19790327 City Council Minutes•
341A
1
1
March 27, 1979
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
John Nordquist
Ray Gould
Tom Carns
Larry Naughten
CONSENT AGENDA
STAFF PRESENT
Charles Dibble, M.A.A.
Leif Larson, Public Works Director
John.LaTourelle, Community Devel. Dir.
Irene Varney Moran, City Clerk
Fred Herzberg, City Engineer
Mary Lou Block, Assistant City Planner
Jack Weinz, Assistant Fire Chief
Wayne Tanaka, City Attorney
Jackie Parrett, Deputy City Clerk
MOTION: Items (C) and (H) were removed from the Consent Agenda. COUNCILMAN NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUN-
CILMAN CARNS, TO APPROVE THE BALANCE OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED. The balance of the Consent
Agenda included the following:
• MOTION:
(A) Roll call.
(B) Approval of Minutes of March.20, 1979.
(D) Setting date of April 3, 1979 for hearing Conditional Use Permit application for church and
gymnasium at 7th Ave. N. and Aloha St. (File CU-2-79)
(E). Setting date of April 17, 1979 for hearing to prohibit parking on 80th P1. W. from 212th S.W.
to 750' north.
(F) Setting date of April 17, 1979 for hearing to amend Zoning Code and Sigh Code to add RRB Zone
and delete RMD Zone. (File ZO-1-79)
(G) Passage of Resolution 430, setting date of April 24, 1979 for hearing on petition for street
vacation of portion of 75th Ave. W., adjacent and abutting Lots 1-10, Block 59, Meadowdale
Beach; also, portion.of North Meadowdale Rd. lying adjacent and abutting Lots 1 and 2, Block
59, Meadowdale Beach, lying between said 75th Ave. W. and 75th P1. W. (File ST-1-79)
(I) Acknowledgment of receipt of claim for damages from Rea J. Nanning in the amount of $3,297.99.
(J) Acceptance of Water Main Replacement and Installation by Buno Construction, Phase IV, Schedule
F, and establish 30-day lien period.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT -OF RECEIPT OF PETITION FOR STREET LID CYPRUS PL. [Item (C) on Consent Agenda]
Councilman Nordquist requested that in the future plot plans furnished have a better orientation, as the
one furnished for this item had nothing to indicate where it is located or even which direction was
north. Councilman Carns stated that Van S. McKenny of 8025 Cyprus P1. had asked to speak on this matter.
Mr. McKenny stated that the proposed street would cross his property. He said the owner of the property
to be developed certainly had the right to develop his property, but not by crossing Mr. McKenny's
property. He was advised that all that was being done this evening was to acknowledge receipt of the
petition and that he would be notified when it was placed on an agenda for hearing. COUNCILMAN CARNS
MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN NORDQUIST,.TO APPROVE ITEM (C) ON THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED.
RE -AWARD CONTRACT, SOUTH COUNTY SENIOR,CENTER ROOFING PROJECT [Item (H) on Consent Agenda]
Councilman Carns expressed concern with the acceptance of personal checks with bids instead of bid bonds
or certified.checks. Personal checks had been accepted with these bids and the low bidder had later
withdrawn his bid. Councilman Carns noted that he could stop his check or there was always the.possibility
MOTION: of insufficient.funds. He felt this should be a topic of discussion. COUNCILMAN CARNS MOVED, SECONDED
BY COUNCILMAN.NORDQUIST, THAT THE ISSUE OF BID BONDS BE SCHEDULED FOR DISCUSSION MAY 8, 1979. MOTION
CARRIED.
COUNCIL
Councilman Nordquist said he had.received a telephone call from a.party who was concerned about the 196th St
improvement. He said it appeared that the State now intended putting sidewalks on both sides
-of Caspers St.,..contrary to the Council's direction. He asked that they stake where the sidewalks
are intended when they do the otherstakingfor the Council.to examine. Public Works Director Leif
Larson said he -would be there to examine the staking with the Council at 6:30 p.m., April 3, 1979,
just prior to.the Council meeting.
Councilman.Nordquist noted that at last week's Board of Adjustment meeting there was a hearing on a
waterfront proposal having to do with joint use parking and there had been a lot of input received.
He suggested the Council members take note of that item in the minutes and also listen to the tapes
if possible.
