Loading...
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