Loading...
19791120 City Council Minutes`.r • November 13, 1979 - continued was a very impacted place as far as .business was concerned. Larry Hubbard of Hubbard's Insurance said nobody.wants a stand in front..of his own business and it would not hurt anyone to walk a block to 5th and Dayton. Councilman, Gould.felt.:.it should be at Dayton.and he suggested that'the City might install a bench or enclosur..e:_there._. '.T.HE MOTION;°THEN:-FAII:ED, WITH ONLY COUNCILMAN CARNS VOTING MOTION: YES. COUNCILMAN-NAUGHTEN'THEN MOVED,..SECONDED BY'COUN CILMAN HERB.,,.THAT A TAXI STAND BE ESTABLISHED BETWEEN 4TH AND 5TH ON DAYTON, ON THE..NORTH SIDE OF DAYTON, AND -HE RECOMMENDED THAT THE STAFF INVESTIGATE THE POSSIBILITY OF INSTALLING,A BENCH'OR PROTECTION_ FROM THE WEATHER FOR THE PEOPLE WAITING THERE. MOTION CARRIED,WITH..COUNCILMAN CARNS VOTING NO. DISCUSSION OF WOODWAY FIRE PROTECT.ION.':CONTRACT Fire Chief Jack.Weinz provided.-figures,upon which a recommendation was made for an amended contract. He said citizens of Edmonds pay:.83..8¢.per.$1,000 of property value, and based on that the base fee to`Woodway .would be $33,518. Added...to.that figure was $12,,667.for overhead @ 36.6%, $421 for equipment depreciation, and $122 for building -depreciation, plus a 10% markup of that total in the.amount of $4,672, for a recommended total...char.ge.for services of $51,400. The current contract calls for $59,983. City Attorney Jim Murphy..suggested that an indemnityclause be added so that if a fireman is injured while involved in a.Woodway_fire the LEOFF benefits would be repaid, so Woodway would have to bond or -insure themselves .fo.r,.it. This was discussed.and.it was noted that Edmonds wants to cooperate and be.reasonable and..i.f.a.,reasonable alternative could not be found the existing contract should be continued. M.A.A. Dibble noted.that Woodway will receive $10,000 from the Emergency Medical Services tax levy and after.paying SNOCOM they will have $6,700 to pay to Edmonds. After MOTION: further discussion, COUNCILMAN HERB. MOVED, SECONDED BY.000NCI_LMAN CARNS, THAT,THE MAYOR HANDLE THIS MATTER ADMINISTRATIVELY BY COMMUNICATING WITH.WOODWAY, OFFERING THE FIGURE OF $51,400 PLUS INDEMNIFI- CATION FOR LEOFF BENEFITS IN LIEU OF THE AMOUNT ESTABLISHED IN THE 1980 FIRE PROTECTION CONTRACT. MOTION CARRIED. • REVIEW PLACEMENT OF CROSSWALKS.,..STOP SIGNS,.AND SCHOOL ZONES..ON 3RD AVE. BETWEEN MAIN AND OLYMPIC City Engineer Jim Adams said the Department of Transportation had advised that current traffic volume did not warrant stop signs,in the subject area. At the recommendation of the principal of Holy Rosary School, an additional,.,crosswalk was installed at.8th Ave. and Caspers. The crosswalk at 3rd Ave. south of Caspers was relocated to the south and traffic.signs were -installed indicating pedestrian crosswalks. Parking lanes were installed on.both sides of 3rd Ave. N. Mr..Adams said some consideration may be needed,at the point where 4th Ave..joins 3rd Ave., but a decision had not yet been made as to what should:be.done.there. He said he.will continue to monitor the traffic situation and make appropriate.modifica.tions.as required.. The report was accepted.. COUNCILMAN HERB MOTION: MOVED THAT THIS. MATTER BE REVIEWED THE SECOND WEEK IN JANUARY _ MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECOND, Withdrawn AND IT WAS WITHDRAWN. - COUNCIL Councilman Gou.ld..asked for an alternate to attend the November 14 Planning Commission meeting for him as he had been.asked to attend a..meeti.ng that evening on the Seaview Park problems. Other Council members indicated they would be -attending the Sherwood Elementary School meeting regarding traffic controls. Councilman.Nordquist..was not yet present and he was selected as the alternate. Councilman Carns noted that the.City.,of Bellevue was planning to have a public auction to dispose of some used vehicles and other equ.i.pment.._ He suggested that the Edmonds Equipment Rental Superintendent check to see what they receive from an auction as compared to.what Edmonds receives from advertising used vehicles. Councilman. Carns asked if J. D. Zirkle from the Department of Transportation had accepted the invitation to discuss with the Council the "both. si des" right-of-way acqui s i.t:i on proposal in.,connecti on, ;wi.th ':the • SR524 improvement. He was advised that Mr. Zirkle will be present at next week's meeting. Councilman Gould reminded those present that a tour of the Meadowdale moratorium area was scheduled for Saturday, November 17, meeting at -the Pancake Haus at 9:00 a.m. The only 'further business scheduled.to come before the Council was the Budget work session, so the main portion of the.meeting was.adjourned at 8:35 p.m., with .the Budget work session to follow. IRENE VARNEY MORAN, Ci y Clerk. HARVE.H. HARRISON, Mayor November 20, 1979 The'regularmeeting 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. Councilman Gould advised that Councilwoman Allen expected to arrive.at about 9:30 this evening because of a singing engagement. Councilwoman Allen arrived at 10:00 p.m. CJ 4J November 20,.1979 - GQntinued PRESENT STAFF PRESENT Is Harve Harrison, Mike Herb Bill Kasper Katherine Allen John Nordquist Ray Gould Tom Carns Larry Naughten CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Charles Dibble, M.A.A. Fred Herzberg, Public Works Director John LaTourelle, Community Development Director Irene Varney Moran, City Clerk Jack Weinz, Fire Chief Marlo Foster, Police Chief Mary Lou Block, Acting Planning Division Manager Jim Adams, City Engineer Jim Jessel, Parks and Recreation Divison Manager Steve Simpson, Recreation Administrator Felix deMello, Buildings and Grounds Supt. Wayne Tanaka, City Attorney Jackie Parrett, Deputy City Clerk MOTION: Items (B), (D), and (E) were removed from the Consent Agenda. COUNCILMAN GOULD MOVED, SECONDED BY',COUNCILMAN;::CARNS, TO APPROVE THE BALANCE OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED. The approved portion of the Consent Agenda included the following: (A) Roll call. (C) Setting date of December 3, 1979 for hearing on proposed annexation of Union Oil property. (F) Report on bids for flooring at Anderson Center and authorization to award contract to Chevalier & Associates for $8,449.53. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 13, 1979 [Item (B) on Consent Agenda] Councilman Carns noted that at the bottom of the first page of the Minutes where it is stated that Mayor Harrison will attend the National League of Cities convention as a member of the Board of Directors, it should be corrected to say "as a member of the Board of Directors of the MOTION: Association of Washington Cities." COUNCILMAN CARNS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN GOULD, TO APPROVE ITEM (B) ON THE CONSENT AGENDA AS CORRECTED.- MOTION CARRIED. PROPOSED ORDINANCE REGARDING RESIDENTIAL PARKING PERMITS [Item (D) on Consent Agenda] Councilman Carns discussed portions of the proposed ordinance which he felt were not appropriate MOTION: and made several motions to effect changes. COUNCILMAN CARNS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN NAUGHTEN, TO STRIKE THE SECOND "WHEREAS" ON PAGE 1 OF THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE. MOTION CARRIED. MOTION: COUNCILMAN CARNS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN GOULD, TO INSERT IN SECTION 8.50.020A (ELIGIBILITY), ON THE FOURTH LINE, AFTER THE WORDS "THOSE MOTOR VEHICLES OWNED" THE WORDS "OR HAVE LEGAL MOTION: CONTROL OVER" OR WORDS TO THAT EFFECT. MOTION CARRIED. COUNCILMAN CARNS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN GOULD, TO ELIMINATE PARAGRAPH B UNDER SECTION 8.50.070 (UNLAWFUL ACTS) ON PAGE 4 OF MOTION: THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE. MOTION CARRIED. COUNCILMAN CARNS THEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN NORDQUIST, THAT THE CITY ATTORNEY BE INSTRUCTED TO REDRAFT THE ORDINANCE WITH THE CHANGES MADE THIS EVENING. MOTION CARRIED. PROPOSED ORDINANCE DEFINING "SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE" IN SIGN CODE [Item (E) on Consent Agenda] Councilman Naughten said he did not agree with Items 3 and 4 of Section 1 on page 2 of the MOTION: proposed ordinance. COUNCILMAN NAUGHTEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN KASPER, TO ELIMINATE ITEMS 3 AND 4 FROM SECTION 1 ON PAGE 2 OF THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE. Councilman Carns objected, saying he could not think of anything more substantial in a sign than changing the name of the business. Councilman Kasper felt that Edmonds is a small business town and has many small businesses and he felt it would be a hardship to consider that changing the name of an enterprise was a substantial change. THE MOTION CARRIED, WITH COUNCILMEN CARNS AND GOULD VOTING NO. Following some discussion, Councilman Carns changed his vote to YES, stating that by voting on the affirmative side he would bring this back for discussion in January. Councilman Nordquist did not agree that repainting a sign in other than its original color should be considered substantial change (Item 2 of Section 1). He felt that would be too much of a hardship on the 'MOTION: merchants. COUNCILMAN NORDQUIST MOVED THAT ITEM 2 OF SECTION 1 ON PAGE 2 BE ELIMINATED. 'Failed MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF, ; A SECOND. COUNCILMAN CARNS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN NAUGHTEN.. ,MOTION: TO INSTRUCT THE CITY ATTORNEY'TO REDRAFT THE ORDINANCE WITH THE CHANGES STATED. MOTION CARRIED, WITH COUNCILMAN NORDQUIST VOTING NO. MAYOR Mayor Harrison submitted the name of Doug Gerbing for appointment to the Park Board. Mr. Gerbing will be available prior to next week's meeting, at 7:00 p.m., in the Mayor's office, for interview by the Council. Mayor Harrison noted that there had been some concern expressed from members of the Council as to having the COUNCIL portion of the meeting last on the agenda, and he opened that topic for dicussion. Councilman Carns stated that there are items he brings up which need Staff response and he did not feel it was fair to keep all the Staff for the whole meeting in order to have them available for such responses. He felt Staff members should feel free to leave when there were no longer items on the agenda which pertained to them. Councilman Gould agreed that the Staff should not be kept after their items had been heard. He also felt it was more fair to 1 CJ 1 1�1 1 0 November 20, 1979 - continued citizens who contacted Council members to bring up subjects and came MOTION: results. COUNCILMAN CARNS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN GOULD, THAT ON THE.AGENDA, FOLLOWING "MAYOR" IN THE FUTURE. Councilman Naughten not appropriate to keep the Staff at the whole meeting, and he noted fresh at the beginning of the meetings and some of the items brought MOTION THEN CARRIED. 