19820803 City Council Minutes48
July 27, 1982 - continued
•
Allen urged going further with the project, saying that area is really depressed and a lot of
people are walking now. Mr. Adams said Mr. Beselin was coming in with his plans and it would have
to be determined what the curb line will be as to elevation or there will be a barrier from the
street to his property. THE MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Kasper said the Street Fund is limited
and he felt the curbs could be put in on the south side at the proper elevation but he thought they
should consider an LID on a matching basis, including the City, fora development between SR 104 and
the railroad tracks because that is fill property and they do not know when the northerly property
will be done. He felt an LID would solve the entire thing. Councilmember Gould said there is
$150,000 in the budget, and that they could regulate the amount of risk by determining how.far up
the hill they go --if they end up $10,000 short they chop it off a block. He had discussed the
project with the Public. ,Wor.ks--Depar.:tinent and he had looked at the street, and he felt it did have to
be done, so he thought it best to go forward with the project. Councilmember Hall agreed, saying
she also had .been to the Public Works Department and had looked at the street many times. Mr. Adams
noted that the original item on the agenda was to select a consultant, and he wanted.to address the
selection of a consultant to do the final design, after which he would be much better able to answer.
the questions of cost. COUNCILMEMBER HALL MOVED, SECONDED FOR DISCUSSION BY COUNCILMEMBER GOULD, TO
DESIGNATE $65,000 FOR THE RENOVATION OF DAYTON ST. FROM RAILROAD AVE TO SR 104. The question was
asked as to where the funds would come from, and she said from 110 and,112 Funds (which would be
spending next year's allocation of 110 money). Councilmember Gould thought everybody's hands would
be forced by fixing the street. Councilmember Kasper saidhe would vote against the motion because
he felt the costs were not established and he did not think the -street would be built on the money
being projected. Councilmember Jaech noted that not too long ago there was a presentation of a
sidewalk plan for the City and a number of hearings were held and people wanted to know why they had
to pay to put in their sidewalks. She said either way the City will generally tax everybody to put
in sidewalks .or else everybody would pay for sidewalks in their area. She said this $65,000 will
include $19,000 for sidewalks. A ROLL CALL VOTE WAS TAKEN ON THE MOTION, WITH COUNCILMEMBERS HALL
AND GOULD VOTING YES, AND WITH COUNCILMEMBERS KASPER, NORDQUIST, ALLEN, AND JAECH VOTING NO. MOTION
FAILED. COUNCILMEMBER KASPER THEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ALLEN, TO APPOINT THE CONSULTANT
RECOMMENDED BY THE CITY ENGINEER'(REID, MIDDLETON & ASSOCIATES), WITH THE BUDGET NOT TO EXCEED
$10,000. MOTION CARRIED. COUNCILMEMBER GOULD THEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER HALL, TO APPROVE
THE STREET PROJECT IN THE AMOUNT OF $46,000, TO PROCEED FROM RAILROAD AVE. TO SR 104, WITH FUNDS TO
COME FROM APPLICABLE STREET AND GAS TAX MONEY, WITH THE SIDEWALK ON THE NORTH TO BE PAID FOR BY THE
SAFEWAY PROPERTY OWNER AND ON THE OTHER SIDE BY BESELIN (HARBOR SQUARE). COUNCILMEMBER KASPER MOVED
TO AMEND THE MOTION, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ALLEN, THAT IF THE COST ESTIMATES ARE IN EXCESS OF
THAT AN LID WILL BE FORMED. A ROLL CALL VOTE WAS TAKEN ON THE MOTION TO AMEND, WITH COUNCILMEMBERS
KASPER, ALLEN, NORDQUIST, AND JAECH VOTING YES,.AND WITH COUNCILMEMBERS GOULD AND HALL VOTING NO.
MOTION TO.AMEND CARRIED. THE MAIN MOTION, AS AMENDED, THEN CARRIED.
COUNCILMEMBER ALLEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST, TO CONTINUE THE REMAINING ITEM,
"CONTINUED DISCUSSION ON REGULATION OF HELICOPTER LANDINGS IN CITY," TO AUGUST 3, 1982. MOTION
CARRIED.
