Loading...
19780516 City Council Minutes2,24 May 16,, 1978 • MOTION: The regular meeting of the Edmonds City Council was called to order at 7:35 p.m. by -Mayor Harve Harrison in the Council Chambers of the Edmonds Civic Center. All present joined in the flag salute. PRESENT Harve Harrison, Mayor Mike Herb Phil Clement Katherine Allen Ray Gould Tom Carns Larry Naughten CONSENT AGENDA ABSENT STAFF PRESENT John Nordquist Charles Dibble, M.A.A. Leif Larson, Public Works Director John LaTourelle, Community Development Director Noelle Charleson, Asst. City Planner Irene Varney Moran, City Clerk Lila Crosby, Administrative Services Director Art Housler, Finance Director Marlo Foster, Police Chief Jack Cooper, Fire Chief Jim Murphy, City Attorney Wayne Tanaka, City Attorney Jackie Parrett, Deputy City Clerk A MOTION WAS MADE BY COUNCILMAN NAUGHTEN, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN GOULD, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED. The Consent Agenda contained the following: (A) Roll call. (B) Approval of Minutes of May 9, 1978. (C) Passage of Resolution 401, establishing an In -Lieu Parking Fee. COUNCIL Councilman Naughten inquired whether the Mayor had received a reply to his letter to Judge Daniel Kershner regarding State funds for the diversion programs established by the new Juvenile Offender Law. Mayor Harrison had received no reply as yet. Councilman Carns reported that some other South County jurisdictions had passed a resolution asking the legislature and the governor to approve a six -year property tax levy for the -emergency -life sup - MOTION: port system. COUNCILMAN CARNS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN GOULD, TO PLACE ON THE MAY 23 AGENDA A PROPOSED RESOLUTION ASKING THE LEGISLATURE AND THE GOVERNOR TO APPROVE OF A SIX -YEAR PROPERTY TAX LEVY OF UP TO 25� per $1,000 assessed valuation for emergency life support systems. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Carns provided a sample copy of the resolution passed by other jurisdictions to City Attorney Jim Murphy. Councilman Clement reported on his recent visit to Himeji, Japan, Edmonds' sister city. Councilwoman Allen reported that she had received a call asking about some light wires being run through the University property (County park) and whether it was necessary, who requested it, and whether it should have been cleared with the City Council. Public Works Director Leif Larson said he would investigate. 4Lviliv Mayor Harrison had a request for a Class H liquor license from Harold's Fifth Avenue, a new restaurant in Milltown..:, Police Chief Marlo foster had investigated the applicants, and he recommended approval. MOTION: COUNCILMAN CLEMENT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILWOMAN ALLEN, TO APPROVE THE CLASS H LIQUOR LICENSE APPLICATION FROM HAROLD'S F-IFTH AVENUE RESTAURANT. MOTION CARRIED. AUDIENCE Jan Cornwell of 4216 Pasadena P1., Seattle, employed at the 7-11 Store at 24300 76th Ave. W., sub- mitted a petition for a duck crossing sign to be placed in the vicinity of the driveway of the parking lot of the 7-11 Store. She said over 1,800 people had signed the petition. She felt the sign would enhance the area, as well as protect the 17 ducks which cross there regularly. COUNCILMAN GOULD MOTION: MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN CLEMENT, TO PLACE ON THE JUNE 20 AGENDA A DISCUSSION OF THE REQUESTED DUCK CROSSING SIGN FOR 76TH AVE. W. MOTION CARRIED. HEARING ON P.C. RESOLUTION 590, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AMENDMENT TO OFFICIAL STREET MAP AND COMPREHENSIVE THOROUGHFARE PLAN TO RECLASSIFY 240TH ST. S.W., BETWEEN HIGHWAY 99 AND 78TH AVE. W., FROM "COLLECTOR" STATUS TO "PUBLIC RESIDENTIAL STREET" STATUS, AND REDUCE THE RIGHT-OF-WAY FROM 60' TO 50' (Files ST-4-78 and CP-3-75) Assistant City Planner Noelle Charleson said most of this area is zoned residential. There is a small pocket of multiple and a,small,area of commercial. She felt the street standard classifica- tion of "residential -street" was. appropriate. This action had been initiated by an applicant who was having setback problems and applied to have the right-of-way reduced to 40' in width. Ms. Charleson did not recommend the reduction to 40' because of the difficulty in determining what the future development in the area may be. The Engineering Department felt it was best not to reduce future options for the street. Ms. Charleson showed slides of the area. Public Works Director Leif Larson indicated the water lines are along the edge of the pavement and the sanitary sewers are in the street. He said the storm drainage that does exist