04/07/1987 City CouncilTHESE 14INUTES SUBJECT TO
APRIL 14, 1987 APPROVAL
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
APRIL 7, 1987
The regular meeting of the Edmonds City Council was called to order at 7 p.m. by Mayor Larry
Naughten in the Plaza Meeting Room of the Edmonds Library. All present joined in the flag sa-
lute.
PRESENT STAFF PRESENT
Larry Naughten, Mayor Peter Hahn, Comm. Svc. Director
Jack Wilson, Council Pres. Duane Bowman, Asst. City Planner
Steve Dwyer Jim Barnes, Parks & Rec. Div. Mgr.
Laura Hall Bob Alberts, City Engineer
Jo -Anne Jaech Scott Snyder, City Attorney
Bill Kasper Jackie Parrett, City Clerk
John Nordquist Margaret Richards, Recorder
Lloyd Ostrom
Tony Russell, Student Rep.
Councilmember Dwyer arrived a few minutes late and did not vote on the Consent Agenda or ap-
proval of the minutes.
CONSENT AGENDA
Item (B) was removed from the Consent Agenda. COUNCILMEMBER NOROQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL -
MEMBER JAECH, TO APPROVE THE BALANCE OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. The approved items on the Consent
Agenda include the following:
(A) ROLL CALL
(C) APPROVAL OF CABARET DANCE LICENSE FOR BUMBERSHOOTS RESTAURANT
* (D) ACCEPTANCE OF QUIT CLAIM DEED FROM JOHN AND BONNIE JEAN OSTERMAN FOR STREET
RIGHT-OF-WAY AT 19925 - 88TH AVE. W.
* (E) ACCEPTANCE OF QUIT CLAIM DEED FRO PAUL DOUGLAS PATTERS014 AND GAYLE ANN PATTERSON AND
FIRST INTERSTATE BANK, OF WASHINGTON, N.A., FOR STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY AT 9723 CHERRY ST.
(F) SET APRIL 21, 1987 FOR HEARING ON HEARING EXAMINER RECOMMENDATION ON PROPOSED 8 LOT
SUBDIVISION AT 7416 MEADOWDALE BEACH RD. (P-6-86/ROBERT ALLEN)
(G) AUTHORIZATION TO CALL FOR BIDS TO RENOVATE AND UPGRADE LIFT STATION 5
(H) AUTHORIZATION TO EXECUTE ENGINEERING AGREEMENT WITH CWC-HDR FOR SR 99 SEWER
IMPROVEMENTS ($14,000)
(I) ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RECEIPT OF CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES FROM SANFORD O'NEIL ($677.70)
APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF MARCH 31, 1987 [ITEM (B) ON THE CONSENT AGENDA
i Councilmember Kasper noted the following corrections: page 4, paragraph 9, insert the following
underlined words: "COUNCILMEMBER KASPER 14OVED TO AMEND THE MOTION TO SCHEDULE THE THREE ITEMS
FOR DISCUSSION ONLY ON APRIL 14, AS WELL AS THE METRO SEWER SWAP PROPOSAL, AND ADJUST THE APRIL
14 AGENDA ACCOROINGLY, WITH THE VOTE TO BE MADE ON APRIL 21".
Couhcilmember Kasper recommended that two items on the April 14 agenda be adjusted to read Re-
view Agreement with the Department of Ecology ... and Review Proposals for Value Engineering
rather than Authorization.
COUNCILMEMBER K.ASPER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER HALL, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS AMENDED.
MOTION CARRIED.
*See Council Minutes of April 14, 1987 `
AUDIENCE
Mayor Naughten opened the audience portion of the meeting.
Karen Mueller, 20206 - 83rd Ave. W., 4-14 leader of the Tumbleweeds, said the parents of the
children who utilize the equestrian arena in Perrinville have many concerns regarding the safety
of the children if the post office branch is constructed in Perrinville. She said she was under
the impression that there is a possibility that the postal branch may not be built there. Mayor
Naughten said the City has sent a letter to representatives in Washington D.C. urging them to
investigate alternate sites and to place a moratorium on construction for at least six months.
Ms. Mueller .inquired when actual construction is scheduled to commence. Mayor Naughten said
the design phase is scheduled to start in May.
Ms. Mueller requested that the issue of relocation of the equestrian arena be scheduled for
discussion on the agenda if the post office is built in Perrinville. She said the club members
and parents would like to be included in discussions regarding the relocation of the arena.
Councilmember Jaech suggested that the Meadowdale Playfield be considered as an alternate site.
Mayor Naughten recommended that the 4-11 club send him a letter stating their- position, as well as
their suggestions, so that it is on file and they can be notified if changes take place.
Councilmember Kasper noted that monies derived from the sale of the adjacent City property, if
sold, may not necessarily be available to invest in a new location for the equestrian arena be-
cause those monies may be earmarked for other things or may be required to go into other funds.
Councilmember Dwyer inquired if the City would be apprised of progress, if any, from the Federal
representatives before steps are taken to relocate the arena. Mayor Naughten said fie presumed a
response would be received within the next few days.
Councilmember Wilson inquired if a letter was sent to all three legislators. Mayor Naughten
replied affirmatively.
Councilmember Hall suggested that Staff follow up the letter with a telephone call. Mayor Naught -
en affirmed that suggestion.
Councilmember Ostrom suggested that the City consider selling its property in Perrinville if the -
post office is built there. lie inquired if the funds that will be derived from that sale have
been earmarked for a particular project. Mayor Naughten said he believed those funds would be
put in the General Fund.