COUNCIL
Councilmember Nordquist asked the City Engineer if he had a figure yet on the Highway 99 utility and
transportation study. Jim Reid of Reid, Middleton & Associatessaid he thought the figure was
$15,000. Mr. Adams said it could be completed within 45 days from the time it proceeds. Mr. Reid
and Mr. Adams will have written information for next week's meeting.
Councilmember Allen thanked Mr. Jessel for his memo regarding.the status of the Union Oil Beach
development.
Councilmember Jaech said the Council Contingency Fund was down to nothing, and that a recommendation
was made to transfer $41'
000 into it from the General Fund to eliminate the negative'figure and
provide some working capital. The City Attorney was instructed to draft the appropriate ordinance.
Councilmember Hall commended the City regarding the profuse flower beds which are so enhancing.
Many compliments have been received from visitors and Edmonds residents.
There was no further business to come before the Council, and the meeting adjourned to Executive..
Session at 10:10 p.m.
5 = A � __61- 4 _t �I d _� �
IRENE VARNEY MORAN, City Clerk
August 3, 1982
t
HARVE H. HARRISON, Mayor
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.
1
1
1
is
F__�
1
• August 3, 1982 - continued
PRESENT STAFF PRESENT
Harve Harrison, Mayor Jim Adams, City Engineer
Jo -Anne Jaech Mary Lou Block, Planning, Director
Katherine Allen Jeff Ristau, Accountant
Ray Gould Marlo Foster, Police Chief
Larry Naughten Jack Weinz, Fire Chief
Bill Kasper Steve Simpson, Parks & Recreation Director
Laura Hall Wayne Tanaka, City Attorney
John Nordquist Mark Eames, City Attorney
Jackie Parrett, Deputy City Clerk
Councilmember Allen arrived at 8:0.0p.m, and was not present for the vote on the Consent Agenda
items.
CONSENT AGENDA
Item (C) was removed from the Consent Agenda. COUNCILMEMBER NAUGHTEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
GOULD, TO APPROVE THE BALANCE OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED. The approved items on the
Consent Agenda included the following:
(A) Roll call.
(B). Approval of Minutes of July 27, 1982 with an addition provided by the Clerk at the request
of Councilmember Kasper, as follows: At the bottom of page 2, following the sentence
ending ". . because.they know the Council opens everything anew." the following should
be added: "Councilmember Kasper stated that one of the main problems he has observed in
• this City is the de novo aspect --the PAB goes through the whole procedure and then somebody
comes to the Council with a letter and the Council acts on it without the PAB or the Staff
having seen it. Mr. Phillips agreed and said he would like to see that changed."
(D) Authorization to advertise for proposals for tennis court construction.
(E) Acknowledgment of.Cl aim for Damages from Gary A. and Susan Herrmann in an unspecified
dollar amount.
(F) Approval of additional equipment needs in new City Council Chambers.
APPROVAL OF CONSULTANT SELECTION FOR HIGHWAY 99 UTILITY AND TRANSPORTATION STUDY
Item C on Consent Agenda
Councilmember Nordquist said he had been unable to find in the Reid -Middleton document the information
he [fad requested, an inventory of the character and quality of the streets and their construction.
City Engineer Jim Adams responded that such was in paragraph 4 of the proposed scope of services,
"Traffic Facilities." Councilmember Nordquist said if the word "capacity" therein is meant to
include "structural" then he would accept it. Mr. Adams said it was his intent, as well as that of
Mr. Reid, that paragraph 4..b. cover Councilmember Nordquist's question. COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST
THEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER KASPER, TO APPROVE ITEM (C) ON THE CONSENT AGENDA. Councilmember
Nordquist requested that paragraph 4.b. be revised to clarify the word "capacity." THE MOTION
CARRIED.
AUDIENCE
Earle S. Miller, 921 12th Ave. N. had submitted a letter.of protest regarding a.building permit
issued to Jim Cooch for construction of a home on Vista Pl., and Mr. Miller served as spokesman for
• several of his neighbors to discuss the protest. Mr. Cooch had been issued a building permit for a
home which will intrude into the Puget Sound view of Mr. Miller and his neighbors. There is.a 16'
height restriction in the plat in which Mr. Miller and his neighbors live, but none on the property
owned by Mr. Cooch, so he is permitted to build to 25'. Mr. Miller said 45% to 100% of his view
will be obscured by such construction,. depending upon the vantage point. He also alleged that Mr.