1 1 MOTION: • COUNCIL to the meetings to hear the "COUNCIL" BE PLACED AS ITEM 3 added that he also felt it was that the Council is a lot more up are very important. THE Councilman Gould reported that there had been a well attended meeting last Wednesday at the Seaview Elementary School relative to problems at Seaview Park and Sierra Park. He said the problems are with vandalism, destruction of City property, scheduling and use of the parks, and acts of violence. Councilman Gould had also received a call this evening from Marsha Crockett who had been at the meeting and she asked if anything would be done about the lighting at Seaview Park. He had told her it would be discussed at the budget meeting but he also thought it should be discussed next Tuesday. Ms. Crockett had said there was a particular lighting problem in that the lights on the west side of Seaview Park operate by a photocell and do not go on until 8:30 p.m., and Councilman Gould asked that this be corrected if possible. Councilman Carns asked the Police Chief how many retailers in Edmonds sell the items used for smoking or using Inarcotics or controlled substances. Chief Foster responded that only Grey Matter Records sold such items-. Councilman Carns inquired whether "bongs" had.any other use than smoking marijuana and Chief Foster said they did not. Chief Foster also said he had asked for an ordinance some time ago to.make it illegal to sell such things but he was told it was not possible. COUNCILMAN CARNS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN KASPER, THAT THE CITY ATTORNEY RESEARCH THE MATTER AND REPORT TO THE COUNCIL ON DECEMBER 11, 1979 ON THE POSSIBILITY OF AN ORDINANCE MAKING CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE PARAPHERNALIA ILLEGAL. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Naughten reported that a meeting was held last.Wednesday at the Sherwood Elementary School relative to the request for a traffic light on Edmonds Way in the vicinity of the school. He said the City will do a traffic count and put a crosswalk there and an island between the two.directions of traffic, and there will be an attempt to reduce the speed limit. He added that there had been positive feedback from State representatives who were -present who felt there was a need for a traffic light and would work towards that end. Councilman Nordquist thanked the .Staff for the tour of the Meadowdale area last Saturday, He said it was a well guided tour as to geological formations and problems that can be foreseen in the near future. He noted that Dr. Hyatt from the Health Department will become involved in this matter also. Councilman Herb said he will be absent December 3 and he asked if the Council photograph could be taken on December 11. Councilwoman Allen was not yet present so it was unknown whether that date would be satisfactory to her. The date for the Council photograph will be determined later. J. D. ZIRKLE OF DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TO DISCUSS SR524 Mr. Zirkle discussed his letter of September 13, 1979 in which he stated he could not support the proposal to take 5' from either side of SR524 between Olympic Ave. and 9th Ave. N., instead of taking*10' from one side. He said six additional parcels would be affected, steep driveways -would result, more landscaping would be adversely affected, and the cost of the project would be increased by $100,000, some work having to be redone and the time frame being increased. For these reasons, he found it very difficult to support -that proposal. Councilman Carns objected to the long time it had taken to get the response from the State, noting that it had taken five months from the time the City made the decision and notified the State until the time the State responded that the proposal was not acceptable. Mr. Zirkle responded that it had taken that amount of time to run through the various elements of this change. Councilman Carns felt the project should be abandoned if the State would not take the 5' from either side of the road. Councilman Gould raised the issue of the temporary traffic light at 196th and Olympic which does not function as expected. City Engineer Jim Adams said there is not enough right-of-way at that location to install the signal requested and they had installed the best signal they could with the available right-of-way. The controller they received was not the one they hoped for and they were still trying to get another. This equipment is on loan from the State until the permanent..equipment is installed. Mr. Adams said even if they get the proper controller there will be problems because there is not room for the left turn lane which is needed. In answer'to a question, Mr. Zirkle said the State's position was that the SR524 improvement would be stopped if the Council would not accept the 10' from one side proposal. He later suggested other options, one of them being that the City buy the right-of-way .and then the State would build the road .in that right-of-way: The discussion was opened to other's.'in the :audi.ence.•'Betty Griffin of 1400 Olympic Ave. said she lives where the creek goes under the road and she gets the runoff from the creek. She noted that there had been one culvert before, and now there were two, and she was concerned about additional runoff. Mr. Zirkle said he would have someone contact her and discuss her problem. Roger Hertrich of 1020 Puget Dr. and Jim Mueller of 209 Caspers had both taken active parts in previous hearings, and they reiterated their desires for the "both sides" proposal, asking that the Council stand firm on that._ Mr. Mueller noted that a lot of the people had been satisfied with the road the way it is and he suggested that as an option if the project were stopped. He also described a suggested rechanneling of the right-of-way as it exists, as another option. Mr. Zirkle'noted that his reasons for denying the "both sides" proposal were not only from the State Highway Department's standpoint, but they were in the public interest. He asked what it was that supported the plan to take 5' from each