Loading...
19780509 City Council Minutes2 2't May 2, 1978 - continued She said the findings of the Health District were that a public health nuisance does not exist and that it is not a public or community problem. They recommended it be classified a private.nuisance and that Mr. Brautaset seek relief by civil action. In response, Jens Brautaset of 1037 6th.Ave. S. stated he had filed a petition this date from himself and other neighbors regarding the building of the fiberglass boat. He asked that the Council investigate the matter and see the magnitude of the problem. He submitted photographs reflecting the closeness of the boat and the cans of resin to his home. He stated that the contaminated air lingers and does not dissipate. City Attorney John Wallace said the Fire Department had found some fire hazards but they were abated when the neighbor, Robert Rine, was notified. Councilman Herb pointed out to Mr. Brautaset that the Council is a legislative body and does not function to settle differences between individual parties. He advised Mr. Brautaset that the Courts have the purpose of settling such differences. Robert Rine of 1039 6th Ave. S., the builder of the boat, said he did not want to cause any health hazard. He stated that Mr. Brautaset had exaggerated each of his complaints and that there had been continuous disputes between them. Councilman Gould interjected that the Council had received a complaint and had considered the matter and, having been advised by the Health District that there is no public nuisance, the Council should not proceed further. He said the Council was.not in the position to make peace between neighbors. City Attorney John Wallace added that there was no criminal violation under which the City could proceed inasmuch as the Health District had advised there was no public health hazard. Chuck Cain of 1060 6th Ave. S. said he had signed the petition because he thought something should be done about the situation. He added that there had been other problems in the neighborhood and he wanted to.see something done about them. No further action was taken by the Council. AUDIENCE Owen Stanley of 233 N. 3rd, representing the South County Senior Center, said the Senior Center had a flag, but did not have a pole on which to fly it, and he asked the Council for assistance in obtaining a pole. M.A.A. Charles Dibble suggested it may be incorporated into the next phase of the work soon to be done there, and he asked that the Staff be given an opportunity to include'it. However, Chuck Cain • of Edmonds Lumber Co. said he would donate a. flag pole -to -the South -County --Senior Center. HEARING ON P.C. RESOLUTION 591, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE ESTABLISHMENT OF RS-6 ZONING ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF 9TH AND MAIN ST. (FORMER WATER TANK SITE) and AUTHORIZATION TO OPEN BIDS ON JUNE 1, 1978 FOR SALE OF 9TH AND MAIN TANK SITE [Item (D) on Consent Aqendal Community Development Director John LaTourelle said this.site is completely surrounded by RS-6 zoning; there was a finding.of. no significant adverse environmental impact on the proposed amendment; and RS-6 zoning will conform with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. He said there had been no discussion from the public when this was heard before the Planning Commission. Regarding the minimum bid established, Public Works Director Leif Larson said the formal appraisal had come from Earl Stay who had made a previous appraisal on the property and then updated his appraisal based on the removal of the water tank. The recommended minimum bid price was $29,500. The public portion of the hearing was. opened. Doug Mowat of 801 12th P1. N. questioned whether the value placed on this site was proper. No one MOTION: else wished to speak, and the public portion of the hearing was closed. COUNCILMAN CARNS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN NAUGHTEN, TO ADOPT ORDINANCE 1993 PURSUANT TO P.C. RESOLUTION 59.1. MOTION MOTION: CARRIED. COUNCILMAN CARNS THEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN NORDQUIST, TO APPROVE ITEM (D) ON.THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Gould inquired of Mr. LaTourelle as to the schedule on Planning Commission action on recommendations of the Density Review Committee. Mr. LaTourelle responded that the Commission had * recommended that density be reduced and units limited to three per building in the downtown area, but the City Attorney's office had advised that a second look should be taken at the