Cooch's lot is substandard because the square footage stated (12,227.5) includes a parcel over which
there has been a boundary dispute. In.addition, there is on the Cooch property an existing nonconforming
structure which Mr. Miller called a "shack" and which he thought should be required to be removed.
According to Mr. Miller, Mr. Cooch's plans include incorporation of that structure into the new
building by means of a breezeway. He said the existing structure is only 4' from his property and
P from another neighbbr's.property (Bob Burton). Mr. Miller felt the Code was being misinterpreted
regarding retention of a nonconforming structure. He asked that the building permit be withdrawn
and that a variance proceeding be required. He said attempts had been made to discuss this with Mr.
and Mrs. Cooch but they would not respond.
.Bob Burton, 911 12th Ave. N., said he had never before seen such a violation as this and that once
you build a residence that obstructs views it is there forever, and he appealed for protection of
.his interests, noting that views are very important when a value is put on a home even though nobody
owns the views.
Councilmember Gould stated that Mr. Clair Grube of 821 12th N. had called him to ask for help from
the Council in this matter. Councilmember Gould asked if there is a dispute as to lot size, and
Planning Director Mary Lou Block responded that there is a great deal of boundary dispute in this
area. She stated that the plan submitted shows a lot of adequate size. She said this is an existing
lot and if such a lot exists that is lacking the square footage for which it is zoned and the owner
has no adjacent property which can be used to make it of legal size, it is considered a legal lot
but all setbacks and lot coverage requirements must be met. Councilmember Gould asked if there is
an agreement in writing regarding the removal of the..existing building and Mr. Miller responded that
there is not, except for an agreement between Mr. Cooch and a neighbor to the north regarding view.
484
•
August 3, 1982 - continued
Ms. Block stated that the existing structure on the property was built many years ago before the
Code was established and it can exist.but the Code requires that any:new structure built on the site
must meet the Code requirements and the nonconforming parts can remain but cannot be expanded.
City Attorney Wayne Tanaka stated that the existing building is a. nonconforming structure --not a
nonconforming use as Mr. Miller had stated --and that 25% of the then assessed value per year can be
used for ordinary maintenance, and it does not have to be used to improve the structure to conform
with the Code. In any one year the owner cannot spend more than-.25% of the assessed valuation of
the building to improve or maintain it. He said the purpose of the Code is eventually to phase out
these nonconforming structures, but it does allow the nonconforming structures to be improved for
certain reasons. He said that while a nonconforming use may not be expanded in any way, this is a
nonconforming structure, and it has been the City Attorneys' interpretation of the Code consistently
that new construction can be built and added on to a nonconforming structure if the new structure is
in conformance with the Code. He said there are no architectural requirements because single-family
residences are exempt from ADB review. Also, if somebody sells a nonconforming lot to an innocent
purchaser, that person is allowed to build if it is a recognized building lot, but he would still
have to observe the setbacks, and -with a very small lot he could not build for that reason. Ms.
Block said the Building Inspector had gone to the site this date with Mr. Cooch and a surveyor to
see where the house would be located, and the design meets the Code height requirement of 25', and
if the old structure is included in the computation it is 6" less than 25'.
Ms. Block noted that there are many homes in Edmonds which do not meet Code requirements, but they
were built long before the existing Codes were enacted, and if those people were not able to add on
to them it would pose difficulty for many of them. Mr. Miller said again that they want very much
to have the buil.dingi°removed and the height of it was their concern. He said none of them would
disagree with a reasonable structure being built which would not obstruct their views. He was asked •
if he had ever tried to purchase the property, and he said he had made an offer five years ago but
the owner said she could get more from other parties.
Mr. Tanaka said nothing had come to his attention so far that would warrant a variance as the Code
was being met. Councilmember Jaech asked how this differed from the Magne Hagen case some time
back. —He explained that it had been a multi -family structure subject to ADB review, and he went
into the details of that, but said there is no ordinance that would give any City body the ability
to review this particular structure for compatibility with the neighborhood. He said the Code gives
people certain rights and Mr. Cooch had taken advantage of the Code and was building to the maximum.