side. Councilman Carns discussed the.many hearings that had been held on this matter and the fact that the citizens had asked the Council for this plan. Council- man Gould added that the Council had walked the road with the people who,live there when stakes had been placed to indicate the various proposals, and that the consensus had been that the "both sides" proposal would be a better development and would be of less impact to the people who live there than the 10' from one side proposal. Mr. Zirkle reiterated that the Council's proposal would remove more of the hedges and pine trees and make the driveways worse, and that 18 parcels would be affected 4 November 20, 1979 - continued • instead of 12. Mayor Harrison suggested that 5' be taken from only one side andthat a 45' right- of-way be used instead of 50', but Mr. Zirkle said they already were pressed for space with the 50' right-of-way. Councilman Gould noted that both positions must be examined and that it was important to keep in mind what the total project would do for the whole City. He noted that if the City accepted the 10' from one side proposal and the project went forward the City would get a solution to the traffic problem at Olympic, a solution to the sharp lefthand corner where vehicles have overturned, and an opportunity to improve the drainage. He did not want to lose those gains by sticking to the 5' from each side proposal, although he still favored that proposal. He noted that the additional $100,000 cost to the State was the City's responsibility also. Steve Callendar of 820 Hindley Lane also had attended many of the hearings on this subject and he felt there had been communication problems in the past between the Staff, Council, and State. He strongly supported the three. lane configuration for safety and he asked that something be worked out with the State so as not to lose the whole project. The public discussion was closed and it was determined that before MOTION: making a decision on this, there should be more review of the facts. COUNCILMAN NAUGHTEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN KASPER, THAT A REVIEW OF THE SR524 IMPROVEMENT BE SCHEDULED FOR DECEP'.BER 18, 1979. It was noted that the benefits as well as the negative aspects should be considered, that a list of the alternatives should be provided, and that all appropriate data should be presented, including a breakdown of the additional costs and time delays involved in the "both sides" proposal. THE MOTION CARRIED. Roger Hertrich suggested that the Council take another walk along the area prior to that discussion. A.short recess was announced. HEARING ON APPEAL FROM ADB RULING REGARDING TREE CUTTING - BENNETT BOX Acting Planning Division Manager Mary Lou Block said the review of tree cutting on this property was heard by the ADB as a result of a condition included in the approval of Mr. Box's short subdivision by the Planning Commission. She said the site is steep and contained a number of large trees. The review of tree cutting condition had been placed on the subdivision to insure that grading and disruption to the site would be minimized. Mr. Box wished to cut large trees on the property and • replace them with smaller trees. A drawing of the tree locations was provided. Ms. Block noted that the role of trees in development was expressed in Section 207 of the Policy Plan and that should be considered as well as Mr.' Box's concerns about safety and other aspects of tree retention. She reviewed portions of Section 207 of the. Policy Plan and said the question was whether some of the large trees should be retained for protection of the slopes. She noted that trees which are damaged or unstable should be removed, and also that tree cutting restrictions are placed on subdivisions as a matter of course, all trees over 8" in diameter having to be retained until issuance of the building permit. The public portion of the hearing was opened and the appellant was invited to speak. Mr. Box stated that he was.not present to talk about trees, but that was a method of getting this on the agenda. He said that at this point the trees would have to come down.as each lot is developed, whereas at the beginning he had wanted to log them from all of the lots so that they could be used constructively, rather than being used for firewood. He said when he filed the subdivision application the Staff had recommended a PRD but he was not in favor of PRDs and that would have meant that all four lots would have to be developed at one time. He stated that it had taken him 1 112 years to get a four-l.ot subdivision approved by the City, and this was a subdivision that asked for no variances. He said he had one runaround after another from the Planning and Engineering Staffs, and finally, out of frustration, he had asked to go to the Planning Commission. On the day that he was to go before the Planning Commission he said he was contacted by the Staff and was told that they would go along with his wishes if he would be willing to go to the APB on each lot, and he agreed out of frustration, and the Planning Commission approved the subdivision on that condition. Then, he said, the City Attorney drafted a document for the proposal which went way beyond what had been established and which made his property unmarketable. Further, he had a sale on one of the lots recentlyand he advised the purchaser that he would have to go to the ADE, and when the purchaser went to the Staff he was told he should -ask for a 25' setback variance. The ADB then approved the plan, subject to his getting the 25' setback variance, but he said the Board of Adjustment never gives 25' variances and he knew