Loading...
19821101 City Council Minutes44 October 26, 1982 - continued • Council should plan to recess upon their arrival He then declared a short recess. During the recess the negotiators arrived, and Council President Kasper announced at 9:40 p.m. that the Council was recessing to Executive Session. At 10:40 p.m. City Attorney Wayne Tanaka advised the Staff that the Mayor had dismissed them inasmuch as the Executive Session was still in session and it was unknown how much longer it would be. a IRENE VARNEY MORAN, y Clerk HARVE H.-HARRISON, Mayor ,November 1, 1982 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 STAFF PRESENT Harve Harrison, Mayor Jim Adams, City Engineer Jo -Anne Jaech Irene Varney Moran, City Clerk Ray Gould Mary Lou Block, Planning Director Sill Kasper Marlo Foster, Police Chief . Katherine Allen Jack Weinz, Fire Chief Larry Naughten Wayne Tanaka City Attorney John Nordquist Mark Eames, City Attorney Laura Hall Jackie Parrett, Deputy City Clerk Tambi Shaw, Student Representative CONSENT AGENDA Items (E), (F), (G), (H), and (J) were removed from the Consent Agenda. COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST HOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER HALL, 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 October 26, 1982. F. (C) Acknowledgment of receipt of Claim for Damages from Mrs. Richard C. Hoy in the amount of $2,807.64. (D) Acceptance of'Quit Claim Deed from the estate of Gladys P. Burton. (I) Passage of Resolutions 535 and 536, setting dates for hearings on proposed street vacations (Caspers St. between 2nd Ave. N. and Burlington Northern Railroad right -of -way --hearing date December 7, 1982; and Olympic View Dr. between Euclid Ave. and vacated Lake Ave. -- hearing date November 16, 1982, respectively). REPORT ON BIDS.OPENED OCTOBER 279 1982 FOR LIGHT SHIELDS AT PLAYFIELD Item E on Consent Agenda • Councilmember Gould asked the source of the money to be used for this, and City Engineer Jim Adams responded that it is the In -Lieu Park Fund. Councilmember Jaech asked the difference in cost of anodized aluminum (Alternate Bid) as opposed to regular aluminum (Base Bid), as the Parks and Recreation Department.had selected the alternate bid item. She was told by Councilmember Gould that the anodized aluminum will not corrode so that money was well spent. COUNCILMEMBER GOULD MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JAECH, TO APPROVE ITEM (E) ON THE CONSENT AGENDA, AWARDING THE BI.D TO OKERBERG PRODUCTS.IN THE AMOUNT OF $4,778.01, PLUS SALES TAX, FUNDS TO COME FROM THE IN -LIEU PARK FUND. MOTION CARRIED. REPORT ON BIDS OPENED OCTOBER 28, 1982 FOR'1982 STREET RESTORATION PROGRAM Item F on'Consent Agenda Councilmember Gould asked what the engineer's estimate had.been on this project, and City Engineer Jim Adams responded that the original was $15,000-$20,000 and the low bi.d was $19,160 with no sales tax. COUNCILMEMBER GOULD MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER HALL, TO APPROVE ITEM (F). ON THE CONSENT AGENDA., AWARDING THE BID TO THE LOW BIDDER, ASSOCIATED SAND AND.GRAVEL IN THE AMOUNT.OF $19,160. MOTION CARRIED. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN:ENGINEERING CONSULTANT AGREEMENT.FOR.MEADOWDALE SEWER PROJECT Item G on' Consent Agenda Councilmember Gould referred to paragraph C.3. of the agreement entitled ;'Compensation" and asked if the $.5,000 figure in that paragraph.was a grand total or if that was for each of the items. City Engineer Jim Adams responded that Cfty�Atto.rney Wayne Tanaka had some.comments on several items in the agreement, this'being one of them, and that he would be recommending some revisions. Mr. Adams recommended that this be placed on the November 9, 1982 agenda by which time the City Attorney's input will have been received and a revised agreement will be submitted to the Council. COUNCIL - MEMBER JAECH.MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER GOULD, TO PLACE THIS ITEM ON NEXT WEEK'S AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED. • 45 • November 1, 1982 - continued AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR, TO SIGN ADDENDUM TO PUD JOINT UNDERGROUND PROJECT AGREEMENT [Item H') on Consent Agendai �+ Councilmember Naughten asked why the engineer's estimate was so far off on this project. City Engineer Jim Adams responded that PUD ran into some unforeseen underground problems and the project took longer than expected. The PUD engineer's estimate was $139,071 and the City's agreement with PUD %.,ias to pair one --half the actual cost of the project, but not to exceed. $70,561.99. Based on the PUD estimate $69,535.50 was obligated and in December 1980 Edmonds was billed $34,767.75 by the PUD, which was paid. The final costs of the project now are $197,056.39 plus overhead of $11,823.38, for a total Of $10-98,879.77, which is an overrun of $69,808.77. After considerable discussion and negotiation, PUD has agreed to pa. .one-half the total cost, with the total cost to the City of $104,439.88. Since the Port, benefited from this improvement it has agreed to assist with the City's share in the amount of $20,000, and. the Cite has received that check. Mr. Adams said the funds are available to settle the account (in the undernrOundina fund there is $76,538.14, including the _ $20,000 from the Port), but the balance due is,.$49,67?.13. The City will have to pay approximately $16,000 more than originally projected. (During this discussion Councilmember Allen arrived, at 7:45 p.m.) Planning Director Mary Lou Block stated that the City knew the project was getting dcl e.-cd and :hat ?UD �;,#af .s lavi nc ri ght-of-wav aco7iui si tl on problems, but PUD did not ad v i se the City Of th^ arnciun t of the overage urrt it Mr. Adams obtained the in.formetion from them. She said one of their p..roblei was t;,at they- used subconl.ractors for much of their work so they were unable to advise the Pitll until t"^ subcoir'-,ractors were finished. Counci lmembEr Nau hten observed that this should be n. pt in mina for a^y future Join: projects. Councilmember Gould state.d that the City sinned the contract and it has a rasaonsibility to Day it, but in; the future tighter contracts should he ►dritte i whichsh^��� a reporting system o that "e r,ty kno�,,,s what is ha.pening. Manor Harrison ob-'ne vc" that PUD UD a i ,o was di SSlfi ed an.d.. th.