is along the edge of the road. The present pavement is the minimum, 20' or 22' wide. To implement the proposed change, 5' would be taken from each side of the road. Ms. Charleson noted that if the 60' right=of-way were maintained and the road eventually widened, it would run into some existing houses. She recommended approval of the proposal because 50' would be adequate to handle future traffic and improvements and because 1 1 1 • is 22 • May16,.1978 - continued the "residential street" was the proper classification. She noted that a number of the residents of the affected area were present, although the Planning Department had received no correspondence from them on this matter. The public portion of the hearing was opened. Bernard Bauer of 19707 44th Ave. W., speaking for Steve Gwinn (the applicant who had initiated the action), submitted petitions they had circulated to reduce the -right-of-way from 60' to 40'. Mr. Bauer stated that would be adequate for a full 32' wide improvement. Frank.Mikulosik of 8025 240th St. S.W. asked where.the center line of the street was located and how much property would be taken from properties on either.side of the road for dedications. Mr. Larson explained that procedure. Steve Gwinn of 10209 244th St. S.W., said he could not construct his building where he plans if he has to dedicate 10' and provide 25' of landscaping. Community Development Director John LaTourelle said Mr. Gwinn had designed his building too close to the right-of-way indicated on the Official Street Map. He said Mr. Gwinn wished the right-of-way reduced to 40', but the Staff's recommendation was reduction to 50'. Mr. Gwinn said they intended to keep the parking in back, and Mr. LaTourelle agreed that would be preferable. Councilman.Clement noted that there had been several minimum standard rights -of -way approved fo.r.subdivisions recently, but Mr. Larson said those had been on streets of less than 400'. He said this will be a through street and he did not recommend the minimum for such. Ray Sittauer of 561 Pine said he had made the motion on this item at the Planning Commission. He said he was not aware of the parking at that hearing and he.did not think a 50' right=o.f-way was necessary if there was to be no parking in the front. Mr. Gwinn said he could move both buildings forward and have all of the parking for both buildings at the rear of the lot. Mathew Rinaldi of 23910 80th Ave. W. was concerned with future egress on the right-of-way.in connection with Highway 99 in view of the traffic problems already.in existence -:at the location of the Turkey House and Pompei's restaurant, which will be compounded when the Doce's property is developed. Councilman Carns asked whether the City would ask the Turkey House to install a stop sign. Mr. Larson said that is not normal, but he would look into it. Mr. Larson illustrated what improvements should be planned for in the future for 240th St. Barbara Anderson of 23907 80th P1. W. said another related problem is that there are large trailer trucks stopping to park on Highway 99 at the Turkey House, and drivers cannot see • around the trucks before going out on the highway: Mr. Larson said he would look into that and work with the Police Chief to see what could be done. Jack Wise of 23926 80th Ave. W. felt a 40' right- of-way would solve the problems and be sufficient. The public portion of the hearing was closed. MOTION: COUNCILWOMAN ALLEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN CARNS, TO ADOPT ORDINANCE 1995, PURSUANT TO P.C. RESOLUTION 590. Councilman Herb said he would abstain as he arrived late and missed too much of the hearing. Councilman Clement said he was sympathetic to the problems on that street, so he would vote MOTION: for the motion. THE MOTION CARRIED, WITH COUNCILMAN HERB ABSTAINING. COUNCILMAN GOULD THEN MOVED THAT THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT AND THE POLICE DEPARTMENT INVESTIGATE THE TRAFFIC PROBLEM BROUGHT BEFORE THE COUNCIL THIS EVENING,_ON.240TH AND HIGHWAY 99 IN THE AREA OF THE TURKEY HOUSE AND DOCE'S, AND.REPORT BACK WITH RECOMMENDATIONS TO SOLVE THIS PROBLEM AT THE JUNE 12 WORK MEETING. COUNCILMAN CARNS SECONDED THE MOTION, SAYING THAT SHOULD INCLUDE CONSIDERATION OF A STOP SIGN AT THE TURKEY HOUSE EXIT AND NO PARKING ON HIGHWAY 99. MOTION CARRIED. Mayor Harrison said.he would like to recess the meeting for a short period in order to have an Executive Session for a report on labor negotiations. M.A.A. Dibble who was giving the report had another commit- ment this evening, so the Executive Session was held at this time. Whin Mayor Harrison reconvened the Council meeting he