recommendations in view of some recent.court decisions. Mr. LaTourelle said his department was consideri.ng.whether it should go back to the Planning Commission before going to the Council. • There was no further business to come before the Council, and the meeting was adjourned at 8:35 p.m. IREN VARNEY MORAN, AITY CLERK May 9, 1978 (Work Meeting) 011,1111 W M no N The regular meeting of the Edmonds.City Council was called to order at 7:35 p.m. by Mayor Pro tem Tom Carns in the Council Chambers of the Edmonds Civic Center. All present joined in the flag salute. Mayor Harve Harrison arrived shortly after the.meeting was called to order. PRESENT ABSENT STAFF PRESENT Har.ve Harrison, Mayor Phil Clement Charles' Dibble, M.A.A. Mike Herb John LaTourelle, Community Development Director Katherine Allen Dick Allen, Acting Public Works Director Larry Naughten Irene Varney Moran, City Clerk John Nordquist Lila Crosby, Administrative Services Director Ray Gould Art Housler, Finance Director Tom Carns Noelle Charleson, Assistant City Planner John Wallace, City Attorney Wayne Tanaka, City Attorney Jackie Parrett, Deputy City Clerk *See amendment May 9, 1978 22 May 9, 1978 - continued • ,'CONSENT..AGENDA MOTION: A MOTION WAS MADE BY COUNCILMAN NAUGHTEN, SECONDED BY COUNCILWOMAN ALLEN, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED. The Consent Agenda contained the following: (A) Roll call. (B) Approval of Minutes of May 2, 1978. (C) Setting date of May 23, 1978 for hearing of P.C. Resolution 592, recommending approval of a contract rezone from RS-20 to CW on northwest corner of 162nd Ave. W. and 75th P1. W. (Kauffmann R-2-77) COUNCIL MOTION: COUNCILMAN NAUGHTEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILWOMAN ALLEN, TO PLACE ON THE AGENDA OF THE MAY 30 WORK MEETING DISCUSSION OF THE DENSITY REVIEW COMMITTEE REPORT. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Carns said he had been talking with one of the Port Commissioners regarding the future of the waterfront and it appeared that the Port Commissioners have the same feelings as the Council that it should be people oriented. He suggested that a dinner meeting with the Port Commissioners to discuss this would be beneficial. Mayor Harrison noted that it is being recognized that there is a change in philosophy and the City should keep up with it by changing its land use maps to meet that need. Councilman Nordquist suggested that the Council attend one of the Port Commission meetings,and that suggestion was well received. Prior to such meeting the Council would like to have the results of the waterfront study being prepared by Robert Pantley. Such results should be MOTION: available in early June. COUNCILMAN CARNS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN NORDQUIST, THAT THE MAYOR'S OFFICE MAKE THE NECESSARY CONTACTS WITH THE PORT COMMISSIONERS TO SCHEDULE A DINNER MEETING WITH THEM. Councilman Naughten suggested that Robert Pantley be included, but it was felt that at this time it should be a meeting of elected. officials. It was noted that it will be a public meeting • and Mr. Pantley could attend if he so desired. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Gould advised that he will not be present for the May 30 and and June 20 meetings. Councilman Naughten advised he will not be present for the June 27 and July 3 meetings. COUNCILMAN MOTION: NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILWOMAN ALLEN, TO CANCEL THE JULY 3 MEETING. MOTION CARRIED, WITH COUNCILMAN CARNS VOTING NO. Councilman Gould advised that he and Councilwoman Allen had attended a Juvenile Court Advisory Board workshop last week and that the South County area had been divided among the various municipalities for community service. They had offered to take the area west of Highway 99 and from the King County line north to 148th St., except.for the Woodway area. He said they now must find Conference Com- mittee members who will be trained and will be an arm of the court. He asked that anyone interested contact either Councilwoman Allen or himself. Councilman Carns called attention to the "Land Use Zoning for Non -Lawyers" seminar to be held May 25. He said he planned to attend and hoped some of the other Council members also would attend. Council members Allen, Herb, and Naughten indicated they would be attending, and.Community Develop- ment Director John LaTourelle said five people from his department would be attending. Councilman Nordquist inquired about the memorandum from MEBT Vice -Chairman Lila Crosby which indicated that only $3,969 of the $4,500 which had been authorized had been used for prepayment to the MEBT. He inquired whether the balance would be returned to the General Fund, and she responded that only the $3,969 had been taken from the General Fund so there was no balance to be returned. MEBT will reimburse the City for the $3,969 by .making three.quarterly payments of $1,000 and one payment of $969. Councilman Nordquist advised that he and Councilwoman Allen had attended the Snohomish County Health District meeting this date.and it was reported that there is an upswing in rabies throughout • the United States, and especially in Wyoming. It is working its way west. Councilman Nordquist advised that there will be two clinics in Edmonds this year. Laura Hall, a member of the Planning Commission, asked to be recognized. She noted that the City .Council Minutes of May 2, 1978 reflect on page 4 that at the review of the recommendations of the Density Review Committee the Planning Commission had recommended units be limited to three per building in the downtown area. Mrs,. Hall said that the number recommended by the Planing Commission MOTION: was four per building. COUNCILMAN HERB MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILWOMAN ALLEN, TO AMEND THE MINUTES OF MAY 2, 1978 TO CHANGE THE FIGURE "THREE" TO THAT OF "FOUR" IN THE SIXTH LINE FROM THE BOTTOM ON PAGE 4. MOTION CARRIED. DISCUSSION OF SIGNAGE CONCEPTS Community Development Director John LaTourelle discussed the sign ordinance draft which had been approved by the Planning Commission. He commended the Sign Code Committee for doing an -excellent job in developing a smooth administrative process to follow, and he felt the ordinance will be a credit to the City. He did feel the draft approved by the Planning Commission contained two serious defects, one in regard to.pole signs which he felt would encourage building the very type of signs the City Policy opposes in the downtown and neighborhood shopping areas, and the other in regard to the amortization period for nonconforming signs. Mr. LaTourelle stated that the proposed ordilnance:. would allow pole signs up to 32 sq. ft. in area and 14' high for all businesses in BC and BN zones, and that neither the ADB, the Board of Adjustment, nor the Planning Commission could reduce the height or size of any proposed pole sign, directly in opposition to Section 208 of the Policy Plan. He suggested two ways in which the proposed ordinance could be brought into compliance with the City policy. One would be to set binding maximum standards for all signs which would reflect the policy statement on implementation; i.e., no pole signs, only low level freestanding signs, and very small signs attached to buildings. All businesses would be required to comply, regardless of the circum- stances of their building, and the only appeal would be to the Board of Adjustment. The second • 22V3 May 9, 1978 - continued 1 1 r-7 1J C� i approach would be to set generous outside limits governing the maximum allowable sigh height and size, but retain the review process for each proposal. Each proposal would have to demonstrate that the circumstances require a pole sign for adequate visibility and that the proposed sign is the minimum size and height necessary to advertise the business. Mr. LaTourelle felt that through this process the intent of the City policy can be implemented but still make exception for the unusual case. He favored the second approach, retaining ADB review of height and size of pole signs. The second deficiency he found in the proposed -ordinance was the length of time for amortizing nonconforming signs.. He said the proposed amortization periods did not take into consideration -that many of the nonconforming signs may be of.little value and earlier removal would not constitute a hardship. fie recommended.a five-year amortization period, with the provision that a specified amorti- zation schedule be established by the Board of Adjustment for high -cost signs. Mr. LaTourelle showed a number of slides depicting -signs which have been ADB approved as compared to possibilities which the proposed ordinance would allow. He also showed a map of the downtown area which indicated businesses with existing freestanding signs and potential additional locations for freestanding signs under the proposed ordinance. There were a total of 129 potential locations for freestanding signs in the down' town business area, including approximately 36 such signs now in -existence. Mr. LaTourelle indicated that the Sign Code Committee did not want the ADB to have review powers over the height and size of pole signs. Laura Hall, one of the co-chairmen of the Sign Code Committee, and John McGibbon, Chairman of the Plan- ning Commission, were in the audience and they Wer.