19780117 City Council Minutes•
January-10,,.1.978-continued
i6y
COUNCIL REVIEW OF PROPOSED RESOLUTION FOR POLICY ON LID'S (HEARING SCHEDULED-FEBRUARY 7, 1978)
Public Works Director. Leif Larson submitted.a proposed -resolution pertaini.ng to the improvement
of existing and future residential access streets and -he asked if it covered the intent of
the Council. The proposed resolution was discussed, and Councilman Herb .felt that in paragraph
3 on page 2, the last clause, ". . . excludi-ng-the requirement for conversion of overhead uti-
lities to -underground.", should be omitted as he felt. -this requirement should.not be excluded
as it had been a consensus of the Council to hear these on a case -by -case basis. It was felt
that on the attachment to the proposed resolution Types of Improvement 4 and 5 should have
drainage described more definitively in the "Description" column.. Mr. Larson suggested that
the estimated costs probably should be omitted from the attachment because the costs can
change. There was;=general" agreement with that, except it was::suggested they be left in for
the public hearing and possibly be labeled as for 1977 only. A typographical error was noted
in paragraph 4 on page 2, the last line, in that the figure "5" should be "6 "
ADMINISTRATION REORGANIZATION PROPOSAL
M.A.A. CharlesDibble presented to the Council a reorganization proposal centering around the
Finance Department, noting that it had become a catch-all for functions whichdo not appear to
fit into other departments. The proposal was to: (1) Remove from -'.the Finance Department all
functions except, accounting, treasury, data processing, budget management, and risk manage-
ment; and (2) Establish a new Departmentcd f Administrative Services, to include personnel ad-
ministration, violations bureau, switchboard, cashier, secretarial support (presently ASD), and
purchasing. Mr. Dibble discussed the details of the proposal, including functional charts for
• each of the proposed new departments. He noted that the Probation Office should be added to
the chart for the Administrative Services Department, on a dotted line relationship, as the
Probation Officer presently reports to the Judge who is only at the City one daya week and
cannot provide fulltime supervision. Mr. Dibble said this proposed change would not require
the hiring of any additional personnel. He said grant funds would be available for creating
the personnel operation and he discussed expenses of physically relocat.i:ng the functions in-
volved. The Council, -,questioned Mr. Dibble on some points such as target date for the propo-
.sal. He said his target date had been February 1 and that probably would have to be adjusted,
if approved, but he would want to proceed as soon as possible. Regarding filling of positions
created by the proposal, he said he had asked the City. Attorneys for an opinion regarding
whether advertising would be required inasmuch as no new personnel would be required and most
of the functions are already being performed and would only require reassigning of duties and
responsibilities and some training. His feeling was that personnel should have.maximum oppor-
tunity for promotion within an organization and that employer should provide any necessary
trainig. Councilman Gould.said he supported that policy. The two deparment heads most affected
by the.proposal were asked for comments. City Clerk Irene Varney Moran expressed some concern
regarding reassignment of the receptionist because,.:she.is responsible for other duties in the
City Clerk's office. She also noted that her office is responsible for providing a recording
secretary, -for, -meetings of boards and commissions and she depended on one of.the ASD staff for
backup in that area. Finance Director Lila Crosby could see the benefits in the overall con-
cept. She felt there was a need for someone to.be in charge of personnel. Councilman Herb
MOTION: expressed support for the proposal and A MOTION WAS MADE BY COUNCILMAN HERB, SECONDED BY
COUNCILMAN GOULD, TO INSTRUCT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO DRAFT AN ORDINANCE OR RESOLUTION'TO IMPLE-_
MENT THE ADMINISTRATIVE REORGANIZATION PROPOSAL PRESENTED BY THE M:A.A. MOTION CARRIED.
There was no further business to come before the Council, and the meeting.was adjourned at
9:05 p.m.
I jte�", -::� &,,Z_
IRENE VARNEY MORAN... C4ty Clerk TOM CARNS, Mayor Pro tem
January 17, 1978
The regular meeting of the Edmonds City Council was called to order at 7:35 p.m. by Mayor Pro tem
Tom Carns in the Council Chambers of the Edmonds Civic Center. All present joined in the flag
salute. Mayor Harrison arrived shortly thereafter and chaired the rest of the meeting.
PRESENT STAFF PRESENT
Harve Harrison, Mayor Charles Dibble, M.A.A.