said there had been an inquiry from the audience as to whether the Council would consider reversing the order of Items 7 and 8 on the agenda. COUNCIL= MOTION: WOMAN ALLEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN CARNS, TO HEAR ITEM 8 PRIOR TO ITEM 7 ON THE AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED, WITH COUNCILMAN GOULD VOTING NO. PROPOSED -'ORDINANCE TO ESTABLISH 4-HOUR PARKING LIMIT ON BOTH SIDES OF MAPLE ST. FROM 5TH TO 6TH; ON BOTH SIDES OF 2ND AVE. FROM BELL TO DAYTON; AND ON DAYTON FROM 300' EASTERLY OF 5TH TO 6TH; AND ESTABLISH 2-HOUR PARKING.LIMIT ON DAYTON FROM 5TH EASTERLY FOR 300' Public Works Director Leif Larson said both the Public Works Department and the Police Department had • received complaints about problems in the unlimited parking areas adjacent to the central business district because of people who are working and parking their cars all day in these areas. He dis- played a map reflecting the time periods suggested on the various streets. The public portion of the hearing was opened. Virginia Evans, owner of the Maples Apartments at 515 Maple St., said that when her building was constructed the code required only one parking space per tenant, so her tenants use on -street parking for their second cars or their guest parking, and to.limit parking on Maple would create a real problem for them. Glen VandeBogart of 21529 90th W.j a merchant in Milltown, submitted a list: of his recommended parking limits on the various streets which he explained. Stan Green of 523 Maple complained about all -day parkers; Bill Coulter of 523 Maple recommended 2-hour parking; and Douglas Colton of 8506 236th S.W., representing the Harbor House Restaurant, recommended 3-hour parking. S. A. McLaughlin who lives in a condominium at 2nd and Bell asked that.the Council consider limiting parking to 4 hours on Bell from 2nd to 3rd. The public portion of.the hearing was then closed. Councilman Clement suggested this hearing be kept in mind the next time a developer proposed an apartment building with less than the required number of off-street parking spaces. He also asked where all these people were last year when everyone said there was no parking problem in downtown Edmonds. Councilman Carns commented that Milltown has really impacted the neighborhood, and he sug- gested the Milltown people attempt 'to make some kind of arrangement`•-'foK employee parking at the church up the street. He also suggested that the area be posted for 2-hour parking and that cars which belong to people who live there have a sticker with their home address on it so those people would not be restricted from parking at their own home. He noted that some of those homes do not have off-street parking. Chuck Cain of Edmonds Lumber Company interjected that parking should be limited to two hours, but he agreed that residents should be permitted to park in front of their homes. He felt the area should be patroled more frequently also. Councilwoman Allen felt 2-hour parking was more than adequate, and that residents should be limited to one car only parking on the street. Councilman Naughten disagreed, feeling residents should be permitted two parking spaces on the street. COUNCILMAN. CARNS MOTION: MOVED, SECONDED BY•COUNCILMAN NAUGHTEN, THAT THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE BE ADOPTED WITH THE FOLLOWING EXCEP- (Tabled) TIONS: THAT ALL 4-HOUR LIMITATIONS IN THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE BE CHANGED TO 2-HOUR LIMITATIONS, AND THAT BELL ST. FROM 2ND TO 3RD BE ADDED TO THE LIST. COUNCILWOMAN ALLEN THEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN 2'26 May 16, 1978 - continued CLEMENT.,_TO TABLE''THI:S.: ITEM UNTILTHE: NEXT.=.MEETING.: . MOTION "CARRIED,' WITH ' City.A'tto.rney ,J'ii L Murphy: noted ,that you..cahndt'.re'' erVe..pdbl it'.-pro'06rty: for MOTION: CLEMENT:;T,HEN'MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN.NAUGHT.EN, THAT, THIS'TABLED ITEM AGENDA AT THE NEXT MEETING. MOTION CARRIED. HEARING ON REVIEW OF SIGN CODE COUNCILMAN GOULD VOTING NO. private u'ses'.. COUNCILMAN BE PLACED LAST ON THE Community Development Director John LaTourelle reviewed the background of this proposed ordinance, including the two amendments recommended by the Council at the May 9 meeting; i.e., ADB review of signs and shortening of the amortization period to five years. Assistant City Planner Noelle Charleson then briefly reviewed the proposed code. The public portion of the hearing was then opened. Ray Sittauer of 561 Pine, one of the Co -Chairmen -of the Sign Code Committee and a member of the Planning Commission, said that when a new Sign