Councilman Gould advised that an announcement would be made next week regarding the selection of an
architect.for the rehabilitation of the Edmonds Elementary.School and that the architect would be
invited to participate in the Port Ludlow retreat.
Councilman Gould also commented on a planning conference to be held in Spokane in May at which three
• items would be discussed which may be of interest to City of Edmonds participants. A tour of the
34 &
I]
Spokane Riverfront Park is scheduled, as well as a Hearing Examiner discussion and a discussion
on Provision of Public Facility Sites through Planning and Zoning.
Councilma.n Carns asked that the work meeting of July.31 be changed to July 30 because a retirement
MOTION: party -is planned for Leif Larson on July 31. COUNCILMAN CARNS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN
NAUGHTEN, TO CHANGE THE JULY 31,1979 WORK MEETING TO JULY 30, 1979. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Herb inquired whether a date had been established to observe a Hearing Examiner. It
has not yet been established.
AUDIENCE
Alvin Millis of 1019 Sprague said he had been in the Westgate area, just.on the County/City
line, when his car window on the passenger side was shot out, and he had reported it to the
County Sheriff with no response and then to the City of Edmonds police who felt it was ndt
within their jurisdiction. It was 1 1/2 hours after reporting it to the Sheriff and after more
calls that he finally got a response. He was disturbed that he cou.ld get neither the County
nor the City to respond. Councilman Gould asked that this matter be referred to the Police
Chief and that he look into the matter and contact Mr. Millis.
Ben Gardner of 211 N.W. 132nd, Seattle, said his wife and he had purchased 1/2 acre in the
Meadowdale area last August on which they planned to build. They had been unaware of the
moratorium hearing and he requested a waiver. He said their property is approximately 70'
within the boundary line. Community Development Director John LaTourelle said the resolution
under which they are operating does not allow them to issue any building permits in that area.
He felt this particu.lar matter should be an Engineering Division decision. Public Works Director
Leif Larson said this would have to be discussed with the consultant. Mr. Gardner was advised •
to contact the Engineering Division.
HEARING ON P.C. RESOLUTION 615, RECOMMENDING AMENDMENT TO SEC. 12'.12.130 AND 12.13.050 OF ZONING
CODE TO ALLOW COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR TO DETERMINE LOCATION OF YARDS FOR FLAG LOTS IN RS
ZONES 26-2-79
Community Development Director John LaTourelle said some difficulty had been experienced in
determining what the yard requirements will be on flag lots, resulting in a lot of Board of
Adjustment activity with regard to variances on yard requirements. He recommended that the
Community Development Department be given the authority to determine where the logical and
least obtrusive site for the house will.be, that is, to designate which will be the front and
rear yards. The public portion of the hearing was opened.
Dick Wade,of 242nd St. S.W. said he had purchased a lot 70'x 130' and he discovered he would
have to build a house no wider than 30' and would have to have long side yards. He urged the
Council to pass this proposed ordinance in order to alleviate situations such as his. John
Owen of 18508 90th Ave. W. said he had been discussing this matter from another viewpoint in
other meetings, that of the existing homes. He said these setbacks should be clearly marked on
the preliminary plat and that, if possible, there be a public notice that the plat will be
finalized prior to the final review. The public portion of the hearing was closed. After some
MOTION: discussion, COUNCILMAN NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN CARNS, TO ADOPT ORDINANCE 2060,
PURSUANT -TO P.C. RESOLUTION 615. Councilman Gould noted that Section 1.(v) provides for what
Mr. Owen -had suggested. THE MOTION CARRIED.