Mike Herb... Leif Larson, Public Works Director
Phil*,Clement John LaTourelle, Community Development Director
Katherine Allen Irene Varney Moran, City Clerk
John Nordquist Lila Crosby, Finance Director
Ray Gould Jack Cooper, Fire Chief
Tom Carns Dick Allen, Asst. City Engineer
Larry Naughten John Wallace, City Attorney
Wayne Tanaka, City Attorney
Jackie Parrett, Deputy City Clerk
7®
January 17, 1978 continued
•
CONSENT AGENDA
Councilman Gould asked that Item (E), Proposed Ordinance upholding P.C. Resolution 577, be removed
from the Consent Agenda inasmuch as the Staff had indicated it would have to be redrafted as it
conflicts with another Zoning Ordinance requirement. M.A.A. Charles Dibble said the Staff wished
to remove Item (1) Referring the matter of a proposed vacation of street right-of-way.at Five
Corners Fire Station to the Planning Commission. Public Works Director Leif Larson explained that
after processing it was found there had been a commitment to keep the right-of-way opento serve
the properties to the north. Councilman Naughten asked that Item (C), Authorizing the Mayor to
sign the contract for the Edmonds Elementary School Site Study, be removed from the Consent
Agenda. COUNCILMAN CLEMENT THEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN NORDQUIST, TO APPROVE THE BALANCE
OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED. The balance of the Consent Agenda contained the following:
(A) Roll call.
(B) Approval of Minutes of January 10, 1978.
(D) Adoption of Ordinance 1967, Department,Head Section of 1978 Salary Ordinance.
(F) Adoption of Ordinance 1968, adopting Brookacres PRD. (File PRD-1-76)
(G) Confirmation of appointment of Jack Christofferson to Position 5 on the Amenities
Design Board, appointment to expire November 5, 1978.
(H) Acceptance of paving completed on 76th and 78th Sts. by Knowles Construction Co.,
and establishing 30-day lien period.
(I) .Setting date of February 7, 1978 for.hearing on design review of "Parkside West."
(Fire PRD-4-77)
(J) Setting date of January 24, 1978 for hearing of P.C. Resolution 578, recommending
approval of proposed amendment to Official Street Map to reduce the right-of-way
from 60' to 45' on James St. (Fire ST-12-77)
(K) Resetting for April 4, 1978 hearing on P.C. Resolution 575, recommending approval
of proposed amendment to Zoning Map to establish CG zoning at the southeast corner
of 220th St.S.W. and Highway 99. (File AZ-4-77)
AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN CONTRACT FOR EDMONDS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SITE STUDY
Item C on Consent Agenda
Councilman Naughten questioned whether the completion date indicated in the contract provided
sufficient time to accomplish the study, and whether another party could purchase the site
while the study is being accomplished. He was advised that the time was sufficient and that the
City had a right of first refusal i-f another party wished to purchase it. COUNCILMAN CARNS
THEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN NORDQUIST, TO APPROVE ITEM (C) ON THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION
CARRIED.
PROPOSED ORDINANCE UPHOLDING P.C.,RESOLUTION 577 - Item (E) on .Consent.Agenda
Councilman Clement inquired whether the redrafting was only in regard to the maximum height.
Community Development Director John LaTourelle responded that it was, that they had found some
conflicting sections in the Code. He said it would go to the Planning Commission before being
returned to the Council. COUNCILMAN CLEMENT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN CARNS, TO RESCHEDULE
CONSENT AGENDA ITEM (E) FOR MARCH 7, 1978. MOTION CARRIED.
COUNCIL
Councilman Carns said he had received calls from citizens from one end of the City to the other
who have tried to get.cable TV service and have been unable to do so. He referred to the fran-
chise agreement and City Council minutes of February 24, 1976, noting that Liberty TV had
committed itself to being able.to provide service to any home within the Edmonds city limits
by June 30, 1976. COUNCILMAN CARNS THEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN NORDQUIST THAT FEBRUARY 7,
1978 BE SET. FOR A PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING THE LIBERTY TV FRANCHISE AGREEMENT TO DETERMINE
WHY LIBERTY TV IS NOT COMPLYING WITH THAT AGREEMENT. Councilman Nordquist said a statement had
been made to him that PUD-would be glad to install the wires but the cost would be passed along
to the users, so he thought a PUD representative should also be invited to the hearing.
THE MOTION THEN CARRIED.