that from his experience in serving on that Board. He felt the Council should send a strong message to the Community Development Department that they should not give a person a runaround by their interpretation of the ordinances and he felt the City • Attorney was overly zealous in his capacity. He stated that practically everybody he knew vho deals with the Planning Division is offended by actions of that division, and he felt the City must be more responsive and fair. He had no problem with the Council, the ADB, or the Planning Commission, but he said some of the professional. Staff have to have their way regardless of how they get it. He again said it was too late to do anything about the tree cutting as he had already had the logger in on the first lot and the others would just be done as they were developed. Councilman Carns responded that some property which is now being built upon was not considered buildable five or ten years ago so special precautions must be taken, and he noted that it was seldom that they heard that the Staff was not being helpful to the citizens. Mr. Box said the ordinances clearly allowed him to develop the way he wanted to, but somebody on the Staff did not want his property developed that way. Councilman Gould commented that the Council had been cognizant of the fact that it takes a lot of time to get some things done and they were studying the idea of having a Hearing Examiner which they thought would eliminate a lot of the delays and address some of the concerns expressed by Mr. Box. Mr. Box responded that the last thing he wanted to see was a Hearing Examiner as he would much rather go before a citizen's panel which would be more sensitive to citizens, more independent of Staff, and more fair. Ken Mattson, a member of the ADB, said that on the evening that -the ADB heard this matter they were without benefit of the City Attorney and they did not know whether they had the power to override the covenant on the subdivision. The public portion of the hearing was closed. Mr. Box had left the Council Chambers and Councilman Gould noted that it appeared from his MOTION: statements that he had withdrawn his appeal. THEREFORE, COUNCILMAN GOULD MOVED, SECONDED BY COUN- CILMAN NORDQUIST, TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT BENNETT BOX'S APPEAL HAD BEEN WITHDRAWN, AND THAT THE RULING OF THE ADB WOULD STAND. MOTION CARRIED. 'HEARING ON APPEAL"-FROM`ADB'.RUC.I:NG REGARDING SIGNS = FIVE CORNERS CLEANERS AND MONEY SAVERS PHARMACY Ms. Block stated the problems which were found with this sign application were that the total signage was in excess of that allowed by 79 sq. ft., the pole sign was within the allowable square footage • November 20, 1979 - continued 1 1 41 1 I. but pole signs are discouraged in the BN zone, the height of the -pole sign was not indicated and 14' is the maximum allowed, the -pole sign may be in the right-of-way, signs were mounted above the roofl.ine, there were exposed braces and angle irons on the roof mounted sign, and landscaping was not indicated.around the pole sign. She said the face of the sign had been changed when the businesses changed names. Councilman Herb noted that he had represented Tom Wright, one of the appellants, twelve years ago in a legal matter. City Attorney Wayne Tanaka advised that that would not be a conflict of interest. The public portion of the hearing was opened. Tom.Wright, P.O. Box 505, Kingston, said he had been in business at Five Corners since 1968 and when the building was con- structed the signs on the building were put.in place, and that building was not within,the City limits at that time. He said the pole sign was put up, with all permits needed, in 1968, the owner of the sign being Sign-O-Lite Signs, Inc., and Mr. McCoy and he leasing the sign so there had been no change in ownership of the sign. He said he had changed the name of the cleaning establishment to Five Corners Cleaners to make it simple and he had just blocked out the "Norge" on the pole sign and he had the sign changed on hisroof years ago. He did not think that constituted a new sign as 'he had only painted and maintained the sign. He now wanted to put a new face on the roof sign. He had gone around Edmonds taking pictures of signs and he displayed them mounted on posterboard. He said what looked bad at his site -was not the sign but the telephone poles and wires. He further stated that his signs were not above the roofline because of the configuration of the roof. Included in his photographs was one of Councilman Carns' business in Lynnwood, and he felt Councilman Carns should step down from this hearing because he is a retail merchant and that constituted a conflict of interest. He told the Council that a lot of times they lose sight of what government is for and that it turns out to be a dictatorial agency, changing rules in the middle of the game, and it is not right. Jim McCoy of 22907 75th Ave: W. said he purchased Swift Drug in 1976 and changed the name of the store to Money Savers Pharmacy. He said he has had signs all over the State and refacing and repainting a sign had never constituted a sign change. At the time he had made arrangements to have the Five Corners Cleaners sign painted and refaced he received a letter from the City saying he had installed a new sign, and that started a long process. He reiterated that permits had been issued for the original signs and any change had been after the signs were up, and then the new Sign Code was passed saying they had too much sign space. He said if he did not get approval on the sign they could spend a lot of money tearing it down or they could leave it looking