Loading...
19671212 City Council Minutes400, December 12, 1967 Minutes of Preliminary Assessment Roll Hearing - Units 2 and 3 40 Hearing was held Tuesday evening, December 12 in the Junior High School auditorium on the preliminary assessment roll for proposed sewers for Units 2 and 3 under Resolution of Intention #217 and Resolution #161. � Mayor Harrison opened the hearing with all councilmen present. lie -then read a letter from the Snohomish County Health District recommending sewers in the area due to several septic tank failures. The Mayor then went on to explain the procedure which was followed by the council to pass the Resolution of Intention after nine septic tank failures had been brought to the city's attentions but he stated that he would ask the council not to proceed on a health hazard basis, thus allowing the counting of protests; and would also omit the city participation on' protests. The preliminary cost estimate prepared by Reid, Middleton & Associates, Inc. was then read by City Engineer Leif Larson, who also explained the cost of $9.94 a zone front foot plus the $100. lateral charge and gave the boundaries of the LID. The zone and termini method of assessment was explained with help of a drawing projected on the screen. City Attorney James Murphy explained the LID procedure from its formation to the payment of assessments. Mayor Harrison., prior to opening the hearing to the public, made the following statements concerning this particular proposed LID: To all property owners within the area of sanitary sewer Units 2 and 3: To insure the residents in this area that the proposed sanitary sewer project will be studied carefully before taking further action, the City would like for you to answer the following questionnaire: (1) Have you had a septic drain field failure? (2) Have you ever been denied a building permit or a sub -division because your property wouldn't pass a pert test? (3) Are you FOR the project? (4) Are you AGAINST the project? (5) Are you neither for nor against the project? Until such time as the answers are received and tabulated for council consideration, no action would be taken on this matter. Bearing was then opened. A man who gave his address as 2001' and 84=h w., stated. that the Lake City sewer district was charging $5.40 up to $7.80 a zone front foot for sewer assessments, and how come Edmonds was so much higher. The Engineer answered that topography, pump stations, etc: can make the costs vary, but that the Olympic View Water District, for instance, was charging only $7.00 a zone front foot for an assessment, but the remainder would be paid by revenue bonds which would in- volve an additional payment by the property owners. The City Attorney noted that the gentleman who asked the question had mentioned U.L.I.D., and they are assessed differently from regular LID's, having separate laws for Utility Districts. A lady on 82nd told the council that her basement was below the street level, and would the city be able to serve her with sewers. She was assured that the sewer would either be low enough,to serve her property, or she would not be assessed. A man asked why there was a difference in assessment for two identical pieces of property, and was told that if the depth and frontage of both were actually identical, and both fully included in the LID boundary, he should discuss this with the engineer to make sure the assessment is figured correctly. A woman who gave her address as 1530 Plain Street asked why two assessments were received for one house, and the answer was that the property must have been sub -divided. One gentleman stated that he was already connected to the sewer, and he was told to see the engineer to straighten out this matter. A man complained that all the property owners were already paying $2.80 for a sewer service charge on their water bills, without benefit of sewers. It was explained to him that the Pollution Control Commission had some years ago in- structed -the City of Edmonds to construct a sewage disposal plant to prevent the pollution of the waterfront. Therefore, the charge was helping to pay off the bonds on the building of this disposal plant, and that cleaning up the beaches was to the advantage of everyone living in the City. Also, it was noted that the sewer service charge was greater for those with sewers than for those without. Bill Campbell, 88L` W., asked that an explanation be given on side sewers, and this was done. He also asked if the answers on the questionnaire the Mayor planned to send to each property owner would be counted and considered a form of protest. He was told that the questionnaires were merely to give the council somdithing to go on before taking any action on passage of an ordinance to create the LID, after which time the property owners would still have a 30 day protest period. Jack Lennon, 1433 Bwodoin, stated that lie was against his assessment of $10,000. One gentleman asked the Attorney if there wqs any legal procedure which could be taken to delete an area from the LID, because the area he was speaking about was designated on the comprehensive plan (west of Five Corners) as a future park site, and what was the use of paying for sewers and later having to give up the property for public use. He was advised to submit his proposal for consideration of deletion on this ground. A gentleman from 520 Summit Lane stated he was con- cerned with the surfacing of a private road after the project is completed. He was assured that the contractor must restore the street back to the original condition before construction. Another man inquired what if the contractor can't get deep enough to serve a property. This was answered as before, that the property not benefited cannot be assessed. A man inquired of the Attorney that in case of a health hazard, what can property owners legally do to get the sewers put through and prove the hazard exists. The Attorney noted that it would be a very difficult thing to accomplish, and might even result in the property owners in the hazardous areas being evicted for reasons of health. However, a small LID could be formed, but would in any case be quite expensive, and possibly cost so much as to be prohibitive. A lady asked how long the property owners had before they must connect to the sewer, andwas told 6o days following completion of the line. A woman on Summit Lane asked how they could be sure, if the LID went through, that the sewage would be adequately handled by the present Disposal Plant. This was answered by the fact that extensions to the Plant are included in the comprehensive sewer plan, and that an extension had just recently been completed. A man asked if the arterial im- provement on Plain Street was dependent on the installation of sewers first, and also what the interest charges would be. It was stated that the interest would probably be 6y;, dependent on what was charged by the bonding company, and that it was