Councilmember Hall recommended that the issue of the equestrian arena and relocation be scheduled
as an agenda item. Councilmember Dwyer suggested that the.issue of the sale of City property be
scheduled for discussion no later than April 21, 1987.
Mark Chomos, 23405 - 93rd Ave. W., inquired if the newly constructed apartment complex called
Edmonds Highlands was located within the City limits. Community Services Director Peter Hahn
said that complex is located in the unincorporated area of Snohomish County. Mr. Chomos
inquired if the name should be South County Highlands rather than Edmonds Highlands. Mayor
Naughten said the complex has an Edmonds address for postal service reasons. The developer may
call the complex any name he wishes. Mr. Chomos said he was interested in developing an area
within the unincorporated area of Snohomish County. He inquired what entity he should seek to
obtain information. Mayor Naughten referred him to the County. Mr. Hahn said Staff would be
happy to assist Mr. Chomos also.
Mayor Naughten closed the public portion of the meeting.
HEARING ON PARKS AND RECREATION COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND PROPOSED ORDINANCE 2607 ADOPTING SAID
PLAN
Parks & Recreation Division Manager Jim Barnes reported that the 1987 - 1992 Parks and Recreation
Comprehensive Plan has been developed over the past two years. Numerous public hearings and
meetings with the Planning Board have been held during that process.
The City Council reviewed the plan on two previous occasions and scheduled a public hearing for
final comment by the public at the request of the Planning Board.
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 2 APRIL 7, 1987
The Comprehensive Plan is a State of .Washington Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation
requirement for grant funding eligibility. In addition, the document becomes a part of the
Edmonds Community Development Code by reference. The Plan will also serve as a continuing plan-
ning tool for the Parks and Recreation Division.
Staff has recormnended that the Council hold a public hearing and adopt ordinance 2607.
Councilmember Kasper inquired if any changes have been made to the plan since it was last present-
ed to the Council. Mr. Barnes replied negatively. He said he had previously asked whether the
street ends should be placed on the map, but he did not receive a consensus from the Council to
do so. Councilmember Kasper said previous maps did indicate street ends and he would not vote in
favor of the plan because he felt it was wrong to omit them.
Councilmember Hall inquired if Mr. Barnes: was familiar with. bill SB 5013, which encourages
economic development along waterfronts and gives more discretion to city and county governments
contemplating the vacation of street and alley rights -of -way abutting water bodies. Mr. Barnes
replied affirmatively. Councilmember Hall said that bill may have some bearing on the park
plan. Mr. Barnes said he was unaware that the bill had actually passed. He reminded tine Council
that the plan was only a planning document and the bill would take precedence.
Mr. Barnes pointed out that street ends are listed on page 96 of the plan, and the plan encourag-
es additional signage for all public.lands.
Councilmember Hall expressed concern regarding the wording, "The current ban on vacations to
private individuals would be lifted if the City or. County government finds the riglit-of-way not
useful for public purposes". Mr. Barnes said signs will be removed or an area not signed if it
is vacated for public use. Ile noted that the document can be amended as may be necessary.
Community Services Director Peter Hahn clarified that Staff has no objection to identifying
street ends as suggested by Councilmember Kasper and will do so by Council directive.
Mayor Naughten opened the public portion of the hearing.
Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, submitted excerpts from the subject plan, which he would dis-
cuss, to the City Clerk for distribution to the Council._
Mr. Hertrich said the excerpts refer to the activity of swimming in the City, as well as the lacko,
of a pool cover.. The Comprehensive Plan, he .said, omits the possibility of a cover for Yost pool.
Mr. Hertrich referred to page 70, which discussed the cost of a removable enclosure which, he
said, he found to be erroneous. He said he received approximate bids for a removable blow up
cover for the pool at a cost of $60,000 including installation. Mr. Hertrich pointed out that a
removable cover at Newport Hills has been utilized for eleven years and is still in excellent
condition. The only maintenance that has been necessary has been cleaning and drying before it
is removed.
Mr. Hertich then referred to page 74, which discussed a strong interest but not adequate demand
for. a pool cover. iie requested that the Council include in the pork plan a removable cover for
Yost pool. He pointed out that there are no facilities in the City for wintertime swimming
other than private clubs. He noted that surveys indicate that swimming is a high priority activi-
ty to Edmonds citizens.
Councilmember Kasper was also in favor of a pool cover. He said he looked at the cover at
Newport Hills last year and it was in excellent condition.
Mr. Hertrich said Yost pool was recently refurbished because of its deteriorating condition. The
pool cover would decrease maintenance because it would be covered during the winter months.
Councilmember Hall said she understood. that the pool cover at the Lynnwood facility accumulates a
lot of condensation. She said the City could afford to purchase a better cover. Mr. Hertrich
said the moisture could be eliminated by using a heater in the blowing assembly.
Rob, Morrison, 250 Beach Place, said he misunderstood the nature of the hearing and was not
prepared to speak.
Dick Hill, 1242 Coronado Place; said he felt the citizens of Edmonds would not object to spend-
ing money for a pool cover. fie urged the Council to implement Mr. Hertrich's suggestion.
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 3 APRIL 7, 1987
Cindy Jefferies, 1027 Spruce Street, felt strongly that a pool cover was necessary at Yost
pool. She said she, as well as other senior citizens, may be unable to drive in the near fu-
ture. She utilizes the pool at Lynnwood. If the pool was covered at Yost Park, then she could
at least walk to the facility.
Mary Bernett, 2318 - 92nd Avenue West, strongly supported a pool cover for Yost pool.