He added that the Staff and he had gone over this very carefully.
Councilmember Kasper said he had looked at this situation this evening before coming to the meeting
and he could not say much at this point because he could not see how it could be resolved by the
City, and he has been in property development work for 37 years. He noted that he, himself, had
been a victim of height in losing the view for seven lots with construction of the gymnasium at the
Holy Rosary Church, and even though a whole year was spent revising the Code everything cannot be
caught until individual incidents occur.
Mr. Miller again asked fora temporary revocation of the building permit, saying the Cooch lot is
less than acceptable without the 10'x 99' piece of disputed property between his and the Baders'
property. Mr. Tanaka stated to the Council that if they intended taking some kind of action he
should first advise them in Executive Session. The Council therefore adjourned to Executive Session
at 8:45 p.m.
The meeting resumed at 8:55 p.m. Mayor Harrison stated that they had been advised by the City
Attorney that they were not in a position to withdraw the building permit or to require a variance
hearing, and the best they could do was to write a letter to the Coochs and ask them if they will
reconsider their present plan and alter it as a matter of decency for the neighborhood., In response
to a request from Mr. Miller, he said the letter will include a suggestion that the existing structure
•
be removed, but he said they are not in a position legally .to require it. Councilmember Naughten
said he'hoped:the letter would state that they ask the Coochs to work with the neighborhood to come
up with a design that will be compatible with the nei.ghborhood. COUNCILMEMBER NAUGHTEN THEN MOVED,
SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST, TO PLACE ON THE SEPTEMBER 7, 1982 AGENDA A DISCUSSION OF THE
CODE -AS IT RELATES TO VERTICAL ECOLOGY. Councilmember Hall said she would like that discussion also
to include the solar aspect. THE MOTION CARRIED.
HEARING ON PAB RECOMMENDATION RESTRICTING HEIGHT OF FREESTANDING SIGNS IN BC, BN, AND CW ZONES
Planning Director Mary Lou Block said the PAB had made this recommendation because of their concerns
about the pedestrian orientation of the downtown area. The PAB had brought up this subject and in
their initial discussion they thought perhaps freestanding signs should not be allowed at all in
these zones. They had a public hearing on May 26, 1982, following which they voted to make the
recommendation of a 5' height limit, subject to ADB review. She said the Code currently allows
signs to 14', subject to ADB review, and in some cases the ADB has recommended that the signs be
lower and in others it has allowed them to go higher than 14' when it appeared to be appropriate.
The PAB's recommendation was that the maximum be 5' instead of 14'. Councilmember Gould said he
does not read the Code that way, that he reads it that the applicant must prove there is no other
way before it is permitted. Ms`. Block said that was correct. Councilmember Hall could see no
difference, since it was subject to ADB review anyway. Mayor Harrison said 5' is the worst possible
height because it is a traffic viewing obstruction. Ms. Block agreed that it could be, but said all
signs are reviewed for location. She said the ADB has a difficult charge in this case because of
the language.of the Code which uses the word "discourage." Councilmember Allen said they had tried
to give the ADB the flexibility to allow it when it is really needed. She did not see that changing
the height was going to make much difference. Councilmember Jaech asked Ken Mattson, a PAB member
in the audience, if by lowering the sign height they were looking for a more definite parameter
within which to work and possibly lower visual pollution. He�responded that the whole question is
E
•
August 3, 1982 - continued
.very subjective, and his recollection of the meeting was that the ADB had a particular problem with
a new sign request which initiated this, and it was suggested to the PAD that they review sign
height. Fie agreed that the word "discourage" was the primary problem. He had served on the ADB
prior to his appointment to the PAB, and he said they had found a conflict in that they said they
were discouraging something"and then they approved it. He said it really is a case -by -case situation
and he suspected that when he was on the ADB freestanding signs were not being as discouraged as
the Code writers intended. Councilmember Allen said the questiontshould be "Is there another way to
present that sign --do you have to have that sign?" Mr. Mattson said the current Code says 14' and
it is assumed it can be brought down at the will of the ADB or it can go higher, whereas the proposal
says 5' unless otherwise raised by the ADB. He said the quick interpretation is 14' or lower and
the proposal is 5' or higher, so the 14' would have no meaning, but he said that was a subtlety the
way he saw it and he did not want to take the 1i:&>6ff,1-,:soj�he',had',!v6ted .against:ythe.,,proposaI. 'Council-
member.Gould suggested remanding this to the PAS and having them look at the policy statement and
see if they are in agreement with the policy. He said the policy should be established first and
then the right words selected to suit the policy. Councilmember Jaech recalled meeting with the A.DB
an& they had indicated they wanted more confined limitations than are spelled out in black and white
because part of the problem has been interpretation of the philosophies of Chapter 15 of the Code.