Councilman Naughten said he would like to compliment Mr. LaTourelle and his office for responding
so well to Mary Robertson regarding the Senior Center. He thought the document prepared was very
informative.
Councilman Nordquist said that the last time new members came onto the Council a dinner was held
to discuss general ideas regarding the Council meetings and to acquaint the new members with some
of the procedures. COUNCILMAN NORDQUIST THEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN CARNS, THAT A DINNER
MEETING BE HELD JUST PRIOR TO THE JANUARY 31 WORK MEETING. MOTION CARRIED. The dinner meeting
will be open to the public on a no -host basis.
1
1
L�
1
•
1
1
•
I '71
January 17, 1978 continued
1
1
41
1
Councilman Clement said it had been requested that the City have an alternate representative
to the Snohomish County Public Transit Board. Councilman Nordquist volunteered to serve.
MAYOR
Mayor Harrison presented a corsage to City Clerk Irene Varney Moran in recognition of her service
to the City for 20 years. Mrs. Moran has been City Clerk since January 3, 1958.
Mayor Harrison made various committee assignments. The Affirmative Action Committee will be dis-
cussed at a later date Assignments made were:
Firemen'_.s Pension Board
HUD Block Grant Policy Board
King/Snohomish Manpower Consortium
LEOFF Disability Board
Park Board Liaison
Planning Commission Liaison
Parking Commission
Puget Sound Council of Governments
Senior Center Building Committee
SNOCOM
Snohomish County Health District
Snohomish County Human Resources
Steering Committee
Snohomish County Metro
Snohomish County Police Services
Steering Committee
Snohomish County Public Transit
Board
Snohomish -County Solid Waste
Steering Committee
Volunteer Firemen's Relief and
Pension Board
Harve Harrison
Harve Harrison, Tom Carns, John LaTourelle
Harve Harrison, Charles Dibble
John Nordquist, Tom Carns
Each Councilmember, on a rotating basis
Each Councilmember, on a rotating basis
Phil Clement
Harve Harrison, Mike Herb, Katherine Allen
Larry Naughten
Tom Carns
John Nordquist, Katherin Allen
Harve Harrison
Harve Harrison
Harve Harrison, Marlo Foster
Phil Clement, John Nordquist (alternate)
Ray Gould, Leif Larson
Harve Harrison, Ray Gould
Mayor Harrison announced the quarterly meeting of the Association of Snohomish County Cities and
Towns will be on Thursday, January 26, at 6:30 p.m., at the Viking Restaurant in Stanwood. Those
planning to attend should notify his office.
HEARING ON FINAL ASSESSMENT ROLL - LID 198, LAUREL WAY
Public Works Director Leif Larson reviewed the history of this final assessment roll for LID 198.
The Preliminary Assessment Hearing had been held November 16, 1976. Bids received were rejected
as being too high, and the City accomplished the project with in-house forces and subcontractors.
The final cost was $13,082 as opposed to the bid of $18,470. Assessment notices had been mailed
to the property owners on December 19, 1977 and, to date, no protests had been received against
the proposed assessments. Mr. Larson recommended the Council approve and confirm the Final Assess-
ment Roll and establish a 7% interest rate, as recommended by the Finance Director. The public
portion of the hearing was opened, but no one was present in the audience regarding this item, and
the public portion was closed. COUNCILMAN CARNS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN NAUGHTEN, THAT ORDI-
NANCE:1969 BE ADOPTED APPROVING AND CONFIRMING THE FINAL ASSESSMENT AND ASSESSMENT ROLL OF LID 198,
AND ESTABLISHING AN INTEREST RATE OF 7%. MOTION CARRIED.
