19671002 City Council Minutes386
Hammond Construction Co., this retainage be reduced to $5000,00, Motion carried. •
There was no further business, and the meeting was adjourned.
City Clerk 'Mayor
C'X7
Monday, October 2, 1967
Public hearing on the Final Budget for 1968 was opened by Mayor Maxwell, with all councilmen
present, and all City Department Heads in attendance.
Mayor Maxwell discussed each item in the proposed final budget for 19689 and there was no one
in the audience who wished to comment.
Councilman Harrison proposed a policy that all expenditures over $1000.00 be first authorized
by the council. However, it was noted that informal bids were always obtained on items of
this amount, and that the'council auditing`committee had to approve every purchase before
payment is made. Council members felt that not only would this tend to disrupt an operation
which was now working satisfactorily, but that since it was so close to election time, perhaps
this should wait until a new council could set its own policies.
There was no further comment, and the hearing was closed and meeting recessed to Tuesday,
October 3 at 8:00 P.M.
October 3, 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 September 19 had been posted and mailed, and since there were no
omissions nor corrections, they stood approved as presented.
FINAL BUDGET 1968
Hearing on the final budget for 1968 had been held on Monday, October 2. It was moved by
Councilman McGinness, seconded by Councilman Olds that proposed Ordinance #1329 be passed,
adopting the final budget for the City of Edmonds for the fiscal year commencing January 1,
1968. Motion carried unanimously.
A motion was then made by Councilman Slye, seconded by Councilman Tuson that proposed
Ordinance #1330 be passed, levying the general taxes for the City of Edmonds for the fiscal
year commending January 1, 1968. Motion carried unanimously.
HEARING: ON PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION #242 AND #243
Planning Commission Resolution #242 was presented, recommending a change from commercial to
multi -family, commercial to multi -family and single-family, and from multiple to single certain
areas on 76th W. as described in File CP-7-67. City Planner Merlin Logan pointed out the exist-
ing comprehensive plan and zoning of the area in question, as well as the surrounding areas and
the proposed changes being petitioned for by the Lake Ballinger Action Group. 11r. Logan also
read the minutes of the Planning Commission on this hearing, and stated that he felt there
would be no harm in removing the multiple zoning along 76M; that it was probably best left as
single family as requested and for the reasons he had stated at the Planning Commission hearing.
The hearing was then opened.
Mr. Bob Boye, chairman of the Lake Ballinger Action Group, projected a map of the Lake Ballinger
area on the screen and spoke in favor of the changing of the comprehensive plan to make this
area primarily single residential. He noted that restrictive covenants specifying single family
dwellings were on some deeds, and he added that the members of the Action Group were tired of
defending themselves from all the rezone requests in the Ballinger area over the past couple
of years. They now felt that if they could change the comprehensive plan to single residential,
it would put a stop to the requests once and for all. At this point, it was thought that
Planning Commission Resolution #243, File R-7-67, recommending a change from RML to RS-8 for
property at the intersection of 761 and 205'4, should be included with the hearing on #2429 and
since there was no objection from the audience on this, it was decided to hold both hearings
simultaneously.
Mr. Humason, Lake Ballinger, said he wished to keep the Lake area single residence, and that
multiple could depreciate the value of his property. lie felt also that multiple zoning would
creep along the avenue and eventually envelope all the property. Dick Patterson said he wanted
single for all properties along 761�, including the ones at the corner intersection which they
were asking to be changed from RML to RS-8. Bill Lancaster noted that there was a traffic
problem now on that street, which would be complicated by RML zoning with more families moving
into the area. A gentleman from 74k stated that the people were trying to seek a long term
solution to the zoning problems in the area; seeking that which the greater number of people
wished - single residential. Mr: Jack Hulling attorney representing Mr. William Light, spoke
in opposition to the proposed rezone from RML to RS-8 of the corner property under Planning
Commission Resolution #243. Mr. Hullin said that the west half of lots 16 and 17, which Mr.
Light owned, were simply not residential property, and he passed a picture of the intersection