HEARING ON"'P.C'. RESOLUTION 613, RECOMMENDING PROPOSED REZONE FROM RML. TO RS-8 PROPERTY LOCATED
APPROXIMATELY THE 21000 BLOCK OF 84TH AVE. W. R-12-78
Assistant City Planner Mary Lou Block said this application for rezone had been made by Michael
Oard and other neighbors of this property. She showed slides of the site and displayed a site
•
map, noting that the surrounding zoning is RS except for property directly to the south. This
application was the reactivation of a previous rezone application and Ms. Block reviewed the
history.'of the site. This was heard by the Planning,Commission on February 14, 1979 and the
Planning Commission recommended approval of the application. The Council was provided minutes
-of that hearing. Ms. Block noted that there is a heavily wooded ravine on the site but little
other vegetation, and there was a findingof no significant adverse environmental impact from
the-.re7,one. The Planning Staff had recommended approval because RS-8 zoning would be
consi.s.tent with.the Comprehensive Plan, it would be'consistent with the zoning and use on three
sideslof the site, and it would be more beneficial to the neighborhood as it would create less
traffic, allow more privacy, and cause less bulk and height. Ms. Block reviewed the rezone
criteria, with the following findings: The proposed zoning change would conform with the
Comprehensive Plan as the plan shows this area as single family. The change would be consistent
with the surrounding zoning and land uses to.the north, east, and west. Regarding changes that
had occurred in the neighborhood that would justify the rezone, Ms: Block stated that.at the
time this property was zoned RML, in 1965, much of the surrounding land was vacant or occupied
by various outbuildings, etc. Since that time most of the land in the area had been developed
with sin le family uses, and the only large piece of undeveloped land (the site north of this
property? is zoned RS. There also had been a change in the sentiment of the community in
regard to density and the development of multi -family uses, particularly where adjacent to
single family neighborhoods. Ms. Block stated that a rezone of this property .to allow for RS
uses rather than RM uses would be consistent with current community sentiment, as expressed by
the City Council in recent actions. She said the general welfare would be promoted by a rezone
to RS-8 because of less traffic, less bulk and .height of buildings on this prominent site,
greater privacy, less impervious surfaces, and less noise and glare;. and the owner would retain
a reasonable potential use of the property. Also, although there is a potential for the owner
to suffer some loss of unrealized profits from a decreased density, the public will gain substantially
from a retention of the established character of this neighborhood by rezoning the property
from RML to RS-8. Regarding the suitability of the property for the purpose for which it has
C
o� 4 3
March 27, 1979 - continued
1
r�
1
• MOTION:
1
0
been zoned and is proposed to be zoned, the site presently is vacant and there was a single house on the
site at'the time it was zoned in 1965. Topography.poses some difficulty from a developmental stand-
point, the location of the ravine limiting the buildable area and requiring a sensitive plan. The
difficulty of the site for multi -family development, because of the need for substantial parking,
had been demonstrated by the experience of the'owner'in.his.attempt to secure a'building permit.
Single family development would allow flexibility in siting and would not require large parking
areas. The ravine again -would be a factor for consi.deration.,.and a. Planned Residential Development
with RS-8 density probably -would be,..the most suitable use.for,the. property. A "downzone" of this
property to RS78 would not prec.lude.its use.for a purpose..to which it is reasonably adapted. The
impact upon the environment of.this.site and of the neighborhood in.general would be significantly
less with.development to a substantially lower density. Rezoning this property to control•.the
density,.preserve the privacy for adjacent properties, and..retain.the character of the neighborhood
is consistent with the purpose of zoning, which is to promote.the general or public welfare.
City Attorney Wayne Tanaka..was asked the status of the.l'itigation regarding this property. He
respondedthat a trial date had.not yet been set, but he said:this particular action had nothing to
do with :the litigation and there was.nothing to prevent .the,Council from considering the matter
before them,. despite the litigation. He.also advised the Council .that they could consider RS-8, RS-12,
or.:RS=20 zoning for the site, anything from that petitioned or.larger, but they could not consider
smaller zoning.such as RS-6. The public port ion of the hearing was opened.
George Kresovich..of 403.Columbia,St., Seattle, attorney representing JEDCO (owner of the subject
property) said his -arguments aga,inst.the rezone were of record,in the Planning Commission minutes.
He said the real issue was one of.timing, that there was a lawsuit pending over this property--JEDCO
vs. the City of.Edmonds--and it.was.possib.le that they would prevail, and if his client won the suit
a building permit .would issue and.the building would be constructed, regardless of this evening's
action. He said there would then be created a nonconforming use which would breed problems. He
felt this matter. -should be continued until the litigation.is resolved and that nothing would be
gained by rezoning the property..at..this time. Mark Knudson.of 21005 Woodlake Dr. was speaking for
the applicant and residents of the area.. He spoke in support of the rezone and said the arguments
they had put forth -were based.entirely on the Comprehensive Plan of the"City and the survey taken of
the residents,and he said Mr. Kresovich's arguments were based on what could happen and were specious
at best. -He.said..if JEDCO were to lose the.suit then this property would be rezoned to be compatible
with the. Comprehensive Plan. He believed the current zoning,on .the property was improper and should
be.rectified under any circumstances.. Blaine Price of 20904 Woodlake Dr. said the residents of the
area will not change their position,. .that they feel very strongly on this issue. Barry Birch of
20905 Woodlake Dr. said the.last time there had been a hearing Councilman Naughten had suggested the
neighbors get together with JEDCO but there had been no contact from JEDCO and Mr. Birch felt there
had been no cooperation from JEDCO in a.redesign for the property. He said he did not want to see
the property -.values go down in.the.neighborhood and he'felt JEDCO's proposal would cause that. The
public portion of the hearing was closed.