HEARMG ON APPEAL FROM AMENITIES DESIGN BOARD (MARILYN E. LINDBERG
•
Community Development Director John LaTourelle said that at the October 19 meeting the Amenities
Design Board made the determination that it would not hear this application until the court proceed-
ings relating to it had been concluded, but prior to the November 2 meeting information was re-
ceived that there would be no difference in the exterior design of the building, regardless of the
court decision, so it was decided to hear this at the December 7 meeting. No notice was sent to
the interested parties that it would be heard at the December meeting and although there is no
notification requirement, it was Mr. LaTourelle's feeling that in the interests of fairness the
matter should be reheard for them. He therefore was recommending that ADB-94-77 be remanded back
to the Amenities Design Board. Don Westlin, architect and applicant in this matter, generally re-
viewed the background. He said they had won the case in court but they still were having to start
all over again. He said he had served on the Amenities Design Board and it was not his belief
that everyone in the area had to be informed of the hearing by written invitation. He did not
feel the appellant had a legitimate complaint. He said 3/4 of the.owners of the property on the block
concerned were present and had attended the previous meetings, and they had nonobjection to the
proposal. He said two of the three parties had been at the Amenities Design Board meeting of
December 7--Mr. and Mrs. Jack Street and Mrs. Cassie Reschke--as well as Dr. Dohner, the owner of
the property on which the condominium is proposed to be built. Mr. Westline said the Amenities
Design Board welcomes audience participation, but the true function of the Board is to weight
the design aesthetics of a particular submission, and they did that in this case. He said he had
followed the procedures properly and he did not believe it should go back to the Board'again, but
if it should go that route, he would request the earliest possible hearing date. City Attorney
John Wallace.advised the Council that they should address the;question.of whether they wanted to
remand the matter to the Amenities Design Board. Councilman Clement noted that at the October 19
meeting a motion was made to remove the matter from the agenda and at the November 2 meeting when
it was placed on an agenda it was done so at the direction of the Chairman. Councilman Clement
inquired whether that was legal. Mr. Wallace advised him that it was, and that the Council had
to weigh the question of whether or not those people who were told it would not be heard until
after the litigation could rely that they did not have to look at the agenda month after month
r1
U
172
January 17, 1978 continued
•
until following the litigation, since there is no requirement of posting or special notice so the only
method of notification is the posting of the public agendas. Mr. Wallace again advised that the
Council should decide whether to remand the matter to the Amenities Design Board. The Council
decided it needed to hear more testimony before making that decision. Walt Sellers, an attorney
representing Dr. Dohner, said the Amenities Design Board for some reason had gotten the idea
that the court order would prevent them from hearing this matter, but that was not the case.
He said the ordinance requires that the Amenities Design Board hear it within 60 days after
application. Further, that _the ordinance states no posting or publishing requirements. He
said the Amenities Design Board is a board of experts in architecture and design and should
be able to review plans, and it does not require citizen input. He said the meeting had taken
place in December with everybody going by the rules, one -of -the rules being that notification
is'not required. He' did not see any purpose to be served in remanding this. He said the appellant
has the right to an entirely new hearing in front of the Council, and he said he did not see
anyone present to present the appeal. fie added that it had been almost four months since this
application was made and if it were remanded the Amenities Design Board could have their hearing
and it again could be appealed: --to the Council. He stated the decision should be to uphold
the decision of the Amenities Design Board. jack Street of 542 Bell St. said that, in all fair-
ness, Dr. Dohner and Mr. Westlin had done everything required of them to do and they had been
granted the right to go ahead. He said that, as property owners in the same block, Mrs.
Reschke, his wife, and he had no objections to the applicant's proceeding with his building
program. He added that the houses that will be displaced are very old and it was inevitable
that commercial buildings would replace them. Further, that if Mrs. Lindberg, the appellant,
was not present, it seemed the matter should be dropped.
Mayor Harrison asked whether Marilyn Lindberg or her presentative was present, and at this
time Mrs. Lindberg and her -attorney entered the Council Chambers. Mrs. Lindberg stated the
bases of her appeal which were essentially the same as in her Notice of Appeal, dated December
14, 1977. She said after the Chairman of the Board announced that it would not be heard until
the court case was decided she made no effort to see what was continuing on the matter, and
the next thing she knew it had been approved by the Amenities Design Board and she was not
given that opportunity. She was asked how she had known about the other hearings on the matter
and she responded that she usually went over to the City offices and read the agenda. She
said that was not posted for the December meeting. She was asked if the minutes indicate the
Board had a thorough knowledge of the property. She responded that she did not believe the
way the property was designed really fit in with the surrounding area, and what it would do
to the downtown district was to make corridors. She said it would completely cut off the
air, light, and sunshine on her building. A MOTION WAS THEN MADE BY COUNCILMAN GOULD, SECONDED
BY COUNCILMAN CARNS, THAT THE COUNCIL REJECT THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT'S RECOMMENDA-
TION THAT ADB-94-77 BE REMANDED BACK TO THE AMENITIES DESIGN BOARD AND, FURTHER, THAT THE COUNCIL
PROCEED TO HEAR THE APPEAL. MOTION CARRIED, WITH COUNCILWOMAN ALLEN VOTING NO.