She said the ADB was having problems in trying to interpret philosophy into actual construction of
the building or site, and she thought part of this tonight centered around the same type of problem
and that they want better guidelines from the Council. Mayor Harrison opened the hearing to the
public,- no one wished to speak, and the hearing was closed. COUNCILMEMBER GOULD MOVED, SECONDED BY
COUNCILMEMBER KASPER, TO REFER THE QUESTION TO THE PAB AND HAVE THEM ADDRESS THE POLICY STATEMENT
THAT OCCURS IN 20.60.040 REGARDING FREESTANDING SIGNS. He suggested that the policy being submitted
to the PAB be: Freestanding signs will be approved in the BC, BN, and CW zones only if the applicant
can demonstrate to the ADB that no reasonable alternative exists to satisfy the identification of
the business; and the maximum height of freestanding signs will not exceed 5'. Mayor Harrison felt
•
there was a safety aspect to be considered there, and he said he would rather see a statement concerned
with what is in the interest of safety. Councilmember Gould said he was speaking to the issue of
giving solid guidelines, and -the guideline now says 14'. unless the ADB changes it, whereas the
proposal says 5' unless the ADB changes it, but neither of those states a limit, so he was suggesting
the limit be 5', and if the PAB does not like 5' they can say what they do like. Mayor Harrison
stated that the impetus of this was pedestrian traffic but there is no pedestrian traffic in the BN
zones, it is vehicular. Councilmember Kasper said he would vote in favor of the motion only to get
it back to the PAB, as he was against a height restriction of 5'. He said there is a necessity to
have the signs and if the PAB recommendation comes back along.those levels he probably will vote
against it. THE MOTION CARRIED.
DISCUSSION OF COUNCIL ACTION TO DISCOURAGE METRO FROM SELECTING HOLYROOD SITE FOR
NORTH BUS BASE -
Planning Director Mary Lou Block had provided a copy of the City's letter in response to the draft
EIS. She said the final document will be available August 19. Bob Boye again was present to -speak
on this subject. He said it was his understanding that there will be public hearings after the
selection of the METRO site. Councilmember Nordquist said he had talked to some of the METRO people
at a,Community Transit meeting and it was suggested to him that any further input from Edmonds be
sent to- everyone on the METRO Council. Councilmember Gould asked if anyone had suggested -putting
this facility on a site in conjunction with a school district bus facility. Mr. Boye responded that
they had made that suggestion at the first meeting with METRO. He said they listen but they do not
react, so one cannot tell what they think. Councilmember Gould suggested that each Councilmember
personally write anyone he or -she knows on the METRO Council and those letters could be attached to
the request from the City.' Councilmember Nordquist suggested the City send a letter and the personal
letters be written and sent -individually. Mr. Boye again asked that.the City's legal counsel become
involved. He said Edmonds will certainly become involved if this gets appealed in court and he
.thought it wise for the City Attorney to become familiar.with the proceedings as they are occurring,
•
working with'his group's attorney and also with Mr. Johnson from the City of Mountlake Terrace.
COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER GOULD, TO ASK THE MAYOR TO DRAFT A BRIEF
LETTER AS INDICATED BY THE CONVERSATION IN THIS MEETING, EXPRESSING THE CITY'S CONCERNS REGARDING
THE BUS SITE AND INCLUDING IN IT COPIES OF THE LETTER OF APRIL 6, 1982 TO RODNEY G. PROCTOR FROM
MARY LOU BLOCK AND A COPY OF RESOLUTION 522, PASSED APRIL 13, 1982, TO BE SENT TO ALL 19 PEOPLE ON
THE TRANSIT COMMITTEE. MOTION CARRIED. The Mayor said he would send it to all of the METRO Council.