bad. Councilman Gould explained the changes made this evening to the Sign Code to allow -maintenance of signs. (At this point Councilwoman Allen arrived, 10:00 p.m.) Mayor Harrison asked David Kinderfather, a member of the ADB who.was in the audience, if the recent change made to allow the ADB to make allow- ances for.hardship cases was not applicable to -this. Mr. Kinderfather responded that the main purpose of the ADB's action was to get a -concrete definition of what substantial. change is. He said they are.getting a great number of sign reviews every month and they are aware of the changes.in the Code which allow for leniency, and they try to look at each item on a case by case basis to see if there is hardship. Ken Mattson, -also on the ADB, said his impression from the discussion earlier this evening in defining substantial change was that it included 25% of the face change. He asked if.the name change was excluded. He was told that any change involving material comprising 25% or more constituted substantial change. Mayor Harrison said his interpretation was that a person can change the name on a sign, and change of materials means a change from wood to metal, etc. He then said he would make a policy decision and write it out for the Council, and if they do not approve they will have to make a change. He felt the ADB had the freedom and the power to approve the whole thing. Councilwoman Allen disagreed and said he was telling the ADB how to interpret and she was not sure that was his role. He said he thought it was his role to interpret the ordinance for administrative purposes. She responded that for administrative purposes it was, but not for Design Board purposes. Councilman Gould interjected that the ADB needs some guidelines. Jim McCoy said they had had no objection whatsoever from any of the community regarding their signs; only from the City regarding the Sign Code. He asked for approval of these signs as they exist so they could repair and maintain them. City Attorney Wayne Tanaka advised the Council that if they approved these signs as they existed, they would become conforming and would not have to come into compliance at the end of the five-year amortization period, whereas if they did not approve them they would be nonconforming signs but could be maintained, but if anything was done that was defined as a substantial change the applicants would have to come in for a sign permit. Therefore, if the Council wanted to allow the applicants to maintain a nonconforming sign they could uphold the ADB decision. The MOTION: public portion of the hearing was closed. COUNCILMAN HERB MOVED THAT THE MAYOR BE REQUESTED TO SEND A LETTER TO THE APPELLANTS ADVISING THEM THAT THEIR SIGN IS NONCONFORMING AND CLARIFYING THAT TO SAY IT MEANS THEY CAN CONTINUE TO USE AND MAINTAIN THE SIGNS AS THEY ARE. FURTHER, THE LETTER COULD OUTLINE TO THEM THE PROCEDURES AVAILABLE IF THEY WANT TO SEEK AN AMENDMENT TO THEIR AMORTIZATION! PERIOD. COUNCILMAN GOULD SECONDED THE MOTION WITH AN AMENDMENT THAT THE MOTION BE FURTHER DEFINED TO STATE THAT THIS ACTION DOES SUBSTANTIATE THE ACTION OF THE ADB TO DENY THE REQUEST. COUNCILP'.AN NORDQUIST SECONDED THE AMENDMENT. THE MOTION TO AMEND CARRIED. THE MAIN MOTION, AS AMENDED, TKEN CARRIED. . HEARING ON P.C. RESOLUTION-634, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO OFFICIAL STREET MAP TO EXTEND CYPRUS PL. File ST-11-79 Ms. Block located the property in question on a vicinity map and described the ownerships of those properties involved. The Engineering Division had indicated that the configuration proposed by the applicant would be the most viable position for accessing a road into the area. Ms. Block noted that there is a stream on the property which will require special treatment and before any develop- ment occurred a hydraulics permit would be necessary.from the Washington State Department of Game. A negative declaration of adverse environmental impact had been issued, based upon available infor- mation and mitigating measures provided by the applicant. The public portion of the hearing was opened. Van McKenny of 8025 Cyprus P1. said the proposed street would cross his property at the corner. He was firmly against this proposal, saying one of the reasons he had purchased his property was because it was on a dead-end street and he wanted a safe place for his children to play and to live. He felt this proposal would increase traffic and would be a hazard. He asked what it would actually mean if this proposal were approved. City Attorney Wayne Tanaka responded that structures would have to set back from the line of the street and - if- any 'of 'the *bordering properties subdivided they would have to dedicate the property for the.street in accordance with the -plan. Mr. McKenny was advised that if the applicant wished to subdivide she would have to bear the costs of the road. 454 November 20, 1979 - continued • MOTION: MOTION: He responded that she had the right to develop, but if possible he thought she should access through her own land. Fred Thies of 8124 Talbot Rd. also felt traffic would increase if this proposal were approved, and he asked that Mr. McKenny's objection be sustained. Maurine Willison of 7802 173rd S.W., the applicant, said when the sewers were installed 8-10 years ago she had a high assessment because of the four lots which they would serve. She said that without approval of this application she would be landlocked, and she noted that there is a dirt road which was put in when the the sewers were installed. Mr. McKenny stated that the dirt road was simply created by the swath for the sewer line and was not actually a road. He said