Code was proposed 14 months ago and was heard before the Planning Commission there was only one businessman in the audience and no one spoke from the audience: He said the Planning Commission passed it and sent it on to the Council, and there was a full chamber when it was heard. It.was returned to the Planning Commission and the Sign Code Committee was appointed, including members from realties, the sign industry, lay persons, and two Planning Commission members and one ADB member. Mr. Sittauer said the Committee had nothing to show to the Council during the period it was me Committee had developed a good code, and he sai favor of, or at least went along with, what the, and over, and one of the most important things standing signs were maximum sizes and could not the review process. He said it was the consens strongly enough so every sign would not have to Committee only one did not agree to this. He s second time there were 60-75 people in the audi City left that meeting they thought there was a enforce. Mr. Sittauer noted that only a few bu satisfied that the ordinance would be as agreed Committee's thinking on the 10-year amortizatio of all presently nonconforming signs, so why ha Mr. Sittauer did not think the 5-year amortiza Co -Chairman of the Committee, and a member of t Sign Code Committee. She corrected Mr. Sittaue years was appropriate, but the motion of the P1 regard to the ADB, that it was hard to put your a "thorn in the side" for whatever reason. Cou Block as to how many signs had been appealed fr there had been two. Chuck Cain of Edmonds Lumb were enforced. He said his sign had to say "ER more. He said he has two pole signs which are !ting because they had no secretary. He felt the i the former Community Development Director was in F developed. He said everything was discussed over :hey put in the code was that sizes stated for free - be reduced by any official, board, or commission in is of the Committee that the code should be written go to the ADB, and that of all of the members of the yid when it went before the Planning Commission the !nce, mostly businessmen. And when the people from the code they could live with and that the City could ;inessmen were present this evening --because they were at the Planning Commission hearing. He said the i was that the ordinance in effect now will take care Fe only five years when starting with a new ordinance. :ion period was justifiable. Laura Hall, the other ie Planning Commission, introduced the members of the saying the feeling of the Committee was that five inning Commission was for ten years. She said, with finger on it, but that was bantered around and was icilman Carns inquired of Associate Planner Mary Lou im the ADB since its inception, to which she replied !r felt the present Sign Code would be adequate if it IONDS LBR" because there was not allowable room for food. He obJected to the five-year amortization period. Celia Anderson of the Business Advertising Council of Washington felt there would be a lot of problems with the new Code because of interpretation. She felt it was too broad. She felt the longer a sign is up the more valuable it becomes because it becomes a part of the awareness. She was opposed to a number of items in the Code, which she enumerated. She stated that she thought the Code was unworkable. Tom Berry of 8432 Olympic View Dr., and a member of the Sign Code Committee, said that just because there were only two appeals from the ADB that did not indicate how many dissatisfied people there were who had to return to the ADB with a different sign. He said he had a problem with the statement made last week that the City was trying to discourage freestanding signs. Councilman Carns explained that the Policy Plan states that signs should be small and low- level, oriented to pedestrians, no pole signs, perpendicular and flat to buildings; and that is the policy that the ADB had been following. Mr. Berry felt if freestanding signs had to go to the ADB there would be haggling. He said another complaint with the.ADB was the length of time it took to get a sign approved. He felt there should be some way to expedite sign permits. With regard to freestanding signs, he said the Committee felt they should be permitted but with restrictions as to location and size. He said_ they had put 24 sq. ft. as a maximum.size, and the Committee had no problem with the 14' height. He pointed out that in many cases a freestanding sign is a business- man's best form of advertisement. Buzz Bauman of Jones Boys Realty, and a member of the Sign Code Committee, said they had put in 14 months on this and had developed what they thought