19811117 City Council Minutes3.45
• November 10, 1981 - continued
Councilmember Gould thought one more thing was needed in the plan, a page that states specifically
what is -going to be done, stating what-the'City will work toward until 1985. He thought this was a
good document but that it needed objectives, and that the objectives should be things Mr. Jessel
.really thought could be accomplished and are desired to be accomplished in this time frame. '
Councilmember Kasper noted that there are a lot of properties and buildings that the City must
maintain and the maintenance is getting to be a tremendous budget item, and there should be a
concentrated maintenance program for the City. Councilmember Gould restated that as -- the City
should work toward reducing the subsidy costs of the Parks and Recreation Department and make it
self-sustaining so the revenues would offset more of the maintenance costs. It was noted that page
6 needed to..be Updated, as well as other sections in the first four pages. COUNCILMEMBER ALLEN
MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER GOULD, TO CONTINUE THIS ITEM TO DECEMBER 8, 1981. MOTION CARRIED.
BUDGET WORK SESSION
The Council returned to the budget work session which had started just prior to this regular meeting.
During this session the question of the hiring of an M.A.A. was raised. Mayor Harrison said if the
Council so indicated, an M.A.A. would be hired immediately. Each Councilmember, except Councilmember
Kasper, individually stated that an M.A.A. should be hired immediately. Councilmember Kasper thought
a personnel person was needed, rather than an M.A.A. Mayor Harrison responded to the Council that
the M.A.A. position is budgeted and would be filled.
UESTIONS ON NOVE�'1BER 17 AGENDA ITEMS
Councilmember Gould suggested, regarding the Parkside West PRD, that a one-year extension be granted
with a provision for a second year so that it can be seen whether there is adequate progress demon-
strated (a two-year extension had been requested).
COUNCIL
Councilmember Goetz noted that there had been considerable destruction of campaign signs during the
recent election, and she thought there should be a City ordinance making it a.misdemeanor to destroy
campaign signs. COUNCILMEMBERALEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER GOULD, TO PLACE ON THE DECEMBER 8,
1981 AGENDA A DISCUSSION REGARDING THE DESTRUCTION OF CAMPAIGN SIGNS. MOTION CARRIED.
Council President Allen called attention to,:the:Dfsaster Plan which had been distributed to the
Council.
Councilmember Kasper suggested that the Public Safety Committee study the Seattle Noise Ordinance
and that they provide a recommendation.
There was no further business to come before the Council, and the meeting adjourned to Executive
Session at 10:45 p.m. to discuss a legal matter.
IRENE VARNEY MORAN, Cit Clerk HARVE H. HARRISON, Mayor
November 17, 1981
. The regular meeting of the Edmonds City Council was called to order at 7:55 p.m. by Mayor Harve
Harrison in the Council Chambers of the Edmonds Civic Center. All present joined oft the flag salute.
PRESENT STAFF PRESENT
Harve Harrison, Mayor Irene Varney Moran, City Clerk
Larry Naughten Mary Lou Block, Planning'Director
John Nordquist Jim Jessel, Parks & Recreation Director
Mary Goetz Ron Schirman, Assistant Fire Chief
Bill Kasper Dan Prinz, Assistant Police Chief
Katherine Allen Pat Wilson, Assistant City Engineer
Jo -Anne Jaech Mark Eames, City Attorney
Ray Gould Jim Murphy, City Attorney
Marc Gluth, Student Rep.. Jackie Parrett, Deputy City Clerk
CONSENT AGENDA
Item (B) was removed from the Consent Agenda. COUNCILMEMBER GOULD MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
KASPER, TO APPROVE THE BALANCE OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED. The approved items on the
Consent Agenda included the following:
(A) Roll call.
(C) Acknowledgment of.receipt of Claims for Damages from James Bride in the amount of $42.26
and from Robert V. Hovey in the amount of $1,437.94.
•(D.) Authorization to execute Supplement #1 to Agreement GC6514 (SR 524).