Councilman -Herb felt a rezone would not help the residents and he felt this matter was related to
the court _case and that action should be delayed until the litigation was resolved. Councilman
Carns stated that if the property were not presently zoned. and .a zoning had to be put on it the only
logical zoning would be RS-8. Councilman Clement felt this .issue was a separate one from that in
the litigation and that -if a piece of property is zoned improperly it should be zoned properly for
the future, regardless of vested rights. Councilman Gould also felt the issues were separate. He
said he had taken the Comprehensive.Policy Plan and looked.through it to see if RS-8 really would
fit. He cited sections on pages 5, 31, 33 and 49 of the Policy Plan which supported it. He said he
had also gone through the rezone criteria and concurred with Ms. Block's findings that RS-8 zoning
would be proper. Councilwoman Allen felt that one of the sections he cited in the Policy Plan did
not support the rezone,,that having to do with low cost housing, as RS housing would not be. less
expensive than apartments. Councilman Gould conceded thi"s po.int. Councilman Herb said he did not
think anyone would have a problem with the physical characteristics but it was the matter of the
litigation that concerned him.. COUNCILMAN CARNS THEN,MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN GOULD, TO ADOPT
ORDINANCE 2061,. PURSUANT TO P.C. RESOLUTION 613, FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: THE CRITERIA FOR REZONE
HAVE BEEN MET; THE RS ZONING CONFORMS.TO THE COMPREHENSIVE.PLAN; THE EXISTING LAND USES TO THE
NORTH, EAST., AND WEST ARE ALL RS-8; IN 1965 WHEN THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WAS ZONED RML THE LAND AROUND
IT WAS UNDEVELOPED; THE -SUBJECT PROPERTY WAS REZONED AT THAT TIME FOR A PARTICULAR DEVELOPMENT THAT
NEVER OCCURRED; ALL OF THE SURROUNDING AREA IS USED AS SINGLE-FAMILY AND THE RS ZONING IS CONSISTENT
WITH THE:NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE SENTIMENT OF. THE CITIZENS OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS; AND THE GENERAL
WELFARE OF THE CITY WOULD BE PROMOTED BECAUSE OF LESS TRAFFIC, NOISE, AND BULK AND DIMENSIONS OF
MULTI-FAMILY.BUILDING. Mayor Harrison said he understood the property owner had paid about $100,000
for the property and he would be severely damaged -if he were cut to RS-8 construction. He asked if
there were not.some middle ground that would damage him to a lesser extent. Councilman Carns said
he did not believe what he paid for the land had any bearing on what the zoning should be. Councilman
Gould said.Item 7 of the rezone criteria spoke to that, and that the rezone would not preclude the
owner from a.reasonably profitable alternative use of the property. Councilman Herb said he thought
the RS-8-zoning was logical but he would vote against the motion because he -thought this should be
heard after the.court case is resolved. THE MOTION'THEN CARRIED, WITH COUNCIL MEMBERS HERB AND
ALLEN VOTING NO.. Councilman Naughten was not present for the vote, having departed the meeting
during the discussion. A short.recess.was announced.
