Loading...
19790904 City Council Minutes4 2 August 28, 1979 - continued MOTION: THE MOTION CARRIED. COUNCILMAN CARNS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILWOMAN ALLEN, THAT THE RM-2.4 ZONE BE DELETED. MOTION CARRIED, WITH COUNCILMEN KASPER AND NAUGHTEN VOTING NO. Councilman Kasper voted no MOTION: because he thought it should be given more study. COUNCILMAN NAUGHTEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN NORDQUIST, TO.KEEP THE OS AND MR ZONES IN THE CODE. MOTION CARRIED. DISCUSSION OF.FUNDING.OF BASIC AND ADVANCED LIFE SUPPORT SYSTEMS M.A.A. Charles Dibble had submitted a report stating that a property tax levy of 25¢ per $1,000 of assessed value, as authorized by the legislature, would produce revenue of approximately $98,000 in 1980. The Medic 7 program will require $50,000 - $60,000, and the balance of the revenue could help pay for the operation of the Fire Department aid unit.. Mr. Dibble's report described the expense of maintaining emergency a.id service, justifying.the allocation of a portion of the proposed levy MOTION: revenue. COUNCILWOMAN ALLEN MOVED,. SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN CARNS, THAT THE CITY ATTORNEY BE INSTRUCTED TO DRAFT A RESOLUTION CONSISTENT WITH RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE REPORT REGARDING THE FUNDING OF BASIC AND ADVANCED LIFE SUPPORT SYSTEMS. MOTION CARRIED. COUNCIL Mayor Pro tem Gould advised the Clerk that he would not be present September 11, 18, and 25. There was no further business to come before the Council, and the meeting was adjourned at 11:20 p.m. IRENE VARNEY MORAN, C' y Clerk HARVE R. HARRISON, Mayor September 4, 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 STAFF PRESENT Harve Harrison, Mayor Charles Dibble, M.A.A. Mike Herb John LaTourelle, Community Development Director Bill Kasper Fred.Herzberg, Public Works Director Katherine Allen Irene Varney Moran, City Clerk John Nordquist Art Housler, Finance Director Ray Gould Jim Adams, City Engineer Tom Carns Gary McComas, Fire Marshal Larry Naughten Jim Murphy, City Attorney Jackie Parrett, Deputy City Clerk CONSENT AGENDA Item (B) was removed from the Consent Agenda. COUNCILMAN CARNS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN • MOTION: NAUGHTEN, TO APPROVE THE BALANCE OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED. The approved portion of the Consent Agenda included the following: (A) Roll call. (C) Authorization to exchange Quit. Claim Deeds, North Meadowdale Beach Rd. (D) Acceptance of construction of Force Main and Pump Station 5, and establish 30-day lien period. (E) Acceptance of Quit Claim Deed for 10' dedication on 70th Ave. W., in conjunction with short subdivision (S-69-78 -- Campbell) (F) Adoption of Ordinance 2089 to allow parking from Main St. to.Bell St. on Sunset Ave. and restricting parking on.Ocean Ave. and Water St. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF AUGUST 28, 1979 [Item (B) on Consent Agenda] On page 2, in the last line of the second paragraph, in discussion of the Council Contingency Fund, it was stated that the balance was $5,085 and that should have been stated as a deficit. Also, Councilwoman Allen noted that in the fourth paragraph on page 2, instructions were given to the City Attorney -to draft,:a resolution, and it had been determined that a.resolution was not necessary and MOTION: the $200 simply.would be transferred from the Miscellaneous Fund. COUNCILWOMAN ALLEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN NORDQUIST, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF AUGUST 28, 1979 WITH THE STATED CORRECTIONS. MOTION CARRIED.' 4 213 .. September 4, 1979 - continued MOTION: MAYOR Mayor Harrison noted that Community Development Director John LaTourelle had recommended delaying the review of Titles 18 and 19 of the Community Development Code in order to avoid a conflict with the City's preparation for the October 9.Boundary.Review Board hearing on the Olympic View annexation. Mr. LaTourelle suggested Planning Commission review of Titles 18 and 19 on -October 24, with Council review on October 30. COUNCILMAN::.HERB.MOV,ED, SECONDED BY; COUNCILMAN GOULD, TO ACCEPT THE RECOMMENDATION TO PLACE THE COUNCIL REVIEW OF TITLES 18 AND 19 ON THE OCTOBER 30, 1979 AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED. Mayor Harrison noted that a discussion is scheduled on September 18 regarding the facilities at Brackett's Landing, and M.A.A. Dibble had suggested an on -site inspection by the Council a week before that dis- cussion., Therefore, Mayor Harrison asked the Council and Staff to meet at Brackett's Landing at 7:00 p.m., September 11, 1979, for inspect ion of the -facilities. Following the inspection, the regular Council meeting will be held in the Council Chambers. AUDIENCE Natalie Shippen of 1022 Euclid asked several questions regarding last week's review of Titles 16 and 21 (Zone Districts and Definitions) of the new Community Development