19670516 City Council MinutesPlanning Commission
Resolution #229, recommending the approval of
a proposed amendment to the
comprehensive street
plan by adopting an official street map to be
added to Section 12.03.065
of the Edmonds City
Code, setting forth street R/W for 9R Ave. N.
from Daley Street to Casper
Street, in accordance
with Planning Commission File No. CP-3-67.
A motion was made by
Councilman Slye, seconded by Councilman Tuson that the hearings on
Planning Commission
Resolutions #228 and #229 be set for June 614.
Motion carried.
There was no further
business to come before the council, and the
meeting was adjourned.
City Clerk
ayor
0
May 169 1967
ROLL CALL
Regular meeting was called to order by Mayor Maxwell with all councilmen present.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes of the meeting of May 2 had been posted and mailed, and with no omissions nor
corrections, they stood approved as presented.
HEARING: FINAL ASSESSMENT ROLL - LID #139 - UNIT #1 SEWERS
Hearing was held on the final assessment roll for Unit #1 sewers, LID #139. An explanation
regarding the final costs of the project (which were lower than the preliminary estimates)
was given by Consulting Engineer Wayne Jones, and he also explained some of .the diffidulties
encountered with the contractor on this job, especially on restoration. The City Engineer men-
tioned the basic bid was to include patching of the streets for restoration, but that anything
more complete like an overlay of asphalt would be too costly to the individual property owners.
The City Attorney then explained that the council acts as a Board of Equalization at this
hearing, and confirms the assessment roll by ordinance; that the prepayment period notice is
sent to all property ownersso that they may take advantage of a 30 day period of prepayment
with no interest; and that the payv}ent.of assessments begins approximately one year later when
a bill is mailed for the first of ten yearly installments plus interest. Thirteen individual
letters and three petitions of protest with several signatures were read, and it was dound that
the majority of the letters and all the petitions referred to the poor restoration of the streets
following the installation of the sewers. Hearing was opened.
Charles Gram, 81st W., complained about the street restoration and added that he had received
conflicting answers on the hook-up period; also he felt the notices could be sent to each
individual property owner, rather than to the owner of record as found on the rolls of the
County Treasurer, as required by law. Mrs. Mack; 21st S.; mentioned the restoration problem
and complained that she was being charged for property which was 2/3 swamp land and not
buildable. Mr. Nelson, -corner of 204k and 81st W., protested about the poor street restoration.
Mrs. Charles Gram stated she could understand how the streets wouldn't be completely resurfaced
because of the cost, but she pleaded that couldn't they be properly restored by adequate
patching. Since the imajority of the complaints were on the street restoration, Councilman
McGinness said that he would like to see all the streets restored to their original condition
without actual resurfacing, and he felt that this could and should be done, and the people here
tonight be given assurance of this. Vern Johnson, 193rd P1. S.W., inquired if the contractor
had been paid off and could the contractor be made to property restore the streets. R. L.
Huston, 1861' S.W., asked a question regarding the side sewer charge. Edgar Brusso, 19719 -
841� W., complained of his difficulty in connecting his home because the side sewer was too
high. He had to use a jack hammer and break through the footing, and he asked about the
payment for rental of this jack hammer. Robert Rainey, 205 - 81st W., had a complaint on the
resurfacing of the street. It was moved by Councilman Slye, seconded ky Councilman Tuson that
it was the responsibility of the council to request the contractor to comply with the contract
and properly repari and restore the streets on the project for LID #139. Motion carried.
A gentleman complained about the charge of $100.00 for eabh lateral. Another gentleman had
a question on the 5% zone whether it be swamp or bedrock, is it still 5%. Dennis McGrath,
7832 - 193rd Dl. S.W., stated that his neighbor had connected to his lateral because the
neighbor had never been given a lateral for his property. Fred Bryant stated he had sub-
mitted a plat to the city and had been refused to allow to build on his land because of
drainage and felt he should not be charged the interest on his assessment until he is allowed
to develop his property. A gentleman had a question on sub -contracting for the laterals.