DISCUSSION OF SIGN CODE IMPLEMENTATION
Mayor Harrison stated that when the Sign Code was,passed in May of last year the Community Development
Department took several steps to implement it: Data was collected for each business concerning the
status of their existing signage and. -how this related to the new Sion Code requirements. Several
letters were drafted and mailed, advising the business owners as to which amortization schedule
affected them. Those businesses which conformed to the new.Sign Code were not contacted. Those
businesses which did not conform to the new Sign Code were asked to conform. Mayor Harrison felt
the Community Development Department had erred in -asking for immediate conformance as the Sign Code
states a nonconforming sign may exist until the end of its amortization period. He also felt the
public was not made aware of two exemption clauses which permit a business to apply to the ADB for
an increase in allowable signage or a change in height if hardship is shown, and for an extension
3 4
•
March 27, 1979 - continued
.of the amortization period. Such application must be made within one year of the passage of the
ordinance, so the time will run out on May 22, 1979. Mayor Harrison.felt the business community
had been neglected by the creation of a complex ordinance that is difficult to understand and
that the Community Development Department had failed to communicate to..the business community
the exemptions available to them. He had sent 500 letters to the businesses in Edmonds asking
for input on various questions, and he had received 32 replies. He reviewed the responses he
had received: 5 spoke to height and location restrictions on pole signs, 17 were concerned
that sign area allowed is insufficient, 16 were concerned that they needed a roof sign, 13 felt
there should be some consideration for.businesses set back from the street, 8 said they needed
more -sign area..because of., -two entrances,.8 commented on the mass of the building being a consideration --
referring -to supermarke"ts,"'12 complained that the cost was too much, 3 said there was too much
regulation, 6 commented on the need for readerboards, 3 made points of the difference in
Highway 99 and the downtown area, and 2 commented that ADB approval should not be necessary
because there are enough built-in restrictions. After reviewing the responses, the Mayor
opened the discussion to Council and audience participation.
Councilman Carns commented that 1 1/2 years were spent working on the Sign Code and a lot of
people worked on it. He felt that 32 responses out of 500 was a small response and that those
people should have come forward 10 months ago during the hearings on the Sign Code. Anthony
DiPangrazio of Sunset. Realty, 7108 230th S.W., said they had been heard at the hearings but no
one paid attention to them as the people.who heard them had no financial interest in their
businesses. He said it does not do any good for them to speak if the Council doesn't pay
attention, and he felt that was why there were not more responses to the Mayor's letter.
Councilman Carns noted that both the South Snohomish County Chamber of Commerce and the Edmonds
Chamber of Commerce had representatives on the Sign Code Committee so the business community
was represented. He said there were many .hearings and just because someone's viewpoint was
not written into the Sign Code did not mean no one paid attention. He added that it would be
•
impossible to write a Sign Code that would make everybody happy. Also, that during all the
hearings on the Sign Code no one was ever cut off from speaking. Dan Kenyon of 7101 188th P1.
S.W., Lynnwood,. said he is a businessman in Edmonds but he did not.take part in the original
Sign Code hearings.. He felt that if 32 responses were received there were a lot more who were
upset but just did not take the time to respond and that the 32 responses were indicative of a
problem. He felt that just because a lot of time was spent on the Sign Code -that did not make
it right. His business.is on Highway 99 and he -felt ifthe downtown businessmen wished to
maintain a certain appearance that was their option, but on Highway 99 there was a different
situation as cars are traveling fast and a large sign makes a difference. He felt there should
be more latitude for businesses on Highway 99 and urged reconsideration of the Sign Code.
Councilman Carns responded that the Sign Code does make allowances for businesses on Highway
99. An unidentified man said he did not like the idea of going to the ADB for approval of his
sign, that he did not like them telling him what colors, etc., he could use. Mayor Harrison
asked whether readerboards are permitted, and Community Development Director John LaTourelle
responded that it was his opinion that they are permitted, but they are a part of the total
signage allotment. Councilman Clement asked if this really was a reaction to the new Sign Code
or was it reaction to enforcement of the Sign Code. He noted that the City has had Sign Codes
since 1969 but in the past they had not been enforced. From conversations he had had with
businessmen he suspected they had not been aware of the previously existing Sign Codes and he
felt that was as -much an issue as the specific 1978 Sign Code and that the problem was compounded
with the enforcement of the old ordinances..Councilman Carns commented that the business community
is important to the City and the City should have a Sign Code that can be lived with, but not
unrestricted signs. Councilman Herb said he had felt all along that the Council has been
somewhat insensitive to the businessmen. Councilman Nordquist noted that Mr. DiPangrazio
probably was sitting there wondering again if the Council was really listening to them. He
said the Highway 99 situation had been discussed last year at the -Port Ludlow work session and
he felt more should be done to try to deal with the.problems of that specific area. He said
the Mayor had made the comment last June that "It is the right of every Council to change the
Sign Code and -do what they want" but he did not feel that was so.- He felt an ordinance was
•
needed that would stay for a while, but they could make changes. Councilwoman Allen said she
had been talked to by some people in the City who are unhappy with..as.much signage as the City
has. She said there are some saying they don't -need signs to find a good business. She said
she had read in eachof the responses to the Mayor that "I have a.special problem" and if the
City did not have a. Sign Code at all the signage in the City could be horrendous. Councilman
Carns added that the ordinance has to be.enforced like any other ordinance, but if there are
specific areas where people feel changes should be made then there are mechanics to do so, and
if there are inequities in the Sign Code there is the ability to make changes if there are
sufficient grounds. Councilwoman Allen noted that in the comments from the Community Development
Department it was noted that there are some exemption clauses that have had limited use and, to
date, there had been no applications for extensions of the amortization schedules; so the
complaints were not going to the department involved but were going to the Mayor or to the
Council. She said if people were indeed applying for some direction.from the Community
Development Department and they were not getting that direction, then they had a process to
follow to complain. Councilman Nordquist suggested that perhaps the people in specific -areas
should get together and discuss their issues.and send them to the Community Development Department.