-v d i . agree to i crea_, . It:he , r ...m u„ of pay, ment. CO11NCILMFf•,1"Ef P:',^-.IVITEN M(1���D, `'FCOPinFP "Y C�,!RCILMFP1BEp a01lLD, Tr AP°p�UF THE I"!C°FA.SED • AMOUNT OF T-iE CITY' S 02i_Tr..nTION. P�'?TI0"� CARRIED. PF;OPOSEr O^,Dlfi":NCF; �.(".F"DING CITi' CODE. 5.4F.0'r r (DR!_�NK DRIV'NG PENALTIES) AND 5.17.0.'_n ".PdD 5.17.023 (PETTY THEFT AA�;D r, RESP'_"CTI�IF_LY) [It-em (�:) on Consent Aaendal Councilmember Nordquist said he thought when there are code changes of ':his nature they should be explained to the public. Police Chief Marlo Foster explained that a recent court decision determined that a susperided sentence, can be no longer than. the santence itself. The ma.ximuri sentence for driving wi-A i e intoxicated UEIr;.er S t.wte statute is 180 .days any it is only 20 days under the Edmonds City Code. By exter�idi ng the ren l t,. to t"a: amount under State statue: the court has UNi ce as long to mbr;ito Vie violator. In the seccnd ordinance relating to theft, Chief Foster said there are two degrees of m i sJeE7r:anors, one 1..:s_, t',an $50 and one Etove-_ . First Degree Theft and Second Degree Theft under State statute are felonies and not within the jurisdiction Of Our court. T"e proposal was to change the termino og,v In the Edmonds City Code to Petty Theft % and Theft G. COLINC11- MEMB`=F NGRDQUISS MOVED, SC(;NDED BY COUNCILFIEMBEP. !•,",rPER, TO ADOPT 0RDINA.1,CrE 2325 AM!ENDINf�: THE CITY CODE RELAT I'lG TO DR.Uiva,,. CI;IVING PENPL T I S li TO ADOPT ORDINANCE 2.326 i'•.MENDIN T.'F CITY C0!:-E CH"ANG,IiTL FIRST DEPREE THEFT TO Pr T TY "� HEF i t AND S`=:COiID DEG..EE T HEFT TO PETTI V THEFT B. , TPERE^Y APP^.OVING ITEh' (J) ON THE CON',SENT AGEN. + [%UTICN CARRIED. MEETING WITH PETITIONERS FOR PROPOSED ANNEXATION OF DENNY'S AND ARBY'S, AT 244TH X`D I-i Y tirIWA:Y 99 P1 ann-i ng Di rect:or Mary Lou. Block i � ent-i fi ed the propose(. -Al annexation area on a -vicinity ma . he noted that the utilities in this area are complete. She recommended acceptance wi•i.? simu taned,us zoning being established and that the area assume the indebtedness of the City of Edmonds. Skip Allen, Manager of Denny's, representeCt the ;petitioners and said he was in ayreen�ent with the, require- ments. No one Else wis},eil vo spiWak. COUNCILV[:VF1--R Nitt�!GF'T'=N [MOVE^, SECONriED BY COUNCILPEl"l,"ER -!ALL, TO ACCEPT THE PROPOSED ANn,EAUI�'•[r, T"AT AI_L PROPERTY WITIiI�; THE TE:Rf ITOr.Y fiEREFi' SOuGliT TO BE • ANN11EXED SH`1L.L it PiS':C.SSED AND TAXIED AT Th[: Si'l[4E RATE ,AND 01,' THE SAi%E RA SIS r.S i RVERTY N"THIN, Trig CITY OF EDV]VIDS FOIR ANY NON OU T ST,i,Nr31NG INDEBTEDNESS OF SAID CITY., ::FiCLUDING ASSESSMENTS OF TtiXES IN PAYMENT OF ANY BONDS ISSUED OR'DEBTS CONTRACTED, PRIOR TO.OR rEXISTING AT ThE GATE. OF ANNEXATION, P,.Nr) THAT SIMULTANEOUS ADOPTION OF PROPOSED ZONING REGULATIONS BE REQUIRED. MOTION CARRIED. HEARING (CONTINUED) CP: PREL IV, NriRY tiCSESC[%ENT ROI_I_ LID 211 -• PRIFTL:'00D FL. City Engineer Jin: Adlar:,s read aloud, ,a let -ter just gave;n -to Ilia, from Bruce R. Wr-Thoi, onto -of the property owners in i-he proposed Lira area. The lettE!r stated i;hat [%,r, ly'arhdji 7=ovortd the proiect are. that I t r;as ton brill the project: could not I,a.ve I:cen reso i vedi when Hir. Rowe coffered i:o hay for i t entirely by hirselr. Mr. Adams.then explained. the zone termini method of assessment and displayed a drawing shot i ng application of that method cr assessn-ent. to the subjec': proposa i . The hearing 'then was.opened. Cra i g Wentz, 600 1 OF-th N. E. , Be'; levtie ., attorney for the Rowe fa.mi ly, surnmarized the acti on pre- ceding.t[is proposal. Fie noted that in 1974 in sul.division file S-22-74 (Taylor) a concern was expressed by the star-' regarding &ccess to this area and when Mir. Taylor did his subdivision the Engineering Department prepared a street design and Mr. Taylor was asked to dedicate a 16' strip fcr future use when this access would be needed. He said the staff proposed a street amendmen' in the configuration as shown in the proposed LID drawing. Then, he said, on March 10, 1982 the Official Street Map was amended to show this. He noted that thE!re were two proposals as to how this street could be designed, and Alternate g was recommended Ly. the Keari ng, Examiner, to which Mr. Rowe has agreed, and that proposa', shows a ha!,me.rheae.. at the end of i:he road.. He urged formation of the LID and said he bel i evEA there v;sre dnfi ni.te public benefits and that the issue is public welfare or public convenience. He said there are a lot: of 1" or 2" "spaghetti" via.ter lines in this area and they will put in an 8" line as as i mlater hycrant on the western Lorder of the Warhol property, and the hamn•erhead will focilitate emergency vehicle service. klln stated that the petitioners comprise approximately 60% of fror,tace and of .the cross area.'of- the LID. He noted that there was 'a question about the amount of the assessment that Mr. Propst and Mr. Underhill should pay, but he said they can make known their feelings at the final assessment roll hearing. Mr. Adams stated that M November,1, 1952 - continued • even though this street is on the Official Street Map as a proposed street, the proposed road actually is made up of two separate easements. He said there are two 16' private roads going there side by side, but it appears that the Warhol property has no'legal access and is landlocked. He noted that the part of the proposed road going through the Rowe plat will be dedicated to the City, but the others are not. Melvyn Critchley, 705 Driftwood Lane, said this LID came about after Mr. Rowe decided to subdivide, and for years previously they had .proposed to have that road paved but it was rejected by Mr. Rowe because he wanted to retain a country -like quality there. Mr. Critchley thought this whole thing was being done so Mr. Rowe could develop his property and bring it up to code, and he did not see why the neighbors should have to pay for it. He said they are willing to pay to pave the road which they always wanted to do, but that was all. He said the road currently is gravel and since 1968 it has been graded and graveled three times. He stated that the turnaround was included in the design at his suggestion. Also, that both his neighbor and he have enough paving on their properties for fire trucks to get in to serve them and that the only reason the existing fire water