November 17, 1901 - continued •
APPROVAL OF MINUTES NOVEMBER 10, 1981'[Item (B) on Consent Agenda]
Councilmember Naughten thought there had been an omission from the minutes regarding the budget, but
the item had been discussed in the budget work session prior to the regular meeting, for which there
were no minutes. He therefore stated at this time that during the budget work session the Council
had discussed the possibility of each Councilmember taking on a particular part of the budget and
following it during the year. He said the general consensus was that there was not time to do that
now but after the first of the year they would. COUNCILMEMBER GOULD MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL -
MEMBER NAUGHTEN, TO APPROVE ITEM (B) ON.THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED.
HEARING FOR CHANGE TO AN APPROVED PRD FOR PARKSIDE WEST (PRD-4-77
Planning Director Mary Lou Block stated that the applicant had requested a two-year extension on the
approval of this PRD which was granted July 30, 1979. She said the Code requires that a PRD is
considered abandoned if the project has not been completed at the end of two years from the adoption
of the ordinance of approval. -The applicant applied for an extension on July 8, 1981. The application
had gone to the Hearing Examiner who recommended approval of the application after having two
hearings on the matter. The reason the PRD had not been completed was because of extensive litiga-
tion involving the PRD, resulting in the applicant's being limited as to the amount of work which
could be accomplished on the property. The applicant had indicated the project was held up in
litigation for 14 months. Ms. Block read aloud the Hearing Examiner's conclusions and displayed a
site map of the PRD. City Attorney Mark Eames stated that the litigation involving this project was
now terminated. The hearing was opened.
Jack Strother, attorney for the owner/applicant, stated that those present to represent the applicant
were Webb Reed; representative of the owner; Bob Hovde, builder; and David Kinderfather, architect •
for the project. Mr. Strother stated that although this was listed on the agenda as a change, there
actually was no change to the project, but the term "change". was a technicality of the Edmonds
Community Development Code. He said there were no changes at all in the design of the project and
they were only requesting an extension which was necessary because of the delay caused by litigation
filed shortly after approval of the PRD. He said in September 1980 the Court of Appeals upheld the
Superior Court's decision to dismiss the case, and that was the first time the owner was free to
progress, and the owner did not have an opportunity by the time the litigation was completed to have
the project refinanced and completed within the nine months left, so the two-year extension was now
being requested to'put the owner in the position he was at the time the ordinance of approval was
passed.
Jack Linge, 6970 160th S.W.., objected to the extension. He said the PRD ordinance had been.revised
since this was approved.and no longer can developers build multi -units in PRDs. He was opposed to
these units having common walls and said when they previously objected they had been assured they
would be luxury units, but he charged that with airspace between them they would be just small,
inexpensive units, and.he objected to,what he called apartment house construction in a single-family
residential area. He also said they did not get a fair hearing in Superior Court because of a
technicality on the.serving of the papers on the Mayor. He further charged that PRD-4-77-had been
abandoned for PRD-2-78 and this was only Phase I of PRD-2=78. He said this property was excluded
from the Meadowdale building moratorium and there was no reason this property should not fall withi.n
the moratorium. When asked the location of his home in relation to the PRD he.said it is north,,
about two houses from the old PRD=2-78. He said a Mr'. Bowden had represented the neighbors opposed
to this and had written a letter to the Hearing Examiner which he wanted the Council to read, so he
asked that this hearing be put off until the Council could read.that letter. He also said the
people in the area did not have adequate notice of this hearing.
Ms. Block stated that PRD-4-77 was the PRD approved on July 31, 1979, and that PRD-2-78 was the PRD
that was abandoned.
Jean Linge, same address, said she had talked to a number of neighbors and found that because of a •
sports award program at Meadowdale High School many could not be present this evening, and.she said
the previous hearings were held in vacation time so people could not be present. She said there
still is considerable objection .in the neighborhood to having a PRD of connected homes, and they
feel the parking is not adequate. She expressed concern about the payment of the sewer assessment
because she said they understood the PRD would be included in the assessment. She charged that the
developer had waited beyond the expiration date to apply for an extension.