COUNCILMEMBER GOULD THEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER HALL, THAT THE COUNCIL REAFFIRM ITS STRONG
INTEREST IN THIS MATTER AND"REQUEST THAT ITS REPRESENTATION THROUGH THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE BE
STRONG AND VIGILENT IN THIS MATTER. MOTION CARRIED.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION AS TO USE.OF NEWLY ACQUIRED FIELD LIGHTS AND POLES
(PUBLIC HEARING TO BE HELD AUGUST 17, 1982)
COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER HALL, TO ACCEPT THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION
AND TO HAVE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON AUGUST 17, 1982. MOTION CARRIED.
REAPPRAISAL OF LID 208 ASSESSMENT ROLL
City Engineer Jim Adams stated that when the assessment roll was confirmed there were some appeals,
and since that time both Sproule McGinness and Jay McGinness had contacted him about their assess-
ments, questioning why Lots 16-20 were included as part of the waterline assessment as they were not
a part of the McGinness subdivision. When the LID originally was formed the costs of the waterline
were to be borne by Sproule McGinness and Peggy and Carl Harris. Sproule McGinness owned Lots 6-21,
but his subdivision only included Lots 6-15. Lots 16-21 which already had been developed have since
been sold to his son, Jay McGinness. After discussing this with the City Attorney, Mr. Adams said
the following were the options available to the Council: (1) Reconfirm the roll by taking no action;
(2) Determine that Lots 16-20 should not have been included in the cost of the waterline and that
the City could pay that portion of the assessment;.or (3) Determine that Lots 16-20 should not have
been assessed for the waterline and reapportion that amount to the other properties benefited by the
• waterline (this option would require another hearing and subsequent delay in selling of the bonds,
IM
August 3, 1982 - continued •
thereby increasing the interest cost). He did not recommend Option 3. He said another option
discussed by the Mayor was that since there is a residence on Lot C of the Harris subdivision and
Mr. McGinness has one on the property not included in the subdivision, possibly the assessment could
be reduced on the lots by the same amount as those other residences in the neighborhood which did
not pay.
Councilmember Kasper said his motion last week was to reduce the assessment by 1/3 because both of
those people had a house on the street and he thought if the other people were going to be relieved
of the water these two residences (Harris and McGinness) should also be relieved, and since both
owned homes on the street he made that motion. He noted that not one word about this was mentioned
the night of the hearing and that Sproule McGinness was in the audience that night even if Jay
McGinness was not. Councilmember Gould said on new developments the City would not put any money
into the waterline, the developer does it. Mayor Harrison added that precedent also has been that
all abutting properties share in the improvements. COUNCILMEMBER NAUGHTEN MOVED THAT OPTION 2 BE
ACCEPTED BECAUSE HE FELT THESE PEOPLE HAD BEEN IMPACTED ENOUGH BY THE EXCESS COSTS. MOTION FAILED
FOR LACK OF A SECOND. COUNCILMEMBER JAECH THEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ALLEN, THAT NO,,
ACTION BE TAKEN. MOTION CARRIED, WITH COUNCILMEMBER NAUGHTEN VOTING NO. Councilmember kasper felt
this problem was something that should have been worked out between the McGinness parties. Jay
McGinness asked for the reasoning behind the motion, saying he is not hooked up to the water and
that he did not see the fire hydrant as an argument. He did not understand why he should have to
pay for the waterline since the people on the other side of the.street did not pay for it. Mayor
Harrison explained to him that both the McGinness homesite and the Harris homesite were given relief
by the motion previously made by Councilmember Kasper to reduce the assessment by 1/3, and at the
time of the original LID the Jay McGinness property was part of the, Sproule McGinness property.