Another gentleman asked how the assessments are figured, and asked for a sample computation
on the zone and termini method, and this was done. An explanation was given on the assess-
ments when there is a reduction Dn the zone front footage paying for the same total amount
of money, and therefore the assessments would go up in each individual case; therefore,
although the total cost of this project was lower, there were fewer zone front feet to share
the cost, and the individual assessments did not drop the same percentage as the total cost
of the project. No one else wished to comment on the project, and the hearing was closed.
A motion was made by -Councilman McGinness, seconded by Councilman Tuson that proposed
Ordinance #1300 be passed, approving and confirming the final assessment roll for LID #139.
A roll call vote carried the motion unanimously.
HEARING: ON APPEAL FROM RECOMMENDATIONS IN PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTIONS #225 AND #226
Hearing was held on the appeal from the recommendations of the Planning Commission in their
Resolutions #225 and #226, Files CP-1-67 and R-2-67, recommending denial of a change in the
comprehensive plan and rezone from RS-12 to RMH property located north of the Lynnwood Treat-
! - -
357
• ment Plant between the GNRR R/W and vacated Meadowdale Beach Road, together with adjacent
tidelands. There was no objection to hearing the appeal on both these resolutions simul-
taneously. City Planner Logan projected the area in question on the screen and explained
the request, as well as reading the minutes of the Planning Commission hearing on this.
Hearing was then opened.
Attorney Alfred Holte, representing the petitioners (Haines), explained that disposal plants
in most areas are in commercial or industrial zones and buffered by multiple zones. Because
.of the hilltop terrain, he added, and the location adjacent to the sewage plant, the owners
of this property felt the multiple use zoning for a 50 unit condominium with a marina below
for the apartment owners' use would be the best way to use the land to advantage. He showed
an aerial view of the area, and a drawing of the proposed condominium as it would look
placed on the bluff. Attorney John Rutter, representing a group of residents from the Talbot
Park, Meadowdale, etc. area, presented a petition signed by approximately 118 homeowners in
opposition to this change in comprehensive plan and rezone. Several of the opposition were
present. Mr. Rutter stated that there is need for more planning in this area before such
a change is allowed and the impact on the character of this area would be too great to be
taken without a great deal more thought and studyl 'He added that at this moment the benefit
of the proposed change would be to one owner, not all in the neighborhood, and asked that
the petition for redone be rejected at this time. A gentleman in the audience asked if the
owners would be obligated to construct this condominium if the rezone were granted. He
thought the idea of a condominium was good, but the owners would not be held to this once a
rezone was obtained. Howard Glazer, 162nd, stated there was a traffic problem there now,
and with the number of people brought in by 50 units, the traffic would worsen. He felt
that allowing multiple at this time would possibly start more requests for multiple in the
future, and eventually views in this area may be cut off as a result. Jack Linge,'160t' S.W.,
said that this is a slide area, and more people using it will create more drainage problems.
William Van Almkirk, president of the Meadowdale Community Club, stated that this was more
than land itself; that it was people who were involved, and if it were not for the respect
felt for the Haine6l fami'lj, more people would be objecting without fear of offending the
•
petitioners for the 'rezone. No one else wished to comment, and the hearing was closed.
A motion was made by Councilman McGinness, seconded by Councilman Tuson that Planning
Commission Resolutio:. #225, File CP-1-67, denying a change in the comprehensive plan be
confirmed. Motion carried.
It was then moved by Councilman Slye, seconded by Councilman Kincaid that Planning Commission
Resolution #2269 File R-2-67, for denial of a rezone from RS-12 to RMH be upheld. Motion
carried.
Mayor Maxwell directed the City Planner to look at the tideland area for a recommendation
on zoning.