Mr. Strother responded to the charges made by Mr. and Mrs. Linge. Regarding the change in the City
Code as pertains to PRDs, he said any projects approved can be completed irrespective of a change in
the Code. He stated the extension was filed July 8, 1981 and the expiration date was not until
July 31, 1981. Further, that the developer had been working on this project for two or three years
and had been continually frustrated by the kind of thing heard tonight, mainly charges of inadequate
notice. He said they always say there are lots of people opposed and none of them ever appears, and
he thought it was time to consider fairness to the developer also. Regarding the charge of inexpen-
sive construction, he said the units will sell for $135,000 to $160,000. With regard to PRD-2-78,
he said there was at one time a second phase contemplated but that project was abandoned and had
nothing to do with this one. Also, he said the comments regarding parking and sewers had been
brought up over and over again and those considerations were put to rest at the time the ordinance
was adopted approving the PRD and in the conditions attached to the ordinance. He said most of the
points brought up this evening were in the category of "more of the same," and he thought it ironic
that the opponents continued to object to the delays when they were the reason for the delays.
Councilmember Gould asked him why a two-year extension should.be granted when there were seven
months available in which they could have begun, and Mr. Strother responded that the ordinance
contemplates 24 months in which to complete a project and once litigation stops you do not put the
tractors on the project the next day. He said because of interest rates it was necessary to refinance
the whole development and that took some time, and even if they had started the day after the Court
of Appeals decision they could not have completed it within the seven months. He said it now is
ready to go, having been completely refinanced.
•
347
.
November 17, 1981 - continued ' "?
Mr. Linge then -accused the developers of having raped the area, not saving the trees they were
supposed to save and taking out far,more trees than they said they.would. He said further that the
two-year period was not clear as to whether it is from the time they apply for the extension or when
they get it. He said they have gone through several ownerships .since it started,. they are developers
from outside the area, and they have no consideration for the community.
Mr. Strother said Mr. Linge's statements were not true, and that it was irrelevant whether the money
that.develops the project is Edmonds money, Seattle money, or out-of-state money. He said two
Edmonds residents were heavily involved in this and the contractors and subcontractors are Edmonds
people,.as well as the architect for the project. Further, that PRD-4-77 was never abandoned, but
PRD-2-78 was a second phase of the same project and it was abandoned. He said the long litigation
which had delayed the development was initiated by the community. The improvements accomplished so
far were installation and inspection of underground utilities, water, and storm sewers. The hearing
was closed.
Councilmember Naughten asked Ms. Block if there had been any changes to the original criteria or
whether there had been any tree -cutting violations, and she responded that she was not aware of any
additional tree cutting and there had been no changes in the criteria of the approved PRD. Council -
member Naughten said it then was not a question of whether it should be re -approved, but whether it
should be extended. Councilmember Gould stated that he is one of the people who helped draft the
new PRD ordinance which he believes is best for the City, but this project was approved under the
old PRD ordinance and that is the law under which they have to operate. He felt that the process of
appealing and going to court and letting people hear their;compl;aints is part of the community's
approval system, and that it has taken place.. He did not think the project should be -held up any
longer, and he thought it was proper to grant the extension. He said he would like to have a report
in one year to see that it has gone forward on schedule, because he did not want to see another
•
request for extension in two more years. He said he understood the difficult financial situation,
and he thought the Hearing,Examiner had stated a series of findings of fact. Further, the Staff
appeared satisfied that the original criteria were being.met, so he felt the extension should be
granted. Councilmember Naughten agreed and said his only. concern was whether there was a violation
of the original criteria. 000NCILMEMBER ALLEN MOVED; SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER GOULD, TO GRANT THE
'TWO-YEAR EXTENSION OF THE APPROVAL OF PRD-4-77, WITH THE QUALIFICATION THAT THE STAFF REPORT TO THE
COUNCIL IN ONE YEAR (NOVEMBER 1982) REGARDING THE PROGRESS MADE ON THE PROJECT AND THE GENERAL
STATUS OF THE PROJECT AT THAT TIME. Councilmember Kasper asked what the report would accomplish,
and Councilmember Gould responded that if there is not sufficient progress in one year, and if they
should ask for another extension, he would flatly tell them no. In answer to a question, Ms. Block
stated that this project is not in the moratorium area. Councilmember Kasper observed that the
building permits must have been issued because the utilities are installed. THE MOTION THEN CARRIED.