Therefore, when Jay.McGinness purchased the property it was between him and the seller, who happened
to be his father.. Councilmember Kasper also advised Jay McGinness that this was an internal matter
between him and his father, and further that he would not have made his proposal of the $7,000 •
reduction if he had the information in Jay McGinness' letter at the time. Mr. McGinness said he had'
submitted the letter prior to the hearing and it should have been read. (The letter had been
received that evening and was acknowledged as a letter of opposition but the details were not read
aloud.) Councilmember Gould adivsed Mr. McGinness that he had heard him and read his letter, but he
did not agree with him. He was not willing to adopt Option 3 and said he thought the action taken
this evening was the proper one:
Peggy Harris said she had felt from the beginning that this was most unfair. She said Mr. McGinness
started the whole thing, asking them if they wanted to apply for an LID, but she and her husband did
not know they would have to put in a new waterline, and all they needed was a road as far as she
could see. She felt they had saved the City a great deal of money by putting it in at this time.
She said they are paying double because they are paying for the water main and also higher water
bills. She thought it most unfair, if not illegal, and said all they wanted to do was sell two I
lots.
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO BUSINESS LICENSE ORDINANCE
City Attorney Mark Eames said the two amendments proposed were written to set forth better the
business license ordinance. The first one makes specific reference to apartments with three units
or more. He said the purpose of the license is to take control of the businesses in the City to be
surefire codes, etc., are met. The'line was drawn at three or more units because that is where the
fire code requires inspections of apartment units. The second amendment was to add a section which
the City Clerk -had indicated used to be in the Code and which states that upon the sale or transfer
of a business the license ceases to exist and a new license must be applied for by the new owner.
Councilmember Nordquist said the purpose of requiring apartments to be licensed was to assure that
the Fire Department inspects, but he has a business in his home and he had received a letter from
the Fire Department saying they were unable to inspect and asking him to report the condition.
After a brief discussion, COUNCILMEMBER ALLEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NAUGHTEN, TO ADOPT •
ORDINANCE 2315, AMENDING THE BUSINESS LICENSE ORDINANCE AS STATED. MOTION CARRIED, WITH COUNCILMEMBER
NORDQUIST VOTING NO.
CONTINUED DISCUSSION ON REGULATION OF HELICOPTER LANDINGS IN CITY
Councilmember Jaech said she originally had brought this up because she was concerned for the safety
of people. She noted that two recent aircraft accident incidents were illustrations of her con-
cerns, -and she felt the Council should look at the Code and try to establish parameters which are
realistic. The City Attorney had provided information from other cities as to selection of a
heliport site and also a model ordinance regulating the use of helicopters in a city. Councilmember
Jaech suggested establishing a permit for one-time use by helicopters or hot air balloons, the
permit having to be approved by both the Fire Department and the Police Department. She said she
would like a recommendation from the PAB, and also would like them to examine the documentation
received from the City Attorney concerning permanent heliports. Some of the things she thought
should be considered were noise, power lines, size of helicopter blades, nature of surrounding area
(residential or commercial), accessibility of aid equipment, safety of people, and the items the
City Attorney had submitted. Councilmember Gould noted that the model helicopter ordinance dis-
cusses a permit system and Appendix II of the discussion paper indicates that over -water heliport
sites have an advantage, so that may be appropos to Edmonds. Councilmember Nordquist noted that
helicopter pads and approaches were something they had wanted considered in the Highway 99 Study
because of -the hospital. COUNCILMEMBER JAECH MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST, TO REFER
THIS MATTER TO THE PAB FOR THEIR RECOMMENDATION. A ROLL CALL VOTE WAS TAKEN ON THE MOTION, WITH
COUNCILMEMBERS JAECH, NORDQUIST, GOULD, AND HALL VOTING YES, AND WITH COUNCILMEMBERS ALLEN, NAUGHTEN,
AND KASPER VOTING NO. MOTION CARRIED.