Mr. DiPangrazio said the position they had taken was to sit backand wait for the City to try
to force them to take down their signs and its recourse would be through the courts. John
Bickford of 23029 100th W. said his business is set back from the road and his sign cannot be
seen. He -did not respond to the Mayor's letter. He said last summer McDonald's had opened on.
Edmon.ds.Way--in the.County, but close to downtown Edmonds --and they had hurt him financially in
that,a.month after they opened his business had dropped by 3/4. He then put up an illegal sign
on his roof and.two months later his business returned to what it was before McDonald's had
opened. He said he.intended to fight the sign restrictions through legal channels and he
believed the business community had not been given proper consideration. Jim McCoy of 22907
75th A.v.e..W., Moneysaver's drug store, said when he purchased this store he was informed that
the existing signs had been constructed in conformance with the City.regulations. He refaced
0
345'
March 27, 1979 - continued
1
MOTION:
Amended
(Amendment)
1
the sign.and-painted it, and he .then got a letter from the.City saying he had installed an illegal
sign. He -responded that he had not installed an.i,llegal si.gn.but had refaced.and painted the existing
sign, and after the exchange -of -several letters.lie.was getting.. -disturbed with the City. He said he was in
favor of Edmonds having a -Sign Code but .the height' restrictions on most of the signs were not realistic.
He felt -the real.estate sign at.84th.and.212th, for.example,:was in.poor taste, too low, obstructs
traffic, and.does not advertise.>the realestate office, while some of the illegal signs are excellent
signs in excellent taste and some:signs..in poor shape are.not.being acted against. Mayor Harrison
commented to. -Mr.. McCoy that the Council.and he had a picture of his sign, among others, and he felt
Mr. McCoy's sign was in good taste.,. Councilman Clement then.said he had heard it put forth this
evening.that.they.intend not to.conform.to an existing ordinance and force the City to make them
conform. He.sa.id.that was not.the:kind.of.behavior he -anticipated from businessmen or good citizens,
but it is the.kind of behaVfor that says "because I don't get'my way'I will`take"my ball and"go
home" and if this is the kind of response.the City is going to get to an ordinance he found it
distressing. Councilman Gould sa.id.he.had.done a lot of l.i.stening.and the Sign Code was probably
one of:the most.heard ordinances.in which he had been involved... He said he had heard what the
businessmen had to say and it was not true that their comments had no impact on him, and it was
important to,the citizens to know that he felt they did follow a very careful process inestablishing
this Sign.Code.. He said they listened .to the business people,..the residents, and members of the
sign industry,..and-it was carefully adopted. He believed it was a good Sign Code and was best for
most of the people.in-Edmonds and was what the people wanted.. He noted that there is a mechanism to
bring about.change, the ordinance provides that you can ask the ADB to consider additional signage,
and if you.do not.agree with the-decision..of the ADB that is .appealable to the City Council. He
added that there never will be a..Sign Code that will make everybody happy all the time. "John. -Bickford
objected to Councilman Clement's comments about the businessmen's behavior, saying they have to take
other means if they are restricted in business, -but his actions will be through legal means only.