hydrant was not satisfactory was because of the development. "Dutch" Propst, 809 Driftwood Lane, said he had bought his property in 1950 and had built his house in 1956, and that he will lose his view and the south 9'- 10' on Driftwood Lane when this LID goes in. He said he had talked to Mr. Rowe a year ago and had given him estimates of what his view was worth, and at that time it was $38,000-$42,000. He said his land will be condemned for the road and that he will be included in the LID but he will -not benefit from it. He stated that he does not use the road and the existing hydrant is less than 60' from his property; further, that he has a 2 112" water line from 9th which is adequate for his property. He added that when the City put in sewers F1r. Taylor gave a large piece of his property, and Leif Larson, the Public Works Director at that time, was going to pave that for them in return but when the trucks were there the Rowes would not allow it. He said he was willing to negotiate and that his charge is approximately $5,000 even • though he will not benefit at all. Also; he said he had tried to talk to the Rowes and had his son- in-law try to work out something with them. He said he was interested in protecting his view which he knew to be valuable, and that he will be losing 9', back to his carport. He thought the entire matter could be worked out without the City's being involved and that it could be done more reasonably privately than through the City. Julie Rowe, 711 Driftwood Lane, represented her father and herself, saying she is directly involved. She said all of this has been heard over the last two years and her father had done nothing legally or ethically wrong. She said if she bought a lot and there was a vacant lot next to it she would try to buy it or understand it would be developed sometime. She stated that the road now is narrow and bumpy and that she is the only person who works on it to keep it up, and fire trucks would have a hard time getting in --the garbage truck cannot turn around and has to back out. She also noted that there is a clean -out station between the Warhol and Taylor property which occasionally has to be serviced. She said there will not be any increased traffic as it is a deadend road and there is no public beach. She noted that Mr. Okinsella was not present because he was on a business trip but that he sees the necessity of this. She stated that something eventually would have to be done and now was the time to do it. She thanked the Planning and Engineering personnel for their help over the past two years. Frank Underhill, 801 Driftwood Lane, was opposed to the LID because he wants to keep that a private sector and not a public road. He said he could not understand why they have to pay for the road when Mr. Rowe will be gaining from it, and that Mr. Rowe wants the fire hydrant because it will benefit his property. Mike Hanchett, 8510 231st S.W., the son-in-law of Mr. Propst,.said he would represent Mr. Taylor. He provided a petition of those property owners opposing the LID.and a letter from Mr. Taylor which he read. Mr. Taylor's letter outlined the history of his own lot and his relationship with the City regarding his property, concluding that Mr. Rowe has the right to develop his property but that it • was unfair to expect him to participate in the expenses to pay to pave his own road, which paving he thought the City already owed him. William Williams, Kenmore, representing the objecting property owners, stated that there were four principal points involved in.the.objection: (1) That the.property of four owners (Underhill, Propst, Taylor, and Critchley) will not be benefited; (2) That the project was initiated by and was for the primary benefit of a single developer; (3) That the opponents only seek to protect the values of their properties and approval of the plan will depreciate the values of some; and (4) That a private plan designed to allow the developer,-his�profit.,while.protecting the value of,adjoin ng properties had been rejected by the developer. He went on to discuss the consequences of the plan which he said were cost and inequity. His statements were provided in outline form to become a part of the record. He discussed negotiation and Councilmember Naughten asked him why the opponents would want to negotiate and what were the negotiable items. He responded that litigation is ex- pensive and uncertain, and the objecting parties do not want to be assessed -and they ask for reason- able control of the height of the building to protect their views. He said it would take some work to determine what type of plan would be workable and feasible but it could be done. Mr. Adams stated that it would make no difference in the type of improvements required if it were done privately as the code states the requirements. Mr. Wentz asked to be granted a short rebuttal. He said those in opposition have overlooked that two strips are already subject to.easements for right-of-way. He noted that there had been an inference that there was refusal -to negotiate, but he said Mr. Rowe tried to get an easement from Mr. Propst and Mr. Propst wanted $50,000 for the easement: Mr. Propst interjected that another of his sons-in-law had said the value of the view was $50,000 and there was no negotiation at that time, and when he tried to talk to Mr..Rowe about it Mrs. Rowe had become upset so he did not talk to Mr. Rowe.: Mr. Wentz said.the issue was that there was a good faith attempt to work with the neighborhood and because of the perception of ",,r. Propst that there was that kind of value to his property it made further negotiations impossible. He noted that Mr. Williams had inferred that the • November 1, 1982 - continued 47 City may have to pick up the costs if it is found there are no benefits to the opponents and also that Mr. Williams had said there was nothing in writing from Mr. Okinsella but he is one of the petitioners. He described what the legal procedure would-be to establish the benefits and he said the zone termini method of -.assessment takes into account all of the competing equities, and that prospective advantages are taken into account, not just immediate. He stated again that in 1964 the City asked for right-of-viay for access because it felt a public access was needed there. He said they had essentially been threatened by Mr. Williams and they could