was a good ordinance. He admonished the Council that they should accept it and live with it, because that is what they asked the Committee to do. Community Development Director John LaTourelle noted that with two exceptions the draft ordinance was essentially identical to that which the Sign Code Committee had presented. With regard to the pole signs, he said the ADB has been looking at the City's Policy Plan, and the ordinance did not reflect that Policy Plan and that was why that issue was brought to the Council last week. He said he was satisfied that with the change in language it should be clear as to what the City policy is. Captain Floyd Smith, a member of the Planning Commission, said the Policy Plan should be subject to change also. Wayne Meyers, president.of Olympic Properties, said they have a low -profile sign but it had not helped their business. Ray Sittauer then stated that he felt if the ADB is permitted to review pole signs then he has wasted 14 months. Laura Hall added that she thought the Policy Plan was meant to be used as a guide and to be updated periodically. The public portion of the hearing was then closed. Councilman Carns stated that when the Policy Plan was adopted it was adopted by a majority of the present Council, so it is the policy of the present Council, and future Councils probably will change it. He said it is true that it should be used as a guide. He thought it should be perfectly clear to the majority of the citizens who are interested that the current Council does discourage pole signs. Councilman Gould said that with regard to the Policy Plan he thought it was important that it not be viewed as something that is dusted off and brought out periodically. He said the Council presently is considering revisions to it, working on it sections at a time. He felt the Sign Ordinance draft is a very fine document, and he said he supported the ADB 100%. Further, that this kind of provision was needed in our City Code to produce the kind of city that he felt the people who live here want to have. He added that this was not necessarily what the business community wants. Councilman Clement said that former Councilman Max Gellert had called him and 1 1 0 11 • 1 1 E 227 • May 16, 1978 - continued asked him to convey his feeling that it is very important that the ADB be maintained as a review step in the Sign Ordinance. As for himself, Councilman Clement said he had long thought that communication 'o'f price information is important to the consumer. He said he liked the ordinance as it is, but he would prefer to see a clean-cut statement that in the BC zone pole signs would not be allowed. Mr. LaTourelle commented that it is technically impossible to write an ordinance that will apply from one e.nd of the spectrum to the other and when you have such a range of building sizes it is difficult. He said that is where the ADB comes into play. He agreed with a comment that the landscaping definition may need clearing up, but noted there is a landscaper or landscape architect designated as one of the members of the ADB. Councilman Herb objected to the penalty section which states that every day a sign exists is a separate misdemeanor. City Attorney Jim Murphy responded that the entire City Code is .that way. Councilman Herb said he was opposed in general to this draft, and that the Council should go along for the most part with what the Committee recommended. He said that when you get into aesthetics which is completely discretionary all that will be ended up with is a city with government imposed tastes. Councilwoman Allen said she did not care for the implication that the Council just brings out the - Policy Plan when they need it. She said she had used it since being on the Council and that she had been very comfortable with it and with its concept of signage. In fact, she said she would prefer to go more by the Policy Plan than by the proposed Sign Ordinance because the Policy Plan is more restric- tive. She said she knows it is the quality of a business that brings people to that business, and she knows the people of Edmonds will get tired of seeing big signs if they are allowed. Further, that there is....a large contingency which would like to see signs kept to a minimum. She thought the proposed ordinance was acceptable. Councilman Naughten said he had thought they had a good Sign Code until tonight. He said he was not fully opposed to freestanding signs but he could see an inherent danger in them because they are the most visible and can be misused. He thought there should be some control over them, whether it is the ADB or something else. He was against every