HEARING: ON LETTER OF INTENT FOR ANNEXATION PROCEEDINGS
Hearing was opened on the letter of intent for annexation proceedings for an area south of
the city limits off Edmonds Way between 99*11 and 1001 Ave. S. and to the south boundary of
232nd S.W. The property owners were willing to assume the indebtedness of the city, and
following closing of the hearing, it was moved by Councilman Tuson, seconded by Councilman
Slye to authorize the circulation of a petition for annexation for this area of seven
residents, providing that all property within the territory hereby sought to be annexed
shall be assessed and taxed at the same rate and on the same basis as property within the
City of Edmonds for any now outstanding indebtedness of said city, including assessments
or taxes in payment of any bonds issued or debts contracted, prior to or existing at the
,date of annexation. A roll call vote was taken with 5 councilmen voting in favor; McGinness
and Kincaid against, and the motion carried.. o
ACTION ON REQUEST OF ATTORNEY REPRESENTING PROPERTY_ OWNERS REGARDING HIGHWAY 1-W
•
Mr. Richard W. Pierson, attorney representing property owners involved in the proposed
route of Highway 1-W through Edmonds, was present and stated that the Edmonds City Council
should recommend to the Highway Dept. the rerouting of this proposed highway through
Woodway. A carbon copy of a letter sent to Mr. Pierson from Mr. Foster of the State
Highway Dept. had been received by Mayor Maxwell, indicating that the limited access hearing
on this proposed highway would be held latein 1967 to consider the access route, so that
these property owners who complained of not being notified by the state had in fact no
reason to have been notified up to this time. It was Mr. Pierson's position that the route
cannot be decided until a public hearing is held, and he wished the city to intervene for
the property owners. The City Attorney said that he understood that at this time there is
nothing for the city of Edmonds to do. Mr. Pierson, hwoever, felt that the council should
suggest the Woodway route before the hearing is held by the state. Mr. Lou Oskosky stated
that a letter from Mr. Foster had mentioned that the route was determined by a recommenda-
tion from Woodway and Edmonds. Mr. Larry Loman said the property in the area was dead and
impossible to sell at this time because of the proposed route. Mr. Weinmann, 1255 - 5'
gave his version of the, -agreement with the state on the route. Mrs. Oskowski.said a
section of 3rd and 2nd would be cut off from the rest of the city by this proposed route.
Following more discussion, a motion was made by Councilman Harrison, seconded by Councilman
Tustin that the city ask the State Highway Dept. to send a map showing the formerly proposed
Woodway route. Councilman Slye asked that this motion be amended to state that the city
request the Highway Dept. to send all three alternat@ routes originally proposed. The
amendment was adIcepted by the councilmen making and seconding the motion, and a roll call
vote was taken, showing Councilmen Harrison and Tuson in favor; the remaining five
councilmen against, and the motion failed to carry.
Mayor Maxwell at this point instructed the City Engineer to contact Mr. Foster to ask just
where the situation stands now in regard to the proposed highway route.
0 }yY fJ�yJ)
CORRESPONDENCE
Mayor Maxwell announced once again the public meeting to be held on Monday, May 22 at 8:00 P.M.
in regard to forms of city government.
A letter was received from a Mr. Abbey protesting the increase in the water -sewer rates.
The Mayor noted the money Edmonds would receive according to the several eligibility factors
on the list for distribution under the recent legislative appropriation for cities and towns.
REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION TO SURFACE 3 STREET AREAS
After some discussion, the following action was taken on the request to surface the three
street areas:
For 21st Ave. S. from 500' north of 5� S.E. to 206l' S.W. - A motion :was made by Councilman
McGinness, seconded by Councilman Tuson to proceed with the restoration by resurfacing 21st
Ave. from 500' north of 5'th S.E. to 206l' S.W. A roll call vote showed the motion carried with
5 councilmen voting in favor; Slye and Old°s against.
For 681� W. from Meadowdale Road to 1601 S.W. - It was moved by Councilman Slye, seconded by
Councilman Bevan that 60 W. from the Meadowdale Road to 1601 S.W. be authorized for surfacing.
A roll call vote showed 4 councilmen voting in favor; Olds, McGinness, and Kincaid against, and
the motion carried.
For 1861' S.W. from 781! to 81st W,- A motion was made by Councilman Olds, seconded by Councilman
McGinness that the request for authority to surface 1861 S.W. from 78k to 81st be denied. This
motion carried.
Following more discussion on this, it was moved by Councilman Olds, seconded by Councilman
McGinness that the council reconsider 6811' W. for surfacing with road mix. This motion failed
on a roll call vote, with Olds, Mcinness and Kincaid voting in favor; Harrison, Tuson, Slye,
and Bevan against.