HEARING ON APPEAL FROM PAB.RECOMMENDATION TO DENY REZONE. (R-7-81/JOHNSON)
Planning Director.Mary.Lou Block stated that this item.had been heard by the PAB after being referred
to them by the Council, and at the PAB hearing of September 23, 1981, the PAB.had voted 4.:to 3 to
recommend.deni.al of the rezone request. Minutes of that meeting were provided, as well as findings
of fact from the PAB which Ms. Block read. She described the property which has.been designated
environmentally sensitive due to slopes, vegetation and water.. (Counci.lmember.Nordquist arrived at
this time, 9:50.p.m.) The Staff had recommended approval of the rezone,.but when.it previously went
before the Planning Commission the Staff had recommended denial because it was.recommended as.a park
and they did not recommend it`to be a park site. However, as undeveloped OS they recommended
approval to the PAB: The hearing was opened.
Bill Johnson, 740 Maple, and owner of property at 16707 74th P1. W., near the.subject property, was
the proponent in this action. He noted that since.the original proposal was made the new Community
Development Code had gone into effect, and the old Code did not have the provisions of Chapter 15
which has the provisions that support his argument for OS. Mr. Johnson said that since he had last
•
appeared before them regarding this property the Planning Department decided to recommend OS, and
they had gone through the rezone criteria and decided it met those criteria. He also noted that the
PAB vote to deny was 4 to 3, so it was not by any means unanimous. He noted some inaccuracies in
the PAB Findings of Fact. He said Finding #5 states there currently -is an'abundance of property
zoned.OS in the general neighborhood, which he said is not true, although there is property becoming
preserved as open space and there is the greenbelt in the PRD across the road,'but he noted the PRD
is getting the maximum number of units for the property. He said the PAB had indicated that $20,000
for which the property could be sold was.too great a price for the City to pay for it, and he said
the PAB was usurping the Council in making that statement as it is the Council's position to determine
from where the money comes. He did not think the Findings of Fact were based on good arguments, and
he said some of the minority voters had good points to make, which were reflected in the minutes.
He asked that the budget not be balanced by selling something that cannot be recovered, and he said
this property is very specifically what the Code refers to when it says the City needs open -space.
He read a letter from Pat Farmer, of 7035 Meadowdale Beach Rd., who favored the rezone.
Ray Martin, 18704 94th Ave.. W.,.sa'id he had been at the PAB hearing on this and what he -heard did
;not have.a lot to do with what.he had.heard this evening as Findings of Fact. He noted that three
members had voted on the basis of financial costs and nowhere does the Code charge the PAB with the
responsibility of the City budget. He added that one member listed a number of other reasons but
included.the.cost. He.thought every member of the PAB lives in the downtown bowl area of Edmonds,
so he could see why people living in that area may not understand about open space in the outer.
areas.. He .urge,d .that the property be zoned OS.
Peter Bilder who lives directly across the street from this property and who is the developer of 12 1/2
acres fronting Meadowdale Beach Rd. (the PRD previously identified),.said that in -time that entire
street will be.in houses and there will be no open space and it would be generous of the City to
declare it as open space. He said in his project the City asked them to donate 10' to widen.Meadowdale
Beach Rd.,'which they did,
so he thought the City should be generous now. He said 70% of his 30-
unit PRD will be open space.
r�
U
November 17, 1981 - continued
•
Darrel Cody, 16742 72nd W., said the City had paid something like $3,500 for this property and it
supposedly was now valued at $20,000, so he asked what it would cost the City to buy back similar
property at a later date. He said this property meets the criteria for Open Space and the difference
of opinion of the PAB members shows that there is great concern about open space. He noted that at
the original Planning Commission hearing after testimony.that this property would be difficult to
build on one of the Commissioners stated that any land can be bui 1t..,on-,--'and he , satdc:tfier. e its noiil:and in
the bowl area that is open space except for a strip along the beach because everything, even some
marshland, has been developed.