sign being reviewed by the ADB, however. He felt freestanding signs should be reviewed by somebody, and if the ADB were going to review them there should not be any maximum size. He commended the Committee for its work. MOTION: COUNCILMAN GOULD THEN MOVED TO ADOPT ORDINANCE 1994, SIGN CODE, WHICH WAS PRESENTED TO THE COUNCIL THIS (Amended) EVENING, MAY 16, 1978. COUNCILMAN CARNS SECONDED THE MOTION, AND ADDED THAT HE WISHED TO MAKE SOME AMENDMENTS. COUNCILMAN CARNS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN GOULD, TO AMEND THE MAIN MOTION TO CHANGE AMENDMENT- PARAGRAPH 6.b. ON PAGE 5 OF THE ,ORDINANCE TO SAY "ATTACHED SIGNS SHALL NOT,,.1XTEND ABOVE THE ROOFLINE (Failed) OF THE BUILDING SUPPORTING THE SIGN UNLESS THE ADB DETERMINES THAT THERE IS NO OTHER REASONABLE LOCATION FOR THE SIGN." THE MOTION TO AMEND FAILED, WITH COUNCILMAN CARNS VOTING YES, AND ALL OTHER COUNCIL AMENDMENT MEMBERS VOTING NO. COUNCILMAN CARNS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN CLEMENT, TO AMEND THE MAIN MOTION TO CHANGE PARAGRAPH 3 ON PAGE 8 TO ADD THE WORDS ". . . THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS DETERMINES. . ." AFTER THE WORD "WHICH" ON THE FIRST LINE. MOTION CARRIED, WITH COUNCILMAN HERB VOTING NO. COUNCILMAN AMENDMENT CARNS MOVED TO AMEND THE MAIN MOTION TO CHANGE PARAGRAPH 5.c. ON PAGE 5 TO ADD THE WORDS ". . . EXCEPT (Failed) AS APPROVED BY THE ADB." AT THE END. OF THAT PARAGRAPH. MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF.A SECOND. COUNCILMAN AMENDMENT CARNS MOVED, SECONDED FOR DISCUSSON BY COUNCILMAN CLEMENT, TO AMEND THE.MAIN MOTION TO CHANGE PARAGRAPH (Failed) 5.c. ON PAGE 5 TO ADD AT THE END OF THE PARAGRAPH THE WORDS ". . . EXCEPT AS APPROVED BY THE ADB." Councilman Carns felt -the ADB had done a good job and he wanted to give them more flexibility. MOTION AMENDMENT FAILED, WITH COUNCILMAN CARNS VOTING YES, AND ALL OTHER COUNCIL MEMBERS VOTING NO. COUNCILMAN HERB MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN.CLEMENT, TO AMEND THE MAIN MOTION TO CHANGE SECTION 20.10.200, PENALTIES, (Failed) ON PAGE.11, TO DELETE THE LAST SENTENCE AND ADD THE FOLLOWING: "NO PERSON CAN BE PROSECUTED FOR MORE THAN ONE VIOLATION OF THIS CODE IN ANY MONTH." MOTION TO AMEND FAILED, WITH COUNCILMEN HERB AND CLEMENT VOTING YES, AND ALL OTHER COUNCIL MEMBERS VOTING NO. Public Works Director Leif Larson called attention to the fact that the wrong type of permit was called for in paragraph 5 on page 8. COUNCILMAN HERB AMENDMENT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN CLEMENT, TO AMND THE MAIN MOTION TO CHANGE PARAGRAPH 5 ON PAGE 8 TO DELETE THE WORD "INVASION" IN THE SECOND LINE AND TO INSERT IN ITS PLACE THE WORD "USE." MOTION AMENDMENT CARRIED. COUNCILMAN NAUGHTEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN HERB, TO AMEND THE MAIN MOTION TO CHANGE (Failed) PARAGRAPH l ON.PAGE 4 TO STATE THAT THE ADB WILL REVIEW ONLY FREESTANDING SIGNS. Mr. LaTourelle stated that the Committee and the Planning Commission both recommended that the ADB review signs, and their only objection was to restricting the height and size. Laura Hall said the Committee felt the ADB was not necessary if the Sign Code was a tight enough instrument to control the signs. A ROLL CALL VOTE WAS TAKEN WITH COUNCILMEN.NAUGHTEN AND HERB VOTING YES, AND COUNCIL MEMBERS CLEMENT, ALLEN, GOULD, AMENDMENT AND CARNS VOTING NO. MOTION TO AMEND FAILED. COUNCILMAN NAUGHTEN MOVED TO AMEND THE MAIN MOTION BY (Failed) DELETING PARAGRAPH 2 ON PAGE 6, WHICH CALLS FOR MAXIMUM SIGN AREAS, HIS REASON BEING TO PROVIDE MORE • - FLEXIBILITY. MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. A ROLL CALL VOTE WAS THEN TAKEN ON THE MAIN MOTION, AS AMENDED, WITH COUNCIL MEMBERS GOULD, CARNS, CLEMENT, AND ALLEN VOTING YES, AND WITH COUNCIL -MEMBERS. NAUGHTEN AND HERB VOTING NO.. THE MAIN MOTION, AS AMENDED, CARRIED. PROPOSED RESOLUTION GRANTING EXCEPTIONS TO THE MORATORIUM ON BUILDING PERMITS IN THE COMMERCIAL WATER- FRONT ZONE The proposed resolution had been presented to the Council, granting exceptions to the fishing pier previously approved by the City Council and to improvement to the South Snohomish County Senior Citizen Center complex, also previously approved by the Council. There was no discussion. COUNCILMAN MOTION: HERB MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILWOMAN ALLEN, TO PASS RESOLUTION 402 GRANTING EXCEPTIONS TO THE MORATORIUM ON BUILDING PERMITS IN THE COMMERCIAL WATERFRONT ZONE. MOTION CARRIED. There was no f.urther.business to come before the Council, and the meeting was adjourned at 11:35 p.m. 'f IRE E VARNEY MORAN, ITY CLERK HARVE H. HARRISON, MAYOR