not take that seriously. The hearing then wa.s closed. Councilmember Gould said two excellent attorneys had presented their viewpoints and the two issues were the right to develop ,your property and the right to have access to your property because of benefit from an LiD. He could not support the preliminary assessment roll as presented for the following reasons: There is a -question as to whether or not Mr. Warhol has legal access to his property; Mr. Critchley already -has water; Mr. Propst ha.s water and a fire hydrant; Mr. Taylor is served from Mr. Propst's vlater line; Mr. Underhill is close to the hydrant; and there is still a way Mr. Rowe can develop his property. in answer to some questions of the Council, -Cite Attorney Wayne Tanaka said Mr. Rowe cannot subdivide his property under current City codes because he cannot: provide access as required by the code --he only has a 16' access. And as far as the issue of benefits, he said that was a proper consideration for them to take into account, that they may delete properties that they feel do not benefit at all anc then the property owners within the new L'I°D would have a chance to determine whether or not they would protest that:.out, and if they deleted all four properties whose they owners are complaining then Mr. Rowe and the two others would have to determine whether - are willing to go forward and,pay the cost themselves. He said the real issue of benefits is more properly left to the final ;Assessment roll when they are dealinC with whether or not a specific piece of :property is benefit:2td. He said placing the proposed right -.of way on the Official Street Map was not a r-quirement.tut they recommend it in order to determine whether the Council feels . there should be a road before the proponent goes through the process of an LID. in this case that step was done, but that only put the street on the Official Street Map. It was noted that. Driftwood Lane on the south side of the Propst property appeared to be narrow,.and Mr. Adams said the right of -way is only 16', that Driftwood Lane is very substandard. He said they probably should amend the Official Street Map and rrake it wider but there had been no requests for it. Fire Chief Jack Weisz commented that it is v-2ry difficult to make a turn there with fire equipment. It was asked why the zone termini method of assessmient was chosen for this, and Mr. Tanaka responded that there is no question as to its legality, but he said other methods of assessment are acceptable. Mr. Propst was asked if at the time he brought Jown the water line he had made any consideration of running it more to the west and perhaps joining with some of. the other property owners, and Mr. Propst responded that he hooked! onto Donald. Pa.trick's to the east and Mr. Rowe used to have a pipe going through his (Propst's) property. Councilmember Naughten said no one questions the fact that Mr. t ow,2 has the right to develop his property, tiut there are various levels of benefit of this development. He said Mr. Rowe is going to get more benefit than Mr. Propst who mill be impacted. He did not think they all shared equally in the benefit so he was troubled with using the zone termini method of assessment. Also, he wanted to see some negotiation 'between the parties. He said if the LID goes forward he thought another method of assessment should be used. Councilmember Nordquist agreed and also suggested some negotiation between fir. 'Wentz and the property o�atners, saying he thought there was an open door. 'sir. Wentz said .he sensed the problem they were dealing with, and he noted that he had been ca+l l ed in very late, and he thought this was a question of allocating `ienefits. He hai been involved in a "special benefit" approach in other instances which he thought may be a�!ropriatc 'sere, wherein an appraiser is hired and the district defined and the appraiser states what the bennefiis are. Mir. Tanaka noted that the City would be absorbing the costs if the parties protested out what the appraiser came up with, and Councilmember Gould said they would rather -the parties work -it out and then a decision he made. Counci lmctmber Hall said the percentage of benefit had not teen proven -to her, and she thought this would bring a drastic change to the area. COUNCILMEMDER 11ALL irOVED, SECON-DED F.�R DISCUSSION 3Y CCUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST, TO CONTINUE THIS ITEM TO DECE.M3ER 7, 1332. Councilmember Nord uist clarified that the intent was that the the if do parties will solve, i)ro'l e!n and they not then the Council will come up with some solution. Councilmember Naughtten did riot want to wait until December 7, gut tat. date 1,k!as satisfactory to Julie Rowe so he accepted it. The parties are to seek a. method of apportioning the costs. Mr. Williams stated that he was retained for the purpose of trying to resolve this problem, and Mr. Propst recognized that he had been emotional about the issue. Councilmember Gould favored the motion because it gave the pecple a chance to solve the problem.thfamselves, but he said if they do not do so, then the Council will. THE MOTION CARRIED. A recess was announced. HEARING ON PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLL - LID 209 - CYRUS PL. (REiyEARING) City Engineer Jinn Adams said this -item was being reheard Lecause the bids had come in considerably higher than estimated. Only two involved, hillisons `^r. parties were the and the Mausers. Adams said the consultant had underestimated -tre quantities of materials that had to be moved and also the size of the pipe that had to be used was substanF:ially larger. The original estimation for the road and the drainage was $20,000 and the tow bid was "36,922.50. Six properties will benefit when the area is subdivided. One house has been built there in the last three years and there was no water so a well was drilled but it went dry during the past year. The $36,922.50 hid was for -the road and culvert, and the total cost of the LID is $65,985. 