Code. She had not been present for the discussion and wished to clarify several points. HEARING ON APPEAL.FROM RULING OF ADB REGARDING TREE CUTTING -.BENNETT BOX Bennett Box had submitted to the City Clerk this date a letter requesting that this hearing be MOTION: continued to the November 20, 1979 meeting.. COUNCILMAN HERB MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILWOMAN ALLEN, TO ACCEPT THE REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE AND SCHEDULE THE HEARING ON THE BENNETT BOX APPEAL FROM AN ADB RULING FOR.NOVEMBER 20, 1979. City Attorney Jim Murphy advised, in response to a question regarding the requirement to hear an appeal.within 30 days, that the ordinance sets narrow time frames for hearing appeals and that is for the benefit of the applicant, but in this case since the applicant was requesting the continuance he believed that requirement could be waived. THE MOTION THEN CARRIED. HEARING.ON APPEAL FROM RULING OF_ADB REGARDING POLE SIGN - TUBE ART DISPLAYS, INC. Community Development Director John LaTourelle reviewed the actions on this application. Earlier this year an application was submitted and approved for a sign to be attached to the building on this site. This is a Chinese restaurant which had a name change. On June 6, an application was heard for modification of an existing pole sign. The ADB denied that request and suggested the applicant reapply with a redesign within the intent -of the Sign Code. The applicant did reapply on August 1. However, in the meantime the modifications were made to the existing'sign, although disapproved by the ADB. The ADB again denied the application. The allowable signage was 30 sq. ft. and the proposed sign was 109.25 sq. ft. including the ornamentation and 40 sq. ft. without the ornamentation. Ornamentation which is not there for structural purposes is included as part of the sign under the current Sign Code. The application had been.to change only the face of the.existing sign because of the change in the name of the restaurant, the basis of the'applicationbei.ng that this was an existing sign and they only proposed to change the face of it which they contended was not a substantial change to the sign. The City Attorney had advised that any change in the'face of the sign constituted a substantial sign change and therefore must conform to the current'Sign Code requirements. After this review, the hearing was opened to the public. Howard Bartlett, attorney for Tube.Art Displays, Inc., said the sign was installed over ten years ago for the Golden Dragon Inn and it is being amortized with about four years to run. He did not believe.a permit was required by the Code to simply change the face of a sign. He said there was no change to exterior lighting of the sign, no change in building design or components, and no change • in colors. He submitted two color photographs depicting the sign when it identified the Golden Dragon Inn as compared to the current sign identifying the Hong Kong Gardens, and he felt the 'signs were totally compatible. He said there is substantial economic involvement as the sign is being amortized for four years, the length of the lease on the building. He reiterated their position, that Tube Art -need not apply for.a sign permit because this was nothing more than repainting of the sign and that did not substantiate a substantial change to the sign. Walt Logan of Tube Art Displays, Inc., sa id•they originally had.not applied for a permit because they read the Code and did not think they had to do so. Mr. LaTourelle-noted that if the appeal were granted and the sign approved, that would legitimize the sign now and forever and lift the required amortization. He said this was an instance where they tried to come to a solution that would allow the sign to remain as it was and run its amoritization and that would-be his recommendation. Mr. Logan responded that the sign is there and is under a permit now and if the Council were to approve this face change as a modification he would be agreeable that the four year amortization period would continue without being reinstated. The public portion of the hearing was then closed. Councilman Gould stated that'he thought the ADB should be upheld in this matter. He called attention to their guidelines, noting that they had been advised by the City Attorney that the change was a significant change and he felt this was the MOTION: proper exercise -of the Sign Code., THEREFORE, COUNCILMAN GOULD MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILWOMAN ALLEN, TO UPHOLD THE ADB DECISION•REGARDING ADB-78-79. Councilman Carns spoke in support of the motion., saying that when you change the entire printed'message on a sign it constitutes a substantial change. Also, he noted that they had been denied permission to install the sign and they did it anyway. Councilman Naughten added that they do not like to affend people if they can avoid it, but the new Sign Code.was the result