the sewer line crosses his property but there is no easement for it. Ewald Mauser of 9122 Bowdoin Way said he had bought the Johanson property with the understanding that there was access by an easement, but the Fire Department would not approve it for access because it was not adequate for emergency vehicles.. Public Works Director Fred Herzberg said there would have to be a modification for access but that probably could be accomplished. Gaylord Riach, attorney for Mrs. Willison, said when the area was sewered the design of the sewer line considered the area and Mrs. Willison was assessed for her lots. He said a subdivision was filed at one time, using this proposed access, which was approved, but she had not gone forward with it because of funds. The public portion of the hearing was closed. Councilman Carns said he did not believe there was a more logical way to develop this property than that proposed by this request, and he noted that the applicant had been paying property taxes and assessments on the property. He said people have a right to develop their property and this was the most equitable way to develop it. COUNCILMAN CARNS THEN.MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN GOULD, TO ADOPT ORDINANCE 2101, PURSUANT TO P.C. RESOLUTION 634. Councilman Gould said he did not think it was realistic to access in any other way, although he was sympathetic to the traffic concerns. He also noted that the Staff recommendations regarding the environmentally sensitive area and a hydraulics permit should be included. THE MOTION THEN CARRIED, WITH COUNCILMAN HERB ABSTAINING BECAUSE HE DID NOT VISIT THE PROPERTY AND HE HAD STEPPED OUT DURING PART.OF THIS -HEARING. A short recess was announced. HEARING -ON -LIQUOR LICENSE APPLICATION FOR FIRST SERVE RACQUETBALL CLUB M.A.A. Charles Dibble reported that this Club had been visited by City Staff and the proposed food service area had been inspected. He.described it, noting that it will accommodate about 24 persons and service will be to club members and guests only. The kitchen is designed for preparing cold sandwiches and heating.precooked foods in a microwave oven. Most of the patronage will be from members and guests after normal use of the other club facilities. Mr. Dibble said there was no intent to go public with this.operation, that it was meant for the convenience of the club members. He added that there was no sign outside or other indication that the public could go in to eat. They have 57 parking spaces, 17 more than required. Mr. Dibble said it would be surprising if such a club did not ask for a license to serve beer and wine to its members, and the Staff recommended approval. Councilman Nordquist said that area was approved for BN development 12-13 years ago and the 7-11 Store developed and then this club, and there is still another parcel to develop. He thought the club may have plans to expand its facilities, but Mr. Dibble said the club had no plans at all for expansion. Councilman Carns felt they owed it to the people in that area to have a public hearing on this application rather than granting it without such. He said the application had been for club members and the general public. The public portion of the hearing was opened. Jim Chapman of 23321 75th W., a board member of the Lake Ballinger Community Club, said the Racquetball Club had previously applied for a liquor license and the Council had given approval, but the Community Club had written letters to the Liquor Department opposing it. He asked how that application related to this one. Ronald Goldberg, one of the corporate officers of the club, responded that the application had been approved by the Council but they were unable to put it into effect because they did not have a food service as required under State law. Mr. Chapman accepted that but said he believed it to be the Council's responsibility to get input from the people because this activity is located in a BN zone which is a peninsula surrounded by residential property. He felt much better after hearing what had been said this evening, and asked that in the future the Council take into account the neighborhood's feelings. Ronald Goldberg then spoke, prefacing his remarks by a statement that he had always been treated marvelously by the Staff and had received a great deal of help and support. He said this club had been opened in April of this year and that it is a private club for members and guests only, but they had welcomed any person in the neighborhood who had questions they wanted answered. He felt any problems now being experienced were the result of rumors and he said if anyone had gone to him he would have told them what the operation was. He stated that he does not own the property to the north of the club building, owning only as far as the end of the building. He said there is only an 8'x 24' space utilized as a kitchen and no outside venting so they cannot put in a full kitchen. He displayed photographs of the kitchen and the eating area, noting that there are four very small tables and low lounging furniture in front of two glass -backed rectangular courts. A sign states the club is for members and guests only. He also distributed advertising literature which states it is a private membership club, and he noted that the initiation fee to join is $375 for an individual or $500 for a family, in addition to monthly dues. He said the members who paid such amounts for joining would not allow the club to draw in people who hang around the 7-11 or drink in the parking lot. He stated the liquor license would not impact the neighborhood, as any impact would already have come from the building's