Paul Case, 16719.7.4th P1. W., and a businessman in Edmonds, supported the proposal to rezone
the property to OS, saying it would enhance the beauty of Edmonds. He had recently made a business
trip to California.and saw a lot of cities that were overdeveloped, and he said he was glad to get
back to Edmonds with its trees and beauty.
Lloyd Ostrom, 711 Puget Lane, representing the Council of Concerned Citizens, said they had -dis-
cussed this for the first time over a.year ago., and they supported it then and continue to support
it. He thought Mr. Johnson should be commended for this creative proposal, and he urged approval.
The hearing was then closed.
Councilmember Naughten observed that in visiting the site and hearing the comments of the PAB he.
could understand the arguments to deny the rezone because there appears to be plenty of open space
there, but he said they are looking at the future situation,.not the present, and when the sewers
and -drainage -are resolved those roads will develop heavily: He said he would vote in favor _of the
proposal but he did not want people to think they we're going to rezone all of the City's property to
OS. COUNCILMEMBER NAUGHTEN THEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER GOULD, TO APPROVE THE PROPOSAL TO
REZONE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY TO OS. Councilmember Gould said that in considering the seven criteria
for rezone he was persuaded, although he had not.felt that way previously. He commended Mr. Johnson
for utilizing the democratic process and bringing this before the community. He felt the proposal
•
conformed'to the Comprehensive Plan, that there have been changes in�the character of the -neighbor-
hood that justify the -rezone, and particularly that the'relative gain to the public is more than the
hardship to the owner --the City. He thought it would be'farsightedAa do this and would benefit
people in the future. Councilmember Jaech noted that the PAB minutes indicated the Staff had
recommended approval, stating the area was designated environmentally sensitive, that it would
create green. space, that the citizens see a need to retain it as OS, and that there isa gain to the
public health, safety, -and welfare. She had obtained a copy of the Open Space Taxation Act and read
what is considered open space, and she thought this property fit that criteria. Councilmember Goetz
said -she believes in the residential quality of the City and there comes a time when the Council
must weigh dollars against residential quality, and in the long run the benefit of putting the
parcel in OS will'preserve the unique residential quality of the City of Edmonds. Councilmember
Gould noted that the PAB did show concern about the financial impact, and the Council also has
considered that, but he thought they would be able to handle their financial problems without the
sale of this piece of land. Councilmember Kasper said he previously indicated he felt this was spot
zoning and that one lot was a maintenance problem for the.City. He said there probably is some land
in that area that cannot be built.on and.there are',12 acres of open space in the area. He said he
had seen such things in the past end up being garbage dumps and become a liability regarding children.
He noted that the property across the street is private property,�not public property; -and 70% of
that is theoretically open space, but it is not used by the public. Since this was only one lot he
thought these people should make efforts to acquire additional property in the area. He said he
would support the motion. Councilmember Allen did not think it was spot zoning as it is contiguous
to some Lynnwood property zoned Public Use, which she said essentially is Open Space. THE MOTION
CARRIED. COUNCILMEMBER GOULD.THEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER KASPER, THAT THIS SAME PIECE OF
PROPERTY BE REMOVED FROM ANY SURPLUS PROPERTY LIST OR FROM ANY CONSIDERATION OF BEING FOR SALE BY
THE CITY. MOTION CARRIED.,
Peter Bilder thanked the Council for their action, and he suggested that other areas in the City
such as streets that cannot be developed be put into open space with trails moving people from one
•
to another. Councilmember Kasper asked whether that could be done or if the streets would have to
be vacated. City Attorney Jim Murphy advised.if it absolutely never would be usedfor a street it
should be vacated.