AUDITING OF BILLS
It was moved by -Councilman Slye, seconded by Councilman Kincaid that vouchers #5049 through
#5201 in the amount of $71,900:18 be approved and the City Clerk be authorized to issue warrants
in payment of these regular monthly bills. Motion carried.
A motion was made by Councilman Slye, seconded by Councilman Kincaid that the following LID bills
be paid:
From LID #148 - $8!-437.76 to Ech's Burner Oils, Inc. for contractor's estimate #5, (semi-final)
and the City Clerk be authorized to issue an interest bearing warrant in the same amount to
Statewide City Employees Reitrement System to cover this bill.
From LID #150 - $1,785.84 to Reid, Middleton & Associates, Inc. for engineering interim payment #1
and $11.55 to Edmonds Tribune Review for legal publications. , -
From LID #151 - $34,103.65 to the City of Edmonds for reimbursement for payments made before bonds
were sold; $370.20 to Snohomish County Auditor for recording easements; $19.10 to Treasurer's
Office - Petty Cash for recording easements; $11.90 to Edmonds Tribune Review for legal publica-
tions; $92.25 to Daily Journal of Commerce for legal publications; and the following payments for
easements: $90.00 to Helen McClaskey; $300.00 to Robert F. Jr., Robert F. & Teresa A. Koslosky;
$70.00 to Mrs. Juels M. Swenson; $150.00 to Mrs. E. R. Fried; $100.00 to Betty D. King; $275.00
to Carl H. & May E. Anderson; $225.00 to Arne R.-& Gwen J. Cleveland; $400.00 to James A. Cole;
$300.00 to Elizabeth G. Reece; $200.00 to bonald H. & Karen E. Drew; $100.00 to Fremont A. &
Elizabeth E. Case; $75.00 to Mrs. Lois I. Leggett; $50.00 to George J. & Elizabeth K. Selvidge;
$212.00 to John H. & Gertrude B. Kannair; and $213.00 to "ussell B. and Garnet C. Cornish; and
the City Clerk be authorized to issue interest bearing warrants to Grande & Co., Inc. in the
amount of $379357.10 to cover these bills.
From LID #157 - $29.00 to Edmonds Tribune Review for legal publications, and the City Clerk be
authorized to issue an interest bearing warrant in the same amount to City of Edmonds to cover
this.
From LID #159-,$22.93 to Edmonds Tribune Review for legal publications, and the, City Clerk be
authorized to issue an interest bearing warrant in the same amount to City of Edmonds to cover
this bill.
From LID #160 - $26.60 to Edmonds Tribune Review for legal publications and the City Clerk be
authorized to issue an interest bearing warrant to City of Edmonds in the same amount to cover
this bill.
Motion carried.
It was moved by Councilman Slye, seconded by Councilman Kincaid that vouchers #57 through #64
on the 1966 Water -Sewer Revenue Bond Issue be approved and the City Clerk be authorized to issue
warrants to Branom Instrument Co. for $30.72; Custom Steel Buildings, Inc., $20,131.26; Edmonds
Tribune Review, $16.25; H. D. Fowler Co., Inc., $746.59; Hammond Construction Co., $5,821.56;
Pittsburgh Testing Laboratory, $148.00; U. S. Pipe & Foundry Co., $534.90; and Reid, Middleton
& Associates, Inc., $89400.00. Motion carried.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF CLAIMS
Note was made of the release on the LID #139 contractor from Associated Sand & Gravel, who had
previously filed a claim.
1
0
0
1
1
Claims were acknowledged from David A. White against the City of Edmonds; and from Lloyd C.
Anderson against LID #139 contractor; also a letter regarding the refusal of the insurance
• company of payments for a claim from Marguerite A. and Albert S. Robar.
REQUEST FOR AUTHORITY FOR CHANGE ORDER IN CONTRACT FOR LID #151
A request was made by the Engineers for a change order in the contract for, LID #151, Unit 4
sewers. This was for a revised quantity of pit run and back fill material's. It was moved by
Councilman Tuson, seconded by Councilman Slye to authorize the change order. Motion carried.