Mayor Naughten closed the public portion of the hearing.
COUNCILMEMBER KASPER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST, TO ADOPT THE 1987 - 1992 PARKS
AND RECREATION COMPREHENSIVE PLAN W1114 THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS: 1) STREET ENDS THAT ARE NOT
INCLUDED ON THE PRESENT MAP BE INCLUDED (MAINLY SUNSET AVENUE AND OCEAN AVENUE); 2) INSERT THE
PASSAGES REGARDING THE POOL COVER THAT WERE OMITTED.
Councilmember Nordquist inquired if Councilmember Kasper wished to include all street ends even
if they were not included in the previous plan. Councilmember Kasper replied affirmatively.
Councilmember Nordquist said he would like to review the plan that Councilmember Kasper referred
to.
COUNCILMEMBER KASPER MOVED TO AMEND THE MOTION_ TO INCLUDE THAT WATERFRONT VIEW POINTS SUCH AS
SUNSET AVENUE AND OCEAN AVENUE BE IDENTIFIED ON THE MAP.
Councilmember Nordquist withdrew the second to the motion. He suggested that the previous plan
be reviewed prior to voting on the motion.
THE MOTION AND AMENDMENT DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND.
COUNCILMEMBER JAECH MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OSTROM, TO INCLUDE IN THE PLAN THE EXCERPTS
THAT WERE DELETED WITH RESPECT TO A POOL COVER.
COUNCILMEMBER KASPER MOVED TO AMEND, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON, TO INCLUDE OCEAN AVENUE
AND SUNSET AVENUE AS STREET ENDS.
MOTION TO AMEND FAILED WITI4 COUNCILMEMBER KASPER AND COUNCILMEMBER WILSON IN FAVOR AND COUNCILMEM-
BER DWYER, COUNCILMEMBER HALL, COUNCILMEMBER JAECH, COUNCILMEMBER OSTROM, AND COUNCILMEMBER NORD-
QUIST OPPOSED.
MAIN MOTION CARRIED WITH COUNCILMEMBER DWYER, COUNCILMEMBER HALL, COUNCILMEMBER JAECH, COUNCILMEM-
BER OSTROM, AND COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST IN FAVOR AND COUNCILMEMBER KASPER AND COUNCILMEMBER WIL-
SON OPPOSED.
COUNCILMEMBER OSTROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST, TO ADOPT ORDINANCE 2607 AS AMEND-
ED. MOTION CARRIED WITH COUNCILMEMBER KASPER OPPOSED.
HEARING ON PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION ON PROPOSED CONTRACT REZONE FROM RM-2.4 TO CG FOR
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 8009 - 238TH ST. S.W.tR-1-86/DiPANGRAZIO
Councilmember Ostrom raised a point of order. He noted that Assistant City Planner Duane Bowman
works with the Planning Board, and the Planning Board has made a recommendation contrary to
Staff's. He requested Mr. Bowman to address that issue.
Mr. Bowman reported that during the summer of 1986, Anthony DiPangrazio cleared and graded a
portion of the subject property for use as a parking lot for his tenants in the Sunset office
building at 23607 Highway 99.
Acting upon a complaint, the City .contacted Mr. DiPangrazio and informed him of the need for
permits and advised him that the parking use was in violation of the RM-2.4 zone district. He
then filed an application for a contract rezone.
On November 12, 1986, the Planning Board conducted a public hearing on the applicant's request to
rezone a portion of his property at 8009 - 238th St. S.W. from RM-2.4 (multiple family) to CG
(general commercial). The Planning Board, by a four to three vote, recommended approval of the
contract rezone request subject to certain conditions.
The rezone application is the first one since the adoption of the revised Highway 99 Comprehen-
sive Plan. It is Staff's opinion that the proposed rezone violates the policies set forth in
Section 15.20.010 (C) (3) of the ECDC, which discourages and, in fact, prohibits the encroachment
of commercial uses from Highway 99 into adjacent residential neighborhoods. There does not ap-
pear to be adequate justification in the application to recommend a violation of the Comprehen-
sive Plan. Therefore, Staff does not support the requested contract rezone.
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 4 APRIL 7, 1987
In response to Councilmember Ostrom's request, Mr. Bowman said the rezone was opposed by Staff
at the Planning Board level.
Mr. Bowman displayed and reviewed a video tape of the subject property and surrounding properties
with the Council and the audience.
At the request of Councilmember Kasper, Mr. Bowman reviewed the location of the parking lot and
the Sunset building on a vicinity map. He noted that no permits were applied for to convert the
subject property to a parking lot. Parking, he said, is not allowed as a primary use in an RM
zone so the applicant has proposed a contract rezone. The Planning Board has recommended approv-
al of the contract rezone with severe conditions. Mr. Bowman noted that an office building could
be constructed on that parcel with a conditional use permit.
Councilmember Ostrom inquired how the parking lot would encroach on the residential area more
than a building would. Mr. Bowman said it has been Staff's experience that a request is often
made to put a different use in an area after it has been rezoned.
Councilmember Nordquist inquired if the construction of the parking lot met any specifications.
Mr. Bowman said no permits were applied for for any of the work that was done.
Mayor Naughten opened the public portion of the hearing.
Jim Allendoerfer, 21 Avenue A, Snohomish, attorney representing the applicant, submitted a
packet of information to the City Clerk, which was marked Exhibit 1 and distributed to the Coun-
cil. The Exhibit included: 1) a map depicting surrounding properties; 2) the front elevation of
the Sunset building; 3) a vicinity map, and n) a proposed concomitant rezone agreement.