Harold Fosso, attorney representing Mrs. Lindberg, stated that the sole basis of the appeal
was the lack of appropriate notice to the adjacent property owners. (Mr. Fosso had no been
present during the discussion that revealed no notification is required.) He said the Chairman
had stated that no further proceedings would be held until the Superior Court matter was
concluded. City Attorney John Wallace advised that the ordinance does provide for a de novo
appeal, which was now being provided, so the Council would no hear the matter.
Don Westline described the -proposed condominium. He said it would have front and rear yard
setbacks. He noted that Mrs. Lindberg's apartment building was constructed using the BC zone
requirements and no front yard setback was used. He said his proposal would have six parking
spaces under cover and six in the open, but off the street. The traffic flow will be one-way
south, going under the building and daylighting onto the rear alley. There will be no backing
out onto Bell St. The parking and lower level will be depressed at Bell St., that is, you drive
down into it. He displayed drawings of the proposal and presented a set of the drawings to
the Council to examine more closely. He said the exterior materials would be stucco and brick
with wood treatment on the railings, beams, and columns. The stucco will be off-white and the
masonry will be earthtones. Chimneys and elevator housing will be stucco. He said the landsaping
will help to bring the building into scale. The west side of the building will be 10' from
the property line and will be landscaped. The east side will be. -on the property line and he
estimated there may be 25' between his building and adjoing apartment building because of the
parking maneuverability required next to the adjoing building. He said 24' was required.
In answer to questioning from Mr. Fosso, he said windows on the east side will be in the ele-
vator lobby on each floor and in the hallway, and those areas are set back. The building will
occupy 49.5% of the ground area, the BC zone permitting 50%. Mr. Fosso asked the City Attorney
to verify that, which he did by reading from the Code. Mr. Fosso felt the plan as drawn could
be reversed, leaving the northwest corner clear instead of the southeast corner. Mr. Westlin%
said the view corridor was to the north and west and, in addition, the adjacent property to
the west would have the option t.o�,build to the property line and go 35' high. Mr. Fosso said
one of the things that should be considered was that Mrs. Lindberg bought light and air when
she bought the property. He said no one could do her building and her tenants more harm if
he intentionally designed a building to block off both light and air, and these are -amenities
which she is entitled to attempt to preserve. He said there would be only 18' between her
building and this one. He said there was no reason why this building could not have been de-
signed to cover the northwest section of the property rather than the northeast. Mr. Westlin
said the view with that exposure would be looking into the rear yard of Ewing Electric Company.
There was some debate on the view question. There was a question as to whether the location
1
1
1
u
1 • 3
January 17, 1978 continued
-,,of' the :building on.. the s:i te,. was 'wi thi n..the'Ameni tires- Design,-.. Board* purview,., -.and 'Mr WaI lace cited
Sec. 12.20.050 of the Edmonds City Code which includes that criterion. Mr. Westlin indicated
that one of the criteria along Bell with a 2' - 3' rise and there was no way they could get down
into the building with that rise. Wayne Meyers of 850 Northstream Lane commented that even if
the building were relocated on the lot the same amount of light and air would be cut out. He
thought when the Finnegan Buidling (Mrs. Lindberg's apartments) was purchased they should have
considered that another building could go up beside it. Mr. Fosso maintained that any developer
should develop with a view to the least amount of damage to the neighbors. He did not feel the
applicant had any consideration for the neighbors. Jack Street of 542 Bell St. said he felt
that when the Finnegan Buildi,ng.was,constructed the owners at that time felt,there would be a
building going upon Dr.`Dohner's property, and when.Mrs. Lindberg bought it she must have known
there would sometime be a building going up there. He said his two properties are directly
east of.the Finnegal Apartments and those apartments totally cut off the view of one of his
houses and partially of the other. He said these things are inevitable and they have to live
with them. He said he did not know Mr. Westline well, but he had seen his works around Edmonds
and they are assets to the community. He said he had heard nice things about Mrs. Lindberg
and he did not like to be derogatory toward her, but he thought this building should be permitted.
The pub,1:.c::portion of the hearing was then closed.