LETTER OF INTENT FOR ANNEXATION PROCEEDINGS
A letter of intent for annexation proceedings was received from Ervin Woerner, for Lot 13,
Berquist Addition. It was moved by Councilman Slye, seconded by Councilman Harrison that
the letter of.intent be accepted, and a hearing on the letter be set for June 6. Motion
carried.
RESOLUTIONS FROM PLANNING COMMISSION
Two resolutions were presented from the Planning Commission: Resolutions #230 and #231,
designating the comprehensive plan as commercial and rezone to CG of the property occupied
by Sambo's (newly annexed). A motion was made by Councilman McGinness, seconded by Councilman
Tuson that June 201' be set as the.date for the hearings on Planning Commission Resolutions
#230 and #231, Files CP-5-67 and AZ-1-67. Motion carried.
ORDINANCE AMENDING LEGAL DESCRIPTION
It wasmoved by Councilman Olds, seconded by Councilman Bevan that proposed Ordinance #1301
be passed, amending the legql description in Ordinance #1299, the annexed area south of the
Meadowdale Junior High School. Motion carried.
CASH PREPAYMENT ORDINANCE - LID #152
• A motion was made by Councilman Olds, seconded by Councilman Bevan that proposed Ordinance #1302
_be passed, cash prepayment expiration on LID #152. Motion carried.
F�
The meeting was then adjourned.
-C in 4 4 O i
4 A e- - -,.- �
City Clerk 61
June 6, 1967
ROLL CALL
Regular meeting of the Edmonds City Council was called to order by Mayor Maxwell with all
councilmen present.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes of the meeting of May 16 had been posted and mailed, and since there were no
omissions nor corrections, they stood approved as presented.
HEARING: PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLL - RESOLUTION OF INTENTION #213
Hearing was held on Resolution of Intention #213, proposed paving of Pine between 9:q! and 101'.
Engineer Wayne Jones gave the costs of the projectaand explained the zone and termini method
•
of assessments. City Attorney Murphy then explained the procedure for an LID from its forma-
tion throughthe protest period and payment of the assessments. Hearing was then opened. Mr.
Jack Paxson;'-938 Pine, inquired when sidewalks were brought into the prlject. The Engineer
answered that sidewalks had beenincluded for some time now in street paving LID's. Roy Herling,
931 Pine, asked about the SE corner of Pine, and when was this R/W purchased by the City. Mrs.
Hoos, north side of the street, stated that condemnation of the Joyce property for that R/W
had taken place a few years,ago, and she remembered payment having been made at the time by
the city to the Joyce's. She was also worried about additional R/W being taken here. She
was told that the city now has a 50 ft. R/W on the street, and additional R/W will not be
necessary. Mrs. Demeroutis asked if there would be any additional R/W taken off her property.
She also questioned the necessity for sidewalks and complained about the cost of the assess-
ments. Tom Belt, 10191, mentioned that in some areas, people had a longer period than 10 years
in which -to pay off their assessments on LID's. Mr. McMaster, 10:21, asked how many feet from
Pine were -involved in the LID. (300 ft.) It was also asked why a larger project was not done
under an LID and reduce the costs, but it was pointed out that regardless of the costs of the
project, a street LID was on a standard price for assessments, and only the total cost of the
project would be increased, not individual assessments. Also, this partibulak project was
brought to council by way of a petition from the property owners involved. Mrs. Demeroutis
asked if the assessments could be financed over a longer period of time rather than the 10
years. Attorney Murphy read the state statutes regarding a 20 year assessment with 22 year
bonds. It was noted, however, that the City Treasurer might have trouble selling 20 year
bonds locally. A show of hands in the audience revealed that out of approximately 18 assess-
ments on this roll, 10 properties were represented, and 5 seemed to want a longer than 10 year
period for payment of assessments. No one else wished to comment, and the hearing was closed.
A motion was made by Councilman Olds, seconded by Councilman Kincaid that the Attorney be
instructed to draw an alternate ordinance to be considered for an extended period of time for
payment of assessments, not to exceed 22 year bonds. Motion carried. Both proposed ordinances
will be considered at the next council meeting.
9