Mr. Allendoerfer stated that the rezone request is a paper transaction only; there will be no
change in the actual permitted land use on the subject property. He noted that the multiple
residential zoning allows office buildings as well as parking lots.
Mr. Allendoerfer stated that the zoning request is for general commercial, which also allows
office buildings and parking lots. The request has been made because Staff has interpreted a
section of the Code to provide that a secondary use, such as a parking lot, must be on the same
lot as a primary use in an RM zone, which is the "same lot rule". Mr. Allendoerfer said the
same lot rule does not apply in general commercial zones. Because there is a 100 foot separation
between the parking lot and the Sunset building, Staff contends that the same lot rule has not
been complied with.
Mr. Allendoerfer said the net result of the rezone will preclude the possibility of construct-
ing fifteen dwelling units on the subject property; preclude the possibility of constructing an
office building on the subject property at any time; the subject property will be utilized for no
use other than parking in perpetuity; parking will be concealed from Highway 99, as is consistent
with the policies of the Highway 99 Study; and off-street parking will be provided.
Mr. Allendoerfer pointed out that 53 parking spaces were provided for the Sunset building when
it was built in 1979, as required by Code. However, the need for an additional parking lot was
identified because people were parking on 236th Street because of inadequate parking.
Mr. Allendoerfer said an application to approve the site clearing is pending before the Archi-
tectural Design Board (ADB) until the rezone is accomplished.
Mr. Allendoerfer stated that the proposed rezone is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, the
Highway 99 policies, and the changing nature of the neighborhood. The conditions of the contract
rezone, he said, were found to be in the public interest and provide better protection for the
surrounding residential neighborhood than the present zoning.
Mr. Allendoerfer said although there was a split vote of the Planning Board in approving the
rezone, there was only one vote to deny the rezone itself. Lengthy discussions took place regard-
ing the conditions to be imposed and, ultimately, the Board's decision was split on whether or
not to approve the contract and rezone.
Mr.iAllendoerfer noted that item N1 of the rindings of tact was in error. Ile said the north
131 feet have been converted rather than the north 75 feet. Item # 3 of the recommendation was a
continuance of that error.
Councilmember Kasper inquired when the subject property was acquired by Mr. DiPangrazio. Mr.
Allendoerfer replied in 1986. Councilmember Kasper inquired if lots 21 and 22 were subdivided
prior to acquisition by Mr. DiPangrazio. Mr. Allendoerfer said the short plat of Mrs.
Wycom's parcel was part of the acquisition. Councilmember Kasper inquired if parking was desig-
nated at the time of the short plat. Mr. Allendoerfer replied negatively.
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 5 APRIL 7, 1987
Councilmember Ostrom said it appeared to him that lot 22 could be developed at any time even
though it has been designated as a buffer. Mr. Allendoerfer said it could be developed in
accordance with the specifications of the RM zone. Councilmember Ostrom commented that the vege-
tation could potentially be removed if that property was developed. Mr. Allendoerfer said a
portion of the vegetation could be removed, but a 15 foot buffer must remain.
Councilmember Ostrom said he understood that the use of the parking lot was an illegal use. Mr.
Allendoerfer said he believed it was a legal use. The issue that was attempting to be re-
solved, he said, was Staff's interpretation of the same lot rule. Councilmember Ostrom said the
applicant's position that a parking lot is a permitted use and, thus, has not been altered was a
weak argument in light of the fact that grading was done without permits. Mr. Allendoerfer
said he would not present the fact that the parking lot already exists as an argument in the
applicant's favor but, rather, that :a parking lot and office building are a permitted use in an
RM zone.
Councilmember Nordquist referred to the concomitant zoning agreement, page 2, items k 1 and 2
regarding the off-street parking and emergency access. He inquired how access could be made
from the west. Mr. Allendoerfer said that Mr. DiPangrazio anticipates the acquisition of the
Loper property, which would provide a driveway to the parking lot from Highway 99. Councilmem-
ber Nordquist expressed concern that the subject property could be utilized as parking for adja-
cent properties that may be developed in the future. Mr. Allendoerfer said lot 21 could be
utilized for parking for several commercial uses on Highway 99.
Councilmember Ostrom pointed out that there were no limitations regarding the boundary of the
parking lot included in the rezone agreement. Mr. Allendoerfer concurred. He said he dis-
cussed that issue with City Attorney Scott Snyder. Councilmember Ostrom expressed concern that
the reconnnendation of the Planning Board does not reflect the request of the applicant. Mr.
Allendoerfer said the reconnnendation and request are consistent with the exception of item N3
of the Board's recommendation, which was in error. Councilmember Ostrom said he has no way of
knowing what the Planning Board would have recommended without the inclusion of that paragraph.
Councilmember Kasper inquired "since when leased land is not considered as bringing parcels to-
gether as far as development". Mr. Snyder said it was his understanding that the lease was a
month -to -month lease.
Mayor Naughten opened the public portion of the hearing.
Dick Steele, 23607 Highway 99, Manager of GMAC, said the employees of the Sunset building
will be in dire trouble if the additional parking lot is not available. Employees would be
forced to park on 236th Street, which, lie said, is a dangerous street. He also said there is
very limited parking in front of the building for customers.
Ken Nichols -Hoppe, 23710 - 80th Lane West, said the residents of that neighborhood were not
opposed to the development itself but were concerned that control and quality of the development
would diminish if the rezone is approved.