HEARING ON PAB RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE REZONE (R-4-81/LaPIERRE)
Planning Director Mary .Lou Block reviewed the previous actions on this site which is at 72nd Ave. W.
and 212th S.W. It currently is zoned RM=2.4, after being rezoned in 1978 from RML to BN and from CG
to RML. The proposal was to change the zoning for the property now subject to RM-2.4 designation.
back to the CG zoning it had prior to the 1978 rezone. The advantage of CG zoning is that it has
bulk and dimension requirements that will take less area of the site and allow 35' in height. The
area is recessed 40' from the road so 35' in height would not.interfere with the views of surrounding
areas. A site. -plan was shown. Parcel C will be a street adjacent to a proposed park and ride lot
which will.,access to multi -family homes." If the park and ride.lot does not develop, then that
parcel will be developed in office use. City Attorney Mark Eames said the contract had been reviewed
and needed some minor changes, which he delineated. Details of the rezone proposal were provided in
the Planning Advisory Board Minutes and the contract. A proposed ordinance also was presented. The
hearing was opened.
Bob Tjossom, 10522 N.E. 187th, Bothell, attorney in fact for the applicant, said they were asking to
amend an existing contract and the limitations of the uses are built into the current contract., and _
not a great deal is being amended. He said they had worked with the Staff at great length on the
contract, and if`there were any more significant alterations he had serious reservations that it
would go. The contract called for participation in a traffic light at 216th which he thought was
very far from this project, but.he said the client had agreed to take.on a certain percentage of
the costs of it. It was anticipated that Stevens Hospital and Blue Cross also would participate
when the hospital is expanded and Blue Cross constructs a facility in Mountlake Terrace. There was
some question about the design of the park and.ride lot and Mr. Tjossom said i-t was not their design
but that of the State. The hearing was closed.
.
November 17, 1981 - continued
COUNCILMEMBER ALLEN MOVED;.SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER KASPER, TO UPHOLD THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THE CONTRACT REZONE. Councilmember Jaech felt the.,proposal was more to
the benefit of the single party than to everybody else involved and that the reason for it was not
because of a park and ride lot but because it would.allow them an extra story of the multiple units.
She did not object to the 35' height in this area but felt it should be treated the same as others,
.and she suggested that they could sell the State the additional land to provide adequate setbacks in
the park and ride lot and not need the rezone. She thought Parcel B could be left in the current
residential zoning and that the.applicant could applyfor a variance on the areas not sensitive.
She thought that would be more equitable to everybody. COUNCILMEMBER GOULD MOVED TO AMEND THE
MOTION, ACCEPTED BY THE MAKER, THAT IN PARAGRAPH 5, OF THE CONTRACT THE PERIOD IN WHICH IT CANNOT BE
AMENDED BE INDICATED AS 24 MONTHS INSTEAD OF 15. COUNCILMEMBER KASPER MOVED TO AMEND THE MOTION,
ACCEPTABLE TO THE MAKER, THAT THE CONTRACT BE SIGNED BY MR. LaPIERRE INSTEAD OF BY HIS REPRESENTA-
TIVE. City Attorney Jim Murphy stated that on page.3 it should be stated that north of Parcel D
there will be an additional 1.0' for utilities only. Councilmember Gould clarified that all of the
changes stated by the City Attorneys would be incorporated into the motion. THE MOTION CARRIED,
WITH COUNCILMEMBER JAECH VOTING NO.
ALTERNATIVES TO SOLVING PROBLEM REGARDING RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION AT 1020 PUGET DR.
Roger Hertrich stated he had applied for a variance in fence height but it had not yet been approved..
He thought the Council's decision might be influenced by whether or not he receives approval, so he
suggested this matter again be continued. He felt confident his application would be approved and
said'he altered his plan slightly and moved the fence back from"the edge of the sidewalk so some-
thing can be planted to screen the appearance of the fence. He also had considered the -possibility
of raising the earth in that area to give the effect of a berm, as that would reduce the visual
effect of the height of the structure. He had been.able to reduce the cost by changing the type of
brick in the unit. COUNCILMEMBER ALLEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER KASPER, TO CONTINUE THIS
•
MATTER UNTIL DECEMBER 8, 1981.. Councilmember Naughten thought the decision should be made immediately,
saying the fence height had nothing to do with what the Council would allow.` Councilmember Gould
felt the same,'saying waiting would not change his mind about what they want to do about settling
the issue. He said his primary interest was to treat the people in the project equally and to move
the project expeditiously. A ROLL CALL VOTE WAS TAKEN ON THE MOTION, WITH COUNCILMEMBERS ALLEN AND
KASPER.VOTING YES, AND WITH COUNCILMEMBERS NAUGHTEN, NORDQUIST, GOETZ, JAECH, AND GOULD VOTING NO.