of a lot of time and thought and it reflected the desires of the people. He said the Sign Code permits a maximum of 30 sq. ft. for this sign and -it is now 40 sq. ft. just on the face. He agreed the appeal should be denied.. THE MOTION THEN CARRIED, WITH COUNCILMAN HERB VOTING NO.. Councilman Herb did not think the change was substantial. PLANS..FOR:WALKWAY.AND PARKING ON RAILROAD AVE;, FROM DAYTON TO MAIN City Engineer .Jim Adams displayed a.drawing to.reflect preliminary plans for the walkway. He said there was found to be sufficient space for two-way traffic, parking in most areas north of the • 424 September 4, 1979 - continued Senior Center, and a 5' asphalt pedestrian.walkway. Parallel parking would be necessary, -the walkway would have wheelchair access, and the total cost was estimated to be less than $10,000. He asked for approval of the concept and.direction to prepare the final design and specifications. Discussion was opened to the audience, but no one wished to speak, and discussion was closed. MOTION: COUNCILMAN NAUGHTEN.MOVED, SECONDED BY. COUNCILWOMAN ALLEN, TO APPROVE THE CONCEPT PRESENTED FOR THE RAILROAD AVE. WALKWAY AND THAT THE CITY ENGINEER PROCEED WITH THE DESIGN:AND SPECIFICATIONS, RETURNING THE PLANS TO THE COUNCIL FOR FINAL APPROVAL. Dick Slye of 260 Beach P1. then asked to speak.. He felt priorities were wrong in this instance and that before such a walkway was installed Dayton St. should be raised because of the way it floods. He was told that the improvement to Dayton St. would cost.$200,000+ and if Dayton St. were raised then the Safeway parking lot would get all the water. The Public Works Department did have the necessary funds in its budget for the proposed.walkway, and Councilman Carns noted that the Senior Center.parking lot was not big enough for its needs and the City wanted to provide some additional parking and the walkway for them. THE MOTION: MOTION THEN CARRIED. COUNCILWOMAN ALLEN THEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN CARNS, THAT THE FINAL PLANS FOR THE WALKWAY BE PLACED ON THE SEPTEMBER 25, 1979 AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED. DISCUSSION ON ..PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT THAT RELATES TO RESIDENTS OF 68TH AVE. W. Councilman Nordquist had brought this problem before the Council after meeting with the affected residents. He had also corresponded with the Winmar Corporation and invited them to attend this meeting, and representatives were present. He had contacted the City of Lynnwood Planning Director who said he would welcome input from Edmonds, but would like to have it by September 5, the day after this Council meeting, because of the final EIS deadline. .Both the Public Works Department and the Community Development Department had made written comments regarding. the Meadowmere EIS, being proposed by Winmar, and these were discussed at length. The City of -Edmonds Staff agreed with residents' complaints that RS-8 development was not compatible and.consistent with the surrounding • areas, most of which are developed as RS-12 and RS-20. The Staff also found the EIS defic'ent regarding school enrollment and they felt a PRD development would be preferable to single amily development because of the storm water runoff problem and other environmental considerations. It was noted that the contributing drainage area at the proposed detention facility is over 50 acres and therefore would require control of .the 25-year return period storm,.rather than the 10-year storm specified in the draft. EIS. The discussion was opened to the public. Peter Dugan of 16612 72nd Ave. W. represented the petitioning homeowners who would be affected by the proposed develop- ment and expressed their concerns. He said one -of the designs put traffic onto 72nd W. and -ingress and egress -is already bad there and no-more.traffic should be allowed. He noted that his property falls under the current moratorium on building in Edmonds, but across the street is this proposed development in Lynnwood. He said they had put in a sewer on a private road and did not feel they should be subjected to costs for larger sewers. Harley Crain of 17126 68th Ave. W. represented homeowners from his neighborhood and said his group had been well received by the Lynnwood Planning Commission, but he -found inaccuracies in the draft EIS nevertheless. He.was very much concerned that the proposal was for RS-8 development when their area is RS-20.. He also expressed concerns about the traffic patterns and their effect on roads which were already -restrictive because of grades. Fred Rosenberry of 17122 68th Ave. W. believed the proposed development constituted a significant negative impact on his Edmonds neighborhood and he asked the City to take steps to compel Lynnwood to provide their own access or if they use Edmonds for access to have a minimum of RS-20 lots. D. N..Lang of 16031 119th P1. N.E., representing Winmar, described their involvement