Mr. Nichols -Hoppe submitted photographs of the area adjacent to lot 22 to the City Clerk, which
were marked as Exhibits 2 through 5.
Councilmember Wilson inquired how Mr. Nichols -Hoppe felt about the fact that an office building
with parking was a permitted use at the present time. Mr. Nichols -Hoppe said he had no objec-
tion. He said he was concerned that the quality of potential development on lot 22 would be
lowered if parking were available on lot 21.
Mr. Snyder reiterated that offices are a primary use in an RM zone but do require a conditional
use permit and are subject to review by the Council.
Larry Harnden, 8028 - 238th Street Southwest, said he thought the Highway 99 policies offered
j protection. He said he was opposed to the rezone because the impact to his neighborhood would be
adverse. He noted that there are school bus pick up points on 238th Street Southwest but no side-
walks. He said the parents were concerned about the safety of their children.
Mr.,Harnden said it has not been demonstrated that there is a community need for the rezone.
Betty Mathay, 8006 - 240th Street Southwest, said the residents are concerned about the sta-
tus of the subject property if the adjacent parcel is developed. She said she was concerned that
pressure will be applied to open 238th Street. She said as the community develops, the City must
plan an economic balance for both business and residential zones.
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 6 APRIL 7, 1987
Ms. Mathay felt that utilizing the subject property for parking was a poor use and that it should
be a more intense use so that it would be of benefit to the City with respect to revenues, as
well as to -the benefit of the .people. She recommended that the rezone request be denied.
Ms. Mathay suggested that the applicant lease the adjacent vacant property for parking.
Mr. Snyder noted that the concomitant agreement limits the use of parking. Without an amendment
to the proposed rezone agreement, if approved, construction of an office building would be prohib-
ited.
Councilmember Kasper inquired if development was permitted on lot 22. Mr. Snyder replied affirma-
tively, but noted that a conditional use permit must first be granted.
Anthony DiPangrazio, 23607 Highway 99, the applicant, said he purchased the adjacent property
to provide additional parking for the employees of the Sunset building. Because the businesses
of the tenants have grown since the building was first constructed, the parking facility became
inadequate and additional parking was necessary. Mr. DiPangrazio said he intends to build
four-plexes on the RM zoned property in the near future..
Mr. DiPangrazio said he owns the Sunset Apartments and was proud of the aesthetic quality of
that building. He assured the Council that he is not the type of person that would create an
undesirable project.
Janet Anderson, 1507 N.E. 185th, Seattle, said she works in the Sunset building. Ms. Anderson
said 236th Street has a very steep grade and parking is very hazardous on that street. She said
the impact of a parking lot to the surrounding neighborhood is not as great as the impact of a
building.
Bob Johnson, 23711 - 80th Lane West, reaffirmed that a rezone would be a direct infringement to
the residential community. He said the buffer zone does not provide an adequate barrier to the
adjacent homes. He requested that the Council require at least a thirty foot buffer if the re-
zone is approved.
Mr. Allendoerfer said Mr. Nichols -Hoppe and Mr: Johnson were really arguing about the use of
lot 22 and not lot 21. He noted that lot 22 was not the issue before the Council at the present
time.
Mr. Allendoerfer addressed Mr. Harnden's concerns by stating that the rezone contract states
that there shall be no public access from the parkinglot to 238th Street. The rezone, he said,
will have no impact to that street.
Mr. Allendoerfer, in response to Ms. Mathay's concerns, said that tine applicant does not
intend to build an office building on the Loper property nor request that office buildings be
allowed on the subject property. He added that the contract rezone prohibits the construction of
office buildings on the subject property.
Mr. Allendoerfer pointed out that rezone contracts cannot be changed unless they are reviewed
and approved through the full public hearing process before the Planning Board and City Council.
Councilmember Wilson inquired about the same lot rule. Mr. Snyder said there are permitted prima-
ry uses in an RM zone, i.e. multiple family residential, retirement homes, single-family dwell-
ings. Permitted secondary uses include uses such as private parking. A secondary use is defined
by the Code to be that which is subordinate to a primary use on the site. Mr. Snyder said the
Planning Board has interpreted the Code to mean that a secondary u.se is not permitted without a
primary use.
Councilmember Ostrom inquired if the process before the Council was quasi-judicial. Mr. Snyder
I said a rezone has part legislative and part quasi-judicial functions. He suggested that the
Council review the issue in a quasi-judicial manner. Mr. Snyder said there are findings that
the Council is required to make in accordance to Chapter 20.40. The Council, he said, must find
that the proposal complies with the Comprehensive Plan and zoning ordinance; the relationship of
the change with existing land uses and zoning of the surrounding nearby properties should be
considered; if there have been sufficient changes in the immediate character or surrounding area
or City policy to justify the rezone; whether the property is economically or physically suitable
for the uses allowed; the relative gain to public health, safety, and welfare compared to the
potential increase or decrease in value to property owners. Mr. Snyder said the Council, with
these issues in mind, is being asked to review not the imposition of the CG zoning but the imposi-
tion of CG zoning by means of a contract. lie suggested that the Council instruct him to prepare
Findings of Fact & Conclusions of law from its discussion and decision and if the
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 7 APRIL 7, 1987
contract is approved, it be presented to the Council on a future agenda with the Findings & Con-
clusions.