MOTION FAILED. Mr. Hertrich asked the Counci lmembers to consider what-6:they::woul d `deci de- ff*6they.:each
lived there and had to look at it. He said the State had offered him $5,000. Councilmember Naughten
said he originally had stated that he could not go along with $10,758, but -he did feel Mr. Hertrich
had been impacted more than anyone else along Puget Dr., and he recommended a settlement of $6,000.
Councilmember Allen observed that 71% had been given to the people in the condominium, so on that
basis Ia minimum would be $7,000, and Councilmember Goetz agreed, but Councilmember Naughten said the
circumstances were different.
Don VanDriel, 1233 Olympic View Dr., asked that this be settled as soon as possible so the project
can be completed because the grocery store and his real estate business have been essentially closed
down because traffic cannot.get to them while the construction is in progress. COUNCILMEMBER NAUGHTEN
MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ALLEN, THAT ON THE NOVEMBER 24, 1981 AGENDA THE STAFF REPORT, AFTER
CONTACTING THE DEPARTMENT .OF TRANSPORTATION, ON WHY THE PROJECT IS BEING DELAYED. MOTION CARRIED.
COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER GOETZ, THAT THE CITY ATTORNEY BE AUTHORIZED
TO NEGOTIATE WITH MR. HERTRICH. Councilmember Gould thought the Council should settle it because
the people who have made assessments are people who have experience in this area, and he did not
think the burden should be shifted to the attorney. A ROLL CALL VOTE WAS TAKEN ON THE MOTION, WITH
COUNCILMEMBERS NORDQUIST, GOETZ, KASPER, AND ALLEN VOTING YES, AND WITH COUNCILMEMBERS NAUGHTEN,
JAECH, AND GOULD VOTING NO. MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Allen suggested that the Council give
the City Attorney parameters during an Executive Session. She then called for an.Executive Session
following this meeting to discuss.that and also a personnel matter.
•'
.ESTABLISHING THE PRIORITY'OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROJECT APPLICATIONS
The Council had determined that the Meadowdale Sewer Project would have the first priority of the
project applications. COUNCILMEMBER KASPER MOVED THAT THE LIBRARY ELEVATOR BE PRIORITY 2. MOTION
FAILED.FOR LACK OF A SECOND. COUNCILMEMBER ALLEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER GOULD, THAT THE
HANDICAPPED ACCESS FOR THE WADE JAMES THEATER BE PRIORITY 2. MOTION CARRIED. COUNCILMEMBER GOULD
MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ALLEN, THAT THE HANDICAPPED ACCESS - MUSEUM ELEVATOR BE PRIORITY 3.
MOTION CARRIED. COUNCILMEMBER GOULD MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ALLEN, THAT THE SENIOR CENTER
IMPROVEMENTS BE PRIORITY 4. MOTION CARRIED, WITH COUNCILMEMBER KASPER VOTING NO. COUNCILMEMBER
GOULD MOVED,.SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ALLEN, THAT THE HANDICAPPED ACCESS - LIBRARY ELEVATOR BE
PRIORITY 5. MOTION CARRIED.
Ms. Block recommended that the -in -lieu parking item on next week's agenda be changed to December 8
because the PAB will be considering it next week, and that was acceptable.
COUNCIL
Councilmember Goetz read a letter expressing appreciation to the Council and the professional staff,
and advising the citizens to keep caring.
COUNCILMEMBER ALLEN MOVED, SECONDED, BY COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST, THAT THE CITY ATTORNEY BE DIRECTED
TO DRAFT A RESOLUTION OF COMMENDATION FOR MARY GOETZ. MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Nordquist
expressed his personal appreciation to Councilmember Goetz for her service.
Councilmember Naughten asked about the request for $1,625 for the handicapped recreation program,
and he was told it had been agreed:to add it to the budget.
