Laserfiche WebLink
44 <br />• <br />WATERFRONT ZONING NORTH OF FERRY DOCK <br />As shown in the minutes of the Planning Commission, (a copy of which each Councilman had <br />received) it was the recommendation of the Commission that the Council reconsider the '�C? <br />zoning of the waterfront north of the ferry dock to R-W, and in case of approval by the <br />Council, the hearings on this particular area now being held by the Planning Commission <br />to rezone it from M-1 to P-1 would be discontinued.4 Councilman Harrison stated that it - <br />was the feeling of the property owners north of the ferry dock that their property would <br />be devaluated with the proposed P-1 zoning, and that it should be zoned R-W until the <br />city was in a position to purchase the land. Councilman Christensen argued in favor of <br />the P-1 zoning, pointing out that this does not mean an area would become entirely a <br />park, but uses oriented to parks and recreation purposes. The Mayor also pointed out <br />that action has been started to acquire this property - the 1964 budget has been set up <br />with extra funds for park purposes. <br />A motion.was then made by Councilman Sorensen, seconded by Councilman Christensen that <br />the Council do not consider rezoning this area north of the ferry dock to an R-W zone. <br />The matter was then declared open for discussion from the audience. Jack Bevan, <br />spokesman for.the Association of Waterfront Owners, protested the proposed P-1 zone and <br />Mayor McGinness inquired why the owners south of the ferry dock were entering into this <br />matter of zoning north of the ferry dock. Mr. Bevan replied that they had a common <br />interest with the area in that they are both zoned M-1 at present, and if the City rezones <br />the north area, what will prevent them from doing the same to the area south of the dock. <br />Attorney William A. Wilson, representing Mrs. Eathel Thayer, stated rezoning would be <br />unfair to his client and other property owners in that it would lessen the value by <br />restricting its use. <br />H. H. Jacobsen, representing Aqua Sports, also spoke in behalf of the property owners • <br />protesting the proposed P-1 zoning; and Attorney Walter Scott, representing Union Oil Co., <br />questioned the legality of rezoning property from "high to low value uses". <br />Before taking a roll call vote, a five minute recess was requested by Councilman Smets. <br />Following the recess, a roll call vote resulted in Councilman Harrison voting no, and <br />Councilmen Smets, Christensen, Simpson, Slye and Sorensen voting yes, and the motion <br />carried. The Mayor then instructed the City Clerk to advise the Planning Commission of <br />the Council's decision not to consider rezoning the area north of the ferry dock to R-W, <br />and for the Commission to continue with their hearings to rezone the area in question <br />from M-1 to P-1. <br />REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES <br />Chief Grimstad reported he had contacted six trucking companies whose trucks had been <br />using 76th, and all have assured the city they.will use this street in the future only <br />when necessary for deliveries. <br />Chief Grimstad also requested bids be called for a new police car. It was moved by <br />Councilman Slye, seconded by Councilman Sorensen that the City call for bids on a new <br />police car; bids to be opened on October 1,.1963. Motion carried.. <br />The necessity for action on a Stop and Go light at 91h and Edmonds Way was brought up. <br />The Mayor replied that unless the City Attorney advises otherwise, the City will install <br />this light, with the hope that the state will then pay the costa <br />Mayor McGinness also reported to the Council that there had been further discussions with <br />Mountlake Terrace on the sewer gas problem. The problem had not as yet been resolved, but <br />Mr. Reid,will mail copies of a report to all councilmen. • <br />Mr. Val Rupeiks supplied council members with a copy of a brief for a 20 year long range <br />capital improvements program. This would establish a level of service aspiration for the <br />City, including the number of policemen, firemen, etc. needed; what operating annual over- <br />head is likely to be; and separate the operational budget from the capital budget. There <br />would be a six year detailed budget, and two seven year less detailed budgets. The firm <br />would examine income and outgo, and make certain projections. One third total cost to the <br />City of Edmonds would be $5,613.00, with 2/3 matching funds from the state and federal <br />governments. Following some further explanations by Mr. Rupeiks, it was moved by Councilman <br />Smets, seconded by Councilman Simpson that the City accept the proposal of Clerk, Coleman, <br />Rupeiks for a capital improvements program for Edmonds, and authorize the firm to make <br />application for state and federal matching funds. Motion carried. <br />Mayor McGinness reported that Walter Mitchell had requested a meeting with Edmonds and <br />the Olympic View Water District Commissioners. It was felt this meeting should be delayed <br />until the return of Councilman Tuson from his vacation. The Mayor instructed the City Clerk <br />to call Mr. Mitchell to advise him this meeting would be delayed until after the council <br />meeting of October 15th, at which time a date would be set. <br />Meeting was then adjourned at 10.:00 P.M. <br />� <br />City Clerk May r <br />October 1, 1963 <br />Regular meeting was called to order with <br />all <br />councilmen <br />present except Tuson. <br />All Councilmen having received a copy of <br />the <br />minutes of <br />the Council meeting of September 17, 1963, <br />• <br />