Councilman.Gould.agreed that would:be properaction, but for those who said they would take other
actions he said -he could not condone ..that. David Griffith of Alan BMW Saab, Inc., 2-1420 Highway 99,
said he had,been granted a larger -sign by the ADB, but he would like to think that in 1983 he would
not have to return and ask for a continuation of that variance. Councilman Herb said he found the
letters received.in response to the Mayor were very-helpful.and he would like to -study them. COUNCILMAN
HERB MOVED.TO-CONTINUE THE SIGN CODE DISCUSSION TO APRIL 17:,...1.979, TO BE HEARD IN CONJUNCTION WITH
ZO-1-79, THE HEARING TO AMEND-THE.ZONING CODE AND SIGN CODE BY ADDING THE RRB ZONE AND DELETING THE
RMD ZONE. .COUNCILMAN CLEMENT SECONDED THE.MOTION FOR DISCUSSION.. Councilman Clement said that
action should.not.start with the Council but at the Planning Commission. City -Attorney Wayne Tanaka
noted that the Sign Code is not-in:the Zoning Code so it is -not required -to go to the Planning
Commission first, but the Council.could.send it there if they wished. He said the Planning Commission
could be asked.to discuss specific proposals and make recommendations. Mayor Harrison said he would
like to have..a..week or two to come up with some specific recommendations. COUNCILMAN CLEMENT MOVED
TO AMEND.THE MOTION TO STATE THAT THE APRIL 17 DISCUSSION WILL BE.CONFINED*TO RECOMMENDATIONS FROM
THE MAYOR-FOR.AMENDMENTS TO THE SIGN CODE COVERING TOPICS OF.ROOF SIGNS, SIGN AREAS OR SIGN SIZE,
AND BUSINESSES SET BACK FROM THE RIGHT-OF-WAY. COUNCILWOMAN ALLEN SECONDED THE MOTION TO AMEND.
After further discussion, THE MOTION TO AMEND CARRIED, WITH.COUNCILMAN HERB VOTING NO. THE MAIN
MOTION, AS.AMENDED, THEN CARRIED.
HEARING ON 4-HR PARKING ON BELL.ST. FROM 3RD TO 5TH
City Engineer Fred Herzberg said a .letter had been received from a merchant on Main St. stating his
employees had no place to.park becauseof the impact of the ferry parking. He requested 4-ho.ur
parking, recognizing that they would have to move their cars -once each day. Mr. Herzberg displayed
a map of:the downtown area which reflectedthe parking restrictions. The public portion of the
hearing was opened.
Glen Bogart,..a merchant in Milltown.,. said it was time to get.into 4-hour parking, that the 2-hour
parking-was.not long'enough. Councilman Carns advised him.that during previous hearings merchants
had indicated.that employees parking were keeping shoppers away from the parking, and Mr. Bogart
responded -that what was,aimed at here.was.the all day ferry, traffic parking. No.one else wished to
MOTION: speak, and the public porclosed—COUNCILMAN
tion of the.hearing was closedCOUNCILMAN CARNS MOVED, SECONDED BY
COUNCILMAN NORDQUIST, TO.ADOPT•ORDINANCE.2062, RESTRICTING THE PARKING ON BOTH SIDES OF BELL ST.,
FROM SUNSET.AVE. TO 5TH AVE. N., TO FOUR HOURS MAXIMUM,.MONDAY.-THROUGH FRIDAY, FROM 8:00 A.M. TO
6:00 P.M. .MOTION CARRIED.
DISCUSSION.ON. FERRY PARKING PROBLEMS
City Engineer. Fred Herzberg reported..that a survey was takenwhich indicates there is a viable and
continuing.wa.lk-on tourist trade between Edmonds and Port Townsend which A s creating a parking
problem in,the.City. He displayed a.map of the City on which possible parki-ng areas were indicated
and he discussed those areas. The opening of the fishing pier also is attracting people with cars
to park -and he noted that the fishing pier parking lot has.been graded and marked, providing.about
60 spaces for fishing pier parking. Some of the other possible areas could be signed and used only
on weekends,.such.as the Public Works.parking lot -which can provide about 20 spaces. He noted that
Railroad.Ave. could be made one-way-southbound and parallel.parking provided on the west side. He
noted that Diamond Parking is applying .to havea commercial lot south of the railroad station. It
was.commented..that,the cost burden of.parking should be on the State rather than on the City of
Edmonds, and the response was that,the Secretary of Transportation had been written, over the Mayor's
signature, regarding the walk-on ferry parking, the safety problems at the railroad crossing, and
the insufficiency of the ferry holding lanes south of Dayton.St. Bob Crum of Bill's Hardware -
Marine, 186 Sunset Ave. S., said.they had been badly impacted.by-the Port Townsend traffic and also
that shoplifting had increased. He said.Diamond Parking had..bought into the Safeway shopping center
and they were.going to put in 20..metered stalls at the north.end and.would-have a daily parking fee.