Councilmember Naughten had received a telephone call from someone who heard there was $190,000
excess money in the library budget and that one of the options was to use it to remodel the civic
5
November 17, 1981 - continued •
center, and also that a lot of wish lists were out on this.money. He said the two original ordinances
indebting the City should be examined to'see for what the money can be used. Councilmember Kasper
said the City Attorney had been asked for an opinion regarding renovating the building being vacated
_and that information should be available for the budget meeting.
Councilmember Jaech advised that she would not be present November 24, 1981. She asked that the
information be available for the budget meeting regarding the .ordinance changing fees.
Council President Allen noted that on the insurance claims report it appeared claims paid were
higher than those filed which she thought may be an error. She noted that the Finance Director had
made a recommendation regarding unemployment compensation, to continue using the reimbursable method
instead of the contributory tax method, in which the Mayor concurred.
Councilmember Allen advised that the.,Mayor had.appointed Gordon Hey to the M.A.A. position and that
the Council had interviewed Mr. Hey this evening. She asked if the Council was ready to take action.
The Council decided to recess to Executive Session, which they did at 10:45 p.m. They returned at
11:05 p.m. Mayor Harrison then.stated that he had appointed Gordon Hey to the M.A.A. position, and
he asked for Council confirmation. Council President Allen responded that the Council wished to
postpone confirmation until next Tuesday, at which time action will be taken. Councilmember Goetz
thanked the citizens who were involved in the selection process, and she noted that the Mayor has
the prerogative to accept or not accept.their recommendation. "
There was no further business to come,before the Council, and the meeting adjourned to Executive
Session at 11:10 P.M.
IRENE VARNEY MORAN,,C' y Clerk HARVEH. HARRISON, Mayor
November 24, 1981 - Work Meeting
The regular meeting.of the Edmonds City Council was called to order at 8:55 p.m. by Mayor Harve
Harrison, following a budget work meeting, in the Council Chambers of the Edmonds Civic Center.
All present joined in the flag salute.
PRESENT ABSENT STAFF PRESENT
Harve Harrison, Mayor
Katherine Allen
Bill.Kasper
Larry.Naughten
John Nordquist
CONSENT AGENDA
Ray Gould
Mary Goetz
Jo -Anne Jaech.
Jack Mitchell, Public Works Supt.
Jim 'Adams, City Engineer
Irene Varney Moran, City Clerk.
Marl o. Foster, Police `..Chief
Jack Weinz, Fire Chief
Mary Lou Block,.Planning Director
Jim Jessel, Parks & Recreation Director
Wayne Tanaka, City Attorney
Jackie Parrett, Deputy City Clerk
Items (B), (F), (G), and (K) were removed from the Consent Agenda. COUNCILM EMBER NORDQUIST
MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER KASPER,.TO APPROVE THE BALANCE OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION
CARRIED. The approved items on the Consent Agenda included.the following:
(A) Roll calla
(C) Report on bids opened November 17, 1981.on sale of surplus vehicles.
(D) Report on bids opened November.17, 1981 on purchase of T.V./Seal Unit and, High Pressure
Cleaner.
(E) Acceptance.of Quit Claim Deed -from William and Ann Wilson.
(H) Passage of Resolution.510, setting hearing date of December 15, 1981 on proposed
vacation of alley located.between 8th S. and "B" St., and between north side of Lot
4, Block 10, Yost's First Addition, and Elm St. (ST-7-81)
(I) Passage of Resolution 511, setting hearing date of December 15, 1981 on proposed
vacation of right-of-way along east side of 72nd Ave. W., north of 176th S.W. (ST-7-
80).
(J) Passage of Resolution 512, setting hearing date of December 15, 1981 on proposed
vacation of portion of.Spruce P1.1 and amendment of Official Street Map. (ST-10-81)
APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 17, 1981 [Item (B) on Consent Agenda]
1
Councilmember Naughten referred to a motion he had made on page 4 of the Minutes regarding R-7-
81 (Appeal of PAB recommendation'to deny_ rezone), and -said -he had been asked whether the words
n
U