'The Bearing was opened. Gaylord Riach, att. ornat for 111aureen ;hint Wil1ison, re�r'sewed what had previously occurred regarding the development of this area Mrs. Alillison and said will gave to bear approximately 70% of the assessment on the zone termini basis when all six of the lots need access. fie said she has paid out money for right-of-way and has given right-of-way, ay, and she has given more than half of the road and is paying more than tvio-thirds of %1;1e assessment, but he will bring --his up at the end of the LID to say all parties should be charged equally. lie said there is a 250' road and $46,200 is her assess-- ment. No on^ else wished to speak, and the hearing, was .closed.. COUNCIUMEMBER ��LLEN "iUVtD,. JLi,ViVJEi) BY COUNCILMEMBER KASPER, TO.INSTRUCT THE CITY ATTORNEY. TO PREPARE AN ORDINANCE APPROVING,THE ASSESS- MENT ROLL FOR LID 209. MnTION.CARRIED. ""r. Adams said the bids were opened October 6, 1982 and the contract must be awarded within 30 days of the bid opening or the bid bonds will have to be released. 4S Noveri-iber 1, 1982 - continued . COUNCILMEMBER ALLEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST, TO. AWARD THE BID TO THE LOW BIDDER, KNOWLES CONSTRUCTION, FOR THE BASIC BID IN THE AMOUNT OF $36,922.50. MOTION CARRIED. At this time Councilmember Nordquist introduced Bob Gates in the audience who is the step -father of Tambi Shaw, the current Student Representative to the Council. HEARING ON PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION FOR ALLOWING MINOR AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR IN THE BN ZONE AS A CONDITIONAL USE Planning Director Mary Lou Block stated that this amendment proposal was generated by the Planning Board after receiving a request from an individual. Initially, the amendment was to allow commercial garages with a Conditional Use Permit, but after reviewing the present code definition for commercial garages the Planning Board changed it to minor automotive repair. It was pointed out that in some situations there is the need in neighborhoods for minor automobile repair such as is provided in gas stations but in some places a gas station will not work on the site. It was decided by the Planning Board that minor automobile repair, which is less broad than commercial garages, is a use that would be desirable in a neighborhood. Minor automotive repair was defined as motor repair and maintenance and replacement of parts to passenger cars and trucks not exceeding one ton capacity, but not including collison repair or auto painting. A Conditional Use Permit would have requirements regarding noise, glare, smoke, dust, etc. The Planning Board recommended adoption of the proposed code amendment as it would provide basically the same kind of service found in gas stations but without the gas pumps. This could not be in someone's home or garage as that would be a home occupation. Councilmember Naughten said he could foresee a noise problem and a visual problem --cars stacked up in someone's driveway if their home were in a BN zone. Ms.,Block said they would have the same requirements as a commercial structure even though this were a home, and it could be limited to commercial structures. She said she had never received a complaint regarding Edmonds Automotive which is in a BC zone but is surrounded by residences. Councilmember Allen was concerned about where the line is drawn on minor repair. Ms. Block reiterated the definition suggested for minor repair and said storage was not addressed.but it would be addressed in the Conditional Use Permit. The hearing was opened. Roger Hertrich, 1020-Puget Dr., provided a photograph of a gas station in a BN zone and stated that if the gas pumps were removed what was left was what the proposal was supporting, and if he had that across the street from him he would complain. He said this particular gas station has restrictions on it but some of them are not complied with too well. He did not believe the services provided under minor automotive repair were necessary in the BN zone, and he noted that this proposal was precipitated.by someone who was trying to sell a piece of property, and if it were approved for the benefit of that one person all BN zones would be affected. He said even if all activities are required to be in an enclosed building much of the activity is that of waiting for repair or waiting for parts, so the cars get pushed to the outside. He thought a consideration should be the number of bays allowed, which in turn will dictate how many cars are parked outside. Also, the number of cars left overnight should be a consideration, as well as what kind of lighting will there be, including.advertising lighting and whether the business will be closed at night. He noted that with a gas station driveways are needed on all three sides, but for this service he wondered how many driveways would be allowed. He suggested it could be screened on three sides and have one driveway. He believed this type of.service would increase the intensity of use, whereas a gas station is empty until a car drives into it, and there are no cars parked around it. He noted that Planning Board member John Hodgin had commented that there should be no code change to accommodate a person selling a piece of property, and he agreed, and he said he believes this would be a case of expanding zones and he opposed it, but if it should be approved there should be a lot of conditions. Jane Cunningham, 1030 Grandview, said she has been fighting gas stations in BN zones since 1969. She lives -near -one and gets the noise from it. She asked what would happen if the business were to go beyond minor repairs. She said someone would have to complain and most people do.not like to do so. She noted that often the work is done with the doors open and that accentuates the noise. She stated that Edmonds Automotive, against which Ms. Block had stated there has never been a complaint, is very unusual --because Merlyn Rogers (the proprietor) is very unusual --he is a very sensitive, caring person. No one else wished to speak, and the hearing was closed. Councilmember Gould said the most important thing was to test the activity against the purpose.of the BN zone which is "To reserve areas, for those retail stores, offices, and retail service estab- lishments which offer goods and services needed on an everyday basis by residents of a neighborhood area." He dial not think residents of neighborhoods needed this service everyday, and he thought the Planning Board was driving at much the same point in trying to soften it. Councilmember Allen said it is fine to talk about a gas station that takes care of minor repairs, but it is there originally to pump gas, not for automotive.repair. She thought