-einvited to join the Council at the work table. Mrs. Hall stated that there had been one person on the Committee who felt the ADB had .too much power. She said that in working on the ordinance the Committee had divided the City into three zones for considera- tion -- the downtown area, the waterfront, and the Westgate%Perrinville areas. John McGibbon said his impression has been that the majority of the Sign.Code Committee and the Planning Commission did not want to give the ADB the kind of discretionary power stated'by'Mr. LaTourelle. Councilman Carns felt the ADB should continue to review every sign and should not be restricted in determining size and height. He did not think there should be pole signs in the BC or BN zones unless the ADB determines a pole sign is the best type of sign for a particular business. Councilman Gould said he believes i.n,the ADB and he felt they had done.a fine job for the City. He said they have the ability to build taste and.quality into a sign that cannot be legislated. He suggested the Council take the criteria they have suggested and make that the Council's stance and accompany it with a policy statement in line with the Policy Plan -- that there may be only a limited number of cases when pole signs are allowed. Assistant City Planner Noelle Charleson distributed copies of the Planning Division-'s suggested amendment to the GENERAL REGULATIONS portion of the proposed ordi"nance,perta.ining to "Total Allowable Signage." Both Councilman Carns and Councilman Gould were in agreement with the amendment. Councilman Herb suggested there might be some special zone for signs on properties which are in the BC zones but in actuality are residential areas. Councilman Carns commented that he thought any appeal on the height and size of pole signs should go to the Council, rather than the Board of Adjustment, because the only appeal from the Board of Adjustment is to the Superior Court which can be costly. Regarding nonconforming signs, Councilman Carns did not believe it would be proper to give another extension of time for retaining such signs. He suggested it might be reasonable to say they must be taken down seven years after installation unless a hardship could be proven to the Board of Adjustment. He felt that some signs that presently are up have already outlived their usefulness. Councilman Nord- quist felt some nonconforming signs are worthy of remaining and that seven years is too short a period to allow a person to make a change. Mr. LaTourelle said the Sign Code Committee had recommended five years, and that a person could appeal to have an extended period. Councilman Carns asked why such a sign should be allowed to stay another five or seven years, and Councilman Gould said he found the five- year period simpler and easier to administer. It was suggested that the appeal procedure on nonconforming signs should be to the Board of Adjustment. The general consensus was that there should be a general amendment incorporated that would include some language change to indicate maximums in height and size will be subject to review by the ADB, and that the amortization period for nonconforming signs would be five years after the passage of the ordinance. The amendment to the GENERAL REGULATIONS section was acceptable. COUCNILMAN CARNS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN NORDQUIST, THAT THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT INCORPORATE INTO THE DRAFT SIGN ORDINANCE FOR NEXT WEEK'S PUBLIC HEARING THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO GENERAL REGULATIONS AND THE OTHER DISCUSSION HELD THIS EVENING, INCLUDING THE CHANGES TO INDICATE THE ADB WILL REVIEW MAXIMUM SIGN HEIGHTS AND SIZES. Councilman Herb said he would vote against.the motion as he disagreed with several parts of the proposed, -.-ordinance. He cited some problems'he found, such as he-fel-t the restrictions on pole signs were, too strict, he felt the City should not restrict such signs as for going -out -of -business sales, and he felt the amortization period for nonconforming signs was too strict. THE MOTION CARRIED, WITH COUNCILMAN HERB VOTING NO. There was no further business to come before the Council, and the meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m. JK��u. W.4m! R� V [ORM HARVE H. HARRISON, MAYOR " _