City Attorney John Wallace advised the Council that in their consideration they were governed
by the criteria contained in Sec. 12.20.050 of the Edmonds City Code, and that those must be
MOTION: the criteria by which to approve, modify, or reject the proposal. A MOTION WAS MADE BY COUNCIL-
MAN CARNS, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN CLEMENT, THAT THE APPEAL OF MARILYN`-E.LINDBERG BE DENIED ON A- �
THE BASIS THAT THE PROPOSED BUILDING IS WELL DESIGNED, SUITS THE AREA,.L'ANDSCAPING IS SAT'IS-
• FACTORY, AND THE PRESENTATION DOES MEET THE CRITERIA OF SEC. 12.20.050 OF THE EDMONDS CITY CODE.
Councilman Carns added that he felt the Amenities Design Board had done its job and he could
find no reason to overturn its decision. Councilman Clement said that, on the issue of timing
and delays, he, as a Councilmember, felt no compulsion to speed up the process for development.
He said that when a variance.is requested the door is opened toconsiderable delays, and in
terms of presenting ideas'to the Council that the applicant has been held up, that is not the
Council's problem --that is the developer's problem. He said he thought this was an appropriate
building for this location. Councilman Carns added that Mr. Fosso had said the sole basis of
the appeal was the lack.of notification, and the Code does not require notification. He said
he believed Dr. Dohner was using his land to a lesser extent than was possible. He said,
further, that he would prefer that multiple -family buildings not be allowed in the BC"area.
Councilman Naughten said he had had a little trouble with the fact that Mrs. Lindberg was told
there would be no disposition of this matter while it was in court, but he now felt that she
had been given an opportunity to express her feelings and views to the council, so he felt better
about the situation. THE MOTION THEN CARRIED.
HEARING ON APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY PLAT "VIEWMOOR"
Community Development Director John LaTourelle said this was a six -lot subdivision located between
9th and loth Aves. immediately south of Caspers St. He noted that a small garage is located on
one of the property lines and it will be removed. He said all City requirements had.been met,
and there was nothing out of the ordinaryr-:wi7th'!the,.subdi'Vi,si6n-. Assistant City Engineer Dick
Allen said the addition to the Official Street Map for the other half of the street in the sub-
division will be before the Council shortly. He noted that the Osterhaug property immediately
to the north of the subdivision can be developed in a mirror image of this development and
that the utilities were available. Mayor Harrison suggested that an easement over.Tract 7 for
access.to Lot 2 would be a better situation than ownership of Tract 7 being divided between
Lots 1 and 2. He thought one owner could default on the taxes without the other being aware
of it. Slides of the site were shown. The public portion of the 'hearing was opened. Jerry
•
Lovell of Lovell-Sauerland and Associates, Inc., was representing the applicant. Concerning
the access to Lots 1 and 2, he felt an easement would be more cumbersome in conveyances of pro-
--perty. He felt it was cleaner to given an "equal and undivided interest" to each party, "un-
divided" indicating it could not be further divided. Concerning access to Lot 3 from the
cul-de-sac, he said they had met with Mr. Osterhaug before this went to the. Planning Commission
and he was in agreement, provided they did not located the cul-de-sac farther west than shown
on the plat so it would not be placed too near his home. Mr..I'Osterhaug had indicated he would
resist them on the plat if that was not done. Mr. Lovell added that the one-half interest in
Tract 7 would be included in the tax statements of both of the owners of Lots 1 and 2. He
said the,;north side of the property appears to be the most logical place for the street because
the south side would double -front lots. He said the most logical way to provide proper --.access
to the Osterhaug property and this property is between the two, otherwise they would have to
go through the rockery on 9th Ave. and further, -complicate the intersection. The publ:icr:portion
MOTION:
of the hearing was closed. A MOTION WAS MADE BY COUNCILMAN CARNS, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN GOULD,
TO GIVE PRELIMINARY APPROVAL TO THE PLAT OF "VIEWMOOR" AND THAT TRACT 7 WILL BE APART OF LOT 1
AND A PERMANENT EASEMENT OVER It SHALL BE GIVEN TO LOT 2. MOTION CARRIED.
