrett, City Clerk Scott Snyder, City Attorney Shirlie Witzel, Recorder At the Mayor's invitation, Planning Director Mary Lou Block introduced Reid Shockey of Shockey and Associates, selected by the .Mayor and Ms. Block as the consultant to. work with the Planning Board. She hated that the to~tract containing the scope of wcirk for the consultant was before the Council. Mr. Shockey presented a brief description of his experience and introduced his assistant Laura Brent, who wi 11 be working with Mr. Shockey on Edmonds projects if. their contract is approved. He emphasized that his role will be as a facilitator. He inte~ds to research the issues and develop options which can be presented to the citizens, the Pianning Bo~rd and eventually the Council. Councilmember Nordquist asked Ms. Block who else was considered for this position and what criteria was used in the selection process. He suggested moving.the item to the agenda since there are ·areas, such as the scope of work, that should be discussed. ~e noted that the Council had deter- mined Highway 99 was a high priority and this was not reflected in the .priorities s~t forth in the contract. He reviewed past .actions of the Council and noted that.another study of· Highway 99. was. not needed. He indicated that he would be unwillin~ to approve the contract until he is certain what the consultant will be doing. 467