Councilmember Ostrom said he understood that the Council could either approve or disapprove a
contract rezone but could not amend it. Mr. Snyder concurred. He said conditions may be suggest-
ed which the applicant can voluntarily accept. Councilmember Ostrom noted that the rezone agree-
ment does not conform to the Planning Board's recommendation. Mr. Snyder pointed out that the
Board only makes recommendations to the Council with respect to rezones. The Code, he said,
provides that all provisions of a contract rezone are to be considered at all hearings on the
subject. If the Council desired to impose additional conditions or requirements or remove any,
the issue should be remanded to the Planning Board to review in a public forum those amendments.
Councilmember Nordquist expressed concern that the subject property may be utilized as a parking
facility by other future developments. He inquired if the Council could impose a restriction
that the property be utilized for parking by the Sunset tenants and customers only. Mr. Snyder
said the Council could approve the rezone agreement subject to the applicant's acceptance of the
change and imply denial if he rejects the change. He expressed a reservation with respect to
that proposal in that rezones are required to be reviewed in light of the criteria relating to
the tract of land itself, i.e., what is the highest and best use of the parcel to be rezoned.
Councilmember Nordquist inquired if permits would be necessary if the rezone was approved and
assuming that grading had not coimnenced yet. Mr. Snyder replied affirmatively. Councilmember
Nordquist inquired if the City could require the applicant to go through the usual process even
though grading has been done. Mr. Snyder replied affirmatively. He noted that: an application is
pending before the ADB.
COUNCILMEMBER OSTROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST, TO REMAND THE ISSUE TO THE PLAN-
NING BOARD.
Councilmember Ostrom expressed concern that the contract rezone was not consistent with the recom-
mendation of the Planning Board.
Councilmember Kasper said he felt that a conditional use permit should be required for the park-
ing lot, and a complete design should be submitted to the City and go through the usual process
of review. He added that the rezone request should be denied.
A ROLL CALL VOTE WAS TAKEN. MOTION CARRIED WITH COUNCILMEMBER HALL, COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST,
COUNCILMEMBER OSTROM, COUNCILMEMBER WILSON, COUNCILMEMBER DWYER, AND COUNCILMEMBER JAECH IN FAVOR
AND COUNCILMEMBER KASPER OPPOSED.
Mr. Snyder said under Staff's interpretation, a conditional use permit could not be issued with-
out a primary use. The nature and extent of the improvements would be included in a binding site
plan, which are incorporated into the rezone agreement and indicate all of the specifics.
COUNCILMEMBER KASPER RESCINDED HIS VOTE IN OPPOSITION OF THE MOTION AND VOTED IN FAVOR OF THE
MOTION IN LIGHT OF MR. SNYDER'S LAST COMMENT.
The complete report of the Planning Department is available at the Planning Department.
The meeting recessed at 8:58 p.m. and reconvened at 9:07 p.m.
HEARING ON APPEAL OF ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD DECISION REGARDING FREESTANDING SIGN AT 1233
OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE AP-4-87/APPELLANT: ROGER HERTRICH
Assistant City Planner Duane Bowman reported that the history of the subject sign began in 1981
when the Architectural Design Board (ADB) denied a freestanding sign for Van Driel Realty at
1233 Olympic View Drive. An extensive redesign of the sign was made taking into consideration
the comments of the ADB, and a new freestanding sign was granted approval by the ADB in 1982.
The approval included a grant of relief from the minimum landscape requirement for a freestanding
sign and the allowance of a freestanding sign in a BN zone. The approved sign was a brown cedar
sign with gold leaf letters. Page Company Realtors purchased the former Van Driel Realty.
On September 3, 1986, the ADD denied a request of the Page Realty Company to modify the
freestanding sign. Denial was based on a finding that the proposed modification was not in char-
acti?r with the existing sign and was not compatible with the originally approved sign concept.
On February 4, 1987, the ADB approved a revised application by Page Realty Company for changes to
the existing freestanding sign. On February 20, 1987, Roger Hertrich filed an appeal seeking to
overturn the decision.
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 8 APRIL 7, 1987
Mr. Bowman said a' freestanding sign is warranted in_this location. However, the sign should have
a uniform design and color scheme. Therefore, the entire freestanding sign should be designed to
reflect either a brown cedar/gold leaf letter motif or a white background/blue letter combination.
Mr. Bowman displayed and reviewed a video tape depicting the existing freestanding sign.
Mayor Naughten opened the public portion of the hearing.
Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, amended his letter of appeal to delete the portion referring to
the combined area of freestanding and attached signs as well as the measurement error of the
existing freestanding sign because he said the sign falls within the 48 square foot maximum.
Mr. Hertrich noted that the landscaping surrounding the existing sign is deficient.
Mr. Hertrich said the existing freestanding sign poses a traffic hazard because it impairs sight
distance.
Mr. Hertrich said the ADB discussed reducing the height of the sign by eliminating or moving the
tenant signs closer together. Although the tenant boards have been moved closer together, the
height of -the sign has not been reduced.
Mr. Hertrich said the existing freestanding sign does not belong out there and suggested that a
sign be attached to the building.
Patricia Page, 1233 Olympic View Drive, said a freestanding sign existed at the time she and her
husband purchased Van Driel Realty. Only the top portion of the sign was altered. She said
they did not realize that alteration of the sign was subject to review by the City and apologized
for bypassing that process at the time..
Ms. Page pointed out that most real estate companies identify their business by use of a
readerboard. She said Page Realty has chosen not to utilize a readerboard in an attempt to
be consistent with other signs within the City. She said customers oftentimes will drive past
the office due to the excessive speed at which they travel and would miss the building altogether
if the freestanding sign did not exist.
Ms. Page reviewed a slide presentation of existing signs within the City that were both aestheti-
cally appealing and aesthetically unappealing, as well as the existing freestanding sign located
in front of Page Realty and the sign before it was revised a second time.