even.gas stations were beginning to look somewhat unkempt. She said she had supported putting a car wash into a BN zone because she did not see that as a noisy process, but she was opposed to minor automotive repair in a BN zone. COUNCIL - MEMBER NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ALLEN, TO DENY THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION TO ALLOW MINOR AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR IN THE BN ZONE. MOTION CARRIED. HEARING ON PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION TO AMEND CHAPTER 20.100.030(C) TO REQUIRE DECISIONS TO BE BASED ON'THE RECORD'OF THE PLANNING BOARD Planning Director Mary Lou Block stated that for some time the Planning Board has been concerned about its.role as an advisory body to the City Council, and one of their concerns is their per- ception that the City Council is presented with new information when Planning Board recommendations are brought before the Council. By adoption of the proposed code amendment the Board hopes that, their hearing process will be strengthened. This process.of hearings "on the record" is consistent with the practice in some other jurisdictions. At the Planning Board hearing of this item there was extensive participation by members of the audience, and the Council was provided.with minutes of that meeting. The Planning Board recommendation was that hearings on Planning Board items be based upon the record of their. proceedings, and that'the introduction of new evidence cause the item to be remanded to the Board. They also recommended that this process be reviewed in one year. Ms. Block III • November 1, 1982 - continued discussed some of the concerns expressed at the Planning Board meeting: Some people are concerned that there would be no debate allowed at the Council meeting if the hearing were on the record, but she said this is not necessarily true. However, debate would be on tine same evidence, not POK evidence. They were concerned that the Council would be bound by the decision of the �'lanning Coard and also that it would make the system somewhat more burdensome -in that it would require going back and forth. She rooted that generally when new evidence comes up it is remanded to the Planning Board. The Planning Board believes that if this were a part of the procedure hearings at the Planning Board level would be of greater importance because that is where new evidence would: have to be presented. The hearing was opened. Lloyd'istrom, 711 Puget Lane, sail lie did not agree with Pis. Block on several counts. His concern was that it is extremely valuable to him to be able to come and speak to his .elected representatives. He thought this proposal carve from trying to make. the Planning Board more important. he agreed that there was extensive testimony at the Planning Board hearing on this issue, and he stated that not - one person spoke in favor of the proposal. lie noted that there had been a suggestion that Findings of Fact be prepared after Planning Board hearings, and he asked what the facts would be if tonight this hearing was being held "on the record." He stated that there are not any facts --only opinions of people, and that they are being asked to subject themselves to the opinions of one group versus this one. He said he preferred to bring his arguments here. Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Dr., asked winere is the problem and what is the need? lie said th%y seemed to be functioning well on this night, and the real problem was that the Planning Board wanted more recognition. He had been present at the Planning 3oard hearing on this item and he said they were only concerned about the Planning Board. He noted that they had accomplis,ied their name change, and attendance at their meetings. has increased, and there has been more recognition of -them; by the Council and by the media. lie said one problem that still exists is that some people,going to chose • meetings feel somewha-t intimidated, and -chose of a quieter nature do not really have the opportunni:y to speak until they go before the Council. lie said one person on the Board in particular ;dominates the reetings and talks constantly. Natalie Shippen, 1022 Euclid, said the proposal is to change a system that has worked for 21.1 years and one of the reasons given was that at first people deliberately bypassed the Planning Board, but she said deliberate was not true, and on the record would not cure that. She said another reason was that a person may speak to the Planning Board and reserve his "I'est shots" for the Council, but she did not think there was any indication of that in the minutes. She had called Seattle, King County, Mercer Island, and Kirkland to see which of those used the on the record procedure and found that only Kirkland did. She found it interesting that Kirkland has a City Manager form of govern- ment so the Council appoints tine members of the Planning Commission. She did not think any question had arisen of a magnitude to change the method, and asked whether, with a checks and balance system like Edmonds has, they really wanted to grant that authority to an appointed board. Jeanne Johnson, 704 Maple, spoke on what she thought was the fundamental purpose of the Planning Board. Sine said the Council had asked for input and of the two items on this evening's agenda regarding the Planning Board she selected this one under which to speak. She said it was no wonder to her that the Planning Board iras been -pleading with tine Council for direction regarding what the Council wants of them as the codes do not say a lot on this. She thought the meeting several weeks ago between the Council and the Planning Board was a good start. She noted that there is some controversy as to how sensitive he Plannnin,f Board should be to the will of the people, anni- she said the new Community Development Code is the will of the people and the Planning Board should use that document as its main guideline. Her experience was that she had heard some -former Planning Board members in the past making decisions that seemed to be purely personal opinions, and this had bothered her.. Her hope.was that the purpose of the Planning Board would be to snake recoamendations based on the Cornrnunity Development- Code and to let.the.Council be politically sensitive when that is necessary, but she said the Planning Board should