in this site. He noted that the decision -to sell the property had not been only a School Board decision as inferred earlier, but it had been put to the vote of the people. He said his firm.had met with the Edmonds Staff and discussed possible development concepts, including a single-family, attached unit PRD; multi -family PRD; and standard single-family units.. These also were discussed with Lynnwood, and he said it is very difficult to develop a PRD in Lynnwood. He later met with Mr. Dugan socially and then arranged to meet with the neighbors. When he met with the neighbors, those to the south were not represented but he was not aware of that, and nobody expressed objections to the south traffic loop, but people from that area had been present at the last public hearing and expressed their objections at that time. As a result of .that meeting a compromise concept had been drawn, and • Mr. Lang now displayed that. The traffic loop.was changed and the lots are larger than previously proposed, with 2.77 lots per acre. He.said only two lots will be less than 10,000 sq. ft. and the largest is over 15,000 sq. ft. He noted.that a PRD development would permit 150 units and they were proposing less than 90. He said that even though the City of Lynnwood's deadline was the next day for responses to the draft EIS,• he would be -happy to accept input for another week. Mr. Dugan responded for some of the neighbors that they were happy to see this new proposal.as it had no access onto 72nd Ave. W. and there had.been.an 18' emergency access there previously to which they had objected. He was speaking for the neighbors to the north and west, but he said he recognized the problems of the people to the south. Mary Lou Peltier of 7071 Meadowdale Beach Rd. said -their neighborhood had never been contacted at -out any kind of meetings which the other residents apparently had held. She was concerned that the proposed 170th would empty onto Meadowdale Beach Rd. on a blind curve on arise, and that there are.no sidewalks or shoulders there. She also noted that south of Olympic View Dr. there is another new development that will increase traffic on Olympic View Dr. -and therefore on Meadowdale Beach Rd., and she said that was not considered in the EIS. She also said the area will have to be.clearcut for the access and she felt the alternatives presented were not really alternatives as the existing development pattern of the area was not maintained and there is a water.problem in the area already.' Harry Childs of 17142 68th Ave. W. was concerned with the ponding concept, saying a 10-year.storm was not an adequate criterion. Mike DeNoma of 17103 68th Ave. W. was .concerned about paying the costs of the improvements that will be required because of this development. The public portion of the hearing was closed. Councilman Carns noted that the Council had turned down a nronosed development by Merle Steinman in .that area -because of the life safety factor. Councilman Carns felt a large amount of the property * in that area simply should not be developed, probably the bottom one-third* and he felt the City of Edmonds should present everything it can to the City of Lynnwood to let them know what Edmonds' concerns are. Councilman Herb verified with Mr. Lang his offer to accept input for the EIS for another week. Councilman Gould agreed with the summary letter from Mr. Herzberg and he said the Lynnwood City Council should be made aware.of the Edmonds City Council's feelings in this matter. * See September 11 Minutes for correction 425 September 4,.1979 - continued He favored less density than proposed and suggested 70 units which would be about RS-20, and he also would prefer seeing a PRD development because of the drainage. In fact, he favored that so.much that he felt.it would be worth adding some bonus units*in order•to�get a PRD because of what would be gained in open space, preservation of ravines,-drainage,and appearance. He felt there should be sensitivity to steep slopes and tree cutting restrictions. Councilman Carns also added to the comments the life safety factor: regarding the grade of the street 'in relation to access to emergency vehicles. Councilman Herb was concerned that because there.had already been meetings with Lynnwood they could say they had done so.and..he was concerned with'a lack of coordination, especially since Winmar's geologist had not met with Edmonds' drainage engineer. He noted that in the EIS,they had indicated "mitigating measures" for their tentative decisions on remedies to problems, and he felt Edmonds' input should get into the'EIS and not just be passed on to the City of Lynnwood.