AUTHORIZATION TO EXECUTE LABOR AGREEMENTS
M;A.A. Charles Dibble said the contracts had not been returned from the Teamsters' Union in time
for complete review before sending them in the packets. He said the drafts had now been reviewed
and the City Attorney reported he had no corrections to offer. The Department Heads had reviewed
the contracts and found only some technical items --the Animal Control Officer had been omitted
and a reference to a department should have been to a division. Councilman Carns had several
questions to ask regarding several portion of the contracts. Following that discussion, Council-
man Carns said he would vote for the Public Works and Police contracts because they were generally
very fair to both parties. However, he said he thoroughly disagreed on principle with sections
174
January 17, 1978 continued
I�
I MOTION:
I MOTION
I MOTION:
1.2, 1.3, and 1.5 on.page 2. COUNCILMAN CARNS THEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN GOULD,
THAT THE MAYOR BE AUTHORIZED TO SIGN THE UNION AGREEMENTS WITH THE POLICE AND PUBLIC WORKS DEPART-
MENTS. Councilman Gould qualified his second that it was with the understanding that the correc-
tions would be made by the Staff, changing "department" to "division" where necessary and including
the Animal Control Officer in the proper place. THE MOTION THEN CARRIED.
There was no further business to come before the Council, and the meeting was adjourned at 10:10 p.m.
v
IRENE-VARNEY MORAN,6tity Clerk HARVE H. HARRISON, Mayor
January 24, 1978
The regular meeting of. the Edmonds City Council 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 Phil Clement Charles Dibble, M.A.A.
Mike Herb Tom Carns Leif Larson, Public Works Director
Katherine Allen John LaTourelle,.Community Development Director
John Nordquist Noelle Charleson, Assistant City Planner
Ray Gould Irene Varney Moran, City Clerk
Larry Naughten Art Housler, Acting Finance Director
John Wallace, City Attorney
Wayne Tanaka, City Attorney
Jackie Parrett, Deputy City Clerk
CONSENT AGENDA
Mayor Harrison said the Staff had requested Items (F) and (I) be removed from the Consent Agenda
and be rescheduled for February 7. Councilman Naughten asked that Item (D) be removed, Council-
man Gould requested that Item (G) be removed, and Councilman Nordquist requested that Item (H)
be removed. A MOTION WAS MADE BY COUNCILMAN GOULD, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN NORDQUIST, TO APPROVE
THE BALANCE OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED. The balance of the Consent Agenda contained
the following:
(A) Roll call.
(B) Approval of Minutes of January 17, 1978.
(C) Acknowledgment of receipt of Claim .for Damages from Steve Burkhart in the amount of $99.17.
(E) Setting date of February 7, 1978 for hearing of preliminary approval of "Brookview."
(File P-1-78)
A MOTION WAS MADE BY COUNCILMAN NORDQUIST, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN GOULD, TO RESCHEDULE ITEMS (F) •
AND (I) TO FEBRUARY 7, 1978. MOTION CARRIED.
REQUEST FOR STREET NAME CHANGE - SIERRA ST. TO SIERRA PL. [Item (D) on Consent Agenda]
Councilman Naughten said that he had been advised by a citizen that there already was a Sierra P1.
in existence and the change would only create more confusion. However, during discussion the
Public Works Director dispelled the confusion by pointing out the locations of Sierra St.,
Sierra Dr., and the proposed Sierra P1. COUNCILMAN NAUGHTEN THEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN
GOULD, TO APPROVE ITEM (D) ON THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED.
PROPOSED ORDINANCE 1970, ESTABLISHING APPEAL PERIOD FROM DECISIONS OF BOARD OF APPEALS [Item (G)
on Consent Agenda
Councilman Gould inquired why an appeal from a Board of Appeals Decision could not go to the
Council, rather than having to go to court. City Attorney John Wallace responded that the
Building Code provides only for appeal to Superior Court. He said one particular reason was that
the appeal would be from a body of expertise of high degree. He said it probably would be best
likened to a Board of Adjustment where the appeal is to Superior Court. He said the Board of
Appeals is set up by the Uniform Building and Fire Code but it did not have a specified time
period for appeal, so the purpose of this ordinance was to make it uniform with Board of Adjust-
ment appeals since some variance authority is granted to the Board of Appeals in both Titles 10
and 11 of the Edmonds City Code. Ten days is the same appeal period as for Board of Adjustment
appeals. Councilman Herb suggested the appeal period might be lengthened to 20 days. Assistant
City Planner Noelle Charleson said the building permit cannot be issued until the appeal period
is elapsed and the number of appeals is usually very small, so for the overwhelming majority of
people who do not appeal they would have to wait another 10 days, and they usually are anxious
to get started. COUNCILMAN GOULD MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN NORDQUIST, TO APPROVE ITEM (G)
ON THE CONSENT AGENDA, ADOPTING ORDINANCE 1970. MOTION CARRIED.