not. No one else wished to speak, and the hearing was closed. Councilmember Nordquist stated that one of the comments made was that additional information is given when the item gets to the Council, and he said that may be true but when he was on the Planning Commission what happened many tiriles was that the applicant would bounce his position off the Planning Commission and find certain areas that were weak and others that were strong and then he would try to pick out the things to use before the next body to get it approved. He had gone over the rationale put forward by the Pianninq Board but saw no reason to change the procedure as he thought it was working very well. Councilmember Hall said in the past she had heard each and every one of those in the audience say something was wrong, and now she thought it was time to look at why there were complaints. She said going before the Planning Board was an opportunity for the citizens to go before a board that is not elected. She had served on the ►'larnning Advisory board.and on the Planning Commission and said she saw many times cases which when they went before the Council she had wished she could discuss. She said under the proposal tine Council has the chance to remand it when there is new evidence. She thought this was an opportuni-cy to try file change; perhaps for six months. Councilmemuer Could said ►,e suspected 'Chat there may he some people on the Planning Board who think he is not supportive of tiiern, but he wished to propose: a plan to make the.Planninq Board more effective. He had 'listed six points which he said were problems, and 'before changing the process he preferred to have these amendments in place so the Planning Board will become and be preserved as a necessary part of the government and be responsive to the citizens. Then, he said, they could look at the "on the record" issue differently. He said he would discuss this under the last item on this evening's agenda. Councilmember Kasper said he felt they had put the de...novo procedure in the code based on the decision to give it a try, but he felt it had not worked and that they should give the other approach a try for a specific time period. He also felt they were getting a lot of items coming for hearing • and that they could examine them and decide whether they wanted to have hearings on everything. 50. November 1, 1982 - continued • Councilmember Allen thought Mrs. Shippen had brought up a good question --what is evidence and what are facts? She said this system is a little different from the Hearing Examiner system but she thought if they tried going on the record for a period that possibly the demand for evidence and facts on the part of the Planning Board would be more consistent. She noted that the Council had overturned a Planning Board recommendation this evening because they thought the facts had not been delved into and were sloppily presented. She said she'.`woul:d:li:ke to;see,it trted'l,because;somethi.ng is not happening and she would like to see if this would make something happen. She said if they put a six-month period on it and it does not work people will come back and say it must be changed, and maybe it will not have to go for six months. COUNCILMEMBER ALLEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL- HEMBER HALL, TO TRY FOR A PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS REQUIRING THAT HEARINGS ON THE DECISIONS OF THE PLANNING BOARD.BE BASED ON THE RECORD. Councilmember Jaech thought the Planning Board was not happy with the role they were playing and were not sure what they were supposed to be presenting to the Council and how it should be presented. She said if these different areas of concerns are addressed and straightened out both the Council and the Planning Board would be much happier in defining.what their role is and what the Council expects of them. Councilmember Gould said he thought the motion and his idea sort of.went in the same direction, his idea being to. talk about the things that need to happen to,satisfy both of the parties, and when the Planning Board and the Council both feel comfortable with their role then he thought the citizens also would be, and then it would be time to go on the record. Councilmember Naughten thought they could strengthen the -Planning Board and that they were taking steps to do that. He thought the system worked fairly well now and that everyone seemed comfortable with it except the Planning Board. He thought they could strengthen the Planning Board but not in this way. Councilmembers Allen and Hall thought that going on the record would make the Council recognize the Planning Board. Councilmember Hall said the Council had talked with them and given them direction, and she did not think the system was working as it is. She thought the motion proposed would make the system work better and hone it, and no one would be prevented from reaching their elected leadership. A ROLL CALL VOTE WAS TAKEN ON THE MOTION,'WITH COUNCILMEMBERS ALLEN, HALL, AND KASPER VOTING YES, AND WITH COUNCILMEMBERS JAECH, GOULD, NAUGHTEN, AND NORDQUIST VOTING NO. MOTION FAILED. DISCUSSION ON NUCLEAR WEAPONS FREEZE David Montgomery, 15220 50th P1. W., spoke in opposition to the nuclear weapons freeze, saying it would destroy America's ability to prevent nuclear war and therefore is a serious threat to national security. He said the government is engaged in negotiations to reduce the number of missile warheads to equal levels and eliminate counterforce weapons on both sides, and that the government should be given full support to reach a fair and equitable agreement with the Soviets. He submitted a petition with 104 signatures asking the Council to support a resolution reading "The citizens of Edmonds support our government's efforts to reduce strategic missile warheads of the United States and the Soviet Union by one third. Councilmember Allen responded that the thought of anyone unleashing nuclear weapons was absolutely unacceptable to her and she had no intention to change her position * on the nuclear freeze. There was a brief discussion and Mr. Montgomery was thanked, but no action was taken. CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENTS TO ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING PLANNING BOARD Councilmember Gould read aloud his proposal regarding the Planning Board which he had referred * to