• August 3, 1982 - continued
COUNCIL
Councilmember Nordquist referred to an article in last Wednesday's Seattle Times about a park for
the blind being developed in Bothell, and he suggested that the Parks and Recreation Director invite
the Bothell officials to visit Sierra Park in Edmonds. Councilmember Nordquist said that after the
Council met with the PAB last week he had received some feedback and found the PAB was disappointed
in the environment of the meeting. They had anticipated an around -the -table work meeting and were
uncomfortable with the way the meeting was held. THEREFORE, COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED
BY COUNCILMEMBER JAECH, TO HAVE ANOTHER MEETING WITH THE PAB, IN WORKSHOP FORMAT, ON SEPTEMBER 28,
1982, AND THAT THE AGENDA BE CLOSED TO OTHER ITEMS. Councilmember Naughten said he hoped there
would be some structure to the meeting. MOTION CARRIED. COUNCILMEMBER NAUGHTEN MOVED, SECONDED BY
COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST, ON AUGUST 24, 1982 TO ESTABLISH SOME GOALS AND PARAMETERS FOR THE MEETING
WITH THE PAB SO THE PAB KNOWS WHAT THE COUNCIL IS TRYING TO DO. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Nordquist said he had been asked how he felt about Katie Allen who is running for the
legislature and he could not say in print but he would say in public that in the years he has worked
with her she is not always right --and she is more times wrong --but he wants the record to show when
she does her work she does it well, and she has been an attribute to the Council and did an excellent
job as Council President. He said he has enjoyed working with her and she has done a good job.
Councilmember Hall said Jerry Ward had called her to report that the Arts Commission was not satisfied
with the model of the sculpture for the library, so they will pursue another artist and it may be
June before there is an art piece in place. Councilmember Kasper said he had always felt that the
building should be there first.
Councilmember Gould requested a Public Works/Engineering meeting prior to the City Council meeting
• of August 17, 1982 (which t-,fill include-Councilmembers Kasper and Gould and the appropriate Staff).
.Councilmember Naughten advised that he will be absent August 10, 1982. Councilmember Kasper also
will be absent from that meeting.
Mayor Harrison noted that he had proposed establishment of a new position, Property Manager, at an
E-7 classification, to be placed in the Finance Department. He said the City has gradually built a
larger and larger plant to the point that it is urgent" that there be a Property Manager. At the
same time, he intended abolishing the position of Recreation Administrator in the Parks and Recreation
Department, so there will be no increase in Staff. COUNCILMEMBER ALLEN MOVED,.SECONDED BY COUNCIL -
MEMBER KASPER, TO APPROVE THE MAYOR'S RECOMMENDATION. Councilmember Gould asked why it was to be
placed under the Finance Director, and Mayor Harrison said he thought the Finance Department was the
most appropriate, although the person will be working throughout the City, Some concerns were
expressed about the placement -of this position in the Finance Department, but it was agreed to try
it. THE MOTION CARRIED.
Regarding the retreat, Councilmember Kasper asked for Staff input on the agenda. He said it had
been recommended that the PAB come to the breakfast on Saturday and for an hour thereafter because
long-range planning will be discussed. In view of the September 28 meeting scheduled this evening.
with the PAB, it was thought it not necessary that they attend a portion of the retreat. The agenda
of the retreat was discussed, and Councilmember Kasper said he must know in advance of those who
intend staying overnight.
Councilmember Kasper said the Council is getting the PAB minutes too late, and he had only read the
minutes last Friday which he should have seen before the meeting with the PAB.
There was no further business to come before the Council, and the meeting adjourned at 10:55 p.m.
•
v
7/PV
IRENE VARNEY MORAN, Cit Clerk
HARVE H. HARRISON, Mayor
August 10, 1982 - Work Meeting
The regular meeting of the Edmonds City Council
was called to order at 7:40 p.m., following a dinner
meeting, 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 Bill Kasper
Jim Adams, City.Engineer
Katherine Allen Larry Naughten
Irene Varney Moran, City Clerk
Laura Hall
Mary Lou -Block, Planning Director
Ray Gould
Art Housler, Finance Director
John Nordquist
Marlo Foster, Police Chief
Jo -Anne Jaech
Jack Weinz, Fire Chief
Bobby Mills, Street Division Supvr.
Steve Simpson, Parks & Recr. Dir.
Wayne Tanaka, City Attorney
Marl; Eames, City Attorney
Jackie Parrett, Deputy City Clerk
Mayor Harrison announced the particulars of funeral
services for former ""ayor John Enbom, of Mountlake
Terrace. Councilmember Nordquist requested that
the.Mayor extend the Council's personal condolences
•
to his widow and express thanks for John Enbom's
many community services. .