David Page showed the Council the Page Realty Company sign, logo, stationery, and business cards
utilizing the same design.- lie said he hoped the Council would not require them to change the
logo to fit the building.
Mr. Page noted that the other tenants' leases in the building expire in the near future. He said
their signs will be removed from the existing freestanding sign as they vacate the building.
(His company will occupy the entire building.)
Mr. Hertrich said the AUB recommended that the sign be reduced by one-third of its size, but
the sign is only a few inches less in height than the original sign.
Mr. Hertrich pointed out that many of the signs in the slide presentation were located in other
zones.
Mr. Hertrich said the purpose of the zoning ordinance 'in this particular instance was to protect
the aesthetic quality of the residential area. The original sign, he said, was allowed because
it was a low-key structure.
Jane Cunningham, 1030 Grandview, expressed concern regarding safety in the vicinity of Page
Realty Company. She said the sign does impair sight distance, adding that traffic travels along
that roadway at speeds in excess of 40 mph.
Mayor Naughten closed the public portion of the hearing.
COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER HALL, TO DENY THE APPEAL AND UPHOLD THE
ADB'S DECISION REGARDING THE FREESTANDING SIGN AT 1233 OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE.
Councilmember Jaech inquired if the motion included the recommendation that the design of the
sign reflect either a brown cedar/gold leaf letter motif or a white background/blue letter combi-
nation. Councilmember Wilson replied negatively.
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 9 APRIL 7, 1987
Councilmember Ostrom expressed concern regarding the aesthetic quality of the sign. He said the
sign would be improved immensely if the color scheme was uniform.
Councilmember Hall said she did not think the sign posed a traffic hazard. The problem was an
enforcement problem, she said, if people traveled in excess of the speed limit on that roadway
and traffic hazards could not be attributable to the sign. She said the applicants have complied
with the ADB recommendation. She was in favor of the motion.
COUNCILMEMBER 'AEC' MOVED TO AMEND, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NOROQUIST, THAT THE TENANT SIGNS BE
REMOVED AS THEY VACATE THE BUILDING AND ONLY THE PAGE REALTY COMPANY SIGN REMAIN.
MOTION TO AMEND CARRIED.
MAIN MOTION, AS AMENDED, CARRIED.
HEARING ON PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION ESTABLISHING RS-8 AND BN ZONING ON PROPOSED ANNEXA-
T ON IN VICINITY OF SHEtWOOD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL R�3 87%CITY OF EDMONDS
Assistant City Planner Duane Bowman reported that on February-25, 1987, the Planning Board con-
ducted a public hearing to consider zoning for the proposed annexation area in the vicinity of
Sherwood Elementary School. The Board recommended that the area be zoned RS-8, with the
exception of the veterinary clinic property on the southwest corner of 226th St. S.W. and
Edmonds Way. The recommended zoning for that parcel was BN.
Staff recommends that the City Council accept the Planning Board's recommendation regarding the
proposed zoning in anticipation of officially zoning the subject property upon annexation.
Mr. Bowman noted that the hearing was the first of two public hearings, and Council action at the
present time would be only to accept the Planning Board's recommendation.
Councilmember Ostrom inquired if the Council could identify the veterinary clinic property as a
nonconforming use. Mr. Bowman replied affirmatively.
Councilmember Kasper inquired if the lot to the south in the cul-de-sac was developed. Mr. Bow-
man said he believed so.
Mayor Naughten opened the public portion of the hearing.
Raymond Olson, 22808 - 106th Pl. W., said he did not object to the zoning for the proposed
annexation area. He inquired if sidewalks were required. Mr. Bowman said that issue is ad-
dressed in the City of Edmonds Comprehensive Sidewalk Plan. At the present time, sidewalks are
not required on the side streets. However, consideration will be given to installing sidewalks
in the area of 106th and the elementary school.
Mr. Olson inquired if 231st St. S.W. could be included in the proposed zoning. The Council
replied affirmatively.
Mayor Naughten closed the public portion of the hearing.
Councilmember Jaech expressed concern with respect to the County areas of SR 104. She said she
would like the Council to discuss whether it was desirable that that area be a
"quasi -commercial" stri.p or if pockets of businesses with residential areas was desirable. She
inquired if the Westgate Committee intended to analyze SR 104. Councilmember Nordquist replied
affirmatively. he said the Committee will submit recommendations to the Planning Board in the
future. Councilmember Jaech said she would prefer that the veterinary clinic remain nonconform-
ing until the Westgate Committee concluded its review.
COUNCILMEMBER JAECH MOVED TO ACCEPT THE PLANNING BOARD'S RECOMMENDATION WITH THE EXCEPTION THAT
THE VETERINARY CLINIC PROPERTY REMAIN AS AN RS ZONE. THE MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND.
COUNCILMEMBER KASPER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER HAIL, TO RECEIVE THE PLANNING BOARD'S RECOM-
MENDATION REGARDING THE PROPOSED ANNEXATION OF R-1-87. MOTION CARRIED.
i
The complete report of the Planning Board is available on file in the Planning Department.