far better to complete all underground facilities before a permanent surfacing of a street, rather than tearing it up later and patching. Ed Robinson, 19815 - 88" W. asked that the health problem area be identified, and a show of hands brought a count of 11 properties represented having a health problem due to septic tank failure. Mayor Harrison noted that during a tour of the area in question, he was shown these donditions in wid.ely separated areas within the LID boundaries. A woman on 88=11 W. asked why send out the 40*1 M questionnaires if the council. would take action at the next meeting before receiving the answers. She was assured that no action would be taken on formation of the proposed LID until the members of the council had taken time to evaluate the answers on the questionnaires, and had time to decide what the feeling of the majority of the people was. Frank Johnson, 1901 and 88:h, asked where the sewer line would run in his immediate area. The Engineer gave him"a tentative answer, and explained that final engineering could change these preliminary locations. A gentleman asked how a determination is made on whether or not a large piece of property would be subdivided in the future, and he thought that large parcels of property that were not to be subdivided and only had one home on them should not be penalized with such large assess- ments, because this factor might cause the property owners to have to sell off a piece of the land to help pay the assessment, and that would tend to change the entire complexion of the neighborhood. At this point, zoning requirements were explained for this area. A man on Hillcrest Place noted that his road had never been improved except for oiling by the residents, and he wanted to know if the road would be surfaced by the contractor with the restoration following the installation of the sewer. lie was told that the contractor was required to restore streets only to their original condition,'and if it was just'a dust coat before, it would not be surfaced. A woman wanted to know about the health hazard and who requested the proposed LID. This was explained. Bill McNamara, 20031 - 82nd W.,questioned why the storm sewers couldn't be installed at the same time as the sewer LID and save digging up the area twice. A man from 2051' and 85te Pl. W. inquired about a'hook-up fee; also about the amount of money held out for payment of easements.' It was'stated that any money to be used for payment of easements was listed in the indirect costs of the estimate, and if more was needed , then all property owners on the assessment roll would have to share in the extra'costs. Mayor Harrison advised the audience that the City staff would stay after the hearing to answer any questions property owners might have on their own assessments or property.* There were no further general information questions that had not already been covered, and the hearing was declared closed. January 20 1968 ROLL CALL Regular meeting was called to order by Mayor Harrison with all councilmen present except Nordquist. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of the meeting of December 19 had been mailed and posted, and with no omissions nor corrections, they stood approved as presented. HEARING: APPEAL FROM PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION #248 - (DOCES) Hearin; was held on an appeal from the recommendation of the Planning Commission in their Resolution #248, wherein they recommended denial of a proposal to amend the official zoning map by designating as multiple residential high density (RMH) that property described in Planning Commission File No. R-12-67, known as the Doce property. City Planner Logan projected on the screen a land use rnap of the vicinity; a map showing the ekisting zoning; and the zoning before and just after the ddoption of the comprehensive plan in 1964. He explained that the request was to rezone the area from RD to RMH. Mr. Logan then read the minutes of the Planning Commission pertaining to this hearing. He added that the comprehensive plan designates this area as single family, and the present RD zoning is better in his estimateion than RMH. Hearing was then opened. Mr. John Ehrlichman, attorney representing Mr. Doce, stated that the owners of this property had been before the council for zoning at least three times since and during the progressive ex- pansion of this particular area. He noted that dramatic changes had taken place over this period of time in South Snohomish County, and that everyome realized this and would not fight building changes to keep pace with the growth. He added that this was the reaBon that the highest and best use of this property had changed periodically, and that'where once a single store could not survive without'a shopping center, it now was able to. He noted the need for multiple housing because of the present situation. Mr. Ehrlichman then showed slides of the subject property, pointing out the topography of the land and the surrounding vicinity, as well as the surrounding zoning. Mr. Jones, architect for Mr. Doce, presented a plot plan drawing of an apartment devel- opment for the area if rezoned RMH, and'when Councilman,Kincaid questioned whether the plan as presented her tonight would remain the same, if the rezone were granted, Mr. Ehrlichman stated that Mr. Doce would be happy to enter into contract frith the city to insure that the plans would be essentially the same as presented, and that they would further guarantee participation in an LID to pave the streets bordering. Mr. Ehrlichman then traced the pattern that Edmonds had seemed to follow in zoning from CG to RM to single, and he wondered why in this ogle par- ticular case the city would choose to omit a buffer of multiple. between CG and single family dwellings. He added that he felt the proposal solves how the area can be successfully developed in view of the terrain. No one in the audience wished to speak in connection with the rezone. City Attorney Murphy noted that the Supreme Court had approved a contract between a developer and a city when the doveloper__had been the one to suggest the public improvements, and that this could legally be done by the council in this case, since the developer's attorney had suggested it. Hearing was then closed. Following discussion, a motion was made by'Councilinan Bennett, seconded by Councilman Tuson that the appeal be granted subject to the appellant submitting a proposal to the City Attorney in regard to the setbacks, participation in LID for street paving, the use of the discussed pro- posed recreation area, and that the design as submitted be essentially the same. More dis- cussion followed, and it was moved by Councilman Slye, seconded by Councilman Kincaid to amend the motion and have this matter resubmitted to the Planning Commission for consideration of the terms of the contract. Motion carried on the amendment, and a vote on the original motion as