earlier this evening: (1) The Planning Board needs to be perceived as a necessary step in the governmental process; (2) Citizens do not show up to.any extent at Planning Board hearings and public involvement is minimal; (3) Minutes do not accurately reflect Planning Board discussions; (4) Staff help and service needed; (5) Planning Board not perceived as representative of the vast majority of residents; and (6) Coordination of'Planning Board activities not linked to City Council. He said he intended asking the Council to set aside some money to help the Planning Board and he proposed some.amendments-having to do with powers and duties.of the board, qualifications, appoint- ment by geographic areas, expertise, and agendas and their publication. He had distributed copies to the Council. Councilmember Allen said she thought if the Planning Board is geographically appointed the Council also should be, and she noted that sometimes there may be expertise that does not fit into the geographic distribution. She liked the.idea of the expertise, but not the geo- graphic location. Councilmember Gould added that he thought.it a trap to load up the Planning Board with one occupation. He said he had been critical of the Planning Board and now was offering solutions. Councilmember Jaech thought the meat,of the problem was "what do we want them to do and what do they feel their role is?" She said when they consider alternatives and send something back to the Council she would like to see a.list of what the alternatives discussed were and what were the pros and cons, and she would like a detail of the reason and selection of one option over another. She said some of the Council.think of them as a resource for the Council to get valuable information in making its decision, and that is why they were.going to allocate funds. COUNCILMEMBER JAECH MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ALLEN, THAT COUNCILMEMBER GOULD'S PROPOSAL, TOGETHER WITH HER COMMENTS, BE FORWARDED TO THE PLANNING BOARD FOR COMMENTS. MOTION CARRIED. COUNCILMEMBER ALLEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER HALL, THAT THIS BE BROUGHT BACK TO THE COUNCIL FOR HEARING ON DECEMBER 21, 1982. MOTION CARRIED. The Council agreed to accomplish the interviews next week for prospective Planning Board members but said they would not yet vote on the appointments. COUNCIL Council President Kasper noted that there was an additional library needs list. It was referred to Councilmember Nordquist who will report on it next week. 1 1 0 1 • 1 *See amendments Nov. 9, 1982. •. 1� November 1, 1982 - continued 1 1 0 1 Council President Kasper said he would like to have a Council dinner November 30 to which Mae Schoenrock, Director of the Sno-Isle Regional Library, will be invited to discuss other methods of financing library operation. It will be at 6:00 p.m., place to be announced. Councilmember Kasper said it had been.proposed to have a. City employees' Christmas party on December 10, and that the members of the boards and commissions be invited. The Council was in agreement. Council President ICaspc�^ stated that a Snohomish County Solid t4aste presentation vioul d he made to the Council on November 23. Council President Kasper announced that Councilmember Gould had volunteered to be the representative to the Pugelt Sound Regional Arts Commission ;if it passes on the ballot). Councilmember Gould said Councilmember Naughton and he would like to give a report to the Council on their Disability Board activities. That will he done December 14. Council President Kasr)er said he Was going to try to. keep the December 28 meeting clear for possible cancellation. COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDErIT KASPER, TO CANCEL THE MEETING OF DECEMBER 28, 1982. MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Hall thanked everyone who had attended the library dedication. Counci imei;iber Naughten sa i d all Count i ii�embers should go over the budget with their respective departmen "S. There was no further business to come before t-he Council, and the meeting adjourned at 12:00 midnight. IREME ,VARNEY MOR: PJ, City i,_rk November 9, 1982 •- Work Meeting f1. ' H RVE ;H. '111RRISO..%J, Mayor The regular meeting or 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 Harve Harrison, Mayor John, Nordqui st Bill Kasper Katherine Allen Ray Gould Laura Hall Jo -Anne Jaech Tambi. Shaw, Student Representative Larry Naughten • CONSENT AGENDA STAFF PRESENT Jim Adams, City Engineer Irene Varney Moran, City Clerk Mary Lou Block, Planning Director Art Housler, Finance Director Jack Weinz, Fire Chief Pat LeMay, Personnel Director Steve Simpson:, Parks & Recreation Director Mark Eames, City Attorney Jackie Parrett, Deputy City Clerk Items (B) and (C) were removed from the Consent Agenda. COUNCILMEMBER ALLEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER KASPER, "f0 APPROVE THE BALANCE OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED. The approved items on the Consent Agenda included the following: (A) Roll call. (D) Authorization for Mayor to sign Engineering Consultant Agreement for Meadowdale Sewer Agreement. (E) Authorization for Mayor to sign design contract for traffic signal, SR 104 at 226th St. S.W. (F) Adoption of Ordinance 2327, creating LID 209'(Cyrus P1.). (G) Adoption of Ordinance 2328, amending Tax Levy in accordance with Assessor's certification. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 1, 1982 [Item (B) on Consent A endaj Councilmember Hall referred to page 10 of the Minutes, in the "Discussion on Nuclear Weapons Freeze," and said she had made some comments she wanted included in the. Minutes. She asked the Clerk to listen to the tape to obtain those comments. The tape was not clear but Councilmember Hall hadgiven an example of the security of an apartment she had in New York v.,ith lock upon, lock and then barbed wire and she, asked how many locks does it take to keep a burglar out. She went on to say it is known the Soviets have the motto "Might makes might" so it behooves us to find another avenue. She concluded by saying: "I -think we are all netting closer together on this and I want you to know where I am coming from." Councilmember Gould also had a correction to the Minutes. On page 10, in the first paragraph of • "Consideration of Amendments to Ordinance Establishing Planning Board," the six items listed should