* Mr. LaTourelle said the September 5 deadline was for the City to submit comments for the draft EIS, but it will -.be some time -before the final EIS comes out and at that time they will address in -writing all of these things. Mr. Dugan had been discussing with the other,homeowners the PRD possibility for the development, and at this time he said they preferred single family development rather than a MOTION: PRD. COUNCILMAN GOULD MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN CARNS, THAT THE STAFF BE DIRECTED TO FORWARD IN Amended A TIMELY FASHION TO THE CITY OF LYNNWOOD THE CONCERNS OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS REGARDING THE DRAFT EIS, THOSE CONCERNS AS SUBMITTED TO. -THE COUNCIL IN THE PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR'S LETTER OF AUGUST 29, 1979, WITH THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONS: THE CITY COUNCIL IS CONCERNED ABOUT THE DEVELOPMENT OF STEEP SLOPES; LOWER DENSITY IS PREFERRED, EQUIVALENT TO RS-20 (70 UNITS); PRD DEVELOPMENT•IS FAVORED; Amendment DRAINAGE TO HANDLE 25-YEAR STORM; SEWERS ARE NOT ADEQUATE; AND LIFE.SAFETY FEATURES MUST BE ADDRESSED SPECIFICALLY. COUNCILMAN NORDQUIST MOVED'TO AMEND THE MOTION, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN CARNS AND ACCEPTABLE TO COUNCILMAN GOULD, THAT PRD DEVELOPMENT OR 20,000,SQ. FT. ZONING IS FAVORED. THE Amendment MOTION TO AMEND CARRIED. COUNCILMAN HERB ALSO MOVED TO AMEND THE MOTION THAT'THE WORD "TIMELY" BE (Failed) CLARIFIED TO MEAN HAND -DELIVERED ON SEPTEMBER 5, AND THAT THE CITY. OF LYNNWOOD BE ASKED TO EXTEND THE EIS DEADLINE BY ONE WEEK DURING WHICH TIME THE EDMONDS STAFF WOULD MEET WITH THE LYNNWOOD STAFF TO SEE IF THEY CAN COME TO SOME KIND OF AGREEMENT AS TO GETTING THIS INFORMATION INTO THE EIS, • PARTICULARLY.IN THE WAY OF MITIGATING MEASURES. MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. Councilman Gould said in his motion the word "timely" should be interpreted to mean hand -delivered on September 5, 1979. THE MOTION, AS AMENDED, THEN PASSED. DISCUSSION -AND REPORT ON•TRAFFIC PROBLEMS AT 84TH AND 202ND City Engineer Jim Adams displayed a drawing to illustrate proposed signing to solve the reported problems at this location. A yellow, painted, centerline would be provided on 202nd St. S.W.; several stop.signs and 20 mph signs for a curve and impaired sight distance would be installed; and holes in the street would be patched with this roadway added to the Six -Year Construction Program. MOTION: COUNCILMAN CARNS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN NAUGHTEN, TO ACCEPT.THE CITY ENGINEER'S RECOMMENDATIONS AND DIRECT THE CITY CREWS TO BEGIN THOSE CORRECTIVE ACTIONS. Councilman Gould felt these actions spoke very nicely to the items requested in the petition, and Councilman Naughten felt the Staff should be commended for their response to the citizens' needs. THE MOTION CARRIED. DISCUSSION ON DISPOSITION OF CLAIMS City Clerk Irene Varney Moran and Finance Director Art Housle.r had provided information as to the handling of claims from the time of receipt. Councilman Gould said he was only looking for something like a quarterly summary including the names of the claimants, the amounts of their claims, and the final disposition or amount paid. Finance Director Art.Housler said there would be no problem.in MOTION: providing such a report quarterly.. COUNCILMAN HERB MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN GOULD, THAT THE COUNCIL RECEIVE A QUARTERLY SUMMARY ON THE DISPOSITION OF CLAIMS. MOTION CARRIED. COUNCIL Mayor Harrison .noted that the Public Works Director had submitted a report on the Senior Center scope of work under the HUD grant. The report enumerated the items to be eliminated from the bid • but stated negotiations with.the contractors were unsuccessful so.the Council was requested - to reject all bids and authorize advertisement for the abbreviated project. COUNCILMAN CARNS MOVED, MOTION: SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN GOULD, TO REJECT ALL BIDS FOR THE SENIOR CENTER IMPROVEMENT AND AUTHORIZE ADVERTISEMENT FOR THE ABBREVIATED'PROJECT. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Carns inquired as to the current status of the sewer agreement with Lynnwood. Public Works Director Fred Herzberg responded that he had met with Lynnwood, Mountlake Terrace, and the consultants this date and the consultants gave.them a proposed scope of work. He submitted the proposed agreement from the consultants, Reid, Middleton & Associates, and he noted some wording, changes in the first paragraph. COUNCILMAN CARNS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN HERB, TO ACCEPT THE MOTT.ION: SCOPE OF WORK FROM REID, MIDDLETON & ASSOCIATES FOR THE LYNNWOOD SEWAGE DIVERSION STUDY AND AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO SIGN THE AGREEMENT. MOTION CARRIED. MOTION: COUNCILMAN HERB MOVED TO PLACE ON THE SEPTEMBER 11, 1979 AGENDA -FOR DISCUSSION THE STORM SEWAGE (Failed) REPORT RECEIVED FROM THE PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR. MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. There was no further business to come before the Council, and the meeting was adjourned-at-10:20 p.m. IRENE VARN Y MORAN, Ci y Clerk HARVE H.4HHAR!RIS60N,&eM6aa-yo_r