being there, and he said every athletic club in the area has a liquor service and they don't have any problems. Ben Hopper of 24215 76th W., directly across the street from the club, said he did not want people across the street drinking and entering 76th Ave. while he is there. He said there are :a number of places in the area that.offer liquor and he did not think another one was needed. Charlene Howsen of 3415 N.W. 65th, Seattle, said she has the contract to serve the food at the club, which includes soft drinks, juices, and simple foods. She said very few outsiders wander through the front door and people who do are just asking about the racketball, not to seek food or beverages. She felt the club was.a good environment and she could see no problem in having beer and wine along with the food. Ron Norman of 21004 Woodlake Dr., a member of the club, said he would really enjoy being able to have a beer after playing a game of racouetball. He felt the club was so benericial that he had gotten his company to support getting other employees to participate. The public portion of the hearing was closed. COUNCILMAN CARNS MOVED, SECONDED 1 �l 1 4� • November 20, 1979 - continued BY COUNCILMAN NAUGHTEN, THAT THE COUNCIL SUPPORT THE ISSUANCE OF A BEER AND WINE LICENSE TO THE FIRST . SERVE RACQUETBALL CLUB. Councilman Gould commented that he thought the hearing process was a good one, noting that the Council's concerns usually focus on proximity to schools and young children and nearby businesses and their operations. He did-riot::believe.the issuance of this license would be detrimental, but he felt the Council had an obligation to watch it and cause it to be withdrawn if a problem should develop. THE MOTION..CARRIED, WITH COUNCILMEN NORDQUIST AND KASPER VOTING NO. HEARING ON CONTRACT REZONE FROM RS4 TO BN PROPERTY LOCATED AT 23107 100TH AVE. W. File R-6-79 - Bryce Black Ms. Block stated that the purpose of the proposed rezone was for a law office, and the applicants were agreeing to use the site for -only professional offices or single family residential purposes., She felt this would be a transitional use between the residential and commercial zoning on either side. She noted that the.Planning Commission had been concerned because this property is tangent to single family zoning and had suggested that office hours be limited to something like 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., five or six days a week. The public portion of the hearing was opened. Richard Breen of 1010 3th Ave. S., owner of.the property, said the intent was to get the property rezoned and then possibly Bryce Black would again be interested in it. The property currently has a.rental house on it and Mr. Black's intention had been to keep it so until he was ready to put an attorney's office MOTION: there. The public portion of the hearing was closed. COUNCILMAN CARNS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL- WOMAN ALLEN, TO ADOPT ORDINANCE 2102, APPROVING THE CONTRACT REZONE IN FILE R-6-79, AND THAT THE MAYOR BE AUTHORIZED TO SIGN THE CONTRACT. Councilman Gould commented that the proposed zoning change conformed to the Comprehensive Plan and the changes in the character and conditions of the surrounding neighborhood justified the change. He felt the proposed change was consistent with the general criteria for rezones. THE MOTION CARRIED. • REVIEW OF TEMPORARY STREET USE PERMIT - CLAIRE'S PANTRY Public Works Director Fred Herzberg stated that the owner of Claire's"Pantr �.was:,raegotiating with MOTION: Mr. Hubbard for space to place the dumpsters. COUNCILMAN NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN HERB, TO CONTINUE THIS MATTER FOR 30 DAYS. A ROLL CALL VOTE WAS TAKEN, WITH COUNCIL MEMBERS NORDQUIST, HERB, GOULD, CARNS, AND NAUGHTEN VOTING YES, AND WITH COUNCIL MEMBERS KASPER AND ALLEN VOTING NO. MOTION CARRIED. MOTION: REVIEW OF. PLACING POLITICAL SIGNS IN PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY Councilwoman Allen commented that to bring this up before a group of politicians was rather ludicrous, and she suggested a public hearing would be more appropriate. Councilman Gould felt the signs should be allowed. Councilman'Carns felt campaign signs stimulated interest in an election and he felt things should be done to increase awareness of elections. COUNCILMAN GOULD MOVED,,SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN CARNS, THAT THE CITY ATTORNEY BE INSTRUCTED TO DRAFT AN AMENDMENT TO THE SIGN ORDINANCE TO PERMIT POLITICAL SIGNS IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR SHORT PERIODS; E.G., 30 DAYS BEFORE AND 10 DAYS AFTER AN ELECTION. MOTION CARRIED. There was no further business to come before the Council, and the meeting was adjourned at 11:50 p.m. IRENE VARNEY MORAN, C ty Clerk November 27, 1979 '7, # - �vAt� ) Harve H. Harrison, Mayor The regular meeting of the Edmonds City Council was called to order at'7:30 p.m. by Mayor Pro tem Ray Gould.in the Council Chambers of the Edmonds Civic Center. All present joined in the flag salute. PRESENT Ray Gould, Mayor Bill Kasper Katherine Allen John Nordquist Larry Naughten ABSENT Pro tem Harve Harrison, Mayor Mike Herb Tom Carns STAFF PRESENT Charles Dibble, M.A.A. Fred Herzberg, Public Works'Director John LaTourelle, Community Devel.'Dir. Irene Varney Moran, City Clerk Marlo Foster, Police Chief Jack Weinz, Fire Chief Art Housler, Finance Director Jim Adams, City Engineer Mary Lou Block, Acting Plan. Div. Mgr. Jim Jessel, Parks & Rec. Div. Mgr. Felix deMello, Bldgs. & Grounds Supt. Bob Franklin, Tech. Studies Engr. Peggy Walton, Arts Coordinator John Wallace, City Attorney Jackie Parrett, Deputy City Clerk