Ri.chard.,'Besel!n:-,.oft 1027 Cascade Lane .felt. there should be strict adherence to parking requirements
on the waterfront. He had been present -at last week's Board of Adjustment meeting when a joint use
parking application was heard and he felt it was very abusive to grant that use in view of the
parking problem... He felt the requirements of that zone shou.ld.be upheld and that joint use parking
should not be.a.11owed nor should paying into the in -lieu parking fund be allowed for that area.
34
March 27, 1979 - continued
Councilman Clement commended the Staff for finding such areas as the Public Works parking lot
for parking and said he felt the public should be alerted to the fact that such is available.
The Public Works Department will report on this.matter on a continuing basis.
There was no further business to come before the Council, and the meeting was adjourned at
11:00 P.M.
e
IRENE'VARNEY=MORAN, C' y Clerk HARVE H. HARRISON, Mayor
Apri 1 • 3,. 1979
The regular meeting of the Edmonds City Council was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Mayor Harve
Harrison in the Council Chambers of the Edmonds Civic Center. All present joined in the flag
salute.
PRESENT ABSENT STAFF PRESENT V
Harve Harrison, Mayor Phil Clement Charles Dibble, M.A.A.
Mike Herb Leif Larson, Public Works Director
Katherine Allen John LaTourel1e, Community Devel. Dir.
John Nordquist Irene Varney Moran,- City Clerk
Ray Gould Jim Adams, Assistant City Engineer
Tom Carns Jim Jessel, Parks & Recreation Manager
Larry Naughten Gary McComas, Fire Marshal
Mary Lou Block, Asst. City Planner
John Wallace, City•Attorney
Wayne Tanaka, City Attorney
Jackie Parrett, Deputy City Clerk
CONSENT AGENDA
MOTION: COUNCILMAN CARNS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN NORDQUIST, TO APPROVE.THE CONSENT AGENDA.
MOTION CARRIED. The Consent Agenda included -the following:
(A) Roll call.
(B) Approval of Minutes of March 27, 1979.
(C) Acceptance of rehabilitation and preservation of Edmonds Carnegie
Library and establish 30-day lien period.
(D) Authorization for Mayor to sign Right of First Refusal for Joint Port/City Parking
Lot.
(E) Passage of Resolution-431, allowing issuance of Building Permits for alterations to
.existing dwelling units in Meadowdale moratorium -area.
COUNCIL
•
Councilwoman Allen reported that she had attended a data processing workshop and had some ideas
on costs and different proposals which she would like to discuss at a later date.
Councilman Gould reported that the retreat agenda should be available next week.
Councilman Naughten said he had read a newspaper editorial saying there -were no trash containers
on the new fishing pier and -no control of. animals.. Parks & Recreation Manager Jim Jessel
responded that the City -Attorney had been requested to consider the drafting of an ordinance
restricting animals and wheeled vehicles from -the fishing pier. He.said temporary trash receptacles
had been placed on the pier until the permanent ones are furnished.by the contractor.
Councilman Nordquist noted that a petition had been received protesting the Meadowmere development
'COUNCILMAN•NORDQUIST
MOTION: in Lynnwood. MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN CARNS, THAT THE PETITION
PROTESTING THE MEADOWMERE.DEVELOPMENT BE REFERRED TO THE STAFF FOR INVESTIGATION AND RECOMMENDATION,
AND THAT THE STAFF REPORT TO THE COUNCIL ON THIS MATTER AT THE APRIL 17, 1979 MEETING. MOTION
CARRIED.
MAYOR
Mayor Harrison referred to a memorandum from the Public Works Director regarding the Strickland
property. He said the Stricklands had requested that the City install the side sewer from
their home to the main line in exchange for an easement they granted over their property for a
lift.station.and gravity line. Mayor Harrison commented that the City has been servicing that
lift'station.by traveling over their
property to get to it. He felt the City had an obligation
to compensate the Stricklands for the use of that site for the lift station as
wel•1 as some
compensation for the easement for the line. He recommended the City provide the sewer connection
MOTION: but not the maintenance of the
side sewer. COUNCILMAN CARNS MOVED., SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN
i