DISCUSSION OF ON -STREET PARKING ON 80TH AVENUE WEST NORTH OF 216TIl STREET
City Engineer Bob Alberts reported that the City will be improving 80th Avenue West between 212th
St. S.W. and 220 St., which will eliminate existing perpendicular parking in the right-of-way in
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 10 APRIL 7, 1987
front of several businesses and multi -family units north of 216th St. S.W. The perpendicular
parking is not specifically allowed by the City but has developed over the years. The street
improvement project budget did not allow for replacing any lost spaces, nor was it anticipated
that there would be a need to provide parking. There is, however, a group of businesses (Stevens
West Medical -Dental Clinic) that will definitely be impacted by the street improvement
project. The remaining businesses (primarily tenant parking on the street) will see a minor
impact.
The street presently has a jog at the intersection of 216th St. S.W. due to the alignment of
the right-of-way. The area on the east side of 80th Ave. W., northerly from 216th St.S.W. in
front of the medical clinic, is presently used for overflow parking. The street improvements
include shifting the road easterly on the north side of 216th St. S.W. to a better alignment
with the road on the south side of the intersection as well as to install a sidewalk on the west
side of the road. The realignment will eliminate all present parking on the east side of the
road. The shifting of the road to the east will .leave a strip of existing pavement on the west
side that can be used for parallel parking at little cost. The right-of-way on the east side is
sufficient to add a small parking strip.
Staff recommends that the intersection of 80th Ave. W. and 216th St. S.W. be made into a
four-way stop subsequent to street improvements and the installation of a sidewalk. Those
improvements will improve safety for the school children, parking, and help solve the speeding
problems to the south.
It is the recommendation of Staff that the Council approve the parallel parking plan on 80th
Avenue West for approximately 200 feet north of 216th St. S.W. and acknowledge the necessity of
a four-way stop subsequent to project completion.
Councilmember Kasper noted that parking will be relocated in front of the residential area. Mr.
Alberts disagreed.
Councilmember Kasper inquired if the proposal for parking has been posted. Mr. Alberts replied
negatively.
Councilmember Ostrom inquired if the issue should be discussed during a public hearing. Council -
member Dwyer stated that he resided in that area. He said the improvements to the street will
benefit the residents of that area. He said the proposal is perfectly reasonable and no one will
notice if the proposal is implemented but people will notice if it is not.
Mayor Naughten adjourned the meeting at 10 p.m. COUNCILMEMBER DWYER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL -
MEMBER HALL, TO REOPEN THE MEETING. MOTION CARRIED.
Mr. Alberts said Staff would be more than happy to meet with the residents. He noted that the
Council previously approved authorization to call for bids on the project.
COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DWYER, TO APPROVE THE PLAN AS PRESENTED AND
ENCOURAGE STAFF TO PROCEED WITH ON -STREET PARKING AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE STREET.
Councilmember Nordquist raised a point of order. He noted that a gentleman in the audience had
previously indicated a desire to speak on the issue.
COUNCILMEMBER DWYER MOVED TO AMEND, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON, TO ALLOW PUBLIC INPUT.
MOTION CARRIED.
Philip DuBois, 7935 - 216th St. S.W., said he was an OB/GYN doctor, and his office was
located in the adjacent medical complex. He spoke in favor of allowing on -street parking if
the street is widened.
Mayor Naughten closed the public portion.
MOTION CARRIED WITH COUNCILMEMBER KASPER OPPOSED.
MAYOR
Mayer Naughten reminded the Council to file the F-1 forms by April 15th.
Mayor Naughten announced the,week of April 13 through the 17th as "Edmonds Annual Spring Clean Up
Week" which will be followed by the week of April 18 through the 26th as "Spring Rally Clean Up
and Recycling Week" by the State of Washington.
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 11 APRIL 7, 1987
COUNCIL
Council President Wilson inquired if the Council received the letter from Mrs. Probstfeld. The
Council replied affirmatively.
Councilmember Nordquist said a policy was previously adopted by a former Council President that
mail would be presented to the Council unopened. He said, however, that he keeps receiving his
mail in opened envelopes. City Clerk Jackie Parrett said she does not receive the Council's mail
but the Council Assistant does. Ms. Parrett said she checks the Council's box on Friday because
the assistant is not in the office on Friday but never opens mails addressed to individual COUn-
cil persons, only mail addressed to the Council as a whole. Ms. Parrett had spoken to both mail
clerks and the Council assistant about Councilmember Nordquist's complaint, and all stated that
they never open mail addressed to a Councilmember. Councilmember Hall suggested that the blue
folders for the Council be kept in the Council office, but Ms. ,Parrett said those are her work
folders for assembling the weekly Council packets. Councilmember Jaech suggested that the Coun-
cil Assistant work at least half a day on Friday as a solution to Councilmember Nordquist's com-
plaint.
Councilmember Hall said she was alerted that the Performing Arts Center has not received a check
for January, February, or March.
Councilmember Hall referred to the letter from Mr. Niggol. She said she called Mr. Niggol on
several occasions and also spoke to Staff, who did not feel an urgency to install stop signs on
9th. Councilmember Kasper suggested that a yellow line be painted from 5th to 8th. Mayor Naught -
en said the area of Walnut and 9th is being reviewed.
Councilmember Ostrom noted that the opera "Porky & Bess" is playing at the Seattle Opera
House, and the Mayor wanted to attend that opera to hear them sing, "1 got plenty of Not'in".
Councilmember Ostrom noted that the Council received a letter 'from residents of Seamont Lane.
He recommended that the issue be referred to the Planning Board for review.
The Council recessed to an Executive Session at 10:15 for approximately ten minutes to discuss a
property matter.
These minutes are subject to April 14, 1987 approval.
Z,0_ X�
f�.
JAQQ1JELINE C. PARRETT, City Clerk LARP. S. NAU;HTE 1, 111avor
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 12 APRIL 7, 1987